What is Net Neutrality?

What ever it is, Obama is in favor of it.  Especially when he gets to make the rules.  What ever it is, the FCC will gain control over the internet, a control that the Supreme Court has denied them earlier this year. 
   The current internet works pretty good for me.  I get broadband for $14.99 a month.  It's fast enough for movies.  I can go to any site I please.  Email goes thru, it's nearly as dependable as snail mail.  What's not to like?  And lets not mess it up. 
   There is some controversy about streaming video.  the video outfits (Netflix) love streaming video.  The service providers are luke warm, video sucks up fantastic amounts of bandwidth. requiring expensive new lines to be buried in the dirt.  The service providers, given their druthers, would charge extra for streaming video, and assign it a lower priority to allow email, web surfing, googling, and other net services to run at regular speed and streaming video to run when it doesn't interfere with other services.  They don't do that now, but they have been muttering about it. 
   Obama has messed up so many things, the economy, international relations, Iraq, healthcare, Solyndra, and my electric rates.  He has the reverse Midas touch, everything he touches turns to garbage.  With a record like that, lets keep his hands off the Internet. 

The Norks are making nice.

I wonder why.  They have released three American prisoners, which is better than average for the Norks.  I haven't heard of any negotiations, over say nukes, or economic aid, or lifting of sanctions, or anything like that.  There are the "six power" talks about nukes which have been stalled out for quite a while.  I haven't heard anything from the South Koreans, who often know more than we do about the North. 
   Has Obama made an under-the-table secret offer to the Norks?
   I think the Norks have a greater need to keep on China's good side than they do for us Americans.  China is subsidizing the Norks, to keep 'em running, fearing that a worse breakdown of Nork economy might kick off a revolution that ends up with the new North Korean government joining South Korea, a development that the Chinese cannot approve of.   

Immigration, comprehensive reform

Obama is on Face the Nation right now.  He wants "immigration reform" and is saying that if Congress doesn't do it, he will do it by executive order.  He isn't saying what kind of reform he wants.  In fact there are a lot of angles to immigration, some of them acceptable to the voters and a lot of them not acceptable.   A whole bunch of voters see immigrants as competitors for jobs, education, and wages. They fear immigrants will work for less, and depress their wages.  Unions see things this way.  "Progressives" see immigrants as potential democratic voters. 
Angle 1.  Legalizing the 10 or 11 million illegals in the country right now.  Or legalizing some of them.  Or just letting them alone, give up trying to deport them.  Or legalizing the kids, or college graduates or veterans.
Angle 2.  Allowing more workers, farm workers, programmers and high tech workers in.  Industry and growers are all in favor of this.  There is a shortage of farm workers who will do the hard work for little money.  There is always a shortage high tech workers.
Angle 3.  Revise immigration policy to favor the young, the educated,  over family members.  Current policy favors the elderly parents of citizens over young workers who can man our industries.
Angle 4.  "Securing" the border.  Nobody has said just how secure they want.  Do they want to build something like the Berlin Wall across the Mexican border?  Me, I'd settle for a chain link fence, a perimeter road, and daily patrols.
Angle 5.  How many immigrants will we accept each year?  10,000? A million?  3 million?

A comprehensive immigration bill might say something about all the angles.  Which requires Congressmen to come to agreement as to what angles go into the "comprehensive" bill.  It might be easier to pass a "non comprehensive" bill which just addresses the few angles that we can get some agreement on.   

Farewell to Campaign Promises

Neither side made any promises this time.  They didn't promise the voters squat.  Modern politicians fear to say anything of substance, 'cause on any issue there are pros and antis.  For some reason, the antis remember and pros forget.  So politicians say nothing because saying ANYTHING just gains enemies, never friends or allies. 

Should TV stations air deceptive ads?

Down at the bottom, the local station owners can decide to air, or not to air, any ad.  Is it ethical for them to air ads that they know, and everyone knows, are deceptive?  Like half the political ads aired this last election (like just this week).   The ordinary voters get their info from the TV.  The "news" programs are complete pablum, with no context, no examples, not even speeches by the candidates.  And the ads.  Most of the ads accused the other side of illegal, improbable, and unprovable crimes. If you bothered to watch, most of 'em were so far out that anyone knew they were false. 
   Should TV station owners air this stuff?  Does the money they gain outweigh the pollution of the public airwaves? 

Snow in Franconia Notch

It stopped falling.  We got two inches on my deck.  I'd expect the summit of Cannon got a bit more.  Not enough to open Cannon, but it helps. 

If you have the votes, do it.

TV is full of happy talk about "bipartisanship" and "cooperation", and other psychobabble. Let's be real, the Republicans now have the votes in Congress to pass anything reasonable.  They ought to do it.  Some of it Obama will sign.  Some of it he will veto.  Make sure the issue is framed clearly so that you can bash Obama for the veto after he does it.  Might as well start off easy, with some medium duty issues that Obama might sign, just to get things warmed up.  Then press on with some heavy duty stuff, immigration, tax reform, EPA reform, budget, deficit, and other stuff. 
   What  John Boehner and Mitch McConnell (expected Congressional leaders next term) ought to be asking is "Do we have the votes to pass this bill?"  And by how solid a margin?  Passing a bill by a mere single vote looks flaky and can make you look dumb, when some other single vote turns against it unexpectedly.  If you don't have the votes, change the bill to attract more votes, or drop it.  Don't waste time on losers. 
   Don't waste time trying to be "bipartisan".  If you have the votes, pass it. If you don't, drop it.