The Scriptorium

10/14/2005

EU says internet could fall apart

Filed under: — Jennifer Rast @ 7:32 pm

There are very few things that make me more angry than the “world community’s” (communists, the EU, and terrorist supporting countries) desire to take control of the internet. The idea has been around for some time, but the EU, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and several other fascist governments are approaching the subject with renewed vigor. What I didn’t realize is that we have already come very close to losing the internet as we know it once before. Bill Clinton -globalist, UN lover, and liar extraordinaire – made a deal during his presidency to hand control of the internet over to a global governing body made up of the same countries who now censor the internet in their own countries (the E.U. now feels abused because we’ve reneged on that deal). It doesn’t surprise me at all that controlling iternet content would be supported by Bill Clinton, nor does it surprise me that the MSM ignored this decision and remains silent about the subject now. They know there would be a huge public backlash if such plans were discussed, and they don’t want to mess up an opportunity to shut down those pesky blogs that continue to expose their lies and embarrass them.

The U.S. government is exactly right when they say that the E.U. wants to globalize control of the internet because they want to control content. If you doubt this, you should know that Tehran is currently heaping praise on the E.U.’s proposed plan for internet governance. The only way Iran would support a plan to govern the internet is if it eliminates the opposition they hate, silences the Infidels who expose Islam and terrorist regimes for what they are, and establishes a way to regulate and control content on a global scale. The E.U.’s plan, which will be presented to the U.S. in Tunisia soon, is also enthusiastically supported by China and Saudi Arabia. Need I say more?

The control freaks in Europe have obviously become more desperate to control the flow of information and ideas. They have moved from strongly worded letters to making threats. If the United States does not relinquish control of the internet (that we created and paid for), the E.U. will be forced to create their own and break up the net. Nooooo!!!!! Not that!!!! I don’t know what I’d do if I couldn’t visit websites controlled and filtered by China, Russia, and Venezuela. The whole internet would surely become useless, right?

It’s laughable really. First, the same people who can’t agree on a common E.U. circus policy, would have to come together and figure out how to create a working internet. Then they’d have to pay for it and agree on regulations that will limit the spread of knowledge and information sufficiently enough to protect every corrupt government involved in the project. An informed public can’t be controlled and brainwashed, you know. They’d end up with a network of advertisements, spyware, and propaganda. Everything else on the internet is sure to offend someone somewhere, and we all know offending someone is illegal under the U.N. charter. Go ahead Europe, cut yourself off. I’m sure your citizens will love the new waste of time you create in its place. The civilized world isn’t too keen on giving up our freedom of speech just because you threaten to take your toys and go home.

A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and other countries demanding more control.

The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart.

At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the internet’s address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world’s computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) under contract to the US department of commerce.

A meeting of officials in Geneva last month was meant to formulate a way of sharing internet governance which politicians could unveil at the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis on November 16-18. A European Union plan that goes a long way to meeting the demands of developing countries to make the governance more open collapsed in the face of US opposition.

Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear.

“We have to have a platform where leaders of the world can express their thoughts about the internet,” she said. “If they have the impression that the internet is dominated by one nation and it does not belong to all the nations then the result could be that the internet falls apart.”

The US argues that many of the states demanding a more open internet are no fans of freedom of expression.

Michael Gallagher, President Bush’s internet adviser and head of the national telecommunications and information administration, believes they are seizing on the only “central” part of the system in an effort to exert control. “They are looking for a handle, thinking that the DNS is the meaning of life. But the meaning of life lies within their own borders and the policies that they create there.”

The US government, which funded the development of the internet in the 60s, said in June it intended to retain its role overseeing Icann, reneging on a pledge made during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Since Icann was created, the US commerce department has not once interfered with its decisions. . . . . .

Continue reading
London Guardian

More information

Who is going to be isolated?

Keep the Internet Free

President’s ‘terrible’ rating better than last 7

Filed under: — Jennifer Rast @ 10:55 am

You’ve probably heard the liberal Media gleefully reporting that Bush’s approval ratings are the worst of his presidency. What you won’t hear from the MSM is these poll results reported in historical context. Context only becomes relevant to a story when it can be used to generate more negative news about the “bushitlerhalliburton” presidency. Here’s the facts:

Despite the fact President Bush’s job approval ratings have dropped to the lowest point of his presidency, they still remain higher than the low-point ratings of the last seven presidents, including his predecessor Bill Clinton.

Data from six polling organizations in October show an average of 39.5 percent job approval for Bush. The low points for recent commanders in chief are as follows:

Bill Clinton: 37 percent
George H. W. Bush: 29 percent
Ronald Reagan: 35 percent
Jimmy Carter: 28 percent
Gerald Ford: 37 percent
Richard Nixon: 24 percent
Lyndon Johnson: 35 percent

To find presidents with higher low-point approval ratings than Bush, one has to go back to John Kennedy at 56 percent, and Dwight Eisenhower at 48 percent.

The media would rather the American public believe that no president has ever had poll numbers as low as George Bush. To report otherwise would damage their opportunity to declare the Bush presidency a failed presidency 3 years before his term is even over. When the facts are presented, it leads those of us who don’t have BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) to conclude that President Bush is doing better than previous presidents, especially considering his presidency has seen terrorist attacks, wars in two countries, a war on terror, Hurricanes, record gas prices, and a media that suppresses news from the frontlines of the war and reports only death counts. Clinton on the other hand had a media solidly behind him, avoided dealing with terrorism, benefited from the Contract with America, and was adored by socialist, communist, and dictatorial governments around the world, yet his poll number sank lower. Maybe us Americans aint so shtoopid as the media hopes we is.