01/20/13 12:03- ID#57151
Guised Racism and Guns
-There is for sure a big part of this gun issue that is really this.. Oh know N..s are going to kill us or rob us or rape our women... Dude you live in the burbs or in all white hood where there isn't even crime.. No one is traveling out to East Amherst or what ever to rob you...
-So you are telling me that Ak-47 is to defend you from the Government .. Um dude they have swat teams , Drones, Small tanks.......
-Now if you lived on say the East Side I might buy it....
-I guess I should really explain what I mean by "Guised Racism" it is when you say or do something that really means something else hence a guise ... Things like "I don't watch basketball cause 7 foot players dunk".. oh but it is ok for you white kids or other family to play .... Not traveling into the city cause it is dangerous ... Oh you mean cause there are blacks and spics ...Oh ok gotta cha... Man that guy is lazy ... Oh you mean cause he isn't white but he still does more then that lazy white guy but you won' say nothing WHITEPOWER! "My taxes goes and supports them" ... First of all you don't understand how taxes work all the money taken out isn't sent right to the black mother with 3 kids.. Of course if she was white you would have much less of a problem lets go donate toys and clothes to her.. ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ... Just a few examples that come to my mind quickly ... One more "That school is in a Bad Area"
-That being said I remember being around Toronto ? some place in Canada and see these two black guys and and am expecting them to talk we will call it homie and had my mind blown... French was spoken granted white people didn't even speak it in that part of Canada well I think it was french
-Again I'm not saying the only issue is the fear that blacks are coming the blacks are coming but it is one of the many issues on guns.. But it is the same party that think Obama was born in Kenya and shouldn't be President so......
-There is a part of this entire gun thing that I kinda think no one in the media should be talking about... Where was all this during columbine ? Yes at the end I will post a video... But the talk shouldn't be about gun debate it should be about how as a society we treat different people the same.. How we don't push the fringe people to that place... How is it that these people who go on these rampages don't get the help they need.. Cause if they would have none of these mass shootings (yes counting webster) would have happened .... This is what we should be working on not what type of guns people can have.....
-I Don't agree with the current laws they passed... Again I don't agree with it some parts don't make any sense..... If you have a legal gun where the standard clip is 10 bullets That is where it should have stopped.. how can only 7 bullets be legal.. that is just silly and wrong.. Only load 7 I don't get it... What about cops with glocks are their guns not fully loaded vs. Criminals fully loaded guns ? along with swat ? Maybe I missed something still don't get that part
-I myself think that if Guards at schools where trained and knew what to do.. People would still do bad things but they wouldn't kill kids....
-Of course if at school you didn't have to worry about sitting at the wrong lunch table or that liking Britney spears will get a dead cat at your table or liking speed metal getting shoving in a locker or what ever ....
-But I also think that if the common city folk might have a gun that would put a hole in the chest criminals might think twice before doing something...
-There is no way to cover every issue but I admit I'm a little bit split on the issue... Why can't every part of a non removable # and it is registered to you .. Your gun goes away and a crime happens with said gun you are charged with being an acesory to the crime or make it to the next degree of the crime ... That would stop all these supposed good law following folks from moving their guns... Cause at the end of the day guns don't make them selves
-Or here is another radical idea if we treated drugs as drugs instead of promoting some and saying others are bad... Yeah go get addicted to beer it is ok cause we sell it at football games but coke oh you are a bad person and can't do movies .... Then we wouldn't have gangs selling the stuff and they might not need guns ? Just some ideas ....
Last Modified: 01/20/13 12:03
11/30/10 05:51- ID#53179
CFLs? Um No Backward thinking
There is a war on drugs! why? Well a lot of people make money on it... We lock up drug addicts and cause gangs to have a product to fight over instead of trying to make it so people who want to escape or feel life more enhanced don't turn to drugs....
But what I want to talk about is CFLs. The Idea shown in ads for them is that they last for years. They are environmental... Well but see that isn't true at all.... First of all I have heard they have Mercury in them, yes that thing that causes cancer and so what do you with those lights when they burn out...
What the ads and packaging tells is. These lights can last up to 5 years. They are these great lights that last a long time and never run out. Well what that does is make you think oh then I can leave them on. That is right they encourage you to keep lights on. Here is an idea to save on energy and not burn your lights out. You leave a room and turn them off. Oh but we can't tell people to do that, cause then the power company loses money. So just leave the lights on all over the house....
But there is another part that those lights that kinda look like curly fries don't tell you.... If you have an old house and you use CFL's they stick out past the light shades or what ever you call those glass things. Also if you have other types of fixtures they may not work with those. So then what are you supposed to do go out and buy new light covers for everything??????
Not to mention there is this thing that many people think that electricity likes comes out of the air... It doesn't some is from hydro power like Niagara Falls. Some is from coal. Yes there are still coal mines and some from wind farms... We all use it with out thinking about where we come from. In stead of having some kind of light that is supposed to last a long time, why don't we just think about when and where we really need light. For example I'm typing now do I really need the lights on.... No I don't so I should turn them off in this room and I will once I hit publish.........
Last Modified: 11/30/10 05:51
11/24/10 05:43- ID#53159
Acceptance isn't Glee Approval
In Any Event the main part of the story was about the Bullying thing. I kinda wonder if it is more about the bullying then the gay thing. Cause when he transfers schools it isn't just that he is being picked on and is scared it is that there is no Bullying about any thing Zero tolerance...
Last week what got me thinking was that part of the issue with the football player is that he can't come out. Not that he wants to. But as a football player you can't be gay. Now the show didn't really touch on this like I thought they wouldn't, but hey it is just a TV show. But to me they kinda hinted at it. When Kurt didn't mention the kiss and instead said picking on him....
But What I was thinking about some place in the show was that often in life acceptance and approval get kinda mixed up in our minds. I think this is so true with Homosexuality and really any kind of sex that isn't what you are into. I think often times someone thinks that what someone does or is is wrong so they don't approve of who or what they are. But just because you approve of someone doesn't mean you can't still accept who they are and let them be them selves and just not like what they are....
Again this isn't just about homosexuality it is about anything. It could be that you think that pan handler shouldn't bother you and should go get a job (you don't approve of them). But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't accept them as a person or that you are mean to them. I don't think I really have the words to explain what I really mean.
That being said hope everyone enjoys their Holiday weekend!!!
Last Modified: 11/24/10 05:43
11/18/10 06:14- ID#53121
Caffine and Alcohol aka 4 loko
1. There is Claim that when you have Caffeine in alcoholic drinks that it makes it so you can't tell how drunk you are... Not sure if that is true or not but since it pumps you up it makes sense...
2. If 1 is true then can it be dangerous... Yes but anything can be. Smoke enough your lungs die. To Much alcohol you die. To Much Cocaine heart attack. This is true of most things. If you think about it makes sense. High amount of alcohol in a big can and many of these drinks are very sweet so you can see how it would be easy to over do it, in fact I did with Joose But it is very tasty...
3. But see Danger is the point.. If you drink something that constricts blood Vessels and then speeds up your heart or body or gets you moving it could be dangerous...
4. The Point is when something is Dangerous people want to ban it. Do you ban cars? No. How about ATVs and other dangerous things ? Um no. Here is an Idea how about some Education and teaching people how to be safe.....
5. Binge drinking is a real thing and people drink to get really messed up or chugging beers. This has happened for a long time and will continue to happen. Yes young people die from it all the time and it won't stop anytime soon. I think that the people who got really sick off of four Loko did so cause they where into this activity.. It isn't four loko that caused it, it is the activity the stuff is around 10 or 12% alcohol....
6. Yes when sparks came out and also Tilt They where marketed as energy drinks with alcohol. Now some have said that this confuses people that people think they are energy drinks. I do think that some people might think that... But they are only sold with other alcohol so you should know they aren't a regular energy drink so I don't buy that.
So I guess the way I Bottom Line this is that I think they should be legal and Just have a warning on them. Now I know that hurts the marketing but you still have most of the can or maybe you could make them have a cling sign that attaches to the cooler doors that is a warning. If a store doesn't have one then the their is some kind of fine from the FDA.. Everyone shouldn't be hurt by some people who can't control there alcohol intake... They should be Drink at your own risk.....
Now I do have one other issue about this entire thing. If this combo is so Dangerous then why aren't they going to go after the bars and restaurants where you can order right off the menu a Vodka and Redbull or a Vodka and Diablo Energy drink (very tasty at club Diablo). See there is this double standard that pisses me off. They won't go and make that mix illegal in a bar (how would you enforce it since they don't only sell alcohol you can't make them not sell energy drinks). But that isn't why. I think they are in bed with the bars. I almost wonder if the bars are tied in to this somehow. Yes I'm glad they aren't going this far cause I like that mix, I also like Jagger and redbull as a mix Yummy... But it is still a double standard. Why is it that a few people have to go and ruin it for everyone else... This isn't just in here in so many other things it just pisses me off.
On a side note Today I did buy two flavors of Four Loko one is grape and I forget what the other one is they have a bunch of flavors and I got a huge thing of a purple can of tilt. Maybe I'll buy more types just to try them , cause I won't be able to have them much longer ARgh..................
I remember there being Controversy over a Drink I liked called sparks it was pretty good. It tastes like an energy Drink but has alcohol in it... The Wiki Page (drink)
Created in 2002 by San Francisco-based beverage marketing firm McKenzie River Corporation, early marketing relied on word of mouth primed by giving away large quantities of the beverage..Between 2003 and 2005, it had a 107% compound annual growth rate.
On August 14, 2006, Miller Brewing Company announced it had completed the purchase of Sparks from McKenzie River Corp. for $215 million cash. Miller had been producing Sparks prior to this purchase. It is currently producing it under the Steel Brewing Company label of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
In September 2008, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit watchdog and consumer advocacy group, sued MillerCoors, claiming that its Sparks alcoholic beverages that include caffeine are a health hazard. Three months later, at the behest of San Francisco and 13 states, distributor MillerCoors LLC announced it would remove the caffeine from its Sparks line of energy drinks, and would change its marketing campaign. "We're doing it to protect the public health of our young people and to reform business practices," said S.F. City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
Maybe it is Just Me but I think this is all Schumer's Idea to shut these people down
Four Loko Drinks to be Prohibited by Government
Posted November 18, 2010 4:32 PM
Four Loko is the target of new legislative efforts aimed at protecting Americans from the dangerous mix of caffeine and alcohol. The federal government will make products such as Four Loko, Joose and other caffeinated alcoholic beverages prohibited for U.S. sale, a senator says.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday the Food and Drug Administration will rule caffeine is an unsafe food additive to alcoholic beverages and therefore prohibited for sale in the United States.
Last month, nine college students from Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Wash., fell ill at a house party in Roslyn, Wash. The students were hospitalized and one student almost died. "Let these rulings serve as a warning to anyone who tried to peddle dangerous and toxic brews to our children. Do it and we will shut you down," Schumer said in a statement Tuesday.
"This ruling should be the nail in the coffin of these dangerous and toxic drinks. Parents should be able to rest a little easier knowing that soon their children won't have access to this deadly brew." Drinks such as Four Loko and Joose have as much as two to three coffee cups' worth of caffeine and two to three cans of beer per container, a combination that can be extremely hazardous for teens as well as adults, Schumer said.
Schumer said he has been applying intense pressure to have these drinks banned because of serious risks to the health and safety of consumers.
So Never read this site before but they have an article with a video of part of a Vigil For Four Loko..
In the wake of its inevitable ban, Four Loko, the drink that nobody really drinks but everyone loves to memorialize, continues to inspire more feats of absurdity. On Monday filmmaker Ryan Jones drank the stuff to scientifically guage how potent it is. On Wednesday Assemblyman Felix Ortiz imbibed three in a nearby hospital to monitor its effects.
Last night fans of the "blackout in a can" gathered in Union Square for a Four Loko vigil. Fans of the drink sang songs of support, lit candles and told stories about their best (or worst) Four Loko experiences. Even the 8-bit techno band Anamanaguchi came to show their support.
The Village Voice was there to report this moving and somber event:
Soon, the crowd began to light candles and, in turn, use those candles to light their cigarettes. A few mourners stepped forward to share their Four Loko stories. "Every time I drank a Four Loko, something terrible happened," one said, then, when the applause settled, concluded, "And each time, I grew from it." A less enthusiastic round of applause followed.
Last Modified: 11/18/10 06:14
11/17/10 08:04- ID#53118
Football Homosexuality on Glee
Now they deal with the issues of being different, being picked on and Homosexuality on the show.. One of the most recent ones is there is this football player who picks on the one openly gay kid and not in the nice way. So he stands up to the guy finally and the end the hater kisses him. Yeah that was on last weeks show. But there was a tie in about if he tells anyone that he will kill him and at one point he winks at him also....
What I don't think the show is going to talk about is the fact that Homosexuality is often something people can't admit to for many reasons. But one of them is because you lose who you are and what you love. See even if this character new he was gay (and not repressing it) and loved the fact that he was. He could never come out cause the day that he did, bye bye football. Anyone (say a dad) who had football dreams for him would be hurt as well. Why would football be over for him (not that I ever played in school)? It makes a non sexual thing sexual. Tackles in the mind become grouping. Lets not even get into the locker room and showers and all the awkwardness. Now some might say this is silly why should people stay hidden because of haters. It isn't really about haters though but it is some. This is the same reason why male teams don't want women on the team and if they do some how make it, get a different changing room.....
But that takes me onto a different issue. Women and reporters and camera men in locker rooms. Sorry it shouldn't be allowed. The Locker room is a place for the team. Where people change and get ready and no Cameras or women should be there. What there Should be though is A media room that players and coaches can go into and get treatments if they want to and do interviews....
How many girls would change if they thought a boy was watching through a peep hole. Well that is what it would be like if someone came out when they played football. Yes some people wouldn't care but some would not want that person looking at there stuff. Also how about when the o line holds hands or are neck to neck in the huddle or snap towels now all that all boys stuff boys being boys loses what it is because of the assumption of everyone being straight.....
There really is no way of changing this.... But what really causes this is in our society Gender roles are so strong. Boys do this and girls do that.....
There was this prowrestler I liked Named Chris Cannon . He was kinda a mid level wrestler. AFter WWE bought WCW he kinda went no where. Some Time he came out publicly and not sure how high he would have climbed but it sure derailed any chance he had... It is to bad. As Many Wrestlers he died at a young age. I'm sure it is because he came out and it killed his chances. Look at how wrestlers dress and the close body contact how could that work knowing someone is gay......
This is tragic that this is how things are but that is how things are. It is a real issue and no NFL player has ever come out during their playing time. In Wrestling yes there have been charcters that hint at it, but that is just a charcter a way to mess with the other persons mind but to really be gay is different.......
My Point is that often times because of how Society Is (not just certain people) there are reasons people can't come out or admit to what they really are because it would destroy there lives and it isn't only from hate.... This is a real issue that I don't have the answers to.....
Last Modified: 11/17/10 08:04
09/11/08 07:32- ID#45646
9/11 and freedom
-9/11 wasn't the first Terrorist attack on America they tried to blow those buildings up once before oh yeah and there was the Oklahoma City bombing. But it was the most dramatic.
-I think it is sad that all those people died. But what has happened since has been even sadder. We used it as an excuse to go into Iraq. Every plane in America was downed but yet we flew the Bin Laden family around. The part that sucks so much about the war is that we have lost more people in the war then in the attack. So I think that the terrorists got what they wanted. Not to mention all the deaths of people in Iraq. Then the groups that where somewhat forced by Saddam to get now kill each other. If you really think about it and let it sink in it really is pretty sad.
-Terrorism and 9/11 has been the excuse used to take away some of our freedoms with things like wire taping and other things. I think those first one where a test to see if they work and then see what else can be taken from us.
-I'm not just bashing Bush here. It is our Middle East policy that most likely got us attacked. Anyone remember that Iraq used to be our buddy and then once they went into Queit they became evil and we went to war with them Desert Shield then became desert storm.
-I was going to search on line and find all those nice pictures of firefighters with angels and all that stuff. But the problem is those are often used in the Remember September 11th movement. That is often used as a way like put the attack in the wrong light and say that going into Iraq and giving up our rights so we can feel free is a good thing. I don't think it is. I think when we remember Sept. 11th we should understand that it happened because there are people in the world who hate us, and then try to figure out why they hate us. Then if we can figure that out see if they might have a good point. I suspect that between us being friends with "the jews" and sticking our noses into places that we aren't wanted that could be enough to piss anyone off.
-Hey if we stop making enemies then we won't have to worry about being attacked and there won't be another 9/11. I guess my main point is that as sad as what happened is what has happened post 9/11 is worse. I know if I hated America For there freedom I would be so happy to see us lose our freedoms and Liberties like how we are. I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling that it is only going to get worse and then McCain Or Barack won't really make anything better.
07/16/08 06:54- ID#45040
Backward war on drugs and racism
I can understand that people can think drugs are wrong morally. It seems to me that is where most of the anti drug stuff comes from. I also think that since you come from it as a moral argument you can never end drug use (drug use and abuse are different but often people don't get that so for this they will be the same). See if it is moral issue then people who are on drugs aren't as good as you. Once someone isn't as good as you then the way you treat them changes. Instead of wanting people to get better just send the pieces of shit to jail. Even if you where to think that they should go to rehab if people think drug users are worse people that will sink in and they will pick up on that and no advice will ever work because it is done like preaching.
When I'm sick, do I care about being sick and that I don't move as good or that my insides are messed up, no I don't. I care about the fact that I don't feel good. So I take drugs that make me feel better (yes the sleep helps fight the cold) But I'm doing it to stop the pain. What I should do is take cough expecturent that will make me cough and get all the germs out. But again I would rather sleep and not be in pain. In America we do this with a lot of things we fight the symptoms in stead of what is causing the problems. The same is true about the drug war. We bust drug dealers and drug users and kingpins and gangs who fight over turf. But really what is that going to do? Well it makes Jails and the entire legal system huge and big profits for some people, and breaks up all ready broken families. But even if you got ride of all the drug dealers in a neighboorhood or a city how long would it stay that way. As long as there is a demand then those people who need drugs will get them someplace. Maybe it won't be on the corner maybe they will sniff gas, or snort aderlale (anti depresent that I guess gets up pretty high in powder form up your nose). As long as there is demand someone will supply something. That is why the war on drugs makes no sense. If you could spend the money on making sure society teaches people about how to deal with things with out using drugs then there would be no need to lock up drug dealers cause when no one smoked crack anymore they would have to do something else.
But there are other reasons this will never happen. First of all there is a difference between drug use and abuse. If I go to a rave or a dance club once a month and use e to have more fun then that is use but if I'm going out to the clubs every night and using it my brain is going to get fucked up. There is some thought that DNA, Abuse and Family history ties into why some people wind up abusing drugs and some don't. I also think that what you see as a kid is a factor. Hey if mom comes home from work and hates dad and drinks half a bottle of win, then you learn that is how you deal with things, instead of dealing with things in a positive way.
Another reason why the government won't stop the war on drugs and spend that money to try and help people not become addicts is because of drugs that are accepted. What if saying in first grade as part of health class you teach coping skills. Yeah that would be great. You could also teach kids that they should have some way to deal with anger. You could teach all this positive stuff and even tell kids about art and music or suggest hobbies to do as a way of escaping instead of drugs and give them ways to deal with peer pressure. But see if that where to work then what about beer, there would be no reason to buy it, same would be true with smoking. Oh we could never have that. Back to the moral thing again. It is ok to smoke and drink but smoking weed or doing a line of blow (not that I really would but I have all ways wanted to try a line of a striper's tit of course she was free and so was the blow) is wrong. I think because of that conflict the teaching of "life or coping skills" will never really be taught. I don't know if it is true or not but I have heard that "The capagne for a drug free America" is paid for by some Tobacco and Alcohol companies. As long as they have the money to through around then teaching people that drugs are not the only way to relax or speed up will never happen. I think that when companies like Redbull, Amp (part of mountain dew), Shark, Monster, rockstar and other energy drinks get smart they will add money to stop drugs. Why go get no doze or take uppers when you can have two cans of red bull. I can't say that they are currently helping to keep drugs illegal but if they are smart they will soon.
I honestly believe that if you fought the war on drugs from the prevention side it would do a lot more good then sending people to jail. I wonder if mostly white guys went to jail and broke up white families if the war on drugs would keep going this way. I kinda doubt it. I also think the war on drugs is a form of racism. I won't go as far as to say that the CIA put (forget the specific drug heroion I think) into the ghetto, but some people do believe that they did. I have not been to every city and I don't know about how things work in white hoods. But from what I seen the people who go to jail for selling drugs on the street are mostly black, and Latino (what nationality not really sure but does it really matter?). I don't think that it was set up as a race thing really it was more about who is poor, and where the poor people live. (hey or maybe I'm out of my mind from listening to both Public Enemy and Queensryche back in the day). But in general terms rich guys bring drugs into the country or grow it here in some cases. They have the least to lose also since they aren't selling it on the streets. There are way to many levels to really know but somewhere down the line you get to someone who sells or distributes drugs to an area or a bunch of people and maybe even some of those people resell it. As the amount of money people make gets lower the risks get higher and the skin gets darker or at least the people get poorer. No one when they are in 1st grade goes when I go up I want to by a drug dealer.
But at some point some kid who is in school, or who has maybe dropped out all ready see the glammour and the money of selling drugs. Hey if you want nice clothes and an x-box or money to drink or what ever you will get that cash a lot quicker then flipping burgers. it is all ways harder for the poor to get good jobs. The schools they go to aren't as good (hey all the tax payers moved to the burbs so how could they be as good), so there education isn't as good. If the home is broken (not saying there are not good single parents there are some really good ones) but that on top of being poor makes things tougher. Then if you ad in that you are black on top of that, it can be very hard to get a job. So instead of trying the lure of selling drugs is an easy one. I'm not saying everyone who is black is a a drug dealer, in fact most are not. I'm not saying you can't get a good job, you can get hired there and then if you are a good worker maybe even become a manager and then take some classes and become a district manager or something along those lines. But middle class (not even rich) families kids have an advantage and then if they are white it is a double adventage. Plus sometimes the cultural differences are just enough to scare away the guy who does the hiring. So there is often this perception that well I won't be able to get a job any ways, and even if I do It will be something nasty so I should sell drugs. Then if you sell drugs and that is what you are going to do why finish school anyways. Now if you get arrested for drugs or really anything criminal that makes getting another job even more tough. Once an ex-con allways an ex-con. The drug game is fixed game that hurts blacks and hispancs and favors rich with and maybe colubian men. That is reason enough to pay the DEA to go bust down doors and put "The Scum Bags who ruin our little angles lives by selling them drugs" in jail. But see if you where not on the higher moral ground and you taught you kids that they don't need to smoke up (kinda hard when you pop Zanak and they tried that first) t deal with being in high school, then there would be no drug dealers.
I wish I could really explain better how I think the war on drugs is racism. But it is kinda tough to do. What I do know is that it sure seems racist to me. It seems like no drug dealer makes people do drugs. Granted I don't think they should try to peddle there stuff to kids. It should be a if you need it you know where to get it type thing. As I stated before there are some pretty good single mothers. But I think that two parents do a better job with kids. I also think that when you take a parent away to jail it does have a bad effect on the kid. I can't say it makes them sell drugs. But it sure could cause them to if there isn't enough money in the household. I think that since the cops go after the sellers on the street (DEA supposidly starts on the street and then tries to move up the chain) that they do it this way because the sellers are minorites. Ok so you can't really go after people you don't see doing a crime (importers) [but how do they get that stuff in anyways, maybe some of it is by paying some people off not sure]. I think that minority sellers is a big reason for the drug war. Not only are you fighting the drug war but you are putting "the scum, Bad guys" in jail.
In this post I'm not saying you should make illegal drugs legal that is a different post at a different time. But I'm saying that if you really want to stop drug use and the crimes that addicts commit like stealing stuff and selling it cheaply on the street for drugs. Then you have to put the racism aside for a minute, and put away the high moral ground and think for a sometime. Then come to understand that just like Porn, strippers, street walkers, or high end escorts as long as there is a need for it people will find a way to get it, so you should figure out how to stop the need. Of course that is a bigger challenge then just putting everyone in jail and you really have to look at things and think about things but no one in this country of "I want it now" will really do that.
06/11/08 07:03- ID#44621
Censoring the next loss of freedom
So today reading the Buffalo News I found and interesting story about the internet. That is the link to the original article. Here is my take on what is happening here. I think internet companies are giving our freedom away and Cuomo is taking our freedom away also. Some might say "But Pete child porn is evil and anyone who would rape a child is sick and should go to jail or be killed or raped why are you defending them". I'm not defending them at all. I think that most people would think that Child Porn is very wrong and that it hurts a lot of people. Not sure how I feel about people who like the pictures but don't hurt anyone and just look at them and I'm sure there is some debate on that. I'm sure people disagree on what the punishment should be for child porn. It is a big problem and real solutions need to be found. One of those solutions isn't making internet providers the cops.
What happens often is that people think that because something is bad or evil that they have a right to do things that are wrong to that person or do things that they normally wouldn't do. For example someone rapes a girl and then they think that, that guy should be raped every day in jail. But see what they don't understand is that rape is wrong so him being raped is just as wrong. So in theory everyone who rapes the rapest is just as bad as him, so then someone should rape them, sorry that is conflictory and makes no sense.
Since Child Porn is wrong people think that it is ok to sensor web sites that help pass it to other people. But what if that site has other stuff other then porn why hurt the entire site. But see what these companies don't get is that once you do it once when asked to you are now an internet cop. Once you do this once you will continue to do this with other things. What if Some powerful senator thinks Marriage is between a man and women and so he gets websites that fight for gay rights or marraige to be taken down. Some would say that would never happen. But see internet companies are now the cops so if they think it is wrong goodbye. Or maybe what about underage drinking. What if they go after sites that tell how to make drinks with out making sure people are 21. Hey underage drinking when you mix driving kills a lot of people I can see how now the internet cops could close down those sites. hey why not take that another step and go after pictures of people drinking on the net who might not be legal age. Why not just go after any site that does that and stop access. Once you let the government tell you what can and can't be on the internet you have let your rights be taken away and then can lead to not being able to keep the government honest. If you think this can't happen go look at China's Internet.
I'm sure I could come up with a bunch of different examples to show what I mean. The thing is that morality is different for different people. I'm sure there are some people who have sex with kids (not teens who fuck around and are underage) and think it is fine. Things that are illegal should be fought by the police and undercover people on line and there should be over sight so that they follow the law. If you break the law to capture someone you are just another criminal your self and are no better then they are. But see that is the job of the law officals not the people who allow you access to the internet.
Other then the fact that we are giving away our rights again to feel safe. There is another issue. If the internet companies are given the keys to the cuffs and made cops then what happens next and how far will they go and how many more rights will the violate. So lets say Time Warner knows making bombs is illegal and the mis one site and someone blows something up and people die. Well now that timewarner is the cops they could be sued, hey they should have pulled down that site. So because of that it could make the internet even more restricted.
Yes internet child porn is bad and should be fought but this is not the way to do it. When ever anyone sees their rights being given up or the possiblity of that happening maybe it should be fought. At the very least you should understand what is going on and think about it. Not sure if there is anyway to fight it as an indivual. I think if the internet companies are supbenied by a judge for a case then yes they should give up the information but none of the witch hunt stuff.
In any event it is an interesting article. I will end like this. People will not stand up for the rights of people they think are different then them selves but when the powers that be attack what you believe in or you then it will be so different now that it is you. Don't give up your rights to feel safer, all it does any ways is make you less safe. I would love to know how our founding fathers would think about things like this and the Patriot act.
Internet providers to cut off child porn
Three companies settle after probe by Cuomo
By Susan Schulman
Updated: 06/11/08 6:50 AM
Andrew M. Cuomo announces agreement with three service providers.
Under pressure from the state attorney general, Internet providers Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Sprint are taking steps to block computer access to news groups that disseminate child pornography and to knock down Web sites hosting the illegal material.
The moves, long sought by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, are considered a significant effort to deal with the child pornography explosion on the Internet around the world.
"This is a major step forward. We hope this will become a model for the rest of the industry," said Ernie Allen, head of the center based in Alexandria, Va.
State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced the settlement Tuesday after an eight-month investigation by his office into the proliferation of online child pornography.
Under the settlement, the three major Internet providers, which did not admit any wrongdoing, not only will take steps to rid their own networks of child pornography but also will contribute $1.12 million to fund additional efforts by the attorney general's office and the national center to remove child pornography from the Internet.
In "The Child Porn Pipeline," a series published last June, The Buffalo News revealed that most of the commercial child pornography disseminated worldwide - one study put the figure at 62 percent - is posted through Internet service providers in the United States.
The series described the national center's efforts to persuade service providers to shut down and block access to child pornography sites.
But many providers resisted, saying that policing the Internet was not their job.
A decade ago, service providers in Great Britain began closing sites and cutting off access to Internet child pornography.
British computer servers and Web sites, which once provided 18 percent of commercial child pornography produced in the world, now account for 1 percent.
While U. S. law enforcement focused much of its attention on arresting the people viewing, and to a lesser extent making and distributing, child pornography, Cuomo's investigation went after the Internet companies whose servers and networks host and disseminate the material.
Allen has supported that approach, saying so many people view child pornography that "unless you turn off the spigot, you are not really going to address the enormity of the problem."
The undercover probe by the attorney general's office found 88 different news groups - online bulletin boards where users can upload and download files - with a total of 11,390 lewd photos of young children, including some being raped.
Posing as subscribers, investigators then complained to the Internet providers about the availability of child pornography.
But the material remained available, and the service providers contended they were not responsible for the material that others share on news groups or post on Web sites, Cuomo said.
But he rejected that argument and threatened to bring charges against the companies, which led to the settlement announced Tuesday.
Two of the three service providers agreed to block access to news groups linked to child pornography, while Time Warner said it will eliminate news groups from its services.
"It's a small percentage of our users," said Alex Dudley, Time Warner spokesman.
"We are not comfortable with them," he continued. "Our best recourse is to take them down. Time Warner is discontinuing news groups."
The three Internet companies also agreed to work with the national center to remove Web sites hosting child pornography.
The center maintains a list of 39,000 Web addresses that contained child pornography, Allen said.
A few of the larger Internet companies use the list to identify and remove child pornography, but thousands of smaller Internet companies do not, the center has said.
Time Warner said that, upon learning that no action had been taken on a child pornography report, the company, under its established policy, immediately submitted the report to the national center.
Once it received confirmation of child pornography, the company took down the news groups, Dudley said.
At Verizon, any child pornography news group reported to the company was taken down promptly, said Eric Rabe, vice president for communications.
Verizon and Time Warner also are working with the national center to take down any confirmed child pornography sites, their spokesmen said.
Sprint spokesman Matthew Sullivan said getting child pornography off the Internet is one of the company's priorities.
"Battling this scourge requires close collaboration of many parties," he said at Tuesday's news conference in Cuomo's New York City office.
Verizon, with 8.2 million subscribers, and Time Warner's Road Runner, with 7.9 million, are two of the five largest Internet service providers in the world, while Sprint is one of the three largest wireless companies in the United States.
While the five largest companies control a major share of the Internet market, thousands of smaller servers are also involved in Internet operations.
Cuomo said his investigation is continuing.
06/09/08 08:03- ID#44597
Racism causes High Gas price (2nd)
The reason that gas prices are so high is simple supply (well maybe not really simple) iand demand. People need their cars and trucks. Most people who drive are used to driving and can't just stop driving. So as long as that stays true then people have to pay what the stations charge for gas. The reason they can't give up there cars is because the suburbs are all stretched out and spaced out on (yes I do believe this) Purpose so you have to drive to shop. Often because of this sometimes there isn't any bus service since everyone drives. I think this is done on purpose to keep the poor and blacks out (like in the Cynthia Wiggins case where the Mall didn't want the Bus on its grounds).
The second reason people can't just stop driving there cars is because most people don't work where they live. As an example I have all ways taken a bus I've gone to Orchard Park, Grand Island, and now Cheap-to-vegas (if I worked Sunday I would be screwed). Often people in the burbs work in another one or in the city and people who live in the city work out in the burbs. Yes I will admit there are some towns that have shops and stuff but I don't mean those places. What I'm talking about is sprawl. I'm not sure what caused all the sprawl but I can guess that Womens Liberation, Blacks trying to get rights, School iintergration, Anti-war movements and new minorites trying to move in is what sent most people out of the city. Yes there are some generaly bad people who do cause trouble. But my assertion is that most of the sprawl was because of racism. So if you assume that is true then Racism-->Sprawl-->Not being able to stop using your car-->High demand-->Power to charge what ever they want for gas.
Granted I know that their are other factors that go into the gas prices. But the thing that would cut prices the most is if people just stopped driving. There are other ways to cut gas consumption and one of them may be places of work making work days less and hours longer. People who don't need to drive somewhere walking or neigh boors going shopping together to cut down on the amount of trips they make. When you need food and stuff for the house get it all in one trip so you don't have to drive to buy stuff everyday, maybe come up with creative solutons. But back to my point if it wasn't for racism people could just stop driving because they would work where they live and shop the same way. The ironic thing is that in the old days when all the Germans and Irish all lived together by nationality that living situation would make this gas problem go away, not saying we should go back to those times just kinda ironic
As a side note I have heard Con. St near the college is getting very nice. When I was growing up it was kinda rough, but not really, just part of it might have been. I knew someone who was Italian who remembers when "the hood" aka blacks and hispanics moved in went bad and and all the Italian owned places burned down, he remembers the fires. He was Italian and still lived on the west side.
06/06/08 07:59- ID#44569
Girl on Girl vs. Boy seatle
So I don't feel like being sued by CNN so here is the link to there story about the lesbians kissing in Seattle At a base ball game. I found it because I did a search for the story I read in the Buffalo News. My take on the story is People where making out at the Mariners baseball game. Nothing was said to the man and women making out. But the two ladies where kicked out. There is a claim that the ladies where groping, hey why no video, HA. I guess there was a family with kids who complained because they had to explain to kids why two girls where kissing. I guess at some point you have to explain that to kids but all you would have to say is you know how boys kiss girls well sometimes girls kiss girls. That would be it assuming the kids allready know that. If there are no PDA at the game then they should have that throughout the entire place regardless of gender or sex. The girls think they where kicked out because they where gay and the stadium says that isn't true. I think the real problem here is that often things are done because of a complaint. The same thing could happen with swearing, it is a baseball game you are supposed to yell at the ump for a shitty call, but if you have Mr. Sensitive you could get in trouble. It would be nice to know what is really happening. That being said at a lot of sports events they do have Kiss Cams and sometimes they are sponsored by a company, the ones I have seen have all ways been man on woman or Rax (bandits games) with to ladies. I have seen as a joke two people of the opposing team so there is kinda that atmosphere as a factor.
Fuck it here it is
SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- Most of the time, a kiss is just a kiss in the stands at Seattle Mariners games. The crowd hardly even pays attention when fans smooch.
Sirbrina Guerrero complained after an usher told her to stop kissing her date at a Seattle Mariners game in May.
But last week, a lesbian complained that an usher at Safeco Field asked her to stop kissing her date because it was making another fan uncomfortable.
The incident has exploded on local TV, on talk radio and in the blogosphere and has touched off a debate over public displays of affection in generally gay-friendly Seattle.
"Certain individuals have not yet caught up. Those people see a gay or lesbian couple and they stare or say something," said Josh Friedes of Equal Rights Washington. "This is one of the challenges of being gay. Everyday things can become sources of trauma."
As the Mariners played the Boston Red Sox on May 26, Sirbrina Guerrero and her date were approached in the third inning by an usher who told them their kissing was inappropriate, Guerrero said.
The usher, Guerrero said, told them he had received a complaint from a woman nearby who said that there were kids in the crowd of nearly 36,000 and that parents would have to explain why two women were kissing.
"I was really just shocked," Guerrero said. "Seattle is so gay-friendly. There was a couple like seven rows ahead making out. We were just showing affection."
On Monday, Mariners spokeswoman Rebecca Hale said that the club is investigating but that the usher was responding to a complaint of two women "making out" and "groping" in the stands.
"We have a strict non-discrimination policy at the Seattle Mariners and at Safeco Field, and when we do enforce the code of conduct it is based on behavior, not on the identity of those involved," Hale said.
The code of conduct -- announced before each game -- specifically mentions public displays of affection that are "not appropriate in a public, family setting." Hale said those standards are based on what a "reasonable person" would find inappropriate.
Guerrero denied she and her date were groping each other, saying that along with eating garlic fries, they were giving each other brief kisses.
On Tuesday, Guerrero said a Mariners director of guest services had apologized to her. The team spokeswoman could not immediately confirm that.
After the story broke, the Mariners were blasted by the sex-advice columnist Dan Savage, who wrote about the incident on the blog of the Stranger, an alternative weekly paper.
"I constantly see people making out," Savage said. "My son has noticed and asked, 'Do they show the ballgame on women's foreheads?'"
Savage called for a "kiss-in" to protest against the Mariners.
Web sites have been swamped with blog postings for and against Guerrero and her date. And the story has people talking in Seattle.
"I would be uncomfortable" seeing public displays of affection between lesbians or gay men, said Jim Ridneour, a 54-year-old taxi driver. "I don't think it's right seeing women kissing in public. If I had my family there, I'd have to explain what's going on."
"It all depends on the degree," Mark Ackerman said as he waited for a hot dog outside Safeco Field before Wednesday's game. "Even for heterosexual couples."
Since the incident, Guerrero's job and her past have come under scrutiny. She works at a bar known for scantily clad women and was a contestant on the MTV reality show "A Shot at Love With Tila Tequila," in which women and men compete for the affection of a bisexual Internet celebrity.
"People are saying it's 15 more minutes for my career," Guerrero said of the ballpark furor, "but this is not making me look very good."
In 2007, an Oregon transit agency chief apologized after a lesbian teenager was kicked off a bus when a passenger complained about her kissing another girl.
Also in 2007, a gay rights group protested a Kansas City, Missouri, restaurant they said ejected four women because two of them kissed, and a Texas state trooper was placed on probation in 2004 for telling two gay men who were kissing at the state Capitol that homosexual conduct was illegal in Texas.
"There's a double standard. That's the bottom line," said Pat Griffin, director of the It Takes a Team! Education Campaign, an initiative from the Women's Sports Foundation to eliminate homophobia in sports
The story in the Buffalo news.
One thing I forgot about is one of the girls was On season 2 of a shot at love with Tila Tequila, she has been elimantated maybe a week or two ago of viewing.
on A side note I look forward to seeing everyone at the Party on Sat at the 24.
My Fav Posts
- This user has zero favorite blogs selected ;(