Nominate Words And Phrases For Banishment
In what has become an annual tradition here, one of our first columns of the new year will highlight the yearly "official banished words" list. As always, the intrepid folks at Lake Superior State University are putting the finishing touches on this year's list, but there is still time to get in on the action. Surf over to the L.S.S.U. site (does anybody still use the verb "surf" in this fashion anymore, one wonders...) and submit your nomination for a word or phrase you feel has become so annoying that the only possible answer is banishment. The list is traditionally announced on New Year's Day, so you've got a little over a week to convince them (for reference, check out last year's list on their site).
I couldn't immediately come up with any phrases which have risen to the level of hair-pulling every time I hear them, although in recent weeks, "The Comeback Kid" being used about Obama has gotten pretty annoying, I have to say. Come on people, that was Bill Clinton's moniker! Have the wits to come up with an original phrase, at least, will you?
Sigh. But, like I said, no other phrases immediately sprang to mind -- which in no way means they aren't out there, but rather is a commentary on my level of creativity on the shortest day of the year, I guess.
In fact, in honor of the Winter Solstice, I think I'll make this the shortest column of the year. If you find yourself wishing for more, then I suggest reading the column I wrote about last year's banished words.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Here's a phrase I would like to see banned..
"Government Regulation"...
It still amazes me that people can use the phrases "More Internet Freedom" and "Government Regulation" in the same sentence and actually think that the latter can bring about the former.....
It's mind-boggling...
One has to wonder... When, in 2 years time, we have a GOP government, if everyone will think "Government Regulation" is such a good idea then, eh? :D
Michale.....
190
And just to answer the anticipated response, yes.. I know that some government regulation is good and necessary..
But not here...
Nothing in the Internet is "broken" so there is no need for a "fix"...
And please don't beat that dead horse that is, "PROVIDERS ARE CENSORING CONTENT!!!"
There has not been one instance, not ONE SINGLE INCIDENT where any provider has censored or denied content..
The only issue that has ever cropped up was where a Cable Internet provider scaled back on connections on a single protocol and that was due to technical issues, not for censoring.
The idea that companies can censor actual content is just Leftist fear mongering...
But to those who think that "Government Regulation" is the answer to everything, they won't be happy until the entire Internet consists of tin cans and string...
Then I'll have to learn a whole new connection protocol.... :(
"Hmmmmm... Do I tie the string directly to the ethernet port?? Or do I have to modify the NIC port to insert the can???" :D
Michale.....
191
How about these words?
- Wall Street
- shadow banking
- interconnection
- deregulation
These are the official words Republicans want to ban from the report on what caused the financial crisis.
http://wallstreetpit.com/53501-words-will-never-hurt-us-or-our-cronies-if-we-dont-allow-them-to-be-used
It's pretty dang hilarious that they want to ban the word "Wall Street" from a report about the financial crisis.
So lemme guess. The idea is to ignore what happened and blame it on the government instead.
Ok. In the spirit of self-disclosure, I'll admit I'm writing about this because I don't have any really good nominations.
The first thing that came to mind was "cloud computing" but it only bugs me because of the Microsoft commercials that lead you to think somehow Microsoft invented this idea.
-David
p.s. "The Comeback Kid" reminds me of one of my favorite Kids in the Hall skits: "The Cincinnati Kid"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuvPpzPiIec
David,
I am constrained to point out that, once again, it was the Democrat of Democrats who stated that it was mostly the Democrats fault for the deregulation that lead to the financial meltdown..
Michale.....
192
"post-partisan"
Changing the subject, I have been bugged for years by the phrase reality television, which has absolutely murdered a very useful word, reality.
Thanks for the opportunity to vent on this, which I feel I must do once a year or so.
post-partisan
Good God, I second that.
I am constrained to point out that, once again, it was the Democrat of Democrats who stated that it was mostly the Democrats fault for the deregulation that lead to the financial meltdown.
You said it, Michale. Deregulation. But according to Republicans you can't say that word.
I'm with you that both parties bear responsibility for this deregulation.
What I find silly is that a group of Republicans are trying to say, you can't say "deregulation" or "Wall St" in a report about the financial crisis.
This should be on every late-night comedy show in the country because it's so funny :)
-David
jbl,
Well said.. Complete agreement...
David,
I'm with you that both parties bear responsibility for this deregulation.
Who said anything about BOTH parties?? :D
In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee voted to impose stiff regulation of MAC and MAE.
ALL Democrats voted against it despite warnings from Greenspan...
As went MAC and MAE, so went the economy..
For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost...
Sure, it's hilarious when the GOP tries to omit words in order to spin things..
Just as it's hilarious when the DP tries to rewrite/ignore recent history in order to spin things..
We ALL get a good laugh... :D
Michale....
195
Michale -
Well, it's splitting hairs, but Apple censored iPhones app content. But, I realize, that's not the same thing, really, in the Net Neutrality discussion. But Google "Mark Fiore" and "Apple" to see what I'm talking about.
David -
"Cloud Computing" annoys me, too. Dunno why, but it just does. I second your nomination.
nypoet22 -
Likewise seconded for "post-partisan" and I would also add "post-racial" for pretty much the same reason.
jbl_inAZ -
Wow, I knew I could count on you guys for some good ideas. "Reality television" also seconded.
David -
Whoops, I guess I should have "thirded" post-partisan. Heh.
Keep those suggestions coming, and don't forget to send them to the LSSU guys!
-CW
Thanks To Everyone! Pledge Drive A Whopping Success!
You may need to hit the "Reload" button on your browser to see it, but as you can now see from our Pledge Drive logo, we have achieved (and even slightly surpassed!) our 2010 fundraising goal! Woo hoo!
Even better news is that all donations so far received have been matched in a number of ways by akadjian / David (who forced us to hold the pledge drive in the first place by his generous matching pledge) and by Elizabeth Miller / LizM, who is matching the generousity of Michale's rash fifty-cents-per-comment pledge, as well.
Here's the really big news: such matches have pushed our grand total to over 250 percent of our original fundraising goal! Woo hoo!
There were numerous other donations as well, and I'd like to thank each and every one of you who contributed. Since the three folks I just mentioned by name made their pledges publicly, I considered it permission to use their names in this thank-you note. But I have no idea if others wish to be publicly acknowledged or not, so I'm not going to name any other names unless people tell me it's OK to do so, to preserve your privacy in advance. Anyone wishing a public thank-you, please just let me know it's OK for me to do so....
One other name is worth mentioning here -- the final donation which pushed us over the edge was made by none other than nypoet22, more of whom you will hear about very shortly here.
Again, thanks to everyone who has contributed to our 2010 Holiday Pledge Drive! The money will be used to pay for server space and ISP connection, and we'll even have enough left over to buy a new chair for the CW.com offices (I broke my trusty office chair I've used for about the past 20 years last week, and it has become more stool than chair for the past week, which makes typing a whole new experience, I can tell you). Anyway -- for the first time ever -- we can say that CW.com for all of 2011 (and a chunk of 2010, as well) is a completely user-supported website!
WOO HOO! Thanks to everyone again, and a very big Happy Merry Whatever You Happen To Celebrate This Time Of Year to everyone!
:-)
-CW
CW,
Well, it's splitting hairs, but Apple censored iPhones app content. But, I realize, that's not the same thing, really, in the Net Neutrality discussion. But Google "Mark Fiore" and "Apple" to see what I'm talking about.
Yea, I read about that..
But that's not really Net censoring.. The simply pulled an "app" :D that provided a direct connect to WikiLeaks...
As an aside, the CIA has established a working group to study the fallout of the WikiLeaks disclosures...
Wikileaks
Task
Force
You really can't make this stuff up.. :D
who is matching the generousity of Michale's rash
I would prefer not to talk about my rash in public.. :D
On the flip side, I DO hope you keep the meter running.. I still have 2 or 3 days left and plan on doing some more damage... er... I mean donating.. :D
Michale.....
196
There has not been one instance, not ONE SINGLE INCIDENT where any provider has censored or denied content..
Well, except for China, most middle eastern countries. Hell, even the UK is trying to pass a law forcing ISP's to block porn. Or were we pretending that the internet is national rather than global?
The only issue that has ever cropped up was where a Cable Internet provider scaled back on connections on a single protocol and that was due to technical issues, not for censoring.
Comcast was trying to throttle P2P traffic. It did not go far. The problem with allowing this is many people are stuck in a monopoly as to who they get their internet access from. There is no competition. I think this situation needs some legislative protections. But for the most part this problem has been self solving. A few years ago ISP's had situations where 5% of it's customers were using 95% of the bandwidth. I am personally under the opinion that if as a business you sign a contract with a customer giving them unlimited x -down / x- up and they actually use it, that is problem with your business plan/contract writing rather than the customers internet usage. Youtube, Netflix and the like has pretty much solved this problem. With so much streaming video and other perfectly legal high bandwidth uses, that 5% is using less as a percentage of the ISP's upstream bandwidth as they used to and the ISP's have to upgrade their networks to give the customer what they want or lose business (when competition exists).
The current concerns have more to do with tier 1 & 2 backbone providers and the content producers than the customer or the last mile ISP. You pay for a pipe to the internet with the metrics you need. Google or Netflix pays for a pipe to the internet with the metrics they need. Net neutrality says that should be the end of it. Currently, the backbone providers want to get a cut by shaping traffic through their network. For the technology to work well, netflix or or google must also pay the networks in-between. A big problem with this is the route through the internet can change quite a bit depending on local net usage. It also stifles innovation due to the unknown price of entry. A new start up wants to launch a video service, they probably don't have the war chest big enough to pay all the middle manning transfer fees rather than a single price for the pipe they need. Another fear is that companies that both provide access and content might degrade or block the competitions content to either shake them down for money or artificially improve their own offerings performance over the competition. The flip side is that if an ISP blocks or is blocked by Netflix or Google they will probably lose customers in droves. There is a certain amount of balancing that keeps many companies in check.
The problem with being diametrically for or against "net neutrality" is it more of a general concept that a specific legislative agenda. It is also a global concern. No matter what regulation is passed, it will only effect a small slice of the total internet. I think there needs to be a general push for net neutrality globally and local government regulation, used very judicially, can help it along but is no magic fix.
Well, except for China, most middle eastern countries. Hell, even the UK is trying to pass a law forcing ISP's to block porn. Or were we pretending that the internet is national rather than global?
And, exactly how will the US's so-called "Net Neutrality" make "China, most middle eastern countries even the UK" fall into line???
Are you thinking that once the US adopts alleged "Net Neutrality", these countries will fall all over themselves to obey US laws???
Really???
There is nothing "wrong" with the Internet that good old-fashioned Market Values cannot address...
If ISP A starts throttling certain protocols, they will find a dearth of customers leaving ISP A for ISP B...
The market can handle any issues...
There is simply no way on the god's green earth where you will have government regulation bring about more internet freedom....
No way, no how, not ever....
Michale.....
197
There is a certain amount of balancing that keeps many companies in check.
Exactly..
That is the exact point I am trying to make...
If Comcast starts blocking P2P ports, then they will lose customers and AT&T will gain customers..
THAT is how the market works..
THAT is the incentive that the private sector has to do right by their customers.
Government has no obligation to customers. Government is beholden only to government.
From a consumer's perspective, which will serve their needs better??
It's a no-brainer..
Michale.....
199
It's actually all a moot point anyways.
The courts have already smacked down the FCC once...
It's doesn't take an Einstein to realize that the courts will do it again...
Between the courts and a GOP House/Stronger GOP Senate, there is a limit to the damage that Obama's FCC will do to the Net..
Michale.....
201
WOO HOO! Thanks to everyone again, and a very big Happy Merry Whatever You Happen To Celebrate This Time Of Year to everyone!
Fantastic to hear, Chris! A big Merry Whatever to you too!
I'll also second the thank you to Liz, Michale, nypoet, and all the other Weigantians out there who chipped in. Thank you and Merry Whatever!
And, exactly how will the US's so-called "Net Neutrality" make "China, most middle eastern countries even the UK" fall into line???
It won't but that was not the point. You made a blanket statement about the internet with out qualifying it as being US centric…like shooting fish in a barrel…
The market can handle any issues…
THAT is how the market works..
How was that market working for you in 2008?
Nothing in the Internet is "broken" so there is no need for a "fix"…
IPv4. And it will be the government who will fix it. Not with regulation (at least not yet) but with the military demanding companies who want to do business with the military have deployed IPv6 on their networks both internal and external...
It won't but that was not the point. You made a blanket statement about the internet with out qualifying it as being US centric…like shooting fish in a barrel…
I didn't realize that such qualification would be necessary..
Silly me.. :D
There has not been one single incident of companies censoring Net Content that this so-called "Net Neutrality" would address...
Leave it to Democrats to push legislation that does absolutely NOTHING to address the problems and creates a whole new slew of problems...
How was that market working for you in 2008?
The Internet Market (which is what we are discussion) has been working fine for me since the late 80s...
And here come the Democrats with their, "if it ain't broke, let's put forth a bunch of regulation that damn well WILL break it.." attitude...
IPv4. And it will be the government who will fix it. Not with regulation (at least not yet) but with the military demanding companies who want to do business with the military have deployed IPv6 on their networks both internal and external...
IPv4 is not broke... It's simply running out of room..
IPv6 is the future...
But not if "Net Neutrality" has anything to say about it...
Businesses will have no reason to develop IPv6 (military contract notwithstanding) if there isn't going to be a public market for it..
And, under Net Neutrality can't charge more for IPv6 functions than they can for IPv4 functions.
So, why bother investing in IPv6???
Solely to placate the military???
Michale.....
203
It all flows back to my one central point.
The idea that "more internet freedom" can be achieved by government regulation is laughable...
The fact that such regulation had to be done on the sly in defiance of Congress and the courts simply adds a somber note to the laughability...
Michale.....