In defense of LOLcats

Shirky writes:

I was talking about World of Warcraft guilds, and as I was talking, I could sort of see what she was thinking: "Losers. Grown men sitting in their basement pretending to be elves."

At least they're doing something.

Did you ever see that episode of Gilligan's Island where they almost get off the island and then Gilligan messes up and then they don't? I saw that one. I saw that one a lot when I was growing up. And every half-hour that I watched that was a half an hour I wasn't posting at my blog or editing Wikipedia or contributing to a mailing list. Now I had an ironclad excuse for not doing those things, which is none of those things existed then. I was forced into the channel of media the way it was because it was the only option. Now it's not, and that's the big surprise. However lousy it is to sit in your basement and pretend to be an elf, I can tell you from personal experience it's worse to sit in your basement and try to figure if Ginger or Mary Ann is cuter.

And I'm willing to raise that to a general principle. It's better to do something than to do nothing. Even lolcats, even cute pictures of kittens made even cuter with the addition of cute captions, hold out an invitation to participation. When you see a lolcat, one of the things it says to the viewer is, "If you have some sans-serif fonts on your computer, you can play this game, too." And that's message--I can do that, too--is a big change.

This article, while quite interesting, has the danger of being an elaborate rationalization of behavior. I'm not convinced that what I do (for hours and hours on end) on my laptop is categorically different than what I did (for hours and hours on end) with my TV in the 80s.

Occasionally, I post something on the blog, write on someone's wall, send a brief message, post a photograph, correct a piece of misinformation on Google earth. So, in that sense, it is active, rather than passive, but the majority of time I am sifting through large pieces of information which is irrelevent to my daily existence. I no more need to know the origins of the word hookah, than I need to know the theme song to Silver Spoons.

Still, I find this article comforting and reassuring. I guess that's what a good bottle of gin should do.

Ouch!

Um, this is funny, I guess:

But, your honor, I'm an orphan!

Harris at Politico nails it:

This weekend’s uproar over Hillary Rodham Clinton invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy as rationale for continuing her presidential campaign is an especially vivid example of modern journalism as hyperkinetic child — overstimulated by speed and hunger for a head-turning angle that will draw an audience.

The truth about what Clinton said — and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant — was entirely beside the point.

A few lines down:

The RFK remarks were deep in a 20-minute clip of an otherwise routine conversation. Then, once we actually got to the relevant portion of the video, it was hardly an electric moment.

Clinton does indeed mention the Kennedy assassination, speaking in a calm and analytical tone: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Martin and I both thought we saw a slight twinge in Clinton’s facial expression, as though she recognized she had just said something dumb.

Whether she recognized it or not, she had.

But it was also clear that Clinton’s error was not in saying something beyond the pale but in saying something that pulled from context would sound as if it were beyond the pale.

It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: “Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I’d get to be the nominee after all.”

It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: “Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June.”

It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader’s executive editor, Randall Beck, put out a statement saying, “Her reference to Mr. Kennedy’s assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.”

But where Harris gives us a brilliant demonstration of Chutzpah, at the end of the article, is where he smacks down the msn, for following his lead!!

The revival of Soul?

Brooks describes the pushback against a militant materialism in an interesting article this morning:

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

Its a bit strange to see the things I've believed for 20 years start to creep into the mainstream. I'm not really sure how I feel about it.

The alternative not so bad...

I really am happy about both our presidential choices this year:




Of course it says a lot when simply being against torture counts as moral excellence.

Competition

Hmm, apparently, Andrew Sullivan has another reader here in the big mango.

The game is on, sir (or madam), the game is on.