Got a blog tip? Contact us

« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »

The Billboards of New York

Should you ever need a visual metaphor for commercialism's domination of culture, here's a good one. Wouter Deruytter has a show up at Wessel + O'Connor Gallery in DUMBO that collects his photos of gigantic billboards, taken over the past four years in Manhattan. The exhibit is a welcome reminder that an environment we so often take for granted makes for a pretty surreal landscape.

See also New York's Great Outdoors

(Via Gothamist)

Who will snark the snarkers?

It took a chance meeting with a regular human, but Gawker recently discovered that some blogs allow people to comment. Gawker thought about this and said Really? All of them?, and instituted an invitation-only comment system. And then invited only their friends.

If you had something to say, but are upset that as a mere prole you have no forum, worry no more. Through the wonder of RSS, friend-of-Stay Free Jim Hanas has created Gawker Talker, a headline aggregator that is comment-enabled for the common man.

This better get me a fucking invitation.

Worst military ad campaign ever?

You'd think the billions of dollars that the U.S. military spends on recruitment would allow it to anticipate how an ad campaign could be interpreted by the public. So I can't for the life of me figure out how this upcoming campaign made it out of focus group. The first thing that came to mind when I saw this image from one commercial was "It's your turn . . . to die."  I mean, they might as well put target lines around this woman's face!

Considering that the number one reason young people don't sign up for the military is to avoid getting killed, I give this campaign a week before it's shot down.

P.S. - This New York Times article is an interesting history of US military recruitment campaigns.

How did U-Haul that?

Spotted on Atlantic Avenue: A great discount for the people who escaped from the Gulf Coast to Brooklyn and are in dire straits because they have no place for all the extra furniture they took with them.

Taking the permission society seriously

Charles' post about sports broadcasts just reminded me of UnhappyBirthday.com, which encourages people to warn ASCAP and Time Warner every time they hear someone singing "Happy Birthday" in public. By overwhelming clearance departments with frivolous letters, the site's creators hope to make a statement about copyright-gone-amok.

That said, perhaps a more direct way to the same end is to borrow a page from that sports guy and encourage the public to write letters any time they anticipate singing "Happy Birthday" in the near future. So, seeing as my dad has birthday coming up, I figured I'd get the ball rolling:

ASCAP - New York
One Lincoln Plaza
New York, NY 10023
licensing@ascap.com

Dear ASCAP,

The copyright status of "Happy Birthday To You" and the law related to public performances of copyrighted works have recently been brought to my attention. I would therefore like to request permission in advance to sing "Happy Birthday" to my father at Frenchy's Original Cafe in Clearwater, Florida, on October 8, at approximately 1 pm.

My father will be turning 75 on this day and will probably be ordering the Seafood Gumbo and Fried Grouper. The rest of the party will include Charles Star, my brothers Peter and Paul, their spouses Karla and Cindee, and my mother Lynn. Five of us will be singing while my brothers merely mouth the words and smile. We expect there to be approximately 50 disinterested witnesses.

I realize this is short notice but we only recently settled the details. If there is a charge for the privilege of singing in this instance, please let me know. And, if there is, please specify whether or not the cost can be reduced by moving to another location.

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,
Carrie McLaren

Bear in mind that when Lawrence Lessig et al. tried to license "Happy Birthday" to celebrate the Free Culture movement, they waited months to get permission. So, um, I'm not holding our breath for a reply...

US War Photos

From journalist Richard Ehrlich:

BANGKOK, Thailand -- US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have posted on the Internet "several hundred" photographs of mutilated corpses from "the real war," in exchange for free online pornography...

"This is an uncensored view of the conflict going on in Iraq and Afghanistan," 27-year-old Christopher Wilson, owner of nowthatsfuckedup.com, said in an e-mail interview. "These pictures are taken directly from the cameras of the soldiers and uploaded to my site.

The website in question - nowthatsfuckedup.com - remains online, where nestled between "Amateur Wives and Girlfriends" and the "Foot Fetish Forum" are some of the most disturbing images of the war imaginable. All of them appear to have indeed come from soldiers' digital cameras, and come complete with bloodthirsty comments from the troops. It only took me a few clicks before I had to stop (too queezy), but you should read Ehrlich's full story (below the fold).

US WAR PHOTOS
by Richard S. Ehrlich            

   BANGKOK, Thailand -- US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have posted on Internet "several hundred" photographs of mutilated corpses from "the real war," in exchange for free online pornography, according to the owner of a Web site investigated by the Pentagon.
   "This is an uncensored view of the conflict going on in Iraq and Afghanistan," 27-year-old Christopher Wilson, owner of nowthatsfuckedup.com, said in an e-mail interview.
   "These pictures are taken directly from the cameras of the soldiers and uploaded to my site.
   "Gory photos are not the only ones accepted for free access, and the gory section is clearly labeled so those wishing not to see it aren't tricked into doing so," said Wilson, based in Lakeland, Florida.
   "If people don't want to see the REAL war, then they simply don't have to look. I receive an average of three death threats per day, and it makes no sense to me. No one is forcing them to see this stuff".
   Who photographed or posted the hundreds of pictures, who killed the unnamed people portrayed, and the photos' authenticity have not been publicly confirmed.
   "Obviously, it is an unacceptable practice," said Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Associated Press reported on Tuesday (Sept. 28).
   An Army spokesman, Col. Joseph Curtin, said the military's Criminal Investigation Division recently began investigating the matter, according to A.P.
   "I am probably one of the strongest supporters of free speech you will ever meet," Wilson said in the interview on Tuesday (Sept. 28) about his Web site, which is based in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
   Anyone can view the photos of torn body parts and disfigured cadavers for free in the site's "gory" section, labeled "open access."
   Set up in June 2004, the Web site originally offered only porn. Viewers gained 90 days' free access every time they sent in amateur nude photos or paid 10 U.S. dollars.
   But voyeuristic U.S. military personnel based in Iraq and Afghanistan complained it was difficult to upload amateur nudity from their war zones or send payments from Baghdad and Kabul. 
   So about 10 months ago, Wilson invited them to send in pictures from their battlefields in exchange for 90 days' free access to the entire site.
   Horrific, high-resolution, digital photos displaying close-ups of bullet-riddled, dismembered, burnt or blood-soaked corpses began appearing on his Web site.
   Comments from contributors and viewers mocking and insulting the dead, cheering U.S. victories over Muslim enemies, cursing supporters and opponents of the wars, and other freewheeling chatter appear alongside the photos.
   Pictures of shattered, mangled cadavers, often described as killed while fighting U.S. troops or from explosions, include body parts strewn on the desert, or dangling from twisted wreckage of vehicles.
   Some photos include men wearing tan camouflage uniforms who are gawking, pointing, chuckling and posing amid the grisly human carnage.
   Many of the uniformed men, however, do not display U.S. flag shoulder patches, unit markings, or name tags, though their faces are clearly identifiable.
   "If you are asking why people [who] are standing around in the images have no patches or name tags, all I will say is the soldiers are being selective on what they upload," Wilson said.
   "Apparently they can get in trouble for sending in these pics and they don't want to burn their fellow soldier or themselves by showing name patches etc.," Wilson said.
   "We have just over 300,000 user-submitted images and videos taken of users' wives and girlfriends. As far as gory photos, I would say several hundred."
   Weeding out suspected staged pictures is not impossible, but not fool-proof.
   "I know pretty much the stuff to look for in
these photos. That being said, I am human, and one may get by me that is a fake or a setup shot. If
it was brought to my attention, the person that
posted it would no longer be allowed to be a member of the site. They would be banned," Wilson said.
   "The only [gory] photos I want on the site are
from soldiers currently stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan."
   One contributor of bloodied cadaver photos identified himself as zalzan kavol, and titled his offerings, "Don't FUCK with the U.S. Army".
   He captioned his pictures:  "Some more insurgents sent to explain themselves to Allah. Killing is never a casual occurrence, but I would kill a thousand to save one American life.
   "I am not responsible for the enemy casualties shown here," zalzan kavol added.
   SegDawg, a viewer, replied:  "Don't see enough burns or mangling for rocket damage. Looks more like 50cal fire, maybe even 20mm gunship cannons. Very nasty."
   GringosDeMierda, however, warned: "So, have you learned what the Iraq people feel? I like American weapons too, but those aren't toys. You are like bastards laughing and thinking war is a Xbox game.
   "Osama is alive and you poor assholes won't find him. Just wait for another 9/11," GringosDeMierda concluded.
   Wilson, meanwhile, insisted he is not anti-war.
   "I fully supported attacking whoever was responsible for the attacks on us on 9-11-2001. Beyond that, I will just support our troops no matter where they are sent whether I agree with the reasons why they are there.
   "I'm not very political, I voted for Bush in the last election."
   Controversy over his right to free expression versus demands for censorship by critics of his Web site worry the American online publisher.
   "I carry a concealed weapon on me at all times.
I always have, even before any of these death threats.
   "I don't consider any of the threats viable, but I do carry, just in case."

Just sign the summons, kid

The RIAA was thwarted in its attempt to sue a technologically illiterate Michigan mother for allowing her daughter to "allegedly" download songs. So they asked the court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the child so they could sue the kid directly. The judge said no, but in future cases that will probably be the RIAA's first step, and the judge will say yes.

I just pictured Lars Ulrich walking out of the courtroom with a Hilary Duff bank as the young girl cries her eyes out.

(Via Broomeman)

Can't Get Enough Ribbon Parodies

In the spirit of Empty Sentiment and Support Our Pants, Twisty Faster of I Blame the Patriarchy has my favorite parody ribbon yet.

Interested in designing your own ribbon? Do what Twisty did and go to Support Our Ribbons.

(Thanks, Sara)

Quick links

The Return of Reefer Madness (subs. or ad viewing req.)
From Salon: "The U.S. drug czar's office is running ads implying that smoking marijuana can lead to insanity. But pushing dubious science is no way to persuade teenagers not to do drugs."

Do new technologies make us more intelligent?
Short answer: no. Here's a good, thoughtful summary of Neil Postman's argument that new technologies don't fundamentally alter our minds but, rather, shape how society defines intelligence. (Via Mindhacks)

Victoria's Secret
Mimi Swartz, The New Yorker
Interesting profile of one of Prada's top saleswoman, from 1998

Piracy twofer:

Just enough piracy
Argues that companies would make more money if they just accepted some privacy (like shoplifting) as a cost of doing business.

Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution

Unnecessary Permission Granted

Any rebroadcast, reproduction, retransmission or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is strictly prohibited.

Every sports fan has heard the phrase (or some variation) so many times that they probably no longer hear it. But, really, any reproduction? If Commissioner Selig gives the go-ahead, it's a trap? The local news can't show a clip when reporting on the game? What if they are reporting on the quality of the broadcast?

But has anyone ever taken them seriously? Merrit Bettineski of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer decided to take them seriously and got a hilariously deadpan answer.

(Via Can't Stop the Bleeding)