Today's complaint about the world around us addresses...complaints about the world around us.
Does it seem ironic to you that I'm complaining about the complainers on a blog that exists specifically as a forum for posts like It's Just Too Damned Easy to Get Married in this Country, Rape Trials and Other Horrific Abominations, and the ever-popular Corporate America Doesn't Care if You Die? If so, you're in good company. If, that is, you consider me good company.
The thing is, I've lately found myself troubled by the themes running through a lot of conversations and online discussions. I was first bothered by a Catholic discussion group where I began to notice that there wasn't much talk about Catholicism at all, but instead a lot of talk about the dangers and/or evils of evangelicals. And then I happened across a couple of threads in another discussion forum--one about as different from the first as you could imagine in terms of both participants and subject matter--that were all about "why do people insist one...?" and "doesn't it bug you when...?"
And suddenly, it bugged me when people sat around and talked about what everyone else could be doing better. I don't usually wax religious on this blog--I have a Catholic blog for that--but I have a little verse about removing the plank in your own eye bouncing around in my head right now.
Am I talking about this in the wrong place? Well, maybe. But the thing is, it's not just about how we all have our flaws and none of us are in a position to judge. It's not just about how critiquing other people is in itself an activity worth of criticism. It's the futility of it all. In every moment, we can sit and bitch or we can act. And sure, there's a lot to complain about in the world, but every moment that we're sitting around complaining and commiserating and wondering why other people always (fill in your own pet peeve here) is a moment we haven't used to make something better somewhere.
My daughter and I learned in church on Sunday that you can build a house for a homeless family in the third world for $2600. Think about that. Take a family that is living in the streets and give it a home for $2600.
Do you have $2600 on hand to send off to Food for the Poor? Well, I don't either. And I don't have a heck of a lot of time on my hands to come up with it, either. But I do think that if I find a free hour here or there, it might better be used thinking up some creative ways to raise $2600 and implementing them than sitting around talking about why everyone isn't doing it.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Semantics, Search Ranking, and Sales
About a month ago, I wrote this post about Pay/Half Stores, and it commanded an amazing amount of attention. In addition to bringing a lot of traffic to my blog, the post briefly enjoyed SERPs higher than those of the chain's official website for both the terms "pay/half stores" and "pay half stores".
Not only that, the discussion thread at Blog Catalog in which I talked about this accidental search placement is STILL commanding two of the top ten slots for those terms.
Since it's a short post not intentionally optimized for anything, I can only assume that the world is full of semantics geeks like myself, walking around deeply troubled by the mathematics of Pay/Half and by an overwhelming desire to call up Alarm Detection Services and ask them to go check out a particular address and let you know whether or not it has an alarm.
If I'm right, then y'all will enjoy this: Children for Sale
Not only that, the discussion thread at Blog Catalog in which I talked about this accidental search placement is STILL commanding two of the top ten slots for those terms.
Since it's a short post not intentionally optimized for anything, I can only assume that the world is full of semantics geeks like myself, walking around deeply troubled by the mathematics of Pay/Half and by an overwhelming desire to call up Alarm Detection Services and ask them to go check out a particular address and let you know whether or not it has an alarm.
If I'm right, then y'all will enjoy this: Children for Sale
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Pissy Posts, Six Days a Week
Just what in the hell is Love Thursday?
It seems to be pretty popular; my quest to understand it didn't turn up any meaningful answers, but it did turn up hundreds of participants.
I'll be the first to admit that I might be missing something, but so far as I can tell, Love Thursday is the designation of a special day upon which we should all act EXACTLY THE WAY WE SHOULD BE ACTING EVERY DAY.
Is that right?
Because it kind of seems counterproductive to me, to set aside one particular day to do the right thing and have the right attitude and keep the focus in the right place. Kind of seems like a license to SHIFT that focus on all the other days.
One of the things I noticed in some of the posts I found was people fighting negativity and judgmentalism on Thursdays, in a kind of "I don't have the right attitude for Love Thursday today..." kind of way.
Um.
Yeah.
I'm just thinking that maybe that attitude you speak of isn't the right one for ANY day.
We all have them, of course. But it strikes me pretty hard that if a sentiment "isn't appropriate for Love Thursday", it might well be one that shouldn't be voiced on another day, either.
It seems to be pretty popular; my quest to understand it didn't turn up any meaningful answers, but it did turn up hundreds of participants.
I'll be the first to admit that I might be missing something, but so far as I can tell, Love Thursday is the designation of a special day upon which we should all act EXACTLY THE WAY WE SHOULD BE ACTING EVERY DAY.
Is that right?
Because it kind of seems counterproductive to me, to set aside one particular day to do the right thing and have the right attitude and keep the focus in the right place. Kind of seems like a license to SHIFT that focus on all the other days.
One of the things I noticed in some of the posts I found was people fighting negativity and judgmentalism on Thursdays, in a kind of "I don't have the right attitude for Love Thursday today..." kind of way.
Um.
Yeah.
I'm just thinking that maybe that attitude you speak of isn't the right one for ANY day.
We all have them, of course. But it strikes me pretty hard that if a sentiment "isn't appropriate for Love Thursday", it might well be one that shouldn't be voiced on another day, either.
Friday, August 17, 2007
The Credit Industry, That's What
I know this is probably the third or fourth thing I've said was the BIGGEST thing wrong around us, but the credit industry is a pretty significant force of negativity in our world today.
A really interesting study by law professor Katherine Porter recently revealed that, while the credit industry is villifying bankruptcy petitioners as deadbeats who game the system to irresponsibly run up bills and then walk away without paying, those same bankruptcy filers are being targeted by those same credit companies at a rate nearly three times the rate at which non-bankrupt families are targeted. That's right--if you've filed for bankruptcy, you're three times as likely to get pre-approved credit offers as someone who hasn't filed bankruptcy.
In addition, if you've filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which eliminates most unsecured debt outright, you'll be eligible for more credit--and sooner--than if you filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and repaid some of your debt over time.
This video presents a great tongue-in-cheek warning about credit and debt in the U.S.: Ruin Your Credit Now!
A really interesting study by law professor Katherine Porter recently revealed that, while the credit industry is villifying bankruptcy petitioners as deadbeats who game the system to irresponsibly run up bills and then walk away without paying, those same bankruptcy filers are being targeted by those same credit companies at a rate nearly three times the rate at which non-bankrupt families are targeted. That's right--if you've filed for bankruptcy, you're three times as likely to get pre-approved credit offers as someone who hasn't filed bankruptcy.
In addition, if you've filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which eliminates most unsecured debt outright, you'll be eligible for more credit--and sooner--than if you filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and repaid some of your debt over time.
This video presents a great tongue-in-cheek warning about credit and debt in the U.S.: Ruin Your Credit Now!
Which Celebrities Really Enjoy Snakes?
If you care about the answer to the question above, you're in the wrong place. (So often that happens to people who arrive here through search engines...)
One of my writers was searching through blog feeds and news items this afternoon and suddenly read aloud: Mary Louise Parker Not a Fan of Snakes.
None of us much cared, but we were entertained enough by the headline that we spent a few minutes tossing out other related headlines and possible Googles searches related to those headlines. Little did we know, at the time, that the snake story was really about MARY LOUISE PARKER NAKED.
That, apparently, was no big deal. She says in the article that she's been naked a lot. Apparently, this was her first time getting naked with a snake.*
The thing is, when I went back to look for the article to write this post, it turns out that there are pages and pages and pages of articles about Mary Louise Parker getting naked with a snake. I guess, in retrospect, I have to give this particular article credit for leaving "naked" out of the headline.
*Please, please, please do not let there be search traffic for the phrase "naked with a snake. Please.
One of my writers was searching through blog feeds and news items this afternoon and suddenly read aloud: Mary Louise Parker Not a Fan of Snakes.
None of us much cared, but we were entertained enough by the headline that we spent a few minutes tossing out other related headlines and possible Googles searches related to those headlines. Little did we know, at the time, that the snake story was really about MARY LOUISE PARKER NAKED.
That, apparently, was no big deal. She says in the article that she's been naked a lot. Apparently, this was her first time getting naked with a snake.*
The thing is, when I went back to look for the article to write this post, it turns out that there are pages and pages and pages of articles about Mary Louise Parker getting naked with a snake. I guess, in retrospect, I have to give this particular article credit for leaving "naked" out of the headline.
*Please, please, please do not let there be search traffic for the phrase "naked with a snake. Please.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Is Wikipedia Big Brother?
Big Brother, of course, is the most recognizable concept from George Orwell's chilling 1984, the representation of ever-present big government that sees all and has something to say about most of it. But there was something else in 1984 at least as chilling as the ever-present two-way screen--the ability (and willingness) to rewrite history.
The other day, a conversation about Web 2.0 on Blog Catalog got me thinking about the nature of user generated content, and more specifically about the fact that Wikipedia, the best established and most credible outlet for user generated content, is subject to change at any moment. Unlike the history books of old, the updated version is all that remains. We were neer allies with Eurasia!
Perhaps coincidentally, the discussion was started by an historian who had commented on his history blog about the need to consider history from the perspective of its participants rather than from our own. So, naturally, the issues converged in my mind, and I found myself thinking about 1984 in a whole new way. You see, as chilling as the idea of wiping out history and forbidding the mention of past events always seemed to me, I always viewed it as something conscious. I always assumed that those characters were somehow playing along, were pretending that they didn't remember when Eastasia had been the enemy so as to stay out of trouble.
But suddenly, the combination of thinking about how our perspectives aren't necessarily a valid place from which to assess the actions of others and thinking about how "updated" is coming to mean "replaced", I found myself wondering if perhaps those theoretical future characters from the past weren't playing along at all. I found myself wondering whether maybe, when the records had been thoroughly updated and time went on and the details grew fuzzy, they really didn't clearly remember the history that had occurred in their own lifetimes.
There have been at least two cases of court rulings citing Wikipedia as an authoritative source--this source that can be created by anyone with access to a computer and altered minutes later. Aside from accuracy, it's not a static reference; the information cited by the court might not be there a few years later when the precedent is cited, or even a few months later when the case goes up on appeal. If the authoritative source is continually shifting, what does that say about the truth? And as we move increasingly into electronic media that can be and often is erased with a few clicks or a server failure, where will we find our landmarks. Will Google cache one day be our only source of historical comparison?
The other day, a conversation about Web 2.0 on Blog Catalog got me thinking about the nature of user generated content, and more specifically about the fact that Wikipedia, the best established and most credible outlet for user generated content, is subject to change at any moment. Unlike the history books of old, the updated version is all that remains. We were neer allies with Eurasia!
Perhaps coincidentally, the discussion was started by an historian who had commented on his history blog about the need to consider history from the perspective of its participants rather than from our own. So, naturally, the issues converged in my mind, and I found myself thinking about 1984 in a whole new way. You see, as chilling as the idea of wiping out history and forbidding the mention of past events always seemed to me, I always viewed it as something conscious. I always assumed that those characters were somehow playing along, were pretending that they didn't remember when Eastasia had been the enemy so as to stay out of trouble.
But suddenly, the combination of thinking about how our perspectives aren't necessarily a valid place from which to assess the actions of others and thinking about how "updated" is coming to mean "replaced", I found myself wondering if perhaps those theoretical future characters from the past weren't playing along at all. I found myself wondering whether maybe, when the records had been thoroughly updated and time went on and the details grew fuzzy, they really didn't clearly remember the history that had occurred in their own lifetimes.
There have been at least two cases of court rulings citing Wikipedia as an authoritative source--this source that can be created by anyone with access to a computer and altered minutes later. Aside from accuracy, it's not a static reference; the information cited by the court might not be there a few years later when the precedent is cited, or even a few months later when the case goes up on appeal. If the authoritative source is continually shifting, what does that say about the truth? And as we move increasingly into electronic media that can be and often is erased with a few clicks or a server failure, where will we find our landmarks. Will Google cache one day be our only source of historical comparison?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
