Google is endeavoring to fight a government subpoena of its records. They are to be commended for their determination to resist yet more government fishing expeditions into the private lives of American citizens.
Nowadays whenever the government strives to intrude into everyday life, two reasons are cited: It's to fight terrorists, or it's to protect the children. In this instance, it's the latter, as the government is endeavoring to crack down on child porn. As always happens in these cases, if one defends a privacy right or a right of free expression, those in opposition try to paint you as immoral: "Don't you care about keeping America safe?" "Don't you care about protecting innocent children?" The answer of course is, Sure I do. I just don't believe that the government should be able to do any damned thing it wants in that pursuit, especially when it sets precedents for being more trampling on rights of the individual.
You know what's interesting? This administration automatically believes that desiring a right to privacy is tantamount to masking wrong-doing ("If you're having conversations with Al Quaeda, we want to know about it," said Bush in his loopy disconnected way of justifying his impeachable action of illegal wiretaps). This is also one of the most secretive administrations around. Do they assume wrong-doing on the parts of others who want their privacy...because they themselves are up to no good, and thus assume that anyone who wants to maintain their privacy likewise is?
In any event, kudos to google for taking a stand. Google has done nothing illegal. If one is throwing about subpoenas, one should at least have SOME shred of proof that the person being subpoenaed deserves it.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at January 20, 2006 08:03 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingYa gotta love the way the government works.
Much like the spying fiasco, they want to use the largest "fishing net" as a way to prove they're right, and everybody else is wrong.
In this case, they want Google's records to prove that pornography is bad. *chuckle* Bunch of maroons.
But then, this Administration has had it out for pornography, as well as Iraq, from Day One.
Very good point, Peter. It is interesting that the administration that considers the names of the people who helped write the energy policy for the entire nation to be None of Your Damn Business to insist that private citizens have no expectations of keeping their private activities private.
And then there were the statements by Bush saying that the government always obtains a warrant before spying on US citizens. Until of course, it was revealed that he didn't.
And of course, if God answers Pat's prayers and sends a few blood clots to smite Justices Ginsburg and Souter, then Bush will continue to on his mission to pack the court with people who believe that the rights of the almighty executive branch supercede that of the individual in all matters.
With Google, if the government had a list of names or userids that they had cause to believe were sharing kiddie porn over the internet, that would be reasonable for them to subpoena Google's records for those limited individuals. But for the government to say, "Hey, Google, we know you've got all that data just lying around your server, how about you let us go fishing through just for kicks?" is outrageous.
You can call it a case of derangement if it helps you sleep at night, but I take our constitutional rights very seriously.
Someone has to.
And yes, if Clinton were doing it, I would say the exact same thing, so screw you if you want to play the partisan game.
I really get the feeling that this is one of two things. Either most of the people in Washington don't really understand computers and the internet, or they're so concerned about returning America to the 1950's that they're clueless. I'm aware the two aren't mutually exclusive. Now trying to go through Google to crack down on child porn is kinda like going through Barnes and Noble to crack down on bad books. Personally, I think child pornographers should be drawn and quartered by their genitalia, but GO AFTER THEM!
Okay, my rant is over.
Well, we may very well learn the cost/impact of having two Bush appointees on the SCOTUS fairly soon. The law the administration is using to issue this subpoena was struck down as unconsitutional by the Supreme Court just 2 years ago. So, now that Bush has a new court to appeal to, it's clear he's willing to try again, even though the ink on the prior opinion probably is still drying.
When they came for the Google records of child pornographers, I said nothing, for I am not a child pornographer, and that's some nasty stuff.
When they came for the Google records of suspected terrorists, I said nothing, for I am not a terrorist.
When they came for the Google records of disturbed teenagers, I said nothing, for I did not want my kids' schools to get shot up.
When they came for my Google records, it didn't matter what I said, because by that time Google was the government's puppet.
I agree but with a comment. If I recall news reports correctly, Google isn't the high minded company in all aspects. Have they not helped the Chinese government censor Chinese citizen's web searches?
Google should either cooperate with all governments or none. I prefer the latter choice.
I believe unless they (the government) has reason there should be no crossing the line of my private life.
Just because someone is talking to Al Quaeda doesn't mean they want to join the cause or hurt the usa. And unless someone has a means of a plan you can't do nothing to them.
Just because they put this before as the most dangerous thing doesn't mean we should cave in. What if it was pot, and they wanted cameras in everyones house so no pot could be grown, or your front door needed to fit a master key so a daily check from drug sniffing dogs could come into your house.
There is a line, and bush CROSSED IT.
"'If you're having conversations with Al Quaeda, we want to know about it,' said Bush in his loopy disconnected way of justifying his impeachable action of illegal wiretaps.'"
Except, y'know, that, hey, it's not illegal. But, that's besides the point.
Ok. Here's what I think is a real issue: Who is leaking confidential information? And don't give me the spiel that the person should be awarded because The Bush Administration is doing evil things. Bullchips. Someone leaking information from NSA (CIA, FBI, or any other alphabetical bunch that is supposed to conduct these things secretly) should be found, and seriously eyeballed for treason.
Why treason? Because we're at war. Love it, hate it, agree or disagree.. we are. And we need to recognize that, and take care of the situation at hand. I think this administration is doing it's best to do that. Do I agree with everything they do? No. (i.e. Google) But I do believe that they're making the hard decisions, not the easy or publically agreeable ones.
Let's say wiretapping goes bye-bye. What suggestions does anyone have that we could utilize to battle al-Qaeda?
RLR
Just because someone is talking to Al Quaeda doesn't mean they want to join the cause or hurt the usa.
Well, with this Administration, it's very simple:
If you're talking to Al Qaeda, you're a terrorist.
If you're against the war in Iraq, you're unpatriotic and un-American.
If you're subscribed to Playboy, you're into pornography and going to Hell.
seriously eyeballed for treason.
Get back to me when members of this Administration are hung for intentionally leaking Plame's name to the media.
As always happens in these cases, if one defends a privacy right or a right of free expression, those in opposition try to paint you as immoral: "Don't you care about keeping America safe?" "Don't you care about protecting innocent children?"
My answer for this is simple. Did they catch Osama yet? No. Did they not let New Orleans and a good chunk of the Gulf Coast die? Yep. Then I don't want these clueless idiots wading through my personal stuff.
God only knows what they's do with it.
I don't know what the fuss is all about; I'm sure the government is just interested in stopping all those Internet predators and would never dream of misusing that wealth of personal information for any other reason than the one they told us about.
I can't believe I said that with a straight face.
Oh, forgot to reply to this bit:
Let's say wiretapping goes bye-bye. What suggestions does anyone have that we could utilize to battle al-Qaeda?
Now, read carefully, in case you have trouble grasping this.
Nobody is saying that wire tapping isn't necessary. Nobody is saying that it is entirely against the law.
What is being said, and you apparently don't want to read, is that Bush went out of his way and told the NSA "don't bother to get a warrant", which is against the law.
And he told the NSA to wire-tap people who were doing nothing wrong, had no connections to terrorism, and so forth.
Whether that is illegal in of itself is up for debate, but for the oh-so morally proud Republicans, it should be a sign that something is *really* fubar'ed with this Administration, as well as how little they think of the people they represent.
Except, y'know, that, hey, it's not illegal.
Actually, Bush's interpretation of FISA and his "inherent powers" argument have yet to be tested in any court, so at best, it's a gray area. Now, of course we know CJ Roberts and (unless he's caught in bed with a dead prostitute this weekend) soon to be Justice Alito will rule that the president can do whatever the hell he wants and screw the 5th and 9th amendments, but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it.
As for the leaking of classified information, like Craig said, I thought this wasn't a big deal anymore if it's done for political reasons.
Or is that another case of IOKIARDI?
Yet another scare tactic designed to separate thinking people from their thought processes and then have them "running to Daddy" for protection. It's how the Republicans have stayed in power as long as they have. The Boston Globe has an interesting comment at the end of their editorial today about the bin Laden tape: "This is a bald attempt to frighten Americans. It comes after US officials... have spent three years frightening Americans. Bin Laden is a petty cult leader who has to be thwarted but who must not be allowed to inspire inordinate fear." To me this is almost like saying "Nyah nyah, bin Laden is a total terrorism pussy compared to the people running this country!", which just sounds, you know, so wrong in a purported democracy...
I need to state first off that I am a Youth and Children's Minister under the Southern Baptist umbrella. That said, Bush is an idiot.
Why not check and see who is Googling about firearms? Oh, wait, they are ok. This is just another example of how people I serve as a minister have sold their ability to think over hot button issues like homosexuality, abortion, etc. Bush broke the law, plain and simple. He believes that he can because he fights the terrorist. Wiretaps are not bad, having an affair in the Oval Office is. This is just hypocrisy at its worst.
I wondered if we could start a way of making the administration mad once they do get this fishing permit. Can we get people to just start Googling random things about Bush and Company like, Bush is an idiot, or Cheny stinks? Will those show up on the search they do. Then when they attack normal citizens for saying things about them, there is a real case for a lawsuit. Is that possible?
You want to keep your kids safe on-line? Pay attention as parents. Be nosy, use programs to restrict and filter web pages you do not want in your home. Just do not mess with free speech.
Someone leaking information from NSA (CIA, FBI, or any other alphabetical bunch that is supposed to conduct these things secretly) should be found, and seriously eyeballed for treason.
Such as, oh, I don't know...hmmm...outing a CIA operative in the press?
JSM
"Now trying to go through Google to crack down on child porn is kinda like going through Barnes and Noble to crack down on bad books."
Or going through library records to crack down on terrorists...
Oh. Wait.
PAD
You want to keep your kids safe on-line? Pay attention as parents.
Wait a second, are you suggesting that parents are responsible for raising their kids? What a radical idea! But that means parents have to pay attention to not only what their kids do online, but always what books they read and what TV shows they watch.
That means we can't arrest comic book shop clerks for selling material labelled and shelved for adults to an adult just because it's a comic and comics are, after all, just for kids.
That means parents have to reaquaint themselves with the word "no" and not sue TV stations for airing commercials for sugary snacks.
That means parents would have to pay attention to those video game, TV, and movie ratings instead of trying to censor the entertainment available to other adults.
Wow.
Making parents the gatekeepers of what their kids are exposes to? That almost sounds like something a country that values individual freedom would do.
Anyone when the Republican party believed that the best government was the one least intrustive in the lives of its citizens? I guess that's just for big business now. Anyway...
The audacity of this is staggering. Bush is trying to move from having a basis for searches to using a popular phrase -- "protection from terrorists," "going after child pornographers" -- to warrant searches and spying that is, literally and figuratively, warrantless.
And where are the politicians -- Democrats and Republicans -- willing to stand up for the rights of citizens to their privacy? What politician will remind everyone that tossing around scary phrases isn't a basis for spying?
Anyone when the Republican party believed that the best government was the one least intrustive in the lives of its citizens? I guess that's just for big business now.
That ideology is so 80s. The GOP is now all about being up in our personal lives. As for big business, it's all about handing out favors and goodies to their corporate buddies.
I am a cynic and think this also helps Microsoft. They faced how many years of litigation during the Clinton years?
As far as Bush goes I would bet theres deep pockets pushing litigation that ties up Google the way Microsfot was.
Can we get people to just start Googling random things about Bush and Company like, Bush is an idiot, or Cheny stinks? Will those show up on the search they do.
"Bush daughters pr0n"
I wonder if that search phrase thrown into Google would get the government's attention a bit more... ;)
They faced how many years of litigation during the Clinton years?
And they deserved many of those lawsuits.
However, neither Yahoo or MSN have said whether they were also the target of this attack by the Bush Administration.
Somebody brought up the issue of companies like MS and Google voluntarily agreeing with censorship in China. And I agree - it's a deplorable practice on their part, but it's capitalism at it's best unfortunately.
But at least they're standing up to the government here.
You have to wonder if Google was the only search engine target because they are the biggest or if they are the only one fighting it. Maybe people should shift all of their searching to Google until Yahoo and Microsoft come forward on whether or not they've been subpoened.
As for the situation in China, it's deplorable that the price of doing business there is to go along with their censorship policies. Unfortunately, they've become such a huge economic player, especially in the field of communications, that companies like Microsoft and Google can't afford to not do business in China.
But that can't happen here, right?
After watching my 89 year old MENNONITE Grandma being yanked out of her wheelchair and frisked because her frickin' girdle staves were setting off the alarm, I've come to the conclusion that "homeland security" is a joke.
Unfortunately, this is really nothing new. This administration has always considered anything that could be considered porn to be a priority. Not terrorism, not drugs or organized crime, but what consenting adults do to get their kicks.
According to the news, MSN, AOL, and Yahoo have all complied with the investigation. AOL stated that they "gave the Justice Department a generic list of anonymous search terms from a one-day period" (from the NYT Coverage, at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.html). Google is the only holdout.
There is nothing good about the China situation, and I think if all the companies involved were willing to unite and say, "No" to the Chinese government, the government would have capitulated. China needs the Internet as much as the net companies need China. Unfortunately, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google are all there to make money, first and foremost, so one of them saying "yes" means all 3 will out of sheer competitive drive. Of course, just because I understand the rationale behind the decision isn't incompatible with thinking it's still dead wrong.
However, unlike the China situation, there is zero competitive advantage in going along with the other players in this supoena and America still has a court system that is nowhere near as flagrantly corrupt as that in China. If Google's refusal upsets any on the Republican side of the fence, they can use those much-vaunted market-driven forces that they claim to love so much and use a different search engine in protest. Maybe some Republican can just whip up a right-wing alternative to Google, like those guys who tried making ice cream and ketchup to keep from supporting Ben & Jerry's and Heinz, respectively.
Den, I agree with what you said above 167%. However, the government DOESN'T because they know the whole "children are our future" line and it scares the hell out of them. They don't WANT parents raising their own children because then the children become young adults who GASP! Think for themselves. That's not what they want. They want REAL Americans who think the way that they do, act the way that they do, and will do anything to protect the Collective, er, country. And only in this way can WE BE HAPPY. And they keep their jobs.
Sorry for this, was thinking of it as my last one posted. Pretty soon you're going on a list if you like the wrong flavor ice cream. I'm sure to be at the top of the list for liking Death By Chocolate.
Maybe some Republican can just whip up a right-wing alternative to Google, like those guys who tried making ice cream and ketchup to keep from supporting Ben & Jerry's and Heinz, respectively.
The laughable part of this is that: 1) Teresa Heinz-Kerry's first husband, John Heinz was a republican, as was she until 2004 and 2) She has no official connection to the Heinz Company. In fact, the total amount of stock that the entire Heinz family owns is about a 4% share.
But hey, it's not like she was the first potential first lady to have been savagely attacked by the GOP.
And no, Hillary wasn't the first either.
JamesLynch:
"And where are the politicians -- Democrats and Republicans -- willing to stand up for the rights of citizens to their privacy? What politician will remind everyone that tossing around scary phrases isn't a basis for spying?"
They're on the Endangered Species List.
Is it just me or does it seem more and more everyday that we have government for government's sake? All they apear to do is have inquiries and councils and investigations and commitees until they are all too busy to represent that most insignificant of groups known as "We, the People." And since every private issue that makes the evening news demands the attention of government nothing of relevance gets done.
Many think that "I love you" is the best three-word combo. Bullshit! "We, the People" is the best three-word combo in the history of this planet.
Don't go to Google and type in something that would be personally insulting to our elected officials. Go to Google and type in "We, the People." Just once when you go online would suffice if enough people did it.
I'm getting tired of our government fishing expeditions and impotence on matters of true relevance. That's 'Impotence,' as in a bunch of limp dicks.
I don't mean just this administration either (I wouldn't want to misunderestimate anyone, you understand). It's been going on for decades. Although, it is of historical interest that a group of ultra-churchy whackaloons is today engaging in a witch hunt.
Although I applaud Google for standing firm I can understand why MSN and AOL cappitulated. Would you want to be on this governments shit list after the lase few years? That makes Google's stand all the more pertinent. And impressive.
Yes, we can all agree that child porn is wrong in a big way. However it is dealt with there are three ways to go about it: The right way, the wrong way and the smart way.
Here's an interesting bit of info...
I once heard (I don't recall a source) that the porn industry makes more money per year than movies, mus and sports. Combined.
IF that is factual and the porn industry is brought down what would the ecconomic impact be?
I know! We could outsource that too! Preferably to a country with no protections for it's workforce.
Don'tcha love it when I ramble?
Mitch
I've heard that same statistic, Mitch. Porn is still very much an underground entertainment activity with most people who indulge in it unwilling to admit so in public. I wouldn't be surprised if many in the Bush administration who are pushing this subpoena are also secret users of it.
Here's a question though: How can the federal government execute a subpoena based on a statute that the SCOTUS blocked two years ago? Have we already crossed that line into Cheney's dream of an executive branch unfettered by any checks and balances from the other two branches?
How can the federal government execute a subpoena based on a statute that the SCOTUS blocked two years ago?
I don't know, but I find it highly ironic that the Bush Administration does this the day after a new tape from bin Laden is released.
What's our priority again? Porn or terrorism?
In fairness to Bush (Yeah, I'm biting my lip as I type this), the subpoena was probably planned weeks if not months ago. You don't just whip one of those out of thin air.
What's really strange is that the administration is already under fire from privacy advocates over the wiretapping issue and now they open up this front.
What I don't get is that Google is easily the BEST tool we could have to catch child porn buyers. By setting up dummy sites they can easily snare any pervs dumb enough to order illegal porn with a credit card.
I'd rather they go trolling for the actual pedophiles in chatrooms. Seems a better use of time and these guys are doing a lot more than just reading about molesting kids.
I think Google made a big mistake working with the Chinese Government. It will really weaken their moral standing to say that they are willing to stand up for the rights of child porn buffs but not for freedom loving Chinese because, hey, we need the dough.
I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, as I said before, I don't think any company with international aspirations can afford not to do business with China. Hopefully, by engaging with the Chinese people as employers, Google and other US companies can inspire them to demand more change from their government.
Yeah, but isn't that the same argument that companies that worked with the pro apartheid government of South Africa? And even if it has merit, it's one thing to engage the people, it's another to be one of the very elements of their oppression.
All that said, you're probably right. But there ought to be some point beyond which they won't go.
What about the rights and private lives of Canadian citizens? We use Google also.
Regardless. Kudos to Google. Do no evil!
What about the rights and private lives of Canadian citizens?
You heard about this guy? He didn't like his bank information being processed in the U.S> so he paid his bill pennies at a time in protest.
http://www.sitnews.us/0106news/010206/010206_shns_creditcard.html
Den: I'm sure they had it waiting in the wings for the next time they needed to distract the sheep. Nothing works better than "what about the children!"
Wait a second, are you suggesting that parents are responsible for raising their kids? What a radical idea! But that means parents have to pay attention to not only what their kids do online, but always what books they read and what TV shows they watch.
That means we can't arrest comic book shop clerks for selling material labelled and shelved for adults to an adult just because it's a comic and comics are, after all, just for kids.
That means parents have to reaquaint themselves with the word "no" and not sue TV stations for airing commercials for sugary snacks.
That means parents would have to pay attention to those video game, TV, and movie ratings instead of trying to censor the entertainment available to other adults.
Wow.
Making parents the gatekeepers of what their kids are exposes to? That almost sounds like something a country that values individual freedom would do.
Dear Den:
I love you.
Sincerely,
Queen Anthai
On the somewhat related topic of Repulicans and secret informants:
2. INFORMERS NEEDED: FINANCIAL HELP FOR STUDENTS WITH AN ATTITUDE
A UCLA alumni group headed by a former campus Republican leader is offering students up to $100 per class to keep tabs on radical professors. It's not clear how the information is to be used.
(Source: http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn012006.html [Item #2])
X-Ray: BSH SCKS!
Luigi Novi: Quick, someone tell me how long after Peter posted his blog entry about Hilary Clinton and Ray Nagin that this retard posted this. I wanna know how long it took. :-)
Luigi:
More info on the UCLA group:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/18/professors.targeted.ap/
A couple of points, for those few interested in facts...
A) The subpoena was issued months ago, so don't try to "x-files" the timing. You're not Mulder, and the truth isn't out there. This isn't some big distraction plot. Just coincidence..
B) They're not wanting specific user information. They want statistics. Information on how ofter porn is searched for, and what the common search terms are. This is for research for a court case in front of the SCOTUS.
To use the library analysis, this would be the equivilent of the goverment asking a library system how often a certain book was checked out. I don't see that type of information as protected information. Now, once they ask "who" checked it out, that's a whole different line in the sand.
And before slippery slope arguements pop up, let's remember they're not valid for either side (such as gay marrage or the like).
"The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week – a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
Google asserts that the request is unnecessary, overly broad, would be onerous to comply with, would jeopardize its trade secrets and could expose identifying information about its users."
- San Diego Union-Tribune, 1/20/2006
Sounds to me like they want a lot more than you claim they do, Jerry...
Just to make sure my point is clear...
"The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week – a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
Google asserts that the request is unnecessary, overly broad, would be onerous to comply with, would jeopardize its trade secrets and could expose identifying information about its users."
I don't see that type of information as protected information.
Well, I don't see Google being a public library, either. Which kind of ruins your whole argument. :)
Google has done nothing illegal. If one is throwing about subpoenas, one should at least have SOME shred of proof that the person being subpoenaed deserves it.
Not that I ever quibble with anything, but usually the person you're subpoenaing in a criminal case hasn't done anything criminal himself. The criminal is usually the person the information is about, not the person who has the information. When I subpoena bank records it isn't beacuse I think the bank did anything wrong, it's because the owner of the account is charged with writing bad checks and I need to prove that he knew it was fraudulent at the time. Your basic point is still right though-- there should still be some individualized suspicion of the target before issuing a subpoena for an individual person's information.
The Feds, though, weren't asking for individual people's information. According to the news reports they were asking for general statistical information about things that are frequently searched. If a researcher asked for the same information to write a journal article, nobody would care. I remember that some search engines used to post lists of "what people are searching now" and "today's top search terms." So what's the big deal about the Feds getting that information?
Here was my idea for flipping the bird at the Bush administration when they sort through the Google data (and i have no doubt they will be, legally or not...they take want they want no matter what....it's what they do): this would need to spread far and wide as an internet meme, but basically, if thousands of people start searching daily or multiple times a day on Google for "George W. Bush Gay Sex Video" or something of this nature, they'd get a nice little prize as they sort through the data.
Dumb idea, yeah, but just the idea of this beating out Brittney Spears or whoever for top Google search just kinda makes me smile.
Hmmm...news comes out that Google is fighting a government subpeona, and then it suffers a large drop in it's stock price. Coincidence?
If anyone needs me, I'll be making tin foil hats.
Um, make that a "subpoena." That's what I get for trying to type fancy words late at night.
"The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week – a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases."
Nope. Like I said, statistics. They want the search words over a given week (unspecified, so Google can pick) so they can see the percentage of searches for porn, and they want 1 million random web addresses (I'm assuming for percentage of porn sites vs. non porn sites). I'm guessing they are wanting to have numbers for porn searches vs non porn searches compared to porn sites vs non porn sites. They could just ask for the numbers, but I'm not sure if that would hold up in court without the research.
This is in line with requesting what books are searched for at a library, and a random listing of book titles in the libraries catalog.
Nothing is being requested which ties to specific user behavior, and user information.
Now, all this being said, Kudos for Google. But I expect any objection they have stems more from protecting their business systems from competitors, than it does any sort of public justice or privacy concerns.
BSH SCKS!
BullSHit StinCKS?
Well no kidding. AND you spelled stinks wrong you moron!
Den:
"I've heard that same statistic, Mitch. Porn is still very much an underground entertainment activity with most people who indulge in it unwilling to admit so in public. I wouldn't be surprised if many in the Bush administration who are pushing this subpoena are also secret users of it."
Hell, I admit it. I also believe that the internet is as big as it is because of porn. But that might just be my own perception of humanity infringing on real space-time ;)
Of course those trying to ban porn indulge themselves in porn. How many politicians get caught in sex related scandals? How many priests can be found in the alter boy locker room? How many evangelists have hookers in their closets? How many Ted Kennedys leave a woman to die after driving a car off a bridge?
Ok, that last one was a bit much. I should probably apologize.
Bill Mulligan:
"What I don't get is that Google is easily the BEST tool we could have to catch child porn buyers. By setting up dummy sites they can easily snare any pervs dumb enough to order illegal porn with a credit card.
I'd rather they go trolling for the actual pedophiles in chatrooms. Seems a better use of time and these guys are doing a lot more than just reading about molesting kids."
NBC's Dateline has done 2 shows, with a third coming up shortly, wherein they execute a sting operation like you describe. In the third installment they will have law enforcement on hand to take into custody the people they catch in their trap.
I'll be watching because it's so much fun watching these (expletive deleted) try to talk their way out of it.
Now if you will all excuse me, I'm gonna go Google some porn!!
Happy Hunting!
Mitch
I have nothing to hide. If it keeps me safe--PLEASE look at my phone records. PLEASE look at what web sites I visit. PLEASE read my emails. PLEASE tap my phone.
"B) They're not wanting specific user information. They want statistics. Information on how ofter porn is searched for, and what the common search terms are."
They also said that they'd get Osama dead or alive, that there was "slam-dunk" intelligence proving Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMDs, that they'd only go to war with Iraq as a last result, and that they'd never even heard of this Jack Abramoff guy.
Excuse me if my skepticism is a-ringin'.
--R.J.
Now, I'm not one to throw out quotes, willy nilly, but there's one from Ben Franklin I've always loved and feel is particularly apt in light of the current administrations policies.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Rex Hondo-
This may have already been said, but wouldn't it be easier for the government to just hire 100 or so people to google some randome words/phrases for a month, and then study what results? After all, Google is still free to use, and this solution doesn't open up any legal issues.
MarvelFan, you've just described my dream job.
One question--people keep saying that porn is a multi-bazillion dollar industry and I'm inclined to believe them...but I wonder why, since so much of it is free. Hell, it's so free it's almost unavoidable, you end up with porno pop-ups whether you want them or not. You have to go to tremendous lengths NOT to view porn if you spend any time at all on the web. So how can anyone be making much money on it? How profitable would McDonald s be if there were people constantly running up to you and shoving hamburgers into your mouth (Wouldn't that be GREAT?)
dave w.
I have nothing to hide. If it keeps me safe--PLEASE look at my phone records. PLEASE look at what web sites I visit. PLEASE read my emails. PLEASE tap my phone.
Then live in a country where that happens all the time.
1I think it's funny that Osama Bin Laudin just releases a new tape and instead of doing somehting about him, Bush targets Americans because we my be watching porn.
OWWW!
You know, maybe Bush is right about something: No, no go with me: If the goverment has so much money and time to check out what kind of porn America is watching, maybe we do need to slash the federal budget.
If you really want to stop child porn I have a great idea: Have the goverment sit down with adult stars and producers and get them to advertise on their web sites and videos to stop child porn, then have the goverment offer a ten thousand dollar reward to anyone who rats out a child porn site. (Jeena Jameson should be the spokes person for that one.)
Josh
P.S. Love X-Factor. Will you be at Farpoint this year? J.
Check this out for a laugh - FBI tracking your every click.
Then live in a country where that happens all the time.
No kidding.
If you want that kind of bullshit in America, well, you must've voted for Bush.
Most of us don't want to live in a country that works and acts like Fascist Germany or Communist Russia.
I have nothing to hide. If it keeps me safe--PLEASE look at my phone records. PLEASE look at what web sites I visit. PLEASE read my emails. PLEASE tap my phone.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sound of the American experiment coming to a close.
Freedoms only stick around when they're defended -- and when people are flat-out rejecting that they even need them, well, s'long.
I do not want a country like the one you describe. I don't want my phones tapped, my mail read, my records checked. If that makes me marginally less "safe", then so be it. I could also be kept "safe" by being confined to a 4-by-6 cell for my entire life, and fed and clothed by others -- but that's not a safety I am prepared to accept.
This "we're making you safe, so shut up and take it" line of reasoning has gone entirely too far. If things get pushed too much further, one of two things is likely to happen as a result: either open revolt is going to break out (which is itself a pretty serious threat to safety, by the way), or we'll just go whole hog and become the very type of banana republic we claim to oppose.
TWL
Tim Lynch:
"This "we're making you safe, so shut up and take it" line of reasoning has gone entirely too far. If things get pushed too much further, one of two things is likely to happen as a result: either open revolt is going to break out (which is itself a pretty serious threat to safety, by the way), or we'll just go whole hog and become the very type of banana republic we claim to oppose."
Can you imagine, based on how most of us American behave these days, a second Civil War? I believe that would be the result of open revolt. The number of factions involved would be staggering to say the least. Just consider all the political, religious, economic and social divides that keep us from working together for the greater good. For an example look at how satifactory healthcare is a privelidge for those who are well off while the people who need it the most, the poor, get second and third rate services. "Culture of Life" indeed.
Actually can see how it wouldn't last too long, since we really cannot cooperate all that much. Or what is now America would be broken up into city-states where if you don't believe in our Tribal God Image you will be shot on sight because we believe in peace and the only valid way to promote peace is for everyone to believe as we do under penalty of death. America would be not one Bananna Republic but hundreds of them.
UPDATE:
RE: Me Googling porn
I wasn't impressed. Nothing I haven't seen before. Much of it in real life.
Salutations,
Mitch
Man!! I sure am glad that I don't have a Social Security Number so Da Gubmint can track how much money I make and how much I pay in taxes. And I am really glad I don't have a drivers license so Da Gubmint can track what kind of car I actually drive. And how about that debit card? If I had one of those, someone somewhere might be able to tell I bought lunch at a certain restaurant today and how much gas I bought on the way to the restaurant. I sure am glad that my privacy is well protected.
First, What to put in the search engines for protest.
Searching for “Bush daughter sex” and things of that ilk will give them what they want. They want as many sex queries as possible, so don’t give it to them. Vague phrases like “we the people” wont get the point across. Especially if the search queries are released to the press or are use in open court. I think we should use a phrase that is direct, speak directly to the point, and make a good sound bite for the media.
PAD, I request that you do a survey on what people think should be the protest phrase. Then pick the one that you think is the best and then we can all go out and start grass roots campaigns. Even just emailing our friends and asking them to pass it on. But we have to do this fast to get a cohesive single search inquiry that every one can cut and past.
I nominate “Stop Spying On US Citizens”
Second, what to put in the search engines that gave up the info.
I think we should all go to the search engine that gave up the info without a fight and search the phrase “I’m using Google from now on” And then do so. If enough people stop using the other search engine, they may think twice about not protecting our freedoms.
Third, for the people that don’t have a problem with Bush administration’s power grabs. Ask you self this question. If the Democrats ever get control of the government again, can you trust them with the same power?
This is not about kittyporn! They can already can and do request info on people searching for that kind of thing. They want to reenact a law (that was shot down) that boils down to this. If a web sight that is hosted any where in the US host some thing that any community in the US finds offensive and does not use age verification, law enforcement from that community can bring the web host up on criminal charges.
"Social Security Number so Da Gubmint can track how much money I make and how much I pay in taxes"
That revels nothing about your personal life. If you were required to check a "I watch porn" box on your tax form, that would be different.
"And I am really glad I don't have a drivers license so Da Gubmint can track what kind of car I actually drive."
If you are that worried about "Da Gubmint" getting that info, you can CHOOSE not to own/drive a car. The Google Subpoena gives you no choice.
"And how about that debit card? If I had one of those, someone somewhere might be able to tell I bought lunch at a certain restaurant today and how much gas I bought on the way to the restaurant."
Actually, businesses get in deep shit when they revel any of that info, and any attempt by the government to obtain it should be met with the same refusal that google gave.
Thanks, Bill. I've shared that link with my fellow visitors at Nitcentral on the Educational Issues subtopic under Political Musings. (http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/2310/19769.html?SaturdayJuly1320020114am#POST312233)
This is not about kittyporn!
Well it damn well ought to be! It's bad enough when they use children!
Bill
Cat-Lover, but not in THAT way
You gotta love that response/logic/reasoning. "If you don't believe/think/feel just like me then go live in a different country".
And cue persecution complex! No political discussion is complete without one.
I'm going to make one (likely futile) effort to explain to you why what I'm generously going to call your interpretation of responses to your previous comment is just flat wrong.
See, as opposed to the common, "love it or leave it," response you'll get from your average slack-yawed yokel in any number of sociopolitical discussions, it was a relatively reasonable comment given your, shall we say, "position."
Assuming that you were speaking in earnest, you would be willing to give up your essential freedoms in the name of "safety." Well, those essential Constitutional freedoms are the very basis of this nation. At the risk of sounding all patriotic, they're what make the USA the USA.
You don't care about your rights, fine. Most of the rest of us DO. If you think a totalitarian regime is your cup of tea, there are places you can go, because that's not what America is, and there are plenty of people who aren't going to let people like YOU make it happen here.
-Rex Hondo-
Dave w. said
You gotta love that response/logic/reasoning. "If you don't believe/think/feel just like me then go live in a different country
Thats exactly my point I want the freedom to choose/think do whatever I want.
If I am not hurting myself or another person its all good.
Take away my choice you take away me.
I simply meant that if you do not mind having everything you do scrutinized you should live in a country that does that all the time. Get a feel for what we have here. Then make a choice about which you prefer.
I am aware of how easy it is to keep track of everything I do. It has taken me many years to fight through blinding paranoia. I have serverd in this countrys military. I have been a bum and traveled to about 30+ of our states. I love our country as much as anyone. I will always fight for the freedoms I grew up reading believing we have.
I am going to spend most of the morning searching for things like:
"George Bush Naked"
"Dick Cheney Anal Sex"
"Osama bin Laden sex with animals"
"Saddam Hussein Porn"
And variations on those themes. In the event that my search records are known, we'll see what the reaction is.
Who's with me?
// "And I am really glad I don't have a drivers license so Da Gubmint can track what kind of car I actually drive."
If you are that worried about "Da Gubmint" getting that info, you can CHOOSE not to own/drive a car. The Google Subpoena gives you no choice. //
Well by that logic you could agrue that one could choose not to use Google, or not have a computer or not use the internet. Mind you, I agree with, I think the goverment asking for such info is just wrong, and hopefully will be struck down by a saner court. But there is a flaw in you logic there.
Well by that logic you could agrue that one could choose not to use Google, or not have a computer or not use the internet.
Not so much a logical fallicy. When you get a car registered, you KNOW that the government has that information. When you get a Credit Card, use Google, or shop on Ebay, the assumption is that those companies are going to keep your information safe, and most especially, that the government will NOT be allowed to look at it without probable cause.
// Well by that logic you could agrue that one could choose not to use Google, or not have a computer or not use the internet.
Not so much a logical fallicy. //
As originally worded, yes it was.
// When you get a car registered, you KNOW that the government has that information. When you get a Credit Card, use Google, or shop on Ebay, the assumption is that those companies are going to keep your information safe, //
Key word being "Assumption", (any need to invoke the Felix Unger rule here), lots of these companies regularly sell information to other vendors and only recently have we begun to pass laws requiring companies to tell us they are doing that and giving us to option to opt out, (And am I the only one who believes that companies should require us to opt in not the other way around, but I digress).
// and most especially, that the government will NOT be allowed to look at it without probable cause. //
True, but considering how many companies regularly sell consumer info to others I wonder if Google would just give the government the info it wants, quitly and behind the scenes, if Uncle Sam just wrote them a big enough check. (Not that I'm suggesting that mind you).
You gotta love that response/logic/reasoning. "If you don't believe/think/feel just like me then go live in a different country".
Which is the response many liberals received over Bush winning election in 2004 (since he didn't really win it the first time around) from conservatives.
But then, what's that little acronym again?
Well, I think I can predict an upcoming post by PAD--they just cancelled West Wing.
Yeah, but isn't that the same argument that companies that worked with the pro apartheid government of South Africa?
With the caveat that South Africa was never the economic power that China is today, yes. Eventually, though, change was effected in SA, whether this proves the boycotters or the engagers were right, I have no idea.
And even if it has merit, it's one thing to engage the people, it's another to be one of the very elements of their oppression.
True, basically, it's a lose-lose proposition for any company. If you don't do business with China, you'll be crushed by your competition, but if you do, you have to agree to their censorship rules.
Wow, what a vocal, paranoid, frightened crowd you have posting here. Here's something that will really get your panties in a bunch. Google employs several people who used to have high level intelligence positions in the US government.
And for all of you with the foil hats... this is probably nothing more than a smokescreen to encourage you to use Google, since their fighting "the man".
Peter, I was a big fan of your work and followed a lot of what you created. After reading your blog for a while now, I have to say I'm disappointed with your politics. It's so bad it's tainted everything I read that's been created by you. I'm not buying anything else you do until I've had some time to get this sour taste out of my mind. You're an entertaining fiction writer but your "real world" views leave a lot to be desired. I'll catch up with your work again in a couple of years. Take care...
Here's something that will really get your panties in a bunch. Google employs several people who used to have high level intelligence positions in the US government.
So what? We're discussing the limits that the government can go to collect personal information about people. Some people might not want everything that they've ever searched the internet for to be made public.
I'm not buying anything else you do until I've had some time to get this sour taste out of my mind.
And thus we see why freedom of speech and thought need protection in this country. God forbid we allow writers who don't have the "correct" thoughts to be read.
"Wow, what a vocal, paranoid, frightened crowd you have posting here. Here's something that will really get your panties in a bunch. Google employs several people who used to have high level intelligence positions in the US government."
Yeah? So?
"Peter, I was a big fan of your work and followed a lot of what you created. After reading your blog for a while now, I have to say I'm disappointed with your politics."
Yeah? So?
"It's so bad it's tainted everything I read that's been created by you."
Certainly that's your problem, not mine.
"I'm not buying anything else you do until I've had some time to get this sour taste out of my mind."
Ahhh, and now you endeavor to make your problem my problem.
"You're an entertaining fiction writer but your "real world" views leave a lot to be desired."
As does your belief in free expression in the United States of America--or I should say, lack of belief--and your intolerance of those who have differing opinions from you.
"I'll catch up with your work again in a couple of years."
Don't hurry on my account. I wouldn't want you to waste your money simply because your intolerance limits your ability to enjoy my work.
PAD
"Peter, I was a big fan of your work and followed a lot of what you created. After reading your blog for a while now, I have to say I'm disappointed with your politics. It's so bad it's tainted everything I read that's been created by you. I'm not buying anything else you do until I've had some time to get this sour taste out of my mind. You're an entertaining fiction writer but your "real world" views leave a lot to be desired. I'll catch up with your work again in a couple of years. Take care..."
Ah, Intolerance, how I've missed thee...
Wow. Peter does a great job of keeping his works from being mere political diatribes...so it never ceases to amaze me when people can't seperate his opinions from his works. I don't agree with everything Peter says, but I never found that as an impediment towards enjoying good fiction.
Sadly, it doesn't amaze me anymore. It used to. It used to amaze me that people would be that opposed to the spirit of free expression. It used to amaze me that people would feel the need to take punitive action against those with whom they disagreed. It used to amaze me that people would cut off their noses to spite their face; that they would cease supporting a writer or artist whose work they liked solely because they'd taken offense at that writer or artist's personal opinions, even when those opinions aren't reflected in the work.
It doesn't amaze me anymore. Now I just shake my head and sigh.
PAD
I laughed when I read grunged's post, because it reminded me of that episode of Growing Pains where Ben learns about the difference between liking a singer's music and liking the singer as a person because Ben doesn't agree with the singer's personal life. I mean, I doubt any of you who've read some of my political comments before would put me in the same camp as PAD, but I thoroughly enjoy his work and have never noticed obtrusive political statements in it.
Ok, this is getting scary. I actually think you have a point. I find this substantially different than the phone surveillance (which the Clinton admin was eqully quilty of doing). This is, pure and simple, a fishing expedition.
At first I thought they were looking for the actual child pornography (the pictures themselves). I don't believe the possession or distribution of child porn is protected by free speech and anyone having it or knowingly hosting it should be in trouble. But this search at least appears to be too broad with no plausible purpose. So until I get a better explanation, I actually am siding with PAD against Bush.
Maybe hell really is freezing over.
Iowa Jim
If I didn't read every author I didn't politically or morally agree with I would have missed a lot of good books. I don't like what Orson Scott Card had to say about gays but I still read his work.
i agree - i think that basing your enjoyment of someone's work on your opinion of their political views is, quite frankly, dumb. i think that of anyone who chooses not to read peter david, just as i thought that of people who chose not to read comics drawn by mike s. miller based upon some postings he made on a message board.
that being said, i think some of the attacks on 'grunged' are unwarranted. he is not proposing that peter's work should be banned, or restricted, or that he shouldn't be hired or his work shouldn't be sold. he, for reasons of his own, is choosing not to read peter david, and telling people of his decision. isn't that EXACTLY the way a person who supports free expression SHOULD react?
i've often heard "if you don't like the show, change the channel!" - essentially, that's what he's doing, he's "changing the channel". and if he wants to tell everyone he meets that he's no longer reading peter's work, and why, that's his right. in fact, he even has a right to encourage others not to read him, but he doesn't even seem to be doing that.
it's sad that he would base his reading enjoyment on the lively political debate on an online forum, but i think that's all it is...sad. but not an threat to freedom of speech...
I have to say I know whereof grunged comes from.
Kathleen David brings up a great counter-example. I read several Orson Scott Card novels many years ago, particularly his Alvin Maker series, and really enjoyed them. But some of his political columns have sickened me. Not to the point of not being able to read his novels...but I'm more likely to look for them in used bookstores so he doesn't benefit from my money.
That's the kicker. I have no problem with others buying his books, but I don't really want any of my money going to someone who I look at as a spreader of hate. Other conservative views would be completely irrelevant to me. The world needs different perspectives. But I am intolerant of intolerance.
Though I will now add and completely contradict myself that Wiki's detailing of Card's political views make me more willing to buy his books again. He's better than what I had gleaned from the few columns of his I'd read.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro at January 20, 2006 10:25 AM
I don't know what the fuss is all about; I'm sure the government is just interested in stopping all those Internet predators and would never dream of misusing that wealth of personal information for any other reason than the one they told us about.
*I say:
maybe if kids just didn't know how to read and write internet predators wouldn't be able to get our kids...
you can't stop "internet predators" just like you can't stop murders and child kidnappings,
BUSH SUCKS!!!
Where do we go from here, PAD?
How do we defend our country from these constant power grabs? A chance of a Third party opposition has been all but crushed. The only time a you see a Democrat on the news is when they say some thing stupid. Talk Radio drums the administrations talking points into peoples heads until the listeners will believe any thing. What can we the people do?
I guess this sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder but I find PAD's work to be refreshingly devoid of outright political posturing, especially given his strong opinions. He's way too smart a guy to deliberately make his stories dated by doing that--this is one reason you can go back and reread virtually all of his work and still enjoy it. I'm not against any and all attempts to make stories topical but odds are they will have the same re-readability as a dusty issue of Newsweek (ie not much).
And yes, while he has every right to not read what he wants to not read and he has every right to tell the writer why...there seems to be an element of implied bullying in this, intended or not. What, exactly, is PAD supposed to do? Change his opinions? Keep them to himself? My advice--if you're the type who can't enjoy the work of a writer if their politics does not mesh with your own it's really up to you to avoid finding out anything about those politics. For starters, don't read their blog.
The only time a you see a Democrat on the news is when they say some thing stupid.
Avoiding the obvious joke that even if they were in the news more often it wouldn't change the saying something stupid part, I don't think that's entirely or even partly accurate. For one thing, many Democrats have no problem at all with what Hillary said. Frankly, they should be glad that some of the REALLY dumb statements get swept under the rug.
At any rate, there is no reason to despair--it will be almost impossible for the Democrats not to pick up seats in 2006.
Personally, I wouldn't even care if PAD's writing had an overt political message. If the writing is intelligent and compelling, I'll read it.
Case in point: I really like Orson Scott Card's writing and he does sometimes insert political messages in his work.
The only time a you see a Democrat on the news is when they say some thing stupid.
Unfortunately, these days, they seem to be almost pathological about it.
The good news is that the GOP say something stupid just as often.
Oh, I agree, it's just that the stories usually don't age well. You read some of the MArvel and DC stuff from the 60s that tried to be topical and you want to laugh (of course "I Am Curious, Black" was funny even in 1970) http://millionaireplayboy.com/comics/blacklois2.php
You could say the same of some of those old Star Trek episodes that tried to make commentary on the cold war, such a the one were Klingons were arming primitive aliens with flintlock rifles.
Political messages often do have a short shelf life. That's the price you pay for trying to be topical.
But that Lois becomes a black woman story had to have looked stupide even back then.
Then there are all those WW II comics that are dripping with racism by today's standards. Imagine if the comics industry responded to 9/11 with covers like this:
Star Trek, good example. I'd say by and large the really overt episodes have aged terribly...Frank Gorshwin with his face half white shoe polish, half black shoe polish...
hey, since Prozacman brought up Politicians Saying Stupid Things--Here's Chuck Shumer:
“No one’s going to take a back seat to Democrats on fighting a tough war on terror.”
-U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, January 22, 2006
Kind of reminds me about that Captain America line "Only one of us is going to leave this room alive... And it's not going to be me!"
Star Trek, good example. I'd say by and large the really overt episodes have aged terribly...Frank Gorshwin with his face half white shoe polish, half black shoe polish...
Oh come on, that one must have been thought ham-fisted even at the time. That episode's real problem was its general crappiness; if it were written well, it would still be interesting. (The Klingon/Federation quasi-Vietnam episode was actually pretty good, by contrast.) Compare it to Arthur Miller's The Crucible. The Red Scare isn't still an issue, but paranoia is as endemic to human beings as xenophobia, so a well-written play still resonates.
// Star Trek, good example. I'd say by and large the really overt episodes have aged terribly...Frank Gorshwin with his face half white shoe polish, half black shoe polish... //
Have to disagree, I just watched the entire orignal series on DVD recently and was amazed by how well the series as a whole holds up. Sure, three are some episodes that are downright silly, (Spock's Brain) and some that seem overly simplist in thier "message" (the Frank Gorswin one), and there are bits that are bizzare in morden context, (computers that smoke and explode when you confuse thier programs), and slightly sexist, (Kirk openly oogling his female subordinates) but for the most part the stories still hold up. In fact they hold up much better then a lot of other shows from that same era, and even better then a lot of shows that followed (Including a lot of the first 2-3 seasons of the Next Generation).
Even some of the cold war specific ones, hold up as good stories. The allogories may not be as strong as they once were but the stories still work as stories. And the acting and the production values are not as bad as you might think, in fact they're pretty damm good.
It's become common to knock Shatner's acting but a lot of what people knock him for did not show up till later in his career. In the context of TV acting of that time Shatner was pretty darn good. If you don't think so you may want to grab some other TV shows of that era, (Remember back then TV was still realitivly new, TV acting was seen as a step down from movie acting, (as movie acting was once seen as a step down from the stage), very often the really great actors wouldn't take jobs on TV, TV being beneath them).
Simularly the production values are pretty damm good. Of course the special effects aren't as good as we could do now, but then the car my dad was driving in 66 is no where near as good as the Civic Hybird I drive now, so what. In the context of the time Trek effects were just fine, as good as, or better then a lot of other TV shows. And the set designs, with thier primary colors and smooth looks were great, for more appealing to look at then any of the sequal shows.
// Oh, I agree, it's just that the stories usually don't age well. You read some of the MArvel and DC stuff from the 60s that tried to be topical and you want to laugh (of course "I Am Curious, Black" was funny even in 1970) http://millionaireplayboy.com/comics/blacklois2.php //
It depends entirly on the story and the issue being explored. Marvel just issued a trade of Steve Engelhart's Captain America stories which deal with Watergate, (can't get much more tied to specific time then that) and they hold up just fine, in fact the most dated part of them is some of the "black power" attitudes of the Falcoln and his girlfriend, which just seems so 1970's. The Watergate stuff works perfectly in a modern context.
OTOH the much acclaimed much reprinted Green Lantern/Green Arrow series seems incredibly dated. Great art but painfully dated stories and attitudes.
It all depends.
// Then there are all those WW II comics that are dripping with racism by today's standards. Imagine if the comics industry responded to 9/11 with covers like this:
http://www.superdickery.com/propaganda/54.html
//
OTOH after 911 I suggested on-line that Marvel and Alex Ross should get together and do a poster recreation of Captain America #1 with Osama standing in for Hitler. I was told by various posters that such a poster would be offensive to "good" Muslims. Could you imagine if Jack Kirby thought "will this be offensive to "good" Germans" when he drew the original? The WWII comics you refer to were to far in one direction, but it is possible to go to far in the other direction.
Please don't get me wrong, I love Star Trek. And I agree that many of Trek Classic's episodes compare favorably with TNG, for much the reason's I gave--I think they were trying too hard to do "message" episodes in those first few seasons of Next Generation. When they switched to concentrating on ripping good yarns the show got much better.
Just for the record.. Peter and I couldn't be further apart on the political spectrum. It's quite likely that he'd say "left" and I'd say "right" just out of habit, and then argue points back and forth all day. The only thing we could probably agree on is to disagree.
But I've rarely read a PAD novel that I didn't enjoy, and am quick to recommend him as a good read in the same breath Joe Straczynski, Michael Crichton, or Harlan Ellison.
I don't post on Peter's blog because I like being flamed [quite the contrary, actually.] I do so because I like the verbal sparring. I like to go back, argue a point I think is right, have someone argue back... that's a great thing.
It's when it degrades down to being called names, insults, and being cussed at in general that I find myself less and less interested in posting any kind of comment.
RLR
I am currently reading an ongoing story arc in Fables concerning "Arab" Fables (Sinbad etc.). I have to say its attitude towards Arabs seems to be very sterotypic and simplistic. The Bad arabs are primitive and fanatic, the good ones readily adopt western values.
This is the first time this comic disappointed me.
// The Bad arabs are primitive and fanatic, the good ones readily adopt western values. //
As compared to the real world where bad arabs live in caves, make thier woman wear beekeeper suits and declare holy war on anyone who doesn't agree with them.
I heard an excellent point while listening to Air America the other day: if it's true that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms", why are so many Americans willing to give those freedoms away?
"As compared to the real world where bad arabs live in caves, make thier woman wear beekeeper suits and declare holy war on anyone who doesn't agree with them."
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the kind of way of looking at the world that gives Americans a bad name.
The real world is much more complicated.
Anyway, the burquas (beekeeper suits) are an afghani thing, and not even all of them. And it is not always that they are forced to wear them, just as we don't force our women to wear what they wear. Some muslim women around the world cover their heads, necks, and sometimes faces and body in different ways. The caves obviously have more to do with being terrorists than Arabs or Muslims. And the holy war is not because of freedom or disagreement about something, it is because in the twisted point of view of radical Islamists the west is attacking them. Although, being fundementalists, they would like to go back to the days when Muslims were conquering empires and promoting Islam.
"I heard an excellent point while listening to Air America the other day: if it's true that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms", why are so many Americans willing to give those freedoms away?"
Because, like with anything that is given to you, rather than earned, most Americans don't understand the value of the freedoms that past generations were willing to die for, in order to secure for them for us. Very, very few people living today have any memory of a true fight against an enemy that posed a realistic threat to our very culture, way of life, ideals, etc. Sure, we've been engaged in conflicts that threatened the lives of our soldiers, and we live in a world where we know that, even in our own homes, we're not totally beyond the reach of those that want to kill us.
But there's no administration that presents a serious threat to our very way of life. Other than our own government. And people seem willing to just hand over power and authority to that government, all in the name of safety. Because they don't understand what it took to get those powers out of the hands of the government in the first place.
I know it's been said before, but I feel the need to say it again since so many people seem to be not reading it...
This move by the Bush administration has absolutely nothing to do with child porn. There is already an abundance of FBI agents arresting people for that offence against humanity on a daily basis.
This proposed legislation is about preventing kids from searching up regular old legal porn that us adults are so apparently fond of.
That having been said, I hope google isn't forced to actually give up the information. The Bush people are trying to make a point at the expense of privacy. Google isn't on trial here, and to pull them into it for no other reason then to be able to twist some more random numbers so the Bush Administration can make them sound any way they want... it's just plain sad.
This proposed legislation is about preventing kids from searching up regular old legal porn that us adults are so apparently fond of.
First of all, it's not proposed legislation, it's a subpoena. Second, so they find out lots of people are googling porn? Then what? How do they determine whether it was an adult or a child who was sitting at the computer when the search was initiated? Is the next step to order google to block porn from their search engines?
In other news, while defending his "I Spy on America" program, Bush says we should take bin Laden's threats seriously.
Apparently Bush has decided bin Laden is important after all... when he needs to push a plan for further eroding personal liberties and such.
// "As compared to the real world where bad arabs live in caves, make thier woman wear beekeeper suits and declare holy war on anyone who doesn't agree with them."
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the kind of way of looking at the world that gives Americans a bad name. //
Actually, proving to the world that you are so PC you can't even take a pretty straight forward joke is the type of thing that gives Americans a bad name. I mean come on, if we were talking about protrayals of Germans in comics and someone complained about how all the bad Germans seems to be Facist and the Good Germans wern't, and I replied "As compared to the real world where all the bad Germans were Nazi's and the good Germans got the hell out and moved to America before they ended up in camps" would anyone have even noticed, never mind found it offensive.
// The real world is much more complicated. //
Sometimes, and sometimes the real world is really simple. People who make thier woman wear beekeeper suits, stone them when they don't comply, then blow up innocent people who don't agree with thier political and/or religious POV, are bad guys. There's no shades or gray there.
// Anyway, the burquas (beekeeper suits) are an afghani thing, and not even all of them. And it is not always that they are forced to wear them, just as we don't force our women to wear what they wear. //
Bull!!! Under Taliban rule it was against the law for a Woman to be out in public unless she was wearing a burqua. There was no choice involved. Women were sometimes beaten to death for not following the law, and this was widly reported before 911, when there was no reason for propaganda on the other side.
// The caves obviously have more to do with being terrorists than Arabs or Muslims. //
Um no, they have to do with being Muslim terrorist, are you aware of a non Muslim terrorist organization that lives in caves? (Hydra doens't count). Lot's of terror organizations out there, Al Queida is the only one I'm aware of that regularly sends out threatening videotapes made in a cave. And in case you haven't noticed Al Queida is a Muslim/Arab terrorist group.
// And the holy war is not because of freedom or disagreement about something, it is because in the twisted point of view of radical Islamists the west is attacking them. Although, being fundementalists, they would like to go back to the days when Muslims were conquering empires and promoting Islam. //
So what part of " "As compared to the real world where bad arabs live in caves, make thier woman wear beekeeper suits and declare holy war on anyone who doesn't agree with them." doesn't apply to them? There might be "good arabs" who live in caves, but by any reasonable definition if they make thier women wear beekeeper suits and declare holy war for any radical reason they are bad guys.
In a comic bad Arabs are primitive and fanatical, in the real world bad Arabs are primitive, (the whole live in cave and beating women who don't wear beekeeper suits thing is primitive under any reasonable definition) and fanatical. Saying otherwise it just PC BS. (And yes there are lots of shades between good and bad, but obviously I'm talking about the really bad) And this wasn't a comment on the comic in question, (I haven't read it), it was just something I thought was funny based on the wording of the original post, I still think it is funny. But in the world of Political Correctness, where sensitivity is elevated above truth, even to the point of absurity, I should have known better.
Regarding Darren's comments:
As compared to the real world where bad arabs live in caves, make thier woman wear beekeeper suits and declare holy war on anyone who doesn't agree with them.
And
Bull!!! Under Taliban rule it was against the law for a Woman to be out in public unless she was wearing a burqua. There was no choice involved. Women were sometimes beaten to death for not following the law, and this was widly reported before 911, when there was no reason for propaganda on the other side.
Just for the sake of accuracy, the Taliban and the Afghani people are not Arabs. Not every country that is predominantly Muslim is also Arabic. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Turkey, and many of the Muslim nations of Central Africa and the former Soviet Union are all non-Arabic peoples.
I started my day with a smile this morning. On the Today Show, Katie Couric had Howard Dean as a guest, and she asked him if he thought the American people were tired of the Democrats' daily mud-slinging at the president and his administration regarding "domestic spying"/"terrorist monitoring" (and probably Google-Gate as well).
Dean, of course said something like "Americans are never tired of hearing about lawbreaking presidents" or somesuch, and then he made my day when he accused the president of being stubborn and headstrong. Isn't that like a pickpocket calling one of his peers a thief?
Ah, politics. You gotta love it!
Being stubborn and headstrong aren't totally bad traits...excpet when you remain stubborn and headstrong when you're very clearly in the wrong.
After all the hysteria, after the NYT publishes an article talking about how some liberals are too afraid to type in certain words into Google...well, here's the NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/technology/26privacy.html?ei=5090&en=37d114afd9344702&ex=1295931600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all In Case About Google's Secrets, Yours Are Safe
...But the case itself, according to people involved in it and scholars who are following it, has almost nothing to do with privacy. It will turn, instead, on serious but relatively routine questions about trade secrets and civil procedure.
...In its only extended discussion of its reasons for fighting the subpoena, a Google lawyer told the Justice Department in October that complying would be bad for business. "Google objects," the lawyer, Ashok Ramani, wrote, "because to comply with the request could endanger its crown-jewel trade secrets."
...Even Google's allies are shying away from legal arguments based on privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, said it planned to file papers supporting Google. But not on privacy grounds. "We will probably not be making that argument," said Aden J. Fine, a lawyer with the civil liberties union.
Other Internet search engine companies, including Yahoo, America Online and MSN, have complied with the same Justice Department subpoena, which also sought a random sample of a million Web addresses. The companies all said there were no privacy issues involved.
A Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, agreed. "We specifically stated in our requests," he said, "that we did not want the names, or any other information, regarding the users of Google."
Feh. One of these days there really will be some wolves out there but by then who will believe it?
Yes well, this administration has also said that Saddam's WMD program was a "slam dunk," that they always get warrants before spying on Americans, and that no one could have imagined that the levees in NO would break.
Excuse me while I take their assertion that they aren't looking for names at the end of the day with a grain of salt.
Here's an example of what Google.com(munist) will be like:
copare
http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen
to
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen
Notice anything missing?
The more I think about it the more pissed off I get. It's not just the Google is dealing with oppressors; they are actually giving them the tools of oppression. "Do no evil". Yeah, right.
The more I think about it the more pissed off I get. It's not just the Google is dealing with oppressors; they are actually giving them the tools of oppression.
Capitalism at it's best.
Or Communism at it's best.
Take your pick.
Nobody can control the Internet, but the Chinese are trying their damnest.
Good point, Craig. Technically China isn't a true communist country anymore since they've been allowing more private companies to do business, but they're not a true free market society either.
I'm not sure how Google squares their "do no evil" corporate motto with getting into bed with the Chinese government, but I hope they're able to sleep at night.
I guess Bill Gates feels the charitable work he and his wife do balances out their karmatic debt for doing the same.