Category Archives: The Interweb

Givers, Talkers & Lurkers

Dung Beetle

The dung beetle, a far more noble form of life than a spammer!

Going to try something a little different. Rather than write a longish comment in response to someone’s blog article or comment, I’m going to write a shortish article on my own blog.  (Well, short for me, anyway.)

Sometimes when writing a long comment, I find myself thinking that what I’d like to say would be better served as an article rather than a typically long-winded comment. There is also that comment sections can be a bit confined space-wise, plus it’s a bit harder to include pictures or do formatting.

Today’s “comment” is actually a long-standing observation about the interweb, but was triggered by the sudden rise in spam Follows and then Michelle’s latest article over on The Green Study.

Continue reading


Impedance Mismatch

buffalo herdI find myself in an increasing funk the last few weeks. By now I’m feeling maximally funky, but unfortunately not in the good way. Funky often refers to smell, and in this case the increasing stink is mental. I’m just … fed up, halfway between tired and disgusted, many miles south of annoyed.

Work accounts for much of that, perhaps all of it. Yet another week of literally zero progress. In fact there was a setback: vendor work that didn’t, and the vendor is being difficult about dealing with it. I seem to be on the IT project equivalent of the Titanic (and there are a scary number of parallels).

And for a variety of reasons I’m feeling a strong sense of impedance mismatch with the world.

Continue reading


Amping the Ante

The other evening, I finally went to see the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. The punch line (and never was the term “punch” more appropriate) is that I have to give it a definite thumbs down.  It is, without question, my least favorite Christopher Nolan movie, and that’s saying something, because (unlike many cinephiles I know), I quite like Nolan’s work.

I’m a life-long comics fan and a life-long fan of the Batman. I’ve known the worlds of DC and Marvel for over 40 years. For me, Superman has a slight edge, but the Batman has always been a close second.  Those two comprise a full quarter to one-third of my comics and gnovels (graphic novels) collection.  Frank Miller‘s The Dark Knight Returns is one of two seminal works I hold in the highest esteem.  (The other, of course, is Alan Moore‘s Watchmen.)

And, as I mentioned, I’m a fan of Nolan’s work, and I liked both his first two Batman movies.  I fully expected to like his latest.

But I didn’t.

I was fine until about halfway through when I realized two things:

1) There sure are an awful lot of people being killed for my “entertainment.”
2) Is it just me, or is the plot mind-numbingly stupid?

Those two realizations rather put a dampener on things.

Oh, sure, Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle (Catwoman) was a creditable entry in the list of Catwomen, although at my age I’m afraid she’s only third following Michelle Pfeiffer and Halle Berry. The movies those two appeared in weren’t much to speak of, but I mean, come on, we’re talking Michelle and Halle here (if you asked me to name the 25 most beautiful women in the world, both would be on my list)!

[While we're on the subject of Batman Returns, portraying the dapper and elegant Oswald Cobblepot (The Penguin) as a disgusting, filthy, stinking, almost actual penguin (have you ever actually smelled penguins? yikes!) was almost as stupid as casting Arnold as Mr. Freeze (worst Batman movie ever).]

And I also liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt as (Robin)  John Blake.  It’s been fun to watch his career since the days of Tommy on 3rd Rock From the Sun (one of the better comedies television has brought us).  One wonders if, contrary to Batman canon, sparks will fly between Selina and the new Robin.  Women: if you had to choose between Bane’s Batman and Gordon-Levitt…?

But those were scant high points in an otherwise very disappointing end (?) to Nolan’s Batman cycle.  Computer-generated special effects have come of age and no longer have any ability to carry a movie. They no longer impress me or even interest me very much.  I need a good story and good characters.

And The Dark Knight Rises just doesn’t have a very good story, nor are its villains very interesting.  The story basically is that insane people want to blow up Gotham City.  Batman stops them. (Sorry for the spoiler.)

Heath Ledger’s Joker was at least very interesting as a performance, even if the character was too over the top for any real character development.  Tom Hardy‘s Bane was, at best, mildly interesting to me (more for seeing acting through a mask than anything else).  But insane villains ultimately aren’t that interesting.  It’s like having an earthquake or tornado for a villain (which, of course, has been done). A force of nature is a threat to be fought or endured, but it’s just there… a thing with no real character.  Not very engaging, is what I’m saying; not very interesting.

And if that was the extent of things, I’d probably have enjoyed the movie. It wouldn’t have ranked very high in my esteem, but very few comic book movies do, especially the superhero comic book movies.  They come, they go; they’re a bit like junk food. Tasty, non-nutritious, quickly forgotten. And a lot of what would be stupid or silly in a normal movie gets something of a pass in a comic book movie, because comics are lurid and melodramatic and silly and sometimes stupid if you really think about them. So are the movies based on them.

The Bane character goes back to a Batman comic novel, Knightfall, from 1993.

It’s the idea of casually killing lots of people, innocent bystander people, non-combatants, that’s begun to get to me.  It’s the constant upping of the ante of shock and violence that’s begun to get to me.  Our world has become over-amped and casually violent.  Just spend some time reading what people say on the interweb; we rarely seem to treat each other with respect or gentleness, particularly when we hide behind the anonymity of our pseudonyms.

I recently wrote (ranted, actually) about Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies, and it was during the big battle for Gondor that I began to feel vaguely uncomfortable at all the death in the name of entertainment.

Odd, perhaps, to care about CGI characters dying; they’re nothing more than pixels, really, but the point of a story is that you suspend your belief and accept the reality.

And, yes, the battle is in the book, we can’t blame the movie for that, but here’s the thing: books are at one end of a storytelling continuum that describes the amount of reality versus imagination required by the audience.  Movies are on the opposite end.  Books describe, and you imagine.  Movies show you specific and increasingly realistic images.  Humans are hugely visually based, and images have a very strong impact.

In part one of Knightfall, Broken Bat, Bane defeats and nearly kills the Batman.

What’s happened in movies and television is that we’ve constantly upped the ante. Directors attempt to shock us with violence, often in the service of making a legitimate point.  We come to accept and become used to that visual language, so the next time it takes even more to reach the shock level.  When you look back, it’s astonishing how far we’ve come.  Or perhaps I mean how far we’ve sunk.

I used to believe that violence in film and television (and now in many video games) was not a problem.  They certainly weren’t a problem for me or for anyone I knew.  But it’s hard to ignore the amped up nature of society now. It’s hard to ignore the sheer casually violent attitudes we often have towards each other.

As always, I suspect the solution involves a form of education or broadening of input.  The reason violent media is not a problem for me and people I know is that it is a small portion of our diet.  We eat the nutritious food enough that occasional forays into junk food are harmless—even enjoyable.  But we all know what can happen if junk food comprises your entire diet.

This has gotten long. As a concession to the tl;dr crowd (oh, ye of the short attention spans), I’ll end this here,… but I shall return to it anon!


BB #3 – Class Warfare

Today a second Brain Bubble; a pair of related BBs fired into the interweb. The first one concerned the “mainstream liberal media” meme. This one concerns another meme we seem to accept as given, but which I think deserves deeper thought.  (Of course, I’m prone to thinking most things deserve deeper thought than they get, but that’s another BB… or SB… or full-blown article!)

In any event, this BB concerns the idea of “Class warfare.”  It’s a phrase often used by the upper class to describe any sort of perceived “attack” against them. It implies “dirty fighting” and seeks to turn any complaint—no matter how valid—into an ad hominem attack.

Which, of course, would be unfair, right?

Wrong.

It deflects valid complaints about the real unfairness, which is the growing gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us.  A gap that is increased and strengthened by purchased political power.  It turns any attempt to suggest that participating at a greater level in the welfare of the country is somehow unfair to them.  That being asked to contribute in greater measure to the country that provided the platform for their wealth is unjust.

The Conservative point of view so frequently seems to boil down to, “I got mine. Fuck you. Go get yours (if you can).”  It’s an oddly evolutionary view coming from the side that seems associated with anti-science and anti-evolution. It’s the Liberals that seem more prone to equalization and supporting the weak.

Maybe class warfare is exactly what is already going on.  And the regular citizens of this country, the so-called 99%, are the ones losing the battle.  That’s hardly surprising given the disparity of power involved.

The danger here is a tipping point where the powerless and voiceless begin to feel as other beleaguered groups do when they find no recourse except terrorism. I’ve often wondered why it hasn’t happened already.  Back in the 70s I predicted the country would be “in flames” by the turn of the century, but fortunately (I guess) that hasn’t happened.

In this modern era, I had some hope the “Occupy” movement would gain some sort of traction and accomplish something.  I thought the same thing regarding the Obama presidency.  But the Occupiers have faded and vanished, and nothing changed.  Obama promised change, and nothing changed.

At some point we decided that “Greed is Good!”  At some point, we became almost entirely materialistic and shook off the annoying restrictions of principle and intellect and honor and fairness.  At some point we turned into a voyeuristic society of tweeting, ignorant, stupid, narcissistic, shallow assholes.

No wonder nothing changes. We’ve all anesthetized by our cell phones and “reality” programming.  We’ve abdicated thought and analysis to the talking heads on the TV machine without realizing there’s no thought or real analysis there, either.

It is class warfare, and not only are we losing, we may already have lost. It’s possible that it’s already over. It’s our bed, bed bugs and all.

Is it too late, or can we still engage? It will require waking up and taking back control from the wealthy. It is class warfare, and we’re losing, in part, because we’ve accepted the meme that “class warfare” is bad, that we should sit back, relax, watch TV and let business proceed at will.

We’ve said, “Hell, NO!” to that kind of shit in our past. Maybe we need to unify our voices and say it once again.


BB #2 – Lamestream Miberal Nedia

At some point the phrase, “liberal media,” became part of the accepted public dialog.

Perhaps “accepted” isn’t the correct word, as some have taken the tack that, “No, this statement is false, the media isn’t liberal at all. Here’s proof…”  I have never found their arguments convincing, although obviously I have my own bias on the situation.  For purposes of this Brain Bubble, I’m going to take it as given that, as a rule, the media really does lean left (for common definitions of “media” and “left”).

In any event, the concept, the meme, is known, understood, whether you grant its premise or not. And I think you tend to find agreement on both sides that the media really is liberal (with some notable exceptions).  On the right, of course, the liberal label is a club, a weapon of attack. On the left, we find both apologists and deniers; there are deniers on the (supposedly) neutral ground as well.

The Vice-President recently cited the TV show, Will & Grace, so I’ll just use W&G (also known as “WaG“) as Exhibit One. And before W&G there was Ellen, and even earlier Northern Exposure.  And that’s just a single segment among many liberal points of view. Television, that daily invader of our conscious lives, brings many such segments. There are conservative segments as well, but they tend to lie in current events channels rather than in entertainment channels.  Even Fox serves very different sectors between its programming for young entertainment and its programming for, say, Fox News.

So assume the premise is correct, at least in terms of the main content most people watch. Hollywood is a nest of liberal lefties.

But people rarely seem to ask, “Well, why is that?”  Maybe there’s something to be learned in the question. Or in the answer.  (Or maybe the answer would make the question moot, and that’s why people tend to avoid asking, “Why?”  They might have to accept the conclusion!)

The idea that one side “won” and somehow ended up with the lion’s share of “the media” is silly. The “media” evolves constantly; new shows arrive in a steady stream. If anything, all those rich corporations and money-holders should have “won.”  The media, after all, is owned by huge corporations.  (Think of it: the infrastructure owned by money and power, but the content created by lefties and liberals. A marriage of convenience if there ever was one.)

No, the Media is liberal because it consists (generally) of educated, experienced (world-wise) people who are more prone to see a bigger, connected picture of the world than someone with a more narrow education or background. A broad education tends to make one a progressive thinker. Once you see the big picture, you tend to lean left (or so goes my theory).  I would go further to say that once ones eduction is both broad and deep, progressive (liberal) thinking is almost a certainty.

It’s interesting to wonder if, as the corporations become stronger and stronger, will the media become more puppet-like? Is corporate ownership the real reason CNN has become useless and irrelevant? I’ve mentioned before that MSNBC TV has become, to my mind, as big a joke on the left as is Fox News on the right. Is it because their corporate masters can not afford insightful, real news? I can’t help but wonder. All I know for sure is that none of them are watchable any more.

Here’s the real question: As cable  TV in general fades away, replaced by the interweb, what—if any—bias will the interweb show? The interweb offers something society has never seen before in terms of its sheer scale and volume. It provides a vox populi platform the likes of which history has never seen. It’s already affecting society in big ways; those changes have only just begun.

Finally: Is the interweb self-selecting? The internet was. A certain level of technical skill was required, and early on access was restricted. The early internet was semi-difficult to “read” (get data from) and very difficult to search or “write” (put data into). Now it’s all trivial. Writing data to the collective public mass is trivial and searching is easy. Anyone can get on the interweb!

So now, increasingly, we’re all here.  That’s something new under the sun!


Sideband #20: Spock is not impressed

My contribution to the latest internet meme:

Nuf sed,  yeah?


Sideband #5: Reading Backwards

Have you noticed how blogs and emails are training us to read backwards? Or if you want to read forwards, you have to go to the bottom and read upwards?

Blogging sites post your most recent post first and the oldest (that fits on the page) at the bottom. If you come to a site for the first time and read posts from top to bottom, you’re reading backwards in the order of their posting.  If you wanted to read them in chronological order, you’d have to find the oldest and read upwards.

Most modern email packages do something similar with email “threads” (that is, a chain of replies). The original email is at the bottom, the most recent is at the top. You have the choice of reading backwards in time or going to the bottom and reading upwards.

Reading backwards has some interesting effects when newer text references something said earlier. You have to cache some answers with the assumption that further down the road you’ll find the questions. Actually, it’s a bit like that fascinating movie, Memento.

Back in the ancient history of the internet, email and posts used a technique we called “quoting”. The attempt was to build a sort of conversation from the original text and replies. You still sometimes encounter a form of it on sites designed to facilitate interaction. It went something like this:

Imagine that someone had made the following post (the original author is in black; various replying authors are in other colors):

I finally saw Memento last night! It was amazing.  Really cool movie.  Hard to believe that’s the same guy that did the Batman movies!

After several people had replied, it might look like this (the colors are just to help make sense of it; color hadn’t been invented back then):

>>>>>> I finally saw Memento last night! It was amazing.  Really cool movie.
>>>>> Well, it’s about time; don’t you know it came out in 2000?
>>>> Ah, lighten up, not everyone sees movies as soon as they came out.
>>> I guess, but geeze, the movie’s 11 years old and he’s just seeing it now?
>> Better late than never, right?
> At least now you know what everyone was talking about!
Yes, you’re right, but I’ve been overseas.  Didn’t have access to many things!

>>>>>> Hard to believe that’s the same guy that did the Batman movies!
>>>> Have you seen The Prestige?  That’s one of my favorites.
>> He also did Insomnia, which is pretty good, too.
I’ll have to check that out, thanks!

Which could get a little crazy!  But it was fun, and it did read like a conversation.

I guess you have to adapt now and learn to either read backwards or get in the habit of going to the bottom and reading upwards.


Sideband #1: Wow; the interweb is… #1

Sidebands

Sideband posts are miscellaneous thoughts that accompany the main thread of posts. Think of them as small paths that meander off the main road. Some branch off, go a short ways and die after a short while. Others are scenic trails that follow along the main road. Quotes is an example of the latter. It’s too early to run into one of the former, but I’ll point out the first one when it arrives.

Wow; the interweb is…

Wow;… posts are reflections on what the interweb is and does. It’s now easy–trivial even–to write information into the interweb.  It’s equally easy to search for information. The exciting part is that some of the information is reliable and based on reality and some of it is opinion and guesswork. I think it makes for interesting observations.

So that’s the deal; Sidebands can happen anytime!  (If you must, you can think of them as meditative, comparatively-infrequent, multi-giga-Tweets.)

Here’s one now:

So I’m researching the quote, “People get the government they deserve,” because I want to use the quote. It’s one of those quotes we all know and like to whip out when it proves our point.

According to the interweb it was said by: Alexis de Tocqueville, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Helen Zille. Also, President Allison Taylor quoted de Tocqueville. But also that no one said it, at least definitely not Alexis de Tocqueville. If the others said it, they were probably–like President Taylor–misquoting Tocqueville.

You have to poke around a bit to find a creditable article (well-written plus references!) that gives it up: Joseph de Maistre.

“Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle merite.”
(“Every nation has the government it deserves.”)

So there it is: the good and the bad of the interweb, a microcosm keyed by quote. It’s a rich source of information; you just have to learn to separate the noise from the signal.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers