RSS
Twitter
Internet Filtering Appearing On Various Wishlists For Obama
from the hopefully-this-goes-nowhere dept
It's tough to get that worked up about the various "wishlists" being sent by different interest groups to President-elect Obama. After all, you'd expect the groups to basically push for their entire agenda, and there's no indication that an Obama administration will agree to any of these -- but it's still worth watching. For example, the MPAA's wishlist includes plenty of forced filtering and a "three strikes" policy that Europe recently rejected as taking away basic human rights (there's that MPAA spirit!). Then, we've got a group focused on "protecting the children" asking Obama to create a child protection czar, who apparently will take on the role of "first parent" in the White House, because it's not like we can expect parents to be responsible for protecting their own children.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
czars?
Is it just me, or are we suddenly filling the white house with a lot of these "czars".
I'd hope that Obama would be very anti-censorship, being that that's a major element of the bleeding heart liberal ideology.
Lets hope so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Err
This is about to get completely out of hand.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: czars?
The average, every-day liberal is like that, but the ones in power, like Obama, Clinton, et al., are all about taking away your freedoms & rights. And if you're willing to pay for a seat of power, then go see the Illinois Governor.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: czars?
I for one welcome our czar overlords.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Unlike everyone else here...
...my "see the future" goggles are busted, so I'll wait until Obama & friends give me an actual indication as to what they're thinking before making silly assumptions about what he'll do because he's a democrat ;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: czars?
"I'd hope that Obama would be very anti-censorship, being that that's a major element of the bleeding heart liberal ideology."
Ideology or not, the political correctness movement and all the censorship, lawsuits, etc that came with it sprung from liberals. Liberals can be quite quick to censor, but it is a different kind of censorship than that of conservatives.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Parent Beating
I hope Obama becomes a conservative overnight and just tells the "Protecting American Children" group to go away and tell America to slap your kid for once.
It's simple.
Kid -> runs around screaming hitting things with a stick
Father -> "Son that is no way to act"
Kid -> .. Continues
Father -> *Slap* Settle Down
Kid -> *cries8
Father -> *Slap* "stop crying and act mature in public"
Kid grows up to be a very well mannered person :) game over
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: czars?
He's filling the White House with all of Clintons ex-employees... so where's the change? Looks like its back to SoSdD!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Parent Beating
I would bet that this Protect the Children group is probably a conservative group. You know, the likes of which the enemy is myspace and video games and so forth.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Parent Beating
Then they are just 2 dumb to understand the philosophies of being a conservative.
Government = Small
Parents = Big
If Government > Parents. Use right to overthrow government for being to big.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: czars?
"The average, every-day liberal is like that, but the ones in power, like Obama, Clinton, et al., are all about taking away your freedoms & rights."
And in addition, conservatives are all about strengthening the rights of individuals. Just look at what Bush has accomplished ... huh ? ... errr hang on a sec.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Obama tech-man?
Obama seems pretty internet savvy, could it be that he understands (and privately laughs at) the futility of attempting online censorship?
Besides, being the first "black" man in the White House means he needs to set the bar high, so high that when seen in comparison to all those white folks elected over the last 50 years, people will say: "Why the hell did we ever vote for those white schmucks? Let's elect us another black man, the last one did a great job."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Parent Beating
I seriously doubt that "Protect the Children" is a conservative agenda. Conservatives want a smaller government with a greater responsibility on the citizens. We dont want some government social program to do our parenting!
I was raised a conservative and played tons of video games, now have a myspace, and know plenty of other conservatives just like me. Ironically, liberals tend to take away your liberties and freedoms and give more power to government programs to assume "our responsibilities" as citizens.
I dont need some government program to tell me how to spend my money and how to live my life!!! My advice is 'Get educated', know the agenda of your leaders and know how to express your opinion. It is important that we, as American Citizens, exercise our rights and understand our history. If not, we are doomed to repeat it. http://jermski.com/node/125
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Face it, any political group will want to censor what they don't like, even if the group's fundamental ideology is freedom. As stated, liberals and conservatives simply censor differently. Luckily our liberals aren't as extreme as in other parts of the world so we don't suffer from their lack of rights yet, though our conservatives have gone a little far (and this is the main issue that made me dislike Clinton).
I really hope Obama's administration is more sensible than this. I liked his greater understanding and appreciation of technology as opposed to other politicians, so that makes me a bit more optimistic that he won't give in, or at least not entirely.
(And I have to say, it is unbelievably pathetic when parents want the government to do their job for them. That's a straight-out admission of your own failures and inadequacies as a parent. Embarrassing.)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Obama tech-man?
Racist much?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: czars?
He did not say that. Your counter argument is completely illogical.
Bush and the neo-cons have bent the constitution just as much as the Dems have habitually done.
In closing, leave you with this muddy pearl of wisdom:
"just because one thing sucks doesn't mean something else doesn't" -Munjibunga
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Obama tech-man?
Actually, I find the whole idea of "races" amongst humans laughable. We're only one race...
That being said, one must communicate using the vernacular of the day.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: czars?
Who are these "neo-cons" and what exactly have they done? Can you give us some specific examples?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: czars?
"And in addition, conservatives are all about strengthening the rights of individuals. Just look at what Bush has accomplished ... huh ? ... errr hang on a sec."
Bush isn't a real conservative. That's been the problem from the start.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: czars?
Republican's do not mean they are conservative. Democrats do not mean they are Liberal.
People who don't pay attention to what goes on in the world and been raised to vote this or that but don't understand anything are what causes Republicans and Democrats to be in office. They hate Republicans so they vote Democratic.
People should vote on issues and then that will select the best candidate for them it would work so much better.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
filtering
this seems like the unabashed mind control agenda the left would push. take away freedom of speech, freedom of though, and freedom to communicate and the liberals will be very happy. as long as you are entirely open minded to their way of thinking.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Obama tech-man?
He's the first half-white president. Or Halfrican American.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I still get worked up
I still get worked up. I guess I should expect it, but the very notion boils my blood so much that I get worked up. Fortunately I am not worked up about Obama, but I am worried a little since Biden is vp. Will he have more influence than he should?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: czars?
see: "The Patriot Act"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hey,
first with the child protection czar probally wont happen obama is a strong supporter of taking resposibility for your own children. Second if obama supports anything other than internet nuetrality i will be mad/sad/disapointed
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: czars?
hey,
just to let you know the most anti-cencership people in congress (as far as the enet goes) are republican OMG
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The free-will argument in practice
Good parenting starts at home and the result of bad parenting is a very lucrative business.
As a taxpayer, it costs the equivalent of a year's tuition, books, room and board at Harvard for each person we lock up. What are we paying for? Well, I always thought the goal of prison was to rehabilitate a person so they could re-join society, but in many cases it does the opposite and they are locked up again. Don't get me wrong. My old man worked for 35 years as a cop before retiring, and some people are just plain evil and need to be locked up. But if the idea of incarceration is not achieving its end goal, what's wrong? It's incredibly costly and produces no productive output. It would be better to find some way to put the demand wedge on early childhood "facilitation" over the more costly "rehabilitation". A focus on developmental psychology would be useful.
Point is, parents, and NOT government need to more adequately teach "If you play with fire, you get burned". Involving Government presents a slippery slope where legislating morality becomes the ideal. But by doing so, it has at tendency to create a sanitized society and kids lack learning from experience.
Think about the effects of Prohibition. Many of our founding documents were created around the vice of beer- Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin all were fond of the firewater. But because alcohol was seen as a vice to the Hoover administration, Prohibition was legislated. By legislating to the "socially acceptable" ideal, children lack growth in the area of learning social norms and boundaries. Remember: during Prohibition, people still got their beer, and many people died or went blind because of the toxicity of the alcohol. This is similar to the back-alley abortion argument.
So now interests want to enact internet filtering. But in doing so, they are attempting to centrally-legislate what is a threat commercially under the argument of "For the Children". But, this just feeds back into the broken rehabilitation argument outlined above. Filtering has promise, but it should be considered at a home-level where the intervening parties are the parents.
So what do you do?
We use this program called "SafeEyes" and have it setup to send a text message when Junior is visiting questionable websites. It's very effective too- Whenever my wife or I get the dreaded text message, it's like a reminder that I need to give a ring to check in and see if everything's okay. And my wife and I don't point fingers because that will just cause animosity. We just let him know that we love him, ask how his day went and talk. So that's our intervention strategy. We still provide free will. Don't judge, let Junior do what he needs to do, and overall it's worked out real well too. Our trust level has grown to the point where he'll call just for the heck of it because he knows he can trust us.
I realize that some may think this is hypocritical but the thing is that if we don't intervene, someone else surely will.
It seems the best solution would be a return to the nuclear family, and two-way communication.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: czars?
Perhaps you should dig into the history books a little more before you go speaking in public.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: czars?
"Republican's do not mean they are conservative. Democrats do not mean they are Liberal."
This is an extremely important concept that most voters just don't seem to understand. That there can be varying opinions within a party just does not seem to register with some people. This is one of our biggest societal issues, and one that any democratic society (ie, the republic we all love so much) should be embarassed by.
That said, I've noticed so far that Pres.-Elect Obama is a very different person than (the more liberal) Senator Obama. I sincerely hope this trend continues and he doesn't get caught up in the liberal (or conservative) agenda of legislating morality and responsibility -- yes, both sides do it.
Also, there's nothing wrong with hitting your kids, as long as they actually deserve it. :P (Only semi-kidding...)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What the hell does it say about our country that we need to appoint "czars" (instead of "secretery", which at least connotes service rather than domination). I swear, they're trying to turn me into a menshevik.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Offtopic - Patent for new voting system
The major problems with our current political system is that the system fosters internal rivalry between supposed different 'factions', whether those be Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal, wacko-nutjob/wasted-hasbeen, or whatever.
I propose that all candidates are posed with a series of current and potential future issues, and each one is required to submit a brief position on the various issues. The language is then 'summarized and cleaned' so that the individual can't be identified by their use or mis-use of language.
Voting then takes place by the voters being presented with the same issues, and the various responses from the candidate, the voter then selects the response that most corresponds with their beliefs. The responses are tabulated (voting machines can count like 1+1=2, right.... just kidding, we all know they use the 1+1=2 for you, 1+1=3 for me math /sarcasm) summarized and the candidate who most corresponds to the individuals beliefs is then selected and a vote is cast for that individual.
None of this, "I've been a Republican for life and that's all I'm going to ever vote" crap. Lets stop voting based on internal prejudice and upbringing and start voting on the things that matter, the real issues.
I'm sure nothing like this would ever happen, but it would remove most of the bias that comes from party affiliation or distance from the middle (left wing/right wing) and replace it with the candidates stand on the issues.
Of course this all assumes that what the candidates state as their position is actually factual and not a load of malarky. The problem is that we all know that 80% of what comes out of politicians mouths are lies... (these stats are real, except that 67% of statistics are made up on the spot, so this might be true).
An added benefit would be that AFTER the election the position statements would be public record and they could be held accountable for changes in those positions.... Not that "We the Sheeple" (tm pending) ever hold politicians accountable for what they say they are going to do.
I'd patent the idea if I thought that there was any chance that this type of system would ever be implemented..... Lets make it a public web service instead, so the positions are aggregated and summarized from various media and public records, and then once you select the appropriate positions that correspond with yours, it shows which candidate most fits in with your own personal beliefs.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: czars?
You think that's bad? This is one thing our president elect has in store...
Mandatory Civillian Security Force
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80539
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: czars?
I thought there were three branches of government. When did this change?
It used to be that the prez could not just make a decree and it would be so. Boy those were the days huh. Congress had to vote their approval before stuff became law, and the Supreme Court had to rule on the cases brought before it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Czars
I heard talk that there was going to be an "auto czar" to look after the auto industry. And now there's talk of a "child czar". Pretty soon, we'll need someone looking after these new posts... yep, a "czar czar".
And how did we wind up using a *Russian* term for these overseers? I thought the US hated the Russians back in the 1950's. Is this irony or someone with a lack of imagination?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment