Yeah... billing by device sounds terrible, but then we have this: 'If things are left to just be driven by market economics, we could end up with people paying for the amount of data that they consume to every device and that would not be a fair way to approach the market.'

This is not net neutrality, in which ISPs charge third parties for data requested by their own customers, who are already paying.

But if I'm the customer of an ISP, how is paying for the amount of data I transfer over the network not a fair way to approach the market?

It's possible I misunderstood - like if he's insinuating that if you transfer 1GB and have five devices, you'd be charged for 5GB, but that'd just be stupid. I don't see any ISPs suggesting any such thing.

Oh, please... shut your PI HOLE!

I tend to agree that, in the case of Japan - a relatively small earthquake prone island, that Nuclear may not be the greatest option. Trying to tie that somehow to nuclear power use elsewhere, though, is pretty disingenuous (as it was when they tried the same thing with Chernobyl and, sadly, overstated the impact of Three Mile Island which exposed residents of the area to less radiation than they would get in background radiation from being in, for example, the UN building).

Those are good words to live by, however the media (both conservatively and liberally biased) have demonstrated that, in their cases, it is malice.

Of course, it could be that, but it's far more likely he's trying to link the two (otherwise it's a completely inappropriate use of the semicolon). Bias in the news is not about lying, it's about creating emotional responses one way or another and getting people to link things together in a way that suits your agenda... in this case, an anti-nuclear one.

CNN.com are not the only ones, and there is even a link to an article insinuating American plants aren't safe (even though they come out and say it). This is persuasive writing... not necessarily factually incorrect, but not journalism, either.

It's funny, because last week the republicans were talking up nuclear power, too... and now the media (what I heard this morning, anyway) is firmly planted in trying to show why republicans are idiots for pushing nuclear power when it was part of Obama's agenda, too.

Ahh, to politics and never letting a crisis go to waste, and to never letting facts about Three Mile Island and the current tragedy get in the way of a good story.

It's disgusting; CNN.com's current main page headline is "Japan's reactor problems mount; death toll rises."

WTF?

I agree... I think the system needs to be overhauled, but it would still include help for those who need it and probably still save 10s, if not 100s of billions of dollars. What do we need 20 food assistance programs for?

What got me riled, though, is the belief that Americans don't care.

We don't help the needy at all? WTF have they been saying about us where you live?

The USA is the largest donor of Foreign aid, and despite what you might read, income redistribution is alive and well. We may not have "universal" healthcare, but there are plenty of other healthcare services (like medicare and medicaid), food programs, housing programs, "earned income" tax credit (that's where you don't pay any taxes but get a refund anyway)... I don't know what people outside the U.S. have been taught, but it's hardly the hellhole you've been lead to believe.

In fact, if we have a problem, it's that we have TOO many diverse services doing the same things; dozens of food and housing programs run by the federal government... and, oh yeah, that's just the FEDERAL government.

And when you present proof that the change in concentrations of CO2 are polluting the atmosphere, I might agree.

Keep in mind that I didn't challenge you to prove the greenhouse effect - that's NOT pollution.

Why not? Lots of things that plants, and even humans, need are pollutants in sufficient quantities or concentrations.

Because by that ridiculous standard EVERYTHING is a pollutant.

I'd agree with the points you made if CO2 were actually a pollutant; it's only very recently been classified as one in order to justify the taxes they want to apply.

So now plant "food" is a "pollutant."

Agree with fluxsmith... the 10th amendment quite clearly limits the powers of the federal government to specifically what is outlined in the constitution, and leaves the rest to the states (or individuals).

That we don't follow the constitution doesn't negate the fact that it's already right there.

I disagree, and it's why we're (strictly speaking) not a full blown democracy (so that's the first point I disagree with... by your standard, 80% of the white people could demand slavery be re-instituted by repealing amendments - obviously they wouldn't, but by your reasoning it would be OK if they did).

Secondly, the constitution of the U.S. gives a specific list of the responsibilities of the federal government... and leaves EVERYTHING else to the states.

Yes, it's true that we already are not following the constitution as it was written, but that's besides the point if you're arguing about a specific topic.

Lastly, you can take your carbon tax and shove it up your %$#@^$. The whole concept is complete $#^$#@, and the ONLY reason government should be taxing citizens is to pay for the operation of the government, not for social change, income redistribution, or "out of fairness."

Yeah... about 7 or 8 years ago I got Lasik; about 2 years ago I started needing reading glasses (I'm 43 now).

I'm going to find out if I can correct that, too. I don't want implanted lenses, though.