Ann Coulter calls Edwards a faggot

This incident was so, so inappropriate.... remind me again why this woman is famous? She is the political equivalent of Paris Hilton. I love hearing that some of her advertisers split and some publications pulled her column. John Edwards is a lawyer... he should sue her for defamation. That would be fun (albeit a huge distraction from anything that matters).

Whether she's talking about Democrats or Al Qaeda or whatever other stuff she talks about, she thinks she's so hilarious. Well she's actually a little hate inciter, and I can't stand her. Blah. Go away, Ann.

If you aren't convinced, check this out:

Women's Voting

During an episode of Politically Incorrect, she said: "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." She also once said: "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."

Don't tell me she's joking. She puts so much truth in her joking. That's why she's a VICIOUS NUT!

YouTube's chopping block

Viacom, which is absolutely massive, has basically forced YouTube to remove 100,000 unauthorized clips of its shows.

The thing that I find interesting is captured by YouTube's response: it is "unfortunate" that Viacom would no longer be able to "benefit from YouTube's passionate audience which had helped promote many of Viacom's shows".

Seriously. These Viacom executives are out of touch. People don't watch YouTube to avoid watching TV shows, or even to avoid purchasing DVDs. A few years ago, did you ever see so many TV shows on DVD at the store? People are watching more TV, more media, than ever before.

I liken it to the Barnes and Noble phenomenon. It was scary at first because it seemed if you gave people big, comfy chairs and unlimited time to read books, they would take advantage and read them without buying them. Sure, this happens, but book sales are way up nationally! My Dad, for example, goes to Barnes and Noble, gets a new book and a coffee. He sits down and reads the whole thing, cover to cover. If he likes it, which he often does, he buys one or more copies both for himself and for others. He has become a Barnes and Noble member because he buys so many books there.

I don't know if this phenomenon is purely economic, but it seems social and relational to me. People respond to the fact that they are trusted, they are given a gift. They become even bigger fans. They adopt a strange brand loyalty that makes marketing execs feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Especially in an age of interactive media, citizen journalism, blogging, cool cell phones... especially in this era, give somebody some free content on YouTube and you will find that person talking up the video to 10 friends.

The challenge now is not to retain control. The challenge is to create the absolute best content out there. Consumers are in control now, and if you are bad, they will have no time for you.

If you are good though, do not protect your creation - watch it spread. Democracy and media have collided.

The end of books

I'm currently very disillusioned with books because I have realized that anyone can publish one, and that the things you might read in one book are, almost definitely, contradicted in 100s of others. The daily responsibility of filtering truth from myself is overwhelming enough - add to it an information flow attacking me through innocent BOOKS and I may very well drown. :)

Of course it's not just books - ideas and information come in many ways. But the fact that I can find a book to reinforce any worldview or opinion of mine is a little disconcerting. What is truth!? And who can we believe to point us toward it?

Here is a tremendously fascinating Washington Post article about Blue Media and Red Media. In a nutshell, Republicans like FOX and Democrats divide their attention between CNN and NPR. Haha. Not super surprising. But hopefully you DO find it super disconcerting. Choosing news sources that reinforce your current views seems strange and unhelpful for the person with an open mind. On the other hand, we select our sources on a constant basis - who we spend time with, what places we visit, which companies we buy from, etc.

In a world where we choose the news source that is most compatible with our status quo beliefs, do we have more freedom or less? Does that bring us closer to truth or further away?

Personally, I am finding that the subjectivity is where it's at. I'm having more and more of a sense of awe at our intuition. Now don't get freaked out - I'm not necessarily saying all the answers are within me or within you. But in a way, they are. All I have is my own mind and my own conscience to tell me what's good and right and true. In a way, I also have a very loving community to help me with this, but honestly, they don't agree on most matters of contention.

I guess that, for deciding what's true, the other thing I rely on is getting out into "the real world" and gathering empirical evidence - what do I see? But even then, my choice of going into the ghetto to see the real world may be opposed to your idea of going into New York's financial district where, in your perspective, "real life" happens. So even then, even if we could agree on a common circumstance that portrays reality, we have to use our minds, feelings, intution, conscience, etc. to gather and sort information about reality. We will still come to different conclusions. Even if we could get so far as to agree about truth and reality, the way we emphasize different things - by how much we love certain things, how much time and concern we devote to them - this will also show that what we believe to be TRUE, or most true, differs greatly.

Sigh. Life in the year 2006. You asked for it; you got it - Americaaaaaaaa. lol

Just say no to Lieber

What's all this Lieberman stuff in the news? I mean, who really cares? I don't know much about him but I will tell you this - he's a career politician and that can't be good for America. We need real people who live real lives and serve their government for a short time. (I don't care if it's impractical.) Plus, what's with MoveOn and other alliances taking him down? I hate the idea that if you're a Democrat, you have to vote "the Democratic way" on all issues. Don't we always give our political leaders a hard time for towing the party line no matter what rather than following their consciences? So if someone actually diverges from the party position - awesome! Even if you disagree, you should know that it's awesome, because it means there's some humanity and diversity and thinking going on. Of course it could just be corruption and betrayal and all that, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt. After all, it's Liiiiiiieberman. lol (I've just never really liked him and for superficial reasons, that's all. It's really not fair that he's the object of my annoyance but that's just the way it is.)

The news in general is really... not good lately. I mean, if you get it by TV (which I know you shouldn't...) all you see is CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Crisis. What a word. I realize what's going on is extremely serious. I realize people are dying. I just think it's very sensational and exploitative to cover it the way they do.

I don't know where I'm going with this. It's 10:33. I have a flight at 7:35 in the morning. Plus I need to finish a project and pack. Ayyyy.

Instantly profiled

Not to sound obsessed with suicide, but these stories are always so intriguing to me. And what's even more interesting is looking at them through the lens of the internet. This wouldn't have been possible before, but now when I read a story such as this about a murder-suice in McLean, VA (blocks from where I used to live), now I can take an additional 60 seconds and find this profile of him on his employer's website. Freaky. I did the same thing last week with a professor, I believe in law or criminal justice, who was caught soliciting a prostitute. It said he cried like a baby when he was caught, which for some odd reason made me want to view his faculty page. Maybe the freaky one here is me, I don't know...

Wow. Worth a raised eyebrow

This is just strange. I can't brush over this news item. What makes someone do this? Could be anything, I know... There's a long, complex human history behind the shot, I know... but it's still sad and strange.

World Cup official shot himself

Berlin's top World Cup official shot himself in the head just hours after the tournament ended and is now fighting for his life, police say.

Juergen Kiessling, 65, was rushed to hospital from his house in Reinickendorf, a suburb of Berlin, after a neighbour heard the shot.

The motive for the apparent suicide attempt is not yet clear.

German media report that he left two suicide notes - one for his daughter alone, and one for his family.

Berlin hosted the World Cup final on Sunday, when fans watched Italy beat France on penalties.
Mr Kiessling was known as "Mister WM" (Mr World Cup) by colleagues in Berlin. He was responsible for the hugely successful Fan Mile in Berlin city centre, a concourse where giant screens showed the matches to hundreds of thousands of fans who could not get tickets.

The tournament was widely seen as a great success for the host nation.

Two artsy websites

You may be interested in one of these:

Next Generation Consulting
(Although I have no idea why it's all in Times size 10 and pushed up against the left side, but yeah...)

Brewing Culture
They're both about people our age, engaging culture and the arts, and how community relates to all of that.