A Tale of Two Teds

 

That two-faced, slick little stinker Ted Cruz is at it again … wanting, as most politicians do, to have it both ways, which he could probably pull off if he wasn't so hell-bent on keeping his face in the news by blabbering about whatever pops into his puny mind about Obama. Now he's whining that Net Neutrality is "Obamacare for the Internet" (whatever the that means) and that it's a bad idea, but doesn't explain WHY it's a bad idea. No wonder, given his statement, which clearly demonstrates that Cruz doesn't really understand the concept of Net Neutrality in the first place. So … let me explain it in a way that even Ted Cruz can understand.

Without Net Neutrality, Internet Services Providers - or ISPs - could develop "fast lanes" to those content providers who are willing to pay more, which would considerably slow down overall Internet activity (streaming, as it were) for the rest of us. Net Neutrality ensures that all websites must play on a level playing field, subsequently ensuring that ALL of their customers are treated equally.

Call it Equal Data Under Law.

And why is Cruz, who claims – as a Tea Bagger – to stand up for the common man, against Net Neutrality? (Aside from his professed hatred for Everything Obama.) Well, if Cruz DOESN'T come out against Net Neutrality, the likes of Comcast and other ISPs who give him lots of money to have their way in Washington would be mighty upset.

Now the fact that Cruz isn't the only taker of ISP donations isn't lost on me. But Cruz is the one mouthing off about it and Cruz is the one who claims to be the best representative for the average guy and Cruz is the stinker who, as always, just can't shake the stink of hypocrisy.

Without Net Neutrality, those Christmas shows (on ISP-provided TV) that are already underway, would be at risk and online shopping would be much more cumbersome in the homes of all those Tea Bagging nuts who mistakenly think that Ted Cruz has their best interests at heart.

So what will they hear from Ted Cruz? Feliz Navidad or Chinga Tu?

Megyn Kelly Speaks. Big Mistake.

Whenever Megyn Kelly speaks, it's always fun to imagine what might come out. Monday night was no exception, when she dropped the F-bomb in introducing Mike Huckabee – a shock to all the Fox News viewers, no doubt. It's hard to believe that such a word – such language! – could exist, even subconsciously, in the recesses of a prim and proper little mind like that of a pious little priss like Megyn Kelly.

Reagan Revisited

In the wake of the Senate victory this week, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson points out that the usual suspects are, once again, claiming the Reagan legacy. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio (courtesy of Lindsey Graham); the usual assholes. Gerson then proceeds to cite an essay by a couple of conservative screwballs (whose names aren't important) for the purpose of pointing out that the Reagan of old may not be the Reagan that the current crop of young Republicans think they remember. That Reagan was the original maverick (dare they say, the original Tea Bagger); that Reagan wasn't necessarily about freedom, but instead "human dignity;" and that Reagan had a sympathetic side to him that included a role for government to help those who might need to "depend on their fellow man." (Ha! This from the guy who claimed that "government was the problem.")

Anyhow, Gerson reminds us that Libertarians at the time felt that Reagan's soft side was too soft. But in truth, Reagan's soft side extended only to a select few; a fact made clear by his policies.

He fought to cut spending programs for the needy.

He reduced insurance for workers who had lost jobs to foreign competition he refused to stand up to. 

He reduced student aid and food stamps.

He reduced Social Security benefits and the budget for the Civil Rights Commission.

He claimed that homeless people might well be “homeless by choice.”

In other words, he had no use for those who weren't just like him, leaving the poor, the needy, the working man, minorities or any marginalized group to fend for themselves. And Reagan absolutely despised gays.

Ten years after his death, his legacy of hatred lives on, and if he didn't end up as the most vicious, uncaring president in U.S. history, he was goddam close.

Meanwhile, we have the new band of Republicans to contend with, not to mention those right-wing journalists who might coach them. And under further review, these journalists probably have it wrong.

The likes of Cruz, Paul and Mike Lee have succeeded in emulating their patron saint Reagan to a fault, though no man or woman – not even these righteous, nasty, self-absorbed little buggers – will ever approach the level of treachery and neglect set by Ronald Reagan.