Some thoughts on the whale shark trend and why other weird things trend too.

All day the story of the whale shark has been trending, creeping its way up to the #1 spot on Google Trends, exciting the imagination of aimless internet junkies and regular people around the world. If you’re like me, you frequently visit Google Trends because you think these links are the ones you ought to be clicking on. You think, maybe I’ll get inspired.

On a practical level, this certainly makes sense. If the general consensus in the digital world is that so-and-so links are worth reading, it doesn’t hurt anybody to take a look.

On the other hand, there’s something rather queer about the phenomenon of trends. Something of the ineffable lingers in how a story ignites in some nameless sector of the digital sphere and then spreads uncontrollably through cyberspace.

I’m not an expert (of anything), but it seems that no one has quite figured out how one thing, as opposed to some other thing, ends up trending in the first place. Like Jeremy Lin. He’s a great story and potentially an unexpected real talent. And if nothing else, there’s something undeniably magical about his last three performances for the Knicks. But if we take a step back from the spectacle, Jeremy Lin has played only three NBA games of note in his entire life and suddenly, inexplicably—dare I say, undeservedly?—he’s a worldwide, internet sensation. He’s almost getting the kind of attention Dirk got in the finals! Everybody has their theory, but no one will ever no exactly how and why things got so linsane.

And so it is with the whale shark. The whale shark is 40 feet long and weighs 7 tons; at least five cranes were used to pull its body out of the water in Karachi yesterday afternoon. The entire internet has experienced some version of this story. But to what avail?

Here’s a philosophical problem I grapple with occasionally (maybe it will provide fruitful discussion for you and your stoned friends): Where, actually, is cyberspace located? Does it, in fact, occupy any real space?

I’m not so sure. The space that exists through the window of your desktop is totally illusionistic. When you swipe your hand behind the screen you do not grab galaxies.  And yet when you look at your screen, layered windows give way to text,  video, and eventually a background, giving the illusion of dimension when there’s actually no material there. True, your computer has a literal window, but that window only opens up to metaphorical space.

Within this space trends are born. Ultimately they are unified by an idea (i.e. “whale shark”) but that idea exists in an endless number of parts throughout the web (this is one of those parts). What holds this all together is our willingness to participate and indulge in the idea of whale shark. But what makes whale shark so thrilling?

Maybe it’s that our attraction to trends is dualistic. I visit Google Trends to digest the essential information everybody else is consuming, but simultaneously I want to be awed by weird, fascinating, and unexplainable things that are happening in the world. My guess is that whale shark gained so much popularity because people saw it and were like, “Holy fuck! Why is whale shark trending? What development in the world of whale shake made it such relevant trending material today?” And that question became the driving force behind the explosion of the trend.

Whale shark is so powerful because it represents what’s at the essence of a trending topic: the essential information everybody is supposed to know tied up with the unexplainable and strange that nobody will ever fully know. I watch the giant fish being lugged out of the ocean while the many people laugh and cheer, and for a moment feel totally, stupidly satisfied.

Follow Kyle @KyleKouri

Prop 8. which took away the right of same-sex couples to marry, is overturned in California, because it is unjust. Also because the phrase ‘domestic partnership’ is too dang wordy for the judges.

A judge ruled today that Prop 8 – the California referendum that took away the right of same-sex coupes to enter into the sacred bonds of marriage – was illegal.

The judge’s ruling was somewhat narrow, according to the Washington Post. Rather than stating that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, the ruling stated instead that California couldn’t, by referendum, overturn a right that it had given those couples in the state, which is kind of a hogwash of lexical mumbo jumbo. In short, it it’s not quite the ruling that many wanted, but it’s a ruling that pushes the progressive cause forward and gives the number of states in which same-sex marriage is legal a happy little uptick.

The judges in the ruling, who appear to be lovers of literature and pop culture, also gave some great quotes and managed, according to Reuters, to mention Elvis, Shakespeare, and Groucho Marx. In the ruling, they wrote, for instance, “Groucho Marx’s one-liner, ‘Marriage is a wonderful institution … but who wants to live in an institution?’ would lack its punch if the word ‘marriage’ were replaced with the alternative phrase,” like domestic partnership.

Well, um, sure. Losing part of America’s comedic heritage is perhaps even worse than, you know, rampant homophobia.

The court also said, “We emphasize the extraordinary significance of the official designation of ‘marriage,’ ” the decision says. “That designation is important because ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not.”

I agree, of course. As an English major, I’m just glad to see that rulings can in part be based on the fact that creating “domestic partnerships” not only relegates same-sex couples to secondary citizen status, but also relegates same-sex couples to a horribly-named and over-syllabled institution. If I’d known how literary and linguistic judges were, I might have gone into law just to take an axe to all sorts of phrases that I have a linguistic distaste for. Is the judicial branch where English majors go to stick it to the man and de-jargon English, bringing back the eloquent verbiage of Shakespeare, and, um, Groucho Marx? Is there a secret English-language version of the L’Academie francaise among distraught English majors-turned-judges?

[Photo from Wikimedia Commons]

In her resignation letter, obtained by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Handel “openly acknowledges” her role in the decision to cut funding (a role that was initially denied and downplayed by Komen brass) as well as her either incredibly nearsighted or astoundingly stupid motivation of “reducing controversy” and “delivering even greater community impact” by cutting ties with the organization. Certainly whatever fantasies she had of the way such an ill-thought out, highly politicized decision would be greeted by the public were, ultimately, gross miscalculations at best, highly troubling delusions at worst.

You can read Handel’s entire letter here:

It might be too late to salvage Komen’s reputation, but surely Handel, in the vein of Sarah Palin, will have a luminous, Fox-sponsored career ahead of her, where she can continue to parlay her “non-political” statements into dollar signs and Colbert-worthy sound bites. More updates on the situation as they come.

MORE FROM MICHELLE KOUFOPOULOS

Komen Foundation Realizes Attempt to Screw Planned Parenthood Horribly Backfired, Reinstates Funding

Not Much of a Cure: Susan G. Komen Foundation Flips Off Planned Parenthood, Poor Women Everywhere

Why Defunding Planned Parenthood Will Bankrupt America

But seriously.

In the midst of all the political chaos and bitching, I think what we really need right now is to step back and take a quick scan of what the race for presidency is becoming. From the right, we have a handful of batshit crazy being offered (for the most part), and from the left we have…Obama who has done very little throughout his entire term.

Go ahead, bring on the hateful, enraged comments.

But hear me out. Want to know what we really need? Even more than an economically savvy president? Even more than one who has extensive foreign policy knowledge? We need someone who won’t tolerate bullshit. We need Roseanne Barr.

I know, it’s perfect, right?

Thankfully, Barr announced last night that she will seek the Green Party’s nomination for the 2012 presidential election. Just when I thought there was no hope for this country, she came through for me.

“Vote for me, I’ll fix this shit!” is her campaign slogan as displayed on Twitter (and has been retweeted by 234 people so far.)

Yes.

See, that’s someone I can believe in, right there. Someone who will candidly declare that they will fix this shit. We have a lot of shit that needs fixing, guys.

Roseanne does have some competition, although really they don’t stand a chance, let’s be honest. Three other candidates have thrown in their bids. But Barr’s platform is such a winning one that I don’t see how they aren’t pulling out right now.

Let’s look further into her agenda, which was announced in a 2010 blog post, shall we?

STEP ONE: MAKE WAR ILLEGAL, AND LEGALIZE HEMP
STEP TWO: CHANGE THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF GOVERNMENT
STEP THREE: (MOST IMPORTANT) I WILL OUTLAW BULLSHIT

Rock on, Roseanne.

Roseanne further explains, in all her feminist glory, “Without Bullshit, the Twin Towers of Patriarchy, Warmongering-Piracy and Woman Hating-Pedophilia will collapse under their own weight.”

Her opinion of our men in charge so far?

Sadly the current leaders of the world – 99% of them male, are selfish idiots, moral cowards, greedy incompetents and sexual degenerates who cannot keep their penises in their pants at all, ever, for any reason….I declare Patriarchal Politics obsolete, and I call forth Divine Matriarchy, the only thing that can save this sad planet at this late and dying date.

More from Samantha Galasso

Penguin Poops on Kentucky Senate

Arsonist Sets Himself on Fire Instead of Pub

I want to imagine he looked something like this.

Insert backfire joke/pun here.

A 33-year-old English man, Michael Morgan, was sentenced to thirty months in prison for “reckless arson” on December 16, 2011. Reckless is one term for it, embarrassingly massive failure is another when you consider the fact that his original intent was to set a popular pub in Chester Crown Court on fire but he ironically torched himself instead.

Bravo.

Security footage shows the man pulling up on a bike—a good sign already, that’s usually what hardened criminals use when they want to make a quick getaway—next to the building. After fiddling around with something in his pocket, I’m going to assume a lighter, he bends over to the side of the building. Then there is a mildly large initial explosion, which engulfed both him and his big-boy bike. He peddled away with a sad little flame tagging along on the back of his shirt, leaving a small bonfire in his wake.

Morgan admitted to the attack, which occurred on August 1^st. The footage has only just now reached the public eye, having been issued by the fire service as part of their ongoing arson reduction campaign. Essentially, the video proves that potential arsonists should resist the urge to set buildings on fire, if only to save themselves.

Cheshire Fire Service’s arson reduction manager, Colin Heyes, stated that this video “clearly shows how dangerous this sort of reckless behavior can be. It was fortunate that there was nobody in the property at the time of the fire…. Arson costs the taxpayers millions and more importantly, it costs people their lives.”

And their bikes.

You can view the 48 seconds of sheer human brilliance at its finest here.

More Faster Reads

Daniel Radcliffe Loves Your Pubes

Penguin Poops on Kentucky Senate

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

Bravo to everyone who spoke out against the ill-advised and clearly political initial move by the Komen Foundation. This shows that rapid vocal (and monetary!) action against dangerous and politically motivated decisions that adversely affect the right to safe and preventative health care really does have an effect. Let’s not breathe too easily though—as this election year begins we’re sure to see similar fiascoes unfold over the coming months.

Planned Parenthood recently launched Women Are Watching, their 2012 Action Fund campaign to “to educate women across the country about the unprecedented attacks on women’s health and where candidates stand on pivotal health care issues, empower women to hold anti-women’s health candidates of either party accountable, and work to elect pro-women’s health candidates up and down the ballot.”

The underlying message? Women are watching, taking action—and most importantly, they’ll be voting accordingly. You can learn more about the campaign and the issues they’ll be focusing on here.

Image via drawn by lian

MORE FROM MICHELLE KOUFOPOULOS:

Not Much of A Cure: Susan G. Komen Foundation Flips off Planned Parenthood, Poor Women Everywhere

Why Defunding Planned Parenthood Will Bankrupt America

National Writing Day: #WhyIWrite

Though many theorized anti-abortion bullying largely contributed to the decision, external pressure may not be solely to blame. Karen Handel (a Sarah Palin endorsee for governor of Georgia in 2010, if that doesn’t tell you everything) is now the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s Senior Vice President for Public Policy. It should come as no surprise that she’s staunchly anti-choice and vowed to defund Planned Parenthood if ever given a chance. She notes in her campaign documents that she believes in the “sanctity and inherent dignity of human life”—just not for all human life, apparently. There’s nothing that gets the “pro-life community” salivating more than denying poor women healthcare.

This isn’t the first time Komen has found themselves in the spotlight—in December, LifeWay Christian Resources, a Southern Baptist organization, recalled pink bibles sold at Walmart because a dollar from every “Here’s Hope Breast Cancer Bible” sold went towards Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which in turn had a relationship with Planned Parenthood.

“Though we have assurances that Komen’s funds are used only for breast cancer screening and awareness, it is not in keeping with LifeWay’s core values to have even an indirect relationship with Planned Parenthood,” Thomas Ranier, the president of Life Way, said at the time.

“Komen has acknowledged that some funds have gone to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, saying its Planned Parenthood funding paid for 139,000 breast exams and about 5,000 mammograms, detecting 177 cases of cancer in the past five years, according to the charity’s website.”

Planned Parenthood actually received $680,000 in donations from Komen last year and $580,000 the year before. A private donor in Texas has offered up $250,000 to offset some of the losses and Planned Parenthood is now rapidly trying to fundraise for the rest.  What an affront to the memory of Susan Komen and her legacy, which was to “save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality care for all and energizing science to find the cures.”

As one commenter wrote on the Komen Facebook page:

“SHAME ON YOU!! Susan G. Koman would be ashamed of your decision. Giving in to conservative, anti-choice pressure deprives women of the health care they need, and often get ONLY at Planned Parenthood. It is a slap in the face to women and decision that succeeds only in depriving low-income women of cancer screenings that could save their lives — it is a move that flies in the face of Koman’s mission.

I, hereby, pledge to read all labels and not support SGK and, instead, to make an extra donation to Planned Parenthood this year. I hope others will join me in pledging not to give money to SGK causes until SGK changes their stance.”

Go here to protest and make a donation to Planned Parenthood or another breast cancer charity instead.

Some recommendations from GOOD are: Breast Cancer Action, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Women’s Community Cancer Project, African American Breast Cancer Alliance, Black Women’s Health Imperative, Our Bodies Ourselves, the National Women’s Health Network, or your local women’s health clinic.

Speak out and take action. Let Komen know that their actions are shameful at best, cruel at worst, and we won’t let political fear mongering stand in the way of women’s access to life-saving health care.

Image from: ihavebreastcancerblog

MORE FROM MICHELLE KOUFOPOULOS

National Writing Day: #WhyIWrite

House to America: Yup, Let Women Die!

Why Defunding Planned Parenthood Will Bankrupt America

The PAC, however, is not acting very PAC-like (PAC-ish? PACky?). Though it has managed to raise over $1 million since its inception last summer, 90 percent of donations came from individuals giving under $250. And the only corporations to give to Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow were not exactly household names – one was The Sticky Fingers Band, a Rolling Stones tribute band, and the other was BestDamnTutoring.com, both of which are probably less concerned with the financial security of the PAC and more interested in mentions in articles such as the one you are reading.

Karl Rove’s mega uber super PAC, American Crossroads, on the other hand, raised $51 million in 2011. It received donations more in the hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars. Though when looking through official documents on the FEC’s website, it’s more interesting to see that a man named Thomas Scott, who lives on down in Brentwood, TN, likes to donate to American Crossroads $10 to $15 dollars at a time, over and over, and so far has donated $235. People are curious. Oh, and that Weaver’s Popcorn, or Pop Weaver, you’re eating? They gave about $200,000 to American Crossroads.

Colbert had some choice words for the Federal Elections Commission: ”Yeah! How you like me now, F.E.C? I’m rolling seven digits deep! I got 99 problems but a non-connected independent-expenditure only committee ain’t one!”

In a sea of super PAC-funded political attack ads and millions of dollars streaming in from the 0.1 percenters, the rise of a populist super PAC, even a satirical one, gives way to a little flame of hope. Even if that hope is quickly extinguished as a flood of conservative, social welfare-hatin’ and LGBT-antagonizin’ money cuts off that sad little flame’s oxygen supply. That’s when you laugh, so you don’t cry, I think. Or maybe it’s the other way around.

[Photo from Wikimedia Commons]

Researchers may have found a  surprising treatment for depression…ketamine.

NPR reports that the drug is being used for depression in an experiment at the NeuroPsychiatric Center next to Ben Taub hospital.

Ketamine is most commonly known as an anesthetic, a horse and cat tranquilizer, and for its recreational use in rave culture (usually combined with other drugs). Its (rather stupid, by most people’s estimation) recreational use  may be an impediment to it being used as an antidepressant in the future (since anything that is used recreationally has its share of knee-jerk detractors, who claim its medical use will inevitably lead to increased abuse — think marijuana). It also won’t help that one of the stupidest pieces of shit to ever live was recently arrested for ketamine possession.

Researchers are excited because ketamine treats depression in a unique way, and seems to help patients who are resistant to other treatments. Unlike traditional antidepressants (which boost serotonin levels and gradually stimulate the birth of new neurons), ketamine activates the glutamate system in the brain and, according to Yale researcher Ron Duman, rapidly increases the communication among existing neurons by creating new neural connections. While traditional antidepressants take weeks or even months to treat depression, ketamine is fast-acting.

The fact that it is fast acting may also mean it can be used to treat episodes of suicidal depression in depressed patients — in which case traditional antidepressants, and pretty much any other treatment for that matter, are completely ineffective. That is, patients on traditional SSRI medication who still have bouts of severe, suicidal depression may be able to treat these episodes with ketamine.

Obviously, there is much research yet to be done to determine whether ketamine can be used to treat depression, either in place of, or in addition to, existing medication. There are plenty of detractors, some of whom cite ketamine as an addictive substance. (This may be true in recreational doses, but doses used in studies to treat depression are much smaller.) Others point to potential side effects and liver damage, although traditional antidepressants aren’t exactly good for you either. For many though, including those suffering from depression and resistant to traditional treatment, as well as those prone to suicidal episodes, the studies offer a glimmer of hope.

More Faster News:

FDA Panel That Declared Yaz-like Birth Control Safe May Care More About Big Pharma Than Young Women

Penguin Poops on Kentucky Senate