Posted by justinb on 02/10/09
Last updated 02/11/09

This was pulled off of congress.org.

John Kennedy once said to a assembled group of scholars in the White House "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Here are some of Thomas Jefferson's quotes:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Posted 02/10/09 nperrino Elmhurst, IL

Good post!

Posted 02/10/09 Felegund Jonesville, KY

One of the greatest storehouse sof human knowledge is sitting on my screen thanks to you. Awesome.

Posted 02/10/09 illuminati hater Las Vegas, NV

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Amen. Have any of you downloaded the Jefferson encyclopedia that was hosted here a few days ago? I can't remember the member who posted it, but I think it was put up......two days ago.

Posted 12/25/10 ken j Hendersonville, TN

There seems to be an appropriate quote from Jefferson on any subject in politics, past, present and safely assuming the future. It all seems to boil down to understanding human nature. Praxeology, good stuff to look up. Reading the works of Jefferson are great, you might make it a point to read one entry each day at: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Thomas_Jefferson_Wiki And if you are ever in the middle of Virginia drop by Monticello for a tour. It's just off the interstate and will be one of the best tours you have ever been on. Take a friend, spouse or child with you, they will not be disappointed once they see the technical mind of Jefferson that is still present there today.

Posted 12/25/10 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Yes every one applicable but none in use by their full meaning. It’s funny that Thomas Jefferson put so many great quotes together. I can only assume by the honesty of their content he was a great observer and used the contents of the results observed to create such quotes. If only there were more observers with application experience to utilize and create even more great quotes. After all, Life is experienced and then observed.

Posted by justinb on 06/15/11

Okay, I'm officially worried now.  Greece was just dropped to the lowest credit rating possible http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13773148

Portugal and Spain are in dire consequences, and that article mentions that France is at a threat to have their rating dropped due to the Greek debt they owe.  Plus we get articles of discussions of lowering our rating should our debt limit not get increased.  Reading that article makes me wonder if the dominos will cascade, or will something happen to prevent a total economic collapse of Europe, followed by the U.S. once the dollar succumbs to the pressure it'll receive should the Fed bail out EU as it did during the financial crisis.

Posted by justinb on 06/10/11
Last updated 06/10/11

I need some help fellow c4l'ers.  Lets say the worst case scenario happens where we enter a hyper inflationary stage.  If I happen to own a home and say have a fixed rate mortgage of $100K, will that mortgage stay there with the fixed interest rate in a hyper inflation scenario?  I wouldn't *think* it would, cuz lets say it's so bad that I go from making say 100 a day, to a 100K a day, I wouldn't think they'd just let you pay off my house with hyper inflated worthless money, but I don't know.  What happened to home owners in countries of Germany, and Zimbabwe when these things occurred?

Posted by justinb on 05/16/11

No joke, it costs $10,000 per student per semester in our public school system, and this was back in '07.  Who knows how much it's at now.  It cost me about $5,000 for a full time semester in my master's degree program!  This is a prime example for eliminating the Dept. of Education, and returning these out of control spending monsters back to the local communities where the pennies will be looked at and scrutinized more carefully.

Here's a link to the costs for public school students going back from 1961 to 2007.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

Posted by justinb on 12/22/10
Last updated 12/22/10

The FCC just made the net neutrality rules official.  When I first saw this, I thought oh great, what freedoms did I lose this time?  However, from what I've read about net neutrality, it basically forces wired internet providers to not put priority of one content / website over another.  So for example, if Google paid Comcast X amount of money for their website to display faster and to throttle yahoo's search engine, then the net neutrality rule would abolish this practice, forcing the ISP to provide equal speed for both search engines.  So far, I don't know of any cases where ISP's are making these kind of deals, however it has happened in South Korea recently, really ticked off a lot of users.  Also, since services can't be throttled under the rules, this prevents ISP's for doing stair stepping charges, where they charge extra for say video content (i.e. Netflix traffic).  Personally, I think it's a good thing the FCC stepped in and passed these rules, as I've read about ISP's thinking of charging more for things such as video, and throttling torrent traffic.  The rules would also prevent large corporations from monopolizing the internet and forcing out smaller startups that can't afford to bribe ISP's for faster speeds.

I keep hearing those from both the right and left say that the Obama administration just wants to regulate the internet, no doubt they've already passed plenty of laws to do just that, but this isn't one of them.  Another common argument I hear is that ISP's currently do provide equally fast service, so there's no need for this.  This is a pretty good argument, but why wait until something like the scenarios I painted above does happen?  In other words, why not be proactive rather than reactive for a change.  The only other argument that I could even think of is that it gives the FCC more power to look into ISP's, and thus us.  Then again, that argument is blown completely out of the water with what the Feds already due as far as monitoring goes authorized by the Patriot Act.

To the FCC, I actually say Bravo, you are doing something right for a change.  Would've been nice for it to be stronger in the mobile market, but hey atleast its a step in the right direction.  Now I don't have to worry about ISP's blocking or throttling content to certain websites.  Now to our politicians, EveryDNS, Amazon, Paypal, MasterCard, Visa, and Bank of America... how about you taking a page from the FCC's book, and quit trying to block and take down wikileaks.

Here's a link to the actual FCC rules, so you don't have to just read someone else's interpretation.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf

Posted 12/22/10 T-Paine Waddell, AZ

On the surface that seems like a good idea but have you ever considered that there is a reason why internet providers charge more for one thing over another. It usually involves more work for them which is why they have to charge more. Now that they can't everyone will eat the cost so now less expensive traffic will have to pay for the more expensive traffic. Essentially, the big flow providers will be getting a free ride off of the little guys who have to pay more. Also, this may be the first step to regulating the internet. Remember the FCC started as something to ensure one channel doesn't overlap into another. Now they determine what can be said on those channels. It also violates the first amendment. That content is being regulated by law (sort of) and since that content is speech related then it violates the first amendment.

Posted 12/23/10 ProIndividual Rutland, OH

All pre-emptive regulation is tyranny, not mention arbitrary, uneforcable, and negative economically (as Paine mentioned). Only post-action regulation (the rule of law concerning contracts, fraud, theft, and coercion) is acceptable. Any pre-emptive regulation assumes fault, not innocence. It also needs a "X Police" for whatever "X" is, in order to randomly enforce the regulations, even if it is just for show (as most laws are completely uneforcable). The internet is doing just fine without government. Anarchy is not disorder and chaos, it's the internet...and it works. Don't fix what ain't broken.

Posted 12/23/10 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

It was my understanding that the FCC imposed the rules ignoring a Court ruling which declared that they did not possess the authority to do so.....so a court case would seem to be inevitable to settle the issue.

Posted 12/23/10 jlegg Gainesville, GA

DO you believe that most people should at least be aware? Most people that are not in the industry just want to make sure that free speech and free market capabilities remain intact.

Posted 12/23/10 NetMan Dover, NJ

Here is an excellent U-Tube video I found on the Reason website that clearly explains the reason why the FCC rules are a bad idea. http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/20/will-neutrality-save-the-inter

Posted 12/27/10 justinb Oklahoma City, OK

Okay, let me respond to some of these. I figured I'd get some responses with my position on this, but after reading the actual rules I'm pretty confident on the positions I took. JLegg, I do think that these rules protect the freedom and openness of the internet from the few ISP's that monopolize the market. I don't have a problem with big companies making a lot of money, but I do have a problem when big companies control all of the infrastructure and are free to make up their own rules, and push smaller companies out with their heavy handed lobbying. On to T-Paine's points. "On the surface that seems like a good idea but have you ever considered that there is a reason why internet providers charge more for one thing over another." -Right now, they don't charge more for one content type over another. However, they are certainly talking about this, but the FCC rules prevent this practice from happening. Could you imagine having to pay for certain blocks of websites like we do for TV channels? For example, paying an extra 10 or 20 bucks a month to access YouTube, and facebook, then paying another fee for email and every variety in between? I sure wouldn't want this to happen, and that's why I favor these rules, as they explicitly tell the ISP's they can't do this, thus keeping it more free and open. "It usually involves more work for them which is why they have to charge more." It doesn't provide anymore work whatsoever, however things like video do suck up more bandwidth (i.e. Netflix and YouTube). As it stands now, you pay for how much fixed bandwidth you want. As video over internet becomes even more prevalent, I imagine the ISPs will incur more cost as they have to add equipment and more infrastructure which'll be passed to the consumer by having them buy higher bandwidth plans (as consumers do now). Same thing as we went from dial up to high speed. Lines had to be laid, equipment bought etc, and users that wanted high speed had to pay more. "Now that they can't everyone will eat the cost so now less expensive traffic will have to pay for the more expensive traffic." I assume you're talking about bandwidth when you say expensive. As it stands now, for DSL you are gauranteed the amount of bandwidth you get. For cable, you share the line with others on that circuit, so you're guaranteed UP to a certain amount. So on DSL, this argument doesn't ring true. For cable this argument doesn't ring entirely true (but a bit), lets say for example everyone in your apartment complex is streaming video at the same time, then you're downloading of a file will be slower cuz of it. Vice versa, their video speed will be a bit slower too because the usage is really high on the same circuit. I do yield that point that ISP's assume that everybody won't be on 100% of the time maxing out their bandwidth. If they had to assume that, the costs would be astronomical for all the equipment and infrastructure needed to handle such high usage. As Netflix and YouTube keep rising in popularity, more people will be using more of their bandwidth, and this does yield to higher costs. So yes, a less expensive user (i.e. less using user), pays the same as a higher using user assuming they both have the same bandwidth plan, and thus that cost is a bit subsidized. "Also, this may be the first step to regulating the internet. Remember the FCC started as something to ensure one channel doesn't overlap into another. Now they determine what can be said on those channels." This part about the FCC rules does bother me. Once again it's an argument of big corporations and big government (crony capitalism) in collusion with each other. I think I prefer the FCC's well definied and narrow rules on this matter, over letting big ISP's lobby their way into a stair stepped payment system like they did on the mobile market. Also, ISP's have been restricting certain types of traffic already. I don't think it's fair for user A and user B to pay the same amount, but user A likes to download torrents, while user B watches video, and user A gets punished by the ISP's because they feel like throttling that type of traffic. The ISPs successfully lobbied the way they charge on the mobile market already. "It also violates the first amendment. That content is being regulated by law (sort of) and since that content is speech related then it violates the first amendment." I don't see how keeping ISP's from blocking content is a violation of the first amendment. Rather, I see if companies or governments block content, then they are the ones violating the first amendment. This is what the FCC rules prevent, just as that video that NetMan posted claimed. MichaelBarry, I think there will have to be a court case on it. If the FCC gained this authority from congress, I think it would be upheld by the courts, as I don't see anything in their rules that violate the constitution. In the end, these FCC rules seem to only harm ISP's, while protecting consumers from being price gouged to death on content based services, or being blocked entirely from certain websites. The only way I see users being harmed, is that as usage goes up (more people get internet, and use it more frequently), then prices will either go up, or the amount of speed allowed will go down. In either case, we'll end up having to pay more for our bandwidth, atleast until that infrastructure pays for itself and we move along to the next bigger and faster stuff. I can concede that these rules aren't needed, but I'd definitely get them ready to go if ISP's start blocking content, or trying to price gouge us by charging on a content by content basis. It's happened in other countries, it's happening in our mobile market, and I can definitely see it happening here on our wired networks..

Posted 12/27/10 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

WOW, truly a great read from all of you. I look at it in a different light entirely because I don’t believe the FCC provides anything but limitations and only facilitates Corporate Monopolies. I say this with a observation of working with in them. From this prospective I can see it has nothing to do with being competitive and delivering essential needed good products and only about profits and what some call wealth. The girth of the infrastructure has everything to do with limits and control like all manipulations. This is true with the Corporations lobbying their bull crap, Governments pretending it controls anything, in the end the results do speak for themselves. The limits are set in place and the markets all made to look like it is in your favor. You should work from the inside and see the amount of un-organization, the crap ass quality control, the ugliest of attitudes towards any means I have ever seen in my entire life. The bad control across the organization that does not equate to a better product at all but a medium of market strategies to bring in moneys in the largest amounts possible with the least amount of effort at all. Another words as much as these monolithic bull shit Corporations preach customer service their actions do not back that up at all. We in this country have no Focus on what a genuine product is, we really have no idea what wealth genuinely institutes. We all run around acting as though we know a damn thing and not one of us is using results in which to measure by. O some will say but the income to our stock holders is the measurement and I ask, really? Is that all it is? Is betterment in a society numbers of dollars to shareholders? What a limited ass view. What about the accomplishments of bigger and better reliable robust pipes that service us all. What about products you want to experience because you just cannot wait. I know I have a product right now I truly enjoy, it is a Can-Am Renegade ATV. It is the latest and greatest technology and performs like magic. There is not a day that goes by I would not like to take it out and exorcize this thing. It is by far the most sophisticated piece of hardware I have had the great pleasure to experience in my life to date. Now how many internet providers make this product, I mean the one you cannot wait to experience? NONE of them. Because they are about control, they are all about profit as in dollars and not as in exceptionally satisfied customers. O yes there services do provide and we pay but where o where is the real competition. How many of these so called competitors are in ownership by the same share holders? Competing only with themselves to make it look like there is competition. When service providers surround themselves with Government to provide what is to stop the monopolies. Without competition what is the incentives to build great products that you cannot wait to get your hands on? Then you have companies siding only with one provider, what on earth are they really telling you? No competition. The FCC is filled with suppose experts from these Corporate interest just like the FDA is filled with crap ass doctors a pill pushers. You want just, you want fairness then you want Government out of the way. You want Corporate interest out of the way since they are the cause in the quest for monopolies. You want good old American create and idea and bring it about and compete against others in a free market place where wealth is by the amount of accomplishments that have been performed that allows a free society to create even more ideas and bring them about into a market place to compete with others producing these ideas. Wealth my friends is how much we accomplish in our life times that serves one another for a better more experienced life of constructive accomplishments. The money is only the medium of the exchange that allows us to share the experiences with each other. Sharing better experiences with each other is not that stupid is it? But dominance and monopolies and control over others certainly serves no constructive purpose through out any history now does it? Or maybe history has been showing us the incorrect results all along. That Corporate interests in Banking and like minded thinking along side ever growing Governments is sustainable in all forms right? All ISP are BIG Corporate monopolies that keep it limited for larger profits and has nothing to do with service and if you do not believe me, go to work for one of these monolithic bastards and give them some better ideas to better service customers and see how far listening goes. Your own disappointment will change your mind for ever more. All these big Pricks have one thing in common and that is how they will RULE your ass.