Erotic Ramblings

Censorship or Protection?

It is a known fact that there are many unscrupulous people around, who exploit and abuse minors whether it is online or anywhere. Many mis-use their position in society to target these minors and take advantage. The true depth of this outrage I think is still unknown, and if anyone has followed events, we all know that the Bush administration is on a crusade to protect these minors, well, so they say.

It is a fine line between censorship and protection. How such laws like the current 2257 protect minors is still open for debate but it is law. Prosecution so far hasn’t really yielded a whole lot of bad guys but has targetted normal folk who make a living from selling legitimate adult content. Today the US Congresss will let the mob loose just as has happened to some degree in the United Kingdom.

In prepared testimony to be delivered today to the subcommittee, the president of the center, Ernie Allen, credits Mr. Barton as the catalyst for the initiative. Under the program, the testimony says, the center will confirm the presence of illegal images on reported sites and provide the Web addresses and related information to the service providers. Those companies will then take down such sites if they are based on their systems or will block their subscribers’ access using filters. ( NY Times article )

While there is no doubt in my mind that such sites need to be shut down, my problem is in who are the one’s to make that decision? Should it be some nameless group and committee or should the legal system be the final deciding factor? We have seen the US Government go after sites that had Military personnel on it and shut them down, but the courts eventually altered much of that. Plea bargains were made but at least it was done under the supervision of a Judge. Should this matter, even more important, be handled by a pseudo group claiming that they have the best interests of the children at heart, be the deciding factor?

Frankly this smacks of censorship not because the goals are wrong, but how they plan to achieve it. To let some nameless group determine what is ‘objectionable images’ without confirmation or proof, is simply wrong. I know for myself there are some I have seen that I would think were under 18, and yet in seeing the identification find they are actually 21. So unless this group of self proclaimed advocates have a way to verify, how can they simply walk in a ruin a person’s life?

Make no mistake, that is exactly what will happen.

WIthout proper legal clarification or ruling, how can anyone say what is or what isn’t appropriate images. Does this mean that sites set up by parents to promote thier kids presence in the under 18 beauty contests will be shut down? If so, is that protecting the child or simply catering to the Religious Right?

If someone takes a vocal stand against this group or questions its morals, is it then not suddenly open to attack through vague and unverifiable slander? This is the danger when you turn this type of responsibility over to a private group and ignore the judicial system. Frankly I am surprised it hasn’t happened sooner but that doesn’t make it any less dangerous.

One has to wonder just how this group will verify if an image is inappropriate. Never mind what they consider inappropriate, but how will they insure that they are right? Will they contact the site and request ID’s for the models or will it be subjective? Will it be based on their assumptions or on fact? WIthout any judicial review where all parties can lay out their case and a proper authority rule? In short will these targetted sites have any input or not?

Ye of Little Faith

If you ever watch any old movies about Christ and the Romans, or about some of the really early movies about such matters of doing what is right, you will be familar with that phrase. In some circles it is also a battle cry to arouse many to rush to the aid of the Church or to some cause. Yet as Pope Intolerant (Pope Name Change) heads home to Germany, it is perhaps an interesting phrase I would use to him.

There is an article where he talks about being made an Archbishop and he talked about his first mass.

Upon that sudden first entry into upper Church leadership, Ratzinger later recalled the sunny summer day and marveled at the reaction from the people at his inaugural mass in Munich. “The encounter with so many people who were welcoming this unknown person with a heartfelt warmth and joy that could not possibly have had to do with me personally but that once again showed me what a sacrament was,” he wrote in Milestones. (full story)

Too bad he doesn’t remember that in a more practicle sense. Instead of chastising government leaders that do what is right, he should show them the love he was shown. Whether they are right or wrong, he shouldn’t create or add to racism and hatred as he does now. He might believe faith is one thing, but you know we all were given FREE WILL by his Boss, and part of having Free Will is the right to disagree, or to question.

The Church and most organized religions are in decline, and they wonder why? I mean look at the RC Church for a clear reason why so many people move on. To begin with, this Church is double faced. They talk about God’s words and plans, that are about inclusion, love, compassion, then they march right out and deny Gays any rights within their church. Worse they try to deny us civil rights yet at the same time rush to hide the pedophiles within their own cloisters. And they wonder why the faithful are leaving?

People have a need and frankly I don’t think the modern religions have kept up with the times. The Pope talks about spurious trends ( Pope Name Change ) and you have to wonder, do they even know what century they are living in? I was taught a long time ago, that to NOT question was as much a sin as it was to violate the Ten Commandments. So yes I question, but it is strange, how so many today blindly go along without even a whimper.

Free Will exists, but only if we choose to exercise it. Unfortunately too many like Osama and Pope Intolerance shout so loud, many forget that they do have a choice.

The New Terrorist

I suppose everyone has heard about all the new lingo being used by Bush in his quest to make a case for Terror and Iraq and why the United States needs to stay in place. It is interesting to see the war of words progress over the last few years. I mean to begin with we had Saadam as part of an Axis of Evil which then turned into a war on criminals, thugs, and such. It changed again to a war on Facism akin to that of WWII vintage and now is a war against Islamic Extremists.

Problem with all this double talk is that it tends to cloud the real issues. It is one thing to attack Terrorists like say Hezbollah or Hamas but another when the true aim is to attack Islam. Frankly I do not believe that those in Iraq are so evil and clueless, yet while some are attempting to play politics on the dead bodies of innocents, the truth seems to be that George Bush is on a crusade similar to that of the Middle Ages.

This isn’t really a war against Terrorists, because that would be a lot easier to contain and perhaps even win, and winning right now is not looking possible, never mind coming soon. Least not from this viewpoint. Insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to spill innocent blood while George Bush wrings his hands and attempts to make political capital out of the Republican platform given how the Democrats are appearing to be in disarray. The ‘cut and run’ party seems lost without any direction as they attempt to try and gain from a President and Party that are as inept as the Keystone Cops were in the early movies.

If this is a war on terror, why is the United States still an open invitation to attack from its very own borders? I mean remember WWII when the fear of attack, of sabotage forced the Americans and Canada to inter Japanese descent citizens? If we were so quick to deal then with possible attack from within, how come the USA-Mexican border is still wide open?

This supposed war on Terror began nearly five long years ago. Bombs go off in India, Airliners stop carry on luggage in possible threat, and all the time the main enemy to the Terrorists has a wide open border? GIVE ME A BREAK !

What this is, simply put, is a war on Religion by those who think they can control the world and its thoughts. Yes, the Religious Right who clearly control George Bush and his supporters like Stephen Harper. They enslave their own people as evident by the shrinking ability of the Middle Class to secure even health care for when they get sick. Even conservative figures estimate nearly 48 million USA citizens have no health insurance, neither private nor medicade. And this is a nation that calls itself a Super Power?

Look around at the assault going on within. Wire Tapping that has no judicial review process. Illegal seizure and detention of citizens without any Miranda benefits, let alone a lawyer. We aren’t talking about a few days either, but years. Foreign nationals are held in secret prisons devoid of any legal advice and this from a nation that struts around proclaiming itself to be the Greatest Democracy Ever. Something just doesn’t ring right.

Democracy is about protecting EVERY CITIZEN’s RIGHTS, not just a select group which is the case today. Bills are being rushed into Law without even debate of the issues. Just look at the recent US Senate Bill regarding Immigration. Or how about those who simply wish to have the same marital benefits that others have but who don’t necessarily buy into the same religious double talk? The Pope even rushes around chastising those nations that attempt to do what is right, while all the time taking pedophile priests and HIDING THEM. This is GOD’s Justice?

Seems to me not much is really different than it was in the Middle Ages. You have the religious groups protesting human rights, you have faked threats that demonize the Muslim nations, and you have Good Christians heading off into battle, while leaving their country’s in the hands of crooks and thieves. Sound Familiar?

The problem is too that we don’t see how this meddling by George Bush has pushed people to extremism. Poverty, as Jean Chretien pointed out, is a great motivator and in the hands of fanatics, is a dangerous tool to use against those who have, or have a different viewpoint. Problem for the Muslim nations is that while many moderates are willing to try peace, neither the Fanatics of their own religion or those in America are willing to let them have a chance. WIth Bush proclaiming his mission to bring Democracy to nations like Jordan and Saudia Arabia or Kuwait, he is forcing moderates to take sides. And perhaps that is his plan, well, maybe those of his Masters.

I really think that the new Terrorist threat is from within, but not as the catch phrase is, Home Grown Terrorists, but the resurgence of blind hpocritical Religious Zealots who have in power, their slaves. Look at how Bush panders to them, with his flag burning amendment, his anti gay marraige amendment, and on it goes. This is the real threat to Democracy. Look at how Bush handled Katrina.

Notice that Texas didn’t suffer from lack of aid, but poor black New Orleans sure did. Makes you think that the early comments of Racism might be actually right. Here we are a year later and they may have the Super Dome ready for NFL Football, but do they have a plan yet to evacuate if another Katrina comes? NO.  THey are even bull dozing houses without consent to clean up, but are those house belonging to middle class citizens or the poor minorities?

Don’t get me wrong, there are just as many religious zealots struting around in the Middle East, but I am wondering, would they have so much power over people if the so called free world had attacked the poverty these people face rather than invading Iraq under false pretenses? I mean it seems that since Bush invaded Iraq, we have a real threat of Nucleur confrontation but not with Saadam, but with religious fanatics in charge of Iran. How does that make us safer? 

Is that really any less distastful than Christian Zealots being in charge of the White House?

What Is Private?

There is a great deal of talk these days about privacy and what a person can or should expect when dealing online regarding their information. Brazil, for example, is upset with Google and its Orkut Site (see article)  for not agreeing to provide the Government with personal information on many of the members of Orkut. In fact, seems that nearly half of Brazil citizens have an Orkut profile, so its an interesting problem for both Brazilian authorities and Google I think.

It doesn’t have the cachet or name recognition of Myspace or Facebook, but in Brazil, Google’s relationship site Orkut boasts a coverage that its more celebrated rivals cannot match. Almost half of Brazil’s 32 million internet users have a profile on Orkut. Go to any cyber café in Rio de Janiero or Sao Paulo and wired youngsters will be leaving messages for friends, checking out potential dates and surfing through hundreds of thousands of communities, from the spiritual (”We love God”; 254,072 members), intellectual (”Addicted to books”; 46, 203 members) and physical (”I’ve got a big butt, what about it?”; 62,673 members). ( see full story )

If I sign up for some site, and give them my financial information, I expect them to take the necessary precautions to protect that information. I don’t want some felon getting ahold of it, nor would anyone else, so when it comes to a Government, should we expect any less from that company? I mean look at some of the provisions in the current Patriot Act II that is in effect. Information about any individual can be requested without any judicial process or with any notice being given to you, yet here is Google battling Brazil on a similar issue, in some respects. Makes me wonder why they aren’t opposing more strongly George Bush and his Patriot Act?

Though Google did try, the issue it seems hasn’t really sparked much media hype in the states, and I wonder why? Are those in the states so immune to the erosion of basic rights that it no longer matters, yet when they see it happening elsewhere it suddenly becomes an issue for them?

And you know, it is an interesting point on both sides. I mean, personally I don’t have a problem with the Canadian government getting my personal info from my  host or some online business, though frankly I would if I lived in the States. Certainly would if I lived in Brazil, so makes you think twice before dropping some personal info onto a site. I mean just how much intimidation should they take before they cave in? 

I suppose the answer lies in something very simple. If it is fine for my personal information to be kept private as a right, then it should be that way unless a court orders it otherwise. Seems to me that there has to be some protection from over zealous lawyers and governments. I mean look at the border patrol officers in the states? They could get 20 years in prison for doing their job, while the drug smuggler gets immunity? It doesn’t make much sense, but I wonder, will we as a people ever wake up?

I think Google is right to withhold the information, and that a Judge should be the one to make the order. I know that in a case up here the Supreme Court ruled no ISP could divulge information to the music industry, which really ticked them off. But that is as it should be, and unless those producers could prove wrong doing, then no access. The Justices were right, and that is how a government MUST BE HELD. To be accountable is nice phrase, but it is rare to see these days.

The argument that Google is sheltering pedophiles and criminals is just too much though. Funny how they always seem to bring up that chestnut. If you don’t do what you say, you are harbouring criminals or sick perverts, but in truth, by refusing to just hand the information over, Google is keeping to the notion, that a law applies to everyone, good or bad. After all, isn’t that what separates us from the Terrorists, Facists, and Communists?

Too bad Bush, Harper and their fellow klansmen don’t understand that yet. One Law, for Everyone… not the select few who paid enough in contributions.

End of an Era?

So it was rather stunning to see the breaking news that Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, had died in a freak accident. ( full story ) I mean even I watched his shows and found them not just entertaining, but informative. I know that in many ways he was obnoxious and over the top too, but that is what sort of made him special, least to me. So he was brash, it didn’t really matter because you could see his passion in every word, in every action that he took. It wasn’t like some politicians who speak the talk but rarely do the deed. This guy was real and what he said, you knew it came from within. It wasn’t an attempt at being politically correct either. It was his mission, one that he did very well in life, and one that I hope will continue even with his death.

There are some who are too ignorant to understand what real passion is. They are too narrow minded and only see him for being loud, brash, and pushy even. Many in Australia have even referred to him as being more American than Australian, but it was their mistake. Sure he spoke up, and maybe he did take himself too seriously at times, but when you truly believe in something so fully, that can happen. I don’t fault him for that, in fact I found it rather refreshing for a change. You have too many like Bush or Harper who fake their passion, but with Steve Irwin, you knew it was all real, all him.

It really is sad, that even with the death of someone like him, some find it necessary to belittle his passion, his life, but I think in time, history will show that he was a rare man. He was one who said what he believed in, and did what he loved doing. Unlike many, he was real, someone we can truly look on as being worthy of emulation. Something people like George Bush and Stephen Harper will not have, for Steve Irwin was someone you could respect and honor, even in disagreement.