Rhiannon: There’s a higher power that will judge you for your indecency.
Olive: Tom Cruise?
From Easy A with Emma Stone
If you use Twitter you know they have this new feature where they offer suggestions on who to follow based on the Twitter Users you already follow. I was reading about that feature here – What We Really Need: Discovering Whom To UnFollow and he has some amazing stats to go along with that story,
The 2009 Annual Report from Barracuda Labs independently confirms these findings.
* 34% of Twitter users have no tweets
* 73% of users have less than 10 tweets
According to some numbers compiled by Wikipedia via Economictimes there were about 100 million Twitter users in 2009 so assuming 27% of users are somewhat active that still leaves a lot of people to follow. What earns – in 140 characters – a following. If a follower cares about authority or honesty, traits that would make a Twitterer worth following wouldn’t users have to know something more in dept about them than 14o characters. And how much depth are followers getting per attention minute. If you are a news junkie into breaking earthquakes, celebrity break-downs, sports scores or something in that price range it might be worth your time and you probably already know who to follow. Even than you would have to go to the net or traditional broadcast media to get details. Context takes a hell of a beating and I can’t see following the latest research into biodiversity or social services being very popular or informative. Twitter seems like such a niche tool – admittedly an important niche – but could do better as the Skeptic Geek suggests in being a meaningful social tool. If they can do something about getting the spam out of their algorithms, maybe suggesting a Twitter cloud and than the ability to drill down on that cloud of topic or authority would help with at least some context.
Remember the recent research about women who participated in or were complacent witnesses to Nazi war crimes. Courtney E. Martin uses that as a take off point to look at female violence, The Myth of the Fairer Sex
Yes, men are behind some of the most violent moments that make headlines, but women also have the capacity for violence and are so often passive observers in the face of it — particularly when it’s structural, not physical. The “banality of evil,” as Hannah Arendt described it, is alive and well in the women who sit by as their co-workers are sexually harassed or their neighbors are racially profiled or as the social safety net is cut out from under our most vulnerable citizens (usually women and children). It is present in the double speak becoming more and more common among “mama grizzly” politicians who claim to care for women but then legislate and budget in direct opposition to their interests and rights. This is violence without a clenched fist and a busted lip. It is the less visible violence of detachment and deceit.
Women the world over, especially self-proclaimed feminists, must own the truth about our gender’s capacity for violence if we are ever going to be effective in combating it. With our recent past of cowboy presidents and reckless money men, it’s tempting to sit smugly in our stitch ‘n bitch circles and surmise that if we were in charge, we would never do what they have done.
Bitch Magazine co-founder Lisa Jervis wrote of this tendency in her powerfully original 2005 piece, “If Women Ruled the World, Nothing Would be Different.” She describe a disturbing rise in “femmenism,” in which all women, just by virtue of being female, are to be elevated and glorified. Instead of focusing on gender, as radical feminists should, she argues, feminists have become obsessed with women. This, she writes, “causes sloppy thinking, intellectual dishonesty, and massive strategic errors.”
Men are still the mean source of overt and brutal violence, but women like Ann Coulter (“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity…”) and a certain former Alaska governor don’t seem to have much of a problem with cultivating violence as a political ideology onto itself. Violence is sometimes unavoidable – like when restraining orders don’t work – but as a way of life, it’s a good way to subvert liberty – the French Revolution anyone.
Indeed, he dwells lavishly on his mortality. The show’s theme song rewrites the chorus of “Brother Louie” so that the mondegreen is actually there—”Louie, Louie, you’re gonna die”—and elsewhere he roars, with a hard chuckle, “There’s never gonna be another year of my life that was better than the year before.” But the wonder of the situation is that there’s something life-affirming in the very way he dwells.
Louis, or all we know for sure is that his comic persona on the show has faced up to the existential dread and found ways to deal with it. The two biggest being his children and his since of humor.