« Twitter roundup | Main | Missing context on growth in polarization »

December 24, 2009


Well, of course it is; the US military built the Internet so they could badger the Soviets. Everyone knows that. It's why it's built on the Badgering Control Protocol.

It seems pretty harsh to mock someone for using the phrase, "The Internet is constantly badgering everybody." His construction is odd, but his obvious meaning is that the internet is being used to promote radical positions on both sides. It's hard to disagree with his point.

Actually, I don't see much extreme right-wingism among the Republicans in Congress. Conservative extremists favor shrinking the size of government -- things like eliminating Medicare or the Department of Education. There's minimal support in Congress for positions like this.

A sillier comment from that Times article is Harry Reid's, "I see it as 60 leaders who stood up to insurance companies and stood up for working families all across America."

First, it's appalling to think that 1/6 of the economy will be socialized and medical care ruined just to spite someinsurance companies.

Second, Congress isn't spiting the health insurance companies. These companies supported Health "reform". In exchange, the House and Senate bills specifically maintain a role for them.

Third, health insurance companies in no way deserve to be demonized. They provide an important service and make moderate profits. In fact, many of the leading health insurers are non-profit companies to begin with.

And, fourth, even if the health insurance companies deserved to be demonized, health insurancve companies constitute a small fraction of all insurance companies. It's unfair to demonize all the insurance companies for the (non-existent) mis-deeds of a small number of them.

"...his obvious meaning is that the internet is being used to promote radical positions on both sides."

I don't see how Hatch's "obvious meaning" makes his comment about the Internet any less mockable. Free speech has been used "to promote radical positions on both sides" long before the Internet existed.

How do ethics rules promote polarization (or a lack of communication), and why can't representatives "get together at various events"?


The comments to this entry are closed.