Google or FCC??

Minor correction - it's Nancy Pelosi, not Linda.

I agree with most of what you say. I am not in favor of much government involvement (interference) as they tend to muck things up more than help most of the time. That being said, there may still be a role for government.

Where I disagree with you is that we do not all agree that there has to be a separation between the church and state. The constitution says nothing about separating the church and state. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ". That's quite different than allowing prayer in school or using church facilities for government functions such as polling places. Over the years this has been twisted to the absurd. I do agree that it's a good idea to keep the government out of religion but see no reason why government has to be secular to the extreme (i.e. can't mention prayer or allude to God, etc.).

How does this relate to National Broadband? I don't see much of a correlation.

One of the primary roles of the government is to protect it's citizens and enforce contractual agreements. Lately, one could argue they aren't doing a good job of the latter (look at the government's involvement in the auto, banking and mortgage industries). One may also argue that in today's high tech environment the citizen's of the US are vulnerable to attack from abroad (see the recent Google hacking from som group on China). The attacks via the internet may not be physical resulting in deaths, but is still an attack with harm done. The Federal government also plays a role in interstate commerce. So if the Feds are going to stick their noses into broad band it should be with respect to:

1. National security (making sure citizen's assets are not taken)
2. Monitoring/regulating interstate commerce (they already have this responsibility, but perhaps lack the ability to apply the laws to internet commerce.

I don't have faith in the current sitting congressmen to tackle legislation wisely though. So even though I accept that can, I don't know if it protection they would provide will be worth the suffering that would come along with it.

JB

Thanks for the correction on Pelosi's first name. The lady really scares me.

The Federal government, and all levels of government for that matter, have been so insiduous that they have an ever larger control of most daily activities of citizens in this country. I do not apologize for being such an anti-government control citizen, but having come at an early age from Cuba, I can see what others cannot. It is like when you suffer from a disease, you know everything about it, the symptoms, etc. Until you suffer from a particular disease, you do not really pay much attention to it.

For the first time since the Great Depression, according to the U. S. Labor Department Bureau of Labor Statistics data, there was a drop in the total number of jobs in the private sector. That number was 107.95 million in 1999. By 2009 that number dropped by about 370,000 jobs. First time since then that this number drops in any decade.

The Internet and the Broadband expansion can be and actually is, a jobs engine. Government intervention will do nothing but stifle growth and distort the economic model.

I agree with you that in National Defense issues the government must be involved. But I believe that private enterprise has a role in this area also. Even the Defense Department has been vulnerable to hackers from abroad, so Google is not the only one subject to these acts. There should be cooperation on this between the government and private industry. After all, the government does not create much at all. Everything the government creates is by contracting private concerns.

The Interstate Commerce really scares me. We can see that they are twisting the original intent to suit their power grab, such as in the health care field.

I agree very much on all the points you make about the church and state, although I did not elaborate in my first piece about my opinions on this matter. You have made excellent points on that issue that I agree with.

Power corrupts. Unless we find a way to limit terms for senator/congressmen/women, even honorable people will eventually become corrupt in their pursuit to keep their seats. Just think about so many places in America where they say, well this Ted Kennedy's seat, or this is Obama's seat, or McCain's seat, etc. That has got to stop.

They are nobody's seats. They are OUR seats. Period.

I think you get my drift about why we need to vote all of these people out of office, keep government out of private enterprise and on a short leash.

People forget that once a law is passed, the government has unlimited power to enforce it. For example, have you heard the President or Congress talk about a Consumer Protection Agency to protect citizens against government abuses? They act as if the government is perfect and we are its subjects. I would much rather fight against the largest corporation than against the government. Besides, if you like what a corporation is doing, you always go to the competititon. With government, there is no competition. Finally, the government will never disappear. As we have seen recently, even the largest corporations can and have disappeared.

Good comments on you part.

Thanks. I am from Florida, so I know many Cubans who have escaped repressive climate there.

You say " I would much rather fight against the largest corporation than against the government. Besides, if you like what a corporation is doing, you always go to the competition. With government, there is no competition. "

I agree.

That reminds me of a discussion I had with a good Turkish friend of mine the last time I was in Istanbul. He was complaining about capitalism and how capitalist societies are driven by big businesses using commercials to tell us what to buy and making us want things we don't need (yes, those were actually his words) and how it would be better if most things were controlled by the government. I attempted to explain that as bad as it is with "commercialism" (twisted form of capitalism) at least you can shop elsewhere in most cases, if you don't want to be brainwashed into buying stuff you don't need, you have a the choice to turn off the TV and radio. But with things run by the government, you are a captive and they have no incentive to change since there is no competition.

JB:

It looks like we are on the same page for the most part. Let's get rid of the bums and get some new ones. Maybe that will send a message to DC.

There is corruption, of course, in capitalism, but this is used as an excuse to claim that the concept is bad or evil. It is the humans twisting it, like you state, that constitute the evil, not the system itself. It is like saying that because one or two Popes are corrupt or pedophiles that the teachings of the church or the bible are evil or promote pedophilia.

We all know that this is demagoguery in its worst form!