View Full Version : Free Internet a Civil Right for ‘Every Nappy-Headed Child’
BMT (RIP)
12-06-2010, 12:05
http://www.breitbart.tv/free-internet-a-civil-right-for-every-nappy-headed-child/
steel_eel
12-06-2010, 12:14
The "underprivileged" folks in my area have the luxury of free cable, free cellphones/service, and of course foodstamps/housing. I'm starting to think I am in the wrong tax bracket?
GratefulCitizen
12-06-2010, 12:23
Ah, yes.
"Free".
Keep people distracted with the latest source of flickering lights, while feeding them a constant stream of advertising in an attempt to syphon from them their earnings.
The distraction often prevents people from spending time doing other things which might be economically beneficial.
The advertising, over time, will convince them to spend money unwisely.
Combined, this inhibits the accumulation of household capital.
Habits among the young become hard-wired.
Free?
More like stealth oppression.
1stindoor
12-06-2010, 13:34
Free?
More like stealth oppression.
Blasphemous!...Here come warm yourself by the TV. The great orator is about to remind us of the "change."
perdurabo
12-06-2010, 13:56
the "change."
I've always thought a campaign slogan of "Same we can believe in" would've been more appropriate for the Obama campaign. The word "change" lacks that air of... legitimacy.
GratefulCitizen
12-06-2010, 14:27
Blasphemous!...Here come warm yourself by the TV. The great orator is about to remind us of the "change."
Far too many chose the blue pill.
Glad I chose the red pill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arcJksDgCOU
mark46th
12-06-2010, 18:38
Free for them with the American Taxpayer picking up the bill....
The Reaper
12-06-2010, 18:49
Why not just get a job and pay for it, like the taxpayers do?
How many lazy sons of bitches do we have to carry?
TR
When I was growing up we couldn't afford the internet so I walked to the public library. Maybe she should have recommended that? It could help with the obesity problem too. :munchin
dr. mabuse
12-06-2010, 18:55
*
ZonieDiver
12-06-2010, 19:08
When I was growing up we couldn't afford the internet so I walked to the public library. Maybe she should have recommended that? It could help with the obesity problem too. :munchin
Wow, that makes me feel old!
That woman has some serious issues. I wonder what qualifications she possesses for the position she fills?
Her "used shoes that didn't fit" story filled me with rage. Rage at her, not at her supposed'villain'!
aegisnavy
12-06-2010, 19:27
My faith in humanity just plummeted...what an idiot.
GratefulCitizen
12-06-2010, 22:40
In practice, this is cruel.
Providing too much for people just teaches them to be dependent.
Have a couple close friends who grew up very poor.
Neither one had running water consistently until about age 14.
They learned self-reliance.
Both now earn compensation packages well into 6 figures per year.
This is the land of opportunity, not guaranteed outcomes.
Self-reliance is a prerequisite of freedom, economic and otherwise.
Wow, that makes me feel old!
That woman has some serious issues. I wonder what qualifications she possesses for the position she fills?
She and Michelle Obama have great disrespect for the same nation?
EX-Gold Falcon
12-06-2010, 23:07
Looking beyond the race issue, providing computers and free internet for every grade school aged American child is a no-brainer.
Otherwise, we'd best begin mandatory classes in Mandarin and Hindu; starting in kindergarden.
Tell me I am wrong....
T
Looking beyond the race issue, providing computers and free internet for every grade school aged American child is a no-brainer.
Otherwise, we'd best begin mandatory classes in Mandarin and Hindu; starting in kindergarden.
Tell me I am wrong....
T
It's already available at the local library, and in most schools.
FWIW, a list of the top 58 countries with the highest penetration rate is available here (http://www.internetworldstats.com/top25.htm).
If it is all right for Americans to subsidize "free parking" and automobile ownership then why not subsidize internet access?
EX-Gold Falcon
12-06-2010, 23:37
FWIW, a list of the top 58 countries with the highest penetration rate is available here (http://www.internetworldstats.com/top25.htm).
If it is all right for Americans to subsidize "free parking" and automobile ownership then why not subsidize internet access?
Why not indeed.
It would pay greater dividends in the longterm then either parking or pontiacs.
T.
EX-Gold Falcon
12-06-2010, 23:39
It's already available at the local library, and in most schools.
reread and rethink my post...
T
reread and rethink my post...
T
I have reached an impasse. Care to explain?
ZonieDiver
12-06-2010, 23:52
Looking beyond the race issue, providing computers and free internet for every grade school aged American child is a no-brainer.
Otherwise, we'd best begin mandatory classes in Mandarin and Hindu; starting in kindergarden.
Tell me I am wrong....
T
Some high school districts already are doing this - issuing laptops to freshmen that they keep when they graduate. Major obstacles, in order (IMHO), are: textbook publishers, non-forward thinking administrators (often in the pocket of the textbook crowd), and non-computer-literate teachers.
Do NOT get me started on this subject...
EX-Gold Falcon
12-07-2010, 00:21
I have reached an impasse. Care to explain?
Our future is our children. Either we provide the tools neccesary to maintain a technological edge, or teach them the language skills required to say, "For an extra .50 yuan you can supersize your order."
Stories of walking 10 miles uphill barefoot through 6 feet of snow to check your email on a 386 Dell with a 28k dial-up teaches didily-squat....
T.
perdurabo
12-07-2010, 00:55
Some high school districts already are doing this - issuing laptops to freshmen that they keep when they graduate. Major obstacles, in order (IMHO), are: textbook publishers, non-forward thinking administrators (often in the pocket of the textbook crowd), and non-computer-literate teachers.
Do NOT get me started on this subject...
Nor me. I worked on one of the most high profile initiatives to equip every students at a school with a laptop. The school was picked due to its low income status.
I can vouch for everything Zonie mentioned and more: constant theft issues, parents looking at porn (and meth recipes, no kidding) when kids took them home, the laptops weren't valued as we had hoped, they were beat to s**t, parents or kids pawned them at local pawn shops on multiple occasions. The computers were on a 5 or 7 year lease. They were underpowered to begin with. A 5-7 year capability was... unrealistic.
The biggest failures were previously-gungho teachers having a complete lack of initiative to learn technology and failing to really integrate them into their curriculum. Sorry, watching YouTube videos on frogs doesn't cut it.
We ended up abandoning it a couple years ago and I don't see it coming back any time soon.
Stories of walking 10 miles uphill barefoot through 6 feet of snow to check your email on a 386 Dell with a 28k dial-up teaches didily-squat....
T.
Ahhh now I understand. So you're advocating that the government jack some sort of 'highspeed' access into every home. :confused: With what funds? Just for poor people? What type of security/illicit material filter would the network have? It sounds like a good idea, but an improbable one as well.
Personally, I took the speaker's remarks to be more of a this is an important equal access opportunity issue than a civil rights matter in the classic sense of the term. I also took into consideration the speaker's background, current position, and why she might have been addressing the NAMIC Conference audience to begin with and telling them:
"...open access to this platform {internet}, would allow a little child who saw the inequities of South Carolina, who might not have seen the hope of getting out of that lair with her bare feet…It is apart of our job, it is my job, to connect these communities, to see that the platform is open and the opportunities are endless for every man, woman and child in this nation. That is our obligation, that is our mission, that is our cause…”
FWIW - not all communities, schools, libraries, or homes have such access to what many of us now pretty much take for granted.
And then there are those who could have access but either choose not to do so or to limit access to their students, patrons, or families even if available.
However, as with nearly everything, access does not guarantee how something will be used or whether or not it will promote success. But it can be a powerful tool if properly taught, used, and maintained (maintenance is another issue in an arena which is in a nearly constant state of change demanding on-going upgrading for continued protection or access).
IMO - it's complicated and will not be any less so in the future...but it is an important issue and it is something to ponder. Perhaps it should be looked at in the same light as a 21st Century adaptation of the Rural Electrification Administration concept.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
EX-Gold Falcon
12-07-2010, 06:56
Ahhh now I understand. So you're advocating that the government jack some sort of 'highspeed' access into every home. :confused: With what funds? Just for poor people? What type of security/illicit material filter would the network have? It sounds like a good idea, but an improbable one as well.
1. Never assume with me.
2.Try seeing beyond your preconceptions.
{dele}
T
Y'all play nice. ;)
Richard
Dozer523
12-07-2010, 07:09
1. Never assume with me.
2.Try seeing beyond your preconceptions.
No more posting for you today. Go skiing, you're wasting powder.
BaldMountain
Last Updated 12/7/2010 5:31:36 AM
39 out of 92 trails open. 6 out of 14 lifts open.
5 inches fresh powder.
EX-Gold Falcon
12-07-2010, 07:24
Personally, I took the speaker's remarks to be more of a this is an important equal access opportunity issue than a civil rights matter in the classic sense of the term. I also took into consideration the speaker's background, current position, and why she might have been addressing the NAMIC Conference audience to begin with and telling them:
Thank God someone else was able to see this in it's proper context, rather then simply having a kneejerk reaction!
"...open access to this platform {internet}, would allow a little child who saw the inequities of South Carolina, who might not have seen the hope of getting out of that lair with her bare feet…It is apart of our job, it is my job, to connect these communities, to see that the platform is open and the opportunities are endless for every man, woman and child in this nation. That is our obligation, that is our mission, that is our cause…”
Shades of Dr. King...
FWIW - not all communities, schools, libraries, or homes have such access to what many of us now pretty much take for granted.
And then there are those who could have access but either choose not to do so or to limit access to their students, patrons, or families even if available.
However, as with nearly everything, access does not guarantee how something will be used or whether or not it will promote success. But it can be a powerful tool if properly taught, used, and maintained (maintenance is another issue in an arena which is in a nearly constant state of change demanding on-going upgrading for continued protection or access).
IMO - it's complicated and will not be any less so in the future...but it is an important issue and it is something to ponder. Perhaps it should be looked at in the same light as a 21st Century adaptation of the Rural Electrification Administration concept.
GASP! HORROR! That almost sounds like the unspeakable "S" word. You know, the word that sounds like capitalism; but is the opposite...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Now imagine if this had been Glenn Beck, and substitue "nappy-headed" with "cracker headed rug rats".
Travis
P.S. mind if I get in on that bag? :munchin
EX-Gold Falcon
12-07-2010, 07:28
No more posting for you today. Go skiing, you're wasting powder.
BaldMountain
Last Updated 12/7/2010 5:31:36 AM
39 out of 92 trails open. 6 out of 14 lifts open.
5 inches fresh powder.
HA!
Maybe around 1300! Needs to warm it a bit!
Travis
1stindoor
12-07-2010, 07:51
When I was growing up we couldn't afford the internet
Jeez...when I was growing up...Al Gore hadn't invented it yet.
Our future is our children. Either we provide the tools neccesary to maintain a technological edge, or teach them the language skills required to say, "For an extra .50 yuan you can supersize your order."
Stories of walking 10 miles uphill barefoot through 6 feet of snow to check your email on a 386 Dell with a 28k dial-up teaches didily-squat....
T.
I think you miss the point. Yes, internet in 'school' is a good thing.
Free internet for a specific ethnic group is unconstitutional at least and morally corrupt.
"Every white child should have free internet"
Personally, I took the speaker's remarks to be more of a this is an important equal access opportunity issue than a civil rights matter in the classic sense of the term. I also took into consideration the speaker's background, current position, and why she might have been addressing the NAMIC Conference audience to begin with and telling them:
FWIW - not all communities, schools, libraries, or homes have such access to what many of us now pretty much take for granted.
Agreed.
My "kneejerk reaction" was that she wants to fix a socioeconomic issue. As you said it will be difficult to implement for myriad reasons. I think the fastest/easiest way would be to continue to outfit schools and libraries with computer labs that have internet access. These areas are easily controlled.
I don't see Federal having the type of money required to outfit individual homes with internet in the next 10-20 years. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I don't eat popcorn this early in the morning :)
It is quite rare that something advertised as 'Free' doesn't carry a hidden fee ;)
aegisnavy
12-07-2010, 10:04
FWIW, as an electrical engineer, I like to look at it as something similar to the Rural Electrification program, or other similar programs to get broadband access to all schools. I think it's important to have equal access for all kids at their institutions of learning. The kids are the future and we need them to be technologically proficient, or we will lose relevance.
My previous reaction was to the racially charged terms used in the speech. I expect more from my leaders.
Short answer, concept is OK to me if it means what I am thinking above. Delivery was lacking.
perdurabo
12-07-2010, 10:14
I think it's important to have equal access for all kids at their institutions of learning.
Agreed, but there is an existing program for this, E-RATE.
The kids are the future and we need them to be technologically proficient, or we will lose relevance.
Yes, and this is why I see something like this as more of an investment rather than a civil right.
Whether you go wired or wireless, it's going to be expensive.
The Reaper
12-07-2010, 12:00
Our future is our children. Either we provide the tools neccesary to maintain a technological edge, or teach them the language skills required to say, "For an extra .50 yuan you can supersize your order."
Stories of walking 10 miles uphill barefoot through 6 feet of snow to check your email on a 386 Dell with a 28k dial-up teaches didily-squat....
T.
Maybe the lesson is that it takes effort to obtain rewards.
The current one seems to be to bitch loudly enough with your hand out and someone will give you something for nothing.
I do not care what color the recipients would be. This is yet another entitlement and redistribution of the taxes the workers pay.
My own kids do not use the computer in the house for much constructive unless they are under direct adult supervision. I think most of these kids are born into poor, single parent homes due to lack of maturity and adult supervision. Do these parents and guardians take advantage of existing educational opportunities and invest time in their kids lives, or is this another electronic babysitter for when the kids are tired of TV?
How many, if any, are going to use this for schoolwork and not surfing porn, online gaming, homemade explosive/chemical formulas, and jihadi websites?
Who will be responsible for this?
Is the next demand for a taxpayer funded Playstation, Xbox, or Wii? For the educational benefits, of course.
TR
GratefulCitizen
12-07-2010, 12:06
There are some unstated assumptions which go along with the supposed benefits of "free internet".
Among those: internet access is always beneficial, economic success is a product of education and technology.
It is true that factors such as aptitude and access to resources/education/technology can affect outcomes.
Other factors still matter more.
Those who achieve generally demonstrate three traits: foresight, discipline, and courage.
For varying reasons, people will have different levels of foresight, and luck is always a factor there.
The other two, discipline and courage, are character traits.
What are the schools and government doing to foster discipline and courage?
Do "free" things promote discipline and courage?
If internet access at home is so important (I have my doubts about that), let them be awarded in needy areas based on merit.
Make the kids achieve something first, then reward them.
Giving stuff away teaches children that they are helpless, subject to whims of their benefactors.
Giving them a goal, and letting them achieve it (or not), teaches proactivity, self-reliance, and personal responsibility.
Success does not come from the speed of a man's internet connection, it comes from the content of his character.
My own kids do not use the computer in the house for much constructive unless they are under direct adult supervision. I think most of these kids are born into poor, single parent homes due to lack of maturity and adult supervision. Do these parents and guardians take advantage of existing educational opportunities and invest time in their kids lives, or is this another electronic babysitter for when the kids are tired of TV?
TR
Don't have internet at home, nor cable TV.
Kids get a weekly "ration" of time at a well-supervised internet cafe, netflix covers the TV entertainment.
The costs of doing this actually exceed (by a decent margin) the price of having internet and cable TV at home.
Free internet???
I pay to keep it out!
1stindoor
12-07-2010, 13:10
There are some unstated assumptions which go along with the supposed benefits of "free internet".
Among those: internet access is always beneficial, economic success is a product of education and technology.
The other assumption is that free means no one pays for it. I agree with TR, this is another hand out which costs the recipient nothing yet charges those that make a contribution plenty. What happens when the "free" connection isn't fast enough, when the servers aren't big enough, the systems become dated?...I assume that's when their free system gets a free upgrade. Meanwhile my rates keep going up.
The other assumption is that free means no one pays for it. I agree with TR, this is another hand out which costs the recipient nothing yet charges those that make a contribution plenty. What happens when the "free" connection isn't fast enough, when the servers aren't big enough, the systems become dated?...I assume that's when their free system gets a free upgrade. Meanwhile my rates keep going up.
It wasn't that many years ago, the western states were dotted with family dwellings very similar to this. My grandfather had 3 children in a similar home before my mother was born in the new house, 1936. Seemed grandma wanted a window that was higher than ground level, but comfortable they were, warm in winter, cool in summer.
We now use it to store old truck tires and ammo, I mean patatos.
EX-Gold Falcon
12-07-2010, 21:22
Maybe the lesson is that it takes effort to obtain rewards.
The current one seems to be to bitch loudly enough with your hand out and someone will give you something for nothing.
I do not care what color the recipients would be. This is yet another entitlement and redistribution of the taxes the workers pay.
My own kids do not use the computer in the house for much constructive unless they are under direct adult supervision. I think most of these kids are born into poor, single parent homes due to lack of maturity and adult supervision. Do these parents and guardians take advantage of existing educational opportunities and invest time in their kids lives, or is this another electronic babysitter for when the kids are tired of TV?
While yours is an excellent example of parenting, not every family may be in the same position to emulate this example. As such, it would be criminal to force children to pay for the sins of their fathers.
How many, if any, are going to use this for schoolwork and not surfing porn, online gaming, homemade explosive/chemical formulas, and jihadi websites? How many of them could use the internet for distance learning, school assignments and research papers?
Who will be responsible for this?
Schools, parents and even the child themselves.
Is the next demand for a taxpayer funded Playstation, Xbox, or Wii? For the educational benefits, of course. TR
Before the internet there was TV, before that the radio and before that the library. Each is a potential provider of usable information. Furthermore, they have evolved into an unspoken right. One simply needs a TV, radio or library card. The information gained can be either frivolous or educational depending on the user.
The internet is no different. I believe the Internet should also be included in this list of unspoken rights of access to information.
I think you miss the point. Yes, internet in 'school' is a good thing.
Free internet for a specific ethnic group is unconstitutional at least and morally corrupt.
"Every white child should have free internet"
You are partially correct, Every child should have access to a usable teaching tool and access to information; regardless of color. To me it was evident that she was speaking to a specific audience and chose her words accordingly.
It's not about the messanger, but the message that was important.
There are some unstated assumptions which go along with the supposed benefits of "free internet".
Among those: internet access is always beneficial, economic success is a product of education and technology.
It is true that factors such as aptitude and access to resources/education/technology can affect outcomes.
Other factors still matter more.
Those who achieve generally demonstrate three traits: foresight, discipline, and courage.
Opportunity cannot be overlooked. Yes, opportunity is often created however, at the end of the day they are just kids. Every opportunity provided is an opportunity not lost. After which your three excellent examples of traits may or (perhaps) may not come into play.
What are the schools and government doing to foster discipline and courage?
Do "free" things promote discipline and courage?
If internet access at home is so important (I have my doubts about that), let them be awarded in needy areas based on merit.
The same argument could (and probable was made in the past) have been made for either the radio or TV. Should we deny access to those based upon merit or warrent?
Make the kids achieve something first, then reward them.
I still believe in the importance of first providing the tools for access to information. We do not deny or limit a library card to children based upon reading ability, why should the internet be any different?
Giving stuff away teaches children that they are helpless, subject to whims of their benefactors.
The internet is more then simply "stuff", it possess enormous opportunities for learning that we have only begun to understand.
Giving them a goal, and letting them achieve it (or not), teaches proactivity, self-reliance, and personal responsibility.
Success does not come from the speed of a man's internet connection, it comes from the content of his character.
Success is also derived from access to learning. Where would any child be without access to quality education? Opportunities lost and potentials unrealized.
Don't have internet at home, nor cable TV.
Kids get a weekly "ration" of time at a well-supervised internet cafe, netflix covers the TV entertainment.
The costs of doing this actually exceed (by a decent margin) the price of having internet and cable TV at home.
Free internet???
I pay to keep it out!
With all due respect (no BS, due respect), you are most likely in a minority considering your situation. It is very possible that with the rate of advance in technology this could have a future negative affect upon children when compared with their peers.
It is quite rare that something advertised as 'Free' doesn't carry a hidden fee ;)
What price will America pay if we continue to watch other nations pass us by in terms of quality education?!
Currently we are The Global Leader. Being so also requires us to accept our status as The ultimate target on multiple levels. Militarily, economically, politically, culturally, etc. Everyone here is intelligent and self-informed enough to recognize our (America's) continued shortsighted vision regarding our future global status. It goes without saying that China and India are paying attention as well. Our children deserve every opportunity for learning tools and access to information. We can either trust them to use it responsibly, or censor it like China.
I believe that if we deliberately chose to limit access to the Internet based upon perceived ability, relative merit, economic means or parental responsibility, then we will in fact emulate the conditions that exist in both China and India.
We bloody well invented the Internet!
No other country should be capable of utilizing it more effectively to educate the next generation then us....
Travis
P.S. Damn, that took almost 2 hrs to write.
We bloody well invented the Internet!
No other country should be capable of utilizing it more effectively to educate the next generation then us....
Great point. It's going to be tough but I think we can figure it out. :munchin
What price will America pay if we continue to watch other nations pass us by in terms of quality education?!
IMO - You can make available all the freebies you want, but it is all for naught without parental involvement. I would wager that a kid who uses books and has parental involvement would in most instances surpass a kid with internet access and lacking parental involvement.
If I read correctly today, the US ranks (despite the technology at our finger tips) in the middle of the pack regarding education http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101207/ts_alt_afp/educationusoecd
The pessimist in me says this is more about Unions, Cable Companies, increased revenues and redistribution of wealth than it is providing a sound education.
The Reaper
12-08-2010, 06:17
The internet is no different. I believe the Internet should also be included in this list of unspoken rights of access to information.
Can you define a right versus a desire?
Where is this right delineated?
Is it acceptable, in your world, to confiscate several thousand dollars from me and give it to someone else who does not work, but who wants something you consider to be "a right"?
TR
1stindoor
12-08-2010, 07:31
Can you define a right versus a desire?
TR
I honestly believe that the great majority of the country...believe they have a right to TV, cable, internet, public transportation (i.e. bus), cell phones, section 8 housing, health care, ...I could go on, but I think I'm making myself madder.
I honestly believe that the great majority of the country...believe they have a right to TV, cable, internet, public transportation (i.e. bus), cell phones, section 8 housing, health care, ...I could go on, but I think I'm making myself madder.
A large percentage do believe things should be fair and equal, and they are of the mind that if they have a cellphone for example so should everyone else. There is also a envy, for example a teaching physician versus a practicing physician which from my unscientific observation the educators feel the practicing physicians and hospitals make too much money and everyone should be 'entitled' to Health Care.
Fewer and fewer of us plant our own seeds and grow our own crops so to speak. These days the majority of us with little effort pick it up on a shelf and have no appreciation of what it takes to get the product on the shelf.....we just expect it to be there day in and day out.
The pasture looks greener on the other side of the fence............a side effect of having it easy and effortlessly.
1stindoor
12-08-2010, 09:22
A large percentage do believe things should be fair and equal,
Agreed. That's why I believe everyone should have the same rights...after that, it's how you chose to use those rights.
Sadly this discussion will get us nowhere. Because for the most part all of "us" have jobs and have made a life for ourselves. The only thing I was given...and I believe everyone was given...was the chance to succeed or fail.
PedOncoDoc
12-08-2010, 09:33
The only thing I was given...and I believe everyone was given...was the chance to succeed or fail.
Agreed. But what about those kids who are raised in absolute povery and are set up to fail? How do we help set them up to succeed without removing them from their families?
While living in Cleveland, I remember seeing an ad in a local paper from an anonymous (presumably wealthy) advertiser, offering to pay for Depo-Provera (3-month birth control injections) and give $200 to anyone who was living in Section 8 housing, on food stamps and/or other forms of welfare. I believe there was also an offer for tubal ligation (surgical sterilization for women) with cash incentive. The right to have children and bring them into extreme poverty is a a hugely controversial topic. So is getting pregnant to bolster welfare income, or paying the impoverished not to have children.
:munchin
1stindoor
12-08-2010, 09:59
I have a hard time with the "set up to fail" mindset. I recognize that this is a result of my own upbringing and my parents inability to remain unconcerned about my schoolwork, my friends, my ability to get a job, etc.
The sad truth is that I can see some of these types of kids in my wife's classroom (kindergarten for 12 yrs...1st grade this year)...and yet I've met many of her former "kids" that have pulled themselves out of the environment in which they were raised...likewise I've seen more than one that was in an AG type classroom, involved parents, college prospects...that have gotten pregnant and dropped out.
I don't know what the "fix" is, but I don't think throwing money at the problem is going to make things better. What needs to happen is a fundamental shift in the mindset of the citizenry which will change their concept of rights versus priviledges.
Agreed. But what about those kids who are raised in absolute povery and are set up to fail? How do we help set them up to succeed without removing them from their families?
While living in Cleveland, I remember seeing an ad in a local paper from an anonymous (presumably wealthy) advertiser, offering to pay for Depo-Provera (3-month birth control injections) and give $200 to anyone who was living in Section 8 housing, on food stamps and/or other forms of welfare. I believe there was also an offer for tubal ligation (surgical sterilization for women) with cash incentive. The right to have children and bring them into extreme poverty is a a hugely controversial topic. So is getting pregnant to bolster welfare income, or paying the impoverished not to have children.
:munchin
For years my mom was a landlord and dealt with low income families and Section 8.
Of all the low income families she rented to (1) out of hundreds stands out. A single black woman with a son and she did not take government hand outs. Her exact words to my Mom where 'My son is not going to be a Nigger'.
She worked 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. If she was going to be late on a payment she talked to Mom. If she fell behind she worked more. She set the example and she pushed her son in like manner. If her son wasn't studying, he was either working or at soccer practice. He had little to no free time, just like his Mom.
Lawrence step out of line and Mom was always there to remind him of 'Niggardly Behavior' and how it was not acceptable in her home.
The end result was that Lawrence her son received a scholarship from the premiere private school in the area and eventually received a full ride from Boston College. Her became a Doctor and bought his Mom a nice house.
On the other side of the coin were the Poor Me sterotype that were completely dependent on the Government handouts for their survival. They sit on there asses nearly 24/7/365, about the only time they got up was to apply for some additional government benefits and they tore up the properties in most instances. Hand 0uts are like drugs and make far too easy to remain in the bottom of the trench.
Lawrence's mom is an example of an impoverished person not accepting failure and doing everything in their means to make it not happen. You cannot buy or give that to a parent, they must desire it and fight for it.
You might call it a survival instinct, not everyone has it and giving handouts does not instill it.
Masochist
12-08-2010, 12:03
The right to have children and bring them into extreme poverty is a a hugely controversial topic. So is getting pregnant to bolster welfare income, or paying the impoverished not to have children.
I think you will see a shift once it stops becoming financially beneficial to have children and then do nothing after the fact. As someone on here once said, "Why run when you can walk, why walk when you can sit ..." Why work when you can sit on your @ss and get a check sent to you on the first of the month? Take away the permanent crutch, and that survival instinct kicks in.
You might call it a survival instinct, not everyone has it and giving handouts does not instill it.
Survival of the fittest has worked since the beginning of time. Those with enough drive to survive, will most likely survive.
GratefulCitizen
12-08-2010, 12:06
I have a hard time with the "set up to fail" mindset.
<snip>
What needs to happen is a fundamental shift in the mindset of the citizenry which will change their concept of rights versus priviledges.
My main objection to the proposal of universal free "X"(enter good and/or service) as a solution to poverty(or whatever) is this:
The perpetuation of the victim mentality.
It supposes that a person's future is determined by their present circumstances.
It asserts that nobody has influence over or responsibility for their own results.
All too often such proposals, made by rich or poor, are just a mask for their own envy.
Maybe someone else once won a prize they coveted; so now they want to protect their ego, attributing the results to fate.
Be they rich or poor, a sore loser is a sore loser.
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut.
EX-Gold Falcon
12-08-2010, 13:50
Can you define a right versus a desire? Where is this right delineated?
I am not sure how these questions pertain to any of my comments. If you could please clarify them, I will do my best to answer.
Is it acceptable, in your world, to confiscate several thousand dollars from me and give it to someone else who does not work,
You are postulating about “my world”. When in fact, we both live and are citizens of the same nation. And when did I sudgest confiscating an arbitrarily amount from you to give to "someone else who does not work". These are not my words.
but who wants something you consider to be "a right"?
TR
I defined them as unspoken rights, due to the fact that this is what they have evolved into. If I have a radio or TV, tell I do not have the right to turn it on. If my community has a library, do I not have the right to enter and learn? In some parts of the world these unspoken rights are limited or denied.
I believe we (America) are better then that.
Is these something wrong with placing the Internet into the same category as these other examples of access points to information? Personally, I can think of no viable reason to do so. AS I said before, We bloody well invented the Internet! No other country should be capable of utilizing it more effectively to educate the next generation then us.
Face it gentlemen, the rest of the world is gunning for us with a vengence. And if we fail to utilize every available learning tool for the benefit of future generations, then we will soon be relegated to something close to E.U. status. Heck, China might decide to cash our IOUs and as a part of the repayment plan, require mandatory Mandarin classes for K-12. After all, this would greatly simplify the transition of power by 2030.
T.
PedOncoDoc
12-08-2010, 14:24
Entire post.
Good on that mother! Unfortunately, as you pointed out, this is the exception.
I still will contend that the majority of these kids are "set up to fail," due to what they are raised to believe in their home environment.
Can any and every one of them overcome and achieve? Absolutely.
How many will?
Do you blame the child for getting themself behind the 8-ball or do you blame the parent(s)?
alright4u
12-08-2010, 14:38
She and Michelle Obama have great disrespect for the same nation?
Her and Michelle were given a fish. They never had to catch it.
GratefulCitizen
12-08-2010, 16:24
Face it gentlemen, the rest of the world is gunning for us with a vengence. And if we fail to utilize every available learning tool for the benefit of future generations, then we will soon be relegated to something close to E.U. status. Heck, China might decide to cash our IOUs and as a part of the repayment plan, require mandatory Mandarin classes for K-12. After all, this would greatly simplify the transition of power by 2030.
T.
Innovation and commerce will not be slowed by a lack of egalitarianism in internet service.
It will be slowed by penalizing success.
When resources are given to some, those resources are not available to others who might produce something to trade for said resources.
When productivity is rewarded, you get more of it.
When slothfulness is rewarded, you get more of it.
Make the pie smaller, the poor will suffer even more for the loss.
***********
If China were to cash in their IOUs, they could do two things:
Invest here (doesn't hurt us), or buy goods and services from us (doesn't hurt us).
Money and wealth are not the same thing.
The wealth of this nation is (or was...) in it's economic system, specifically private property rights.
Do you blame the child for getting themself behind the 8-ball or do you blame the parent(s)?
The parents, but more so the system that instilled victim mentality, entitlements, using your ovaries as a ATM and which allows this worthless legacy to grow.
Masochist
12-08-2010, 16:59
The parents, but more so the system that instilled victim mentality, entitlements, using your ovaries as a ATM and which allows this worthless legacy to grow.
And sadly it's a system that perpetuates itself.
When resources are given to some, those resources are not available to If China were to cash in their IOUs, they could do two things:
Invest here (doesn't hurt us), or buy goods and services from us (doesn't hurt us).
Money and wealth are not the same thing.
The wealth of this nation is (or was...) in it's economic system, specifically private property rights.
Not many people understand this. GREAT post. Secondly, their currency medling is world renown. Uncle Sam and China may as well be conjoined twins right now. We all know what usually happens when the heart (read: economy) stops beating.
Until I see some sort of 'responsibility revolution' in my friends and family members that are currently living comfortably off of my tax dollars, I will continue to doubt the affectiveness of these types of programs.
It's easy to talk about how people 'just need access,' but as PASLODE's story shows, hard work and dedication to bettering ones' self does not come easily to people who live their entire lives expecting to get fruit of hard work and dedication for free.
EX-Gold Falcon
12-08-2010, 19:50
Innovation and commerce will not be slowed by a lack of egalitarianism in internet service.
It will be slowed by penalizing success.
When resources are given to some, those resources are not available to others who might produce something to trade for said resources.
When productivity is rewarded, you get more of it.
When slothfulness is rewarded, you get more of it.
Make the pie smaller, the poor will suffer even more for the loss.
***********
If China were to cash in their IOUs, they could do two things:
Invest here (doesn't hurt us), or buy goods and services from us (doesn't hurt us).
Money and wealth are not the same thing.
The wealth of this nation is (or was...) in it's economic system, specifically private property rights.
Seems everyone is arguing the political principals while I've chosen to stand up for the kids.They are just kids. Give them the tools and a chance and they might surprise you.
I have done my best to articulate in a respectful manner my personal beliefs on this subject. I see no need to defend my position further nor will I be swayed by ideological concepts.
T.
...........They are just kids. Give them the tools and a chance and they might surprise you. ...........
How much is enough? Why not more. Why not double it? In fact why don't we give each child born in this country $1,000,000 at birth? Then everybody is rich.
Just print some more money.
Pete
Still working at 9:19 so I can make some money to pay my taxes to give money to people sitting on their butts all day and night.
Surgicalcric
12-08-2010, 20:51
...If I have a radio or TV, tell I do not have the right to turn it on...
Did you buy the TV and radio or did the gov't give them to you on the taxpayers back?
...Is these something wrong with placing the Internet into the same category as these other examples of access points to information? Personally, I can think of no viable reason to do so. AS I said before, We bloody well invented the Internet! No other country should be capable of utilizing it more effectively to educate the next generation then us...
How many computers are enough? Is it one per household or one per child? Who do you suggest pay for it? The taxpayer?
Since those who would take advantage of the free internet for the nappy-headed are more than likely the same who are already taking advantage of WICS, food-stamps, unemployment, welfare, reduced school lunches, after-school child care, community centers, etc, etc... I would think the taxpayers as a whole are funding enough to help the underprivileged get ahead.
I am starting to think we would get off cheaper just giving every child 1,000,000.00 at birth...
It takes more than a computer in the homes of people to make them want to be more than they currently are; it takes drive.
Crip
imvho
http://www.studentsfirst.org/
Politics, policy, political philosophy, sociology, history, and theories of human psychology aside, for me, it boils down to a question.
How much of my annual caffeine budget am I willing to give up so that every American can go on line and read the prose of the best living writer I know?
EX-Gold Falcon
12-08-2010, 22:05
Gentleman, I stand by my words.
Ain't nothing else to say.
T.
GratefulCitizen
12-08-2010, 22:34
Give them the tools and a chance and they might surprise you.
T.
Wholeheartedly agree.
The tools they need our found within, not without.
The attitudes I expressed were not instilled by some political activist.
My own grandmother raised her four children in utter poverty, as a single mother.
She told her children from an early age that they would have to fend for themselves as adults; she would not be able to help them.
They worked jobs starting around age 12 and did their best in school.
The boys both enlisted in the military out of high school.
The girls were both validictorians of their classes, and worked their way through college.
The younger girl (my mother) worked her way through college, graduating in under 3 years, summa cum laude.
Despite severe dyslexia among all 4 children, they all eventually got masters degrees in varying fields.
When people are told to rely upon themselves, they often suprise you.
Children are particularly resourceful and resilient.
alright4u
12-09-2010, 01:57
Nor me. I worked on one of the most high profile initiatives to equip every students at a school with a laptop. The school was picked due to its low income status.
I can vouch for everything Zonie mentioned and more: constant theft issues, parents looking at porn (and meth recipes, no kidding) when kids took them home, the laptops weren't valued as we had hoped, they were beat to s**t, parents or kids pawned them at local pawn shops on multiple occasions. The computers were on a 5 or 7 year lease. They were underpowered to begin with. A 5-7 year capability was... unrealistic.
The biggest failures were previously-gungho teachers having a complete lack of initiative to learn technology and failing to really integrate them into their curriculum. Sorry, watching YouTube videos on frogs doesn't cut it.
We ended up abandoning it a couple years ago and I don't see it coming back any time soon.
Thanks. Everytime I hear some new program that is the instant cure for failing schools- I hit the roof.
FWIW...
In her speech, Ms. Clyburn did not say that free internet service is a civil right for 'every nappy headed child.' Instead, she said every nappy headed child 'deserves' to have access to the internet.
In her discussion of internet access being a 'civil rights' issue, she specifically says that this issue touches all Americans, not a specific cohort.
In a speech given on 1 October 2010 (available here (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301878A1.pdf)), Ms. Clyburn offers a thumbnail of her view of the state of broadband in America and its role in the U.S.'s communication policies. A key point in that speech is Ms. Clyburn's belief that we should strive to obtain data that demonstrate the quantitative benefits of a citizenry that is well connected through high-speed broadband. When we have a more informed understanding of the overall economic benefits broadband offers, our nation’s policymakers can better assess the inputs required to achieve those benefits. If we know that with an investment of X, we can attain a very significant benefit of Y—then X may not appear as considerable, and the right policy choice is more evident and acceptable.In other words, Ms. Clyburn is not saying the American taxpayer should automatically foot the bill so that everyone gets free internet in their homes.
GratefulCitizen
12-09-2010, 12:39
Smoke and mirrors.
If we know that with an investment of X, we can attain a very significant benefit of Y—then X may not appear as considerable, and the right policy choice is more evident and acceptable.
Circular reasoning.
If (x implies y) then x.
we should strive to obtain data that demonstrate the quantitative benefits of a citizenry that is well connected through high-speed broadband.
We should strive to obtain data that demonstrate the connection between yellow-stained fingers and lung cancer. (Turns out, this connection exists.)
So if people just wash the yellow stains off of their fingers, they will not get lung cancer.
Has anyone ever considered the idea that people acquire nice things (such as high-speed internet) as a consequence of their behavior?
Nope. People demonstrate successful behavior because they already have the trappings of success. :rolleyes:
This is just the "self-esteem" playground argument all over again.
Give everyone a blue ribbon (perhaps a beret...) and POOF! Everyone will demonstrate the behavior of a champion.
Entire post.Out of curiosity, did you read her entire speech or just the quote I provided?
FWIW...
In her speech, Ms. Clyburn did not say that free internet service is a civil right for 'every nappy headed child.' Instead, she said every nappy headed child 'deserves' to have access to the internet.
In her discussion of internet access being a 'civil rights' issue, she specifically says that this issue touches all Americans, not a specific cohort.
In a speech given on 1 October 2010 (available here (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301878A1.pdf)), Ms. Clyburn offers a thumbnail of her view of the state of broadband in America and its role in the U.S.'s communication policies. A key point in that speech is Ms. Clyburn's belief that In other words, Ms. Clyburn is not saying the American taxpayer should automatically foot the bill so that everyone gets free internet in their homes.
Deserve would incline that one has accomplished something (+/-) and is thus rewarded in some fashion. That could lead one to look at, or use example of welfare, food stamps, etc and how it is determined some are deserving of such programs. I would also emphasize that in many (I think most) instances of said entitlement programs that deserving is nothing more than a stepping stone to a Right.
This would require another Government Panel to come up with guidelines to determine who is entitled and who is not. And since we are bankrupt as a nation the last thing we need is another bureaucracy handing out 'Free' modems and PC's.
I never thought I deserved or was entitled anything, I have always been of the mind I can earn it. Like do I deserve your ridicule or accolades.....I earn it:D
GratefulCitizen
12-09-2010, 13:31
Out of curiosity, did you read her entire speech or just the quote I provided?
Fair enough.
I did post before reading the whole speech.
The part you quoted was an excellent representation, though.
Now the Commission (and the other agencies tasked with considering and implementing the Plan’s recommendations), must take up the mantle and actualize the goals Congress gave us: to enact policies that ensure every citizen has access to affordable broadband service, and that our nation maximizes the use of broadband so that we can better address and advance the nation’s health care delivery, energy independence, education, and job creation, among other national goals.
Ensure that every citizen has affordable access to X.
Sounds familiar.
Those communities that have lost their manufacturing base are unable to attract new businesses without adequate broadband infrastructure. President Obama recently affirmed that broadband is “vital infrastructure” and is “central to the daily economic life of almost every American.” I could not agree more. What this all affirms is that broadband is no longer a luxury. It is a necessity.
Perhaps those communities should change their tax structure to attract businesses.
If the president says it's a necessity, it must be. (his business expertise is legendary)
We can do better, and we need to make the most out of the system we have.
Could've sworn that those communication companies were not property of the federal gov't.
Of course, that was once true of GM as well.
Let me re-state this very important fact—one-third of Americans who have access to broadband do not purchase it. What are their reasons for not doing so? Affordability, lack of digital literacy, and relevance. For those consumers who cannot afford it, the reasons vary—the expense of hardware or the monthly price of service. Others do not consider broadband relevant enough to them in order to adopt it. But for the majority of those who haven’t adopted broadband, they face multiple barriers. For example, a person may not believe broadband to be relevant to her life and, therefore, she never developed digital skills to use the technology.
A person may not believe working to provide food and shelter for themselves to be relevant to their life and, therefore, they never develop a work ethic or skills to provide food and shelter for themselves.
Universal broadband and the skills to use it can lower barriers of means and distance to help achieve a more equal opportunity for all Americans, including those who have traditionally been underrepresented and are currently the least likely to adopt it.
"More" equal?
This is about outcomes; i.e. egalitarianism, not equality of opportunity.
(Just a selling point to voters...)
One Economy Corporation, which has been a leader in digital literacy for minorities and low-income communities, has received approval for a $28.5 million grant
There it is.
It's not about opportunity.
It's about taking taxpayer money and giving it to someone else for profit.
Any guesses about campaign donations?
The Plan encourages the FCC to take a number of steps to promote robust competition for broadband which typically leads to cheaper prices for consumers.
Universal health care will lead to cheaper prices for consumers.
Honestly
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
(sorry, couldn't resist...):D
Ubiquitous broadband service that every citizen can use to improve his or her life is a noble goal.
So is universal health care, world peace, and utopia in general.
*****************
*****************
In fairness to the speech, improving access to libraries and schools is a good thing.
If the resources are to be used for the public good, put them in the public commons, not directly into homes.
Deserve would incline that one has accomplished something (+/-) and is thus rewarded in some fashion.P--
Now this is an issue that would be best addressed over frosty beverages and platters heaping with wings.
Might you be conflating "deserve" with "merit"? (My OED software won't run on XP Pro SP3:(, so I cannot do the egghead neener neener thing:cool: by posting pages and pages of definitions and usage.:p)
Are we interpreting Ms. Clyburn's speech from such different vantage points that we'll have to agree to disagree as to her intended meaning? (I strongly believe that the headline offered in the OP link as well as Ms. Clyburn's opening anecdote could polarize interpretations of her comments.)
Was she deliberately vague in choosing the word "deserve" when she intended to say something else?
Notwithstanding these and other finer points of interpretation, I do not think that Ms. Clyburn's recommendations are all that radical. I think the key problem she faces in the video is her presentation.
My $0.02.
Nothing that is a service is free. You must pay for your television or radio and the basic TV and radio you can listen to for "free" is paid for with advertising. Making sure broadband Internet is available anywhere and everywhere is good, but to those who pay for it, just as you can get cable and telephone almost anywhere, again as long as you pay for it.
Public libraries aren't free either, taxes fund them. I would not want taxpayer-funded broadband, that might justify applying some kind of "Fairness Doctrine" to the Internet or whatnot I'd think.
Amen Brother,
People tend to forget that when the government gives, they take it from someone else. Then they also get to regulate, or restrict or whatever.
Are we still paying the phone tax for the Spanish-American War?
Jokes aside - that tax is an example.
When the Government starts out to give something "free" away or provide a service to an area it - the government - has to pay for it somehow. The usual route is through a tax. A tax the government likes to forget about once the service is provided.
Our local 911 service rakes in $1 per phone line per month. Not per house or bill - but per line. So I have three phone lines. Is it "Fair" that I pay $3 while most others pay $1.
Didn't the government tack on a special tax in our phone bills to pay for extending phone lines into remote areas?
Whats wrong with dial up? Some people on this forum use dial up.
Reading through this made my eyes hurt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_telephone_excise_tax
But this can help - http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/understanding.html
alright4u
12-09-2010, 15:24
Gentleman, I stand by my words.
Ain't nothing else to say.
T.
How many laptops have you bought for stranger's kids? How many Internet bills for other's kids do you pay? Laptops get legs.http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/communityblogs/109764904.html
EX-Gold Falcon
12-09-2010, 17:21
How many laptops have you bought for stranger's kids? How many Internet bills for other's kids do you pay? Laptops get legs.http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/communityblogs/109764904.html
I've said my peace.
Try here ;) : http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=120
T.
alright4u
12-09-2010, 17:47
FWIW...
In her speech, Ms. Clyburn did not say that free internet service is a civil right for 'every nappy headed child.' Instead, she said every nappy headed child 'deserves' to have access to the internet.
In her discussion of internet access being a 'civil rights' issue, she specifically says that this issue touches all Americans, not a specific cohort.
In a speech given on 1 October 2010 (available here (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301878A1.pdf)), Ms. Clyburn offers a thumbnail of her view of the state of broadband in America and its role in the U.S.'s communication policies. A key point in that speech is Ms. Clyburn's belief that In other words, Ms. Clyburn is not saying the American taxpayer should automatically foot the bill so that everyone gets free internet in their homes.
I know many people who I think deserve this or that. Just because I think a man deserved a DSC does not make it so. Deserve vs. civil right? What a play on words. What I think as a private citizen means zip. A public official stating they deserve is almost policy, if not.
alright4u
12-09-2010, 17:53
I've said my peace.
Try here ;) : http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=120
T.
Thanks.
Lots of space, emotion, and effort expended over what IMO is but another instance of a government official poorly articulating what should be an important point to ponder followed by an inflammatory headline and just as poorly articulated news piece patently lacking any sort of context or qualification.
To me, this is but another instance of the current vogue cop-out - "We just report...you decide. I'm just sayin'..." - followed by a rucksack full of A-Z no resolution soapboxing.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Give'em books! Kinda hard to surf for BS turning pages.:lifter
Stay safe.
1stindoor
12-10-2010, 08:11
Lots of space, emotion, and effort expended over what IMO is but another instance of a government official poorly articulating what should be an important point to ponder followed by an inflammatory headline and just as poorly articulated news piece patently lacking any sort of context or qualification.
To me, this is but another instance of the current vogue cop-out - "We just report...you decide. I'm just sayin'..." - followed by a rucksack full of A-Z no resolution soapboxing.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I think you've pretty much nailed it in your analysis. However, I'm of the opinion that if we don't jump on our soapboxes then the administration takes that as acceptance and agreement.
Lots of space, emotion, and effort expended over what IMO is but another instance of a government official poorly articulating what should be an important point to ponder followed by an inflammatory headline and just as poorly articulated news piece patently lacking any sort of context or qualification.................
Yeah, and this is about how Smart Start / Pre K education started in NC. The poor can't afford to help their kids get ready for school so they started the Multi Million $ Smart Start program where jr would be turned into a mental giant by the time K started.
Of course it became a free dumping ground for the day care set and jr is still way behind his classmates.
Not everybody can work for the government and not all good ideas should be funded.
Of course here in NC the ax is about to fall on school funding and the schools are already crying about the teachers who will be laid off - of course no word about the over 25% of employees who are not in the classroom - they are more important than teachers.
GratefulCitizen
12-10-2010, 13:40
Lots of space, emotion, and effort expended over what IMO is but another instance of a government official poorly articulating what should be an important point to ponder followed by an inflammatory headline and just as poorly articulated news piece patently lacking any sort of context or qualification.
To me, this is but another instance of the current vogue cop-out - "We just report...you decide. I'm just sayin'..." - followed by a rucksack full of A-Z no resolution soapboxing.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
The issue can be simplified.
1. Is such connectivity truly beneficial.
2. If it is beneficial, is government involvement the most effective method of implementation.
3. If government involvement is warranted, is the federal government the best one for the job.
Even if points 1 and 2 are conceded, it's pretty hard to find a compelling argument for point 3.
Let the state/local governments deal with it.
Not everybody can work for the government
Sure they can. It's called despotism.
The issue can be simplified.
1. Is such connectivity truly beneficial.
2. If it is beneficial, is government involvement the most effective method of implementation.
3. If government involvement is warranted, is the federal government the best one for the job.By my reading and viewing, you're pretty much agreeing with Ms. Clyburn.
In any case, I would suggest that the broader point is the concept of the "commons" and how it applies to the digital age.
An aside. I think her opening anecdote lays the ground for the two divergent interpretations of her comments being developed in this thread. IMO, it is one of those "you had to have been there / you either get it or you don't" stories that either gets a listener's careful attention or cause someone to tune her out. She maybe should have picked an experience that hadn't caused her as much personal anguish.
I strongly believe that the anecdote, and her presentation of it, might inform how many of the current president's detractors phrase their criticisms of that horrible human being.
My caffeinated $0.02.
Personally - I liked life just fine before the WWW came into my life...it was a lot like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSkFygPCTwE&feature=related
And so it goes...;)
Richard :munchin
Personally - I liked life just fine before the WWW came into my life...it was a lot like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSkFygPCTwE&feature=related
And so it goes...;)
Richard :munchin
I remember awaking the day after Y2K, and discovered my wood burning stove still worked.