10.19.01
Pop-up from the Pulpit
-- OR --
Osama bin Laid

It could happen the next time you fly. It could happen the next time you open a letter. It could happen the next time you're at a ball game. It could even happen the next time you check your email in-box. The threat of enemy attack is imminent. It's just a good thing we have the Christian Coalition to assist us in our fight against evil.

Perhaps you didn't realize that the family-friendly lobbying group was also such a strong ally on the homeland security front. As told in a 10/8 PR Week story, a pop-up ad window appearing on the organization's website recently read, "The tragic terrorist attacks are driving home a very painful lesson for every American. We must make it our top priority to safeguard our own cities and towns from an insidious enemy."

The trouble is, the CC's idea of an enemy isn't necessarily what you may expect. It's not terrorism, or Osama bin Laden, or any of the villains of the day. It's pornography. Yes, as the site user was soon to discover, the "insidious enemy" is "pictures of naked people on the Web," according to the PR Week piece (Pop-up porn rant poorly presented).

A visit to the group's anti-smut Web sanctuary by The Lowbrow Lowdown Lackeys revealed that the pop-up copy no longer lures site visitors through misleading text (also a common practice of pornography pushers). Instead it reads, "Special Report: How Pornography Is Attacking Our Families (Click for Details)."

Sure, at first glance, Pat Robertson and his flock seem to have gone a bit overboard with the pop-up ad. But maybe, just maybe, they're on to something. Perhaps there is a direct correlation between the evils of pornography and the lascivious lifestyles that foster Taliban-sanctioned terrorism. Think about it: reporters say Osama and crew live in caves, but they're not caves. They're pleasure dens. When the media claim that these al Qaeda training camps are teaching troops to fire "stinger missiles," don't be fooled. The term "stinger missile" is a euphemism for the most potent, powerful weapon of all: the love gun, people, the penis! As for those Afghani women who shroud themselves from head-to-toe in burkas, do you know what they've got under all that concealing clothing? Nothing -- that's right! Those harlots are completely nude under there! And that supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar: that tale about him losing an eye after being hit by Soviet shrapnel is a fallacy! We all know why he really went blind. You guessed it: too much masturbation!

So, maybe if the U.S. Government funnels fewer funds into military operations and this so-called "homeland security" and more money into the war against pornography, we can truly rid the world of the evil-doers. Of course, posting the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court chambers wouldn't hurt either.

Cape Canaveral Commercialism
-- OR --
Hey, Mr. Space Salesman

They hobnob with North Korea. They even make deals to sell weapons to Iran and build nuclear power plants for them. Despite this, we Americans insist on following Russia's lead in outer space.

In fact, now we're following their lead when it comes to commercializing space. According to a 10/7 CNN.com report, a NASA draft document entitled, "Enhanced Strategy for the Development of Space Commerce" indicates that the administration would seek "family friendly corporate sponsors," to promote the international space station as a tourist destination and push the NASA brand through merchandise sales. "The plan also proposes stronger ties with the entertainment industry to boost the space program; creation of a logo for the international space station similar to the approach of the International Olympic Committee; and hiring of a nongovernment organization to manage the U.S. side of the space station," as noted in the article.

Although NASA is still finalizing the policy, folks are weighing-in on the issue. Alluding to what the story calls a "$4.5 billion cost overrun" in NASA's space station project, Rick Tumlinson, president of the Space Frontier Foundation opines, "They've totally blown the management of the international space station, and so they're kind of like looking for what I call million-dollar solutions to billion-dollar problems."

Executive director of the National Space Society, Pat Dasch comments, "…we don't think NASA engaging in commercial deals is what this is supposed to be about…."NASA is not supposed to be bailing itself out. It's supposed to create a climate for commercial space business."

"Space tourism is not a role for the federal government. This needs to be a private sector endeavor," adds NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin (who, by the way, recently announced his resignation).

Apparently, NASA won't be allowing just any old rich dude with a childhood dream to reserve space shuttle seats. Instead, they're looking for "payload specialists," i.e. researchers.

Well, it was only a matter of time before outer space became a commercial district. I guess those old Marvin the Martian Looney Tunes cartoons featuring planets plastered with "Eat at Joes" signs were more prescient than we thought. Hey, in a few hundred years, space marketing consultants and inter-orbital ad network execs will look back and laugh at the naysayers who worried about the commercial corruption of the great beyond.

As for the here and now, I'm more concerned with the safety of space travel and tourism. I mean, on these flights to the international space station, will the doors to mission control be secure? Will space marshals be present to protect shuttle passengers? And most important, will there be launch pad-side check-in?

Daylight Come and Me Want a Website
-- OR --
Inhumane Domain Gain?

Mere days after September 11, scores of home-recorded tunes commemorating the events flooded their way into radio station mailrooms across the country. Some were patriotic, some narrative, and some just plain silly. It seemed as though one in five four-track recordings was a parody of the Harry Belafonte hit, Day-O/Banana Boat Song, replacing "tally mon" with "Taliban." (Hey, I'll admit: just last night I found myself absent-mindedly singing "Osama" to the tune of the Oak Ridge Boys', Elvira. It wasn't a proud moment.)

The cover song craze was understandable: after all, who had the wherewithal to come up with a catchy melody at such a time? Still, many were so overwhelmed with the situation, it was difficult to fathom concentrating on anything at all, much less songwriting.

Apparently, some folks were able to distance themselves from the immobilizing shock, confusion and grief, even as the twin towers toppled, and take action. I'm not talking about the rescue workers who dropped everything to drive from far-flung regions of the U.S. to assist at Ground Zero; nor am I referring to the countless souls who manned make-shift donation drop-off centers or offered up their precious blood for the good of a neighbor. I'm talking about those stoic individuals who hastened to register domain names that relate to the terror that was unfolding around them.

Yes, as featured in a 10/1 Salon.com story, a throng of enterprising people around the world had the same disturbing notion: "Hmmm…the world trade center is on fire and people are dying. What can I do? I know! I'll get a domain name."

"I knew that if I was going to do anything, I was going to have to act fast," recalls Connecticut resident, Jim Burke, in the report. He scored "wtccrash.com." It was his second choice though. Worldtradecentercrash.com had already been taken by a quicker-acting slime-ball.

"Over the course of the morning," notes Salon, "as new developments were reported, registrants snapped up hundreds of new names, all variations on the same grim themes."

From wtcplanecrash.com and pentagonattack.com to getosama.com and nukeafghanistan.com, one Network Solutions search led to another. In their hysteria, folks even resorted to purchasing .net domains. Many, according to the article, are "implicitly or explicitly for sale."

For a lark, The Lowbrow Lowdown Lackeys visited a number of the domains mentioned in the Salon piece. They also came up with a few of their own to visit, including september11.com, osamasucks.com, screwosama.com and ourgriefisnotacryforwar.org. The result was unimpressive if not unsurprising. Most sites are either "under construction" or "not found." A few domains hold actual websites. Nukeafghanistan.com declares, "This is a 'semi' moderated discussion site, relating to issues concerning the current mid east conflict surrounding Afghanistan war, terrorism involving WTC and possible future threats." September112001.com displays a bloated, incorrectly sized image of the white house and links to news, charity organization sites, etc. Some, as noted in the Salon story, re-direct to porn sites.

And they say everything has changed since September 11th....

Let's disregard the obvious cold-hearted quality of this phenomenon and focus on the misguided mind that thinks owning a domain name based on some recent occurrence, or any topic for that matter, will automatically garner profits and site visitors. The thing is, the average Web user who's looking for information related to the events of September 11th and the subsequent happenings won't just enter some arbitrary title into his browser. He'll visit CNN.com, NPR.org or whatever his news source of choice may be. Think of it this way: when you want to know who invented the Cobb salad, do you blindly go to cobbsalad.com? Of course you don't. You visit your favorite search engine and search on the key words "cobb," "salad," and "history" or "inventor." Sure, the occasional bored loser is apt to type a conjured-up domain name into a browser to see what comes up. But, overall, this domain registration rush seems to have been for naught. There is little indication that the domain owners have followed up on their September 11th shopping spree by selling the domains or creating sites.

Whether or not they aimed to profit from their purchases, I'm glad they (evidently) have not. However, I am curious about where this phenomenon could lead for the folks who partook in this detached act of commerce. If their knee-jerk reaction to catastrophic events becomes automatic domain name registration, I hope tragedy never strikes them on a personal level. As if things aren't depressing enough lately, can you imagine a Web full of sites named things like, "BingoBitTheDust.com," "MarieJustLeftTomForAnotherChick.com" or "BobsHemorrhoidsWontLetUp.com"? Now that's what I call rough.

Public Station Degeneration
-- OR --
Digital Downfall

If you're like me, the thought of more stations running PBS programming like The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and NOVA is promising (well, OK, maybe not those Mark Russell "comedy" specials). When the heightened quality of digital transmission is thrown into the mix, it's even more impressive. Toss in the recent FCC decision regarding additional public television channels, however, and pop goes the bubble.

Recently, The Federal Communications Commission voted that when it comes to the five or six new digital public TV channels, "rules banning advertising on over-the-air noncommercial educational stations didn't apply," according to a 10/12 Wall Street Journal article (FCC to Let Public TV Stations Run Ads on Some of Their New Digital Channels, by Mark Wigfield). In fact, these new stations are also "subject to the same 5% tax on any revenue that commercial broadcasters will have to pay."

A peek at the official FCC release reveals that it might not be as scary as it seems. The ad prohibition still applies to broadcast programming, but not to "any ancillary or supplementary services presented on their excess DTV channels that do not constitute broadcasting." In laymen's terms, ancillary or supplementary services include stuff like "computer software distribution, data transmissions, teletext, interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, audio signals, and subscription video."

Congress has mandated that digital conversion be in effect by 2003, but only about 11% of public stations have accomplished this thus far. So, since they've got to cough up some serious dough to do this digital deviation, the FCC is hoping that ad revenue from the new stations will contribute to the coffers. The fact remains that the "substantial majority" of what public stations, including the new ones, are required to pump out must be noncommercial and educational.

This could be a good thing for shows like Nightly Business Report, which, as noted in the Journal story, may be able to offer extended programming and a Spanish-language version as a result of ad revenue. Still, even FCC Commissioner Michael Copps believes that the ruling "has the potential to warp the nation's image of public television and to endanger the identity and even the viability of a national treasure."

Speaking of public TV and endangered identity, the likeness of one of America's favorite PBS stars, Sesame Street's Bert, has been popping up in pro-Osama bin Laden propaganda images lately (check out the Yahoo! News story). Is Bert a bin Laden supporter? Who knows? But if public TV had been subject to more commercial influence in the past, we may have seen Bert featured in Pokemon and Nike propaganda pieces by now. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure whether that's much better.