Alex Jowski on Random @alexjowski - Tumblr Blog

Enjoying the simplicity and beauty of girls' underwear. Panties... Pantsu

I started a new blog that’s just about panties.

Understanding How Copyright on the Internet Affects You

Congratulations! You’ve uploaded that video you made to YouTube. Ten minutes later you receive an automated e-mail from YouTube: “Sorry, your video is blocked worldwide because of a copyright claim.” You try to log-in to your YouTube account only to be forced to sit through a condescending cartoon entitled “YouTube Copyright School” and then pass a five question quiz to test the knowledge you’ve gained from the copyright cartoon. Now, why was your video removed? Did the owner of copyrighted material you used file a claim personally? Was your video just one of millions caught up in YouTube’s often inaccurate Content ID system? As issues of copyright become a primary cause for concern in an online world fueled by dynamic user-generated content, the question arises of how does the average internet user address these growing problems?

Of course the most direct solution given is “hire a lawyer,” but the vast majority of internet users affected by copyright can’t afford that lengthy and expensive process. “Well,” you might say, “I read this article from a website that told me all about copyright and fair use and my video totally falls under that. YouTube had no right to remove it!” You go ahead and tell Google that; you post a link to that article in that counter-claim form, you use all the angry emojis you can muster and let YouTube know how they’ve wronged you and how they’ve violated your First Amendment rights. Don’t be surprised when, a week later, YouTube gets back to you with another automated response that your counter-claim has failed and your content is still blocked. What other options are there?

When it comes to resolving copyright issues on the internet, most people are going to have to figure new solutions to work with and around established law. There is a legal definition of copyright and there is a ton of case law that a lawyer can use to argue for or against any copyright claim. We, the everyday internet users, can’t use that case law though because, alas, we’re not lawyers. We can’t argue the legal standards of copyright or fair use because that is beyond our means. What we can do is find new ideas, new ways to make what’s established work for us. One angry tweet about “YouTube is wrong! L” will never change anything. What can we, the average internet user, do to affect change? How can we assure that our voices are heard when it seems that copyright policies exist only to silence us?

What is this Copyright stuff and why is it such a big deal?

In 2009, Google’s search service received less than 100 takedown requests. In 2014, it received 345 million requests (Karaganis, 29) The number of copyright claims in relation to online content is greater than the number of persons living in the United States (321 million according to current information for the US Census bureau (http://www.census.gov/popclock/)). With the decline of traditional forms of physical media and more movies, books, television shows, music are distributed primarily via internet. YouTube alone has over one billion users with over one-third of the Earth’s population watching hours of user-generated content per day (https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html) With regards to copyright, the only legal guidelines that exist are the US Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 – both written before the predominance of user-generated content we have today. Outdated as they are, that is all we have to work with.

There are two ways to look at copyright: how it’s written and how it’s interpreted. If you were to look at the actual verbiage of established copyright law, you may have a different understanding of it than others. Since we’re dealing primarily with YouTube, let’s go with how YouTube chooses to define copyright (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797466/):

When a person creates an original work that is fixed in a physical medium, he or she automatically owns copyright to the work. The owner has the exclusive right to use the work in certain, specific ways.

Which types of work are subject to copyright?

· Audiovisual works, such as TV shows, movies, and online videos

· Sound recordings and musical compositions

· Written works, such as lectures, articles, books, and musical compositions

· Visual works, such as paintings, posters, and advertisements

· Video games and computer software

· Dramatic works, such as plays and musicals

Essentially, if someone else made it, you can’t use it without permission. End of story – that topic is not up for debate (yet). One may cry: “But I read this thing about fair use and my video totally falls under that.” Yes, there is this thing called fair use that allows you to defend the use some copyrighted material without permission in very specific circumstances. In the video for “YouTube’s Copyright School,” the topic of fair use is given about ten seconds worth of discussion, quickly read like the side-effects disclaimer in a pharmaceutical commercial as it’s knocked off the screen by a cartoon pirate. This is so brief and forced away so abruptly because it does not apply to you. How fair use applies to user-generated content is mostly theory, not exactable policy. When it comes to the legal understanding of copyright, fair use is determined by a judge who analyzes how each of four factors apply to a specific case.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market, or value of, the copyrighted work

However, this is a legal defense, meaning you (or rather a lawyer representing you) can only claim fair use after the fact. You can’t afford a judge so even if you feel that your use of a song, a movie clip, or a segment of video game fall under the definition of fair use, only the courts can say if it actually does or doesn’t. Are you really going to spend that much time and money to argue the constitutional merits of your video about “Funny Fallout 3 Glitches?” Unless you have permission from Bethesda Game Studios, you can’t use that gameplay footage even if you personally feel that it would fall under fair use. I’m fairly certain that any lawyer Bethesda secures would be able to more aptly argue against your claim of fair use than you can with your copy of an article from nolo.com.

Luckily, content providers are starting to give a lot more consideration to fair use. In 2007 a mother posted a 30 second video of her toddler dancing to a song by Prince. When she was sent an automated takedown notice from YouTube and was unable to appeal, she secured legal representation. This led to the decision of Lenz v Universal Music Group which stated “fair use must be considered before a DMCA takedown notice is sent pursuant to DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v)” (Jamar, 3, emphasis added). It’s in indecipherable legalese, I know, but essentially states that copyright holders must at least consider fair use before the fact. With YouTube’s automated Content ID system, however, this amounts to the ten seconds of fair use acknowledgement in their “Copyright School” and the option to say “I believe my content is fair use.” The decision only applies to the good faith of the copyright holder – not YouTube; whether the copyright holder acknowledged Fair Use or not, YouTube can remove it. For every Lenz v Universal Music Group there are a dozen acts and bills such as Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA), Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA), and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) which seek to further constrain the use of copyrighted material on the internet.

Does Google hate free speech?

You’ll notice what I have not quoted or cited at all – the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the one guaranteeing us the right to free speech. Too often on Twitter, Facebook or even the comment threads below YouTube videos mention words such as “censorship,” “free speech,” and “First Amendment,” which make me shake my head in depression over how little the American people understand about the laws that govern them. The First Amendment protects against Government suppression of speech – YouTube is not the government, Google is not the government. When YouTube removes your video, the idea of rights granted under the First Amendment actually works against you more than for you.

YouTube is the private property of Google, they alone have the right to determine what speech is allowed on their property or not, to compel the government to force Google to publish your video would be unconstitutional. This goes back to a 1977 court decision of Wooley v. Maynard where then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, stated:

We are thus faced with the question of whether the state may constitutionally require an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on his private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed by the public. We hold that the state may not to do so. (Gillmore, pg 31)

In short, to force someone to post on their property (in this case a website) something they do not want would be seen as compelled speech and is a violation of one’s First Amendment rights. Technically, Google doesn’t even need to claim copyright when removing your content, they can remove it anytime they want if they just don’t like it.

In practice, however, Google doesn’t typically do this. When a video entitled The Innocence of Muslims was posted to YouTube portraying the Islam prophet Mohammed as a sexual deviant it lead to outcry and violence in many Middle Eastern countries. The US Government asked YouTube to remove the video but there was no action they could take to enforce that. The video stayed until February 2014 when it was finally removed by government order regarding a copyright dispute (Reuters, Feb 26, 2014). This decision was later reversed in May 2015 (NPR, May 18, 2015) and the video is once again available on YouTube, though the controversy surrounding it has since died down.

Google/YouTube have always been large advocates and defenders of Free Speech. However, they are still a business that relies on maintaining high profits. If that means erring on the side of caution in matters where copyright is concerned, so be it.

I’ve received a takedown notice from YouTube. Now what?

How to proceed after a takedown notice from Google ultimately depends on who the copyright holder is. If it’s a major media corporation such as Warner Bros or Universal, you might as well just recreate your content without that copyrighted material if you want it on YouTube because those companies will fight any counter-claim you send their way regardless of how legitimate your claim of fair use may seem to be. Those companies have the money to fight this in court, you don’t. Your chances of getting a group like the Electronic Freedom Federation to assist with legal needs are incredibly slim. Keep in mind that Google sent 345 million takedown notices last year, what makes your case so special? Probably nothing.

If the copyright holder is an independent artist, a musician, an independent game designer or a low-key filmmaker, your chances are a little bit higher to work something out. People like that are much more approachable than a large media corporation. All you need is permission, and if you’re polite most independent artists are very receptive and willing to allow you the use of their content. Typically their financial situation is no different from the norm, they can’t afford a lawyer either and are looking to compromise. I’ve been in content production for quite a few years and only twice have I had an artist I approached refuse permission.

Even if permission is denied or simply unobtainable, don’t worry, there are other solutions.

So how do I resolve these copyright concerns?

Truthfully, you won’t.

Steven Jamar, a professor of law at Harvard University, has argued for necessary reformation of copyright law, stating: “The lack of clear rules can chill ongoing development of new works. Short of a reinterpretation of derivative works or an amendment to the statute, legal protection will depend on the doctrine of fair use,” (Jamar, 10) and he has the best intentions when arguing for reformation. Unfortunately, even Mr. Jamar acknowledges that legislative change is not very likely:

Money talks the loudest in Congress, and the moneyed interests have been pushing not for more freedom for users in copyright, not for more user protection and more limited rights of the copyright holders, but rather for longer terms, stronger rights for copyright holders, and stronger enforcement of mechanisms. (Jamar, 11)

Change is inevitable and there has been a trend towards this not in law but in the actions of copyright holders to allow a more liberal use of their work. Legislative change, a full look at copyright law as it applies to the internet, is still a very long ways off. It’s not wrong for me to simply advise patience about being able to post your content on YouTube but that doesn’t help you now, does it?

The problem with YouTube is that it creates policy and action based upon its interpretation of how copyright should be enforced. These issues arise because people disagree not with the concept of copyright but how YouTube’s policy addresses it. The solution then, is quite simple: why do you need to follow YouTube’s policy? There are alternative video hosting sites (Vimeo, DailyMotion) but their policies are modeled after YouTube so chances are if YouTube didn’t want your video, they won’t either. The same concept of what a company decides to have posted on their private property applies no matter where you go. So…. What’s to stop you from having your own private property? Mark Twain once gave wise fiscal counseling when he said, “Buy land, they’re not making it anymore.” Today, Mark Twain is wrong, because you can own your own property on the internet – the amount of virtual “land” is infinite.

In 2010, I became exhausted with YouTube’s copyright policies and started my own online company producing dynamic user-generated content very easily. I’ve never taken a course in web design or copyright law but there is extensive knowledge, support and free, open-source resources available to anyone that’s willing to learn a little bit about the way things work. It’s the internet, you literally have the whole of human knowledge at your fingertips, why waste it looking at videos of funny cats? The people that founded Google certainly realized this when they began their company in a garage.

Of course, if you choose to start your own site, with your own video player, you will need to be aware of copyright law, for which there are plenty of resources to give you an understanding of what you can and cannot do. Having your own property does not give you free reign to break the law, it just gives you a space to conduct your business with your own policy. Copyright issues will arise, but since it’s your policy and your site one takes objection to, you are able to directly interact with these issues. You will find that a direct and amicable discussion with copyright holders is far more productive than disputing the issue via YouTube claim and counter-claim processes.

How copyright law is addressed on the internet will change eventually, but you shouldn’t have to wait for the law to catch up to your needs. The more people that begin their own sites, who force copyright issues to be dealt with by humans instead of automated systems will accelerate that desired, and much-needed, look at copyright law. So the next time an automated e-mail from YouTube states your content has been removed on the grounds of copyright, don’t get mad about it. Instead, ask yourself what can you do about it? Always realize that you can, and should, accomplish a lot more than just one angry tweet.

References

Karaganis, Joe, and Jennifer Urban. "The Rise Of The Robo Notice." Communications Of The ACM 58.9 (2015): 28-30. Business Source Premier. Web. 5 Oct. 2015.

Jamar, Steven D. "Copyright Aspects Of User-Generated Content In The Internet Social Networking Context." Journal Of Internet Law 16.5 (2012): 3-13. Business Source Premier.

Gillmor, Donald M., and Jerome A. Barron. Mass Communication Law: Cases and Comment. 6th ed. St. Paul: West Pub., 1998. Print.

"Google Ordered to Remove Anti-Islamic Film from YouTube." Reuters UK. 26 Feb. 2014. Web. 5 Oct. 2015.

"Google Wins Copyright And Speech Case Over 'Innocence Of Muslims' Video." NPR. NPR, 18 May 2015.

My Food is Dead

According to one blog: "Live food eaters feel better and are often in a state of euphoria." I guess that makes sense because dead food eaters are dead, they don't feel shit.

I just came across a ridiculous pseudo-science word. "Dead food." It;s supposed to be something unhealthy (according to bloggers). But isn't all food dead? I mean I would certainly hope that the steak I eat is dead. The apple I eat was dead the second it was removed from the tree. What the hell is "Dead food" because no actual scientist is saying that.

Then there is "Living Food" which just sounds frightening. I eat dead things - if I want steak I'm not gonna go bite a living cow.

Now, according to that same bullshit blog, "In nature all animals eat living foods as yielded up by nature. Only humans cook their foods and only humans suffer widespread sicknesses and ailments." Apparently this person doesn't know how bacteria works.

Further, this unsourced madness states: "Best of all, live food eaters become sickness-free!" You hear that, if you want to be immortal, eat raw chicken and raw pork. Feel free to read the whole thing if you have some spare brain cells to slaughter. : http://www.living-foods.com/articles/livingfoods.html

#pseudoscience #food

The Problem of Internet Credibility

(originally posted as a comment on a Facebook thread. Presented here as an article with cited sources) This isn't just you, it's a problem with the internet as a whole. Once upon a time there were real, published on paper, encyclopedias, that had been extensively researched, cross-referenced and reviewed to absolutely ensure that the information therein was accurate. Journalists were (and still are) held to a high standard of ethics, they are obligated to double-check, triple-check and get peer-review on all the facts they present - there are serious consequences for a journalist that gives false information. There were serious consequences for an encyclopedia or any publication that gave gross information. This is why we have multiple systems of citation, peer-review, and scholarly sources with which to check the authenticity of all information. Actual research, encyclopedias and scholarly work has an author, an author one can look into - a stated premise of who wrote this and why - you can research that author and learn what bias they bring to their work. Wikipedia lacks that as it's edited by millions of anonymous people, there is no way to take it seriously, but people do and that is a BIG problem. We have everyone claiming to be some sort of legal expert because they watched "Making a Murderer" and then read a blog about it - despite the work and word of actual lawyers with years of education and experience who point at all those crazy amateurs and laugh because, let's face it, people on the internet are stupid. Everyone's an "expert" but the only thing they're an expert at is being stupid. Because of the democratization of the internet, the validity of fact has gone by the wayside. We don't have encyclopedias that present heavily reviewed information by experts in their field - we have Wikipedia, which is edited by anyone with no expertise and is held to absolutely no standard of review. Wikipedia is so notorious at giving misinformation that no school, no publication, no journalistic agency will accept it as a credible source. Wikipedia, which claims to be a source of human knowledge, is the laughingstock of those who seek knowledge. News, which once came from credible journalists trained in and held to a strict standard of ethics, now comes from blogs - which have no credibility, are held to no standard, and undergo no process of review. In addition to countless blogs, YouTube videos, and random posts from anonymous people, there are phony news sites that push an agenda. There are liberal and conservative sites alike that publish hyperbole not at all based in fact. For instance, there was a recent news item covered by many disreputable media outlets with a salacious topic of "Texas Governor Vetos Mental Health Bill Because He Doesn't Believe Mental Illness is Real." People shared that through social media, it was accepted as fact - but it was complete fiction from unchecked, biased sources. The truth was that the governor of Texas did veto a mental health bill around the same time Scientologists were lobbying to kill the bill based on their beliefs. According to REAL journalists, the ones working for professional media outlets held to a standard of ethics, reported that the bill was vetoed because of overly broad language in what kinds of mental illness treatments would receive funding as evidenced by interviews, reports from state senators and representatives who helped make the bill as well as transcriptions of government business - NOT the blind conjecture made by less-than-amateurs which everyone chose to believe instead. The internet is nothing but amateurs whose word now carries more weight than that of experts. People will consult WebMD instead of seeking actual medical help. It is a problem to present yourself as knowing all about psychiatry and psychology simply because you've been a patient. As I said before, I've been to a lot of restaurants but I've never been a chef. Your experience of the whole field of mental health comes from only your experience and treatments/medications you have been part of. For someone to become an actual mental health practitioner there is at least 8 years of schooling, internships and fellowships working with a wide variety of different types of patients, as well as more education that comes with getting a job. This is why we respect the word of doctors - they've had immense education and have received years of guided experience before they could even see a patient on their own. Random person on the internet that has not gone through that cannot claim to be an expert in the field, cannot even compare. A mental health patient's opinion on psychology has absolutely zero credibility when compared to working professionals with years of education and experience who have performed immensely peer-reviewed research and contributed to the progression of their work. The result of such rampant amateur behavior is the anti-vaccine campaign. The information that vaccines cause autism was unfounded, false claims made by an amateur - it was not reviewed research and held to no standard. It was just a normal guy with no college education at all claiming to be an "expert" because he'd been to the hospital a few times. But people believed it - and they stopped vaccinating their kids, which was a serious health risk and did cause a loss of life and a measles epidemic in Southern California. Don't be an amateur. Don't be Wikipedia. Don't claim to be an expert on something in a field you've had no professional training or experience in. It's irresponsible, reckless and incredibly dangerous. Society is already heading down a woeful path because of the guidance of anonymous amateurs - don't contribute to that. Sources: Keen, Andrew. The Cult Of The Amateur : How Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, And The Rest Of Today's User-Generated Media Are Destroying Our Economy, Our Culture, And Our Values. n.p.: New York : Doubleday, c2007., 2007. Lieberman, Matthew D. "Anti-Vaxxers Love Their Children, Too." Psychology Today 48.4 (2015): 48 - Article published in Psychology journal about anti-vaccine movement. Taylor, Colin. "Texas Gov Vetoes Mental Health Bill Because He Thinks Psychiatry Is Mind Control." Occupy Democrats. 28 July 2015. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. <http://www.occupydemocrats.com/texas-gov-vetoes-mental-health-bill-because-he-thinks-psychiatry-is-mind-control/>. -Article to show an example of conjecture and misinformation from dis-credible sources.

United States. Cong. Senate. Texas State Senate. Senate Report 84th Session 64th Day. 84r sess. S. Rept. 64. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Texas State Legislature. 1 June 2015. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. <http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/History.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=SB359>. - Actual report of Texas Mental Health Bill vetoed by the state’s governor. Includes the history of the bill, the state senate’s vote, and the governor’s statement about why it was vetoed. This information is

“GOODFELLAS” NEEDS TO STOP BEING SEXIST

Goodfellas celebrates its 25th anniversary this week and as part of remembering that movie, a write at the NY Post published this article: “Why Women Don't Get Goodfellas.” Well in this society, that's just wrong, apparently, as evidenced by the comments section below. There are women that like Goodfellas and people on the internet are going to make the ridiculous conclusion that “well you said that Goodfellas doesn't speak to women and since I am a female that likes the movie that means you hate all women ever for everything.” It's quite ridiculous the way we take these things so seriously, which kind of proves the point that the writer was making.

WOMEN DON'T GET “GOODFELLAS”

I don't disagree with the writer at all. There's a lot more to the movie than he addresses in the article, but the points he brings up are valid. Goodfellas does glorify the relationships that men develop with each other – that it's a male fantasy picture. He makes quite a few references to Entourage and he's right. I'd never thought of the movie in that way but after seeing it pointed out, the male fantasy angle is all I pretty much see right now. To quote this writer: “Way down deep in the reptile brain, Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), Jimmy the Gent (Robert De Niro) and Tommy (Joe Pesci) are exactly what guys want to be: lazy but powerful, deadly but funny, tough, unsentimental and devoted above all to their brothers – a small group of guys who will always have your back.”

A lot is brought up about ball-busting, the way men do this to each other and the way the men in Goodfellas do the same thing. The scene with Joe Pesci's “Am I a comedian, do I amuse you?” is how men bust each other's balls – and it's a great scene. Billy Batts (Dennis Farina is whacked not for any specific business reason but because of what this writer refers to as “ball-busting etiquette.” Henry Hill falls for and marries Karen (Lorraine Brasco) not because of her femininity but by the way she eschews it and is able to get along with the guys.

These are all valid points – these are things that are in the movie, statements that the film makes. It's not the ONLY thing Goodfellas has to say, but it's there. The film is male fantasy and the writer compares it's look at gender with a comparison to Sex and the City which is pretty much female fantasy. Sex and the City glamorizes the relationships women develop with each other through drama centered around classy NYC socialites – similarly Goodfellas shows us the relationships through drama centered around a group of mobsters.

“GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE”

Oh man, you make a statement that “Women don't get Goodfellas” people aren't gonna read that. Gender issues, coming from a man discussing a man's movie – oh they're just gonna skip over the whole article and scream “check your privilege!” Which, in a sense, is kinda the point of the article, and one of the things I love so much about movies.

This writer presents his idea about the movie – that Goodfellas is pure male fantasy. Not the only thing about the movie, but it's what resonates the most with him, what he takes away from the movie. When this guy watches Goodfellas he does so for those reasons and finds pleasure in doing so. Art is subjective, different people will view it differently. Movies are like an amusement park – some go there for exciting rollercoasters, some go for peaceful kiddie rides and some just go to shop for souvenirs – each person is going to take something different home from the experience.

There is this prevailing thought on the internet, however, that “you didn't like the movie the same way I did so you are wrong.” Kyle here interprets Goodfellas as male fantasy, and that's fine – those things are present in the film. My sister used to skip the beginning and end of Moulin Rouge (which I would give her shit about – not because she skipped parts but because she was watching shit like Moulin Rouge) because what she chose to take from that movie was the romance story and not the tragedy. I'm sure Kyle is not an idiot and is well aware that there are several different themes going on in Goodfellas and several different ways the movie can be viewed – he's chosen to celebrate the movie's 25th anniversary by talking about the specific aspect of the film he likes so much.

Well, that won't do on the internet. You either like the movie on their terms or you get the fuck outta here. There are specific types of comments, ones that you only need to read a few words of to get the idea and laugh at how they didn't at all read the content they commented on. First there is the “You Failed to Mention” brand of comments

"Way down deep in the reptile brain, Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), Jimmy the Gent (Robert De Niro) and Tommy (Joe Pesci) are exactly what guys want to be: lazy but powerful, deadly but funny, tough, unsentimental and devoted above all to their brothers — a small group of guys who will always have your back." Until they whack one another and/or rat each other out to the Feds. Maybe you missed that part? The movie plays like a fun comedy, no question, but only up to a certain point, at which point it stops dead (literally and figuratively). Some argue that it's the moment Spider gets killed, others during the "Layla"-scored montage of dead bodies that culminates in Tommy's execution. After that, certainly, the movie is never again merely a sequence of uproarious hijinks. The entire Sunday, May 11th, 1980 sequence plays like a coked-out nightmare rather than anything resembling a desirable existence for these people. Even something as mundane as meatball-rolling turns into a garble of jump cuts and intense stares.

You haven't the foggiest idea how to watch and understand movies. I pity you. I pity the women in your life more.

---

So a movie written by Nora Ephron's husband and edited by a human named Thelma (who was married to Michael Powell, of whom you've probably never heard so look him up!) is the opposite of Secret anti-perspirant?

--- The first comment gives us “you didn't mention these scenes, so you didn't get the movie, obviously.” You see that a lot “You failed to mention the things I like about it, so you're wrong.” The second comment gives us the whole “Here's background information you didn't bring up, so you're wrong.”

---

Next is the “I'm Not The Person You're Talking About” type of comment:

Wow....could you be any more insulting Kyle?? Apparently you need to hang around with WOMEN rather than whomever it is you're dating. And I'm sure there's a boatload you don't get about Goodfellas because you're not Sicilian. --- As a film writer who possesses ovaries, I have had zero problems both understanding and flat out loving GOODFELLAS. The beautiful thing about movies, especially when they are as good as GOODFELLAS, is that they transcend categories like gender, race, sexual orientation. You cannot put the human condition in a neat little cardboard cut-out category and it sets everyone back when you do.

----

This is the most ridiculous, sexist and asinine article. This is my favorite movie - I have the soundtrack and can quote every line....and I'm a woman. Idiot.

---

At its core, "Goodfellas" is not about ball busting. Or crime. It's about relationships - the family we're born into and the family we choose. To say I don't "understand" my favorite movie (and one which I based a thesis on in college) just because I have breasts is as ridiculous as Henry Hill expecting decent spaghetti in witness protection.

You apparently can't talk about women, unless you're a woman. You can't 'truly appreciate' Goodfellas unless you're a Sicilian. So ONLY Sicilian woman are allowed to talk about Goodfellas – NOBODY ELSE. Oh and you need to have watched it in a THEATER, with women, not just on a video. (Never mind the fact that the impetus for this article was partly to promote an anniversary screening of the film at a SoHo theater). Another comment example, the “I Obviously Didn't Read Any of This”

Rather than judging an entire bunch of women whom you've never met (or just merely basing this all from the experience of one), learn to avoid making such blanket statements that make it seem as if you can't even comprehend whatever it is that you are watching. You're just saying that women can't understand movies in general by saying this all about your girlfriend who provided an experience you didn't like. Seriously, Kyle, you should be ashamed of yourself. Plus I can't even tell if you actually saw GoodFellas or not. --- Could you really be any more condescending, Kyle? You're only basing this upon the experience of dating one woman and that's simply not fair.

You see, both of these comments reference the first few sentences of the article. He discusses the first time he saw Goodfellas and loved it but his girlfriend didn't...

“Boy movie,” she declared — and I knew our relationship was doomed.

And apparently that's where these people stopped reading the article because the very next sentence is “Just kidding”

Then of course there's all the comments of just bile. Name calling, saying “you're wrong” with just insults and no opinion.

“GO HOME AND GET YOUR F-N SHINEBOX”

What's the point I'm trying to make here? Film criticism has become a precarious thing – whether it's a critic is a paid staff-writer for a major publication or just some blogger with a handful of casual readers. The state of media currently things like “opinion” and “individuality” have been discarded and all that remains is a parody of democratic ideas. The film critic's function is no longer the formation and reformation of public opinion – you either condescend and validate the majority's viewpoint or you fuck off. “If you didn't like ______ you must hate America and you implied contempt for the people that did like it!” Film critics are reproved with “What right have you to say that ______ is no good when millions of people liked it?” Or “What right have you to say that Goodfellas is a movie about men when so many different women like it?” There was a time when a film critic could praise the movies the loved, bash the ones they hated and tell readers they were idiots if they wasted their money on crap. Too many of these comments of “But what about MY opinion on the movie?!” have forced film criticism to be writers who feel responsible not to their subject matter but to the tastes of the public – making the vast majority of film criticism out there, from major publications or otherwise, vapid pieces that don't say anything at all – or they simply find some buzzword and write about that while namedropping a film here and there (“Everyone's talking about Sexism – so let's say Jurassic World is sexist!”) Critics are too afraid to attack popular films because there's too much at stake, but they are usually free to praise whatever they wish; yet they seem too unsure of themselves, too fearful of causing a breach with their readers, to praise what may be unpopular. Once upon a time a critic could say “I didn't like this movie” and state their reasons why – opposite that was another critic talking about why they liked the film. Take a show like “Siskel and Ebert,” where you had a combination of “film snobbery” to condemn empty blockbusters but a sympathetic ear towards modern audiences to understand why some people liked or would like a film. Notable critics of the past such as Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Rex Reed, Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert were people unafraid to state their opinions even if their opinion was not the most popular. In fact it was the contrary opinions that got people talking, got people to discuss what they liked about movies. One could respect a critic even if they disagreed with their opinion about certain films. Those days are gone – if you're gonna discuss a movie you have to be aware of “issues” and what everyone else thinks. Your opinion is moot – whatever you liked about a movie, whatever thing in a film spoke to you, whatever individual think you appreciate does not matter – you are only allowed to speak the same praise or condemnation that everyone else is already saying. Nobody wants insight or enlightenment anymore; they want validation for their opinion – you are not allowed your own thoughts, you must say only what the public wants you to hear. So Kyle finds Goodfellas to be an enjoyable male fantasy, an ode to the way men build friendships and bond with each other, and that's what Kyle appreciates about this movie. And great for him. Goodfellas is a wonderful movie that's entertained countless people for over a quarter of a century and it's great to see different people celebrate that anniversary with so many different opinions. It would be great to have a discussion where people talk about what they like about Goodfellas and all the different things at work in that movie. What we don't need is all of this “you're wrong!” and plain hate and bile following any opinion or experience that doesn't exactly match your own.

People seem to confuse fact with opinion far too often these days.

OPINION: Goodfellas is an enjoyable movie. Goodfellas is a male fantasy FACT: Goodfellas is in color

OPINION: Goodfellas tells a wonderful story about relationships FACT: Ray Liota is in Goodfellas.

OPINION: Goodfellas shows how men behave with each other and enjoy life. FACT: The song “Layla” is used on the soundtrack

You get where I'm going with this....right? I don't have to keep going?

Changing Up My GEEK JUICE Content

I’ve come to a point now where enjoying the things I do in my life is the most important thing. I’m in a comfortable place with my job and I’ve no plans to change that any time soon. Running and producing content for Geek Juice has always been somewhere between “second job” and “fun hobby.” The less it feels like work the more enjoyable it becomes and the happier I am. I’ve decided to make my content for Geek Juice to be more about the things I enjoy doing for Geek Juice. I don’t want to unnecessarily burden myself coming up with scripts for shows about movies I don’t want to watch. I don’t want to keep putting off the things I really want to watch and enjoy to keep watching things that I HAVE to watch. It’s become increasingly harder to come up with things to say about movies I was never motivated to watch in the first place. I enjoy watching good movies and I love watching bad movies - but I like to watch them on my own terms and not on a schedule.

So the past couple weeks I’ve been making a list of all the movies I WANT to watch each week. THOSE will be the movies I watch and those will be the ones I review/discuss for shows and what not. So how does this affect the content I do for Geek Juice? LIVE NUDE GEEKS, RANDOM RIFFS, and GEEK JUICE RADIO will continue as usual. I love the hell out of these shows. Uncut episodes of GJR will always be available via Patreon and there will always be a “next day” archive of Live Nude Geeks and Random Riffs for Patreon supporters. THE CULT OF JOE D’AMATO will continue as an irregular series that Kevin Daley and I do as we feel motivated to do it. Sometimes there’s just too much going on in the week to sit down and focus on some Italian exploitation - so it will be a “as they come along” show instead of a weekly series. The only regular scripted show I will have is CRASIAN VIDEOS. Also, it’s spin-off “Think Pink” will have more than the one episode there now. This show quickly became my baby, my favorite thing to do, and I’ve always hated putting it off because of other pressing things. So there should be at least one episode of CRASIAN VIDEOS each week going forward. The only change here is that there will be more because I take a lot of enjoyment out of watching these movies and discussing them. ANTISOCIAL COMMENTARY will still go on though I’m greatly reformatting it. Lately I’ve been using dtv movies from the past decade to discuss social commentary and film theory. But I’ve hated limiting myself like that - and it’s a lot of hard work to come up with things to say about movies I never wanted to watch. There are times when I’ve sneakily used whatever movie to talk about some other movie I really enjoy and that’s cheating. So instead of limiting myself so much it’s going to be “Antisocial Commentary - Using genre and exploitation films to look at social issues and film theory” which is what I’d been doing the past several episodes anyway - only now instead of using some random DTV movie it can be whatever genre or exploitation film I want. No on-screen Jowski reading off a script - it’ll all be voiced over with clips and other visuals. So it will visually look like the first 30 episodes but have the commentary style of the most recent episodes. Already wrote and will be recording later tonight the first episode of the new format - “Class of 1984″ ALEX JOWSKI REVIEWS will be just talking about the movies I watched each week or any fun editing project about a movie (a remix or whatever) that I happen to do that week. There will actually be MORE content than I’ve had the past few weeks but it’s going to be content I’m happier doing. As I said before I’ve been making a list of movies I want to watch each week and plan to discuss as reviews or episodes or maybe shelf for future projects - that weekly list will be available via Patreon.

In Defense of Orson Scott Card

Two of my favorite novels of all time are Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card and I never miss an opportunity to recommend these books to new readers. However I do get a lot of angry comments about how dare I, an open bisexual, support the work of someone who so vocally opposes same-sex marriage and homosexuality. When the film adaptation of Ender’s Game was released there was a boycott because of Card’s views on homosexuality - and the fact that I chose not to participate in that boycott was a point of contention between my peers and I. There is a prevailing assumption that Orson Scott Card is some sot of anti-gay bigot. When I’m asked why I still admire the man and his work I tell people to actually read Speaker for the Dead and then try to tell me that its author is the hateful person they've imagined. It’s not a simple matter of separating art from artist, I honestly feel that Orson Scott Card bears no ill will towards homosexuals.

Speaker for the Dead deals with a human colony called Lusitania on a distant planet where the first intelligent alien race humanity has encountered in over 3,000 years has just been discovered. This other species, called “piggies,” have ways very different from humans and these differences result in death, paranoia and extreme xenophobia. Andrew “Ender” Wiggin arrives to speak the death of one of the colony’s members - a practice very much looked down upon by this predominantly Catholic community. People in Lusitania view Ender as the devil and they tend to view the piggies as little more than savage animals. Ender’s goal in the novel is to work with both the humans and the piggies for all to understand the nature of these differences and accept them. The book is about overcoming bigotry.

The human society in Speaker for the Dead classifies alien life in to two categories. There is “Raman” which is an alien individual recognized as a sentient being with whom communication is possible. The other category is “Varelse” which is a sentient alien but are so foreign that no communication is possible. The most important distinction between them is that only war with varelse is considered justified. Ender’s goal, as well as others in Lusitania, is to show people that the piggies are raman, that they are the same as humans just with different beliefs and a different lifestyle, as opposed to seeing them as varlse which are no better than animals. There is a moment in the novel when Ender and two other xenologers witness the birthing process of piggies; the infants eat their way out of the mother and user her corpse for sustenance. One of the xenologers suggests: “What if we could develop a way to let the little mothers bear their children without being devoured.” Ender becomes angry and cuts off that line of thinking. He says “We didn't come here to attack them at the root of their lives... We came here to find a way to share a world with them. In a hundred or five hundred years, when they've learned enough to make changes for themselves, then they can decide whether to alter the way their children are born.”

To apply that thinking to our society (because good science-fiction, after all, is using fantastic settings to turn a lens onto our actions), there are people who look at other human beings as varelse. A lot of people see homosexuals or Muslims or any other difference in beliefs as being too foreign for any sort of acceptability and violence against them is justified. With Speaker for the Dead, Card argues that these differences are inevitable and it is nobody’s place to change those characteristics in others but to learn to accept these differences and share this world together.

I do not feel that a man who wrote a book with such a strong statement about the necessity of overcoming bigotry could possibly be called a close-minded bigot because of his views on homosexuality. Orson Scott Card was raised in a Mormon community and remains active with the LDS Church. His upbringing and life experiences have given him a unique worldview - the same way that every other individual in the world has a perspective on the way they see life and its purpose. Card argued against same-sex marriage for the same reasons others argued in favor of same-sex marriage: because every individual has a different set of beliefs and values.

It is this sort of intolerance that often puts me at ends with the same LGBT community I am a part of. To condemn Orson Scott Card or demonize any Christian as being homophobic or a hateful bigot is an act of hypocrisy. To demand acceptance of your sexuality from others is to express a close-minded nonacceptance of their worldview. The same can be said of current debates between atheists and Christians - crying for acceptance by being completely unaccepting of the other side’s decision. The goal should NOT be to force acceptance upon others but to understand that each one of us is different, that each person has different beliefs and a different sets of values. Or, as phrased by Ender in Speaker for the Dead: “We didn’t come here to attack them at the root of their lives... We came here to find a way to share a world with them.”

So this is why I continue to be a fan and supporter of Orson Scott Card despite his stated views on homosexuality. He doesn’t agree with my views on sexuality nor do I agree with his but that’s only one small and insignificant issue in the entirety of things that make up a human being deserving of respect.

#orson scott card #ender's game #speaker for the dead #lgbt

Top 10 Female Performances of 2014

My list of the top 10 female performances of 2014. #1 - #10 Scarlett Johansson in the opening credits of LOST IN TRANSLATION. Yeah, I know this came out in 2003, but I watch it multiple times every year. Over and over again. Just these credits. I didn't even know that Bill Murray is in this movie at some point because - it's just these credits.

Calling White Castle.

This is a surreal experience that just happened.

I answered the phone. Old Lady: Hello? Is this White Castle? Me: No, sorry, you have the wrong number.

We hang up. She immediately calls back.

Old Lady: Hello? Is this White Castle? Me: No. This is not White Castle. Old Lady: I'm trying to call the White Castle restaurant. They are not in the phone book. Me: Of course they're not in the phone book. There is no White Castle in town. There's not even a White Castle in this state. Why would you dial a random local number and hope for a White Castle somewhere? Old Lady: Do you know the number for White Castle? Me: Hold on one moment.

Because I happened to be sitting at the computer I take a moment to pull up White Castle's website and find a general 1-800 #.

Me: Okay, the number for White Castle is 1-800 Old Lady: No, not a 1-800 number. I'm trying to call the White Castle that's here in town. Me: But there is no White Castle in town. Old Lady: Yes there is. It's downtown, on Santa Fe Avenue, next to the Taco Bell. I see the sign with the red headed White Castle lady all the time. Me: That's a Wendy's. That red headed girl is Wendy. Old Lady: Wendy's. I am so so so sorry. I got the two confused. I'm so sorry. Me: That's okay. Old Lady: I have the number for Wendy's right here. I'm so sorry.

We hang up and I'm feeling kinda good with myself for helping this confused old woman out. The phone rings again.

Old Lady: Hello? Is this the Wendy's?

Thoughts on Sony's Decision to Scrap "The Interview"

I'm not happy that Sony was forced to scrap "The Interview" but I understand why they made that decision.

According to Sony's statement:

“In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25 theatrical release. We respect and understand our partners’ decision and, of course, completely share their paramount interest in the safety of employees and theater-goers.

"Sony Pictures has been the victim of an unprecedented criminal assault against our employees, our customers, and our business. Those who attacked us stole our intellectual property, private emails, and sensitive and proprietary material, and sought to destroy our spirit and our morale – all apparently to thwart the release of a movie they did not like. We are deeply saddened at this brazen effort to suppress the distribution of a movie, and in the process do damage to our company, our employees, and the American public. We stand by our filmmakers and their right to free expression and are extremely disappointed by this outcome."

They had no choice. So many major theater chains had already said that they wouldn't be showing the movie. THEY were the ones that broke and gave in to threats. With all these theaters gone, where was Sony supposed to show the movie? How would they have made a profit? Who would dared to have watched it after all of this?

Ideally, if one doesn't like a movie, they simply choose not to watch it. If they feel others shouldn't watch it they do so with a suggestion, a negative review saying "I don't recommend this." Or a PEACEFUL demonstration to give people your point-of-view. One should NEVER resort to violence or threats of violence in order to get their way - like the party behind the Sony hack in this matter. It truly is saddening that we've decided to make threats of violence a factor in what movies we're allowed to see.

Remember The Dark Knight Rises and the controversy surrounding its release? There was that tragic shooting but that did not sway theater owners from showing the movie still, it did not stop people from going to see the movie. People were able to recognize that the tragedy was the work of one eccentric individual - they did not let the fear of violence dissuade them from seeing what they wanted, from showing to the public what they wanted. This debacle with The Interview should be no different. One eccentric party (or you could even just be an individual - nobody knows who) attempted to use violence to scare people - but unlike The Dark Knight Rises, people allowed that fear to determine their actions. I don't fault Sony in their decision to shelf The Interview, not completely. That was a decision that came about from the theater owners who allowed violence to determine how they run their business instead of their own sense, the public who allowed threats of violence to determine what movies they should or should not see, And finally, Sony had little choice to abandon The Interview the way a company would abandon any enterprise that would no longer prove to be profitable. Immediately following 9/11 there was a surge of pride in America, a determination that "No! We will NOT allow terrorists to scare us! We will NOT allow violence to determine what we do in our country." Over a decade later, it seems, that we've lost the desire to think for ourselves and have let the terrorists win and make our decisions for us.

#Sony #the interview #terrorism

E-Mail Transcript

So I've had this odd e-mail conversation over the past few days ERNEST LIU: (Please forward this to your CEO, because this is urgent. Thanks) We are a Network Service Company which is the domain name registration center in Shanghai, China. On Aug 13, 2014, we received an application from Huaer Holdings Ltd requested "geekjuicemedia" as their internet keyword and China (CN) domain names. But after checking it, we find this name conflict with your company name or trademark. In order to deal with this matter better, it's necessary to send email to you and confirm whether this company is your distributor or business partner in China? Kind regards Ernest Liu ALEX JOWSKI: Hey Ernie, I see that those bastards at Huaer are at it again. You know I thought they learned their lesson about moving in on my Chinese distribution of Geek Juices the last time. This stopped the last time when Cheng suddenly found himself as a childless widower. Perhaps that was not enough. I will have to further investigate this situation. Kinder regards Alex Jowski ERNEST LIU: Hello Alex, I am glad you can contact me in time. The several questions below I should explain to you. Firstly, if you have no relationship with Huaer Holdings, according to our working experience, there are two possibility. a.Huaer Holdings is a domain name investment company, they want to register these names before you and sell them back to you in order to gain many profits; b.It may be a commercial method, Huaer Holdings is consigned by your competitor to register these domain names, they are trying to replicate your idea and let your customers feel confused. The following is the domain names and internet trademark which Huaer wants to register: geekjuicemedia.tw geekjuicemedia.hk geekjuicemedia.in geekjuicemedia.cn geekjuicemedia.asia and Internet Keyword: geekjuicemedia Secondly, as a domain registrar, we respect you are the owner of this trademark, but we have no right to refuse any person or company’s application. When we found they are not the real owner of this trademark, we informed you to protect your interest via email. I would like to confirm if you think these domains are useful to your company. In another word, I would like to know if you think their registration will confuse your clients and harm your honor and profits. In order to deal with this issue better, please make a confirmation with me as soon as possible, so that we can have a have a further discussion. Waiting for you reply. Best Regards, Ernest Liu ALEX JOWSKI: Listen up Ernie, If my customer somehow confuse geekjuicemedia.tw (which probably sucks) with geekjuicemedia.com (which is totally awesome) then I don't want them as my customers. I have discussed this issue with my Triad contacts for force a new resolution in my dispute with Huaer Holdings. Bestest Regards Alex Jowski ERNEST LIU Hello Alex, If you think it will affect your benefits or confuse your customers, i suggest you to protect those domains which important to you. As the owner of “geekjuicemedia.com”, you will get the priority to register these domain names and Internet keyword. If you think these domain names are important to you, we can send you a dispute application form and help you register these domains within dispute period, this is the only way to prevent domain name from grabbing. If you think these domain names are not important to you, you can give up, we will finish their registration. Following is domain names and Internet Keyword price list: Domain names: Price: Per Year geekjuicemedia.in 970.00 USD geekjuicemedia.tw 376.00 USD geekjuicemedia.hk 1076.00 USD geekjuicemedia.cn 731.00 USD geekjuicemedia.asia 551.00 USD Internet Keyword: Price: Per Year geekjuicemedia 1151.00 USD You can choose some more important for you to register. After you confirm it,we can send the dispute application form to you and assist you to dispute and register the domain names fun for you within dispute period. Hope these information would be helpful to your consideration, waiting for your reply. Best Regards, Ernest Liu ALEX JOWSKI: Ern, The situation has been resolved. Pray the same does not happen to you. No more Kind Regards, Alex Jowski ERNEST LIU: Hello Alex, Attached is the dispute application form, please check. If you intend to register these domain names. Following is the procedures, you can do follow these. 1. We send the dispute application form to you. 2. You fill in the application form and return it via email (scaned) . 3. We will dispute their application and protect these domain names for your company. 4. We’ll send the invoice of payment to you. 5. You transfer the payment to us according to the Bank information on the invoice and fax the payment proof to us. 6. We will point these domain names to your main website after getting the payment proof. And award you the electronic certificates. If you have no question, please fill the form and return it to us as soon as possible. If you have any questions anout Hangtong Holdings, contact me freely. Best Regards, Ernest Liu ALEX JOWSKI Ernest! HANGTONG Holdings?! You told me Huaer Holdings the first time! Now it's actually Hangtong Holdings? So I resolved this situation with Huaer for nothing then? Boy am I embarrassed. Sure man, I'll get this filled out and faxed over to you right away buddy. All Outta Regards, Alex Jowski

Got this giant tub of Barbie dolls today.

What is a Hobo?

Why do I choose to use the word hobo? Of course the politically correct term would be something along the lines of “homeless individual” but our language, historically, always used different terms for specific types of homeless individuals. A modern dictionary defines hobo as:

A tramp of vagrant

A migratory worker

Language evolves. There are plenty of blanket terms out there to describe the homeless or destitute – hobo just happens to be the closest to the type of individual I want to describe.

Let's start by dividing the homeless population into two segments. On one side you have the unfortunately displaced person or perhaps family. These are people who were negatively affected by an economic downturn or some sort of disaster beyond their control “Things were going fine until Dad got laid off; then we fell behind on the rent, couldn't pay utilities and couldn't find any sort of supplemental assistance until it was too late.” Or, “If on;y we'd invested in homeowner's insurance before that fire took everything. We lost all our equity, everything we had and now we can't even find a place to stay.” Or, “After mom got sick the medical bills were so high it bankrupt us. We had to choose between paying for mom's care or paying the rent.” These are people and families that found their place in society, were comfortable there until something pushed them out and now they strive to do whatever it may take to get back to that place. This is the homeless population best described as “displaced persons.”

Then we have the other segment of the homeless – the ones I call hobos. These are people that are homeless by choice and remain in that situation by choice. While there are some who made a sober decision to wander the streets and live in what shelters they craft or find like some sort of modern homage to Jack Kerouac, most chose vagrancy through how they led their lives. Drugs and alcohol are undoubtedly major factors that will drive a person from a life of comfort and into destitution. Oftentimes that can be a sobering life change motivating someone to examine the decisions they've made, but usually people will still choose to nurture their addiction in this new environment. There are people who've stood strong with a futile ideal of non-conformity, refusing to work or only seeking certain types of employment for certain types of people. They learn quickly that ideals won't pay the bills and ideals won't put food in the stomachs of you or your children. They either compromise those ideals or resign themselves to a life of living off the charity of others with a point-of-view akin to “I'd rather beg for my meals than work for “the man.” Whether it be seeking a sense of freedom, succumbing to an addictive lifestyle or a stubborn sense of non-conformity, these people have chosen to be homeless. Some may deny it and blame others, but it was always their own decision. Call them bums, call them persona-non-grata, call them what you will: I will call them hobos.

These is one small third segment of the homeless population that's not completely separate as its members fall either on the side of displaced persons or hobos and these are people who found themselves destitute as a result of a crime they committed. They may have lost their job over it and, if they served any kind of time for it, they've entered into a tough world that isn't exactly forgiving. The presence of a criminal record makes finding and maintaining employment much more difficult. Any positive response on a job application to the question of “have you ever been convicted of a crime?” is a gigantic red flag that shouts “Do not trust this person!” Depending on the crime it can make even finding a stable roof over their head a challenge. Granted, it was their choice to commit this crime and face its consequences. Some people accept they did wrong, move on with their life and work to get back to the place in society they were before the crime. Some give up and become a part of their environment. Whether a criminal is a displaced person or a hobo ultimately depends on their morality and their own conviction – the choice to stay homeless or to do something about it.

So what are the defining characteristics of a hobo and why do I choose to use the term? Because theirs is a life of wandering and vagrancy. There are still people, once called “boxcar willies,” who still ride the rails. They'll stop in a different town for a day or so. If they can find a soup kitchen or panhandle enough money they can get a meal. If they have family in the area or happen across a shelter with the proper amenities they might be able to get a shower or perhaps even a change of clothes. They'll find someone to spend the evening with and maybe some place to sleep be it at a friend's house or in a park or under a bridge. If they happened to get lucky panhandling maybe they'll have a few dollars for beers or a bottle of liquor to share with friends or new acquaintances. They stay in a town overnight or maybe a few days before hoping another train and moving on. Why do they travel? Well because they do. This is the standard definition of hobo that the dictionary gives us – however I choose to broaden that definition to include any sort of voluntary vagrant. Whether they choose to travel by rail or stay in the same area, they spend their time wandering.

There is the “local bum,” which in many communities can be a handful of winos or an entire army of hobos. They are type usual people recognized panhandling in their usual spots. They are the regulars at some soup kitchens and homeless shelters. They are the ones police officers usually known by name from picking them up for loitering or public intoxication. Once in awhile they'll go to the next town as they either tire of the harassment for a while or, as often happens, the city actually buys them a bus ticket to greener pastures. They come back though, they always come back to the familiar people and places – their “home.” While they don't travel far or traverse the country hiding in cargo trains, they still wander around each day from place to place. They still have the same aim in mind, which is to say none at all. Be it a lack of motivation or a carefree sense of freedom, they are hobos just the same.

Some Clarification and Stuff

There is all of this conjecture and hearsay over what happened with Josh's departure from Geek Juice. To get through to the facts without having to explain everything I will just post the message Mike Robinson (mister X), acting as Geek Juice's business manager, sent to Josh informing him that he and Geek Juice were parting ways. This clearly outlines the reasons Josh was asked to leave: 'I am not going to sugarcoat this because i feel u deserve that...you are fired josh. get your RL stuff figured out, try to realize how your actions affect others and if u can follow what GJ is...ask to come back. but dammit, you have made every single day a trial and there are over 20 ppl who have NO stake in your 'moral code' or unwillingness to accede to rules. don't run to Jowski to try to overturn this...I have carte blanche. I have tried to work with you to see how your negative approach reflects on us all and u have not heeded it...I feel i have no choice but to do this now. I HATE the timing of this, but we have a VERY narrow window of opportunity to stake our claim to make this economically viable and u are a liability...and if you are honest with yourself, you see that. we will still collaborate with you and hang out and talk but josh-and it PAINS me to say this...you think your needs are more important than the group's...and that is unacceptable. and NO this is not Brad or Jillian or tgwtg coloring my actions...if i WANTED to be with them i'd already be with them. we want to do this for a living and almost EVERYTHING u do prevents that. do not take this as anything more than a realistic business decision and PLEASE, as a friend...THINK about all i've just said-i don't WANT to do this but u have seriously given me no choice. your bile and hate has colored almost all that we do...and it HURTS us. do u think it's cool to hurt your friends chances at financial security? why are your ideals more important than the greater good? as i said before, it comes across like a spoiled child...and i'm done with it and the site is done with it as well.'

"But then why did Josh post that TGWTG/CA was involved with this decision?"

Josh is not being insane and pulling conspiracy conjecture out of his ass. The series of events leading up to his termination were colored a lot with how Mike and I disapproved of how Josh presented himself and Geek Juice to other sites. Here is a snippet of conversation Mike and I had a few weeks earlier that pretty much sums up how the situation developed over the past few months. "i know the following things: we told him not to comment on lidsay's video...and he did it anyway, we told him not to comment on that revierwerverse article...and he did it anyway, we told him not to do a followup article with that guy...and he did it anyway, we told him not to insult other sites (even while praising other ones)...he did it anyway and seriously damaged a potential writing gig i was presenting to i09"

Events before Josh were asked to leave... Mike is planning on going to Anime Midwest this week. Because of an argument between Josh and another person on the site I became worried about the consequences of it and sent Josh an angry message about how he could have spoiled Mike's upcoming trip and his hopes to meet some people from TGWTG - people he respects but IS NOT IN A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH. My message to Josh was emotion - not facts. The fears I had were later corrected and events regarding that situation did not play out as I thought they would. Later that day, Mike made the decision to let Josh go. So I can certainly understand why Josh would perceive that TGWTG may have had a hand in this as a discussion about Mike going to the same con that some TGWTG people were attending immediately preceded the message that he was let go from the site. That is why Mike felt the need to stress to Josh in his message that "NO this is not Brad or Jillian or tgwtg coloring my actions"

TGWTG has no stake in Geek Juice's actions. There was no mandate from CA, no ultimatum that we fire him, nothing of the sort. The ONLY interaction Geek Juice has had with ANYONE from tgwtg is having Brad Jones on a few shows every now and again. Beyond that the ONLY contact I've had with others from TGWTG has been the occasional "conversation" with some of its members on twitter about a movie or something. I've never met or talked to Doug or Rob Walker or anybody that has a controlling role at TGWTG/CA. Mike got his picture taken with Doug at a con a year ago and that was it - there was never an attempt to build a business relationship with them.

Josh and others have felt that Geek Juice was always "in competition" with TGWTG - and I can understand why some people could assume that. I've often said before that I would like to have their audience - meaning those kinds of numbers, that kind of dedicated audience. I never thought of anything as "competition" because how does one compete in the field of media criticism? Opinions are not tangible goods in a short supply. I can understand Burger King and McDonald's being in competition because that's a tangible product - you can only eat ONE lunch and you have to pick between one and the other. Reviews of media are not so inflexible, people can watch a review on one site, then another, and another, and another and maybe even they are all reviews of the same movie. In fact aggregate sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are based on the fact that there are so many DIFFERENT opinions. A site like Metacritic does not say: "Well The New York Times said that Breaking Dawn is a bad movie so it is unequivocally a bad movie. We only need ONE opinion to allow people to make this decision. Automatic score of 0!" Media RELIES upon the different opinions of people - which is why there is not just one film critic who speaks for the entire world. People base and word their opinions of anything from several different sources. In high school were we not told when writing an essay to consult MORE than just one encyclopedia on any given topic? Weren't we all instructed that a Bibliography is required to have more than one cited source - at least if you wanted to get a passing grade. No one person should have a monopoly on the human mind, information and opinion are NOT tangible things that can be owned by one person. People do, and should, seek MORE information about anything beyond what one person had to say. That philosophy of the necessity of different opinions, the necessity of having multiple sites across the internet covering media without competition is one of the ideas paramount to Geek Juice that Josh and I often disagreed on. Josh is a very opinionated person and, its not a fault of his character that he takes a difference in opinion as a personal insult. If you know Josh you know that if he finds a review of a movie or a book that's different than his own he will let people know in NO uncertain terms just how wrong that person is. It's an aspect of Josh's personality that was contrary to Geek Juice's philosophy. While the majority of us wanted to build a site with a friendly atmosphere where all opinions are welcome and there are no "wrong opinions," Josh's approach to content creation was to let people know how there is only one RIGHT opinion and anything else is WRONG. Many times Josh and I would debate this and he would elaborate on how WRONG other places were in their opinion about a movie - The output of those working on TGWTG were often the subject of these conversations, not because it was from them but rather because of how prolific and popular their content is. A google search for a review on most popular movies will generate links to TGWTG much more often than other sites.

So the fact that we often butted heads over how opinion should be presented, its place in the world and what necessitates a 'wrong' or 'rght' opinion was the core of the creative differences that led to us parting ways with Josh... and since the topic of those conversations, those flare-ups on facebook or the comment threads of articles, were more often than not based around content from CA contributors - I can understand why Josh would see TGWTG as a "secret hand" in our decision to let him go. In essence, Geek Juice is a community, made of different people with several different opinions. Geek Juice thrives on the fact that everyone DOES have a different perspective on media. A community cannot exist if it is held sway under the opinion of ONE person. And that is, in essence, the reason we parted ways with Josh - his unwillingness to compromise and accept other opinions and worldviews. There is nothing wrong with thinking that way, and certainly we are still friends with him and plan to continue collaborating him on future projects as they arise, but that perspective was contrary to Geek Juice's philosophy and was having a negative impact upon the lives and work of both Geek Juice contributors and Geek Juice's visitors.

Charles Atlas Shrugged

Mediocrity

No man likes to be beaten. But to be beaten by the man who has always stood as the particular example of mediocrity in his eyes, to stand by the side of this mediocrity and watch it shoot up, while he struggles and gets nothing but a boot to his face, to see the mediocrity snatch from him one after an another, the chances he'd give his life for, to see the mediocrity worshiped, to miss the place he wants and to see the mediocrity enshrined upon it, to lose, to be sacrificed, to be ignored, to be beaten, beaten, beaten - not by a greater genius, not by a god, but by mediocrity.

I want to see, real, living and in the hours of my own days, that glory I create as an illusion. I want it real. I want to know that there is someone, somewhere, who wants it too. Or what else is the use of seeing it, and working, and burning oneself for an impossible vision? A spirit, too, needs fuel. It can run dry.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Alex Jowski on Random