Don't They Want To Know What SOPA Is?

In case you haven't heard, some pretty big websites will be shutting down for 12 hours today in protest of a bill that some out of touch lawmakers are trying to get passed. The bill is called SOPA and that stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act. And while online piracy is bad, SOPA is even worse. Basically, SOPA would make it criminal to have any copyrighted material (and the definition of 'material' is so broad that it applies to just about anything and everything) on any website. Think about that. That's impossible to work around if you're a website. And really, it wouldn't exactly stop piracy. (The bill itself seems to have little indication that whoever wrote it has ever used the Internet or understands what piracy actually is.) This blog would cease to exist because of all of the pictures that I use with neither permission, nor malice. The implication of SOPA is that so many websites would cease to exist because of this law. Thus, several websites are going dark today to not only protest, but to also raise awareness of what this law could potentially do. But shockingly enough, people aren't quite understanding that this isn't a personal attack upon them.


Wikipedia is one of the major sites that will be dark today. Now, I don't know about you, but if I found out that a certain website that I frequented was unavailable in protest of some sort of new law that might happen, I'm pretty sure that I'd find out what the heck is going on. (And actually, one of my favorite websites, Reddit, is dark today in protest of SOPA. I imagine that today could end up being quite productive once I stop twitching from withdrawals..) But that doesn't seem to be the case with Wikipedia. No, people don't seem all that interested in why. Shocking, I know. All people seem to be interested in is (brace yourself) themselves. The big picture appears to be non-existent for a lot of folks.

I say that because I've been perusing the tweets that have gone out in regard to the darkness of Wikipedia. What I've learned is disconcerting at best and hypothesis affirming at worst. (That hypothesis being that we're doomed. OK, maybe that's not so much a hypothesis as it is something that I see society inching a little closer to every single day. It's still bad.) Let's look at some tweets and see if you notice the one thing that is glaringly missing from all of them.

By the way, I wish that I could take credit for compiling all of these lovely tweets, but alas, I cannot. I found them in the Twitter feed of a (I'm sure) lovely one Katie Notopoulos. She seems like a hoot. But I'm simply basing that on her tweet that read "fight SOPA; send your congressman a d**kpic". (And by the way, under SOPA, neither Katie, nor I would be able to be putting any of this stuff on the Internet. So there's that. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, right. She's funny and she retweeted the following. Behold!







First of all, I can only hope that some of these people were tweeting these sentiments in an ironic fashion. Second, are they aware that Wikipedia, while a lovely source of information, is edited by regular people and can be changed at any given moment to say whatever you want it to say until someone else notices that Gary Oldman really isn't a giraffe or that Snoop Dogg's "Gin & Juice" is a "masterpiece" and then edits it to be more factual? I didn't even know that Wikipedia was being accepted by teachers/professors as a citable source. I'm not saying that there isn't great information on Wikipedia. There is. I'm just saying that it can't always be trusted to be correct. (I'm also saying that I may or may not have participated at one time in the altering of some Wikipedia entries in order to make them more humorous and to reflect my incredible disdain for people who may or may not be Gloria Allred. That's all.)

But did you notice that not one of these Wikipedia dependent individuals didn't even question what in the world SOPA is? They think that Wikipedia shutting down for twelve hours is a problem? Are they aware that if SOPA was to pass that Wikipedia would likely be shut down for good? Why isn't anyone asking what SOPA is? Why isn't anyone asking why Wikipedia will be shut down? Man, how I wish that Facebook would do something like this. Could you imagine? The country would collectively wet itself if it couldn't get on Facebook for an entire day. (And let me tell you that if SOPA were to pass, Facebook would need to be shut down as well.) And people would ask what is up if Facebook went dark.

Today might be my most productive day ever without some of my favorite websites to mess around on and waste an extraordinary amount of time on. I might even go outside. I hear that's nice.

Sphere: Related Content

iRony

I knew it wouldn't be long before silly season started after the death of Steve Jobs. I just didn't know that it would be SO soon and SO completely freaking asinine. But then again, whenever there is the possibility of the Westboro Baptist Church having anything to do with anything, I guess I can't expect a guarantee.

Shortly after the death of Steve Jobs was made known to the world, we were all privy to a tweet from the completely idiotic Margie J Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church Phelps'. These are the people (their brains likely riddled with syphilis and no longer capable of rational thought) who tend to picket the funerals of soldiers killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also like to picket funerals of people who were gay or supported gay rights. In general, they're just a bunch of a-holes. That is most easily evidence by Margie Phelps' tweet which is seen below. Behold!


That's right. They're going to picket his funeral. Please do not let the irony of the fact that she sent this from her iPhone (which, in case you were unaware, Steve Jobs freaking invented!) escape you. And when this was pointed out to her (through a bazillion tweets in the Twitterverse), she gave just the sort of response that I would have expected would have come from someone like her. Behold!

Right. That's why you used your iPhone. Because God made it to tell us that. And look, without even challenging her beliefs, I'm just going to come right out and say that I'm pretty sure that God did not create the iPhone. The small children in China that assemble iPhones have had more of a hand in the creation process than God did. And while I'm on the subject, how is it that none of these Westboro people have been shot yet? I'm merely wondering out loud. I'm not suggesting violence by any means. (I AM a fan of about two percent vigilante justice, however. And I think that these lunatics would qualify for my system.) I'm just sayin'.

Sphere: Related Content

Dancing Contest Uproars

Holy crap, people are morons. Paste eatin', mouth breathin' morons. And not in a good way (like when you need someone to get rid of a lot of paste). I mean in the way that just makes me insane because it's so non-sensical. Here's the latest thing that's annoying me: People's reactions to the new cast of Dancing With The Stars. Specifically the issue of having Chaz Bono on there. (For those of you who have been under a rock for God only knows how long, Chaz Bono is the offspring of Cher and Sonny Bono (before he plowed himself into a tree whilst skiing, obviously). Chaz was born as a girl and named Chastity. She declared herself gay at some point, which really wasn't a shocker to anyone that had seen her. And then a few years ago, she had a sex-change and legally became Chaz. And while he's not fully biologically male (he had the top surgery, but has not yet had what I lovingly refer to as the addadicktomy), he is legally a male. Consider yourself caught up.) And thus, it begins.

I first saw a clip of Hoda Kotb (who needs to buy a vowel or something) talking with the nearly insufferable Kathie Lee Gifford on the equally insufferable Today show about Chaz. Kathie Lee said, "Chaz is going to have a female partner." And Yoda Hoda says (rather uncomfortably), "Yes. That's what's going to happen. So it's going to be interesting!" And then they both giggle like idiotic schoolgirls. Good Lord.

Why is that so funny, exactly? Considering that he's a man, baby (say that in an Austin Powers accent and it's a lot funnier), who would you have him dance with? Another man? Well, that would be just strange! Not to mention, wrong. Then again, maybe they're the same type of people that thought that Portia diRossi (should she have actually done the show) should have been paired up with another woman! How ridiculous does that sound?! Very. Very ridiculous. And idiotic. And anything but sane and reasonable.

And speaking of sane and reasonable, that's exactly what some folks are not being over this Chaz Bono announcement. See, I went over to the ABC website to see what folks had to say. Here are some excerpts:

From minnerl: "I believe Chastity Bono, is and always will be a woman. You cannot change what God designed. I will not watch the show now that she is on it. I will definitely skip this season."

From 49TRGll62: "My family and I will be boycotting DWTS this season. My kids love the show but I will not let them watch it this year. I AM TIRED OF THE MEDIA TRYING TO PRETEND THAT PEOPLE WANT TO EXPOSE THEIR YOUNG CHILDREN TO THIS LIFESTYLE! Young children do not even fully understand what it means to be straight yet. Some people still believe in morality and YES, it is something wrong with that lifestyle."

From patjoe55: "What do you think?I won't be watching this season either, as I also cannot agree with the homosexual agenda. I used to enjoy the show, all except for Bruno and his remarks and gyrating all over the place, especially toward the gay dancers. And lately, they are putting more and more gay people on, maybe for Bruno's benefit. No, thank you."


Jesus, where do I start. Here's what I want to ask these people: How have you felt about some of the people that have been on this show in the past who haven't been gay or transgendered, but have had an abhorrent lifestyle? Let's review:

Pamela Anderson: Let's be honest here, she's hot as hell. But she's posed for Playboy, makes a living off of her super hot body, was married to Tommy Lee (Lord only knows what that lifestyle was like) and has used drugs to the point where she contracted hepatitis C. Not exactly a role model, I wouldn't think. (But God, is she hot.)
Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino: Makes a living by getting drunk as can be every night (from what I can tell from the limited, yet torturous amount of time that I've logged with Jersey Shore) and bangs everything in sight that has a vagina. Abercrombie & Fitch offered to pay him money if he would STOP wearing their brand! What does that tell you about the boy?!
Kendra Wilkinson: For cryin' out loud! You people have a problem with Chaz Bono but not with Kendra?! She was whoring herself out to the ancient Hugh Hefner as one of his three girlfriends. And she marketed her own sex tapes! Oh, yeah. That's real family friendly there. Sure.

And let's not forget that also appearing in the upcoming season will be Ron Artest. Allow me to remind these holier-than-thou types that Ron Artest has been known to be an abhorrent human being. From being charged with everything from starving his dogs to jumping into the stands and starting a brawl that resulted in a year long suspension from the NBA. He's not exactly the most non-controversial chap out there. (Granted, he seems to be getting his act together, but I'm not totally convinced. The man wants to change his name to Metta World Peace. That should speak for itself.) Need I go on? (OK, maybe I do just a little bit. Kim Kardashian for cryin' out loud! She's famous because of her ass that was seen my millions on the Internet because of a sex tape!)


So, look. Just relax about the Chaz Bono thing. If you like to watch dancing contests, then watch. If you don't like to watch dancing contests, then don't. But if you're going to judge, at least be freaking consistent about what you're judging people on. Wow. Just wow. You morons.

Sphere: Related Content

Tea Party Signage Goodness

On Sunday, there were Tea Party rallies across the country. And as is now the norm with these sorts of things, signs were abundant. This is neither a good thing, nor a bad thing, but it is in many instances, an amusing thing. I love signs. Let's see if the type of sign that is at every other rally of this sort was present on Sunday. Come on, signers! I know you won't let me down!

First, we're going to need a small child who has no idea what is going on. Do we have one of those? Indeed we do!

Next, we're going to need to see a small child who may have some idea of what is going on, but doesn't look thrilled about it. Do we have one of those?

Check! OK, now we need something inferring that President Barry is a Muslim. (He's not a Muslim, by the way. He's a socialist. That's bad enough. If you don't want to like him, you don't need to make things up. Just don't like him because he's a socialist and you won't end up sounding like a nutjob...or a complete nutjob.)

Yeah, I'm not sure if that really infers that President Barry is a Muslim or not, but it has a pretty good depiction of a rather lopsided mosque and it says "Obama" on it, so it's going to have to do. Up next, I need a sign comparing President Barry to Hitler. Hitler. Anyone? Anyone? What?! NO Hitler comparisons?! OMG!

I could not believe that I didn't see a single sign with Hitler on it. Not one! I was kind of relieved, but I will admit that it also disappointed me just a tad. Hitler is always good for a laugh. Well, now. (It can't be too soon for that kind of joke, can it? Naaaahhh.) I'm going to need a sign that wasn't really thought out very well in terms of spacing.

Don't get me wrong. I suppose that she could have planned it like that. I just am not sure why she would have wanted to. Regardless, kudos to her for putting his hand on there anyway. It does make it kind of stand out a little bit; I will give her that. Now I'm going to need a sign that may have been planned out the way that it was, but it was probably a bad idea because it takes too much work to read it.

It's like looking at one of those charts when you go to the eye doctor. At first, I almost thought that the letters were supposed to spell something. And they are, just not cumulatively. We're still missing a sign which is perfectly fine on its own, but is photographed in an ironic manner.

Yeah, he looks anything but vigilant. He has the right idea for the type of sign that you need for these things, though. Bright colors on a dark background and a simple message. Granted, it's more fun the way that other folks do it, but if you're going for effect, follow this guy's lead. OK, we're almost done with our list here. We're down to needing a sign that makes absolutely NO sense what so ever.

OK, so, yeah. Wow. Is that our standard now? The ol' 18-letter standard? Anything that you can make fit in 18 letters makes for a good comparison, is that how this works? You know what else has 18 letters? TEAPARTYCUCKOOBIRD. And finally, we're going to need at least two signs that just make you laugh. Here's one:

I have no idea what Mickey Mouse has to do with any of this, but that's what makes it amusing. And here's the second one that just makes you laugh:

Good for you, lady, you smart ass cracker, you. Good. For. You.

Sphere: Related Content

The Mosque Mess

I'm going to try my best to delve into this whole "should they build a mosque at Ground Zero" debate that seems to be going on. I'm not so sure how well I'm going to do with this, as it doesn't seem to be that difficult of a concept to wrap my head around. When something is that easy for me to understand, I always feel like I must be missing something. Yet, folks are all up in arms about it, and understandably so. Let's see what all the hubbub is about, shall we?

According to the Boston Herald, "A controversial mosque and Islamic center to be built some 600 feet from Ground Zero cleared its last legal hurdle this week, winning approval from New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission." That's right. A group of folks headed by a one Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (pronounce any of those however you'd like) want to build a mosque a couple of blocks from where the World Trade Center used to stand and where almost three thousand people were killed as the result of "...the actions of a group of Islamic radicals.". As you can imagine, that idea isn't setting very well with folks.

People are upset. People want to prevent them from building a mosque there, saying that it's disrespectful, it's awful, etc. And they're right. It would appear to be all of those things and a whole hell of a lot more. But here's the thing: No matter how much we don't like it, there isn't anything we can do about it to prevent it from being built.

That whole First Amendment, you know, the one that makes this country freaking awesome? Yeah, that thing is exactly why nothing can be done and it's probably why nothing should be done. The First Amendment, for those who might be a little fuzzy on the text, reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You can't just ignore that.

I wish that, instead of focusing on how much people dislike and abhor this idea, people would focus more on things like why in the world is it being built there of all freaking places? Yeah, yeah, I know that they have the land and that land in Manhattan is rather difficult to come by. I get that. That doesn't make it any more palatable. And it certainly doesn't make it any more justifiable.

Apparently, this project has a web site that the Boston Herald inexplicably does not link to. Oh, that's right. The media sucks. I forgot. But they do say "The Web site for the $100 million project says all the right things about its aims at bringing people of different faiths together and about honoring the memory of 9/11 victims." Hmm. Tell you what, mosque guys. How about you let us decide when we'd like to be brought together, OK? How about you help us honor the memory of the 09/11 victims by not building a mosque a couple of blocks away? How about that? I can't see how something this disrespectful is going to do anything other than strain relations between folks of different faiths. (And by "between folks of different faiths" I mean the mosque-goers and the non-mosque goers.)

I'm guessing because it doesn't have anything to do with any of that flowery crap that he was spouting. See, "He has repeatedly refused to disclose who is putting up the money for the project, although he told an Arab-language newspaper that such funding would come from the Middle East." Why wouldn't you disclose that, dude? Why the secrets? You expect people to be perfectly OK with this and not ask you questions? You expect people are going to be perfectly OK with this when you refuse to answer their questions about funding? This can't be good.

Obviously, this is just a kick in the head of the American people. They could build this thing anywhere they wanted to, but they're not. And I think that they're not because it's their way of letting us know that they're here and they're not going away. And as the United States, we have to allow that, as that is what our Constitution guides us to do. Now, I keep hearing the argument or the point or whatever they want to call it about Pearl Harbor. Basically, would we have let the Japanese build some sort of Shinto shrine or temple next to the USS Arizona? It kind of sounds valid, but I don't think that it really is when the context of how it's being argued is used.

See, the Japanese would not have built a temple next to the USS Arizona. You know why not? Because we kicked their ass, that is correct. We not only kicked their ass, we obliterated it. Twice. We haven't kicked anyone's ass in retaliation for 09/11. Oh, sure. We invaded a country that had nothing to do with it and deposed of their dictator who was eventually executed. We've been traipsing around the God-forsaken rocks of Afghanistan for a while without a lot of success. (But that's only because success hasn't been defined yet. As soon as it's defined, I'm sure that we'll have fallen incredibly short. But until then, we'll just stay vague about the degree of success which we may or may not have achieved.)

If someone's ass had been kicked over 09/11, you can bet that there wouldn't be any mosque building going on that close to Ground Zero. They're doing it simply because they can and, more importantly, because they want to. They want to appear the martyr in this situation. They want to have rationale for all of their twisted logic under Islamic law and Sharia law. And since we operate under our Constitution, we have to allow them to do so.

I don't know what would be better; to civilly protest this thing or to stay quiet about this thing. Legally, nothing can be done and nothing should be done. Legal action for something like this would point the country in a direction that I'm not so sure you really want it to go in. In fact, I'm positive you don't. But would a lack of attention be better in this case? I don't know. I just know that people need to take their emotions out of the issue. I realize that is damn near impossible for some. But we can't go around making decisions based on feelings. (Look at California's freaking financial situation. The state is swimming in expensive "feel good" programs. It doesn't work to legislate with feelings.) That just doesn't work.

Sphere: Related Content

Facebook Wins

Terms like "a lot" are only accurate when used in the correct context, unless you're a very small child, in which case, your perception and context is a bit skewed, not to mention a bit limited. Thus, if you're not a small child and have more than four or five years experience on this planet, you're going to have to use terms like "a lot" correctly so that it doesn't make you look and/or sound like a complete moron. Though in this case, I don't think that's all one will have to do in order to avoid the moron moniker.

There is apparently a movement underfoot (or under CPU) for folks to delete their Facebook account. According to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, "A group of dissatisfied Facebook users have teamed up in an effort to organize a mass, coordinated exodus from Facebook". Whaaa...?? A mass coordinated exodus from Facebook? That sounds serious! And while the propelling rationale behind such a movement is serious, I'd hardly call what they have going on a "mass coordinated exodus".

The issue has become the privacy settings on Facebook. Now, I am one person who is fully behind the school of thought that if you don't want the world to see something, for God's sake, don't post it on the Internets (yes, all of them!). But I'm also someone who thinks that I should have control over my own stuff. I'm not a big fan of someone else telling me what is private and what is public. How about if I decide that? Uh, well, if you're asking Facebook, they're not going to let you.

Now, there's nothing making you use Facebook in the first place. I find it ridiculous, yet at the same time, rather entertaining. I am not a big fan of having anything about myself plastered all over anywhere. (It almost makes me cringe every time I see my own picture on this blog. I'm not comfortable with it.) That being said, I never really cared because I could always clamp down my privacy setting so that I could keep certain things (ie, everything) private except to those who were my "Friends". Granted, my life is so boring that there isn't anything on there that would cause scandal in my life, but I'm trying to make a point! Can we pretend that I have a social life just for the sake of a freakin' argument, for cryin' out loud?!

It's when Facebook decided that they would decide what its users had control over is when people started getting up in arms. According to Huffington Post again, Facebook's privacy police "...is now longer than the Constitution and offers some 50 settings and over 170 options." OK, do I care that it's longer than the Constitution? Not really. A lot of things are longer than the Constitution. Most owner's manuals are longer than the Constitution. That isn't reason alone for me to stop buying products. (Man, if you're going to come up with an inflammatory argument, try to make it better than "it's longer than the Constitution". That's pretty weak. The Constitution might not be very long, but I will say that with all of that swirly, old-timey writing, it is a bit difficult to read as it was written. At least the Facebook policy has a more eyeball friendly font.)

But if you're using the Constitution as a guide for what is an acceptable length for any sort of document and/or policy, and you are now considering deleting your Facebook account, then you're going to want to know about Quit Facebook Day. And it is just what it sounds like. The website cited is a proponent of that "mass exodus" I mentioned above. As of this writing, they have 1,745 folks who claim to be committed to deleting their Facebook account on May 31st. That's about twice as many as the 780 that had made the commitment when the Huffington Post article went up. If that sort of commitment continues, then it might turn into something that might be more interesting to watch than paint drying.

Facebook has over 400,000,000 user accounts. From what I can tell, only about a quarter of those are daily users. Don't get me wrong. That's a heckuva lot of people, that one hundred million. But it's a far cry from the user base that Facebook claims to have. And I'm sure that there's a point where it doesn't matter how many users there are for any practical arguments. But since I don't know where that point is, I'm still going with whatever it is that I've been spelling out up until this point.

Facebook is free because it is an information mining organization. It takes every single thing that you post on there and logs it in a very large book (I'm guessing here) and then sells that information to companies who can't figure out how to mine their own data (mainly because they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground). If you have even 100,000,000 active user's information to sell, having 1,725 people quit isn't going to even register a blip on the Facebook radar. They don't care. They're not going to care. Why would they? They're making a gazillion dollars off of the apparent fact that some folks cannot resist the temptation to post half-naked, drunken, frat party pictures of themselves every weekend.

Does it suck? I don't know. Maybe. I guess I wished that privacy controls weren't necessary. But in a world where online identity theft is rampant, they kind of are. Do I wish that I could post half-naked, drunken, frat party pictures of myself every weekend and not have to worry about ramifications? Sure, but only because I'd really like to be half-naked and drunk at a frat party (it's been a while). I think I wish more that people were smarter and more responsible than that, but I have better things to think about and wish for than the impossible, let alone, the improbable.

And while the only thing that is going to make Facebook reconsider whether or not it should be in charge of determining what is private and what is public is to have another option available, that's not going to fix things for a lot of people. The problem here is that the definition and probably more importantly the expectation of privacy is being changed. No one is going to use another option if they don't think that not having privacy is a problem. Granted, no one has to use any of these things at all. But if the definition and the expectations of privacy are changed to the point where real privacy no longer exists, then it becomes more than just about freaking Facebook. Then it becomes about all of the Internets (all of which I love dearly). And then it becomes one of those cases where it doesn't need to be about change right at the moment. It needs to be more about awareness.

Sphere: Related Content