The trial is dang near a perfect setup for my usual ripping apart. There is a heck of a lot more going on to the casew than the overused stuck-in-a-rut talking point arguments about ‘but who defines obscene’. But the motovation to go into a full out deconstyruction just hasent been in me.

Since childhood, I have been the person who always wanted to take things apart because I wanted to find out how they worked. So I see something like the Christopher Handley case I begin asking stuff. What was the law he was charged under. WHen was that law put into efect? How was the material discovered? Was there ever a search warent to open his mail? What spicificly was the name of the comic in question? Are there sample scans from it that I could look at and judge for myself if they were or wernt obscene?

None of those questions are ever raised in the ‘Dear god! We are living in a puriticinal police state’ panic atack style news reports. And when I dig into stories like this its never as how it is originaly presented (and in some cases is the exact oposite). For example, the current wikipedia article mentioning Christopher Handley says in summary ‘in 2007 John McCain introduced a bill and right after that the comic book legal defence fund got involved in the Christopher Handley trial.’ Sensatalionist. The bill was introduced AFTER Christopher Handley arrest. It never made it out of commeett. And even if it had, the bill they cite was only relating to stuff transmited on the internet, not stuff sent through the postal mail like in the Christopher Handley case.

Im sure that if I spent more time researching it, there would be even more crap like that to debunk. But the fight has totaly gone out of me. Whats the point in putting all that effort into ripping apart the same old fearmongering of an overarching puriticinal police state when that information is getting lost in an endless ocean of ‘Evil christians are about to break down your bedroom door! Sexual freedom is at risk and this case proves it’.

Im a voice crying in the wilderness.

Lately I have just wanted to give up ….. scrap the whole blog, archive it, and redesign this website as purely just a bondage tutorial place. The effort I go to in order to express my thoughts and make my opinions heard are just shouted into the void.

Maybee I wouldent be so demorilized if people wernt typcasting me as the exact oposite of the person I am. Not long ago a nationaly known bondage educator aproached me with the idea of setting up a website to promote unity and consolidation in the kink comunity and they asked if I could lead it and orgnize it. They seemed genualy suprised when I tried to explain to them that I wasent the ‘unity and orgnization’ guy they assumed I was. Recently I had a board member of the NCSF aproach me and asking if we could be bestest buddies. When I rejected them, they seemed honestly baffled, as if they were totaly unaware that I have been a frequently and vocal critic of the NCSF for many years.

People are going to believe what they are predisposed to believe. That includes instances where the word ‘porn’ and ‘court’ both happen in the same setence. And it also happens to me as an indvidual. And no amount of me running my mouth is going to change their preconceptions.

Back in 2006, Hao Wu was taken into cusdody by chinese authorities. As it happens, he had recently begun doing some side work for the website GlobalVoices. Founder GlobalVoices Ethan Zuckerman began in ernast a activism campaign to raise awarness and fight for Hao Wus release. However, in Zuckerman own words “we were sort of lousy advocates”.

All that GlobalVoices could realy write about was what they themselves were doing. How they were preasuring congresmen. WHat they were doing to get him legal representation. How they were updating the family. But they honestly didnt know much about Hao Wu indvidualy as a person. After a short time, Hao Wus sister jumped in. “This is bullshit! You dont know my brother! I do”. She started up her own blog writing about Hao Wu and his detention. A website that was much more informitive and much more personal. She had pictures of him and GlobalVoices didnt. She had frequent conact with him while he was in prision and GlobalVoices didnt. GlobalVoices quickly defered to her experteese and changed their advocacy. They just took the sisters blog, translated it, and used it as their point of advocacy.

Ethan Zuckerman himself relates this very well in a speech he gave. And one of the things he learned from this experence is there is a danger of speaking on behalf of someone rather than amplifing.

Of corse this shouldent be suprizing at all. The net has changed several things that were once only controled by orgnizations and has now given power to indviduals. A musician dosent need to strive for a recording contract with a major label any longer. They can put their own works up on the web rather than relying on some group to distribute for them. News isnt controled by big television or newspapers any more. Its the small bedroom blogger working on his own that breaks most stories now a ways. It shouldent be suprising that activism is shifting away from huge centeraly controled groups like amesty international and is now being driven by indviduals.

And that brings us back to the new york times article. Right after it was published, it gets passed around on a few mailing lists and forums and the initial reaction was positive. Folks felt happy that these brave people were fighting for sexual freedom in an opresive country. Horry for sexual freedom! ….. But not so fast!

It didnt take long untill the owners of a couple of american toy shops chimed in with their own view. According to them this company in Pakistan had been making cheep knockoffs of their designs for years. And because of the dificulity in enforcing trademark law internationaly, there was little they could do to stop this Pakistan company. Far from being the glorious revolutionaries that most people assumed they were, this company was a bunch of dirtbags getting rich off some other companys good name ….. But not so fast!

It didnt take long for someone else to chime in by pointing out that the Pakistan company wasent making knockoffs. True that the design was inspired by others, but it wasent as if the Pakistan company was stamping the items with a similar looking logo or using a slightly altered name. The american company had implied this, but it wasent the case.

Turns out the real meat of the story didnt come from the big newspaper corporation. The real intresting stuff came from indvidual people commenting on the article, then someone else commenting on the comments. The indvidual, not the media powerhouse.

But then something very depresing happened.

Other people began posting their own comments saying that ‘huge group’ mentality was exactly what was called for in this situation. People chimed in saying that we as a comunity must all ban together and all of us support the Pakistan company. We should all get on the phone and call the american company and voice our displeasure. Together as one we can make a difrence.

Though activism may be changing with the invention of the internet, activists are not. There is still the overwhelming mindset in some folks that indviduals will always be powerless. That only by huge groups will anythign get done.

Now consider …..

Person A says “No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” …. This is ‘rude and disrespectful’

Person B responds to Person A with “shes a dumb bitch” …. This is open minded and tolerant.

Person A, when they find out about the comment by person B, says “I think he’s angry, I think he’s hurt. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. He asked me specifically what my opinion was on that subject and I gave him an honest answer.” ….. This is damn near hate speech!

Person B comes back with “I don’t apologize / And I called her the ‘b’ word, and hey, I was thinking the ‘c’ word.” ….. This is being respectful and accepting of peoples difrences.

This whole ‘gay marriage question at the miss america pageant’ trainwreck has demonstrated one thing. Tolerant and intolerant has nothing at all any more with toleration. Both are just buzwords. Support gay marriage and your tolerant, no matter how rude and angry your speech is. Oppose gay marriage and your intolerant, no matter how polite and civil your speech.

Just how screwed up is political activism when Carrie Prejean saying “Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.” gets lumped in as being “not accepting of other peoples choices”? Compare it to Tim Hardaway when he said “Well, you know I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don’t like gay people and I don’t like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don’t like it. It shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States.” It should be obvious the difference in viewpoint the two statements are. But for gay activists, both statements come from the enemy camp, both statements are ‘intolerant’, and both speakers must be vilified and destroyed.

Im reminded in a way of Malcom X when he took pilgrimage to mecca. Always before he has claimed that the white man was the enemy and the only hope for the black man was to effeminate whites. But after his pilgrimage he told his friend Maya Angelou ‘I have found blue-eyed men that I am able to call brother’ ….. Im still waiting for the first gay rights activist that can look at a christian and honestly be able to call them brother.

Perez Hilton? Please let go of your hate. There ARE enemies to gay rights out there, but Carrie Prejean isn’t one of them.

The formula is quite predictable at this point. There is some horrific crime committed. Someone screams ‘there out to be a law’. Nobody notices there already IS a law. Some media whore politician rolls out a law trying to show just how concerned and empathic they are. A bunch of conspiracy theorists goes into a tizzy saying the law is ‘vague and overly broad’ and could get used to target people who haven’t done anything wrong.

For the sake of reference, the two laws as they currently stand on the books are Chapter 272: Section 29A and Chapter 272: Section 29B. Below are the bills as they would appear after the update. Bold indicates where there is an insertion. Strike through indicate a word removed. Relevant definitions are hot linked.

Chapter 272: Section 29A. Posing or exhibiting child, an elder or a person with a disability in state of nudity or sexual conduct; punishment

Section 29A. (a) Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know that such person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability. and with lascivious intent, hires, coerces, solicits or entices, employs, procures, uses, causes, encourages, or knowingly permits such child, elder or person with a disability to pose or be exhibited in a state of nudity, for the purpose of representation or reproduction in any visual material, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years, or by a fine of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. For purposes of this section “an elder” and “a person with a disability” shall be defined as those terms are defined in Section 13K of Chapter 265.

(b) Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know that such person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability, hires, coerces, solicits or entices, employs, procures, uses, causes, encourages, or knowingly permits such child an elder or a person with a disability to participate or engage in any act that depicts, describes, or represents sexual conduct for the purpose of representation or reproduction in any visual material, or to engage in any live performance involving sexual conduct, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years, or by a fine of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(c) In a prosecution under this section, a minor or an elder or a person with a disability adjudicated as incompetent by a court of the commonwealth shall be deemed incapable of consenting to any conduct of the defendant for which said defendant is being prosecuted.

(d) For the purposes of this section, the determination whether the person in any visual material prohibited hereunder is under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability may be made by the personal testimony of such person, by the testimony of a person who produced, processed, published, printed or manufactured such visual material that the child person therein was known to him to be under eighteen years of age, or to be an elder or a person with a disability or by expert medical testimony as to the age or disability of the person based upon the person’s physical appearance, by inspection of the visual material, or by any other method authorized by any general or special law or by any applicable rule of evidence.

Chapter 272: Section 29B. Dissemination of visual material of child, an elder or a person with a disability in state of nudity or sexual conduct; punishment

Section 29B. (a) Whoever, with lascivious intent, disseminates any visual material that contains a representation or reproduction of any posture or exhibition in a state of nudity involving the use of a child who is under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability, knowing the contents of such visual material or having sufficient facts in his possession to have knowledge of the contents thereof, or has in his possession any such visual material knowing the contents or having sufficient facts in his possession to have knowledge of the contents thereof, with the intent to disseminate the same, shall be punished in the state prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years or by a fine of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars or three times the monetary value of any economic gain derived from said dissemination, whichever is greater, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(b) Whoever with lascivious intent disseminates any visual material that contains a representation or reproduction of any act that depicts, describes, or represents sexual conduct participated or engaged in by a child who is under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability, knowing the contents of such visual material or having sufficient facts in his possession to have knowledge of the contents thereof, or whoever has in his possession any such visual material knowing the contents or having sufficient facts in his possession to have knowledge of the contents thereof, with the intent to disseminate the same, shall be punished in the state prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years or by a fine of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars or three times the monetary value of any economic gain derived from said dissemination, whichever is greater, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(c) For the purposes of this section, the determination whether the child person in any visual material prohibited hereunder is child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability may be made by the personal testimony of such child, elder or person with a disability by the testimony of a person who produced, processed, published, printed or manufactured such visual material that the child therein was known to him to be under eighteen years of age, or to be an elder or a person with a disability by testimony of a person who observed the visual material, or by expert medical testimony as to the age of the child based upon the child’s physical appearance, or that of an elder or a person with a disability by inspection of the visual material, or by any other method authorized by any general or special law or by any applicable rule of evidence. For purposes of this section “an elder” and “a person with a disability” shall be defined as those terms are defined in Section 13K of Chapter 265.

(d) In a prosecution under this section, a minor or elder or a person with a disability adjudicated as incompetent by a court of the commonwealth shall be deemed incapable of consenting to any conduct of the defendant for which said defendant is being prosecuted.

(e) Pursuant to this section, proof that dissemination of any visual material that contains a representation or reproduction of sexual conduct or of any posture or exhibition in a state of nudity involving the use of a child who is under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability was for a bona fide scientific, medical, or educational purpose for a bona fide school, museum, or library may be considered as evidence of a lack of lascivious intent.

NOTE:  29A(a) winds up having a period in a very wierd spot. The insertion at ‘physical appearance by inspection’ in 29B(c) the law doesn’t clearly state if the insertion is before or after the comma. I put in in after. I know location of puncuation in law can sometimes be critical.

So ….. lets examine the paranoid ‘nightmare situation’ all the sex rights advocates are freaking out over. Happily married couple who in the privacy of their own bedroom, celebrate their 60th birthday by taking some naughty photos of each other. Government goons instantly kick in the door and haul them both off to jail forever and ever. Could it happen?

Well firsat of all, Section 29B is right out. They didnt have any intention to distribute so that part dosent apply to them.

But in either case, distributor or not, there are provisions for consent. Though the paranoid panic attacks are totally correct when they link to the definition of ‘elderly’ and say ‘there is nothing in the definition of elderly that exempts those who do so willingly’, what is skipped over is that the law itself makes that exemption. 29A(c) and 29B(d) both note that in order for it to be a crime, the ‘elderly or disabled’ as to have been found by by a court to be incompetent. Since the theoretical couple in their bedroom haven’t been found by a court to be incompetent, and are both totally able to think and care for themselves, the law wouldn’t apply to them. ‘Definition’ of elderly doesn’t matter.

As I said, the formula is quite predictabal. The ‘vague and overly broad’ is once again just lingustic nitpicking that stirs up all the fear of an opresive puriticinal police state. It dosent even pause to wonder if the word might be narrowly defined, but just not narroly defined at the spicific location they are looking.

I said it before, I will say it again. ‘Vague and overly broad’ is to sexual rights advocates what ‘please wont someone think of the children’ is to family values advocates.

The justification for this corse of action is compelling. Those who opress sexual freedom are just bullies and they will back down if we just stand up to them. Out comes the quote misatributed to Edmund Burke of “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Its obvious that SOME form of action is nessasary to halt this atack on sexual freedom. If we do nothing then the oposition will just get louder and louder and remain unchecked and they will never ever go away.

Here is the dirty little secret of political activism : yes they will go away.

Activists are quite proud of the disruptions they cause. They buy into the ‘great man’ theory of history rather than admiting the techonological and social trends that afre the cause of most of history. They look at Columbus and Newton and Hitler not as enevedabal products of their time, but rather the embodement of power that could shape the path of history by shear force of their own will. They believe that rebels shape the world, so they try and be rebles themselves.

In short, they are trolls. They witness the disruption that their actions cause and believe this increases their status. Now they might not be seeking to increase their own status for purely egotistical reason. They just honestly believe that in order to ‘change the world’ there must be turbelence and strife.

The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. Some will move on to other places where they will get the reaction they seek. Some will retreat quitely, afraid that the silence they recive is proof that they arnt actualy the history shaping rebles they like to think they are. But to treat a troll as a bully, and to assume that if you stand up to them they qwill back down, is a loosing proposition. The more youy stand upo to them, the more convinced they are that they are having an impact.

Last week, HBO tried trolling the Mormon church. Its show ‘Big Love’ has from its begining attempted to be intentionaly contreversal. Goad the mormans into outrage and the result is huge ratings as people line up to see what the contreversy is about. This weeks publicity stunt was to violate privacy by showing depely personal and sacret elements of mormon cerominies. “Watch out!” came the news from press statements “As soon as the mormons see this all hell will break loose. Its going to be contyreversal! Be sure to tune in and watch all the contreversy!”

Their actual response, however, didnt live up to the amount of contreversy the shows producers had hoped for.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series.

Of corse this didnt stop, or even slow down, the producers of the show who still insisted that they were conterversal and were creating a big uproar. Even going so far as to offer a public apology. “We are sorry for making such a huge mess” when the only people thinking they caused a huge mess was they themselves. But the mormon church themselves already knew “dont feed the trolls” and had ignored the whole issue. Corectly catagorizing it as a cheep publicity stunt that will quickly be forgoten.

Sexual rights advocates would learn well from their example. Joey Olgesby would still be a totaly unknown nobody if it hadent been for every gay rights blog in existance splashing the Donnie Davies videos on their front page.

There is just one problem. It already has been removed.

The removal came nearly 15 years ago back in 1994 when the DSM-IV was updated to the DSM-IV-TR. The summary of the changes states in part

Because some cases of Sexual Sadism may not involve harm to a victim (e.g., inflicting humiliation on a consenting partner), the wording for sexual sadism involves a hybrid of the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV wording (i.e., “the person has acted on these urges with a non-consenting person, or the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty”)

So the fun kinky spicing things up in the bedroom sadism is no longer listed as a mental disorder. Non consensual stuff is still a disorder, as I believe it should be. And if the activity is fucking up the rest of your life, its still listed, as I believe it should be. (Alcoholism is a problem even if alcohol is not. Gambling addiction is a problem even if gambling is not. Sex addiction is a problem even if sex is not. And kink sex that is ruining the rest of your life is a problem even if kinky sex is not.)

Here is food for thought. Who said the flowing? “The DSM IV definitions for sadism and masochism state that as long as the activities are not interfering in someone’s daily life, then it’s not a mental illness.” Surprisingly it was said by NCSF spokesman Susan Wright in September of ‘06. Some old nobody was griping that anyone doing kinky sex was crazy, and in rebuttal Susan Wright pulled out the DSM-IV-TR and said ‘look right here. Says in black and white its not a mental disorder’. She then goes on to belittle reporters who dont go look at the DSM-IV-TR because the DSM-IV-TR clearly and obviously says that kinky IS NOT a mental disorder.

But all that changed. By September of ‘08 the NCSF was loudly proclaiming that the DSM-IV-TR clearly and obviously states that kinky IS a mental disorder. In just 2 short years, the DSM-IV-TR went from being a upheld as the ultimate defense in proving that kinky isn’t a mental disorder, to being a book worthy of burning because of how it vilified and degraded kinkiness. What caused such a massive flipflop in a span of just 2 years?

This might take some explaining. Just stick with me here.

Consider Danielle Berry, the male-to-female transsexual who might be known to some as the computer programmer who wrote the video game M.U.L.E. for the commodore 64. Their advice to other transsexual was to not get a sex change operation. Their view was that the finical and social and emotional cost simply wasn’t worth it. Other options could have worked out perfectly fine. In their own words “Being my ~real self~ could have included having a penis and including more femininity in whatever forms made sense.”

There IS the possibility that someone going into sex reassignment surgery may be doing it for the wrong reasons. Just for a few examples, if someone is a gay male, its totally fine to live their life as a gay male instead of thinking ‘Gee, I must be a woman trapped in a mans body’ as an explanation for their sexual desires. Or a darker reason may be that someone is suffering horrible self estem issues. Like an anorexic who is disappointed in their body, this person may dislike the body they have and incorrectly assume that if they change their gender, life would get better. They latch on to sex reassignment as a hope that it might somehow erase the self esteem issues they are having. Or maybe they are just a cross dresser. They get off sexual from dressing as a woman. And if they dive toward the ‘I must be a woman trapped in a mans body’ excuse they are denying their true kinky nature.

Now consider those situations in a child. A preteen not yet old enough to make rational decisions for themselves about gender identity. Maybe, just maybe, the decision to change ones gender should be put on hold at least until they get a bit older. If they still continue to believe they are a woman taped in a mans body, there will be plenty of time later in their adult life to explore that decision.

Naturaly for the political branch of the transgendered community, this is blasphemy of the highest order. Nobody EVERY goes to sex reassignment surgery for the wrong reasons. And if anyone ever utters the phrase ‘I think I might have been born the wrong gender’ they must be believed without question. Never ever EVER call into question whether their might be other factors at work. Ever if that person is a child.

Enter Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard. Zucker is a child psychologist. He committed the unforgivable sin of suggesting that a child with gender identity issues should put off the choice of changing genders until they are older. Blanchard lead the study showing that people who crossdressed first and then started thinking they were the wrong gender tended to regret their sex reassignment surgery while those who started thinking they were the wrong gender first and then crossdressed wound up being much more satisfied with their sex reassignment surgery. He committed the unforgivable sin of suggesting that sex reassignment surgery is a useful and appropriate procedure for transgenders, just not the cross dressers that mistakenly believe that they are transgendered.

Reaction to them both was horrific. The political branch of the trans community did all but burn their houses down. Even when Blanchard campaigned in 1998 to try and get sex reassignment surgery to be covered by insurance, it didn’t help his reputation. Minds were already made up that these two men were ‘the enemy’ and must be destroyed at all cost.

Both Zucker and Blanchard are on the board that is updating the DSM.

This is why the DSM of 2006 was held up as a vindication of sexual freedom and was obviously to anyone who would actually read it that it said kinky IS NOT a mental disorder. While the DSM of 2008 was held up as a horrific example of hate speech and was obviously to anyone who would actually read it that it said kinky IS a mental disorder. The 2006 DSM didn’t have Zucker and Blanchard attached to the program. The 2008 does.

This is why the actions of the DSM back in 1994 must be removed from the history books. Even though consensual sadism and masochism has been removed from the list of disorders, it is necessary to trick the population of the kink community into believing that such a removal never happened. Only after you can convince the masses that the 1994 removal was something that never happened, only then can you get the hoards to rise up with pitchforks and torches and storm the gates of the DSM and derail the new version.

And believe me, the ‘grassroots’ swell of this movement is working perfectly. I have spoke with multiple different people who were actively involved in the NCSF campaign against the DSM who couldn’t even do something as simple as explain what a five axis test was. Anyone who would have done something as simple as reading the Wikipedia entry on the DSM would have known that. But they don’t bother informing themselves. All they know is that the NCSF says the DSM is ~evil~ so they all march in lockstep reciting the talking points of how the DSM is ~evil~ and that consensual sadomasochism must be removed from its pages. Never knowing that what they think they are fighting to accomplish actually happened 15 years ago, and never knowing that that they are really doing is actually just an attempt to ruin the carers of Zucker and Blanchard.

The NCSF ‘kinky is not a diagnosis’ doesn’t have squat to do with fighting for sexual freedom. Its plain and simple revenge againt Zucker and Blanchard for their perceived (incorrectly perceived) hate speech against trans.

There are a lot of other bugs in the game also. The number that measures land value if it grows high enough will ‘wraps around’ back to zero. Making a deal with a neighboring city on the water pipe system will sometimes get glitch and make the computer think you violated the terms of the contract when you didnt. These, along with the periodic population crash bug, had dedicated fans complaining to Maxis corp to release a software patch to fix the gameplay.

Maxis pointed out something that is actualy very insightful. Ok, the water bug and the land value bug they could work on. But the population bug is unfixable. Users demanded to know why. “Guys, we didnt put that there” Maxis responded. “Economic systems just DO that sometimes. We just made a accurate enough simulator that it mimics what real markets do automaticly”

This totaly flies in the face of the common assumption that anything and everything that happens in life, must have happened because someone caused it to happen. First assume the gamers must not be very good at playing. Find someone very skilled at playing sim city and that crash wont happen. But when this is disproven the search instantly turns to someone else who we can label as pupetmaster and say that the things going on was becasuse of them pulling the strings. The software programs are blamed next and its assumed that the population crash happens because some programer put it there. But this isnt true either.

Extremest hardline scientisism types can at least partialy grasp this idea. Eveolution for them is something that ‘just happened’. There dosent require any intelegence behind it. No design. No planing or forethought. There isnt any pupetmaster for evelution that guids and shapes its develepoment. No ‘intelegence’ behind it that creats a ‘design’. Its just a bunch of stuff that happens.

But for most other things, there is a despere need to believe that things are planed. Im old enough to remember when Coca-Cola changed its formula and it was a disastar that forced them to change back. Theory abounded at the time that it was all a plan. Coca-Cola had set the whole thing up as a marketing ploy to get publicity for themselves. Coca-Cola President Donald R. Keough rejected these conspiracy theories when he said ‘Supposing it was all a plan. A COKE plan. The truth is, we’re not that dumb, and we’re not that smart’

The current economic crisis in the united states of the housing and banking sectors if just part of a very regular cycle. Every decade or so, the whole thing crashes. Housing meltdown of the late 00s. Dot com bubble of the late 90s. Black Monday of the late 80s. Gas shortag of the late 70s. Nobody was in a back room saying ‘our plans are working perfectly! In another 2 years we will cause another crash’. Yet theoris about that the housing meltdown was all caused on purpose. Either by greedy wallstreet types exploting the system for their own gain or by a buch of men sitting around a confrence table in a darkened room with a spotlight shining down on each chair who are planing on institutiong a new one world government.

This week porn producer Bob Zicari pleaded guilty to violating terms the codes of the US post office when he distributed his videos. He had been fighting the case for years, even having once in 2005 had a judge rule the post office codes as unconstitutional (if owning the vids was legal, you couldent make iligeal the method of getting them). This was one of the most positive things to happen to the porn industry in ages. Legal battles being what they were, the case continued to drag out. But just when it looked like Zicari would finaly win and settle once and for all a huge victory for sexual privacy rights, he threw in the towel and quit. Pleaded guilty and now paitently awaits the posible setence of jail time that might be comming his way.

Why? Why now? What changed? Why give up when your winning? Well, those who belive that the population crash in SimCity was caused by the software programer believe it was partt of a plan from on high. Every time up untill now the ‘evil bush dictatorship’ was in charge and lead a prudish victorian minded crusade againt porn producers. But now that nice, friendly, tolerant, open minded Obama is in, sexual freedom is now secure. Hope and change!

Supose for a moment the trial was all part of a plot from oh high. It wasent, but if it was, wouldnt NOTGUILTY 4 years ago and GUILTY today be an indication that things are getting worse for porn? Not better?

Obscenity trials go back and forth all the time. The ‘2 live crew’ obscenity trial found them guilty, then overturned on appeal all under one president. The radio station on George Carlins ‘7 dirty words’ trial was found iniocent, then found guilty on the appeal all onder one president. The CDA was passed into law, chalanged, worked its way all the way up through the supreme court and was ruled unconstitutional all under one president. Julie Amero (computer in the classroom that accedently showed porn on a popup ad in front of the class) was tried, found guilty, vacated, retried, then pleaded guilty to a lesser charge all under one president. All of these obscenity trials that changed didnt have the change happen because of a changing presidency.

Why are so many people so married to the idea that anything and everything that happens in life is because someone at the top, or working behind the scnes, is planing it to turn out that way?

So I heard someone ranting about ‘net neutrality’ recently. I would have thought the issue had died back in ‘06 but apparently there are still people who believe that if we dont do something RIGHT NOW then those evil telecoms companies will start to censor what we access on the internet. Porn on the net is under attack and if you care at all about sexual freedoms you have to support net neutrality.

But does the right to view the sexual content we wish really hang in the balance? Or are ‘freedom’ and ‘censorship’ and ‘greedy telecom companies’ just buzzwords to get people to support net neutrality on an emotional level without examining the facts? Well, whenever you wanna get to the truth of an issue, all ya gotta do is follow the money.

Let me take you back to the trilling days of the late ’90s. The dot come boom was in full swing. Experiential growth. At the pace the internet was growing, there was going to have to be a huge global network of fiber optics to carry all the data. Huge budgets were spent in putting in fiber optic networks everywhere.

But all good things must come to an end. The dot come bubble burst and all the expected data that was going to go through those lines never came to be. Add to that the fact that breakthroughs in technology that permitted a larger volume of data per each fiber optic line and you wound up with a large chunk of these lines going abandoned and unused. So called ‘dark fiber’.

Then secretly, quietly, in the dead of the night, undercover, Mystery Organization X comes along. The failed dot-com business that still owned all the line were approached by Mystery Organization X and offered a ridiculous sum of money for thse lines. As the fiber optic lines were not carrying any data they were not generating any income. And they still needed to be maintained and that was an expense. Owning these lines was business suicide. The failed dot-com companies were happy to get rid of the drain on their finances. But industry experts were left scratching their head on why Mystery Organization X would even want the fiber optic lines.

Fast froward a few years. Along comes internet phone. Voice over IP. Skype. This really changed things. Before then, if you wanted something from the internet, a webpage for example, you would have to wait for it to load. When viewing a website a second or two isnt noticeable, but for real time communication its critical. You hear silence from the other end so you start talking. As soon as you start, the voice on the other end comes on so you stop to let them speak. A two second delay causes huge social/psychological problems for human speech. Our brains are simply not wired for that delay in the conversation. So internet phone has to be instantaneous.

How to get instant communication? Satellite cant do it. In order for a satellite to be geostationary it has to be a HUGE distance away from the earth. Enough to cause a response time delay. ‘Wi fi’ and microwave point to point beaming is faster but there is only so far a distance that it can be used before the curvature of the earth would get in between the two points and block the signal.

You want instant voice communication over long distances there is only 2 ways to do it. Fiber optics or the old wire-switches that the phone companies figured out how to work back last century.

So in spring of 2006, about the same time net phone really started to grow, along comes this propaganda piece. “Those telecoms? They are EVIL! They want to take your freedoms away from you. They want to censor the internet. Why if those greedy telecoms had their way, they would put a ‘throttle’ on content. If you tried looking at something those evil telecoms didn’t want you looking at, they could charge you a different rate depending on what your looking at. Those telecoms must be stopped!”

Now on the face of it this doesn’t make much sense. Cable television companies charge one rate for basic cable and a higher rate for premium channels. That’s not censorship. Long distance companies charge one rate for local calls and a higher rate for international calls. That’s not censorship. Cell phones have one rate for in network calls and a higher rate for roaming charges. That’s not censorship. So its doubtful that it would be censorship if ISPs charge a basic rate for someone who only used the net to surf the web and get their email, and a higher rate for online gamers who require faster connections, or music/movie downloads who require more volume, or net phone users who cant have a delay.

But the propaganda report worked. Soon everyone and their mother was screaming about ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ and how the evil telecoms who were using those twisted-wire switch boxes were greedy and needed to be stopped. Leaving the fiber optic lines, naturally, as the only other alternative.

It should be no surprise that the company that put out this propaganda piece with all the ‘freedom’ and ‘censorship’ buzzwords was none other than good ol Mystery Organization X. If only they could get the telecoms out of the way, they would control the future of the internet.

So who is Mystery Organization X?

There are 2 reasons I cant tell you. First, if I told you then I would be no better than Mystery Organization X themselves. They want people to blindly believe their rhetoric without checking the facts. It would be hypocritical of me to just tell you what I believe and expect you to follow along without checking the facts. Second, as I noted at the very top of this post, your not going to learn anything if I just tell you. Google it for yourself and they you will KNOW. (I will give you one hint. Its not a government agency.)

I gotta warn you however, this is real conspiracy theory stuff. Saying that Net Neutrality is all a carefully crafted plan to control the internet ranks pertly high up the list of ‘they are all out to get us’ paranoia. If you do decide to ‘follow the money’ and do some research on your own, you will totally shit bricks when you find out the organization behind it all. …. Or you can join the legions who are in favor of net neutrality and become part of the ‘brave fight to save the internet’, crush the telecoms, and pat yourself on the back that you were a hero.

It hasent been the first time that the term ‘monkey’ in relation to obama has been interpted as racist. It hasent been the first time that publican named for New York has been acused of racism. It hasent been the first time that cartoons thought to be racist got people pissed off. And for that matter, its not the first time the president has been compared to a chimpanzee.

Now the iniocent explination is the old Infinite monkey theorem chesnut. The point of the cartoon being that the stimulus bill was so bad it might as well have been writen by a monkey. But fore those screaming about racism inherent in the cartoon, this isnt a good enough explination. The theory goes that even if Sean Delonas (the cartoonist who drew it) wasent intending to be racist, he should have been sensitive enough to understand that othersw might take it as racist and theirfore not have drawn it.

On the face of it, I already think this is a backward argument. He wasent thinking about race when he drew it so he is racist. The only way not to be racist is to constantly be thinking about race. But theres something deeper to the notion that people should have enough forsight to stop themselves from doing something that might be considred racist.

Consider the same argument used againt porn. An image may have some other alternitive purpose, but someone else comes along and interpets it as porn then it becomes porn. Elton john owns a fine art print but someone else looks at it and assumes it is porn. Wikipedia shows an album cover but someone else looks at it and assumes it is porn. All echos of much misused “I know it when I see it” quote by supreme court Justice Potter Stewart.

Such events, if not spawning outright ‘Ack! Dear god! We live in a puriticinal police state’ panic atacks, will eventualy lead into the topic of the chilling effect. Someone who isnt involved in child porn might fear being accedently accused of it by some gross misinterpetation, so will theirfore cencor himself. And cencorship in any form, even sell imposed censorship, is evil.

But isnt this exactly what the argument againt the political cartoon is? That the cartoonist should have cencord himself? Why isnt that a chilling efect?

The two seem to be oposites of each other. If somethign is or is not racist is determined by subjective interpetation. Suggesting that there should be a fixed standard that applies equaly in all situations (for example, saying that black stand up commics should get away with using the word nigger when white commics (Michael Richards) are vilified for doing the same thing) will get you labled as clueless to the reality of the situation. If something is or is not porn is determined by a fixed standard that applies to all situations. Suggesting that there shoudl be a subjective opinion (a concerned parent giving a safe sex pamplet to a minor shouldent be iligeal, but a pediophile giving the same pamplet in an effort to ‘turn out’ or ‘groom’ a minor should be iligeal) will also get you labled as clueless to the reality of the situation.

If your a fan of the TED Talks this is easily in the same profoundness level. Even has the socialist style “the world would be a better place with more centeral planing” politics that every other TED Talk fan besides myself seem to enjoy. And its about the same length of time too.

There is plenty amazing in the video on its on, but in the spirit of connect the dots in ways you wouldn’t expect its his talk on stereotypes that I like to BDSM. “The way we portray working people on TV? Its laughable. If thers a plumber he is 300 pounds and he has a giant butt crack”.

Kinksters love to talk about how they are always misrepresented in the media. But as I frequently point out in my writing, sexual radicalism and calls for decency are NOT opposites. They are twins. This notion that the evil oppressive media is oppressing kinksters by showing anyone with so much as handcuffs in their bedroom as a sick crazed stalker/murderer is hardly true to begin with. But compare that to the way ‘working folks’ are painted as being dumb ignorant close minded homophobic redneck hicks who would never understand the more ~froward thinking~ goals of the alt-sex political movement.

I have actually written about the stereotypes of the working class and how it relates to sexual-politics. So actually this isnt that innovative of me to say.