Will Net Neutrality Affect Our Pornography?

An expert commentary by Professor R. J. Pendleton

Everyone knows that unless net neutrality is enforced, there will be a tremendously harsh impact on small businesses, free market competition, internet prices, democracy, freedom of speech, and privacy. Yeah yeah, whatever. But will a lack of net neutrality affect the thing on the internet that people actually care about, pornography? The answer, of course, is "Duh", you idiot.

Net neutrality is the idea that all traffic on the interweb moves at the same rate. Internet service providers (ISP's) wish to change that, making the internet into a tiered system whereby web sites will have to pay the ISP's big bucks in order to have access to the net at full speed. To illustrate, imagine it's the 1950's, and you're sitting in a local burger joint, sharing a malt with your best girl. (Note: In order for this analogy to work for you, you will have to have at least one penis.) In comes the pompadour-sporting, leather jacket-clad greaser, named... oh, say Bell Rogerson. He grabs your straw with his fingers, and squeezes, telling you to pay up, or he won't let go. Meanwhile Bessy-Lou is sucking up all of the malt through her straw, which is terrible because bulimia hasn't been invented, and she's going to look chunky for the big dance. The ISP's wish to be that greaser, and it's tough to blame them, because he does seem pretty cool.

If The ISP's succeed, it will mean that they will be able to slow down access to any sites they wish, as well as peer to peer file sharing between internet users. This will be incredibly detrimental to the average pornography viewer as the majority of porn sites are humble Mom, Pop, and naughty co-ed operations, which would not have the money to pay for the higher speeds. Of course, there would still be big business porn sites that would have the ability to pay, but they would all cater to mainstream audiences. What about the dirtier, raunchier, abnormal porn of questionable legality that I like? That stuff would be much harder to find, and the download speeds would be so terrible that I probably wouldn't even finish downloading one 5 minute upskirt video before I had a class to teach.

And what about those of us that make our own movies to share? For example, if I were to upload a video of myself in latex, hanging upside down, being asphyxiated by oatmeal, without net neutrality it would be almost impossible for anyone to see it, and there goes half the thrill right there.

The answer is clear. There must be net neutrality legislation ASAP. Please call or write your government representatives, and make sure they do the things in the law making place. Lusty school girls everywhere are counting on you.

http://www.saveournet.ca/content/take-action

Are Rhetorical Questions in the Media Getting Out of Hand?

It seems more and more, these days, that the media is using rhetorical questions to grab the public's attention, but are they really effective? Do they actually keep the public captivated for longer than they would be normally? Can the technique be over used? Is there such a thing as too many rhetorical questions? Are there consequences for using an inordinate number of them? Can too many rhetorical questions annoy the audience to the point that the audience stops caring entirely? Does the media really need an audience that has such a short attention span? Can an audience be called an audience if the medium that they are enjoying happens to be in print? Can this be called enjoyment? Are all of these even rhetorical questions? Or are some of them just a form of mock dialog? Can research be done ahead of time by the author in order to keep him from embarrassing himself? Can the words "wasting everyone's time" be added to that last sentence? Why does the author even write things like that when they clearly hurt his feelings? Is that a tear in his eye? Is the little baby gonna cry? If he said it was just a speck of dirt under his eyelid, would anyone believe him? How about, if he said it was an allergy? Is he allergic to suckiness? If so, would that explain everything?

To answer these questions, we called upon Dr. Earnest Whorrell at the International Language Institute In Halifax, Nova Scotia.

"To start off with, yes. Rhetorical questions do tend to keep an audience more attentive." Whorrell claimed.

But can he really be trusted?

Benedict XVI's not here, man! The Vatican Goes All Hippie-Like

There must have been something funny in the Eucharist last Sabbath. Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, "Oddjob" to Pope Benedict's "Goldfinger", has come out with a new list of modern sins that most would agree sounds pretty "groovy". The list includes a few of the old "greatest hits" such as: Thou shalt not sheath thine serpent in latex, and Thou shalt keepeth thine stem cells to thine self. But among the obligatory conservative dogma, a few progressive notes happened to slip in. Girotti rallied against big business, excessive wealth, polluters, and any who help widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Yes, he really stuck it to "The Man".

Girotti went on to say that, "You offend God...[by] carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA..."

Hearing things like this is enough to make a left wing liberal spill his bong water in shock. It's amazing that it has taken so long for hippies and the Vatican to find some common ground, particularly since Jesus was the first hippie (not counting Adam and Steve). As nice as these events are, however, they do bring to light an issue I've had with the extreme left for quite some time.

First let me say this: I like hippies. They are open minded, friendly, and generous. I agree with most of what they stand for, enjoy their loose, hairy women, and believe they have done nothing but improve North America ever since they immigrated here from their native Amsterdam.

What is this problem I have with the hippies? Is it their 3:00 AM drum circles? Chronic, indiscriminate drug use? Ineffective deodorant? Dreadlocks? No, all those things are adorable. I am referring, of course, to the issue of genetic engineering.

Hippies and the cartoonishly religious shun anything to do with genetic modification (as it is defined today), and hippies are particularly wary of any genetic alteration in our food chain. I grant you that genetic experimentation should not be entered into lightly, and there is a great danger in allowing corporations too much control over the process. No one wants to see a 400 ton Ronald McDonald rampaging down the block. The man sized version is creepy enough. DNA manipulation is a powerful tool, and thus, could potentially be turned into a dangerous weapon, just like nuclear energy, or the paper clips I shoot at pedestrians, but I think the potential benefits far outweigh the possible problems, just like Ashley Olson far outweighs Mary-Kate.

Lets take a step back, for a moment, and discuss what genetic alteration actually is. Don't look now, but your DNA has already been manipulated. So has the DNA of your family, friends, the tree in your yard, the ladybug on its branch, and the rat in your lab that you do genetic experiments on. Your ancestors have been selectively bred for generations, changing the way you think, look and act, simply by virtue of the fact that they survived just long enough to pop out a kid. It's a completely natural process of evolution that has gone on ever since life began, at least 40 or so years ago.

"That's all well, and good!" you say. "But that's nature! (or Vishnu) Man shouldn't try to change it, himself!"

Well first, I'll kindly ask you to use gender non-specifics, you sexist bastard. Secondly, humans have been screwing with gene pools since before the invention of the outhouse. One example of this is the common dog, or Canis poopus couchstainius. We humans took domesticated wolves, and changed their DNA by breeding them based on the traits we wanted to see, until they eventually became every different kind of dog that exists today. Thats why they call those types a "breed", and that's also why deep in the heart of every toy poodle is a vicious killer lusting for your blood. The results are the same, the DNA is changed, and godless monsters are created. It's just the processes that are different.

If Pope Jr. is right, and this is the line between good and evil, then dog show participants are more hell bound than I thought, and that mullet-haired guy who drowns kittens in the park is doing God's work. I owe Donald an apology.

It's going to take a while, but once we've mastered playing genetic Plinko, it will spell the end of most of the worlds problems. Disease, famine, amputations, Victoria Beckham, even the energy crisis will all be things of the past. What's more is, despite whatever anyone might say or do, it's a-gonna happen. The genetic age is coming, and no amount of Bible quotes, or magic brownies will stop it. So don't waste your booze fueled passion (this applies to both groups) on halting genetic research. Use it, instead, to steer it in a safely democratic, anti-corporate direction, so as to keep it out of the hands of the Debbies of the world. (Sorry, Debbie's a woman that works at my office. She can be a real bitch.)

Odourboy's Fascist Fashion Passion Bastion:

Strapless Dress, or Hapless Mess?

Hey there, Fashionistas. I'll be blunt. I'm no fashion guru. I never studied fashion design, or even shoe tying. I don't wave around effeminate fans with Karl Lagerfeld. I don't sip mint juleps with Tommy Hilfiger on the plantation. Nor do i throw gin bottles at children with Donatella Versace's reanimated corpse. Sorry, what? She's still alive? Wow. I don't do any of those things. I'm just a simple guy who puts on his burlap sack, one leg hole at a time. But even simple hill folk, like me, can see giant gaping holes in the logic of the conventional fashion practices of today. One of those being... any guesses? No, not sweatshops, silly! I'm referring, of course, to the strapless dress!

The fact that the strapless dress caught on is nothing short of a miracle. (move over, Saint David Blaine) I know that when one sees a picture of a model in a strapless dress, she (or he?) looks fantastic. But one thing that the average person does not take into consideration, is that five seconds after the shutter clicks, that model is hiking up that slipping dress top, for fear that someone besides her agent, might see her modely money-makers. Doesn't quite look so good then, does it? Therein lies the problem. An outfit cannot look good if the wearer must constantly fidget, and fuss with it.

Scientists from N.A.S.A calculated the slip rate of the strapless dress to 1.457 microcubits/gigasecond. This equates to a total number of boobal repositionings (you pulling up your dress top) of 12 per hour, or once every five minutes. I recently had the opportunity to test these findings, by peeking in the window of a local high school prom. Luckily, before being dragged away by police, I managed to see that the entire room was packed, wall to wall, with post pubescent girls wearing dresses "mit out strap". Young, sweet, luscious girls... Anyway my point is, that at any given time, there was at least one girl with her hands on her sagging boob holder, yanking it back up to where it belonged, denying both her date, and I, the only real reason that we were there.

The scientists assured me that there were ways to counteract this strapless droop effect. Here are some practical examples of ways you could do this for your next strapless event. You could:

• make the dress out of stainless steel, then bandage where necessary
• ensure that the dress is so tight around your chest, that not even your screams may escape
• completely cover your body with double-sided duct tape, then apply the dress in sections
• coerce a group of anglers to sit in the rafters, tugging at your top with fishing lures
• proceed as normal, then hire a team from Industrial Light and Magic to digitally alter all pictures and videos taken during the event
• surgically replace your nipples with Velcro tabs
• or, and this is a weird one, PUT A FREAKING STRAP ON IT!!!!

With all of these scientific arguments against the strapless dress, it is a wonder why it has taken us, as a species, so long to see the truth about them. Perhaps, we were just to busy balancing on our high heels to notice.