This morning I took time out from Mother's Day stuff to tune in to Channel 5 and watch City Desk with Mary Ann Ahern, and her great interview of Congressman Mark Kirk. Here's a link to the first part of the video.
As usual, Congressman Kirk was extremely impressive in his presentation of the issues and what he is doing in Congress to affect change for the betterment of people in the 10th District. He began the interview by talking about his concern over the Internet alternate universe of "Second Life," which Kirk views as an uncontrolled and fertile ground for Internet predators due to insufficient age controls and restrictions.
A lot of people are paying attention to this important issue, and this week I have read numerous pieces, mostly on the blogs, that seem to be either strongly supportive of Kirk's efforts, or strongly against Kirk's stand. Among those who support Kirk are parents who have had firsthand experience that their children (or even themselves) have received a solicitation from an Internet predator of some kind, and understand the kind of danger that these sites pose.
The ones who are critical of Kirk fall mainly into two camps: first, people who are either big fans of Second Life or similar games, or are somehow involved in the Internet gaming industry (and thus seem to be very defensive against what they perceive as government over-regulation); and, second, the usual anti-Kirk crowd who dismiss this as a political stunt.
It struck me as I was watching the interview that those people who are screaming about over-regulation of the Internet, or are simply critical of Kirk for addressing this issue, are likely the same people who are screaming that the government failed to provide ENOUGH oversight over the lending industry, which they tend to blame for the subprime lending crisis. You can't have it both ways, folks. As Kirk pointed out, we don't allow just anything on TV or radio, and the Internet has been the equivalent of the Wild West for too long. Does any rational parent really think that a medium that provides an alternate universe where you can experience 'rape rooms,' bondage stores, brothels, and areas for Satanic rituals, should not be subjected to government oversight to ensure that minors are not able to access such age-inappropriate material?
Congressman Kirk also discussed the growing gang problems in the 10th District, gun loopholes, the chaos in Springfield and potential loss of federal transportation funding, and several other issues.
What's Dan Seals up to? Carrying Jan Schakowsky's briefcase and using high schoolers to get his campaign message out.
UPDATED: The GamePolitics.com website picks up on TA's discussion and its readers join the debate. Go check it out. If nothing else, Mark Kirk's concern over this issue is going to bring national attention to the need for a closer look at Internet safety for minors.
UPDATED x2: Here's the second part of the City Desk interview of Mark Kirk.
UPDATED x3: Mark Kirk had a press conference on Monday to announce new legislation to encourage employers to provide more mass transit benefits. See more here.
UPDATED x4: The mass transit credit propsal is the "Question of the Day" over at Capitol Fax Blog. Go check it out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
As usual, TA, thanks for this outstanding post with a link to the City Desk program. Our Congressman was spectacular. And to those who call it a political stunt let's just not dignify those out of step malcontents. I'm a grandmother with older teenage grandkids. My daughter and her husband recognize what Mr. Kirk is doing to help them with, as you correctly state, the "wild west" of the internet. They are very careful in monitoring what the kids are doing, but realistically speaking, that can't be watching over their shoulders 24/7. I haven't noticed scummy sites on the major TV networks. I'm not internet savvy to go and search out what young kids seem to do with ease. I'm thankful that Mark Kirk sees the issue and addresses it sensibly. I thought that he showed confidence, well thought out ideas, an action plan that makes sense. Oh sure, you can bet the "other side" will come down with the usual ranting and ravings. I am firmly convinced that the majority of 10th District voters can easily see the huge difference between "me too, me too" and the real deal, Congressman Mark Kirk.
Oh yes, TA, and by the way, today's Jerusalem Post had a front page OP-ED by Mark Kirk and California Democratic Congresswoman, Jane Harman, in a featured spot. Once again it's our Congressman showing his spectacular leadership on a missile defense system for Israel as an appropriate way to honor this 60th Anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. Nobody comes close to matching the leadership of Mark Steven Kirk.
Let's see what this week's focus will be from Mr. Kirk as he continues to prove why he has more than earned the right to represent us in DC.
Check out today's Chicago Tribune. The Indianapolis Star reported that a fake Facepage was taken down today by Facebook after complaints and a lawsuit was filed. The fake page claimed to be from a Catholic H.S. Dean and was sending materials to kids across the country deemed inappropriate and overly sexual.
The 10th Congressional Democrats have been railing against Mark Kirk claiming that this issue is phony and made up. The Catwoman also has been ranting in this direction for a while now claiming that this issue is not important like other ones are.
Now what are they going to say? That Mark Kirk is right?
Don't hold your breath.
Louis G. Atsaves
Hey Lou- that article was in yesterday's paper, I believe, but here's a link.
Anyone who doesn't think the Internet is a playground for sexual predators and other deviants is just naive or in denial.
And TA, that twisted catwoman is now railing against our Congressman as being against moms. She is WAY over the top and truly out of control. Congressman Kirk knows what he's talking about whether its the Internet, transportation, taxes, the environment, education, healthcare and all that needs attention in our district. Someone needs to get her the meds she must have thrown away because she's ranting and raving like an uncontrolled moron lately. She's obsessed with hurting our Congressman. Not a mention of the opponent, just daily diatribes against Mark Kirk. She's sick with a capital S.
Anon 7:34- yes, I thought that post about Mark Kirk being against Mom and Apple Pie was pretty ridiculous. Will we see that on a Dan Seals mail drop sometime soon?--"Vote for Dan Seals Because Mark Kirk Hates Moms!"
The funniest thing is that when Mark Kirk came out last week railing against Second Life, the looney leftists screamed about Kirk 'manufacturing' issues and not paying attention to the REAL problems of the 10th District. What's the apple pie issue about that so concerns the Seals supporters, and how is that material to the 10th District?
Some of the commentors that advise me to lay off reading Ellen's Blog may have a point for my own health, but it's like watching a train wreck--somehow, you can't look away.
Yes, TA, that twisted, sick catwoman IS a train wreck! Like you I'm crazy to waste time and my physical health by clicking onto that Blog. I too like to see what idiotic nonsense she's blabbing about from time to time. She just gets darker and darker and more sick than is tolerable.
Today's news is filled with more of the creative ideas of our Congressman. It's great waking up to hear Mr. Kirk talk about real solutions to real problems facing all of us. He cares. Bottom line: we have a Congressman with a spectacular record of accomplishments on the local, national and international scene. Let's continue to talk about, write about, spread the word about why Mark Kirk is the right Member of Congress to represent us in DC. He makes a difference and that's the end of the story.
Kirk said...
"I contacted Second Life to say maybe we should have some minimum standards here but they responded by sending their $60,000 a year K Street lobbyist to tell me everything was okay…"
$60,000 lobbyist to meet with $170,000 congressman. Is he trying to say $60k is a lot of money? Because for a lobbyist, that's pretty mediocre, like, bottom of the barrel.
While I don't think Second Life is 100% harmless, I don't think it's nearly as pressing an issue as it's being made out to be. While the average kid checks their myspace or facebook page 20 times a day, the average SL user logs on for about 12 minutes a year. A lot of people try it out, discover how amazingly boring it is and never use it again. It boasts a lot of users, but very few are return customers.
It's up to individual parents to monitor their children, not Linden Labs or me, you, society at large. The world does not have a G rating.
TA:
"Rape Rooms"?
I hope Seals gets behind defending that!
"It struck me as I was watching the interview that those people who are screaming about over-regulation of the Internet, or are simply critical of Kirk for addressing this issue, are likely the same people who are screaming that the government failed to provide ENOUGH oversight over the lending industry, which they tend to blame for the subprime lending crisis. You can't have it both ways, folks."
Why? It's not hypocritical to say that the government needs to have more oversight in some areas and less in others. Republicans like Kirk say that all the time - that the government needs to intervene more in some areas (like internet porn) and less in others (like health care).
Also, I doubt more than 1 in 1000 kids have even heard of Second Life. Congressman Kirk will need some actual numbers of kids being targetted by sexual predators in SL before anyone takes him seriously.
Anon 2:39- let's not forget that the issue is not just Internet predators, although that clearly is the scariest part of all of this. Simply the notion that a virtual world exists where kids potentially have access to acting out sexual encounters, etc. and/or being exposed to things like Satanic rituals seems like it's worthy of some attention, regardless of the statistics of direct predator contact. Let's remember that we have all sorts of controls in our society to restrict minors' access to certain material, such as having to be a certain age to get into certain types of movies. Heck, even video games you buy in the store have a much stricter rating/control system than the wide open west on the Internet.
Of course, if you read some of the comments at that game blog, the attitude of certain commentors seems to be, hey, it's a cruel world out there and the kids have to grow up sometime, so have at it. Sickening.
I hope the people with those attitudes are not parents, and portray that attitude simply because they are ignorant and haven't really thought about the issue outside of their own selfish concerns.
Interesting discussion.
Whilst, personally I have no interest in Second Life, quite frankly, I'm busy enough with a First one, I can sort of see both sides of the argument.
I think some kind of verification is important for the Adult areas, certainly, purely because they are adult areas. However, I also think that regulating the content itself is not a wise idea.
Yes, I've heard about the 'Rape Rooms' and 'Furries' and huge tadgers with legs, though the last item in that list has been with us since we could draw on the bathroom wall at primary school. Yes, I find the concept of them offensive, but then, I also realise that people are...people.
As long as they both agree to what they are doing, and as long as it is verified that they are of a legal age to consent, I'm not too certain it's really mine, or anyone else's prerogative to tell other people to do consentually.
If I took my son to an R-Rated movie, and then stormed out because there was lots of blood and gore, I'd look like an idiot. If I let my son go to an R-Rated movie on his own, then I'd be an idiot.
So really it all lands at my feet as his father. I've actually taken precautions at home, no computer in the bedroom till he is able to get a job and buy his own, the family computer is password protected and set up in the Dining room, in easy view, I have a 'No gaming till homework is complete' rule etc.
I've installed a few free programs like Naomi, which filter the Internet browser and stop certain kinds of content coming through. It wasn't easy learning how to use the stuff, I'll admit, but then, he's my responsibility.
So yes, I vote that Second Life introduces Age Verification, but I also recommend it stops there.
To quote team america 'It's a cruel world out there', however, the term 'have at it' suggests the parent is just going to stand back and ignore what happens next. I couldn't do that, wouldn't do it.
Maybe the message should be, 'Hey, it's a cruel world out there, but I've got your back.'
Sorry for the long post, just wanted to make my point clear.
Anon 5:53- thanks for your thoughts (although I considered banning anyone in the future who uses the word "whilst"), as you have obviously put some thought into the issue. However, I would point out that if you let your son go to an R-rated movie without you, not only would you be an idiot, as you say, if the movie management was following the law, he would not be let in.
That's pretty much Kirk's point, applied to Second Life.
Sadly, although the world would be a much better place if all parents were as concerned about their children's upbringing, that's not universally the case. Hence the heavy hand of government as manifested in things like movie and video game ratings, and age restrictions on drinking, smoking, buying/viewing pornography, and for that matter, having sex.
'Nuf sed.
"However, I would point out that if you let your son go to an R-rated movie without you, not only would you be an idiot, as you say, if the movie management was following the law, he would not be let in."
What law requires movie theaters to enforce movie ratings?
"Hence the heavy hand of government as manifested in things like movie and video game ratings[.]"
The government doesn't rate either one.
@Team America - 10:34
Thanks for clearing that up, from the posts on here I was under the impression that regulating the content was also being suggested.
I agree, age restrictions wouldn't hurt, after all, a 'Members Only' Nightclub wouldn't be much use if the bouncers assumed everyone who walked through the door was a member. I'm all for 'innocent until proven guilty', but, like all things in life, a good idea can be taken too far.
@Anonymous 11:51
From what I understand, none of the Media ratings are legally enforced, so you are correct, but, I think, with a game etc, there's a physical object, such as a disc, there's the risk of actually going into the shop and getting carded etc. Also, with Video Games, I have never seen, and certainly hope never to see even 'M' rated games with the kind of content that appears to be contained in Second Life.
This recent 'GTA' game doesn't really worry me, for example, the story of it, to be honest, sounds something like Billy The Kid and other 'One man against the Law' stories, but set in a modern environment.
However, I would say that if a game containing some of the content of Second Life were released (or at least the content that is causing the problem), it would be X,or A or whatever letter they use, and from what I understand, those are restricted by law.
Anon 11:51- you're correct; I guess I overstated that a movie theater would be breaking the law if they let a person in the movie that did not meet the age guidelines (although I could perhaps imagine a municipality deciding by ordinance that movie or video game ratings might have to be enforced by the business owner). Such guidelines (at least in the U.S.) are voluntary, set up by the movie industry, like the video game ratings. Here's a pretty good overview of the movie rating system.
However, the fact is that these kinds of voluntary ratings systems are usually not implemented by the industry UNTIL government pressure forces them to choose between self-regulation and government regulation once a sufficient public outcry is made, and the government decides that whatever the material is must be controlled.
Thus, the 'heavy hand of government' is unquestionably at work...
The abc story posted on capitol fax amounted to a 2 minute political ad for Mark complete with a comment from an enviro activist. I would have loved to see Ellen's face when she saw that.
The district office is earning its money as one more big nail is put in Dan's coffin.
GOPer compares brand to bad dog food
From NBC's Mike Viqueira:
A former House GOP leader is calling this year's political atmosphere "the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than the fall of 2006," citing "deep seeded (sic) antipathy toward the president."
Rep. Tom Davis wrote a 20-page treatise (see earlier note) assessing the state of the Republican Party as we head into the summer ...
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/14/1022156.aspx
Seriously. Whatever happened to our core principles as republicans? Tom Davis represents a district a lot like IL-10 and definitely needs to be heard out (Eric Cantor, too). Cole ain't cutting the mustard.
What happened to the GOP? We elected people like Mark Kirk who help us get into pointless wars and diminish our civil liberties. And we re-elected Dubya. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.
The internet's been around long enough for everybody to realize that it should be taken with a grain of salt, or several. I don't really think you can really pin blame for crimes on any videogame or community, everything has its own risk. It's human society.
I think of the hot issues, internet predators may be the most creepy but not necessarily that pressing, or at least it should be attacked from an 'irl' angle. Gang violence has really been on the rise, probably because of the economic downturn. I know for sure it's becoming a big problem again in LA, and it's becoming recognized by significant figures. I think this is a more worthy issue atm.
Post a Comment