AT&T+ VERIZON TROLLS UNDER THE BRIDGE
When I think about what AT&T and Verizon are trying to do with the INTERNET... The Troll comes to mind. (The supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a giant or dwarf, who lives under bridges, inclined to thieving and the abduction of humans.) The story goes, Anyone who needed to cross a rushing river had to go to the one and only bridge made of wooden planks. Underneath the bridge there lived a terrible, ugly, one-eyed troll. You see, no one was allowed to cross the bridge without the troll’s permission and nobody ever got permission. He always ate them up. If you've dealt much with trolls, you know you're dealing with some pretty ugly minds. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer. Please read the moveon letter below and click the link to tell Congress "KEEP YOUR GRIMY, SORDID HANDS OFF OUR INTERNET!" Thank you, thinkingblue Dear MoveOn member, Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don't work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect Network Neutrality[1]--and you can do your part today. The free and open Internet is under siege--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/ Then, please forward this to 3 friends. Protecting the free and open Internet is fundamental--it affects everything. When you sign this petition, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress. Votes MoveOn has already seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Just last week, AOL blocked any email mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of, which opposes AOL's proposed "email tax."[2] And last year, Canada's version of AT&T--Telus--blocked their Internet Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet Evangelist," who recently wrote this
The essence of the Internet is at risk--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/ Please forward to 3 others who care about this issue. Thanks for all you do. --Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team Thursday, April 20th, 2006 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
manticore n. A legendary monster having the head of a man, the body of a lion, and the tail of a dragon or scorpion. troll n. A supernatural creature of Scandinavianfolklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges.
ONCE UPON A TIME, FROM MOLLY IVINS (wish this was a fictional myth but sadly it's not) 'A president swollen with power' AUSTIN - Once upon a time, in the middle of a nasty constitutional crisis in Washington, a most unlikely hero emerged: a Texas lawyer from one of our state's notoriously discriminated-against racial minorities. Think how lucky we were. Thirty years ago, this state could produce Barbara Jordan -- and now we send that pathetic pipsqueak Alberto Gonzales. It's enough to provoke a wailing cry of "O tempora! O mores!" even from the depths of Lubbock. As a New York Times editorial succinctly put it, the attorney general's Judiciary Committee appearance was a "daylong display of cynical hair-splitting, obfuscation, disinformation and stonewalling." How fortunate that Republicans running the committee did not insist that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States take an oath before testifying. God forbid that he should actually be held to the truth. I realize it's a cliché for those of us who remember the Beach Boys to mourn the days when giants roamed the earth and all was on a grander and finer scale. But I knew Jordan, and I know Gonzales, and it is depressing -- he's too lightweight to even be a mediocrity. It seems to me that this trumpery excuse for a hearing raised graver issues than those of 30 years ago. Gonzales kept trying to frame the issue as a question of whether a domestic spying program without warrants is illegal -- in fact, it is against the law. Gonzales maintained that the law is superseded by some unwritten constitutional power due the president during time of war and, further, that Congress had authorized warrantless spying when giving the president the authority to invade Afghanistan. Strange -- so few who voted for invading Afghanistan recall having warrantless spying in mind. One problem of legal logic is to "define war." We have not been attacked by another nation. We were clearly the aggressors against Iraq. We were attacked by a private group of ideological zealots led by a Saudi millionaire. This war -- against no nation, flag or territory -- can presumably last indefinitely, like our wars against drugs and crime. Barbara Jordan observed that impeachment "is designed to 'bridle' the executive if he engages in excesses. ... The Framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the president in order to strike a delicate balance between a president swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive. ... 'A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.'" Nixon was accused, among other things, of misuse of the CIA. I highly recommend James Risen's new book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. Risen is the New York Times reporter who broke the story of the National Security Agency spying scandal. Thomas Powers, an authority on U.S. intelligence, reviewed the Risen book for The New York Review of Books and notes: "If the Constitution forbids a president anything it forbids war on his say-so, and if it insists on anything it insists that presidents are not above the law. In plain terms this means that presidents cannot enact laws on their own, or ignore laws that have been enacted by Congress. ... "In public life, as in kindergarten, the all-important word is no. We are living with the consequences of the inability to say no to the president's war of choice with Iraq, and we shall soon see how Congress and the courts will respond to the latest challenge from the White House -- the claim by President Bush that he has the right to ignore FISA's prohibition of government intrusion on the private communications of Americans without a court order, and his repeated statements that he intends to go right on doing it." The time is coming when someone will have to say no. Sadly, I have a vision of the impeachment panel, and I see Tom DeLay in the seat once occupied by the great Barbara Jordan.
Democracy Now's Interview with Kevin Phillips CLICK HERE TO GO TO DEMOCRAT WIMPS "Hear Bush Say I'M THE DECIDER!" VIDEO - CAROLYNCONNECTION.COM Graphic REAL PICTURES OF WAR
CAROLYNCONNETION - I have got a mind and I am going to use it! |
Is there no space sacred to the greedy of this world? I know 
who strictly lives to zap the people financially dry so they can... I don't know... maybe, RULE THE WORLD! What other reason for this new idea of theirs "hey there's money to be made here... let's lobby our buddies in Congress to...
On the way up was a bridge
posted by thinkingblue at 4:47 PM
<< Home