Dvorak Scores Insulting Award from CWA Dingbats

Published on December 13th, 2005

Concerned Women for America – CWA Announces 2005 Prince of Pomposity Winner — This is rich, me and Al Gore painted with the same brush. I’m demanding a plaque or something. I’ll probably have to go to the t-shirt shop for a “All I got for the Pomposity Award was this lousy t-shirt.”

Here we were nearing the end of 2005 and Concerned Women for America (CWA) didn’t have a winner for our annual “Prince of Pomposity’ (PP) award. But as happens in this magical season, our Prince appeared in the nick of time.

It seems Dvorak is all scrooged-up because, like Al Gore, a previous PP winner who “invented” the Internet, Dvorak was expecting ubiquitous acclaim once ICANN approved his “creation.” So rather than having a civil discussion with me after reading my column, Dvorak spilled some yellow ink on us in his column Ubiquitous Porn: Alive on the Net, which was also posted on the Web sites of Fox News and ABC News.

And if you want to read something that actually is pompous, then read the entire press release. Talk about an exercise in narcissism. But they did win this round.

32 users responded in " Dvorak Scores Insulting Award from CWA Dingbats "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Eideard said, on December 13th, 2005 at 11:37 am

Having wandered by the CWA site for the first [and last, I hope] time, John, I’d have to say Congratulations for the “award”.

First, seeing your post, I figured maybe I misses some new activist women’s organization — since I hadn’t heard of the CWA. Now, I understand why. They should be called something like Christian Women for Clerical Fascism.

# 2 Michael P. O'Connor said, on December 13th, 2005 at 11:45 am

This puts me in an odd postion, first I did not know that CWA were against the .xxx domain, I did know Focus on the Family was (I also bashed FF of that) [Also I should note here, I am a Ultra-Conservative Christian] I like Dvorak’s writings (I don’t always agree with him) I also think CWA do, do good for america, well from what I have heard from them when they have been on one of my Favorit Talk shows (Issues Etc.)

I have supported the xxx top level domain since I hear of it (http://blog.mikeoconnor.net/?postid=522 for some thoughts I had on it, and a friends of mine responces to what I was saying)

# 3 Bob said, on December 13th, 2005 at 12:01 pm

Now I am a conservative, and I dont always agree with some of your colums but my goodness, you sir get a standing ovation. I can see only positives for having the *.xxx TLD. Also dropping you in the same sentece as gore is instant awsome. Keep up the pompus writing.

# 4 James Hill said, on December 13th, 2005 at 12:13 pm

Two replies in one:

1. These were the women in college who didn’t shave, and now they’re angry and looking for revenge.

2. When both the far left and the far right in this country agree on something, take the opposite position.

# 5 Luís Camacho said, on December 13th, 2005 at 12:19 pm

Congratulations! X-D

Yeah, you’re the man and that’s why I love your blog and columns.

# 6 Adam said, on December 13th, 2005 at 12:39 pm

From the CWA article:

“All that’s necessary to get to a Web site that’s blocked by a filter is to put its numeric IP address into the Web browser and hit ‘go.’”

Wouldn’t it be just as easy for a filter software maker to scan all .xxx domains and then block those ip addresses directly. That would know out the .com, .net, etc sites too. Seems like they’re advocating making it harder to identify this stuff.

How odd.

# 7 RTaylor said, on December 13th, 2005 at 12:44 pm

I have a friend from the UK, Manchester I believe. He once found himself with a similar honor. He replied, ” As for your comments I’ll take the high road, for you lot have pretty much buggered up the low one”.

# 8 Sounds the Alarm said, on December 13th, 2005 at 1:02 pm

Now James, thats cold.

Of course they shaved – its just that you couldn’t tell the difference.

# 9 Ima Fish said, on December 13th, 2005 at 1:06 pm

Jan LaRue’s main (and really only) argument against the .XXX domain appears to be that porn sites can currently use both .XXX and .com. Thus it would not really clean up the .com domain at all.

I agree with her completely. However, what she fails to realize is that in order to get porn sites off the .com domain there first has to be a place to put them. Thus, the first step is creating the .XXX domain. The second step is having jurisdictions create laws which move porn over to it.

If the .XXX domain was created right now the move wouldn’t happen over night. But it won’t happen at all until the .XXX domain, or something similar, is created and implemented.

# 10 hawks5999 said, on December 13th, 2005 at 1:16 pm

Funny. I’m one of the people they refer to as writing to them after reading Dvorak’s article. They make a big deal about Dvorak making some implication that they are women needing the leadership of a man or some such nonsense (I never got that from Dvorak…). But in response to my email, I got a reply from a man, Bob Knight. Weird.

# 11 Dale Huber said, on December 13th, 2005 at 1:23 pm

As to that tee shirt, can you get Leo to put it out there for sale with the other stuff he never made available (like the “I get no spam” hat) on his site.

# 12 garym said, on December 13th, 2005 at 1:35 pm

John! U da Man!

Seriously though.

I have long been a proponent of the .XXX TDL, and it continually amazes me that organizations like CWA can’t see past their own righteousness to see how much easier it would be to controll online pornography with it as opposed to now.

I will admit that I am one of the followers who “share Dvorak’s opinion that we are ‘naïve do-gooders’” and ‘knuckleheads,’ and suspect that ‘pornographers themselves are behind’ our opposition.” I sent the CWA my own lengthy email congratulating them on their ” ‘Victory’ of keeping the .xxx top-level domain from coming to be. Unfortunately, your victory is truly a victory for the pornographers, not for family values.”

Instead of replying to my email directly though, they sent me a copy of the press release awarding you their coveted Prince of Pomposity award. (It must be coveted…Al Gore has one!)

Congrats, maybe next year you can be the first two-time winner…or is that weiner?

# 13 Linux_Rocks said, on December 13th, 2005 at 2:03 pm

XD Congrats John.

# 14 Steph said, on December 13th, 2005 at 3:10 pm

Congratulations, but come on. This is just another day in the life of John C. Dvorak.

# 15 Incognito said, on December 13th, 2005 at 3:23 pm

He gets no spam wenches!

.XXX FTW!

# 16 Rick Pali said, on December 13th, 2005 at 4:52 pm

I too wrote and also received the press release. What really blows my mind is that the organization’s legal counsel would allow herself to stoop to personal insults. A critic or editorial writer speaks for themself, but a representative speaks for the entire organization and all members. If someone, writing on behalf of any organization I were a member of, wrote something like Jan LaRue, I’d be writing my membership cancellation immediately after finishing reading their message.

LaRue simply displays that she’s the type of person who has to ‘win’ and get in the last word. Good on you, John, for saying your piece and laughing at the result. Many would respond in kind…and the CWA are simply not worth your time.

What immediately struck me is that they’re giving John a “Prince of Pomposity” award, yet she signs her name with an Esq. Pot…kettle on line two.

It also strikes me this award is fundamentally sexist…unless they’re keeping the princess awards for themselves.

# 17 Rick Pali said, on December 13th, 2005 at 4:55 pm

And they’ve removed the article Jan wrote bestowing the honour on you! Even their site’s link to it is broken. Maybe the people in charge saw what she did and gave her the boot for making them all look bad.

# 18 Bryan Jones said, on December 13th, 2005 at 6:41 pm

Wow, im a conservative and even I think that these women are nuts. Groups like this make all conservatives look like bible banging prudes. Apparenently Ms. LaRue has very little knowledge on how the internet works, and how viral porn advertising has gotten so bad in the first place. Pornographers have no desire to market their product to “impressionable children” because the kids can’t pay for it anyway. I don’t know of too many 13 year olds with a credit card. What buisness markets its product to those who are unable to buy it. I know that there is free porn on the net, but the .xxx domain would make it easier for parents to keep track of their kids in the first place. After all, controlling what a kid sees on the net is the job of the parent anyway. All kids will see porn sometime. There was porn way before the advent of the net.

# 19 David Costin said, on December 13th, 2005 at 10:40 pm

Rats! No .xxx domain … now I’ll have no place to post my raunchy Esq. LaRue photos, looks like I’ll just have to put them up somewhere, like, Yahoo or Flicker. Network Solutions says I could however be the proud owner of CWFA.cc, CWFA.bz, CWFA.tv, CWFA.ws, CWFA.de, CWFA.co.uk, or CWFA.name.

# 20 GregAllen said, on December 14th, 2005 at 12:00 am

I’m an evangelical Christian and I have seen the wisdom of an XXX domain since I first surfed the net.

It comes from my own personal experience… I was at work, surfing inside AOL (assuming I was safe) and I clicked on a link AND WENT STRAIGHT TO PORN!

(I worked for a Christian organization)

THEN I realized that a co-worker was looking over my shoulder! She saw the whole thing. I was horrified but — thankfully — she kept her mouth shut about it.

I thought then that porn needs to have its own place on the Internet where it can exist legally but easily be blocked from situations where it is inappropriate. .

Besides the XXX … I think there should be an embedded tag in pictures and video clips that identifies itself as porn. That would help when the pictures inevitably get passed out of the XXX domain.

I might be naive but I assume that most pornographers DON’T WANT to get in legal trouble by getting into schools or where ever.

If there was an easy way to imbed an “XXX” tag in their pictures, most would do it, even if it’s just legal CYA.

# 21 site admin said, on December 14th, 2005 at 12:51 am

Looks like it is still posted…try again!

# 22 TakeIT2 said, on December 14th, 2005 at 4:03 am

Ruth Parasol made $1.8 billion on PartyPoker.com and had her start in Porn. While Jan LaRue, Esq. is busy with their proselytizing real women are out working. Women work in all kinds of Professional capacities though it seems some professions, their charms and their influence can be made so tawdry by petty jealousy. It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes between lawyers and prostitutes, especially when they are screamers. Sometimes we think thee doth protest too loudly. Kinda makes you wonder who’s sleeping with the enemy. If BS walks and money talks you have to wonder as well who has more influence at ICANN. If the .xxx domain was to be the ghetto paradise saving grace of the Internet we might have another woman to thank for getting us kicked out of it. And people complain there are not enough women in tech. Will the real women of tech please stand up

# 23 Ellis Strange said, on December 14th, 2005 at 4:48 am

What can I say in congratulations on your award that hasn’t been said. The CWA has made you a model of everything anyone could hope to be. Of course the Gore analogy is a little unfortunate but what the hell – could have been a Bush analogy.

# 24 AB CD said, on December 14th, 2005 at 8:55 am

How would a .xxx domain work? Does this ban porn from the rest of the net, and if so how are you deciding what goes where? Seems like it would get thrown out with the other laws.

# 25 ryno said, on December 14th, 2005 at 9:08 am

Their site, I believe, makes the case that all extreme right-wingers who want to marry church and state so we can live in a more fascist society – their sites must have a .bible or .bbl domain. This way, I could block their narrow minded rhetoric from my kids eyes.
“Why do you need to be saved?” – PLEASE – more like “Why do you need to be saved from our lack of vision and independent thought?”

# 26 Pat said, on December 14th, 2005 at 10:46 am

ryno,
I like the way you think.
hawks,
Why did you assume that “Bob” is a man? He / she could be a man in name only.

Let’s get something clear and dispel a myth. Gore never claimed to have “invented the Internet”. He helped foster and promote the concept as a legislator, which is what he said.. I would think though, given Gore’s honesty and track record, that to be given the same award would truly be an honor. I would much rather share the smallest award with Gore then all the “awards” of dubya.

# 27 Mark said, on December 14th, 2005 at 1:05 pm

John,
I am a Christian and would like to apologize for our lack of education. It seems the worst of us often get the platform. However, I would like to challenge you to really keep and open mind, not one in theory only. It is easy to find a mistake and paint all positions with the same brush. Not all that we support is illogical.
For instance? Creationism vs. Evolution. You mentioned it in your blog. No science, right? Tell that to Anthony Flew, the eminent British Atheist. He recently became a Deist, not a Christian, mind you, but a convert to belief that something more than impersonal forces created the world. Why? The science has led him to do so. It seems that life is so precariously balanced in this universe that many cosmologists are coming to the conclusion that the Universe was “tuned” for life, Dr. Flew included. I can only applaud a great intellect for real open-mindedness. However, I realize that many of us have pushed true seekers away because of our lack of thinking. May your mind remain open for truth.

# 28 site admin said, on December 14th, 2005 at 2:10 pm

Mark, I don’t take these things too seriously. I get more flak from regular readers regarding just about anything. When I write vitreolic material I have to expect return fire. This was pretty funny. I’m going to demand a plaque though!

# 29 AB CD said, on December 14th, 2005 at 9:54 pm

>Let’s get something clear and dispel a myth. Gore never claimed to >have “invented the Internet”.

Yeah, that’s because he said:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

And he wasn’t even in Congress when DARPA was creating the internet.

He also took credit for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and claimed to have discovered Love Canal. Then there’s his Vietnam war stories that never happened, and claiming to have fought tobacco ever since his sister’s death.

# 30 mike Cannali said, on December 15th, 2005 at 5:18 am

You should propose this as an general architecture for the individual’s personal elective selection or rejection of information based on content at the desktop. The concept applies to more than rejection or acceptance based on XXX. There are legitmate reasons why essential and emergency services would need catagorization of content on the server side as well.

# 31 mike Cannali said, on December 15th, 2005 at 5:28 am

I never liked Gore – always found him stiff and boring – but let’s be fair. I saw the complete audio of his remarks on how he “got it” early and helped push for funding for the Internet. His creating the Internet remarks were taken out of context – how unusual in politics.

# 32 AB CD said, on December 15th, 2005 at 6:59 am

Umm, Gore wasn’t in Congress to do anything when the internet was being invented. That he was merely excited about the technology and was trying to attach himself to it is possible, but given his claims about Love Canal and the tax credit, as well as fighting in Vietnam(when he was a journalist,) I think lying is the best explanation.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!