Montel Williams Recives The Word Of “God.”
It wont surprise many of our readers to learn that ousted television monarch, the formerly sir, Montel Williams has spent the bulk of his now fifty-two year retirement wandering the boardwalks in Calcutta rehearsing his Oscar speech. Nor will it come as a great shock – at least to those who purchased copies of the limited print Early Writings of an Urban Wizard – to learn Mr Williams’ recitation, which more or less constitutes a half century of intense mantra practiced, finally had the effect of setting his chakras into perfect alignment. Mr. Williams was bless with this brief, but intense spiritual experience earlier this week. The noteworthy part of this story, is the profoundly unusual nature of Mr. Williams’ particular religious vision. While most saints who under go this transformation report hearing the voices of Marry, or the Archangel Gabriel, Mr. Williams appears to have contacted the wandering spirit of the late Senator Ted Stevens, and channelled an exact, word for word recitation of the departed mans reasoned argument against the Net Neutrality Bill.
From the cell phone recording of a passer by, and for those who may not recall the exact wording of the text in question, here is a transcript of the incantation Mr. Williams’ recited while in his alleged trance. The punctuation is my own, as derived from the cadence, and the words belong to Mr. Stevens, but the voice is on the recording undoubtedly belongs to Mr. Williams:
What the senator is talking about is allowing all of these entities that support this to provide streaming stuff going – going on the Internet. Now the Internet – let’s you know. Let’s go back, the Internet started with with the concept of local to local. Connections across the country and, you could go for Alaska but you. . . you had to go through local connections to get there. The industry wisely provided for streaming of, in affect a new kind of long distance, and that’s what we’ve got. We’ve got a service that’s immune to distance. And it’s there for the consumer. But but when we take, and really indicate that. Anyone that wants to use it, this system, for massive, massive communi-commercial purposes.
There’s one company now you can. You, you sign up and you get a movie delivered to your house! daily! By subscription, by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it put in the mail box and you get home. . . and in your muscle you can change your order. But you pay for that, right? This service is now going to go through the Internet and what you do is,m you just go to a place on Internet and you order your movie and guess what? you can order ten of them! At deliver to you, and the delivery charge is free right? Ten movies streaming across that in Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet?
I just the other day got – internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday!
Why?
Because you got tangled up with all these things that going on the Internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let’s talk about you and me. We use this Internet to communicate and we aren’t using it for commercial purposes. We aren’t earning anything by going on that Internet. Now I’m not saying you have to discriminate or you want to discriminate against those people. I’m just saying that we haven’t seen anything yet, that indicates there is discrimination! And until you can define it, I’m opposed to the concepts that are implied by your recommendation.
We have, if it. We have already had unfair competition. And here we have this one situation where enormous entities want to use the Internet for their purpose, to save money, for doing what they’re doing now! They use FedEx, they use the. . . delivery services, they use the mail! They deliver in other ways. But they want to deliver fast amounts of information, over the Internet.
And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on, it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes! And if you don’t understand those tubes can be filled – and if they are filled — when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material! Enormous amounts of material.
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says “No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the Internet.”
No, I’m not finished. I want people to understand my position, I’m not going to take a lot of time.
Om Shanti Om.
Michael Scott