Letter to Dr Adeline Koh

Dear Dr Koh,
   I'm writing you let you know I was partially wrong about something. I WAS WRONG, let me explain how.

This whole idea on racism and prejudice are two different things is getting me upset.  It has come to my attention that some consider only the majority capable of racism.  Suey Parks comment "Racism and whiteness go together. Only white people can be racist"  I'm trying to find where in academia this idea came from, I get it in principle but I still think it's a horribly bad idea.  If one looks up "Racist or Racism" in the dictionary this is the definition you get.

Racism
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.1 Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

In three pages of Google searching the only reference I cam across that only a majority can be racist what in the Urban Dictionary, and I cannot count that as a credible source.

I tweeted and posted in Facebook asking people to define racism.  As I walked home from work I asked random strangers on the side walk and in the subways to define Racist.  I then asked them what they thought of the idea of only a majority can be racist.  Of the 30 people I talked to disagreed with the idea that only a majority can be racist.  And the answers I got were pretty much in line with the oxford dictionary's definition.

I did find one person in a FB group that I belonged to. That gave me the answer I'm was looking for. So I an assume that when people read what she said, as did I think that she believes that all white people are intolerant of other races and believe they are better then them.  I was not raised to think that I'm better then anyone else. Weather it be because of my race or social status.  Yes there is institutional racism in the United States.  I get that I've read quite a bit about it in the last few days. But from what I've read would apply to any minority group anywhere.  That's left me to wonder if they way we treat minorities (weather it be ethnic, religious or cultural) is just part of the human condition.

I believe in one human race, science has even demonstrated that there is only one human race.  We are far less genetically diverse then we should be.  I am referring to the Toba Catastrophe Theory.

I stated before there is Institutionalized Racism in this country, but the idea that only whites are racist needs to go away.  For academics to use a different definition does so much more harm then good.  There is no point in pissing of the majority of people, then telling them that they need to educate themselves (calling them ignorant)  Most people weather it be Black White Latino Middle Eastern Jewish Indian, Native american or Asian do not want to take the time to learn about something that they don't have to.  Most of us consider that to be the job of humanitarians and activists such as yourself and Suey.  To break it down and feed it to us in little pieces that's easy to understand.

I can completely understand why Suey has gotten the backlash she has and some of it has been deserved especially when she talks about revolution and how she doesn't want white people on her side.  Or that whiteness is an illness. If saying being Asian is a illness the reverse should be just as bad.  What most people in this country want is a equal society.  If you take a look at what our white privileges are they are true of any majority group around the world.  But I know I don't and I do not believe that most white people take pride or are grateful of being a majority.  I know there is still a lot of work to be done but anger is not the way to go about it.

I point out when I think she's going to far not because I hate her or because I want her to fail but because I want her to succeed.  She's discrediting herself with a lot of her comments.  And yes when she talks about her love life on the platform that everyone is looking at she looks immature.

I have criticized her but it's all been constructive.  I have not trolled, that's insulting her with no purpose other then to get her upset.  Nor have I made any threats to her.  I've been very careful not to cross any lines that violate twitters code of conduct.  I've even come down on those who have.  There have been a few people that I won't follow because they troll.

I know I've disagreed with you two and I really think that if you and Suey are the activists and humanitarians you clam to be you can stomach others ideas.  But from what I've seen from you and Suey and those on twitter who try to engage you is that you block them.  One of them even did Suey a huge favor by alerting some people that know her that her home address was listing on her domain registration.  You get that with a whois command best way to go about that is a post office box.

I've been in the information technology field since 1995 so I have just under 20 years experience with the net.  If you have any questions for me about it I could spare some time to answer them for you.  When Suey started the #NetNonNeutral it opened a whole new can of worms and the only thing I saw was her getting on the huff post again and making supporters of Net Neutrality look like idiots. She has an opportunity to tune her audience base into the issue and point them in a positive direction towards groups like EFF and 2600.  But she chose to consolidate her support behind a cause that she was the head of.  That's where most of my issue was and that why I so heavily criticized her on it.

Anyways I hope this clears up misunderstanding, and again you are privileged to have a different understanding of Racist that most of the country is not privileged to have If you want to be an activist and a humanist you have to speak in terms the masses will understand or you will do more harm then good.

Best Regards
Derek M Snow

Neutral Network Shipping Inc.

Neutral Network Shipping Inc.

Lets say that I create a shipping company called Neutral Network Shipping Inc. To simplify things let’s say I setup bases in the nation’s 10 biggest cities, I buy enough planes for each city to send one plane to each of my other bases every night.  Things start small and are initially going well.

 

But as the business grows I notice that there are more shipments from New York to Boston then  the plane I have traveling that route can handle.  To keep my shipping network completely neutral I would have to add an additional plane to each and every one of my routes, weather they needed the increased capacity or not.   

Let’s say I choose to add another plane to the NY-Boston route and charge them a bit more for the faster service. With two planes the capacity is doubled and the shipments reach their destination faster.  The F.S.C. (Federal Shipping Commission) would then step and say that I’m giving preferential treatment to the NY – Boston route and that I was breaking the rules of my shipping network neutrality.

 

I fight the decision and take it to the Supreme Court and in the end they side with me and say that I should be able to grow my network to increase the routes in higher demand areas. This would be the an analogy of the decision that SCOTUS made in January. This allow my shipping  company to grow in the areas where it is needed the most.

Now let’s say that a slower route, say Dallas to Miami only fills up 25% of the plane with cargo and I decide that I want to use that plane for the New York –Boston route three nights and every fourth day fly a fully loaded plane from Miami to Dallas as opposed to a plane that only 25% full every day.  Even if only one package is going from Dallas to Miami the F.S.C. (Federal Shipping Commission) says that I cannot reduce traffic to any existing routes. So everyday a plane must fly even if there is only one package on it.  Now that I have control of my shipping network I’m free to expand it an areas that need expanding but I’m not allowed to reduce the volume to any existing routes.  This is what the F.C.C. is currently proposing rules that would make it illegal for providers to reduce or limit network traffic in any way.  But they can still expand it in areas that need it the most (well with a hefty fee to the shipper). 

Thought experiments with F.C.C new rules

Thought experiments with F.C.C new rules 

FCC's loose proposal off their website.   http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules

To be clear, this is what the Notice will propose:

1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;

2. That no legal content may be blocked; and

3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.

1. Let’s use this as a halfway decent thought experiment.   Lets say Verizon offers Voynage a fast lane for their VOIP service. One of the statements of the FCC new rules is that Carriers would not be allowed to charge services extra for fast lanes where there is a conflict of interest.  If you have Fios bundled with phone your phone line is already passing over VOIP directly within Verizons network.  According to the idea's the FCC is currently providing it would be illegal for Verizon to offer preference through put for a service that they have a conflict of interest.  Verizon would be legally required to provide the same speed to vonage that it provieds to it's own phone customers.  There for is Voynage customers notice breakup in their service Voynage would be in the right to file suit against Verizon for giving themselves preferential treatment.  The same would apply to Comcast as it also offers a Voip Service.

2. Here is another thought Experiment Hulu VS Comcast.  Hulu has paid for rights to rebroadcast content provided from NBC, and NBC is owned by Comcast.  There for Concast may not favor traffic from NBC over Hulu as Hulu is providing some of the same content the NBC is paying for.  If concast provides better access to their own subsidiary then they would need to provide the same access to HULU.  If they charge Hulu for preferential data they would also need to charge NBC in the same way.  

3. Lasty if you are a activist and you voice must be heard. And Verizon slows access to your site yet your site accounts for only 0.0000001% of the data moving across their network then there would be no commercially reasonable justification to ask for preferential data treatment.  If you site take 5 minutes to load 5MB of data then Verizon could be accounted for doing harm to the internet.  

Is it worth fighting idiots?

Quick Note

I've just started to really use twitter and find the sometime I cannot express all I want to say there in the limited 140 characters they limit it to.  I figured a blog may be a good way to elaborate on my ideas then link the blog post to my twitter comment.