The Fort Smith City Wire has a slightly different take on the story, probably more in keeping with political reality.

“Given that current conditions indicate an adequate firm yield for our region for the foreseeable future, coupled with the recent trend of slower growth and less than stellar economic conditions, the board felt that the best course of action was to suspend the study in the absence of data that clearly demonstrates a pressing need,” noted a statement from the [River Valley Regional Water] District.

If the economy were better, the study would likely have gone forward, need or no need, in spite of opposition from the Canoe Club, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Nature Conservancy, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arkansas Heritage Commission, (the City Wire reports this as the Arkansas Heritage Commission, but I think they must mean the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission),  and the Sierra Club.

Maybe not.  But it’s time for me to put self pity aside, take up my laptop, and get the dust bunnies out of the blog.  Be advised.  I’m back, and I’ll be taking on the ideas logic left behind (That’s right, John Boozman.  Your espousal of the “Fair tax” has not escaped my notice.) and celebrating the people and groups that get things right.

The bipartisan duo argues that regulating pesticides sprayed over water places an undue burden on farmers.    Pesticide residues in drinking water place an undue health burden on the men, women, and children who drink water (everyone, last I looked), but who’s counting?  Maybe if we don’t look for pesticide residues in drinking water, we won’t find them, and the problem will just go away.  Out of sight, out of mind.

Growing food is expensive.  Continuing to ignore the very real human health and environmental problems associated with pesticide use may keep food prices artificially low, but it only delays the inevitable.

This is a noble purpose.   The “can’t we just get along?” movement has existed in various forms at least since the days when Jesus Christ made turning the other cheek a virtue.    Pacification, unlike passive resistance, however, has largely worked in favor of aggressors.   It is the reality of today that the political group or candidate capable of making the best labels wins.   Talk shows, political ads, and even what passes for serious journalism all promote the propagation of ideas as sound bites.

It’s no secret that the Republican party has the best label makers on the planet, and that largely explains why it is dominating public discourse.   It’s not likely that Conservatives (at the risk of using a label here) are going to stop throwing around the label “Socialist” where it isn’t warranted, or to stop referring to health care reform as “Obamacare.”   Those who consider themselves “Pro Life” aren’t going to give up that label, no way.  They know that the label, regardless of the validity of the actual position, lends them the appearance of a higher moral authority.  I wish the public discourse were based on debate instead of emotionally charged and often misleading monikers, but it isn’t.

For better or worse, labels sell.  Labels persuade voters.   Labels are easy to scrawl on a handy piece of cardboard and easily chanted with a crowd.  Labels identify, motivate, intimidate, pigeonhole.  They are, like so many things, a force for good or evil.  What the No Labelers (again a label) really seem to want is scrupulous, judicious label use.  After all, some positive labels are worth keeping, and some evils must rightly be so labeled.

I’m all for raising the level of discourse.  I think the work must begin with the media and the advertisers who promote their products while supporting those programs that misuse labels, mislead the public, and promote the most extreme polarization of politics.   Voters must take responsibility for their own fast-food mentality towards politics.   One might say the American brain is running to fat on a steady diet of shock jock radio and billboards.

Big news: according to reports, Google is about to cut a terrible deal with Verizon that would end the fair, open Internet as we know it.¹

The reported Google-Verizon deal would allow giant corporations to control which websites load quickly and easily on the Internet and dump everyone else onto an Internet slow lane. This is exactly the kind of unequal playing field that Google itself has opposed in the past.²

We only have a few days to stop it, so we’re launching a grassroots protest calling on Google to scuttle the deal. Will you sign our emergency petition to Google? Click here to sign:

http://pol.moveon.org/google/?id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=4

The petition says: “Google: Say no to the reported agreement with Verizon to kill Net Neutrality and the open Internet.”

The Internet was founded on the principle that all data is equal—and that no corporation should be able to decide whose data goes faster or slower. It’s this principle, called Net Neutrality, that has made the Internet such an amazing platform for individual speech, democratic action, and entrepreneurial creativity.³

And until now, Google—which uses the corporate motto “Don’t Be Evil”—has been a staunch defender of Net Neutrality.⁴ But now, Google is threatening to turn the Internet into a closed, pay-to-play, cash cow for large corporations. This move is evil, and Google knows it.

Here’s why this is a big deal. President Obama’s new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair initially came out strong for Net Neutrality, in line with the President’s campaign promises.⁵ But the big telecom companies launched a lobbying frenzy, and soon the FCC was meeting with them behind closed doors.

Because Google and Verizon are two powerhouse corporations that have historically been on opposite sides of this issue, an agreement between them will put enormous pressure on the FCC to go along with their recommendations. Essentially, two giant corporations may be deciding the future of the Internet—if the Obama administration goes along, and if the public doesn’t push back right away. Click here to help stop them now:

http://pol.moveon.org/google/?id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=5

Google was once a champion on this issue—Google chief executive Eric Schmidt once attacked “phone and cable monopolies” who “want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest.”⁶

But today’s news stories report that under the new deal, Verizon could be allowed to give some sites preferential treatment. Even more ominously, it appears that Verizon would have free rein to discriminate on the mobile Internet (smartphones, cell phones, etc). Since that’s where most people will access the Net going forward, this would essentially spell the end of Net Neutrality.

Google has issued a short, carefully worded statement challenging some of the details in The New York Times story, but it hasn’t denied that it is going along with this agreement to kill Net Neutrality.⁷ So much for “Don’t be evil.” Will you sign our petition today and tell Google not to be evil on Net Neutrality?

http://pol.moveon.org/google/?id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=6

Thanks for all you do.

–Kat, Justin, Carrie, Steven, and the rest of the team

1. “Google and Verizon Near Deal on Web Pay Tiers,” The New York Times, August 5, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html

2. “Google Just Killed Net Neutrality,” Gizmodo, August 5, 2010
http://gizmodo.com/5605310/google-just-killed-net-neutrality

3. “Network Neutrality Fact Sheet,” Common Cause, April 6, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87794&id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=7

4. Google Investor Relations: Code of Conduct, accessed August 5, 2010
http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html

5. “FCC Chair Proposes Net Neutrality Rules,” Digital Daily, September 21, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87795&id=22383-17217716-aeXBmWx&t=8

6. “Google Just Killed Net Neutrality,” Gizmodo, August 5, 2010
http://gizmodo.com/5605310/google-just-killed-net-neutrality

7. “Google Denies Priority Internet Access Deal With Verizon,” PC Magazine, August 5, 2010
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367436,00.asp

It is interesting to note that some Republicans opposed the states aid bill on the grounds that it  “bails out” the states.  That’s right.  When it’s time to bail out banks, no problem.  When states need help, they can fend for themselves.   The fully offset, deficit neutral bill will provide additional Medicaid funding as well as $10 billion dollars to prevent the layoffs of public servants such as teachers and police officers.

I think those of us boycotting these corporate donors need to make our position very clear.  We are not boycotting to protest corporations buying conservative candidates.  We are boycotting because we do not believe corporations should buy ANY candidate in any election.  Period.

The network has a poll up today about the recent ruling on California’s Proposition 8.  Currently, the response is running overwhelmingly in favor of the overturn.  You can keep the momentum going by clicking here.  Nothing is more satisfying than proving a know-it-all wrong.

Target joins 6 other companies that gave at least $100k to the GOP backed political action committee Minnesota Forward. The group freely admits that it is made possible by the Citizen’s United case, and that the group will support pro-business candidates. Story here.   Is it any secret that for-profit corporations are going to support the GOP?   Private industry over government over the individual is the rule of thumb for the free market.

Our ability as private citizens  to influence the government is inversely proportional to the amount of corporate cash flowing into campaign coffers.   It is vitally important that citizens take back their power.  Vote with your dollar to keep corporations out of government.  Shop locally owned small businesses.  Let the megaretailers know you will not give one single dollar of your income to them until they leave government to the people.  Start with Target.  Boycott Target today.   You may join the protest at MoveOn.org.