Slashdot Mirror

My point is that American citizens are being encouraged to inform on each other also. There is no need to single China out. The U.S. and Europe are rapidly heading in that direction(not informant related, but the idea is the same). Don't even try to deny it. The details that seperate us are very few and quite minor indeed.

First, let me declare how overwhelmingly disappointed I was when I checked the calendar and realized that it was not, in fact, April Fool's Day. I'd frankly prefer slashdot becoming the Portal of Ponies! to seeing this in the news.

1) Frankly, any political official has made the choice to be a political official. At that point, one should accept that there are compromises - like neutrality. Yes, I know she is not a judge (just as I am not a lawyer) - and yes, I know that it's not the FCC's decision. Still, how secure would you feel if the President of the US said something like, "actually, I'm a huge fan of burning witches at the stake, and am looking forward to using my platform as a 'bully pulprit' on the topic"? To put it another way, and try to express my emotions as purely as they're coming on - italicized for strong language - this isn't her goddamn job, I didn't ask for her goddamn opinion, and shouldn't she be "using" her "position" as something other than a fucking bully pulprit? Hey, Debbie, how about, you know, doing the job that you were appointed to do, to serve the people - not "lead" the people, not "encourage" the "direction" the "people" will "take" - not get involved in corporate goddamn matters - but rather, commission the federal airwaves so I can watch the ballgame on ABC without Joe McHam broadcasting his own drunken play-by-play?

2) These seems like a transparent "deal-making" sort of statement. Allow me to elaborate - considering that the major networks are already involved with the FCC over the whole "naughty words" thing, what's stopping them from reaching a deal like H.R. 2911 (you know, the Tipper Bill - 'Prenatal' (sic) Advisory - aka the bill which caused me to - yes - sympathize with Bushitlerlol in the 2000 election (a vote for Red is a vote for Not-Blue - sure I was rooting for Nader, but anyway, I digress)) - aka, "well Mr. Government, Ms. Debbie - we don't want no legal setbacks... so how about we settle this here matter out of court... we'll all line up and force DRM on the customers if you agree to, uh, lighten up on the S word when it's sweeps week"? My hypothesis: Absolutely nothing, and that is what in fact will happen. So much for the "free market" that some fake-Libitarian +5 Insightful Idiot posted a few posts up from here.

This woman is twice as idiotic as Harriet Miers, and yet who really gets outraged over this? Where's the media uproar over this nonpolitical, opinionated statement from someone being paid with my tax dollars? Oh, yeah, Bush said something silly, that's more important. Certainly hasn't happened before, certainly isn't going to happen again.



Ugh.

Anyway. I kinda wandered off the main line and turned my guarenteed karma-whore into a post that pissed off the Republicans, the Democrats, and is probably -1 Redundant to the Independant Frontier Electronique Freedom Fighters (all two or three of them still bothering to post online these days, heh). So go ahead, mod me...



~~-- -1, Flamebait :-\

...In the aftermath of the controversy over hidden codes in the video game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" that can unlock sexual content, members of both the U.S. House and Senate have asked the Federal Trade Commission for an investigation. That development pleases a California congressman who has long been a watchdog of the industry. Leland Yee says he welcomes the help of legislators that have already been concerned -- and those whose names have surfaced recently, such as Senator Hillary Clinton -- because the point of everyone's concern is the children who are affected by the video games. "Our children are extremely fragile, and they are in fact our future -- and if we don't protect them, as a society, then there's not much of a future to look forward to," the lawmaker asserts. Yee says the reason for concern -- the reliability of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) -- is crucial to parents. He says it is clear that the developers of "Grand Theft Auto" intentionally denied the truth about their placement of hidden codes in the game -- and that is why he says Senator Clinton's request, backed by an overwhelming 355-21 vote in the House of Representatives favoring the investigation as well, is totally appropriate. "You have to ask the question: what is the [rating system] for anymore," Yee says. "And if we can't rely on them, then we really need to look at some other alternative." He explains that Senator Clinton has asked the FTC to review the entire rating system, and to determine "whether or not [the rating system] can in fact protect our children." [Ed Thomas]

Why would Lot offer his daughters to the mob of men since it was a very bad thing to do? Quite simply, what Lot did was wrong. He was hypocritical and ungodly in his action. In that culture, it was extremely important to treat visitors very well since the host of a home in a city automatically represented that city to the visitors. It was a very big deal to make sure the visitors were well treated. This may have played a part in Lot's decision to honor his guests, but it makes no difference. Lot was very wrong to offer his own daughters to the mob.
          Some may think that Lot was a very godly man. But this is not the case in this instance. If he were, why was he living in Sodom in the first place? Why did he choose to go there? It is probably true that Lot was a God-fearing man to some extent, but he obviously was compromising his values and was probably being influenced by the sinfulness of the city. In his compromised position, he sinned by offering his daughters.
          Finally, we must look at 2 Pet. 2:6-7,

"and if He [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men..."

        Even the righteous before God can do things that are wrong. Overall, Lott feared God and trusted in Him -- even though he did wrong by offering his daughters. God does not remember our sins (Isaiah 43:25), Therefore, Lot's sins were not remembered when Lot was described in Peter's account.

Sure, Richard Simmons may not be MLK, but what does Matthew Shephard's death bring to mind?

The dangers of Drug abuse.

Matt Shephard was killed when someone tried to rip him off. They raised the "gay panic" defense because they thought that the court system would give them more mercy than if the murder was about drugs.

LK

"Baseball, hotdogs, apple pie. . .and Disney." A few years ago that statement would have rung true. No longer. For decades Disney was a name families could trust. The name Disney meant wholesomeness, laughter, quality family entertainment without pornography, violence and profanity. More than anything the name Disney meant children. Sadly, this is no longer true. Disney has gone from trusted friend to hostile foe of those who hold the same values and ideals that this - the world's most popular entertainment giant - once represented. -- AFA

The Village Voice declared Miramax/Disney's Kill Bill "The Most Violent American Movie Ever Made," and the Hollywood Reporter warned it "oozes, drips, flows, gushes, splatters... scalps, limbs and heads are freely removed from characters' bodies."

You'd think that Disney would tone it down for a Christmas movie. Sorry, no Miracle on 34th Street here. In Bad Santa, Miramax/Disney features a disgusting Santa that yells at a kid, several times: "G**-d***it! Are you f**king with me?" Another scene depicts a barmaid having sex with Santa in his car outside of the bar: "F**k me, Santa! F**k me, Santa!"

Disney-owned [television] channels account for the overwhelming number of erotic and pornographic network programs on air. -- FFA