Leave Them Tubes Alone

The trouble with net neutrality

As there is no real problem with the Internet, it's not surprising that some of our top minds have been working diligently on a solution.

In a 2001 interview (one that only recently has gone viral and caused a brouhaha), Cass Sunstein, now the nation's regulatory czar, is overheard advocating for government to insist all websites offer opposing viewpoints—or, in other words, a "Fairness" Doctrine for the Web. This was necessary because, as hundreds of millions of Internet users can attest, ferreting out competing perspectives online is all but impossible. (A search for "Cass Sunstein" on Google, for instance, barely generated 303,000 results in 0.19 seconds.)

And what if websites refused to acquiesce to this intrusion on free speech? "If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction, it would be great," Sunstein said at the time, "and if we can't get voluntary arrangements, maybe Congress should hold hearings about mandates." After all, Sunstein went on to say, "the word 'voluntary' is a little complicated. And sometimes people don't do what's best for our society." Mandates, he said, were the "ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better."

Actually, the word "voluntary" isn't complicated at all. And mandates do not "encourage" people to do better; mandates "force" people to do what those writing regulations happen to think is better. We're intimately familiar with the distinction.

In truth, I've enjoyed many of Sunstein's counterintuitive arguments and read his idealistic notions about "nudging" (and sometimes a bit more, apparently; I guess it's complicated) irrational people into "rational" choices. Sunstein is an intellectual who thinks aloud. Obviously, that can come back to cause you some problems.

Then again, would an impulsive intellectual who wondered aloud about coercing universities to offer more right-wing professors—or who casually entertained the idea of dispensing with the First Amendment—be tasked with the job of overseeing the health of the nation's entire regulatory system, which holds so many real-world consequences? Doubtful.

Sunstein, it must be noted, later backed off his dictatorial approach to dealing with the non-crisis of our narrow online reading habits by claiming that the Internet is "too difficult to regulate in a way that would respond to these concerns." In other words, he concluded that the Internet is too complex to allow for the types of regulatory intrusions we insist on in other areas of everyday life.

Others have not backed off, though. The Federal Communications Commission has been working diligently to find a way to act on the same control impulses that Sunstein had in mind, with something called "net neutrality."

I know it sounds wonderfully fair. But the reality of net neutrality makes as much sense as mandating that tricycle riders have the same rights and privileges as cars and trucks on our roads—highway neutrality.

The FCC promises it doesn't have any intention of controlling Internet content, only of making access fair. But empowered with the ability to regulate the flow of online traffic, it offers a semantic, not substantive, excuse for a power grab.

Like Sunstein, the FCC should acknowledge that the complexities of the Internet are beyond the ability of control. Not to mention unnecessary.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Vajazzling||

    Video clip of Obama being upstagede by rodent. Even the rats are aandoning Obama's ship:

    http://www2.nationalreview.com.....110_C.html

  • PIRS||

    I remember once he was upstaged by a fly. It angered him so much that he murdered this innocent citizen of his new utopia.

  • Wegie||

    He had to kill it. The fly was more intelligent than him!

  • ||

    That is one exceptionally punchable face.

  • ed||

    But he was really funny on Scrubs.

  • ¢||

    Sunstein is an intellectual who thinks aloud.

    No. He's a reflexive and enthusiastic authoritarian who can't keep his Mao-hole shut in the presence of an audience. That's why his carefully crafted books and articles sometimes seem sort of reasonable (to suckers), but he sounds like an Orwell villain when he improvises. It's who he is.

  • ||

    Wow, sounds to me like this dude might have some serious issues.

    Lou
    www.complete-anonymity.at.tc

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Right as usual, Lou.

  • ||

    Sunstein, it must be noted, later backed off his dictatorial approach to dealing with the non-crisis of our narrow online reading habits by claiming that the Internet is "too difficult to regulate in a way that would respond to these concerns."

    Note that this is not someone who is opposed to regulating the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas on the internet in principle.

    Rather, this is a jackbooted thug, complaining that he is too fat and slow to put the beatdown on everyone who he thinks deserves it.

  • ||

    So he wishes to tazer the internet then? I'll bet my sweet bippy he was bullied as a kid. Or his first first girlfriend giggled at the sight of his penis.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    It's been years, literally years, since I let my car radio linger on Michael Savage's show, and more literally I listened to a total of one ten-minute segment - and have not touched his show since - but he did say one thing that made sense, hidden amongst his rabid blatherings:

    The Ds AND the Rs would love to find a way to quash public criticism of their respective parties.

    Even a hateful swine like Savage can be right once in a while. I believe that theory, and I see tools like Sunstein as being in favor of government doling out political dissent on "the public airwaves" (which, somehow, includes the internet now, according to the FCC), and eventually removing the ability to speak ill of the sitting administrations of the future.

    Orwell be spinnin' in his muthafuckin' grave.

  • JohnD||

    Even a hateful swine like Savage can be right once in a while?

    Come on "Guy", tell us how you realy feel!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I don't know about what he's said since then, John, but IMO he was right when he said that the Rs and Ds would dearly love to eliminate criticism of their policies.

    Don't you?

    Note that I heard him say that about two, three years ago, and I haven't listened since then. So... no worries, eh? I'm no fan of Savage. Jot that down if you need to.

    You DID read the whole post, carefully... right?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Sunstein should write another book about how he masturbates to Plato and fancies himself one of the enlightened philosopher-kings whose moral duty it is to "nudge" or trick the imbicile masses into accidentally achieving the "greater good".

    He feels as if he has solved the problem of Americans' deep-seated aversion to being forced to act against their own judgement by steering them toward the "right" decisions by artificially making some choices less or more attractive than others and therefore making the idiots think they made these choices for themselves.

    His first mistake is to think that Americans are too stupid to understand that the nature of this "nudging" is still force and his second mistake is that he forgot to write his books in the secret philosopher king language so that we could not read them.

  • ||

    Correct, as with the U.S. health care where there is no real problem, make one. We should insist as well all colleges taking money from the government offer opposing viewpoints. On the other hand, the Internet has morphed from that fixed collection of routers and wires to a means of communications spanning airwaves even into space itself. It would not be unreasonable to regard recent predictions of the Internet’s demise as more prescient than hysteria. This business of neutrality may indeed push the Internet to evolve into a new method of communications which would be beyond the reach of the present government’s paranoia about what people say and think about it.

  • Corduroy||

    The government has no interest in fostering internet competitiveness or "net neutrality". It does have an interest in reducing the number of players to the point that they can strongarm them into submitting to their evergrowing thirst for information and data.

    A fractured internet with thousands or tens of thousands of providers and billions of users is impossible to police. An internet with one or two providers and billions of users is much easier to police.

    The government would prefer an internet monopoly. It makes it easier for them to screw people over and provides a platform for even more social tinkering. I hate bureaucrats.

  • Sher||

    Corduroy,
    It is my belief after doing much research that the control of the Internet by our Government is another piece of the New World Order puzzle.

    Our government will be able to charge us for the use of the internet, and at any time they deem necessary, they can shut us out, along with keep records of everything we do and say on line. At the time of a major emergency and they call FEMA in, we will have no internet.

  • Brother Wolf||

    What I don't get is how 20 somethings are generally so much in favor of regulating the internet.

    3-4 years ago I would not have predicted that. It's sad how easily manipulated people are: just frame it as sticking it to "big corporations" and it's automatically a good thing.

  • ||

    The main promoters of net neutrality are people who want to use bit torrents to download DVD or even Blu-Ray quality pirated movies over their broadband connections. They were upset that Comcast and other internet service providers blocked or impeded bit torrents. They believe that equal treatment of all internet data will let them download dozens of gigabytes of torrent files each day.

    Net neutrality proponents focus only on their wants; they have no understanding of how broadband internet works. ISPs must prioritize bandwidth use so that they please most of their customers most of the time. Live video and streaming video need large amounts of uninterrupted bandwidth. Internet radio and voice-over-internet protocol need moderate amounts of uninterrupted bandwidth. Web page loading needs moderate amounts of bandwidth but can tolerate short interruptions. E-mail and file downloading need low to moderate bandwidths and can tolerate interruptions. Bit torrents only need low bandwidths and can tolerate frequent interruptions. Given these factors, an ISP that gives equal priorty to each packet of internet data will end up with many unhappy customers when their streaming media feeds are frequently interrupted because e-mail, file download, and bit torrent packets get equal priority.

    The demand for equal treatment of all internet data is illogical and will worsen our internet experiences.

  • Paul||

    To be fair, some net neutrality proponents, especially of the progressive bent, are convinced that without net neutrality, Comcast and/or other access providers *might* (even they admit their arguments are purely theoretical) squash content from other providers that compete with them.

    Believe me, I've spent hours on other boards duking it out with progressives who were literally--literally foaming at the mouth in defense of Disney, GE, NBC, ABC, HuLu (joint venture of several multinationals) etc.

    It was literally topsy turvy. Whenever I would criticize Net Neutrality, I would always get four or five follup comments demanding to know my employer or my financial affiliations, or plainly accuse me of being a planted executive from Comcast or some other broadband carrier.

    Unfortunately, at the time, it never occurred to me to demand their employers or financial affiliations, or suggest that they were planted execs from NBC, Disney, GE or Hulu.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The only threat to content on the internet is from the government itself, when it has power to create provider monopolies. In an open market, providers who squash content will simply cause a proliferation of competing delivery methods - a good thing.

    Of course many people don't understand this. They actually believe that government regulations are meant to reign in "evil" corporations. They don't understand that big companies thrive in a heavily regulated environment because it kills off smaller competitors, and in practice creates the same outcome collusion would - a few huge companies offering essentially the same product at similar prices.

  • ||

    I am pretty active in Usenet and bit-torrent communities. (All good and legal of course)

    Government has a big interest in controlling content but no real concern in the amounts of data.

    ISP Corporations have have a big interest in controlling very large amounts of data but no concern in controlling content. (Comcast owning NBC will thus double whammy)

    Usenet and Bittorrent are dependent on both nefarious content and large amounts of data. If the other users were smart they would not turn their back on either.

  • ||

    What I don't get is how 20 somethings are generally so much in favor of regulating the internet.

    Because they think it will mean they can download pirated crap without having to pay for their connection.

  • Brother Wolf||

    Yeah, but once the foot gets in the door, the FCC will probably use their new authority to restrict "unlawful" content.. so they are screwing themselves.

  • The FCC||

    I will make sure your packets are fairly delivered... I just need access to them. All of them. And your encryption keys.

  • Paul||

    Those who demand more government involvement always are.

  • ||

    They were upset that Comcast and other internet service providers blocked or impeded bit torrents.

    Or, in my case, they may start blocking my legal and paid for Netflix streams, and then try to flog some grotty pay per view nonsense. If they can't give me the bandwidth I need, don't sell it to me that way. I was *sold* unlimited bandwidth. Fuck 'em if they don't like that I actually use it. Provide what they promised or renegotiate the contract at a lower rate.

  • ||

    Sunstein and his crowd don't accept the word "property". They don't accept that someone who owns something sets the rules of it's use. They think that everything belongs to the collective and the public at large. And if they can't "nudge" their way to control of the property they'll regulate it.

    The Telecom companies own the routers, switches and wire. They contract with customers and other providers and landowners to allow this service to exist. No where in that is a place for the government...and Sunstein can't handle that. How can you control what's not yours? He has to get control over it some how.

    Sad. Without property rights...there is no Liberty.

    cl

  • Robert David Graham||

    You forget to add Google's power grab. Google lobbies for NetNeutrality because it gives them more control over the tubes.

    The "fairness" is that Google wants is an Internet were everybody is equal, but some (namely Google) are more equal than others.

  • qwerty||

    "sometimes people don't do what's best for our society."

    So they're damn well gonna make us. I really hope we wake up from this national nightmare.

  • ||

    I'm not so sure Net Neutrality is a terrible iea.

    Why?

    Because otherwise reasonable markets for bandwidth, throughput, latency would exist in the context of very limited competition among residential broadband ISPs thanks to municipality-granted 'franchise' cable monopolies and only partial telecom deregulation.

  • Corduroy||

    Wireless access will fix that. That is, if the FCC doesn't kill it first.

  • pete muldoon||

    I'm a leftist, and Cass Sunstein makes me want to vomit.

    But the idea that it's somehow ok to leave the control of internet content in the hands of Comcast et al, so long as the government doesn't get its hands on it, ignores the reality that government and Comcast act as one.

    This is a reality that libertarians, who I am in many ways sympathetic to, simply deny.

    Government can be the ally of Comcast, or it can be its counterweight. If we do nothing, it will be the ally.

  • >-<||

    Government can be the ally of Comcast, or it can be its counterweight.

    Establishing regulatory authority over an industry ties the government and the industry together in a bond of common interest. If you believe that the government and Comcast currently act as one, then you should be able to understand that adding greater regulatory authority will allow the regulators to extort more out of Comcast, but will not make the regulators more responsive to the public interest. The biggest effect will be to shift the balance of power a little to the side of government. The bureaucrats will have nicer offices, ride in fancier cars, indulge themselves with higher quality hookers, enjoy ritzier junkets and have more retirement options, but Comcast and the government will still be bound by common interests.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yes. The people at Comcast are smarter than the regulators, and heavily motivated. They will figure out a way to exploit the regulations in the long term, regardless of how they regard them now. The result will be less efficient than what you would get by simply allowing an open market.

  • Klone of Kurzweil||

    I wouldn't worry too much about net neutrality. The Singularity is nigh. Soon all humanity will transform into beings of pure energy and will Ascend to a higher plain of existence to dwell with the Ancestors.

  • ||

    Do you have a copy of the Elder Eddas lying around? I seem to have misplaced mine.

  • ||

    Anyone got a Ham Sandwich?

  • ||

    We have an all-volunteer military but all eligible 18 year old males must register with Selective Service just 'in case' they might need to have a draft.

    Same convoluted thinking. Same big government.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Liberal powermongers and their minions can whitewash this all they want about the business end of this argument, but what they REALLY want is control over political content on the internet.

  • π||

    Have a heart, it took a lot of effort for the political class to finally control the flow of information so they can do what's best for the country. Now this silly Internet thing has come along and placed the entire nation in perilous danger with it's fascist free flow of information. The social engineer's master-plan must not be stopped, all life depends on their unobstructed control of all things on Earth. They really are the only ones qualified to know what's good for us. We are all so unbelievably fortunate to be their property. Anyone else wouldn't care nearly so much about us.

    On the other hand, if these vile despots start hanging out at the beer hall, watch out.

    What's best for America is what most Americans want, to rule their own lives. Someone wants to do something good for America, no problem, fight to force the feds back within their seventeen limited and enumerated powers. The opposite route, the granting by acceptance of even more illegal powers is the road to certain hell and ruin.

  • Three Stooges Gag||

    Moe: What's a beer-hall putsch?

    Curly: You putsch your beer down and reach for the pretzels!

  • ||

    Would neutrality mean that Nickelback would have to include the opinions of those who think Nickelback sucks on their own site?

  • geo1113||

    There wouldn't be enough bandwidth.

  • Brian||

    Lie much?

    Net Neutrality has *nothing*, I repeat *NOTHING* to do with the "fairness doctrine". It does NOT mean that every web site must allow for opposing viewpoints, nor does it mean that even ISP's provide for alternate viewpoints. It doesn't mean that ISP's can't throttle users who use too much bandwidth, nor charge more fees for excessive users.

    All it means, in a nutshell, is that ISP's TREAT EQUAL TRAFFIC EQUALLY. That 1 mb from foxnews.com costs the same, and gets the same network priority as 1 mb from socialists.org. Educate yourself on the issue before you spout off, please.

  • ???||

    All it means, in a nutshell, is that ISP's TREAT EQUAL TRAFFIC EQUALLY. That 1 mb from foxnews.com costs the same, and gets the same network priority as 1 mb from socialists.org.

    I am flabbergasted. I had no idea that I was being charged different fees according to which sites I visited. I thought I was just being charged a monthly fee for "broadband service". I guess I need to demand a fully itemized bill.

  • Brian||

    That's the point. You're currently NOT being charged differently for the content you access. Net Neutrality seeks to PRESERVE this system.

  • JohnD||

    Brian also still believes in the tooth fairy...

  • ||

    The only reason you're still being charged a monthly fee instead of an itemized bill is because the technology to do the 'deep-packet' inspection required is still in it's infancy. That's why this problem hasn't started to manifest itself until very recently. Once ISPs have the technology to carry this out on a wide scale, they will. Normally competition would take care of the problem, and we wouldn't need Net Neutrality, but in the US many areas only have 1 or 2 service provider options that hold a monopoly on internet access.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Brian, do you seriously trust that the FCC will never be involved in doling out political content?

    If so, you are a fool.

  • π||

    Stupid much?

    Are you denying Cass Sunstein made the statements attributed to him?

    The point wasn't what Net Neutrality entails, genius, it's what those seeking the foot in the door have let it be known they desire.

    Now go back to sleep. You write less ignorant nonsense when you aren't technically "awake."

  • Brian||

    I don't give a rip about what Cass Sunshine said nine years ago. The comment he made, as stupid as it was, has jack and squat to do with "Net Neutrality".

  • Corduroy||

    In the long term, Net Neutrality WILL be about content control. Not necessarily political, but still about content - copyrights, trademarks, ip, pornography, etc...

    No bureaucrat is going to miss out on the opportunity to police content, ever.

  • JohnD||

    Brian, once the camel's nose is in the tent, it's hard as hell to get him back out again. Get it?

  • π||

    Never trust a man named "Cass."

  • Tom Bubenik||

    You are such a stupid shit. if you knew anything about anything. you'd know that net neutrality is how it is NOW. we are working to preserve that, because the telecoms want to be able to disallow certain services or charge more. you would understand that net neutrality is the very thing you want, because it virtually assures free speech will not be impinged by the whims of the telecoms.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    We're more worried about free speech being impinged by the whims of government.

    As you should be, Tom.

  • ||

    This has nothing to do with government stepping in. For once this is an issue where the government is doing something right (i cant believe i'm saying that) and preventing a corporation from limiting civil liberties for their expense.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Do you really think the Sunsteins among our elected/appointed leadership, would NEVER want to impose their control over internet content?

    I can't bring myself to trust ANY administration *not* to try it. Can you?

  • ||

    I believe that a paraphrase of one of Thomas Jefferson's remarks fits - a paraphrase, 'cause can't trust my memory any more and too lazy to look it up - "It is said that men are unfit to govern themselves. Have then angels been found in the form of bureaucrats to govern them?"

    Freedom is what happens when we each get to do with ourselves, our lives and our property whatever we damn well please, within a framework of the rule of law, evenly enforced property laws, and a bit of a judicial system to go after contract-breakers and the odd fraud. Whatever results from that is freedom, whether any of us like the outcome or not. (Grossly oversimplied, in the interests of space.)

  • Wow||

    I'm having trouble figuring out what Harsanyi knows less about, net neutrality or Cass Sunstein. This article is like some bizarre buzzword free association.

  • ||

    I love this site, but this post dosent even come close to talking about what net neutrality is all about. It just blathers about some obama admin moron no one cares about. Seriously what the hell is this? How lazy did the research staff get? This dosent even begin to talk about net neutrality.

    Net neutrality is the most important libertarians should be thinking about. It ensures that no government or corporation controls the free flow of information the internet.

  • JohnD||

    "Keep", it must be nice to live a a fantasy world. Most people here (rightly) do not trust governement to do the right thing. This administration has made this feeling worse.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Wow. It must be nice to have such blind trust that our government will never stoop to using Hugo Chavez tactics on our own media and internet...

  • Triatomic Tortoise||

    The article is nice. The follow-up comments are garbage. Like other news sites, people are posting BS here.

  • ||

    The article is shit. The follow-up comments are genius. Unlike other news sites, people are posting excellence here.

  • Free market fool||

    Seems to me I'd prefer several corporations controlling content (with the requisite competitors provided by the market), to one monopolistic government controlling content.

  • ||

    You are right that it's beneficial to have multiple controllers of content as opposed to one, but this isn't what net neutrality really is.

    Net neutrality states that the internet is free of restrictions on access and content, regardless of who you are or what you pay to access it. Just as we wouldn't want companies deciding what can go on the internet, we don't want an overly controlling government censoring it either. The true goal of net neutrality is a totally free internet (or at least to an extent. Not many people have issues with the government removing child pornography for example). Hopefully if net neutrality is implemented correctly we can have a free internet with only laws protecting freedom from oppressive corporations (similar to anti-trust laws) and not laws to encourage an oppressive government.

    The reason net neutrality is a debate now (even though the net is perfectly fine as it is) is because there are lobbyists on both sides of the issue. Major corporations would love to control the internet as tightly as they control the television networks, and it has become a battle for the future of the internet, not the present. Indeed, if companies weren't vying for control there would be no debate at all and the internet would exist as it does now.

  • Stan O||

    Why can't a business control the information over it's own network? Or control what it charges for data? Should the government dictate that restaurants charge one price for dinner, regardless of the size of the meal or what food is served? Isn't that just as logical? After all food is more important than internet information.

    It's about converting the internet into a government utility. Obama is Roosevelt redux. Roosevelt did the same thing with electricity.

    If government got their filthy paws out of telecom, maybe we would have option in broadband. Fios has been great, but it took a year longer and was probably 20% due to local government, not even included the state or feds.

  • abercrombie milano||

    Net neutrality states that the internet is free of restrictions on access and content, regardless of who you are or what you pay to access it. Just as we wouldn't want companies deciding what can go on the internet, we don't want an overly controlling government censoring it either. The true goal of net neutrality is a totally free internet (or at least to an extent. Not many people have issues with the government removing child pornography for example). Hopefully if net neutrality is implemented correctly we can have a free internet with only laws protecting freedom from oppressive corporations (similar to anti-trust laws) and not laws to encourage an oppressive government.

    The reason net neutrality is a debate now (even though the net is perfectly fine as it is) is because there are lobbyists on both sides of the issue. Major corporations would love to control the internet as tightly as they control the television networks, and it has become a battle for the future of the internet, not the present

  • MrGuy||

    Can you imagine the sheer workload it would take to find/write opposing viewpoints for news that comes out by the second? My God, you'd have to have a workforce of over a million people just to cover some of the major webpages! I wonder who's going to pay for it all...

  • wffwe||

    The reason net neutrality is a debate now (even though the net is perfectly fine as it is) is because there are lobbyists on both sides of the issue. Major corporations would love to control the internet as tightly as they control the television networks, and it has become a battle for the future of the replica omega internet, not the present. Indeed, if companies weren't vying for control there would be no debate at all and the internet would exist as it does now.

  • ||

    As there is no real problem with the Internet, it's not surprising that some of our top minds have been working diligently on a solution.

    Until these jackasses acknowledge that internet providers are in their position of dominance due to government-granted monopolies, I can't take them seriously. Fortunately, these morons, and David Harsanyi is a moron, will be bailed out by true competition in a couple of years. Let's take some jackass how has no knowledge of how utilities came to prominence, and phone companies are in that realm, and have him disregard the reason net neutrality is an issue in the first place and *poof* we have yet another Harasnyi article that misses the point completely.

  • ||

    If the concern used to justify Net Neutrality is the potential for businesses to unfairly handle their own content and the content of competitors, then if it were to be done would not the FTC be more appropriate an agency than the FCC, anyway?
    The specific mention/choice of the FCC, an agency which is in practice concerned with content at least as much as it is with its delivery, is unsettling.

  • Cheap Christian Louboutin||

  • ugg boots store||

    Very vivid appearance, perfect plot, challenging game. Many of us put this game as a very important part of life. Surprise,when I browse the web ,I found these website Pretty good. such as xxxxxx, go and see it that rich variety of fashion at a reasonable price !

  • oksupra.net||

    Supra sneakers

    Mens Supra shoes

    There are some classic Supra sneakers, and I am sure that everyone knows, the unstoppable Supra Skytop. This is easily the most popular Supra footwear per minute, simply go to the MTV and shows the cult by wearing them. Supra Thunder shoes becomes the most popular style of the Mens Supra shoeson 2010. You should know that Supra Suprano shoes are loving by the most young people who also like the skateboarding. In particular, Supra Indy should continue with the Skate scene in recent years their cause. Supra Strapped NSabove was recently that II of the above are the same love, said above Supra Skytop NS world tour. It is the prefect design that wearing the Supra Society shoes while you are playing the skateboarding. Supra Cruizer on the hot sale for you.

  • oksupra.net||

    Cheap Chanel Watch

    Chanel J12 Wathces

    Cheap Chanel Watch would be the good choice on 2010. A Chanel bestseller since its launch in 2000,Characterized by Chanel J12 Wathces - the brands first sports watch - Chanel Ceramic Chronograph Watches, now has a mirror image - Chanel J12 White Watches Series. The Chanel Ladies Watches undergoes a metamorphosis to opalescent white with amazing effect. Chanel Mens Watches are well-known in the world. Chanel Unisex Watches must be the good choice. Chanel Pursesare cool and fashionable, bring you a fresh and brandnew feeling. Chanel Handbags also is the hot item in the summer.

  • men air max shoes ||

    Tucked away in our nike air max 2010 mens running shoes subconscious is an idyllic vision. We see ourselves on a long nike air max 2010 trip that spans the continent. We are traveling by train. Out air max 2009 windows, we drink in the passing scene of cars on nearby highways, of children waving at nike red air max 2009 crossing, of cattle grazing on air max 95 black distant hillside, of smoke pouring from a power plant, of row upon nike air 95 row of corn and wheat, of flatlands and valleys, of mountains and rolling air max 90 hillsides, of city skylines and village halls. But uppermost in our minds is the final destination. On a certain blue air max 90 for women day at a certain hour, we will pull into the station. Bands will be playing and flags nike air max 180 waving. Once we get there, so many wonderful dreams will come true and the pieces of our black nike air max shoes lives will fit together like a completed jigsaw puzzle. How restlessly we pace the aisles, bing the minutes for nike air max light shoes loitering --waiting, waiting, waiting for womens nike air max station.Sooner or later, we must realize there is no station, no one air max ltd classic place to arrive at once and for all. The true joy of air max shoes store life is the trip. The station is only a dream. It constantly outdistances us.So stop pacing the aisles and counting the miles. In stead, climb more nike air max white mountains, eat more ice cream, go barefoot more often, swim more rivers, watch more women air max shoes sunsets, laugh more, cry less. Life must be lived as we go along. The station will come men air max shoes soon enough. http://www.sellnikeairmax.com/ LIJ

  • ugg boots outlet store||

    Intelligence agents arrested the president of Venezuela's only remaining independent television station on Thursday, leading to concerns that freedom of speech ...

  • discountinchina||

    Looking for great Wholesale Disney Toys Products for your business and want them at discounted wholesale prices? Look no further! Take a moment to browse Rhinomart's vast selection of Wholesale RC Toys

  • Driving Safety Course||

    Thanks for sharing such an awesome info.
    Driving Safety Course

  • Delicious Healthy Cookies||

    The post is very helpful. Almost as good as my Delicious Healthy Cookies

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • 4umonclers||

    he post is very helpfu

  • mbt shoes clearance||

    helpfu

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement