So, what you are really trying to say is, we can thank Democrats like Al and Tipper for doing the right thing censoring evil curse-mongers like Dee Snider. Pretty much, yeah. I had no problem with "Fuck Like a Beast", but I didn't think the album cover should be displayed at a child's eye level or sold to 10-yr olds without a parent present.
It's just a tempest of cognitive dissonance in that teacup of a mind of yours, isn't it?
I was just pointing out that a Democrat let committee, in a Democrat led congress passed this. To title a post "Fucking Republicans" is simply ignorant or dishonest. Republicans are not to blame here. Give credit where credit is due.
Of course it isn't. You have to actively decide to buy a TV. you then have to actively decide to turn it on. Then you have to actively decide to tune in a channel that has decided to air content which *you* find offensive. EXACTLY! This law reinforces that. I should HAVE to actively decide to tune in a channel with offensive content. That's all I ask. I don't want "offensive" content on ALL stations. I fully support there being offensive content on MOST stations. I just want a few set aside that don't. And don't give me that "you have the Disney Channel" bullshit either. Hannah Montana is not exactly what I would call quality programming and is not what I want my family watching over dinner. I shouldn't have to watch TV meant for the maturity level of "tweens" just so I don't have to hear the word "fuck".
As far as your disgusting attempt to trivialize raping 5 year olds, you've already demonstrated your total lack of anything approaching an understanding of decency or morality so I'll just have to say I'm unsurprised but utterly contemptuous of you.
I'm not trying to trivialize anything. You said that everything a child does is 100% the responsibility of the parents. Why is this different? A good parent (your words, not mine) wouldn't let their child have sex with an adult, just like a good parent wouldn't let their child watch offensive material on TV? Granted, one is worse than the other, but, you said it is the parent's responsibility. Why is one the responsibility of the parent and not the other?
Look, this is an adult world, not a kids world. Not everything has to be centered around kids and those under the age of maturity.
Look, I understand that. And don't imply that I think everything has to be centered around kids and those under the age of maturity. I never said that. However, I see nothing wrong with SOME things being censored. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't watch and this bill doesn't try to do that. All it does is state that SOME channels should be free of smut. Again, SOME channels, not all of them. I shouldn't have to seek out stuff that is smut free. I SHOULD be allowed to seek out smut as I see fit (and I frequently do), but the default should be clean, not the other way around.
It is up to you to watch what your kids are exposed to. I seriously doubt that the Disney channel, or other kids channels will be even close to accidentally cursing. Let your kids watch that. There already is the "V" chip in most tv's...you can easily set this to allow only family friendly channels into YOUR house Why should I have to buy and figure out a V-chip to watch channels that are licensed by the FCC? Why can't YOU buy a PORN-chip (commonly called a cable box) so you can get adult channels into YOUR house?
True freedom allows for freedom to broadcast ideas.... agreed. No one is arguing otherwise.
And don't worry..there will always be a market for faminly friendly programming, which you can limit your household to viewing, but, you have not right to limit what can come into my house over the free airways that are for EVERYONE.
I'm not trying to limit what you can watch. I don't care what you watch. Hell, if it's good, I'll watch it with you! But there needs to be channels that my family can watch that is guaranteed to be family friendly. That's all I want and that's all this bill does. If the networks want to show smut, make a sister station that shows it. Hell, I wish they would so I could watch it after my child goes to bed! But don't broadcast over the public airways. I would have no problem going out of my way to watch this station. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to block it.
There is quite a large difference between allowing a little girl to hear the words "fuck off" and allowing people to have sex with her.
By his argument, what a child sees, hears, says, and does is completely up to the parent. If the parent can't control that child, then that is a bad parent. If a parent is responsible for what a child sees on TV, surely a parent is responsible for who that child has sex with. Yes, there is a difference, but the logic remains solid. For that matter, it's easier to keep a child away from predators than it is to keep a child away from TV!
You know you've lost the argument and now you're desperately trying to associate the other side with something as horrible as child sexual abuse in order to get the last word. It's lame and you know it.
You have a point, but my original point was completely missed. He set up a straw-man claiming that I wanted to see everything censored and I replied in kind. That was wrong, however it shouldn't take away from my original point. I don't want to see TV censored. However, I expect some TV to be. I want there to be some channels set aside that are free from the curse words, nudity, excessively adult themes, violence and so on. These are the channels that should come through my TV by default. If I want the other stuff (and personally, I DO), then I should have to do something to enable it, and that something should be something more than turning the TV on. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to block adult content, but I see no problem with having to put forth a minimal amount of effort to get it.
You're an ignorant cunt. You have nothing except your own cowardly delusions to back up your position therefore I must be one of the evil gays. Apart from the fact that that would be quite a surprise to both my wife and I it's as nonsensical as pretty much everything else you say.
You routinely actively support torturing and murdering innocent people and anyone who actually does stand up for freedom is a "fag".
Yep, par for the course. There's a reason that decent people do not want cunts, like yourself, who clearly have no concept of morality deciding what is or isn't decent.
Sorry. I didn't realize there was anything wrong with being gay or that it was some sort of an insult. Sorry if I hit a nerve there. I didn't mean to insult you to the point that you dropped my point completely. Why limit the prohibition of standards to just TV? Censorship is the same whether it's telling you and your wife what you can do in your yard or what CBS can put on TV. For that matter, why should there be any restrictions on age of consent. If you want to *have relations* a 5 year old girl, why can't you? Isn't it the parent's job to prevent that sort of thing if they don't want it? Why stop at just TV. If we are to be free, let's be FREE!
People should not have to pay a monthly subscription fee to uncensor their media.
Unfortunately, they shouldn't have to pay for TV or Internet either, but they do. I wouldn't have a problem with a "free" (as in beer AND speech) TV station with no standards, but I should have to go out of my way to get it, even if it something as simple as ordering a converter box. For that matter, I WOULD get such a box, but it would not be installed on my child's TV or even within her reach.
I should have switch ON uncensored TV, not have to switch it OFF.
What, you're saying you're incapable of properly raising your kids (e.g. by turning off the TV when it's playing something you don't want them to see)? Fine, then you're an incompetant, bad parent and we should have DFACS take them away from you! How's that sound?
No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to. Are you too incompetent to change the channel to Showtime when you want porn?
Holy shit! I didn't realize that wanting some channels to be free of "indecency" was so indecent! What's wrong with letting you have your channels and my child having hers? Do you think that ALL channels should be free of any form of decency standards? Do you want to see Big-Bird's balls?
Don't even fucking try to play that Orwellian bullshit role reversal. Uh, isn't that what you are doing?
So basically what you are saying is: If you don't like, you don't have to watch TV. It's not enough to limit content to certain stations. Why should The Sopranos get to show nipple and guts and Sesame Street can't? Why stop there? Why can't Darby blow his boyfriend in his front yard? It's his yard after all. If your neighbors don't want their kids to see it, well they can put blindfolds on them when they leave the house. That IS their job as parents isn't it?
See the posts under the person in this thread who responded to me. I agree with most of those. To sum it up: the problem ain't the words, the problem is parenting skills. If you can't teach your kid the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, you have no right to be a parent.
I understand, but how about a little help here! It's hard to teach your kids to live the way you think is right when everything they see tells them you are wrong and living right makes them outcasts.
I'm not saying to censor EVERY TV station, that would be telling you and me what we watch. But we need some sort of standards for the ones that are "free" and broadcast over the public airwaves (or "basic" cable). I have cable and child. When she's old enough to understand TV, what she watches will be monitored. It sure makes life easier if I know that the TV in her room with an antennae or basic cable won't be showing uncut Soprano or Sex in the City reruns. If you think it's OK for your child to watch that stuff, get him/her a cable box and let them watch late night Showtime to their heart's content.
You should have consciously enable uncensored TV, not have to jump through hoops to block it. Just like a computer firewall should be enabled by default and you have to make the effort to turn it off yourself.
Do they not offer cable in your neighborhood? Are satellite signals jammed where you live? How about you let ME worry about my kids and stop trying to fuck up the public airwaves. You'll have your channels, leave mine alone!
Will someone please think about the children!! It would be just horrible, evil and wrong for children to naughty words! Why, it might psychologically damage them for life! The horror!
Your sarcasm is noted. Are you saying "fuck the children"? What's wrong with decency standards on public airwaves? It's not like you can't get cable. It's not like the outlets this affects can't get a cable channel of their own and do nothing but say "fuck" over and over while showing a nipple.
Don't blame just the Republicans. As I recall, it was Al Gore and his wife who were leading the charge against Dee Snider and WASP not too long ago. I'm afraid this crosses party lines.
Besides, if you want to hear "fuck" on TV, get cable.
FYI, the Secretaries of Treasury, State, and Defense are all part of the Executive branch, not the Judicial, hence the apt phrase "secret process outside the courts" which you objected to.
No, I objected to "In fact, political acts are included". That is nowhere in the order. I understand that there is nothing expressly forbidding it, but regardless of what the executive order says or doesn't say, if this is used to silence political opponents, the uproar will be enough to have congress overturn this executive order and possibly (probably) lead to impeachment proceedings. Keep in mind that while an executive order is law, it can be overturned by congress, so oversight exists.
According to you, if I go to a large demonstration against the Bush Iraq policies and there is a significant threat that there may be violence there then I am a traitor to my country. Sheesh. There is a significant threat of violence just driving to the damned demonstration.
Depends on what you call a protest. If you stand in the road and block the shipment of supplies to our troops overseas, then you are doing the work of the enemy and therefor, a traitor. Carrying a sign and calling it a protest should not protect you if you are offering aid and comfort to the enemy. Disrupting supply lines by standing in the road near a Seattle port is the same as planting a roadside bomb on the Basra Highway. However, if you are standing in front of the White House with a sign that says "Bush is a punk-ass chump!", then no, you are not a traitor.
That section you just described is the "we are doing this because..." part, and is NOT the description of what acts qualify to repeal a person's 5th amendment rights.
It pains me to say that you are correct.
In fact, political acts are included and guilt will only be determined through a secret process outside the courts.
I don't see this in the order. I see things like (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: This is not a "political act", but an act of treason. I feel these people would be getting off light.
The rest deal with providing material support, which is nothing new.
I guess you should be happy that he doesn't take Orwell's view:
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
Right, until they redefine "terrorist." Or change the rules. Or just break the rules they have, and then label anyone who calls them out on it as "un-American."
No, the order pretty much spells it out pretty clearly. Let me help you since you won't bother following the link to read it yourself:
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the
receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose
of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
The summary is a bit misleading. It leaves out a critical section of the order. I've included the first paragraph with the important part bold:
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:... Is omission of such critical information in order to forward an agenda dishonest?
Next, the Guardian linked gets it right, however, the link should read the new authority CAN only be used to go after terrorists, since using acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq is pretty much a terrorist act. I don't have a problem with the gov't blocking the bank accounts of terrorists!
Yeah, it is. I've been in endless discussions here at/. with people constantly bitching that the gov't did X without a warrant so we should take away their ability to do X. Well, this time, they got a warrant and now people are bitching because the gov't did X and we should take away their ability to do X. Why not just take away their computers away so they can't be abused. For that matter, their guns and cars could be abused more than their computers. Let's take those away too! Why stop there? Let's include all government agencies, since it is really the gov't that may abuse power.
I guess people won't be happy until our government is completely neutered and we are run by the mob or local tribal warlords.
Am I alone in saying bring back Firefly, bring back Farscape - but do it with the same creative team and format or just let them well alone.
I agree. I'd also like to see Drive come back as well. I'm getting real tired of seeing excellent, original programming get canceled and replaced with either a game show, reality show or hospital drama! I would have already canceled my cable TV if my wife hadn't blocked me!
Yah, no kidding. That's why he said it was okay if they had a warrant, i.e. with court oversight. Those first two sentences comprise nothing but a strawman.
Here, I don't think you understood the post. I'll repost it here to save you the trouble of looking it back up. I'll even bold the important part for ya:
I doubt that checkpoint can turn off features of its product on a particular set of machines after the product has been sold and installed. They either include the ability to check for law enforcement snooping or they don't unless checkpoint installs a back door that only they have access to, but then THEY become a spyware company! In other words, if checkpoint has their software check for whatever law enforcement agencies use, then is going to check for whatever law enforcement agencies use. The checkpoint's software has no way of knowing if a warrant has been issued or not. So either checkpoint checks for law enforcement spyware, or it does not. There is no middle ground.
(damn preview!) Warrants should be required for the police to install the keylogger, and a court order or similar should be required for the AV program vendor to assist. If the necessary warrants and orders are in place, by all means, they ought to comply. But CheckPoint has said they don't feel a need to wait for such -- just the say-so of the police. That way lies abuse of power.
I doubt that checkpoint can turn off features of its product on a particular set of machines after the product has been sold and installed. They either include the ability to check for law enforcement snooping or they don't unless checkpoint installs a back door that only they have access to, but then THEY become a spyware company!
I'm against abuses of power too, but anything can be used to abuse power. If you take away 100% of the ability to abuse, you end up with policemen walking a beat with little more than a whistle to do their jobs! The trick is to recognize the potential, demand oversight and employ extremely strict punishment to prevent abuse so the tools are allowed to be used in a legal manner.
Warrants should be required for the police to install the keylogger, and a court order or similar should be required for the AV program vendor to assist. If the necessary warrants and orders are in place, by all means, they ought to comply. But CheckPoint has said they don't feel a need to wait for such -- just the say-so of the police. That way lies abuse of power.ability to abuse, you end up with policemen walking a beat with little more than a whistle to do their jobs! The trick is to recognize the potential, demand oversight and employ extremely strict punishment to prevent abuse so the tools are allowed to be used in a legal manner.
Who says they were wrong? Uh, I do. So do agencies like The Red Cross, Amnesty Intl., the UN and just about every other world organization. The population of a country is off limits. While there will always be "collateral damage", civilians can not be the target.
World Trade Centre, centre for American economic imperialism.
It was a valid military target, when you think about it. Uh, no it's not IF you think about it
As a result America attacked Iraq and are now forcing a new oil agreement on the Iraqi people.
Capitalism in the U.S. is becoming tied to the military, and the military isn't about choice or freedom, no matter what politicians say. Why capitalism. So if the US were, say, communist, then the military is supported by what, magic? I think what you meant by "capitalism" is "economy", and yes, an economy does support the military and can a valid target. However, the men, women and children that make up that economy are NOT targets. If you must bomb a building, do so at 2:00am when it's not occupied. Or are you OK with civilian casualties?
See HERE for a list of companies that were in the WTC. Some Gems from the list that you claim are valid military targets are: Greatest Bar on Earth Government of Thailand Fuji Bank Bank of Taiwan Avis Channel 2 (WCBS) Channel 4 (NBC) Channel 5 (WNYW) Channel 11 (WPIX) Channel 31 (WBIS) Channel 47 (WNJU) Cheng Cheng Enterprises Holding Inc China Chamber of Commerce, Inc. EuroBrokers, Inc. Landmark Education Corporation Meganet Management Consultants, Inc NY Coffee Station Royal Thai Embassy Office Showtime Pictures Sun Microsystems, Inc. Taipei Bank Dr. Tadasu Tokumaru, M.D. Tower Computer Service
"Check Point said it would 'afford law enforcement' the courtesy of whitelisting if requested"
never buy anything from check point.
So I presume you are against the police using spyware as a tool in all circumstances? Would your opinion change if the Police had a warrant? What if asked your permission to "snoop" your notebook that was stolen from you a week before in an effort to recover it?
Is this just limited to adware? If you daughter were kidnapped, would you protest them using her cel phone to track her?
I know it's cool to be against the 5-0, but I feel you opinion may change once you need the police to protect you or give you justice when a crime has been committed against you.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what you are really trying to say is, we can thank Democrats like Al and Tipper for doing the right thing censoring evil curse-mongers like Dee Snider.
Pretty much, yeah. I had no problem with "Fuck Like a Beast", but I didn't think the album cover should be displayed at a child's eye level or sold to 10-yr olds without a parent present.
It's just a tempest of cognitive dissonance in that teacup of a mind of yours, isn't it?
I was just pointing out that a Democrat let committee, in a Democrat led congress passed this. To title a post "Fucking Republicans" is simply ignorant or dishonest. Republicans are not to blame here. Give credit where credit is due.
Of course it isn't. You have to actively decide to buy a TV. you then have to actively decide to turn it on. Then you have to actively decide to tune in a channel that has decided to air content which *you* find offensive.
EXACTLY! This law reinforces that. I should HAVE to actively decide to tune in a channel with offensive content. That's all I ask. I don't want "offensive" content on ALL stations. I fully support there being offensive content on MOST stations. I just want a few set aside that don't. And don't give me that "you have the Disney Channel" bullshit either. Hannah Montana is not exactly what I would call quality programming and is not what I want my family watching over dinner. I shouldn't have to watch TV meant for the maturity level of "tweens" just so I don't have to hear the word "fuck".
As far as your disgusting attempt to trivialize raping 5 year olds, you've already demonstrated your total lack of anything approaching an understanding of decency or morality so I'll just have to say I'm unsurprised but utterly contemptuous of you.
I'm not trying to trivialize anything. You said that everything a child does is 100% the responsibility of the parents. Why is this different? A good parent (your words, not mine) wouldn't let their child have sex with an adult, just like a good parent wouldn't let their child watch offensive material on TV? Granted, one is worse than the other, but, you said it is the parent's responsibility. Why is one the responsibility of the parent and not the other?
Look, this is an adult world, not a kids world. Not everything has to be centered around kids and those under the age of maturity.
Look, I understand that. And don't imply that I think everything has to be centered around kids and those under the age of maturity. I never said that. However, I see nothing wrong with SOME things being censored. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't watch and this bill doesn't try to do that. All it does is state that SOME channels should be free of smut. Again, SOME channels, not all of them. I shouldn't have to seek out stuff that is smut free. I SHOULD be allowed to seek out smut as I see fit (and I frequently do), but the default should be clean, not the other way around.
It is up to you to watch what your kids are exposed to. I seriously doubt that the Disney channel, or other kids channels will be even close to accidentally cursing. Let your kids watch that. There already is the "V" chip in most tv's...you can easily set this to allow only family friendly channels into YOUR house
Why should I have to buy and figure out a V-chip to watch channels that are licensed by the FCC? Why can't YOU buy a PORN-chip (commonly called a cable box) so you can get adult channels into YOUR house?
True freedom allows for freedom to broadcast ideas....
agreed. No one is arguing otherwise.
And don't worry..there will always be a market for faminly friendly programming, which you can limit your household to viewing, but, you have not right to limit what can come into my house over the free airways that are for EVERYONE.
I'm not trying to limit what you can watch. I don't care what you watch. Hell, if it's good, I'll watch it with you! But there needs to be channels that my family can watch that is guaranteed to be family friendly. That's all I want and that's all this bill does. If the networks want to show smut, make a sister station that shows it. Hell, I wish they would so I could watch it after my child goes to bed! But don't broadcast over the public airways. I would have no problem going out of my way to watch this station. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to block it.
There is quite a large difference between allowing a little girl to hear the words "fuck off" and allowing people to have sex with her.
By his argument, what a child sees, hears, says, and does is completely up to the parent. If the parent can't control that child, then that is a bad parent. If a parent is responsible for what a child sees on TV, surely a parent is responsible for who that child has sex with. Yes, there is a difference, but the logic remains solid. For that matter, it's easier to keep a child away from predators than it is to keep a child away from TV!
You know you've lost the argument and now you're desperately trying to associate the other side with something as horrible as child sexual abuse in order to get the last word. It's lame and you know it.
You have a point, but my original point was completely missed. He set up a straw-man claiming that I wanted to see everything censored and I replied in kind. That was wrong, however it shouldn't take away from my original point. I don't want to see TV censored. However, I expect some TV to be. I want there to be some channels set aside that are free from the curse words, nudity, excessively adult themes, violence and so on. These are the channels that should come through my TV by default. If I want the other stuff (and personally, I DO), then I should have to do something to enable it, and that something should be something more than turning the TV on. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to block adult content, but I see no problem with having to put forth a minimal amount of effort to get it.
You're an ignorant cunt. You have nothing except your own cowardly delusions to back up your position therefore I must be one of the evil gays.
Apart from the fact that that would be quite a surprise to both my wife and I it's as nonsensical as pretty much everything else you say.
You routinely actively support torturing and murdering innocent people and anyone who actually does stand up for freedom is a "fag".
Yep, par for the course.
There's a reason that decent people do not want cunts, like yourself, who clearly have no concept of morality deciding what is or isn't decent.
Sorry. I didn't realize there was anything wrong with being gay or that it was some sort of an insult. Sorry if I hit a nerve there. I didn't mean to insult you to the point that you dropped my point completely. Why limit the prohibition of standards to just TV? Censorship is the same whether it's telling you and your wife what you can do in your yard or what CBS can put on TV. For that matter, why should there be any restrictions on age of consent. If you want to *have relations* a 5 year old girl, why can't you? Isn't it the parent's job to prevent that sort of thing if they don't want it? Why stop at just TV. If we are to be free, let's be FREE!
People should not have to pay a monthly subscription fee to uncensor their media.
Unfortunately, they shouldn't have to pay for TV or Internet either, but they do. I wouldn't have a problem with a "free" (as in beer AND speech) TV station with no standards, but I should have to go out of my way to get it, even if it something as simple as ordering a converter box. For that matter, I WOULD get such a box, but it would not be installed on my child's TV or even within her reach.
I should have switch ON uncensored TV, not have to switch it OFF.
What, you're saying you're incapable of properly raising your kids (e.g. by turning off the TV when it's playing something you don't want them to see)? Fine, then you're an incompetant, bad parent and we should have DFACS take them away from you! How's that sound?
No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to. Are you too incompetent to change the channel to Showtime when you want porn?
Holy shit! I didn't realize that wanting some channels to be free of "indecency" was so indecent! What's wrong with letting you have your channels and my child having hers? Do you think that ALL channels should be free of any form of decency standards? Do you want to see Big-Bird's balls?
Don't even fucking try to play that Orwellian bullshit role reversal.
Uh, isn't that what you are doing?
So basically what you are saying is:
If you don't like, you don't have to watch TV. It's not enough to limit content to certain stations. Why should The Sopranos get to show nipple and guts and Sesame Street can't? Why stop there? Why can't Darby blow his boyfriend in his front yard? It's his yard after all. If your neighbors don't want their kids to see it, well they can put blindfolds on them when they leave the house. That IS their job as parents isn't it?
See the posts under the person in this thread who responded to me. I agree with most of those. To sum it up: the problem ain't the words, the problem is parenting skills. If you can't teach your kid the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, you have no right to be a parent.
I understand, but how about a little help here! It's hard to teach your kids to live the way you think is right when everything they see tells them you are wrong and living right makes them outcasts.
I'm not saying to censor EVERY TV station, that would be telling you and me what we watch. But we need some sort of standards for the ones that are "free" and broadcast over the public airwaves (or "basic" cable). I have cable and child. When she's old enough to understand TV, what she watches will be monitored. It sure makes life easier if I know that the TV in her room with an antennae or basic cable won't be showing uncut Soprano or Sex in the City reruns. If you think it's OK for your child to watch that stuff, get him/her a cable box and let them watch late night Showtime to their heart's content.
You should have consciously enable uncensored TV, not have to jump through hoops to block it. Just like a computer firewall should be enabled by default and you have to make the effort to turn it off yourself.
STOP CENSORING MY ENTERTAINMENT.
Do they not offer cable in your neighborhood? Are satellite signals jammed where you live? How about you let ME worry about my kids and stop trying to fuck up the public airwaves. You'll have your channels, leave mine alone!
Will someone please think about the children!! It would be just horrible, evil and wrong for children to naughty words! Why, it might psychologically damage them for life! The horror!
Your sarcasm is noted.
Are you saying "fuck the children"? What's wrong with decency standards on public airwaves? It's not like you can't get cable. It's not like the outlets this affects can't get a cable channel of their own and do nothing but say "fuck" over and over while showing a nipple.
Don't blame just the Republicans. As I recall, it was Al Gore and his wife who were leading the charge against Dee Snider and WASP not too long ago. I'm afraid this crosses party lines.
Besides, if you want to hear "fuck" on TV, get cable.
FYI, the Secretaries of Treasury, State, and Defense are all part of the Executive branch, not the Judicial, hence the apt phrase "secret process outside the courts" which you objected to.
No, I objected to "In fact, political acts are included". That is nowhere in the order. I understand that there is nothing expressly forbidding it, but regardless of what the executive order says or doesn't say, if this is used to silence political opponents, the uproar will be enough to have congress overturn this executive order and possibly (probably) lead to impeachment proceedings. Keep in mind that while an executive order is law, it can be overturned by congress, so oversight exists.
According to you, if I go to a large demonstration against the Bush Iraq policies and there is a significant threat that there may be violence there then I am a traitor to my country. Sheesh. There is a significant threat of violence just driving to the damned demonstration.
Depends on what you call a protest. If you stand in the road and block the shipment of supplies to our troops overseas, then you are doing the work of the enemy and therefor, a traitor. Carrying a sign and calling it a protest should not protect you if you are offering aid and comfort to the enemy. Disrupting supply lines by standing in the road near a Seattle port is the same as planting a roadside bomb on the Basra Highway. However, if you are standing in front of the White House with a sign that says "Bush is a punk-ass chump!", then no, you are not a traitor.
It pains me to say that you are correct.
In fact, political acts are included and guilt will only be determined through a secret process outside the courts.
I don't see this in the order. I see things like (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: This is not a "political act", but an act of treason. I feel these people would be getting off light.
The rest deal with providing material support, which is nothing new.
I guess you should be happy that he doesn't take Orwell's view: Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
No, the order pretty much spells it out pretty clearly. Let me help you since you won't bother following the link to read it yourself: (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the
receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose
of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Next, the Guardian linked gets it right, however, the link should read the new authority CAN only be used to go after terrorists, since using acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq is pretty much a terrorist act. I don't have a problem with the gov't blocking the bank accounts of terrorists!
I haven't read a single post saying that we should take away their ability to do X.
Look at any post dealing with the PATRIOT Act, wiretaps or just about anything else with a privacy tag on it and I'm sure you'll find a lot more.
Here's one.
As for the rest of your post... Right on!
The warrant isn't really the point.
/. with people constantly bitching that the gov't did X without a warrant so we should take away their ability to do X. Well, this time, they got a warrant and now people are bitching because the gov't did X and we should take away their ability to do X. Why not just take away their computers away so they can't be abused. For that matter, their guns and cars could be abused more than their computers. Let's take those away too! Why stop there? Let's include all government agencies, since it is really the gov't that may abuse power.
Yeah, it is. I've been in endless discussions here at
I guess people won't be happy until our government is completely neutered and we are run by the mob or local tribal warlords.
Then they came for net access records, you did not care because you don't need privacy there
Someday they will come for you, and there will be no one left to care They did have a warrant.
Am I alone in saying bring back Firefly, bring back Farscape - but do it with the same creative team and format or just let them well alone.
I agree. I'd also like to see Drive come back as well. I'm getting real tired of seeing excellent, original programming get canceled and replaced with either a game show, reality show or hospital drama! I would have already canceled my cable TV if my wife hadn't blocked me!
Here, I don't think you understood the post. I'll repost it here to save you the trouble of looking it back up. I'll even bold the important part for ya: I doubt that checkpoint can turn off features of its product on a particular set of machines after the product has been sold and installed. They either include the ability to check for law enforcement snooping or they don't unless checkpoint installs a back door that only they have access to, but then THEY become a spyware company! In other words, if checkpoint has their software check for whatever law enforcement agencies use, then is going to check for whatever law enforcement agencies use. The checkpoint's software has no way of knowing if a warrant has been issued or not. So either checkpoint checks for law enforcement spyware, or it does not. There is no middle ground.
(damn preview!)
Warrants should be required for the police to install the keylogger, and a court order or similar should be required for the AV program vendor to assist. If the necessary warrants and orders are in place, by all means, they ought to comply. But CheckPoint has said they don't feel a need to wait for such -- just the say-so of the police. That way lies abuse of power.
I doubt that checkpoint can turn off features of its product on a particular set of machines after the product has been sold and installed. They either include the ability to check for law enforcement snooping or they don't unless checkpoint installs a back door that only they have access to, but then THEY become a spyware company!
I'm against abuses of power too, but anything can be used to abuse power. If you take away 100% of the ability to abuse, you end up with policemen walking a beat with little more than a whistle to do their jobs! The trick is to recognize the potential, demand oversight and employ extremely strict punishment to prevent abuse so the tools are allowed to be used in a legal manner.
Warrants should be required for the police to install the keylogger, and a court order or similar should be required for the AV program vendor to assist. If the necessary warrants and orders are in place, by all means, they ought to comply. But CheckPoint has said they don't feel a need to wait for such -- just the say-so of the police. That way lies abuse of power.ability to abuse, you end up with policemen walking a beat with little more than a whistle to do their jobs! The trick is to recognize the potential, demand oversight and employ extremely strict punishment to prevent abuse so the tools are allowed to be used in a legal manner.
Who says they were wrong?
Uh, I do. So do agencies like The Red Cross, Amnesty Intl., the UN and just about every other world organization. The population of a country is off limits. While there will always be "collateral damage", civilians can not be the target.
World Trade Centre, centre for American economic imperialism.
It was a valid military target, when you think about it.
Uh, no it's not IF you think about it
As a result America attacked Iraq and are now forcing a new oil agreement on the Iraqi people.
Capitalism in the U.S. is becoming tied to the military, and the military isn't about choice or freedom, no matter what politicians say.
Why capitalism. So if the US were, say, communist, then the military is supported by what, magic? I think what you meant by "capitalism" is "economy", and yes, an economy does support the military and can a valid target. However, the men, women and children that make up that economy are NOT targets. If you must bomb a building, do so at 2:00am when it's not occupied. Or are you OK with civilian casualties?
See HERE for a list of companies that were in the WTC. Some Gems from the list that you claim are valid military targets are:
Greatest Bar on Earth
Government of Thailand
Fuji Bank
Bank of Taiwan
Avis
Channel 2 (WCBS)
Channel 4 (NBC)
Channel 5 (WNYW)
Channel 11 (WPIX)
Channel 31 (WBIS)
Channel 47 (WNJU)
Cheng Cheng Enterprises Holding Inc
China Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
EuroBrokers, Inc.
Landmark Education Corporation
Meganet Management Consultants, Inc
NY Coffee Station
Royal Thai Embassy Office
Showtime Pictures
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Taipei Bank
Dr. Tadasu Tokumaru, M.D.
Tower Computer Service
"Check Point said it would 'afford law enforcement' the courtesy of whitelisting if requested"
never buy anything from check point.
So I presume you are against the police using spyware as a tool in all circumstances?
Would your opinion change if the Police had a warrant? What if asked your permission to "snoop" your notebook that was stolen from you a week before in an effort to recover it?
Is this just limited to adware? If you daughter were kidnapped, would you protest them using her cel phone to track her?
I know it's cool to be against the 5-0, but I feel you opinion may change once you need the police to protect you or give you justice when a crime has been committed against you.