Man, this is the kind of stuff that makes you sick: Nike shits all over Dischord Records. Never mind that Nike has made billions upon billions of dollars and has become the establishment in the sneaker industry… they must have felt that the holdouts in the indie arena either wouldn’t notice or wouldn’t care if they co-opted an image from one of the greatest punk albums ever, whose rightsholders wouldn’t have granted permission in a billion years.

The Grokster decision, handed down by the Supreme Court today, says that infringing technologies’ creators can be held liable if the technology is clearly labelled for illegal use. Which means that the little-guy innovators will have to run scared from the Hollywood machine even if their intentions and marketing were not geared towards illegal use, because the Hollywood machine is desperate to preserve that failing business model. But when the big guys clearly steal from the little guys… well, no one is going to raise much of a stink about that. Especially if your government is the one stealing from you.

Update: Winckles has some good thoughts on what Grokster really means.

I was just lying in bed thinking about the fact that political blogs are all pretty lame, and people who only talk about politics are generally shitheads with nothing but bile in them. Left or right. Lame. They’re just writing about politics because it gets a reaction, and a lot of people crave a reaction.

I used to consider myself not strongly Republican and not strongly Democrat, and I really only got heavily into being a Democrat recently, when the Republican leadership turned batshit crazy. But I don’t consider myself a leftist or particularly liberal. I still think I’m pretty moderate, because I don’t think that the ideas that the right wants me to believe are outrageous are really outlandish at all.

Some thoughts to that end, a.k.a, Why I Am a Moderate

• Being pro-gun control is not liberal. Being anti-gun is liberal. I’m pro-gun, because I think that there Second Amendment was just and rational, but I don’t think that anyone in an informed populace needs more than a few handguns and certainly none of them need to be M-16s. A waiting period and a backround check is not unreasonable and doesn’t circumvent the Second Amendment.
• Being pro-choice or pro-life as an economic or constitutional issue is moderate. Being pro-choice as a women’s issue is liberal. I’ve thought a lot about this one recently, and I’ve decided that I don’t really believe in women’s issues at all any more. But I do believe in a fundamental equality in all of humankind, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to everyone, and I find that it’s a pretty moderate to believe. In order to be guaranteed those rights, a certain amount of personal choice is involved. From a constitutional standpoint, I find no evidence that bans on abortion are warranted. But I do, with the separation of church and state being pretty clearly defined by our forefathers, find a pretty strong case against banning abortion for religious/moral reasons. (And as for other “women’s issues,” you’ll find that I’m very much aligned with some of them, because they fall pretty squarely in line with equality issues and people issues. So, ladies, either take advantage of your majority, or realize that your issues aren’t radical, they’re fundamental, and couching them as women’s issues only makes them divisive.)
• Reforming campaign finance is not liberal, it’s populist. It guarantees that the people are heard. Wouldn’t it be awesome if there were a hard cap on how much could be spent in an election… and both sides couldn’t get around it? Then politics would be dependent on the free flow of information and the power of a concerned citizenry.
• Using natural resources in a socially responsible manner is moderate. Being environmentalist is liberal. I don’t mind saying that I think capitalism is working well, and as long as my health isn’t harmed and my future isn’t jeopardized, it’s A-OK to use natural resources. If your corporation is profiting in the short term but will cost the government and the taxpayer in the future, then I’m not in favor of your activities. Why conservatives aren’t all over energy-efficiency and alternative fuel sources is beyond me… since conservatives should be all about conserving the resources available.
• National health care isn’t liberal. I’m just miffed about the fact that an inmate in a federal prison can get access to decent health care on the taxpayer dime and the kids in our schools can’t.

There’s more where that came from, but I want to go to bed.

Normally, I welcome your comments in this blog. Hell, I live for them. But on this topic, I don’t really want to hear it. I’m leaving comments open, and if you’re respectful, cool. But if you’re not, I’ll just delete it, because it’s my blog, and you know what? I don’t want your hate here.

Scapegoat.

Scaaaapegoat.

Scaaaaaaaaapegoat.

My research study

Directions: Please only fill this study out if you are an undergraduate male. The results will be used to determine evolutionary characteristics of human beings.

Which woman would make a better mate?
A. secretary with small boobs
B. high powered CEO with jugs that are naturally bigger than Pamela Anderson Lee
C. porn star with fake boobs

Which woman would make a better mate?
A. secretary who may put out some when married because she is tired from working all day
B. high powered CEO who will get buck wild on command and let you slip it in from behind
C. porn star who may put out some when married because she is tired from working all day

What do you like best about porn stars?
A. risk of HIV infection
B. seeing her on-screen with other dudes
C. silicon

What do you like best about high-powered CEOs?
A. they make obscene amounts of cash
B. they have to work so hard that they only have time for one man, and may have been so career-driven up to this point that they are still virgins, dude
C. ugly chicks don’t tend to get ahead

What do you like best about secretaries?
A. some did not graduate from high school
B. makes coffee
C. may not make enough money to go to the gym, buy make-up, or pay for your beer

Which woman would make a better mate?
A. secretary
B. high powered CEO
C. porn star

—

Research note: Only the final question will be used in our research study– the rest can be disregarded. This study will conclusively determine the evolutionary characteristics of the species.

Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post about a study done at the University of Michigan that suggests men want to marry women who are less powerful than they are– in essence, men want to marry the nanny or the secretary. It’s a study that has been published in a journal of evolution and I just heard it on NPR, so it’s getting a lot of attention.

Whoa! A study using college undergraduates? Um, these “scientists” are aware that college males’ mate selection often boils down the drunkest girl left at the party at the end of the night, right? Of course college boys don’t want to marry CEOs. College boys can’t even begin to identify with women, much less successful, motivated women. It’s hard to blame them, too; why would you identify yourself as someone who wants certain characteristics in a mate when you can’t imagine that anyone with those characteristics could possibly ever want you?

Are you seriously going to base a discussion on what “men” want by looking at undergraduate males? And MAUREEN FUCKING DOWD, who I think is awesome, is giving creedence to this line of thought? Look, if you were to survey a healthy cross-section of men from a number of age groups, demographics, and cultures, and you had the same findings (and would that suprise me?– no), then Maureen Dowd should write about it and it should be on “On Point.”

But people, this was a study that looked at 120 college boys. I call that a frat party, not a serious research study. BOO, American media, for reporting this kind of crap.

I’ve stayed pretty quiet with the political linky-linky since the election, but there are some good post-election sites out there that I want to share.

Turn Your Back on Bush :: Snarky!
Pretzels for the Prez :: Sadistic!
Drinking Liberally :: Delicious!

So, I’m listening to NPR after work, as I am often wont to do, and I’m hearing some fella from a Washington Military Thinktank talk about how the DOD had prepared for a war against a nation’s standing army, and that is not what we’re fighting in Iraq. So a lot of the technology and the simulations they had prepared were moot when fighting an insurgency. And he mentioned that one key thing missing was the ability to speak the language.

That’s when it hit me: the next step for the U.S. Army is to work on translation software and extremely portable hardware. I’m not talking about translating messages or intel, I’m talking some serious Star Trek shit. I’m talking about earpieces that can pick up what’s being said and translate it directly into your ear.

Now, see, if there’s some cheap-ass (read: free) translation software that can help Scott say “rimjob” to his computer, then damn, the military ought to be able to do this. And I know that the military’s budget isn’t unlimited, but let’s look at why. In the past, the military has wanted to build guns, planes, body armor, that kind of shit. But who funds the military? Congress, man, Congress. A bunch of old white guys that aren’t going to have to fight in the next war. So they want to maintain American security, but they aren’t really all that interested in funding planes they can’t fly, guns they can’t fire, and flak jackets that they won’t wear because a) they have a guy to jump in front of bullets for them, or b) the bulk underneath their jackets might be mistaken for a direct line to Karl Rove.

But a universal language translator, man, Congress could use that. The most obvious application would be to program Republicanese and Democratese, the languages of spin, into them, and then each party would understand what the other’s bullshit really means. Imagine that these guys could be on the Senate floor, blubbering away, and the C-SPAN watchers would not see a perceptible difference, but the opposition party would be hearing, “I’m insecure, I have a small dick, and I don’t want to go back to being a lawyer, so I’m voting for this shit because I want to be re-elected by the dipshits in my home state. But vote for my energy bill and fuck it, I won’t carry on about this abortion shit.”

I’m just not really convinced that intelligent, honest discourse would be much of an incentive for those guys to fund the translation equipment, though, so I came up with a better one: miles and miles of PUSSY! Whole continents of it! Imagine, Congressman, your next fact-finding trip could take you to Malaysia, where you could lose the press,find a brothel, and negotiate the price of that 14-year-old tart down to roughly 32 cents American. Protection details might score some tail for the President, but not for you, Congressman. So, if you can speak and understand the language, I’m sure you’ll bag the exotic ladies; hey, you may even score some hash on your next trip to Singapore. And even your wife knows, what happens in Singapore stays in Singapore.

A universal translator would also help you understand that last ODB lyric that stumped you.

One part military-industrial complex, one part Viagra-fueled whore binges… I smell legislation!

Here’s an exceedingly depressing thought: I’ve been buying Republican!

It’s a pretty well-established practice for a company to buy another company largely for the name. Let’s take for example the recent “merger” between First Union and Wachovia. First Union gets burned by some shady lending practices, the image is tarnished a little, and FAPPO!– the merger happens, First Union is gone, and the well-respected Wachovia remains.

This wonderful merger has led to a corner in Chapel Hill where a Wachovia branch sits directly across the street from a Wachovia branch. I like to imagine that they will one day war– all of the pirates go to one Wachovia, all of the rest os us go to the other one, and the average joe’s Wachovia will be boarded violently and unexpectedly by the pirate Wachovia.

But, pirate fantasties aside, I think that our foreign policy team in Washington needs to look into this strategy. We’ve made a miserable mess of things in the Middle East and bungled the Iraq situation so badly that terrorists could recruit Mickey Mouse if they wanted to. Kids in schools are growing up learning to hate America, even though they could not necessarily find it on a map. American troupes are an unwelcome sight.

Why don’t we just buy some small country that hasn’t offended anyone and take their name? I’m going to vote for Iceland. Iceland offends no one, it’s been the home to one of the most successful winter Olympics in years, it’s main export is Bjork, and it may or may not be made out of actual ice. No one hates Iceland; some people don’t know it’s there.

My original proposal was that maybe we could buy Canada, because along with the name we might get the national health care. But we’d also get Quebec, which I don’t think we really want, and Celine Dion. There’s no Icelandic Celene Dion.

The effects of a name change would be immediate and sweeping. Expect celebrations from Muslim extremists, who would be thrilled at the thought that all American troops were out of the middle east. (Ignore the thousands of Icelandic troops now stationed in your country, please. Iceland offends no one.)

A generation raised to believe that Americans are evil would be left without an enemy. It would be some serious work to re-educate all of them to think that Icelanders (Icelandics?) are evil. You have to collect all the old textbooks, print up new ones, and get them out to schools, and the kids are probably still going to be saying “Americans are evil” for a couple years out of habit. Do you think that anyone wants to put forth that kind of effort? Probably not– textbooks are expensive!

Recruiting terrorists would be more difficult if we took Iceland’s name, too. In addition to the fact that Iceland offends no one, you’d have a really hard time convincing people to join your cell and go to Iceland to await orders for terrorist activities. They’d think they were being punished. “Listen to the name of the place,” they would say. “I don’t want to go there. It sounds too cold. Send me someplace more temperate. I’d like to bomb Aruba, please.”

The people of Iceland would benefit, too. I’m not sure how just yet, but I’m reasonably sure that being on the U.N. Security Council would be worth something. Oh, and they could visit Nebraska without a passport. Mmmm, Nebraska.

So, I’m starting a fund for us to buy Iceland. I’ve got $75 in there, and I figure if you guys chip in another 140 bucks or so, we’d have a pretty good downpayment. Let’s hope Bjork doesn’t have a hit single between now and then. That would probably drive the price up.

I don’t usually link to Daily Kos, because hell, he’s the blog posterboy for the left, and I think a lot of his support comes from the same arrogant, thoughtless liberal zealots, whose right-leanning counterparts I denounce so frequently. But Wade sent me a link to this article (written not by Kos, but by Pericles), and it’s absolutely fantastic. Read. Read. Read. How and Why bin Laden Will Strike Again?