Reason 30

Reason 29

So far, the only alternatives to Bush on the issue of the "internets" have been Gore, Kerry, and Obama, all of whom are totally gung-ho about putting the internet everywhere right now because it's the right thing to do. How about a president who understands the internet, yet knows and articulates that, like any other tool, it has the potential to be very good or very bad?

I like the Internet. I use the Internet. I do more than half my shopping on the Internet. I have a website. I read most newspapers online. I know how to use a computer as well as most and better than some. So what is it about the so-called “online community” that worries me so? Why do I have a dark feeling about its impact on the next generation?

Let’s start with the fact there is no “community” online. A community has houses and shops and schools and churches. It has places where people interact eye-to-eye. It’s where you know who your friends are, and they know you. It’s where you can shake a man’s hand and take his measure. It’s where you can turn to someone you trust in troubled times, and lend a hand to a neighbor.

The online version of community, on the other hand, is made up of millions of faceless screen names behind which people hide. It thrives on the kind of anonymity which brings out the worst in so many. It allows its users to sit in darkened rooms for hours on end while they pretend to be social. It’s never having to really meet someone, have a real conversation or interact on a human level.

Most Internet users, of course, are not drawn into this nameless, faceless virtual world. They chat with their friends and do their homework and listen to music and research term papers. But for a growing number of young people, the Internet has become a place to hide from the real world. Support groups are springing up to help parents deal with children who have become recluses, even as they form a wider ring of online “friends”.

Millions of man-hours are being lost as companies pay their workers to surf mindlessly or troll around various chatrooms. Relationships are torn apart as easily-available Internet pornography comes to dominate lives. Like fantasy sports, a frightening number of people are living fantasy lives. It’s as if the invisible friends many young children create have become as real as the ever-beckoning keyboard of their laptop.

Ironically, you can use the Internet to find organizations which deal with Internet addiction. On at least one of them, the Center for Internet Addiction Recovery , you can take a quick test to see if you are an addict or are heading down that road.

The Internet has some wonderful possibilities in terms of spreading information and ideas—and, ultimately, freedom—around the globe, but it also poses the danger of creating a generation of users who are more comfortable sitting in front of a glowing screen talking with strangers than they are in dealing with the reality outside their doors.

It would be tragic if this technology, with the potential to open up the world, ended up enclosing all of us behind individual walls.

Reason 28

Look at Pat's face 43 seconds in. That took diplomacy and restraint of a presidential level. If we're going to be sitting across the table from Ahmadinejad, I want someone like this, not some ingrate with no poker face who can't stop complaining about "inheriting" unpleasant things in an office he spent two years and $750,000,000 trying to get. Compare and contrast Pat's even-headedness with, for instance, this. Or, if you want to broaden the net a bit, this or this (not embedded, because those politicians have some pretty filthy mouths).

Reason 27

Pat recognizes that freedom is for everyone, and that freedom comes with responsibilities. Pat listens to voices that most in Hollywood and Washington don't even hear.

While watching a sporting event on NBC recently, a commercial for the DVD release of the grisly horror film, “The Hills Have Eyes” was shown. And to make it even grislier, this was the uncut release that was “too intense for theaters”. The commercial, while not graphic, was intense and, I would maintain, disturbing. Disturbing, too, was the question of why NBC (or its local affiliate) was running this commercial in the early evening and during a program which included large numbers of children, my own among them.

This was another jarring reminder that ours has become an “opt-out” rather than an “opt-in” society. In other words, the burden falls on those who would rather not be subjected to commercials for films about torture and murder. The usual answer to such objections is, “If you don’t like it, change the channel or don’t watch.” Well, that answer makes sense if HBO is airing the film, but what about a commercial dropped without warning into the middle of a sporting event?

The same problem applies to Internet porn, a huge issue for millions of families. As soon as you speak of controlling the flow of pornography into computers, screams about the First Amendment begin. These screams can be heard even if one is not advocating censoring the material, but merely suggesting that people should be allowed to opt-in rather than have to opt-out. Why can’t someone who wants pornography in his home request it rather than have those who don’t want it have to struggle to keep it out?

Again, I’m not talking about censoring anything. And who decides what’s pornographic? Well, in an opt-in society, it really doesn’t matter, because any adult would be free to allow anything at all into his or her home, as long as it’s legal and available. Meantime, those who would rather not have it won’t get it. No more legal battles and no more fighting about what’s acceptable and what’s not. You want it, you got it. You don’t want it, you don’t got it.

The explosion of technology has, it seems to me, led to a strange twisting of the whole freedom of speech debate. For many, the argument has appeared to advance from protecting all forms of speech to protecting all forms of speech in all arenas. In other words, creating safe havens is, somehow, censorship. Requiring printed lyrics so that parents can monitor their kids’ listening habits is, in this new world, tantamount to censorship. (Just ask Tipper Gore the problems that can cause).

It’s one thing to rail against so-called bluenoses who are trying to dictate what others can and should do; it’s another to insist that no one should be able to shield himself or his family from what he—for whatever reason—may find offensive. All any of us should ask is the freedom to choose what we want or don’t want. Why can’t we opt-in for that?

Reason 26

Pat can write his own speeches.

Reason 25

Pat clearly has a more open view toward controversial freedom of speech than our current president. Not only does Pat not think Rush Limbaugh should be publicly hanged, he went even beyond that and let Rush guest host his show.



Whether you agree with Rush or not, he has as much right as anyone to talk, and as president, Pat would recognize that.

Reason 24

Who was Pat palling around with twenty years ago? See for yourself.

Reason 23

Anyone who's as big of a Fred Thompson fanboy as Pat can't be all bad. Together, he and his wife donated nearly $5,000 to Fred's campaign, and said of him on his website,

Senator Thompson and I are not bowling buddies, but we’ve socialized a few times, and we have a lot of mutual friends. (My first television work was in his beloved Tennessee.) None of that is any reason to support a presidential candidate, but it does give you some sense of the man, and I can tell you he sincerely feels a call to duty and the belief that he can make a positive difference.

...

As a parent, I’m far less interested in a President’s view on particular social issues than I am in how seriously he takes the threat to our safety and security. On that score, he was very impressive.

...

I don’t know whether Fred Thompson will ultimately prevail as the Republican Party’s nominee for President, but I find myself rooting for him, because, even if there were no other reason (and I think there are many), he drives the mainstream media crazy by paying absolutely no attention to them.