Slashdot Mirror
'Citizenship' not Censorship
ronfar writes "The Latest Senatorial Attack on American Freedom. I'm not sure why I care anymore, except that my freedoms are going down the drain along with everybody elses. I mean, it's pretty obvious that the Leibermans, Gores, Bennets and Bauers of the world feel secure in forcefully turning this country into an authoritarian state. The sad thing is that when people finally realize how much they've lost, they will no longer have the power to do anything about it. Our democracy is committing suicide, I just wish someone would intervene and take the razor away before it slits its wrists. "
There are aproximately 260,000,000 americans in this country. We have a little over 400 people representing ALL of them. That comes down to each 500,000 people being represented by ONE person. It's no wonder why people no longer have a voice! Do you realize that back in the dark ages the ENTIRE world population was about one million?! If there were just 3 people representing those one million that would equal a better ratio then what we have here in the USA. We can't be in a democracy when the peoples voice becomes so tiny.
> If I were a parent, I would want to know if a product contained what I judge as inappropriate content for my children to view.
So would I, if I were a parent. The thing is, I can't know if a movie or video game contains what *I* judge as inappropriate content unless I watch it myself. An official rating reflects *somebody else's* opinion, based on somebody else's value system.
Considering their track record, I really don't think that the people who set the standards for official ratings are qualified to decide what my (as yet hypothetical) kids should watch.
"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." -- Garak, ST:DS9
What if the boss is forced to increase wages because of unionization? Then you are anti-union, right? So, really, you are against unions.
Here's a question. How many agree w/ the "spirit" of the law? It wants some sort of standard labelling on all media. Now forget about the fact that the labels you have to get from Big Brother, but how many are actually opposed to a rating system on all media. And please don't go into conspiracy theories and "what's next" arguments.
Funny, the gun-confiscation lobby never mentions that inconvenient data point Switzerland, where adult males are required to have guns by the government and which has a very low murder rate.
What's wrong with you and your politicians and your stupid gun lobby? Get rid of all of your lethal weapons and maybe the problem will be less.
I lived in Montreal a few years ago when a university professor there went nuts and shot and killed 3 profs and a secretary (IIRC). Of course the reaction was predictable: "We need even more gun control than we already have because it isn't working enough!"
About the same time (might have even been the same day, but I'm not sure), a serial killer stabbed 3 women to death in Montreal (too bad none of them had guns). This got very little mention except in the local news. Were there any cries for "knife control"? No, a different agenda was advanced; what little commentary there was talked about "male violence against women."
> you can see naked woman on your tv?
> WHERE DO YOU LIVE???
Anywhere in western Europe, and Canada (in French).
HTH.
Labor Unions don't make any sense unless they are compulsory. Corporations hate unions and they will always create advantages for the workers not in the union, such as firing all of the union workers. Unless everyone is in the Union it is trivial to bust it. Corporations which have unionized labor forces in general deserve it. It's pretty tough to start a Union, and no one would do it unless conditions were bad. I have no sympathy for companies who whine about how much money the Unions are demanding, because if the Union weren't there, the workers would be abused.
If you want to know how Libertarianism really works, go to Indonesia and see the sweatshops. When corporations get free run, people get trampled on. Libertarianism is all about raw use of power for any end.
As a non-American, forgive my ignorance in this matter. Every four years, there's this false air of mystery surrounding who's going to be the next president. Waiting, counting votes, etc. Since the members of the electoral college are in office long in advance of the election (already in place for the 2000 election) and the outcome of their votes is a forgone conclusion, why doesn't some media source just get it over with and announce who the next president is going to be already? I guess they have to prop up the notion of the people being directly in control of the election.
Why was this post given score 0- flamebait ?
/. become a flag-waving spot either.
Face some facts.
This law is being considered by the US. Not any other country. Therefore if the law is stupid, it points to stupidity within the law makers of the US. Not anywhere else. Which means, basically, YES its a perfectly valid criticism - NOT flamebait - to say "I dont understand American culture, why they would want to pass a law as stupid as this".
Just because most of you lot are American, doesnt mean you should be blind to any criticism of your country, your beloved linux was always about a worldwide community rather than some outdated patriotism world-view, so dont let
A legislative body's efficiency is proportional to the square of its size times the inverse of the length of time until the next election. If you're dealing with something that functions poorly, you don't fix that by making it bigger. That just results in something big that functions poorly.
...I'm (almost) 100% for the Libertarians' ideals, and I'm a registered Libertarian. But the party itself is way to silly to actually accomplish anything. A few years ago, when I was feeling ambitious,I went to several meetings of the party in San Diego. I invested somewhere around 50 hours of my life, thinking I could help Change The World (tm). And you know what -- I don't think any pragmatic ides fow winning elections ever came up. There was lots of talk about Why Global Warming Isn't Really Happening, How The Big Parties Are the Same, and How Messed Up Things Are. But not one of 'em -- ever -- seemed to think that maybe they should get out and win an election. I'd like to reiterate that I like and support the party, but my experience with it told me that it's a party of intellectuals who'd rather sit around and talk than actually do anything. (That includes me, by the way -- you won't find me canvasing neighborhoods trying to change the system) In the unlikely event that the LP somehow got people elected into high offices, I think they'd be so stunned that they would promptly become just like the republicrats, much to their own disillusionment.
Censorship of art is one thing, but I don't think that's the situation we're faced with. Billions of dollars are going towards making violent movies and violent television shows which by and large aren't artistic or educational. I have no doubt that seeing a movie like "Saving Private Ryan" would have a strong effect on a child's psyche, and very young children probably shouldn't see it. A twelve year old would probably find a lot of worthwhile material in it. The type of content which this bill is intended to address is thinks I'm sure you're all familiar with if you watched TV growing up. The Transformers, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc. All glorified violence. If you're seven years old and you see this stuff for hours every day, and grow up a little and see lots of movies like Die Hard, how can you help but integrate some of the messages in the movie into your psyche? Some violence in media is fine, but the problem is that media companies have realized that violence is extremely profitable and turn out huge ammounts of it without regard to the effect it is having on society. Corporations don't care what societal effects they cause -- only the bottom line. If we are going to have a free market, we need to make sure that the laws of capitalism don't trample over the health of our citizens.
Holy moly, all you guys trying to pass yourselves off as being smart and knowing what you're talking about, and anything you guys write reads like a 10 year old wrote it. "How can I know what I think if I don't read what I write?" (or something like that). If what you write is coming out in a jumble like the trash I've seen here, your thoughts are all very unorganized and not ready to be spoken!
Say rather, by requiring a minimum IQ?
Jackster
Ever try creating a realtime interface in lunux to a westerbeke M-35b marine diesel engine?
Why!? If you hire someone to do the most important job in your organization, you don't tell all the experienced job seekers to go away and hand the position to the rankest amateur.
Just imagine if the same logic applied to programming work.
"I'm sorry, Mr. Torvalds. You obviously have experience with C and x86 assembly, but I'd rather give this mission-critical application contract to this fellow who has never written a line of code in his life but assures me he knows how to use Internet Explorer on his new Windows 98 machine."
The previous comment by someone living in Minnesota about Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura should be a warning beacon to anyone who wants a Terry Hogan presidency. (Or a Ross Perot presidency, for that matter.)
My thoughts exactly. I am a musician in a band. We play in clubs and give recorded copies of our music away (Though when it's on tape, the very rich musicians are the ones that profit, but that's another issue).
There is one swear word.
Even if there was none, and I lived in the America (aka Brazil, the movie I mean) we would have to go out of our way to provide a rating. That tends to cost money, doesn't it? We don't have money to spend on crap like that and do not have our sights set on massive publication or any of those other "rock star" dreamer fantasies (they tend to be the worst musicians). Same with amateur filmmaking, animation, etc.
Fortunately, I live in Canada. I just bought a JVC television from a local company. The fact that it had a vchip was advertised.
Out of curiosity, I checked out that vchip button. Interestingly enough, every single program I receive, even from the US channels, happens to be "unrated."
Great, the way I like it. My government isn't telling me what I should or shouldn't watch. We do have age ratings in the corner at the beginning of shows though (Duckman gets an 18).
However, I like to think that my vchip doesn't work because our government believes that it is unnecessary. That parents should watch shows with their kids, which is my own belief, and mainly so that concepts that children don't understand can be explained to them.
I only worry about decreased content from the south. Yes, most of it is crap, but there are those gems that come out fairly often. However, Michael Moore proved that people who are stifled in the US can come to Canada to freely make their content.
wish it was true, like any one candidate won't continue to disapoint you in his/her 2/4 years in office. Your choices are:
1. The right wing religious gun nuts!
2. The liberal fascists!
Please forget about emailing your congressperson, the center for democracy and technology did a little experiment and found 90+% of these emails go unread. Its just a nice way of saying "Hey I'm hip and on the web."
The best you can hope for is voting for what SEEMS to be the least of 2 evils and calling your congressman when they're fucking up. Phone calls and letters they tend to listen to, in the way that letters make big piles and phones make ringing noise - hard to ignore.
So please spare me this simple minded "Lets go vote, guys" solution.
Another real concern of mine is that the ratings system in this country will always be completely afraid of anything with sexual content. You can cut off a breast but you'll get a worse rating if you show someone kissing one. So we get the thumbs up on all this violent badly written trash and anything with any merit is suddenly in a ratings level where the producers will lose money from its bad stigma.
You guys really think a rating does nothing? It has a severe economical affect, especially in movies. If you can conform to the R rating, the studio wont back you up and suddenly you have a real form of censorship. Look at the damnable Walmart, anything that doesn't contain X amount of southern hospitality is banned.
The overly-religious have such a stronghold on this country its not even funny anymore.
There is a problem with the "Get rid of all of your lethal weapons and maybe the problem will be less." and that its 100 times easier to give people freedom than it is to take it away. You also cant just get rid of all the guns either. Our politicians have been trying to do this with drugs, and the USA's drug problem is actually worse now more than ever. Now that the guns are in our country and it is firmly entrenched in our society, be it through hobbiests and collectors or organizations such as the NRA, just making them illegal would result in a black market where only criminals and people willing to break the law would have possesion of wepons. And where there are black markets there is more crime, more people in prison, more tax payer money going to enforce this, etc. A more rigorous regulation plan is about all we can hope for unfortunatly. BTW I don't own a gun and never plan to. If I could restrict gun use to hunting rifles and get rid of all handguns and automatic wepons I would. Unfourtunatly I'm about 200 years late.
>Did IQs suddenly go down while I was away?
IQ and "intelligence" as a single quantifiable entity is a farce. Just thought I'd say that.
In your mouth.
And just when I thought I was over-reacting, I continued scrolling down the page, and found every other post which said "America must be stupid/dumb/silly/undemocratic/not 100% perfect" had also been given a 0.
Correct me if I'm wrong, wasnt the POINT of the story a criticism of the USA ruling bodies...?
And then all comments that dare also criticise USA get moderated to 0?
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
Only one problem with that. The voting age is 18 in the US. So you're proposing the government ignore the wishes and welfare of anyone who wasn't yet 18 in the latest election? Which, remember, can include even 21-year-olds in certain years, or nationalized citizens of any age.
How about people who were attacked, knocked out, held hostage over election day? They may have been planning to go to the poles but never made it because of these events beyond their control. No vote, ignore them too?
Given the number of people in the country, what if the gov office of vote-checking got confused and said Bob Jones did vote, even though the Bob Jones in question didn't? Or what if they miss Jane Smith, because she was unmarried (therefore, known by her maiden name Jane Doe) when she voted in the last election? Again, the system breaks down...
there are NO SIMPLE ANSWERS in life.
That's my point, too. Even if you realized this when you wrote the point i contested, i'm sure there are others who wouldn't make that connection.
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
What's to object to in the ten commandments? Oh, I don't know, maybe the FIRST commandment? Not everyone believes your god exists, let alone would be deserving of any praise if he did.
Voting? Hah. Voting is a joke. Of course, the media machine will feed the fire to make it seem like it's all up to you, the voter, but everything's already stuck in place.
Welcome new President Bush.
So if 50.1% of American voters felt it would be a good idea to make Southern Baptist Christianity the state religion, you'd be happy to make your peace with Jesus? How about if the AARP got the vote out and passed a law making 60% of your paycheck go directly to Social Security?
> ... and the criminals aren't likely to turn in their guns
...
... for one response, in the place where I live they are changing the law to add on a mandatory ten years to the sentence for any crime commited with the assistance of a firearm. I think this is a start.
Sure, but what if they only rounded up the handguns? You can still defend your home with a 30-ought-6 hunting rifle, can't you?
IIRC, most deaths by handguns in the United States are accidental, including self inflicted. So instead of guaranteeing your safety, the guns often just compromise it. If they changed the rules so that you have to be _trained_and_qualified_ to own a gun, then maybe
And tell me, how is owning a pistol going to help if Washington decides to go tyrant on you? You think a pistol is going to help against the US Armed Forces? And who says the Armed Forces will help a tyrant in a country as used to freedom as the US. Face it, any comparison to Kosovo or 1776 colonial politics is bunk. They don't apply in this day, age, and society. Why do people keep digging up arguments that have no bearing on the US, yet ignore rich democratic societies where conditions are more similar?
> Because most of the shooting is done by criminals
And as for this tired old argument
-M
If you want to effect change, get out and take your voice to the polling booth. We'll have that opportunity once again here in the US this coming November in many cases, and next November for everyone.
Yes! Me too! I want the state to make my decisions for me. I want the state to decide for me what is good, right and wholesum! I want to be protected from myself! I want to live in a police state and have big brother protect me from everything. I want to be controlled.
Hell, I don't even want to have non-button down collars on my shirts - leave things flapping on their own like that, uncontrolled!
Jackster
Ever try creating a realtime interface in lunux to a westerbeke M-35b marine diesel engine?
Not against unions, they should just have to compete and play by the same rules as everyone else. In a free society people who want to work should be allowed to work without death threats, bullets through the living room window, being beat up, stabbed, harrassed, etc. In your scenario, if the boss increases wages, and therefor the price of their product, in a competitive system someone else will probably provide me the same product at a lower price. Without cohersion unions are out of business, and they know it. That is why they are so violent.
What sucks is that we've got people like Bauer and people like Lieberman and Gore promoting this bullshit. It seems the only thing Democrats and Republicans agree on is that we should have less freedom.
Fuck you very much, guys.
I use my pistol for target shooting. All I've ever shot with it is paper. However, it's nice to know that I have at least one gun that is easily concealable, if the need were to arise... Chris mtnbkr@mindspring.com
I'm not sympathetic in the least.
I think that goverments presiding over extremely
large groups of people will soon be obsolete, and
draconian measures like this entertainment
censorship bill will gain more popularity with
governments as they see that they are losing
control.
To the extant that if I were wedded to the idea of
preserving nations as we know them today, I would
do the same thing, I suppose you could say I
understand the U.S. government's position. But
I'm not, and I believe measures like this do
little more than stave off the inevitable.
The constitution has nothing to do with this. It's
simply economics. If people in knowledge-
based industries don't like the constraints placed
on them by their local jurisdictions, they will
soon be able to take their business elsewhere,
conduct it with whatever currency they choose, and
exercise near-total discretion in who knows about
it. And they won't have to move physically at all
to do this.
What would the U.S. government say to a
pornographic game that was being sold through
web site in Russia, and took anonymous, digital
currency in payment? They could tell Russia to
turn it off, but Russia might not want to if it's
doing well out of it. And the vendor could set
up such a web site from L.A., and get his cash
in a Cayman Islands bank account if he wanted to.
Aside from its complete inability to censor such
a scheme, the U.S. would also be completely
unable to coerce the vendor to pay taxes on his
profits.
If that happened enough, the U.S. government
would be pretty impotent pretty soon.
Alex.
video game that you could download
jurisdiction, they can easily conduct most of
as a student i felt the worst attempt so far at purging our rights by the right-wing republican congress was the bill enstated earlier this summer that proposed we display the ten commandments in all the public schools! Whatever happened to freedom of speech? The congressman argued that if the ten commandments had been displayed in Colorado the Columbine Shootings would've never taken place! Amazing how they seem to think religion can cause peace when it seems to me, according to that last european history class of mine, religion has caused more genocide and warfare than anything in history...
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
"Well most non-Americans think it distinctly odd that if you have a glass of wine with your parents at dinner under the age of 21 you are both guilty of breaking the law. Most other countries have age restrictions on purchasing alcohol (usually 16 or 18) but certainly not on consuming it."
Actually if i recall correctly, the US has the same rule, you cannot buy alcohol until 21(highly stupid imho) but it is quite legal to get completely wasted at home, with parental consent, thus a glass of wine at the table is legal... it gets into a grey area when you go to another family's home and drink though.
I don't have kids, and I agree with most of what you are saying, but the point is that not every parent is going to watch everything their kids do. Not everyone who is a parent is cut out to be a parent. I agree that the best possible solution is prescreening by parents, but I doubt you're suggesting that's actually going to happen, and there's no way to force people to do that. And I don't think that it's right for society to forsake the children of parents who don't care. Now, I understand that this is a point that people might have a reasonable disagreement with, but many government and cultural policies follow it. No single answer (except the parent thing, which will never happen) is perfect--that's the problem. You just have to figure out which one is least bad.
This isn't happening because the government
specifically wants to take away your freedom.
It's that they feel like they're losing control,
and justifiably. For instance, what is going to
happen to taxation when all financial transactions
can be conducted anonymously, under the auspices
of any government in the world, and records of
them can be stored with unbreakable encryption?
Taxation will be voluntary, and governments are
going to lose a lot of power.
Their struggles won't matter in the long run, I think.
Encryption and knowledge-based markets shift the
balance of power too far in favour of the
individual for totalitarianism to be feasible
anymore.
Alex.
>> ... and the criminals aren't likely to turn in >>their guns >Sure, but what if they only rounded up the >handguns? You can still defend your home with a >30-ought-6 hunting rifle, can't you? I don't want to carry hunting rifles around with me. Besides, it's not in my home that I've felt the most threatened, it's been out in public at various times and places. >IIRC, most deaths by handguns in the United >States are accidental, including self inflicted. >So instead of guaranteeing your safety, the guns >often just compromise it. >And tell me, how is owning a pistol going to help >if Washington decides to go tyrant on you? You >think a pistol is going to help against the US >Armed Forces? And who says the Armed Forces will >help a tyrant in a country as used to freedom as >the US. Face it, any comparison to Kosovo or 1776 >colonial politics is bunk. They don't apply in >this day, age, and society. Why do people keep >digging up arguments that have no bearing on the >US, yet ignore rich democratic societies where >conditions are more similar? Guerrilla (sp) warfare. You don't have to fight a standup battle to drive off a well armed opponent. Just ask Vietnam... I don't care about the other societies and their beliefs on guns. I only care about what is going to happen in MY country. Once I am safe here, I'll worry about the rest of the world. >> Because most of the shooting is done by >>criminals >And as for this tired old argument ... for one >response, in the place where I live they are >changing the law to add on a mandatory ten years >to the sentence for any crime commited with the >assistance of a firearm. I think this is a >start. What good is a ten year penalty when the primary crime would get you life or the death penalty. Besides, they can make all of the new laws they wish, they are useless unless they start prosecuting more. Try this exercise: For any gun control law or anti-gun statement, substitute "freedom of speech" for guns or 2nd amendment references. How do you feel about the new law now? Chris mtnbkr@mindspring.com
Um... it's Holy molly, not moly...hehe
A russian biographer (name escapes me) wrote that Stalin was a fairly pious young man. He slowly repudiated Orthodox Christianity in his twenties. I wouldn't say that Stalin was a priest but he DID come from a religious background and had extensive religious training. The same biographer also wrote that Stalin's mother was dismayed at how he turned. "He could have been a good priest......."
It's been a couple of years since I read this. Could be worth digging up again.
BTW Hitler indicated more than once in his speeches and writings that he considered himself to be carrying out a mandate from God. Mein Kampf contains some of these statements.
The Libertarian party is the only American political party that is 100% pro-freedom. We support privacy and free speech in all issues, all the time. We support free crypto and zero government regulation of the net and other media. You're exactly right: there's not much difference between the major parties. But the LP *is* different, and it's a great way to send the message that you're fed up with government encroachment on our freedoms.
Since they aren't willing to have everybody's religion represented then they shouldn't represent any. And about the ten commandments effect on this situation. Do they honestly think that these children didn't know the ten commandments? Even if they didn't, they don't mean anything if the kids don't believe in them. What a bunch of self-righteous ignorant bastards we have in congress!!
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
We wouldn't have to deal with bills like this one if the parents of the good ol' US would take the time to actually pay attention to what their children do for fun and watch on TV. It's not that hard!
This bill is the result of lazy US citizens who think the government should tell their children what they can and cannot watch on TV, and which video games they should be allowed to play. Sorry, folks, but we're getting exactly what we asked for.
Columbine... What a joke. If either one of those two bozos' parents had taken the time to talk to their children regularly, that "incident" could have been prevented, EASILY.
Wake up, people... Take an interest in your children, and get off your duffs!
Oh, BTW, I was born and raised in the US. I still live in the US. I hope things get better in the US...
Please explain why forcing someone to work in particular conditions or for a particular wage isn't raw use of power for your ends.
The problem with censorship is that it opens the door for further censorship, both direct (more restrictions) and indirect (can't sell it, so won't risk coming close to making it). Several other posts go into better detail, so i won't bother.
Remember that poem about slowly eroding freedoms? It's been rewritten so many times; "First they came for X, but i wasn't X so i didn't complain. Then they came for Y, but i wasn't Y so i didn't complain... etc etc etc... Finally they came for me, and there was no one left to complain." Think on that next time you say "this doesn't affect me".
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
As for the crusades, yes, those were just an unmitigated mess. Those and the Inquisition are very good examples of why
Theocracy is bad -- not just from a political standpoint, but also from a religious standpoint. It corrupts both the state and the
religion.
---
A good point and a perfect example of why posting
the 10 commandments in school is a bad idea. Religion and government don't mix.
Join the NRA, even if you don't have a gun. Add your name to everyone else's. It's only $35 a year and you get a free mag subscription. I believe there are less expensive options without a subscription. If you do own a gun, they offer many valuable training classes and very nice shooting ranges. It's worth it. Chris mtnbkr@mindspring.com
Let me first wholeheartedly appoligize for being responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Milosovich, Franco, and Mussolini. And that is just the last several decades.
There is no difference between an American and a European, we are human, and most men are capable of being tyrants. You are naive or shortsighted (extreemly shortsighted considering the first sentence I wrote) to think you have nothing to defend against. Or maybe you just think when the time comes someone else will do the defending for you.
I am not driven by pride, I am driven by the belief that one day all people will free from bullshit govt oppression of the big and small things, but not without a fight. The Bill of Rights and the Dec of Ind are a damn good start towards this end.
I agree with the fact that parents should be spending more time with their kids, but the problem is that due to many social factors, the greatest of which being that many more women are working, parents don't spend enough time with their kids. Kids therefore watch lots of TV, and if what's on TV is overly violent, the kids are going to end up desensitized to violence and predisposed to commit it. People cite the fact that violence is very low now, but I'm not sure that's going to continue when the Columbine generation hits their mid twenties. It would be great if the government could do something to encourage parents to spend more time with their kids. Barring that though, if television is going to be a surrogate parent for too many kids, we need to make sure that it's not going to warp their minds after watching it for 30+ hours per week.
Possibly. Do you think the reason you have been given the right to bear arms is because it will enable you to defend yourself against your fellow citizens, or against foreign invaders, or against your own government?
If you have the right to a gun because it will defend you from your fellow citizens (read: criminals), you need to be able to wound criminals. It's not unreasonable to make private ownership of weapons which are designed as "cop killers" illegal, or to ban private ownership of protection against legal firearms like body armor. If you intend to commit a crime, you should do so with the full knowledge that you can get shot and killed. But if you are not a criminal, you should have at least a little assurance that the cops won't get killed as they do their job.
If you intend to defend against foreign invasion, the fact that the weapons necessary to stop an invading army will also kill police officers is a regrettable reality. If you cannot penetrate the body armor of a state trooper, you certainly won't penetrate the body armor of a fascist country's infantrymen. Them's the breaks. Some people may decide to kill police officers because they can, which is sad and regrettable, but the alternative is far worse.
If you intend to defend your liberties against a government gone mad, it's vital that you be able to kill police officers. And soliders. And Marines. And anyone else who wants to use force to piss on the Constitution. Your Constitutional right to defend your country trumps the police state's right to not be hurt as it oppresses you, right?
So, what do you think the Second Amendment is for?
How many times have you heard on the news someone successfully defending themselves with a gun versus the number of times you've heard of a child getting accidentaly shot? As far as I'm concerned you can have as many single shot muskets as you want. But as I've said before and no doubt will again, read the Second Amendment. I'll quote it: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis my own)
Are you saying that the police are deterred from coming to arrest you because of your beliefs/color/ethnicity based upon some vague notion that you have teflon coated bullets?
I submit that police are not deterred one bit by the fact that you may or may not have *cop killer* bullets, if they are compelled to come and get you, they will. They will just come with greater numbers and with greater force. Hell, Waco started as a gun bust, the fact that they had guns was the pretense to the whole raid.
I see that the other person who replied managed to point out that it this story is on topic. Why couldn't you have done that rather than being so impolite?
Once more. Please separate your sentences with periods, not commas.
My 10 year old just reminded me to tell you. 8)
"judge not, lest you be judged."
The 2nd Amendment is what guarantees us the power to defend ALL the other rights. Unlike where you come from, Americans STILL have the right to bare firearms. We didnt meekly give away all our liberties like perhaps you have done in your country. The 2nd Amendment is the protector of ALL the other liberties we take for granted, as the founding fathers intended.
Ah of course, England's handgun ban has completely eradicated gun violence. So the fellow who stepped up behind Jill Dando and blew her brains out, that wasn't a gun he used, obviously. Must've just thought mean thoughts at her.
I feel sorry for her relatives trying to get an answer from Scotland Yard as to how this could happen in a country with such a perfect gun control program in place.
Jack
The effect of media violence on our children is no longer open to debate. Has anyone seen any scientific studies linking violence in media with murder? With all that's going on, I think that I would have heard of such a study by now, right? Why haven't I?
What I see instead is statements like the above. Political parties and organizations have been shoving the "monkey see monkey do" logic on us for so long, apparently we don't even need to support these bills with evidence.
I'm getting very uncomfortable about this. Please, please, someone show me a link to a study about the effects of media violence. The only one I've ever heard of is the one that links country music to increased alcohol consumption.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
It is News for Nerds, and it is stuff that matters. We nerds thrive on freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and we also like the ability to make our own choices. We don't like it when people trample on our rights and take away the fundamental freedoms that we have. I don't want any government agency determining what is and what isn't appropriate material. I am an intelligent human being and I can make choices for myself. I don't want the government to tell me what I can and can't see or listen to.
Likewise, if you don't want to read what you don't consider "news for nerds", then just DON'T READ IT! Ignore it! Again, you can filter this out on your user preferences page. You can make that choice, and the government won't have anything to do with it.
---- Joseph Bowden
ICQ: 13709677
Want to contact me via e-mail?
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
So, basically, you're admitting that the parents' lack of caring is the root problem. (If I am incorrect in this conclusion, flame me via email.)
The solution proposed (universal regulation) is too broad - it regulates parents who do pay attention to their kids' values and decide differently than the Government does, for instance.
Politicians should instead attack the root of the problem: make parents legally directly responsible for the vast majority of their childrens' actions. A father who knows he will be tried for assault if his son beats someone up on the playground will spend a lot of effort making sure his son knows that violence is bad; the father will be incentivized not to become a deadbeat.
But politicians are currently spineless. This won't happen in the near future.
Just wait 'till I'm elected to the Senate.
ok, well, i live in canada, and i would say that the majority of the people my age have a resentment towards americans. and i sure as hell do. face it, your country has pissed a LOT of people off in the last century. and just about every american i have met thinks that he is better then most non-americans just because he is an american citizen.
just a few overservations, prolly near a rant.
pest
Most people seem to think that democracy is (without any trace of doubts) the best political system around. Now these people get trapped by its major flaw: once one relies on others to rule his live, he's not actually free - he's just lazy and alienated from the whole problem. And the biggest problem today is that the concept of nation is absurd, and does not care with the human existence in the earth.
These freedom issues are just a side effect of a bigger problem, and an intermediate result of something worse. The ultimate result of a 'democratic chain of reactions' is a complete loss of acknowledgment inside nations, not just between nations.
Live with this, or find something better to live with.
Religion is far from the worst perpetrator of violence in history, as any 20th century history professor could tell you. The real danger which has lead to the loss of millions of lives this century alone are the "isms" - Nationalism, Communism, Facism and (gasp) Capitalism. All four of those presume conflict between a group of people and others. Religions, for the most part presume or automatically lead to no such conflict (some like Islam, presume it, but they are exceptions rather than the norm). So direct your critisism to the right place, ok?
It doesn't really matter. I only know few countries where nudity on TV is not allowed :-
the US and some fanatic islamistic countries come to mind.
What do you mean they are throwing more money at schools than ever before. There used to be enough money in schools for all sorts of programs, departments and stuff that actaully made attending a public school a slightly enjoyable expirience. Now the foreign languages department in my school has a budget of $3000/year for paper, copies, books (ranging from $37-50 a piece) and various other expenses(this includes French and Spanish and supplies for 3/4s of the school). They have gotten to the point where they need to hit up the parents for money (a $20 materials fee.) I'm not really complaining about that, most people can afford that, but the point is that the money isn't there. Do keep in mind that the cost of school books is now much higher than it has ever been before, including inflation. Along the topic of competition, you speak as if the school system is a self sustaining entity. Of course it is rather obvious that this cannot be the case since 99% of its income comes from goverment subsidizing. You don't see charitable organizations in direct competition with one another do you? But, you propose we build 3 schools per area that previously only required one, so the parents will have a chance? How much do you think that will cost, buildings are rather expensive (in my area the tax payers will have increased property taxes for the next 10 years due to a measure they passed to fund a new building at my school.) Think about it this way, in the computer industry, there are probably 50 companys who each own separate multi-million dollar systems for creating NICs. How much father do you think we would be, in terms of technology, if 45 or so of those companys went out and did something else. How about the idea that afluent neighborhoods have better schools because of increased revenue from property taxes, I'd say that's rather disgusting.
I'm SOOOooo Sorry. There are far worse things than labeling video games and movies and music videos, but apparently we hit the I'd-rather-die-than-to-not-play-my-violent-nintend o-video-games crowd here in slashdot land. There are far worse things in the world than you not being able to sit on your fat phuking ass playing your first-person shooter video game, while eating doritos and listening to vintage 2livecrew albums. Even if it's just dangers to American Freedoms, yes, Bobby, there are, still, far worse things than the government requiring you to sit on your mommy's lap while you reload your virtual rail gun. And the sad thing is, most of these have never been mentioned on slashdot.
Freedom was never lost from what we knew and chose to ignore, but from what we didn't know because we were never told.
In the meantime, ponder this issue:
If my mommy or daddy gets fired, will I need to sell my N64 to eat?
The idea is to make it as difficult as possible for the police or any other group of organized thugs to violate the civil/human rights of a group based on their beliefs/color/ethnicity. They may kill you anyway but the point is to make it very hazardous to their health.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The evolution of labelling laws in the USA are somewhat funny.
:o), it will simply make them more popular among those kids !
When we first saw american LPs with this "Parental advisory : explicit lyrics" label sticked on them, many of us little eurokids believed it was just a joke - or something the company would display as some new (and rather innovative) marketing tool.
And who doubts many companies use it as such ? "See, I'm forbidden for children under the age of X, that means I'm really aggressive and violent - and therefore, cool !"
The same thing will probably happen with those games : this label won't stop kids from playing them (if software laws were enforced, we should all pay for all the games we use...
"Whooooaaaw, a NC17 game ! Cooool ! I want one ! I'll ask my computer-freak mate to make me a copy, and I'll try it as soon as possible !"
Thomas
PS : A movie that is labelled "not suitable for children under N" in the US and in the UK is usually depicted as "not suitable for children under N-5" in France and in Germany. It might be interesting to see what will happen with computer games...
"You are currently being Slashdotted - please wait until karma readjustment completes..."
No, I was not aware. I was just being sarcastic, and this seemed a terribly obvious joke to make. I don't even read the Onion, except on the rare occasion it's linked from Slashdot.
I'd like to see the article that they wrote on this, though - i'm sure it's a damn sight funnier than my attempt. Got a URL?
You write :
"but chances are if 1/2 of the pop. was armed,
would you try to rob a bank if you knew half of
the people there would be extremely upset if
you mess up there rutine? so you'd have about 20
people holding YOU up, even grannies"
That was pretty much how things were in the good ol'days of Far West, when men were men and guns were guns...
Still, for some reason, some people tend to think that civilization might be somewhat better than Good Old Far West.
Somewhat strange, isn't it ?
Thomas somewhat Miconi
"You are currently being Slashdotted - please wait until karma readjustment completes..."
I don't bother talking with most Mercans about politics, etc. because they can't handle the slightest hint of criticism. You get fed this trite pulp about how wonderful you are and only every cover the barest details of the "other side" - damned few seem to question the slightest bit (I guess your education system helps there). You live off the past "glories" of the wars but fail to remember how much support Germany/the nazi parties received from americans (including Ford getting a medal/recognition from Hitler for his support). You entered the war significantly later than the start after you were _attacked_. Then there are the numerous third world dictators and corrupt governments supported by your government (Saddam Husein is in power today because he was put in power by the US) in opposition to democratic opposition groups.
Recent discussions on Slashdot on censorship, something to do with Canada and now this censorship in the US thread with the "Euro-trash label" etc have you claiming freedom of speech and other "benefits" while displaying a blatant disregard and derogatory view of other countries and people of other nationalities when you are one of the most restrictive countries wrt media, etc. We have US artists over here amazed at what is allowed. You shout out your much valued "benefits" (and I use the term loosely) - allowed to carry/own guns, low taxes and the Bill of Rights free speech protections while having some of the worst examples in the developed world of standard of living, education, health, etc. That and trying to bully other countries to act in your own best interests - the current trade wars over genetically altered foodstuffs being a prime example.
I've known a number of people who moved to the US to work and _none_ of them liked it. One has recently moved back here because they don't want their children growing up in that environment. Some others are still there in contracts, other are looking to move elsewhere.
I wrote an essay recently, for a college application, on the topic of Government interference in citizens' lives. I think it's really relevant here. Presenting an edited version...
I don't believe we encourage people in our society to take responsibility for their actions. Shirking responsibility, it seems, has become so easy and even so accepted that many people do it unconsciously - often while ignoring their own responsibilities. All too many people have a rather intense interest in doing things "for" other people.
To prevent my falling into the incredibly ironic trap of proselytizing for people in a post on that very topic, I should mention that my concerns about the attitudes of my fellow citizens toward responsibility are not rooted in altruism. For example, while I think it odd, I have nothing against people who hand off a large potion of their wages each week to be stockpiled by a faceless federal authority. That segment of the population should be allowed to do this as insurance against their own assumed inability to save the money for themselves. But it's not insignificant that there's little chance for people to take responsibility for their lives, or their future, or their welfare, if they're denied at least the option to do so. In reality, the entire nation, including me, is forcibly absolved of the need to take control of our lives in many select areas, without the consent of even a sizable minority.
The government does too many things for us that we should really be doing for ourselves. Among the major favors afforded us by our government in the last few years are a "Communications Decency Act," which, in effect, exempts parents from taking responsibility for teaching and monitoring their kinds use of the internet by "wiping out all the evil stuff." And just this month the government has decided to save us from our own bad instincts, even before we actually commit crimes, by relaxing restrictions on cellular phones tapping so that the FBI can listen in on any wireless phone call anywhere in the nation without a warrant.
The federal government really does seem to have us pegged as a pack of "irresposibles" even when we're at play. They're so sure I'll make the wrong decisions when I'm in my boat on a private lake, they just have to require me to strap on a big orange life preserver before using my own property.
Institutions have sprung up in the private sector that also relieve us of manifold responsibilities. Not the least of these is the Motion Picture Association of America, which labels films with one of five ratings, determined by a viewing panel of nine ordinary people from California (if ordinary people exist in that state). This system lets parents take a few hours off while the kids are at the movies, knowing that their children's' psyches are in the hands of some fine folks from Fresno. But what of the parents who want their sixteen year olds to see an R-rated film with friends, without parents? What of the kids who are trusted or mature enough to handle an R film?
Each year millions of Americans pay other people to take on some portion of their personal responsibility. Psychics, not psychologists, seem to be the advisors of choice these days. Perhaps that's because with a psychic all that messy thinking and decision-making can be done by a brain outside one's own head: less wear and tear, no guilt, and no accountability; just a bunch of answers.
And just when we need them most, along come the alien abductors: a great way to account for missing time. To say nothing of accounting missing body parts or missing acquaintances for that matter.
I'm not against having fun, but it's interesting to note the apparent rebirth of institutions designed, at least in part, to help us along with how we go about having that fun. Fraternities and sororities seem to have reawakened, country club memberships are at an all-time high.
And we certainly seem to have our share of cults.
Mass-murders are committed by teenaged gunmen without a single prominent reporter asking, "Where were the parents?". Yet ironically, a President's infidelities are explained away as being a result of his upbringing.
I look forward to the day when people who wish to live a life free of responsibility can do so, while people like me, who prefer to lead a life of freedom, are allowed to take responsibility for nearly all of their own actions.
No, the problem is not "sex does not exist", the problem is a lot of poorly or weakly rated media. As others have succcintly stated, a government-imposed rating system is better than any other.
There's no problem at all with rating systems. Prince, later TAFKAP, still writes great obscene songs since the PMRC imposed their mandatory warning sticker. He just slaps the parental warning OFFENSIVE LYRICS sticker on his latest and keeps doing his thing.
And as for all the fatuous comments from people saying "Watch TV with your kids, surf the net with your kids", you have absolutely no idea about the reality of raising children. There are 24 hours in a day, parents spend many working, and kids want time alone. Sure parents should be more involved in their kids' upbringing, THEREFORE rate adult material and ban kids from acquiring adult material so that they have to ask their parents to, for example, buy "You Sexy Motherfucker" for them, get in to watch "Bigger, Longer, and Uncut", get them a bottle of Jack Daniels, or whatever else the government has (correctly!) deemed adult.
=S
Forget how it benefits the family; if the family is raising kids who commit jailable offenses before they're sixteen or eighteen, then as far as I'm concerned they aren't fit to be free members of our society, let alone parents. Throw the parents in the slammer and transfer any remaining kids to a relative who can raise 'em properly.
You've got to stop thinking of law in terms of how it benefits people. Laws are made to keep people out of each others' hair... or, more accurately, they should be. They should not be passed for any one group's direct benefit.
The idea of a fine is a good one too, though. I'm sure it'd go over with the country as a whole a lot more smoothly... but it'd also have less kick-in-da-pants wake-up-call power.
All this would be judged by a jury in the courtroom; I can't imagine there being any national- or even state-level laws governing which actions a parent is punished for and which one isn't.
So, basically, you're admitting that the parents' lack of caring is the root problem. (If I am incorrect in this conclusion, flame me via email.)
I'm sorry if you've gotten the impression that I've been flaming you. I hardly think that's true. In fact, I do agree with you. A lack of caring is the root of the problem. However, your proposed solution is not a very good one, I think.
Politicians should instead attack the root of the problem: make parents legally directly responsible for the vast majority of their childrens' actions.
This is generally the case already (many exceptions, though). The problem is not the children's actions, but what they're seeing. The government proposals are mostly to prevent 6-year-olds from seeing porn, not from keeping 13-year-olds from getting bomb plans (though that is probably a concern also).
My point is simply this: you cannot make a person a good parent, you can only make it easier. Your proposal (which does not solve the real problem) just makes it more unpleasant to be a bad parent, which while it might be effective at solving some things, would not be the most efficient way of doing things (resulting in more jail time).
The solution proposed (universal regulation) is too broad
But that's not the proposed solution. The proposed solution is universal classification, not regualtion. This gives parents more information than they otherwise might have. You think this is wrong for some reason?
You must also remember that even the most diligent parent cannot stop everything. There is some point where you have to trust a child on its own--constant shadowing is a bad form of parenting. Human beings are complicated and cannot be programmed like a computer (I get the feeling you don't have kids either). If a family adopts an abused child and that child grows up to be a bully, is it the adoptive parents' fault? If a child has ADD and gets too rambunctious, is it the parents' fault?
Your proposal is far more draconian than the proposed "solution". Again, I must say: I think that the world would be much better off if every parent did a perfect job, but that's impossible--being a parent and making a living is too hard--and even if that did happen, it wouldn't solve everything. The only good way to make parenting better is to make parenting easier, and that's what this proposal is talking about. Making bad parenting harder is not the way to go--negative reinforcement never is.
Yeah, the MPAA is composed of a group of nine ordinary people from California. (I didn't know there were any ordinary Californians, but whatever...) They just do miniature group screenings of films and vote afterward on a rating based on their own impressions of the film. It's pretty arbitrary.
I think that's one of their strengths. Rules and regulations suck, as a general rule.
In 1865 the 13th admendment outlawed forcing someone to work for you. If you don't like the job all you have to do is say 2 words,"I Quit"
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
On second thought, after reading some other comments, I'm inclined to say that a rating system seems to have worked great for movies. Why couldn't something similar work here?
What is wrong with sex flicks? Why should we even have to justify to the government that we want to watch sex for any other reason than the fact that we want to watch people having sex? I am consistantly annoyed that people make the assumption that sex is dammaging. It turns out that the US (which is one of the most sexually paranoid and repressive countries) has more sexually related problems than Sweden and France, both of which are very sexually open. If there is a problem, it is that there is no continuum of sex in this country. American Pie is a good example. Sexuallity becomes a rite of manhood and that makes it a goal and not an experience. Just my thoughts.
Beware your shepard, for he will take you to the place that all good sheep go to. The abatoir, where you will be fleeced and slaughtered as all good sheep are.
It really pisses me off when Europeans preach about their gun-free utopia. Where the hell were the Europeans when Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and other undesirables were being liquidated? The French police, may they all burn in Hell, enthusiastically rounded up French Jews and delivered them to their executioners. If my family had been living in Europe, I wouldn't be alive today.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
What I see lacking in the pro and con censorship and 'loss of freedoms' arguments is the mention of personal responsibility. Taking responsibility for ones actions and the willingness to accept the consequences of ones actions. You listen to the news casts and read in the newspapers every day about someone doing something terrible and blaming it on society or their parents, television or the environment they grew up in. You rarely see someone showcased for doing something that demonstrated that they acted responsibility. Its taken for granted. In the United States we have the freedom to own firearms. We all know that the ultimate purpose of any firearm is to kill. That knowledge alone should be burden enough to make anyone owning a firearm treat it with the utmost respect. But time and again you read about a firearm owner who through some lack of responsibility ends up in a tragic situation involving a firearm. And in hindsite all the common sense, responsible, actions that could and should have been taken are missing. Responsible actions like a simple trigger lock, storing firearms in gun safe or separate storage of firearms and ammunition. Simple acts of responsibility that you rarely hear discussed until after a tragedy has occurred. But let anyone bring up the subject of banning assault rifles and everyone will have an opinion. Are we acting responsibly when we say that we need an AK-47 for 'plinking' or hunting? Do we really need a firearm capable of automatic fire? Do we really need a magazine with a 30+ round capacity? Is it responsible for us to say it was the intention of our founding fathers that we be Constitionally guaranteed the RIGHT to possess ammunition capable of penatrating the body armour worn by police officers? The result of our lack of responsibly managing our firearm ownship is that our government has stepped in and is making a mess of what should be US taking steps OURSELVES in responsible firearm ownership. And, because we as individuals have demonstrated that some of us are not capable of acting with reason and responsiblity, our freedom to bear arms is in jeopardy. The Internet has made it simple to distribute images of children being subjected to sexual violations. Are we acting responsibly when we demand that these sites and the people who operate them have the same rights as the publishers of the National Geographic or Readers Digest? How does society benefit from viewing images of children being molested? Is it responsible for society to protect the photographer but not the children? Are we as individuals speaking out against the operators of these sites or just sitting back and ignoring it while saying its someone elses problem? Right now our government is trying to take action against the people abusing children. Why didn't we do it ourselves? And because we haven't acted responsibly ourselves the government, in their usual hamfisted way, is taking away some more our personal freedom because, again, we are demonstrating that we are taking our freedoms for granted and not acting responsibly. If we were taking responsibility with OUR Internet then the sites promoting sexual abuse wouldn't exist and government would never have a reason to be involved. But because some in society choose to demand the same protections afforded Time and Newsweek be applied to people who promote and profit from the images of abused children we as a society end up paying a price which is the sacrifice of a little more personal freedom. Little by little we are losing our precious freedoms because we just don't seem to understand that with freedom comes great responsibility. Not just the responsibility of the society at large but the responsiblity of the individual living in society. Its time we woke up and made a decision; Do I want to step forward and take responsibility for making a better society or stand back and let watch my freedoms slowly disappear? Just something to think about.
All of you that criticize America have already forgotten: There have been studies that show that Americans have the biggest ego's in the world. I'm an American, and I'll be the first to admit it's true.
:)
:-)
In our schools, our students have the most self-esteem in the world, and yet they perform much poorer than students in countries such as Japan (where they have a much lower self-esteem). It's like we can be stupid, as long as we feel good about ourselves!
So if you expect to post harsh criticism about the United States, just expect to get a harsh comment back. Ignore it, some of us are actually reading and processing your criticism and deciding whether we think it's a heap of crap or a valid argument.
As for the person who said it isn't valid in this day and age for all citizens to have the right to own guns, just think of what would happen if Canada invaded and we were all defenseless! Yes, you'd feel bad when you are forced to salute the Mounties as they march through the center of Podunk, U.S.A. in triumph ! By the way, that was a joke, and I mean it in no offense to the Canadians. =)
-Ashen - The Great Masked Yakisoban
But I believe it's on a state-by-state basis. To the best of my knowledge, it's handled like this in most states: minors can drink with the consent and supervision of their parents.
This extends even to places like restaurants; the parent is free to buy the drink and give it to his kid.
Because although their are many encroachments on our freedom here, this is comparatively one of the most free countries in the world, a hell of a lot more than most socialist boarderline third world European countries. For some reason people like you recognize an individuals right to free speech, etc., but think it is so awfull that I should have the right to defend myself, my property, or my family with a gun. Maybe if Europe respected this right we wouldn't have to continually rescue your sorry asses from the despots and tyrants that take over. Freedom is an all or nothing proposition. There are not some freedoms that people deserve and some that they do not.
Yeah, thank God those guys in Waco were well-armed, and thus able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. No, wait, that was in an alternate universe. In *this* universe, the government brought in a damned army and killed just about everybody in the compound.
Your little handguns aren't going to do a bit of good, up against a determined and committed tyranny. Hey, I support private gun ownership, but let's keep some perspective here. Let's worry about keeping the Hitleroids out of power, instead of thinking about how we're gonna bust a cap in them.
Wow. That's pretty heavy. Making parents responsible for their children's behavior until they reach the age of majority? What happens if the kid commits some jail-able offense? The parent goes to jail? How does that benefit the family?
I think it's an interesting idea. But it would have to be very limited, and perhaps fines would be the way punishment would get transferred to the parent.
If this place is legitimate, and enough people go through their programs or take action similar to what this company offers, then it might cause those certain people with shit all over their heads from years of having it stuck up theirs and other peoples butts will take notice that WE WILL NOT BE RESTRAINED!
I couldn't read the website (slashdott'd ;) but I'm sure it would have really pissed me off.
I don't know about you, but to me, Freedom is the most important thing ever. If we do not have freedom, who are we but just insects? we live, we eat, we breed, we die. I'll be DAMNED if anyone is going to reduce me to that.
All else fails, we should take advantage of the clause in the constitution (not that it would matter if it was there or not) that says we should overthrow this governemt, install a new one, one with a constitution which COMPLETELY RESTRICTS the freedom of the goverment! No loopholes!
Call me a little extremist, but I'm just as willing to die for what I believe as the great people who started this country (and they were great people, just those they entrusted this country to were less than great). They can take our lives, our land and possesions, but they will NEVER take our FREEDOM!
but you gotta love us for being so darned wacky!
At least our beer has gotten better in the last several years.
I've got agree with you. Lately on /. there has been alot of anti-american trash being said. All that is fine, I guess in a free speech society, but then any anti-euro trash talk gets moderated down to -1. Is this really fair.
I'm tired of seeing all the statements that start out, "All you Americans are the same..." Its just ridiculous.
Can't we all just get along?
:)
And I'm sorry that a fellow Brit should disgrace us all by his ignorant and ill-informed comments in a public forum.
Johnny
I can't find myself making any reference to victimless crimes anywhere. What's more, I do like the laws of my country by and large, and I'd be better off living here than Antarctica, because I'd be freer here - ya can't have complete freedom without some laws.
And I didn't say laws shouldn't benefit people, either. I said they shouldn't benefit individuals or small groups alone. Read more carefully. Laws should be extensions of society's general ethics, and should be made to keep people out of each others' hair.
Parents of kids who make it their duty to get in neighbors' hair and commit jailable offenses have done society a disservice, because it's the parents' damned fault (usually) that the kid is being such an ass. If there are extenuating circumstances, those will be found pretty fast by the courts.
Teachers are paid what the market will bear, which is not very much, because there are a LOT of people willing and able to be teachers, and there are not particularly stringent requirements that would constrain the supply. Supply and demand.
You've got to stop thinking of law in terms of how it benefits people.
Perhaps you should start thinking of laws in those terms. That is why we have laws. Almost every social philosopher since the 18th century has said the exact same thing--we have laws to make society a worthwhile deal. If they were not for that purpose, people would not choose to live in society (the social contract). If you do not like the laws of your country, move to Antarctica or somewhere where there are no laws.
Punishment can serve as a corrective or deterrant. You seem to be proposing using it as a deterrant. This is fine. However, you must remember that courts and jails are overflowing as it is. Any equally effective solution which does not involve judicial authorities (this includes fines) is preferable to one that does. Are you so sure that your solution would work that it is worth that imbalance?
Whats very odd about this nation that I live in is that Congress seems to have a complete and utter disregard for the first few admentments.
Guns? Well they kill people! Better take away the rights of all the responsible people to own them, that'll stop all the crime. (Guns dont kill people, bullets do) (but chances are if 1/2 of the pop. was armed, would you try to rob a bank if you knew half of the people there would be extremely upset if you mess up there rutine? so you'd have about 20 people holding YOU up, even grannies)
If you look at a rating system to BOOKS it really resembales Farienheit 451 and the way the Nazi's tried to kill of the Jewish Race
Find 'Em, Tag (Rate) 'Em, Round 'em up, Burn 'em.
(Pls note that, was not ment to be joking of the holocost)
The way I see it if we keep electing dickheads in to power then there will be a holocaust of the pages.
Spell Check? Its easy, just image if all the words above and below this were spelled right!
"If they outlaw books, then only outlaws will visit librarys"
Hmm... I'd have to disagree with you on a few things. First, Hitler didn't target "faithful Christians" exactly. He targeted anyone who wouldn't cooperate with his regime in the destruction of the Jewish people. Included in this were faithful and loyal Catholics, Lutherans, Quakers... anyone who thought that he was wrong. This said, he did, in fact, target some specific religious groups, such as Catholics, since they were more likely not to follow his doctrines.
Hitler always considered his "crusade" against the Jews, as well as his plans for world domination, to be part of God's Will. Listen to his rhetoric. Somehow, he was able to combine Christianity and Nietzche and not look too much like a hypocrite to his own people. What made is worse was that the german Bishops of the Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopalian churches supported him fully in his efforts to eradicate the Jewish people. Christianity has long been advocating the destruction of the Jews, from just after Constantine legitimized the faith, through the Great Schism, through the Inquisition (which was targeted primarlity at the middle class land-owning Jews), all the way through World War 2. In fact, it was the latter that forced most major Christian religions to rethink their ideas about the Jewish people. For Catholicism, that meant a speech from the Pope, for Protestant churches, it was a bunch of councils.
Most of the worst atrocities of the world were caused by those who believed they were doing God's will. Slavery, for example, which last hundreds of years, was started and perpetuated by Christians. The Ku Klux Klan has always claimed to be doing God's will, at least if God is Protestant and White (Blacks, Jews and Catholics were the first added to the KKKs hatred list. Muslim and those of Arab descent were added later). The screams and cries of "whore," "sinner" and "killer" that surround abortion clinics across the country, and the sometimes deadly confrontations outside those same clinics are almost universally organized by "Christian" groups. These daily emotional and physical beatings of people are far worse than the atrocities of the Holocaust, because it creates a culture of hatred and dominance based on faith, color or belief. Look around you. The hatred you see isn't caused by violence on TV, or sex in the movies. It's caused because there is one vocal group that insists on telling everyone else what to do, and refuses to admit that any other view may be valid.
Now, before you start flaming me with bible quotes, I spent a great deal of time studying the Bible and religious history. I know where you're coming from. My point is that we should let everyone live the way they want to. If you feel like trying to convert the entire U.S., that's fine. But legislating it won't work. (If you doubt my words, ask the Romans. Ask Ausonius if he was a devout Christian. I'll give you a hint... you'll find him someplace extremely warm.) Start with the person next to you. And flaming me isn't going to gain you any points.
"137!! Why 137!"
If the government is throwing money at schools, then why are teachers underpaid, especially in the districts that need good teachers the most? Teaching is an extremely difficult job, requiring great knowledge of whatever field is being taught, as well as the ability to communicate that knowledge to others. Not surprisingly, most individuals with those talents can do much better than a teacher's salary.
Unfortunately, as James Madison explains in the Federalist Papers, factions (parties) are inevitable in a system where the government redistributes private goods (converted to public goods via the tax system). Madison's solution was to pit faction against faction by separating power, and by limiting the powers of government.
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
I find it ironic that you would write that the presence of the 10 commandments in school -implies- a religious influence, but that the main argument implies, conceptually, the opposite: that the violent content of the entertainment industry -doesn't imply- a violent influence.
If -any- exposure to a certain genre of content implies an influence upon those so exposed, then we ought to be consistent to apply this implication to material we may object to (religious) as well as material that we embrace (entertainment).
Don't you agree?
|_
|_ QuadZero
|_ Eat the elephant! One byte at a time...
|_________________________________________
Richard (aka Merwyck, aka QuaDZeRo) I blog at http://richardharlos.com
TWW
Read "Brain-washed".
There may be "more pressing issues," but, to be honest, that is a very relative term, and if we continue to claim that there are more pressing issues, we will continue to accept what is being done to us and eventually it will be like Animal Farm (George Orwell): the bad guys will pull the "wool over our eyes" by degrees until we just accept everything. Then, as someone has already mentioned, it will be too late to do anything about it.
I realize that gaming, etc. is not the only thing to life, but I think this is a very pressing issue becaus I feel that if they're going to prohibit the sale of all such material to minors, we've got a big problem because I believe this is censorship! Furthermore, we're leaving the terms of the censorship in the hands of a bunch of morons who don't know what they're doing, and don't know how to go about doing it, and likely won't seek help, and overall we're entrusting another wide field of our lives to relative type-casting, and then we've just let ourselves be screwed over some more.
I say to hell with it. Bad, bad bad thing. I would vote against it, if I could.
Insert mind here.
Problem: No one 'gives' freedom. It is far easier to restrict than to unrestrict. Over a hundred years went by before slavery was outlawed. It took suffrage movements and the civil rights movement just to begin unrestricting the right for many citizens to vote. So please, enough of that 'easier to unrestrict' nonsense.
People think attacking law-abiding gun owners will suddenly transform America into some sort of utopia. That thinking is wrong. You can substitute "video game players" or "fans of movies with violence and/or sex" or "music lovers of all genres" into that statement in place of 'law-abiding gun owners'; the majority of people will buy that message. But all those groups mentioned are categories of people who can safely be attacked by the media and politicians. Don't think so? Ask Ice-T why he's not with Time-Warner any more. The First Amendment only applies to the media, not to artists. Tipper Gore understood that, hence we got the PMRC. Am I wrong?
Any behavior that isn't docile consumerism, be it playing Quake or going to see 'Natural Born Killers' or heaven forfend lawfully carrying a concealed weapon for protecting one's family, gets this treatment. Why? Because a lot of irresponsible people have been rewarded for their lack of cluefulness with huge summary judgments in court. Spilled hot coffee in the lap? Not your fault, citizen, we can sue! You don't have to be responsibile.
And that's the root problem with Americans, as anyone not living here can attest to since by virtue of not living here they're experts on America. Lack of personal responsibility. When a lie keeps one from being punished or gets one a reward, we lie. When things don't go our way, it's someone else's fault, not ours, we dish out the blame. See the problem? If we don't start policing ourselves, with how we act and conduct ourselves, we give politicos the opening to make those decisions for us.
Somehow, this country survived two hundred plus years of private gun ownership and became the most powerful nation on the planet, with a robust economy. Countless people brave harsh desert climates or the dangers of the open seas trying to cross into America for a chance at a better life. Perhaps these immigrant wanna-bes are stupid, because any thoughtful educated non-American with a net connection realizes how much we suck as a country.
If I could restrict gun use to hunting rifles and get rid of all handguns and automatic wepons I would. Unfourtunatly I'm about 200 years late.
Not at all! There is a wonderful place just north of the US, called Canada. It has strict gun control laws and miniscule crime rates! Well, no, they haven't completely eradicated crime yet, but that's ok! It's a great place, and it fits what you're looking for perfectly. Just don't pay much attention to the weak Canadian dollar, or the country's substantial tax rate. They have strict gun laws after all.
Jack
who isn't a gun owner, BTW. Surprise!
Although the constitution does not use the specific phrasing "seperation of church and state," it does specifically address the notion of state sponsored religion. And I quote:
The first part of this is the key. It means that Congress will make no law either promoting or prohibiting the establishment of any religion. It will not support christianity, or buddhism, or hinduism. Because publich schools are state sponsored, if they promote a particular religion, or prohibit expression of a particular religion, they are violating the first amendment. Posting of the 10 commandments is sponsorship of a particular religion over others and is thus a violation of the first amendment.
To continue, you said:
The schools don't favor ANY religon! They don't say God doesn't exist, they don't say he does exist. They don't bother to even ask or answer this question. That's what church is for! If a teacher told you that God did not exist (the Aetheist perspective), they would be in just as much trouble as somebody who said that God did exist and he's the one from the Christian bible.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I love this argument. As if we embark on our various military missions out of altruism. We spend our tax dollars and send our sons and daughters overseas to maintain a position of prominence (dominance) in global politics/economics. In some sense, I think that's an acceptable reality, but let's not pretend that we're doing everyone a lot of favors.
Besides if Bill Clinton was a Euro-trash wannabe, he'd be wearing much more hair product.
I agree with the premise that some form of morality needs to be applied, but it needed to be applied to the ME generation(boomers). You DON'T suck dry every resource and give nothing back, especially your children. Those kids(acid gens) are full up with all the lies that promise if you work hard, you get rewarded. They sit at home attended to by the TV, and get no sense of worth from it. You wanna complain family values, HAVE SOME!!!!! If you want to stop the killing, make them understand they mean something, don't quote dry religion at them. You live it, and what is absorbed from you will return in them. There is no short cut to doing the right thing.
This is exactly why the US is not a democracy. People have started proving that the founding fathers were right not to trust the judgement of the average person as they have been given more and more power. It's why I never participate in any poles.
I spent 6 months in the US and let me tell you, that was enough for me!"
Nearly all issues relating to what you can and cannot say, etc., from your points above, have been passed by liberal congresses here, not conservative ones. This bill is being pushed by a liberal. Amazing? Not really, not if you understand the liberal agenda. People need to be taken care of because they cannot take care of themselves. And they need to be cared for by liberals. Hence welfare (sic), etc.
Which is not to say they are necessarily wrong in all cases, mind you, be even when they are right, I refuse to allow them to usurp my rights.
As for the bit about the founding fathers, if you would like to read "The Federalist Papers" which are a collection of letters, pamphlets, flyers, etc., exchanged by the signators of the US Constitution, you will find that the actual reason behind the right to have arms is litterally so that the public could arm themselves on a par with the government. The idea was that the kind of abuses perpatrated by King George's government could not be duplicated at a later time by a US Government.
Given fiascos like Waco, Montana and many others, one can, almost, argue that they were 100% right. I also find the militia movement here to be very troubling, none-the-less.
Jackster
Ever try creating a realtime interface in lunux to a westerbeke M-35b marine diesel engine?
Actually, it's "moley." In as much as there is a proper way to spell such a word.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
I fail to see how congess placing limits on the amount of violence or the amount of pornography in the media - I fail to see how this will in any way place restrictions on anyone political freedoms.
The whole purpose of the first ammendment is so that people can express opinions that disagree with the governement, or disagree with the majority opinion. That is a good thing, and America has done well because of it.
But in recent decades its purpose and meaning has been twisted, so now, so it is claimed, we not only should have the right to talk about violence and pornography, but should have the unfettered right to display it.
Frankly, as I see it, there are two big groups of kooks in America - the first amendment types, and the second ammendment types - represesented respectively by the ACLU, and the NRA. Both take a law/consitutional ammendment to its extremes, and beyond its original purpose. The NRA not only wants the right to bear arms, but also the right to no background checks, and to have no trigger locks, and to bear sub-machine guns. Perhaps many of you see that the NRA is so extremist, but fail to see that your own organisation, the ACLU, is exactly the same.
Mildly censoring the media is NOT the same as having an authoritarian or totalitarian government, and anyone who thinks otherwise should try living in a totalitarian state for a while, and experience the difference.
My question to you and to others is, what do you deem to be appropriate for your children? Isn't it your right to determine what you think is appropriate, not the government's. By what right does the government have to determine what you, I, our children, and everyone else should be allowed to see. I can understand wanting to know the content of what your child is viewing/reading. If this is your wish, then review it yourself and make your own decision. Don't let the government make these choices for you.
The article is right where it talks about how subjective the ratings are. I think that at least the MPAA has been good about taking each one case by case.
For instance, "Saving Private Ryan", and IIRC Shindler's List also, would probably have been rated NC-17 if they were different movies(in terms of what they were depicting). However, Saving Private Ryan was not showing violence for the sake of violence, it was realistic. Same with th nudity in Schindler's List.
Because of that, the MPAA gave Spielberg a break, and put on R ratings(it was also because the films could be viewed as educational, and an NC-17 would've made sure no kids could see the movies).
Education is one of the most frustrating and important subjects that this country needs to deal with. There are many problems with the education system and there isn't one solution. Education is affected by: government, money, PARENTS, teachers, educational administration, society, and even things like the courts.
I was a teacher and I come from a family of teachers......I've had a good look at the education system.
One of the many reasons that private schools work is because the parents care and will get involved with their child's education and discipline problems. These parents are paying a good chunk of change for their child's education and most of them aren't going to just let it go by the wayside.
There are also many parents who do care and still can't control their children as well. But then, if you spank your child in public, you might end up going to court.........
Discipline in many schools is abysmal. The administration doesn't have much control. In some cases, this is because they're afraid. Afraid of what? Afraid of getting canned because some parent has decided that their child is always right and will attack, attack, attack.
I had one parent actually tell me once that it was my job as a teacher to teach her child (who, btw, slept in class and didn't do most of his homework), and make him understand the material, no matter what it took. If I had to be there until midnight every night with her child, it was my job!!! This was probably the biggest piece of horse hooey I've heard in a long time! Actually, it's HER job.
Anyway, sorry bout the rant, there.....
Looking at the education system again, there are many discipline problems in the classrooms. Where you used to have 1 or 2 problem children in a class, now you have 5-10. There's more children with learning disabilities who need to be handled with kid gloves. Teachers are no longer allowed to use many effective disciplinary measures they used in the past.
New teachers, in many cases, will get the low-end classes with the more discipline problems and not many effective disciplinary measures to deal with it. They'll also be required to coach a sport they know nothing about. No wonder more and more first year teachers are dropping out. Case in point: me and the many I graduated with. Teachers have more to fear than in the past. They fear for their lives and physical injury. I know that 1500 a month take home wasn't worth the fear of getting my head bashed into a wall like what happened to a teacher when I was student teaching.
Some of the teachers who have been around a while are becoming apathetic and are starting to feel like it's no longer teaching, but babysitting. I could go on and on......The point is, there are many aspects to the education problem and we as a society need to address all of society in an effort to fix it. Blaming one aspect of the system and focusing on that aspect seems to be the general trend in how folks think education should be cleaned up.
Whew! that WAS a mouth full *grins*
I for one would be content with seeing Christianity a state religon. At least it would try to give the american people a good set of values with some need very badly.
Okay, from what I skimmed, this law says that people must properly label their products so that parents, school, etc can make proper and informed decisions.
What is wrong with that?
If I were a parent, I would want to know if a product contained what I judge as inappropriate content for my children to view.
That isn't a limiting of freedom, that is informing the consumer.
Or do you think that a manufacturer has a right to lie to consumers.
Maybe this is overlegislated, but it doesn't sound like an evil removal of freedom.
Or am I missing something?
Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work for the net. Instead of 70 or 80 channels, I have millions of websites. None of the filter companies can keep up. So, I have to watch my son every second on the net.
That's called being a good parent. Are you saying you don't want that, that you'd rather not take personal involvement in your child's life and instead relegate it to some piece of software which will never be adequate?
I agree with you that a simple standard filtering tag would be nice, but you forget: no one will use it. It's not profitable to do so. You can throw as many laws as you want at the problem; they never solve it.
Personally, I see the fact that the Net cannot be controlled by software as a blessing, rather than a curse. Perhaps it'll get more parents to realize that they do have a child, that their responsibility to that child overrides absolutely every single other personal concern, and that they need to start spending time with their kids. Quick-fixes like filters won't do the job.
To you, I can only say the following: Spend the Net time with your kid. Surf the Web together; use the time to learn his interests and get him into yours; the Net is actually very good for things like that. Talk with him, tell him why this sort of thing is wrong in terms he'll understand, rather than the over-puritanical bull we all hear from the religious right and just about every single person in government nowadays. In the end your child will be a better person for it.
NOTE: Despite the semi-inflammatory wording of this post, it is not intended as a flame at all. If it pisses you off, read it again and consider it for a while before you respond. If you're going to flame, please do us all a favor and do it by e-mail rather than waste space on Slashdot.
I totally agree. There are people who are in jail for many, many years because of drug use (possession). Yet some of our leaders (Dubya, Clinton, Gore, Gingrich) seem to be exempt from this punishment. Blatant hypocrisy and abuse of power! The "War on Drugs" is not a war on drugs at all -- otherwise they would alcohol and tobacco which kill more people in a year than cocaine use has ever killed. Not to mention marijuana which has never killed *anyone*. If you want to see a web site that will piss you off in five minutes then visit www.injusticeline.com. Vote libertarian!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
point taken, I guess I worded it wrong..
The thought of an average working class person running...
that make a bit more sense? --C:f
cfinlay Little Rock, AR
Yes, the would suck for minors -- for many reasons:
1) One is that it would actually make it more appealing for minors (let's light a few reffers up in the back room so we can break the law!) [Admit it: you have been in a party like this]
2) What's wrong with a minor lighting up a cigrate once and a while -- most kids over 6 are confident enough to know that cigrates are dangerous, and could kill you. And if you don't smoke that often, what's the big deal. The same thing applies to beer -- almost everybody under 21 has had a glass at a party or somewheres -- eventhough it was illegal.
And how often can this laws be enfourced -- everybody knows at least one person that has been stoned a few times in their lives -- and they haven't been arrested (and if you don't take a look at the famous Beatle's porch picture of them smoking a reffer or the picture of Donvan without clothes on smoking one.)
And AFAIK they have not been arrested or fined.
the stupid have power and the stupider(masses) vote for them countries can never be run properly because of the unimportance of a single view in a democracy the think is most people don't care about freedom cause it bears no relevence to their working lives and that is all that matters to most people
My take is if you allow your kid to watch that much tube/movie/videogames, then YOU aren't spending enough time being a role model for them.
Imagine you toss the baseball around, it means you took time out for them, special. If they park in front of the Sony, it means nothing-they mean nothing.
I think the interaction is more important, or lack, than the violence. Not 100%, but higher than peer pressure.
Am I right?
>Minors would not be allowed to buy ones with certain
>ratings - allowing parents to control what their children are doing.
No, It allows the government to control what children do. Speaking for myself, I don't like that. There is a huge gap between what my parents saw as acceptable entertainment for me (most movies, books, video-games, the internet) and what Jesse Helms sees as appropriate entertainment (the Bible, any Charlton Heston flick, pac-man). Guess which of them makes the laws in this country, and therefor gets to decide "appropriate" for the purposes of this law. This bill isn't about labeling, it's about forcing their morality down the throats of citizens who don't want it. It's taking power away from parents, not giving it to them.
0 1 - just my two bits
well-regulated = well maintained
militia = armed citizenry (The militia was basically all able-bodied men from 18 to 45)
...
So the 2nd Amendment means (in modern English)
A well-armed citizenry being necessary for the security of a free state,
Sounds a little different when you actually find out what the words meant back then, doesn't it? In other words, it means that an armed citizenry is a check on government tyranny. I'm amazed by how many people are either ignorant of or deliberately ignore this point.
The government keeps throwing more money at the public schools, and standards keep declining. What is needed to improve the schools is not more money, but more competition. Only when parents have a choice as to the schools their children attend (and the ability to take their tuition with them) will schools have the incentive to clean up their acts. Yes, more money would be nice, but schools already get far more money (adjusted for inflation) than they have in the past, and I don't see any improvement. Private schools typically get the same job done with half the funds, and the expensive private schools provide world-class education for about the same price as your average public school.
You're kidding right? I though the point of warnings was to ...uh... warn people not stop them. I have no problem with
"This movie is rated M and may not be suitable for children under 14" or something to that effect. I most strongly oppose
"This movie has been rated M and may not be shown to children under 14 under threat of prosecution of harming Mercin youth!
You wonder why poeple don't trust the government anymore. It's like the old saying goes If a company treats its employees like idiot then all they will get will be idiot. The US government is treating us all like criminals and untrustworthy individuals, then soon all they will have is criminals and untrustworthy indivisduals.
You don't exist. Go away. --SysVinit Halt
In a two party system, the voters don't really have any power. Mathematically, either of the two parties can just change their public stance to garner more votes in the local bi-elections, etc, that eventually lead all the way up to the top of power.
:-)
If you want true change, you need a 3 or more party system. That way you have parties that can compete more on their marits, rather than just a 50/50 split.
It's like that old problem. The mice were being eaten by the white cats, so they all voted in the black cats. Now, the black cats had promised to be good and different, but instead just ate more of the poor mice. Horrors! The white cats promised an end to the killings, and won by a landslide. They then ate more mice.
Moral of the story: a two party democracy is as effective as a one party fascist state. I'm glad us Canadians have more than 2
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
It amazes me the crap which comes out of normally intelligent people. It seems that once they go in to "god mode" then they lose all ability to think.
Schools force owr kids to learn Evolution as a fact. If you look into it, you'll find that there is no posable way that it works on any time schedule.
Care to elaborate on this "no possible way that it work on any time schedule"? Sounds like a big fat opinion to me. In the meantime perhaps you can explain how the earth was created only 4 thousand years ago. Or perhaps you are one of those people who believe that five billion years somehow passed between Gen 1 and Gen 2.
So it is a belief, not a fact.
I believe it based on the facts. There is still no factual evidence behind heaven, hell, souls, angels, deamons, or god. Hence, I don't believe all that garbage.
So I guess Christians dont have the fredom to pray in school? I bet you didn't say anything when they took that freedom away.
Perhaps we didn't say anything because that freedom was never removed. What *was* removed was the school sponsorship of prayer and the attempt to use school power to force all the kids to pray. Let me say this again: No one is preventing any child any where in the United States from praying in school. I dare and defy you to show me any instance of a law being created that denies anyone the right to pray in school.
Religion is 'man trying to reach or attain God. But Christianity is 'God trying to reach man.'
Chapter and verse, please. Likewise, show some evidence that Xtianity is somehow different from all the other religions out there.
You know the commandment about 'thow shalt not kill(murder)?'
Which is it, Xtian? "Kill," or "murder"? They are quite different! I guess it depends on which translation you read, doesn't it?
Ow yeah, it's a commandment by the way.
Maybe for you, but not for me. And as much as you probably want to, you can't make be believe your crap. I wonder how many Xtian moderators will moderate this one down becuase it doesn't "further the cause of Christ"?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
So let's give Texas to the Mexicans, the MidWest Bible Belt to the Canadians and the Deep South to Castro.
We'll keep New Orleans, though, 'cause New Orleans kicks BIG ASS. Great beer, great women, great music and 'gators. Can't be beat.
VOTE NOW for a leaner, cleaner utterly Godless United States.
**>>BELCH
Hey, something to remember in all this foofawraw:
We do NOT have a democracy. We have a REPUBLIC, which means that our representatives are supposed to act in our best interests, regardless of what we think they are.
Supposed to.
Unfortunately, it's almost to the point where we do have a democracy, which roughly translates to the tyrrany of the lowest common denominator. Which lower end faction has learned to vote itself largesse from the Treasury. When that faction becomes the majority, we're all sunk.
What we need to be about is not the ballot box. The ballot box will be too late. We need to be about the FIRST Box of Freedom, the Soap. Bombard your congresscritter and your fellow citizens with your message of enlightenment. Look at what we did to Amazon. 48 hours, and they were forced to respect our privacy. We can do the same for Congress.
The poll numbers the politicians really respect are the ones coming thru their switchboards, into their email boxes, fax machines, and most importantly, snailmail. The challenge for us is to make the message "we want more freedom" heard more loudly than "we want more government".
Go get'em, Slashdotters. For your own sakes.
--
Freedom stands on four boxes. Soap, ballot, jury, cartridge.
Err ... Direct democracy = people ruling each other by voting say in a town meeting where everyone can be present. Indirect democracy = people ruling each other ("themselves", if you believe the propaganda) through elected representatives. Necessary when direct democracy would be impractical, e.g. in ruling 270 million people. In the notion of democracy there is no necessary limitation on what the people, or their representatives, may decide to do. A *constitutional republic*, on the other hand, which the Constitution thinks we should be, is a country where the actions of our elected representatives are *limited* by the Constitution and by the broader notion of individual rights. Needless to say, we have been more of a democracy than a republic for a while -- presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt had a lot to do with that. Just to clarify the terminology -- sorry about the length.
I don't think I will ever understand you Americans. Everybody can own weapons because of some law passed 300 years ago (oh, and try to change that and you'll feel the power of millions of Americans and the NRA). But then, when your politicians suppress your free speech, it's all about what some conservative majority thinks is good for the others: 7 words that may not be mentioned on national TV, Internet censure in public libraries and schools, no naked women on TV and so on and on. And no one seems to care.
I spent 6 months in the US and let me tell you, that was enough for me!
I hope that you are aware that this is almost a direct transcript from The Onion's > book. These words are pretty much the same as the comments on the new TV ratings system there. Please give them credit?
The problem with this bill, as I see it, is the vagueness.
The opponents were absolutely correct when they suggested this could stifile creative works -- it will.
Who is to say what is violent? When is violence OK? What about when it is justified in a movie to make a point? What about movies like American History X? The violence in that movie was gruesome, but justified -- the movie illustrates the utter ugliness of racial hatred. Would this rating system deny a teenager the ability to view that movie? If it does (and sounds like it would) this bill is dangerous.
If you are an American, I'd suppose writing your representative to voice your opinion on the bill is the best route to go. If this was in Canada, I would be writing my MP.
1984 was just a few years to early...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The biggest mass murderers of all time were Atheists during the 20th century-- Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Yes, but how many religious genocides have occurred during the 30 (40? 50?) centuries prior to that! With all due respect, your logic is flawed. You can't just look at our century; you have to consider what happened before. And even if the biggest mass murderers of our century were atheists then they still often murdered because of people's religious beliefs.
Eat shit! A hundred billion flies can't be wrong!
The biggest mass murderers of all time were Atheists during the 20th century-- Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
Yes, but how many religious genocides have occurred during the 30 (40? 50?) centuries prior to that! With all due respect, your logic is flawed. You can't just look at our century; you have to consider what happened before. And even if the biggest mass murderers of our century were atheists then they still often murdered because of people's religious beliefs.
Eat shit! A hundred billion flies can't be wrong!
No, glorified violence in the media is not a problem. It's simply a symptom of a problem far worse.
Ask any moviemaker why they put so much sex and violence in their movies. Most will probably dance around the answer for a while, but every one of them will eventually give it to you straight: people will pay exorbitant prices to see it (and by "exorbitant" I mean the fact that the only thing which hasn't gotten cheaper in the US over the past fifty years, once inflation is accounted for, is movie-theater tickets). The fact is, there's one hell of a lot of profit in violence and sex in movies.
We don't crave violence because we see it; we see it because we crave it. Take the violence and sex out of the media, and you've done nothing to solve the problem. Indeed, if people can't see it in the media they'll turn to other sources, and we could quite possibly be in real trouble then.
So what is the problem? I don't claim to know that. Some cultural thing, probably; the fact is something in the fundamental culture of the U.S. is going to have to change if this problem is to be solved, and frankly I don't know what it is. You can blame any of a million different things. My personal belief is that it has much to do with the breakdown of parenting in recent years; kids aren't taught to respect all people anymore (I suppose one could argue that they never were, but in any case the situation on this has gotten much worse). Couple this with a society which has come to hold strength and physical beauty over real virtues like knowledge and kindness, and you have the recipe for a Really Bad Situation.
Education is like wealth. Indeed today it is wealth. Except for the very rich, you will find a high correlation between education and income. So as eductaion improves, the distance between what the most educated can achieve, and what the least educated can achieve (a position, which, like abject poverty, is pinned to the bottom of the scale) will grow.
Neither of these measures captures what is really going on: the middle and upper-middle income people in the U.S. are doing better than ever. Even lower-middle-income people are gaining. Redistributionism and the politics of envy are more likely to hurt these than help these people becuase it disrupts the markets that created their wealth.
The same will hold true once educational choice exists.
I wrote parts of this stuff
And a private school system could go a long ways toward fixing the problems you cite for a simple reason: they can kick kids out.
Yes, that's harsh, but frankly some kids need a good kick in the rear. Particularly if you are dealing with parents that don't give a damn or even take their kid's side, it might give the *parent* a wake-up call to do a better job at their parenting. And if a few kids simply get kicked out and stay kicked out, I'm not sure that's that big a deal. Students who repeatedly disrupt classrooms weren't likely learning much anyway.
Also, it might be profitable to set up private "boot camps" to whip bratty kids into shape. These would concentrate not so much on discipline as on getting kids to behave so they could return to the normal classroom.
The point is not that the above specifically will solve the problem, but that the ingenuity that is sparked by the free market will drive teachers and administrators to find better ways of dealing with these problems. The public schools are restricted in what they can do, and are forced to take all students no matter how atrocious their behavior. This lack of freedom for the teachers makes it much harder for them to deal with the problem students and concentrate on teaching the 80% of students who are somewhat interested in learning.
heh looking for trouble
/rant
:P
I've got plenty of European friends over here and the ones that like it stay and have a great time. The ones that can't adjust leave. America is fine, you read too much media babble. I am looking at a job in England. Sorry to say, I'm not quite looking forward to it. Can't own even the simplest target rifle, get videotaped wherever I go, my ISP is forced to tap my lines on demand, by VPN will be tapped or illegal, concealing my password => guilt and imprisonment. And Tony Blair will be my fearless leader. Bombs away!
Low taxes? You call the government taking half your money low? Then they take half of what you are worth when you die! Hate to hear what you pay.
You people bitch about something you know very little about, then wonder why we get defensive.
I've lived in Europe (France) and liked it very much. The meat and other food in Europe is much better by me (no hormones in my milk, thanks). But I sure would rather be in France than England.
And keep bitchin' about how Americans came and saved your asses late in the war. Just makes the point all the better. Europe cannot control it's own shop any better than the U.S. I do not defend our policies of intervention (or lack thereof). Our policies suck. And so do yours.
-kabloie
P.S. Our shitty education system is full of foreigners trying to get advanced degrees. What are they thinking? A U.S. degree will brand them as stupid!
I was sorta waiting for a story to bring this up in, and another poster reminded me.
We all(or most, some of you may not be old enough) get to vote in Nov. 2000 for Presidential and lots of other canidates. The hope would be that we don't have to re-elect someone who supports crap like this.
But when I look around at the presidential scene, I don't really see even 1 canidate from the major parties that I like. Anyone else have Democrat or Republican they like, or a canidate from another party?
The only ideas I've seen from what I get fed by the mainstream press that interest me at all are those of the reform party. Jesse Ventura has been on TV a bunch of times basically saying that the government should stay out of social issues. That is a big "+" in my book. Of course, the guy also sounds pretty unintelligent(maybe he's not good on TV).
It's legal to own guns,(has anyone even read the Second Amendment? If you're not in a well regulated milita defending the security of your state, you don't need a gun)
;P
You mean we've gotten it wrong this whole time? Wow, revelation! So it is _actually_ unconstitutional for me to own guns! Whoah, trippin, dude!
Your interpretation is relatively new and is, of course, wrong. You quote your favorite part of the amendment, which out of context implies something else.
Every movie poster should just be a bar chart of murders, rapes, swearing, naked people, etc. I disagree with Lieberman and all these dumbasses in Congress, but the knee-jerk reaction of you folks in LA (Hollywood) to Lieberman is to immediately point out that we should not have guns. What the hell is that about!?
Natural Born Killers, for example, was a true piece of shit movie. No, don't even try it, it sucked. It was a study in putresence (sp?). It should never have been a 'hit', but it was because of media hype. Similar to gun makers creating the 'Street Sweeper'. It is going to call attention to your little world. Sure it makes a guy some bucks but it brings on calls for regulation like these. If Hollywood continues to push bullshit on us in movies and TV (btw, I don't watch TV anymore), you are going to get more and more calls from dorks like Lieberman trying to stop you.
Bah, maybe I made a point, you decide.
-kabloie
Thanks for the insightful post. To bad it didn't get moderated up. Its amazing that more people don't know these facts. Socialist/Communist ideology is so rampant in the US that this kind of information is never taught, except for Hitler. Must have been because he opposed the communists. I never learned this in high school OR college and had to come upon it on my own.
I, for one, would like them to know something very interesting concerning violence and sex in the media.... (second hand info from my brother who's lived in japan for a while) It seems that in Japan, movies, computer games, tv shows are much much more violent and sexually explicit then here, yet the murder rate here is over 200 times that of Japan. Does anybody else understand that congress is attacking the problem from the wrong side?!? I can't believe that those morons on capitol hill think that me, a 16 yr old, will learn something new and oh so terribly bad from any sort of movie, tv show, or video game. I am, however, offended by the expanding popularity of shock shows like Fox's shows which are all title something like "When people die, on TV!". There's another source for the degregation (spelling?) of morals in america, the media only shows the effects of them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
TWW
Here's the problem, as simply as it can be stated. Some American parents - a lot of parents, probably a majority - want to lie to their kids. With as strength of desire that's almost desperate, they want to tell their young children, in effect, "No such thing as sex exists."
(There is a lesser issue with violence, but how serious is American's disapproval of so-called media violence, really? "Media violence" is a very bad phrase, since what it denominates is not violence but depiction of violence, quite a different thing, the difference between a book and a gunshot wound; yet that term begs the question of whether these depictions are in any way connected to the violence they depict. But at any rate, is not the majority of television "entertainment," broadcast freely over the radio waves to one and all, based on the concepts of crime and violence? If you watch broadcast TV for a week, how many killings do you see? and how many naked bodies? If Americans really disapproved of media violence we'd already censor it on the broadcast media as harshly as we censor even the most innocent sexual display - and we don't.)
Now if one is committed, on what are sometimes laughably referred to as "moral" grounds, to telling all the children in the community the lie that sex does not exist in humans, then one is logically forced to institute the strictest form of censorship upon all available information media. All a First Amendment does is establish a constant source of tension. You can't make the censorship problem go away by, say, supporting the ACLU (though that is a good idea) as it will recur and recur until you eliminate from society the notion that kids must be shielded from knowledge about sex. How one might go about transforming a neurotically puritanic society such as ours in that manner I simply can't imagine.
I suspect that this notion (the virtue of complete sexual ignorance among young people) is fairly new in European society. Up until a couple or three centuries ago, practically no one lived far from the countryside, and the majority of people labored at agriculture. Try to imagine a child growing up on or even near a farm ignorant of the mechanics of sex.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
What freedoms are they taking away? Are they preventing the production of these products? No. Are they preventing the distribution of these products. No, not really. They're trying to prevent them from being sold to minors. Guess what, kiddies. Kids don't have the same rights as their adult comrades. You know why? They don't vote. I see this labeling idea as the same thing as alcohol restrictions. Alcohol is labeled. Minors can't buy alcohol, legally. Is anyone crying about the Constitutional right to drink alcohol at whatever age you want? No, because that's asinine. Let government do some regulation of products that may or may not be harmful to society.
Slashdot needs to get over the "Anytime the US Government passes a bill, it's taking away the freedoms of its citizens" kick that it's on. Unless you're a 16-year-old video game junkie, this isn't going to affect you in the least, and if you are a 16-year-old video game junkie, convince your parents to buy it for you. Or are you afraid that mommy and daddy won't approve of the games you play?
Please explain why forcing someone to join a union isn't raw use of power for your ends. Since you think it's ok for the goverment to force people to do whatever a majority of Congress agrees on, I assume we won't hear you whine when you are forced to do something you disagree with.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
1. Take away their guns.
2. Put them in concentration camps.
3. Kill them all.
One question - WHAT THE FUCK FOR?
I see no point in the government killing off its own citizens. Pull your head out of your ass moron. When you come back to the real world why don't you let the rest of us know.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But that's an isolated incident, in which the antagonists were relatively secluded, and in which the governemtn generally had government support. Imagine if every tenth arrest resulted in a Waco-style seige with several government officials getting injured in each seige. It would be hard for the government to get much done then.
So yes, handgun ownership does not guaruntee that the government can't screw you over, but if a large minority of the populace were to arm themselves and refuse to cooperate with the government, it could slow down that government a whole lot. Certainly, it can't hurt, and if they're going to take me off to a concentration camp, I'd rather take a couple of them with me.
And of course if she would of had a gun - she would have seen the perp coming from a mile away. Being that she was shot in the BACK of the head. I see it now - it makes perfect sense.
We have the more than just a well armed citizenry - we have the BEST armed citizenry - It's called the U.S. Military.
Seriously. Think about this for a few seconds.
I see little difference between a so called "violent" movie and a regular animated adventure of Batman or whatnot when it comes down to it. Even a typical episode of Popeye can be quite violent. I can't think of how many episodes ended in a miserable Bluto/Brutus with several casts over broken limbs, bruises, and missing teeth.
How about video games? They always seem to raise a red flag around quake and whatnot, but think or more contemporary games like Super Mario Brothers. Burning things to death with fireballs? Squashing things in oblivion? Sure it may not be represented graphically, but the concepts are there nonetheless.
They should just put "Warning, contains yadda and blah blah" like they do on animes and leave it up to the parent.
All this has arisen from parents that leave their children alone to entertain themselves and then trying to find a cover up for not restricting content themselves.
This whole mess pretty much has stemmed from a bunch of lazy jerks and its ruining it for the rest of us. Lets end this silliness once and for all.
This is why guns should be banned.
I would have a much easier time trusting these guy's intentions, but some of the most violent images piped into the media are the direct result of American policies abroad.
Remember the Gulf War, when American troops firebombed caravan of retreating Iraqis until they where all carbonized? Or perhaps Yugoslavia would be a better example for our children? Oh, then there's the cruise missle strike Clinton ordered on Sudan, remember that? Videogames aren't the only things which teach children to solve their problems with violence.
Maybe this law could have a dual purpose -- if you can't show violence through the media, then you can't show the truth about US Policy actions. A bit conspiracy theory, but entirely plausable.
Actually, the people who will be most against tihs law will be the people selling those games/music/etc. to the minors. Kids ages 13-18 are spending more money then ever. The video game industry is on pace to make more money (revenue and profit) then the movie industry in the near future. The companies selling to minors will know that minors will not want some edited version of what they want. An unedited, but labled, version may make some kids want to buy it more (music labels had this affect) but may also make the main source of the kids' money, their parents, upset. Either way the industry doesn't want this bill.
-- soldack
I really don't, Americans are upset because Tv programmes are going to have ratings on them? Heck. You are complaning about losing your 'freedoms' yet you fuss about loss of the most minor of freedoms.
Why is not the general public worring about Encryption, Breaches the Geneva Convention, the government's wish to spy on your actions + the actions of people in other countries?
Seems that Americans have their minds in the wrong barrel over Democracy.
(this is not flamebait already)
I need your vote!
LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
FRA: STFU GTFO
Why do the Slashdot moderators feel the need to moderate every post that is negative towards the USA down to 0 ???
The schools are saying that Evolution is a fact.
No they're not (if they are they shouldn't be teaching science). They're saying evolution is a theory. Which it is. It happens to be the best theory (fits the observed world best, and makes the most accurate predictions) that we have right now, so that's what schools should teach in science classes. Creationism - indeed any aspect of any religion - is not a theory, because theories can be disproved. True Believers do not accept any observation that contradicts their beliefs, and would discard the observations rather than alter their beliefs. That's what faith is about. Science is not about faith. If the observations contradict the theories, then the theories must be adjusted or discarded.
Atomic theory is "just a theory" too. No one has ever seen an atom. A True Believer might argue that atomic theory should not be taught in schools, because it teaches that matter is made of amoral atoms, while a True Believer accepts that everything is made of and sustained by God's Love.
Some people might argue that atomic theory is not incompatible with belief in God or God's Love. Analogous arguments have been put forward by scientists who also hold religious beliefs and who want their children to get a complete education in biology (including evolution). But the loudest noises are made by those who want their religious views presented, to the exclusion of all else. Where is the outcry against the routine indoctrination of children (WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!) with godless communist atomic theory?
There is no facts provable about Evolution, and the sad thing is they tell you it's true and take an apes tooth and make a skull around it.
Yes, there have been frauds perpetrated in the name of science. But that's no reason to throw out the whole theory as fraudulent. Just throw out the parts that derived from fraud.
Fraud has been committed in the name of religion too (shroud of Turin anyone?). While it is the cause of much consternation in the church, I don't see a call to abandon the whole faith because of it. And that's as it should be. Just acknowledge the fraud, punish and/or forgive the perps (in science this is accomplished by professional rebuke, considered by some to be a fate worse than death) and get back to business.
True Belief is the cornerstone of religion, but it's very bad science. Treating (the biblical account of) Creation as a theory is an insult to both science and religion.
Basically, the bill says that every type of entertainment media, be it a Video Game, a TV show, or a Movie, will have a rating. This rating will be universal thoughout all mediums. So for example, if a Movie gets rated R (Under 17 not admitted w/o parent), that could apply to a similarly rated TV show. Mortal Kombat, for instance, would have an R-type rating. (The rating would carry the same symbol throughout the entertainment industry.)
Like the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act it would amend, the bill would also prohibit the sale of labeled products to minors.
This would surely backfire. Guess what? If a minor isn't allowed to buy it, they'll get it another way, opening the door to increased illegal crap. The article goes on to say "The Judiciary Committee report, in part, urges Congress to begin a national media campaign to educate parents and to create a national clearinghouse on children and entertainment violence. It also recommends that the various industries rate their products using a universal system." Parents don't need to be educated. The ones who know how to be parents know how to raise their children. The rest (I.E. That Mother who complained about Kenny on SouthPark) aren't going to listen to "Government Education", so that plan is useless.
The MPAA president summed it up quite well already.
Why? You won't see full nudity on television, and it's rare in video games. So if a movie is rated R, and that rating would apply to a television show as well, would one expect to see the same type of content? Probably not. (Yeah, it's about violence not nudity. I was using an example. If you're that concerned, replace 'nudity' with 'gore'.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
"Is it responsible for us to say it was the intention of our founding fathers that we be Constitionally guaranteed the RIGHT to possess ammunition capable of penatrating the body armour worn by police officers?"
Is it responsible? The answer is a resounding YES. This is exactly what they intended. In fact, having (and protecting) this right is ultimately necessary if we are to live in freedom.
The world that you see, like the artificial reality depicted in The Matrix, is merely an illusion. You see human society as something with levels of power and authority where we all have a place and follow certain rules, but in fact for all of our laws and all of our cities we're still nothing more than monkeys walking around on a dirtball that no one can truly own.
Consider well the famous phrase, "all men are created equal". If this is true, then who is a policeman but a man.. just like you or I? And why SHOULDN'T I be able to carry a weapon that can kill him? After all, he carries one that can kill me. I have every right that a policeman (or a marine) does, including the right to carry ridiculously lethal firearms.. ESPECIALLY if only those firearms will allow me to defeat body armor.
The way you phrase your question, above, it seems to indicate that you believe that the founders wanted a special class of Americans (police and military) to exist who would live above the rest of the people and be immune to popular control. Yet even the most cursory research will show that nothing could be farther from the truth.
If you're still not convinced, then I offer this instead: eliminate all the gun laws. Sweep aside all restrictions. Allow every man to get a machine gun if they want one. If our society is still capable of morality, if we can still accept responsibility for our actions (or at least learn how, like the war-happy king whose favorite concubines were beheaded by Sun Tzu), then things can only improve.. after all, an armed society is a polite society.
On the other hand, if we are so diseased, so hopelessly jaded and amoral that we are incapable of handling power without being destroyed, then by God LET us be destroyed, and our odious breed purged from the earth. Either way, the problem will solve itself.
And don't say there's no evedence that Jesus ever lived just because a 'teacher' told you so. There is more evedence that Jesus just lived then there is evedence that you lived if you dispeared.
So what? The argument isn't whether Jesus existed - the argument is whether that big book about him (the Bible) is divine and 100% true. No amount of archaeological digs are going to answer those questions, because archaeology is a science, and science doesn't deal with things like that. It can't prove anything; it can only disprove. Even if all the verifiable stuff (like who begat whom, and what things occurred during the reign of so-and-so) is supported by archaeological evidence, it says nothing about the moral and religious teachings of the Bible.
And isn't that the important part? The biblical literalists seem to be missing the point. In seeking to uphold the historical validity of their Holy Book, they lose sight of its purpose. It's not just a history, dammit!
I have to post this as an AC because I don't want anyone to know it is me posting.
First, parents were once children and are older now, so I assume that they know more about raising children than you do. Second, children shouldn't be having sex. There are the problems of kids having kids and STDs.
The greatest reason I support this is because I am a virgin. I haven't even been on a date or kissed a woman, and I am 21. (This is why I am posting as an AC.) Before I was 18 I chose part of this (being a virgin), although my choice wouldn't have meant much considering no girl was interested in me. Usually, I support freedom, but in this case I say let them suffer. It isn't my fault that kids are using their opportunities for relationships irresponsibly, although I am forced to pay for it through welfare. They can ruin their lives, while I have an excellent job that pays more in a few months than they will see in a lifetime. Actually, they would be able to do better if they were screwing around when they were young. I don't shut my brain off, so it isn't my fault if they do.
Oh Yeah, like America has restricted everything. I have been to Europe, and there are way more restrictions there than here. (And you wonder why people like Hitler and Stalin keep poping up there, as opposed to North America.) Isn't the European Parliament going to ban cars soon because a few of them are used by terrorists as bombs? Of course the people have no way to defend themselves against a totalitarian state with no guns, and with Europe's history of dictators, they need them.
As a teenager, I want better labeling of content so I can tell at a glance while scanning DirecTV's film listings which shows contain nudity, which contain wanton violence, and which are just pansy-ass dramas. With proper and thorough labeling, I can zero in on the shows that have the naughty bits, and not waste my time on other, less entertaining programming.
Bring on the new system!
You guys make too much out of this. I actually
...
think that ratings on movies and music is a brillant idea.
Where I grew up the church was dictating the
ratings on movies and it was excellent as we
knew which movies were good and which one weren't
any good.
The ratings were rather stricts so if you were
to be a good christian you had to ignore all
the good movies.
There was
1-Tous --> everybody --- boring stuff
2-Adolescent --> Teenagers --- see above
3-Adultes --> Adults --- Half way decent 4-Adultes avec réserves --> for adults but
5-À proscrire --> Forbidden --- Great movies
Most people watched the movies 3-5 ignoring all
the other ones.
A few years later finding out that it backfired
the church abandonned the ratings and some
critics ended up doing the ratings for TV
according to so called qualities of the movies.
They are numbered 1 to 7, seven being the most
stupid (usually a lot of flesh). Again people
watched the highest numbers.
Lately I heard that they have a new rating.
You see, those ratings don't mean shit until
someone actually decides that the movies with
the nutty ratings will become illegal. This is
not likely to happen in this country as there is
too many of us who cherish our freedoms. Any
such regulation would become null and void at
the supreme court as violating the constitution.
Rating are basically a way for us to see what
the fundies think of movies as it should be
obvious to anyone they will give bad ratings to
the very best. In essence these ratings are
much better than those of the critics.
A critic is someone who failed in life and
has vowed to spend his life destroying those
who succeeded. Since their judgment is based
on their hatred of certain people it is very
hard to judge which movie is interesting to
watch until you actually spend the money watching
it.
You see, the new ratings will save us a lot of
money as we won't rent of buy movies blindly.
The whole point of the militia was that it was *not* a standing army and was therefore not a threat to peoples' freedoms. The militia were average citizens-- farmers mostly-- that were only called up in time of national emergency, and who made their living in the private sector the rest of the time. The US army is *not* a militia in the historical sense of the term, and that was not what the 2nd Amendment is talking about. Think about it: why would you write an amendment saying "The US military shall have the right to keep and bear arms?" I don't know of any country that has disarmed its own military. That would be retarded.
-Nazi Germany
-Stalinist USSR
-Communist China
-Cambodia
-Vietnam
-Yugoslavia
Heck, I can't think of the others right now, but I know there's at least a half-dozen cases in which the government has performed mass murder of some segment of the population. No, that's not putting everyone in the concentration camps, but it's still putting a lot of them there. And having those people armed is a step in the right direction.
Why do they do it? Who cares? It's happened, and it continues to happen almost every year. No, it's not likely to happen in the US in the near future, but that's what people would have said about Germany in the late 20's. I'd prefer to be safe than sorry.
TWW
Just because a lot of nerds may well have /. has to devolve into a political organ
vaguely anti-authoritarian views, it doens't
mean
for such views. Stop submitting this crap;
we can read it on CNN (those of us who even
bother following American "politics")
If you haven't noticed, that already happens. NC17, etc.
Frank Zappa must be spinning in his grave....
What's the problem? While I don't believe that there is a direct correlation between violent media content and actual violence, I do believe that a rating system of some kind is necessary. Consider today's MPAA rating system. If a person under the age of 17 wishes to see an R-rated film, he is barred from viewing it unless accompanied by a parent. This places the responsibility of media choices in the hands of the parent, not the entertainment industry as a whole. The same can be extended to video games, music, etc. The laws won't even affect people of consenting age! It's a sticker! Peel it off if you don't like it! The problem in america these days is that children are being raised not by their parents, but by tohse responsible for creating entertainment. Generation Y (for lack of a better name) is showing signs of being ruled by the media. As a business owner, I've discovered that young people cannot be told what to do anymore. They need to be _shown_, step by step, exactly what to do. I don't even bother telling my employees what to do anymore... they don't listen. Training videos are the only thing that works. It's not just at my restaurant, either. At my _real_ job, the interns can't be told what to do. I can't jus say, "Hey, go learn how to set up an LDAP server, then do it." I have to _show_ them every damn step. No initiative, no creative thinking, and no respect. I tell you... these kids today. So anyway, returning from my tangent. The responsibility of raising children needs to be returned to the parents, and this rating system seems to be a step towards doing it.
I think that this majority of americans that are upsetting you people oh so much must have a stick up the stick up their ass (anyone see that episode of The Simpsons? hehe). In the US they've restricted practically everything. I agree VERY STRONGLY with what JonKatz said in one of those articles in response to Columbine. (The part about the USA being the laughingstock of the WORLD when it comes to this sort of thing). I mean, GOD FORBID there should be a nipple in a shampoo comercial! As if I didn't know they existed! (hmmm). (oh yeah, sarcasm intended, btw....)
What if I choose not to play along? Then they take the gun, put it at my back, and march me off to camp?
What is wrong with this is that it substitutes brute force for thinking.
If you as a (theoretical) parent want to judge if a piece of art is appropriate for your children, you should THINK FOR YOURSELF and choose wisely. Yes, you and your children will bear the consequences if you choose poorly, but that is justice.
The alternative to limited government is unlimited government.
There is no need for any bill to "let" the media regulate itself. Any media producer is perfectly free as it is to label his product: WARNING! Exposure to the violence, sexuality, language, and mopery with intent to creep depicted herein will instantly convert a saint into a RAVING PSYCHOPATH!!!. (Hell, they'd probably double their sales.)
The moment the government becomes involved, the system becomes politicized. Maybe in your world, there would be no pressure to rate Waco: The Rules Of Engagement more unfavorably than Our Heroic Troops Kick [insert hobgolin du jour]'s Ass (a hypothetical film containing an equivalent level of violence). That ain't so here in reality.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
To reiterate the analogy, I regard much of what comes out of our media outlets as moral poison. It teaches is to regard ourselves and our fellow women and men as no better than objects -- the plots degrade men and women with casuol sex and casual murder.
On the flip side, is there any point to this kind of law? I doubt it. Bluntly, I vote with my dollar. If a media network refuses to show some reasonable restraint in what they show, I REMOVE THAT NETWORK FROM MY HOME.
So, my cable service does not include networks such as Comedy Central, or even the Cartoon Network (do you really want kids to learn behaviour from cow & chicken or southpark?)
I realize that, by doing this I am sacrificing my "freedom" to watch these materials. SO WHAT?!?! I regard this whole "adult material" standard as ludicrous. If something is not healthy for my child to watch, then how on earth is it worth my time? I have better things to do (like read kernel source).
Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work for the net. Instead of 70 or 80 channels, I have millions of websites. None of the filter companies can keep up. So, I have to watch my son every second on the net. Why can't offensive web sites show some responsibility? Why will they not actively label themselves as to their content? I would settle for a standard <porn> tag. That's all I ask!
In a world where my son can legitimately find pornography while looking for the president's home page (www.whitehouse.com) -- that is, where pornography is deliberately disguised as legitimate information and resists all attempts to get them to label themselves -- how can I (even as a freedom lover) argue AGAINST mandatory labeling?
Are you an ISP? Exercise some diligence on the sites on your servers before the government has to!
-- Slashdot sucks.
It was the same scientific study that showed that sticking pins in a PHB doll will cause pain to your boss in real life. The technical term is "symbolic magic".
We are governed by people who believe in voo-doo, Ghu help us.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This country is fucked up. I live here and I don't understand what the hell is going on. It's legal to own guns,(has anyone even read the Second Amendment? If you're not in a well regulated milita defending the security of your state, you don't need a gun) which are designed to harm others, but illegal to take drugs, which harm only yourself (assuming of course, you don't drive, operate heavy machinery etc) We can have murders, rapes, bombings, all manner of violence on TV (and that's just the news, in fact where's the bill to censor the local news? Here in LA if there's a shooting, mugging, robbery, or other mayhem by golly it's news!!) but show a female nipple? No fucking way man!! We gotta deal, for over a year, with the fact that Clinton got a blowjob, while the important stuff gets swept under the carpet. Still I think this is the best country in the world (no flamebait intended) it just amazes me the stupidity of people sometimes.
As for the topic, I don't see the problem with warning parents about violence that they may not want their children to see. I do see a problem trying to quantify it. As for censorship, no one said you can't make an NC-17 movie, they just don't because it won't make as much money, bottom line. I will say that Jack Valenti is the last person I'd go to for advice, however. The MPAA is the most fucked up association ever invented.
Democracy is a government run directly by the people. A republic is a government run by elected officials. Go look it up in the dictionary.
Correction: our *government* has pissed off alot of people, including alot of American citizens. We have to deal with it everday of our lives, while it rarely affects you, and even then, usually indirectly. But despite this, we all get lumped in with our government when it comes time to dish out the criticism. We get screwed from both ends. There are plenty of us who would LOVE to see our military pulled out of Europe, and our government mind its own business, but the media does an excellent job of convincing the masses that the governement is their friend, so we have little chance of making a change.
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.
It is truly a shame that FDR started the modern era of big government. As a libertarian, i don't believe that the government was needed to provide people jobs during the depression, e.g. WPA, TVA etc. However as a human, i understand suffering and can see how FDR wanted to change the situation for millions of unemployed americans. I am not exactly positive of this, but i believe that it was under FDR that the War Powers Act was signed in response to WWII and has yet to be repealed. Lincoln on the other hand despite "winning" the Civil War and liberating the African American slaves, trampled the rights of Americans by instating martial law and his Secret Police. Lincoln was often wishy-washy when it came to slavery and emancipation and was not always the champion of the blacks as gradeschool history books say. Many people will say that these two presidents were great for the things that they achieved, but I feel that what they achieved has been blemished and perhaps even negated by the route that they took. As someone once said, "The end does not justify the means."
TWW
Look at Colombine. How many gun laws were violated (and afterwards we get to hear Democrats calling for more gun regulation). Look at movies. How hard is it for an underage kid to go see an R rated movie? Not very hard. Are we to believe that new laws will change that?
But best of all, take a look at the computer game industry. There has been a voluntary, self-regulated rating system in place now for years. Too bad most people, especially parents, do not pay attention to it.
More laws and regulations will not solve the problem. Our society, especialy the parents in our society, need to give a damn about protecting kids.
-- Argel
-- Argel
Spreading the fallacy that the U.S. is a democracy. This is simply not true. Read our Constitution. Listen to the words of the Pledge Of Allegiance. We are a supposed to be a republic and there is definitely a difference. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a well-informed, well-armed sheep.
Well, 1984 helped to point out the ultimate evolution of the Stalinist way of doing things with some pretty graphic imagery. This is just one example but there are others, like King Lear which pointed out the problems a person in power has with people who flatter them on one hand and stab them in the back later, or MacBeth which was about the dangers of ambition. (Decapitations and eye gouging figures prominently in them. King Lear is almost 100% fiction, in case you want to continue that tired old argument, because it deals with a rather sketchy period of British History.) Still, most people put Shakespeare and even Orwell out of the realm of censorship, it is only the Orwell's and Shakespeare's of today who will have their work trampled while such sensational fare as Unsolved Mysteries will continue to exist, if fascists have their way.
I don't personally like the "true crime" genre you speak of, it has been responsible for glorifying people like Charles Manson in its worst excesses. (I wouldn't want to see it censored, but I personally wouldn't let my kids watch it.) But it doesn't matter because except for COPS it is all fiction anyway, just based on real facts, which are presented according to the shows agenda.
I just hope that whichever party you belong to, and whatever beliefs you hold dear, that the people in the other party, with opposing beliefs and ideas will be the ones in power when your censorship laws go through and the Bill of Rights is dust. You can live without the First Amendment under their gentle care. Actually, I hope the Bill of Rights survives people like you, but there is little hope.
Oh incidentally, fictionalized violence in this country isn't a problem, the loss of Constitutional protection from arbitrary, ignorant men is. (But being arbitrary and ignorant yourself, I somehow doubt you can understand this, until you end up on the wrong side of the power structure.)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
As sure as night follows day, 80% of the way
into the article, the discussion of excessive
violence has to just append sex to violence:
"drawing a line governing violent, sexual and degrading material".
There seems to be some special neuron in the
US mind which equates harmful activity with
pleasurable, beneficial activity. Similarly,
the V-chip was generalised to cover sex.
There is a difference, in many parts of the world.
So in brief, this bill would require movies, games etc to be labelled as to their content. That's not a problem - food is also labeled for content. Minors would not be allowed to buy ones with certain ratings - allowing parents to control what their children are doing. That's definitely a good thing, and doesn't stop the rest of us any. No real loss of freedom there.
On the other hand, I find it hard pressed to believe that violent TV, movies and games are the cause of violence. Most other modern countries have just as much violent media, but very little actual violence. Taking away people's access to powerful weapons would have much more effect, but some people just don't seem to like the idea, and the government seems to listen to whoever is loudest or gives the most of money. So much for democracy.
The second amendment is not treated more highly than the first. In fact, the First Amendment is the only amendment that most journalists and politicians really pay any attention to. The Second Amendment has been emasculated to the point where it is now all but meaningless. Leftists have reinterpreted it to mean basically that the National Guard needs weapons, and they say it has nothing to do with private citizens having guns. I wouldn't be too suprised if we started seeing more gun bans in the next few years. The NRA keeps giving in, and pretty soon guns will be outlawed.
It's scary.
Whether or not people want to admit it, depictions of glorified violence in various forms of media _IS_ a problem. Maybe not a problem for 99% of us: (It's not a problem for me personally, since I simply refuse to watch fictitious violence) but the scores of incidents of 'copycat' murders, and a very apparent lack of ethics in at least a minority of the population, something has to be done, on a societal level to raise the conciousness of the admittedly small percent of the population that is sick enough to actually do something that they see depicted in a violent media content..
I don't see this proposed legislation as a violation of freedoms, and while it is likely that it is just part of a politicical agenda for various upcoming re-election campaigns, because it's a hot topic, I don't see that it hurts anyone or anything. If you sell something that's potentially biologically poisonous, there has to be a label on it saying so. If something is potentially psychologically poisionous, why shouldn't the same thing apply?
Albeit somewhat offtopic, I'd also like to raise the point of WHY people 'like' to watch fabricated violent material. If you need to explore such ideas for whatever reason, try watching CourtTV, Unsolved Mysteries, or other investigative reporting shows that deal with the REAL issues of murder and violence in socity. I don't see fake blood and gore as 'entertainment' at all. So I ask slashdot readers:
What is the appeal of "sick fiction?" I don't (and probably won't) understand it.
This may sound like flamebait, but these are my honest feelings and opinions.
Only the government can make their ratings carry the force of law, and only the government is completely immune to market pressures. If an independent rating system started taking bribes, people would find out, they'd get pissed, and they'd switch to a different service. If the government starts taking bribes, there might be an investigation, but if they are clever about it, nothing is likely to come of it. The kicker, though, is that you are forced to pay for their ratings (and likely they will enact laws around those ratings) whether you like it or not. No private organization can force you to use its services. That's why private organizations don't need constitutions. If they mistreat you, you can go elsewhere.
You're absolutely right. The whole "hunting" argument is idiotic. The purpose of handguns is to kill people; i.e. for self defense. This is congruent with the purpose of the second amendment.
It's quite difficult to carry a hunting rifle about to defend oneself against assailants while away from the home.
Yes, exactly, if organizations want to publish their opinion on the suitability of content for minors I don't have a big problem with that.
But to enforce such opinions as law leads to buckets of worms. Especially on the internet.
How do we verify age? If I start seeing credit card AVS's going up at news and gaming sites I'm going to be just a little mad. I don't have a credit card -- never have, never will. What's more -- it won't work -- it will just encourage kids to steal credit card numbers or borrow their parents. If you think that credit cards won't be the method used, how do you explain CDA II? This also means that usage of "suspect" sites will be logged by the credit card companies, something I'd prefer not to see.
It is *ridiculous* to promote enforcing age restrictions on the internet until a practical method of age verification is worked out.
We pissed Hitler off good!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about a separate slashdot section for America-only stories like this one*? Far be it for me to deny the citizens of a country a forum in which to moan about their democracy (or impending lack of it), and I realise that /. coverage of other-national stories like the current farce taking place in Australia regarding net-nannying is pretty good, but surely this kind of story is much more for national than international consumption.
:-) ), this story is only really of interest to Americans...
*with, of course the few exceptions posting below to contradict me (
There is nothing wrong with requiring labels on products. Such regulations already exist in nearly every other industry. Such labels would put the decision back int he hands of parents where it belongs: If your kid wants to buy something, check the label (or better yet see/play it yourself) and then make the call.
The danger of course is the second half: Government enforcement of such labels. This is just plain evil. If someone thinks his child is old enough to watch A Clockwork Orange then its their right to be able to show it to their children.
I wonder how many problems we could solve by reducing the required voting age to 0?
Forgive me, but was I out for a while? When was it definitively established that violence in the media causes violence in real life?
Last time I checked, the youth violence rate was Still at it's lowest point since the Depression. As far as I know, no scientific study has Ever been done which proved (or even hinted) that we can blame a person's behavior on the games they play or the media they consume. Humans have been violent creatures for a very long time.
I mean, this scrawny little guy ordered the extermination of 6 million Jewish people, and he never saw South Park. Vlad the Impaler, well, impaled people (and lots of other stuff) without having the benefit of t.v. or video games, or even Stanley Kubrick to blame. And both of their armies went merrily along with the things they did. For a while, anyway.
These are extreme examples, I admit. But history would bear me out should I choose to argue that humans are violent creatures; even humans who've been raised in good, suburban homes, with a minivan and an inground pool, and loving parents.
Unfortunately, politicians like very simple answers; makes for a better sound clip.
The old solutions they toss up still don't work. But don't hold your breath waiting for them to learn that lesson.
Of course, the guy also sounds pretty unintelligent(maybe he's not good on TV).
Nope, he's a moron. As a Minnesota resident, I can tell you that you do *not* want Jesse as president. He's a fraud, a disgrace, and an idiot. Allow me to elaborate.
Fraud Jesse ran on a mildly libertarian platform of less government spending, lower taxes, and generally liberal on social issues. He was pro-concealed carry, said he might consider legalizing pot and prostitution, and was generally an ok guy.
After he got elected, he surrounded himself with moderate Democrats, and did a policy about-face. Now he thinks tax cuts are "irresponsible," he wants to spend more money on light rail and education. He's against school choice. We haven't heard a word about vouchers, pot, or prostitution, and he's generally taken the Democratic side on every issue. We might have voted for the Democratic choice for governor.
If you're a Democrat, that may sound good to you, but the point is that the man broke many of his campaign promises and has no compunctions about lying if he thinks it's necessary. And he hasn't done much of anything towards repealing restrictions on social issues. I wish he would, as that's what he campaigned on. In short, he's a fraud.
Disgrace Jesse seems to delight in shocking people. He published a book which features his sex life and drug use. He refereed at a WWF event. At one point he started yelling at a welfare mother during a press conference. He seems to be more interested in the publicity than anything else. I don't think he ever expected to win, so now that he's won, he probably figures he can milk the system for all he can get.
idiot I really don't think he has any sort of political philosophy. He got into politics to bolster his faltering carreer as a talk show host, and he seems to form his political opinions on the spur of the moment. His campaign adds featured action figures showing him "fighting special interests." (which, by the way, he's been courting as badly as any major-party politician) In short, he's got nothing to offer but a simple freak show. His policies are those of a mundane centrist Democrat.
In summary, please don't vote for him if he runs for President. I'm embarrassed enough that he's our governor. I don't want to put up with his crap for another 4 years.
If you want a real alternative, check out the Libertarian Party
For those who know me, they know that I tolerate absolutely no censorship of any sort. And I support this bill that congress is trying to pass. I support it unequivocally.
Why? Because it's not enforced censorship. Nor is it a way to control the media. It's a way to let the media regulate itself and enable parents to effectively control what their kids listen to. If anything, it gives more power to the people, forgive the corny phrase, rather than takes freedom away. It doesn't say 'if you get this and this rating, you can't sell it here there and there.' It says 'you have to label your product with it's rating in a clear manner.'
I supported the original thing like this; the parental advisory stickers. Whether or not the kids listen to the stuff is the parents deicision then; not the government's, not the stores, not the media's.
I truly hope this bill passes; the US is long overdue for something like this. Now if only we could get some genuine truth in advertizing and truth from the news media. *sigh*
-RISCy Business | Rabid System Administrator and BOFH
your company here.
shelby != ford
Gee, my father fought in Europe in WWII, I spent 2 years in Europe "defending" Europeans from themselves and now my daughter (in the 82d Airborne) is in Kosovo doing the same. You worthless fucks just never learn, do you? America's problem is that too many of our worthless politicians are Euro-trash wannabees......Bill Clinton comes to mind.
Tell you what, next time, please spend your vacation someplace like Ibiza where you can screw yourselves silly and smoke yourself unconscious.
Stalin was a priest. You forgot Hitler -- Hitler and the Nazis followed an Aryan-Christian-Mythology; not atheists. Of course, people like you will say "they weren't true Christians" or some shit like that
I dunno, that might make sense, considering that faithful Christians were among the people they explicitly targeted for extermination, as they wouldn't cooperate with the regime.
As for the crusades, yes, those were just an unmitigated mess. Those and the Inquisition are very good examples of why Theocracy is bad -- not just from a political standpoint, but also from a religious standpoint. It corrupts both the state and the religion.
We can argue about whether or not the people involved were "true christians" without any sort of satisfactory resolution, but if you can call them Christians, they certainly were ignoring some rather important moral principles of their faith.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
I love the line in the article about the government "begging" the media industries to exercise self restrant. Maybe if parents in America want to keep their kids away from violent or sexual content, it's THEM and not the government or the media that should be exercising restraint. This is the sort of hands-off approach to parenting that is rampant in the country right now. God forbid a parent should actually decide what they want their children exposed to and enforce that decision through regulating what they buy for their kids, their own consumption, and the example and priviliges they grant their children. Apperantly, it is much better to just let the government step in and tell the kids what to do, or try and pressure the movie industry into making less profitable films. It's time people started taking responsability for their own actions and for how they raise their kids, rather than trying to get the government to legislate "restraint".
If you're looking for someone who's more ... straightforward than any of the usuals, try L. Neil Smith for Prez. His whole platform is Bill of Rights Enforcement.
--
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
"Political power ... I take to be the right of making laws with the penalty of death." -- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
http://www.infoshop.org/voting.html
Intel 'invents' a PSN, does this harm anyone, not yet. Now, MS uses it to track illegal copies, does this affect you, no not yet, now all software companies demand for a P3 and a Internet connection because all software is pay per use, does this affect you? Yes, it sure damn does! Can we do anything about it when it has come so far? No, it's to late. C'mon people fight those governments and companies which validate our rights!
I (not original poster) cannot offer documentation, but I am REALLY sure it is the truth, in a sense. While head of the USSR, Stalin was NOT a priest. But as a boy growing up, Stalin had a congential deformity - a slightly stunted left arm. Thus he was trained for one of the few professions where that would really not matter - the Orthodox priesthood.
Respectfully,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@maila.wm.edu
IMO, they can't, really. Court decisions have tended to uphold the principle that "obscene" and "violent" are words that can only be defined at a community/local level, and never nationally. FCC rules are intentionally vague in this respect, giving local communities the ability to decide what is appropriate on their airwaves (well, to a certain point).
I personally don't have a problem with a mandatory rating system, but I don't really see how it can work unless you give the communities the ability to set the standards, and that's just impossible to do for widely distributed stuff like this.
Did I do anything? Depends on what you mean. Did I do anything wrong? No! Did I do anything that threatened the job of this supervisor? Lots. I was better at coding and documenting. I was aware of, and not tolerent of, their abusive behaviour.
For the crime of trying to speak up, I am likely to, at best, lose my job. The worst depends on what sort of "evidence" was handed over.
So, can I blame politicians for corruption, when I have seen intrigues and back-stabbing at the work level? Politicians are only human, like the rest of us. And if "the rest of us" includes a sickening level of nastiness and power-playing, how can politicians hope to be immune?
I'm going to fight my own case to the bitter end. And, win or lose, the end can only be bitter, now. There is nothing good to be got from this sickness. And I have a lot more sympathy for those who are fighting the corruption they face, whatever form that takes, now that I know, personally, what it's like.
Stalin was a priest.
Hrm. Can you offer documentation of this?
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
Vidal clearly points out that America has become a "national police state" wherein some supposed and/or contrived bogey-man threatens our safety.
The government and big business have slowly been chipping away at your freedoms for years in order to gently redirect your interests to be in line with theirs.
We have succesfully created a nation of obedient consumers.
First or second amendment?
Strange country you have. More of your citizens die from gunshot wounds than the rest of the G24/OECD countries combined. Yet when it come time to figure out why, your elected twits decide it has something to do with entertainment and not all of your guns.
So, if the rest of the world's rich countries watch the same TV and movie violence, surf the same internet, and play the same Quake deathmatches and other violent video games, and yet manage to have a murder rate less than a tenth that of the US, it must be magic. It can't have anything to do with the fact that we have far fewer guns.
What's wrong with you and your politicians and your stupid gun lobby? Get rid of all of your lethal weapons and maybe the problem will be less.
And BTW, I'm writing from Canada, a country with sctrict guns laws, a miniscule murder rate, and yet our hunting season is alive and well. Go figure.
Open your eyes America, maybe, just maybe, some of us ignoranrt hut/igloo dwelling foreigners have it figured out better than the greatest country in the history of history (sarcasm intended).
-M
Every time Bill Clinton gets up on stage, he proposes a new round of legislation to "protect a woman's freedom to choose." Yeah, let's spy on all the conservatives, that'll fix'em. Only too late does it dawn on you that they can also spy on you.
Just look at what happened to World Net Daily. You want freedom? Repeal the 17th amendment, and abolish the IRS, the instrument of political persec, er, I mean prosecutions.
Course, every school shooting puts another government agent under your bed, so don't worry about the IRS.
You'll never do it, though, because it would put you in the same camp as Gary Bauer.
I dont see how it becomes a censorship issue to make the entertainment industry provide consistent and factual information about the content of a movie or video game.
If I decide not to see a movie because the rating on the movie poster indicates that Im not going to like it, thats not censorship. Its an informed decision.
If a movie company decides not to make a movie because they feel that disclosing the fact that the movie is extremely violent or sexual may hurt ticket sales, thats not censorship either. Its a marketing decision.
The entertainment industry has been weaseling around this issue for a long time. They havent shown the will to do it proerly without regulation
so now its time to force them to do it.
I started with nothing and I still have most of it.
Many (maybe most/all) politicians are elected on the basis of money/spending, not character/honor, US Constitution Support, US American people support. In the US our politicians (some of who in the last 25 years trace their family tree back to the founding fathers or some big time criminal) are becoming our aristocracy supported by the dollar more than the people.
... ain't no different, because it is all used to convince many US Americans that the special interest is in the individuals' interest even when the US Constitution and people are treated as insignificant to day-to-day global events.
...?
The US individuals' (and most of Europe) vote counts for one-third or less of a vote, because corporate-money counts for one-third of the vote, and politician or PAC self-interest counts for one third of the US vote. Money provided to political election by forign nations, corporations, PACs,
So, Vote for what BS-Smoke is how this century ends, and now maybe a dawn of a new dark ages without a us constitution (Politician-Aristocrats)in control of our future
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Lenin killed 10 million Kulaks in the teens, Hitler killed 6 million Jews AND 6 million Christians AND 1 million gypsies in an attempt to erase these religions.
Stalin killed another 40 million just after WWII.
Mao-tse-tung killed 30 million in the 50s to stamp out indigineous religions. He took another stab in the 60s and 70s when he killed another 80 million, this time by killing nearly everyone with more than 3 years of schooling.
But why would a government schoolteacher ever tell the truth. It would only make her look bad.
I've always wondered about the "guns for sport" as it applies to handguns. Seems to me the only purpose is to kill PEOPLE. That same argument goes awry when you get into fully automatic weapons. How many times do you need to shoot the deer?
In theory, this bill has some good points and some bad points. The idea of a ratings system is to keep a child who isn't mature enough to handle certain things from being placed in that sort of situation (with that child's maturity being evidenced by the fact that a third party who is mature enough will buy it).
However, this idea of a "formula" system doesn't work. What's more, it's not going to solve anything; in fact it will probably only make the problem worse. Why? Because filmmakers and such put sex and violence in their movies for one reason and one reason only: it's profitable. People want to see this sort of thing for whatever reason, and taking it away from the media will only force them to seek other sources (which spells real disaster; after the media the only source of sex and violence is reality). Media violence isn't a cause; it's a symptom. At worst, it's a catalyst, but chemistry tells us that a catalyst can't do anything unless all the reactants are present. Already some have developed such a huge craving for these things that they can't get their fix from the media anymore; I see the Columbine killers as a grim example of that. Ratings are a quick-fix; they won't change anything in the long run. What will? I don't know, but it will probably take nothing less than a fundamental shift in our nation's culture, and I don't claim to know what that shift would be (I'd hope it's a shift towards the attitude that all people are to be respected simply by virtue of the fact that they're people, but I doubt that's ever going to happen.)
You can do more than just wish. The Libertarian Party would like to "intervene and take the razor away," but they need your help! Check out their website, then
If you live in a state where the race is expected to be close, vote for the LP candidate anyway unless you really feel there is a compelling difference between the two Republicrats. Even if the LP only gets a few percent, if this is more than the difference between the two Republicrat candidates, the losing party may be tempted to go after this "spoiler" vote by adopting some of their positions.
The reason for this is that the Republicrats have rigged the electroral process through ballot access restrictions, which require that candidates from parties without "permanent" status must collect thousands to hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions. This is a big drain on party resources, especially volunteer labor. In many states, a party can get "permanent" status by winning a certain percentage of any statewide office. A House rep doesn't count (that's just part of a state), but there are some minor statewide offices that do.
- Stalin was a priest.
Hrm. Can you offer documentation of this?
Well, it wasn't my post, but I can document it. Joseph Stalin went to a seminary. He was "originally trained for the priesthood" before joining an underground Georgian revolutionary movement in 1900. This is from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985, Micropaedia vol. 11, p.205.
Likewise, encyclopedia.com (based on Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia) says "he joined the Social-Democratic party while a seminarian and soon became a professional revolutionary."
Note that in that place and time the church was often the best or only place a poor person without many connections could acquire a profession (that is, not just get a job but move into the "professional" class). So it's specious to conclude that he was a serious Christian because he was a seminary student. You'd need to start with a detailed biography to find an answer to that question. IMHO.
Required government ratings of movies carry implied value judgements about the contents of the movie. I may object to women wearing pink but only those who object to nudity get the government warning.
By choosing certain categories to rate a movie on the government forces the morality of the masses on me and my children. For instance, in the current situation, suppose I feel that some NC-17 movie has very important issues that I want my under 17-year old kid to see I cannot do so in the theater because I am being told seeing that much sex, a very natural act which the 17year old has probably already done, I will harm my child so I cannot show him this movie.
It is analagous to the government rating all democratic pamphlets G and republican pamphlets R. Sure they don't stop you from reading the republicans but the idea has already been damaged because their ideas are somehow less clean now
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,