I finally watched RoboCop last night. I know, I know, I should have seen it long ago, but the film was so 80′s in its gratuitousness violence and depictions of cruelty, I don’t think I could have handled the movie at a younger age. (My empathy levels when I am not sober are off the charts…and I am anyone.)
If it wasn’t for the occasional punchy joke, experimental depictions of masculinity and futuristic metaphors, I would have abandoned the film this time too. But I didn’t, and when it ended, I sat in the dark imagining the satisfaction growing inside what remained of the man-machine Murphy. The movie made me laugh, made me cry, and before the credits rolled, made me nod with a sense of peace.
Before I watched the movie, I tweeted my intention to do so and a Twitter robot programmed to tweet one quote from the film responded to me immediately. (As if I ever doubted this movie was an important part of our cultural lexicon!)
I hadn’t started the film yet so I hadn’t viewed that line, but from the robotic actions, I knew this line was important and a joke I was supposed to laugh at. You could say I was culturally obligated, if not socially programmed, to laugh at line now. (I admit, the line would have been way funnier if that bot didn’t tell me of it beforehand, but I can’t disparage the bot’s existence either, it being a cultural artifact at this point.)
Later I would come to appreciate the Twitter robot even more when characters within the movie used that line – which comes from a fake commercial – as a pop culture reference. Read the rest of this entry »
There is one notable narrative in The Mckenzie Ivey Web Show (which had only 16 episodes): the loss of her Russian hamster JubJub.
Appearing in “MY HAMSTER PIMP 333″ on September 4, 2010 , Jubjub is promptly lost on September 19. kenzieivey once again chair dances to Souja Boy’s “Pretty Boy Swag” in “jubjub where are you,” as if to lure the hamster out.
And then almost like an afterthought, the 10ish-year-old girl uploads another video with the same title, this time explaining her predicament.
Jubjub is not to be found, however. kenzieivey lets the people of YouTube know, in “the hamsters gone,” uploaded on October 17th. Jubjub has been missing for more than a month.
kenzieivey lost interest in The Mckenzie Ivey Web Show shortly thereafter, and joined an elite list of tween YouTubers I wouldn’t mind having as my younger sibling.
I know it’s really trendy and all to hate Reddit these days, but old habits die hard. (And my mate is a diehard.) You can find almost everything on Reddit – it being “the face of the Internet” - and that including subreddits like Makeup Addiction, about (you guessed it!) makeup and the ladies addicted to it.
I know very few things about applying and wearing makeup (mascara, undereye concealer, lotion is me), but a makeup painted mask seems like the easy route to me. The ladies that use /r/MakeupAddiction gave me some great DIY ideas for this Wednesday night. Many of them claim to be amateurs, too, which I find inspiring.
By the lovely kaitlyngrace:
found on this YouTube video, “P-P-P-Paul Ryan (Music Video)
So I did this photoshoot thing for ReadWriteWeb’s new redesign, done to their specs:
From there I got a new Facebook and Twitter picture:
And then things got wacky, because this is a photoshoot, and people get wacky on photoshoots duh.
I started channeling “Overly Attached Girlfriend.” Read the rest of this entry »
Let’s Create a Factory Ranking System for Fashion Designers So I Can Finally Buy Pretty Clothes, PleasePosted: September 10, 2012
How do you know you have made it?
I am here to tell you that I’ve made it. My standards are pretty low though, so don’t get jealous: As a working writer, I can finally afford clothes that are not Target, outlet or thrift store prices. This has been cause for some mental celebration.
Check it, I am now one of those ladies looking to invest in her wardrobe with a few choice pieces. How bourgeoisie of me, I know, at a time of high unemployment and the Occupy movement. I already feel guilty, made worse as I survey the market of fancy designers before me and wonder where their products are made, and if this has anything to do with why the product costs so much.
I am a consumer, a despised thing in some philosophies, but at least I desire very much to be a knowledgeable consumer. (A knowledgeable consumer is better than a vapid consumer, is how I reason with my reactionary self.)
Mock me all you want (this is me still wrestling with my reactionary demons), but one of the reasons why I despise Apple products is because of how they are made. Now that I have money to invest, I want to make sure my purchase isn’t harming anyone.
Which brings me to the fantastic designer Tory Burch. No I really mean that compliment; I can see myself wearing everything on her site.
Except, the price isn’t right given the lack of information. The price more than “kind of” rubs me the wrong way.
I want to get a neutral sweater, and Burch’s clothing is beautiful so I want her to be a part of my budding personal collection.
The two sweaters in the running are both 20% angora, 70% wool and 10% nylon; the tri-mix means the color won’t fade, the wool will keep me warm during Chicago winters and the angora ensures a supersoftness my friends and boyfriend will insist on petting. A mighty fine sweater… and it will cost me either $275 or $495.
The more expensive one, with its cute and irrelevant fox emblem, is enticing me so hard while I write this. I can dress the sweater down with jeans, or up with pearls and a fitted red skirt. I can’t make the purchase though, because the sweater as a whole is not as unique as the cheaper one. I can’t even click the buy button for the $275 one, because neither product description lists where the sweater was made.
(Why is the sweater $495 when a gold-plated bracelet is $195? This high price annoys me more when I learn something made of real gold – and not just “gold plate” – is $130. But the fashion designer’s high price prerogative is something for another post, I suppose. )
I can talk myself into paying $275 for a sweater made in the United States, or if the sweater was made in an overseas factory paying families fair wages – which include overtime- in normal work conditions with more than one toilet. I can’t do it for anything less.
You know what would be really helpful?
If there was a global human rights council that went around rating the factories, and designers were required by international law to display this ranking prominently somewhere on their site and by the checkout registers in their stores.
Can you help a sister out and make this a reality pretty please? Because until then, I’ve set up these barriers to buying your product. In the event I overcome my sense of morality and ethics and buy your product without knowing where or how it was made, I really don’t want to feel guilty about it later.
Googling revealed Burch utilizes factories in China, and just this June her purses were found to have “nearly 200 times more lead than the limit permitted by the legal agreement with the Center for Environmental Health.”
I’d also like to not be poisoned, but I realize I can’t have my cake and eat it too.
I kept tweeting, and RTing tweets about this election year’s RNC, and then thought instead of annoying my followers who aren’t into politics, why don’t I just make a Storify? Enjoy!
The WSJ had erroneously reported Google is pledging an additional $200 million in its premium content channel’s marketing budget. This caused a “rais[ing of] eyebrows” as it made the pledged total marketing budget $400 million. That’s a shit ton of money, especially when you consider Google only gave 150 million to the content creators. A 150 million pie being split with 100 channels! ”Channels,” which equate to established YouTube celebrities AND people like Felicia Day, Deepak Chopra and Kevin Smith, AND their entire film and production crews. (Tiny pie slices, ’cause we’re all on diets, right?)
Established YouTubers have complained about this injustice, this discrepancy in funding which they claim proves Google doesn’t take what they do seriously – (how can you compete with TV if you don’t invest properly in the content, Google!?) – and this additional $200 million figure (and slight) was cause for more complaint.
According to this executive, the funding his company received from Google allows it to spend about $1,000 a minute on each video production made for its channel.
“But $1,000 a finished minute is not enough,” he explained. “You need to get to around $2,100. At $1,000 a minute, you’re pulling favors every time you do a shoot. If you’re just pulling a location permit in L.A., it’s going to cost you $900.”
Long story short, Google told TNW they are not investing $400 million. The WSJ was confusing that time in May when Google pledged $200 towards marketing its premium content. Oops!!
Shortly after that WSJ article was posted, RWW founder Richard MacManus sends me a link to it on skype:
[7/31/2012 3:57:39 PM] Richard MacManus: Have you seen this Fruzsina? http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10000872396390444840104577549632241258356-lMyQjAxMTAyMDMwMDAzODA3Wj.html
[7/31/2012 3:58:14 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: no!
[7/31/2012 3:58:32 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: the wall street journal always publishes news that is years old, pretending it’s fresh
[7/31/2012 3:59:00 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: google already pledged 200 mil in advertising
[7/31/2012 4:04:03 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: I don’t find anything informative about this article…
[7/31/2012 4:04:15 PM] fruzsina.eordogh: it has a nice chart
So, you know that part in the skype chat where I said the WSJ likes to publish news that is “years old, pretending it’s fresh?” I was referring to this time in February 2012 when the Wall Street Journal ran an article about Ray William Johnson being YouTube’s first millionaire. (RWJ became YouTube’s first millionaire in April 2011.)
Please note the 49 comments on that RWJ article, many of which are from YouTubers pointing out various factual inaccuracies in the article. RWJ even ranted about how horrible the article was in an episode of his show (a very rare move)… and it looks like the WSJ NEVER BOTHERED to correct all of those factual inaccuracies, nor did they apologize.
This post has been brought to you by this tumblr post.