"Speaking at a newspaper convention, Mr Bush backed the idea, aimed at helping parents to decide what their children should watch.

A White House spokesman said Mr Bush was only backing a proposed law which failed to clear Congress last year.

The failed law, which called for increased fines for broadcasters, would have only applied to network TV.

Network TV and radio stations are already barred from airing indecent material before a 10pm watershed.

Parental control

Republican Senate commerce committee chairman Ted Stevens has called for new limits for cable and satellite channels.

Mr Bush was asked at a newspaper editors' convention if he supported such a move.

"Yes, I'm for that," he said.

"I think there ought to be a standard. On the other hand, I fully understand that ... the final decision is a parent turning off the TV.

"I have no problems with standards being set to help parents make good decisions."

Violators of the broadcast limits can be fined up to $32,500 (£17,100) per violation."
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4449685.stm
and also from England...this
"George Bush fears email privacy breach

US prez George Bush has admitted he does not send personal emails to daughters Jenna and Barbara for fear that his "personal stuff" might end up in the public domain.

Bush made the admission on Thursday to the American Society of Newspaper Editors during a discussion centring on whether the US government is sufficiently forthcoming to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, Reuters reports. Bush said the administration gets around 3.5 million FOIA requests a year and noted: "I would hope that those who expose documents are wise about the difference between that which truly would jeopardize national security and that which should be read."
=====================SNIP=====================
Our freedom to access informational, educational, and entertainment related content is like a badmitton shuttlecock being wafted to and fro by the winds of both big business and politics. If Mr. Bush is paranoid about using e-mail, perhaps that comes from the fact that he knows how much his OWN agents, using various software and hardware snooping devices, monitors and intercepts OUR mail.

I know I sound like "Johnny One Note", but I guess I feel that "We, the People"
have to achieve a critical mass of intolerance of the ongoing wearing away at the edges of the Bill or Rights.

What I see is happening is this. The Content Cat is out of the bag with regard to the Internet. Hatch and others see freedom of speech being used by John Q. Public in blogs and in forums like this, to share their views and information with other plain folks. It irks the establishment that alternative points of view are now as readily accessible as your nearest browser.

Thus, Bush, Cary Sherman, Dan Glickman, and the rest of the cast of censorship characters, have their collective panties in a bunch about the lid being loose on digital content.

"YIKES, we can't control the flow of data".

Try as they might, the hole in the dam is too big for their greasy, greedy fingers to cover. Independent thought is spreading out across the world.

Wringing their hands and knitting their brows, they anguish..."What to do, what to do!"...The OBVIOUS answer of course is to pass mnore laws, and make the existing laws, all the more draconian and unfair in their execution.

What children watch should not be in the purview of George Bush or anyone else besides the kids and their parents.

In my opinion, as a father, it goes back to how you raise your children. You have to give your children what I call a moral and ethical toolkit, i.e., a rational way of deciding about a lot of things , and evaluating those things.

I raised my son that way, and now, at age 30, he has a good moral compass.

Children are NOT just retarded little animals who will just go nuts if they see a naked breast. If that were the case, every breastfed child in the US would be a homicidal lunatic.

No, the true obsenity is found on the daily news. Lying politicians, CEOs who act in such a way to line their pockets and rob untold numbers of senior citizens of their retirement money...these are just a few of the obscenities that are running rampant across our screens, and the obscenity is NOT that it is being reported, it is that the powers that be are allowing such things to continue, even supporting it!

The Chicken Little paranoia that is being promoted by the RIAA and MPAA, i.e. that a few kids downloading tunes or movies is financially ruinous is pure and unadulterated HORSESHIT!

Only someone with an IQ of about 76 would believe it, and only an evil, moneygrubbing A-hole would promote such a gross lie.

If you watch very, very closely, and listen very, very closely, you can perceive the digital controls sliding into place, greased well so the sound is not that obvious to those who are slightly hard of hearing.

Of course, each of us says, "What can we do about it?". Writing to corrupt congress people who are part of the problem to complain, seems a bit like writing the Fox and complaining that you believe more chickens have disappered from the chicken coop lately...he just grins and says.."Well....DUH!".

As I see it, one must show the iron fist in the velvet glove. We have clout if we band together. We have both political AND financial power if we just heed the slogan on our currency...E PLURIBUS UNUM...from many, one!

So, in the end, it's all about power...power to control you, your life, what you see, listen to, and yes, their ultimate goal, the power to so control what you have access to, that they think they can control what you think.

Just stating something is enough to get you thinking about it , testing the statement's validity, or possible truth value...and sometimes, people will believe something just because it appears in a major newspaper and came from the White House.

In the 1800s, some pulp magazines stated that whales spoke French at the bottom of the ocean. See...already you probably visualized a group of cetaceans conversing in a Romance language,and though your conscious mind says "Nonsense"...somewhere in your subconscious, that image is still rotating around looking for any bit of evidence that might support that silly notion.

The South American Mayans, in their cosmology, believed the world began with CHAOS, and most of their efforts as a civilization, can be viewed in light of their terror at the thought that any minute, their world might fall into CHAOS again. Sacrifices of human lives were given up to appease the gods, and hopefully, keep CHAOS at bay. The ancient Egyptians similarly were preoccupied with this paranoia about CHAOS. http://www.egyptologyonline.com/egyptian_gods.htm

"Religion in ancient Egypt was an important part of everyday life. Priests attended daily to the needs of the gods, (who were thought to be manifested in their cult images), made offerings to them, and thus kept the forces of chaos at bay."

The religion of both cultures promoted this notion that CHAOS was there, ready to pounce and destroying them, and that only through personal sacrifice, could this horrible fate be avoided.

Similarly, George Bush and company, ever since the tragedy of 911, have beat the same drum, substituting "Terrorism" for "CHAOS". But, the drumbeat rhythm is the same....fall in line, be ready to sacrifice and give up some freedom in order to avoid CHAOS. The trend toward turning this country into a theocracy, and giving control to the American Christian Taliban, is increasing night and day. Religion is about love, not about fear, and it is this fearmongering that has somehow become , in an unholy fashion, interwoven with the type of theology that George and company would promote.

If you doubt this, read Bush's OWN INAUGURAL SPEECH wherein he says:
"'...I ask you to be citizens. Citizens, not spectators. Citizens, not subjects. Responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character ... Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos'."

From http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1463.cfm
Also, read the full transcript of his inaugural speech containng this at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a6a221f3e55.htm

And, farther in the speech, we see what Mr. Bush thinks we can rely on to help us...ANGELS...
"After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "We know the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?"

Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage, and its simple dream of dignity. We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.

Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today: to make our country more just and generous, to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."

There is no "Culture of Life" and "Culture of Death", but, if there WERE, I assert that George is a founding member of the latter. He oversaw perhaps more "legal" executions of human prisoners (read KILLING and ENDING THEIR LIFE) than any governor in the history of the United States. Through his "premptive strike" (can you say Pearl Harbor children?), he intitiated hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to be killed, and to this point, thousands of our own citizen soldiers.

Cary, George, Mitch...they are all brothers under the skin...and under that skin, we glimpse words clearly coming through...GREED, POWER, and CONTROL.

Rise up my droogs...don't let them pee on your back and tell you you're sweating!

~Code

"Cary, George, Mitch...they are all brothers under the skin...and under that skin, we glimpse words clearly coming through...GREED, POWER, and CONTROL."

Correct! And they don't mind spouting pious phrases or whatever it takes to attract appeal for what their obvious common denominator is (control). Just as in the government when it demanded draconian laws in the interests of protection (cajoling citizens to relinquish liberties under the guise of better security).

This business of intrusive control is a concerted ploy being conducted on a global level. And the sooner more people are able to come to that conclusion, the sooner there is a chance to try to turn the tide.
(Oops, a tide can't be turned. Heh, heh, but I knew that; shall I say I'm sorry if I come across as cynical -- because that's what I actually am.)

"We know the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong."

But that's usually the way to bet, depending on the point spread.

As for intrusive control... This has been an ongoing problem for, oh, millions of years, since the biggest caveman figured out he could take whatever he wanted.

No matter which example you select from history, each one lasts exactly as long as those negatively effected are willing to put up with it.

"No matter which example you select from history, each one lasts exactly as long as those negatively affected are willing to put up with it."

Historically, that has been the case.

What you wrote about intrusive control lasting only as long as those negatively affected are willing to put up it is indeed the key.
Some would say that if there ever comes a time when such willingness is no longer there (because of deviously-programmed implantable computerized chips in most persons, for example), then all bets would be off.

"Children are NOT just retarded little animals who will just go nuts if they see a naked breast. If that were the case, every breastfed child in the US would be a homicidal lunatic."

This would be the classic example of the straw man argument. Nobody believes the premise to begin with. The Breast that caused so much uproar last year was not the issue, but it was the tip of the iceberg. Or should I say the tit of the iceberg. It was not The Breast that was the problem, if that was all there was to it -- a single isolated mammary revelation. It was the lewd song and dance routine that preceded it. It was the billion barrels of off-color swill being pumped into our homes as "entertainment" that The Breast represented. As such it was a trigger. Public outrage was caused to go over the tipping point by that tit.

There are many of us on the right who agree that those who sacrifice their rights for the sake of safety ultimately will have neither.

However, I think there are two issues being improperly mixed together here. What you are arguing for is the right of people to publish any material in any context or any medium, without respect to standards of decency. That surely is a separate issue from the right to publish alternative news or political views. Isn't there a big difference?

Also there is the issue of a shrinking zone of personal privacy due to the desire of the government to spy on us, ostensibly to ferret out terrorists. This is also a somewhat different issue than the above.

I think you might find the greatest concern among the greatest number of people on this last issue. At least I hope so. I did contact my Senators and ask for a review of the Patriot Act before renewing any of its provisions or extending it. That's the least I can do. What else? There is no boycott-Washington DC. Would that we could.

"This would be the classic example of the straw man argument. Nobody believes the premise to begin with. "

Auto...you should know you cannot prove that "Nobody believes the premise to begin with..."

You cannot prove a negative (e.g. you cannot prove there are no two headed giraffes in the world)...

There are people who still believe the earth is flat, so, I wouldn't put it past some chuckleheads living in a trailer in Florida to believe that children are retarded little animals...in the many child abuse cases where we have seen kids kept in pens like animals, one might posit it is possible these child abusers thought that!

Links on the above...
Flat Earth Society
http://www.flat-earth.org/

and Kids treated like animals
http://facultystaff.vwc.edu/~cbellamy/southern%20literature/SL%20Porter.htm
"Both stories depict children who are retarded, who are equated to animals by one or both of the parents, and who are wished dead or never born (Weisenforth 359).

The title of the story "He" provides the reader with the first clue that the retarded son is de-humanized. Throughout the story the other two of Mrs. Whipple’s children, Emly and Adna, are given names and are referred to by their given names. This is not true of the retarded son. Not once in the story is He called by his given name. In fact, the reader never learns his given name. The failure to give the retarded son a name is similar to the farm practice of giving names to pets but not to the ever-present farm animals. People generally do not name animals they plan on killing. Because Emly and Adna have names, they appear to the reader to be more human. In contrast, the failure to name the retarded son makes him appear more animal-like or less than human.

Another example of animal treatment takes place during family meals. The retarded son does not eat his meals at the table with his family. In a description of the retarded son, Porter writes "He didn’t whine for food, as the other children did, but waited until it was given Him; He ate squatting in the corner, smacking and mumbling" (597). When Mrs. Whipple’s brother comes for a visit, Porter writes "He wouldn’t come into the dining room, and Mrs. Whipple passed it off very well" (599). For appearances sake "Mrs. Whipple loaded up a big plate for Him first, before everybody"(Porter 599). The parallels to how people treat their dogs can not be overlooked. It is common practice for dog owners to train their dogs not to beg or whine for food. Many dog owners feed their dogs in the kitchen, placing their food and water bowls in the corners. Also, it is common to feed the dog first so that the dog doesn’t disrupt the family’s dinner by begging.

Although it is pitiful that the retarded son gets treated like an animal, what is even more sad is Mrs. Whipple’s secret wish for her son’s death. The neighbors are much more frank when "talking plainly among themselves" and felt it would be "A Lord’s pure mercy if He should die" (Porter 59."
===========snip===============
AND...

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special46/articles/0825kidscage25-CP.html
"Parents arrested after twins, 5, caged 'like animals'

Police have to cut boys out

Laura Dobbins
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 25, 2003 12:00 AM


For four months, two 5-year-old Phoenix brothers lived inside roach-infested cages, their bodies covered with bedsores.

When police arrived at their home in the 1900 block of North 22nd Street on Saturday night, the twin boys were wearing soiled pajamas and officers needed wire cutters to open their man-made cells.

"They were happy to see us and opened their arms wide, reaching out to be held and picked up," recounted Phoenix police Sgt. Jacqui MacConnell.

Phoenix police officers said their story is among the most disturbing child abuse cases they've ever seen.

The boys' parents, Louis and Etelvina Rodriguez, were arrested on suspicion of two counts of child abuse and kidnapping. They are being held at the Madison Street Jail with bond set at $243,000 each. The children are in the custody of state Child Protective Services.

Police discovered the children after the boys' older brother, 20-year-old Bayron Grihalua, told officers at a local grocery store about their living conditions, said Sgt. Randy Force, a Phoenix police spokesman. Grihalua could not be reached for comment Sunday evening.

Etelvina Rodriguez, 42, told police her husband wanted the boys in cages because he suffers from health problems and didn't want to keep up with the active children. Police did not elaborate on Louis' condition, but neighbors say the 69-year-old man suffers from heart trouble."
====================sniP=================
http://www.preda.org/archives/2003/r03062901.html
"Filipino Women and Kids Treated Like Animals"
"Earlier this year, a group of Swedish Red Cross students on a social-educational mission went to the women and child care center run by the Olongapo City government. By accident they stumbled upon the secret jail cells hidden in a back room where middle-aged women and children as young as eight are regularly imprisoned, beaten and deprived of food.

The conditions amount to torture and grave violations of all civilized humanitarian rights. An investigation is unlikely – the center is closed to the press and even national social welfare officials cannot get easy access. The mayor's husband is the Philippine Secretary of Tourism. Officials deny the reports but the photographs and credible witnesses are hard to deny. The police and the municipal social workers collect the street urchins and women and incarcerate them behind bars in conditions not fit for animals."
================SNIP=====================
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=128&fArticleId=2463194
"68 kids living 'like animals'

MEC slams living conditions of kids at illegal Soweto children's home
March 30, 2005

By Moipone Malefane and Poloko Tau

A Gauteng government bid to close down an illegal children's home in Soweto - a filthy facility into which 68 orphaned and abandoned children had been crammed - has gone badly awry.

Only 30 of the children were last night in the care of the authorities, while others had been spirited away by Ethel Mabala or had taken to their heels.

Soweto police spokesperson Captain Mbazima Shiburi said the 30 children had been taken to a place of safety, and officers were searching for the other 38.

The parents of some of the children had arrived at the Moroka police station, demanding to see their children, but that could only be arranged with the Gauteng Social Development Department.

For the past 13 years, Mabala ran the illegal children's shelter from various addresses in Soweto, in direct contravention of government regulations and despite appeals by the authorities to co-operate with them.

Yesterday she, her husband Michael and son Benjamin were arrested after she refused to surrender the children to the Gauteng Social Development Department.

They were taken into custody after Social Development MEC Bob Mabaso, who joined social workers at the home's premises in Mofolo, told Mabala the children did not deserve to be treated "like animals"."
============SNIP==================
http://www.americanbible.org/site/PageServer?pagename=secstory_children_treatment&s_newsID=5635
"Some children are treated worse than animals...
but there is hope for a better life, and you can help!"
=============snip=============
"The Feral Child – A retard or a survivor – or both?
GCG
Being feral means subhuman; a feral child is one whose upbringing consists of a total isolation from the human species. There have been the classic cases brought up in Kipling’s ‘The Jungle book’ represented by Mowgli and another fictional character is Tarzan.

But there exist non-fictional cases of these children…..cases of children being brought up by dogs in the Ukraine, children brought up by wolves, children brought up by bears and sadly children locked up in a room for most of their lives which constitutes child abuse.

A child’s mind soaks up like a sponge from age 2. this age is critical in the childs upbringing. Altough we dont remember much from age 2, the function of the cortex part of the brain is to prepare a foundation for the following subjects the brain is about to recieve and store. Mainly the phonetic, auditory and perception sectors.

Sticking to those children whose upbringing consisted of animal adoption; these are humanly retarded however their natural skills acquired as instinct allow them to survive in the wild. For example the latest tsunami incident in SE Asia, we know that the human death toll soared to a three hundred thousand body count, however the animal that succumbed were few in numbers. This attributed to that extra animal instinct creatures have to sense events preemptively."

Define decency

"The Breast that caused so much uproar last year was not the issue"

...but it was one of the "triggers."

Put on your tin-foil hat and you might see that Ms Jackson did it to deliberately rile up the puritanical nannies. The way the media pounced on it seemed orchestrated in advance.

There are folks out there who really really badly want to keep you and me from saying words like "fuck."

I wouldn't put it past them to have planned such a thing.

:bozo:

Geez Code, you don't shy from rubbing noses in it to make the point.

(Admittedly needed sometimes I guess.)

I don't see this push for laws concerning cable or satellite TV going very far for 2 reasons. 1- Cable and satellite are in a struggle for more viewers, if cable goes with the censors then people will flock to satellite or vice vera. 2- People. Lets be honest, people like expanded cable because of the extra stuff that the networks can't show. EI. Chappell's show, Oz, Nip/Tuck, The Wire. People are used to these shows being raunchy and real. When these shows get cut, there will be an outcry.

........."However, I think there are two issues being improperly mixed together here. What you are arguing for is the right of people to publish any material in any context or any medium, without respect to standards of decency. That surely is a separate issue from the right to publish alternative news or political views. Isn't there a big difference?...."
Just a real quick look at what you've said ,auto.
"...standards of decency..." That can and are trying to be applied to ,you guessed it ..."alternative news or political views"...

Don't give me any "standards of decency" crap.

and don't you DARE try to say the first amendment only applies to "alternative news or political views", because speech and expression are an intregal part of our culture, and to apply a "standard of decency" to the media when people could TURN IT OFF if they wanted to is to foist one's vision of culture on everyone else.

So NO.. i won't take someone else's standard of decency, and i'll respect other's rights by choosing to TURN IT OFF if i don't want my family/friends to see it.

damn typos.. (edit button anyone?).. intregal = "integral"

Why must all suffer because some half-witted parent doesn't want to take the time in their kid's future and expects the television or the computer to raise them instead of getting off their big behind and taking an active role in their child's development. I know of this behavior first hand from a relative's ex-wife whom considers herself a good mother yet she lets her son sit in front of the televison all day long eating pizza where the kid is 14 years old and weights 200 lbs already but rants if she walks in and her son sees something objectionable on tv wheras to me it's more objectionable that she won't take this kid outside and let him be healthy instead of the obese child that he is. That's the kind of mentality that produces this kind of crap we all have to suffer through.