Thursday, March 15, 2007

Rednecks and Redstone, Unite


A couple bits in the free daily yesterday caught my eye. One is that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that homosexuality is immoral - akin to heterosexual adultery - and, therefore, homosexuals shouldn't be allowed in the U.S. military. This was in response to questions about the "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" policy.

A few questions: Is that to imply that anyone who has ever committed adultery should not be allowed in the U.S. military? Or would that be more of a 'grey area' (i.e., if the adulterous affair had stopped within a period of time, or was committed outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, or was done before the parties joined the Forces)? Or, rather, would the implication of adultery ("lust of the eyes") be enough to injunct the wrath of the U.S. Air Force?

But, better question (IMHO): Is the Head of the U.S. Armed Forces - which, in effect, teaches grown men to kill other grown men (and women, and children) - saying that gay people need not show up for the party? That those with a preference for their own gender (or a shared preference) should rightfully be ostracized?

I'm all for morals. But I kinda doubt that the morals of making a living by killing somehow trumps the rights of those who are identified by their sexuality.

The second article that made my eyes bug had to do with Viacom suing YouTube and parent megaCorporation Googe (caveat: Google runs Blogger and Blogspot, as well as my all-time favorite, gmail. So, I don't wanna say anything bad about sweet, sweet Google. Ha ha, Googe!) for running clips from its various networks including, most infamously - at least for me - Stephen Colbert. But this includes stuff from MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, BET, and CBS. I'm sure there's more, but who cares? (They also own Blockbuster, which shows you how generally clueless they are.) And they're suing them for 1,000,000,000 dollars!

But why, o Why, would you want to tear down free publicity?

I'm all against piracy. I'm sorry. I think it's stealing. So, unless the artist comes out and says, 'Get this however you get it' or whatever, I'd rather go through the proper channels and try to pay those who put in the work. But YouTube isn't piracy. It doesn't work (generally speaking) as blanket bootlegging. I could see if they posted entire hour-and-a-half long movies. Maybe. But the sound and visual quality's so bad that, if I could, I would prefer to get them through other, higher-def, channels. But Colbert/The Daily Show, etc., generally isn't available through those channels. And Colbert's earned his name and fame in a way unprecedented 10 years ago.

Through YouTube.

1 comment:

  1. I don't know anything about that second subject but as to your comments about the first, I must say that for a Calvinist type like yourself, that's some very good thinking. I couldn't agree more!


Be kind. Rewind.