Charlatans Among Us

This is a response to the ‘Accepting Abundance’ blog post ‘God is Not a Hypothesis.’   Please note I am not linking to this blog from here, so you will have to do a search for it -my apologies in advance.

To believe in a god, to hold any belief that has no proof or can, in any way be proven (faith is not proof), is self-delusion: you reinforce your delusion by your faith.  You want to believe in it and you are told to believe, so you believe, but you have no proof. Science and religion are not to be mixed: they are not the same things.

Continue reading →

Response: ‘Of Sci-Fi and Women’

Note: the post is in response to the excellent ‘Of Sci-Fi and Women‘ article at MangTangoLand blog (and largely because I couldn’t post a comment there).  It would be a good idea to read this post before subjecting yourself to my thoughts on the matter.

Mandano brings up the question of why there are so few female characters in science-fiction programs, specifically in Star Trek where the women are in short supply and serve largely as eye-candy and romantic interests.  No one in the Star Trek universe is able to pass the Bechdel Test, either and we are left with a cultural void that continues to undermine women’s advancing roles in society.

Fun to be asking these questions in the 21st century, isn’t it?

Continue reading →

Last Call: Borders

I was never a fan of Borders; to me, it was always Costco For Books.   Books were a side-item, along with the Christmas CDs, Blue Ray DVDs, pop art calendars and other gift-item industry ephemera.   I would go to Borders once every two or three years, mostly for convenience’s sake and because you could find the most up-to-date reference books for just about any topic.   When I heard Borders had declared bankruptcy and would finally close all of their stores, I didn’t mourn; my feeling was (and is), this will help revive the real independent shops and the small-time second-hands.  E-books aside, to a serious reader, nothing quite replaces the physical object of the book or the feeling of home that one surrenders to in a bookshop.  It might be fetishistic, it might even be naive, but hope can be found in dusty corners.

Still, Borders is no more and for millions of Americans this was the default bookstore of choice.  If you wanted it, chances are they had it and, if you had one of their memberships, might find it at a pleasant discount.  This is what chains specialize in, after all.  The discount.   I saw the signs as I drove home today: 40% – 70% off all store items, including building materials.   I was curious what this store closing looked like and decided to take a peek.

Continue reading →

Why So Famous? Piers Morgan Should Know.

Back in January of this year, just as CNN was introducing Piers Morgan as the new host of a high-profile talk show (and composing this flattering drivel for his bio), I decided I would write to the network about their questionable choice:

“Your profile on Piers Morgan is inaccurate and misleading.  The Daily Mirror fired Mr. Morgan for publishing fake photos of British soldiers allegedly torturing Iraqis.  He did not ‘leave’ as your profile suggests.  (‘Leaving’ suggests something voluntary and you never explain what was ‘controversial’ about his ‘departure.’)

Mr. Morgan has had a long and questionable career as a tabloid ‘journalist’ with many black marks to his name, including breaking the code of ethics on financial journalism when he bought shares in a computer company he was tipped off to.  He kept his job while others lost theirs.  He is an openly opportunistic individual with questionable ethics who only cares about his own fame.   I can think of no reason he headlines any sort of program for CNN except that America is largely in the dark about who and what he is and has been.

CNN keeping America in the dark and continuing to promote the unearned ‘celebrity’ of Mr. Morgan is a disgrace to journalism.”

Now, with the end of his former employer, The News of the World and the explosion of phone-hacking scandals, even Vanity Fair is asking the question: ‘How Did We Get Stuck With Piers Morgan?‘   It is an excellent question: how does someone like Morgan rate as a talent judge much less earn a top stop slot celebrity chat show on a major American cable network?

A new article in the Guardian UK implies that a former reporter for The Daily Mirror wants to give testimony that phone hacking was ‘rife’ during Morgan’s reign as well.    Now, we can’t condemn a man till the proof is known, but what, based on past knowledge, might the outcome be?  Morgan denies it; if he’s lying, it wouldn’t be the first time.  I mean, check out the smug expression in the above photo – haven’t we seen too many just like him?  Fame-driven opportunists from an entitled class who throw ethics to the wolves at the first sight of fresh meat.

Is it possible the days of Piers Morgan’s American fame are numbered?

A better question might be: is the age of the empty celebrity coming to a close?

 

Thanks to Ben Locker (@benlocker) for the link to the Vanity Fair story.

Why Google+ Doesn’t Get You


Google+ is no Facebook.

Now that you’ve breathed that long-held sigh of relief, be ready to smile again.

Google+ is no Twitter, either.

These three services are as different as apples and oranges, rinds, core, stems and all.  Peeling back the layers a little, G+, at first, seems to be Facebook for the Twitter crowd, but this is not the case.  For as much we understand Facebook to be the Chuck E. Cheese of social media in that family and friends alike tend to congregate around the cheap pizza table while the kids play games and collect tokens, Google+ seems to be attracting a slightly more professional crowd (have a peek at some profile pages). There are those who don’t necessarily want their mothers to know what they are up to or play Farmville Mafia at 2 in the morning.  Google+ is tighter, neater-looking without ads or games or endless rounds of photo tagging.  Yet.

Continue reading →

Welcome to Google+

Yes. I’ve joined – and while it is early days yet, I am impressed with its intuitive simplicity and use of ‘circles’ for maintaining followers/friends.  Some commentary that Google+ has poor security is, so far as I can tell, pure rubbish: security settings on Google+ are thorough and easy to figure out (if you bother to do so) – unlike Facebook’s notorious concerns with ‘opting in/out’ – Google + assumes the user wants more control and provides it.

Similar in style and layout to Facebook without all the ad clutter and with some functionality that reminds me of Twitter (though Twitter should not be in direct competition as it is an entirely different service) – namely in using ‘circles’ as a method to follow other users.  Circling is an open method in that if you have a profile, others can follow it without you having to follow back.  Circles can be organized so that you are only sharing specific information with a specific group: if you only want your friends to know about that birthday party on Friday, you can easily select them without posting to the general stream. Chat, video chat and phone options are also available and easy to use.

While I feel G+ is going to improve much on Facebook, it is still proprietary about its service. Unlike Twitter which has blossomed largely due to the ability of users to shape its function and the development of third parties with Twitter-related services that enhance the user experience, Google + is more likely to keep a tight hold on what will and will not be done through its service – and I’m sure ads are only a matter of time.

The big question: Why should I use it?  If you’re on Facebook already, what would make you switch?  I can’t answer that question as the services are basically the same – it is only a perceived ease of function and security that distinguishes Google + at this point.  Those who have objected to Facebook’s legendary privacy issues might make a quick exchange, if only to see for themselves.  The other concern is more of a complicated one: what is the benefit to you?  We know our personal information is up for grabs almost anywhere we go online or off; Facebook and now Google + will have pages dedicated to business and high profile users that will facilitate sales in the guise of creating ‘relationships.’  This is the future of their function and you, the ostensible buyer, are the commodity being sold.  It is your likes, tastes, interests and ideas that help design and power the machinery itself.

It reminds me in a sense, of the Cola Wars: are you a Pepsi fan or a Coke fan?  The soft drink giants successfully divided up their customers while the product itself is essentially the same.  Are you a Google fan or a Facebook fan?  This, more than anything else, I think, will dictate who the future users will be.  Marketing trumps all, in the end. Oh, and might be worth noting, Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg already has his Google+ account.

If you’d like to check it out or ‘circle me’, here’s my profile – and I’m happy to send you an invite if you’d like.