Ralph Kramdem


After a yearlong honeymoon, during which the president has more than tested the limits of both his constitutionally-derived authority and basic morality, the synonymous chickens, perhaps, have come home to roost. Plummeting approval ratings symmetrical to soaring unfavorables seldom arrive without consequences. Yet Mr. Trump steamrolled first the right then the left, and left both unsteady and uncertain of their most basic instincts. Could Trumpism, bulletproof thus far – more than merely crash against political and social norms – splinter the hull and sink the whole damn ship?

Is it possible Mr. Trump’s cataclysmic rise and Adamantium base led all sides to equivocate his 35% with a majority? The president, after his first real test, doesn’t feel vulnerable. It might be more honest to say he is beginning to drift towards traditional. Democrats will certainly overreact and many will be content to float, anticipating an anti-Trump swell, and forget how to swim. What if sharks, not waves, come?

Negatives are powerful insofar as they are attached to something positive – our lowest moments, I hope, find value when they catalyze some change for good. Without something equally inspiring as Trumpism is revolting, the Left’s will be a lonely movement, an isolated ion drawn to, and drawing from, nothing.


Work in Progress: Why I turned Left.(Abstract)

There was a time when Conservatism was rationally neater than the often emotionally-driven arguments espoused by the left. At sixteen, a sophomore in high school, I read Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, and the experience was revelatory. What resonated was Rand’s air-tight logic when empowering personal worth and drive over the messiness of sentimental need. A person defines her worth — dependent on nothing other than ambition and drive — on an abiding adherence to stubborn facts.

Now, the Republican Party, arguably hijacked by dogmatic extremists, has seemingly abandoned logic and facts, and in doing so, lost the common sense and rational arguments on which much of their appeal — to both the ideological sensibilities and psychological leanings most conservatives share — is based.

Kevin Love, the Denver Nuggets, and the right-wing conspiracy against kittens

Stay with me here.

I’m on Sports Illustrated reading about how the Nuggets are trying to trade for Kevin Love. I get to the comments section and the first post is some guy going off about this government kitty assassin conspiracy theory, which was weird or maybe spam, who knows, whatever–sometimes shit get’s weird online or people get crazy or forget they’re on a sports website.Image

Let it wash over you.

Then I scroll down and this dude, let’s call him Zeus; Zeus, five minutes later, has another comment but this time he’s writing normal sports stuff, about how this would be a garbage trade for Minnesota and they can get better value from Cleveland, yada yada yada, acting like he didn’t just write 500 words on congressmen killing kitties.



The Internet’s Comcast Problem

Over the past few months you have likely overheard the phrase “Net Neutrality,” but may not have a clear idea of what it is, why people are talking about it, and why you should care.  Simply put, net neutrality is the idea that all data on the internet is equal; when you open any two websites side-by-side, they will load at the same speed, regardless of who owns them.

Currently, the internet is an information super-highway and there is only one lane.  A video on huffpost.com will load just as quickly as one on CNN.com, and nobody outside of The Huffington Post or CNN can change how quickly videos load on their respective websites.  This ensures internet service providers (ISPs), such as Comcast, Time Warner, or Verizon, cannot charge huffpost.com to maintain equal-footing with CNN.com, or vice versa.  Net Neutrality is vital to a vibrant and operational internet that fosters innovation—an internet which, unless the FCC changes its current course, looks to be a thing of the past.

The FCC, headed by Chairman Tom Wheeler, recently caused a bit of a shit storm in the online community by proposing a new set of rules which opens the door for massive changes to the internet, most of which have the potential to do far more harm than good.  The heart of his proposal grants ISPs the ability to charge websites additional fees for access to an internet fast lane.  Key to what makes today’s internet so functional is bandwidth—more bandwidth equals more speed.  In the current system every site has equal access to bandwidth; every site loads at the same speed and is part of the same internet.  And while Mr. Wheeler’s assertion that his proposal will maintain “one internet,” and not create “a fast [Internet] or a slow Internet,” might be accurate, it will certainly create a “faster” internet and a “slower” internet.  For an internet “fast-lane” to work at even faster speeds, it needs more bandwidth, of which there is a limited supply.  This extra bandwidth must be taken from the “regular” internet, making “regular” websites considerably slower.

The ability to create “fast lanes” gives cable companies that also provide internet service an unfair advantage over businesses that offer internet-based video content, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime (however, not Hulu, which has the luxury of being owned by NBC, whose parent company is—you guessed it—Comcast).  Rather than offering more competitive prices or improving customer service to better compete with streaming content providers, the Comcasts of world aim to get a leg up on their web-based rivals by either limiting the bandwidth available or charging them extra for access to the “fast lane,” and in doing so, pocket a portion of their competitor’s profits.  In either case, consumers suffer.

If Comcast shrinks the data stream for Netflix to the point where it is essentially unwatchable, consumers are forced to either deal with a substandard Netflix or rely solely on Comcast to watch their favorite movies and TV shows at nearly $70 per month.  In this scenario, Comcast has no incentive to lower its monthly fees or to improve customer service, as it has severely hindered its online rivals by forcing them to sell an inferior product.

If the FCC gives Comcast the ability to charge its web-based competition for the privilege of using a “fast lane,” the extra fees paid by a Netflix or an Amazon Prime will be passed down to the consumer, as their subscription costs will rise significantly.  In this scenario, Comcast (or Time Warner or the proposed TimeWarnerCast behemoth) has little motivation to lower prices, as their chief competitors’ monthly fees will have conveniently spiked.

The same logic applies to other online services that offer more affordable rates—Skype and Google Voice are good examples—and happen to be in direct competition with Verizon or Comcast’s TV/Internet/Telephone monstrosity of a monopoly (Monstropoly?).

In neither of these circumstances does the customer benefit, nor is Comcast compelled to improve its product, customer service, or offer more competitive rates.  More troubling is potential start-ups would be handicapped from the outset, unable to pay for access to “fast lanes” without significant financial backing.  In this potential future the creation of currently unthought-of groundbreaking and innovative products—Facebooks, Instagrams, or Youtubes—becomes increasingly difficult and exceedingly improbable.

Each of these scenarios is quite likely if the FCC’s proposal passes.  And unless something drastic happens in the very near future, Mr. Wheeler’s proposal will pass.

If any of this makes you mad: good.  You should be upset.

Because you probably will soon be paying a lot more for a lot less.

Because before being appointed as FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler worked as a top lobbyist for cable and wireless companies.

Because, if you’re like most people, you found out about this issue on an HBO comedy show[1] instead of the CNNs of the world.

Fortunately, America remains a democracy, and you can effect change (or in this case, prevent it).  Despite the efforts of the two headed monster that is Comcast’s deceptive advertising campaign[2] and its insanely powerful lobbying arm[3], your voice still matters.

We are in the midst of a 120-day period where the FCC is seeking public comment on this issue, before it decides whether to cement Mr. Wheeler’s proposal.  If any of this seems unfair, dishonest, or unbelievably frustrating, please use the tools at your disposal to stop this nonsense.

Go to either fcc.gov/comments or send an email to openinternet@fcc.gov and request that Mr. Wheeler and the FCC reject their new proposal, classify the internet as a “Title II Common Carrier,” maintain an open internet, and keep the internet as we know it alive and well.

[1] Last Week Tonight with John Oliver 

[2]In early May Comcast/Time Warner had the chutzpah to take out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal (above), bragging about their support for an open internet, while simultaneously defending their impending merger with Time Warner. (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Full-Page-Comcast-Ad-Tries-to-Sell-Public-on-Time-Warner-Deal-128934)

[3] Comcast spent over $18 million buying political influence in the last year alone, second only to defense contractor Northrop Grumman.

Digital Embers

In nothing we are everything. Each friend, acquaintance, and enemy, a perturbed and narrow blur, orbiting near, but still outside our atmospheres. An ant crawls across the screen, a giant against pixels, our digital candle light—it doesn’t flicker, just burns—projected into blood-shot eyes, the only light blank faces see, pale, basking in the same glow—the third dimension lost, staring at the second, together and alone. Rand, elegiac for the “I” amidst anthems of “we.” Now there is only me, refreshing every thirty seconds, counting affection with clicks. The glow of an 80-watt light bulb was warmer than this.

They spoke of campfires, how we would stare at embers and talk, occasionally raising our gaze, but we always returned to the flame, to each other. Did we ever look at the same fire twice, even if our gaze remained steady, our eyes fixed? The way mountain streams remain in flux around numb ankles? The pebbles under foot remained in place, though. As did the logs, hissing and popping, before they turned black, then glowed red, cooled and faded to ash. We used to curse white hares when the wind shifted our way and our eyes burned. They still watered when it turned away. Tears, yes, but not of happiness or sorrow, just necessity.

Now our fires run on batteries or are tethered to three-pronged outlets. They have channels or programs, or apps (because the other three syllables became too burdensome to carry alone). The wind and necessity now absent. Not the burning. Not the tears.

We are seeking something, seeing nothing, scrolling two fingers at a time.