So I discovered, much to Pell's chagrin (and possible Kathleen's delight) that my favorite ATHF episode of the past three months was deleted off of my TiVo! What a world, what a world.

It's 2006, and yet it's still a huge problem to get content from one location to another despite the willingness of consumers to pay. I currently fork over $5 a month for my TiVo subscription, plus the cost of the box. That allows me to watch any show I've chosen to record. But why stop there? Clearly, the networks have enough cash to digitize all of their content and resell it, en masse, to consumers.

Yes, yes, I know: itunes. But I'm not talking about content scaled to fit on an ipod. I'm talking HDTV, 1080p quality videos. Would I pay $2 to get back my favorite episode? Sure. I would even pay $10! Better yet, sign me up for a monthly service and just give me access to content. This is the great scheme of the current millenia: much like AT&T in the last several decades, the media companies of today already have tons of content they have walled off behind copyright laws.

Why?

Because they realize that releasing it into the public domain would cut into their revenue stream, if only slightly. What they fail to realize is that like AT&T, the costs have already been recovered many times over. Once one lays a fiber-optic cable, and charges customers for its use for a limited amount of time, it pays for itself. After that point, it simply makes profit. More and more profit. At some point, consumers must say, "Hey, you're charging us for a product that costs you nothing anymore" and revolt. Likewise, the media conglomerates who have already made billions of dollars off of music artists and television shows must realize that continuing to charge consumer to see grainy videos of old content will soon be obsolete. Either we can petition to release old works into the public domain (my preference) or we can setup a service based system in which users pay a set fee each month to access the entire archive of media a broadcast company owns.

The whole idea, of consumers each having tiny boxes which store content on them, instead of a vast library in a central location, seems outdated. The more content is consolidated, the better. An example? Well, currently, my TiVo has no way to know when shows begin and end. Until the networks fully automate their scheduling, having a live human determine the start and end times of shows might be more efficient, at least if said person was affecting millions of people accessing a library. Think of him as a librarian for the new century.

I want that job: the ability to instantly classify the knowledge that surrounds us. The further ability to sift through the data and find useful information. If only someone would pay me for said occupation.

So I'm watching Hardball yesterday and couldn't help noticing that in addition to brutally under-counting the number of Muslims in the world (Matthews said 1.3 million...he probably meant billion) Matthews started to push his guest, asking him where the line should be drawn on being sensitive to Muslim religious wishes.

Here's the transcript.

A good section:

MATTHEWS: Mr. Siblani, if this happens again in another forum or the same way, a newspaper in “The Washington Post,” “The New York Times,” NBC, someone else airs an iconic criticism of any kind against the Prophet Mohammed, will there be more of this? Is this the world we‘re facing right now, this sensitivity?

SIBLANI: I would like to see more protests of civilized kind, like the one we‘re doing right now on your show. But I think that freedom of speech comes with responsibility and accountability. I think the Danish newspaper does not practice responsibility, nor do they practice the accountability.

MATTHEWS: Fair enough, but the whole idea of freedom is that some people will abuse it.

SIBLANI: That‘s right.

MATTHEWS: And that‘s the nature of the beast, right?

SIBLANI: Perfect example of an abuse of freedom of speech.

MATTHEWS: And you think that they should stop doing it for now?

SIBLANI: I think they should stop doing it and apologize for those people who they hurt their feelings.

MATTHEWS: Are there any other sacred cows, if you will, that the American and Western media should honor besides Islam? Are there other areas we should be equally careful about?

SIBLANI: I think we should be respectful of all religions, you know, not to attack religions or make mockery out of it.

Obviously, freedom of speech is important. But Sibliani's point was merely that responsible individuals, when they have determined they have acted irresponsibly, should apologize. An example?

Okay, let's say the local Nazi party wants to hold a rally in my neighborhood. If they get the proper permits, they are approved. Conversely, let's say I publish an editorial in the local newspaper that claims Senator McCain fathered an inter-racial child out of wedlock.

Now, both of these actions could result in people arguing quite vocally, that both groups should apologize. But, importantly, the argument is not that freedom of speech should be abridged: the thing that makes America great is that anyone can say anything at anytime about anyone. (Excluding libel, and the crowded fire argument, etc.)

But the difference between the Nazi party and me, I would hope, is that if I unintentionally offended people, I would apologize. Right?

If the publisher of the Washington Post wished to put a cartoon inside that depicted the President of the United States having sex with a twelve-year old girl, he could do so. That's freedom of speech. But should he apologize if he did? Of course. (And maybe get fired? Of course.)

This is the argument that makes the Danish cartoons complicated, because the entire point of the cartoons were to draw attention to the fact that a segment of the population was offended by cartoons depicting Muhammad.

Which brings me to an interesting point: if the original cartoons were inspired by a writer's inability to get an artist to contribute pictures to a children's book about Muhammad, whose children would be reading said book? Any good Muslim would obviously not want to let their child read such a sacrilegious book. Was it, then, Muhammad For Dhimmi Children? It doesn't make any sense that a children's book about Christianity would show offensive pictures of Christ, so why would it for a children's book about Islam?

But in the end, Matthew's show was too much to bear. Why? Well, look above for the choice quote:

MATTHEWS: Are there any other sacred cows, if you will, that the American and Western media should honor besides Islam? Are there other areas we should be equally careful about?

Hmm. I don't know. How about Hinduism? Any sacred cows there?

What an idiot.

Last night was fun! Well, some aspects, namely:

• watching 24 with Kathleen
• extracting a lightbulb rusted into its socket from the house
• rearranging my room
• consuming a large amount of wensleydale cheese

Of course, there were some negatives including:

• destroying the socket in the process of extracting the bulb
• driving a large shard of glass from said bulb into my foot
• bleeding out all over the stairs of my house

On the whole, a fairly not-fun evening. What about today?

Well, I:

• stayed at home because of my foot
• finished American Psycho during lunch
• caught some rays
• worked like a dog the entire day excluding lunch

And that's just up until now. Who knows what could happen later?

Want an interesting take on the cartoon controversy? Here you go. Or you can read the more nuanced Juan Cole version.

The cartoons themselves are located here on Wikipedia, in addition to background about them. It's worth a look.

Due to user requests, I've moved the validate, syndicate and pontificate links to the left side. So all you lazy posters can simply click on the left, now.

Also, if you're not watching Gonzales speak about the NSA wiretapping program, you should be. It's on c-span and every American should be watching it.

Why?

Well, for starters, Senator Sessions just made the argument that "since Hamdi allows us to detain American citizens at will, isn't a little surveillance far less bad?" Right. So through a bad decision on Hamdi, America has now become a place where anyone can be wiretapped for any reason. Sessions then suggested that "in fact, perhaps we've gone too far by allowing Americans to have too many protections of their civil liberties". Disgusting.

The Super Bowl was, in the end, a fairly weak game.

Not that there weren't moments of drama, or that they game didn't stay close until late. Yet both teams made mistake after mistake after mistake. Seattle clearly dominated the first half yet was unable to score any touchdowns. Pittsburgh won, but didn't look like a team worthy of even competing in the Super Bowl, let alone winning.

Worst of all, in my mind, the super bowl ads were especially weak this year. I've come to depend on Pepsi to create ads that are awful, but the normally rock-solid Crispin Brown agency clearly dropped the ball with their over-the-top Burger King ad.

And memo to advertisers: if your spot contains things that look ugly (I'm talking to you, Fedex and Hummer), I'm not going to enjoy watching the commercial. Fedex had a lame commercial, but the Hummer H3 commercial was actually even a bit disgusting. Pregnant monsters? Oook.

Sequel commercials are also tough to pull off. Careerbuilder's wasn't that amusing, even with jackasses. The few beer commercials that were sequels also seemed somewhat lackluster. The rest of the beer commercials were fairly well done, with simple timing and good jokes. But there were no standouts.

Much like the players in the game itself, the ads just seemed to barely be trying.

So after having a conversation with Heidi the other day about the SOTU, I realized that I'd never investigated her sig o's interesting refrigerator magnet inspiration, the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster.

There's plenty there that we can all learn from. Best of all, the FSM book is due out in less than a month!

So I'm in CVS the other day, preparing to purchase a soda, when I notice a shiny display advertising a new razor called the "Fusion".

Having seen the marketing campaign (poised to coincide with the Super Bowl) I thought I might give it a spin.

At first, upon looking at it, I thought to myself, okay, so they now have more blades than shick. But in reality, the fusion's greatest selling point is not the sheer number of blades (5!) or even the fact that the head of the razor is the size of a credit card (there's a huge pad beneath it which ensures you get a pretty consistent stroke without blood). No, the best part of the fusion is that it incorporates a tiny blade on the back to mimic a straight-edge razor.

Impressed (later I'd discover that it actually does work fairly well) by this addition, I admired the row of razors, and noticed that in addition to the regular version there's a battery powered one which somehow vibrates the razor head itself. That is, in my mind, still a waste of money.

Having used the Fusion for a few days, I'm comfortable saying that it's easily the best razor I've ever used. It's not so much that you get a much closer shave necessarily as that you have a much lower chance of doing damage, especially if you are (like I always am) in a hurry in the morning. Throw in the mini-straight-edge and you can do touch-ups with ease.

Yes, this post sounds shillish. But it's not: trust me.