Science: Long May It Wave!
The hilarious story of what was “likely the most outrageous scientific presentation of all time.”
(via denialism blog)
Hail Portlandia!
Having lived in the Portland in the ’90’s, I can definitely relate to this funny series of short clips currently appearing on IFC. What I really wanted to embed was this short clip from this series: Hide & Seek, but this trailer is very well done.
(Via Outside the Beltway)
New New Economy
What [Kim] Kardashian does, very cleverly, is sell her ravenous audience to the highest bidder. She charges up to six figures to attend a party, and reportedly can get a million for a party overseas (hey, all that travel!).
How can someone charge for going to a party? Because, like that guy in the Verizon commercial, she brings all those curious people with her, in real and virtual life. Photographers, reporters, blog followers. The party gets publicized because she is attending, which is why the party pays for her to show.
Same goes for Twitter. Kardashian reportedly charges $25,000 to endorse a product with a tweet. Simply by typing “I just used ____ hairspray!” her words go to 6.5 million people, presumably many who have so little imagination about their own lives, they just want to emulate hers. For the hairspray company, that means potential customers.This, by the way, is no different than some of the biggest companies in the New New Economy. Look at Google. Look at Facebook. They don’t actually make anything. You can’t physically touch their product — can’t drive it or hammer with it. But what they deliver is audience. Hundreds of millions of people gathered in one place. And they earn billions by selling that audience to advertisers.
…
My worry is that instead of teaching our kids that skill, dedication and hard work are the path to success, we are teaching them that he-who-makes-the-biggest-jackass-video and she-who-pulls-her-skirt-up-highest can earn the most money.
MRI Follow-up
My physician’s assistant told me this morning that the last MRI result leads the doctor to believe that there is no need for concern at this time. A follow-up MRI will be done three months from now.
Sincere thanks to those of you who extended your good wishes.
So, I have a question…
Yesterday, President Obama named Jeremy Bernard, a gay man, as the White House Social Secretary. Bernard is the first male White House Social Secretary in history, apparently.
On Facebook, one of my older gay acquaintances posts that he “sees this as a positive step.” A mutual friend comments to the effect of well, of course! If she ever were in a position to need a social secretary, of course she would never hire anyone other than a gay man. To which the original poster, a gay man (who was in the closet for a large portion of his life), replied: “lol. It is logical, isn’t it? Who else can be such a great party planner.” (The comment thread then deteriorated into snobby comments attacking a nationally prominent leader of the “family values” crowd who is originally from our area, suggesting he would never attend a White House party now that a gay man was social secretary.)
Isn’t that rather stereotypical? And is the appointment of a gay man to such a stereotypically “gay” job really that great of an advancement for gay rights? Wouldn’t it be more impressive to appoint a gay man as, say, a campaign manager, rather than a job which has historically been filled by a woman?
I’m just puzzled by people who, if questioned, would certainly say that they want to end outdated stereotypes against gay men, and yet themselves perpetuate some of those very same stereotypes.
Rather than…
…clutter up Amba’s fine blog with my nonsense, I may put another Game post or two up over at my place, Fluffy Stuffin! Everyone here is always welcome…check out the Fred and Ginger posts!
Freedom Quantified?
There’s no practical and honest way to organize society around the notion of freedom. The majority has to use other sorts of language to bring the outliers toward the average. Criminals are “punished” or “incarcerated.” The rich are taxed at higher rates under the absurd notion of “giving back” something they didn’t actually “take” in the first place, assuming their activities stimulated the economy and created wealth where there had been none. (Hedge fund billionaires are obvious exceptions.)
It seems to me that envy, not freedom, or even selfishness, is the organizing principle of society. And maybe that’s the only way it can work.
(Dilbert creator Scott Adams)
Ambiance 