I'm off

Well, folks, there will probably be no posts for the next two weeks, as I take my much needed vacation to Florida with my buddies JR, Greg, Danny, Nathan, and Sir Not-appearing-on-this-trip. I apologize to my regular readers, but to those of you who know me personally, you know I need this, and I would like to take this time to personally thank JR and his family for letting us do this.Don't worry, I will continue to be outraged by the world, I will just be doing most of it poolside, while sipping a fruity drink of some sort and reading some Michener.

So... catch you cats later.

The Hypocrisy of "Free-Speech Zones"

There is a cold wind blowing on the face of politics today, and it chills me to the bone. It's not the lying, the cheating, the constant rhetoric... no, these things have been a part of politics since Ceasers time. No, it's the wanton and unabashed violation of one of the primary freedom that this country enjoys, the freedom of speech. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration has tread on our civil liberties like no other administration before it. Bush and his cronies have invented a diabolic means of violating people's rights of free speech and protest, a terrible blight on the surface of civil rights, called "Free-Speech Zones." The named must be regarded as intentionally deceptive, as they are not so much "Free-Speech Zones", as they are a holding pen for political protesters and dissidents.

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.” [James Boward of The American Conservative]

Mr. Neel is one of many people who have been arrested for their refusal to be corraled, simply because of their message of dissention or disapproval. It's staggering that any president who would declare himself a champion of freedom, and push his "forward strategy of freedom," would rip freedoms away from those who need them the most, the dissenters. Now, I should be fair. While The Monkey and his Ad-monster-ation invented this technique, and continue to implement it with other Gestappo-esque tactics for silencing the people, they are not the only ones practicing this dirty game. The Democratic National Convention in Boston also has one of these beguilingly named "Free-Speech Zones," and it's a horrific sight.

The protest zone, which most people here simply call "the cage," is beneath an elevated section of disused subway tracks near a newly paved bus parking lot.

Activists say the zone resembles the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The zone, surrounded by two layers of chain link fences mounted on Jersey barriers, draped with black mesh and topped with razor wire, violates the protesters' free-speech rights, said a legal observer for the Boston chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

"You can't have free speech inside a prison," said the observer, Tony Naro, a recent college graduate who plans to start law school this fall.
[Wired News]

Rant Approaching. Consider yourself warned.
Almost everyone who came of age in the 60s, as my father has told me many times, was at least slightly anti-establishment, if not ragingly so. Yes, the FBI did attempt to quell the uprisings, if you will, but they didn't have access to nearly as much power as they do now, thank you very much, Patriot Act. Why are we now being denied our right to protest the policies and activities of political figures? Why is no one OUTRAGED? Sure, the ACLU and a few other groups are suing the FBI, but why don't I hear about this when I'm at my local pub? Why isn't this a huge topic of conversation? The politicians are trying to take our most basic rights as free citizens of the United States of America, and here sit we, lowing softly as they rip our freedoms away and force us into a Draconian government. We might as well elect Bush as the next totalitarian dictator (or dick-tater if you will), becase that's basically what's going on. How can The Monkey and his Ad-monster-ation talk about "freeing" people in Iraq, when they're trying to silence and imprison their fellow citizens of The United States? WTF? I hope they have a special place in Hell for Bush and his beef-witted cronies. I'd like to leave you a portion of the lyrics to Rage Against the Machine's "Wake Up":

Come on!
Uggh!
Come on, although ya try to discredit
Ya still never edit
The needle, I'll thread it
Radically poetic
Standin' with the fury that they had in '66
And like E-Double I'm mad
Still knee-deep in the system's shit
Hoover, he was a body remover
I'll give ya a dose
But it'll never come close
To the rage built up inside of me
Fist in the air, in the land of hypocrisy

Movements come and movements go
Leaders speak, movements cease
When their heads are flown
'Cause all these punks
Got bullets in their heads
Departments of police, the judges, the feds
Networks at work, keepin' people calm
You know they went after King
When he spoke out on Vietnam
He turned the power to the have-nots
And then came the shot

Wake up, people, or we're all going down.

SG-1, The Patriot Act, and an alleged Dickwad

Maybe you folks have read about the cat, Adam McGaughey, who runs Stargate Archive 1 is getting nailed by the MPAA and the FBI for "apparently" streaming copies of SG-1 over the internet, among other things. If you haven't heard about it, check out his take on it. Now, here's the US DoJ's charges, along with a small report. Now, I just got wind of this today, but one of the chaps over at Boing Boing.net had the wonderful idea to search for Adam McGaughey's name on the Google groups. Bully. here's what popped up. It looks like Mc. McGaughey might be a huge asshat, as well as a violator of the law. Now, that's all well and good, but I'm concerned about how the FBI accessed our naughty little friend here. They used a section of The Patriot Act to subpeona financial records from McGaughey's ISP. Now, say what you would like, but The Patriot Act was passed to help fight terrorism, as the first line of the damn law says.

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world...

When did alleged copyright violation become a terrorist crime? Now, I hope this McGaughey fellow gets a fair trial, and all that, but they should defininetly question the methods of the FBI.

It's shit like this that makes the Patriot Act dangerous, because now everyone has to live in fear of a draconian "police force", brushing justice to one side as it goose-steps towards it's goal of totalitarian power. While my previous statement may be just a bit more hyperbole than you may be able to stomach, it's not too far from the truth, if you look at the laws that are being passed, or tabled. The INDUCE Act, The Patriot Act II, etc. It's all a means to take our freedoms from us, one at a time. It's about as subtle as an elephants prick, but it's getting the job done, because the majority of Americans don't pay enough attention to whats going on in their world. Sit up, take notice, before it's too late, and we're all turning our lights out at 9 p.m., and waking up at 5 a.m. to the "National Wake-up Siren."

And don't worry about sleeping through it, cause it's gonna be *loud*

Patently Stupid pt. 1

It all really started with an e-mail from Boyle that included an excerpt from an article at ZDNet about how Microsoft may start searching out more patents on technology. Here is an excerpt from the very same article:

"Microsoft could attack open-source software for patent infringements against OEMs, Linux distributors, and least likely open-source developers. They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and Sendmail. We believe Samba is first, and they will attempt to prove it isn't covered by prior patent cross as a so called "clone" product carve out in the previous agreement," the memo said. "OEMs that don't have a cross (like SUN), or OEMs like HP that they force a change in their cross licence to exclude open-source software are probably the first target. Intel, Red Hat, SuSE, UBL, Oracle are probably in the first wave as well."
Microsoft embarked on a campaign last year to increase its revenue from patents and enlarge its intellectual property portfolio. It has received patents on a wide variety of apparently elemental computing components such as to-do lists, double clicking and storing documents in XML format, and had another 5000 applications in the pipeline as of November 2003. Last year, Microsoft also hired IP guru Marshall Phelps -- previously architect of IBM's $2bn-a-year IP strategy. He is on record as saying that Microsoft intends to spend $7bn annually on IP issues.
[Goodwins, Rupert; ZDNet UK]

Now, I have known that the US patent process is flawed since I found out that there was a patent on a style of swinging, as in a seat on two chains, wee, push me higher. While it was patented by a 7 year-old boy, there had to be an adult help him with the paper work, and that adult should be throttled with a short length of Cat-5e cable. It's all just so ridiculous... but that has to be one of only a few ridiculous patents, I can hear you shout. The USPTO is working hard to make sure that only legitimate patents are granted, right? Hahahahahahahahahahaaaa... no. Unfortunately, stupid patents seem to be running the world now. Check out The EFF and their Patent Busting Project, in which they chose the top 10 "most dangerous patents to our freedoms on the internet," and are getting people to challenge the patents. What patents did they choose? See for yourself:

• One-click online shopping (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411.)


• Online shopping carts (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314.)


• The hyperlink (U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662.)


• Video streaming (U.S. Patent No. 5,132,992.)


• Internationalizing domain names (U.S. Patent No. 6,182,148.)


• Pop-up windows (U.S. Patent No. 6,389,458.)


• Targeted banner ads (U.S. Patent No. 6,026,368.)


• Paying with a credit card online (U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319.)


• Framed browsing; (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,933,841 & 6,442,574.) and


• Affiliate linking (U.S. Patent No. 6,029,141.)
  

[EFF Patent Busting Project]

I know, I know. I had to clench my jaw to keep my brain from biting my tounge off so that my profane screams of indignation would be unintelligable, too. What is even more frightening than the sheer fact that these patents exist is that they aren't technically specific. The patent an idea, really, more than a specific process, or more aptly, a specific technical means, such as the anchor < a > tag in HTML. That makes the patent much broader and more dangerous. Not only is the patent based on an abstract idea, but the language used in most of the technology patents is extremely vauge and broad, like the patent on hyperlinks [Patent 4,873,662] Read it, and tell me that this isn't the stupidest shit you've ever read in your life. Go on. Do it.

Unfortunatley, I have to end this early, business you know, but I'll be back to continue this battle.

Suck on that.

New Blogger Entry dealie

Well, it looks like Blogger has updated their entry tool so it has all these spiffy buttons for inserting an ordered list, or block quotes, or spellcheck... what's all this shit? If you want a blockquote, put the fucking tag in yourself, you lazy sot. Well, I guess this is for people who really have no idea how to do HTML, which is cool, because it gives more people a voice, and allows them to be as creative as they want, which is good. But I'm still an elitist when it comes to all that, and I'm stubborn. I like things the way I likes 'em, and usually "user-friendly" means "pretty but unstable," which I hate. Hell, I still use DOS' FTP about half the time. Oh, and I don't like the way the new Blogger dealie-bopper, because it hides all my HTML under a different tab. What the fuck? I want to see it! Damn this new interface! Ahh wel, I'll get used ot it. Anyway, this post has no real point, other than as non-political fill for those of you who read this blog but don't care for the (unintended) political turn this blog has taken.

Nipple Ass Wiener.

The SUV Comment...

This small post stems from a comment I left on Ryan Boyle's weblog about SUVs, and a half-hearted defense of SUVs (meant with no malice, I'm sure) by the wonderful Kelly. Kelly, let it be known that while I may get nasty, in regards to my feelings about SUV owners who don't properly use their vehicle, I don't mean to insult you personally, nor do I intend you, or anyone else, to take offense to it. It's my own particular brand of hyperbole. Now that that crap is out of the way...

What the fuck is wrong with your people? Why the hell do you buy the largest vehicle that you can, designed for hauling people and gear through the roughest terrain that the earth can muster, and tool around Schaumburg in it? Does it make you feel special? Empowered? Important? A Fascist? Well, fuck off. If you want a vehicle with four-wheel drive and lots of cargo room, buy a damn Subaru Outback. It's get better gas mileage, too. Well, you argue, what about all this and that and blah blah bla-fucking-blah. What... are you going to use your SUV for work? What do you do? A construction worker? A farmer? A Savanaha Desert Tour Guide Operator? Kool! Go to it, you'll love the utility that most older SUVs will give you, but don't buy a new one. They couldn't go off-road for more than about 5 miles at 30 MPH without falling apart. They're all plastic and shit. Fuck that noise. Get yourself a nice 70's Jeep CJ, or an early 80's Land Rover, they'll last you forever. But wait... you say you're not a construction worker, a farmer, or a Savanaha Desert Tour Guide Operator? You work at the GAP in Woodfield? Ah... well, I could see why you would need that big hulk of machinery. They're quite handy for fording rivers, killing people that drive regular sized cars, and running over small children, only two of which happen often in the suburbs. Yeah, that sounds like fun! Whoopee!
Anyway, my argument comes down to this: If you're not going to use it for it's intended purpose, why buy it? SUVs are expensive to buy and to operate. Get yourself a normal sized car, and get your Kiabatsu Monstrosity off the road. It's not only useless, but it's dangerous.

Whatever.

Constitutional Amendments

I am proud to live in these United States of America, and I am proud to be a U.S. citizen... but ever since ol' Monkey Boy got thrust into office by his brother and a gaggle of Supreme Court justices, I have had more moments of shame than ever. I am ashamed of being a citizen of the United States when The Monkey is trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that would ban homosexual marriage. *AHEM* Now, dig, I'm not a homosexual myself, despite what a few of my enemies may say, but I can understand where they're coming from. Like any human being, they long for somone to love them, and they do find it, which is hip. However, it's not hip that the government won't recognize the fact that they love each other and want to show their commitment to each other in the highest way possible. Noooohooohoooo. Gays can't marry, say some people, oh but let's let two teen-agers marry each other without another thought, because they're a hetero-sexual couple. Fuck that noise. I betcha if gays were allowed to get married more often, there would be a helluva smaller divorce rate in this damn society of ours. But, I digress, thats not my point. My point is that this amendment, which was thankfully defeated, was a horribly... miscalculated... no... ASININE move to begin with!

First off, we have the Right and the Left screaming at each other over this bill, and frankly, I like what the Left is saying, because they're not a group of ignorant, gap-toothed, whiskey-swillin', redneck pole-smokers (with perhaps the exception of Ted Kennedy, but he's a Kennedy, so he's gold.) Actually, here is a quote from one of these "gentlemen" on the whole issue.

"No one wants to discriminate against gays," responded Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). "Simply put, we want to preserve traditional marriage."
[Washington Post]

Did anyone have to blink real hard to keep your brain from impacting the front of your head and squeezing out through your eyesockets? Yeah, me too. They don't want to discriminate against gays, they're just passing a highly discriminatory law directedly only at gays, ensuring that will not be able to enter into lawful marriage... Huh. Well, I took it upon myself to look-up discriminate in the dictionary, thinking "Maybe I'm all wrong about the proper use of the word. Maybe I have joined the teeming millions of other people, including the Supreme Court, in misusing this elusive word." So, I headed to the fine folks at The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and looked up the word. Here's what I found:

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·nate
Pronunciation: dis-'kri-m&-"nAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
Etymology: Latin discriminatus, past participle of discriminare, from discrimin-, discrimen distinction, from discernere to distinguish between -- more at DISCERN
transitive senses
1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : DISTINGUISH, DIFFERENTIATE [discriminate hundreds of colors]
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object
intransitive senses
1 a : to make a distinction b : to use good judgment
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit [discriminate in favor of your friends] [discriminate against a certain nationality]

Wow! I was right! Huzzah! But wait... doesn't that mean that Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, the same man who is currently pushing for The INDUCE Act, is nothing more than a beef-witted dunce for his horrible misuse of a fairly popular word? Or is it simply that he meant to say "everyone" instead of "no one"? Or maybe, just maybe, he's just a fuckin' redneck asshole who probably should have choked on Lincoln Logs when he was three, so that he would have no chance to procreate, thus polluting the gene pool for years to come. Yeah, I'll go with that one, along with a healthy sprinkling of beef-witted dunce. What the... okay, alright, deep breaths are now nescessary.

Everyone breathe, now. ... Ahh, that feels better.

Now, down to the issue of the Amendment. First off, all the amendments to the Constitution that basically told the public that they couldn't do something were repealled. There is, of course, only one Amendment that did nothing to ensure freedoms or further define operations and procedures of the government, and that was Article XVIII, or the Prohibition Article. Now, I agree, this is a completely different discussion, but it still stands as the only amendment to the Constitution that attempted to take rights away from the people, and was, therefore, subsequently repealed. What makes The Monkey think that this horrific amendment won't get struck down when people come to the *stark* realization that gays are people to? Anyway, to both conserve my strength and to keep me from throttling anyone associated with this bill, I will wrap this part up. Check out the article from the Washington Post here, and keep an eye on this issue, because The Monkey isn't done. He and his backwards-ass, redneck cronies are going to be pushing this like the "Heimlich Manuever" button on Air Force 1, and it's just going to get uglier.

Fuck it, I'm moving to Madagascar... where they have Lemurs.

John Tetzlaff won't buy me a bass; part 2: You cheap bastard

Well, I sit here, biding my time, and yet my brand new bass hasn't shown up yet. I know John Tetzlaff will break down, stop being a self-serving cheap-shit and buy me a bass, but he hasn't done it yet, which leads me to one conclusion.
John Tetzlaff is a horrible person.
Why, you may ask, have I just called John Tetzlaff a horrible person? Did he participate in Apartheid? Does he kick puppies down the stairs, or kill the Poles by the thousand? I say nay nay. He won't buy me a damn bass! C'mon, Uncle Money-sacks, get off your über-rich, poshly adorned ass, and buy me a damn bass, you.. you... you pompous ninny! Thats right, I said it! You're nothing more than an... an... an overinflated, pompous ninny!

But, then, maybe I'm looking at this all wrong, maybe it's not that you refuse to buy me a bass, but that you refuse to do anything... that you sit at home all day, reeking of sour milk and 5-day old cheerios, staring blankly at the monitor of your computer as the starfield simulation screensaver takes you deeper into your hypontic geekery. You don't even bother to scratch the bedsores that have formed on your non-bass buying body. Well, maybe buying me a bass will take you out of that self-destructive rut, and get you into a groove, hopefully which involves purchasing me many more basses, as well as a grand piano, a Porsche, and thee Alpacas. But John, you must take that first step! Pull yourself out of your misery... buy me a bass! Only you can help yourself buy me a bass. I can't do it for you, or it would already be done, and we wouldn't be having this conversation, because I'd be playing my new bass. So, John, just pick up the phone, and do the right thing.
Buy me a damn bass.

All names have been changed to protect the innocent... except John Tetzlaff's. Buy me a damn bass.

Isn't anyone paying attention?

Alright, so I haven't updated in a while... so what? I've been both busy and drunk... sometimes both at the same time. Thats my excuse, and I'm running with it.

Well, I hate to make this blog into a political/technological blog, but... why the hell not? This is my personal space for me to unload about shit that really bugs me, and most of it is located within those two fields. Especially when they meet... that gets my blood boiling in the worst way, because more often than not, incompetence and [evil lawyer voice]"huge cash settlements" [/evil lawyer voice] rule the day. My brain is attempting to book tickets to Madagascar right now, just because the poor bugger can't take it. So, basically what I'm saying is as follows: I'm going to write about what pisses me off. If it's politics and technology, so be it. You don't have to read it if you don't want to, but knowledge is power, baby, so soak up all you can. Now then, on with the bitching.

My question is... how do the lawmakers in Washington think that they can pass this shit right under our noses without us smelling it? Recently, slashdot.org turned me on to an article at the Electronic Freedom Foundation that details a new restriction on our freedoms, as if the new INDUCE Act that Congress has tabled isn't enough. Anyway, this is about the FCC's Broadcast Flag mandate (PDF file). This looks very sinister, but I can't comment too heavily on it, as I have not yet had a chance to read the legislation. (I'll be putting a copy on my laptop to be read at my leisure.) However, if you want to read what the EFF has to say about it, you can check it out at this address. Here's a small section of the article:

The essence of the FCC's rule is in 47 CFR 73.9002(b) and the following sections: "No party shall sell or distribute in interstate commerce a Covered Demodulator Product that does not comply with the Demodulator Compliance Requirements and Demodulator Robustness Requirements."

The Demodulator Compliance Requirements insist that all HDTV demodulators must listen for the flag (or assume it to be present in all signals). Flagged content must be output only to "protected outputs" or in degraded form: through analog outputs or digital outputs with visual resolution of 720x480 pixels or less--less than 1/4 of HDTV's capability. Flagged content may be recorded only by "Authorized" methods, which may include tethering of recordings to a single device.

The Demodulator Robustness Requirements are particularly troubling for open-source developers. In order to prevent users from gaining access to the full digital signal, the FCC ties the hands of even sophisticated users and developers. Devices must be "robust" against user access or modifications that permit access to the full digital stream. Since open-source drivers are by design user-modifiable, a PC tuner card with open-source drivers would not be "robust." It's not even clear that binary-only drivers would qualify.

Together, these rules mean that future PVR developers will have to get permission from the FCC and/or Hollywood before building high-definition versions of the TiVo. The products that they do build will be epoxied against user experimentation and future improvement. The rules mean that open-source developers and hobbyists will be shut out of the HDTV loop altogether.

I promise within the next week or so to have a full, educated opinion on this piece of legislation. Already, in my preliminary readings, I can see it's very much like the DMCA and the INDUCE Act, in as much as it's a piece of flaming dog-shite. Page 2.

I'm all for freedom of speech, and differing political opinions, etc, but there are some people that really should think before they speak. One such group would be War On Pornography.com. The statistics they use are... dubious, at best, shall we say? Statistics such as:

• 9 in 10 kids 8-16 yrs. have viewed porn online, mostly accidentally while doing homework (UK News Telegraph, NOP Research Group, 1/07/02)
  
• 41% of all children (ages 11-17) who have an internet connection, surf for porn sites during their online sessions.
  
• Kids can bypass most "Parental Controls" with a simple "click of the mouse"
  
• Larger than NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball combined
  

Well, let's start with the beginning, shall we? First off, a small disclaimer. I will use mostly the male context, and male pronouns in this deconstruction, but I do not mean to leave the ladies out. Ladies, I know you look at porn, the same as we do, you just look at different types and don't talk about it as much. So, basically, anywhere you see a masculine pronoun, assume that I am stating the female version of it as well. It just cuts down on my typing, not having to do both. Anyway, 9 in 10 kids between the ages of 8 and 16 have viewed porn online, mostly accidentally. Well... seems to me that 9 in 10 kids have a very bad excuse. Accidentally? I used to pull that excuse, too. What about that other kid, the 1 in 10, you may ask? Well, he is very good at covering his tracks, and will probably make a good computer technician/3l33t h4x0r. Now if these people don't think that right around the age of 11 or 12, which is generally the age that puberty seems to be hitting kids these days, that these kids won't develop sexual thoughts, feelings or desires, they are dead wrong, and apparently don't remember being young themselves. There is nothing wrong with it, either, and damnit, I'd rather have kids venting their sexual frustration by jerkin' their Gerkin (or hiding it, for you ladies) to porno then joinging some cult or shooting a bunch of people in a mall. Fuck that. Point two, please.

"41% of all children (ages 11-17) who have an internet connection, surf for porn sites during their online sessions." First of all, I don't like the way this is worded, it makes it sound like 41% of kids surf for porn all the time, which is not true. If you are close to my age (22), think about when you were young, and surfing the net. Most of the time you were doing something, like trying to figure out the cheats to a computer game, or typing a paper, or chatting. Only when no one was around did you surf for porn, cause frankly, once you get started, you gotta finish up, alright? So you gotta plan this shit, otherwise you might as well just use your imagination. Anyway, back to the statistics. "41% of all children (ages 11-17)who have an internet connection" surf for porn. Seems like 59% of all children (ages 11-17)who have an internet connection, are damned, filthy liars. You're expecting me to take a HUGE leave from my (horny) senses if you expect me to believe that when the hormones are raging the most, that kids ain't gonna do what kids do. That is bullshit... and again... THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. Well, no, cause kids haven't been pumping their junk since the beginning of time, no... this is a recent development. They haven't been getting pornographic stories or magazines or peeping on their neighbor or something. No! The internet is making our kids into sexual deviants... wait, before I start ranting on that, I'll finish with these assholess first.

"Kids can bypass most "Parental Controls" with a simple 'click of the mouse'." Duh, kids are ingenious. Thats why they program your VCR, you shit head. Not only that, but the filter is in between porn and them, and that doesn't give the filter a very good chance of survival, seeing as I would have skinned a live gorilla while poking an alligator in the ass with a stick to get some good porn. No good. NEXT.

"Larger than NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball combined." First of all, in what way? Structurally? Organizationally? Monetarily? Or is it just the length, in which case, I'm sure Ron Jeremy is the NFL's main competitor? Don't just throw a blind statistic out there and expect me to swallow it. Structurally, the porn industry might be bigger than the NFL, NBA and MLB combined, but it's not a unified organization by any means. There is no "Porno Meetin' Hall," where all directors, trick-ass marks and punk-bitches go to discuss the newest doggie-style tricks. No, it's completely sectional, so that basically kills organizational, too. Monetarily? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... ahhh... no. As anyone who has ever attended a game in the NFL, NBA or MLB will tell you, they are making an assload of money, and putting money through, too. Look at how much money some of the players make... don't even try to tell me porno makes more than the NFL alone, let alone the three combined. I call shenanigans. Get your brooms.

Now, these guys are entitled to their opinions, but I'm livid over the fact that they are denying the fact that sexual desire and all the rot isn't human nature. Sure, you can surpress it for a little while, but you end up becoming violent, creepy and/or stressed (look at most Catholic Priests). Whatever, it's not only that, but they are blaming the increased sexual activity of kids on porn or music or media, and while they're not helping, music and media are just refelcting society to a degree, and besides, sex has ALWAYS been in the media. C'mon now! Oh, and it's not a parenting problem, noooooohooooohooooooo! It's a problem with "the media," or whoeverthe fuck the negligent parents of today are choosing to blame their problems on. Now, I'm not blaming all parents. In fact, most of the people I have met who are decent human beings have a good relationship with at least one of their parents. There are always exceptions to the rules, but I feel all this bullshit with shootings and young kids getting pregnant is a parenting problem... and to those who disagree with me, I say "Wake the fuck up, would you?" Now, back to the sex stuff. Sex is a part of human life... thats why the romans had ORGIES, and they were one of the greatest societies EVER! (I attribute it to all the orgies.) Now, everyone just loosen the fuck up and stop being so damn uptight about everything, and we can all get down together! It'll be great, you bring the oils, and I'll bring a "between-poundings carton of smokes", and so on. We can have a good ol' fashioned world orgie, and that'll just make everyone feel a whole hell of a lot better, except for the Christian right, but they're gonna be burning in their own private hell anyway, so fuck 'em. I'll leave you with an excerpt from a song done by Tom Lehrer, called Smut:

"Old books can be indecent books,
Though recent books are bolder.
For filth, I'm glad to say,
Is in the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz - there's a dirty old man!"

So, to synthesize my feelings, you can take my porn when you pry it out of my dead, sticky fingers!
Punk Bitches!