A reverse look at sexism and sexual violence. Contains nudity and rough language (in French):
The Sochi Olympics are already off to a bad start. For the past few days, reporters covering the event have been tweeting and photographing how bad thing are (a vast collection of tweets here). Like this:
That’s like the scene in “Borat” when the foreign visitor to an upper middle class home takes a dump in the bathroom and comes out with his waste in a bag, asking the hostess where it’s supposed to go.
When I went to the Athens Olympics in 2004, I remember everybody saying beforehand how dangerous it was going to be an how unprepared the Greeks were. My son and I had a great time there. Everything was fine.
Sochi, however, appears to be turning out how the skeptics were saying Athens was going to be. But worse.
Less than nine months ago, Cheerios ran an ad in which a little girl asked her mother “Are Cheerios good for your heart.” Mom said yes, and the girl dumped a box of cereal on her sleeping father’s chest (see that ad here). Pretty innocuous, but Cheerios had to disable comments when the ad showed up on YouTube, because a bunch of people went apoplectic because the ad featured a mixed race family.
So that was it, right? Cheerios runs an ad, racists respond, but Cheerios kept running the ad. And now it’s got this one.
This one’s called “Cheerios 2014 Game Day Ad.” Sounds like it’s going to run during the Super Bowl, the biggest advertising day of the year. Right now, it has almost a million hits on YouTube, and the comments are on. Let’s see how long that lasts.
The ad, though is still pretty innocuous. I’m totally with mom’s “Are you nuts?!?!!” reaction to the puppy deal.
But given the time between the first ad and the presentation of this one, the underlying message is: “See! Cheerios were REALLY good for dad’s heart.”
I saw this movie a couple of weeks ago, and really enjoyed it:
It was truly a celebration of rich people behaving badly, and Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent in it.
Technically, it’s not supposed to be an inspirational movie. You know, bad people doing bad things and all that. Apparently, some stock brokers don’t see it that way (from the London Evening Standard):
Cinemas across London are preparing to welcome thousands of bankers, brokers and traders to bespoke private screenings, the Standard has learned, and a cinema booking company says there is more corporate demand for this film than any they can remember.
With one company planning to dress up Nineties Wall Street-style for the occasion, the City’s buzz about [Jordan] Belfort has the ring of an enthronement. It is tempting to think that DiCaprio’s character might be a new cult hero for a new generation of bankers, as Gordon Gekko (protagonist of 1987’s Wall Street) was to their bosses. You can imagine the Square Mile’s new generation quoting Belfort’s corny phrases about money, drugs and women like their pre-crash predecessors did Gekko’s.
A comedy email flying around between bankers in London and New York this week makes the link, plotting a market index since the Eighties with arrows showing major price falls on the release dates of Wall Street and its 2010 sequel Money Never Sleeps, and a Wolf of Wall Street arrow pointing at today’s high price. Will the Wolf consign so many bankers and traders to therapy and rehab that the markets will plummet on its release, the jokes goes. At least I think it’s a joke.
For those of you not familiar with international financial markets, “the City” referred to here isn’t London. The City is what the Brits call their version of Wall Street. They’re treating this movie like it’s a blueprint for success. Maybe they’re thinking all they have to avoid will be the drugs, the prostitutes and the money laundering. That way, they can steal people’s money legally, I guess.
Oh, by the way. The Wolf lives. Jordan Belfort is now a motivational speaker in California. Here’s an interview with him:
Got to admit. The guy is smooth.
An art museum can be a cathedral to rapture and a chamber of horror. I’ve seen a lot of these paintings before, but if they came alive, some of them would scare me to death.
OK. So there’s a controversy concerning something some guy on the reality show “Duck Dynasty” said. I’ve never seen the show, but …
… that’s a family photo. They’re dressed in camouflage. They’re in Louisiana.
I checked out a random clip on YouTube:
So, really? I’m supposed to be appalled that some Bayou-bred extras from a ZZ Top video would say something that wasn’t progressive? They have a show BECAUSE they say weird shit like this.
Do you think, perhaps, that MAYBE these folks (honestly, I don’t even know their names. Duck? Is that it?) have done something like held a Confederate flag? Hey, let’s go out on a limb here. Are they now or have they ever been members of the Republican party? (Oh, what’s that? They helped a Tea Party Republican win a congressional primary in Louisiana?)
Give me a break. You want to know what we should be upset about?
Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico, said in a recent story in The Washington Post that the FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording — for several years.
Now research from Johns Hopkins University provides the first public confirmation that it’s possible to do just that, and demonstrates how. While the research focused on MacBook and iMac models released before 2008, the authors say similar techniques could work on more recent computers from a wide variety of vendors. In other words, if a laptop has a built-in camera, it’s possible someone — whether the federal government or a malicious 19 year old — could access it to spy on the user at any time.
That doesn’t razz your berry? How about this?
Target confirmed Thursday morning that it was investigating a security breach involving stolen credit card and debit card information for 40 million of its retail customers.
In a statement, Target said that criminals gained access to its customer information on Nov. 27 — the day before Thanksgiving and just ahead of one of the busiest shopping days of the year — and maintained access through Dec. 15.
Hell, someone hacked my job this week, so now I’ve got to change passwords on everything I log into.
The “Duck Dynasty” “controversy” is just another shiny thing to divert your attention from the really horrible things that are screwing us over.
At least the “Duck Dynasty” guy knew that what was coming out of his mouth was going to be used against him. That’s more than the rest of us can say.
- Under Armour’s ‘Duck Dynasty’ Dilemma (gloucestercitynews.net)
- What Is Duck Dynasty and What Does It Have to Do With a Man’s Anus? (gawker.com)
- Patriarch off `Duck Dynasty’ after gay comments (pottsmerc.com)
- Patriarch off `Duck Dynasty’ after gay comments (macombdaily.com)
- Duck Dynasty BLASTED For Racist Remark (celebnmusic247.com)
- Ridiculous Duck Dynasty Decision by A&E!!! (patsygayle.wordpress.com)
We all know fashion magazines have an obsession with making the celebrities on their covers look perfect. But explain this to me:
Why do you need to alter Jennifer Lawrence. They’ve moved her collar bone, stretched out her fingers, narrowed her hips and … well, you see it.
- GIF Shows How Magazine Needlessly Photoshopped Jennifer Lawrence (jezebel.com)
- Photoshopped magazine cover featuring Jennifer Lawrence earns ire of fans on social media (dnaindia.com)
- Photoshop Of Horrors: This Magazine Thinks Jennifer Lawrence Has Too Many Bones (thegloss.com)
- I Am Livid That A Magazine Did This To Jennifer Lawrence, And My Guess Is She Is, Too (upworthy.com)
- Jennifer Lawrence Before And After Photoshop (buzzfeed.com)
Here are a couple of gifs from Jezebel on American baby names for the past six decades, according to data from the Social Security Administration.
Michael and Jennifer dominated the latter part of the 20th century. And now we’re in the age of Jacob, Sophia and Isabella. But really, aren’t Emma and Emily the same thing?
I get a laugh, though, out of the most popular name in Montana in 1997. And no, it wasn’t because of the show. That first appeared in 2006.