Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Finally, some good news:
Here was what was supposed to happen: With telco-friendly Republican Congress members swept out of the way, Democrats would usher in legislation enshrining Network Neutrality principles and give the FCC the power to enforce them.
Hereβs what happened (is happening) instead: The most powerful Net Neutrality supporters (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton) are kicked upstairs while cable-and-Hollywood-friendly Democrats are killing Network Neutrality legislation in committees.
Wall Street Journal had some more, at the beginning of the month…
Just a few years ago, Net neutrality was one of the hottest and most contentious high-tech issues in Washington, pitting large Internet companies such as Google Inc. (GOOG) and Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) against network operators AT&T Inc. (T), Comcast Corp. (CMCSK, CMCSA) and others.
Internet companies raised the specter of network operators acting as gatekeepers, determining which Web sites consumers could visit and how fast they could connect. They also viewed such a development as a means by which network operators could charge Web sites more money to handle traffic flowing to their sites.
Telecom carriers and cable companies, however, repeatedly denied they had any such intention and significant violations of the principles of Net neutrality have been rare.
Congressional aides, however, left open the possibility of legislation if problems start to mount.
“We’ll continue to monitor this issue closely,” said Christal Sheppard, a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee and aide to Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.
Conyers previously was a strong supporter of Net neutrality legislation and sponsored a bill in the prior Congress. He has not revived his earlier bill in the current Congress.
Behold, the logical boondoggle that is Net Neutrality: If we pass it, government calls the shots, and if we don’t, businesses call the shots. Businesses are dirty rotten creepy jerks and, for reasons that shall remain unexplored, Congress is not a bunch of dirty rotten creepy jerks…although no one is willing to step forward and say that outright.
But — we just got screwed by those dirty rotten creepy jerks in Congress.
It isn’t that complicated. It’s a question of whether your Internet services are to be provided by someone who makes money providing them to you and only if he can provide them to you, to your satisfaction…or whether these decisions are made by some paper-pusher guy who is part of some government agency you m-u-s-t use, just like the Department of Motor Vehicles. And if you look at the folks pushing hard for Network Neutrality as some kind of a great wonderful idea…you’ll notice something striking about them. Most of them are too young to have truly experienced this distinction between private-sector competitive service and a public-sector monopoly. It’s not something you figure out by the time you’re twenty-five. It takes a decade or two of going through the misery to understand this.
Another fine point: It is un-American to allow the Government to determine what kind of information you can & cannot reach. This is contrary to our core ideals as a free society: The People shall be allowed absolute and un-infringed freedom in making up their own minds that maybe, just maybe, the Government they elected is zipping off at a zillion miles an hour in the wrong direction. If we allow that to be violated we might as well just write off the entire experiment.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is un-American to allow the Government to determine what kind of information you can & cannot reach.
Not according to Democrats. Control the flow and you contain the people. We already have enough uninformed voters choosing government based on good looks, sound bites and flat out bullshit, shut down the sources of information unfavorable to one party’s image and you constrict your hold on the average Joe who hasn’t already been bought off by some form liberal financial appeasement.
**Sorry if I was rude the other night. I was just teasing, but it may have come across ugly, Morgan – you have my sincere apologies. I have had my password tattooed across my left breast since then, now it will always be handy for entry into your wonderful House. My husband is fine with this since he’ll get flashed on a regular basis without asking.
- Daphne | 04/17/2009 @ 14:21OMG. **blush**
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2009 @ 14:33You want a picture? π
- Daphne | 04/17/2009 @ 15:06You want a picture? π
Well, now. Methinks THAT’S an offer you can’t refuse, Morgan. π
- bpenni | 04/17/2009 @ 15:24And you WILL share, right?
- bpenni | 04/17/2009 @ 15:24Hey my darling Buck, you looking for some awesome tatted up bust pics?
- Daphne | 04/17/2009 @ 15:35Late to the party, but I want in!
- Andy | 04/17/2009 @ 16:42I’d never have a good party without you, Andy.
Can you men stand tanned natural C’s still holding some firm bounce?
- Daphne | 04/17/2009 @ 16:45Killing me. Absolutely killing me.
- Andy | 04/17/2009 @ 17:02Can you men stand tanned natural Cβs still holding some firm bounce?
And I was wondering why the Sitemeter stats are…shall we say…rising to the occasion. They are unusually engorged for a Friday.
Keep it up, girl, and we’re going to have to put some ads in the sidebar. For those weekend runs to the beer aisle at BevMo. Naturally, we’d swing by the “ingredients for fancy chick drinks” aisle and pick out a few things for you…just to say thanks for the traffic. And to help you cheat the IRS. π
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2009 @ 17:08You know, the tattoo man had a hard time making ZXq590A3b27XYz look sexy, the damn thing wraps around half my breast in italicized Helvetica. He was urging some chinese character shit, but I said hell to the no – he might have been inking KFC – Our Breasts Are Extra Juicy, Eat Here – for all I know.
590A3 crests the lace of my bra, looks like an agricultural stamp, but I’m thinking it might attract kinky rich Jewish men.
(ohhhhh damn, so not PC)
- Daphne | 04/17/2009 @ 17:45OK… THIS wins “thread of the month,” hands down.
Still waiting for the pics, tho. π
- bpenni | 04/21/2009 @ 15:25