5 years, 4 months, countless days and nights.
Labels: Darkart Catharsis
5 years, 4 months, countless days and nights.
Labels: Darkart Catharsis
Burn Notice and Leverage should have a crossover.
This song's stuck in my head. From Epitaph One, Coda of the first season of Joss Whedon's Dollhouse.
Sam follows Mallory into the HALLWAY.
How ya doin'?
I'm sorry to be rude, but are you a moron?
In this particular area, yes.
The 18th President was Ulysses S. Grant, and the Roosevelt Room was named
There's like a six-foot painting on the wall of Teddy Roosevelt.
I should've put two and two together.
Look, the thing is, while there are really a great many things I can speak with
authority, I'm not good at talking about the White House.
You're the White House Deputy Communications Director and you're not good
at talking about the White House?
Ironic, isn't it?
I don't believe this. [starts to go back into the room, but Sam stops her]
Wait a minute. Wait. Please. Could you do me favor? Could you tell me which
one of those kids is Leo McGarry's daughter?
Well, if I could make eye contact with her, make her laugh, you know, just
see that she has a good time, it might go a long way toward making my life easier.
These children worked hard. All of them. And I'm not inclined at this moment
to make your life easier.
Ms. O'Brian, I understand your feelings, but please believe me when I tell
you that I'm a nice guy having a bad day. I just found out the Times is publishing
a poll that says a considerable portion of Americans feel that the White House
has lost energy and focus. A perception that's not likely to be altered by the
video footage of the President riding his bicycle into a tree. As we speak, the Coast
Guard are fishing Cubans out of the Atlantic Ocean while the Governor of Florida wants to
blockade the Port of Miami. A good friend of mine's about to get fired for
going on television and making sense, and it turns out I accidentally slept with
a prostitute last night. Now. Would you please, in the name of compassion, tell me which
one of those kids is my boss's daughter.
That would be me.
Leo's daughter's fourth grade class.
[pause] Well, this is bad on so many levels.
So. My pay got cut.
Send a heartbeat to
Sharp like an edge of a samurai sword
Well, more importantly, we can't be regulated. Self or otherwise. I mean, people can try, they certainly have before, but when countries like China are fighting a losing battle against the Internet, regulation just isn't in the cards.
These included a list of 10 things he 'must be thankful for' as well as remarks that he deserved what happened.
On Wednesday, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Lui Tuck Yew said he did not think the Internet community did enough to rebut some of these comments.
'It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation,' he told Parliament.
He made the remark with a tinge of disappointment as just a month ago, the Government had largely accepted a report by a government-appointed committee that said it was a good thing for the Internet community to exercise greater self-regulation.
The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, or Aims, issued its report last December.
Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui's remark was in his reply to Ms Penny Low, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, who asked for his views on netizens' response to the attack on Mr Seng. She noted that they had voted quite unjustly in an online poll.
The poll asked who deserved more sympathy: Mr Seng or his attacker Ong Kah Chua. The ex-cabby received 200 votes and Mr Seng, 56.
RADM Lui noted there were some comments sympathetic to Mr Seng. But the vast majority were "unhelpful, a significant number were unkind, a small number were downright outrageous."
"It was disappointing, and my impression is that I do not think the community itself have done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens," he added.
Seems like everywhere we turn, there are people who keep adding fuel to fires that should be put out. And I'm not just talking about "we the anonymous". In trying to mount a(n) (ill-advised) defence against the online masses (we are legion...), one has to resort to more than mere name-calling to actually make the grade.
THE online flaming brigade was certainly busy over the last two weeks. The target was senior civil servant Tan Yong Soon who wrote about his family holiday in Paris.
Then Pasir Ris-Punggol MP Charles Chong became a target when he was quoted as using the term 'lesser mortals' to describe Mr Tan's critics.
Online comments typically are hard-hitting and vulgar at times. Everyone, it seems, gets a big dose of courage when they wear a Harry Potter-style invisible cloak. Hiding behind fake names and untraceable e-mail addresses, it's easy to act like a warrior.
Online lynch mobs, of course, exist everywhere.
Last year, AFP reported that Internet thug attacks have become so nasty in the US that a new breed of reputation managers had emerged to help clients who have become victims of character assassination.
So, is the online mob a boon or bane?
Anonymity itself is not the enemy. In the case of corporate or government whistleblowers, anonymity encourages people to come forward with essential information that may reveal wrong doing .
The media, too, sometimes relies on anonymous sources when reporting sensitive stories. This usually happens when these sources agree to give up important information, which is otherwise unavailable, only if their names are not revealed due to fear of reprisal or embarrassment.
But a crucial point is that these anonymous sources are known to someone, like a reporter, and efforts are made to verify the information supplied.
But online critics are largely faceless. You can't tell if it's just a small group or an individual kicking up a storm, or if there is widespread discontent.
The value of online opinions rise considerably when people are prepared to show their faces and stand up for what they believe in.
If you won're not brave enough to put your name or face to strong views, others are unlikely to take them seriously.
Don't blame 'Big Brother' for not identifying yourself. See the punchy comments in the letters to newspapers. These readers have the guts to speak their minds openly.
Why can't more do the same in cyberspace? Blogs like yawningbread.org, wayangparty.com and theonlinecitizen.com have names to them. And Messrs Alex Au, Eugene Yeo and Choo Zheng Xi have earned themselves a growing number of readers.
As for the anonymous bunch, think of them as bacteria who feed on dead plants or animals. Online flamers feed on those who are 'dead' when public opinion turns against them because of some act or omission.
The flamers play a part in breaking down issues and dissipating pent-up anger. Their rants might lead others to disclose information that might expose hidden practices.
Just like good and bad bacteria
Like the bacteria that decompose tissue and nourish the soil, there is some good in having such online critics.
But there are also vicious online critics who can destroy reputations with baseless accusations.
They are like the bacteria that cause diseases in plants and animals, making them sick or even killing them. One bacterium caused the bubonic plague or the Black Death (so named because of the colour of the victim's face after death).
TB, anthrax, cholera, food poisoning, and pneumonia are all the work of ugly bacteria.
So, Mr Online Critic, please decide what kind of bacteria you want to be.
Keep your anonymity, if you lack the guts, but play a useful role - like the bacteria that eats oil ( a big help to clean up oil spills), and the bacteria used in sewage treatment plants to purify water.
Many bacteria are harmless when they are contained. For example, the bacteria, E. coli, live in the intestines of people, helping them digest food as well as producing vitamins.
But when E Coli escapes, it can contaminate water and food. The same can happen when the wild comments of faceless critics get into the mainstream.
They can wind up leaving nothing more than a pile of s***.