XXXcuse me

So a while back you may remember some legislation coming around with making a new suffix for the internet, .XXX. This new domain suffix would be made solely for sites that deal with pornographic material, obviously. The idea was that making passing this would 'clean up' the internet, and make it easier to block and keep the material out of the hands of kids. The websites would still be available for any who wanted to see it, and all sides would be happy. It seems that this motion, after already being rejected in 2007, was overturned and may be implemented shortly. This is good, right? Well, no it's not.

You see most adult websites don't want this change to occur, and have been fighting against it. Also fighting this move is religious organizations, oddly enough, feeling that this will in fact cause pornographic sites to spread out and become even more prevalent on the internet. And of course, as any dad with a nudie mag collection will tell you, no matter how well you hide it, putting all the 'bad stuff' in one place does not make it more difficult to discover, it actually makes it much easier.

But the real issue here, the issue most of the adult websites fighting this are worried about, is possible censorship. The way it works now is pornographic sites are governed by the same rules as every other site with a .com or .net suffix. So whether you want to visit Hustler's website to look at naked women, or the Martha Stewart website to find a recipe for apple pies, it's all generally run the same way. With the addition of the .XXX brings possible new rulings which could hamper or outright censor the sites on any number of reasons. If the board set to run this new domain decide they don't like something, they can simply remove it, and the company will have no choice but to accept it.

All in all this just seems like a bad idea. The internet doesn't need a 'red light district', what makes this crazy thing we call the web so great is the mass accumulation of information, media, and services. It's all in one place with no limits, it's all accessible without jumping through hoops. Sectioning off the internet will limit it's freedom, it will tier off the mass, it will give prevalence to one type of information, and subjugate another. This whole issue just smacks of the same kind of logic that brought on the idea that Net Neutrality is bad. The internet is not something that needs to be separately governed and controlled, it's not something that can be governed and controlled. The internet is a bastion of knowledge, and you can't control that.

And seriously, .XXX? You couldn't come up with something less silly?

Battle of the Sexists

I am not a Feminist, and in fact generally try to avoid people who self identify themselves as such. Now the reason for this is not because I'm a chauvinist pig who do not believe in a woman's rights, nor is it the taint that some hardcore Feminists have drawn in the sand against men. The simple fact is that in my mind defining yourself as a Feminist, no matter how sensible or well minded on the issues you may be, you still bring on a separation that has negative connotations. As a Feminist you fight for a woman's right, as opposed to just for rights.

I bring this all up because I read an article dealing with a little... Hypocrisy. Here we have a woman who states quite boldly, that if the World Cup featured female athletes and a site came up for men to ogle the beautiful women it would be awful. But the site that exists now for women to drool over men is not only perfectly acceptable, but just the women's way of appreciating the athletes, since the men there certainly aren't simply sex objects, and being adorned by these women just because they look good. The site the article links to right now has fourteen photos up, eight of which the men are in some form of undress, and only four of which there's even a ball present.

This woman writing the article tries desperately to keep her integrity as a gender defender Feminist while still allowing herself to indulge in a little man meat. The problem with this and with Feminists in general is there's nothing wrong with this. The woman here has every right in the world to stare at these men, to be attracted to these very fit and appealing men. She doesn't have to care about the sport, she doesn't have to justify herself as she enjoys watching their shirts being taken off, or compiling a list of 'Thighlight' photos for other women to look at and feel funny about.

We're all hard wired to do it, some more than others yes, but we're all attracted to bodies. It's not something to be ashamed of, it's simple genetics. We're bred to be attracted to people who are aesthetically pleasing. This is 2010, a woman is no longer hired solely on the basis of her looks, unless the job is centered around looking good, and in those cases men are just as subject to those vain rulings, sometimes more so.

If you want to argue for equal rights, that's one thing, but pressing this idea that attraction based on looks is bad is complete lunacy. We're hard wired to want to see the opposite sex and it's after that we start to build upon it into a relationship. But our models, our actresses, and our female athletes are not likely to be hanging out at a singles bar for us to approach and get to know the real them. So we look, and you know what, so do women. We all look and there's nothing wrong with that. We're all people and yes, if we look good, sometimes we're all sexualized.

I'd just like to see the Feminist argue for equal wages for male porn stars.

Alternative Age

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, to talk about today. Most articles I found were about the antenna problem regarding the new iPhone, and that's not exactly a big talking point. So I'm gonna discuss something that's not in the news, but more something that's close to my heart, and something I was working over my head yesterday. I was working over the idea of New Age and Alternative medicine, I was working over the sadness I feel for the patients, and the anger I feel towards the practitioners.

Let's get the easy one out of the way first, New Age medicine. Now I really shouldn't have to go on how three thousand year old eastern medical practices based on spiritual healing and, well, nothing else could possibly thrive in a world with modern medicine. Unfortunately I have to do just that, because it just won't go away. The New Age Medical practices are based off the old Eastern philosophy of healing spiritual energy, add that with Hippies minus the tie dye, and you've got yourself a nice placebo that will not only earn you cash, but get you the appreciation of your fellow man. Unearned, and unwarranted. New Age Medicine, incense therapy, and any other spiritual nonsense are nothing more than placebos. They put the patient in a relaxed state, they're calm, they're at ease, and worse off, they believe it will work. They end up saying they feel great! And continue to go for treatment while the real problem continues.

Now Alternative Medicine is a bit trickier as there's no aspect of spirituality in these... most of the time. They try and sound scientific, while in essence have no scientific backing to their methods. You're likely to see a lot of alternative medicine on late night infomercials promising to heal that back, ankle, wrist, neck, and weight problem you have. Things like Reflexology, Magnet Therapy, Herbology, and Homeopathic medicine provide the same placebo effect for those who don't critical thinkers who don't want spiritual healers, and don't want to think critically enough. These practices mostly seem to be elaborate massages, or using devices that have little to no actual effect on the human body, or just really bad science like diluting medicine with water somehow making the medicinal value stronger?

So how do these practices continue to thrive? I could easily say that people are gullible and knock off for the day, but I don't think that's truly the case. In my experience, every person I've known that prefers alternative or new age medicine had some tragedy in the family caused by modern medicine. These people watched a family member suffer and die due to a mistake by a doctor, or an adverse reaction to a medical procedure. It's heartbreaking watching these people, who aren't stupid, they're not dim witted or lack any sense of sense, they're angry and spiteful. So here comes a practice that promises to make you feel great with no risk. And hey, it works, you do feel great and there was no risk.

But while feeling great, real sickness and illness can take hold and these people just can't fix that. There is no getting better without some risk, we're talking about altering the state of our bodies, and our bodies can be temperamental bitches. Being angry at Medicine because your doctor was a fuck up, or because one time a medication had a side effect just doesn't justify endangering your own life, and possibly your families. Realize that Medicine is not a practice that can ever be one hundred percent, and for practitioners is an ever learning experience. Realize that Modern Medicine has completely eradicated thousands of diseases and illnesses through cures and treatments, and that New age and Alternative Medicine has completely cured absolutely nothing.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, or it does nothing at all.

Broadcast Someone Else

I've talked in the past about piracy, bringing up the point that though those against piracy on the internet are right, their methods of enforcement quickly turn public opinions against them. No greater case can be listed than Viacom's nearly two billion dollar lawsuit against Google in regards to their property YouTube. The ruling has finally come, and the Judge stated that YouTube was doing everything in it's power to remove copyrighted material from it's site, IE someone flags a video as copyrighted and YouTube removes it. Therefore YouTube was acting in accordance to all laws regarding Internet Media. Viacom states openly that they're sure they will win in appeal, and continues it's effort in making itself the enemy of this situation.

Now this is a little different from the last article I did on Piracy, where the individual person was stealing and distributing media, now we have a middle man, a company, YouTube. Viacom's case is that YouTube's methods of removing material from their site is inadequate and therefore the mega-giant that is Viacom is losing money from people watching their shows on the site. They go on to point out that YouTube actually encourages the posting of copyrighted material and are making money off of it. As ludicrous as this is, it becomes even sillier when the fact that Viacom itself has posted it's own material on the site to spark a viral interest in the material, and have asked YouTube to put it back up when it was taken down...

The simple fact is that YouTube has a EULA, an End-User License Agreement, which states quite clearly that the posting of videos that you do not exclusively own without permission is prohibited. When someone ignores this, the video can then be flagged by any user, and will then be viewed by a moderator, and removed if the video goes against the User Agreement. Case closed. YouTube has always made it clear that videos you do not have permission to show are not allowed, and it is the individual users that ignore this agreement that cause the problem, and with a user base numbering in the thousands of people who use YouTube regularly, not even mentioning the casual users, it creates a pile that can be difficult to manage.

What strikes me is Viacom's assertion that YouTube makes it's money off this material. This is a lie, and one I cannot fathom anyone buying. The core premise of YouTube is the ability to share an individual's videos with the world, and that's generally how it's used. From funny accident videos to vloggers, the people who do actually bring most of YouTube's money, the site is about self expression for anyone and everyone.

Right now I'm looking at YouTube's front page and you know what I see? In the Featured Videos I see Tiny Bubbles; a bearded man talking to his camera about explosions, Understanding GIRLS!!!; a video of an Asian girl talking about, well, women. In the 'Videos being watched now' section I see Marvel vs. Capcom 3 Gameplay Footage posted by IGN, and Ken's Dating Tips, a comedy skit promoting Toy Story 3 posted by Pixar. Wait a minute, you mean legitimate companies are using YouTube to distribute their content so they can make money?

This is where Viacom should be, they should be using YouTube, not trying to milk it for two billion dollars. The simple and instant access to media is what makes sites like YouTube so popular, people can instantly find something they want to watch. Whether it's Movie Trailers posted by the Studios, reports directly from the floors of E3 posted by G4, or news reports put up by CNN. YouTube is not hurting media distribution, it's giving it a new tool to provide us entertainment on our schedule, and putting it in a place we're all gonna be able to find it. Here we have yet again a company that doesn't want to see the world of technology evolve, they just want to keep everything the way it was...

Knock it off Viacom, and upload a video.

Bad Blood

Let's say that you, spurred on by the recent tragedies of the past few years, want to give something back. You wanna help out, do something right, but you have a problem. You see, you're broke and really can't give any money to the relief funds and you're too busy to go down and volunteer, so what do you do? Well why not donate some blood? Yeah, that's something you can do. It doesn't cost you anything, you only have to give up about an hour of your day at most, and you get a cookie and some OJ for your troubles. That, and you'll know that you're helping people who truly need it... What's that? You're a gay man? Sorry, never mind.

Since 1985 the FDA has put a ban on any male donor who has had even one sexual encounter with another man since the year 1977. Though there have been several attempts to remove this ban, as far as I can read, it is still in effect. The reasoning for this is because it is seen that homosexual relations is a high risk for transmitting diseases. Basically, it's easier and more prevalent for gay men to have HIV.

Now I could blow that away as really bad science and forced statistics. I could point at the level of disease on race lines, how any man and woman who preform anal sex are just as likely, or that it's actually shared needle use that is the higher transference of blood born diseases. But I won't, cause it's not the point. You can't just lop off a litany of perfectly viable volunteers just because the odds are higher that they might be diseased compared to another according to your bad math. The FDA is in essentially saying that one group of people can participate, and another can't. That's right, they're discriminating against male homosexuals.

They're not doing it intentionally, no, they're only doing it because they're looking at the data they gathered, and came to the wrong conclusion. In 1985 when this ban was passed HIV and AIDS was new and scary. They didn't know a lot about it at the time, they didn't know many ways to prevent it, and it seemed like it was located solely in the Homosexual population. The disease was referred to as the Gay Cancer, it was wide spread, it was terrifying. In they're haste to keep this deadly disease out of the population at large, one could argue that the ban was needed.

But it's not anymore, it's just not. They argue that the tests aren't one hundred percent, that there's human error, and that it's just too much of a risk still. But it's 2010, HIV and AIDS are not the gay cancer anymore, just as many straight people suffer from the disease as well. It's no longer so very wide spread among the gay community with the increased use of protection and testing. Every gay man walking the street is not diseased, and they're blood is just as 'high risk' as the woman who last year banged three guys in one night with no condom... Right now all this bad does is discriminate, it keeps a part of the population from helping with the massive needs blood donation. If you need to live in your small minded world, test the blood more strictly, but don't disallow good blood.

You need it more than they do.

[Insert Title Here] Day

So it's Father's Day, a day in which we celebrate dad, and despite my issues of distance and unfamiliarity with the man, I called my father to wish him a happy Father's Day. We talked for some time about this and that, and all was well. However I may feel about him as a person, he is my father and he deserves love and respect for what parts he did have in raising me, and that is my problem with Father's Day. In fact, it's my problem with any 'holiday' that puts some arbitrary importance on any one subject more-so than any other day of the year.

I hate Father's Day, I hate Mother's Day, and like any single person I hate Valentine's day. Secretary Day, Nurse Appreciation day, every year it seems a new day comes up we're expected to respect a person or persons we should already respect on any given day. I can go on to tell you how it's all pushed by Hallmark and other such companies to keep themselves relevant the other ninety percent of the year people aren't buying three dollar pieces of cardboard paper with some sappy words on them, and as true as it is, I won't. Instead I'll simply talk about how these companies, the ones who push these Holidays in the first place, end up destroying the true sentiment behind them.

Mother's Day, Father's Day, Valentines Day, all these holidays are in spirit a celebration of love and cherishment of a person. These days of respect and admiration to people we care about are instead turned into mini-Christmases where we're more concerned about the guilt of buying something nice for the person instead of giving them our love and respect. Love and cherish your Father, but also buy him a cool toy from Radio Shack. Show your utmost desire for your lover on Valentines day... by purchasing them a gold ring. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but sometimes it just feels like the gift overshadows the intent behind the gift.

These holidays are ridiculous, they push on to you an obligation to feel for someone as you should every day without the need for a date on a Calendar. The celebration of love should not be exaggerated on one specific day in the year, it should be honest and heartfelt every single day. The only days that should be any different are personal milestones, hallmark moments, and annual achievements like Birthdays and Anniversaries. These days have actual meaning to the people being celebrated, they're not arbitrary third Mondays of a month you're expected to care a little more. They're special not cause it's the day you need to buy a card, but because they mark a moment in time that matters whether it be a birth, falling in love, or a marriage.

Even with all that I've said, do call your Father if you can, tell him you love him, spend some time on the phone with him. If you're able to a dinner with the man won't hurt, and yeah, a gift that shows you appreciate what he's done for you would be nice. Just don't do it because of what today happens to be, do it because he deserves it. Do it because you love him.

Putting so much love into one day, just means there's less to give all year round.