Presumably brought to you by the geniuses in charge of anti-drug commercials, the government of our fair nation now proudly presents their new campaign aimed to stop online predation. Here’s the spot:
Great buildup, huh? In addition to making parents think all children under the age of 12 can automatically imply words from their leading character, without limit, tcivwitoetaiv,kt (this commercial is very weak in terms of educating the actual intended victims, kids themselves). Combine this with this news story about ‘1337′ or ‘l33t’ speak, and you can be pretty much sure the public servants in charge of protecting our kids out in cyberspace have absolutely no idea what they’re doing.
Plus, who needs the internet when you can check into high school as a student anda convicted sex offender.
ad campaign, commercial, cyberspace, dopa, government, l33t, leet, online predator, sex offender, television ad, tv ad
NB: The following was originally posted in response to an article on Anti-Strib.blogspot.com.
Actually, I would debate the statement that marriage is a religious institution, and that a civil union is its legal equivalent. As long as the word ‘marriage’ is used to describe a contract between a man and a women in which the government recognizes the two as a single entity for tax purposes, and extends privileges to couples that are not offered to single people living together, marriage must be a legal institution. Since separation of church and state is necessary to the functioning of our republic, it must be recognized that this distinction exists: the religious institution of marriage, entered into by many millions in this country in various houses of worship, is separate and in addition to the legal contract into which couples enter in their town hall or local government office. I support equal legal privileges for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and I would have no problem calling that a ‘civil union,’ so long as when I go down to town hall myself, and enter into the same contract with my girlfriend as a heterosexual man, it is also termed a ‘civil union.’ Then, if we choose to be married in a church representing one of our two faiths, we can receive that designation in accordance with the tenets of that faith, which preclude homosexuality. In other words, I have no desire to force homosexuality into the religious sphere, but I also do not want to see religion used as a tool to affect our purposefully seculargovernment.
