What’s that got to do with the price of ads in Russia?

I’ve been reading comments on articles about the Russian intelligence effort to influence the US election by social media subterfuge. I know this is a dumb idea. It directly goes against Matt Groening’s advice: “No matter how good the video on YouTube is, don’t read the comments, just don’t, because it will make you hate all humans.” But, against my better judgment, I’ve come across an argument a few times that I want to discuss. It goes something like this: “Clinton and Trump spent $81M dollars on Facebook ads, but we’re supposed to believe that Russia spending just $46K made an impact? Yeah right, libtards, har har har.” Fair enough. The candidates spent a butt-load more money than the Russians did, as they should have. The basis of the argument is real: Facebook’s lawyers came right out and testified those exact numbers to Congress. It would be naive to argue …

Continue reading

On Change

  The impact of a change can be drastically different, depending on what ends and what begins; when a magazine subscription runs out has less force over my daily life than when a new president takes office.  The last time a new presidency began, a magazine with his face on the cover was mysterious – who is he, without a name?  It was actually the cover of TIME, with a superimposed composite, a half-face of Bush and Gore each, which confounded me.  That was a change.  Many more sizable events have covered magazines since, and now the covers shift – to a new face, and another one who went unrecognized until relatively recently. So after eight years, what has changed America has changed me, and in converse, participations of mine have changed it (in miniscule).  Over the last 2,920 days I’ve spent a fair share in continuity, without any distortions …

Continue reading