Pic of the Day: Dec. 31, 2012 (Special ‘Ancient Red(neck) Socks’ Edition)

Plain (now Richland), Mississippi – Thanksgiving, 1967.

I thought I’d end the year with a pic by someone other than me.  This is actually a cropped image, from a photo taken by my mom at a relative’s house on the unfashionable end of Old Hwy. 49; so, unlike the photos of this vintage that I occasionally post that were taken by the late Dee McKellar, I acually am in the main image – but, as was the case when I used it as an image over at TransAdvocate some time back, I thought that the abstraction worked better.

Advertisements

Pic of the Day: Dec. 31, 2012 (Special ‘Goodbye to 2012 and all of its Republican Nutjob Spores’ Edition)

Okay, the photo was taken in 2011 just beyond the right field fence during a Quad Cities River Bandits game at Modern Woodmen Park in Davenport, Iowa, but it really, really, really applies more to 2012, Mitt, Ann, Tagg, et. al.

Pic of the Day: Dec. 30, 2012 (Special ‘Gay, Inc. Symbolism’ Edition)

Wharton, Texas – December, 1992.

Something to Think About

A non-discrimination statement (albeit a few years old now, but relevant nevertheless) from a very large employer, headquartered in the midwest:

All employment-related decisions are based on an individual’s job-related qualifications and job performance, without regard to race, age, color, religion, sex, national origin, veteran status or disability, and in certain states, marital status and sexual orientation.

My question: If all of the words up to and including “performance” actually constitute a wholly truthful description of the company’s future intentions and past actions re: the employment process, then (1) why are any words needed after “performance” and (2) how can any of it be honestly qualified by the “in certain states” proviso?

I’m now going to hop inside my fish and drive it to a job interview.

Pic of the Day: Dec. 30, 2012 (Special ‘Why Bother Being Wrong According to the Mayan Calendar When You’re Full of Excrement in Your Own Right, Eh?’ Edition)

May 12, 2011 – though I forget precisely where I took this shot (and, uhhhhh…, given that today is Dec. 30, 2012, does it really matter?)

Worth Pondering

From Shannyn Moore:

My Guns Are Less Regulated Than My Uterus

Just think about that – and the fact that it is an unchallengeable fact.

The Answer? Probably ‘None’

The question?

How many views does Justin Bieber actually have?

The context?  You Tube…with a lot of added helium.

The video service deleted more than 2 billion fake video views in the channels of Universal, Sony, and RCA, according to Daily Dot. The decision apparently was made when YouTube found out that the companies were using view building services hired from sites such as Fiverr to create video views that never existed.

Sony/BMG’s was hit the hardest with views dropping from a total of more than 850 million to just 2.3 million. RCA declined by 159 million views to a total of 120 million. Universal lost more than 1 billion views and now stands below 6 billion.

Services that promise the perception of greater user exposure have become commonplace on the web. There are plenty of sites such as YouLikeHits, which allow users to increase the number of Facebook likes and Twitter followers. The tradition goes back to the news aggregation service Digg, which created services that would sell “diggs” to vote Internet content to the front page.

I’m sure that if Universal, Sony and RCA just claimed that they were counting as views on all of their manufactured sensations’ latest crapfests anyone who had ever spent a dollar on any music from any artist in their catalogs, then everything would be just fine.

After all, that worked for HRC, no?

Wonder if I can sue the RIAA for false advertisement?

Only Hilary Rosen knows for sure – and I’m sure she still has e-mail addresses at both HRC and RIAA.