A New Spin on a MySpace Case

On ABC News today, parents actually DO NOT blame MySpace.com for their minor daughter's lying and disappearing from their home at the beginning of June. The parents do not point fingers at the social network due to their lack of commincation with their daughter or their daughters lack of common sense in running away to meet a man in Israel.

Lester lied to her parents, secretly obtained a passport, and then disappeared from her mother's home on June 5. The family was frantic.

The 17 year old girl claims she is in love with 20 year old Abdullah Jimzawi whom she met online via MySpace.com. Both Jimzawi and Lester told ABC News they planned to be together, planned to marry.

A court is looking into whether to label Lester as a runaway and have her court watched until her 18th birthday. Lester stated she didn't plan to meet him until she was 18 and hoped he would come to the US to marry her. But facts show she did try to see him and was caught by the FBI before reaching her destination. So, she's lied once again.

Luckily her parents are being retroactive. Proactive is reserved for those who know what's going on and don't have children fleeing the country in search of an online love or adventure in a dangerous country.

Lester and Jimzawi still communicate, but the Lester family now supervises her online activity. A local court took away her passport.

Though her father should probably speak to Taylor Salliant's mom before believing his daughter is "safe in America".

My initial reaction was to isolate her and lock her up, and keep her safe here in America. But that's unrealistic. … If we were to do that, we would lose her confidence."

Confidence that should already have been lost on her. She lied, secretly gained a passport and planned a trip to Israel without her parents' knowledge. Perhaps "confidence" shouldn't be as important as making her realize the errors of her ways. Then again, if it works...At least both parents are pushing her to educate herself on teh Islamic culture. Perhaps once she realizes the rights she'll have (or not have) when converting to Islam to marry her "love" she'll think twice. Young and naive, sure. Running away to Israel to meet a stranger, there's more than simple naivite involved. Perhaps she's been very sheltered, we don't know the whole story.

Salliant's mother could take a queue from Terry Lester before believing she'll win a $30 million lawsuit against the social network,

"I blame myself," Terry Lester said. "But most importantly I blame the breakdown in communication between my family [and Katherine]."

Net Neutrality and Typical Republicans

The Senate is back and debating along lines on the net neutrality cause. Of course it's democrats vs republicans with one lone republican about to be feasted on for siding with "the enemy" (i.e. dems).

The republicans take on talk concerning net neutrality? You guessed it, avoidance.

Republicans cautioned that tinkering with the existing language could cause the entire 159-page proposal to collapse.

And what more could they ask for? Republicans want to pass the net neutrality for big business. They've probably got their hands in the cookie jars and their bank accounts ready to receive wired cash upon denial of net neutrality from the big corporations. And who's not in bed with someone offering up easy money in government? It's ridiculous we think anything will be passed because it needs to be. But I digress.

Also typical of government, their hard work is reflected in the hours they keep.

The committee, which adjourned because of floor votes after only two hours of debate, plans to resume debate on the Communications, Consumers' Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (click here for PDF) on Tuesday morning

Personally, I'd only work 2 hours every 5 days if I could pocket what they do. Alas, my meager salary requires long hours often streaming into the night and taking away from the things that really matter. Yachting and schmoozing old fogies? No, family and hobbies like normal people.

But at least they seem to like paperwork.

More than 200 amendments on the numerous topics covered by the bill have been filed for consideration.

Or is that, they like giving their interns paperwork? Hmm. Think any of them read what they filed or is it more like when they passed the Patriot Act? Good jobs guys.

The big pull here is the implication meant by destroying the idea of net neutrality. What would keep big businesses from drowning out the smaller guys? What would keep the internet "level" for anyone who wanted to try their hand at being indexed, loaded, and seen?

Net neutrality, according to its proponents, centers on the idea that network operators must give equal treatment to all content that rides over their pipes. The Stevens bill has drawn attack from advocates of the concept because it wouldn't prohibit network operators from making deals with content providers for the privilege of, say, faster delivery or more prominent placement.

And no doubt this is correct:

Nevada Republican John Ensign sounded the loudest alarms against further regulations on Thursday. He flatly rejected the pro-Net neutrality camp's criticism of the bill, saying the proposal is a "good compromise" that fully protects their interests.

A Republican sounded the loudest alarms. You mean he used aggression and belligerence to get his point across. Interesting move. Last time I saw that one used it was an overzealous evangelical from a Protect the Family type organization. Really got the point across that he was right and we were all blundering idiots. No wait, I got that wrong. He was the idiot.

Bubble Kids

It isn't new for adults to ridicule the ways kids behave. Adults have always looked down on the ways and cultures of the younger generations. It's a tradition. With the introduction of technology the younger generation seems to be even more removed from previous generations in that their social skills are completely foreign. Try making grandma understand why you must log on to IM all your friends the moment you walk in her door for summer vacation. Doubtless that she will be thrilled.

Technology has moved kids and teens into another era. One where adults aren't as comfortable, though are becoming increasingly so as the days move on and technology is everywhere. In order to function in society one must understand technology somewhat.

The attitude taken by these articles is a little skewed in my opinion. Sure kids are more engrossed in their cyber worlds than in the real world. Certainly there should be a line drawn between reality and technology. Definitely more steps need to be taken to avoid frivolous lawsuits such as the increasingly infamous MySpace suit currently underway. But are kids and teens to blame for their behavior? I don't think so.

All too often teenagers get the short end of the stick. Adults are all to quick to point fingers and judge how terrible a teenager is even if that adult is doing the same thing. How many times have you been talking to an adult and had a conversation interrupted by a cell phone? Now, how often is that conversation over because the person answered the cell phone and continued to chat as though you weren't in the middle of something? Bluetooth technology is making this even more the "norm". It's so easy to interrupt a real life conversation and switch gears to an on call conversation without skipping a beat. Ignoring the real world in favor of technology isn't just a teenager's "problem".

Before adults continue to ridicule teenagers and kids about their online and cell phone behaviors maybe those same adults should remove the damn cell from their heads and complete a conversation before cutting someone off. Actions speak louder than words, unless those words are directed toward someone who's not even present. Then your words speak volumes.

Google/China, Moral-Immoral, Who Cares?

In a skewed article written by the Epoch Times International Sergey Brin was warned to step back, recount how evil the Chinese regime really is, and make a decision based on the Google motto "Don't Be Evil". The article even ended with the quaint, "In any case, let's hope he makes the right choice."

Certainly Brin has stepped into public scrutiny. First by being one half of the whole creating Google and pushing it forth into the world. Next by partaking in an almost inhuman (not to mention, uncharacteristic of any business) motto "Don't Be Evil". And most recently by OKing the Chinese mandated censorship so many others have already conformed to, but then turning around and saying Google was probably wrong.

Did anyone notice that once the Chinese retailiated by speeding up the process of blocking Google.com Brin and Google retracted the statements of the previous day stating the company fully intended to comply? Miss that? Most people seem to have.

What people are missing is that the Chinese have every right to dictate the way they do business. Every corporation has different sets of rules and guidelines. If you want to do business with them then you follow those guidelines. End of story.

Another thing people don't seem to grasp is that, as tragic as it may seem to some, the Chinese have a different culture than our falsely free society. The constitution states "Freedom of Speech" (which can be debated with our own censorship laws if you've been paying attention) but the constitution is our own. It is not a worldwide creed.

Human rights is an incredibly tough issue. It is tremendously important to persure the rights and freedoms of individuals. However stepping on their culture isn't going to get anyone very far. People don't like to change, regardless of how "wrong" or "backwards" the ideas may seem to an outsider.

Certainly we need to continue the push for freedom of information and education. Focusing efforts here at home might be a good idea instead of sending all our efforts over seas. Anyone heard of intelligent design abstinance only programs? What do you think those are besides agendas by certain groups to control the belief systems of a larger mass? Don't point fingers when plenty of issues come right back on us.

So the problem isn't that one company is trying to do business in a country with strict guidelines and laws. The problem is we need something to focus on the take our minds off what's going on in our own territory. Plus, the whole debacle about "Don't Be Evil" just fuels the fire. Of course Google is under attack while others like Yahoo and Microsoft get overlooked. They are companies in their own rights. Fine. No one expects a company to have strong moral values so why is it that Google is set to a higher standard? Well, in part because Google was built to be seen as a human rather than a company. Shocking when what you see isn't always what you get.

Is this really an issue of morals and obligation or simply a diversionary tactic? Will the impacts of a few who pulled out of AdSense and those who declared to switch to another search engine hold much weight or will the masses continue to flock to Google because of all search engines it appears to give the best results?

Google is a company. The founders are billionaires. Investors have gained much and will continue to do so. China is a big market with lots of potential granting the right company plays by all the rules. Is anyone surprised or is it something to do as we enter the slow months of summer? Everyone likes a good blockbuster. Once again Google delivers.