Chips in kid's brains? "Mark of the Beast"???

[Laura]

disguising the truth as conjecture?


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/436828p-368077c.html

Hil frets chips will
be put in kids' brains

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Madison Ave. ad execs are so bent on taking control of America's children, they'd put computer chips in kids' brains if they could, Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday.

Saying advertisers have found so many new ways to get at kids through video games and the Internet, Clinton warned that we're verging on a society out of a grim science fiction novel.

"At the rate that technology is advancing, people will be implanting chips in our children to advertise directly into their brains and tell them what kind of products to buy," Clinton said at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The New York Democrat said the country was performing a "massive experiment" on kids who average more than six hours a day with media and advertising, soaking it up through TV, computers, games and iPods. She said the fastest growing advertising market is the 6- and under set, and that children's health is already being hurt by products like Camel's candy-flavored cigarettes and junk food sold with tips for video games - used to sell more junk food.

"People are spending billions and billions of dollars enticing children basically to be obsessed with food," she said. "These foods are almost universally unhealthy." Clinton has offered legislation to study the effects of the "advertising-saturated, media-intense" world on kids.

Robert Thompson, a professor of pop culture at Syracuse University, said Clinton and other politicians like to attack advertising because it's easier than trying to ban bad food products or fund broad education programs.

"To go after advertising really makes no sense," he said. "It's sort of a backdoor tack, but it's the safer one politically."

Originally published on July 21, 2006

 

[anart]

vent=on
Hideous Clinton is saying this? I wonder if she came up with these ideas as she was driving from one Israeli lobbyist meeting to another, or perhaps in between her 'continue and expand the war' meetings? She and Condalizzard would make a nice couple. Apologies for the bitter sarcasm, but after the last week's events, I'm so thoroughly and totally disgusted and sickened with american politicians that it's difficult for me to even breath - much less read about their inane activities designed to distract and hint at what our future most probably holds.
Of course advertising to children, the food we feed our children, and our society in general is a major, major problem, but, come on - what say we focus on the people getting blown apart by not only our policy, but OUR weapons right now - what say we stop pretending that it's not happening - what say we put as much energy into saving that little girl who just got blown apart on the other side of the world as we pretend to put into protecting little Johnny and Suzy from the corporations that line our own pockets. 'Hideous' knows darn well that if it came down to it and corporations started implanting chips in children, that she would be lined up to tell us all how beneficial it is for the children, as long as those corporations involved continued to line her pockets.

Gahhd - it's all just so nauseating. /vent

Whoa - I think I may have just 'cracked' a bit - sorry.

 

[Russ]

What Hillary fails to mention is that these types of things are usually implemented under the guise of it being beneficial in some way. I think its only a matter of time before children are being microchipped for the perpose of parents tracking their children - so that they can't go missing. Of course it sounds really good, because as soon as your child goes missing for a few hours, you can just get the tracking device out and know where your child is.

But would it be removed when the child is old enough NOT to be tracked? Doubtful.

So it may serve as an introduction - "look, microchipping isn't so bad, look at how it is benefitting us". Right now, I think people are wary about any form of microchipping (except in their pets of course, which is another introduction - "look, it doesn't harm them").

What would the next step be, after tracking? How about learning - "you saw the benefits of tracking, now there is the learning chip". "Is your child doing badly at school? Then get the pentium brain booster and see their grades change overnight". "do you want to please your boss? Get this chip and you will fly through your work like a knife through butter". "Want a better imagination...." etc.

So I think it does start off with people like Hillary voicing their "concern", but its all about "selling" the chip, I think. Later on, Hillary will be "proven wrong", and so will all the people that "agreed" with her. I suppose this is why people should think for themselves, instead of just listening to other people. So, she'll be proven wrong - "chips aren't bad, we'll draw up some kind of agreement, so that you're not allowed to advertise, that will stop any problems". But advertisement isn't the worst thing, really. Its the way people think. And if you "supercharge" this way of thinking, advertising becomes more powerful, and doesn't need to be done with the chip, the chip just enhances the power of external advertisements. Such as - an enhanced imagination which could be used to imagine how good that car would be, or how nice a burger will taste, and increase desire. Then there is the fear that it could produce, and the guilt.

Maybe I'm wrong but it looks like this is one of those things where someone speaks out about something, for the very perpose of having their concerns publically nulified, so that people who look to others (like Hillary) for "knowledge" will also have their "concerns" nullified, because their "source" of concerns has been. Does that make sense? :D