Also, All Cats Will Be Required to Wear Sweaters

There have been recent rumblings about the potential reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, legislation that would require television and radio stations broadcasting through federal airwaves to provide a balance of liberal and conservative political content. Putting aside whether or not that is a good idea (per Rasmussen, 47% of Americans think it is and 39% don't), what I find beyond hilarious is that the same policy is being evaluated for the internet.

THE INTERNET.

When Rasmussen posed the following question: "Should the government require web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints?" 31% of Americans responded yes.

When when when are these octogenarians going to realize that they cannot legislate internet content? I can snap my fingers and have the entire second season of Heroes on my hard drive in an hour without a single cent changing hands, but the government is somehow going to come up with a super-sekrit-hacker-proof-intarwebs-controller that is going to effectively monitor my blog content?

Right. May I interest you in a country song?

(Here's hoping no one tells Congress about Britain... I think they have the intarwebs there, too! Shhh!)

But out of respect for those of you who think that censoring internet content is not only possible but nifty, here is the opposing viewpoint.

Win-Win. Win.

Gosh, why didn't anyone just think of this sooner? We're saved!

McCain: I'll Cut the Deficit by Winning Iraq War

Considering McCain's assertion that U.S. troops staying in Iraq for 100 years would be "fine with him," I can't say this gives me a lot of economic confidence in a McCain presidency.

Not that I really had any, given that he's already admitted he's "not an expert" on "this stuff." Of course, he now denies having said that. Someone really needs to tell McCain about the YouTube:

Humanity I Love You

A group of "electro-sensitive" people are taking action against Santa Fe to have WiFi banned in public buildings on the grounds that they are "allergic" to wireless signals. Their argument is that the WiFi banning should be included under Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. One of the plaintiffs asserts that cell and WiFi signals give him chest pains. (I'd see a doctor about that, but I guess the City Attorney works too.)

I'm actually very excited about this bold new legal initiative; I believe this lawsuit will pave the way for the action I plan to bring against the City of San Diego arguing that stupid people should be banned from public buildings on that grounds that I am allergic to them.

Q&A with LOL Cats

Q: What, pray tell, is a LOL cat?

A:


Q: Who, pray tell, have the LOL cats endorsed?

A:


Lo and verily, it is true. They even have an Obama campaign website, the aptly titled Yes We Can Has.

But perhaps the real question is this:

Q: Why, pray tell, is a LOL cat?

A:

Lieberman Meets the Intertubes

The inevitable day has finally come — someone told Joe Lieberman (world-renowned DINO) about the Internet, and more specifically, YouTube. Lieberman, apparently, skipped right past the porn and pandas and moved directly into searching for some combination of "people" and "who" and "hate" and "Jews." But I mean, who hasn't done that search, right?**

Lieberman sent a letter to YouTube demanding the removal of a plethora of content he deemed offensive (clearly a better use of my tax dollars than, say, figuring out a way to get out of Iraq). YouTube's response , excerpted below, is pretty awesome:

Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.

Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube -- even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos. While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy.

Intertubes 1, Lieberman -8 bajillion. (In all fairness, the guy was already in a pretty deep hole.)

**Disclaimer: I haven't.

Do Not Collect 200 Gajillion Dollars

And I quote: "Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is in talks with Microsoft about joining in its contested bid for Yahoo, according to people involved in the discussions."

Okay, first of all, "people involved in the discussions." "People" involved in the "discussions." What does that even mean? My husband and I are presently people involved in discussions. According to us, Dick Cheney's skin is made of calcified American cheese that hardened during his journey from the Death Star to planet Earth. Think the much-vaunted New York Times will pick that one up?

Furthermore, I find myself suddenly in the grip of a most terrible fright. If Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch breed, what will their children look like? Will there be horns? Glasses? Horn-rimmed glasses... that eat babies? Run, little Yahoo, run! Get thee to a nunnery!

Or at least a nice partnership with Papa Google. Although here again I am baboozleplexified by the odd lack of journalistic... journalism. Yahoo's own website is carrying a story that claims the company views Google as a potential alternative to the Microsoft buyout, but that very story contains the following quote: "A Google spokesman declined to comment, saying he was not aware of the story." So Yahoo is, what, floating the story in the hopes that the gods of Google will shrug and assume that they must not have noticed the Yahoo merger amidst all of their other corporate congealments?

All I know is that if I have to start typing my search queries into the image of Bill O'Reilly's gaping maw, I am going to officially become a Luddite.

Gadgetastic

I have a new favorite toy — Google Reader! It's basically a ridiculously easy feed reader type thing with Googly goodness. Today I effectively smooshed The Huffington Post, Go Fug Yourself and my friends' blogs all into one gmail-inspired contraption.

Truly, internet, you are extremely diverting.

Sometimes My Brother Emails Me Things

Things I learned today from The Internets:

1. There is a Russian YouTube. Awesomely, it is called RuTube.

2. Russians are into some pretty weird stuff. And I'm not even talking about the fact that their alphabet looks like sneezes.

3. That weird stuff includes a two-legged dog who walks on her own hind legs. I'm not even kidding.

4. The first hit produced by a Google image search for "Russian culture" is a picture of a set of traditional hand-painted Russian nesting dolls. The first hit produced by a Google image search for "American culture" is a lawyer joke cartoon.

5. The seventh hit for both searches is a shirtless person.

Freedom Zero

According to GNU Operating System, free software requires the existence of four freedoms:

— The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

— The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

— The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

— The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Per GNU, "To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer." This is an important distinction for those of us who came of eAge alongside Napster. It wasn't about the free(dom) of the music, but the freedom to the music.

I find the concept of Freedom Zero particularly enticing, and wonder what it's sociopolitical parallels might be. Not that free software isn't political; it very clearly is.

Why I Like the Stuff I Like

While I lazily and confessedly use the Fellow Travelers link in my sidebar as something of a makeshift self-serving set of bookmarks, I thought I'd take a moment to explain why they're worth checking out for the rest of you who wander through here occasionally.

Daily Kos — I'm a big proponent of tossing the myth of objective journalism out the window and returning to the days of owning one's lens and reporting accordingly. And that's what Kossacks do.

Go Fug Yourself — Because thongkinis are never okay.

Open Left — A less cool Daily Kos, but still worth an occasional browse.

Slightly Perfervid — A friend's insightful and often amusing blog asserting that happiness and neuroses are not mutually exclusive.

The Futon Critic — This site is pretty much the only way I can keep track of what is airing when, since there's about as much consistency and logic to network airing schedules these days as there is to Bush's position on FISA.

The Huffington Post — Sort of like The Drudge Report, but with way more bloggers and way fewer trojan horses.

The Mean Bean — A friend's fledgling vegetarian blog. Lots of awesome recipes for people who are more microwave than Martha.

United Hollywood — Because if there's one thing I love more than pop culture, it's organized labor. Wait, strike that, reverse it. Or not. Doesn't matter; UH has both.

Do you write or read an awesome blog I don't know about (*cough*ProjectRunway*cough*)? Let me know!

Shiny New Toy

What do you get for the political junkie who has everything? His or her very own delegate counter!

This awesome little device allows you to create an infinite number of presidential primary result scenarios in the remaining states, and shows exactly how many delegates would be allocated to each candidate under each circumstance. Want to know how many delegates Obama picks up if he wins Mississippi 55-45? He nets three. But what if he wins 70-30? Well then he nets 13.

Mix and match, presto chango, and you can play the same game Clinton's playing — the "there's no damn way to win unless we hold a caucus in Tijuana but shhhh don't tell anyone" game.

Seriously, though, it's an addictive little widget.

While you're at it, check out Newsweek reporter Jonathan Alter's column analyzing what the delegate counter shows. It's pretty compelling stuff. Not to give away the ending, but Clinton would have to win all twelve remaining states with a 62-38 margin to beat Obama in pledged delegates. Here's my official prediction: the day Clinton wins Mississippi 62-38 is the day Bush stops tap dancing on public television and signs the Kyoto protocol.

Gimme a Break

On Earth-As-It-Should-Be, running a Google image search for "puppies" should be an instant and easy pick-me-up after a long and arduous day. A few snuggly labradors, a pug in a flower basket and life is good, right?

On Earth-As-It-Is, the eighth picture that pops up upon running said search is a puppy born with edema, which is about as appealing as it sounds.

Come on, universe.

(Granted, the presence of a baby Weimaraner in a wizard's hat on the next page helped. A little.)

The Panopticon

Social theorist Michel Foucault was fascinated by the idea of the panopticon, an architectural structure for a prison wherein the cells are pin-wheeled around a central watchtower thereby creating the perfect surveillance machine. The watchtower itself is covered by one-way glass, and any given cell at any given time may be under inspection by a prison guard; conversely, at any given time, most cells are under no surveillance at all. The panopticon represents the ultimate utilitarian design. Prisoners internalize the possibility of external regulation and so begin to regulate themselves; the possible prison guard without becomes the eternal prison guard within.

The crux of Foucault's description is this:

Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.

This, of course, predated the invention of even more efficient tools of power such as video surveillance and high-powered online search engines, but the implications are even more relevant in the wake of so pervasive a technology. For isn't that the ultimate outcome of new technologies that allow infinite, public access to all information — that we become caught up in a power situation of which we are ourselves the bearers? This is truly a boon for our elected hall monitors. We don't need to be regulated if we regulate ourselves, which is precisely what we begin to do if we may at any moment be the subject of intense external scrutiny. Admit it. You've googled yourself.

To better regulate myself, I have installed Google gadgets on my desktop, allowing me to surveil myself more thoroughly than ever before. Plus, it has a neat Magic 8-Ball feature.

I am such a tool. (Of power.)

It's Not a Conspiracy Theory if It's True

It's good to know that in times of intense global turmoil, with pressing issues such as war, environmental degradation and human rights crying out for public action, I can turn to the U.S. media to keep me informed in a timely and accurate manner. Why, if I hadn't spent an hour at the gym today treadmilling to CNN, how else would I have gotten up-to-the-minute updates on the breaking news story (their words) about New York's latest dumpster baby?

I mean, why would I want to know about the Senate okaying another no-strings Iraq War budget or pending legislation that would shield wiretappers or Greenpeace's latest endeavor to halt a Japanese whaling vessel (all of which happened today) when I can get a point/counterpoint on Baby Christina? (And who knew there were even two possible opinions there? Thanks CNN!)

You know, all I have to say is it sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Internet so I can get some actual news around here.

Speaking of the Internet, it helped me shed a little bit of light on what kind of person would want his 24-hour news network to spend an entire hour covering the fact that the Hardy Boys pulled a baby out of a paper bag instead of, well, anything else. To wit: CNN is owned by TimeWarner, which is chaired by C.E.O. Richard Parsons, who happens to fill his spare time with activities such as serving on the Citigroup Board of Directors, co-chairing a commission on Social Security for President Bush and, according to insiders, very likely planning a mayoral campaign for New York City's 2009 election. I hope he's gotten together a good anti-babies-in-New-York-dumpsters platform. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that legitimate news events are being kept off of the proverbial front page in favor of a little good old-fashioned fear mongering human interest piece.

But perhaps I'm being too harsh. They did, after all, take a five-minute break from the "news" coverage to announce that CNN anchor Nancy Grace has set up a baby blog to keep her adoring public informed about her pregnancy. It's twins!

OH, I almost forgot! Laughter Shrapnel is officially one month old today. Hooray! Maybe I should set up a separate baby blog blog...

All Things through Google

Every time I doubt it's true, I'm proven wrong again: With enough stubbornness and ingenuity, you really can find anything on the internet.

Anything.

(P.S. Bad CIA! Bad! No junta cookie for you.)

2007 A.D. (After Dial-Up)

The Republican presidential candidates are having a debate hosted by YouTube.

Someone run and tell the king.

...

E.T.A.: One of the questions is posted in folk-song format. It's, um. Well, it's in tune.