Atlanta Opinion

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 4:00 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 4:00 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 4:05 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 4:06 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 4:13 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://groups.msn.com/buy-soma]buy soma[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 4:13 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://groups.msn.com/buy-soma]buy soma[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 4:28 AM | Link to this

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/health/05baka.html

By ISHMAel back

February 19, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

February 19, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

February 19, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By Ironman Carmichael

February 19, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

Yes, by all means let’s go back to the good old moral days when the marketplace sold slaves—at least they kept their clothes on.

When puritanical Americans stop screeching in horror at the sight of every bare breast or buttock they have the misfortune to happen upon, advertisers will stop using them as attention-getting devices.

By chuck

February 19, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

I totally agree with you Monica. We should not have to have our kids exposed to that kind of garbage in the common areas of the mall. I have less of a problem with them advertising that way INSIDE their stores, but it should definitely be restricted to the inside of their stores.

USinUK, you got it wrong again when you said:

But, they want the image - they want the cool factor - they want the lifestyle of being hip and cool and mucking around � just like the kids in the posters.

It is the ADVERTISER’S JOB to MAKE them want that lifestyle.

It’s effective too. You wouldn’t believe how many notes I intercept from my 8th graders talking about oral sex, and other things that they should not even KNOW about much less be writing about. The truth of the matter is that I can see the change in the culture and you just don’t have any idea how bad this is going to get in the next few years. I think Monica will back me up on this. The change has been drastic in the past 5 years or so. It corresponds to the unbelievable growth of free internet porn and the accessibility of adult programming on television. The real problem is that most of their parents are clueless as to what their children are doing with their computers, cell phones and televisions. If they had a clue THEY would be calling for more restrictions as well.

In fact, I’d be willing to bet that YOU LEFTIES will be hollering for more restrictions in a few years. Mark my words on this. Ya’ll never get a clue until it’s too late to stop it.

By Monica

February 19, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

Lots to do today… only here a minute…

Chuck is right. Parents have no clue about what their kids are doing. I have seen a change in the last 5 years as well.

By USinUK

February 19, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

Personally, I find America’s obsession with nudity rather amusing … especially in light of the violence they turn a blind eye to.

An example … one night, when my hub first came to the states, he was watching a slasher movie on FX or USA network - the scene was a woman off in the distance getting out of a swimming pool (nekkid, of course) followed by someone getting decapitated. The network digitized the woman’s bottom, but showed the decapitation.

By ISHMAel back

February 19, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

February 19, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By USinUK

February 19, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

It is the ADVERTISER�S JOB to MAKE them want that lifestyle.

you’re right. kids wouldn’t want to be cool if it wasn’t for the advertisers. they’d go to school and be perfectly happy with who they are and what they look like.

yeah, right.

even in the Leave-It-To-Beaver 1950s, kids have wanted to belong. most kids are desperate to feel accepted and liked. most kids want to be, if not in the popular clique, at least liked by a group of people. and they will look for images that reflect what they want to be - whether that’s goth/emo (i.e., rejecting the stereotypical pop look), A&F, athletic, or someting else.

the A&F advertising company is giving them ONE image of cool, of hip, of trendy. their clothes are absolutely rubbish, as someone else noted above - but the image is that, you wear these clothes, you’ll be mucking around with cool people just like the kids in the ads.

it’s no different with cars or anything else that’s advertised - you’re buying the image and the lifestyle of the product, not just the product, itself.

And, frankly, like I said earlier - it should be a “teaching opportunity” for parents that are sensitive to these kind of pictures rather than a call to arms to censor them.

as far as your comment The change has been drastic in the past 5 years or so. It corresponds to the unbelievable growth of free internet porn and the accessibility of adult programming on television. The real problem is that most of their parents are clueless as to what their children are doing with their computers, cell phones and televisions. If they had a clue THEY would be calling for more restrictions as well.

the last 5 years??? try the last 10 - I was working on campaigns for internet safety back in 1997 and 1998. HOWEVER, those campaigns were based on PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT, not legislative solutions. Whatever happened to the clarion call of “personal responsibility”??? Parents need to be talking to their kids, having dinner every night with their kids, meeting their kids’ friends and keeping track of what their kids are up to.

What they’re doing, instead, is giving them computers/XBoxes/DVD players to entertain their kids and keep them out of their hair. They’re not talking to them. They have no idea who their kids are hanging out with - but, hey, they have cell phones so they can call them if they need to get in touch.

Please. This starts and ends with the parents. NOT the government.

By chuck

February 19, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Yes Deborah, you are definitely a rocket scientist!

You said: Lunatics are all over the place, drunk driver�s, illness, and all these parents worry about is what is on TV, the radio (which they can control) and in paper ads.

Talk about a moronic statement. Did you pause to think about the fact that this is a TOPIC-DRIVEN BLOG?!?!? This problem happens to be the topic for the week. Here’s another little thing that I try to teach my 8th graders that maybe you could learn as well. It goes something like this: Just because you have homework in Math doesn’t mean you can’t do MY SOCIAL STUDIES homework. In other words, you can be concerned about multiple problems AT THE SAME TIME, but you don’t have to talk about all of them at the same time.

By Newzwyre

February 19, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Chuck wrote about �—- 8th graders talking about oral sex, and other things that they should not even KNOW about much less be writing about.�

Why shouldn�t they know about �things�? They give you the �your body and you� speech in fifth grade for heaven sake!! Unlike earlier in the 20th Century when puberty didn�t hit until around 15 years of age, these days it�s closer to 6th grade, (http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm) so it�s only natural for eighth graders to explore �things� that you or I maybe hadn�t been interested in at that age. If there�s one thing kids are curious about, it�s all the stuff we tell them they don�t need to know about until they �grow up�.

Besides, since the average age of first encounter is between 15 - 17 years of age, (or 9th and 10th grades) it�s probably not a bad idea for your eighth graders to be thinking about this stuff.

—- [the study looked at] 8,563 adolescents in grades 7 through 12 —- They were reinterviewed one to two years later, answering questions about their emotional and mental health, family background and education, and social and romantic relationships—- By the time of the second interview, 1,265 of the teenagers had had their first sexual experience. The average age at first sex varied —-, from 15.2 years to 17.5

By chuck

February 19, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

USinUK, I’m sure you know more about this than me. After all, I’ve only been working with kids for 30 years, the past 18 as a PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER. I mean, how could I expect to know as much about this as YOU!?! Yes the growth of these industries has occurred in the past 10-12 years. Having the problem filter down into the schools in EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS has occurred in the past 5 years.

You said:

Parents need to be talking to their kids, having dinner every night with their kids, meeting their kids� friends and keeping track of what their kids are up to.

Yes they do…BUT THEY AREN’T.

You are totally clueless to this problem. Young men especially are getting a vastly unrealistic view of the world. According to the internet and television, every woman is a ho just waiting for these young men to jump their bones. We are quickly creating the next generation of rapists and perverts and they will far surpass what we have seen in the past. I’m seeing it in 8th GRADERS FOR GOODNESS SAKES.

Hey, I tell you what…spend a week in one of those “sophisticated” European schools and then we’ll talk.

By chuck

February 19, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

Newzwyre…How’s that working out for us as a nation? The preoccupation is definitely on SEX and not on school as lower SAT scores would attest. I find it interesting that you left something out when you quoted the article:

The average age at first sex varied with ethnicity, from 15.2 years to 17.5, with blacks having sex at the youngest ages and Asians at the oldest. Lower family income also predicted sex at an earlier age.

Here’s something else you left out:

There was a significant increase in depressive symptoms among girls who were in short-term relationships that dissolved, and having had first sex in that relationship increased scores on the depression scale compared with girls in similar relationships that had ended without having sex.

Hmmmmm, which one of those groups traditionally is more successful in school?

By USinUK

February 19, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

Yes they do�BUT THEY AREN�T.

and, THAT, my friend, is the problem. Not A&F advertising. Not what’s on the internet. Not what’s on MTV. Parents aren’t involved with their kids - THAT’S the problem.

And you want … what??? government to come in and solve all your problems by censoring ads and the internet and cell phone texts???

By HUH

February 19, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

and 100-150 years ago, say late 1800s, a FOURTEEN year-old girl could well be MARRIED, with her SECOND kid on the way.

By Newzwyre

February 19, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

chuck, what’s your point? You said that eighth graders shouldn’t know about oral sex and “things”. I merely pointed out that statistically they are only a year or so away from their first sexual encounter. I never said whether I thought it was a “good thing” or a “bad thing” but it IS what it is. I only provided another possible reason for why YOU may not have been educated about “things” before the age of twenty, but there are social and biological reasons todays teens are; the earlier onset of puberty.

And yes, I edited a great deal of the article out of my post, that’s why I always provide links. I left the issue of ethnicity to the side because I find it irrelevant to the discussion on what age sexual interests manifested. If you want to have a p** contest on which of us left out the more relevant parts of the article, let me point out that it also says — “First sex was associated with a decrease in self-esteem, but only among girls who were younger than the average age and not in a romantic relationship. Girls who had sex at the average age or later had no increased risk for depressive symptoms compared with those who had not had sex.”

You want it to look like young girls will inevitably end up depressed with low self-esteem if they have sex, but the study shows that it isn’t the age of the girl, it’s the average age those in her peer group have sex, and whether her first time is a casual hook-up or part of an ongoing romantic relationship.

And what exactly does being successful in school have to do with the price of rice in China?

By chuck

February 19, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

Who said anything about the GOVERNMENT? This is a SOCIETAL problem. There is a role for government in some aspects such as the internet. For instance, ISP’s have the ability to filter out porn sites. The government should force the issue on this and require them to filter porn sites and make them available only by request of the ADULT paying for the internet service. If they had such a system in place, that would certainly help.

I’m certain that 90+% of parents would be in favor of that. It is increasingly difficult for these things to filtered in individual homes. Most parents don’t have the capability or computer savvy to do so, but ISP’s do. They won’t do it unless they are required to however.

V-Chips don’t work primarily because lackadaisical parents won’t reset them after unblocking to watch a cop show or whatever. Some sort of automatic reset function would solve this problem. I happen to believe that most of these things could be solved with already available or easily invented technology. After all, we did put a man on the moon.

By Beavis

February 19, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Heh heh heh… Heh heh. Heh heh heh… He said… Heh heh heh…

By chuck

February 19, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry Newzwyre, I didn’t realize I had to spell it out for you. This obsession is spilling over INTO THE SCHOOLS and causing students to lose focus as to why they are HERE. In other words, it is not only bad for the kids involved, it is bad for the future of our nation because it is making it much more difficult to educate ANY children, but ESPECIALLY those who are obsessed with sex.

By USinUK

February 19, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

you keep bringing up problems and ills - all I was asking was what do you want to do about it?? as you said, there is already the V-Chip - it’s the job of the parents to activate/use it. there are also “family friendly” ISPs you can subscribe to and HUNDREDS of filter software you can put on your home computer that would filter out “the nekkid”. there is also the concept of keeping the computer in the living room or kitchen so that you can see where your kids are surfing and who they’re talking to.

none of this is new - all of these solutions are around 10 years old. the key is parents. they have the tools at their disposal - they need to use them.

By Butthead

February 19, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

Heh heh heh� Heh heh. Heh heh heh� She said� Heh heh heh�

By USinUK

February 19, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

In other words, it is not only bad for the kids involved, it is bad for the future of our nation because it is making it much more difficult to educate ANY children, but ESPECIALLY those who are obsessed with sex.

so, what is this new-fangled thing called “the sex” that I hear all the kool kidz talking about??? we didn’t have that in my day … there were never any kids having “the sex” in the 1980s when I went to school - heck, we never even kissed! when my sibs when to school in the 1970s - nope, no sex then, either. no drinking or drugs. and definitely no “wayheyhey”, if ya know what I mean. back in the 1940s, when my parents were in school - nope, niente sex. everyone was as pure as the driven snow … no one ever had sex on the brain. that’s just a new development. kinda like BlueTooth.

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 19, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

Amazing how conservatives rant about “less government” and “free markets” until it comes to things that affect them personally.

By Debora

February 19, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

Goverment raise my kids, government pay off my house that I couldn’t afford to begin with, government give me health care, gimme gimme gimme, do for me, because I am too darn lazy to do for myself. I expect everybody else to gimme gimme gimme their tax dollars so I can sit on my butt and have more babies and not have to raise them, geez.

Oh, Chuck I hope you are not in Dekalb wasting my tax dollars that I work for to pay teachers salary, yapping on a blog.

By chuck

February 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

I just told you what I wanted to be done. It’s a common sense approach that makes things easier for both good parents and bad ones.

Let me get this straight though USinUK, you want the government to be in charge of your HEALTHCARE, but it would be WRONG for the government to be involved in having ISP’s filter out the bad stuff that harms our kids. Is thathat about it?

By Archie

February 19, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this

My answer to the topic question is no but like Andrea says some things are a bit salacious for my taste.

The government should force the issue on this and require them to filter porn sites and make them available only by request of the ADULT paying for the internet service. If they had such a system in place, that would certainly help. I agree with those statements Chuck but do you ever agree someone you call liberal?

By chuck

February 19, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

DeBOREa. Obviously that Dekalb County education was wasted on you. NOPE, I don’t want the government to raise my kids and yes john, I am in favor of less government and free markets. As for my house, I AM able to stay ahead of my kids technologically because I work with it and make a point of knowing about the latest innovations. There are a lot of parents who JUST DON’T KNOW what to do or how to do it. Probably 8-10% of my kids have parents who don’t even have e-mail addresses. They go out and buy computers for their kids so they can do better in school. THEN, the kids learn how to do the other stuff from their friends. Parents don’t have the capability to stop it. Some of them don’t even know how to turn it on. Kids have perfected their abilities to hide things from their parents also.

Tell me dufus, what is the problem you have with requiring this garbage be filtered out, given the fact that my proposal gives the adult who purchases the internet service the right to opt to receive it? Technologically (sorry for using the big word) speaking, it is a million times easier to do this at the ISP level than it is to do it individually house to house.

As for “free market”, I agree that in most cases the free market works the way that it is supposed to. In this particular instance, the amount of harm being done to families and the vast difference in technology and the ability to use it from house to house makes this one of those times when a government regulation would work better.

By USinUK

February 19, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

Let me get this straight though USinUK, you want the government to be in charge of your HEALTHCARE, but it would be WRONG for the government to be involved in having ISP�s filter out the bad stuff that harms our kids. Is thathat about it?

Chuck - let me say this slowly, so that you might understand. Porn isn’t illegal. Child porn is and ISPs already do work with the government/law enforcement to arrest and charge those slimeballs. Porn is not, so, no, ISPs should NOT get involved in regulating internet content, unless people pay a subscription for that kind of service (i.e., “family friendly ISPs”).

COPA (Children’s Online Protextion Act) was passed in 1998 and then struck down by the federal courts because it used the concept of “community standards”, which the federal courts said was too broad. Even the Supreme Court said that filtering software is a better solution than legislation.

Lastly - since you really MUST be slow to make the asinine comparison of access to healthcare and access to porn - access to healthcare is a basic human need. Literally, a “life/liberty/pursuit of happiness issue” - in fact, healthcare is even more that kind of need than education is - but I don’t hear you complaining about the government providing that service.

By chuck

February 19, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

I think I just agreed with you Archie.

By Couldn'tResist

February 19, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

ability to use it from house to house makes this one of those times when a government regulation would work better.

so much for the exhalted THE MARKET

By NetBanker

February 19, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

Hey kids! It’s been a while, but here’s where I’m not totally buying into the A&F complaining about the posters in windows…has anyone actually seen one of their store fronts of late? There are no windows anymore. The openings are covered with Bahama Shutters which leaves the store entrance as the only place to visually look inside the store. So the posters can only be viewed once one enters the store. This may be the new store look that hasn’t reached all locations yet and I don’t spend much time in malls at all, but as a former retailer I noted this change in at least 3 high end malls I’ve been to in the past 6 months.

One thing I find completely ironic is the complaint originating in Virgina BEACH. HELLO complainers, have you been to a beach or boardwalk in the past 80 years? If I’m going to be subjected to partial nudity I’d prefer it to be a photo of an in-shape model than the reality bodies I regularly see squeezed into fantasy bathing suits. There is a distinct lack of the “morality police” handing out citations to the innappropriately dressed people IN the malls even as they complain about posters.

By chuck

February 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

I complain about the FEDERAL government involvement in education all the time. I have no problem with the STATE being involved in education, so long as parents have the ability to OPT OUT of it.

I believe it was you who said:

And you want � what??? government to come in and solve all your problems

I believe therefore that my comparison was right on target. BTW, I know across the pond there you don’t have much access to copies of the Constitution…but Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND NOT THE CONSTITUTION. However, let’s analyze what you said:

access to healthcare is a basic human need. Literally, a �life/liberty/pursuit of happiness issue� - in fact, healthcare is even more that kind of need than education is - but I don�t hear you complaining about the government providing that service.

So, how far should this government involvement in healthcare go? Should the government do drug/tobacco/alcohol testing? After all, since you want the government to control healthcare access, shouldn’t they screen for these “unhealthy things”? It is a matter of life and death. Hmmm. Besides, since you want me to PAY for your healthcare, shouldn’t I have access to your health records so I can determine if your lifestyle is healthy enough? NO?

So again your position…the government can control your healthcare, but they can’t require an ISP to filter content on the internet (in spite of the fact that we KNOW it would be healthier for kids AND that it would do so WITHOUT denying the content to ADULTS who want it allowed in their own homes).

By RastaMon

February 19, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

I like it when the teenies dress all slutty!

By chuck

February 19, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

BTW, that same U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate trade with foreign countries and between the states. This makes more sense than some of the other uses the feds have found for the interstate commerce clause.

By USinUK

February 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

oh, Chuck …

you want to criticize Newzy for editing, then you go and do it, yourself. tsk-tsk-tsk.

what I said was: And you want � what??? government to come in and solve all your problems by censoring ads and the internet and cell phone texts???

I asked you a question (thus the question marks), not made an assertion.

Again, I say - the solutions are there - filtering software, family-friendly ISPs, V-chips, etc. PARENTS need to take responsibility for their kids.

And, again, I say - porn isn’t illegal, so ISPs have no business going in and filtering it. Besides, who is going to define porn??? You??? Shaunti?? Newzy?? THAT’S why “community standards” is such a sticky wicket - whose standards do you use???

As for the healthcare issue - last time I checked, eating McDonalds, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol is all legal. So, no, the government shouldn’t be screening for those things. As for your insistance that you don’t want to pay for someone else’s health care - honeybunny, YOU ALREADY DO. Through your taxes, you pay for people to go to Grady, you pay for indigent health services at county clinics, etc.

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 19, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

If there were truly 90% support among ISP subscribers who are also parents for an ISP-level block of pornographic websites, then don’t you think Adam Smith’s invisible hand would have guided companies to create it?

Perhaps the support for such a block is not as strong as you imagine. Perhaps the many, many married fathers - and no doubt some mothers - who contribute to the multi-billion dollar porn industry would prefer not to have to request access to something that, as an adult, they don’t feel they need to ask permission to view. Or maybe they’re just embarassed to call Comcast and ask them to turn on the skin.

By Jack

February 19, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

What about free speech Chuck? Mom and Dad should monitor what their kids see on the web not Big Brother.

By Archie

February 19, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

USinUk we agree on healthcare but I agree with Chuck’s idea on this Internet service provider idea. Porn is legal and it’s also a unique,adult brand of entertainment and frankly I don’t even want a picture of it unless I ask for it because if my child were to type in a normal name there’s a chance he/she will see some porn and I should not have to be right there beside my child all the time to keep them from porn on the internet. I have been to gentlemen clubs so I am no prude but I don’t always want that type of entertainment in my space. Filtering at the ISP level would make things just little easier for parents and frankly we need the help inspite of all the technology out there. I do strongly agree with USinUK’s position on healthcare and it really isn’t about government controlling healthcare as much as it’s about controlling how much we pay for healthcare. That’s the real issue. USinUk makes good points so I will not expound since she does such a good job.

By chuck

February 19, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

John, the problem is that people simply don’t know. Think about it this way:

Let’s say the government has a way to make money fall from the sky (at no cost to the government) I would guess that 100% of the people would be in favor of that, BUT if they didn’t know that was possible, would they ask for it? In my experience, which is exhaustive by the way, most parents DON’T WANT TO KNOW what their kids are doing on the internet, because then they would have to deal with it. My proposal would alleviate these problems and make it almost weasel proof. One way it could work is by separating the customer number out from the name as people make the request to stop filtering. There are any number of ways that the “embarassment” could be ameliorated.

By DontSearch

February 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

Don’t do a google search on girls toys, kiddies. By page 185 of the results, you might find something relevant for children.

By Lyrazel

February 19, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Chris Rock said: A dad’s job is to keep HIS daughter off the pole—and its rather amusing to me that Mick Jagger did not want HIS 16 year old daughter modeling because of all the sleaze of the job.

Marketing is specifically designed to generate sales & interest in product: teens will flock to a store if its in the news for having controversial displays. A&F has always had the reputation of pushing that envelope of teen porn—but in its slick ads it forgets its audience has mom’s and dads and grandmothers who really do not want to see their teen marketed to dress like THAT. Never forget money talks! Controversy is only good if it sells product and if the product sits on shelves not bought by the fickle teens it was marketed to—a loss of profit can debilitate any business.

Parenting is not just telling a store NOT to hang pictures of hot teens getting hot—its making sure their son & daughter understands what is vulgar and condescends instead of glorifies. Self pride is very hard to teach a teen. Good luck.

By NetBanker

February 19, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

As you are walking through the mall, do you really notice 99% of what is in the windows anyway? I’m still trying to catch up here, but Deborah’s question above from yesterday is what I was thinking. How many of us honestly look at store windows or specifically at any posters depicting humans that are in the window? I’m going to guess that most people don’t even notice them most of the time and that any “negative” publicity or public commentary on the content is highly likely to result in people seeking out the ‘offending’ ads to see what the hullabaloo is all about. In this case, I will begrudgingly agree with my partner that too frequently and most especially in a mall I “Walk while blond” which means I’m too busy in “La-la land” to notice much more than my path to my destination.

I�m certain that 90+% of parents would be in favor of that. It is increasingly difficult for these things to filtered in individual homes. Most parents don�t have the capability or computer savvy to do so, but ISP�s do. They won�t do it unless they are required to however.

Another theme I keep seeing here is rescuing lazy parents from themselves by forcing industry to make changes to protect the children. If it’s such a darn good idea, then won’t a free market make it happen?

By chuck

February 19, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

Hey NetB, as I said earlier, the free market won’t work AS WELL in this particular case because parents won’t/don’t know how to use it. I have taught internet classes for parents and many of them don’t even know how to turn the computer on much less how to use the internet…or even more importantly…how to monitor what their children are doing on the internet.

When I show them how kids are able to delete their browsing history, they are shocked. When they go to whitehouse.com, they get ANGRY. Many, many working class parents (and others) are intimidated by technology. Another reason why the free market doesn’t work as well in this instance is because the technology changes so often. Not just the software, but the hardware as well. Your ability to block this stuff from your child’s computer is only as good as your last update, because trust me, the smut merchants are going to find a way to get this stuff in front of your kids if they can. Their livlihood depends on it, and they know that it is addictive… especially if they can catch them when they are young.

I just for the life of me cannot figure out why liberals would defend the practice of objectifying women…especially you feminists out there.

By Not MY Kid

February 19, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

Chuck, it isn’t MY job to parent someone elses kid. Nor is it MY responsibility to make sure that the world is child-proofed just in case some parent doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to know, what his precious offspring is out doing.

They made the choice to breed, now they can darn well parent instead of pushing it off on the ISP’s, A&F, the schools, the government, or their fellow adult citizen. If they can’t be responsible, they shouldn’t have popped out any babies. I for one don’t fancy living in the land of Chuck E. Cheese, where kids rule and adults drool (from boredom!!!).

But wait! Here’s a novel idea. If they don’t want to police their kid’s internet use, then they shouldn’t pay for internet access!!! How easy is that? Problem solved and none of that pesky technology to try and figure out.

You say you don’t want your kid watching sleeze on TV? Don’t pay for Cinemax, Showtime, HBO or other raunchy cable fare.

Don’t want them eating junk food? Don’t BUY ‘em junk food! Simple, easy and oh so affordable!

But don’t expect me to give up MY simple pleasures just so you can pretend that teen-agers don’t know about sex, don’t talk about sex, don’t think about sex, and don’t engage in sex. Just like it’s always been.

By Not Mine Either

February 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

HERE HERE Not MY Kid!!! Sadly, a lady at my church lost her husband last year. They were taking up a collection for the widows children’s college fund. I couldn’t donate. My husband was out of work through no fault of his own all of 2006 and some of 2007(company closed) and we were just getting back on our feet in late 2007. My handicapped brother lost his job (factory moved to Mexico) in 2007. We had one death and one major illness in our immediate family in 2007. I was snubbed and had to leave the church. I was told KIDS COME FIRST and because I didn’t have kids, I didn’t understand.

By kimberly

February 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Actually, you should be sending folks to whitehouse.ORG, not whitehouse.com… Haha! Good site.

I’m glad to hear a “conservative” say he has a problem with objectifying women, since, in my experience and observation, the “conservatives” objectify us at a rate of 2 to 1 over the “liberals.” (Those doggone libertarians, on the other hand, objectify anyone, anywhere, any time they feel like it, those crazy bas-tards! HAHAHA! For a good time, call one. But I digress…)

But with regard to freedom and government regulation, I do note the discrepancy between topics. Health care: Let the FREE MARKET rule! If poor kids get sick, who cares? Big business squashing the hope and life out of America’s small business owners: FREE MARKET! Let it rule, let it rule… Energy companies reap record profits while Americans run in place or fall behind: FREE MARKET!

Individual behavioral choices: GET THE DANG GOVERNMENT IN HERE, QUICK! Just an observation.

BTW, I never imagined I could shelter the kids from the real world, since they’ll have to live in it. Knowledge is power, and I try to empower them by explaining what they see and hear and putting it into context. So far so good, but heck, what do I know?

By Newzwyre

February 19, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

how many have actually seen the advertisement in question? I’m not sure what’s most shocking; the relatively inoffensiveness of the photos or the amount of outrage they’ve produced.

Regardless of whether Chuck is right and the whole social “village” has some kind of obligation to keep children ignorant of biology, the photographs themselves don’t seem all that racy to me.

Maybe I’m just too cynical and jaded to find these pictures anything but tame, but judge for yourself.

http://www.abercrombie.com/anf/lifestyles/html/photogallery.html

By chuck

February 19, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

So we should put kids at risk so you can take matters into your own hand…so to speak. You are right, other people’s kids are NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. So what? I don’t believe anything that I said was an attempt to ask YOU to take responsibility for them. In fact, after your “simple pleasures” comment, I’m sure most parents wouldn’t want you to even be around their kids.

Unless you are a “Reading Rainbow” dropout, you might notice that NOBODY said anything about making your precious little pornography illegal. In fact, go “blind” if you wish. That doesn’t change the fact that this stuff is bad for kids which makes it bad for all of us. Is it the convenience store operator’s responsibility to “raise those kids” that come in wanting to buy alcohol or cigarettes? No, but these are things that are bad for kids so the government has taken extra steps to keep them out of the hands of kids. This is exactly the same premise.

By chuck

February 19, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

That was the point kimberly. I was showing them that a simple mistake could put pornography in front of their kids. Is that site still up? (Is it org and not com, it’s been a couple of years since I taught that course). The correct site is whitehouse.gov if you actually want to go to the REAL Whitehouse website.

BTW, the government is much better at keeping things away than they are providing things in any kind of efficient manner. Just an observation

By Archie

February 19, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

When they go to whitehouse.com, they get ANGRY. Many, many working class parents (and others) are intimidated by technology. Those are true statements because it happened to me. I typed in that website name thinking I would see something else and I have typed in celebrity names only to get porn. I will use this example of what happened with me: I can go look at the high-priced tv’s in Best Buy with no problem but if you browse a porn-type website you start getting so much unwanted stuff and you have to keep getting rid of it day after day until the folk finally realize you were just curiously browsing not interested in buying anything. Chuck’s right, in my opinion because if an adult wants pornography they can easily get to it and some people are intimidated by technology for whatever reason. Again let me say this I have visited adult night spots so I am no prude and I am perfectly capable of finding them if I want that type of entertainment. A new club just opened up here in SC and I heard about it through word of mouth so an adult can get to adult entertainment if he or she wants that type of entertainment. Chuck’s point is not to ban anything but to control it in a different way. Heck, let’s not disagree with him just for the sake of disagreeing with him.

By chuck

February 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

newzwyre, I don’t know if those are the photos that Shaunti was talking about but I have seen far worse than these in the mall windows of A&F. What is even funnier is that these are A&F “MODELS”, but if you go to look at the actual clothes on the site, they are displayed by themselves…no models. I just think that’s a little funny. The purpose of the ads is to sell clothes, so they don’t use any clothes in the ad BUT, where they actually SELL THE CLOTHES ON THE WEBSITE, that’s right…NO MODELS.

By kimberly

February 19, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

The people in a “village” or society should care about the well-being of the children therein.

When “righties” express this desire, they’ve got good family values. When Hillary expresses this desire, she’s a bleep bleep socialist b—-h!

Yeah-huh… Keep talking. Yawwwwn!

That being said, I have found myself turning red with shame after becoming aroused at the entrance to A&F. Those life-sized cutouts are um…. Will you excuse me, please? I have to go google something. Hahaha!

By chuck

February 19, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

I’m sure you are right Archie. I know if we don’t filter it from the ISP that students can find this stuff easily. Probably easier than can adults. Our school district filtering software is pretty good, but stuff gets through sometimes. Try explaining that to a parent.

By Scalia

February 19, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

I agree that the government should not decide what I should see and what I don’t see. Sometimes it is nice to be an adult, and actually be able to see things that I want to see in an adult fashion.

And the kids are learning a lot from their peers, the internet, and television. Some of the kids I know love Scarface (when I saw that at 22 I was appalled. My parents wouldn’t let me watch that when I was younger), or anything that is violent.

I don’t know why violence is regulated since they want to regulate sex on television. Gore and blood and inexplicable violence is okay.

P.S. I like the Abercrombie and Fitch pictures. Some of the perky buttocks on those guys are lovely.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/1.html]buy tramadol now[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/1.html]order tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/1.html]tramadol hcl[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/1.html]tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/1.html]tramadol online[/URL]

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

The difference, Chuck, is that cigarettes and alcohol are very specific, and “inappropriate for children” is not. I’m extremely uncomfortable with the idea of the government deciding what is appropriate for children. That IS the role of parents.

And really chuck - after all this time on this blog, do you honestly believe this statement?

I just for the life of me cannot figure out why liberals would defend the practice of objectifying women�especially you feminists out there.

Surely you understand by now that defending the right of something to exist does not mean agreeing with it or beliving that it has value. Free speech and expression are only free if that which one abhor’s is allowed to exist side-by-side with that which one adores.

Y’all enjoy - I’m off to work.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/1.html]buy tramadol[/URL]

By Monica

February 19, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre, I looked at the photo gallery yesterday before I made my first post. I find the pictures objectionable for a few reasons: 1)the age or presumed age of the models. 2)a picture of a young woman with only her hair covering her breasts is provocative. 3) there are 7 photos in the photo gallery, and only two of them show clothing. What is the purpose of a clothing store using a photo of a guy’s bare chest? 4) I don’t want to see a young man’s crack above the waistline of his pants.

I don’t have a problem with Abercrombie having this photo gallery on their website; I don’t have to go to the website if I don’t want to. I do have a problem with their jumbo-tron sized use of these photos outside of their store, which BTW, Net, they still did at Christmas time at Arbor Place in Douglasville. I haven’t been to the mall since then, so they might have changed it.

By ChuckNorris

February 19, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Y’all make sure you see my movies now, y’heur? Great Family Values movies, tons of good ole American violence, but you won’t see any of that nasty sex stuff, not even a single exposed breast, no Siree, I make only Family Values movies, what says Family Values better than a decapitation or two or a sword throught the heart?

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

By chuck

February 19, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

john, pornography is specific too. But even if it isn’t, my proposal would not take that right away from parents either. The whole point is that the ADULT purchaser of the internet service could very easily opt in. While I think it would be really stupid to expose children to pornography, nothing I said would prevent that for any parent or any other adult.

Ya’ll are worse than me if you argue THAT POINT. It’s simple, workable, and not onerous at all. A solution to a problem. How rare is that for this blog?

By Not MY Kid

February 19, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you’re nasty. If you want to make snide innuendoe’s go ahead, but its low class and nasty. Just because you equate “pornography” with midget-on-donkey action, some of us know that content filters don’t differentiate between the aforementioned midget-donkey action and a sensual Italian drama.

You sure like to take things out of context and reword them, don’t you? I know you didn’t say anything about making x-rated internet content illegal…and I never once said you DID. I said that I wasn’t willing to give up CONVENIENCE and VARIETY and CHOICE just so some parent could slough their responsibilities onto someone else. In their own home. THAT’S my gripe. I’m a law-abiding adult and if I want to download a Fellini classic, I shouldn’t have to do anything other than download it! Basically YOU think there’s nothing wrong with making ME jump through hoops to get the content I want just so some parent doesn’t have to bother himself to learn how to use “the internets” or how to turn an internet filter on.

Luckily, they don’t actually HAVE to learn any of that scary technology or learn how to navigate that “series of tubes”. The internets have a built-in filtering system that’s dirt cheap and easy enough to use that even the most timid of technophobes can use it. You don’t want your brat looking at racy pictures? DON’T PAY FOR INTERNET ACCESS!!!

By Copyleft

February 19, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

FX: I believe Chuck’s being honest when he says he doesn’t understand. I truly don’t think he DOES see a difference between saying “The Klan and NAMBLA have the right to say whatever they want” and “I agree with everything they say.” He’d probably be disgusted with a public defender for the “crime” of standing up for a rapist or murderer’s rights (as guaranteed in the Constitution).

“I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” It’s a sad shape our education system is in, when people can’t even grasp this basic principle of freedom.

By Not Mine Either

February 19, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

WHO gets the godlike opportunity of discerning what is pornographic for the rest of society? George Bush? The next president? Chuck? Shaunti? The Supreme Court?

One of the breast cancer sites has a WONDERFUL video on how to do a breast exam with a real human woman with real breasts. Is this pornographic? Who decides?

There is a video for expectant mothers on another site showing a live birth. Yes you see a vagina and all.

KIDS KIDS KIDS - I am so sick of everyone’s kids and that the rest of the world has to revolve around them. No matter to the church that me and my husband were trying to hold onto our home. I was a horrible person for not funding the widow college fund. Where are they when we had troubles? Are they funding my brother’s COBRA? Of course not.

By Monica

February 19, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

I’m truly sorry that you had that experience with a church. I don’t think that situation is indicative of most churches.

Of course I don’t object to either of your scenarios that you listed. I’m not a raving lunatic, contrary to what others might think. :)

By Archie

February 19, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

Chuck,my wife is a teacher and that’s why I know what you say about the school district software being true. You’re right on this one Chuck. Pat yourself on the back man because you have won this debate. At this point people are just deciding to disagree with you Chuck for no real reason. Chuck, I am three things in this debate, an adult, a liberal, and a man who has visited adult nightclubs and I agree with you. Chuck please don’t generalize about liberal people. I have already stated some folk have irrational racial pride and it’s also true some folk have irrational political pride. At no time has Chuck said he wants to block all porn and he has been clear that was merely discussing technology and it’s use. Sorry Chuck wins if good sense means anything.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 19, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/1.html]tramadol online[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:14 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:15 AM | Link to this

order tramadol

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:16 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:16 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/11.html]buy tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:16 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/11.html]tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:16 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:16 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/11.html]cheap tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:17 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:28 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/11.html]tramadol hydrochloride[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 3:36 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 3:36 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 3:38 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 6:26 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/2.html]tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 6:27 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/2.html]buy tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 6:27 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/2.html]cheap tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 6:28 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 6:28 AM | Link to this

cheap tramadol

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 6:29 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 6:29 AM | Link to this

Here’s a very interesting read.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 6:39 AM | Link to this

tramadol online

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 7:46 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/2.html]cheap tramadol[/URL]

By USinUK

February 20, 2008 8:11 AM | Link to this

Chuck and Archie �

Since you guys are both in agreement on the �ISPs need to block porn� solution � please, define porn for me and everyone else in the forum.

And, once again, let me remind you - porn is not illegal. So, basically, you�re asking ISPs to block legal content, which abridges the First Amendment right to free speech. Heck, even the Supreme Court couldn�t define obscenity. But, since you guys want to make ISPs do the job parents are supposed to be doing, please be so kind as to define pornography for us.

And, while you�re doing so - keep in mind that how YOU define porn might be different than how many other people define it, so be specific. Is it just pictures? Is it moving pictures? What are the pictures of? Is it �the nekkid�?? Is it body parts? Is it the entire body? What if they have some clothes on?? Can it be porn if they are fully dressed?? What if they�re fully dressed and just talking dirty to each other?? What if they�re not using one of the 7 deadly words?? Is it porn if it�s more than one person? If it�s more than 2? If it’s farm animals? What if it�s depictions of the body done by other things like flowers or food or Legos?? What about verbiage? Can writing be considered porn? What about music??

Enough about specifics � let�s talk the philosophy behind the regulation: What if your definition of porn is more liberal than mine? Should I then be able to sue an ISP if my precious little one sees something that I find objectionable? Or is it only something that you find objectionable?? Because, I tell you, once you open this door, ISPs will close theirs. I mean, would you want to be an ISP with the Damocles� sword of numerous lawsuits because someone determines that you didn�t block something they considered pornographic??

Again, go back and look at the Supreme�s decision on the COPA law � “filtering�s superiority to COPA is confirmed by the explicit findings of the Commission on Child Online Protection, which Congress created to evaluate the relative merits of different means of restricting minors’ ability to gain access to harmful materials on the internet.”

If parents want to bring computers/the internet into their home, it is their job as parents to learn about the dangers and how to address them. It is not the job of ISPs to do their parental guidance for them.

By AGFNPR

February 20, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

USinUK,

You have made a very sensible, logical argument why ISP’s should not block porn. However, it is clear that Chuck and Archie are simply asking that ISP’s provide this as a service. Think of it as garbage collection. You can take your own trash out, or you can pay someone to do it for you. But it would still be an OPTION. I would simply change Chuck’s proposal so that the filter is something you have to opt for, not to opt out of. With this method, adults will feel less pressure if they want full access to the internet (midgets, donkeys, etc.).

So let’s review your argument against the ISP’s offering the filter as a service:

Porn is hard to define Schools must have one of those special batman red telephones set up with Webster�s, because as Chuck and Archie have pointed out, they seem to do a pretty good job of filtering out porn. Do these filters block some content you want? Yep. Does it not block some of the things you want? Yep. However, all of these things can be spelled out in the service agreement in wonderful lawyer-speak.

What if your definition of porn is different than mine? See the aforementioned “lawyer-speak”. The ISP’s will set it up so that they are not responsible for anything that slips through that is offensive.

Parents should be responsible for what comes into their home Agreed. So let’s give them the option of signing up for this filter service. Many parents don’t know how to turn on their computer, so they are certainly not going to know how to install, set up, and administer filtering software. The internet is a valuable asset for most kids when it comes to school work, so it is unreasonalbe to tell them “don’t sign up for it if you are too ignorant to protect your children from the dangers of the internet”. So let’s give the parents the tools they need to make the internet useful and safe for their kids.

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

USinUK,

I agree. Although it seems like a simple and fair solution, the devil is in the details.

Point-of-presence (the individual) censorship is the only way to go, whether it be books in a library or porn on the internet.

By FoodFor

February 20, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

How about the ISP filtering of subversive thought? As AT&T did recently with the Eddie Vedder concert, interestingly they had “technical problems” when he made an anti-Bush comment. Bet those “technical problems” would not have happened if Vedder was saying how great AT&T was for bringing the live streaming concert to users on the web. And those “technical problems” were resolved within a sentence or so.

Or should we do what China does? Filter out any thought that is not pro-government?

By chuck

February 20, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

I guess that you have chosen to be deliberately obtuse this week USinUK. I assume you are doing this for the sake of argument because I know you aren’t that stupid. So, I’ll play your little game even though I think your argument is ridiculous and not worthy of my full attention.

First though, I would remind you that this would be perfectly LEGAL in spite of your childish bellowing about COPA. COPA applied to the sites themselves and NOT the ISP’s. It was OVERLY restrictive according to the courts because there was no efficient or technologically sound way to block the content from minors but still be able to provide the content to adults.

Second, My proposal is totally different. It would require the filtering to be done at the ISP level and NOT at the site level. This difference is significant because the ISP would be able to block the sites to ALL home EXCEPT those that specifically requested that it not be blocked. THEREFORE, there is NO restricton of free speech. The sites could post whatever legal content they want to under this proposal. They would not have to worry about whether or not the content was available to minors, or anyone else for that matter.

Third NO ADULT would be restricted from getting the content. How is that then a violation of free speech? IT ISN’T. Only an IDIOT would think that.

NOW, as for your definition of PORNOGRAPHY. It’s already been defined by the filtering software. Since that standard is already available and in use, then it makes perfect sense to start there. Obviously there will be some problems at the outset. Some sites will be blocked that shouldn’t be. That is easily remedied by putting a form in place to request that a specific site be unblocked. The ISP could check it out in a matter of seconds and then universally unblock the site.

I would leave it to the ISP’s to determine how they will accomplish this. I think it would also be wise to give a tax rebate to the ISP to cover whatever it cost them to comply with the law.

In the end, kids are protected from harmful internet content without violating ANYBODY’s right as an adult to receive LEGAL ADULT CONTENT. It’s a WIN WIN proposal. But then, I’ve always supected that MANY of you on the left are way more interested in protecting PERVERSION rather than KIDS.

COPYLEFT, I can guarantee that IN SPITE of what the Supremes have said, the founders had NO INTENTION of protecting PORNOGRAPHY. I hope you are JUST AS SUPPORTIVE of the Supreme Court when they overturn Roe v. Wade. We will see how confident you are in their ability to override congress THEN.

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Porn is hard to define Schools must have one of those special batman red telephones set up with Webster�s, because as Chuck and Archie have pointed out, they seem to do a pretty good job of filtering out porn. Do these filters block some content you want? Yep. Does it not block some of the things you want? Yep. However, all of these things can be spelled out in the service agreement in wonderful lawyer-speak.

But the difference is these filters are customizable at the machine/school/local level.

I do agree that there could be a provider that people choose to use that filters all content. I wonder how many people would really choose such an option. Most parents I know like their porn.

By Scalia

February 20, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

Filters will never work. Kids are smart, and know how to get around them. The parents will think they are doing something good when in reality the kids will be viewing whatever they want.

Perky butts and all.

By USinUK

February 20, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

AGFNPR -

I don’t know if you saw my previous postings yesterday, but I noted that there are family-friendly ISPs that already filter out content that could be objectionable - not to mention hundreds of filtering software packages on the market. It seems to me that parents aren’t willing to do their part of the deal - the tools are out there for them to use, but they want ISPs to do their work for them.

Family-friendly ISPs: FamilyNet, FamilyConnect, CleanNet, Clear Sail, Agape Information Services, Clean Connections USA, Global Family Network, Honor Guard, Internet 4 Families, Safe Connect, Rated G Online and Mayberry USA

Filtering Software:
CyperPatrol, NetNanny, CyberSitter, MaxProtect, FilterPak, NetMop, Safe Eyes, WiseChoice, McAffee Parental Controls

PLUS, AOL has offered parental controls as a free service for the last 10 years. Other services offer free parental controls, as well.

Most, if not all, of these packages are available at retailers where computers are bought - all parents need to do is talk to their salesperson. Or a librarian. Or a teacher (Chuck mentioned yesterday he’s helped parents who had questions/concerns). There is loads of information out there - heck, doesn’t NBC do their “to stalk a predator” thing on Fridays where they show chat rooms and talk about online safety???

Okay, your points: (schools)do a pretty good job of filtering out porn.

Yes, they do - it’s called filtering software. See list above. And, reread the Supreme Court comments on COPA and why filtering software is the best solution.

The ISP�s will set it up so that they are not responsible for anything that slips through that is offensive.

um. If things are going to “slip through” that pretty much negates the entire reason for their filtering, now doesn’t it.

So let�s give them the option of signing up for this filter service. Many parents don�t know how to turn on their computer, so they are certainly not going to know how to install, set up, and administer filtering software

wow. so, offering the filtering software and family-friendly ISPs mentioned above isn’t enough. we now have to actually do the work for them and make it an opt-out rather than an opt-in. why don’t we have someone from Google/Yahoo go over to everyone’s house and do a 3-hour tutorial, as well??

I’m sorry, but where is the personal responsibility, here??? If a parent is going to bring a computer into the house, it is their responsibility to safeguard their kid, not the internet companies.

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Chuck, Ever hear of v-tunnel.com? Or mirroring sites on multiple roving servers? Fake or hacked DNS servers?

Given you posts, you do not understand the technological difficulties involved.

You also are proposing a task that will cost a good bit of money. You are not suggesting that everyone pays, either through taxes or ISP subscription, for your laziness are you?

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Why not:

A) Have profiles set up for each user in the house that has filters in place that would be appropriate?

B) Check your history every other day to see what you kids are doing?

If your kids stumble onto a site that was not blocked, how much harm do you think is really being done? And if your kids are actively seeking it out, it seems the issue is one of a personal nature that should be addressed with your kids.

My problem with this whole idea is it is one more thing that parents do not want to have to do themselves when raising kids because it is difficult.

By USinUK

February 20, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

Chuck -

First though, I would remind you that this would be perfectly LEGAL in spite of your childish bellowing about COPA. COPA applied to the sites themselves and NOT the ISP�s.

So, let’s see. The Supreme Court have decided that it abridges the right to free speech for web sites to “self-police” and have a credit-card access page to limit children’s access to adult content, but you think they’ll be fine and dandy with ISPs restricting access to those sites???

Now, that’s just funny.

By AGFNPR

February 20, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

I do agree that there could be a provider that people choose to use that filters all content. I wonder how many people would really choose such an option. Most parents I know like their porn.

Then the blame falls on the parents.

Filters will never work. Kids are smart, and know how to get around them. The parents will think they are doing something good when in reality the kids will be viewing whatever they want.

As opposed to viewing whatever they want anyway? Filters may not work in all cases, but good ones are somewhat tough to bypass. At least we are teaching them problem solving skills by making them find ways to bypass the filters! The reality is that is kids get smarter, so do the filters. It will be a constant battle for them to defeat filters that are regularly updated to combat the kids’ bypass solutions.

Chuck - your response is well thought out, but tone down the anger some! I really believe the USinUK is trying to defend free speech moreso than she is trying to personally attack you. While I admire her convictions, I don’t agree with her position that the filter would block free speech rights. You are right on this issue. Hey, even Archie said you won the debate. Be happy!

By chuck

February 20, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Actually jokeson, those are not difficulties at all with MY PROPOSAL. None of those things would work from a kids standpoint because the ISP would have a universal block on the normal content filtered by the software mentioned by USinUK. That is exactly my point. By doing it at the ISP level, kids won’t be able to do an end-run around painfully ignorant parents by using these tools because the content just won’t make it to the house.

Yes as AGFNPR said, there will be content that slips through occasionally. Obviously there would have to be language in the bill to proct ISP’s from lawsuits or whatever as long as they make a good faith effort to correct problems as they arise.

USinUK, the reason schools are able to do such a good job at filtering is because they ARE THE ISP. They put universal blocks on inappropriate content and it works great. That’s the whole point. IT IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY to protect kids from this content assuming you have the internet in your home.

This would be a lot easier if you would just admit you were wrong USinUK.

By chuck

February 20, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

AGFNPR, thank you for the reminder.

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

Sounds like a done debate. One side pushes individual responsibility based on integrity and the other pushes a nanny state based on laziness.

I would rather live and raise my kids in the real world and teach them how to avoid the pitfalls/nastiness than have a veil pulled over their eyes for 18 years just to be let loose having no clue. Which is more risky is not even debatable.

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Actually jokeson, those are not difficulties at all with MY PROPOSAL. None of those things would work from a kids standpoint because the ISP would have a universal block on the normal content filtered by the software mentioned by USinUK. That is exactly my point. By doing it at the ISP level, kids won�t be able to do an end-run around painfully ignorant parents by using these tools because the content just won�t make it to the house.

Not accurate at all. Site names are converted from DNS servers/tables that are hacked all the time. Plus, there are roaming (DNS# changes) mirror sites and the other aspects that I mentioned already.

Read up on them fist: The Domain Name System (DNS) associates various sorts of information with so-called domain names; most importantly, it serves as the “phone book” for the Internet by translating human-readable computer hostnames, e.g. www.example.com, into the IP addresses, e.g. 208.77.188.166, that networking equipment needs to deliver information. It also stores other information such as the list of mail exchange servers that accept email for a given domain. In providing a worldwide keyword-based redirection service, the Domain Name System is an essential component of contemporary Internet use.

By Copyleft

February 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

quote from The Amazing Chuck: I can guarantee that IN SPITE of what the Supremes have said, the founders had NO INTENTION of protecting PORNOGRAPHY.

Must be nice to have a personal psychic connection to the ghosts of the founding fathers. The rest of us have to rely on things like law and precedent and community standards to settle these matters, when we SHOULD just be consulting the All-Knowing Chuck!

No, Chuck, the Founders weren’t specifically trying to protect pornography. They were specifically trying to protect haikus or abstract expressionism, either. They were trying to RESTRICT what government is allowed to meddle in. And if that means people will write, say, and display upsetting things, so be it. Freedom is well worth the price, except to prissy little theocratic terrorists like you.

You want a society where religion overrides your freedoms? There are plenty of Al-Qaeda-friendly areas around the globe to choose from. You’ll fit right in.

By Copyleft

February 20, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

quote from The Amazing Chuck: I can guarantee that IN SPITE of what the Supremes have said, the founders had NO INTENTION of protecting PORNOGRAPHY.

No, Chuck, the Founders weren’t specifically trying to protect pornography. They weren’t specifically trying to protect haikus or abstract expressionism, either. They were trying to RESTRICT what government is allowed to meddle in. And if that means people will write, say, and display upsetting things, so be it. Freedom is well worth the price, except to prissy little theocratic terrorists like you.

You want a society where religion overrides your freedoms? There are plenty of Al-Qaeda-friendly areas around the globe to choose from. You’ll fit right in.

By USinUK

February 20, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

AGFNPR -

Chuck - your response is well thought out, but tone down the anger some! I really believe the USinUK is trying to defend free speech moreso than she is trying to personally attack you. While I admire her convictions, I don�t agree with her position that the filter would block free speech rights. You are right on this issue. Hey, even Archie said you won the debate. Be happy!

Actually, the free speech component is the Supreme Court decision, not mine - I’m just citing it as the reason Chuck’s solution won’t work. It’s unconstitutional. Full stop.

My argument is that the solutions are out there - even Chuck’s solution of the ISP-level filtering. If parents want ISP filtering, it’s out there for them to use. Just don’t subject me to it.

As far as Chuck’s personal attacks - well, that’s the way he is. He is incapable of carrying on a civil debate without resorting to “school-yard” name-calling and insults. I just ignore it as it says more about him than it does about me.

By AGFNPR

February 20, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

USinUK we now have to actually do the work for them and make it an opt-out rather than an opt-in.

I clearly stated I wanted it to be OPT-IN, NOT OPT-OUT. See my above post. The opt-in part defeats your entire argument. It makes parents responsible for their children’s internet activities without limiting their free speech rights.

um. If things are going to �slip through� that pretty much negates the entire reason for their filtering, now doesn�t it. Nothing is perfect - see my response to Scalia.

USinUK, I have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this issue. I really believe that you really are concerned first and foremost for free speech rights. But if you have a problem with an opt-in service, I will begin to question that premise.

Jokes-On *A) Have profiles set up for each user in the house that has filters in place that would be appropriate?

B) Check your history every other day to see what you kids are doing?*

I tried “A” but I was not happy with the internet filter I purchased. My computer was a little bit older and slow, so I had to remove the software. I now use the “B” alternative. However I only check it once per week.

You are not suggesting that everyone pays, either through taxes or ISP subscription, for your laziness are you? I am not suggesting that anyone pay for my services. If you OPT-IN for the service, you pay for it.

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 20, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

It’s the District Court ruling overturning Pennsylvania’s version of COPA - one which required that blocking be done at the ISP level.

It’s a bit of a read, but it clearly explains the overwhelming technical issues that make such filtering basically impossible. It also touches on those pesky Constitutional issues that Chuck seems to feel are not a problem when blocking is done at the ISP level.

By USinUK

February 20, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

AGFNPR -

sorry - I misunderstood you, then - I thought you were suggesting Opt-OUT. If you’re saying that it should be like a V-Chip, and there if parents want it, then I have less of a problem with it. As I mentioned, a number of companies like AOL have offered free parental controls for 10 years, now. Additionally, broadband providers like Comcast do, as well (as did the provider we had in CT, but I can’t remember the name).

Like I’ve said before - The solutions already ARE out there. Parents just aren’t using them.

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 20, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

An observation on my earlier post - this ruling addressed only illegal material on the internet, and it was still declared unconstitutional. Can you imagine how exponentially magnified potential problems are when one includes legal material?

Oh, and AGFNPR, I just checked my Comcast security center. They offer the McAfee Internet Suite for free to all users which includes - you guessed it - fully featured parental control features.

Sounds like an opt-in plan to me…

By chuck

February 20, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

At this point people are just deciding to disagree with you Chuck for no real reason.

Archie Thanks for your vote of confidence, but I have to disagree with one little part of your statement. It isn’t for no real reason. It is because it is ME that they are disagreeing. Had my proposal been made by Mara or NetB they would be falling all over themselves to agree.

It is one of my bitter disagreements with MOST people on the left. They are so full of hate toward conservatives that they are blinded to anything that comes from the right. The democrats have become the party of hate. It isn’t quite as obvious here, but when you go to real political blogs you would not believe the vile and disgusting things they say about President Bush and pretty much ALL Conservatives. This isn’t just a democrat thing. The Republicans often answer in kind. I have been the target of many such attacks myself, as you know. While I occasionally throw out a stupid or a dufus, I have never wished anyone a horrible lingering death, or that anyone’s son end up gay and dying of aids or any of the other things that have been said to me.

As much as I can, I try to listen to what the other side says and have occasionally agreed with some of their ideas. You are usually courteous, even in disagreement and I appreciate that.

The really bad news is that this climate of hate shuts us off from real debate and REAL solutions. You need look no further than the 2 democrat candidates this week. Obama has not proposed one substantive solution to ANY problem or made any real presentation of ideas as to how he would solve any of our nation’s problems. He knows that if he expresses any of his real ideology that the only voters he will be able to count on in Novemeber are those on the far left of the spectrum because that is where he falls politically. Hilary is so devoid of ideas that the only way she knows to win an election is to attack her opponent. That is real difficult to do when your opponent hasn’t said anything, so she accuses him instead of plagiarism. The funny thing is that she has been stealing his ideas since the beginning of the campaign season.

As little as I care for some of McCain’s ideas, at least he is pro-life. If we can get him to come around on illegal immigration I may be able to support him in November, thogh I am still hoping for a brokered convention and a compromise candidate like John Kasich or Fred Thompson. The one thing that you CAN say about McCain is that he is running on REAL IDEAS and is proposing solutions not just Rhetoric.

I wonder what the Bush haters are going to do when he is out of office.

By kimberly

February 20, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Chuck, either you are telling an outright lie, or you’re basing your statements on blind faith in what someone else said. Those of us who have listened to the Democratic candidates don’t believe that they are “completely devoid of ideas,” so which is it? (a) You heard the ideas and say there were none, or (b) You never bothered to listen?

By the way, as a “depraved little miscreant” (if you’re not a liar, then that’s what I must be), I take issue with you claiming the high road whilst pointing the fat finger of judgement at others and calling it “hate.” You hate people who are for personal freedoms that don’t affect others, while applauding those who send our soldiers around the world to die for your “values” and kill innocent people (collateral damage?) who never attacked us.

Just like a good Preacher Man, Chuck, YOUR feelings inspire likewise in others. God knows you’ve inspired me.

By KettleBlack

February 20, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

you would not believe the vile and disgusting things they say about President Bush and pretty much ALL Conservatives

The Republican haters have taught us well. Or did you miss all that Rush Limbaugh stuff in the 1990s?

By Q_Q

February 20, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Did Chuck just say all that with a straight face?

Quick - check the news…I think someone just got struck by a big bolt o’ lightning!

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

AGFNPR,

I am not suggesting that anyone pay for my services. If you OPT-IN for the service, you pay for it.

I did not mean to address you regarding this. I understand you position, but there are already ISPs out there that do this as pointed out by others.

By The Scorecard

February 20, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

Conservatives hate: Hispanics, Muslims, Gays, the French, Atheists, Agnostics, John McCain, women who aren’t Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Ayn Rand or Condoleeza Rice, nudists, non-Christians in general except for the jews but ONLY as long as the stay in Israel where they belong, and anyone who makes a living working in Hollywood or Entertainment except for Ted Nugent and Charleton Heston.

Democrats hate: Reublicans.

By Scalia

February 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I have been on this blog for a couple of years now. I guarantee that it is not just the conservatives they hate, but some of the bloggers hate you. Even if you present an honest argument, they won’t listen because of the other stuff that you have said in the past.

For example, how many times have you gotten ridiculed for the dimensions of Noah’s Ark and that it was big enough to carry every species of animal?

By Joker

February 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

how many times have you gotten ridiculed for the dimensions of Noah�s Ark and that it was big enough to carry every species of animal

But that has to be true, I read it on the internet on the site he posted way back then.

By Jack

February 20, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

Son of a Preacher Man. Good song. Dusty Springfield?

By Joker

February 20, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

Jack’s just too suave for the blog. Dusty Springfield it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SonofaPreacherMan

By Monica

February 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

The Momania blog today is somewhat to the topic here. Check it out if you have time.

By USinUK

February 20, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

So … do we get hats and balloons at this pity party???

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/21.html]cheap tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/21.html]tramadol hcl[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/21.html]tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/21.html]cheap tramadol[/URL]

By Archie

February 20, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

I still don’t understand what the problem is with Chuck. I mean if such family-friendly ISP’s are available then what’s the debate for? Heck, it took a good day before anyone mentioned specific family-friendly ISP’s. I didn’t know about these family-friendly ISP’s and if I did it still doesn’t make Chuck wrong it just means he doesn’t know everything. Really, Chuck won this debate and we should move on to something else. AGFNPR, Chuck plainly stated that some parents just don’t know much about the internet or computers and some folk like me just don’t want it to come into my home so how can free speech be curtailed. Heck, the porn people are free to speak to anyone,anytime, except me. Heck, I might decide I want to see something and I will go get it but I easily understand what Chuck’s saying.

I don’t agree with his bashing of Obama or Hillary and I think McCain simply means status quo. Chuck is right about some liberals in that they have book knowledge but no common sense and I am thinking about someone not on the blog right now and will post examples later.

By NetBanker

February 20, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

most parents DON�T WANT TO KNOW what their kids are doing on the internet, because then they would have to deal with it. My proposal would alleviate these problems and make it almost weasel proof. Chuck…I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t prod industry to help the parents out and I know more than a few adults with children who are less computer literate than their 5 y.o. who could use the help. What does scare the bejesus out of me is the sentiment you express above that they don’t want to know…and I think you’re very on target. It’s not just about computers, but also about far too many topics including alcohol/drug use and sex.

I think that Chuck’s proposal of an opt in/out setting is very workable. Being in the software business the very discussion of how to design and implement access controls occurs every day. When a function is available to all, but can be restricted the general rule of thumb is that the default setting will be the one that enables the greatest access to functions/content and people are required to opt out. This is a pretty standard approach when it comes to introducing a setting that restricts access to a function/data that the end-user currently has available. This approach results in the least amount of impact to the user base and those administering the user base. Another thing my company specifically does when adding a new setting is to monitor the numbers of customers/users with each selection. If we find that the majority are opting out, then we adjust the default to be off in the next release.

Using my own experiences (and throwing in some opinion here) my suggestion would be to have the ISP’s offer the function to restrict porn access as something you must opt in to receive since people already have access today. There are also a couple of underlying marketing/business reasons why this is the preferred approach. First of all the impression of the business that pushes out an anti-porn campaign to parents is better than the advertising campaign to ‘contact us to turn on porn that you had access to, but we’ve taken away.’ Parents who opt in will have a greater sense of well-being from doing something proactively to protect their children rather than the passive approach Chuck suggested. This approach also provides a potential touch-point to offer additional education to the parents as well as sell additional control services such as IP address monitoring that the child can’t delete from their PC. For most people use of porn is personal so many people will be reluctant to contact the ISP to turn on porn access nor would they want that setting monitored. From a business perspective an ISP that takes the opt in to access porn approach will likley lose business to one who takes the opt in to restrict access. Since it costs more to attract new clients than to retain existing ones, the opt in to see porn approach will likely have a negative ROI which no business leader in their right mind will accept.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

buy tramadol

By Mara

February 20, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

I thought I heard my name being taken in vain :^)

chuck wrote Had my proposal been made by Mara or NetB they would be falling all over themselves to agree.

I have to disagree. Regardless of who suggested it, this proposal would still have been panned. The dissenters might have been more polite to Net or I, but the criticisms wouldn’t have changed. If you had seen the sense in having it be an opt-IN service, which 90% of the forum agree with, then you may have gotten more support. Instead of having someone choose to be censored, you sponsored the idea that one should have to choose not to be. In a free society, which we ostensibly are, unfettered access is the default and censorship the option.

By USinUK

February 20, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

Archie -

I mean if such family-friendly ISP�s are available then what�s the debate for? Heck, it took a good day before anyone mentioned specific family-friendly ISP�s.

Not to get into an argument with you, but all this was brought up and addressed yesterday, when the subject was raised:

By USinUK * *February 19, 2008 11:01 AM *Chuck - *you keep bringing up problems and ills - all I was asking was what do you want to do about it?? as you said, there is already the V-Chip - it�s the job of the parents to activate/use it. there are also �family friendly� ISPs you can subscribe to and HUNDREDS of filter software you can put on your home computer that would filter out �the nekkid�. there is also the concept of keeping the computer in the living room or kitchen so that you can see where your kids are surfing and who they�re talking to.

none of this is new - all of these solutions are around 10 years old. the key is parents. they have the tools at their disposal - they need to use them.

There are family-friendly ISPs, ISPs that offer parental controls, broadband carriers that offer parental controls and tons and tons of filtering software.

And, evidently, that still isn’t enough. Why?? Because parents aren’t using them. Well, there comes a time when you gotta say TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!! Keep the computer in the kitchen or living room and know what the safety issues are and how to address them.

Because, frankly, it’s not the ISPs’ job to be a parent to your kids - the tools are out there, it’s the parents job to use them.

By Monica

February 20, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

Opt OUT! No, Opt IN! OUT! IN! OUT!!! IN!!!!

I feel like I’m watching an old John McEnroe match.:)

By Beavis

February 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Heh heh. Heh heh heh. She said “OUT! IN! OUT!!! IN!!!!” Heh heh heh…

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Archie,

it still doesn�t make Chuck wrong it just means he doesn�t know everything.

I am under the impression that he is saying that all ISPs do this, correct me if I am wrong and I will retract my argument.

If mindspring were to implement this, and only 5 subscribers opt in for the added protection, who is gonna pay for it? Just too much big-brother and bureaucracy to be realistic.

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

And, evidently, that still isn�t enough. Why?? Because parents aren�t using them. Well, there comes a time when you gotta say TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!! Keep the computer in the kitchen or living room and know what the safety issues are and how to address them.

And how many kids have limewire and such on their machine? You ever see what can be downloaded using these peer-to-peer apps? There is no blocking those and they have actual harmful material.

By Jack

February 20, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

Opt in & out is bass ackwards. One should be able to opt in to get what they want but should not have to opt out to prevent unwanted solicitations, ETC.

BTW British humor rocks. Vicar of Dibley, Are you being served, Keeping up Appearances. (poor Richard)

By Mara

February 20, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

Chuck, regarding your “Democrats are the party of HATE” allegation �.

Yyou might want to take a look at the booklist from any conservative-leaning publisher. From Ann Coulters “Slander” to David Limbaugh’s “Persecution” to Sean Hannity’s “Deliver Us from Evil”…conservatives have no problem ascribing the very worst of evils to the generic “liberal”.

Now look on the lefty imprints. What do we see? �Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them� by Al Fraken, �Stupid White Men� from Michael Moore, and Bill Maher�s �When You Ride Alone, You�re Riding With Bin Laden�. (Then there�re the tell-alls from the ex-Bushies like Richard Clarke and Paul O�Neill which shouldn�t be blamed on us lefties at all�)

Which side seems angrier and more hate-filled?

Do many of my liberal friends think Bush is a dangerous idiot who should be impeached and tried for war crimes? Yes. Do they think he’s a traitor who wants to destroy America? No, (though some say his actions might end up doing just that). Most of us think that he believes the ends justify the means and that preserving American lives really is his job (as opposed to preserving the Constitution, which is what he actually swore to do). We don�t believe he�s evil, per se, but we do think he�s weak, stubborn, autocratic, and incompetent.

Is this what you mean by �hate�?

That being said, I personally know many, many conservatives who whole-heartedly believe that “liberals” hate America and want to destroy it along with everything that makes it so extrordinary. (Not me of course, they don�t think that about me. Just those other liberals, like Obama, and Clinton, and “the trial lawyers”, and the hippies…LOL!)

I have personally been told that the political views I hold are traitorous, anti-American, anti-freedom, pro-communist, and that any type of dissent during a war is seditious and dangerous. I’ve been informed that my religious beliefs are immaterial because I am in a minority, so I should just sit down and shut up. I have been called a “God hater” because I believe that public spaces should either embrace ALL religions or none. I have had my personal morals questioned for defending the rights of the immoral to be immoral. And I’ve been named a “baby killer” because I support the right of a woman to consider herself and her needs before those ascribed to a fertilized egg, a zygote cluster, or a developing fetus. I, and liberals in general, have been accused of supporting pedophelia and racism because we believe everyone should be able to express their views regardless of our disagreement with those views. I�ve been told the I and my ilk embody the very essence of degeneracy, immorality, vulgarity, and depravity and that we had nothing of worth to offer to anyone. That the world would be a better place if every liberal in America were to suddenly drop dead.

How�s that for �hate�?

By AGFNPR

February 20, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

Alright everbody - it has been a little testy today on the blog, so I thought I would switch gears and make fun of all of us. I know it isn’t joke friday yet, but a little laughter is good for the soul.

Now before anyone gets offended, please know that I meet most of the following criteria. I am making as much fun of myself as I am anyone else.

HOW TO TELL IF YOU ARE A GEEK

When Mara posted about the Vorlons and Shadows, if you knew who they were without using google, you might be a geek.

If you have caught any of the numerous references on this blog to the “Princess Bride”, you might be a geek.

If you know that f(x) is read as “a function of x”, then you might be a geek.

If you have ever been involved in any of the numerous math or science discussions on this blog, you might be a geek. Worse yet, if you knew what you were talking about at least some of the time, then you probably have (in the past of course) owned a pocket protector and at least one pair of glasses you repaired with tape.

If you knew that Schr�dinger may, or may not have had a live cat in a box, then you probably got beat up when you were in school.

Finally, if you have ever been on this blog on a day off, then you definitely ARE a geek.

Have a great day everybody!

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 20, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/21.html]buy tramadol online[/URL]

By Jack

February 20, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Hey Mara:) Those hater’s need some special stew. Their outlook would change suddenly and drastically.

By Joker

February 20, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

If you know that f(x) is read as �a function of x�, then you might be a geek

I resent that, man, that is just basic math. (j/k)

By Monica

February 20, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Joker, I know what f(x) is, and I too, consider it basic math. I do, however, know every line from The Princess Bride… my all time favorite movie…

By NetBanker

February 20, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

OUT! IN! OUT!!! IN!!!! Also known as the Idiots’ Instructions for Intercourse.

One should be able to opt in to get what they want but should not have to opt out to prevent unwanted solicitations, ETC I disagree, Jack, for the reasons I listed above about adding restrictions to open access which force people to have to take action to recover access they previously had as well as other arguments about free speach. For a concrete example…we must opt in to the Federal ‘no call list’ in order to avoid unwanted telephone solicitations. That sets something of a precedent.

Mara…well said!! I’m tired of being told I hate America and God for speaking in favor of the upholding the constitution even if the content of someone’s message offends my sensibilities. If the worst thing in the world that happens from free speech is being offended then we’re fortunate beyond the dreams of many in this world. Just look at the intimidation in the name of free speech in Pakistan that resulted in keeping many women from going to the polls.

By Archie

February 20, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Chuck said porn access should be handled at the ISP level then USinUk basically says there are family-friendly ISP’s availabe and very good filtering software. Well I don’t see an argument. USinUk answered Chuck’s concerns!! Maybe Chuck didn’t know who the family-friendly ISP’s were!!! Basically what Chuck wants to happen is already happening!!! So there is no need to argue with him or me. I know people that are just not computer literate.

For instance, ISP�s have the ability to filter out porn sites. The government should force the issue on this and require them to filter porn sites and make them available only by request of the ADULT paying for the internet service. If they had such a system in place, that would certainly help. USinUk answered Chuck’s concerns about “such a system in place”. Netbanker said “I think that Chuck�s proposal of an opt in/out setting is very workable.” If I checked my ISP there are probably settings that I could implement and I may go home and check on it tonight. Some of us don’t know everything so keep that in mind and it’s okay to admit you don’t know everything either. I don’t understand where the arguing came from. It’s okay to lose a debate because none of us is perfect. I challenge the liberals here to get on Chuck about his liberal-bashing and I challenge the liberals or democrats to get on other democrats that say they’re voting for McCain for some nonsensical reason.

By chuck

February 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

Mara, I hate to disagree with you but there were over 1.9 million hits on google when I typed in “I Hate Bush”. I just included the first few. Also, I mentioned the fact that democrats had not cornered the market on hate, and the republicans were almost as bad at times.

www.whywehatebush.com

Flickr: I Hate Bush Fan Club

www.amazon.com/Hate-George-Bush-Reader-Absolutely/dp/1560255897

Love America, Hate BushRational commentary about the worst thing to happen to America since Vietnam. stevecopy.blogharbor.com/

Photo Essay: Why I hate Bush but love Americans | Press EscHere in Sweden, the debate rages on about whether it is possible to hate President Bush while loving America given that 50.7 per cent of Americans … pressesc.com/01184484114loveamericanshatebush

I Hate Bush Fan Club | Google GroupsI Hate Bush Fan Club � Home � Discussions � Pages � Files � About this group � Apply for group membership. Group info. Members: 252. Activity: Low activity … groups.google.com/group/IHBFC

By Mara

February 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack! I agree. everybody feels better after a nice steamy bowl of stew ;^)

Monica, I love that movie too! I’d list it as one of the top 100 movies EVER.

And I’ve been haunted by Schrodinger’s zombie cat since I was a wee tot so surprise, surprise, surprise!…I am a geek! LOL!! Who’d a thunk it? Me…a g-meister…LOL!!

By Joker

February 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

Monica - I think you out-geeked me, since I know nothing about The Princess Bride.

But I drove an hour for my very-early Elementary Functions course, arrived late nearly always, but based on our quiz system, had an A two weeks before the class ended. The rest of the class could not believe someone who arrived late and looked so, shall we say, unruly, had them all beat.

By chuck

February 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

Archie, my ISP doesn’t have any of those filtering capabilities. The parental controls are a joke. I asked my son to purposely get around them and it took all of 5 minutes for him to figure it out. That is going to be true of whatever software solution you find out there. Then you also have to look at cost, quality and speed of connection etc. I think both AGFNPR and NetB offered a measured solution of opting in for filtering, but the problem is that way too many parents will feel like they don’t know what they are doing and will just leave it alone. Their kids are the ones who are going to become addicted to porn and be a long-term problem to society. I just don’t think that will solve the problem for computer illiterate adults.

Mara, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that I have ever said anything to you that would rise to that level. I did call Kim the name she referenced above, but I think that is about as heated as I have ever gotten in many years posting here. I will say this, while I almost always disagree with you, I have to say that you don’t usually come on here ranting and raving. You usually have well thought out (though mostly wrong) ideas and you express them well and without too much vitriole. I enjoy arguing with you.

By AGFNPR

February 20, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

*If you know that f(x) is read as �a function of x�, then you might be a geek

I resent that, man, that is just basic math. (j/k)*

Jokes-On, Monica, I stand corrected. How about we change that to the following: If you know that f(x) = 36x^2 then f’(x) = 72x. If you knew that already, then chances are you probably never stepped on a football field unless you were holding a trombone!

Hey, wait a minute. Why does that 72x sound familiar? Could it be our long lost friend 72John? That guy is a literary AND math wiz.

I would also like to add one more to my list. If you ever make up a list of why people might be geeks, then you certainly are one yourself!

Be safe today and keep on the lookout for any ROUS! That one’s for you Monica!

By JokesOn

February 20, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Jokes-On, Monica, I stand corrected. How about we change that to the following: If you know that f(x) = 36x^2 then f�(x) = 72x. If you knew that already, then chances are you probably never stepped on a football field unless you were holding a trombone!

FYI - JokesOn (me) and Joker are two different posters;)

By chuck

February 20, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Joker is Dog I assume.

By Monica

February 20, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Rodents of unusual size? I don’t think they exist. :)

By lozen

February 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Haven’t had time this week to participate but I’ve read enough to be thinking - isn’t it odd? TOJ disappears and Chuck is baaaacccck! I’m sticking with my idea that TOJ is Chuck who got tired of carrying around the xtian veneer. Plus TOJ claimed not to be religious but he defended xtianity just like Chuck. And the following statement could well be describing TOJ.

As far as Chuck�s personal attacks - well, that�s the way he is. He is incapable of carrying on a civil debate without resorting to �school-yard� name-calling and insults. I just ignore it as it says more about him than it does about me.

By chuck

February 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

See ya’ll tomorrow.

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 20, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Mara, I hate to disagree with you but there were over 1.9 million hits on google when I typed in �I Hate Bush�. I just included the first few. Also, I mentioned the fact that democrats had not cornered the market on hate, and the republicans were almost as bad at times.

This is a meaningless statistic, and Chuck should know better.

For one thing, there is no point of comparison. What ratio of DemoHate to RepubHate does a single number represent? There’s no way to know without a second number.

For another, let’s be honest about the phrase “I hate Bush”. Given his abysmally low approval ratings, it’s hardly fair to assume that all “I hate Bush” hits come from Democrats. There are bound to be Independents and Republicans in the mix as well. Add in the inability of Google to discern content, and you have to assume that there are some Conservative/Republican forums included where people are complaining that some people “hate bush”.

Let’s look at the Google numbers:

I Hate Bush: 3,290,000 Hits I Hate Clinton: 3,010,000 Hits

Now…that’s pretty close, isn’t it.

I Hate Conservatives: 570,000 hits I Hate Liberals: 796,000 hits

hmmm….

And just for fun…

I Hate Christians: 2,410,000 I Hate Gays: 2,500,000

Mara made the correct point, earlier. Chuck claims that Democrats are now the party of hate, but it’s the word “liberal” that his been turned into a slur. Conservatives haven’t been called un-American, or had their loyalty called into question. No one says that conservatives want to turn over the country to the terrorists, or that conservatives sympathize with murderers and child molestors.

I don’t see liberals using hatred and fear of minority groups to whip up their voting base into a turnout frenzy, but I seem to remember conservatives reveling in it.

So please, spare me the “almost as bad sometimes” nonsense. There is, indeed, far to much incivility in today’s political environment, and we do, indeed, need to get rid of it. But don’t pretend that you and yours are some innocent victim being ganged up on by the mean ole Democrat bullies.

By Monica

February 20, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Get some rest. If you haven’t got your health, you haven’t got anything. :)

By Mara

February 20, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

chuck, Thank you for seeing that I try to step back and criticize the particular opinion as opposed to you as a person. We don’t agree but I do try to be civil about it. Though you probably never expressed the sentiments that I outlined the way I did, there have certainly been discussions where the rhetoric has gotten…impassioned. But I wasn’t talking about you, specifically. These were things that I’ve had said to me, that my friends have heard, that have been expressed by mainstream conservative voices. Which leads me to my point, which was that Republicans seem much, much meaner, far angrier and far less focused than Democrats. They hate ALL “liberals”, while we only “hate Bush” (though really, we just hate his policies not he, himself.)

That said…I hope you looked at the descriptions for those sites you referenced. The first one, whywehatebush.com is described as a satire site dedicated to mocking the president. That isn’t hate.

The “Photo Essay: Why I hate Bush but love Americans | Press Esc” goes to an article written by a SWEDISH person. The author doesn’t really even seem to hate Bush personally though he has a big issue with policy. Is that “hate”? And what does it have to do with the Democrats, the “party of hate”?

Even the “I Hate Bush Fan Club” seems to be more like a prissy clique of highschoolers than an actual “hate” site. I could be wrong because I didn’t feel like opening an account to get in, but I did look at some of the 1700 photos and there wasn’t a pitchfork nor torch to be seen.

I certainly know people who hope there’s a special place in Hell reserved for George Dubya, but those are the minority. Most of the people I know, and admittedly it’s a small sample, most of the folks I know hate his policies, hate what he’s done to weaken civil protections, hate the war, hate how we got into the war, etc. The “hate” they feel is for the actions of these people, not the people themselves. Rumor has it that Bush is a pretty likable guy. That he’s got a great sense of humor and a playful personality. I wouldn’t mind going to a barbeque with him, but I honestly, from the bottom of my heart, believe that he has not done right by America. And that in the end, he will go down in history as the Worst. President. Ever.

That’s not “hate”.

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 20, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

If you know that f(x) = 36x^2 then f�(x) = 72x.

DOES it? :-)

By Archie

February 20, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Lozen, Chuck was civil most of the time. He took his shots at liberals and democrats, so what. I think Chuck is a grown man who is conservative. I have a friend that says the exact same things and he is homophobic and he considers himself a good conservative but TOJ is something else. TOJ is different and it was so easy for me to relate to what Chuck described because I have a relative that doesn’t want to research computer technology they just want it to work when they need it.

By Facts

February 20, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

And that in the end, he will go down in history as the Worst. President. Ever.

How can it be Hate when it is mere Facts.

By Jack

February 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

Oh…trombone. I remember a crass post about that. LOL

By Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive...and Dodge

February 20, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

Chuck - would you care to address this post of Mara’s, and explain to us, again, how Democrats are the ones doing the hating?

I have personally been told that the political views I hold are traitorous, anti-American, anti-freedom, pro-communist, and that any type of dissent during a war is seditious and dangerous. I�ve been informed that my religious beliefs are immaterial because I am in a minority, so I should just sit down and shut up. I have been called a �God hater� because I believe that public spaces should either embrace ALL religions or none. I have had my personal morals questioned for defending the rights of the immoral to be immoral. And I�ve been named a �baby killer� because I support the right of a woman to consider herself and her needs before those ascribed to a fertilized egg, a zygote cluster, or a developing fetus. I, and liberals in general, have been accused of supporting pedophelia and racism because we believe everyone should be able to express their views regardless of our disagreement with those views. I�ve been told the I and my ilk embody the very essence of degeneracy, immorality, vulgarity, and depravity and that we had nothing of worth to offer to anyone. That the world would be a better place if every liberal in America were to suddenly drop dead.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 4:08 AM | Link to this

tramadol

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 4:09 AM | Link to this

tramadol

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 4:09 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/3.html]tramadol ultram[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 4:09 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/3.html]tramadol online[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 4:10 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 4:20 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 4:21 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 5:25 AM | Link to this

By USinUK

February 21, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Jack -

BTW British humor rocks. Vicar of Dibley, Are you being served, Keeping up Appearances. (poor Richard)

If you’ve never seen “Waiting for God” or “As Time Goes By”, you’re missing some great ones!! We got my sister hooked on “The Darling Buds of May” - it’s kinda like the Waltons, if the Waltons had liked cocktails and Pa Walton liked to flirt. VERY funny.

Did you know that some of the 1970s American TV classics were based on Brit-Coms?? All in the Family was based on “Love Thy Neighbor”, Sanford and Son was based on “Steptoe and Son”, and *Three’s Company” was based on “Man About the House”.

What completely shocked me was that my favorite show when I was a kid - The Muppet Show - was originally rejected by American networks, so Jim Henson pitched it to the BBC, who produced it. THEN it was picked up by American TV.

This has been another exciting episode of “Useless Information”!! Tune in next week for the etymology of the expression “point blank” and a brief history of how the Germans tried to use dogs to attack tanks during WWII.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/4.html]buy tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/4.html]tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/4.html]tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/4.html]buy tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Krieghund.htm

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/4.html]tramadol hcl[/URL]

By Spoiler

February 21, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

If you cannot wait until next week for the exciting adventures of German dogs attacking tanks(and who could, anyway?), this article has a great picture of a Soviet dog ready to lay a bomb under a tank; apparently the Soviet dogs had difficulty differentiating German tanks from Soviet tanks, and the Soviets had orders to shoot ANY dog on the battlefield, in case their own tanks might get blown up by their own dogs:

By USinUK

February 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Spoiler -

you got it in one - (and, you’re right - it was soviet dogs and german tanks, not the other way around) -

The Soviets used to put the dog’s food underneath the tanks in an effort to train the fear out of them. This way, they could strap bombs to the dogs who would then run under enemy tanks and blow them up.

What they didn’t count on was the dogs running under Soviet tanks (since that’s what they were trained on) rather than the enemy tanks.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

tramadol hcl

By Mara

February 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

remember last weeks discussion about the credit card industry?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23259179/page/2/

Credit Cardholders� Bill of Rights Act aims to end unfair practices By Herb Weisbaum

“Chances are the contract you have with your credit card company gives it the right to change the terms of the deal at any time and for any reason with just 15 days written notice. That includes increasing your interest rate.”

“Consumer groups have long argued that it�s blatantly unfair for credit card companies to boost the interest rate without clearly telling customers � in advance � what will trigger a rate hike.”

“The Credit Cardholders� Bill of Rights would prohibit credit card companies from arbitrarily changing their contract with a cardholder. �They�d need a specific reason to change my interest rate and that specific reason would need to be written into the contract when I get the card,� explains Ruth Susswein, deputy director of national priorities at Consumer Action.”

[snip]

You can have a perfect payment record with your credit card company and still see your interest rate skyrocket � as high as 32 percent in some cases � if your credit score drops for any reason. This could be caused by a layoff, big medical bills, or a late payment to another card.”

[snip]

“Congresswoman Maloney is to be commended for her bill. It�s sensible and fair. It reforms the major industry abuses without attacking the free market principles we hold so dear.”

“Even so, the nation�s bankers will try to kill the bill or eliminate many of the significant consumer protections.”

“We cannot let the lobbyists stop this much-needed reform. Tell your members of Congress that you want them to vote for the Credit Cardholders� Bill of Rights. Tell them right now! Use this congressional director [link listed below] to find contact information”

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/directory/search_results.tt?action=alphasearch&alpha=W&show=state

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

tramadol online

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

tramadol online

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/5.html]tramadol hcl[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/5.html]buy tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/5.html]tramadol hcl[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/5.html]order tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/5.html]order tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

order tramadol

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/5.html]tramadol[/URL]

By Monica

February 21, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

Man, I have had more back pain the last few weeks. I can’t get rid of it. The aches, the spasms… Does anyone know where I might find some Tramadol?

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

By AGFNPR

February 21, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Monica,

You keep using that word Tramadol. I do not think it means what you think it means:-)

Have a good day!

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

tramadol

By tiffanys

February 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

User friendly site with quality content.

By trump taj mahal

February 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

This is a beautiful site. I`ll send the link to my friends.

By tiffanys

February 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

Hi. Great website.

By tiffanys

February 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

Hi. Great website.

By trump taj mahal

February 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

excellent site.

By tiffanys

February 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the good info you site very cool.

By trump taj mahal

February 21, 2008 6:39 PM | Link to this

Keep up this great resource. best greetings.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 22, 2008 5:08 AM | Link to this

cheap tramadol

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 22, 2008 5:09 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/51.html]tramadol[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 22, 2008 5:10 AM | Link to this

tramadol hcl

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 22, 2008 5:10 AM | Link to this

buy tramadol

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 22, 2008 5:11 AM | Link to this

[URL=http://www.freewebtown.com/forjdie/51.html]tramadol hydrochloride[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 22, 2008 5:21 AM | Link to this

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 22, 2008 6:29 AM | Link to this