This post was on NewsCloud. A NYC journalist was killed in Oaxaca City, Mexico.
I guess this is the difference between NewsCloud and BoingBoing (A Directory of Wonderful Things).
30 October 2006
BoingBoing
Read BoingBoing's linking policy. It's terrific.
And following the links offers a further understanding of the do-we-call-it-paranoia, or just plain fear of this "new" medium? We discussed in class the value of Wikipedia and subsequently the value or weight or legitimacy of Internet research. We are clearly headed into the electronic age, no? So, when will the information contained (what a funny word to use in the context of the vast and unregulated, unfettered world of the Internet) online become legitimized? Will it?
I remember when we first started using the Internet and most people believed the information found online to be untrustworthy. We still believed that print was where it's at. People could be quoted as saying, "Well, I found it on the Internet. So, who knows?" The idea that anybody could put anything up on the World Wide Web somehow cheapened the information. Now, I believe, the sentiment is still prevalent but we have begun to accept the direction our information spreadin' is headin'. People get their news from the Internet. They book vacations that actually materialize (in real life!) on the Internet. They realize they have access to zillions of pieces of unnecessary information. No matter who put it there, the fact that we can hear the real voices of Alvin and the Chipmunks makes us feel more powerful. Immediacy of information.
I believe it promotes learning. Now, we can walk to the gigantic electronic library in our living room to answer any question (big or small) in an instant. We no longer let learning opportunities pass us by. Heard 1.65 billion (dollars to buy YouTube) times a day: "We'll google it." [Funny that "google" flags the spell-checker on the Google-owned Blogger.]
Back to the paranoia of unregulated systems, though. Is that it? Is it the new frontier with no rules, or rules made up by whoever makes them? When the government was toppled in Iraq and the warlords took over—making rules, commandeering people's cars at gunpoint because they could, killing citizens, who just sold their properties so they could leave the country, in order to steal the sale money—this was frontierland. It is scary. When you need to be constantly vigilant about your listing on Wikipedia because anybody could just poke in there and change it or even delete you from the annals of Wikihistory, this is not a peaceful world. While the lack of regulations might allow for freewheeling outlaws, it still allows our own personal freedoms—of speech, for example. And we see now that certain protocols are falling into place, or are at least being played with. I mentioned the next step in the evolution of wiki software (found in Urban Dictionary) as a rating system for entries, which moved the most "agreed upon" entries to rise to the surface. This doesn't necessarily guarantee accuracy. I mean, look at my pet peeve surrounding the phrase "Could care less." If we went with the most "agreed upon" usage, it would be wrong.
Where have I landed? I have no idea, but to say that this medium is exciting, ever-changing, evolving. We are learning-by-doing here, my friends.
And following the links offers a further understanding of the do-we-call-it-paranoia, or just plain fear of this "new" medium? We discussed in class the value of Wikipedia and subsequently the value or weight or legitimacy of Internet research. We are clearly headed into the electronic age, no? So, when will the information contained (what a funny word to use in the context of the vast and unregulated, unfettered world of the Internet) online become legitimized? Will it?
I remember when we first started using the Internet and most people believed the information found online to be untrustworthy. We still believed that print was where it's at. People could be quoted as saying, "Well, I found it on the Internet. So, who knows?" The idea that anybody could put anything up on the World Wide Web somehow cheapened the information. Now, I believe, the sentiment is still prevalent but we have begun to accept the direction our information spreadin' is headin'. People get their news from the Internet. They book vacations that actually materialize (in real life!) on the Internet. They realize they have access to zillions of pieces of unnecessary information. No matter who put it there, the fact that we can hear the real voices of Alvin and the Chipmunks makes us feel more powerful. Immediacy of information.
I believe it promotes learning. Now, we can walk to the gigantic electronic library in our living room to answer any question (big or small) in an instant. We no longer let learning opportunities pass us by. Heard 1.65 billion (dollars to buy YouTube) times a day: "We'll google it." [Funny that "google" flags the spell-checker on the Google-owned Blogger.]
Back to the paranoia of unregulated systems, though. Is that it? Is it the new frontier with no rules, or rules made up by whoever makes them? When the government was toppled in Iraq and the warlords took over—making rules, commandeering people's cars at gunpoint because they could, killing citizens, who just sold their properties so they could leave the country, in order to steal the sale money—this was frontierland. It is scary. When you need to be constantly vigilant about your listing on Wikipedia because anybody could just poke in there and change it or even delete you from the annals of Wikihistory, this is not a peaceful world. While the lack of regulations might allow for freewheeling outlaws, it still allows our own personal freedoms—of speech, for example. And we see now that certain protocols are falling into place, or are at least being played with. I mentioned the next step in the evolution of wiki software (found in Urban Dictionary) as a rating system for entries, which moved the most "agreed upon" entries to rise to the surface. This doesn't necessarily guarantee accuracy. I mean, look at my pet peeve surrounding the phrase "Could care less." If we went with the most "agreed upon" usage, it would be wrong.
Where have I landed? I have no idea, but to say that this medium is exciting, ever-changing, evolving. We are learning-by-doing here, my friends.
27 October 2006
And the winner is...
As winner of the "Most Paranoid" Award in the 2004 Educational Extravaganza entitled, "Media and the Presidential Election," I faithfully serve my crown, uphold my mantle, carry my torch and point you all toward a New Yorker article that not only fulfills my outlook but examines meme theory at the same time:
The Wayward Press
Paranoid Style: How Conspiracy Theories Become News
by Nicholas Lemann
The New Yorker, 16 October 2006
Online confession: I haven't actually read it yet.
It's sitting here staring me in the face as I kill time in my cousins' apartment in Washington D.C. (of all places), which means I can't actually take it with me. I will do my best to read and retain its contents before my departure. I could not find it online at newyorker.com.
P.S. In my description above, I sound less like an award recipient and more like the Statue of Liberty.
The Wayward Press
Paranoid Style: How Conspiracy Theories Become News
by Nicholas Lemann
The New Yorker, 16 October 2006
Online confession: I haven't actually read it yet.
It's sitting here staring me in the face as I kill time in my cousins' apartment in Washington D.C. (of all places), which means I can't actually take it with me. I will do my best to read and retain its contents before my departure. I could not find it online at newyorker.com.
P.S. In my description above, I sound less like an award recipient and more like the Statue of Liberty.
It Should Happen To You
An article in last week's New Yorker about "The anxieties of YouTube fame."
(Look at me! I'm posting little ones!)
(Look at me! I'm posting little ones!)
Rebecca's Blood Runs Thick
My title plays on my discoveries in an article I mentioned in a previous post. Rebecca here gives us a history of the weblog. I am sure most of you encountered this in the MetaFilter About page.
CamWorld via About MetaFilter
I wanted to include a passage from an entry from CamWorld in his search for signs of intelligent life in the universe (thank you, Ms. Tomlin and Ms. Wagner) and his pursuit of the meaning of blog. He is declaring a slow-down of his blog, which is indicative of the evolution of the online journal:
This was written in 1999.
Here he writes about the future (our present):
I hope the weblog "craze" continues as more and more people discover the power of a regularly updated site that reflects their own unique personality. In a few years, it'd be neat to see the weblog format overtake the standard home page format with monster GIFs of people's cats, dogs, babies, and cars. But I doubt it will happen. It's taken us almost six years to get people to understand that home pages don't need to have every funny little GIF animation they've ever seen, or silly javascript rollovers, or even that crash-happy Java-based pong game. Focus more on the content and less on the glitz. As the Internet community and Geocities members realize that the reasons they've had only 102 hits on their page(s) in a year (100 of them from their own IP address), the quality of their online initiatives will go up as they begin to understand what is required to keep a regular audience happy and well-fed.
How far we've come. Here's a monster GIF of my baby.
In the long run, I believe that this is what you all want. Less senseless hype. Less gratuitous linking. Less focus on the sensationalistic journalism that's crowding our brains and turning them into mush. More focus on the truly exceptional content out there on the web that only a few of us manage to dig up. More personal essays. More professional essays. And yes, even the occasional rant.
You see, CamWorld is about me. It's about who I am, what I know, and what I think. And it's about my place in the New Media society. CamWorld is a peek into the subconsciousness that makes me tick. It's not about finding the most links the fastest, automated archiving, or searchable personal web sites. It's about educating those who have come to know me about what I feel is important in the increasingly complex world we live in, both online and off.
CamWorld is an experiment in self-expression. And that experiment is not over. Over the next year (or two or three), CamWorld will evolve into something more.This was written in 1999.
Here he writes about the future (our present):
I hope the weblog "craze" continues as more and more people discover the power of a regularly updated site that reflects their own unique personality. In a few years, it'd be neat to see the weblog format overtake the standard home page format with monster GIFs of people's cats, dogs, babies, and cars. But I doubt it will happen. It's taken us almost six years to get people to understand that home pages don't need to have every funny little GIF animation they've ever seen, or silly javascript rollovers, or even that crash-happy Java-based pong game. Focus more on the content and less on the glitz. As the Internet community and Geocities members realize that the reasons they've had only 102 hits on their page(s) in a year (100 of them from their own IP address), the quality of their online initiatives will go up as they begin to understand what is required to keep a regular audience happy and well-fed.
How far we've come. Here's a monster GIF of my baby.
MetaFilter Finds
So (I often seem to start a post with "so..."), I was poking around MetaFilter and I chose this link to follow. Enlightening article about the use of performance enhancing drugs. Does our teacher love MF because of its randomness? From counting the number of times your own name appears in online databases to slowing down the voices of Alvin & The Chipmunks to free hugs in New York City, apparently one can find anything, and I mean ANYTHING, on MetaFilter.
Please tell me you'll listen to the Chipmunks song. It's hysterical.
Please tell me you'll listen to the Chipmunks song. It's hysterical.
25 October 2006
Wikilearnia
That's a ridiculous title. I know. When I was in Sweden and taking the free Swedish classes the country grants to immigrants (to help them quickly become a valuable member of employed society), my learning center was called Lernia. Perhaps that is why I thought that title made even the tiniest bit of sense.
We are about to move on to MetaFilter, but I had some stuff to say about Wikipedia. I was struck by the home page and appreciated its support of learning. It could just be an "enter search word here" starter page, but it is not. On it, one can find a featured article, news items, some randomly selected bits of interest, a history of today's date and, among a few other items, a list of the other reference tools Wikimedia churns out. Pretty cool. It feeds that hungry knowledge-seeker, possibly derailing her from her initial search, but providing her with new and exciting facts—sometimes just new facts.
We are about to move on to MetaFilter, but I had some stuff to say about Wikipedia. I was struck by the home page and appreciated its support of learning. It could just be an "enter search word here" starter page, but it is not. On it, one can find a featured article, news items, some randomly selected bits of interest, a history of today's date and, among a few other items, a list of the other reference tools Wikimedia churns out. Pretty cool. It feeds that hungry knowledge-seeker, possibly derailing her from her initial search, but providing her with new and exciting facts—sometimes just new facts.
24 October 2006
Caitlin's WWWorld
This was funny, yo.
Paragraph four.
"...the wiki-wiki-world (yes: please do read that with full-on DJ turntable sounds)"
Paragraph four.
"...the wiki-wiki-world (yes: please do read that with full-on DJ turntable sounds)"
A Student Once Again
So, I spent a night last week on my brother's couch in his dorm at Harvard.
Ah, college life. Some of you in this class remember it like it was...today. Some of us, I'm afraid to say... I won't say it. David and I spent the evening watching a debate over gay marriage in a jam-packed classroom, scarfing down some cheap late-nite burritos, and hanging out in the dorm room, all avoiding work. We kibbitzed while his roommate defied distraction and managed to navigate his email inbox throughout all our procrastinations. The boys graciously vacated the living room with laptops in tow to allow me to crash well before midnight. (I talk like I'm 90. I was just tired from all this traveling.) I was startled into consciousness sometime later when two of their friends burst into the room, setting the lights ablaze and filling the room with tipsy giggles. I narrowly avoided a pounce-upon, when one of the girls crept close enough to me to realize I was not David and quickly hushed the other. David hurriedly ushered them into the bedroom wher
e they all, riddled with glee, rode out the night. They left in the darkness leaving behind them the slam of the door. Ah, college.
I write because I discovered that Ned Lamont's daughter is in David's class at Harvard.
I write because David pointed me towards urbandictionary.com, a slang dictionary that utilizes wiki-wiki software to compile information but asks readers to rate the entries, thereby sending the most popular definitions to the top of the list. Interesting one step further from Wikipedia. As I said on our class blog, try entering "dork" for some amusing and quite shocking results.
I write because David excitedly told me about "Notebook Layout" in the View menu of Word. It allows you to take notes on your computer while simultaneously recording the teacher's lecture. Then, each bullet point is linked to the moment in the audio recording when it was made. So, you can easily refer back to your teacher's lecture to inform your sketchy notes. Damn cool.
It was fun being a student again. Wait, isn't that what I am now?
I'm on crack.
Ah, college life. Some of you in this class remember it like it was...today. Some of us, I'm afraid to say... I won't say it. David and I spent the evening watching a debate over gay marriage in a jam-packed classroom, scarfing down some cheap late-nite burritos, and hanging out in the dorm room, all avoiding work. We kibbitzed while his roommate defied distraction and managed to navigate his email inbox throughout all our procrastinations. The boys graciously vacated the living room with laptops in tow to allow me to crash well before midnight. (I talk like I'm 90. I was just tired from all this traveling.) I was startled into consciousness sometime later when two of their friends burst into the room, setting the lights ablaze and filling the room with tipsy giggles. I narrowly avoided a pounce-upon, when one of the girls crept close enough to me to realize I was not David and quickly hushed the other. David hurriedly ushered them into the bedroom wher
e they all, riddled with glee, rode out the night. They left in the darkness leaving behind them the slam of the door. Ah, college.I write because I discovered that Ned Lamont's daughter is in David's class at Harvard.
I write because David pointed me towards urbandictionary.com, a slang dictionary that utilizes wiki-wiki software to compile information but asks readers to rate the entries, thereby sending the most popular definitions to the top of the list. Interesting one step further from Wikipedia. As I said on our class blog, try entering "dork" for some amusing and quite shocking results.
I write because David excitedly told me about "Notebook Layout" in the View menu of Word. It allows you to take notes on your computer while simultaneously recording the teacher's lecture. Then, each bullet point is linked to the moment in the audio recording when it was made. So, you can easily refer back to your teacher's lecture to inform your sketchy notes. Damn cool.
It was fun being a student again. Wait, isn't that what I am now?
I'm on crack.
Second Skin
As I was driving through upstate New York today on my way from Ithaca College to Hamilton College, I was listening to Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation on NPR. He had an entire report on Second Life. It allowed for a better understanding of its construct, for those of us who are entirely unfamiliar with it.
22 October 2006
Responsibility
With the blog comes responsibility. To update. All the time. It's hanging over your head constantly. Not only because we're being graded. That's almost immaterial at this point. But because of the mantle of "blogger." I've taken it on. I'm wearing it. At least for now. And while I do, I feel it would be disrespectful of its inherent nature to not uphold its demands.
Etymologically, the root of the word comes from the Latin respondere (courtesy of the Wiktionary—part of the Wikimedia Galactic Realm that we've been studying). This births the English respond, a basic feature of the blog medium. Not only do we respond to the world, as the primary generator of our blogs. But we allow responses from readers. We must then respond to those responses. It is a never-ending cycle of responsibility.
Etymologically, the root of the word comes from the Latin respondere (courtesy of the Wiktionary—part of the Wikimedia Galactic Realm that we've been studying). This births the English respond, a basic feature of the blog medium. Not only do we respond to the world, as the primary generator of our blogs. But we allow responses from readers. We must then respond to those responses. It is a never-ending cycle of responsibility.
21 October 2006
Wiki-WOW
So, we're checking out Wikipedia right now. Our assignment is to study it, NOT use it. I found that quite challenging, I must say. So much information is hidden behind embedded links.
That makes me question the style or structure of writing on the Internet. Relating to my earlier ponderance (ponderation, ponderosa) of how we surf, I want to examine how we write on the web. We learned in high school English class to construct the Five-Paragraph Essay. Quite a feat. I found it formulaic and unexciting and therefore didn't do quite as well as I should have in high school English. It wasn't until later that I realized it is like modern dance to ballet. You must know the basics before you can deviate from them.
Now, do web writers exclude supporting details in their online essays in favor of links? Does this add or detract from the essay-at-hand? Sending us down a linkpath may give us more information than we need. Is this laziness on the part of the author, who could narrow down all the supporting information to include only the most relevant? Or is it generosity on the writer's part to have researched valuable online resources to give the interested reader even greater information? Links may have replaced footnotes in the essay. The destinations of those links may be considered immediate bibliographies. Gone are the days when we flip to the end of an article to learn what source material was used and head on out to the library to find those books. With one click, we can now gain immediate access to those resources. Yes, you may still have to head to the library to read the actual books (online libraries notwithstanding) but you can achieve the satisfaction (and pleasure) of instant access to supplementary information.
Links within an article also compromise the author's viewpoint. Once we go outside the confines of the article, we are subject to any number of other opinions and definitions, even within specifically chosen support documents. So, is it possible, in an article with embedded links, to fully grasp an author's intentions?
That makes me question the style or structure of writing on the Internet. Relating to my earlier ponderance (ponderation, ponderosa) of how we surf, I want to examine how we write on the web. We learned in high school English class to construct the Five-Paragraph Essay. Quite a feat. I found it formulaic and unexciting and therefore didn't do quite as well as I should have in high school English. It wasn't until later that I realized it is like modern dance to ballet. You must know the basics before you can deviate from them.
Now, do web writers exclude supporting details in their online essays in favor of links? Does this add or detract from the essay-at-hand? Sending us down a linkpath may give us more information than we need. Is this laziness on the part of the author, who could narrow down all the supporting information to include only the most relevant? Or is it generosity on the writer's part to have researched valuable online resources to give the interested reader even greater information? Links may have replaced footnotes in the essay. The destinations of those links may be considered immediate bibliographies. Gone are the days when we flip to the end of an article to learn what source material was used and head on out to the library to find those books. With one click, we can now gain immediate access to those resources. Yes, you may still have to head to the library to read the actual books (online libraries notwithstanding) but you can achieve the satisfaction (and pleasure) of instant access to supplementary information.
Links within an article also compromise the author's viewpoint. Once we go outside the confines of the article, we are subject to any number of other opinions and definitions, even within specifically chosen support documents. So, is it possible, in an article with embedded links, to fully grasp an author's intentions?
17 October 2006
I pimped my ride.
I switched to Beta.
I'll live with it for a while and see how I like my new outfit. (I haven't taken the tags off yet.)
I'll live with it for a while and see how I like my new outfit. (I haven't taken the tags off yet.)
16 October 2006
Time
Y'know, even with technology being where it is, this video study we are doing takes a lot of time. Especially when you are trying to cram it in before class... Ugh. Even with high-speed (and thank GOODNESS my living situation changed unexpectedly over the weekend and I'm back in my own little apartment in New York City, complete with cable modem. I slept in my own bed on Friday night for the first time in over a year.) it still takes time to load all this stuff. I anxiously await the future...
Dutch
So, I headed over to Chasing Windmills vlog. I am anxious to spend a little time there. It seems to almost mimic the format of early links-only blogs: no commentary, just videos. If you consider each video to be an editorial entry, however, then it might mimic the later journal-type blog format. Either way, the presentation is stark, but artsy. Black-and-white, simple, no frills. Attractive, intriguing.
One Thousand Dreams of Coffee?
Is this profound reflection on life and blog direction contagious? Did you watch Escorial's vlog explanation/temporary sign-off? Crazy! I am looking forward to reading more of his vlog to understand where he is coming from.
Is this thing on?
So, it came out in class last week that I may not be embracing the true nature of blogging. I admitted to certain amounts of review before posting. This goes against the impromptu-ity of blogging. I'm learning to post-on-impulse more. A post can be a throw-up of sorts. Toss out an idea, a thought. It doesn't have to be a well-thought out essay. My original idea for this post (and perhaps even having an original idea is its first flaw) was to type without correction. No going back. That didn't happen. I have corrected many a typo already.
This gets into the realm of the psychological. I, as a person, spend a bit of effort on my own presentation. I wouldn't say I'm fastidious, by any stretch, but I like to put out a good product. I have been known to think (or even say) that I pride myself on my attention to detail and my crack proofreading skills. Putting up a hurried post without proper review is akin to running out the door without looking at my hair. (And just for the record, I have certainly done that. On several occasions.) I guess I'll have to post without regret a bit more, too.
How do our own psyches or personalities influence the presentation of our blogs?
Colin mentioned that my writing did sound a bit fussed over and not as casual as the blogosphere dictates it should be. Or should it? Are there rules of writing a blog? I know we are trying to classify, define, understand blogs. But with the youth of the medium, can we even have hard and fast regulations? I say this not to be defensive, but purely to question. I happily admit my own limitations. And, so, I'll try to not think so much. And, I'll try to post more. Who reads this thing anyway?
This gets into the realm of the psychological. I, as a person, spend a bit of effort on my own presentation. I wouldn't say I'm fastidious, by any stretch, but I like to put out a good product. I have been known to think (or even say) that I pride myself on my attention to detail and my crack proofreading skills. Putting up a hurried post without proper review is akin to running out the door without looking at my hair. (And just for the record, I have certainly done that. On several occasions.) I guess I'll have to post without regret a bit more, too.
How do our own psyches or personalities influence the presentation of our blogs?
Colin mentioned that my writing did sound a bit fussed over and not as casual as the blogosphere dictates it should be. Or should it? Are there rules of writing a blog? I know we are trying to classify, define, understand blogs. But with the youth of the medium, can we even have hard and fast regulations? I say this not to be defensive, but purely to question. I happily admit my own limitations. And, so, I'll try to not think so much. And, I'll try to post more. Who reads this thing anyway?
www.Aldon'sBrain.com
OK, I've got some serious ketchup to do, folks.
We had a great class last week with Aldon Hynes, noted "blogging visionary." And might I make an observation that I found fascinating. Aldon's mind seemed to work very much like the web. He would "link" to another idea from something Colin said, for example. We moved around from topic to topic in this manner through the entire class. (I did mention this to Aldon afterwards.) He seems to have adapted his thinking patterns to the online world in which he is immersed. Really neat.
And this got me thinking. (Colin said it would.) We surf as we think. Or, as may be in Aldon's case, we think as we surf. Is that right? Are you one who reads the entire article before clicking on any links for further information? Or do you zip off at each opportunity? And when you do zip off, do you retain a connection with the point-of-origin? Or do you fly off with wild abandon, willy-nilly out into cyberspace?
We had a great class last week with Aldon Hynes, noted "blogging visionary." And might I make an observation that I found fascinating. Aldon's mind seemed to work very much like the web. He would "link" to another idea from something Colin said, for example. We moved around from topic to topic in this manner through the entire class. (I did mention this to Aldon afterwards.) He seems to have adapted his thinking patterns to the online world in which he is immersed. Really neat.
And this got me thinking. (Colin said it would.) We surf as we think. Or, as may be in Aldon's case, we think as we surf. Is that right? Are you one who reads the entire article before clicking on any links for further information? Or do you zip off at each opportunity? And when you do zip off, do you retain a connection with the point-of-origin? Or do you fly off with wild abandon, willy-nilly out into cyberspace?
Social Networking
Mornin'. The New York Times website had a video entitled "The Fall of Friendster." It raises a couple of points about the short history of "social networking" and the creation of a genre.
08 October 2006
OK, OK, I get it now...
When does one post? Late at night. On the fly. Whenever struck.
In a previous post, I talked about affecting change. I believe my gramm-a-meter was suppressed by my state of mind. I believe we have all learned to say that we effect change—that weird instance where we use effect as a verb.
My apologies to the Coffees of the world, who post to live and live to post, sharing their thoughts and lives with us at the precise moment of inspiration, whatever wee hour that might be.
In a previous post, I talked about affecting change. I believe my gramm-a-meter was suppressed by my state of mind. I believe we have all learned to say that we effect change—that weird instance where we use effect as a verb.
My apologies to the Coffees of the world, who post to live and live to post, sharing their thoughts and lives with us at the precise moment of inspiration, whatever wee hour that might be.
And away we go!
I'm beginning my assigned "poke-around" while I still have access to high-speed Internet access out at the beach, of all places. When I get back to "civilization," or "the city," I will downgrade to using a plain old telephone wire to enter the Information Superhighway. Sometimes I feel like I am trying to board the Autobahn from the woods on the side of the road. While using a skateboard.
So, I started where pointed: Raincoaster. I looked at a few posts and decided to click on small, Kiwi mercies. That lead me to The Bastards Have Landed! The Official Peter Jackson Fan Club, where I found out that The Hobbit is in the queue for production at MGM. I clicked on a link that brought me to Ain't It Cool News. From their contact page, I read this:
If you have information on anything cool, we'd love to hear it. Contact the big man or one of his cool-ass companeros today!
Sounds a little vague and somewhat subjective, but, hey. When exploring their site, I read an obituary of Tamara Dobson, the actress who played Cleopatra Jones in blaxploitation movies of the '70s. Any obit that contains Redd Foxx and "the evil drug lord Shelley Winters" is worth a read.
OK, I got a little stuck in this forum site. It ain't cool. Not really any external links, except for ads. So, I'm-a gonna click on one of them just to get out of it. I'll let you know what happens...
So, I started where pointed: Raincoaster. I looked at a few posts and decided to click on small, Kiwi mercies. That lead me to The Bastards Have Landed! The Official Peter Jackson Fan Club, where I found out that The Hobbit is in the queue for production at MGM. I clicked on a link that brought me to Ain't It Cool News. From their contact page, I read this:
If you have information on anything cool, we'd love to hear it. Contact the big man or one of his cool-ass companeros today!
Sounds a little vague and somewhat subjective, but, hey. When exploring their site, I read an obituary of Tamara Dobson, the actress who played Cleopatra Jones in blaxploitation movies of the '70s. Any obit that contains Redd Foxx and "the evil drug lord Shelley Winters" is worth a read.
OK, I got a little stuck in this forum site. It ain't cool. Not really any external links, except for ads. So, I'm-a gonna click on one of them just to get out of it. I'll let you know what happens...
07 October 2006
Rock the Vote
The voting process is another good example of emergence. While it may seem like one vote will not make a difference, it is, as we know, the collective effort of a population that can affect change. (That is if you don't live in the United States of America.)
Sorry. Couldn't help it.
Sorry. Couldn't help it.
Emerging On
Emergence. That's what I feel about our homework. A simple, innocent little "reading" assignment quickly explodes exponentially as one explores the suggested blog.
Are you with me, people?
Are you with me, people?
06 October 2006
Stuck.
In the Columbus airport. On the floor. Plugged into wall. Flight delayed probably four hours. It's Friday night. What are YOU doing?
There is a mysterious problem with JFK airport. My friend is also stuck. In Rochester. The glamour never stops with my crowd.
I continued reading the L-L timeline furnished by Genghis Conn at CT Local Politics. (Helpful for the out-of-stater.) I find some of the rhetoric of the Lieberman campaign interesting—reminiscent of past races: Hillary Clinton v. that idiot from Long Island for senator (or really Hillary v. anybody Republican), Kerry v. that idiot from Texas for president.
Lieberman says Lamont would be too polarizing if elected. (HRC was often labeled "too polarizing" by the right.)
Lieberman's campaign accuses Lamont of flip-flopping on Iraq. (I shouldn't have to remind you of the Republican refrain against Kerry.)
It is recycled Republican rhetoric. And this is coming from a Democrat against a Democrat. Does that indicate Lieberman's leaning?
I'm never going to get home.
There is a mysterious problem with JFK airport. My friend is also stuck. In Rochester. The glamour never stops with my crowd.
I continued reading the L-L timeline furnished by Genghis Conn at CT Local Politics. (Helpful for the out-of-stater.) I find some of the rhetoric of the Lieberman campaign interesting—reminiscent of past races: Hillary Clinton v. that idiot from Long Island for senator (or really Hillary v. anybody Republican), Kerry v. that idiot from Texas for president.
Lieberman says Lamont would be too polarizing if elected. (HRC was often labeled "too polarizing" by the right.)
Lieberman's campaign accuses Lamont of flip-flopping on Iraq. (I shouldn't have to remind you of the Republican refrain against Kerry.)
It is recycled Republican rhetoric. And this is coming from a Democrat against a Democrat. Does that indicate Lieberman's leaning?
I'm never going to get home.
04 October 2006
What a week!
Did you catch the interview with Noam Chomsky on NPR?
Did you catch Larry King Live on CNN with five talking heads, including James Carville, Candy Crowley and Wolf Blitzer discussing the Foley scandal, Woodward book's claim "Bush in Denial", Clinton v. Wallace? King even brings up Lieberman and the CT race. The mumbled responses seemed to indicate that he was doing OK. For some reason, the subject moved immediately onto that racist senator from Oklahoma. Then to Oprah's deflection of the rumor that there's a campaign to convince her to run for president. She says to Larry King (on tape) that she would say to those people to put their energy behind Barak Obama.
Is Hillary the front runner? Affirmative consensus. Who's the GOP front runner? Blitzer says McCain and Giuliani. He says Rudy would do well in the general election, but how would he do in the primary? (As a New Yorker, I feel it is my duty to blow the lid off that condescending asshole, RG. He treated New Yorkers like they were two-year-olds and felt the need to corral and discipline us. It was awful. Then, he got lucky. 9/11 squeaked in just before he left office. And THAT is what he'll be remembered for. The SPIN that he "handled that crisis very well" and should be considered a national hero? Are you kidding me. The man is Hitlerish (forgive me). But a colleague pointed out the parallels when Giuliani had the "undesirables" (read homeless people) rounded up and shipped out of the city. He "cleaned up" the city. Ick. Dick.
Larry King ends with the late night comics on Foley. David Letterman, for example, says that Foley has said that when he gets out of rehab, he wants to make a fresh start, you know, turn over a new page...
Did you catch Larry King Live on CNN with five talking heads, including James Carville, Candy Crowley and Wolf Blitzer discussing the Foley scandal, Woodward book's claim "Bush in Denial", Clinton v. Wallace? King even brings up Lieberman and the CT race. The mumbled responses seemed to indicate that he was doing OK. For some reason, the subject moved immediately onto that racist senator from Oklahoma. Then to Oprah's deflection of the rumor that there's a campaign to convince her to run for president. She says to Larry King (on tape) that she would say to those people to put their energy behind Barak Obama.
Is Hillary the front runner? Affirmative consensus. Who's the GOP front runner? Blitzer says McCain and Giuliani. He says Rudy would do well in the general election, but how would he do in the primary? (As a New Yorker, I feel it is my duty to blow the lid off that condescending asshole, RG. He treated New Yorkers like they were two-year-olds and felt the need to corral and discipline us. It was awful. Then, he got lucky. 9/11 squeaked in just before he left office. And THAT is what he'll be remembered for. The SPIN that he "handled that crisis very well" and should be considered a national hero? Are you kidding me. The man is Hitlerish (forgive me). But a colleague pointed out the parallels when Giuliani had the "undesirables" (read homeless people) rounded up and shipped out of the city. He "cleaned up" the city. Ick. Dick.
Larry King ends with the late night comics on Foley. David Letterman, for example, says that Foley has said that when he gets out of rehab, he wants to make a fresh start, you know, turn over a new page...
Do bodily fluids count?
So, I just want to explain my online drop-the-ball-edness lately. I've just begun some heavy traveling for my new job as recruiter for the National Theater Institute at the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center in Waterford, CT.
Here is my experience at JFK airport this morning at 7:15 AM, en route to Columbus, OH, as written in an email earlier today:
Yeah, so in my sleepy stupor at the airport, not only did I have to chuck bottles of water and brand new shampoo and shaving cream because of this stupid new "no liquids" rule (which I think is a scam for the airport shops and the travel-size toiletries industry, and telling the guard that I had urine samples in my expensive shampoo bottle didn't work. Out it went.), but while I made it to the airport with PLENTY of time, I still managed to wander about, looking for Jet Blue's promised wireless access (which turned out to be faulty at best). When I finally got to my gate and sat down, THEY PAGED ME. I plunked my ass down and I heard, "WOULD CHRIS A. PLEASE COME TO GATE 22 IMMEDIATELY." I was at the desk before he finished the sentence and he tells me I'm THE LAST ONE to board. What a walk of shame that was down the aisle to the back of the plane. Zoiks.
Here is my experience at JFK airport this morning at 7:15 AM, en route to Columbus, OH, as written in an email earlier today:
Yeah, so in my sleepy stupor at the airport, not only did I have to chuck bottles of water and brand new shampoo and shaving cream because of this stupid new "no liquids" rule (which I think is a scam for the airport shops and the travel-size toiletries industry, and telling the guard that I had urine samples in my expensive shampoo bottle didn't work. Out it went.), but while I made it to the airport with PLENTY of time, I still managed to wander about, looking for Jet Blue's promised wireless access (which turned out to be faulty at best). When I finally got to my gate and sat down, THEY PAGED ME. I plunked my ass down and I heard, "WOULD CHRIS A. PLEASE COME TO GATE 22 IMMEDIATELY." I was at the desk before he finished the sentence and he tells me I'm THE LAST ONE to board. What a walk of shame that was down the aisle to the back of the plane. Zoiks.
01 October 2006
Back 2 Dial-Up
Hello, lovelies. (I brazenly use the plural form here. I hope, or, more accurately, wonder if, there are more than one of you—namely my teacher—reading this.)
I'm plugging through the tiny amount of reading+references that our teacher assigned in preparation for what sounds like a cool class tomorrow. My online sense of time changes when I enter my aunt's apt just outside the city—where I'm staying temporarily whilst sublettors wreak havoc in my midtown apt—with only a dial-up connection. I am on a never-ending quest for free WiFi around the city, but it all goes to, shall we say, pot when I get back up here.
I'm reading that most helpful (to a former CT resident and current New Yorker) timeline generated by Genghis Conn over at Connecticut Local Politics. My mind started free-associating, as it is often wont to do, and I remembered "the kiss"—not Rodin's sculpture, although a bronze rendering immortalizing this bizarre piece of politics would be entertaining and probably ultimately just as bizarre—that greeting given Senator Lieberman by W. on his blushing cheek.
I am sure that my thoughts on this are far from original, but the action clearly evoked The Godfather. A kiss meant death in that film. "The kiss of death." Was this a calculated kiss of death to Lieberman? Did Bush (or the Party) figure that a greeting like that might indicate a political closeness between the Democratic senator and the Bush administration (or the Republican party), thereby offending or putting off his Democratic support base? Does the Bush administration secretly want Lieberman out? Demonstrating he is in the pocket of the Republican power structure on national television might drive voters to support a potential challenger to Lieberman's seat.
Dudes, I could be way off here. It will also betray a certain level of ignorance of what is currently happening on the Hill. I doing my best to learn to ride again.
I'm plugging through the tiny amount of reading+references that our teacher assigned in preparation for what sounds like a cool class tomorrow. My online sense of time changes when I enter my aunt's apt just outside the city—where I'm staying temporarily whilst sublettors wreak havoc in my midtown apt—with only a dial-up connection. I am on a never-ending quest for free WiFi around the city, but it all goes to, shall we say, pot when I get back up here.
I'm reading that most helpful (to a former CT resident and current New Yorker) timeline generated by Genghis Conn over at Connecticut Local Politics. My mind started free-associating, as it is often wont to do, and I remembered "the kiss"—not Rodin's sculpture, although a bronze rendering immortalizing this bizarre piece of politics would be entertaining and probably ultimately just as bizarre—that greeting given Senator Lieberman by W. on his blushing cheek.
I am sure that my thoughts on this are far from original, but the action clearly evoked The Godfather. A kiss meant death in that film. "The kiss of death." Was this a calculated kiss of death to Lieberman? Did Bush (or the Party) figure that a greeting like that might indicate a political closeness between the Democratic senator and the Bush administration (or the Republican party), thereby offending or putting off his Democratic support base? Does the Bush administration secretly want Lieberman out? Demonstrating he is in the pocket of the Republican power structure on national television might drive voters to support a potential challenger to Lieberman's seat.
Dudes, I could be way off here. It will also betray a certain level of ignorance of what is currently happening on the Hill. I doing my best to learn to ride again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
