So unless you've been living under a rock on one of the new found planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system, you've no doubt have heard about the recent hacking and leaking of several celebrities private pictures. The body count so far is Emma Watson, Amanda Seyfried, Katie Cassidy, WWE (probably soon to be former) wrestler Paige, and probably more. You would think that after the earlier notorious leaks that
the celebrity sector would at least try to exercise the bare minimum of
security and delete those pictures off their phones and cloud storage
after doing whatever they intend to do with them. Or attempt to conceal
their identities so that if the content does get leaked, they'll have some
deniability.
Regardless, it's an egregious violation of their privacy that has become all too
common these days. The fact that these women or any women for that
matter have taken such personal pictures isn't the issue because their
bodies belong to them and no one else. That they chose to share those
pictures with other people is their own business. None of this entitles
those same pictures and other content to be shared with the public
without their consent and that's when their privacy is violated.
I don't really understand the appeal, myself. If you're really set on seeing a celebrity such as Amanda Seyfried au naturel, then just google for any number of pictures she's done nudity in. Chloe? Lovelace? Undoubtedly tons more. The same applies with many others who have bared it on camera, so leaking or even just looking at their private pictures is more than just wanting to see a pair of breasts. I think on some level, there's a mentality that if you leak them or disperse them or look at them that you're "taking them down a peg" or "teaching them a lesson" for taking the pictures or recording the videos in the first place. I don't doubt for a second that that was the reason why Emma Watson - a prominent and very vocal feminist - was hacked and leaked. It goes to the idea that women shouldn't be sexually expressive creatures, that to do so is immoral and the leaks are a form of public slut-shaming. We're not as progressive as we like to think and things like this just go to show how far we still have to go.
A blog of neat and interesting things.
Showing posts with label Off Topic Tuesday. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Off Topic Tuesday. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Off Topic Tuesday #6: Devolved English Parliament?
First thing first, I should note that I'm not British, but just an American who gets interested in these kinds of things. So with that said, take this post with a grain or two of salt.
One of the things that's caught my attention is the debate over whether England should have its own parliament. Currently Scotland, Wales, and I believe Northern Ireland all have their own devolved assemblies. What's a devolved assembly? The best way I can explain it is to compare it to how states function in America. Each has its own government that sits below the Federal government. Each state can set their own economic policies, laws (provided that they don't conflict with the Constitution and Federal laws), and their own defense (in the form of a national guard and a state defense force), while the Fed handles affairs on the national level. In the United Kingdom, the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland work the same way, with the British Parliament having primacy over things that effect the entire kingdom.
Except there's a bit of a problem. More of an elephant that's quietly sitting in the room, waiting for someone to address it, really. The problem is that the biggest member of the United Kingdom, England, doesn't have its own devolved government. Like I said at the beginning of this post, I'm American, so I'm pretty well lost on why it doesn't have its own government. It's just odd that only three out of the five members (I'm counting Cornwall as separate because YOLO) do and the other two don't. In fact, this has led to one dilly of a pickle when it comes to the UK Parliament voting on laws. It's called the West Lothian Question and pertains to whether or not the rest of the UK should vote on bills that will effect England only and not the others. Personally, I don't think MPs from Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland should be able to vote on bills effecting England anymore than legislators from West Virginia should be able to vote on bills in Montana. At the same time, barring those same MPs from being able to vote on a bill just because of that doesn't seem write either.
So with that in mind, it makes sense to create an English Parliament and grant it the same powers and authority that the other devolved assemblies have and with its own First Minister. Similarly, Cornwall should get its own assembly as well, since it's a distinct region like all of the others. Gotta be fair, after all.
I also think that if England does get its own government, it shouldn't be located in London. I know that that would be the most obvious no-brainer choice for capitals, but having London be both the seat for the British Parliament and the devolved English Parliament just doesn't sit right. A single city, no matter how ground, can play host to two capitals. So I'd say put it somewhere away from London, pick one of the many other cities of England, like Liverpool, Manchester, etc. I'd imagine that there would be a nice economic benefit to this idea too, a shot in the arm for whichever city and whatever part of the country gets to play host to the new government. I mean, a new parliament building would have to be designed and built, which creates jobs. It could also attract businesses to the area, which just means more cash flowing through and I don't think many people would object to that.
Of course, there's a downside here: racists. Unfortunately, the idea of a Parliament of England has attracted the worst element that every country has, and this particular breed sees the debate as a chance to establish some sort of "English-only" utopia and as you can surmise, their view of "Englishness" is ethnic in scope, i.e. whites only. This, I imagine, is probably hurting the movement to create an English government more than it's helping, but those people are too dimwitted to recognize that. Ethnic nationalism is stupid.
So what do you think? Should England and Cornwall get their own devolved governments? Let me know in the comments below.
One of the things that's caught my attention is the debate over whether England should have its own parliament. Currently Scotland, Wales, and I believe Northern Ireland all have their own devolved assemblies. What's a devolved assembly? The best way I can explain it is to compare it to how states function in America. Each has its own government that sits below the Federal government. Each state can set their own economic policies, laws (provided that they don't conflict with the Constitution and Federal laws), and their own defense (in the form of a national guard and a state defense force), while the Fed handles affairs on the national level. In the United Kingdom, the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland work the same way, with the British Parliament having primacy over things that effect the entire kingdom.
Except there's a bit of a problem. More of an elephant that's quietly sitting in the room, waiting for someone to address it, really. The problem is that the biggest member of the United Kingdom, England, doesn't have its own devolved government. Like I said at the beginning of this post, I'm American, so I'm pretty well lost on why it doesn't have its own government. It's just odd that only three out of the five members (I'm counting Cornwall as separate because YOLO) do and the other two don't. In fact, this has led to one dilly of a pickle when it comes to the UK Parliament voting on laws. It's called the West Lothian Question and pertains to whether or not the rest of the UK should vote on bills that will effect England only and not the others. Personally, I don't think MPs from Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland should be able to vote on bills effecting England anymore than legislators from West Virginia should be able to vote on bills in Montana. At the same time, barring those same MPs from being able to vote on a bill just because of that doesn't seem write either.
So with that in mind, it makes sense to create an English Parliament and grant it the same powers and authority that the other devolved assemblies have and with its own First Minister. Similarly, Cornwall should get its own assembly as well, since it's a distinct region like all of the others. Gotta be fair, after all.
I also think that if England does get its own government, it shouldn't be located in London. I know that that would be the most obvious no-brainer choice for capitals, but having London be both the seat for the British Parliament and the devolved English Parliament just doesn't sit right. A single city, no matter how ground, can play host to two capitals. So I'd say put it somewhere away from London, pick one of the many other cities of England, like Liverpool, Manchester, etc. I'd imagine that there would be a nice economic benefit to this idea too, a shot in the arm for whichever city and whatever part of the country gets to play host to the new government. I mean, a new parliament building would have to be designed and built, which creates jobs. It could also attract businesses to the area, which just means more cash flowing through and I don't think many people would object to that.
Of course, there's a downside here: racists. Unfortunately, the idea of a Parliament of England has attracted the worst element that every country has, and this particular breed sees the debate as a chance to establish some sort of "English-only" utopia and as you can surmise, their view of "Englishness" is ethnic in scope, i.e. whites only. This, I imagine, is probably hurting the movement to create an English government more than it's helping, but those people are too dimwitted to recognize that. Ethnic nationalism is stupid.
So what do you think? Should England and Cornwall get their own devolved governments? Let me know in the comments below.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Off Topic Tuesday #5: Apple, security, and privacy
Unless you've been living under a rock lately, there's a big kerfuffle going on in America between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Apple over the iPhone belonging to the two gunmen behind last year's terror attack in San Bernardino. The issue is that the iPhone is encrypted and the FBI wants Apple to install a backdoor so that they can see if there's anything important in it. Apple is refusing to do it on grounds of security and the misuse by the FBI of some law from like 1789. This has led to a larger debate over privacy and security.
I understand both sides of the debate and they both have valid concerns. On one hand, that iPhone could very well contain valuable information about the attack, including who gave the terrorists the money to buy the guns used in the attack. On the other hand, this is pretty much the top of a slippery slope. If the FBI can force Apple to install a backdoor on its devices, then what's stopping them or any other law enforcement agency from doing the same with other companies? Indeed, there's talk of Congress passing legislation that would require all phones, tablets, and computers to have a backdoor in their software for law enforcement to use. Another problem with this is that if someone or a group were to find a way to exploit this backdoor, countless millions of people would be at risk for all sorts of threats and malicious actions.
It's certainly a dilly of a pickle. Do you surrender some privacy for the sake of security or do you preserve privacy but put national security at risk? Is there a way to balance the two to the best of satisfaction or will the scales always unbalanceable? I think it'll always be the last one. There's simply no way, in my opinion, to find a balance between privacy and security and it'll always tip back and forth between the two. The problem is that we want both, but at the same time are unwilling to surrender either. We hold privacy as one of the dearest things to our heart, but we want security too, to be protected from ill and harm. When the cost of that security starts to nibble away at privacy, however, we denounce the intrusion and push back as hard as we can.
Where do I stand on this? I'm leaning towards Apple's side. Like I said, I see both sides of the argument and their concerns are both valid. But this isn't a dire situation to warrant what the FBI wants Apple to do. If the attackers were part of a larger cell and there was a threat of another attack and that phone potentially contained information to prevent that attack, then yes the FBI's demands would be warranted. If the FBI had information that something like that was possible, then they would have pushed for Apple to install a backdoor sooner rather than later. This is just the FBI flipping over even the smallest pebble it can find in search for clues that might not even exist.
So what do you think? Should Apple give in to the FBI's request and install a backdoor? Should the government pass legislation requiring backdoors on all electronic devices? Does privacy trump security or vice versa? Let me know in the comments below.
I understand both sides of the debate and they both have valid concerns. On one hand, that iPhone could very well contain valuable information about the attack, including who gave the terrorists the money to buy the guns used in the attack. On the other hand, this is pretty much the top of a slippery slope. If the FBI can force Apple to install a backdoor on its devices, then what's stopping them or any other law enforcement agency from doing the same with other companies? Indeed, there's talk of Congress passing legislation that would require all phones, tablets, and computers to have a backdoor in their software for law enforcement to use. Another problem with this is that if someone or a group were to find a way to exploit this backdoor, countless millions of people would be at risk for all sorts of threats and malicious actions.
It's certainly a dilly of a pickle. Do you surrender some privacy for the sake of security or do you preserve privacy but put national security at risk? Is there a way to balance the two to the best of satisfaction or will the scales always unbalanceable? I think it'll always be the last one. There's simply no way, in my opinion, to find a balance between privacy and security and it'll always tip back and forth between the two. The problem is that we want both, but at the same time are unwilling to surrender either. We hold privacy as one of the dearest things to our heart, but we want security too, to be protected from ill and harm. When the cost of that security starts to nibble away at privacy, however, we denounce the intrusion and push back as hard as we can.
Where do I stand on this? I'm leaning towards Apple's side. Like I said, I see both sides of the argument and their concerns are both valid. But this isn't a dire situation to warrant what the FBI wants Apple to do. If the attackers were part of a larger cell and there was a threat of another attack and that phone potentially contained information to prevent that attack, then yes the FBI's demands would be warranted. If the FBI had information that something like that was possible, then they would have pushed for Apple to install a backdoor sooner rather than later. This is just the FBI flipping over even the smallest pebble it can find in search for clues that might not even exist.
So what do you think? Should Apple give in to the FBI's request and install a backdoor? Should the government pass legislation requiring backdoors on all electronic devices? Does privacy trump security or vice versa? Let me know in the comments below.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Off Topic Tuesday #4: Blogger needs an overhaul
I've been using Blogger since 2004 or 05 and Tumblr since 2010 and in the time I've spent on the latter, I've come to realize that Blogger is in a desperate need of an overhaul. Don't get me wrong, I love Blogger and think it's a great service despite the flaws, but it could be so much better. Here's the problems I see and how they could be fixed:
Lack of community. On Tumblr, if you're a fan of a TV program, movie, book, comic, etc. then you can easily find other fans and become part of that fandom. On Blogger, not so much. Sure, you can search for other people who are also fans of that think you like, but it's a crapshoot because whoever comes up might not actively post about the thing.
The solution here is to replace the current search system with one that can not only show you blogs with similar interests, but posts too. So like if I do a search for say The Flash, I can see who is posting about that show and comic. That not only helps give bloggers wider exposure, but facilitates the formation of cohesive fandoms and makes Blogger more attractive for people looking to get into blogging.
The app, it sucks. No eloquence there, just straight truth. Its functionality is no different than just going to blogger.com and that's a problem. Mobile blogging is a big deal and while the Blogger app lets you make posts on the go, it leaves a lot to be desired.
As you can see, the post editor is behind minimal. There's no ability to attach images or videos, or do much of anything other than adding text. But hey, you can sure as hell bold and italicize that text!
Another problem with the app is that it doesn't let you view other blogs, just your own. Again, this goes back to mobile blogging. The inability to view blogs that you're following or any other blogs is a huge hindrance.
Speaking of followers, a minor gripe I have is that there's actually a limit on how many blogs you can subscribe to. I can understand this being a limitation back before Google took ownership, but now? Not so much. Other social media doesn't limit how many people you can follow on their platforms, so why should Blogger?
Another area that is sore need of improvement is themes. The current batch is fine, but I'd like to see more, including user created themes. It's not a huge deal, but having more options that better fit your blog's aesthetic would only make Blogger even more attractive.
I mentioned social media and one of the things needed in the overhaul is better integration with other platforms. As of right now, you can post articles to Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Google+, and other Blogger blogs. That's nice, but outside of external methods, there's no way of adding a Twitter, FB, Tumblr, or other social media feed to your blog via a gadget.
Blogger is a great service for long form blogging and compliments the short-form and medium-form platforms of Twitter and Tumblr, but compared to the latter and other services like Medium are unfortunately starting to leave it in the dust and I think a major overhaul would do wonders to put Blogger back near the top.
Lack of community. On Tumblr, if you're a fan of a TV program, movie, book, comic, etc. then you can easily find other fans and become part of that fandom. On Blogger, not so much. Sure, you can search for other people who are also fans of that think you like, but it's a crapshoot because whoever comes up might not actively post about the thing.
The solution here is to replace the current search system with one that can not only show you blogs with similar interests, but posts too. So like if I do a search for say The Flash, I can see who is posting about that show and comic. That not only helps give bloggers wider exposure, but facilitates the formation of cohesive fandoms and makes Blogger more attractive for people looking to get into blogging.
The app, it sucks. No eloquence there, just straight truth. Its functionality is no different than just going to blogger.com and that's a problem. Mobile blogging is a big deal and while the Blogger app lets you make posts on the go, it leaves a lot to be desired.
As you can see, the post editor is behind minimal. There's no ability to attach images or videos, or do much of anything other than adding text. But hey, you can sure as hell bold and italicize that text!
Another problem with the app is that it doesn't let you view other blogs, just your own. Again, this goes back to mobile blogging. The inability to view blogs that you're following or any other blogs is a huge hindrance.
Speaking of followers, a minor gripe I have is that there's actually a limit on how many blogs you can subscribe to. I can understand this being a limitation back before Google took ownership, but now? Not so much. Other social media doesn't limit how many people you can follow on their platforms, so why should Blogger?
Another area that is sore need of improvement is themes. The current batch is fine, but I'd like to see more, including user created themes. It's not a huge deal, but having more options that better fit your blog's aesthetic would only make Blogger even more attractive.
I mentioned social media and one of the things needed in the overhaul is better integration with other platforms. As of right now, you can post articles to Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Google+, and other Blogger blogs. That's nice, but outside of external methods, there's no way of adding a Twitter, FB, Tumblr, or other social media feed to your blog via a gadget.
Blogger is a great service for long form blogging and compliments the short-form and medium-form platforms of Twitter and Tumblr, but compared to the latter and other services like Medium are unfortunately starting to leave it in the dust and I think a major overhaul would do wonders to put Blogger back near the top.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Off Topic Tuesday #3: Ad blocking
I thought I'd talk about ad blocking on the internet and whether it's right or wrong. This was sparked partly because of something I heard in a podcast I listened to last year, wherein the people on the 'cast were talking about Marco Arment, the co-founder of Tumblr and creator of multiple apps, who had created a hugely successful ad blocking app for Apple's Safari browser, then pulled it after two days because it made him feel guilty.
1. They can be annoying and intrusive. I've been online since like '98, so I've been around ad banners for a good little while and possibly, this is the reason for my pro-blocking views. The 90s and 00s were a terrible time when it came to banners because they were just so annoying. Imagine trying to read something on a website and having a banner flashing in the corner of your eye. I know ad banners have come changed since then, but even today, I'll come across ones that are only a few steps above those aforementioned disasters. If you want people to stop blocking ads, then make them less intrusive. Video ads are just as bad. I've watched YouTube on my phone and tablet and while I have gotten some not terrible and pretty interesting ads, most are irrelevant and annoying to me and my interests. I don't know how common it is, but there have been a few times when YouTube will just up and decide to run an ad right in the middle of the video. Like literally just cuts right to it, then back to the video after it's done. Imagine having that happen in a movie theater? People would be massively pissed off and rightly so.
Out of all the ads I encountered back in the 90s and 00s, pop-ups were without a doubt, the most annoying. I'm pretty sure if Dante Alighieri were alive today, he'd have added an eighth circle of Hell just for whoever created pop-up ads and the people who proliferated them across the web. How bad were these things? Well, the fact that all browsers have long since added a feature to block them by default is a pretty good indicator.
2. Not all ads are safe. I'm no computer expert and I'll be the first to admit that, but I've heard about how ad banners can be used to slip adware and malware into a person's computer and that's obviously something to avoid. I grok that that probably only happens on less than reputable and not even work safe websites, but just the awareness that it's possible for that to happen makes me not at all willing to run without an ad blocker.
3. Privacy. A lot of ads nowadays are generated based on your searches and browser history and that bothers the hell out of me. It's creepy, to be honest. I mean, if you go to your bank's site to check on something, you'll suddenly get ads for online banking. I know that it's probably just a one-way thing and whoever on the other end of the ad service can't (hopefully) know where and what you do on the internet, but it comes off as being nosy and a violation of privacy.
And you know how I complained about YouTube's ad videos? Well, I'm a bit of a hypocrite in that regard because I don't mind them if I'm watching an episode of TV show online. If I miss or have to skip an ep the night it airs, I'll try and catch it online, usually with the network's app if they have one. In those cases, there's no way to block the ads, but as I said, I don't mind them in that case. I'm used to commercials when I'm watching TV and they're useful for bathroom breaks or the quick snack run, so they serve a purpose in that case. Obviously, with online videos, I can just hit pause just the same, but years of TV viewing has made me use to them, so it's not a problem.
In the end, it's 2016 and internet advertisers need to evolve with the times and change the way they run ads so that everybody benefits.
Achieving this much success with Peace just doesn’t feel good, which I didn’t anticipate, but probably should have. Ad blockers come with an important asterisk: while they do benefit a ton of people in major ways, they also hurt some, including many who don’t deserve the hit.As you can see, his problem wasn't necessarily with the blocking of ads itself, but that his app, Peace, was more of a sledgehammer than a scalpel. I agree with his opinion here because while I favor ad blocking, I don't believe it should be unilateral. You can read about his ad blocking ethics here, if you wish.
Peace required that all ads be treated the same — all-or-nothing enforcement for decisions that aren’t black and white. This approach is too blunt, and Ghostery and I have both decided that it doesn’t serve our goals or beliefs well enough. If we’re going to effect positive change overall, a more nuanced, complex approach is required than what I can bring in a simple iOS app.
Why I ad block
As I said, I'm in favor of ad blocking and have been ever since I discovered the Adblock extension. The first thing I do after installing Firefox on a new computer is slap Adblock Plus on it. It's not that I hate internet adverts, I'm just wary of them for a couple of reasons:1. They can be annoying and intrusive. I've been online since like '98, so I've been around ad banners for a good little while and possibly, this is the reason for my pro-blocking views. The 90s and 00s were a terrible time when it came to banners because they were just so annoying. Imagine trying to read something on a website and having a banner flashing in the corner of your eye. I know ad banners have come changed since then, but even today, I'll come across ones that are only a few steps above those aforementioned disasters. If you want people to stop blocking ads, then make them less intrusive. Video ads are just as bad. I've watched YouTube on my phone and tablet and while I have gotten some not terrible and pretty interesting ads, most are irrelevant and annoying to me and my interests. I don't know how common it is, but there have been a few times when YouTube will just up and decide to run an ad right in the middle of the video. Like literally just cuts right to it, then back to the video after it's done. Imagine having that happen in a movie theater? People would be massively pissed off and rightly so.
Out of all the ads I encountered back in the 90s and 00s, pop-ups were without a doubt, the most annoying. I'm pretty sure if Dante Alighieri were alive today, he'd have added an eighth circle of Hell just for whoever created pop-up ads and the people who proliferated them across the web. How bad were these things? Well, the fact that all browsers have long since added a feature to block them by default is a pretty good indicator.
2. Not all ads are safe. I'm no computer expert and I'll be the first to admit that, but I've heard about how ad banners can be used to slip adware and malware into a person's computer and that's obviously something to avoid. I grok that that probably only happens on less than reputable and not even work safe websites, but just the awareness that it's possible for that to happen makes me not at all willing to run without an ad blocker.
3. Privacy. A lot of ads nowadays are generated based on your searches and browser history and that bothers the hell out of me. It's creepy, to be honest. I mean, if you go to your bank's site to check on something, you'll suddenly get ads for online banking. I know that it's probably just a one-way thing and whoever on the other end of the ad service can't (hopefully) know where and what you do on the internet, but it comes off as being nosy and a violation of privacy.
Exceptions
Now there are exceptions to my ad blocking stance because one size certainly does not fit all. I acknowledge and respect that people only have ads on their websites and blogs because they need to generate revenue in order to cover the costs of having a website and blog (since not everybody wants to use Blogger and other free services). I grok that and so in the case of the ones not owned by a media company, I'll gladly disable Adblocker if I plan on frequenting them. In fact, I've come to see that as my own seal of approval and it's the second thing I do after bookmarking them.And you know how I complained about YouTube's ad videos? Well, I'm a bit of a hypocrite in that regard because I don't mind them if I'm watching an episode of TV show online. If I miss or have to skip an ep the night it airs, I'll try and catch it online, usually with the network's app if they have one. In those cases, there's no way to block the ads, but as I said, I don't mind them in that case. I'm used to commercials when I'm watching TV and they're useful for bathroom breaks or the quick snack run, so they serve a purpose in that case. Obviously, with online videos, I can just hit pause just the same, but years of TV viewing has made me use to them, so it's not a problem.
Solution
So what's the best solution for user apathy towards ads? Several, actually. First, made ads less annoying and intrusive. I get that they have to catch people's attention and entice them to click, but surely that can be done in a way that's not off-putting. Second, make it customizable the kind of ads that people see. There's no point in someone who's interested in cars to see an ad banner for makeup or the latest haute couture and vice versa. I'm aware that ads can be generated based on the websites you've been to, but as noted earlier, there are privacy issues I have with that. Instead, I think people should be able to choose what kind of ads they want to see, based on their own personal interests. So like the car-head would only see ads for cars, while the fashionista only sees ads for clothes and makeup vendors, and so on and so forth. If, IF this became a thing, then I would have absolutely zero problems with letting go of Adblock and so would others, I think. Obviously, not everybody, but enough to make customized ads a worthwhile solution.In the end, it's 2016 and internet advertisers need to evolve with the times and change the way they run ads so that everybody benefits.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Off Topic Tuesday #2: Blogging for the fun of it
Because in the end, that's what blogging should be about: fun. I think one of the reasons why my blogging habits have been so erratic over the years is because I became disillusioned. When I first got into blogging way back in around 2005, it was a politic blog and I foolishly developed aspirations to become a big time political blogger, like Daily Kos, MyDD, and the like. When I switched gears and started my first "nerd" blog, I wanted to become one of the big leaguers and when neither panned out, it was hard to maintain interest. In effect, I forgotten that the reason why you blog is for the fun of it. Fortunately, I've started to drift away from that mentality.
A big part of this has been the realization that Nerd Trash doesn't have to be one of those big huge blogs and to tell the truth, I never want it to be like one of those. Rather, I started to look to other, smaller blogs like HeroPress, Siskoid's Blog of Geekery, Dave Ex Machina, MightyGodKing, and the like. They're not big, but that's what makes them so worth reading. The problem with what I call the "big-time" blogs is that since they rely almost exclusively on ad revenue or corporate ownership to exist, they focus on more generic content, like TV and movie news, trailers, and whatever mega-event is Marvel and DC happens to be doing or planning at the moment.. That's all well and good, but I'd rather read something more than the latest behind-the-scenes news about some superhero movie. What I like to read is articles that talk about old comics, classic video games, TV shows, movies, pop culture, and all of that.
Now, I'm not saying that these larger blogs are boring or otherwise not worth reading. Despite my preference, the big-timers are my go-to for when I want to know the happs on whatever movie or show catches my attention. But when I want to read somebody's take on like, I don't know, Youngblood, or about some 70s or 80s TV show that I've never heard of before, then I look elsewhere. That's the reason why I'm doing the Shout-Out feature on Fridays, to highlight these blogs.
A big part of this has been the realization that Nerd Trash doesn't have to be one of those big huge blogs and to tell the truth, I never want it to be like one of those. Rather, I started to look to other, smaller blogs like HeroPress, Siskoid's Blog of Geekery, Dave Ex Machina, MightyGodKing, and the like. They're not big, but that's what makes them so worth reading. The problem with what I call the "big-time" blogs is that since they rely almost exclusively on ad revenue or corporate ownership to exist, they focus on more generic content, like TV and movie news, trailers, and whatever mega-event is Marvel and DC happens to be doing or planning at the moment.. That's all well and good, but I'd rather read something more than the latest behind-the-scenes news about some superhero movie. What I like to read is articles that talk about old comics, classic video games, TV shows, movies, pop culture, and all of that.
Now, I'm not saying that these larger blogs are boring or otherwise not worth reading. Despite my preference, the big-timers are my go-to for when I want to know the happs on whatever movie or show catches my attention. But when I want to read somebody's take on like, I don't know, Youngblood, or about some 70s or 80s TV show that I've never heard of before, then I look elsewhere. That's the reason why I'm doing the Shout-Out feature on Fridays, to highlight these blogs.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Off Topic Tuesday #1: Why I don't want the next President to be a Clinton, Trump, or Cruz
I might have to call this week "Inaugural Week" because of all the new stuff I'm starting! So yeah, welcome to the very first edition of Off Topic Tuesday, which will hopefully be a long series. The idea behind Off Topic Tuesdays is that once a week, I pick a topic that's off topic to this blog and talk about it. It might be politics, current events, or whatever else that isn't related to geek or nerddom. The opinions therein might be unpopular, but when is an opinion ever unanimously popular?
Starting us off this week is something that's been bouncing around my head for a couple weeks now. 2016 is probably one of the biggest presidential election years, with three Democrats and more than nine thousand Republicans running for the high office.
Out of all of them, the three candidates I absolutely do not want to be president are Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz. Why? Because they clearly only want to win for the sake of winning. They see the Presidency of the United States as nothing more than one of those hard to get achievements that gamers will try to unlock just for the bragging rights. Let me break it down by person:
Clinton: She wants to be the first woman president, period, end of sentence, full stop. For her, the Oval Office is the cherry on the cake, the one indelible way that she'll make her place in the history books as someone besides a First Lady, a Senator, or a Secretary of State. It's dumb too because those three things together will make her stand out because those three positions have never been held by one person before.
I'm also opposed to her because she is the worst type of politician - the kind that shifts and changes their positions to whatever will benefit them. Now, she isn't by far the first or only politician who changes their stripes to suit their needs, but she's probably one of the most blatant. Take her stance on same-sex marriage, for example. She was opposed to it up until it became obvious that it was going to become legal, then she was all about it and tried to act like she always was.
Finally, I don't like the aura of inevitability that surrounds her. It's almost like Clinton and her supporters have this expectation that she's going to win just because she's Hillary Clinton and the presidency is owed to her because of that. I think that's why so few Democrats ran in the primary compared to prior races and why Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Webb dropped out so quickly. That's also why Bernie Sanders' campaign has been so hugely successful, because he isn't part of the Clinton Ascendancy.
Trump: Simply put, he's in it for business reasons. Having "Former President of the United States of America" on his resume would add a lot of prestige and give him additional leverage when making TV and other business deals. I'm sure people figure that all the crap coming out of his mouth is ruining his business opportunities and I'm sure in the short-term they might, but not in the long view of things. He'll end up getting his hosting gig on The Apprentice back once all of his vitriolic comments fade to the background. NBC isn't going to turn down the ratings his return would generate. Then there's all the endorsement deals and the cash he'll make on the speaking circuit. Trump's covered in shit now, but he's going to come out clean as a whistle and richer than he was before.
Cruz: First off, I love how a guy who was born in Canada to American parents is eligible to run for president, but a guy who was born in Hawaii to an American citizen (Obama) "isn't". But no, him being born in Canada isn't my issue with him. Personally, I think the whole "has to be born on American soil" in order to run for president is dumb as dicks and discriminates against a whole chunk of the citizenry.
But like I said, that's not why I don't want Ted Cruz as president. My reason is because he's A). A massive asshole, and B). Has dedicated his life to the singular goal of becoming president. With the former, it's his actions as a Senator. Remember when the Federal government had to shutdown back in 2013? Ted Cruz was responsible for that. Even other Republicans think he's an asshole. In regards to the latter, I'm not spiting him for having ambition. How many of us didn't dream of or imagine being President of the United States when we were young? Wanting to be president isn't the problem, it's the fact that he's laser-focused his life just for that goal. The thought that every decision Ted Cruz has made in his life from the moment he decided that he wanted to be be president has been towards achieving that goal is disturbing to me. Why? Because you can only serve two terms as president and Cruz has dedicated his life for potentially eight years in the Oval Office.
Think about this for a moment. What is this Ted Cruz going to do once those eight years are over? That's even saying that he manages to get elected not once, but twice. What's he going to do if he only gets elected once? What if he doesn't get elected at all? In the end, I think what I feel for Cruz isn't loathing or even disdain, it's pity. Pity because no matter the outcome, he's going to look back on his life one day and realize he squandered it achieving or trying to achieve something that wasn't worth it and that's just so very sad.
In the end, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz fail the realize that being President of the United States of America isn't about the achievement or the prestige. It's about working and striving to make the country a better place than it was before so that current and future generations have something to enjoy and build upon. I'm not and Nerd Trash never will endorse a presidential candidate, but I really and truly hope that we end up with someone who doesn't see the presidency as a trophy and will work hard to make this country a better place for us all, because Zod knows we need someone like that badly.
So, what do you think? Do you agree or disagree? Tell me in the comments below and please, keep things civil.
Starting us off this week is something that's been bouncing around my head for a couple weeks now. 2016 is probably one of the biggest presidential election years, with three Democrats and more than nine thousand Republicans running for the high office.
 |
| That's a lot of assholes. |
Out of all of them, the three candidates I absolutely do not want to be president are Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz. Why? Because they clearly only want to win for the sake of winning. They see the Presidency of the United States as nothing more than one of those hard to get achievements that gamers will try to unlock just for the bragging rights. Let me break it down by person:
Clinton: She wants to be the first woman president, period, end of sentence, full stop. For her, the Oval Office is the cherry on the cake, the one indelible way that she'll make her place in the history books as someone besides a First Lady, a Senator, or a Secretary of State. It's dumb too because those three things together will make her stand out because those three positions have never been held by one person before.
I'm also opposed to her because she is the worst type of politician - the kind that shifts and changes their positions to whatever will benefit them. Now, she isn't by far the first or only politician who changes their stripes to suit their needs, but she's probably one of the most blatant. Take her stance on same-sex marriage, for example. She was opposed to it up until it became obvious that it was going to become legal, then she was all about it and tried to act like she always was.
Finally, I don't like the aura of inevitability that surrounds her. It's almost like Clinton and her supporters have this expectation that she's going to win just because she's Hillary Clinton and the presidency is owed to her because of that. I think that's why so few Democrats ran in the primary compared to prior races and why Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Webb dropped out so quickly. That's also why Bernie Sanders' campaign has been so hugely successful, because he isn't part of the Clinton Ascendancy.
Trump: Simply put, he's in it for business reasons. Having "Former President of the United States of America" on his resume would add a lot of prestige and give him additional leverage when making TV and other business deals. I'm sure people figure that all the crap coming out of his mouth is ruining his business opportunities and I'm sure in the short-term they might, but not in the long view of things. He'll end up getting his hosting gig on The Apprentice back once all of his vitriolic comments fade to the background. NBC isn't going to turn down the ratings his return would generate. Then there's all the endorsement deals and the cash he'll make on the speaking circuit. Trump's covered in shit now, but he's going to come out clean as a whistle and richer than he was before.
Cruz: First off, I love how a guy who was born in Canada to American parents is eligible to run for president, but a guy who was born in Hawaii to an American citizen (Obama) "isn't". But no, him being born in Canada isn't my issue with him. Personally, I think the whole "has to be born on American soil" in order to run for president is dumb as dicks and discriminates against a whole chunk of the citizenry.
But like I said, that's not why I don't want Ted Cruz as president. My reason is because he's A). A massive asshole, and B). Has dedicated his life to the singular goal of becoming president. With the former, it's his actions as a Senator. Remember when the Federal government had to shutdown back in 2013? Ted Cruz was responsible for that. Even other Republicans think he's an asshole. In regards to the latter, I'm not spiting him for having ambition. How many of us didn't dream of or imagine being President of the United States when we were young? Wanting to be president isn't the problem, it's the fact that he's laser-focused his life just for that goal. The thought that every decision Ted Cruz has made in his life from the moment he decided that he wanted to be be president has been towards achieving that goal is disturbing to me. Why? Because you can only serve two terms as president and Cruz has dedicated his life for potentially eight years in the Oval Office.
Think about this for a moment. What is this Ted Cruz going to do once those eight years are over? That's even saying that he manages to get elected not once, but twice. What's he going to do if he only gets elected once? What if he doesn't get elected at all? In the end, I think what I feel for Cruz isn't loathing or even disdain, it's pity. Pity because no matter the outcome, he's going to look back on his life one day and realize he squandered it achieving or trying to achieve something that wasn't worth it and that's just so very sad.
In the end, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz fail the realize that being President of the United States of America isn't about the achievement or the prestige. It's about working and striving to make the country a better place than it was before so that current and future generations have something to enjoy and build upon. I'm not and Nerd Trash never will endorse a presidential candidate, but I really and truly hope that we end up with someone who doesn't see the presidency as a trophy and will work hard to make this country a better place for us all, because Zod knows we need someone like that badly.
So, what do you think? Do you agree or disagree? Tell me in the comments below and please, keep things civil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)