120703212132-Batavia, NY–
I mentioned a while ago on BITSBLOG an attempt by the UN to gain control of the Internet. The Blog note, which linked a FOXNEWS article just barely scratched the surface of the topic. The story suggests that the stated goal of such control would be to tie ’emerging’ nations (read that, “the poor”) more directly to the net, at the expense of the rest of us.
One other problem of turning control of the ‘net over to the UN is that it will make the internet less effective. The obvious example is the way that body has managed to show complete irrelevancy in the recent Iraq conflict. Iraq is hardly the only example of the UN’s impotency, merely the most recent.
Perhaps it should be no shock to anyone that the biggest backer of the proposal is China. You remember them; they’re the ones who have been placing more controls on their own people’s internet access than any other country on the planet, as an active political action, and who stands to gain more than any other besides perhaps Cuba, by some socialist leaning body maintaining a grip on the internet access of the rest of us, to say nothing of our free expression thereon.
I think most people would find it hard to fathom that China could be backing proposals whose stated goals run so directly afoul of their own past behavior.
And yes, it should be noted that exact definitions at this stage are hard to come by. But I submit this is part of the design. It’s the same trick the left uses here in the States; be sufficiently vague about your goals and use high-sounding phrases so as to gather support. Once that particular snowball is rolling damn few will be able to stop it.
And, let’s also say that in truth here is much in the way of clues as to what all this is about. Consider their own press release, which states in part:
“Freedom of the press entails responsibilities. As new technologies allow unprecedented freedom to the “new media” on the Internet, these should not be used to foster intolerance and hatred. Instead, the values of tolerance, dialogue and respect for diversity must be the foundations of a truly inclusive global information society. The information society should bring the world together instead of adding new divisions, creating a more just and harmonious global environment.”
Ah, yes… High sounding words. So very open and inclusive… and condescending. Let’s remember what Canada did under the guise of such words… Hate Speech laws, under which, for example, passages from the Bible regarding homosexual behavior is ‘hate speech’. Funny how that little “HATE BUSH” party out in LA a few weeks ago, isn’t regarded in international leftist circles as ‘Hate Speech”, huh? Remember also that the United Nations has recently determined that some forms of “hate speech” can actually be war crimes. Starting to get the picture?
In case you were unaware, the US is the birthplace of the internet, and always has been, even if you believe the claim of Al Gore that he invented the thing. The internet is very much American in that it’s free speech on all channels all the time. The Internet is in the final read, exporting Americanism. This proposal would put a stop to all of that. How? Simple.
Just read Article 29 Section 3 of the proposal:
“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
The translation is that your freedom of speech, your freedom of expression, and your free exchange of information and opinion cannot be exercised if such runs afoul of the “purposes and principles of the United Nations”.
As to what that purpose is, let’s be real, here. The UN has only one purpose… blanket opposition to anything the US does. No wonder the Chinese are the biggest backers of this proposal… no wonder the UN as a whole is pushing this; They won’t be able to deal with the freedom. Can you imagine, for example China, or Cuba, dealing with free speech? Why, they might even have people that are critical of the communist governments there. Can’t have that!
Need I remind anyone that among the first thing the recently freed Iraqi people wanted to do was to involve themselves in the internet, to access US sites?
They also go on to suggest they are about solving the pressing issues intellectual property protection and of Internet crime. They do though manage to get the usual code words in, though, about utilizing new technologies to overcome poverty and find ways to make Internet access “affordable to all”.
Meaning, the US is, under this plan going to have to find some way to pay for this grandiose plan of theirs. But it gets worse than this.
Consider; What would places like China, India, and many African nations, gain by such central control? A look at Taiwan is a good start toward your answer; it’s the best way I can think of to leap over copyright laws to gain a financial foothold. Think your neighbor’s MP3 collection’s an issue? Wait till this nonsense gets placed into international law.. and music won’t even be on the list of financial problem areas regards the net and piracy!
The internet is an invention designed around freedom; the UN, both in the specific proposal regards the internet, and as a whole, runs counter to that stated purpose. Turning control of it over to them is foolish at best, and in truth self-destructive for America, and the world.
I mentioned a while ago on BITSBLOG an attempt by the UN to gain control of the Internet. The Blog note, which linked a FOXNEWS article just barely scratched the surface of the topic. The story suggests that the stated goal of such control would be to tie ’emerging’ nations (read that, “the poor”) more directly to the net, at the expense of the rest of us.
One other problem of turning control of the ‘net over to the UN is that it will make the internet less effective. The obvious example is the way that body has managed to show complete irrelevancy in the recent Iraq conflict. Iraq is hardly the only example of the UN’s impotency, merely the most recent.
Perhaps it should be no shock to anyone that the biggest backer of the proposal is China. You remember them; they’re the ones who have been placing more controls on their own people’s internet access than any other country on the planet, as an active political action, and who stands to gain more than any other besides perhaps Cuba, by some socialist leaning body maintaining a grip on the internet access of the rest of us, to say nothing of our free expression thereon.
I think most people would find it hard to fathom that China could be backing proposals whose stated goals run so directly afoul of their own past behavior.
And yes, it should be noted that exact definitions at this stage are hard to come by. But I submit this is part of the design. It’s the same trick the left uses here in the States; be sufficiently vague about your goals and use high-sounding phrases so as to gather support. Once that particular snowball is rolling damn few will be able to stop it.
And, let’s also say that in truth here is much in the way of clues as to what all this is about. Consider their own press release, which states in part:
“Freedom of the press entails responsibilities. As new technologies allow unprecedented freedom to the “new media” on the Internet, these should not be used to foster intolerance and hatred. Instead, the values of tolerance, dialogue and respect for diversity must be the foundations of a truly inclusive global information society. The information society should bring the world together instead of adding new divisions, creating a more just and harmonious global environment.”
Ah, yes… High sounding words. So very open and inclusive… and condescending. Let’s remember what Canada did under the guise of such words… Hate Speech laws, under which, for example, passages from the Bible regarding homosexual behavior is ‘hate speech’. Funny how that little “HATE BUSH” party out in LA a few weeks ago, isn’t regarded in international leftist circles as ‘Hate Speech”, huh? Remember also that the United Nations has recently determined that some forms of “hate speech” can actually be war crimes. Starting to get the picture?
In case you were unaware, the US is the birthplace of the internet, and always has been, even if you believe the claim of Al Gore that he invented the thing. The internet is very much American in that it’s free speech on all channels all the time. The Internet is in the final read, exporting Americanism. This proposal would put a stop to all of that. How? Simple.
Just read Article 29 Section 3 of the proposal:
“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
The translation is that your freedom of speech, your freedom of expression, and your free exchange of information and opinion cannot be exercised if such runs afoul of the “purposes and principles of the United Nations”.
As to what that purpose is, let’s be real, here. The UN has only one purpose… blanket opposition to anything the US does. No wonder the Chinese are the biggest backers of this proposal… no wonder the UN as a whole is pushing this; They won’t be able to deal with the freedom. Can you imagine, for example China, or Cuba, dealing with free speech? Why, they might even have people that are critical of the communist governments there. Can’t have that!
Need I remind anyone that among the first thing the recently freed Iraqi people wanted to do was to involve themselves in the internet, to access US sites?
They also go on to suggest they are about solving the pressing issues intellectual property protection and of Internet crime. They do though manage to get the usual code words in, though, about utilizing new technologies to overcome poverty and find ways to make Internet access “affordable to all”.
Meaning, the US is, under this plan going to have to find some way to pay for this grandiose plan of theirs. But it gets worse than this.
Consider; What would places like China, India, and many African nations, gain by such central control? A look at Taiwan is a good start toward your answer; it’s the best way I can think of to leap over copyright laws to gain a financial foothold. Think your neighbor’s MP3 collection’s an issue? Wait till this nonsense gets placed into international law.. and music won’t even be on the list of financial problem areas regards the net and piracy!
The internet is an invention designed around freedom; the UN, both in the specific proposal regards the internet, and as a whole, runs counter to that stated purpose. Turning control of it over to them is foolish at best, and in truth self-destructive for America, and the world.
New York Post Online Edition: news:
Interesting how desperate they’re getting, isn’t it?
From the realm of the totally bizzare…
Barbie Collectibles – The official Mattel website for the hobby of Barbie doll collecting: “Barbie? and Ken? as Arwen and Aragorn”
Naples Daily News: Columnists:
Anyone seeking added evdience tha Molly Ivins is either nuts or bought off, should look no further:
“AUSTIN, Texas — No one has been waiting with bated breath for me to make up my mind about the Democratic presidential candidates, but I have, and you might be interested in how I got there. I’m for Howard Dean — because he’s going to win.”
Sad news to report; RIGHTWEARE is going down.
The girls will be missed.
Sullivan is at his best when he keeps his head out of his pants and keeps his jibes to short lines like this:
CHOMSKY ON WESTERN ANTI-SEMITISM: It “scarcely exists.” And no mention of anti-Semitism anywhere else in the world, of course. Of course, Chomsky has to deny it. Or else he would have to answer for consorting with those who practice it.
www.AndrewSullivan.com – Daily Dish
He’s correct, here of course. And so it is with the left as a whole. Rather makes one wonder why anyone who is Jewish, or supports their strugges in the world, would ever vote left of center.
“Three Maryland researchers have admitted fabricating interviews with teenagers for a study on AIDS prevention that received more than $1 million in federal funds. ….The study involved “817 black youths aged 12 to 16 years,” and found that youth whose families participated in the enhanced Focus on Kids program showed “significantly lower rates” for a variety of risk behaviors, including sex without condoms and use of cigarettes and alcohol.
The Focus on Kids program is a widely used “safe sex” curriculum advertised by its publisher, ETR Associates, as “proven effective.”
“
So, this is all a lie? Who’d have thought?
“Warning: Jelly doughnuts may be hazardous to your child’s health. That’s what Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman is telling America’s parents as he seeks a federal investigation into the marketing practices of junk food companies”
I’m not even going to comment on this stupidity
HoustonChronicle.com – Woman gets 10 years for running over McDonald’s manager
A McDonald’s customer who flew into a violent rage when she was denied mayonnaise on her cheeseburger got 10 years in prison today for running over the restaurant’s manager.
Mayo on a Quarter cheese? Here’s someone who won’t be voting for Joe Lieberman…(See FOOD POLICE)
Another take, with photo
And another
Nolan, has previous convictions for assault and prostitution, which would tend to explain the longer than expected term. Read the links, and you tell me, though; Is there a social commentary to make, here?
There’s been quite a bit made of there being no attempt at terrorism in Canada. The non-thinking runs along the lines of “Canada is a left-leaning country as a rule, and didn’t support the US in Iraq, and so is immune to terrorist attacks.”
Welcome to reality. I told you readers they’d be on the list soon enough- that there is no reasoning with these people, no compromise. It has begun.
“A Canadian citizen arrested last month in Gaza was planning to carry out terror attacks in Canada on behalf of the terrorist group Hamas, the Israeli government said Thursday.”
The Hypocrites of Homosexuality
Orson Scott Card:
“One thing is certain: one cannot serve two masters. And when one’s life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another. “
Interesting read. Since Card is LDS himself, I guess he won’t really tick off too many LDS people. And what he’s implying here is a dedication that reaches beyond literal truth… which would tend, actually to explain quite a bit.
Card goes on to argue a case from a religious POV, that I’ve argued in the past from a secular one: The behavior is a choice, even if the disposition isn’t. (And I consider that the jury is out on even that, yet)
No, I hadn’t forgotten it. 12/7 is on Monday, and it’s 62 years to the day. I just couldn’t think what to write about it. Then, just now, I realized I already had, in writing of Veterans day a few weeks ago;
Scroll about halfway down in this link.
Democrat pollster Mark Mellman has a column in “The Hill” newspaper headlined: “Beware: Bush Hatred is a Minority Taste.” Among other things, he writes that Democrats hate Bush, and that this hatred is driving the party’s primary – which will threaten the nominees ability to attract swing voters in 2004.
These thoughts are echoed word for word the same day by Susan Estrich.
You will recall I raised a question some weeks ago, asking if any of the Democrats after rushing headlong left, could bring it back far enough right in time to attract the non-partisan voters… or if they did, wouldn’t they be easy to defeat with Lexus/Nexus…
It appears some Democrats are waking up to the concept that the answer to both those questions are very unfavorable.
Of course, then the remaining question is, what else they can run against Mr. Bush ON…. and the answer, given the successes in Iraq, and the support of the American people to his policy there, the booming economy, and so on… and the answers there don’t look favorable for the Democrats, either….
A particularly sad report from PEOPLE magazine today.
Former President Reagan Rarely Awake – Report
“Former President Ronald Reagan, is now confined to a bed, rarely awake and unable to walk or talk, People magazine said in a report issued on Thursday.”
I’m a little torn on this one. He’s 92, and so any degree of life at all is a blessing, I guess. There are many who at 92 can be said to be in worse shape, and most don’t make it that far. But to see such a sharp mind brought so far away from it’s peak, is still disheartening.
My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. I suggest yours should be, as well. He hasn’t long, I fear.
