Possibly the Most Important Thing I’ve Read This Week
July 9, 2008
The Blog Post I’m Referring To Can Be Found Here
I’ve been waiting for this to round out a little bit today before linking it… but I think it’s an important matter to bring up.
Aaron Brazell [@technosailor] at Technosailor.com has posted about an on-going issue with Congress and the current attempt to keep their members from using Social Media tools like Twitter and Qik.
Congressman John Culberson (R-TX) [@johnculberson] has weighed in on the issue making it as simple to understand as can be… something that he would not be allowed to do if the Democrat side of the house has their way on this one. There are congressmen & senators using the internet right now just like you and I do. That needs to continue without censorship in my book.
But rather than recreating the wheel – just go read Aaron’s amazing post on it.
Comments
5 Responses to “Possibly the Most Important Thing I’ve Read This Week”
Got something to say?
oohhh I thought it was going to be the tech crunch swastika story… lol. Funny comment you left!
@antje – thanks, I think
The congressman in NOT trying to ban new-media communication:
http://www.house.gov/capuano/news/2008/st070908.shtml
He is actually trying to loosen the current rules. Now, he is, as you’ll read, a bit interested in keeping those new forms of communication from looking like commercials for one candidate or another when that might not have been the intention of the person posting the content.
As you probably know, contextual ads sometimes create unfortunate juxtapositions, as when, for example, an ad for Drano mistakenly appears next to a news story about someone committing suicide by eating drain cleaner.
But the Democratic Congress is NOT trying to restrict anyone’s freedom to communicate.
Thank you for your input, Mary.
Unfortunately, the link you provided not only didn’t refute all of the information on Aaron’s blog – or the things that Rep John Culberson has been saying – but it served also to reinforce my impression that Capuano is not someone I would trust as far as I could throw him.
Not content to simply deny the assertions presented in this matter, he apparently feels it’s appropriate to be pedantic and condescending to his Congressional colleagues.
“I hope this clarifies the issue for anyone following this temper tantrum by some of my colleagues” is not language that I ascribe to someone who has solid footing. Ad hominem attacks tend to support the opposite assertion – as they are always the last refuge of those who are out of logical arguments.
But thank you for your input.
Thanks for the post