Tag: Facebook

#latepass

In the somewhat heated FB discussion, someone wrote #latepass.

On Christmas Eve, I’m reading the Facebook feed of someone I sorta know – she interviewed me by phone and e-mail for an article about education – and I come to this story You Don’t Have the Right to Remain Silent, a story about the Supreme Court’s “terrible—and dangerous—ruling” on the Fifth Amendment, a decision I hate. The presumption is that a “person of interest” needs to be versed in the nuances of the law. Here’s the ruling in Salinas v. Texas in which “you remain silent at your peril,” as the SCOTUS blog recaps this.

But it couldn’t have been decided on THAT Monday because the Supreme Court takes cases, hears them in the fall and winter, and generally gives their decisions in the spring, as an old poli sci major should know. And, besides, this case sounds terribly familiar. As it turns out, the case had been decided in June, NOT December, of 2013.

In the somewhat heated FB discussion, someone wrote #latepass. I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary. The second definition is:

etymology: the verbal form of the phrase get a late pass and the term late pass
———-
the act of informing one that a piece of information that he or she has presented as new and interesting is, in fact, old and already widely circulated
After Elliott posted about a Snopes article regarding the veracity of a picture of Ohio state sex offender Brian Peppers, Evan latepassed him by pointing out that a link to the article had already been posted, and the article discussed, months ago.

The first definition is similar except that it notes it as “late pass,” and is a noun.

So THAT’S what you call that phenomenon. The same day, I see this article: Bush’s Shrinking World: George W. Bush Cancels Europe Trip as Human Rights Lawyers Threaten Legal Action over Torture. I KNEW for certain that was an old story, from 2011, yet it was passed off as new info.

I’ve learned a new word, and am reminded to look at the DATE of cited info.

Picture swiped from Funnyjunk.com.

My first Facebook unfriend

I noted that I would be putting my Black History discussion up on this blog, NOT the Times Union newspaper blog. And someone asked me why. I said, “It’s just not a safe place.”

thumbs-down1I expected that the first time I would bother to unfriend someone on Facebook would be because of some great, substantial, important issue. And it wasn’t. It was Because Facebook.

I wrote, on Facebook:

FACEBOOK wrote to me:
Why am I not seeing a movie?

If you aren’t seeing A Look Back movie when you visit facebook.com/lookback, it may be because you have not shared very many things on Facebook. Depending on how long you’ve been on Facebook and how much you’ve shared, you’ll see a movie, a collection of photos or a thank you card. (I have pics.) I am SO NOT disappointed.

And someone, who I friended, because she is a friend of a friend, wrote:

“And who gives a…”

It occurred to me, at least in Facebook World, maybe some people might have cared, since LOTS of people I knew and weren’t aware, were posting their “movies”, none of which I have actually seen yet. I wanted to explain why I had not. So the response didn’t anger me but annoyed me enough to zap her. It was just negative energy I didn’t want. I thought the CORRECT response to something on FB that was not of interest to one is to ignore it; I do it ALL THE TIME.

Whereas some I DO know passed along this nonsense about Obama having the flag lowered for Whitney Houston, but not for Shirley Temple. (In fact, Republican governor Chris Christie had the flags in New Jersey lowered for Whitney.) Because I had a relationship with him, I asked about it, and he only forwarded it because he was showing how ridiculous it was.
***
I gave my Black History Month presentation at church, based on my February 13 blog post, and I noted that I would be putting it up on this blog, NOT the Times Union newspaper blog. And someone asked me why. I said, “It’s just not a safe place.”

I would undoubtedly, get more comments there than here, but a LOT more argumentative comments. I don’t mind discussion, but I loathe rants. And conversations about race almost inevitably turn into rants, usually having nothing to do with the original topic. Or, in the alternative, a twisting of one’s words. No thanks.
***
Speaking of rants: OK, not really a rant, but this musician I follow on Facebook wrote:

Why do people take such pleasure in being ahead of me? That car that just HAS to nudge past me as we approach the Thruway tollbooth, that guy whose pace quickens as we both approach the door to Chipotle…are their lives so devoid of triumph that this registers as an accomplishment? Are they banking those eight saved seconds for a rainy day? Or is this some hardwired, ancient simian instinct, a fear that the monkey in front of them will get the last banana?

I so relate. I’ve noticed this when I’m trying to leave the bus and someone’s trying to push past me to get off first, not trying to catch a connecting bus.

Note to self: do not talk about religion on Facebook

While I’m perfectly willing to debate religion, I find it tiresome when persons unknown to me make assertions about me that are untrue,

Twice late last month – once on Christmas eve – I had “conversations” about religion on Facebook. It’s often unsatisfying, because I am a believer in spite of uncertainty, and these folks are usually convinced of their rightness.

Oddly, both ended up involving the Biblical phrase “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s.” Without getting into the whole back-and-forth, one guy insisted that the verses, appearing in all three of the synoptic Gospels (all, except John), meant that we are directed to obey earthly authority, pay taxes, and the like.

My view is more in line that it suggests a separation of church and state, and that, further, the church should speak out when the state is going wrong, rather than embrace the state’s bad behavior (apartheid, slavery, exploitation, et al.) If you read the Wikipedia article on the phrase, you’ll see that there are several different interpretations of those verses, including both of these, a notion which I can accept.

The guy on Facebook cannot. While I’m perfectly willing to debate religion, I find it tiresome when persons unknown to me make assertions about me that are untrue, such as “You don’t know the Bible very well” or “You must not have read very much of the Bible.” Defensively, I sneered (if you can sneer online): “I have read the Bible at least three times all the way through,” noting the King James, New Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version.

Now he has ticked me off, and I assert something about the nonviolent direct action of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others being in the Jesus tradition. Bored with me, he went away.

He’s like those people I grew up with who were convinced at least two-thirds of the world is going to hell. This, BTW, was the mindset that drove me out of the church by the time I was twenty. As the article says:

…we WILL NOT judge another person’s soul. Jesus warned us not to do so. Paul warned the same thing. Jesus will be the judge. Period. It is not our job and we are not qualified.

I’ll give a big AMEN to THAT.

M is for Monsanto, modified foods and mischief

Monsanto uses “alarming legal and political tactics to maintain this monopoly [that] are the subject of worldwide concern, with baleful consequences for the world’s small-scale farmers.”

Monsanto, a large agricultural entity in the US, apparently needs protection, for the US Congress has passed, back in the spring of 2013, what has been dubbed the Monsanto Protection Act, which, critics claim, “effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future”. The bill has been recently reauthorized in the House, but not the Senate. (Meanwhile, while supporting corporate welfare, the House GOP axes food assistance for millions of Americans.)

So what’s the issue with GMOs? It is believed that GMOs are not safe. “They have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.”

Also, many scientists are calling for further study of a genetically modified bacteria which is used to create aspartame. Moreover, some fear that the use of the Monsanto product RoundUp will cause birth defects.

The desire among many, short of banning these products, is for GMOs to be labeled, but GMO manufacturers are even resistant to that unless they are voluntary. Worst-case scenario, once the FDA finalizes its GMO labeling guidance, the industry uses the FDA guidance to preempt state laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs. “Currently, states have the right to enact GMO labeling laws precisely because the FDA has not formally ruled on GMO labeling.”

It’s interesting that a whole lot of the world wants them banned. Activists in Chile are fighting Monsanto’s bid to patent food crops. Also, more than 1000 acres found to have been planted with genetically altered maize crops have been destroyed in Hungary. “The country has boldly banned GMO seed. Peru has passed a ban for at least ten years on GM foods, along with Italy, Greece, Spain, and Austria with their own bans, as well as many other countries.” Here is a list of countries & regions with GE food/crop bans.

According to The World According to Monsanto, which charts “documentary filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin’s three-year journey across four continents to uncover the disturbing practices of multinational agribusiness corporation Monsanto, it uses “alarming legal and political tactics to maintain this monopoly [that] are the subject of worldwide concern, with baleful consequences for the world’s small-scale farmers.” This parody piece from The Daily Show illuminates how litigious Monsanto is when farmers try NOT to use their patented seeds which need to be purchased every year, contrary to the agricultural practice of reusing seeds that go back millennia. And the US Supreme Court has supported Monsanto in 2013.

In the Philippines, GMO corn farmers are losing their land and going into debt, thanks to bait-and-switch pricing tactics.

There will a March Against Monsanto event on Saturday, October 12 around the world. The information is now on Facebook, after previously having been removed.

Some other links:
14-year-old girl stands up to Monsanto shill
The list of Monsanto-owned companies you may have seen on the Internet is probably wrong, such as this one, though it may be a fair reflection of companies using Monsanto products and techniques. Conversely, this list I believe to be correct.
Five GMO myths busted.
Leigh Erin Connealy, M.D. of Newport Natural Health – GMOs: Are Your Cupboards Filled with Frankenfoods?
Occupy Monsanto website.


ABC Wednesday – Round 13

False welfare reform; other phony info

The only other “correction of the Internet” I tend to do publicly – as opposed to private fixes of typos – involves finding some myth that has easily corrected via Snopes.

I saw this message about drug testing welfare recipients on Facebook. It irritated me, and I wrote: “This is an amazing waste of money. 1) Most jobs DON’T require it. 2) In places, such as Florida, it’s cost more to do the testing than the savings gained by denying benefits.

The only reason I’m even bothering to bring this up here- besides as a response to my low blogging output of late – is that the person who posted was a friend, not a Facebook “friend”, but a real-life friend. I had thought to dispute the post via Instant Messaging, but once the post started getting LIKEs, it seemed that I needed to answer via the same medium. (Rather like how I feel a front-page newspaper error should be corrected in the same location.)

The only other “correction of the Internet” I tend to do publicly – as opposed to private fixes of typos – involves finding some myth that has easily corrected via Snopes. So I was mildly disappointed to discover that sometimes Snopes is not the authoritative source either. “They concocted a section called ‘The Repository of Lost Legends’ (‘TROLL’), consisting of nine stories made up by the Snopes duo, five of which they flagged as ‘True.’ Here is the ‘pear flag’ story, and there is also one about how Mississippi removed fractions and decimals from the school curriculum, and three other stories which are just believable enough – but are fake.” They do warn against false authority, even themselves.

Ramblin' with Roger
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial