ISPs are already not classified as common carriers. That's why this whole debacle is even being discussed. The most obvious solution is for the FCC to classify them as the common carriers that they are.

Most amusing to me is that every time I hear about this so called "entitlement generation" it is usually from a privileged and entitled baby boomer.

Our politicians would certainly like you to think so.

I imagine that much of the water used to grow anything out here us lost through evaporation. This is why I stopped trying to go a patio garden. I just could not justify the level of wasted water that was going into it when we have such a short supply.

It could certainly change the dynamic to have more than two parties in office. But I can't imagine getting a third party in office would come without generational change. Even when there are third parties on the ballot, there is a perception that it is a wasted vote, so people don't bother. Campaign financing and access to the major privately funded public debates is a big part of the issue. When Perot had both, he demonstrated what was possible. But funding is a serious problem and since debates are privately sponsored, the government can't force candidate inclusion. Maybe I am too dire on the situation. But forced run off elections and guaranteed ballot inclusion don't really go very far to promote change. Money is the problem. And now with corporations opening their pockets to candidates and parties more than ever, the problem seems to be worse than it ever has been.

The real reason moderates have been tossed aside is because it is a lot more expensive to campaign to them. All politicians have figured out that it is much more cost effective to divide people into an us vs them mentality and drive them to the polls through fear. You will no longer find many successful candidates who campaign to the middle because it just requires too much damn money. How can you compete when your opponent can spend orders of magnitude less per vote that you can trying to run a sensible campaign? The only long term solution is to raise children to think independently and to have enough emotional maturity to break away from the group when it goes insane. Hopefully over time the middle can be strengthened to the point of making FUD campaigns not cost effective any more. It doesn't look too though because even if the "independent" vote is growing, I see no evidence that they do not fall into a right or left camp.

He said should. I have to agree with his sentiment. When people go into prison, they spend years learning from the worst of society. When they get out, no one will hire them for a serious job with their record. So when you put people in prison who are not dangerous, you are consciously deciding to transform them into a dangerous person. This is about as counter productive of a justice system as you can get.

Where the hell do you live that you need to pay property taxes on a lawnmower?

You can't seriously think large corporations like that don't run such ideas through their legal advisors.

That's new? Where have you been?

Sounds like you are at a company that probably values longevity of employment. Problem is there is a growing trend of companies that do not value long employment and drop their employees at a moments notice when the annual financials don't meet guidance. Consequently, us younger folk have no notion of company loyalty in us and will jump ship as soon as we get offered something better. Eventually you get to a point where you have moved up too high and are too old. You either find one of the rare senior positions, or you drop out once your employer spits you out.

Bad example. There is a push, but we're looking at pure protectionism. Doctors have the AMA guild with enough money to make it near impossible for a doctor without an MD from a US institution to get a license to practice medicine in the US. You could be a naturalized citizen with a MD from a top British med school and have no hope of ever practicing medicine in theUS without going back to school.

I have never seen a company have a problem getting an H1B visa for a highly skilled worker. Sometimes it takes a year, but I have never seen a company acting in good faith (paying very well for a unique relevant background) have trouble with this.

I don't understand. You point out that if companies just wanted cheap labor, they would outsource. But then you go on to point out exactly why you frequently would not want to outsource. But you use both to explain why cost of labor is probably not the issue?

This already exists for H1Bs and it is still being widely abused. They need to require companies pay them 150% the normal rate. If they are so desperately needed for their skills, this should not be a problem. We would also get to see how much of a shortage we really have.