| Question to Fellow Users: Scam or Legit? |
[Jul. 13th, 2009|03:11 pm] |
Below is the third in a series of emails I've received recently.
1. Has anyone else gotten this?
2. Does it seem legit or is it some type of long form hack/prank?Dear LiveJournal user,
Last week I invited you to participate in a research project about LiveJournal users' reactions to the January 2009 SUP layoffs and user loyalty to social networking sites. I wanted to let you know that I am still interested in having you participate. This participation consists of two things. First, I will read and analyze your posting(s) about the layoffs. Then I will ask you to participate in a short (not more than half an hour) interview about LiveJournal and other social networking sites. The analysis of the blog postings and interviews will be included in a paper to be presented at an academic conference in October and will be prepared for possible publication in an academic journal thereafter.
If you are interested in participating, please go to http://tinyurl.com/LJCritical and fill out the Informed Consent form that you find there. I will then get in touch with you to schedule an interview.
Thanks in advance for your participation,
Sarah Ford
***********************
Sarah Michele Ford
Department of Sociology
University of Massachusetts - Amherst
ford@soc.umass.edu
http://snowplow.org/sarah/ Poor Sarah. If she is real, the people she's trying to research are the very ones with reasons - real or imagined - to consent to nothing.
I'm not inclined to help someone who attempts to study a group with something - impersonal spam - which signals dubious intent within the culture. It seems like approaching cops in a "I Smell Bacon" t-shirt. But perhaps I'm more credulous than most. |
|
|
| Your Mask, It's Slipping... |
[Jul. 11th, 2009|11:10 pm] |
Thanks to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) jonquil who pointed this out with a really great essay.
I despise David Brooks and pretty much everything he writes. This week, during a discussion about sexual mores in Washington on MSNBC, Brooks said the following:You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here...I can only imagine what happens to you guys. This is pretty startling and, dare I say, close to enlightened as Brooksian utterances go.
Edited to add: I'm not saying his sharing had pure motives or point of view, and he was being jocular about it, but it was as much acknowledgment of male entitlement as a guy like him will make.
As one might expect, since it's a guy, the gay baiting and victim blaming bubbled over on some blogs. Here's a sampling.Dear Mr. Brooks,
Yet you refused to say, "Take your paws off of me."
Was it good?
***
Way to go, Brooks.
There are ways of saying NO...and meaning it.
If a big macho guy like you has an unwanted hand on his inner thigh (the whole time, no less), I guarantee you welcomed it.
Now tell us what happened after dinner.
***
Did David Brooks just quasi-come out on national television? Cuz...if you don't like the hand being there, remove it. Letting it stay there the whole time indicates enjoyment.....just sayin.
***
in the immortals words of Riley of The Boondocks cartoon N***a you gay
***
and he loved every minute of it - I bet he said to the senator - "I'll give you till tuethday to get your handth off my legth" - and anyway, where was barnyard Cranks all this time?
( There's more, if you want. ) Sweet huh? Can you guess the sites?
Free Republic? Little Green Footballs? Ace of Spades?
Why no. It's Think Progress and Huffington Post.
UPDATE: Here's the headline from Pandagon: "...And Then He Jizzed In His Pants". The post, which is not by a female writer, sneers at David for not naming who groped him. That's right, Pandagon has a post in which not naming your harasser - and being lighthearted about it - means you liked it. Again, not Amanda or Pam but come. the. fuck. on. |
|
|
| "It will come out no more." "What? WHAT will come out no more?!?" |
[Jul. 11th, 2009|12:43 pm] |
This 100% real story falls somewhere between The Onion and Lovecraft:WASHINGTON – CIA Director Leon Panetta has terminated a "very serious" covert program the spy agency kept secret from Congress for eight years, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a House Intelligence subcommittee chairwoman, said Friday.
Schakowsky is pressing for an immediate committee investigation of the classified program, which has not been described publicly. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has said he is considering an investigation.
"The program is a very, very serious program and certainly deserved a serious debate at the time and through the years," Schakowsky told The Associated Press in an interview. "But now it's over."
Democrats revealed late Tuesday that CIA Director Leon Panetta had informed members of the House Intelligence Committee on June 24 that the spy agency had been withholding important information about a secret intelligence program begun after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Schakowsky described Panetta as "stunned" that he had not been informed of the program until nearly five months into his tenure as director.
Panetta had learned of the program only the day before informing the lawmakers, according to a U.S. intelligence official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity Friday because he was not authorized to discuss the program publicly.
Panetta has launched an internal probe at the CIA to determine why Congress was not told about the program. Exactly what the classified program entailed is still unclear.
The intelligence official said the program was "on-again/off-again" and that it was never fully operational, but he would not provide details. Um...the fuck was "on-again/off-again"? The mind reels between punchline and horror.
It's like we're on the wrong side of one of those laughingly obtuse briefing scenes in television shows. The one's which exist to set up something else, so characters utter phrases which only make sense as part of a larger explanation, but the scene is poorly structured so they just walk in, offer a vague statement, say "that is all for now" and leave. And you think, "Wait, they didn't..." Which may fit a world where newspapers contain headlines like INVESTIGATION CONTINUES but in this one we're all the hell aren't you telling us? Maybe that's how residents of TV New York feel all the time. I'm pretty certain they do in Horatio Caine's Miami.
Which makes me long for flip side of that trend, where news stories contain precise details no reporter on earth could have gotten in the sequence of events as shown. And I could turn on the TV right now and see news story right at the point where all the key details are being provided. And then I could call my friends, and they could turn on the TV and find another channel with a similar report at the exact same point, right now.
But no, instead I'm all WHAT? Like my life nothing but a series of macros indicating confusion. |
|
|
| "Status: Looking at trees!" |
[Jul. 11th, 2009|08:37 am] |
docmanhattan comments on a dubious metaphorical claim in ads for Coleman camping gear:You didn't really invent "social networking" either. Camping can be social, but it's the exact opposite of a network. If there were a trail in the woods where I would randomly run into people from my past, who would then shout what they were doing every so often, believe me when I say: I would not hike that trail. |
|
|
| It's a day for reaching |
[Jul. 9th, 2009|11:56 am] |
Caveat: this is another observation which might be come off as another simplistic, overstated stretch without seeing the entire film involved.
I see a small connection between a private pool club blithely admitting to kicking out a majority black group for racist reasons and Transformers 3 2.
I mean, it's the twenty fucking first century and a major blockbuster got through an entire production without anyone - at least anyone with power - objecting to minstrel characters (voiced by a white guy) so overt even typically anti-PC bloggers say WTF (this blogger bothered to include images of the characters). Meanwhile a liberal white blogger acknowledges the racism (without showing the characters) then still writes: "I am with the people, not the critics. "Transformers 2" is a fun summer blockbuster." instead of suggesting there's other fun which doesn't involve giving money to a hack who dismisses his racist material by saying "I purely did it for the kids".
While there is no direct connection, I will say as a white guy these both reflect how white guys will continue not to give a shit about what comes out their mouths until held accountable about a billion more times. When some self proclaimed asshole is more willing to say don't support this shit than a major lefty blogger, well...it continues to be stuff white people do. |
|
|
| Potentially Bogus Thought |
[Jul. 9th, 2009|08:47 am] |
Warning: This notion is an impression based on the most cursory look at the topic. It may be dramatically off base or misinformed.
My first reaction to the 2012 prophecy is that it's a crazy appropriation by privileged white "spiritualists" and: a) has an underlying attitude which can't accept an ancient culture's math and science skills without framing it in "magical primitive" crap; and b) despite living evidence, imposes simplistic and selective reading on a religion which, like most, ritually combines the symbolic, philosophical and literal in ways where intent and interpretation has shifted and evolved over centuries.
My first metaphorical impression is the 2012 prophecy is like saying Gregor Mendel had some correct theories, so it only makes sense to read Sinners In The Hands of An Angry God as a warning of our coming transformation into spider creatures by enraged superbeings for the purpose of dropping us into a galactic bonfire. |
|
|
| Days of Yep: Disaster Porn |
[Jul. 9th, 2009|06:58 am] |
The blog io9 has served up a huge pile of awesome by recutting the trailer for 2012 to be more honest - and true to its roots.
|
|
|
| Disclosure |
[Jul. 8th, 2009|11:37 am] |
Upon reflection there are two things motivating my recent overly earnest and self-serious grousing about Jackson's funeral.
First, celebrity in general involves our anxieties about about wealth, fame, talent, body image, happiness and so on. It's a glitzy Rorschach blot and death brings up even more intense issues.
For me, the hype and scandal plays upon fears of being shamed for being human and flawed. I know Jackson made his own choices, musical talent can come with self-destructive impulses and rich eccentrics who refuse help don't need pity. Yet I still felt someone should have helped him long ago, but didn't out of greed. Fair or not, my response to post-funeral gala was wondering where the organizers were when he was alive and at risk of an early death marred by scandal.
Second, the city of Chicago, my home, is in fiscal turmoil and our Mayor is trying to get the Olympics, perhaps the worlds biggest boondoggle of a spectacle. It's already resulted in millions of taxpayer dollars we don't have has been committed to bullshit deals which will benefit special interests, all for a private sporting event. So finding out LA is seeking donations to cover the costs of an event - a cost produced by the city's decision, not Jackson or his fans - just pushed my buttons. |
|
|
| Hmn. |
[Jul. 8th, 2009|07:57 am] |
|
When the hell did Obama ask moms to return to school, and why is he doing it using banner ads with animated clip art? |
|
|
| Fun and real? |
[Jul. 7th, 2009|12:03 pm] |
California on the verge of shutting down, social services are being yanked and Los Angeles is actually seeking donations to defray the cost of crowd management for Jackson's funeral.
I think that's the point at which a city can say no and insist things end after a small private service and tell the planners to ask people to donate cash to a charity in his name.
I don't know if anyone qualifies for a ride in a gold coffin, but if were going to lavish such excess on a big name, I think we should do it while they're alive to appreciate it. And if you can't persuade people to do it while breathing...
To me, this isn't about honoring Jackson's art or significance, it's just business stoking frenzy for money. The streets of LA is experiencing a toxic waste spill from the celebrity industry and cleanup is on the people's dime. |
|
|
| correlation, schmorrelation |
[Jul. 7th, 2009|09:15 am] |
I just heard a story on WBEZ which began, "A new study shows the audience for classical music is aging and shrinking..."
A cursory google search turned up news items on classical audiences shrinking and aging as far back as 1984. I think it's time for a study which shows listening to symphonies turns you into a raisin. |
|
|
| Some broad generalizations about capitalism. |
[Jul. 6th, 2009|05:45 pm] |
The theory of the efficient market is correct, but about the wrong thing.
Markets are efficient - not at determining value, but maximizing profit.
Markets are human constructs, so this reflects greed as much as some dispassionate transaction. Humans are also mortal and self-interested, thus markets can be impatient and selfish, favoring short term gain over long term concerns, especially when the conquences fall on others.
The less control exerted over a market, the more it resembles its most destructive, venal participants.
So it makes sense the housing market efficiently set prices far beyond what anyone could pay in a lifetime and came up with debt schemes to justify this transparently unsustainable crap. Without restraint or regulation, it naturally resorted to a risky, dishonest get rich quick scheme until it imploded.
That's how markets behave, unless forced to do otherwise.
Just as they can express mass greed, so they can efficiently amplify the collective reluctance to take responsibility. Thus the market was quite effective at gathering a group of brazen assholes who will continue to pay themselves obscene bonuses as long as they have any say in the matter. |
|
|
| Quitting Is Serious Business |
[Jul. 5th, 2009|04:21 pm] |
Apparently Palin has resigned in order to become the Duchess of ButtHurtopia in the Whutistan:How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it’s right for all, including your family. Sarah? The "countless others" who stepped down without getting elected or appointed to another office were forced out by scandal or illness. Not because they've decided to echo EvilWillow with "bored now."
Palin's speech included a cryptic references to "I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently." The full story is an awesome tale of Palin vs. the lulz resulting from her trying to silence criticism with bullshit about her kid.
A common form of political mockery is to depict political allies or rivals as parent and child. Some obscure blogger took a photo of Palin and Trig and superimposed the face of Alaskan right wing talk show host Eddie Burke - who was suspended for calling organizers of an anti-Palin rally maggots and broadcasting their home phone numbers on the air. The joke was obvious, and clearly not an attack on her kid.
In response Palin released a statement which began: "Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child". Why yes, you can now light a candle under a gold inlaid version of it at the Wasilla Eastern Orthodox Church.
And from there the lulz flowed.
Meanwhile, this Saturday Palin used twitter to threaten legal action against, as Wonkette put it, "MSNBC, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, individual bloggers in Alaska, and other such anti-Palin forces such as 'rain on your wedding day' and static cling."
Some of the best photoshops are below the cut. ( Aren't we clever then? ) |
|
|
| Picture Tina Fey, buried up to her waist in snow |
[Jul. 4th, 2009|10:24 am] |
Something of this is being heard, I am not merely talking to myself, that is in the wilderness, a thing I could never bear to do – for any length of time. (Pause.) That is what enables me to go on, go on talking that is. (Pause.) Whereas if you were to die – (smile) – to speak in the old style – (smile off) – or go away and leave me, then what would I do, what could I do, all day long, I mean between the bell for waking and the bell for sleep? (Pause.) Simply gaze before me with compressed lips. –Winnie in Happy Days by Samuel BeckettLet me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports... basketball. I use it because you're naïve if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it"s time to pass the ball - for victory. -Sara Palin, Resignation Speech
We all get the modernist absurdity we need. This will be a gift which keeps on giving. In keeping with my long held theory that American history is controlled by a cabal of improv actors, I would argue Palin may have created one of their masterworks and may be building an entire persona around retroactive applied parodics.
( Other similar things. ) |
|
|
| damn. |
[Jul. 2nd, 2009|11:03 pm] |
|
I just found out about Karl Malden. Alas, there are no decent clips of his performance in Baby Doll, but it was the pinnacle of him being the character actor bedrock against which more promoted actors played. He was an original Hey, It's That Guy long before JT Walsh. |
|
|
| Sucker. Total. |
[Jul. 2nd, 2009|10:42 pm] |
|
Good golly, folks. The most recent episode of Harper's Island got me all choked up. I am so easy. |
|
|