CDR: Gov. Bush links Columbine massacre to Internet use
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212&mode=nested Bush Links Columbine Massacre to Internet Use posted by cicero on Wednesday October 11, @10:25PM from the sounds-a-lot-like-joseph-lieberman dept. George W. Bush may have bested Al Gore in tonight's presidential debate, but it sure wasn't because of the governor's tech-savviness. Warned the Texas Republican, in response to a gun-control question: "Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life." It was undeniably a good, mushy, appeal-to-the-softhearted line, but the sheer schmaltziness of it is in questionable taste. For instance: Was the Net really to blame? Shouldn't even a "compassionate conservative" want to hold miscreants responsible for their own actions? And would the guv have offered the same warning to millions of Americans if the Columbine killers had, say, been regulars at the public library? Transcript is at: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212&mode=nested
At 11:20 PM -0400 10/11/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212&mode=nested
Bush Links Columbine Massacre to Internet Use posted by cicero on Wednesday October 11, @10:25PM from the sounds-a-lot-like-joseph-lieberman dept.
George W. Bush may have bested Al Gore in tonight's presidential debate, but it sure wasn't because of the governor's tech-savviness. Warned the Texas Republican, in response to a gun-control question: "Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life." It was undeniably a good, mushy, appeal-to-the-softhearted line, but the sheer schmaltziness of it is in questionable taste. For instance: Was the Net really to blame? Shouldn't even a "compassionate conservative" want to hold miscreants responsible for their own actions? And would the guv have offered the same warning to millions of Americans if the Columbine killers had, say, been regulars at the public library?
Transcript is at: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212&mode=nested
This was a very small, and inconsequential, part of the debate/discussion. Had George Bush called for _Internet licensing_ in some concrete way, comparable to the way Al Gore called for gun licensing, I would be more concerned about Bush's comments. But he did not. Throwing in a line about the Columbine creeps being influenced by the Internet (or by Quake and Doom and other games, or by "The Matrix," or by being spoiled suburban brats) is not the same as calling for unconstitutional abridgments of freedoms. Normally I vote Libertarian. This year I may vote for Bush as a vote for who will do me, us, and the Constitution the lesser damage of the two. (All voting is about bang for the buck, about effectiveness of a vote...an election is not about "voting for the best man," it is instead about minimizing damage.) --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim May wrote:
Throwing in a line about the Columbine creeps being influenced by the Internet (or by Quake and Doom and other games, or by "The Matrix," or by being spoiled suburban brats) is not the same as calling for unconstitutional abridgments of freedoms.
I don't recall hearing that the football team was influenced by the Internet or the rest. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
Let me see if I understand this. It's okay to blame the Net for Columbine as long as you don't call for licensing. So it's OK to blame gunshows for gun murders as long as you don't call for licensing? Right? MacN PS: What part of this debate/discussion was *not* very small, and inconsequential? M On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
This was a very small, and inconsequential, part of the debate/discussion.
Had George Bush called for _Internet licensing_ in some concrete way, comparable to the way Al Gore called for gun licensing, I would be more concerned about Bush's comments. But he did not.
Throwing in a line about the Columbine creeps being influenced by the Internet (or by Quake and Doom and other games, or by "The Matrix," or by being spoiled suburban brats) is not the same as calling for unconstitutional abridgments of freedoms.
Normally I vote Libertarian. This year I may vote for Bush as a vote for who will do me, us, and the Constitution the lesser damage of the two. (All voting is about bang for the buck, about effectiveness of a vote...an election is not about "voting for the best man," it is instead about minimizing damage.)
--Tim May
-- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 10:55 PM -0500 10/11/00, Mac Norton wrote:
Let me see if I understand this. It's okay to blame the Net for Columbine as long as you don't call for licensing. So it's OK to blame gunshows for gun murders as long as you don't call for licensing? Right?
I don't like either, but it's a long way from actually passing a law. Those who try to license either guns or speech have, of course, earned liquidation. That part goes without saying. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 11:56 PM 10/11/00 -0400, Mac Norton wrote:
Let me see if I understand this. It's okay to blame the Net for Columbine as long as you don't call for licensing. So it's OK to blame gunshows for gun murders as long as you don't call for licensing? Right? MacN
You can 'blame' anyone for anything anytime you don't like their message.. doesn't mean you can control it with state violence.. e.g., religion, hollywood, erotica, nra, nambla, Democratic party, kkk, teletubbies, etc. Ie, your 'blame' is as cheap as your words. Pretty simple, really: sticks and stones can break your bones, but bits will never hurt you. (Unless you're a content producer getting napsterized, but that's another thread :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:42:02PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 11:20 PM -0400 10/11/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212&mode=nested
Bush Links Columbine Massacre to Internet Use posted by cicero on Wednesday October 11, @10:25PM from the sounds-a-lot-like-joseph-lieberman dept.
George W. Bush may have bested Al Gore in tonight's presidential debate, but it sure wasn't because of the governor's tech-savviness. Warned the Texas Republican, in response to a gun-control question: "Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life." It was undeniably a good, mushy, appeal-to-the-softhearted line, but the sheer schmaltziness of it is in questionable taste. For instance: Was the Net really to blame? Shouldn't even a "compassionate conservative" want to hold miscreants responsible for their own actions? And would the guv have offered the same warning to millions of Americans if the Columbine killers had, say, been regulars at the public library?
Transcript is at: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/0326212&mode=nested
This was a very small, and inconsequential, part of the debate/discussion.
Had George Bush called for _Internet licensing_ in some concrete way, comparable to the way Al Gore called for gun licensing, I would be more concerned about Bush's comments. But he did not.
His statement reflects his total lack of any sort of intellignce. I don't interpret it as a policy statement.
Throwing in a line about the Columbine creeps being influenced by the Internet (or by Quake and Doom and other games, or by "The Matrix," or by being spoiled suburban brats) is not the same as calling for unconstitutional abridgments of freedoms.
You're right. But only a dumbass would blame the Internet for student violence.
Normally I vote Libertarian. This year I may vote for Bush as a vote for who will do me, us, and the Constitution the lesser damage of the two. (All voting is about bang for the buck, about effectiveness of a vote...an election is not about "voting for the best man," it is instead about minimizing damage.)
- -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG/PGP5: 0x9AD0F382 | PGP2 (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE55Ubz2FWyBZrQ84IRAo+vAKCnuAt828084ZJTHK26JONw29AuYACfXNzV AkD8kZUvLb6iLf4m7NkdHN4= =wNO9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
Normally I vote Libertarian. This year I may vote for Bush as a vote for who will do me, us, and the Constitution the lesser damage of the two. (All voting is about bang for the buck, about effectiveness of a vote...an election is not about "voting for the best man," it is instead about minimizing damage.)
--Tim May
Actually, your vote should be about getting what you want, not what you don't want. The quickest way to do that now is to consistently vote for the worst possible candidate. Only by maximally accellerating the downward spiral this country has been in for 70 years or more will the sheeple start to wake up. Like I've said before. When you have alcohol poisoning the best thing to do is dump your stomach contents. Get the poison out. You won't do it by gradually falling asleep and dying from it. Bring on the socio/fascist state. I'd like Stalinist communism by 10am tomorrow morning please. I know that would wake at least 10% up. Its the steady march of gradualism that is killing this country. If our great grandfathers went into suspended animation in 1910 and were awakened now they would be in shock. Not just from the technology, but with the willingness with which we tolerate our enslavement. jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 12:14 PM -0500 10/12/00, Jim Burnes wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
Normally I vote Libertarian. This year I may vote for Bush as a vote for who will do me, us, and the Constitution the lesser damage of the two. (All voting is about bang for the buck, about effectiveness of a vote...an election is not about "voting for the best man," it is instead about minimizing damage.)
--Tim May
Actually, your vote should be about getting what you want, not what you don't want. The quickest way to do that now is to consistently vote for the worst possible candidate.
Possibly. All votes are about "cost/benefit" issues. The cost of voting, the benefits of voting, and further subdivided into the benefits of voting for various candidates. In most cases, the costs of voting exceed any expected benefits. Merely travelling to a polling place and spending half an hour or so voting is a cost greater than the benefits. Spending tens of hours watching news coverage of the election process is in a different league of wasted effort altogether. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
Normally I vote Libertarian. This year I may vote for Bush as a vote for who will do me, us, and the Constitution the lesser damage of the two. (All voting is about bang for the buck, about effectiveness of a vote...an election is not about "voting for the best man," it is instead about minimizing damage.)
Back in 1984, I decided it was more important to vote for the anti-Reagan Democrat than to vote for the disorganized-again Libertarians; it was annoying that the Dems couldn't come up with anybody less tacky than Walter Mondale, but it would be better than getting four more years of Reagan/Bush wars and probably another 4-8 of Bush. All my vote accomplished was telling the Democrats that next time they should pick yet another loser to throw the election, though we fortunately ended up getting rid of Bush earlier, replacing an evil president with one who doesn't have enough principles to be consistently evil. Not doing that again. If you want to vote for somebody to stop Gore, rather than voting your conscience, it's probably more valuable to vote for Nader - he's no prize, but the Democrats deserve to get split. In some ways, it's too bad that Buchanan got the Reform nomination instead of Jesse, since that would have made splitting the Republicans possible also, but Buchanan does mean that the Libertarians have a chance of beating the Reform party this time... Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 12:14 PM 10/12/00 -0500, Jim Burnes wrote:
Actually, your vote should be about getting what you want, not what you don't want. The quickest way to do that now is to consistently vote for the worst possible candidate. Only by maximally accellerating the downward spiral this country has been in for 70 years or more will the sheeple start to wake up.
Feh. Voting for the occasional crazy may be worthwhile (like Ross Perot, who may have been a scary guy but was no worse than Bush; Clinton may have been scary before the fact but in practice turned out surprisingly good, in large part because his personal ethics problems kept him tied up all the time.) Causing more evil mainly gets more sheeple in the mood for evil - Germany's hundred-plus years of militarism and National and International Socialism wasn't worth the cost.
Like I've said before. When you have alcohol poisoning the best thing to do is dump your stomach contents. Get the poison out. You won't do it by gradually falling asleep and dying from it.
Yeah - but you do that by drinking ipecac, not by drinking Everclear. Like, gag me with a spoon....
If our great grandfathers went into suspended animation in 1910 and were awakened now they would be in shock. Not just from the technology, but with the willingness with which we tolerate our enslavement.
Let's see - the generation that brought us the Income Tax, Prohibition, "Separate but Equal" Supreme Court support for mandatory segregation, The War To End All Wars, Teddy Roosevelt/Hearst Newspapers invading Cuba, Schenck busted for speaking against the draft before the US joined WW1 and the Supreme Court voting that his conviction was just fine, the destructive reparations against Germany that led to the rise of fascism, pro-inflation Populists, monopolies and trust-busters... Most people from that day would feel right at home, except for little details like cars and MTV and lack of decent trains, and the government bribing sheeple wholesale instead of Tammany retail. There are a few differences - the union movement has wimped out, with the AFLCIO as a conservative establishment-joining bargaining group, compared with the Wobblies and other real strikers, and by now more people believe that Communism is bad, and they've got mixed feelings about working for big companies instead of running small businesses themselves after most of a century. But mostly it's the same old same old. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
participants (8)
-
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Burnes -
Mac Norton -
Nathan Saper -
Steve Furlong -
Tim May