Monday, June 5, 2017

Facebook is a stupid company

Whether you use Facebook or not is up to you, and I won't judge.

I'm sure that social people find it useful and entertaining.   My own experience on the platform was not the best:  I didn't have problems with dealing with abusive people, I just had one or two people I kept in contact with through it, and then there were the stupid Zynga games.   At one point during one of their stupid phases they updated their TOS to suggest they were claiming copyright on anything posted on their pages and I noped out of that so hard, I hadn't been back. This was back around 2007 or so.  Do you remember your passwords from that era?  I sure don't.  (This matters.)

At the time, Facebook only allowed one to deactivate the account.

Today I got a welcome back email from Facebook.

For some reason these idiots thought that a login from a Mac OS computer in fucking Vietnam was completely legit and re-opened my Facebook account.  I guess there's something to be said for following a seemingly legitimate password combination, but FFS how was there no question about a ten year dormant account being reactivated from fucking Vietnam?

And of course, Facebook, being Facebook, still has all the old Hotel California attitudes, and finding out how to secure the account required a password I no longer had any knowledge of.  Fortunately I had recently upgraded my gmail account's password to something umpteen characters long.  So there was no reasonable chance for a hacker to get that.  I did eventually get to reset the password, generated a huge one from my password manager, and told Facebook thank you, no - fuck off forever assholes.

But seriously - ten year dormant account - reactivated from fucking Vietnam?  

Why was that even processed in the first place?

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Ex-con being shamed in the press! And Loki approves, for once.

This morning I was looking at various news feeds (as one does) while avoiding the serious news about the latest disaster in the making coming from the psychopath party in Washington and came across the news that the parents of students at a private school in Montreal are somewhat disturbed that an ex-con has been volunteering at the school.

Normally this sort of shit pisses me right the fuck off.  If someone has been released after serving their sentence they shouldn't be automatically stigmatized.  Normally my concern for stigmatization of ex-cons is that it sabotages any attempt at re-integration with society at large, and more often than not there's no reason for such a stigma.

In this case?  If I were one of the parents, I'd be up in arms myself.

Because the ex-con in this case is Karla Homolka.

For anyone who reads this who doesn't know who that might be, she was the partner of a serial killer in Canada in the early 90s.  She was personally and directly involved in the torture, rape, and execution of two teenaged girls, including her then sixteen year old sister.  And because sexism, sensationalism and fucking idiocy (If not outright incompetence.) she was allowed to make a plea deal with the prosecution for her testimony, where she presented herself as an unwilling accomplice to her partner's nefarious schemes.  In exchange for which she got a sentence that seemed appropriate for someone who presented herself as nearly as much a victim as the two deceased girls.

Cue about two years later.   Someone finds a roll of exposed film in the house Homolka had shared with her partner.

Now, it is difficult to properly place context with snapshots - and often there's room for a lot of interpretation between shots.  But when someone's plea bargain testimony included things like claiming she never participated in hurting the girls, and the photos show her doing just that, it's. . a little suggestive that maybe her testimony was less than truthful.

Since her partner had been claiming from day one they'd been equal partners in the killings, and hasn't changed since his trial, the benefit of the doubt in my mind is that he's most likely being truthful about that.

Anyways, for legal reasons (which I tend to approve of, even when they lead to abortions of justice like this case) the Canucks coudln't go against the deal they'd made with her for her testimony, and she was released after serving her term.

She married, had a child, moved out of the country, and then seems to have moved back to Montreal, where at least some of her kids are going to a religious school there.  And where she has been a chaperone on a field trip, and been involved in some classroom activities.  The school claims that they have no way to bar her, but can at the same time say that they've made it policy that she's not to be allowed to be alone with any students.  I am. . . underwhelmed by their judgment.

I'm also rather disturbed that it seems the first that the other parents at this school knew of their celebrity chaperone was after the local press broke the story.

Now there's been some talk about how Karla served her time and should be allowed to get on with her life.  Which strikes me as utter bullshit - she got away with conning the Canadian Criminal Courts, but to expect me to believe she's actually demonstrated remorse for her crimes is more than I can stomach.  Even if she had been fully truthful in her testimony, I'd be leery of allowing her access in a school to minors.  Given that I think she pulled one of the greatest cons in criminal history - no fucking way.  

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Portland and the GOP

In the wake of the assault on three men who dared to try to restrict a patriot's freedom of speech, the GOP of Portland is talking about using that patriot's friends from the 3% for security at their future events.

Or translated to sanity - the GOP doubles down on hate speech, demonizing political opponents, and advocating for vigilantism.

Quite honestly, this is starting to shape up as Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman, part two.  And I expect the sequel to be just as much a travesty of justice as the original.  The GOP's nationwide. (and racially defined) push to create a right to self-defense in the absence of any reasonable threat, simply the perception of threat is already getting killer cops acquitted.  It got George Zimmerman acquitted.  And it's going to make it possible (perhaps even likely) that Jeremy Joseph Christian will also be acquitted.

(After the Bundy Jr. gang got acquitted my faith in the jury system took a severe blow.)

The fucktards are organized, have several nationally recognized outlets for their insanity and have created echo chambers.  And now we're being told that it's not FAAAIIIR to demonize a group because one nut attacked people when his abusive tirade was challenged.  Because self-defense.

Between this, and the recent election of a fucktard from Montana who feels that he's justified in assaulting journalists - I'm done.  The GOP is no a hate group.  They will not police themselves.  And as such I will not support, vote, or even show any more than the bare modicum of respect the office they hold might deserve.


Sunday, March 26, 2017

Yes, it's so much simpler to just demonize bad parents for being bad parents.

My response to a column in my local USAToday network paper this weekend.   The original column, linked here.  


Dear Editor,

I believe that the column your paper chose to run in the March 25 Living section, by Ana Veciana-Suarez, under the headline “Crocodile Tears for Teen After Suicide,” was a deeply flawed piece that should never have been given national attention. 

While I agree with Ana Veciana-Suarez’s thesis that the mother of her piece is clearly trying to make a cash grab in the wake of her personal tragedy, I find it appalling the lengths to which the article goes on about demonizing the woman.   The texts quoted in the piece are justly horrifying.  But the article’s insistence on naming only the woman involved, and none of the other people who had wronged young Naika Venant seems to me to be doing just what the mother claims, recasting her as the sole villain in this piece. 

If this article had been bought, and paid for, by the State of Florida’s DCF it couldn’t have been a better attempt to shift blame away from “the black hole of the system.”  The acceptance that foster care is going to involve rape, and neglect, and that “[Naika’s]  journey through foster care made her even more disrespectful and rebellious, too. Her behavior, however, was an expected result of the great trauma she endured,” is frankly horrifying.  This shouldn’t be seen as an opportunity to pile upon a woman who is herself deeply flawed, but a chance to shine a light upon the often desperate straits that the whole nation’s foster care system is facing – often enough because of inadequate funding and impossible caseloads, as has been highlighted by the investigations locally in the wake of the Brook Stagles case. 

It seems to me to be not merely unfair to send this article out nationally where it is falling into the public’s purview without any context, nor any direct follow-up to be expected, but a dangerous over-simplification – presenting the parent of a child who died while in care of the state’s as the sole named villain of the piece – when anyone who took the time to think about it would realize that the parents of all the children who find themselves in the foster care system are going to be deeply flawed individuals – and excusing failures of the system by blaming them for blatantly predictable failures is going to leave us with a system that isn’t bothering to ask what can it do better, and what resources does it need to meet the real-world demands placed upon it. 

Sincerely,

Michael D. Taub


cc. aveciana@MiamiHerald.com

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Power Disparity and Humor

I just saw the new McCafe ad today - it seems to be titled "Enlighten-Mint" and it's got me wondering just how in the hell it got greenlit.

For a look at the ad here's an iTV link.

The short synopsis for this is that a white asshole comes by to a black woman's desk, takes the McCafe drink from her desk, and walks off it it.  And then because for every fifth one the woman buys McDonalds will give her a free one she just accepts this, and goes about replacing her stolen drink.

This wouldn't have been funny if it were two people on an equal power level.  As it is, having a guy of any race taking something from a woman of any race is fucked up.  Especially if the only recourse the woman seems to feel she has available is to replace her stolen drink out of her own resources.  The power levels here are just so fucked up it's really infuriating to see.

As it is having a Caucasian of any gender taking something from an African American of any gender is fucked up.  Especially if the only recourse the African American seems to feel they have available is to replace their stolen drink out of their own resources. The power levels here are just so fucked up it's really infuriating to see.

Combine both those seemingly obvious fucked-up levels into one spectacular shit sandwich and I'm fucking pissed.  Pissed at McDonald's for running this ad. Pissed at the ad agency for thinking it up.  And pissed that we're in a place where no one who noticed how fucked up that ad might be felt safe speaking up against it.

This ad needs to be pulled.

And people who think this is funny, like say, OBL and the Attorney General of the United States, need to get a clue.

P.S.  I've been rather stuck lately with helping out with a family medical emergency.   I'll be posting more regularly, soon.

Monday, January 23, 2017

Alternative Facts

On Friday Our Beloved Leader took the oath of office and was sworn in as the 45th President.

By Sunday we were presented with an official government spokesperson providing demonstrably falsifiable statements as fact, and promising punishment for those outlets that do not go along with the revealed truth of Our Beloved Leader.  We've also been provided with the circus of official spokes people for the administration telling us that we're mean to call someone on telling falsehoods - that they were simply "Alternative Facts."  And that we shouldn't get all upset about these things.

There's been nothing that I've seen or heard, yet, about the promised official crack down on people daring to disagree with Our Beloved Leader, but I won't be surprised when that promise - like so many others that people said he'd never follow-through on - gets fulfilled.  It is what Our Beloved Leader has done to criticism in the past, and exactly how he was talking all through the campaign.  Bullies can change, but usually only when they've been pulled up short by having their bullying tactics blow up in their face.  That a plurality of the electorate was willing to vote for Our Beloved Leader is more than enough, in my opinion, to justify to Our Beloved Leader that his bullying is going to be accepted, tolerated and even embraced.

So expect to see journalists being charged with crimes for daring to question alternative facts when presented by the administration or Our Beloved Leader directly.

It's a shame that there's no recent example for a model where failing to fall in line with the official (If easily falsifyable) truth were treated as a crime, or worse.

Oh, wait - that was known as Правда.  

Pravda.