I mailed this letter to Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) on December 28, 2010. I received this response (via email) on January 10. Kudos to him and his staff for keeping good records (I did not include my email address in my letter but I have sent him emails before on issues that included my home address as proof I was a constituent.)

I am posting this because I want to encourage others to write to their members of Congress – you might get a response! Also, I wanted to acknowledge Congressman Ackerman for his fast response and highlight his position on Net Neutrality.

Thank you for contacting me to express your views about government regulation of the internet. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this important issue.

The internet has transformed the way we communicate and share knowledge; it has spread information, spurred innovation, and connected the world in ways that were inconceivable just over a decade ago. Like no other advancement in history, the internet has become an indispensible ingredient of our education, our culture, and our democracy.

To ensure continued access to, and increased content on, the internet, it is absolutely essential that the flow of information over the internet is kept free. Unfortunately, under current law, internet providers are able to restrict the flow of online content that competes with the other services they offer. For example, this past summer, one national company began charging their customers based on bandwidth usage, limiting users’ ability to stream videos. Another large provider was recently exposed for restricting the connection speed of any users engaging in file sharing.

Fortunately, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has proposed regulation codifying six principles of so-called “net neutrality” to ensure that the internet remains an open forum over which information and ideas are spread free of discrimination. The proposed regulation would forbid providers from giving preference to certain types of material and force them to disclose any restrictions they place on their customers’ online usage. I strongly support the administration’s continuing efforts to promote net neutrality and internet freedom and will continue to advocate for its implementation.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Of course, if I can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely

GARY L. ACKERMAN
Member of Congress

One thing that has been on my mind in the wake of the horrific shooting in Arizona on Saturday is the depth of the denial that exists left, right and center in the United States on the amount of violent and eliminationist rhetoric that is spouted every day. It’s not politicizing the tragedy to talk about this, a federal judge and a Congresswoman were shot at a political event. Assassinations and attempted assassinations are inherently political.

Loughner may be mentally ill or he may not be. That is irrelevant when you consider the scope not only of the violence that has been perpetrated, but the scope of the threatening rants and vile hatred that are broadcast, not just on the internet, or radio or television – but by official candidates for Senate and other offices in the Republican party. One of the ideas that seems to be recurring lately is that any individual can soak up toxic ideas in the culture around him or her and they can manifest themselves in surprising and unpredictable ways. This is true.

To call for “both sides” to tone it down is meaningless. On the left, there is no talk of “second amendment remedies” for “domestic enemies in Congress.” No one dares suggest that “if ballots don’t work bullets will.” There have been no calls to “gather your armies” or “break their windows” (with subsequent broken windows, cut gas lines and threatening phone calls). Howard Dean, Bill Richardson or Kirsten Gillibrand – all Democrats who are also strong 2nd Amendment supporters have never ever held fundraisers where people shoot M-16’s to signal their enthusiasm.

A conservative acquaintance brought up the example of Congressman Manchin shooting a copy of the cap and trade bill in a commercial. But to me that proves my point. He was outdoors, with a rifle that looks more appropriate for hunting deer than armed insurrection, (Newt Gingrich however has said that the 2nd amendment is not for those tree hugging hunters-it’s for shooting the gubbermint) and Manchin wasn’t shooting Waxman and Markey – the people who introduced the bill – or any facsimile of their faces or bodies. He was destroying the actual piece of paper their ideas were on that he disagreed with.

In fact our leaders on the left take pride America for being a peaceful country. Nancy Pelosi pointed out how amazing a non-violent transfer of power was when she passed the gavel to John Boehner. Contrast this with the American Family Association claiming that we have sullied the Medal of Honor in recent years by giving it more often to service members who save lives than those who kill on the battlefield.

For anyone still insisting that somehow liberals are as violent as conservatives, how would you explain why Barack Obama has received an unprecedented number of death threats? George W Bush was thoroughly reviled on the left. Liberals broke Godwin’s Law every day. Any yet, there were no records broken with regards to actual violence.

I like Amanda Marcotte’s post about how pointing this out is hard to do, even when you know it’s important. She compares it to putting a cat in their carrier. But it must be done. If no one is calling out rhetoric that incites violence, people can go about their lives ignoring it. And when tragedy strikes, we think “oh that’s terrible” and then after a day or two we continue about our lives until the next time it happens. We must analyze these events together and alongside the causes. If no one is telling specific individuals that they need to take responsibility for what they say, their intensity and vitriol will grow – as will the number of people who take those messages to a twisted conclusion.

As a supporter of Civil Liberties, a baseball fan, and an American with Latino heritage, I am very interested in the controversy over this years Major League Baseball All Star Game. It’s scheduled to take place in Phoenix, Arizona. Activists opposed to Arizona’s immigration law which requires people to prove they are not “illegal immigrants” have called for a boycott of the state. Thus began “Move The Game” an organization dedicated to convince baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to move the All Star Game out of Arizona.

The intersection of sports and politics has always fascinated me. Desegregation, the Olympics, the growing popularity of women’s sports and other events show that what’s happening in the world is often reflected on the field. I outright reject any argument that a boycott of the ASG should it not be moved, or other political actions are illegitimate simply because they have to so with sports.

There is a precedent for Arizona and sports impacting the broader political discussion. In 1987, after the newly-elected governor rescinded the Martin Luther King holiday for Arizona, the NFL voted to move the Super Bowl from Arizona to the Rose Bowl in California. After Arizona voted to restore MLK day as a holiday, the NFL finally chose to host the Super Bowl in Phoenix.

I do not know if this movement will be successful, their web-page has not been updated since September. However, Spring Training is on the horizon (less than a month!) and I hope that more will be done.

I will be sending the following letter to Bud Selig, at his office address:
245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY Zip Code 10167

It is modified from the suggested letter on the Move the Game Website:

I have been a baseball fan since I was a little girl. My father taught me to play catch and all about the rules of baseball. It was one of the first things we bonded over and a love of the game is a special part of our relationship even now that I am an adult. He’s a proud American citizen, a veteran and also an immigrant. My dad came to this country as a child from Colombia.

I was shocked and angered when I heard that the state of Arizona passed SB 1070. I am opposed to racial profiling, especially that of American citizens like my father who, despite their service to our country might be singled out unfairly because of their appearance. It is for this reason that I fully support the Boycott Arizona movement and the Move the Game movement – to attempt to convince you, Mr. Commissioner to move the 2011 All Star Game anywhere outside of Arizona.

Arizona’s extreme immigration law is an invitation to racial profiling and harassment of Arizona residents and anybody who visits the state, including MLB players, an large number of whom are Latino or Black, their families and fans, an equally large number of whom are people of color and upstanding Americans.

Baseball is America’s National Pastime. It’s estimated the All-Star Game could bring as much as $60 million to the host region. Arizona doesn’t deserve to profit from discrimination and to host one of the great annual sporting events with your consent. Do what’s best for baseball and move the 2011 All-Star Game unless Arizona changes its harmful and hateful immigration law.

I have shared this letter on my blog, and via other social media on the internet and encouraged my friends, family and contacts to send you similar letters. I hope that we will convince you.

One of former New York Governor Paterson’s last actions in office was to commute the sentence of John White. Mr. White, who is Black, was convicted of second-degree manslaughter and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. White, 57, shot Daniel Cicciaro Jr. on Aug. 9 2006 when Cicciaro was part of an angry mob of white teenagers who came to his house threatening violence against is son, and some say his wife. There was a rumor that White’s son Aaron had threatened to rape a classmate, but this was untrue.

I believe that in all respects, the story is tragic. Cicciaro was only 17 years old and I cannot imagine what his death must have been like for his family. I have never met him but it makes me sad to think of anyone dying at such a young age. However, I believe that Governor Paterson’s decision was justified. Although I believe in the Unitarian Universalist Principle of the inherent worth and dignity of every person, I do not see what choice White had- at the moment that he pulled the trigger he was acting in self defense. If his story is true, and the gun accidentally discharged when Cicciaro tried to grab it, then there is no action on his part to criticize. No one is above the law, but the law cannot forsee each circumstance that may arise, and that is one of the many reasons pardons and commutations exist.

This sentiment is reflected in Paterson’s statement:

“On August 9, 2006, a young life was lost, beliefs were challenged, lives were ruined and a community became distraught,” Paterson said of the White case. “No one intended this, yet everyone suffered. … The action I am taking today is one of understanding, forgiveness and hope, which I believe are the essential components of justice.” Read the rest of this entry »

Letter writing Sunday is a meme I saw on Vegankid‘s (now seemingly defunct) blog a few years ago. The idea is to write a letter every Sunday “of social importance.” It could be to a Member of Congress, state or local government or to a corporation about an important issue. It’s something I’ve always wanted to make a habit, and so every time I write such a letter I will cross-post it here and encourage others to do the same.

Net Neutrality means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) treat all content the same. Such a policy is fair to everyone and keeps the internet a place where innovation and free speech can thrive. Activists like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have been urging the government to take action and codify this policy into law or as an official FCC rule. The reasoning is that if this is not done, ISPs could charge more for some types of content than others or even ban some websites. For example, if you get your cable television and high speed internet from Comcast, they may decide that you have to pay more to stream movies from Netflix because Netflix service directly competes with Comcast’s on demand service.

The fear is that since there are so few ISPs and in many areas of the United States only one to choose from, they could use their power to do more than further their own economic interests. What if they charged more to access websites about political ideas they didn’t like? Or banned religious or other content they found objectionable? The flip side of the coin is that some websites could pay the ISPs for their pages to load faster. So if you wanted to order a book from that neat independent bookstore online, it might load slower than Barnes&Noble or Borders. Or what if Rupert Murdoch paid for Fox News to load faster than any other news websites? This type of scheme would undermine the freedom we have on the internet today for ideas to compete on an even playing field. Considering that right now most media companies including television, radio and publishing are owned by only six firms in the United States, making the internet a place where everyone could not equally participate would be a serious detriment to free speech.

I have read the arguments against Net Neutrality. The can be summed up as follows: The internet is not broken, and so we should not fix it. Any attempt to codify net neutrality is a power grab by big government to intrude into our lives and therefore unacceptable. It is a detriment to the free market.

The first point, that making Net Neutrality the law is a power grab is not true. It would be enshrining into law the policy that has allowed the internet to grow over the past decades. We would simply be preserving the status quo. Secondly, Net Neutrality enhances the free market. One of the central tenets of capitalism is that there be low barriers to entry. Allowing some players to pay for more and better access would create an unreasonable barrier to entry for new start-ups. Also, the internet improves the free market in real life by giving consumers more information about the goods and services that are available. Allowing big companies to have better access than smaller ones would create an externality.

The FCC has recently created rules about Net Neutrality. They are a half-measure full of loopholes and are the same rules that telecom companies have been lobbying for.

It is for these reasons that I will be sending the following letter to my Congressional Representative and both of my Senators:

I am writing to you today to ask you to take action and support Net Neutrality. I urge you to support Internet Freedom Preservation Act should it be reintroduced to Congress. The FCC’s recent rules do not go far enough to ensure free speech and fair competition on the internet. Please take a stand for this important cause.

For further reading:
How to file a complaint with the FCC
On McIlheran’s disastrously simplistic opposition to “net neutrality”
Steve Wozniak to the FCC: Keep the Internet Free
The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time by Senator Al Franken
Save The Internet

When I decided to go to law school, I knew that it was going to be expensive.  But I, like many potential students, believed that my income and job potential would be worth the debt that I would take on.  Now that I’m almost 5 years out of law school, I start to wonder whether that’s true.

I see more and more articles about how a college education is no longer “worth” the price.  Many private schools (including my law school) now cost over $30,000 a year on tuition alone – forget books, housing, food, and other living expenses, which could bring actual costs to over $50,000 a year.  Community colleges, which are substantially more affordable are becoming competitive, not because of quality of education, but because of cost.  Shouldn’t education be available to the masses?  Not only the super-smart or the super-rich? Well, that was (technically) the idea.

Back in the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson passed the Higher Education Act.  The idea was that cost should not be a prohibition to a higher education.  It allowed most everyone access to low-interest student loans – regardless of financial status.  What it didn’t take into consideration was that the cost of education would rise to the point where people wouldn’t be able to pay their student loans back, even if their education was able to get them a higher-paying job.  Like many well-intended laws, there were some unintended repercussions.

I recently watched a CNBC program called “Price of Education: America’s College Debt Crisis” and it discussed a lot of complaints that I have about the current American educational system.  First, the program pointed out that more people than ever are defaulting on their student loans because they cannot get jobs that pay enough to be able to pay back the loans.  Additionally, the program pointed out one of the biggest pet peeves I have with the student loan system: unlike almost ANY other type of financial obligation a person may take out (such as credit cards, mortgages or auto loans), a student loan is almost NEVER dischargeable.

Let’s look at the defaults first.  Why are people defaulting on their student loans?  Many people say it’s because of lack of jobs – ultimately because of the poor economy.  I think that that’s part of it, but I think that there are also other factors which aren’t necessarily linked to the economy.  First, I think that schools have become greedy and money-hungry. For example, when I started law school in 2003, the tuition was just over $30,000 a year.  Today, tuition and fees are approximately $46,000 a year!  An increase of over 50% in just over 5 years.  This is hardly the exception.  According to the financial aid website FinAid.org, the average annual increase for tuition is between 6% and 9% per year, with public schools now averaging closer to the 9% increase a year.  I have a hard time believing that school’s operating expenses increased by this amount.  What will happen in 10 years?  20 years?  Will tuition break $100,000 a year?  Will banks loan this amount to students?  Will salaries match this increase?  I cannot believe that this will be the case – and I think eventually many schools will have to shut down when the demand for higher education decreases (because it becomes too expensive) and more and more people will choose not to receive higher education.

Many schools themselves do not inform students of the type of debt they will be facing, or the potential of making a salary that will pay off such debt.  Schools also “play” with the numbers to make alumni look even more successful and the school more promising to potential students.  Again, the CNBC program pointed out that schools get more public grants and funds when they show on paper that their students are successful after school, and can pay off their loans after their graduate.  In fact, there are now businesses that assist schools in providing a position image of themselves.  There are many loopholes to the legally required disclosures.  For example, a school must disclose how many of it’s students default on their student loans within the two year period after graduation.  However, all students have an automatic three-year grace period after graduation where they don’t have to pay back the loans.  Therefore, the required reporting will almost always show that a small percentage of alumni fail to pay back their loans.

Second, I think that the government doesn’t make education enough of a high-priority and because of this, society also makes it less of a priority.  Let’s look at two examples.  Recently, much of England was paralyzed by student protests when the government proposed an increase on the cap of annual fees that a student eventually has to pay back from about £3,300 (approximately $5,100) to £9000 (approximately $14,000) that a student actually has to pay.  Mind you, this is a cap – meaning the absolute highest amount a school can charge a student.  Many universities can and do charge students substantially less.  Also similar to the US, this doesn’t have to be paid back until a student graduates, has a job that pays at least £25000 (approximately $39,000), and is able to pay back the loans. The BBC has made a great summary of the new legislation which can be found here.  Additionally, if one cannot pay it back, the loans are forgiven.   New legislation passed by the Obama administration has also made similar benefits available in the US – which I’ll talk about later.  I also recently visited Mexico City and took a tour of Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) one of the many public universities in Mexico.  UNAM charges only a few cents (yes cents!!) per credit hour – in fact there were protests when the university proposed an increased tuition to an equivalent of $150 a year. These amounts are laughably small compared to an American education – yet students don’t shut down the country when they have to pay nearly 4 times as much as a British student or 1000 times as much as a Mexican student.

Why are the amounts so small?  Well, it has to do with government subsidies.  The UK and Mexican governments both value education, and subsidize a large portion of it – so that cost does not prohibit someone from seeking an education.  The United States also provides subsidies to its higher education system, but to a smaller extent. Also, private institutions are free to charge tuition as they see fit.  There’s even a growing number of “for-profit” educational institutions (i.e. Devry, University of Phoenix) that are now capitalizing on the fact that the government hands out money to people for school, and does not have to care about whether they can eventually afford to pay it back.  The United States is by far the most expensive country in the world to pursue higher education.  How can it be worth it?  I do have to point out that in Mexico – although education is affordable to the masses, it is not necessarily taken advantage of by the masses due to societal issues.  This is however changing and more people are getting educations.

Back to the defaults – what do you do when you have $200K in debt and have a low-paying job or no job at all?  Unfortunately, due to the misinformation that is out there, many students do not realize that this is becoming more and more of a common problem.  When the choice comes down to paying for food, or paying for an education that did not help you achieve a better-paying or more fulfilling job, those student loans will go unpaid.  As tuitions continue to increase, with salaries that do not, this will be a more and more common problem.  Unfortunately, the law says that these loans have to be paid – even if you can’t afford it.