all-encompassingly

we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Jun 27th 2003

how i’d respond to reginleif, if i cared [re: children]

i have a new friend. it is the mighty reginleif the valkyrie who says:

Gee, Travis, do you think you could write a more blatantly misleading and sensationalistic headline, please? That one was just too placid and fair-minded.

This article makes some good points about why anti-“pr0n” filters on library PCs aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. I myself remember America Online provoking the ire of breast cancer patients by banning the word “breast,” making it impossible for them to speak frankly in their online support groups. And the residents of Scunthorpe, England weren’t too happy when AOHell banned them from mentioning the name of their town, due to the naughty word spelled by its second through fifth letters.

And as a childfree woman, I must say that I’m really, really tired of hearing the refrain “It’s for the chiiiillllldruuuun!” every time someone wants to raid my wallet or limit my rights. Seems like all you have to do to be taken seriously in this country is blather on about how much you looooove kids, and how much anyone who disagrees with your politics or policies is obviously a child-hater.

the following is how i’d respond, if i were to respond. but my guess is reginlief the valkyrie, who is merely a blog troll, may never return, and her visit was merely happenstance [what’s a troll?]. however, if she does return, i encourage her to comment again. i appreciate opposing viewpoints. seriously. in fact, i agree with her that government’s restrictions and “money with strings attached” are a pain. just, in this case, i have to side with “the chiiiildruuuun.”

we don’t get that many dissenting comments here, so i’ve decided to respond. rather than tuck it, secretively, in the comments section, and because i had nothing else to write about today, i put my response on the front page. those are the benefits of being the blogmaster. nana nana boo boo.

for the record, i don’t have children either. and i think they’re yucky. that children are the scourge of the earth is a solemn, immutable truth. i am reminded that this infernal scourge infringes upon my freedoms every time i pass a school and have to slow down to 25 mph. i am reminded that this scourge infringes upon my rights every time i’m in a public place and am forced to listen to a crying baby.

what to do? my mystical viking god/friend, if we’re going to keep kids from infringing, in any way whatsoever, upon our rights, let’s:

  • put them to work at factories! make ’em earn their keep!
  • practice infanticide! make sure that we all stay childfree and healthy!
  • give them guns. which is more destructive in the long run? a kid with a gun, who might shoot a couple of people in his youth due to carelessness, or a kid who grows up viewing pr0n all day and ends up a repeat, violent sex offender, and later goes on to be a two-term president?
  • anyway, i guess the real question is, how far will we go to make sure our children don’t rule over us like some sort of vast knee-high conspiracy?

    knee_high_conspiracy.gif

    its funny…when you say “childfree” its almost like the subject is some wretched disease, like “we’re relieved and very grateful to announce that toronto is completely SARS-free. whew! the putrescence is gone!”

    let’s say that, one day, we free ourselves from the oppression of children’s rights and strike down library internet filters. why stop there? let’s end their encroachment on our rights all the way across the board!

  • first, let’s do away with megan’s law. that’s a bothersome law, too.
  • then, let’s make man-boy love legal again! why all the silly restrictions?!!
  • regardless of how intrusive the government is being here (and the supreme court now rules the US with sovereign authority), this whole issue became moot when the provision was made that librarians can turn off the filter at the patron’s request. would a 15-second wait for assistance really ruin any breast cancer patient’s chances for survival?

    in some special cases, i can understand a library patron’s concern, though…if he were searching the internet to find the recipe for a life-saving antidote to a snakebite he had just incurred, and perhaps, snakebites were called “boobies” and the particular venom’s antidote was called “hot, steamy lesbian sex.” if a library patron were forced to wait while his request to shut off the filter was honored, he could die. but, then, one has to ask how he was bitten by a snake (i.e., received a “booby”) in the library. maybe we need to install better library snake filters.

    6 Responses to “how i’d respond to reginleif, if i cared [re: children]”

    1. sammie

      Your sarcasm is painful.

    2. i know. its been with me as long as i can remember and shows no signs of abating.

    3. speaking of protecting children…

    4. me

      No, really. She has a point. Whenever the looney left wants to shred the Constitution a bit more, it’s always “for the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildrun, we must do this to protect the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildrun, because it takes a village to raise a chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiild.”

      Strange. I thought it took two parents who were willing to put instant gratification aside for at least 18 or 21 years to raise a child. But I guess Hillary wouldn’t say such a thing if it weren’t true. She’s so much better and smarter than all the rest of us, you know. She must be, or she wouldn’t have been able to make $100,000 on a $1000 investment in cattle futures.

      And, as an aside, I too am child-free, and I too do not wish to live in a Nerf society, in which anything that might conceivably be hazardous or uncomfortable to see in the hands of one of the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren is banned–like, say, guns. Or the Internet. Or criticism of our all-knowing lords and masters on Capital Hill.

      Censoring the Internet because some mouth-breathing IQ-55 soccer mom can’t be bothered to put down the [bleeping] cell phone and keep an eye on their mouth-breathing little carpet sharks Biff and Britney at the library is like banning steak because infants might choke on it.

      Limiting the power of government and keeping the government out of our lives are core conservative values. Keep that in mind, whenever you find yourself waxing enthusiastic about government censorship of the Internet at libraries. If the soccer moms do not want Biff and Britney to see naked breasts, then they should put down the cell phones and exercise some personal responsibility.

    5. travis

      okay. keeping government out of my life is a conservative value. but so is morality. one has to choose which one he values more. in my case, i agree with immanuel kant, who insists that freedom without concern for morality is the worst of all evils. the best society is a free AND virtuous one. the worst is one that is free and unbound by any kind of moral law. examples of such people are porn king, larry flint and DC sniper, john allen muhammed.

      sure, library filters protect children from internet smut. but that’s not all. they protect me from having to wipe down the keyboard before i use it because some homeless guy just “fulfilled his need” on a state-owned academic search tool a few minutes earlier.

      so, since we can’t “legislate morality” here’s hopin’ we can at least legislate sticky keys.

    6. Whelan Sidney

      Unusual ideas can make enemies.