As for the free market – anyone who believes that what’s happening right now in the economy is because of a free market gone awry is sadly and woefully mistaken. Congress encouraged banks to make bad loans and removed the natural risks from the mortgage market. Then everyone acts surprised when Wall Street takes undue advantage. If Chris Dodd and Company had stayed out of the sub-prime mortgage business, I doubt the overall economy would be in the dire straights it is now in.

Yes, because the free market is working so well for other industries right now, isn’t it.

Free market and lack of regulation will lead to tiered internet payment systems and slower speeds for all.

Thanks for pointing out my mind hiccup on Ms. Tate’s first name, I have corrected it and this comment will stand as acknowledgment of the correction. Yet another example of how moving from a mainstream news world to a blogging world will suffer due to lack of editors. I was a reporter for nearly fifteen years, and I would say that everything I ever wrote was improved by an editor.

Now where I do not need an editor is in defining “ad hominem.” As I point out above, you attacked not just her ideas and facts but her character. At the end of your piece, you wrote this:

“On the other hand, it might be good for Tate; no doubt plenty of rightsholder-backed lobby groups would love to have a former FCC commish on the board, and Tate’s speech could hardly be better pitched as a job application.”

You dismiss the notion that Ms. Tate might be motivated by actual conviction (conviction I’ve seen in person) and instead suggest her speech was meant to land her a job in the creative works industry. She may go into that world — she certainly has a passion for artists and creators — but you are in no position to know her internal motivations. You suggested intrigue and ill-intent where there is no evidence for such a suggestion. In my training as a journalist, I was taught never to do such a thing, but again, we seem to have different standards online today.

Sheila Tate?

Also, I’m not sure that “ad hominem” means what you think it means. Attacking someone’s ideas and suggesting that they aren’t the best person for their position because of those ideas is the -opposite- of an ad hominem attack.

And, as you -must- be aware, it’s not as though I read one speech of Tate’s and made up my mind. I have seen her many times and read her material many more. The piece was focused on one speech, but it represents my thought based on far more experience than that.

Not sure what else to say, since your piece doesn’t actually list the misrepresentations it says my piece is full of. But thanks for noticing and responding, at least. Cheers.