Preserving the Status Quo Through "Net Neutrality"?

I sincerely never expected this mind-boggling “explanation”


It was lunch break time yesterday and I took a few minutes to do my Twitter thing.

Saw a Fournier tweet:

So I dropped a quick reaction and clocked back into work.

Meanwhile, Ron had this:

Wait… What?

I mean, does this even make sense? To anyone?

Talk about Orwellian.

“Status quo”…

“No change”…



Ron, buddy… Do you know what any of these words mean?

Seriously, dude.

Where is your vaunted reporter’s skepticism?

Heck, where’s your dictionary?

In normal, everyday EnglishSpeak…

  • Preserving the status quo means leaving it alone.
  • No change means not changing it.
  • Conservative means (well, whatever conservative means, but I digress).
  • Populist means standing for the people—which is usually voiced by the people themselves, or endorsed by them, say…through elections.

I was helped by this guy’s take:

And this guy’s:

Jerry certainly gets it:

Whatever you think about the merits/demerits of net “neutrality”

You’re not helping your cause by just throwing stuff out into the Twitterverse.

Words have meaning.

Up is down just isn’t going to cut it.

It’s not okay.

I came of age when the government regularly lied to us, turning language inside-out, deliberately confusing us to hide what they were doing, play out the clock, do what they wanted to do without being held accountable.

I thought we had smartened up since those days:

BENTRE, Feb. 7 (AP)―“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,” a United States major said today

He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.

—Peter Arnett, The New York Times: “Major Describe Moves”, February 8, 1968, p. 14.

Guess not.