dpk’s weblog

New Domains For Sex Sites Could Foster Greater Legitimacy

This article appears to be derived from a sales pitch from the .xxx registrar. It’s full of idealist comments and bogus claims. For example:

… while pornographers, at least in the United States, can’t and shouldn’t be forced to adopt .XXX domains, they’ll find advantages to doing so.
…
“By regularizing business practices so that you’ll have dispute resolution and appropriate and secure use credit cards–the kinds of things that any E-commerce site would have–we expect that [merchant-account] rates will come down.” Customers, in turn, could visit porn sites with less fear of credit-card fraud.
…
“Right now, if you go to a porn site, they sell your name to anybody and everybody,” she says. “But building privacy and security into .XXX sites will play a large part in regularizing that industry.”

Sounds great, right? .XXX will mean less credit card fraud and more privacy and security! The truth is, it is more likely to cure cancer than do anything promised here. The very idea that customers would feel more comfortable with a porn site ending with .xxx is laughable. Continue reading ‘.xxx myths’ »

Shamnesty International, by Melana Zyla Vickers

For the most part, her argument makes sense. Amnesty International is not known for its support of the American government. It’s also hard to trust the word of a prisoner, former or current. It’s possible the Koran-in-the-toilet story was a lie, and the other abuse stories are lies as well.

Of course, the underlying message here, and being spread by the Bush administration, is that any and all accusations of wrongdoing must be handled “responsibly” in private, a message you can probably guess I do not agree with.

However, her argument falls apart right here:

The inmates are fairly treated. The guard-throws-Koran-in-toilet story was false. And claims that the inmates’ detention oversteps the boundaries of international law have been responded to at the highest levels. Besides, the 500-600 Guantanamo detainees wouldn’t be there if Al Qaeda hadn’t killed 2,948 Americans and others on Sept 11, 2001.

First off, claims may have been “responded” to at the highest levels, but that doesn’t mean they’ve been resolved. She even admits that later in the article (“failing to punish high level officers”).

Worse, however, is her justification for the detention of hundreds of people. Most of the people there are being held without any charges, and they weren’t even offered the basic rights of attorneys for quite some time. The belief that “it’s OK to imprison 500+ people indefinitely, because someone hurt us once!” is ridiculous. We’ve killed thousands of innocent people in Iraq: would she be OK with an Iraq prison holding 500 Americans, not allowing them to contact their families, or even to speak with a lawyer?

But the war against terrorism is a real and necessary one, and immunization against its cruelties is necessary if the U.S. is to win.

Another “the ends justify the means” message from the pro-war crowd. I think I’m more upset that people actually believe this war is “necessary”, than that the war is happening at all.