January 18, 2006

Oh hell Hillary!

Over in America, Hillary Clinton held a press conference with two of her extreme right wing Christian colleagues to support their “call for $90 million in federal funds to investigate their contention that the Internet and other electronic media are “satanic”.” (The Age, 14 January 2006)

Among numerous other strategic moves, this would seem to be Hillary’s way of positioning herself to be the next President of the United States of America.

What an evil little path Hillary is laying for herself.


  1. This is totally bizarre. It does not take 90 million to appreciate that all evil comes from Bill Gates (http://www.zejn.si/~natan/666.html)

    Hilary, if you are reading this, please just ask Kaz for my email address and when you make contact I will send invoicing details.

  2. Far be it from me to defend Billary, but the only person I could find referring to the "satanic" internet in this context is Kurt Anderson, the New York magazine writer the Age's Summers quotes, and Anderson himself doesn't say that anyone actually used the word. So who said "satanic?" My guess would have been Santorum, of course, but I can't find it.

    In fact, this is all I could find about the proposed bill. Very strange.

  3. Drunka – don’t the MSM have the most amazing way of putting their own cute little spin on things?

    “Funds for research on how the Internet, i-Pods, and other electronic media affect children's emotional and behavioral development.”

    Not nearly as catchy as suggesting that Senators are claiming that the Internet and other electronic media is the latest satanic pox on society. In quotation marks too, just like a "real" quote.

    Un – fuckin' – believable!

    Sorry Captain, it looks like you won’t be getting that cheque, and I won’t be getting my commission (I’d already booked The Westin – damn!). Err, I was getting a commission, yes? You weren’t just trying to use my blog as an outsourced document processing provider, were you?

    And there is our first reminder for the year – everything quoted from the MSM should be assumed to be prefaced with “allegedly”, ‘cause most of the time it ain’t true!

    Hey, I could do that: lie a lot and get paid for doing it. I can make stuff up; I’m not proud, and I’ll even under-cut the journos. Send all offers. Ta.

    Drunka – any views on the current 'front runner' for the Republican's next Presidential candidate – Cain? I have read very little, but he sounds, err, a bit, you know, unpredictable?

  4. Years ago, we used to make fun of the tax money our representatives voted to spend on things like turnip research. Now it's the emotional effects of the Internet.

    I want a bigger tax refund this year--I don't want to pay for this crap anymore!

    -- david

  5. Hillary has never met a government program she doesn't like, unless it's an arms appropriation bill, & then she'll only go along if she thinks it will endear her to the hawks.

    Hillary is trying to please all people & will end up pleasing none.

  6. I'm curious as what Hills, and also the right wing harpies of her acquaintance, think that they're going to do in the wake of such an unlikely investigation? What conceivable course of action could it possibly lead to?

    Witless creatures.

  7. Caz,

    Yeah, unpredictable is right. The MSM love McCain because of it, but many conservatives don't trust him, particularly because of his championing of campaign finance reform, which they think is an abridgement of free speech, and his "anti-torture" bill, which they think is just opportunism and middle-positioning for his presidential run. They're also suspicious of him because the MSM do love him so and always call him a "maverick" rather than a "publicity hound", etc. Otherwise I don't know much about him besides his seven honorable years as a POW in Vietnam, but I imagine we'll all find out much more than we want to over the next couple of years. Jesus, didn't we just have a presidential election?

  8. Althea – good point; I hadn’t even thought that far ahead. I also expect that the $90 M would be for a longitudinal study, so meaningful results wouldn’t be available for another 5, 10, or 15 years. However, that’s only if they can identify a valid control group. Hmm, let me see, a bunch of starving kiddies in Africa, with no Internet and not an iPod between them? Perhaps there are a couple of boondock areas in America with untainted kiddies, bearing guns instead of mobile phones?

    How would they even begin to address any negative findings (if there are any); how would they go about turning back the tied of technology, say, in 2010? Oooh, let me see now – they could stand in a row and put their best effort into giving a long stern, admonishing look. That should do it.

    Besides, it could be that any such study would find that while cultures have changed and the way people use their time has changed, technology enables and enhances a lot of social relationships that were not possible in the past; provides people with immediate access and exposure to a rich pool of ideas and information, more than they could absorb in several lifetimes; and creates networks of people with astoundingly diverse and obscure interests, again, people who once upon a time would have had no-one with whom to share their passions.

    It’s different, that’s all, which should not be equated to bad, or lesser, than life and culture in past eras. It’s funny isn’t it, these are the same people who would abhor the notions of racism and sexism, or any “ism”, yet all forms of bigotry essentially have their foundations in the concept of “difference” being equated to unequal, less, bad, negative.

    Reverence for the past, and the ways of long ago, or even last decade, is to misunderstand, misinterpret and to misuse history.

  9. Drunka – thanks for your thoughts. The maverick tag has got me beat. Mavericks are good, mavericks are fun, mavericks are entertaining, the world would be a lesser place without mavericks, but does anyone seriously want the President of the USA to be a maverick?

    Not wishing to be ageist – although I’m obviously about to be (like when people say “with all due respect”, when they are about to display none) – but if he runs for President he’ll be three years older than Reagan when he first ran. His health is not terrific either. I don’t know, if it was me, I’d be looking to spend the last few years of my life kicking back and doing as little work as I possibly could. I know I wouldn’t be looking for a new career, and certainly not one running a big, or little, country. There should be an age cut off, regardless of how hail and hearty the potential candidate is “for their age”.

    I always forget that the US has mid-term elections, but am really puzzled, as I read that the entire “house” is up for election, along with a third of the senate, as well as 36 governorships. Don’t understand how or why the house is elected – all of it – half way through a Presidential term. Weird stuff. Our elections are much simpler!

    Oh, and while I'm ranting about American politics, which I rarely do, but hey, I'm a roll here: it's so funny how the MSM harp on, ad nausea, about Bush's falling approval rating. Yeah, like it matters?! It's just dumb, and the most dreadful waste of pulped woodchips.