Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Jun. 9th, 2006

Well, this sucks...

I'm not one for government involvement in things, but in a case like this, yes, I want the government to protect people. Internet companies already make money hand-over-fist, especially when them branching out into ALL forms of media; I personally think that the whole idea of a fast-lane internet is abusable enough to the point where we're going to be overpaying for things that aren't even necessary.

Now, I'm one of those people that does a lot of streaming; I stream audio, occasionally video, etc; I'm an internet busy body, and would almost HAVE to get a "fast lane" should it come to that. I expect to be ripped off should it come to that. And furthermore, I won't have any other options; the only company that covers my area for cable internet is Adelphia. I'm expecting to get charged for features that I don't use, all as a package (much like my cable TV)... at a premium price, of course.

Politically, what scares me is that the vote almost exclusively went along party lines. Please tell me our politicians are more than just trained monkeys who's sole purpose in life is to hit the switch that they're told to... conveiniently marked by a donkey or an elephant, of course. What, did the ones that voted against party lines get electroshocked? Seriously, this wouldn't scare me as much if there was more division along BOTH lines; if we had quite a few Republicans voting for this, along with quite a few Democrats voting against it, the margin could be the same, and I wouldn't be this concerned. As it is, I'm convinced that people knew what they were voting for even before they knew what they were voting on. THAT scares me. And it's debatable as to what caused it; some could say the Republicans are out for their own interests and that the Democrats are just responding in kind as a defense mechanism, but I doubt that; I think this would be a problem in a more liberal government, too.

We need Net Neutrality. But we also need a more flexible government; BOTH parties are just old-boys clubs.


( 15 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 9th, 2006 02:58 pm (UTC)
What worries me more is that niether side really knows what they voted for. Only a select few of these people could probably even tell you what "net neutrality" is, let alone the rest of the population. No, to most people, the internet is just an enigma for porn that they have no desire to learn about.
Jun. 9th, 2006 08:03 pm (UTC)
Maybe we need more parties. Other countries have more parties. We should too; there are a lot of moderate people, like myself.
Jun. 9th, 2006 08:58 pm (UTC)
We have more parties. Green party. Libertarian Party. Reform Party. Whatever the Communist Party calls themselves now. Constitution Party. Labor Party. Marijuana Party... Hmm? I wonder what their platfrom is?

Trouble is, they all suck, and I would rather vote a Democrat into office than anyone of them. Which, by the way, I have done. *Sigh*... It was Gene Green or the Libertarian. 9_9
Jun. 9th, 2006 10:01 pm (UTC)
They must really suck. One doesn't even hear about them. O_O
Jun. 9th, 2006 10:03 pm (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of hearing about them. Especially Ross Perot's Deformed Reform Party. The Libertarians have the best chance at becoming a powerhouse, but no time in the near future, and to be quite honest, I don't care much for their politics.
Jun. 9th, 2006 10:56 pm (UTC)
I wasn't politically aware during Perot's run, so I can't be tired. XD Really, the only other party I know is the Green party with Ralph Nader.
Jun. 9th, 2006 11:01 pm (UTC)
I have always been a Perot supporter, personally. But then again, he IS from your home state, so you know him more than me.

The Libertarian Party... I don't really like them; either; they're too extreme to the left.
Jun. 9th, 2006 11:22 pm (UTC)
Perot's a little more extreame than I prefer. He's traditionally been a big backer of "eDemocracy" and has expressed support of rethinking the Constitution as a whole. Most importantly, though, he's also not a team player. He wanted the use the Reform Party solely as a platform to support himself, going so far as to work against various individuals that his own party had endorsed. This basically led to the eventual collapse of the party, which I'm suprised hasn't outright died at this point.

As far as being from my home state, I wouldn't go so far as to that being a reason why I would be more familiar with him. He hasn't been active (politically, at least) in this state since before I was born.
Jun. 9th, 2006 09:15 pm (UTC)
The closest a third party has ever come to winning was Ross Perot with around 15%.
Jun. 9th, 2006 10:00 pm (UTC)
In recent times, at least. Let us not forget that Abraham Lincoln was a third-party canidate. In fact, in that 1860 election, there were four strong parties, each of which carried at least two states.
Jun. 9th, 2006 09:25 pm (UTC)
Gah! Please tell me that a repeal is possible once we win the civil war (election) in the autumn! x_X
Jun. 9th, 2006 10:01 pm (UTC)
Depends on how you defin "we." ;) Honestly, though, no matter which side wins, I honestly don't see this changing.
Jun. 9th, 2006 10:17 pm (UTC)
I'm not even sure who "we" are anymore. (Everybody who isn't a part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, maybe?) And you're probably right, but ... I can hope. *sigh* This isn't China; the Internet deserves to be free.
Jun. 9th, 2006 10:26 pm (UTC)
But I'm on t3h right. D:
Jun. 9th, 2006 11:05 pm (UTC)
Not THAT far. You're not saying that gay people are godless whores yet. You have some work to do. >:(
( 15 comments — Leave a comment )


Mr. Met
Superbus the BRAVE!!!

Latest Month

July 2013
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner