Hey Libs...back off my man Joe Lieberman.

 

Everyone knows how I feel about John McCain.  Lierberman, to me, is the McCain of the Democratic party.  A loyal Democrat who sometimes has different views than than of the party line. 

 

Seriously...I would wet my pants at the possibilty of a McCain/Lieberman presidential ticket.  This would be almost as kickass as Superman/Batman...or maybe even Ms. Jones/Fred Beiling. 

 

But, I digress.  In this article is a great quote by New York Times columnist David Brooks.  "This isn't a fight between left and right.  It's a fight about how politics should be conducted...What's happening to Lieberman can only be described as a liberal inquisition."

 

Well put.  For anyone not in the loop, Lieberman is facing a tough primary in Connecticut.  But, truthfully, it's not tight because Connecticut doesn't like him.  It's tight because a majority of Connecticut is on vacation.  I'm not kidding.  The people that vote in the primaries are the die-hards.  They're the party hacks.  And, the Liberal hacks hate Fightin' Joe because he has not wavered an inch in his support for the Iraq War. 

 

I hate that members of a party are expected to tow the party line despite their personal feelings.  I could never win an election.  I may consider myself a Republican, but the party would throw everything against me because I hate the Iraq War and I support Gay Rights.  Same thing for Lieberman.  He is weak  right now against a Liberal hack who has the support of the Primary voters.  Democrats are going to win the Connecticut Senate seat regarless of whether Lieberman runs or any other Democrat.  So...he is now bing ganged up on. 

Although, I don't have to give President Clinton kudos for stumping for him. 

 

Anyway...I just wanted to take a moment to call attention to yet another instance or Polictal hypocracy and another case of "Washington Pisses of Jason P." 

 

For purposes of full disclosure (and so I don't get fired) I should remind everyone that my opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.

 

There...that out of the way...dude...can I dispise the EU any more?

 

I mean...who are these clowns.  Of course they are going to rule against Microsoft.  By ruling against MS, they are collecting $357 Million dollars for their governments.  It's not like any of that is going to go to the "offended" companies to help them improve their research and programming tools.  Microsoft can't help it if we employee all the coding geniuses. 

 

Look, Microsoft has been complying with the regulations set out by the EU the same way they complied with the regulations set out by the US Dept. of Justice.  Of course, they're not going to go above and beyond what they are forced to.  Windows is our bread and butter.  I work for Microsoft Game Studios...but Windows is the reason I am employed. 

 

All of these companies are pissed because Windows is arguably the best piece of software ever created.  They can't duplicate it.  Of course Microsoft isn't going to share the code with them.  It's like the Colonel's Secret Recipe for Kentucy Fried Chicken.  If someone has it, they'll duplicate it.  They get what they need to in order to make products that can run on Windows. 

 

What these companies need to do in order to make the profits they want:  Make better products.  Plain and simple.  Don't whine and complain about a monopoly simply because people choose not to purchase your crap. 

 

Look at freakin' Google.  They're kicking our ass (I didn't tell you that) in Search.  Corel had some good years against Office...but Office is a better product.  And, not bundled, I might add. 

 

Media Player is better than Real Player.  Internet Explorer is better than Netscape.  I'm not really sure what Adobe's problem is.  And, the EU is just on one of their freakin' hippie corporate witch-hunts.  Bash one of the largest and most successful companies in the world and also collect a few hundred million euros while doing it. 

 

So...here is the deal.  3rd party people purchase DVDs, edit them, and sell the edited versions (along with the copy of the original) to people who wish to view the "family friendly" version. 

 

The Directors Guild of America sued and the court said, "Copyright violation...you can't sell these videos."

 

Right or wrong?  On the radio this morning, the hosts used the example of Titanic.  The movie is not a bad film for all ages to watch.  Sure, a lot of death is dipicted, but it's based on a true story and the death is not a result of violence.  However, 2/3 of the way through, we get to see a very naked (and very HAWT) Kate Winslett.  Not that I am complaining...but some parents whose 9 years olds wanted to see the movie, may prefer if that particular scene were not filmed.  I would have to agree that it didn't necessarily further the movie in any wonderful way.  It was rather gratuitous. 

 

So, these companies but Titanic and edit out (or blur or something) the nude scene.  Buyers get Titanic, but not the version originally intended for viewers. 

 

I hate this idea.  "Why is that, Jason?" you may be asking.  "Don't you want individuals to have freedom in what they watch?"  Absolutely...but, not at the expense of the art.  If you want to watch Titanic, you have two options...Watch it the way it is, or don't watch it at all.  If you don't want to see the boobies, fast forward.  I choose to fast-forward, but I always mistakenly hit Pause instead. 

 

By editing a film without the creators input, you are essentially changing his/her creation without permission.  If Picasso were alive, it's the equivilant of putting a bras on the ladies of Les Demoiselles d' Avingnon. 

 

You may think that movies aren't art in the same way.  That may be true, but they are art, nontheless.  They consist of multiple minds creating a story for viewers.  For better or for worse, some people choose to include nudity in the films.  I don't like Van Gogh that much, therefore, I don't take in his paintings.  If you don't want to see boobies, don't see Titanic.  Or, fastforward (don't pause).  It's that simple.  Don't make it seem like it is within the rights of a 3rd party to make unapproved changes.   

 

 

 

Howdy!  'Ja miss me?

 

This story came out while I was away and I have been dying to comment:

 

 

So...Rush is arrested for having Viagra not prescribed to him. 

 

As I have mentioned in the past, I am not a Rush fan.  He annoys me and I really don't think he's that smart.  But, I think the Viagra story, more specifically, the fact that someone made it a story, is a bunch of crap.

 

I mean...seriously.  It's Viagra.  It's not Vicotin (or however you spell it).  I understand why it would be confiscated if it wasn't his...but why did this make the news?  How many guys out there are using Viagra without a prescription?  I bet plenty.  Not me, though.  I want to make sure that's understood.  I don't need it.

 

Here is why I think this made the news...because it happened to Rush Limbaugh and it's really embarassing for him.  The media hates him.  They wanted to embarass him.  Plane and simple.  Terrible annoying.