Referring to the previous entry, good luck with the truth anyway if the internets are against you.
Wow. Bizarre twists on meaning become dominant and obliterate everything else.
(Except for one brilliant article pointed it out, and I’m posting about it, and you’re reading it. Maybe it is always free or bound to be free.)
Ah ha ha!
“The truth will make us strong.”
I’m waiting for more. Please. Feed me another verse. I’ll start compiling it into a Windows Bible. Not that there isn’t at least one already.
My brother found (or passed along) this disturbing scream of a business someone did with the Showbiz Pizza Characters.
Warning: PG-13. Perfectly shames the source material without losing much for the dignity of the characters made to sing it.
LOVE IN THIS CLUB from ( *_* ) on Vimeo.
My wife has a legal copy of Adobe CS2 purchased from BYU Bookstore when she was a student at BYU.
Today, mysteriously, every time Photoshop would boot up it would close automatically, no questions asked, no statements made, no crash - just.. gone.
Exasperated that reinstalling it and several other things didn’t fix it, I started looking through Windows system services one by one, googling them, and shutting down ones that I don’t want (I want a way to make those not start - there must be some kind of service blocker tool out there..). I ran across one entitled “Adobe LM Service”, which starts automatically at system boot, and googled it. I found this page, which informs me that the cause of the problem is spyware - which was installed by Adobe with CS2. It says: show
I’m pasting this letter from the Illustrator’s Partnership [edited only to change links to hyperlinked text]. Also following it with my comments is a reply I got from my Congressperson, Chris Cannon (R-Utah) about my letter to him opposing the bill. show
I collected this sound a long time ago while looking for rude sounds for work (no, they opted out of using them - I suppose wisely), but ran across it again today.
This has been really cracking me up. The original is at the freesound project, here. Another amusing one by the same user is “nuclear genocide”, here. It’s not done after the first. Wait - there are long pauses.
I’ve read an argument from a Democrat-voting Mormon 
defending Barack Obama’s stance on abortion (I won’t link to it). This argument seems to present Barack Obama’s reasoning on the issue as similar or identical to the LDS (Mormon) church’s reasoning. I don’t think that is so, and I’m posting my arguments against it. I want to seriously qualify that if Obama’s reasoning doesn’t harmonize with church policy (in my opinion) on this point, there are many other questions surrounding the political position about which the church is neutral (otherwise the church would instruct its members to oppose the Democratic party, which it most certainly does not - the Church is party neutral). But this is what I respond to:
Frequently we generalize and think the church is completely against abortion with no exceptions, but that is not the case. There needs to be an allowance for these times and conditions and Obama’s platform makes concession for these times too. In fact he says, “I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy.” Which is what the church encourages. If abortions were made completely illegal there would be no allowance for these rare but serious circumstances.
I checked for a reliable attribution of that statement to Obama, and I believe I found at least one (here). (And as for the banner in that web site - just erase the baby brother from the picture. Oh wait, he’s not there. They aborted him.)
Now, here’s my argument. This paragraph pulls Obama’s statement out of context. I do not personally know any “pro-life” person who has said they would oppose abortion in such extreme situations where the life of the mother is endangered or the pregnancy is the result of rape (or incest, or similar extreme situations). So to present this argument as opposing a reasonable “pro-life” position is at best uninformed. On that point, a reasonable (in my opinion) “pro-lifer” of course agrees. It is misrepresentative to argue this as opposing a “pro-life” position. Unfortunately, building up that argument and throwing it down - it is an obvious candidate for a weak argument and can easily be thrown down - leads to the idea that a pro-lifer opposes abortion in extreme cases such as a mother’s life endangered, or pregnancy by rape. As I said I’ve never known a pro-lifer who makes such extreme arguments (and if I did, I’d disagree with them). So I would ask the person making this argument which of their far too liberal friends they have not adequately challenged, to not only swallow but regurgitate such a distortion. Professors at a University? Yo. A University often an unhinged liberal maketh. Watch out.
What’s really baffling - and had me confused for a while - is that Obama’s language does not address those situations at all. Reading this link I found where the quote is cited, the only thing Obama says that could unreasonably be construed as touching on maternal life endangerment or rape is the phrase “..a woman’s medical concerns..” - in this wider context:
“..As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.”
May I point out that he does not mention endangerment of a mother’s life and does not either mention rape etc., but that he does say “a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.” I place emphasis on the word “and” because it clearly links “medical concerns” to “personal decisions between a doctor and patient.”
The hysterical brouhaha around reproductive activities and the virtual right to pursue them at all expenses - including the new lives they often create (and then summarily destroy by “abortion”) has often, in what I have read of our nation’s history of any legislation even peripherally having to do with sex - has often linked sex with “privacy” or a “right” of privacy which no court or legislation should invade. Never mind how much the Playboy channel proves that sex can often be regarded as anything but a private affair, and the obvious counterpoint that the children produced by sex don’t only belong to a parent - they have a life ahead of them where they will leave their parents and contribute to society and, hopefully, produce more children of their own - a child is not a woman’s only: a child is a gift to a nation and to the world. To characterize birthing concerns as concerns only belonging to the woman herself is utterly mislead and selfish. Getting back to my point now.. this is clearly rhetoric falling in the line of reasoning where a mother’s right to have a baby or not is her own personal “choice” - for which she also apparently has doctor-patient privileges to discuss whether or how do “abort” her own child. Reagan comes back to mind. Where is the child’s right? As he said, the only folks arguing for a “right” to abort were not themselves aborted.
Obama’s statements clearly play into reasoning that a woman has a “choice” to abort a child for any reason - which does not address the true moral question Obama’s (or Clinton’s or any other “pro-choice” person’s) position raises. Obama is clearly not speaking of extreme cases where abortion may be necessary. He’s simply saying it’s a difficult decision for many women.
Understatement of the year: the decision to end a life is a difficult one. Well, unless you are an islamofascist or a soldier in Iraq trying to stop islomofascists from campaigning anymore to send airplanes turned into bombs through American skies. What does Iraq have to do with Al-Qaeda? May I draw your attention to the fact that an organization calling themselves Al-Qaeda in Iraq is still alive and kicking in Iraq, although thankfully our brave soldiers are frustrating them. How does the name this organization gives itself not have to do with Al-Qaeda? (Anyone who buys this “we toppled the towers” hysteria, I will point blank tell them they are not thinking rationally.) The Al-Qaeda trainees who made the decision to crash the planes - they were indoctrinated with an entrenched hatred of Americans, brainwashed into thinking of Americans as amoral, unworthy creatures who have no right to live. Throw in the promise of an unending sex romp with a few dozen hot soon-to-be former virgins in the afterlife, and it’s an easy sell. Also relating to a decision to kill: what do the American soldiers who are out to prevent Al-Qaeda and other islamofascists from destroying American lives and freedom go through? Easy. Pull the trigger on all of them - fight them, or in ten years 9/11 will look like child’s play. Every faithful soldier knows this. Is it traumatic to kill any human, even when they clearly are part of an army out to destroy America - and the democracy America is slowly encouraging in Iraq? Absolutely. A great many soldiers suffer post-tramatic stress disorder (and, gratefully, I’ve heard, our nation is waking up more to that fact and getting returned soldiers the help they need to cope with it).
Barack Obama is okay with aborting a child for any reason any woman would do so. That includes reasons as stupid as the mother being impoverished and living in a cardboard box. I’m serious. That’s not a reason to end a human life, but it is a scenario that modern reasoning often finds justifiable to terminate a human life. Okay, and.. what about adoption? What about the many thousands (millions?) of children born throughout the world in any given year in equally desperate situations but who live good lives? (It comes as a revelation to so much of modernity that a life can be worthwile even without wealth or even basic shelter.) I love the reply Ann Coulter witnesses her father gave her when, as a kid, she related that scenario in asking her father if that would justify an abortion. His reply: “I don’t care. A life’s a life.” Amen. There is no more concise and accurate rebuttal than that.
Look wider at the “pro-choice” cause. More than 34,000,000 million Americans have been reported as “aborted” since 1972 (add up the numbers on that page) - which is far more than the number of Americans lost in all previous American wars combined, while pro-lifers endlessly puppet these illogical lines about “choice”. The “pro-choice” movement is not properly identified as toleration of silent infanticide - standing by while the class of “babies” is unendingly slaughtered. Nobody should be at war over it - killing abortion clinic doctors is a seriously bad and misled thing to do - but the legislative war against the “pro-choice” movement should be far, far more intense and broad than it is. Abortion is doing a far better job destroying American life than Al-Qaeda has reasonable hope to - but Al-qaeda surely would destroy all American lives, given the chance. I realize this comparison may distort pro-lifers as just out to kill babies. That’s stupid. They mean none of that. But unfortunately, their collective means of misled tolerance have in very fact meant more cost of American life than all other American battles combined. Heaven shudders at the bloodbath, my friends.
But the question of abortion is more complicated than that. There are arguments it should be decided per State by State constitutions. I know Democrats who happen also to be Mormons who think it is and should be so. I disagree with them. The first lines of the Constitution of the United States declare “..Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” as inalienable rights. Arguably, the right of life is not universally protected under the United States federal government.
There are arguments that would seem to refute this - or maybe they actually do - but as far as proposing legislation I don’t care. If those arguments hold up, we need to change the legislation that allows them to hold up, in my opinion. Whatever litigious mess got it through our heads that it’s okay for a State to approve killing a fetus in any circumstance - we need to reverse that mess. Because it is not okay, morally, in most of the situations where States in our nation allow it. And in my own opinion, any candidate with a “pro-choice” position offers no hope of overturning that litigious mess.
Because I believe extremist Islam poses a far greater danger, I could vote for a strong pro-war candidate who was also “pro-choice”. I’m fortunate in that regard that McCain is both pro-life and pro-war. And as I’ve said before, Obama and Clinton both speak of “withdrawal” - but that is a euphamism for surrender to an enemy who, if not stopped, would do everything within their then expanding means to literally destroy the United States of America.
And Obama and Clinton both know that, whatever else they say. They can promise immediate withdrawal, but they know they can’t really offer that. One meeting with a war cabinet would scare them silly out of the decision. McCain not only knows that, but he says it, too.
I’m the #1 google result (at the moment) for “richard dutcher nudity“!
Well.. I guess I’m honored, but insofar as I am aware, Richard hasn’t dropped his trousers for any photographer. Sorry guys. (Or should that be gals?) Try some other name searches with that word. You have a virtual world of options!
I recently heard arguments for universal health care that seemed maybe okay. Then I went back and looked at some things that convinced me against it. The following part of an argument I’ve quoted before most convinces me against universal state-provided health care.
I’ll add to this. I recently read that the top ten poorest cities in the United States have been governed only by Democrats for the past thirty years. Democrats repeatedly promise this and that measure to raise folks out of poverty, which never happenss, but the next time around folks think maybe it will. Lucy lifts the football every time and you still fall flat on your back. No one says what needs saying: your wealth is your responsibility, so go to work. Of course genuine misfortune can prohibit that. But many poor people work 8 or 10 hour weeks when they could work 40. I suspect lack of motivation generated by welfare dependency. Why work if someone else will pay the bill? I think it was on Bill O’Reilly’s radio show I heard this - kids who know they have a large inheritance don’t work and study as hard. (I would like at this point to declare my forgiveness toward my grandparents for dropping tens of thousands of dollars in my lap when I was only a kid. Yeah, the money didn’t stick around long - but I must also credit my own foolishness. Which I also forgive.) When kids don’t know they have an inheritance, they buck up and study and work harder.
If you are rich, stamp out any suspicion in your kids that you are generous by being a chore-driving pig of a parent. Well, be a nice pig and give them ice cream every now and then. By the way, the LDS church has one smart solution to welfare dependency: welfare recipients work in the orchards, canneries, farms and distribution centers that produce the goods they themselves receive.
State health care is welfare. Someone else gives you what you could earn yourself. It takes away working motivation, dragging workers out of the economy, producing less taxes from less work, giving the government less money to subsidize people’s laziness, and the vicious cycle goes downward until somebody thinks it’s a good idea to say that some people deserve taxes and some don’t, and heck, the rich deserve a lot more taxes - and what do you have? An economy that only thrives because America happens to be exceedingly ingenious despite all the retarded “equality” legislation that strangles everyone, and despite most of the middle classes seeing a whopping forty percent of their income go to government programs that do nothing for anyone other than exist as a mirage that something is getting done.
Who thinks universal health care is a good idea? Hillary Clinton is more religious about it than she is about defeating extremist Islam. Except that she isn’t religious about defeating extremist Islam. For all I know Barack Obama thinks state welfare is a good idea, but I’ve tried not to really pay attention to him or to Clinton.
I guess I have to now, because people swallow their balogna philosophies wholesale.
I strongly recommend seeing this film (and here is the official web site for it). I saw it at the LDS film festival last night. It is playing again in the Grand Theater at the Scera Center in Orem (Utah), on Saturday night at 9:45 (why they don’t have a better show time for this singularly great film I don’t know).
It is a documentary that follows the lives of several drug addicts in Utah Valley (a.k.a. “Happy Valley”) seeking recovery, and some families who have lost children to drug overdoses. It explores the harrowing reality of the prevalence of drug abuse in Utah Valley.
What transpires in the life of one family in the documentary, similarly to events reported in NEW YORK DOLL (which is also strongly recommended), is so breathtakingly perfect (and I will get your expectations up) that if it was a narrative film it would be dismissed by America’s deeply cynical culture as contrived and unrealistic. As Susan Jeffers said, “We have been taught to believe that negative equals realistic and positive equals unrealistic.” May this film give the world pause to reconsider that fallacy.
This film has sold out screenings everywhere it shows, and proceeds from the film go to aid addicts seeking rehabilitation, which can be very expensive for drug addiction. Those two marvelous points aside, the very potent spiritual substance communicated by the film is, in my opinion, a serious blow against evil.
I’m wondering about the environment the film seems to invite of broadcasted honesty. Before the film, two completely unaqcuainted men seated behind me audibly shared how sober they were, who in their family was hooked, and who died - now on that last, I wouldn’t hesitate to share. Death by overdose is a public warning and anything less dishonors the death. But if these men felt safe with each other, should they broadcast their secrets audibly through a theatre? If the full disclosure of the interviewees in the film inspires, the whole audience would do this. Let’s be wise. If a few “fall guys” wake the rest of us up, let’s keep our secrets in helpful circles and not parade them.
So, you fellows behind me broadcasting your addictions - as interesting as it makes you, if I would favorably compare you to any celebrity or artist, I’m not going to pay you great notice until you’re dead.
I didn’t ask the film maker afterward, but wanted to ask what his plans are for exposing the many other kinds of addiction that run rampantly through Utah Valley, some of which find love and acceptance easier to come by, and some of which don’t.
One thing in the film disturbed me a lot. Prescription pill abuse is twice as common in Utah Valley as the national average, and is often deadlier than illegal drugs. And a Police Officer interviewed in the film reported a large group of teenagers he had been with, apparently all of them members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints (LDS or “Mormon”), who in discussing such use (abuse) among themselves, said “It’s not against the Word of Wisdom. It’s just a pill. It’s nothing.” (For clarification, the Word of Wisdom is an LDS doctrine regarding careful use of good foods and avoidance of bad foods and abusive substances.) Okay, kids. A careful (and recommended!) read of the Bible renders a picture of Jesus which baffled and enraged the powers of his day by using his head; by dodging rules where they could not apply, in favor of principle. We need rules, but the Lord broadly spoke of all situations where we need to use our heads when He stated in Doctrine and Covenants that “..it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.” Use your heads, kids. Do you need the Lord or anyone else to tell you this crap is ruining your body, your self-control, your spirituality, and your life, and that that is bad? You’re smarter than that.
I like to think that awareness of addiction among Mormons is spreading. A few weeks ago at my chapel, they had a joint men’s/women’s meeting with someone from LDS Social Services about the topic, and what leaders are doing and can do about it. Only one thing disappointed me: in introduction he said that while he is sure many here know someone who needs this information, nobody here is in these kinds of situations. No, sir. First, you can’t know that, and second it may be falsely flattering, and a disservice to truth and culture. A strongly repeated point in the documentary HAPPY VALLEY is the entrenched denial aspect of the valley’s culture.
The safest guess is that every ward in every stake in the church has addicts, many of whom have not yet even recognized or confessed to themselves or anyone that they are out of control, and if or when sad circumstance arrives them at that point of total desperation, they may have no idea how to get help or that it is even available. Hopefully on the point that help is available they would be comforted, if our pretension that people in their situation are very rare doesn’t open them to Satan’s lie that their case is so rare, and so extreme, and so terrible, and that they are so far down the scale of hopeless that there is no hope. Please assume that wherever you go, there are people in the congregation who need help.
[Update 02/12/08: An essay by Orson Scott Card may have changed my mind about immigration. Things I say in this entry about that I now think are probably erroneous or worse.]
There are various/ reasons I support Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency.
[Update: I have moved paragraphs of fading relevance - since they concern /candidates who are either fading or have dropped out of the race - to the end of this entry. I’ve also added a bit more against McCain and for Romney.]
First I’ll say why I don’t support McCain. McCain’s campaign finance reform bill had loop-holes in it which, as had been predicted by many critics, opened the way for parties to receive far and away more exorbitant financing to a degree where private interests can virtually pocket a party. Thanks to McCain’s bill, private radically liberal institutions have been able to gain great control over the Democratic party (so, by the way, unless you intend on casting a surrogate vote for George Soros, don’t vote for Hillary Clinton). (I confess not knowing whether the measure has had a similar corroding effect on the Republican Party). McCain’s position on cutting taxes is to cut them after cutting back government, which is like asking a drunkard to cut back on whiskey after he has stopped drinking. No fat government gets lean before giving money back to citizens (and citizens who retain more of their money produce more money and taxes besides). McCain’s amnesty position on immigration is a threat to the right of sovereign rule of law. When a foreign national is made a citizen – or not even made a citizen - without paying the price, we import a citizen who gives nothing back for the price of import (and the price of import is paid against our will, besides). The protections and benefits of citizenship come with a price - freedom is not free. When freedom is given without a price, freedom is bound, and in this case, bound to the exports, apathy, and eventual controls of other nations. We want immigrants, but we want them to pay the price for American citizenship.
Now I’ll attack some of the attacks against Romney. His conservative social stances are erroneously slammed as flip-flopping by folks who seem to think that the only motivation any politician could have to change his mind is a buckle to peer pressure and not any genuine change of thought. This hard-line cynical criticism has the benefit of being both unprovable and seemingly reasonable. It is only logical if we assume from the outset that we should simply trust one group over another without even perusing the logic of what either has to say. Dismissing one man’s word simply because another man alleges he is lying is not a logical basis of ascertaining whether the man is telling the truth, but that is precisely what every liberal writer and speaker I have encountered does in regards to Romney. Yo. Truth test, folks. It may make a convincing smear, but we aren’t out to form our judgments around the most convincing smear. We like logic. I hope. Logic usually places more trust in the experience and belief of a person witnessing it - not in the witness of their enemy. Both these points are driven across much more strongly than I have put it by Ann Coulter, in this article which I recommend a read of. Coulter also raises the critical point that the Republican candidate the generally liberal MSM fawns over is precisely the candidate we should reject, and explores other fallacies behind the “flip-flopper” allegation against Romney. Amen to that. And is the MSM favoring McCain? Read this contrast of AP reporting of McCain vs. Romney. It’s jaw-dropping. Also recommended: this rallying cry for Romney from NRO’s Mark R. Levin, which among other things very clearly reports the facts of McCain’s very un-presidential contempt and personal verbal assaults on Romney. Romney has never attacked a political opponent’s person, only their position, which is perfectly fair and right to do - it is a contest of record and philosophy. McCain’s attacks make a hypocritical attempt to draw hatred against Romney as among the very wealthy classes - among whom reside McCain himself. No president would lead America well by encouraging class contempt (and by pretending he is not something which he is - rich). Also, McCain blatantly lies about his record and statements on several issues. Here’s a loosely abridged excerpt of Levin on it (click “show” to read it):
Romney has the right idea on the separation of church and state with encouragement of religion in general in the public square. (If you missed it or would like reminding, read the transcript of his speech on the topic over at NPR.) He has a very good track record in fiscal reform - he turned both the bankrupt Salt Lake City Olympics and the government of Massechusets around to great surplusses - and reason of hope to reign in our massively burgeoned government. He has the practical approach to foreign policy required to secure our nation by stamping out militant extremism abroad. Romney is the real deal and I choose to trust the position he states he has on various social issues. I am impressed, actually, when a man is capable of changing his mind and saying why he did so. It assures me that he thinks for himself and does not just blindly follow or rigidly adhere to any dogma without thought. Lastly, Romney’s position on immigration is naturalization, not amnesty, and naturalization bears a price for citizenship. Citizens obtained through amnesty draw on the resources of a nation without paying the same price as other citizens. But naturalized citizens do pay the price, and in turn contribute to the society they join.
If your mind is made up not to support Huckabee, you may not need to read these next paragraphs, which blast Huckabee’s utterly despicable tactics and frightening thinking. If you want to read them, click “show”.
These next expired paragraphs rail against Giuliani and speculate on Thompson, neither any longer relevant to the race. Again, click “show” if you want to read them.
This is factoring that they are five year olds and deserve a bit of mercy. If they were all zombie or vampire five year olds, forget it, no mercy - they’re goners in their state - I could take on 40 or 50. If it happened. Okay, I don’t have any proof, and it’s all theoretical anyway.
But I could take ‘em on. Yeah. I’m tough. I have this badge here to prove it.
[This is written in response to the second comment at this report at brietbart.com]
I have no respect for that comment, Cindy.
First, all of the questions center on religion or aspects of personal history which are implicitly assumed to be bad (else why ask about them - what can they have, minus such assumptions, logically, to do with a politician’s values, platforms, etc? - never mind that even “logically” they don’t?) Here’s a comparison: back in Kennedy’s day if anyone asked “Did you know he’s a Catholic?” - to answer either “Yes” or “No” would admit, unchallenged, the unstated but assumed position of “No Catholic could be a good president” - itself carrying yet another nasty layer of an assumed “Every Catholic tarnishes politics.” (or is or does X or Y bad thing) Even in Kennedy’s day the United States hadn’t much unshackled itself from bigotry against Catholics and/or Irish people - during the surge of Irish immigrants late in the 19th and early 20th century, it was common for hiring businesses to post signs that read IRISH NEED NOT APPLY; that social segregation broke down later but strains of prejudice still ran strong - and still do, against many religions and many ethnicities. To buy into such unfounded assumptions, unchallenged, that any such matters probed so nefariously in such cartoonish, distorted, vastly oversimplified and unrealistic caricatures - to suppose these hold any validity against the good of people or their abilities is to follow in the path of hasty, bigoted foolishness. Learn about the people you may vote for. Don’t take oversimplified sound bytes and questions as valid inquisitions into truth. For heaven’s sake, have we not seen enough in this nation of the potential for misleading information and bigotry to tarnish and corrupt?
Some proper responses to either the question “Did you know Kennedy is a Catholic?” or “Did you know Romney is a Mormon?” are these: “Did you know our constitution forbids any test of religion for Presidential Candidates?” - or “It is very sad that after so many turmoils our nation has suffered at the hands of bigotry that it continues to run so strong.”
Religion is nothing to a candidate’s eligibility. Where religion informs values, that may be the only area of concern. Mormonism’s values are by and large square with the traditional and mainstream values of historical and conservative America. Period. End of that discussion.
And (at last) second, the question “why is Mitt whining” is simply nasty. First, it’s quite inaccurate to assert he whines. Second, sadness or disappointment is an appropriate response to bigotry; and the mature response is, rather, to ask How has our nation not learned, after so many wars that hinged on questions of bigotry (The Civil War won in defense of Blacks, and the Second World War in defense of Jews and many others - both wars also in defense of our own citizens), that bigotry is one of the primary destroyers of civilization - or How does our nation still tolerate bigotry - even so glibly unsubtle, rampant, and shameless? Down with bigotry! Judge a man by his values and the content of his character, not by his religion, his race, or any other ethnic concern. Bigotry is a favorite tool of the Devil. Wake up to it! Snap out of it, America!
Derek Bambauer at the INFO/LAW blog concludes against the CP80 Initiative, which proposes a means of regulating internet pornography. This is what I have to say of his post, in summary: he glibly dismisses the harm of pornography while discouraging an arguably Constitutional measure which could very well effectively regulate it, which measure in my opinion he very hastily (never mind erroneously) labels "Unconstitutional", while he does not even accurately reflect the measure's presentation, and responds to problems which the measure does not pose. Further he does not either seek out or propose an effective alternative to what he believes would be ineffective. He is of course not obligated to do that last (or to take the measure seriously, for that matter), but it would be more helpful than his misled, prolonged "No."
I would not write as extensively as I have here if Bambauer's arguments were not taken seriously, but they are. At the moment two trackbacks to Bambaeur's blog (say that ten times fast!) - [here's one] - [here's another] express sympathy with them, and my own well-liked visitor Hydralisk previously seemed to express sympathy with the arguments. A quick 'net search reveals others who would disagree with them - [here] - [here] - [here] - [here]. I'd like to note that several of these seem to link support of CP80 with a necessity of religious action (specifically, Mormon or Latter-Day-Saint religious action), and I'm uncomfortable with that. The Mormon church does not tell its members which political or legislative measures (or parties) they should support, but advises members to support whatever they individually believe is best; which admits and expects the possibility of variance in legislative and political preferences - so Mormons should not presume or imply that we should support any political effort as a religious matter. Unfortunately, doing so is an exceedingly common (and irritating) mistake that Mormons make.
Now, as contrasting with Bambauer's post and the apparent agreements with it, I very much think we need an entirely different vantage on CP80.
My arguments go into (very great) detail, but I'll start by summarizing some of the reasons I think CP80 could do wonderful things for the United States of America.
among those things being more productive and contributing to our nation's economic growth (or "General Welfare"), which leads to the next point.According to the "about" page at his blog, Bambauer is an assistant professor of Law at Wayne State University Law School in Michigan (but I do not wish my first advertisment for his reasoning on this topic to imply that his reasoning is always so, nor that his school is so). Two other lawyers also write at the blog, both of them respectively Assistant and Associate professors of Law elsewhere, and the blog is hosted at their former Law school, Harvard.
I've been working at this entry on-and-off since Hydralisk left a comment at my previous post on the CP80 initiative - quite a while ago, but as these are unresolved very democratic questions the debate remains very relevant. Last entry on the topic I didn't much say what the CP80 initiative proposes to do. The larger abstract concept is to break the Internet in the United States into two separate "Channels" - one channel where pornography is allowed, and another channel dubbed the "Community Channel" or "Community Port 80", hence "CP80", where such things are banned. I think this is a fantastic idea for the reasons I summarized above, and there may be other reasons you'll see throughout this post (in addition to the details of my reasons). Before responding to Bambauer's post in detail I'll respond to Hydralisks' previous comment.
[Click "show" to unfold the rest of this post.]