This isn’t my subject so I should probably shut up, but it seems to me – given the nature of networks (frequently discussed on this board for their inherent properties as well as the analogues to the intersecting “matrices” of the modern world), but given the structure, operational control can be installed at any number of levels – the ISP is one, the end-user is another.

My question is who decided that the current end-user controls (so-called parental controls) were ineffective? The level/location of control will clearly dictate the motivation behind the policy.

However this evolves (good word that) I cannot see any *effective* way to control or filter internet content except at a very high level. Lower down in the network can always be circumvented. End-user controls give authority to the family.

The IT industry is schizophrenic – culturally and emotionally, IMO (never – ever – be humble around Them – Joyce Carol Oates could have written a book). Just when you make up your mind you will never – ever – when h^ll freezes over – attempt to communicate in a professional – and goal (four letter word)-oriented – manner with these closet aliens (add rampant and juvenile sexism to their list of dysfunctions), POW! an adult emerges from the netherworld. And you have to radically adjust your seething contempt meter.

As for the demographics, you can thank the IT lobby that heavily backed Clinton who revised the (4b-1?) Visa requirements. Ask Mad Fiddler for the details.

If I understand all this correctly, it points to something that has become a problem, but shouldn’t be, and I lay the blame on the Left as usual.

Most of your list is of non-profits, and are not taxed, and Yahoo!, Microsoft, and google, which are, of course taxed.

Its seems right that independent companies, as with blogs, could set up their rules as they see fit. For example, blogs let people know that the blogs are private property and the owner can run things as he/she sees fit. (no profanity, flaming, no disrespect, or I don’t want you taking up bandwidth, you’re banned, cuz I feel like it, etc.)

Its a different story when company or nation(regime) colludes with the other for the purpose of restricting content.

The examples you gave are euthanasia, child pornography, adult content. While restricting those might, in theory, be a good pursuit, good intentions at government level is problematic, to say the least. Companies, independent of gummit can, and do, set rules that users agree to before service is granted. Thats O.K. with me.

The insight you offer is that the objective of NGO’s is advocacy; setting public policy.

The examples you gave of advocacy groups were ” lobbying, pamphleteering, media operations, educational curriculum building, and similar undertakings in the pursuit of their pet causes.” And of course “community organizing”.

Also, I get the gist as (basically) this: “If google can do it in [WITH] China, they can import it to the nearest place (Australia), and spread it further from there.”

In a previous thread, I took issue with unnamed conservatives based on the fact that I saw a self fulfilling pessimism in their posts as hoarding bandwidth. I do not object to their expressions of pessimism, and I am familiar with their reasons why: That is what blogs and the internet are for- to vent, and to verify if others see what you see.

In this election, all the usual permutations of the left gave one pause, and much cause and opportunity for discouragement. However yours is a case in point, because
1) Obamas greatest danger is in the judges he would appoint. (And the courts, for example will play a role in the issue you sight in this post.) and that makes the issue of who McCain appoints as judges (perhaps) the paramount issue of this campaign. (And the paramount issue, paradoxically, seems to get lost in this campaign in the neck onslaught of permutations and “penumbra”)

2) The first duty of a conservative is to vote against Democrat Party. McCain wasn’t my first choice either, but thats neither here nor there. Thats why I was more motivated to vote against Ubamas in primary elections by voting for Sen. Clinton because the Rep. nomination was already sown up by then.

So there is no excuse (re: Jordan video) for not voting against Ubamas, and for McCain (despite any differences one might have with him, we all do) or else we might be looking at having to organize in the streets.

But don’t count me out either: we just need to figure out how, where and when, (to organize) and then make appropriate commitments.

So how to be David to google’s Goliath? I don’t know, but recently I watched (again) Reverend Mannings sermons on, and about, Ubamas on U-Tube. He calls his ministry (abbreviated) ATLAH. In these semons he sites all the (sorry) abominations of Ubamas himself. But the most important one was this:

(paraphrased) -When this person Ubamas, and his followers (Dems) speak of his infallability, of him as a messiah, when they put a chip on their shoulder, because you aren’t supposed to say anything against him, cause he’s black, you get up and knock that chip right off their shoulder”.

(its far better when you hear Rev. Manning say it) But this is the point. This is the time, even when ubamas loses, to start knocking that chip off of the lefts shoulder. Because they have gotten far too far with it before he even got here, they’ve just miscalculated by thinking Ubamas had so much teflon, because he is supposed to be black, that we would back down once again. They have harruanged us to the point where we don’t give a good gd anymore if they level the tropes of Bigot/homophobe/racist/sexist/bigot at us anymore.

The time is right, but what, how, and where to do it?

the blogoshere has been an effective tool to bust up their lazy tv soaked strategy. But if they try to take this away from us, we may have to conduct diplomacy by different means.

“The purpose of Newspeak was… to make all [unapproved] modes of thought impossible.” — Appendix to 1984.

How many who read my last word of the first paragraph of comment @6 instantly comprehended that I was using liberal in its original meaning? Even at this site with so many intelligent contributors, how many of you had to double-think before seeing it? And in the general public, how many would not comprehend at all?

Already near every one in “The Excluded Middle” has had his language despoiled so that corrupted words and self-censoring fog his thinking.

Ironically conservative, unlike liberal, has not changed nearly so much because it already encompasses contradictory meanings. The majority of conservatives in revolutionary America were Tories. There were sound — conservative — reasons to stay loyal to King and home country and not make waves. It wasn’t the conservative movement which found edicts and taxes from afar that ran roughshod over the majority of colonists a problem worth revolting over.

The red coats coming to confiscate a few guns certainly seemed reasonable in NYC even then.

And if a few quid could buy for the crown the allegiance of some former heroes (like the guy in charge of a key premonitory point on the Hudson), well that’s just politics, right?

Where exactly, Belmont Club members, has conservative leadership been in protecting culture and language and even borders? And has that leadership been tolerant of lesser conservatives who disagreed with their positions? HELL NO!

THIS is the movement Wretchard worries has adequate seating the table?

So Wretchard, isn’t this news item simply the enemy boldly heralding its next step towards stemming opposition down there in Oz?

List Clubbers. W may be constrained, but today Americans are still permitted to remark at how liberal has been so perverted and narrow that contemporary liberalism tramples nearly all the rights that classical liberalism champions. You are free to note that conservative has always been a conflicted term. But the majority won’t know what the hell you are talking about, and so your warnings have been effectively neutralized.

That is in large part because the watchdogs of American heritage, including its language, told you they would conserve that heritage. They failed that vital function because they were willing to compromise. These “conservatives” found by compromising they instead conserved something even more important: their acceptance at “progressive” social circles and a seat at the table of power.

This is who Wretchard sees with a seat at the table in Oz. You too America?

As a practical matter there is no middle, there will be none, all conflicts escalate and this struggle between elites and the populists will only get ugly.

What I am arguing about is poisoning the well for a specific tactic that if implemented would erase all alternatives to the Hard Left.

If the tactic is unpalatable for them, they will abandon it. It’s an extension of MAD. If their suppression of all anti-Jihad sentiment also means suppression of things they want (for example, all pro-Gay speech for which you could find many sponsors at the UN, even Iran! for example) then the Left will abandon this means.

In fact, since the “nuclear weapon” can be used against THEM, and THEIR interests as well, it is an excellent tactic to escalate to deter. Cause the whole thing to be abandoned.

Protesting and writing letters and acting all “responsible” will simply see this place and all others like it shut down. Making the price for shutting down Belmont Club also be sending Andrew Sullivan to jail for pro-gay sentiment, and the like, because the Saudis, Iranians, and other OIC demand it, makes the whole “regulate the internet” movement shift to “never mind.”

Moreover, a Fabian tactic, of poisoning wells and denying forage for troops, is a proven way to gain space and time to marshal one’s own resources. Even the brilliant Hannibal could not conjure up food and water for his starving troops. As Fabian simply burnt the countryside, poisoned the wells, and left him to starve amidst his victories. Hannibal could not gain allies south of Rome, because Rome burnt them all out. Leaving him just stuck there.

For the Left and Obama — same thing. Leave them with nothing. A Fairness Doctrine that also shuts down THEIR speech. So they will abandon it and return to Carthage.