Month: May 2014

Net Neutrality

So, there is this argument/debate going on about net neutrality.

If you are reading this, then the internet is likely a major part of your life. There is a good chance that it is involved in everything you do in some ways. If you are reading this on a two to five inch screen, then it is almost guaranteed.

I know that I am always on Facebook. I get recipes online. I use the internet to learn about everything. Even if I don’t play a lot of online games these days (time issue), the internet is where I get most of my games. Seriously, Origin and Steam take up the vast majority of a terabyte hard drive with just over a hundred gigs free on it (For those who don’t know, Origin is EA Game’s version of Steam. If you don’t know what Steam is, it has been described as “The iTunes of Games.” If you don’t know what iTunes is, I think you are probably here by accident because you are trying to figure out who left their phone laying on the bench in some public place).

Now, how does this all apply to the issue of net neutrality?

The internet is a platform that ties pretty much everything together. It is made up of a massive number of networks that are tied together by a massive backbone. That backbone, and its connections to the smaller networks, is where the battle is taking place. And it is a battle. There may not be guns involved, but the outcome will impact all of us in one way or another.

A few decades ago, it was decided that this backbone (or these backbones rather) would carry data between networks in a neutral manner. Data going to Yahoo and Google would have the same level of priority as data going to a blog or a personal web page. This simple concept built the internet as we know it. This concept was the most important building block that allowed us to build the world we have today. It is what allowed small time web developers to create empires. It is what allowed Facebook to ever become a thing. It is what allows people on AOL to access websites that are not on the AOL network (If you have been online long enough, and started out on AOL, you may have a special understanding of this one).

The concept is simple: I pay my ISP. Facebook pays their ISP. The ISP’s then pay for access to the backbone. We get access to each other (i.e. I can access Facebook). Everyone pays for what they use.

Now, enter the idea of eliminating net neutrality. Suddenly, I pay my ISP. Netflix pays their ISP. Our ISP’s pay the backbones. So far so good. Now, suddenly Netflix gets a letter from the backbone provider that goes something like this “Want to keep your bandwidth up? Send us a check, and we will make sure you get better speeds.”

Wait a minute. They ALREADY paid for that bandwidth. They shouldn’t have to pay again.

Another form that it can take, that is a little less obvious, but just as bad, say it’s not the backbone that is doing this, but MY ISP. Say, Time Warner sends Netflix a letter saying “We have a pool of customers in common. If you want them to continue to enjoy the Netflix experience, you are going to pay us.”

Wait a minute. I already paid my ISP for just that experience. I already pay a MASSIVE amount (compared to the speed we get Americans pay more for internet access than most of the rest of the world) for access to the internet, and to get good speeds. The ISP specifically said that these speeds are ideal for streaming movies.

With net neutrality, we all pay for the bandwidth we use, the ISP’s and the backbone providers get filthy rich.

Without net neutrality, we all pay for the bandwidth we use, and content providers also pay for the bandwidth we use. They pretty much have to pass that extra expense on to us if they are going to stay in business. After all, this whole most expensive crappy internet in the world thing impacts them too, not just us.

The end result is that any company large enough to be able to afford to pay the kickbacks is going to be able to keep going, but their prices are going to go up. I am probably one of the most anti-corporate people I know, but I am not likely to blame them when that happens. Some of the really large ones may be able to balance the costs in order to keep the price hike from being too much, but those in the middle won’t have an option.

The smaller companies we deal with on a day to day basis? Well, they are going to have to come up with ways to make the experience of accessing their services comfortable with sub-par speeds, because in a world where people have become accustomed to being able to download data at high speeds, a slow page load will be sufficient to kill many companies out right.

If net neutrality dies, then so does an important part of the net. Net neutrality is what keeps the internet grassroots alive. I personally have a blog (you are likely reading this either on Facebook or on that blog). My blog is hosted by a small time ISP. They have server banks in three countries, but they are still tiny as far as ISP’s go. If net neutrality dies, I hope that they can afford to pay the extra fees to keep speeds decent. If they have to raise their prices to do so, I will completely understand.

The better option though is for us to find a way to make the politicians understand that net neutrality is important to the little guy, and the little guy is who votes for them. We need to find a way to insure that the politicians feel that their stance on net neutrality can have a real impact on their electoral chances. Just as importantly though, we have to make sure that this happens while the opposition is spending massive amounts of money to make things go their way.

After all, in a post “Citizens United” America, their stance on net neutrality already impacts their chances at reelection, because the telco’s are spending money on lobbying and advertising. Guess who is going to get the big corporate bucks for their campaign war chests.

The Argument For Humanist Chaplains

There has been a lot of talk lately about “Atheist” Chaplains, and Atheist groups pushing to get them instated in the US Military. Fox News and other right wing outlets are playing it up as part of their imagined attack/war on and/or persecution of Christianity. I know the word imagined can be seen as inflammatory, but that is what it is. Imagined. That is a conversation for another post.

Real simple, while Christianity is by far the largest, most represented, faith group (or combination of faith groups) in the US Military, other groups exist as well. A lot of military personnel think of themselves as Humanists. With the exception of a few liberal Unitarian chaplains, that are functionally broad minded Christians, there is no Humanist representation among the Chaplain Corps. For that matter, when it comes to issues of accommodation and facilitation, a lot of Chaplains don’t know what is needed to support a Humanist group.

Most of the time, in this situation, the answer would be clear. Track down a phone number or an email address for a fellow chaplain that belongs to that group/category and ask them. The problem is that we don’t HAVE any Humanist Chaplains.

Notice something about the last two paragraphs. I don’t use the word Atheist anywhere in them. There is a reason for that. The groups that are pushing this are not asking for “Atheist” Chaplains. They are asking for “Humanist” Chaplains.

There are different kinds of Humanists, just like there are different kinds of Christians. Look at the difference between Catholics and Baptists, or Methodists and Seventh Day Adventists. They have some basic differences in their beliefs, but their beliefs are similar enough in nature that they can all be comfortable using the label Christian. They also share a common set of concepts and ideas that are derived from these beliefs. It forms a common set of experiences and a common vocabulary with which they can discuss these ideas. It is the commonality that makes them all Christians.

The same goes for Humanists. There are Secular Humanists, Buddhist Humanists, even representatives from various different spiritual traditions that think of themselves as Humanists first.

I myself am Buddhist. I practice a Humanistic form of Buddhism. This is to say that I am a Humanist first and a Buddhist second. That is true for most of the practitioners of my religion. Humanism is a part of who and what we are.

I am a Humanist. Humanism is the core of my morality. Humanism is the foundation of my beliefs and influences my every action, and my every decision. It is what provides me strength in times of suffering, and support in times of grief. It is the source of my spirituality. For me, it very much plays the same role as any other faith or religion does for others.

I would like very much to have a chaplain available that knows the language that I speak. One that can understand the way I think, the way I look at the world. One that is not going to look at me differently because my source of morality, my source of faith, my focus on life does not have or require a specific divine entity.

I am often alienated by the very community I serve because they do not understand the way that I look at the world. They make comments disparaging my faith as if it were not even real. They question if people who think the way I do can even understand concepts such as awe, wonder, or even joy and sadness. They say things without even realizing it that make me effectively “Other,” an outsider. And there are no Chaplains in our armed forces that can support me fully, because the military would rather pander to the concerns and fears of the Christian majority than actually fulfil their promise to support the troops in their spiritual needs.

I think the simplest summary of the situation is this: A faith group that doesn’t have Chaplains wants Chaplains. They have an endorsing authority that meets all the prerequisites. They have men and women they are willing to endorse that meet all the prerequisites other than having an authorized endorsing agent. If these people were allowed to become Chaplains, they would still be in the vast minority. Christians would not be harmed in any way. Those who profess to be Humanists would greatly helped. Religious freedom in the military would be improved.

When the subject first came to public light, there was a massive freakout, and politicians started playing the issue to their advantage by “Championing the Christian Cause.”

Basically, those politicians intentionally muddied the water, and changed words in order to freak out their base and use that fear to get more votes. I am not pointing fingers, because Republicans and Democrats alike lined up to say “We will protect your rights.” And by protecting their rights, they meant their feelings. In order to protect people’s feelings, they would proceed for multiple years to stomp (or rather renew their stomping with great vigor) on the rights of others who were not like them.

They would replace the word Humanist with Atheist, because the word Atheist scares people. They would insist that the military already had counselors, entirely discounting the need for actual Chaplains all together. They would propose bills to create a position for an “Atheist Chaplain,” knowing full well it would get no support and serve merely as a punching bag for them to attack to get more votes.

First off, no new positions are needed. The current Chaplaincy has the infrastructure and guidelines to support an interfaith community if they so choose. We already have Chaplains that are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist (Pretty much numbered in order from largest to smallest group). These are not four “positions,” or four “staff corps.” They are all Chaplains. They all have the same job description. Other than denominational and religious requirements placed on them by their endorsing agents, they all have the same rules and guidelines.

No new position is needed. They simply need to look at the organizations that have come forward and presented their credentials as endorsing agencies, and pick at least one. I am not saying they should just give it away. I am saying that they should verify that the organization meets their requirements, and move forward in partnership with them. They should treat them the same as they do any of the other two hundred or so endorsing agents.

Humanists are not all Atheists. Atheists are not all Humanists. A Secular Humanist Chaplain however would be able to understand the needs and thought processes of other Humanists. They would better understand where they gain their strength, their will the fight, their moral compass.

And briefly, for those who don’t know, and haven’t figured it out from the label yet, rather than our belief or disbelief in a particular deity or creative spirit (in the entity sense, rather than the metaphorical sense), it comes from our belief in our fellow man. We are driven by our belief in the potential that rests within us all. We believe that we should do what’s right because it is right and not because there is any reward in it. We believe that our most sacred duty is to work to create a better world for ourselves and our fellow man.

Want to know what the funniest part is? There is as much push back from the Atheist Community on this as there is from the Christian Community, because they have bought into the same damned notion of an “Atheist Chaplain,” as the Christians have. No, the Atheists for the most part don’t care if they have a Chaplain. Labels matter.

Christians are uncomfortable with the idea. Atheists are uncomfortable with the idea. I imagine some other religious groups may be as well (mostly because of the labeling). Humanists however need this.

Just remember, allowing other people the same rights that you have does not diminish your rights. Disallowing other people rights that you have however does eventually diminish your rights. If we allow anyone to be treated as less than human, it will eventually come back to us.