Potential GOP candidate for President in 2016, Ben Carson, does not want you to pay attention to the words coming out of his mouth. Just what he is actually TRYING to say.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Earlier this year, Carson had told the conservative news outlet Breitbart that the U.S. was “very much like Nazi Germany” because President Barack Obama was using the government to “intimidate the population.” 

“What I heard the comparison of the United States of America — the greatest country in the world, the greatest country ever — to Nazi Germany, I said, what is he talking about?” Blitzer told Carson on Wednesday. 

“See, what you were doing is allowing words to affect you more than listening to what was actually being said,” Carson insisted. “Nazi Germany experienced something horrible. The people in Nazi Germany largely did not believe in what Hitler was doing, but did they say anything? Of course not. They kept their mouths shut.” 

“The fact that our government is using instruments of government like the IRS to punish its opponents, this is not the kind of thing, as far as I’m concerned, that is a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue that threatens all of our liberty, all or our freedom.” 

Blitzer, however, wasn’t satisfied: “But to make the comparison, Dr. Carson, to Nazi Germany, the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis, the devastation that erupted in Europe and around the world to the United States of America, I want you to reflect on what that means.” 

“Well, again, you are just focusing on the words Nazi Germany and completely missing the point,” Carson replied. “And that’s the problem right now, that’s what PC-ism is all about: You may not say this word regardless of what your point is because if you say that word, you know, I go into a tizzy. We can do better than that.” 

“We need to get to the point where we can look beyond the word, and look for the meaning,” he said, adding that he had no intention of revising his remarks.

Yes dammit, stop focusing on the actual words that Ben Carson is saying and try to instead derive the meaning of what he would have said if he had used entirely different words.

How hard is that?

By the way this is the guy that is currently leading the polls as a potential Republican presidential candidate if Mitt Romney's wife refuses to let him run again.

Of course that is all bullshit because I think that we all know that sometime before 2016 the conservatives are going to realize that he is black. And you may not have heard but they REALLY don't like black people.

President Obama's move to protect net neutrality is good for everybody except powerful service providers, so that means the Right Wing is coming after him with torches and pitchforks.

Courtesy of The Washington Post:  

President Obama on Monday called for the government to aggressively regulate Internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast, treating broadband like a public utility as essential as water, phone service and electricity. 

Such a move would have a dramatic effect on cable and telecom firms that have fought vigorously to keep their highly profitable Internet businesses free of regulation. 

This is Obama's most aggressive statement yet in favor of a free and open Internet and against allowing Internet service providers to charge content companies like Netflix for faster access to their customers. The president's statement, released online Monday while he traveled to Asia, calls for the FCC to adopt the strictest rules possible for ensuring so-called net neutrality, or the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. 

"I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online," Obama said in a statement.

Of course for somebody like me, whose entire day is spent on the internet and who has a local service provider trying to bleed me dry, this is incredibly welcome news.

We absolutely need more regulation to protect us from monopolies that have customers in a vice grip, and to protect online businesses from having to pay extra money to stream their content, the cost of which invariably gets passed on to the consumer.

So because this is clearly a great idea for most Americans, conservatives hate it.

Of course most are not quite as batshit crazy about it as Ted Cruz:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

I don't even know what the hell that means.

However the folks over at The Oatmeal have made an effort to educate Ted Cruz.

Here of course is the real reason that big telecoms and their political surrogates like Ted Cruz are going to fight this thing, and why it could ultimately be a godsend to folks like you and me: 

Right now, no one is really talking about rates: The main concern is balancing access to the internet with investment by the private sector. The FCC wants to make sure it can prevent internet service providers from discriminating against traffic, and US courts have made pretty clear that the best way to do this is to classify the internet as a “common carrier,” as Obama endorsed today. The FCC has the powers to regulate common carriers across a variety of arenas, including preventing unreasonable discrimination. 

But one other thing that the FCC can do with a common carrier is ensure that its rates are “just and reasonable.” For instance, the FCC doesn’t allow phone companies to charge more than $6.50 for a single line, so that all Americans can afford access. Similar pricing rules are in place at electricity plants. If the internet is regulated under Title II, the government could come up with a similar cap on how much companies can charge for internet access.

Of course currently there is no mention of this in what the President is suggesting, and I understand why, but ultimately I would like to know that such regulations on how much providers can charge customers might be in the offing.

However even without that component to this change the idea is still very sound and would protect companies, and their consumers, from the type of abuse that we know is coming soon. And in some cases is already here.