Want to Understand Why Most Americans Support Israel? Because We Know We're Next.

As Hamas’ rockets continue to fly into Israel’s cities (and thankfully, to usually face interception), and Israel continues to pound Gaza, I’m seeing two different reactions on two different continents. In Europe, an unholy alliance of traditional anti-Semites and resident Muslims are marching in great numbers and with violent boldness. In America, most are either supporting Israel or sitting on the sidelines, waiting to see how things further develop. I think I know why this is occurring, at least on the American side.

The United States was attacked by Jihadis on September 11, 2001 and the

U.S. President Wilson's detached,
academic version of Globalism never anticipated
how Americans might react to domestic attacks

carnage was, of course, well documented. But what many forget is that Americans took it personally. At that moment many of us, either on the pro-or-anti-Israel side, realized that we could no longer view the Mideast with some sort of detached attitude of Wilsonian supremacy, and that Global Jihadism was real, and that it could kill from afar. And that, under the right set of circumstances, it had the ability to do this very well.

When Al Qaida attacked U.S. embassies and assets overseas before 9/11, Americans debated the form, and the limitations of response and retaliation. How would a large exercise of American military power affect the “Arab Street”? How would our Allies respond? How would we cope with large-scale anti-American demonstrations in foreign capitals? After 9/11, with much of Lower Manhattan smoldering in ruin and smoke hanging over Washington, D.C. the American attitude was completely transformed. The consensus, in my opinion, mirrored that of Americans in mid-December of 1941. It was straightforward. We must stop them, we must go after them, we must not hold back. Some Americans (and we forget this now) argued that a series of atomic strikes on Kabul and Al Qaida’s military sites in Afghanistan would be wholly justified. Looking back, I believe we took the more ‘merciful’ approach by simply deciding to invade Afghanistan and fight Al Qaida and the Taliban on the streets of the deserts, towns and cities of that distant land. We lost a lot of good men and women over there, and the losses continue.

After 9/11 the Jihadi enemy was not some foreign “factor” or distant voice. Osama Bin Laden and his allies composed mocking diatribes against us to be published in the New York Times. Al Qaida’s leaders were releasing videos celebrating our losses and mocking our dead, much like Hamas is doing to Israel now. The time for debate was over; we had an enemy to contend with that had its own agenda and plans, and it wouldn’t stop until we stopped it. To do this, people were going to have to die. Things were going to have to break. War is Hell, but we didn’t ask for it, but we were in it now. 

We’re still fighting Al Qaida, but the war has cost it dearly. Bin Laden is dead, rotting on a seabed. Its original top leadership is dead or in American custody. The Taliban was toppled and it is again fighting for its life in the wastelands of Afghanistan. And now its remnants are the ones who share in our fear, and know that at any given moment destruction can rain down upon them in the form of a drone attack, a raid by U.S. Marines, or in some other horrific way. If this were not true they would not be operating in the shadows.

But the American attitude toward Gaza not just about the attacks of September 11^th. The American response now is more concerned with what many of us feel is the inevitable, next domestic Jihadi attack, perhaps to take some other ghastly form. The Jihadi movement has been trying hard, really, really hard, for another massacre on American soil. Some attacks have been thwarted due to our own diligence, some due to plain luck. The attempted Shoe Bombing to take down an airliner. The Boston Marathon attack. They’re working perisently…and diligently so.

Here’s the heart of my argument. Americans know that when it happens again, when we have to go after the organized source of a Jihadi terror attack, American troops will have to face real combat in some densely-populated foreign city. Perhaps it will be on the streets of Tripoli in Libya. Perhaps it will be in the back alleys of Karachi in a fragmenting Pakistan. Perhaps it will be on the ruined avenues of Mosul in ISIS-controlled Northern Iraq. And on that day the enemy will be there, hiding behind their human shields and hospitals and schools. This war against Jihadism isn’t done, and so many of us know we cannot wish it away. What is motivating our enemy is not bad American P.R. or American arrogance. Their motivations are their own, based on centuries of their twisted interpretation of Islamic history. We will have to face them again. We will have to make some serious choices that day on how we want to engage this very real enemy. I seriously doubt we’ll want to hold back at that moment, and that “moment” is what many Americans are fixated on now.

This enemy is the same enemy that Israel faces in Gaza. It’s the same people, the same fighters motivated by the same cause with the identical goal of waging Global Jihad. Yes, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a complex one and there have been mistakes on both sides. But Americans know that Jihadis have long since hijacked the cause of Palestinian nationalism, and Palestinians

Al Qaida Flags, displayed earlier this week by
Pro-Jihadi marchers in Northern India

have allowed them to do that. This same process is currently operating elsewhere, and on a much larger scale, as the worldwide Jihadist movement devours other conflicts, from sectarianism in Iraq to the conflict between India and Pakistan in Kashmir. But Americans are not fooled. We know that once Jihadis engulf some local cause, whatever the factors, it is immediately pushed aside in favor of the priority of offensive-minded, Global Jihad.

Look, I hope I’m wrong. I hope there isn’t another huge attack, or series of simultaneous attacks, on the level of 9/11. But it’s been more than a decade since that apocalyptic morning in September and most Americans know that the Jihadi cauldron is boiling again. This is why so many of us support the Israelis, because we know that the furious gaze of Jihadism is staring us down too. The decimation of Israel’s cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa are their short term goals, but don’t take my word for it. As the leader of ISIS said a few years ago upon his release by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, “See you in New York.”

Getting New Jersey's Urban Residents Organized is in Everyone's Interests

In a blog published earlier this month, I introduced an important but little-appreciated topic that is at the core of what is ailing our troubled inner cities, that being, a lack of empowered community organizations. As crime and poverty continue to stifle New Jersey's urban areas, it must be noted that if we expect the residents of places like Camden, Newark and Paterson to help themselves, they have to have a place to meet. Literally, there are little if any places to gather, talk about issues, prioritize, network and plan, plan, plan. So often we hear from the residents of the Garden State's wealthier suburbs and rural areas (such as Sussex County) that the first step in solving the problems of our inner cities is getting the people who live there to work together. Or more cynically, we'll read posted snippets like "We've been throwing money at these places for years and things just keep getting worse," and even "if more of this crime continues we'll have to call in the National Guard."

Community self-help and activism are not derived some set of magical powers. It takes specific kind of infrastructure, a unique skill-set, lot of work, and a multitude of relationships to get the ball rolling. People need to not only have the abilities to organize and run gatherings, they need a physical location to hold events.

Martin Luther King Jr. at a local civil rights
meeting in the early 1960's 

Suburban and rural communities don't really have this problem. Small and medium-sized informal gatherings, especially those involving both political parties and major civic organizations, take place at community-oriented venues and even Starbucks or some other local coffeehouse. For larger, more formal gatherings, organizations will approach a local hotel, like the Marriott or Hilton, and rent out a meeting room for a day or two. Conveniently situated in these hotels, organizations will typically utilize their kitchens to provide catering and refreshments. Since almost everyone has a car, transportation and free parking aren't a concern. Sure, this costs money, but everyone chips in, or if the organization has deeper pockets, it pays the hotels directly.

These modern-day meeting facilities are specifically designed for their designated functions. They're all equipped with wireless Internet so everyone's smart device is instantly enabled. Power Point presentations and films can be seen on provided overhead projectors. And, of course, we can't forget tables, chairs and lecterns. Additionally, most also have amplifying equipment built-in, enabling anyone to be heard at even the largest gatherings. It's all very convenient.

Political Scientists and historians actually have a name for the culture that's produced by such gatherings: Civil Society. Perhaps the term rings a bell. Civil Society is made up of all of the clubs, organizations and citizen gatherings that aren't part of any formal governmental structure, yet comprise of one of the essential components of any healthy democratic society. Americans used to be famous for it; in the early 1800's, the famous French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville couldn't help but notice it in every region of the young United States he visited. He devoted entire portions of his masterpiece Democracy in America on the subject.  

In these clubs and organizations - and not really in school - people acquire the essential skills of democratic citizenship. People learn how to act like free, responsible individuals - responsible not only for themselves but their communities as well. These skills aren't so much stressed in any of our public schools these days, which have been more or less hijacked by reformy organizations bent on preparing students to succeed on standardized tests.

These essential skills are the stuff that keeps us free. How to recruit members of an organization. How to elect and sustain leadership. How to create an agenda and run a meeting. How to delegate tasks by committee. How to network within and outside of the organization. How to compromise and draft bylaws and resolutions. How to take collective action in the form of a bake sale, a direct-mail campaign, a demonstration, a write-in, etc.  

Okay, so let's return to our inner cities. If people are the "software" for democracy, meeting places are part of the "hardware." But there isn't any "hardware" to be seen, not any more. So what kinds of things can be done to help the residents of our inner cities help themselves? What "classic" and 21st Century solutions are there?

First, our urban residents need to get online. The Internet is the ultimate network for networking. We need to get people emailing, Tweeting, Facebooking and Blogging. Here the State can make a real difference by funding low or no cost municipal WiFi, or wireless Internet. By creating wireless clouds in our urban areas, we'll increase interactivity, reduce crime and bind neighborhoods together. People cannot organize and solve their own community problems if they're not communicating. Municipal WiFi used to be an exorbitantly expensive proposition, but no more. With bandwidth and equipment prices now at historic lows (and heading lower - thanks "Made in China"!), it's entirely possible to "unwire" places like Newark, Trenton, Camden and Paterson. It all doesn't have to be done at once, and there are many ways to fund it without much public expenditure. Put Internet routers on telephone poles, billboards, traffic lights, etc. Get the place humming.

To promote networking and organizational skills, call in the experts. The State could join hands with Non-governmental organizations and service agencies like AmeriCorps and our state colleges to provide classes at local high schools or community centers (do we even have community centers anymore?) on basic managerial skills.

And what about places to meet? Here, the Legislature can help. Pass laws requiring communities to open neighborhood schools after hours so that urban clubs and organizations have a places to gather. Some funding will have to be provided for security and operations, but remember - this entire plan is to make our cities safer by getting urban residents to work together. It would be, more or less, an anti-crime effort. Any financial investment made by the state would have the potential to more than pay for itself if residents can organize and network.

With everything I am proposing, I will admit, there's are no guarantees. But if our urban centers continue to deteriorate, the costs of policing and aiding them will continue to skyrocket. Before we call in the National Guard, before another round of riots on par with 1967 occurs, promoting urban civic organization and activism is certainly worth a try.

Think about it. As I always say, am I on to something here, or is this all just pie in the sky? Should we help our urban residents help themselves? Isn't it time to brush the cynicism aside, and try something different? I look forward to your comments.

How Can Jersey's Urban Citizens Organize if They Have No Place to Meet?

As the online articles of summertime shootings in New Jersey's neglected, jobless and isolated inner cities begin to ramp up, so do the ignorant, hostile comments that adjoin them. To many Internet readers, these forums are either wholly ignored or regarded as more or less useless - being the sum total of random ranters with too much time on their hands. But even from a non-scientific point of view, they do matter, because in some form, they represent documented, and occasionally comprehensive reactions and discussions from concerned Garden State citizens of all kinds. One kind of comment, however, seems to be more common than all the others. For within the collections of comments that state things like "a tragedy for a girl who had her whole life ahead of her," and "minorities continue to ruin places where we used to leave the doors unlocked," there is one that is worth genuine analysis. It varies, but usually states something like "This violence will continue until the people of Newark/Camden/Trenton/Paterson etc. no longer tolerate it." It's an interesting assumption, because not only have I come across it often on sites like NJ.com and NorthJersey.com but I've heard it countless times in other places. Apparently, according to a sizable minority of those willing to publish their opinions on the issue, crime in New Jersey's cities is a result of a lack of civic awareness, pride, activity or organization on the part of our urban dwellers - or all of those things combined. It's worth noting that most posters do not identify where they're writing from, I think it's safe to assume that many, if not all of them, do not live in these depressing cities, rife with crime and poverty. These posters have little idea of the places they're talking about. That's too bad, because you no longer have to physically go to Trenton, Newark, Camden or anywhere in New Jersey to get a feel for its topography. You can simply visit Google Maps and take a virtual walk around the streets, and witness the extent of the devastation firsthand. And if one has even more time on their hands, I believe they can even use Google Maps to view a series of photos of the same places over time, to see how a specific neighborhood, lot, etc. has changed. The problems of New Jersey's urban centers are complex, of course, and go back decades. But as a former Newark Central Ward teacher and resident, I have to be honest here: if you're going to accuse Newark or Camden's people of a lack of civic spirit or capability to organize, you need to look at the physical geography of such places. In short, what kinds of conditions and structures are present that could enable people to organize and, say, challenge poverty, crime and corruption in such cities? It's a good question, because it matters. America's Revolutionaries had their taverns, where they passionately debated and organized against British rule. Abolitionists and later Civil Rights leaders had their Churches, which functioned as vital incubators of organization and leadership. Newark's former Jewish community had huge, active community centers, especially along what was once High Street (Now MLK Blvd.) All of these institutions - and that's what they were - required time, energy, funding and organization - and space. And now, for the most part, they're gone. Swept away in a tide of history and drowned out by poverty. Aside from their homes and places of employment, most of our state's urban residents lack a "Third Place," where they can simply socialize, which in a free society is the first step in tackling any problem as a community. Think about it another way. Say you're a Newark Central Ward resident, and you want to start some sort of Where would you meet? Really, where? A free or low cost Conference Room  is hard to come by in New Jersey's ailing cities council or club or action group. In the 1920's and 30's, many of Newark's great community gatherings took place in its schools. But under the regime of State Superintendent Cami Anderson, whose contempt for all forms of democracy and civic expression is well known, today this is almost an impossibility. In fact, some parent organizers have even been arrested for posting material on school grounds. It's a tragedy, because much of the city's finest physical structures are completely off limits, or nearly impossible to attain, for meeting, debating and organizing. Okay, so what about other publicly oriented businesses like cafes and coffeehouses? Well you can forget about these too. The last coffeehouse in the Central Ward - a Starbucks - closed in 2009. The event was regarded as so devastating that it was even covered by the New York Times. And what about the Churches? Yes, there are still some churches active in our inner cities, but aside from Sunday services, they offer few other services for even their own parishioners. And from a practical perspective, from my years and years of walking around Newark and Paterson, I'd say that most Church buildings are locked and sealed shut during the week. So how are the people of our urban areas supposed to organize if they cannot even find a place to congregate? I hope there are some meaningful replies to this blog...am I completely wrong here? Am I on to something?

How Can Jersey's Urban Citizens Organize if They Have No Place to Meet?

As the online articles of summertime shootings in New Jersey's neglected, jobless and isolated inner cities begin to ramp up, so do the ignorant, hostile comments that adjoin them. To many Internet readers, these forums are either wholly ignored or regarded as more or less useless - being the sum total of random ranters with too much time on their hands. But even from a non-scientific point of view, they do matter, because in some form, they represent documented, and occasionally comprehensive reactions and discussions from concerned Garden State citizens of all kinds.

One kind of comment, however, seems to be more common than all the others. For within the collections of comments that state things like "a tragedy for a girl who had her whole life ahead of her," and "minorities continue to ruin places where we used to leave the doors unlocked," there is one that is worth genuine analysis. It varies, but usually states something like "This violence will continue until the people of Newark/Camden/Trenton/Paterson etc. no longer tolerate it."

It's an interesting assumption, because not only have I come across it often on sites like NJ.com and NorthJersey.com but I've heard it countless times in other places. Apparently, according to a sizable minority of those willing to publish their opinions on the issue, crime in New Jersey's cities is a result of a lack of civic awareness, pride, activity or organization on the part of our urban dwellers - or all of those things combined.  

It's interesting. Though most posters do not identify where they're writing from, I think it's safe to assume that many, if not all of them, do not live in these depressing cities, rife with crime and poverty. These posters have little idea of the places they're talking about. That's too bad, because you no longer have to physically go to Trenton, Newark, Camden or anywhere in New Jersey to get a feel for its topography. You can simply visit Google Maps and take a virtual walk around the streets, and witness the extent of the devastation firsthand. And if one has even more time on their hands, I believe they can even use Google Maps to view a series of photos of the same places over time, to see how a specific neighborhood, lot, etc. has changed.

The problems of New Jersey's urban centers are complex, of course, and go backdecades. But as a former Newark Central Ward teacher and resident, I have to be honest here: if you're going to accuse Newark or Camden's people of a lack of civic spirit or capability to organize, you need to look at the physical geography of such places. In short, what kinds of conditions and structures are present that could enable people to organize and, say, challenge poverty, crime and corruption in such cities?

It's a good question, because it matters. America's Revolutionaries had their taverns, where they passionately debated and organized against British rule. Abolitionists and later Civil Rights leaders had their Churches, which functioned as vital incubators of organization and leadership. Newark's former Jewish community had huge, active community centers, especially along what was once High Street (Now MLK Blvd.)  

All of these institutions - and that's what they were - required time, energy, funding and organization - and space. And now, for the most part, they're gone. Swept away in a tide of history and drowned out by poverty. Aside from their homes and places of employment, most of our state's urban residents lack a "Third Place," where they can simply socialize, which in a free society is the first step in tackling any problem as a community.

Think about it another way. Say you're a Newark Central Ward resident, and you want to start some sort of council or club or action group. Where would you meet? Really, where?

Want to discuss the issues? 

Don't bother arranging a meeting at 

Newark's Starbucks; it closed in 2009.

In the 1920's and 30's, many of Newark's great community gatherings took place in its schools. But under the regime of State Superintendent Cami Anderson, whose contempt for all forms of democracy and civic expression is well known, today this is almost an impossibility. In fact, some parent organizers have even been arrested for posting material on school grounds. It's a tragedy, because much of the city's finest physical structures are completely off limits, or nearly impossible to attain, for meeting, debating and organizing.

Okay, so what about other publicly oriented businesses like cafes and coffeehouses? Well you can forget about these too. The last coffeehouse in the Central Ward - a Starbucks - closed in 2009. The event was regarded as so devastating that it was even covered by the New York Times.

And what about the Churches? Yes, there are still some churches active in our inner cities, but aside from Sunday services, they offer few other services for even their own parishioners. And from a practical perspective, from my years and years of walking around Newark and Paterson, I'd say that most Church buildings are locked and sealed shut during the week.

So how are the people of our urban areas supposed to organize if they cannot even find a place to congregate?

I hope there are some meaningful replies to this blog...am I completely wrong here? Am I on to something?  

As If We Have Enough Problems Already: White Supremacists Are Again On The Rise

It’s been a pretty active week for white supremacists both in the United States as well as in Hitler’s homeland, Austria. And though it may not seem believable to most civilized people, white supremacy has been experiencing somewhat of a very real reemergence, both on illegal and legal fronts.

On the illegal front, we’ve seen horrendous violence take place in Las Vegas, where three people – two police officers and a bystander – were shot and killed in cold blood by a white supremacist couple – who then in some kind of twisted act of Aryan martyrdom turned the guns on themselves. Before that, to apparently clear up any confusion as to their ideals, they placed a swastika on one of their murdered victims.

As investigators now sift through the computers, possessions and communications of the deceased couple, the degree of this crime – in that whether or not it is part of a wider, working, conspiracy, is yet to be determined. But I do believe that I am not being inaccurate at all when I state that there are probably many more well-armed, furious white supremacists out there, all playing out some stage of their fantasy of racial purity, white rebellion and Aryan destruction.

Meanwhile, white supremacists/Neo-Nazis are growing bolder in Europe, where

Strauche, Leader of Austria's Right Wing "Freedom Party." 

they’ve experienced a great deal of mainstream political success by winning elections to local, regional, national and even international bodies. This is especially true in Austria – which was completely part of the Nazi war machine in the 1940’s. There, the so-called “Freedom Party” has captured nearly 20 percent of the votes of the last national election (and larger percentages in others). And it’s only grown bolder in its proclamations and positions. For example, its party leader, Heinz-Christian Strauche has now declared that he’ll run for the mayoralty of Vienna. And just this past Sunday he had this to say on the prospect of an upcoming visit from Turkey’s president:

"We don't need Erdoğan in Vienna. I'll tell him right now: 'Erdoğan, stay at home'."

Strauche later accused Erdoğan of seeking to establish a "parallel society" in Austria. Interesting words, because they could have come directly from the mouth of the late anti-Semitic Vienna mayor, Karl Lueger.

These culprits, though on different sides of the globe, are literally on the wrong side of history. In fact, they worship a history that never happened, at least from the prospective that they understand it. Such individuals are convinced that in former days, when a more “pure” and homogeneous population existed, society was stronger and more vital. But what they fail to understand that the foundations of Revolutionary America – and the greatness that was turn-of-the-century Vienna, were founded in diversity. Allow me to explain further.

The two Las Vegas white supremacists also used a “Don’t Tread On Me” Flag to make their point, apparently harkening back to the rebellious spirit of the American Revolutionaries. But those Revolutionaries were a mixed bag of people - and in fact – all of colonial America was. It wasn’t just English – there were Dutch, Jews, Africans, Swedes, Germans, Native Americans and others. And those English – they hardly regarded themselves as so; rather they were carved up into numerous, rival religious and political sects that as late as the early 1800’s were furiously persecuting and competing with each other. If you’re in search of some kind of racial or ideological purity, Colonial and Early America is no place you’ll find it.

And what about those Austrians who are trying to convince their own people that Austria’s greatest days and glories were the product of some pure Germanic population? If you think that, you’d be wrong again. Any historian will tell you that Vienna’s vitality of the late 19^th and early 20^th century was a result of a massive cultural intersection of Germans, Jews and Slavs. Austria was once part of a heterogeneous empire of dozens of nationalities. It was at the city’s open and diverse coffeehouses and salons (many sponsored by Jewish women) that the greatness of the age was forged. It was where Jews like Freud, Herzl, Trotsky and Mahler produced and defended great ideas and made great art. It was in Vienna of the early 20^th century that gave birth to so many forms of modern expression, which were, by in large, produced by all the ethnicities and religious groups in the city.

These white supremacist are ignorant hypocrites. Like their failed Austrian master before them, they’re preaching not just hate, but lies – their history is a complete falsehood – a factually indefensible distortion. If they’re so bent on selling their views, they should be reminded of how things ended when they were last in charge. I believe it was with the sound of a single, suicidal gunshot in a bunker in ruined Berlin, capital of an obliterated nation.   

Finally, We Can Get Every Student and School Online - For Cheap

Many decades have had their “Moonshots.” They're The Big ideas. Typically, they’re supremely-expensive, societally-challenging, disruptive projects that go down in history as lasting achievements. In the 1930’s it was the New Deal. In the 40’s, it was victory in World War II. In the 1950’s it was the Interstate Highway System. In the 60’s it was, well, the Moonshot (and Civil Rights).

These "Moonshot" projects are costly, but necessary. They’re transformative, and frequently democratic in nature. They are national quests that are underwritten by the Federal government because either the private sector is not equipped to – or willing to – deliver. Yes, America is a capitalist nation, no doubt. We prize private ownership and initiative, but there are things that even the market cannot do. Not on a big level anyway.

The challenge of our age, the “Moonshot,” if you please, is national, affordable, quality connectivity. Everywhere, 24/7. Call it what you will – a national, low or no cost Wi-Fi system, Municipal Internet, whatever. 

Internet access is not a civil right, not yet anyway, but a good education is. And I really doubt that you’d be able to find any educator or parent who would not observe that there is no way any student can attain a quality education in 2014 without ready, constant, available broadband access. It’s a no brainer. The entire world is online and competing furiously on an international basis. My own students are well aware that their future competitors are not only in nearby schools but in places like Shanghai and Singapore as well. As a nation, we’re long overdue in bringing free, fast Internet into our public schools. This

Wireless Internet for every student in America:
It's now possible.

goal has long been part of our “Moonshot.”

If you asked any person on the street (or me as recently as two hours ago) how much it would cost to bring fast, wired and wireless (Wi-Fi) internet to every school in the nation, a lot of figures would come up. But the bottom line is, everyone – myself included – would tell you the cost would be prohibitive. Hundreds of billions of dollars, at least – maybe more. Most would probably think that it’s worthy goal, perhaps, but really, just not realistic in the near future. It seems like a huge, progressive dream, and something that, in these troubling economic times, might have to be done either incrementally or put on the back burner for more prosperous days.

Then I read an article – a blog post in this week’s Washington Post. According to the FCC and two highly respected organizations in the Ed-Tech world, a price tag has been revealed. For this estimation, this “ballpark figure,” every school in the United States could be hooked up to broadband access, wired and wireless. And we’re not talking about the kind of access you get at home – we’re talking big, thick pipes dedicated to massive amounts of uploading and downloading via fiber optic connections. To do this, it would cost Congress not $400 billion, not $40 billion...just $4 billion.

When I read the estimation, I gasped. It can’t be that inexpensive. To bring wireless access to every public school in America…that’s just huge. Every school means every school, from the mega-high schools of busy New York City to the rural hamlets of Tennessee…sea to shining sea…etc.  

The implications of such a plan would be revolutionary to say the least. And for this price tag – really the amount that the Federal government probably spends on toilet paper yearly – it’s worth it. We have spent more than a trillion dollars in Iraq since 2003. A trillion dollars! To kill people and break things in a faraway land! And what have we got for our trillion dollars? Iraq is falling apart, Al Qaida’s still on the loose, our allies aren’t any more secure and we have tens of thousands of disabled vets to care for. Why don’t we take just a fraction of such an expenditure and invest it in our children and our communities?

We can do this. We must do this. We can still do great things, but now, apparently, we can achieve greatness with technologies partially bought at places like Radio Shack and The Home Depot. The private sector won’t do it; it’s had a decade to step up to the challenge of bringing affordable and widespread web access to our schools. Instead, our tech companies are focused on what all companies focus on: profits, mergers and acquisitions. That doesn’t make them bad, but it does make them incapable of acting on this level for the public interest.

We can do this. Who’s with me?

Comcast's Data Caps Threaten More than Higher Prices

With recent news that Comcast plans to implement some sort of bandwidth/usage cap on its Internet users, it inadvertently and probably put a nail, at least from an ideological standpoint, in its soon-to-be corporate coffin. Now I know from a present-day perspective, that seems a bit extreme to say, considering that it’s one of the nation’s largest and most profitable corporations. Nevertheless, by implementing bandwidth caps, Comcast is doing more than falling off the Internet wagon; it’s shooting the horse. At the least, Comcast data caps ought to be declared by the Federal Government to be monopolistic activity and regulated; in an ideal situation, the Internet giant should be broken up into several rival corporations to drive prices down and internet speeds up. The U.S. Supreme Court did this in the early 1980’s by breaking up the old AT&T “Bell System,” and the result, frankly, was our modern-day communications

Comcast represents the same national 

threat as this corporation once did

miracle.

It bears repeating. The Internet is our network of networks. It’s very presence in our lives is something that is, frankly, without historical precedent. It is quickly forming into the economic backbone of the global economy, and that’s a fact that’s not going to change in future years, it’s only going to expand. And as one of the nation’s largest (and perhaps, soon to be the largest) Internet service providers, capped Internet represents an intentional plug on national economic growth and security. Internet caps are the equivalent of internal tariffs, an evil of the past that is outlawed in our own national constitution. There are so many reasons to reject the idea of caps, it’s not even funny. Here are a few:

1.   There is no bandwidth crisis. We know this because while Comcast and other big-time Internet Service Providers tell the FCC that there is, they’re bragging to their own investors that there is plenty of bandwidth to go around, and profitably so.

2.   New fiber optic cables and data compression technologies are amply keeping up with bandwidth needs

3.   Capping internet use and charging more for it will make all forms of digital communications and commerce artificially more expensive; it’s the equivalent to a physical attack on the national communications infrastructure in order to keep prices high

4.   We know from the short history of the Internet that today’s “Internet sipper” is tomorrow’s “power user” as more Internet use is the norm, not the opposite

5.   In places where Comcast and its monopolistic equivalents encounter competition prices have gone down and value for consumers has gone up; don’t believe me? Ask anyone from Austin, Texas, where the cable companies are being forced to compete with Google Fiber’s amazing packages…no internet caps there and speeds on par with South Korea’s (100 mbs+)

I could care less about Comcast and its quest for profits, especially if it comes at this kind of price. Our international competitors in South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Israel don’t cap their web use, because they know they’d be insane to do so. With so many start-up businesses depending on broad Internet use from both sides of the business model (producer and consumer), they have no intention of stifling the digital commons or limiting it in any way. If anything, our international rivals are making web use less expensive and more ubiquitous. Just this year, Tel Aviv’s municipal government began a plan to make the entire city wireless – for free. Taipei, Taiwan is already wireless, with Wi-Fi available on nearly every street and alleyway.

What we need is more competition and antitrust enforcement. In America we believe in the right to private property, but not at the expense of endangering the growth potential of the entire national economy. That’s what the Sherman Antitrust Act and similar legislation are for. We don’t believe in monopolies and, in fact, regard them as a threat. And that’s not just me – Adam Smith, that “Father of Capitalism,” makes the exact same argument in the very Bible of Capitalism: The Wealth of Nations.

Comcast’s quest wring the national Internet market for every dollar even at the expense at destroying its most valuable aspect, that being the vast potential for individual and national financial growth, must be countered and reversed. It’s in everybody’s interest to do so, especially those who still embrace the ideals of America as a place for broad economic opportunity and an unregulated marketplace for ideas.