movq

Wherein I Move a Lot of Words Around

A Thought

It should surprise no one that those that believe a document written two hundred years ago can solve all problems of modern life with a literal interpretation and without any change also believe that a book compiled once at 4000 years ago and then again 1600-1800 years ago can also solve all modern problems with a literal interpretation and no changes. For the central idea of modern Conservatism has less to do with doing anything right in the moment and more to do with doing what they've always done. It's a culture where a lesson learned is a moment of weakness. Anyone who dares to change their mind, especially based on facts or new information, is immediately cast out as a traitor unwilling to toe the party line. They have, in essence, become a line of ants in search of a meal that doesn't exist, blindly following each other into the wilderness, blinders intact, and having faith that those that went before knew what they were doing, but without any contingency plan for when that path fails to apply to a changing world. This is also why climate change is so hard to admit. It's not about business or profits at the level of the individual citizen. It's the idea that what we've done has been working and everything will be all right if we keep doing what we've always done. It worked for those before us, so why change now? The principal fallacy, therefore, is one of trust -- or, dare I say it, faith. But this isn't a faith in a higher power or a life beyond this one. This is a blind faith in fellow man who, should the facts ever be considered, will be proven to be lying for his own self-interest. It is thus in the interest of the propaganda-maker to cultivate such an environment of hatred towards the facts and a love of tradition in the same way the man at the carnival refuses to show you how his game works. He's cheating the people out of their livelihood but telling you how wonderful it is all the while.

Thanks Teanuts

Anti Net Neutrality Crowd Reaches Deep For The Craziest Possible Response To President Obama's Call For Real Net Neutrality Rules | Techdirt:

But the real fun is coming from the politicians and the pundits who seem to be trying to out-crazy each other in coming up with the most ridiculous analogy/description of what Title II means for the internet and the world. The one getting the most attention has to be Senator Ted Cruz who declared net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet."

After nonsensical comments on Net Neutrality, conservatives rage against Ted Cruz:

Keith French: Ted, I am as conservative as they come.... I want government out of just about everything... and I hate to say it, really hate to say it, but Obama is right on this one. I do not want my access and internet speed controlled by my ISP. It will be. The internet has been an open forum with little to no restrictions, that will change and not for the better. Bottom line, do not go against freedom of the net just because Obama is for it. Even an old blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Misunderstanding The Internet & Net Neutrality, As Republican Engineers Call Him Out For Ignorance | Techdirt:

Rather than recognize this fact, Cruz has decided to double down on it with a rambling and misguided opinion piece in the Washington Post that repeats the "Obamacare for the internet" line, and lumps in a variety of other tech issues in a confusing (and often self-contradictory) jumble. He warns against taxing internet access (good), but then joins in the total overreaction to the Commerce Department's decision to officially relinquish its (barely existent) control over ICANN, falsely claiming that this will allow the Russians, Chinese and the Iranians to control the internet. This is not true. In fact, by giving up the Commerce Department's link to ICANN, it helps cut off the path the Russians, Chinese and Iranians are trying to use to do an end run around ICANN, by giving more power to the ITU. In other words, Senator Cruz (once again) seems to not understand this policy issue at all, and is recommending a policy that is more likely to lead to the world he fears.

Then he gets back around to net neutrality, once again showing he doesn't understand it:

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.
Not a single part of that is accurate.
This is what you we get when people vote along extreme idealogical lines. Thanks, Teanuts.