Are You Clowns STILL Trying On the Innocent Face?

Look, ok, I've ranted about Senator Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Banking Committee, before. Lesser known is Senator Kent Conrad, head of the Senate Budget Committee.

Both of them have been deeply involved with the many, many bailouts, the abominable stimulus packages, the nationalization of the car companies; both are intimately involved with every agency, bank, or entity which contributed to the economic crash.

Each of them received special treatment from Countrywide Mortgages, in terms of two (each) special, low-interest, low-payment...

Ah, fuckit, call 'em what they are. Swetheart deals, given to two influential Senators by a company which maintained a "VIP" section in its lending department specifically for the purpose of smooching the butts of Senators and other similarly empowered or wealthy individuals.

Both Senators are insisting that they DIDN'T KNOW they were receiving preferential treatment at the time.

That's not what the guys at Countrywide say, though.

In fact, a gentleman from Countrywide's VIP unit so testified before the Senate Ethics Committee last month.

That's no worry for them, of course, since their buddy Barbara Boxer is on the committee; except...

...There is documentation from Countrywide showing that Dodd and Conrad did IN FACT know that they were getting a righteous butt-smooching.

How unfortunate.

Especially since they've both been loudly and publicly denying any kind of special treatment since this first started to get noised about.

Doesn't that just SUCK? I mean, seeing as we've entrusted them with trillions of dollars in "fixes" for our economy, drawn from tax dollars?

How could they BE so lazy as to get caught? The rest of their party must be ashamed.

Political Metablogging And Irony, Part 2.

[Poorly spelled and grammatically incorrect ranting and left-wing Marxism.]

[Irrelevant point that begs the question while purporting to address a current political issue.]

[Second irrelevant point followed by ad hominem attacks against opposing viewpoints, and accusations that opposing viewpoints are equivalent to fascism.]

[Third irrelevant point containing stream-of-consciousness - style rant about a totally unrelated political issue. Further discussion of rampant fascism amongst holders of opposing viewpoints, plus extended discussion of said holders' clearly obvious ignorance and general stupidity in vehement and potentially legally liable sense.]

[Total divergence into yet a third, also completely unrelated political issue containing no points of congruity with the original point; lavish use of strawman arguments and the slippery slope fallacy.]

[Transparent attempt to disguise the three pseudo-arguments as a single cohesive statement using "global climate change" to cover the points of difference; reference to the rightness of poster's chosen environmental defense charity.]

[Rambling conclusion alleging that poster's arguments are valid because they are the only ones who truly care for the planet based on their aforementioned environmental defense charity; claims that said charity will throw red paint upon the aforementioned holders of opposing political views, who are then accused of idiocy and threatened with Rainbow Coalition parades in their hometowns.]

Political Metablogging And Irony, Part 1.

[Poorly spelled and grammatically incorrect ranting and right-wing wharrgarbl.]

[Irrelevant point that begs the question while purporting to address a current political issue.]

[Second irrelevant point followed by ad hominem attacks against opposing viewpoints, and accusations that opposing viewpoints are equivalent to communism.]

[Third irrelevant point containing stream-of-consciousness - style rant about a totally unrelated political issue. Further discussion of rampant communism amongst holders of opposing viewpoints, plus extended discussion of said holders' parentage in disparaging and possibly legally liable sense.]

[Total divergence into yet a third, also completely unrelated political issue containing no points of congruity with the original point; lavish use of strawman arguments and the slippery slope fallacy.]

[Transparent attempt to disguise the three pseudo-arguments as a single cohesive statement using national security to cover the points of difference; reference to the rightness of poster's chosen imaginary Sky Fairy.]

[Rambling conclusion alleging that poster's arguments are valid because they are divinely inspired by the aforementioned chosen Sky Fairy, claims that said Sky Fairy will dispence terrifying punishment of some significantly permanent nature upon the aforementioned holders of opposing political views, who are then accused of sexual deviance and threatened with armed revolution.]

Just For Your Political Edumacation, And So It Doesn't Get Hidden Under The Increasingly Lumpy And Misshapen Rug

There's a report on ACORN and its political and possibly criminal activities.

Since it paints ACORN in a very unflattering light - and especially in light of the fact that the healthcare bill contains a rider to yet again give big bucks to ACORN - I worry that this report is going to get hushed up, and quickly.

So, in the interest of continuing to give al alternative viewpoint until they toss me in jail for having one, here's the report in annoying, slow .pdf format. Right-click and "Save as..." here.

A Little MORE Honduras Reporting...

...Since I can't seem to get enough of this one.

Article 4 of the Honduran Constitution - again, to be found here - reads as follows:

ARTICULO 4.- La forma de gobierno es republicana, democr�tica y representativa. Se ejerce por tres poderes: Legislativo, Ejecutivo y Judicial, complementarios e independientes y sin relaciones de subordinaci�n.

La alternabilidad en el ejercicio de la Presidencia de la Rep�blica es obligatoria.

La infracci�n de esta norma constituye delito de traici�n a la Patria.

To make that more clear for the non-Spanish speakers among us, which I expect is nearly everyone (although I totally disdained Google Translate for this one, so if you think your Spanish is better than mine, feel free to correct me,) that comes out to:

Article 4: The form of government is republican, democratic, and representative. There are three powers, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; complementary, independent, and without a subordinate relationship (in other words they're all equal -Xeno.)

Alternation of the Presidency of the Republic is obligatory.

Any infraction of this standard constitutes the crime of treason against the State.

Which means not only was Zelaya ousted legitimately, but they were very gentle with him, in strict point of fact; the penalty for treason is 20 years in prison. They could have chucked him in a hole and forgotten where the key was.

The Resounding Thunder Of Media Silence Continues...

...More information on the situation I blogged about earlier involving Manuel Zelaya, former President of Honduras.

Zelaya was replaced thanks to the order of the Honduran Supreme Court with a gentleman named Roberto Micheletti, who was from Zelaya's own political party and was previously Speaker of the House (the Honduran equivalent, anyway.) That appointment was affirmed by the Honduran Congress, which voted overwhelmingly to confirm Mr. Micheletti as the interim president, serving only until the scheduled end of Zelaya's term, in January. The Presidential elections which will replace Mr. Micheletti will happen in November.

Now, since our Sock Puppet In Chief seems determined to refer to this as a right-wing military coup, let me cite Constitutional authority here.

...The Honduran Constitution, that is.

For those of you who read Spanish, here's the original.

For the rest of you, Article 237 directs that the President serve a single 4-year term. Article 239 says that any attempt by the President to change this, like, say, using a referendum to try to amend the Constitution, shall immediately vacate him from office and render him ineligible to hold public office for a period of ten years.

But wait, there's more!™ 

 

See, Article 42 says that Zelaya not only lost his office, but lost his CITIZENSHIP, because citizenship is lost,

4. Por coartar la libertad de sufragio, adulterar documentos electorales o emplear medios fraudulentos para burlar la voluntad popular;

5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República;

Which translates to, "4. For limiting the freedom of the vote, falsifying electoral documents, or employing fraudulent methods to circumvent the will of the people; 5. For inciting, promoting, or supporting the continuation or re-election of the President of the Republic." (Here's the Google translation; I leave it to you to decide if I speak Spanish better than Google does.)

Whoa, Nellie.

That's right. Zelaya is guilty of BOTH of those - and right there in the Constitution of Honduras, it not only says he can't do it, it says he lost his citizenship in Honduras by doing so, and since he must be a citizen to hold office, he's gone.

So the military quite properly acted under the orders of the Supreme Court and the duly elected Congress to remove an illegal alien from Honduran territory.

Good luck trying to convince the world it was a right-wing coup against a legal authority.

Hey, President Obama, a question?

Why WOULD you be supporting the return to power of an illegal alien ineligible to hold public office, hmmmm? 

I'm just curious.

Since American News Sources Remain Silent On This...

But the Spanish-speaking media does not, there's new information in the case of the ousted Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya.

Some few of you may remember a minor stir when President Obama announced support for Zelaya, who was ousted by the Honduran military following his attempt to illegally alter the Honduran Constitution to allow himself to remain president past his term limits.

Some of you may not. So let me recap events.

Zelaya was reaching his term limits, as mandated by the Honduran Constitution.

Rather than leave his cushy office, he attempted to run a referendum - an election to allow the Constitution to be changed in order to allow him to remain in office.

The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that such a referendum, taking place less than 180 days before a legal election, was illegal under the Honduran Constitution and could not go forward.

Zelaya ignored the Supreme Court and pressed forward with plans for the referendum anyway, firing the head of the Honduran military, General Romeo Vasquez, when he refused to comply. The Supreme Court reinstated General Vasquez the next day, and issued a warrant for Zelaya's arrest, which was then executed.

Zelaya attempted to return a few weeks ago, but his return was stopped by the Honduran military, which intercepted his plane upon landing and forced him back out to Costa Rica again.

This man ignored his own party, which told him to back off; the opposition, which did likewise; his country's Supreme Court, which ordered him to cease and desist, and attempted to seize control of the military when they refused to comply; this is the man President Obama and the UN want reinstated in Honduras, over the objections of its citizens and the rest of its duly elected government.

But wait, it gets better!™

...You'll love this.

The Honduran National Directors of Criminal Investigation today reported that they had seized 45 computers from the Presidential Palace which contained... drumroll please...

..."Certified" election results from the referendum, showing that Zelaya won in a landslide.

The catch?

The referendum never fucking happened.

Zelaya was all set to rig the election, thus allowing himself the opportunity to rewrite the Honduran Constitution with a free hand. The Honduran government has PROOF of this. They have duly reported this. The English-language media, worldwide, has ignored this story completely (with the sole exception of USA Today, and you should look at this link to see the importance they attach to this,) and President Obama and the UN are still expressing support for this guy.

I wonder why that is, don't you?

The Magnif'sense Uf Stoopit, Part 3.

Just to show off the "dumb," the European Union is pushing a project that ranks right up there with the "Stimulus" plan.

See, they need more power. Almost every nation does; having electrical power is what allows for economic growth. Now, in one sense the EU is far ahead of the United States, in that they use nuclear power for a major portion of their power needs, but they want to try out some of these much-touted "green" technologies, so they've decided to build a giant solar power farm.

...In the Sahara desert.

Great idea, right? I mean, huge power station, providing a planned 15% of EU power demand in the future, no carbon emissions, what could go wrong?

...Maybe the fact that it will be sited in countries governed wholly by fanatics who hate the EU and send terrorists to attack them on a regular basis?

15% of their total power requirement is more than enough to cause rolling blackouts, or even crash the power grid completely. If the EU actually does this, they will have created a vast, tempting target for terrorism, right in the terrorists' back yard; a massive power station, providing electricity required for the health of the power grid of multiple nations, connected only by a vast cable running thousands of miles under the Mediterranean.

Why NOT let the bad guys hold an even sharper knife to your throat, really?

The Magnif'sense Uf Stoopit, Part 2.

For those of you who are all about the stimulus plan and SO SURE that it's going to have some kind of positive effect on the economy... you're right!

First, instead of the expected 617,000 BRAND NEW unemployment claims expected in the first week of July, in fact there were only 565,000 BRAND NEW claims for unemployment! That means the stimulus is saving jobs!

...In the same sort of way that cutting the rate at which a tax grows, is a "tax cut."

Reality check: we're hemorrhaging jobs and reeling from crisis to crisis like a drunken sailor.

Even if you believe that there is some positive effect to be had from dipping a cup of water out of a river and pouring it back in farther downstream, the way the stimulus funds are being used counteracts any benefit there was to be had in the first place.

For example, the $60,000 PennDOT is spending on road signs to inform drivers stuck in interminable lines at construction sites that the construction is paid for by stimulus funds.

I wish I was fucking kidding.

Can you dolts honestly not see how fucking stupid this is? Really?!?

Just An Update For Those Who Care...

...All two of you, and stuff.

We're exploring the employment options in a different, bigger, town; if I can find a job up here, then we will be moving as quickly as is applicable. So, if I am kind of in - and - out for a while, please be patient.

Never fear; my snarcasm will return as soon as we get settled in to whatever we're going to do.

The Magnif'sense Uf Stoopit, Part 1.

I live in a small town in Pennsylvania. (Call my town #1.)

Right on the river.

Down the river a piece is another small town. (Call this one #2.)

Now, each of these towns - mine, and the other - has a bridge over the river.

The bridge in town #2 is condemned for human and vehicular traffic, and plans have been in the works for years - including having residents vote on them - to tear down, re-site, and replace that bridge entirely.

The bridge in town #1 - mine - on the other hand has nothing wrong with it, and is perfectly safe.

But there's an economic stimulus coming, don'tcha know.

So, it came time to divvy up funds to "shovel-ready" projects. Did PennDOT take this opportunity to tear down bridge #2 and actually get funding to replace it? No.

They DID however pull a plan out of their ass to shut down bridge #1 - the one that's a block from my house - requiring a SEVEN MILE detour to get to and from my town, since ALL traffic to and from my town crosses... the bridge.

Does the detour cross the condemned bridge? You betcha.

So, thanks to the concept of "stimulus," we have a perfectly good bridge which is now shut down until the middle of NEXT YEAR at the earliest estimate, and all traffic being routed across a bridge they want to tear down because they are afraid it's going to fall into the river and kill everyone on it.

Is there construction along the detour route as well? Sure there is.

Most specifically, in the intersection directly across the condemned bridge, thus leaving huge lines of cars stopped, waiting for a flagger to approve them passager, on the condemned bridge that might fall into the river and kill hundreds at any moment.

My soul hurts from the stupid.

The Fountain (Spoilers Abound, You Are Warned.)

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Romance

I am reviewing this again, having watched it now many more times than i had when i initially gave it four stars so many months ago.

This is an incredibly beautiful movie.

It is an incredibly sad movie.

But even though it will likely make you cry, it is an amazing experience.

It is not a simple one.

The story centers around a couple, Dr. Thomas Creo and his wife Isabelle, known as "Izzy." Dr. Creo is working desperately towards a cure for cancer; his work is driven by purpose, because Izzy is dying by inches, and Thomas is sacrificing his last moments with her in the feverish hope that he can save her.

At the last, she writes a book, entitled, as the film is, "The Fountain." In it, she tells the story of a Spaniard, sent by Queen Isabelle, to try to find the Tree of Life. She is unable to finish it, and demands that Thomas finish the book for her.

The film jumps back and forth between the "real," the past, which is the story from Izzy's book, and the distant future, which is Thomas' ending to it.

A lot of people have told me that they failed to understand, to comprehend, the meaning of the ending to the movie.

So I'm going to explain my impression of it, in the hopes that it gives you a window of new perception. Be aware that I am going to give away not only major plot points here but the end of the movie.






OK.

Izzy dies. Thomas' research results in - not a cure, but definite proof it is possible - only minutes after she dies.

After his grief has allowed him to return to sanity, he begins writing the conclusion to Izzy's book.

The quest of the conquistador leads into endless death; his men die, his friends die, and he becomes obsessed, driven by death. Only his own death and rebirth - in the place the Mayans called Xibalba - can redeem him from what he had become, and allow him to return to the world of life.

He finds the tree, but is so obsessed and crazed by his lust for death that he tries to kill the Tree of Life itself; his failure kills him.

Thomas' conclusion to the book tells of the journey of the conquistador's soul - and his own - to Xibalba, the place of rebirth; the conquistador takes with him the Tree he tried to kill, and Thomas takes his memories of Izzy; he is redeemed, reborn, and finally gives meaning to his quest, in his own soul.

Izzy dies.

Thomas plants a seed over her grave, so that a tree can be born from her, and she can live on in the life of the world.

This was the first movie I'd seen in which Hugh Jackman demonstrated any acting ability whatsoever. I am convinced; he is a damned impressive actor. As is the vastly underrated Rachel Weisz, playing Izzy.

Creo, in Spanish, means "I believe."

It is almost impossible to watch this movie and not believe.

Darren Aronofsky, who directed Pi, The Fountain, and Requiem for a Dream, is clearly a genius.

You do yourself an enormous disservice by not watching this film. My respect and admiration - and enjoyment, despite the sadness - grows every time I watch it.

I told a friend, earlier today, "it is the story of a man willing to sacrifice everything he has, everything he is, for his one great love and his desperation to protect it; there can be no greater celebration of life than that."

I meant every word of it. This is one of the most beautiful movies ever made; it holds my highest esteem, and awe.

You owe it to yourself - to the health of your soul - to watch this movie.

A Long-Overdue Explanation.

You guys have heard me say, many times before, things about filesharing, piracy, the media companies, gaming companies, and legislation.

Some of it has been more nebulous and cryptic than others.

So, I'm going to analogize. Hopefully this will share a bit of light on the situation.

Say there are two Burger King franchises, right next to each other.

The first is the legal one; the second, the pirate.

At the first, legal, Burger King, you go in and find that the prices are steep. REALLY steep. As in, Kobe beef steep. But, ok, that's gonna be a tasty burger, right?

Except Burger King has decided that if you share a bite of that burger with your kids, your wife, girlfriend, whoever, that's wrong, because each of you should pay for your burgers. This is reasonable, somewhat - a bite isn't a whole burger, but it's "the experience" that they're selling, not a product, so, either buy a burger full price apiece, or one of you will always wonder.

To make SURE that happens, they're no longer selling their burgers in cardboard and paper, but instead in those impenetrable heat-sealed blister packs like Wal-Mart uses that you have to use tin snips to open and cause thousands of injuries annually.

Only, once you get the plastic package open, you can STILL lean over and let your honey try a bite; Burger King is SERIOUS about you not doing that, so at the register, they take a DNA sample of each person ordering, and poison each burger so that if anyone on the entire earth except ONLY YOU takes a bite, they will be on the floor, puking up their guts and doing the kickin' chicken in seconds.

Excapt the process isn't perfect. Say one of the employees has a stray hair get in the DNA scanner; suddenly YOU get sick from your perfectly legal, paid-for "tasty" burger.

Or, you can go across the street, to the pirate BK, where they not only don't have tin snips, blister packs, DNA scans, puking, or poison, but they GIVE THE BURGERS THE FUCK AWAY FOR FREE. There's only one hitch: one customer in 16,000 or so gets gang-tackled and beat Rodney King style in the parking lot by cops, who then mock you, pour sugar in your gas tank, sodomize your sister, and leave. But that's 1 in 16,000.... which means the odds of you getting out ok are 15,999 to 1, every time you go in.

Want to place money on which of these has more burgers walk out the front door? I'd bet on the pirates, and so would you.

I will return to this analogy.

See, the reality is that the internet, wireless networking, cellular technology, all have combined to create a marketplace in which content is available anywhere people want it, anytime they want it, as often as they want it. They can get it anywhere, use it anywhere, on any device. (Don't laugh; I saw a microwave oven with a video iPod built into it once.)

So, movies, music, video games, news, books, TV shows, computer software, what have you - anywhere, anyway, anytime; a perfect world, right?

Wrong.

Because those companies - often not the creators of content, but the "owners" of it - are used to being able to charge you whatever they want for it, and now that it's available in multiple ways, YOU think it ought to be cheaper and more accessible; they think you ought to continue to pay the same prices, and buy in the same ways, that you always have.

If you go to Burger King and buy a burger, you ought to be able to eat in the dining area, your car, the sidewalk, another store, the public park, your house, anywhere you want. You'd be offended to no end if the Burger King employees were to say to you, "excuse me, sir, you only bought a license to eat that burger in the dining area. You'll have to pay full price again if you want to take it outside the restaurant."

And yet, movie and music companies do this daily. You buy a CD, in a store, the whole traditional route; it's yours, right?

Wrong.

Because those companies have managed to convince - Orrin Hatch of Utah, in particular, but anyone they can get their slimy tentacles on - to pass laws saying that if you take that CD home, rip the data to your computer, and put THAT CD YOU LEGALLY PAID FOR on your MP3 player, so you can take it in the car, you are liable for $80,000 dollars in fines PER SONG on that disc, and jail time in a federal penitentiary.

They seriously expect you - having paid the full price, in a store - to pay that full price AGAIN for your iPod copy; again if you want a backup copy of the disc; they want you to pay a licensing fee if you so much as hum part of the tune to a friend, because that's "sharing."

...I wish I was fucking kidding. ASCAP actually is trying - right now, in court - to get the courts to declare your cellphone ringtone a "public performance" so they can demand license fees for your use of their song.

Now, have you ever seen the difference between a Coke machine and a Pepsi machine in action? Take a wrinkled, stained, crumpled-up old bill, and try it in both machines. The Coke machine will more than likely turn its nose up; that, after all, isn't a "good enough" dollar bill for them.

A Pepsi machine, on the other hand, will practically vacuum the fucker out of your wallet with suction cups, because they understand that the purpose of their business is to transfer those dollar bills from your pocket to theirs.

The media companies don't understand this. Rather than trying to take advantage of the many, many, many opportunities the internet presents both for free advertising and for cutting production costs, they are trying to force you - by law - to buy things the way they want you to buy them.

Back to Burger King, for the second-to last time. Imagine now that in addition to the legal but pricey, fucked-up joint, and the free-but-pirated-and-possibly-gang-banged-by-cops joint, they open a third franchise, where they sell the burgers for $2 apiece, but otherwise as free and clear as the pirate joint - and there's no threat of drive-by police sodomy whatsoever.

That changes the equation quite a bit, doesn't it?

Suddenly, the option of buying burgers legally is a lot more attractive, because there are, literally, NONE of the hassles of either of the competitors. Nobody wants bruises and a caramelized engine, so the pirates are shut down (mostly, there will ALWAYS be someone who doesn't think it's cheap ENOUGH) and there's no tin snips, poison, or licensing fees, so the other "legal" joint goes away too.

But the hassle-free, inexpensive legal joint? Makes a goddamn FORTUNE.

How's this come out for the media companies? Easy. They can live La Vida Sin Inventario, because of the Internet. All they need is to invest in a big-ass DVD stamper for every WalMart, and a unified content network.

Here's how this works.

The movie, music, gaming, and publishing companies all get together and agree on a distribution format. Call it something like Media Universe; use tiers, CD, Blu-Ray, and DVD.

They give the DVD-stampers a simple interface, kinda like the one Redbox uses.

The customer walks up, looks at the main screen.

"I'm in the mood for a movie today!"

They tap the screen over the button for movies. The interface then offers a selection - not "what's in the machine" but "goddamn anything."

The customer picks something.

"Would you like the optional cover art and liner notes for $1 more?"

The customer chooses, and swipes their credit card.

The machine then goes online, downloads the movie, burns it to DVD; prints the insert, puts it in the case, packages the DVD. Meanwhile, the customer is... watching "complimentary trailers for upcoming media releases." Advertising. Maybe for a new book, a new movie, hearing a clip from a new album by some forgettable hip-hop guy.

The machine says, "Thank you for your purchase! Enjoy!" and spits out a brand new DVD in a clear plastic case.

You paid, maybe, $8 for a DVD, $5 for a music CD, $20 for a video game, $25 for computer software.

The content owner? Had to pay for bandwidth, and storage for ONE SINGLE COPY of the file, nothing more.

No inventory for Walmart, no inventory for the content company.

No shipping costs.

No packaging, except for an optional paper printout for a dollar more and the plastic case that costs virtually nothing when bought in bulk. (33 cents, in lots of 2000. Note that this was the first Google search result, and I could probably find better prices if I really tried.)

Which means that, aside from recouping the costs of creating the original content itself, the expense of this transaction to the media owner is... their internet bill. Totally legal, headache free, totally a la carte; huge profits for the media producers, because an enormous amount of their expense lies in distribution.

Extend the idea.

A piece of software you could install on your home PC - FREE! - that does exactly the same thing, and connects to the same media network.

Use BitTorrent architecture to transfer the files; this turns any distro location that has downloaded the file a source, which means that the hotter a product is, the faster the customer can get it.

Suddenly, you don't even have to leave your desk; you can put in a blank disc, and a few minutes later - trailers and all - bam, any kind of media content you want, on your very own DRM-free disc.

Why DRM-free?

Because if you can burn anything you want from your desktop, who needs piracy?

Envision a world in which you could have any movie you want, without worrying if Wal-Mart has any copies left in stock.

Any music CD, no matter how obscure. (The Twelfth Amethyst for the victory!)

Any video game, provided...

....And right there's why this will never, ever happen.

Blu-Ray exists because the media companies couldn't agree on a single standard on which to sell their media. At the time, they had two standards, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray; each backed by a consortium of companies.

In order for Media Universe to work, you'd have to agree on a software client that would be universal; a single distribution network; a single kiosk architecture, a small set of disc formats.

It took them years to agree on the copy protection standard for HDTV.

They'd never agree to allow you to have what you want, when you want it.

Back to Burger King: you could Have It Your Way.

...But they won't let you, ever.

Any wonder why people are all for piracy, now?

[*Legal note: all brand names and trademarks are owned by who they're owned by, and my use of them doesn't constitute any allegation that, for example, Burger King actually performs DNA testing or poisons burgers. Although based on the Steakhouse Burger I might be prepared to stand by that last one.*]