If you have "no place to go," come here!

Net Neutrality in the stimulus bill.

bringiton's picture

Less than all-encompassing, subject to revision, but some think it is a big deal.

If Declan McCullagh is against it, maybe net neutrality is a really, really bad idea. I mean, he has "been on the right side of just about every tech issue for YEARS now" and as a brilliant and independent thinker he would never ever simply parrot the VRWC Talking Point Of The Day.

Maybe "on the right side" was some kind of pun or something, I dunno.

Commentary deeply desired from those better informed than I.

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

Though I'd like to know more about the FCC rule-setting.

* * *

More silliness on the un-let-go-of-able McCullough (which seems to be the real point of the short post). The last go-round, McCullough's sin, apparently, was that he was truthful -- That is, he presented some technical aspects of Obama's White that could be objectively verified.

So, in this article, this:

As recently as one day ago, a Democratic Senate aide was saying the topic would be addressed in the Judiciary Committee in the near future; there seems little reason to rush to lard up this particular legislation.

But it always seems to happen. Last fall's TARP bailout bill included IRS snooping. A port security bill included Internet gambling restrictions; the Real ID Act was glued onto a military spending and tsunami relief bill; a library filtering law was attached to a destined-to-be-enacted bill funding Congress itself.

True? False? Certainly independently verifiable. I like that in my right-wingers. Gawd save me from truthiness in my putative alllies, however! And now I await the inevitable...

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

By all means cozy up to whoever attracts you. Not my kind of fellow, Declan, any more than oh, say, Steny Hoyer.

The primary purpose of the post, as indicated by the headline, the lede and the close, was to elicit some commentary on this approach to net neutrality. Seems reasonable to me, but it is not my area of strength so I didn't want to get out on a limb endorsing it and find I'd somehow ah, embarrassed myself.

McCullagh was secondary, tangential; a serendipitous gift found sifting through the thousand blog posts with exactly the same VRWC talking point headline. Establishing that he's a tool of the Rove VRWC Talking Point Brigade seemed worthwhile, but maybe that isn't important. So long as he's snarling at Obama then he's a Good Dog, yeppers he is.

What was I thinking, writing a post with more than one purpose! Who would ever do that?

Submitted by lambert on

... facts and evidence are not, in your view, important, but whether somebody is "your kind of fellow" (or, possibly, "gal"). Thanks for confirming. I see I invested my time on this thread wisely.

Oh, and don't you think putting the needle in on Hoyer is getting just a bit tired? Nobody who pays attention takes it seriously, of course, but for the record, when I write a subject line that says "Could Steny Hoyer have seen the light... it means what it says. Even a weasel can do the right thing if the optics and the politics are right, and I thought Hoyer might have done so -- and called his office to reinforce the point. Didn't work out, and I was wrong to hope, but sometimes you have to do the right thing, and try to get the Hoyers of this world to.