Tuesday, October 25, 2005

ICAN

I was listening to the C-SPAN Washington Journal discussion about U.S. control of the internet governing body, ICAN.

ICAN creates domain names like .com, .net, and is considering .xxx. They nixed the .xxx idea after a horde of conservative Christians wrote letters of complaint against the domain.

(It seems to me that they would support this idea as it would make it easier for them to filter the content coming into their computers.)

Anyway, other countries are requesting that ICAN be put under international control, but the U.S. is not budging.

What I found most interesting was the broad based opinions of callers to the show who were saying
"Freedom Rules"
"God Bless the U.S.'
"Other countries are not ready for control of the internet"

Yadda yadda yadda

I sometimes wonder if we are really as free as we think we are.

One example of my doubt:

When protesters attended Republican events this year, they were sent to fenced in areas off to the side that were labeled "Designated Free Speech Zones."

Sounds kind of hypocritical to me, saying we are a nation that protects free speech, then putting people in CAGES.

I also listened to a New York Times reporter who highlighted how secretive this administration is. He said that we have no reporters embedded in the bases of Iraq, reporting on what's really going on. He said that we have no data showing how many sortees our Air Force is sending out each day. He said that they report "Insurgent" deaths, but do not define what an Insurgent is. He said that if you read the Arab press it becomes clear that many of these "Insurgents" are just ordinary people: civilian women and children! He mentioned a lot of things that are being kept hidden by our government.

It seems like everything is a game of seeing how little they can reveal.

John Bolton got snuck into his position when congress was out of session, Harriet Meyers is the invisible judge...
The whole WMD intelligence hoodwink...

The election itself was questionable.

With a track record like that, I am not surprised that other countries don't want the U.S. to control the internet.

When I look at Islamic control of the Middle East, I can not help but compare it to the Christian influence of the U.S.
We wave our flag and talk about freedom of religion, but when it comes down to it, the Christian majority is doing everything possible to squelch other views.

Are we really as free and diverse and open as we are told we are?

I wonder.

2 comments:

ME Strauss said...

The problem is that in order to organize a large body of people there has to be someone in charge. That someone "gets to pick." It never worked in grade school and our emotions are pretty well set by the time we're 7, why would we think it would work much better now?

My husband brings up fabulous Ideas and my answer is always, "but honey, you don't get to be the one who picks and I don't want just anyone picking that kind of thing."

It's a catch 22 really. Idiots picking or anarchy.

Kelley Bell said...

Yes, that's true. Idiot picking, Anarchy, or the other alternative is rule by commitee...and I can tell you from experience, that nothing EVER gets accomplished that way.

P.S. I like your new photo.