Triple X Web Site Addresses, Birth Control, Sex Education and Heads in the Sand

The committee that is in charge of internet addresses has proposed creating a new .xxx extension for adult web sites. An eminently sensible idea. It is being opposed by people who are arguing it would "legitmize" pornography on the internet. Let's look at the underlying facts and problems.

The first incontestable fact is that, according to many studies, there is a great deal of vile pornography of the worst sort on the internet (as well as a lot of hate speech, but that's a topic for another day). Its there. Its viewed. Its often beyond the control of U.S. government agencies as the hosting sites are either unknown or offshore.

The second incontestable fact is that if you use e-mail or browse the internet, the probabilities that you will accidentally run into one or more of these sites is pretty high. Even the most selective and careful browser may run into such sites...even if one uses an information disabling "net nanny" to try to protect from such sites. For those of us who do not use net nannies, the probabilities are even higher.

Many internet users, and I am one of them, would much prefer not having to deal with this sort of material in our day to day browsing. It strikes me that the XXX web suffix would help greatly with this. The purveyors of this material don't need or want me coming to their web site because I would just tie up band width, would not give them the money (or attention) that they want, and would probably like to provide a simpler method of contact for those who do want this material. I would like this because it would be very easy to put together a filter which would filter out those .xxx websites and thereby allow me to avoid them without filtering otherwise valuable content. It would also help me with my minor's supervised browsing of the internet by greatly reducing the probability of their contact with this material. In sum, its a win win game.

What is the counter argument? As far as I can tell the counter arguments are twofold. The first is that the .xxx suffix "legitimizes" this stuff and the second is that it would provide "deviants" access to this material. The problem that I have with both of these arguments is that it fails to recognize reality. The first reality, as set forth above is that this material is available and accessible right now. It is not concentrated in a single domain, but rather appears in a broad range of domains -- from .com to .edu to .org.. And a single mistake can result in exposure to the material. During the early days of Bush II, members of the supreme court installed executive were going on national news shows and noting that they could be contacted at whitehouse.COM, when in fact, the actual address of the White House is whitehouse.gov. Whitehouse.com was a site featuring quite questionable material. No one would, however, have mistaken whitehouse.XXX for whitehouse.gov. The creation of a .xxx domain is not going to create a whole new set of pornography on the internet, it is going to result in the migration of the material to a single domain. The second reality is that this kind of material is going to be available to deviants whether or not we have a .xxx domain. This information has been available to deviants for years and will no doubt continue to be available for years to come. And pretending that it is not is just that, pretending.

The foes of the .xxx domain have a great deal in common with the foes of birth control and sex education. The foes of birth control seem to believe that an absence of birth control will result in more intelligent decisions about when and how to have a baby, ignoring the fact that birth control is the very tool that allows one to make the decision. The foes of sex education believe that not teaching about sex will mean that teenagers will not have sex, ignoring the fact that all that not teaching about sex does is shifting the education from trained professionals (the teacher) to other students with the resultant problems. The foes of the .xxx domain believe that if they stop this domain, the internet will be magically cleansed of pornography.

They are sticking their head in the sand or holding a hankerchief over their eyes. They are pretending. And as this is not magic fairy land, pretending does not work.

Do we want to make sure that individuals make smart and rational decisions about when and where to have (or not have) children? Then we need to provide birth control.

Do we want to make sure that Teenagers make the smartest and safest choices after reviewing accurate information, then we need to provide sex education. And hopefully, most of the teenagers will make the smart choice and engage in abstinence. But many teenagers will not and need to know how to keep from ruining their lives.

And if we want to help reduce the unintentional exposure to pornography on the internet we need to support the .xxx domain.

Marriage and Civil Union

The issue of same sex marriage has been used as a tool by the right wing to demonize those of us who believe that the government really has no business legislating in this area. By supporting same sex marriage, we are automatically tied by the right wing to an anti-family, anti-american, anti-morality set of values. And I am tired of this. What is the solution? Well one good solution is getting the Government completely out of the business of marriage. In a perfect world, the Government would only recognize Civil Unions. Marriage would be solely the provance of religious institutions. And these religious institutions could recognize whatever their belief structures supported. Thus, for example, if a Church only recognized marriages between older, overweight, conservative, bible thumping preachers and 23 year old blonde, stock car loving, cheerleaders, it could. The State doesn't tell the Church what to do and the Church can do whatever it wants.

More later...

Gun Control

Many of my friends seem to believe that "gun control" implies the ability to accurately hit a target from a distance, and that effective gun control is the ability to hit the target in the middle over and over again. Perhaps I need to get some new friends....

Gun Control is a very serious issue -- particularly for those of us who live in big cities and have come face to face with the muzzle end of a gun. At a visceral level I would welcome full and complete gun control and would readily to take the NRA up on their offer of removing the guns from their cold dead hands. But at the same time, my brain intervenes and points out that it is both a political and a factual reality that a total and complete ban on guns would be as effective in controlling guns as the Volstead Act was in controlling alcohol. All that it will do is provide another source of revenue for the bad guys, create a situation where the truly dangerous weapons cannot be kept off the street, and result in wasted enforcement on less important problems.

What can be done? I am not certain, but I would offer a number of suggestions (some of which are mine, many of which are gleefully stolen without credit).

1. Link Gun Ownership to Active Membership in the National Guard or Reserve.

In order to own a gun of any kind, someone in the household must be an active member of the National Guard or Army Reserve, or have been a member up through the age of 50. Thus would track with the Constitutional requirement for a well regulated Militia, would ensure at least some training in the proper handling of firearms, and would ensure a steady stream of soldiers and help the guard and reserve meet their steadily growing demands.

I cannot claim credit for this idea. It is really the idea of one of my relatives, but in today's climate this solves a multitude of problems. It also, at least indirectly, places a "competency" test on the ownership of guns as someone who is deemed inappropriate for membership in the Guard or Reserve would also lose their rights to own guns. Although this idea was developed before the Guard and Reserve were under fire in the middle east, the fact that they are now in combat does not change the validity of this approach. Further, this approach can stand with almost any other form of gun regulation. (For example, a requirement that guns only be sold by specified entities -- perhaps only the guard or reserve)

2. Impose significant restrictions on the sale of ammunition. Guns are certainly a significant problem. And they last for a very long time and if properly maintained can work for years. Ammunition, in contrast, has a fare shorter shelf life. By imposing far stricter limitations on the sale of ammunition, guns can be indirectly controlled. (As with other ideas, this can work in conjunction with other methods of gun control).

3. Expressly Permit Only Certain Guns. Under the current system, specific types of guns are not allowed. The gun makers and enthusiasts, in turn, modify the banned guns with changes to allow them to be used. This results in many types of guns remaining out on the market which are neither safe nor effective. Under this alternate system, only expressly approved gun models could be sold.

Just a few thoughts from my overheated mind....

Liberals -- The Real Problem with Today's Society

I am an unrepentant liberal. We are a large part of the current problem with today's society. Why? Because too many of us have decided to put small, trivial, single issues and differences over the greater good. We need to unite and mobilize against the clear common enemy -- the Right Wing. In fact, we need to take a lesson from the Right Wing. They have put aside many small (and not so small) differences in order to achieve common goals and obtain power. Once they have "won" the war, they will then work out those less important issues.

A few examples of how we have failed(both now and in the recent past):

1. A number of well meaning liberal activists have foolishly called for a boycott of the Washington Post because the Washington Post has decided to allow for a diversity of opinion on its editorial and opinion pages. They want the post to turn into a liberal "paper" version of Fox News in which every piece and every item is slanted to reflect their view of the world. The problem is that, at this time, the Post is a fair dealer. It is a paper which reports accurate, unbiased and detailed news and provides for a diversity of opinion. If one believes, as I do, that the liberal approach is the right one, then reports by a fair dealer will enable our side to prevail. When the "fair dealer" finds a problem and reports it, it is far more likely to be viewed as credible because the "fair dealer" is not tied to a single agenda. If, in contrast, the "fair dealer" is turned into a "captive" organ, even one captive by the side that one supports, then the news and opinions that it offers are greatly weakened because they will be dismissed as being "biased". (And as it happens, the Post is a fair dealer that tends to fall on the liberal side of fair... So my fellow liberals are going after someone who is actually an ally).

Thus this boycott is a double failure. If successful and the Post gives in to the pressure, the Washington Post, as an important fair dealer and opinion leader will be emasculated, and if unsuccessful, and the Post resists, then the Post, an important fair dealer and opinion leader will be injured and less effective -- both because of the financial harm and also because the slanted part of the press will suggest that the Post DID give in, thereby partially emasculating the Post. Thanks my fellow Liberals. You have done great work for the other side.

2. Ralph Nader and the Presidency in 2000. Ralph Nadar has done the greatest disservice possible to the progressive movement by his egotistic run for President in 2000. He refused to pull back when it was clear that he could not win, thereby ensuring (in conjunction with the Foolish Five and the Florida Finagler) Bush's election and all of the resultant long term harm. He also "hurt" the progressive movement by creating the false impression that it was less than 5% of the electorate and thus worth ignoring... Which the Democrats did in 2004. In contrast, if right before election day Nadar had said: "There is a meaningful difference between the two parties. The Democrats are not perfect, but they are clearly the lesser of two evils. I therefore call upon my progressive brethren in (specific states) to vote for Al Gore. We will provide him with his margin of victory and as a part of the coalition, we will have a place at the table." Gore wins, Nadar can say that the Progressive movement made the difference, and things would be vastly different today. But Nadar could not sublimate his ego for the greater good, Bush got elected, and the Federal Judiciary is threatened with a sea change. And this kind of "egotistic" action is repeated over and over again at all levels by the liberal movement.

3. Fighting the Wrong Fights. The Liberals, most particularly those in Congress, fight the wrong fights. John Bolton, for all of the evil that he will bring, is an "at-will" appointee. He is finished as soon as Bush determines that he is a sufficient liability to the administration or he finishes his dismemberment of the UN. Article III judges, in contrast, are the gifts that give forever. And yet many of the liberals decided to draw the line with Bolton and not with the Judges. The liberals, due to the current Republican majorities, only have a few fights that they can make before the liberals are portrayed as obstructionists. They should have fought the fight with the Judges. They should have made the Republicans invoke the Nuclear Option to kill filibusters. It would have resulted in those Judges realizing that they were not "truly" confirmed, had them question their legitimacy, might have resulted in them "moderating their decisions", would have shown the abuse of the Republican Party of the Historic Rules of Congress, and would have destroyed the very tool that the Republican Party used to block numerous Clinton appointees. In contrast, Bolton's harm, while significant, was short term AND the fight was futile as Bush had a simple and uncontestable move to install Bolton(the recess appointment). And the "simple" tactic will not be understood by the voter and will ultimately have no repercussions. Wrong Fight, wrong place, wrong time.

Should Liberals fight the turn of the Democratic Party to the Right? You bet. But at the same time, they must also pick and chose the fights and ultimately remember the identity of the real enemy.

Customer Service

Customer Service... two words which have lost virtually all meaning. Once upon a time in America, in that mythic time invoked by the Right Wing, any and every problem or complaint was promptly resolved and the Customer was always happy. I am not naive enough to believe that this ever was the case, but it strikes me that either I am becoming less tolerant as I am growing older or Customer Service really is getting worse (or, as is more, likely both).

Why are we seeing this "lack" of Customer Service? On one hand, I think it relates to the poor pay and working conditions for the employees. Everytime one turns around, more technology has been put into place to remove any contact between the customer and the worker. One Drug Store near my house, for example, in an effort to cut costs, has multiple "self-service" cashiers, and to force you to use them, has cut down on live Cashiers. One either has to wait in a line with three or four Customers or use the self-service. And the one live cashier is under great pressure to move quickly because of the delays. (And this has a secondary impact on other types of Customer Service as things like "press checks" for small price errors are less likely to be requested becuase it will delay other fellow customers.)

A second factor is the "lack" of competition. In my area we had two large grocery chains. One of these chains has fallen on hard times and the other, which was never first quality, has responded by reducing its service and quality as well. They do not have to pay attention to the Customer becuase the Customer really has no realistic options.