This should be no surprise, when you have a fundamentalist president (aka religious fanatic), you get fundamentalist attorney generals ie: Ashcroft, & now (mostly likely) Gonzales....
" The topic first arose when Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Oh.) asked the candidate what he'd like to be remembered for, four years from now?
Gonzales replied, in part, "I think obscenity is something else that very much concerns me. I've got two young sons, and it really bothers me about how easy it is to have access to pornography."
What he will be remembered for is being yet another self-righteous, & self-interested AG......
-- Modified on 1/11/2005 8:09:42 PM
porn or do you just have it lying around the house?
""I've got two young sons, and it really bothers me about how easy it is to have access to pornography.""
I assume this is the quote that bothers you....
Do you think it is possible that he is also bothered by how easy it is for adults to have access to pornography?
Fair enough?
-- Modified on 1/11/2005 9:37:41 PM
be pressed. An interogator hates to be interogated. All is fair in war. Answer his question, maybe you can shame him into answering yours by doing so.
answer mine.
I have two adult kids. I didn't leave it lying around the house when they were kids, because they were too young, as children, to process it. I believe in censorship for children.
The problem with Gonzales, as I was getting at with my question, is that I think there is a very good chance that he thinks it would also be a good thing if it were more difficult for adults to have access to pornography. I think this was true of Ashcroft, by the way.
Gotta hit the sack now, but can pick up tomorrow. Cheers.
-- Modified on 1/11/2005 10:06:29 PM
Before you crash, I think you made the leap from kids to adults in regards to Gonzalez and porn. Therefore it is incumbent on you to explain how that leap is made. I was just going by the black and white.
For the record, I don't want "the government" sticking it's nose in anyones personal business. I can think of lots of examples of how we have already allowed them to overstep (ie, bike helmets). I also believe the pron industry demaguages this issue for it's own profit motives...
Night, night.
BK
I am accusing Gonzales of having a hidden agenda, the kind that may not be apparent to a guy who thinks in black and white, but I suspect wouldn't be too hard to figure out for a guy who is actually capable of thinking in shades of grey, but likes to sometimes present himself as lacking this capacity.
I think Gonzales does indeed want to limit access to pornography for children, but knows that in doing so, access will also be limited for adults, and this limiting of access for adults is his hidden second goal, his hidden agenda. I think Ashcroft also had this hidden agenda.
Of course the porn industry uses this issue for its own profit motives. The porn industry is full of hypocritical sleazebags. But attacking the people in the porn industry is a way to avoid talking about the issue of First Amendment free speech, which is what the idea of censorship for adults is really all about.
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 7:01:23 AM
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 7:02:02 AM
And I do agree. However, he brings up a good point. How do we REALLY know that is their hidden agenda? Seriously, it could be possible that Gonzales has no intention or desire to limit porn for adults. In an effort to constantly examine my own position, I am wondering how we know this?
We can surmise that because the administration promotes Evangelical Christian values that they (and their appointees) want to limit porn for adults as well. Is that a fair assumption to make? I don't know. BILLKILE, how do you weigh in on this?
I just hope BILLKILE is right.
- Instead of taking the bait and escalating into a "Show me yours first" you just responded directly. Hell, what's the world coming to if people take up this radical trend of acting rationally and civilly?
BTW, If I'm correct, your something of a fan of the NIH. Did you see the expose the LAtimes did on the rank corruption going on there.
The pill companies, with the help of certain scientist seem out of control!!!
-- Modified on 1/11/2005 10:31:25 PM
You confused me Billkile. I do 11-12 hour workdays, but I have to press myself to work past 7pm PST.
On the NIH. I think that it is one of the most efficient government agencies. Does that mean that it cannot be reformed? Of course not. The drug companies are being demonized a little, and the be frank, they deserve a lot of it since many of their execs appear to be thinking with their genitals instead of their heads. But the drug companies, the good ones at least, spend a massive amount of money on research, much of which makes life better for all of us. Ok guys, you are free to lecture me about pulling my head out of my ass - but be kind because I truly believe what I wrote..
Notwithstanding any judgement of NIH's relative value, the Times looked into the influence big Pharma money has been having on NIH scientist. Back in 95-ish there were concerns that top level scientist would defect to private industry chasing paychecks and much of the REAL BASIC seed work that's at the heart of NIH's mission mnight not get done.
Accordingly, scientist were allowed to ally themselves with pharmas as paid consultants. The feeling was this would help them bridge the gap between testube and Rite-Aid.
Well, evidence is emerging that may of the top level scientist have actually ended up in pharma's back pocket and are out using their NIH credentials to tout drugs the the public (something expressly forbidden)and AND are actually running interference on competitors and FDA.
It's really beyong my scope of understanding to expalin much better than that by the take away is that NIH bigwigs can be "had" and Bush's top guy is taking heat to put an end to it.
As an aside to NIH, a buddy of mine writes grants for one of the most prestigious research hospitals in the US and drew my attention to NIH during the human genome ordeal. He did some work with Celara. That was not NIH's brightest days and serves as an example in some respects the difference "profit motive" can play in getting things moving...
BK
a hidden agenda, not an open one.
Or do you and BK want to tell me that I'm being some kind of paranoid, the-sky-is-falling liberal for seeing the hidden agenda.
Perhaps you and BK would like to say "I don't know whether he has the hidden agenda you claim, and neither do you". In that case, why don't you and BK do something really courageous and express an opinion on the issue.
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 6:57:14 AM
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 6:58:12 AM
here you are. I don't think you are really to worried about the First Amendment, I think you are worried about someone limiting your access to porn. I don't think there is a chance in Hell of any kind of ban on porn that is already in production or circulation. I don't think that the porn industry in America will suffer at all under Gonzales or any other Right Wing nominee. I do think that any politician in his right mind will restrict porn to the sleazy corner it is currently in. I am sure there are many that would love to emulate their European peers with beastie films, child porn etc. and I am sure there is a market for this filth in America.
I wouldn't be surprised if this has your panties in a bunch becuase you feel that the porn industry has made great strides in spreading its message over the last ten years but you fear that people cannot access it in public libraries without proving their age, perhaps you want to make sure that this is available in all libraries or computer labs regardless of the age of the users. Perhaps you would like to see the porn industry get approval from the Dept. of Commerce to start sending porn to every mailbox in the form of junkmail. Think of the opportunity to get a catalog offering 10 dvd's or vhs tapes for a penny if you suscribe to the porn of the month club!!
Will that be a new offering from Time-Life books & videos?
ROFL
Actually, Hustler tried to create something along those lines about 6-8 years ago. It kinda fell flat financially.
With more & more people getting broadband access to the internet, downloading full length movies from the newsgroups and the file sharing networks is becoming the preferred method for distribution.
about Gonzales. Who here thinks that they are concerned exclusively about the possibility that the porn videos from Columbia House will fall into the hands of children? BK perhaps?
Of course, you can always argue that they have misread the man terribly, and he has no intentions of ever making access to pornography more difficult for adults.
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 10:14:16 PM
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 10:25:12 PM
When you say "I don't think there is a chance in Hell of any kind of ban on porn that is already in production or circulation", are you saying that we may see addtional restrictions which are not in place now on porn that has yet to be produced?
What do you feel is the "message" of the porn industry?
You have jumped to a conclusion without any type of substantiation. He has been quoted as saying he wants to fight to keep porn out of the hands of kids. I'm for that.
I'll NOT jump to the conclusion that you are not, unless you would like me to excercize the same standard you used against Gonzalez....I just don't think it's fair.
BK
No, I don't have kids....
Billkile, applying Gonzales logic from his statement, could one not also say:
it really bothers me about how easy it is to have access to "alcohol"
it really bothers me about how easy it is to have access to
"cigarettes"
it really bothers me about how easy it is to have access to
"violent video games"
it really bothers me about how easy it is to have access to
"rap music"
and so on & so forth
The point is, it is easy for kids to have access to many things they shouldn't have.....Remember that Charles Barkley Nike commerical from the early 90's where he says "parents are role models, just because I can dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids"...Parents have to take responsibilty for their children....It's their job to monitor what they watch, listen to, etc. & not make the porn industry (and others) the scapegoat for everything......
Look, I don't have, and don't want, kids, so maybe I lack some empathy here, but no one said being a parent is easy, hell, it's probably the most difficult job there is & MAYBE Mr. Gonzales shouldn't take the AG job if the demands are going strain his family time.....
-- Modified on 1/11/2005 9:51:17 PM
-- Modified on 1/11/2005 10:06:42 PM
How easy it is to see our president lie to the nation about war and social security. What a great example for our children.
Thanks Moose, It's always helpful to understand where a person is coming from when exchanging P'sOV. I think you're leaping to conclusions though. I'm one of those black and white reader types.
I'm really not sure what role the Fed plays in regards to porn but in most matters, my first instinct is to tell government to get it's nose out of people's business. I think in this regard, local cumminities are best positioned to decide for themselves what is acceptable and what is not. However, it is the role of the Fed to maintain decency standards on the public airwaves and here is where I believe most folks are getting hysterical about the Biblethumpers.
They are a minority. All the majority of peope want is to be able to sit and watch shows with their small kids and not have tits flashed and crotches grabbed.
Lastly, when you talk about "self-interest" and include a link from the porn industry, well, that makes me giggle.....These guys want to sell porn, that's it.
BK
PS, I have 2 young girls...
-- Modified on 1/11/2005 10:32:48 PM
what I have a problem with WeaUnd doing. That of jumping to outrageous conclusions without any substantiation
...so come on now...
BK
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 10:21:01 PM
I do not have children of my own, but I do have nieces, nephews, several "honorary" nieces and nephews, and I'm a Big Brother to two young lads 6 and 9. I certainly wouldn't want them to be exposed to hard core pornogrsaphy at that age.
But these same two boys often watch "the WB" or "UPN" or network television. Have any of you SEEN some of the loathsome crap they have on prime time these days?
It isn't Leave it to Beaver anymore; "Let's Eat some Beaver" is the show of the hour.
It isn't Ozzie and Harriet Nelson anymore, or even the Osmonds... its the bloody fucking Osbornes!
Tell me how the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition is any less sexually expressive or revealing than "WWE Diva's on the Beach" or even Girls Gone Wild (which isn't really much more than a well promoted titty flash fest)?
Let the fucking money thralls in Congress get serious about XXXSpam emails and you will eliminate (not all but a) good % percentage of the problem of porn coming to your pc monitor.
Come on, get real. WE, especially those of us on this board, are far more in tune with the realities of the $3.5 Billion Dollar porn industry than most mainstream God-fearing wholesome family values citizens. Of which Alberto Gonzales no doubt will be painted as being a member of.
There are far more critical issues for the AG to contend with that should take priority over obscenity. Corruption in government is far more obscene in my eyes than two women fucking each other with a strap on. The thousands of killed and maimed American citizens from violent crime in this country present a far more pornographically disgusting image than anything to Voivoid girls ever displayed.
But hey... the majority of the porn executives donate more to DNC than RNC, so maybe thats the real issue.
... I had very religious parents who had religious friends and I always knew where to get "stuff" when I was a kid. People (children too) are interested in sex. The "law" will never stop porn. Everybody with any sense knows it. They aien't even going to slow it down.
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 2:03:25 AM
On one hand, we have an really good debate about what this means, where the sides are coming from and how it will affect us. Bravo!
Unfortunately, we still have to put up with those who constatntly try to twist every possible news item to support their vendetta. Case in point...
- Gonzales says he doesn't want his kids to see porn (and all here agree)
- Ashcroft didn't like porn for anyone (except himself?)
- Gonzales must not like porn for adults.
Yea, I think it was a peculiar choice of issues for Gonzales but I'm not a parent and maybe for him its more personal than professional...or maybe he has to pander to the right. Either way, give this guy a chance, please!
I will grant you he IS a parent, and it probably would be of higher priority to him to be concerned witrh porn, and he DOES pander to the right, but lets face it, neither of those is a big surprise and would not in and of themselves, be enough to prevent his confirmation as AG.
My concerns are where his priorities will be concerning the law.
Will it be to uphold the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law? Will he adhere to the true principles of conservatism that call for the states to make their own decisions, or will he, like Ashcroft before him, try to bend and break the Constitution to suit his personal agenda, and the agenda of the religious right? He was quite sucessful in dissembling and obfuscating his responses at the confirmation hearings, and I dont expect it to be any different if he is AG. Additionally,
Gonzales is even more of a Bush loyalist than Ashcroft was, and I have a real issue with that. Even many in the Hispanic community fear this "Uncle Pedro".
I do not believe he is the correct person for the AG. I bet he won't even remove the drapes from the statues.
Are those drapes still up?
ROTFLMAO
I consider this a small victory.
By most accounts, Gonzalez is a pragmatist, rather than an ideologue (such as Ashcroft was). It would be unreasonable to assume that any nominee for AG would not be carrying the water of the Bush Administration's agenda. But at least Gonzalez seems to have a basic understanding of the Constitution, and is reasonably moderate in SOME of his positions (such as reproductive choice).
In all candor, Gonzalez is about as reasonable an AG nominee as anyone had any reason to expect out of Bush. About the only other less ideological choice who is also well qualified might have been Rudy Giuliani, but he has his own sets of baggage from his days as NYC's DA.
"I think obscenity is something else that very much concerns me. I've got two young sons, and it really bothers me about how easy it is to have access to pornography."
Why didn't Gonzales say "and it really bothers me about how easy it is for children to have access to pornography?" Many people on the religious right feel that easy access to pornography by adults is a threat to children, even if the children are never exposed to the pornography.
you were looking to draw a fairly fine line of distiction out of the precise wording of his answer. So I went back and reviewed what has been posted on this topic so far and in doing so, found that what I "thought" you were saying was indeed NOT what you were saying. You were posing the question. I was responding as if you were making a defintive statement, hence, "outrageous conclusion". My bad.
This may in part answer your question. It could be that he was simply not as careful with his wording as he otherwise would have been had he known it would end up under a microscope. Like me and my reading, I know I don't read contracts that way....
That said, there are indeed those on the far right (socially) who think porn is evil. (I hope they never look in the trunk of my car!!) Still, they are so few, and that is view is so extreme that they will have little to no effect on the matter.
with his wording.
I wish I shared your view that those who think that porn is evil will have little to no effect on the ease of access that adults have to porn. I think there is a genuine threat to the level of ease of access to porn by adults that we have presently. But if this effort is successful, it will come in the form of laws designed to make it more difficult for children to access porn.
-- Modified on 1/13/2005 6:50:04 AM
-- Modified on 1/13/2005 6:51:47 AM