1) It’s pretty good.
2) Because I do that when I watch sports.

(seen originally on Kottke.org)

Photo by quinn.anya via Flickr.

In case you missed the (non-important) news about Facebook getting support for hashtags, let this serve as a heads up. They’re coming. I’ve had a few people since the news broke ask me how happy I am about this news. I’m not at all. It’s not a “feature” I think Facebook should implement.

The “hashtag” or putting a “#” sign before a word, was originally a Twitter concept developed in order to categorize messages. That’s where it came from. They pioneered it, they invented it, and it started with Twitter’s publishing platform. Then Google+ picked them up. They work okay in Google+. I’m indifferent to them on that platform since the majority of users on there (in my experience, or at least “circled” by me) use them in a context for categorization. The hashtag begin to take off as more and more media companies, films and so forth begin to market their items on Twitter. In the interest of categorization, it was a perfect way to search and seek out exactly what you wanted to see on Twitter. For example, “#jokes,” “#SocialMedia” or “#ManOfSteel” for example. It is simply meant to categorize items by a given topic. Many will recall the popular “#BeatCancer” hashtag, in which a Guinness world record was set in order to raise money for cancer research.

The original usage begin to decline when things like “#tenthingsyousayaftersex” and “#youisahoeif” began to circle the Twittersphere. (by the way, if you need to see how bad it is, just browse trending topics in the U.S after 11pm local time) These not only hijack the categorization by using phrases, but defeat the purpose being able to find like-minded topics that exist as something more than temporary passing “wit” as seen online.

There’s already so many terribly incoherent and useless hashtags on Facebook.. when they do not do anything at all. A hashtag outside of a medium where it’s usable, (like Twitter) is pointless, unless it is to market it’s usage in a usable medium which is not what Facebook user’s have been doing. Posting a picture of a lake along with “#summertime #sunset #lovemylife” on Facebook does nothing. Legitimate businesses and media companies can and have directed the ‘Book’s users to Twitter in order to follow a hashtag say, for a contest or to follow a specific project or idea.

What Facebook will wind up doing when hashtags are public for everyone will be enabling all the misuse of an idea that was originally used as a method of categorization, not a method of labeling. It seems that it would be far easier for Facebook to allow a tagging format on pictures or posts, and allow people to search by given set of those, like they somewhat attempted with the recent “moods” update to user’s status updates. To me, at least, there’s a fine line between labeling and categorization, that hashtags on Facebook have already begun to muddle before they were even supported. Now it will be even worse, because people will not understand what they’re for, (categorization) and use them even more because they’re “supported.”

I will use hashtags on Facebook. Correctly. To categorize posts in way that makes them easy to find and aggregate, which is what the point of the hashtag is.

UPDATE: Per @aidje, hashtags first originated in IRC, before being integrated into conversations on Twitter. Thanks, @aidje.

Man Of Steel

I’m writing this a little late, sure, considering I was one of the buyers of the Walmart presale for the 7pm showing on Thursday. On that note, I’d like to quickly address the video that played before the movie. It was a teaser with some half-interviews put together by Walmart (I assume) that had Zack Snyder, some interviewer, and shots of the film interspersed with questions to Zack such as “what’s your favorite scene in the movie.” Seems like a pretty big spoiler to me. I would have been okay with the part thanking Walmart customers for having bought tickets, but I didn’t like 5 minutes of mostly spoilers sprinkled between half-hearted interviews that have been online for weeks. Just my two cents.

Man of Steel was an incredible experience that was two-fold for me. First, anytime Big Blue is on screen, I’m having a good time, and I’ll see it over and over. About the only media around Superman that I don’t like is Smallville, for reasons I’ll save for a future post. I saw Superman Returns probably seven or eight times in the theater. So I like Superman movies. Secondly, and something I feel the critics are missing out on in some ways; Man of Steel is a reboot. It’s not connected with Superman Returns nor the Donner films. It’s a new concept on the hero from Snyder and Nolan, that (at least word is) will tie in later on with the continuing of the franchise, as well as other heroes in the DC Universe. That being said there were several things I really dug about Snyder’s take on it.

There were some elements to the story that (as a casual reader of the comics) come across as new to me. His suit is now surrounded by the lore of Jor-El, the house of El, as well as the “S” symbol on the new suit meaning hope, etc. I like that in this first film in a potential franchise Snyder and Co are keeping Superman firmly grounded in his Kryptonian roots. Superman Returns had very little Kryptonian lore in it, except for the obvious use of Kryptonite and some brief interaction with The Fortress/Jor-El. I can’t stand when there is not at least a balance of the understanding of Kal’s heritage as well as his life here on earth. The plot in this film is surrounded by the Kryptonian story, even so much as Zod’s goal being the rebuilding of the long destroyed planet.

Snyder has some wild destruction during the battle scenes. So much that a lot of reviewers are saying it’s too much, especially considering there’s no onscreen reference to it by any character. Structure after structure gets brutally decimated in downtown Metropolis, without a second thought from anyone. I guess it came across as too much, simply because that was the only part of the film where I wanted to get to the next set of scenes and leave battle behind. It was done well, the effects fit the power of Kal and Zod, but it was a little laborious at a certain point, emphasized I think by Zod’s own admittance that “the only way this ends is if you die or I do.”

Another big buzz among fans and reviewers alike is that Superman killed Zod in this film. I personally didn’t have an issue with how it was done. Superman, while known as the “boy scout” who never kills anyone, has killed in the past in different story-lines from DC, and I think the gravity of the scene surrounding his killing Zod was appropriate. His demeanor after killing Zod is secretly two-fold for the Kal. In one regard, he’s upset that he just killed Zod outright, with no sense of any further “justice”. In another regard, he’s upset because he is truly killing the last man in the universe connected to him, his father, and Krypton.

In short, we see Nolan and Snyder’s entirely new and fresh take on Superman in Man Of Steel. He’s darker, and more independent in this story, with just the right amount of his Kryptonian past and earthly childhood mixed in. It’s clear this is the first in a franchise I think, if that’s how Warner Brothers decides to take it. I am seeing it again probably tonight, and more times over the coming weeks.

Caution, this video is NSFW, as The Amazing Atheist usually is. A lot of swearing and… harsh vernacular.

Full disclosure: I haven’t watched much of The Amazing Atheist in a long time, but I watched this video because the title enticed me. He’s an atheist, sure, but his beliefs on a diety are not what I care to comment on. He’s an American, and has the right just as anyone does to believe what they will. I just find it interesting that his arguments come from places like a belief in liberty and freedom, as they should. Given the sound construction of his political viewpoints, I agree completely with him on Obama’s track record.

As a Christian, I feel as though the GOP in particular have lost this side of reasoning. Political viewpoints on policy, and in particular liberty and freedom have nothing to do with God. Religious people of all walks of faith whether Christian, Atheist, or any other religious sect, have no right when it comes to legislative decision-making to assume or assert that whatever they happen to believe is somehow a basis for policy.

Read: it’s not.

The best thing for this country (regardless what you happen to believe that is) should be based in logical arguments from a point of view that backs up your ideas themselves, rather than a belief system that you hold exclusive to any others. In terms of government and political influence your belief system is no more important than the next person’s belief system. Period. This is what twenty-something Christians like myself find so frustrating with the political leaders that this two-party system has given us to cope with.

It’s a lose-lose situation for a conservative approach. Either you side with conservatives and you’re labeled a bible-pounding freak who wants all of American law and policy to be derived from the Christian Bible, or (more often than not) you’re left with virtually no one to vote for that holds a conservative viewpoint constructed from logical values, not a religious viewpoint. Sure, most of the Right in America derive their policy-making viewpoints from faith, as the Constitution dictates that they can hold whatever belief they please. But policy should by it’s very construct be based on what’s best for the country and why; not a religious viewpoint. Just as we don’t want atheists to legislate from a religious point of view, so we shouldn’t attempt it.

Every time a firearm related tragedy makes news (which I’ll get into in a second) the question of firearms and their various legalities as far as what should and shouldn’t be legal, and where, even onto things like ammunition sizes/amounts, become front and center for heated debate. The first thing to remember, regardless of party affiliation, religious affiliation, or gun ownership, is that news is presented in a chosen format by network heads, and told in a way to generate “news” and ratings. My point being: news is (unfortunately) only news because someone decides it is news. So when tragedies like Sandy Hook are overly covered, sensationalized, and referred to months after it’s essential to keep in mind that this is for one reason; to benefit the networks and news outlets.

The main point I would like to make here, is on the way that gun control is discussed in this country. It is literally unlike any other killer whether in the hands of another human being, or inherently a killer. Guns, and consequently as if in a “guilty-by-association” viewpoint, the gun-owning community are the presupposed cause for the deaths surrounding a given tragedy. As if every gun owner somehow contributes to the tragedy like every automobile owner holds part of the blame for drunk-driving accidents.

Nothing else in western society is handled or discussed in such a way. Even after 9/11, arguably the greatest tragedy in our lifetimes, flights resumed, people climbed aboard planes before the week was out because for some reason when looking at tragedies that don’t involve guns, people can divorce evil people from the tools they use to commit tragedy. The same is true with DWI incidents, drugs, cancer, etc etc. After a high-profile actor or celebrity dies of a drug overdose, or goes completely crazy on medically induced meltdown, they are made fun of, and society as a whole moves on, while lives are still being ruined by whatever the given medium is. Rarely is there a mention of the “killer” in such circumstances, and certainly no form of lengthy debate on how to enact some legal measure as a means of prevention. But when guns are involved in an evil act, the focus becomes instantly on the tools used, and methods with which to eliminate them unlike any other type of tragedy.

As a law-abiding gun owner who has many friends and acquaintances who own guns and would never in a million years be involved in incidents such as Sandy Hook, it’s nothing short of offensive to be categorized alongside the purely evil individuals that commit these types of atrocities. It is as if the entire population of bicyclists were to demonize cars upon every fatal car accident. Every part of this mindset is absurd and does not hold water in any other situation. Why then are guns responsible for killers, when no other item or element is responsible for killing but the people involved are? That’s unfair, cruel, and an outrage to law abiding gun owners the globe over.

From Dr. Paul’s Facebook:

America is over $16 trillion in debt. The “official” unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.

Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.

Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.

Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.

It’s not hard to see why, though.

To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above.

As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.

GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better.

They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.

My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.

Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.

As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome.

A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.

I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.

I watched for weeks leading up to the election as an outspoken mass of conservatives puked their hearts out at their keyboards via the interwebz and vilified Obama into being all but an anti-Christ type figure who (from their estimation) was here to destroy America to the core. All along, I would quietly remark that Obama will win. Whenever I made such assertions, I was quickly branded a “moderate”, a fool who didn’t know what he was talking about, or one who has lost faith in the GOP. Frankly, if any of these is true, it’s the final one. And, as Tuesday dawned upon us, my predictions all became correct. Romney lost, Obama won, and his supporters continued to support the same man and “policies” they always have.

The problem with the majority of Obama’s supporters, and the reason the Democratic party is the now the popular party is really very simple; the cater to the majority in whatever way possible. When it comes to speeches, elections, debates, and so on, it’s really all about convincing whoever to do whatever you need them to do in order to get where you want to go. While the GOP rages on about issues like fiscal responsibility, abortion, and creating jobs, the left are championing ideas like statewide healthcare, and supporting homosexuality. Read: they’re buying the vote. I hesitate to say that, because most people instantly jump to a welfare mindset and apply racial overtones to this concept. That’s not what I’m referring to. Anyone with their head in politics can do the math and see we’re spending  too much in numberless government programs, subsidies, and stimuli.

At the end of the day, a vote is a vote. Liberals understand that gays, the chronically ill or impoverished, and every ethnicity have one thing in common; they all cast votes, sometimes based on one or two issues that (as seen on Tuesday) they will vote on. The largest Libertarian vote was also cast within this principle. The GOP needs to step away from “reproductive” rights, and merely articulating a fiscal problem, (read: because they don’t matter) and towards protecting rights from an engorged government looking to fund it’s own payroll and show that they are truly in it for everyone as the left paints itself so brilliantly.

The moderate “stormin’ Mormon” Romney didn’t appeal to many on the right, on the basis of issues that they are concerned with, namely (for example); personal liberty, guns, and smaller government. To this generation (who take the time to research) the answer to America’s fiscal insanity and big brother’s trampling whatever might be in his path is one thing; smaller government. Neither the GOP nomination, nor his big spending incumbent Obama understand this, leaving a fragmented right (and I suspect part of the left) wondering who to vote for. In these instances, individuals like Johnson rise and garner widespread Libertarian support, or they opt for the guy that in the honest estimation looks like he cares about people; Obama.

Unless a worthy challenger arises, one who understands this debacle and can unite both of these mindsets, the office of President (and others) will continue to be hijacked by individuals who will spend us into oblivion under the guise of petty issues such as abortion, marijuana, same-sex union, while the GOP sits back and wonders what is happening to the country.