Treason Is Treason Is Treason
Sean Penn took out a new full-page ad in the NY Times to further demagogue about the war and try to justify why he was over there giving aid to our enemies. Here's the PDF file from his site. "Kilroy"? How quaint.

If I had the time or fortitude I'd go through it line by line and point out every single iota of stupidity. Let's just look at one snippet of stupidity, emphasis added:

"...Its most accessible information sources were the corporately sponsored and largely conservative media outlets...."

 
Apologies
Kelley from Suburban Blight sent me a nice, honest e-mail about this post I made. She also slammed me on her blog, but the slam stops there. It was in bad taste for me to pick on her to begin with.

While I firmly believe the pro-choice stance in any form is the epitome of idiotarianism, I shouldn't have slammed a fellow conservative, who, as she eloquently puts it, "essentially shares your core values."

We all make mistakes. Sorry, Kelley...I apologize.

  posted by Stephen @ 10:46 PM

 
Time Theft, Phase II
Okay, okay, Will is stealing even MORE of my time. He got a rise out of me, and I'm biting yet again...and why not? It gives me some press. Anyway, thanks, Will. You're indeed a good-willed chap. Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you're not a nice guy. (Ha.)

Let's approach this issue from a different angle: is the Internet public or private? The Internet as a whole could be considered public, maybe, but it's just a connection of private networks. End-users are on private networks. Most networks have strict policies against unsolicited bulk e-mail. SPAMMERS don't have a right to send massive amounts of e-sleaze through networks that expressly forbid it. How in blazes can that be considered free speech? And, if private networks cannot enforce all the rules because of the scale of the problem, should not the government do something about it? One of the main purposes of government is to "provide for the common defense," isn't it? Defend our inboxes!

Will, in my humble opinion, also seems to miss the essence of my argument. It's on a HUGE scale, Will. Like the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Indirect theft, direct theft, externalities: whatever you wanna call it! Littering, shouting, and rock-throwing may cause problems, but they don't affect millions of people, use up millions of hours of time, eat up millions of bucks in bandwidth, violate multiple networks' terms of service, and ultimately threaten to collapse one of the pillars of cyberspace communication: e-mail. And the problem is growing.

His proposition, if used by a great percentage of Net users, would most certainly ruin the spirit of the open architecture of the Internet. Not the Internet itself, just the spirit. It's actually ironic because SPAMMERS can e-mail millions and millions for virtually no cost, but Will wants to charge non-SPAMMERS to e-mail him. I like Will, but why should I pay a dime to e-mail him because someone else is pummeling him with SPAM? Isn't that bizarre?

I guess deluge is a relative term. Will apparently doesn't think what he's receiving constitutes a deluge. Fair enough. I'm not sure if U-Chicago has filters, but they likely do. If there were no filters, he'd probably get 5 times what he gets now. Perhaps more. Is that a deluge? I still challenge him to get the filters turned off. It's "free speech," Will. Don't abridge their right to flood you with porn! Let the unadulterated mass quantities of impersonal, fraudulent sleaze-mail reach you!

I'm glad Will is acquainted with his DELETE button, though. SPAM may not get much better soon. I forget where, but someone predicted the e-mail system will essentially become impotent (pardon the pun) because of the SPAM problem. Then tough laws will be subsequently imposed. That doesn't seem to be an implausible scenario. Anyway, I get tons of SPAM and I deal with it. That's just life; at least, for now. SpamCop, by the way, does a great job of filtering out most of the SPAM. (I probably have an easier time than Will, from what he says.)

E-mail has traditionally been more of a person-to-person protocol. Illegalities aside, I don't think anyone has an inherent "right" to e-mail you. E-mail is free. Inboxes are (generally) privately owned. It's not like postal mail where the post office owns the box. The rules are different, Will. Junk snail mail is paid for at the post office. Junk e-mail is paid for mainly by YOU, the user. You have a right to not want massive amounts of pornography and sleaze in your inbox.

Let's put tough laws into place. Enforce them. Allow people to sue. Let's nip this problem in the bud before it gets any worse.

  posted by Stephen @ 3:59 PM

 
Pro-Choice: An Idiotarian Position
I was surfing through blogs just to see what I could find, and I came upon this. Now, I'm sure the gal who pens this blog is a nice enough person, but her position makes no sense. She explicitly states her abortion position:

1) I am very, very pro-choice.
2) I believe that life begins sometime during pregnancy.
3) I would not have an abortion.
4) I believe every woman has the right to make decisions regarding her body.

 
It's There For A Good Reason, Willy
Lisa at the great Boycott Hollywood blog recently posted about our good ol' deponent President, Bill Clinton.

Seems as though Slick Willy questions the 22nd Amendment's validity. Good grief. That's the one that thankfully saved us from another term of him.

You know, Mr. President, you're a smart guy. You oughta know we have amendments like that for a purpose. In this case, it's serving its purpose quite well. It's to ensure politically-savvy but somewhat corrupt (if just morally) Presidents only get 8 years.

It's also to ensure that the political scene is shaken up from time to time even with non-corrupt Presidents like Dubya. I love Dubya, but I wouldn't want more than 8 from him, either.

Wasn't that the name of a show? Eight is ENOUGH!

  posted by Stephen @ 11:37 PM

 
Let's Be Careful Of Humanizing A Mere Fetus
According to new research, an unborn baby's heart races when the baby's mother reads poetry. Also, the research said that unborn babies hear by the third trimester. That is, they could possibly hear as early as the second trimester.

Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, one of the researchers, should be ashamed. Especially as a woman! Doesn't she realize she's giving ammo to the "extreme right-wing"? Doesn't she realize it's a woman's RIGHT to go to an abortion clinic and participate in the slice-and-dice bloody, brutal murder of her innocent unborn baby who can hear and recognize her voice?

I mean, come on, Dr. Kisilevsky. Get with the program. You're so pre-1973. You're so anti-choice. You're so unenlightened. You're an extremist.

  posted by Stephen @ 8:39 PM

 
Quit Stealing My Time! I Could Be Deleting SPAM!
Will at Crescat Sententia has recently commented here and here on some of my posts about SPAM. Thanks go to him for posting about me so often recently. Although, by allowing myself to reply to his posts, I've decided he's stealing my time! I'd send him an e-bill, but that might be considered SPAM.

Whether he views me as a complete nutcase or a preeminent scholar, at least he finds me marginally interesting enough to comment on. Though he's wrong on the SPAM issue, he seems to be an intelligent, good-willed chap. (I'd suspect he feels the same way about me.)

Anyway, let's touch on some things he claims:

1. SPAM is not theft.

I posit that SPAM is theft, directly or indirectly, on at least four levels: 1) Time, 2) Bandwidth, 3) Services, and 4) Countermeasures.

Without filters, in a few years you'd open up your e-mail each day to find 500 e-mails. You'd have to fish out 2 real e-mails that aren't advertisements for pornography or organ enlargement. Is that not theft of your time? ISPs have to work day and night to make sure all the SPAM is diverted away from people's inboxes. Networks have to constantly worry about impending SPAM floods. All in all, it takes millions of man hours a year to deal with this not-so-small problem. At some point, unwanted communication gets to a point where it's not communication anymore. It's theft of time!

There's absolutely no denying SPAM steals bandwidth. ISPs and networks bear the brunt of these continual SPAM attacks. This is on a pretty massive scale, here--and growing. Will is naive if he thinks millions and millions of SPAM on a daily basis doesn't eat up mass quantities of bandwidth. SPAMMERS don't pay for it. It's passed on to the consumer. Why should we as consumers pay for someone else to send loads of sleazy porno ads?

I have no hard facts to support this, but I'd guess at least 75% of SPAM sent violates an ISP's terms of service. Probably a lot more. Violation doesn't always equal theft, but in this case I'd say it does. They pay for a month of service ostensibly to have internet access or be a downstream ISP but instead they send out tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of Internet-clogging SPAM.

Finally, SPAM requires networks and ISPs to set up filters and countermeasures to try to deflect the SPAM. If that weren't the case, SPAM would be even more of a problem than it is today. Why should an ISP even have to spend millions of dollars to block this crap? SPAMMERS are indirectly stealing the time, money, and technology of ISPs who must implement defenses against the onslaught of SPAM.

2. SPAM is a restriction of free speech.

On free speech, Will seems to claim if you block massive amounts of SPAM, you're restricting free speech. Now, I don't know if Will is a liberal--or even political--but concomitant with liberalism is usually the idea that "free speech" means nearly anything. If a stranger even benevolently stalked you constantly, you'd probably get a restraining order. That's not a restriction on free speech: free speech has limits, and a constant deluge of non-personal e-mail goes beyond those limits. Sleazy content or not, SPAM is free speech just as much as shouting "fire!" in a theater is free speech.

3. Solve SPAM by instituting a pay-per-email protocol. Private solutions only.

One of his overall suggestions is private SPAM-control methods work best. Being a conservative, any private method that could help solve the SPAM problem seems fine to me. Will's pay-per-email schema sounds like a good idea. I wouldn't be against it if it were instituted on some level. However, it ruins the spirit of the open nature of the Internet. Perhaps someone wants to comment on something Will has said but Will charges a dime per e-mail. That person may not feel like paying a dime to contact him, ergo Will doesn't get an e-mail. It limits the free exchange of ideas. It limits free speech more than directly stopping SPAM does!

California is too litigious, and usually I'd side with less regulation (therefore less bureaucracy) of anything. This, though, is a different type of problem. The only reason Will isn't getting deluged with SPAM is because U-Chicago probably has filters to block a lot of SPAM with his name on it. Those filters ain't free! If Will believes SPAM is not a problem, I ask him to tell U-Chicago to turn off the SPAM filters to his inbox. He can delete all the SPAM manually. Every day.

4. You're just bothered by the content!

Perhaps, but that's not why I crusade against it. Porn is detestable and, unfortunately, all over the Internet. However, that's freedom. Freedom does NOT include using up MY time, MY bandwidth, and MY money to give me stuff I didn't ask for. Postal junk mail costs me virtually nothing. SPAM mail costs me a lot. It's simple.

Let's talk further about content. Will conveniently doesn't discuss fraudulent SPAM, which should be discussed: it's a HUGE part of the problem. That'd be like discussing the overall legitimacy of the porn industry and leave out all the illegal, unethical, immoral stuff they do. Fraudulence is part and parcel of the SPAM problem. Anyway, the FTC says SPAM has some degree of deception 66% of the time. This could include false headers, etc. Of all business SPAM, 90% had signs of fraudulence.


Now, one thing we both agree on is the fact that SPAM works. If people didn't respond, SPAM would essentially cease to exist. That's a straw man argument, though, because the response to SPAM doesn't speak to its legitimacy or legality. Some people think looking at child pornography is okay. Looking at pictures doesn't hurt anyone. Should society give its imprimatur to that?

You know, maybe we just need a federal Secretary of SPAM. (Perhaps Alan Ralsky? Take a good look at The House That SPAM Built.)

  posted by Stephen @ 7:18 PM

 
No More Sleaze, Please
It's no coincidence that at the very moment SPAM is becoming an Internet pandemic, companies and governments are starting to take notice. They're starting to realize that if this problem is not alleviated soon, all e-mail boxes will be nothing but SPAMboxes. Nothing but "Need Debt Relief?" and "Earn $2000 a week stuffing envelopes at home!" and "Increase the size of your YOU KNOW WHAT!" (These sleazebuckets actually took out the male-organ-word and put "YOU KNOW WHAT" in its place to try to bypass as many filters as possible.)

Earthlink is instituting a challenge-response e-mail system. Though it creates some difficulties, it essentially authenticates a user 100% of the time. How is this done? Anyone who isn't on a recipient's whitelist is sent an e-mail to confirm humanness. The kicker: there's a fuzzy image that shows a code the sender has to input to prove himself as being a real person and not a SPAM machine. SPAMMER scum don't yet possess the AI technology (or time) to authenticate tons of e-mails in this fashion. Thank goodness.

Say what you will about California being ultra-liberal and/or progressive, but at least they've banned SPAM. The new law allows recipients to sue SPAMMERS for $500 per sleaze-mail. What's really good about stuff like this is all the SPAMMERS who have become rich on past SPAM will be quickly brought down to size. That is, if they don't quit pretty soon. Imagine a class action suit for 100,000 unsolicited e-mails! Can we say "LIQUIDATION"?

  posted by Stephen @ 10:50 PM