suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

NET BRUTALITY MASQUEREDING AS “NET NEUTRALITY”

The nation has now had more than two years of rhetoric and florid prose delivered in grand oratory fashion — and in print, abundantly, media peppered with the sweet nothings — that are proven time and time again in just this short period of time to define ‘the opposite of what it is‘. It’s a twisting of the truth — basic terms flipped to represent the opposite of what they intend to deliver or implement — and any reasonable person should quickly ask themselves what the motive is behind anyone engaged in that twisting: why would anyone sell a thing by a goody-name that was revealed to be a bad thing for the purchaser once the deal was made?

Some adults will easily ask and quickly seek answers to that question, while many children and unduly influenced fools of any age will not even ask it.

…beware of the pat on the back, it just might hold ya’ back.”

A few of very important liberties that our Constitution ensures: our government cannot force any citizen to purchase something, cannot force any seller to require a price determined by the government for a privately-owned good and/or service, and is prevented from retaliating (or threatening retaliation) against any citizen who criticizes our government. And, unless one is involved in manufacturing, trafficking in and/or selling goods and/or services that are deemed illegal by our laws, the government cannot prevent the commerce associated with any citizen’s goods and/or services.

President Obama made a campaign promise to support net neutrality…

But coercion by cloaked, masked men or highly theatrical actors talented at representing one face while hiding the real one — government associated or not — is another thing and “Net Neutrality” is one of those intrigue-level, masked efforts to coerce, limit and even punish private property and those who own, purchase and/or otherwise use it. Selling “Net Neutrality” as something rosey and androgynous — “be neutral, be free, be equal, be open, be nothing and everything all at once” — as a good thing is part of the ongoing Twisted Sales Pitch taking place. Net Neutrality is another arm of this twisted politic being implemented by people with bad motives, contrary to their Smilin’ Faces.

Reality has proven that this Twisted Sales Pitch using the Smilin’ Faces routine, with an eager page-kissing media right there to write and then turn the pages for more, that this Twisted Sales Pitch is a work by persons whose intentions are the opposite of what they’re telling us: up is down, down is up, “healthcare” is restriction and reduction of available medical care and at a higher price whether you want to purchase/pay or not, “stimulus” is waste and secreted profiteering to the political-pals, “shovel ready” is the absence of shovels encouraging lack of readiness and depleting resources of readiness, “choice” is the taking of human life without consideration of the life taken, “repeal” means forced conditions most people find repulsive, dreaming is a nightmare, good taste is bad taste, net neutrality is increased nationalization and political party control to limit content, punish political opponents and weigh very, very heavily on every consumer who connects or tries to.

Example, Hugo Chavez, Dictator: says he’s the “leader” of a democracy but “democracy” to Chavez and others like him means dictatorship – justified by them to mean ‘everyone is an owner’ because all resources and goods are nationalized and ‘owned’ via, by proxy or something. Through the Dictator, “the people” own. Or something. So impoverished of opportunities and demanded to accept depriving standards and conditions, these are the “glorious liberties” of Communism and other permutations of Socialism but note there are always those Smilin’ Faces eager to claim the castles by the sea and tell everyone else what to do. Or else.

The same upside-down “freedom means you are a willing slave impoverished by heavy-handed threats and brutal penalties” language spoken, written and screamed by Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Lenin, several philosophers safe and sound surrounded by privileged academic enclaves before subjects unable by place and circumstance (if not awareness) to speak up. Particularly when speaking up holds a promise of being put down.

Harms and threats of harms for speaking up is why we have a First Amendment but our Rights under that Amendment are rare and refined, indeed, when compared with human history and the human condition globally. In academics, one intentionally commits oneself to a limited period of subjective submission to such. But the contained environment of academics has, wrongly, been forcefully migrated from contained and private to government and publlc.

“The classroom” has become the nation, the nation has become a population of students, and what freedoms citizens have understood to be theirs have been tossed aside as being cumbersome if not contrary to what the classroom will tolerate. Worse, citizens have no option to transfer or withdraw or graduate: here we are, we have “teachers-turned-government” with broken minds and absent ethics who really, really believe they’re privileged to do what they want to do and the rest of us must sit and take it. Or else.

The Communist Revolution in Russia occurred by the hand of a few. The general population wasn’t involved, wasn’t informed in many cases: few in the general population were involved while an opportunist band of zealots organized by Vladimar Lenin and agitated by his peers were responsible: the equivalent of a few lobbyists seizing the Presidency and deploying the Cabinet to seize control of the government by way of a confused and greatly neutered military defense force, and, then announce the cruel and awful (and severe) “changes” to the population afterward. Sounds familiar, unfortunately for our nation.

Lenin’s followers were willing to jump in rivers to prove their love — say anything, print anything, read anything — to mislead possible questions, and deployed dubious gangs of affiliates to threaten if not punish anyone who persisted with any questions afterward. Opportunism gone extreme, certainly, but possible only by a lack of citizen awareness and lack of responsibility at self-determination and by what means.

Isn’t that about what’s taking place today in the U.S.?

We citizens manage to hear by squeaks and peeks about legislation on the verge of being passed into law that alters many aspects of our very lives — important aspects — and there’s little to nothing we can do about it except make phone calls to insensitive federal employees in the offices of other federal employees who refuse to recognize who they work for as they also refuse to even take into consideration the opinions of those they work for whether they admit the relationship or not. Many a Democrat Senator and Representative today — when they’re contacted — expect citizens to listen to lectures as to Leftwing political points and won’t extend even a tad of respect for the citizen with an opinion that differs from that.

Worse, growing personnel among the Republicans in Congress are actually Democrats, at least by those same behaviors and positions. Citizens are an inconvenience, or, a liability to persons such as these; and, as consumers in our economy, we are not at all respected or taken into consideration, no more than many a mule pulling a cart amidst a muddy market is: ‘go, stop, stop, go, snap-snap, what was that, a complaint‘.

The burdensome answer to all of this is to start demanding responses and to stop exuding over and about politicians and I don’t care how darling some of them can pose and appear. Start demanding their good performances and stop awarding them with applause simply for being potential “celebrities” – they’re job applicants and once hired, they need to be held to performance standards, or if they fail to maintain those, then they lose their jobs.

If it was that easy, to simply “fire” a bad politician, more would be fired, I realize, but the method involved of how certain people are elected and then maintain political office afterward is by, of course, manipulating the votes by way of manipulative interest groups. It’s time for citizens to stop being willing to be manipulated, despite public criticism (which I am aware of does ensue when there’s hesitation of exuberance over “popular” personalities, but it’s the only way our nation has much hope of surviving as a Republic — a barely recognizable Republic, as of this date today, December 20, 2010).

Stop Net Neutrality and if it manages to become law, revoke it in January. Demand it be revoked.

Summation: there is nothing beneficial about what “Net Neutrality” seeks to implement, so why implement it? Ask yourself why Barack Obama — and the United Nations — want it and people such as Hugo Chavez thinks it’s a great idea. Start there and oppose Net Neutrality.

Reference:

Democrats put heat on FCC commissioner on net-neutrality vote
– by Sara Jerome, The Hill, December 18, 2010

Don’t Tangle The Web With Rules
– from Investors Business Daily, December 17, 2010

The FCC’s Threat to Internet Freedom
– by Robert M. McDowell, Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2010
‘Net neutrality’ sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being “data driven” in its pursuit of mandates — i.e., listening to the needs of the market. (— Continued).


C O M M E N T S : now closed