Filter on the word "Breast" and you filter out Breast Cancer, or the Bible for that matter (it's in there, frequently).
Now, if these people really wanted to be serious about protecting our youth, they'd intentionally filter out much of the Bible. Obviously, there's some pretty obvious weird stuff going on in there, but what's even more interesting is that many euphemisms are used for more touchy subjects. One example is that in many instances in the Old Testament, "feet" is used euphemistically to mean "male genitals." One example is in
Isaiah 7:20, which offers some interesting shaving tips. Another example is Ruth 3:14, but I'd recommend reading all of Ruth Chapter 3. It reads like a script to an ancient porno flick.
Imagine if we could use the tactics of the religious right and the censorship movement (they're by and large the same) against them... "Think of the children!"
Trusting businesses to maintain "Black hole" lists
Incidentally, I doubt some poor kid researching astronomy for his science class would be able to look up black holes, or "heavenly bodies" for that matter...
(Pardon my irreverence. I need a distraction tonight.)
There is also a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it's by the United Nations. It's the result of a consensus that was reached among pretty every country in the world...
To put this in an interesting context, if I'm not mistaken (I'm not sure if this is the exact one) this is the same Universal Declaration that the United States refused to ratify because it didn't allow them to execute people under 18. Hell, even China agreed not to do that by ratifying it, and they're easily one of the most (if not THE most) brutal and oppressive regimes in existence. So... the next time you hear a U.S. government official extolling the virtues of UN multilateralism, recall both this and also the U.S's refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
In the words of the late, great Bill Hicks:
"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."
"I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking."
"Hey, wait a minute--there's one guy holding up both puppets!"
Wise choice, my friend. You (or any other Californians) didn't happen by any chance catch Camejo at any of his speaking engagements in the past few months, did you? I saw him speak at a Green rally (Nader was the 'headliner') and I have to say.. man, not only is he one of the smartest candidates I've seen, but easily the funniest. I would actually bother to listen to the State of the State address if he were governor. When I think that those of us here actually think the only viable options are a dour, campaign contribution-grabbing twit (Davis) and a hyper-right wing dolt who might as well be running on the slogan "Screw the Poor" (Simon)... it truly saddens me.
Anybody in the North Carolina care to explain Liddy Dole to me. What were you thinking?
You think that's bad? We might be seeing the phrase "Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)" in print.
Even if it passes, it won't fly because a state can't legalize something that is federally outlawed.
That pretty much depends on the character of those in the federal government responsible for enforcement of such laws. For example, here in California, a few years back we passed a ballot initiative that legalized medicinal marijuana, and as of a few months ago, Ashcroft has been staging raids and is basically attempting to completely undermine the law. Of course, he's beholden to the pro-drug war lobby, but despite the pro-drug war nature of the Clinton administration, at least Janet Reno had the good sense not to embarrass herself by attempting to overturn a law that passed by a clear majority of Californians. Whether or not she embarrassed herself in other situations is another story...
What happens if 51% of the democracy decides that the 49% should be their slaves? This is the "Tyrrany of the Majority" that Madison wrote about in _The Federalist_.
Actually, if you look at what Madison said during the debates of the Constitutional Convention, his actual intentions in opposing democratic systems become more clear. He said, very explicitly, that the prime purpose of government was to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority;" therefore, democracy was unacceptable. We're not talking a 51-49 split; here Madison means the upper 1-2%. He goes on to state that wealth must rule because "the wealthy are a better class of men." Not quite the words of someone interested in defending the rights of half the country, eh? Whether or not you agree with the point Madison made that you've quoted is another issue, but the fact remains that Madison, like most of the other Founding Fathers, was a wealthy landowner who viewed popular democracy as a threat to his and his cronies' massive concentration of wealth. If you give people a chance to do something about massive inequality and polarization of wealth, chances are they'll do something that could be construed as threatening to the "minority of the opulent."
They were smart enough to know it wouldn't go over well with the rabble, so the Federalist papers were offered as something of a watered-down distraction specifically tailored to mislead the public.
Slashdot Mirror
First rule of Googlefight Club is... you do NOT talk about Googlefight Club.
Hey, it seemed funny when I first thought of it.
To be quite honest, I'd be more worried if kids were looking with interest at a flat tax proposal than at pr0n.
Now, if these people really wanted to be serious about protecting our youth, they'd intentionally filter out much of the Bible. Obviously, there's some pretty obvious weird stuff going on in there, but what's even more interesting is that many euphemisms are used for more touchy subjects. One example is that in many instances in the Old Testament, "feet" is used euphemistically to mean "male genitals." One example is in Isaiah 7:20, which offers some interesting shaving tips. Another example is Ruth 3:14, but I'd recommend reading all of Ruth Chapter 3. It reads like a script to an ancient porno flick.
Imagine if we could use the tactics of the religious right and the censorship movement (they're by and large the same) against them... "Think of the children!"
Trusting businesses to maintain "Black hole" lists
Incidentally, I doubt some poor kid researching astronomy for his science class would be able to look up black holes, or "heavenly bodies" for that matter...
(Pardon my irreverence. I need a distraction tonight.)
To put this in an interesting context, if I'm not mistaken (I'm not sure if this is the exact one) this is the same Universal Declaration that the United States refused to ratify because it didn't allow them to execute people under 18.
Hell, even China agreed not to do that by ratifying it, and they're easily one of the most (if not THE most) brutal and oppressive regimes in existence. So... the next time you hear a U.S. government official extolling the virtues of UN multilateralism, recall both this and also the U.S's refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
In the words of the late, great Bill Hicks:
"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."
"I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking."
"Hey, wait a minute--there's one guy holding up both puppets!"
Wise choice, my friend. You (or any other Californians) didn't happen by any chance catch Camejo at any of his speaking engagements in the past few months, did you? I saw him speak at a Green rally (Nader was the 'headliner') and I have to say.. man, not only is he one of the smartest candidates I've seen, but easily the funniest. I would actually bother to listen to the State of the State address if he were governor. When I think that those of us here actually think the only viable options are a dour, campaign contribution-grabbing twit (Davis) and a hyper-right wing dolt who might as well be running on the slogan "Screw the Poor" (Simon)... it truly saddens me.
Anybody in the North Carolina care to explain Liddy Dole to me. What were you thinking?
You think that's bad? We might be seeing the phrase "Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)" in print.
By raids, I mean raids of state-sanctioned marijuana clubs and distribution centers.
That pretty much depends on the character of those in the federal government responsible for enforcement of such laws. For example, here in California, a few years back we passed a ballot initiative that legalized medicinal marijuana, and as of a few months ago, Ashcroft has been staging raids and is basically attempting to completely undermine the law. Of course, he's beholden to the pro-drug war lobby, but despite the pro-drug war nature of the Clinton administration, at least Janet Reno had the good sense not to embarrass herself by attempting to overturn a law that passed by a clear majority of Californians.
Whether or not she embarrassed herself in other situations is another story...
Actually, if you look at what Madison said during the debates of the Constitutional Convention, his actual intentions in opposing democratic systems become more clear. He said, very explicitly, that the prime purpose of government was to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority;" therefore, democracy was unacceptable. We're not talking a 51-49 split; here Madison means the upper 1-2%. He goes on to state that wealth must rule because "the wealthy are a better class of men." Not quite the words of someone interested in defending the rights of half the country, eh?
Whether or not you agree with the point Madison made that you've quoted is another issue, but the fact remains that Madison, like most of the other Founding Fathers, was a wealthy landowner who viewed popular democracy as a threat to his and his cronies' massive concentration of wealth. If you give people a chance to do something about massive inequality and polarization of wealth, chances are they'll do something that could be construed as threatening to the "minority of the opulent." They were smart enough to know it wouldn't go over well with the rabble, so the Federalist papers were offered as something of a watered-down distraction specifically tailored to mislead the public.