Dear Big Content,

I love your movies. Especially the ones that are all s’plodey and where stuff flies off the screen. And I love your records, the Led Zeppelin catalog in particular. I’ve always been a good customer: I don’t infringe, and I’m loyal to a fault. But I do have a few questions for you.

First, why do you treat me and my friends like punks? We buy your stuff. But you make it really hard to do it in a way that fits with our digital reality. I’m looking at you, movie and TV peeps. You really want me to accept the violation of a decades-old consumer compact whereby we could rent a movie on the same day it was available to purchase? Do you really think that making me wait TWO MONTHS to be able to rent Mars Needs Moms on DVD (I’m not even talking streaming) is going to drive me into Best Buy to plunk down for the petrochemical disc? Do you secretly like piracy? Because that’s exactly what you’re encouraging.

And music guys: how come you create the conditions where there are only three companies that can afford to offer your wares? Do you know how much fucking money you’re leaving on the table by clinging to your prehistoric licensing terms? Once upon a time there was this disruptive, infringing technology called radio. Completely freaked song publishers out. They wanted to force every broadcaster to pay an individually negotiated amount for every spin. In hindsight, that seems not only inefficient but imbecilic. Maybe the government needs to step up and prod you goofballs towards more internet-friendly terms. I bet you could even keep your car service! Now, I know that you fought the phonograph. And the CD. And the MP3. But you don’t have much fight left in you. So the time to get your shit together is probably now. And yes, me and my friends will be paying VERY close attention to make sure that the artist splits are fair. Because frankly, I’m not all that convinced that you’re providing much value anymore. Consider this your opportunity to be cut into the future while you still have a chance.

And would you please get a basic grasp of how the internet works? Why are you so keen to demonize an entire class of technology? Let’s take search for example. I can look up a recipe to make hash brownies. Or I can look up a recipe to make regular brownies. Now, we all know that those criminal scumbags offering the former must be dealt with in the severest possible manner. But what you’re proposing is like blowing up the entire library because you don’t like that the card catalog system tells you which shelf has the book on hash brownies. Are you really this boneheaded? I get that you’re jealous about Google making bajillions from search. But is that a reason to compromise a mechanism upon which millions of global internet users rely? I guess it’s true what they say: the entertainment industry isn’t all about the money — it’s about ALL the money.

Also, could you please stop pretending that the SOPA/PIPA debacle was about Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood? (Or, as you prefer to characterize it, homespun creators vs. Google.) Literally millions of internet users — many of them copyright holders — had issues with your overreaching bills. They didn’t jump into a controversial intellectual property debate because they wanted to. They felt compelled to, due to the fact that big-money industry lobbying groups like yours were attempting to speak for them.

So kindly cut it out.

I want to be your friend. But you don’t make it easy. The arrogance, belligerence and outright bullying that you employ is hardly endearing yourselves to an entire new generation of creators and rightsholders. If I wasn’t so goddamn genteel, I’d go ahead and list some of that stuff. But unlike you, I have a modicum of class.

Consider this a friendly bit of advice from someone who cares. The road you’re going down leads to disaster and heartbreak. But it’s not too late to turn around.

Your pal,
Casey

One of the reasons I haven’t been posting much is that I’m spending every spare bit of my energy trying to make sure a pair of ill-conceived pieces of legislation do not become law (at least in their current form). The bills in question are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives, and the PROTECT-IP Act in the Senate. (Of the two, SOPA is the worst.)

Now, both of these proposals could be considered well-intentioned, but their language is dangerously overbroad and could have serious implications on free speech, innovation and cybersecurity. I won’t bore you with the details, because I have a broader point to make. (Here’s my favorite analysis of the bills’ scope and provisions, if you’re curious.)

What pisses me off most is that there’s likely another way to achieve the bills’ goals — namely, combating foreign sites that traffic in unauthorized American intellectual property. Yet these alternatives are largely being ignored by a Congress eager to simply hand the internet over to Hollywood. And can say with certainty that these folks are always happy to restrict speech and quash competition in the name of preserving an antiquated business model.

In an agonizing twist of irony, Congress’ mad rush to codify online censorship is in direct opposition to the American government’s efforts to promote informational freedom abroad. This article in Slate expertly explains the discontinuity.

There is a recurring theme in terms of how recent legislation is being crafted. We’re seeing deliberate loopholes that don’t explicitly detail how your liberties will be restricted, but nonetheless establish the conditions under which such outcomes are not only possible, but likely.

Take for example, the highly controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Steve Benen has an excellent analysis about whether this law would allow for the permanent detention of American citizens.

Not to compare apples to oranges, but I was struck by the following disclaimer in NDAA:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Oh, good! Then there’s NO WAY a court could interpret this statute as giving the president the option of indefinitely detaining without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism!

This deliberate-loophole doublespeak reminds me of the opening renunciation in SOPA (emphasis mine):

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

That must mean that there can be absolutely NO WAY that any portion of a site that is “avoiding confirming a high probability” of infringement could be blocked by the US attorney general or have its commercial transactions halted on the mere accusation of infringement (the latter without any due process, and and with an impossibly narrow window for recourse). I feel so much better now!

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

To go any further would require a level of legal analysis that would likely put you in a coma. So I’ll close with this hopefully straightforward statement: American civil liberties are currently under threat, and our elected officials have abdicated their fundamental responsibility to safeguard these basic freedoms.

And that should scare the shit out of you.

When Zainab Bibi’s husband threatened to rape her daughter, she took things into her own hands… and oven. Although her husband had never acted on his twisted desires, he had made suggestive comments when drunk. As Bibi states, “I killed my husband before he dared to touch my daughter.”

She never planned to eat him, apparently. The husband-korma was merely a way to dispose of the corpse. Bibi said she was going to dispose of the “mystery meat,” telling people it was spoiled. Her plan ultimately backfired when neighbors complained of the stench, leading police to investigate.  It has also been suggested that Ahmed Abbas was planning to take a second wife, which complicates the narrative.

How to respond to Bibi’s actions, particularly after the Penn State scandal in which adults utterly failed to report the abuse that was going on under their noses (to say nothing of the Catholic Church’s decades-long indifference to sexually abused children)? Why didn’t Bibi report her husband to the police? Her husband, whose side of the story we will never hear, did not rape his stepdaughter. And, no matter how degrading polygamy is to a woman—if that was indeed a motive behind the killing—does it warrant a death sentence?

But let’s give Bibi the benefit of the doubt and assume she acted out of a desire to save her daughter Sonia from sexual assault. Could Bibi really have turned to the police for protection? Or, what if she’d ignored her husband’s comments and her daughter was raped? What kind of justice would Sonia have received under the Pakistani legal system?

Not much, according to blogger Sana Saleem, who recently published an excellent article called “Your Rape Culture is not My Religion.” The 1996 abolishment of the Hudood Laws (which required the presence of four witnesses to prove a rape occurred) has faced continued opposition by the political party Jamaat-i-Islami. Theoretically, the “women protection” legislation introduced the same year encourages victims to come forward and prosecute their rapists provided there is medical and forensic evidence. Yet, prominent Jamaat-i-Islami member Munawar Hasan argued on TV that a victim “should keep quiet if she has no witnesses.” This guy makes John Boehner look like Gloria Steinem.

As Saleem argues, it is unthinkable that those who witness a rape would not come forward, if not stopping the assault from happening in the first place. Therefore, the four witnesses requirement is “irrational and absurd.” She adds, “the callously flaunted idea that women use rape as a tool for popularity, fame, and money or simply to attack Islamic principles is devoid of logic. For all we know, taking a rapist to court in Pakistan can put you behind bars, after dealing with the severe moral policing, of course.” It is likely Bibi knew all this when she committed the crime.

Although Bibi’s actions were extreme and vigilantism is not to be applauded, they make a kind of grim sense, given Pakistani women’s lack of social and legal equality. As Mark Twain wrote, “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I’ve read many an obituary with pleasure.”

Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” – Luke, 20-21

I have a cousin who is a born-again Christian. I haven’t seen her in years, but she is, of course, on Facebook. Recently, I came across one of her status updates, compelling the OWS protesters to “occupy a job,” and poking fun at the mass arrests. Now, this sentiment doesn’t seem particularly Jesus-like to me, but then again, I am entirely confused by contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.

I’m also fascinated by the shift from the social gospel and its emphasis on community and cooperation to the me-first, “Jesus-as-life-coach” culture of modern evangelicals. And I’m scared shitless by their political influence. (There is some great literature on the subject, including a book I’ve recommended before, The Family, by Jeff Sharlet.)

Even more mind-boggling to me is that another Facebook acquaintance, a self-professed LaVeyan Satanist, made a comment on my wall in defense of my cousin’s initial statement. He used five economical words: “She’s right. Deal with it.” Then he proceeded to unfriend me.

Isn’t it interesting that the contemporary evangelical movement espouses the same moral perspective as a religion whose express purpose is to eliminate Christianity? Both groups owe a tremendous amount to Ayn Rand, and preach individuality above self-sacrifice. That’s fine for Satanists, as their beliefs reflect no internal contradictions. But how does any of this jive with the Gospel of Christ?

Clearly, it doesn’t.

The Jesus of the Bible railed against money-lenders and “redistributed” loaves and fish to the hungry. He tended to the needy and sick. Moreover, he encouraged others to do the same.

Compare that to the sweeping push by those aligned with the evangelical movement to eliminate social programs meant to aid our society’s most needy. These are the same folks who loudly and proudly tout their so-called “Christian values” and claim a moral high ground.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Mark, 10:21-25

Let’s see here… Jesus instructed his disciples to redistribute their personal, material wealth to the poor as a key means to entering the Kingdom of God. It’s right there in the Bible. I hope I don’t need to mention that Jesus freely healed the sick with no regard to “pre-existing conditions” like leprosy.

These teachings were carried on by the disciples after Jesus’ crucifixion. It would be amazing if the Christians of today were to take them to heart instead of celebrating the suppression of speech and liberty.

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? – James, 2:1-7

To me, the more frustrating thing than the outright hypocrisy is the unwillingness to engage in even moderate self-reflection. No need to account for your actions, no reason to adjust your personal behavior to be more in line with the articles of your supposed faith. The act of becoming “born-again” simply guarantees your place at the Lord’s table. I can see why this belief system is attractive, as it requires practically zero effort. But it is absolutely not in keeping with Jesus’ actual teachings.

And anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded or disingenuous.

Look, I have some sympathies with the OWS movement. I certainly think that my cousin’s statement is ignorant, and that there are hundreds of reasons why people in an economic depression (when one in 16 are below the poverty line, that’s what it is) may want to publicly demonstrate their dissatisfaction with wealth inequality in the United States. But this isn’t about my political views. It’s about the tendency of the modern evangelical movement to mask their disgust for their brothers and sisters behind a veneer of faith.

I don’t care if you happen to be related to me. I’m calling bullshit.

Last night, I had a long conversation with my wife about the Obama presidency and electoral politics in general. My political self has been at something of a loss lately — when there is something to fight for I can scrap with the best of them, but at the moment I just feel disconnected.

It’s certainly not for a lack of opposition to rail against. It’s just that the party I most often align with is incapable of leadership on crucial issues. A lot of this is Congress’ fault. But as dysfunctional as the legislative branch may be (and it is certainly that), I feel that the president deserves his share of the blame.

I’m not alone. It appears that no one is really happy with Obama right now. The left feels let down and isolated, and the right, well, they’re out for blood. The latest numbers put the president’s approval rating at just 43 percent, a new low. This is certainly unwelcome news for his reelection staff.

I’m just trying to figure out what Obama can possibly gonna run on. “Hope” and “change” are off the table. Let’s see… what’s left… things aren’t as bad as they could be? That’s not exactly campaign slogan material. I don’t think he can run on health care reform — Americans aren’t interested in renewed debate, and it’s red meat for the opposition. Can’t talk about troop drawdowns, ’cause Americans only care about one thing right now: jobs. And he can’t talk about that, because the economy isn’t adding any.

At least he got Bin Laden. Right? Right?

My wife made the observation that we might actually fare better under Mitt Romney. Yes, I know that sounds weird, but it makes sense if you think about it. First of all, Romney’s record indicates that he’s a fairly moderate Republican. Earlier in his career, he very plainly supported a woman’s right to choose. If elected, I doubt he’d push to overturn Roe v. Wade (he’d probably just leave it to the states, which is kind of what Obama is doing by default). Romney’s health care solution in Massachusetts looks a lot like what the President promoted (and ultimately got). On the campaign, Mitt has to tack rightward to appease the teabaggers. But those positions wouldn’t necessarily carry over to the Oval Office.

My wife’s most interesting point was that, instead of negotiating against himself, like Obama, Romney could end up giving the left more of what they want. It’s not hard to picture him telling his party that he “had to make concessions” in the course of negotiations. And those concessions might very well be more than we get out of Obama, due to the fact that he gives away half the store BEFORE entering talks.

I know some people are calling for a democratic primary, but I’m not willing to go that far. First, I think it would splinter the party at a time when democrats can least afford it. Second, I’m not sure there are any attractive candidates. Hillary Clinton isn’t a remote possibility, so let’s not go there.

I’m sure there are smart and talented people on the president’s team. But I do wonder what they’re thinking right now. It’s like everyone is just standing around waiting for him to advance an agenda we can all rally behind. Even those with excellent lung capacity couldn’t hold their breath for that long.

To be fair, there aren’t a lot of great options at the moment. Another round of stimulus is highly unlikely. Forget about “green initiatives” to spur investment and job creation — the president just backed away from his clean air agenda because corporate lobbyists made squeaky noises. It would be difficult for the president to make any of his proposals stick. But without real achievements or bold new ideas, he’s gonna have a lot of difficulty convincing Americans to vote for him again. I guess the Obama Era was a lot shorter than anyone could’ve anticipated.

We’ll see what his big jobs speech looks like on Thursday. I’m not expecting much beyond austerity and platitudes. I’ve said time and again that Obama’s true failing is in communication. He simply doesn’t know how to — or refuses to — talk directly to the American people in a manner to which they can relate. His inability to do so is, in my opinion, the basis for the largest squandering of political capital in recent memory.

This presidency has become an island unto itself. They don’t like it when the left singles them out when the president acts like a moderate republican (although Obama is easily to the right of Nixon). And they don’t understand why the right won’t let them join their special club. It’s because you’re on THE OTHER TEAM!!! (Also you’re black.)

It’s going to be really interesting to watch the White House try to turn out the vote in 2012. I’m pretty sure that the only easy path to reelection would be a Michelle Bachmann nomination. And even then I’m not 100 percent convinced he wins.

And that is a sad thing. A truly awful, sad thing.

Let’s not beat around the bush anymore: this is a depression. America’s current economic situation is beyond grim, and there are few political or market-based prospects for a turnaround anytime soon. The room for error has never been slimmer, yet our political system seems incapable of action.

Meanwhile, climate change deniers are oblivious to the fact that an increase in unpredictable weather could create additional pressures on our economy and general security. Even those who accept what science tells us are unwilling or unable to produce policy results. On the other hand, it’s probably too late anyway.

And let’s not forget the preponderance of pro-apocalypse politicos who are actively agitating for the End of Days. Because Jesus ain’t gonna return under any other conditions.

So what can the rest of us do? You know, the ones who have difficulty with the idea that spiritual faith requires a commitment to hate homosexuals and eradicate the public sector? Real Americans like you and me, who recognize that science might be a pretty handy tool when it comes to understanding the universe? Folks who might not have been born into money and who therefore realize the benefits of a basic social safety net?

Seriously, I’m asking you guys. Because I have no frigging idea.

So stop asking, dammit!

• Serial killer of the week. The Zodiac Killer! “Oh, yawn,” you say, “I already know ALL about that old thing.” Oh really, smartass? Well did you know that this dude thinks he cracked another cipher letter which reveals the killer’s name? And this lady says it was someone else — her dad. (However, she also thinks she is the biological daughter of JFK.) But wait, there’s yet another suspect fingered in this guy’s autobiography!
• Religion of the week. You’ve all eaten with Oneida silverware, right? Well now you can think about this wacky cougar sex and eugenics religion every time you see the Oneida logo. I don’t envy the person who had to write this carefully worded company history on their website. I want to visit the old homestead and ask the staff about every aspect of the sexcapades.
• Fetish of the week. Speaking of cougars, I guess the contemporary celebration of cougarism is probably good because it might break down some of the culturally enforced ideas about womanly beauty being the sole province of the young. My problem is when the cougar scenario becomes uneasily Freudian and just makes me think of mommy fetishists. I know I wrote about infantalists once before, but that was the non-sexual kind. Remember Stanley? Well, Senator Tom Coburn thinks he smells disability fraud. Apparently Senator Coburn is able to do full medical and psychiatric assessments based on a few minutes of television programming.
• Links!

Another diapered man in the news.

I love the show “Deadliest Warrior.” Yeah, I know it’s silly, but I frankly can’t get enough of weapons and fighting and watching things go smash and boom. I love mayhem, duh! This show is like an organized, televised, somewhat scientific version of the drunken conversation tradition of debating who would win in a fight between X and Y. Spetsnaz vs. Special Forces? Waffen-SS vs. Viet Cong? Shaka Zulu vs. William Wallace? Ninja vs. Spartan? Craziness! God bless television!

Looking back at Alien while looking forward to Prometheus.

Miscellaneous nasty facts with pictures.

What is the hum?

He boiled for your sins.

Drunkeys!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk

Did you know that you can die from having sex with time-traveling sea monkeys? Well now you do. You’re welcome.

Hi! My name is Sheela!

Watching the “Hail to the V” commercials leaves me feeling conflicted.

They are certainly:

• Idiotic and annoying. But hey, what advertising isn’t?
• Considered racist by many people.
• Offensive to all women, everywhere, forever.

Why offensive? Well, their marketing has created and then preyed upon the idea that all women’s vaginal areas are inherently so dirty, stinky, icky and unsanitary that they require special products just to make the natural stench of women tolerable to the general public. One might hope we’d left that kind of misogynistic bullshit advertising back in the Women’s Day magazines of the 1950s, but sadly no. Just last fall, Summer’s Eve published ads for their feminine wash stating that douching is #1 thing every woman should do before asking for a raise. Le Wow.

Not only are these companies unethical for exploiting a fear that they created, their products are actually bad for women’s gynocological and general health. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommend against douching and using heavily scented chemical products in your vagina and on external genitalia. Using that garbage increases your risks of developing vaginal irritation, vaginitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, bacterial vaginal infections and certain STDs.

Now these adds are taking their nefarious campaign to the next level. Now they are groveling priests of the Cult of Vag offering gifts to your glorious vagina! It’s not about men or jobs anymore, it’s about what’s best for you. Only a company that advocates such overt worship of all that is the Sacred Feminine could produce a gift worthy of laying on the Alter of Vagina! Right? Except the gift is a toxic smoke bomb that kills everything inside the temple and corrodes the walls.

So why am I conflicted? They’re all bad, right? Well… I feel like I can take away at least one good aspect. In the past most feminine hygiene products were pure vague innuendo, euphemism, and metaphor. Unless you had pre-existing knowledge of the products and their uses you would have no idea what the ads were for. Here are some examples:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro2mKtw77Sc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=potXaDoFZHQ

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvD0X-mFk4U

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8fyh7QgPM

So I can’t help but think it’s ultimately a good thing that these ads are actually saying the word vagina and even using a quasi-realistic portrayal of a talking vulva. What I wish they would have gone with instead is this covert ad campaign they’ve started online, which I think is much funnier and more assertive. While I still find their marketing to be inherently offensive, I actually like this ad a lot compared to everything that’s come before it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ss8uUbvprk

That kitty puppet sounds sincere, and I believe he would strongly condemn Summer’s Eve if he knew how bad their products are for vaginas. What do you think?

This is essentially a feminist site, but as its male proprietor, I confess to being utterly out of my depths when it comes to stuff like this new ad campaign for Summer’s Eve.

Hail to the V:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_zJwLZ49zM

And look, they made some for different races!

White:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKvLd_XxFuw

Black:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DcFjbELeW0

Latino:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=szausZLMZuY

Readers (and contributors) please help me out here. Are these sexist, racist, ridiculous or some kind of hitherto unexplored combination?