Kivus

One issue that most of the web media (i.e. podcasters, tech news websites, etc…) seems to have a consensus opinion on is Net Neutrality, namely: the government should step in and regulate the internet to prevent companies from distributing bandwidth via free market principles. It’s for this reason that the term “Net Neutrality” can be simply defined as “government regulation of the internet.”

Be any measure, the internet has grown at a tremendous rate. Larger quantities of homes now have high speed internet access and people carry a bevy of devices with them that allow access to email and the web. The question then becomes, why would anyone want the government to start interfering with an industry that’s featuring such spectacular growth? Though I clearly cannot speak for everyone, most of the reasons are pretty standard anti-market feelings: the “big tel-co” will start charging more for content to be delivered faster and the “little guy” won’t be able to have his site viewed because it will take too long, or worse, the tel-co will block access to some sites all together. As is usually the case with people who don’t understand basic economic principles, these fears are misguided.

What we have with the Internet at this time is scarce resource. Despite its vast nature, there is in fact a scare amount of bandwidth available for people to utilize, and the most efficient way to distribute this bandwidth with is via the free market. If a company has the financial resources to pay more access to more of this bandwith, then that company should be allowed to access it. It’s simple distribution of a resource. What people normally fail to understand is, there’s a difference between there being “scarcity” in the bandwidth and there being a “shortage” of bandwidth. A common mistake is people are only looking at the existing infrastructure of the internet as it stands now, the cable companies, the DSL companies, utilizing cables to bring the internet into your house. This constricts the market too narrowly however as there are other alternatives such as cellular internet, possibilities for city-wide wi-fi, internet delivered via power lines, etc… that are all in different stages of development. The way people will access the internet in the future has potential to be vastly different from the standard set of technologies we have today. All ones has to do is look at the difference between dial up modems of 8-10 years ago and the speed of cable modems & dsl connections of today in order to see what kind of advances can be made.

Additional reasons against net neutrality include the fact that it’s unnecessary to make a law against monopolistic activities for a specific industry, when there are already laws against monopolistic activities on the books. The most important reason to oppose Net Neutrality, however, is that passage of such as law paves the way for much more heavy handed government regulation of the internet. It ultimately could result in a bureaucracy that controls the internet, much in the same way the FCC controls television. In this period of growth and innovation with the internet, the last thing it needs is governmental red tape.

It’s a familiar refrain among people in the “young” media (i.e. shows who have a target audience the skews towards late teens, early 20s). It normally comes out like this “Yeah, well, I thought we have freedom of speech in this country…”. That simple phrase is used to defend all sorts of questionable comments by people from Bill Mahr to Rosie O’Donnell. What the people making the claim of freedom of speech are upset about, however, is not the right someone has to say something, it’s the fact that people might face some consequences for what they say. Though people have the right to say what they want, other people are allowed to react to what the first person says, and it’s this second part of the equation that’s usually forgotten.

The classic example of Freedom of the Press v. Freedom of Consequences occurred a few years ago when the Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed that our President hailed from Texas. What followed was a backlash, as people stopped buying their CDs (or destroyed ones they owned), people stopped attending their concerts and radio stations stopped playing their music. The most common defense of the Dixie Chicks (normally from people on the left) was that the Dixie Chicks were simply “exercising their freedom of speech.” Well, yes, the Dixie Chicks were exercising their freedom of speech, and at no point where they kicked out of the country (like on the left’s seemingly popular figures, Hugo Chavez, might do) or executed (like another leftist favorite, Fidel Castro, might do), instead the general populous decided they did not agree with the Dixie Chicks’ point of view, found the Chicks’ comments offensive, and decided they would not support their music as a result. It wasn’t the government that came down when the Dixie Chicks insulted our president, it was the general public who responded.

A more recent example occurred on FOX’s television show _So You Think You Can Dance_. Choreographer Wade Robson had the dancers perform a dance he described as “anti-war”. Depending on your point of view, you could take this to mean either “a general opposition to war” or a specific criticism of the United States’ on going struggle with islamo-facists, specially in the Iraqi theater. A number of people, myself included, took the latter opinion and voiced enough concern towards the network, the show, and in forums discussing the show, that one of the show’s producers issued an apology for the performance. (Robson issued a “clarification of intent” on his website as well, but tried to remain semi-defiant but adding that it was “not an apology”.) As one would expect, various television review sites were dismayed that the show was apologizing for their dance number. The usual calls of freedom of speech and freedom of expression were made. Once again, these people failed to understand the difference between Wade being allowed to say what he said without having harsh retribution from the government and the general public being allowed to react to Wade’s seemingly ignorant statements.

I’ve written here previously about the Left’s attempts to stifle opinions they don’t agree with, but it’s clear that’s only half of their “strategery”. The other half is try and prevent people from standing up when the Left makes claims, no matter how outrageous these claims are.

Over the past few weeks the news has been saturated with examples of young woman who no respectable parent would want his or her daughter to idolize. The stories of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and Britney Spears make one wonder if the current generation of young girls have anyone that they can look up to. After spending a weekend at the Pine Needles Golf Course, watching girls like Paula Creamer, Natalie Gulbis, Brittany Lincicome and the other young superstars of the LPGA, I’d say that parents should start flocking to these tournaments in droves. If parents are looking for role models for their young girls, they have to look no further than the LPGA.

I’ve been to a number of golf tournaments, from lower level tournaments like what used to be called the “Canon Greater Hartford Open” in Connecticut, to upper level tournaments like the Wachovia Champsionship in Charlotte, and even major tournaments like the US Open at Pinehurst a few years back. Through all the experience, however, I would say the atmosphere at the US Women’s Open at Pine Needles was the best I’ve witnessed. Though the people involved with putting on the tournament play a role in that, what really set this tournament apart was the attitude of the players. Whether it was the smiles to young children in the crowds, the acknowledgment of the gallery when the gallery showered them with congratulations, or stopping on the way from putting green to first tee to sign autographs, the ladies really went out of their way to show their appreciation.

Though their demeanor and attitude would be enough reason for young girls to have the ladies of the LPGA as role models, it cannot be emphasized enough that these girls are immensely talented athletes. Whether it’s the raw power of Britney Lincicome, the athleticism of Natalie Gulbis, or the finesse and talent of Paula Creamer, these girls are famous not because of some fluke movie or some inheritance they are due, instead they’ve worked hard, developed their skills and now exhibit their talent, skill and athleticism on a weekly basis. They are living embodiments of practice, hard work, and dedication and are prime examples of what a young girl should aspire to.

If I were to take a survey of my friends, or even males 18-35 in general, the number that would be enthusiastic about attending an LPGA golf event for a weekend would not be particularly high, regardless of the fact that young women like Paula Creamer are in fact, magnificently stunning in person. Though that particular demographic might not be drawn to the course, young girls and their parents should be. In an age when it’s hard to point our young people in the direction of good role models, for one weekend at the end of June, the Pine Needles Golf Course was bursting with them.