Tone deaf? Government control, politicans, and the technicians in dissonance

It’s from the say-what-now? department at TechDirt: Harry Reid Says He’s Concerned PIPA Will Break The Internet, But We Must Move Forward With It, Because Of ‘Jobs’.

The ‘because of jobs’ thing should be a dead giveaway as that is the knee jerk rationale for anything a politician wants to do right now.

What’s stunning is how misleading Senator Reid is being here. First, he claims that the bill is about “jobs,” despite a total lack of evidence that that’s true. In fact, as has been noted plenty of times here, the part of the economy that is creating jobs — the startup/tech sector — is the one who gets burdened by this bill.

Next he claims that he’s working with Senator Feinstein on this, since she’s “in the middle” of the issue, representing both Northern and Southern California, where the issue is loudest. This would be the same Senator Feinstein who is so tone deaf to what’s happening in her own state, that just weeks ago she insisted that she didn’t know the tech industry was upset about the bill.

It’s such a politician’s response: he pretends that he’s in agreement with the concerns of everyone… but then immediately admits he’s ignoring those concerns and pushing forward with a bad bill, which he clearly never understood, and which it appears he just found out there was criticism around, despite the fact it’s been going on for months.

One problem is that all politicians get painted with the sort of intellectual confusion that has typified Reid and Feinstein on this issue and on many others. This particular essay may be a step in the right direction in that it identifies specific behaviors of specific individuals. The pull of bigotry though, appears to be very strong and the essay ends back up on “politicians” and the persons as do many of the comments. That approach is one reason why Reid and Feinstein were elected to office in the first place.

This is a key that can be used to qualify arguments. When the focus is on the person or some labeled group and not on a specific behavior or policy, then you know that intellectual integrity is not at the forefront of the considerations. That is when you have to filter out the ad hominem to get to what it is that is really at stake.

Comments are closed.