Showing posts with label XXX. Show all posts
Showing posts with label XXX. Show all posts
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Canada's Ideological Divide, In a Nutshell
In Canada, it can be amazing how quickly a basic issue can quickly become clouded in the eyes of the common ideologue.
Sad as it may seem, the Conservative Party's recently-announced anti-child porn legislation is one of those examples.
But issues like this are also an opportunity for Canadians to examine Canada's ideological divide for precisely what it is. In this case, one has the opportunity to examine where each particular ideological camp has situated themselves.
Naturally, both CTV and CBC have reported on the matter. But what's even more interesting than the story itself are some of the reactions to it.
Some Canadians, bizarrely enough, are somehow opposed to these efforts to curb child pornography. The comments section of the story offered by both CTV and CBC have offered not only these individuals an opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter, but through a thumbs up/thumbs down system, have allowed other readers to give an opinion on each readers comments.
Consider the following comment from the story, as posted on the CBC website:
It isn't hard to begin unraveling some of the problems with this particular reader's comments.
First off, there's only a certain extent to which proxies and encryptions can protect any particular individual from identification. And while an wifi connection could certainly be hijacked for the purpose of locating and downloading child pornography, an accused individual could quite quickly be cleared through something so simple as an examination of their computer's hard drive.
(There are, naturally, privacy concerns related to police searches of a computer hard drive that may not be sufficiently covered by current legislation, and may require further legislation. That, by its own merit, is actually a rather fair argument.)
As anyone can see, this particular comment was given 22 "thumbs up" (individuals agreeing with the comment), compared to only two "tumbs down" (individuals disagreeing with the comment).
So on that note, it's interesting to see how a dissenting opinion is treated by CBC readers:
Certainly, no one is obligated to agree with this particular reader. But it's worth noting that very few Canadians have anything to hide in this particular matter.
The legislation in question isn't an attempt to restrict the civil liberties of Canadians. It's an effort to shut down criminal activity that, by its very nature, preys upon children.
Not that commenters like this one, from CTV, will understand this:
Surely, almost all Canadians recognize that child pornography is not a matter of "artistic expression", and that the exploitation of children has no "artistic merit".
That is a basic, fundamental truth that simply requires no explanation. This comment was treated with the amount of merit it deserves -- it received 100 "thumbs down" votes to an inexplicable seven "thumbs up" votes.
Closer to the mark is this reader, who simply pointed out that child pornography is actually a non-partisan (if not a non-ideological) issue:
This comment received 44 "thumbs up" votes to a mere three votes down.
Sadly, not everyone will agree that this is a non-partisan issue. The Conservative Party's 2004 attack on Paul Martin is frankly hard to forget.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the House of Commons votes on this issue. To anyone with an ounce of sense, it isn't hard to figure out that this is a bill that should pass unanimously (with fools like Libby Davies in the Commons, it's hard to say if it will).
Whether or not Canadians can put petty politics aside long enough for the bill to pass is another matter entirely.
Sad as it may seem, the Conservative Party's recently-announced anti-child porn legislation is one of those examples.
But issues like this are also an opportunity for Canadians to examine Canada's ideological divide for precisely what it is. In this case, one has the opportunity to examine where each particular ideological camp has situated themselves.
Naturally, both CTV and CBC have reported on the matter. But what's even more interesting than the story itself are some of the reactions to it.
Some Canadians, bizarrely enough, are somehow opposed to these efforts to curb child pornography. The comments section of the story offered by both CTV and CBC have offered not only these individuals an opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter, but through a thumbs up/thumbs down system, have allowed other readers to give an opinion on each readers comments.
Consider the following comment from the story, as posted on the CBC website:
It isn't hard to begin unraveling some of the problems with this particular reader's comments.First off, there's only a certain extent to which proxies and encryptions can protect any particular individual from identification. And while an wifi connection could certainly be hijacked for the purpose of locating and downloading child pornography, an accused individual could quite quickly be cleared through something so simple as an examination of their computer's hard drive.
(There are, naturally, privacy concerns related to police searches of a computer hard drive that may not be sufficiently covered by current legislation, and may require further legislation. That, by its own merit, is actually a rather fair argument.)
As anyone can see, this particular comment was given 22 "thumbs up" (individuals agreeing with the comment), compared to only two "tumbs down" (individuals disagreeing with the comment).
So on that note, it's interesting to see how a dissenting opinion is treated by CBC readers:
Certainly, no one is obligated to agree with this particular reader. But it's worth noting that very few Canadians have anything to hide in this particular matter.The legislation in question isn't an attempt to restrict the civil liberties of Canadians. It's an effort to shut down criminal activity that, by its very nature, preys upon children.
Not that commenters like this one, from CTV, will understand this:
Surely, almost all Canadians recognize that child pornography is not a matter of "artistic expression", and that the exploitation of children has no "artistic merit".That is a basic, fundamental truth that simply requires no explanation. This comment was treated with the amount of merit it deserves -- it received 100 "thumbs down" votes to an inexplicable seven "thumbs up" votes.
Closer to the mark is this reader, who simply pointed out that child pornography is actually a non-partisan (if not a non-ideological) issue:
This comment received 44 "thumbs up" votes to a mere three votes down.Sadly, not everyone will agree that this is a non-partisan issue. The Conservative Party's 2004 attack on Paul Martin is frankly hard to forget.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the House of Commons votes on this issue. To anyone with an ounce of sense, it isn't hard to figure out that this is a bill that should pass unanimously (with fools like Libby Davies in the Commons, it's hard to say if it will).
Whether or not Canadians can put petty politics aside long enough for the bill to pass is another matter entirely.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Some Things Just Aren't About Same-Sex Marriage
Carrie Prejean's teenaged sex life is one of them
As the political left continues to drag Carrie Prejean's kicking and screaming personal life into the spotlight, a somewhat surprising figure has entered the fray.
Writing on the Daily Beast, Meghan McCain complained that Sean Hannity didn't rake Prejean over the coals enough in regards to her sex tape.
"This was Prejean's first stop on her book publicity tour, and when the sex tape came up, he proceeded to ask her if she was 'in love with her boyfriend at the time that she made [it].' I'm sorry, why would being in love matter when it comes to filming yourself in a sexual context?" she asked.
Sadly, one would expect that the answer to this question wouldn't so elude a woman who describes herself as pro-sex.
The better question, for McCain and for those who intend to use the video in question for rhetorical advantage, is this:
What does Carrie Prejean's video have to do with same-sex marriage? Or even with her position on same-sex marriage?
The answer, or course, is simple: the answer is "absolutely nothing".
McCain's confusion over this topic became evident as she continued writing:
"The problem I have with my fellow Republicans is why gay marriage is the trump card in any situation," McCain continued. "It seems that as long as you are against gay marriage, any scandal in your life can be overlooked or overcome. When you are in favor of it, however -- and I have been very vocal about my support -- that position defines you."
Many conservatives understand what Meghan McCain evidently does not -- that while the Prejean tape certainly serves the purposes of the scandal-mongering attack machines of the political left, it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand: same-sex marriage.
McCain's support for same-sex marriage, however, very much is relevant to this issue (duh. -ed) and, rightly or wrongly, this is one of the issues that is causing McCain such difficulties within not only the Republican Party, but within conservative circles as well.
Meghan McCain certainly isn't obligated to agree with Carrie Prejean -- this author, in particlar, certainly doesn't.
But if anything, McCain ought to sympathize with Prejean. After all, it wasn't even that long ago that the left-wing hate machine heaped its vapid attentions upon her.
As the political left continues to drag Carrie Prejean's kicking and screaming personal life into the spotlight, a somewhat surprising figure has entered the fray.
Writing on the Daily Beast, Meghan McCain complained that Sean Hannity didn't rake Prejean over the coals enough in regards to her sex tape.
"This was Prejean's first stop on her book publicity tour, and when the sex tape came up, he proceeded to ask her if she was 'in love with her boyfriend at the time that she made [it].' I'm sorry, why would being in love matter when it comes to filming yourself in a sexual context?" she asked.
Sadly, one would expect that the answer to this question wouldn't so elude a woman who describes herself as pro-sex.
The better question, for McCain and for those who intend to use the video in question for rhetorical advantage, is this:
What does Carrie Prejean's video have to do with same-sex marriage? Or even with her position on same-sex marriage?
The answer, or course, is simple: the answer is "absolutely nothing".
McCain's confusion over this topic became evident as she continued writing:
"The problem I have with my fellow Republicans is why gay marriage is the trump card in any situation," McCain continued. "It seems that as long as you are against gay marriage, any scandal in your life can be overlooked or overcome. When you are in favor of it, however -- and I have been very vocal about my support -- that position defines you."
Many conservatives understand what Meghan McCain evidently does not -- that while the Prejean tape certainly serves the purposes of the scandal-mongering attack machines of the political left, it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand: same-sex marriage.
McCain's support for same-sex marriage, however, very much is relevant to this issue (duh. -ed) and, rightly or wrongly, this is one of the issues that is causing McCain such difficulties within not only the Republican Party, but within conservative circles as well.
Meghan McCain certainly isn't obligated to agree with Carrie Prejean -- this author, in particlar, certainly doesn't.
But if anything, McCain ought to sympathize with Prejean. After all, it wasn't even that long ago that the left-wing hate machine heaped its vapid attentions upon her.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Moral Puritans of the Hateful Left Redux
Surprise! Conservatives like sex, too
In a post today at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, Groupthinking High Preistess Lulu wants to take issue with Mesopotamia West's Frank and some "erotica" he published on his blog.
Now, as it turns out, the story in question is actually some excessively tame stuff.
But this whole tale -- a rather pitiful excuse for criticism -- really just goes to show you that maybe these douchebags at the Groupthink Temple just don't know what the internet is for in the first place:
In a post today at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, Groupthinking High Preistess Lulu wants to take issue with Mesopotamia West's Frank and some "erotica" he published on his blog.
Now, as it turns out, the story in question is actually some excessively tame stuff.
But this whole tale -- a rather pitiful excuse for criticism -- really just goes to show you that maybe these douchebags at the Groupthink Temple just don't know what the internet is for in the first place:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)