12.18.06
Posted in General at 2:42 pm by Clay
Listening to Vicki McKenna(and her guest, whomever he is) on WIBA 1310AM, here in Madison, caused me to think again about what I like about debating. Most people dislike debating, and for the most part, I can see where they’re coming from, as “debating” is stressful and accomplishes very little, as almost everyone debates about things where people are never going to change their minds, because of a difference in basic assumptions.
So I don’t debate those things. Iraq War? Meh. Abortion debate? Whatever. I figure that there are plenty of people out there who already have strong opinions on those issues, and so I don’t have to.
On the other hand, if people say, “You’re with us or you’re against us” in reference to the Iraq War, I’m very much against them. Or if they infer that “supporting the troops” means “do, at all costs, what we need to do to win the war”, then, well, I think they’re idiots.
Bringing it back to McKenna and her guest, they were talking about awards they gave out for statements that showed bias in the media. Mind you, these are statements that the people are making when they’re not in their media role, so I’m not sure exactly how fair it is, though I do agree that some of these people are quite obviously biased, and it likely affects their reporting. Still, they didn’t mention a single Fox News person, and they kept on referring to pro-choice people as “pro-abortion”.
So, obviously, they’re conservative nut jobs, just like how anyone who uses “anti-choice” is a liberal nut job; using either of those terms show that you’re not even vaguely making an attempt to be fair and see the issue from the other person’s point of view.
And it’s meta debating when attempting to convince someone of that idea; that, if you want to be respected and taken seriously, you have to respect and take seriously the other side, at least when the other side’s opinion is shared by a large percentage of the population.
So, to all the serious users of “anti-choice” and “pro-abortion” I say: Learn how to think. You’re annoying, like the 9/11 deniers who can’t tell the difference between a controlled demolition and uncontrolled destruction.
Permalink
12.17.06
Posted in Wall Street Journal Opinion at 2:37 pm by Clay
From the opinion section of the Friday, December 15th, 2006 edition of the Wall Street Journal:
Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. It is supposed to require that network operators like AT&T or Verizon behave in a “non-discriminatory” way toward Web site operators like Yahoo or Google. In practice, this means restricting the ability of the telecom companies to set market prices for use of their broadband pipes.
Let’s go with an analogy, shall we? If Google were a telecom, the equivalent would be to say to the top people in any popular search result, “Pay us money, or we’ll drop you way down the list.”
There’s one big difference here, though: If you’re annoyed with Google doing that, you could switch to one of the many, many other search engines, and it’d take you literally a minute to switch everything you had to switch. Now THAT’S competition.
Telecom? Our broadband pricing is right on par with, oh, Slovenia. And if you want to switch to the other provider(if you’re lucky enough to have any competition at all), you have to make at least two phone calls, wait for someone to come by, pay an installation fee, and ship away your old modem. Oh, plus you likely have to sign up for additional service(cable TV or local phone service) that you may not have had before, but without it the price is significantly more. And this is assuming that you’re not stuck in a contract.
The thing is, telecom companies want to make more money, regardless of the needs of the consumer. Sure, that makes sense, and I’m fine with it. What I’m not okay with is allowing them to screw up competition in another area in order for them to do so. So, they’re allowed to screw over their customers by charging outrageous fees for broadband, with even more outrageous fees for faster broadband. But they shouldn’t be allowed to say to Youtube, Vonage, or online games that require a responsive connection, “Hey. If you want our customers to not think your product is a steaming pile of poo, then give us money.”
Honestly, I find it odd that the Wall Street Journal is so anti-net neutrality. Have they been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much? Are they so pro-big business that they forget that small business succeeds more when the barriers to entry are lower?
All this said, I’m not sure if I’m for Net Neutrality legislation, because of the possible unintended consequences. But I fail to understand why any person would be against net neutrality when they don’t have a direct financial stake.
Permalink