Well, they did it! The FCC will now allow Internet service providers to provide differential service based upon content. The reason this is bad is because service should be neutral in relation to content. Think of our First Amendment free-speech rights. Places of public accommodation are not allowed to discriminate against any type of speech on the basis of the content of that speech. As a college administrator, I can’t say to a student or group, “I like the content of what you’re saying, so you get to have this particular space on campus.” This discrimination based upon content is what net neutrality was protecting against. Frankly, I think it’s just another way for the Internet service providers to make money, at the expense of free speech.
Republicans may have ‘awoken a sleeping giant’ by repealing net neutrality
Most of you know that I’m a Boy Scout leader. Part of my current job is to teach young scouts about citizenship as a merit badge counselor for Citizenship in the Community/Nation/World. These are three eagle-required badges that are frankly, in my opinion, the best and most important badges scouts earn. Here’s requirement #1 for CitNation:
Explain what citizenship in the nation means and what it takes to be a good citizen of this country. Discuss the rights, duties, and obligations of a responsible and active American citizen.
The first question I ask is, “What is the most important duty of a responsible and active American citizen?” They invariably answer, “Voting!” to which I answer, “NO! The most important duty of a citizen is to be informed!” After they give me puzzled looks, I then talk about the media. I tell them that they must consume multiple sources of media on both sides of the political spectrum because today all media is agenda driven. While you can argue that the overall objective of media is to make money (at least in this country), in so doing, media target a demographic of reader/listener/watcher and then create an agenda within that bubble.
No more clearly is this demonstrated than at National Public Radio. I’ve been listening to NPR since my college days. Over the arc of that 30 years, I’ve been conscious of a sea change in their agenda (i.e., marketing strategy). Today, NPR is perhaps the most overtly liberal “news organization” in the world. That’s OK, because I can balance out NPR with other, more conservative news sources such as Fox News, which is just as agenda driven as NPR.
But since the election, NPR has literally lost its mind. Virtually every story is about Trump and is negative. For example, on December 13, 2016, there were 19 stories during All Things Considered. Of the 19, 15 of them were either explicitly about Trump, or were topics where Trump was openly criticized for his views or criticized by association (e.g., Columbia Journalism Report Criticizes Exxon CEO’s Position On Climate Change). All of them were negative.
Of course, part of NPR’s hubris is their inconsolable grief over Hillary’s loss. No more clearly is this illustrated than in their focus on the 2.8 million popular votes by which Hillary “won.” (See CNN for an example of this.) Newsflash: Hillary didn’t win by 2.8 million, she lost by 74. The sweet irony of this story is the fact that there turned out to be more faithless electors voting for Trump than Hillary. Oops! I guess THAT strategy backfired! NPR’s focus on the popular vote in an effort to sway the ignorant electorate is disingenuous for an organization that considers itself an elite news organization – clearly manipulation.
I didn’t vote for Trump (I didn’t vote for Hillary, either). I think he’s a dangerous choice for the most powerful job in the world. He’s vain, thin-skinned, self-absorbed, pompous, imprudent, inexperienced, pandering, and self-righteously indignant. But I must admit that NPR’s rabid coverage of his transition plans have been so over the top that I’ve come to even defend him in certain circumstances. If NPR thinks he’s so bad that they are willing to completely sell their soul to the liberal left, I may be able to bring myself to support Trump, or at least to give him a chance. So, thank you NPR, for helping me get over my misgivings.
“I will never vote for Donald Trump.” That’s a direct quote from your’s truly in February of this year. But as a middle-aged white guy, I also remember the Clinton years. For those of you from that vintage, you remember; Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Healthcare version one, impeachment, Vince Foster – you get the picture. I’m not trying to impugn Hillary for the behavior of Bill. It just seems that 1) controversy and scandal follow the Clintons and 2) their explanations don’t seem to ring true. I see them as the prototypes for Frank and Claire Underwood. For Hillary’s part, the Benghazi explanation really stretched credibility. The email scandal, while probably blown out of proportion by critics, reached new heights of spin (to be charitable) or lying (to be honest).
It really doesn’t matter, though. As negative as I am about the Clintons and the Democratic Party in general, I was done with the Republican Party with the second Obama term. I figured if they couldn’t beat Obama after his first term performance, they had truly lost their way. They have confirmed my assessment by creating Trump. That’s right – I said the Republican Party created Trump. He is a natural outcome of outrage from the party of Lincoln really not having a clue how to win. I mean, REALLY. If the best the party can field is Jeb Bush, we have a problem. Cruz and Rubio don’t count as as they are not true Republicans. Even if we go back to Mitt Romney, while a fine man, he wasn’t the kind of leader we needed. And to lose to Obama after a first term liberal performance reminiscent of French politicians but not as stylish, the Republican Party is dead.
So what is a fiscally conservative, socially moderate (except when it comes to the sanctity of life), environmentally liberal voter supposed to do? Our electoral system is so skewed toward the two-party system that third-party candidates are not taken seriously. The Libertarian and Green Parties are really out there. Should I write someone in? Elmer Fudd perhaps? Should I make a political statement by throwing away my vote? Texas will undoubtedly go to Big Hair. I don’t know that I can vote for either The Donald or Hillary without feeling shame. Maybe I’ll stay home that day.
