With the economy in uncertainty, with our borders a sieve, with the deficit greater in last 24 months than the entire first 200+ years of our country… The big issue is “net neutrality.” To quote Graham Nash, "In a land thats known for freedom, how can such a thing be fair?" (The ironic part, this lyric is from Chicago, the same city as our current president… Spooky, isn't it)
Thinking like this will drive the current Congress, in its last days, to single digit approval ratings. "Net neutrality” is an idea sold as protection and freedom of speech, surprisingly which provides neither.
The fascist elements of our government do not want people to look up policies, practices or conduct of the elite body of legislators. Net neutrality will force search engine companies like Yahoo, Google and Microsoft to provide “alternative opinions” to searches. The ruling class fears an informed citizenry may reject the partisan actions of political whores masquerading as lawmakers.
Their goal is to dilute critical thinking by contrarians with pablum from propagandists. If you want to read Thomas Sowell, read, Mr. Sowell. There is no reason to have a Maureen Dowd piece polluting your browser. At the same time, if you are interested in what new and brilliant thought Keith Olbermann had come up with, is there any reason to see an op-ed piece by Rush Limbaugh?
The guise of protecting children from inappropriate web content is better left to parents. Each computer not only comes with an on/off switch. It also has an electric plug which can be removed from the socket rendering the machine to be nothing more than a paperweight.
Little Johnny and Judy do not need web-enabled phones, or computers in their rooms to corrupt the pure thoughts that routinely grace the minds of children.
If you're going to provide descending opinions, are their enough opinions from credible sources to go around?
If you are searching for an article published by a Los Angeles-based hermaphrodite, would it need to be balanced by a piece from a Boston-based Eunuch? What if they both had the same opinion on the Madonna's “Just Like a Prayer” video? Would that mean there is only one valid and universal opinion?
While 2% of legislators might be concerned about what happens on the Internet, 99% of the people in the real world can tell the difference between “internet truth” and truth.
Try this example... Google the phrase "world's greatest rock 'n roll brand'. The result, correctly, is the Rolling Stones. If you doubt this and believe it is either John Lennon's old backup band, Led Zeppelin, The Osmonds, KISS or The Shags is the correct answer, does seeing The Stones in the top spot make you do anything other than shake your head? Would seeing a story about Guns and Roses or Megadeth influence your opinion?
To quote Neil Young, the greatest Canadian folk rock/grunge artist of all time, “you make the rules, you say what's fair. It's lots of fun to have you there.”
amen.
ReplyDelete