Sister Wives (Not the TV Show)

A friend of ours, more a friend of my significant other, has a certain personality that invites contention wherever she may be. Nothing is safe from her scorn, ridicule, or excoriating sermons. She never seems to tire of having something to complain about, someone to be angry with, or a cause to support, especially if it is controversial. And what is worse than this, is that she often fishes for arguments, dropping little lures of layered meaning into conversation just to snag the unsuspecting. Most of our circle of friends are aware of this habit, and generally avoid it. Sometimes this may not be enough, and she will explode on some topic, usually mundane or of no interest to her, and verbally destroy a conversation. She exhibits what I see as a childish denial of others to have a differing opinion: you either agree with her, or you're wrong. Usually to the tune of something like, "NO, you f*cking idiot."

No matter how much we try to support her causes, it is never quite enough. She has a stable of high-horses that include: circumcision (wrong), public breast-feeding (right), body-image (it's easy to say fat is beautiful when you're less than ninety pounds), and her favorite--the prominence of rape culture. So I have recently been tempted to fall victim to her preying, as I have taken issue with a new term she has been using. Set-up: she has a group of mother friends, some form of support-group or whatever. She occasionally references these women, with some phrase like "from my mommie-activist group." Admittedly long, it is, however, accurate. But her new term of endearment, as can be guessed, is: "sister wives." I understand the implication of such a term, the sisterhood aspect of motherhood, and take no issue with that.

But--and it's a big but--there is a very specific connotation connected to the term "sister wives" that directly contradict her other prominent beliefs. "Sister wives" is the term women living within polygynous relationships use to refer to each other. Polygamy, as it exists in our Utah culture, has a long and storied history of benefiting the male gender, supporting a patriarchal hierarchy that promotes and sustains rape culture, the very thing she despises with so much vehemency. Invoking a term used under such communal knowledge is bound to cause questions, which is exactly what she wants. But her use of this term offends even me, as she seems completely unopposed to trivializing a term that is thick with so much pain and humiliation for women. This is a culture that considers a teenager being raped by a much older, often senior, man to be marriage. Women have no choice in these kinds of polygamous marriages, and have few rights in the household, if any.

I must not be the only person that feels this way, disgusted by her use of terminology that directly contradicts her own beliefs, in what seems an intentional manner. I don't even know what else to say.

Ga-ga

If I had been asked six months ago how I felt about Lady Gaga, I would have probably have used an expletive or two, and ranted a little about pop music and such. But recently, the world seems to be going ga-ga over Gaga. She made it onto Time mags list of 100 Most Influential People in the World list, leading the 'artists' section with a blurb written by Cyndi Lauper. South Park paid homage to her in their particular style by having Eric Cartman sing Pokerface during an episode. A few videos have made the Youtube rounds like the a capella version of Bad Romance and some of our soldiers in Afghanistan doing their own version of Telephone. Glad I know that my tax dollars are being spent wisely, keep up the good work, troops. I also just stumbled onto this teenager who does an impressive cover of Paparazzi on piano.
So now, I find myself intrigued by the Lady. Her lyrics are at times bizarre and charged with dirty sexuality. She writes most of them herself, which is quite a departure from most pop music stars, who sublet this tedious (and ultimately forgettable) task to firms in Nashville that crank them out like the sugar-pills they are. Gaga has actually made something possibly memorable, and despite my general abhorring for anything pop, find myself not changing the station when Pokerface comes on. Is that because of the purported meaning of the song? Possibly.

However, I'm much more entertained by Lily Allen, whose lyrics leave nothing to the imagination as does Gaga, but isn't nearly as bizarre, and can be downright cute, despite her notoriously bad behavior. Youtube her, but beware, some songs are NSFW.

Respect the President . . . unless you don't agree with him!

I have been watching the rapidly deteriorating amount of respect paid to our president over the past 16 months, and am constantly reminded of all the huffing and puffing I heard during Bush's term from the conservative side about respecting the president. Despite all the things Bush did or may have done that would warrant a loss of respect for him, he received a lot of unnecessary scorn and disrespect. At his worst he was nothing but an ignorant tool of the republican party and his big business connections, but he wasn't anything compared to Hitler; and for that matter, neither is our current president. When your argument comes down to comparing a person to one of the most vile and hated figures in recent history, you've lost your argument. Why not compare to Pol Pot or Stalin, who killed more the 23 million, or Mao Ze-Dong, a brutal leader that may have killed over 78 million. This is all due to our Americanized, Euro-centric view of the world, but that is a subject for another post.
I just found it startling how fast the 'respect for the office' argument went right out the window as soon as Obama was sworn in. Within days he was hailed with news of his failed presidency, much to his surprise, I'm sure. Among the other horrible things said about him, such classics as: Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Racist, Anti-American and Unpatriotic. Sounds like someone who wouldn't want to President of this country, despite the conflicting nature of the monikers.
As president, Barack should expect a little bullying from his opponents, he's never going to get everyone to agree with or like him. But this has just gotten completely out of hand, and is being led by the media giants MSNBC and FNC. Pundits like Hannity claim that there is this 'Obama-mania Media' out there somewhere that lauds every bowel movement he makes, but I have yet to see it. His support is still broad, but generally quite, especially in comparison to the anti-Obama fanatics out there screaming on street corners and crying on their very own talk shows.
The hatred, fear and ignorance is becoming palpable, but is still no excuse for the massive disrespect paid to the elected leader of this country. You can hate him all you want, but he is still your president. Try writing a letter sharing your concerns rather than posting hateful, jackass comments on threads everywhere on the Internet. Even former president Bush's wife, Laura Bush agrees with respecting the president, no matter who it is.
His speech to school children last year was an excellent marker for how deep the hatred and disrespect for our president has spread. Parents wanted schools to boycott the televised message, fearing he might infect our kids with such socialist sentiments as 'staying in school' and working hard. What a bastard. This is a great message to send to children, isn't it? Never trust anything the president says. Isn't it a big conservative ideal to teach children respect for your parents, elders and leaders? It definitely should be.

Why Technology is Awesome

Since I was a kid, I've been fascinated with science and technology, a love that has continued unabated to this day. In fact, it has increased since abandoning the murky logic of religion for the hard, discernible facts of science. Although astronomy and computer technology are my more favorite subjects, like black holes and controlling machines with your mind, almost anything mildly interesting is worth a read for me. This is how I stumbled upon an article on PopSci that relates research done by Austrian scientists that could help create computers that compute data FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. That's right, you read my all-caps correctly. Using the simple theory of quantum entanglement (something that even unnerved Einstein), you could theoretically run a computer that did calculations nearly instantly, tens of trillions of them! Previously un-calculatable equations would become possible. Processor speed would no longer be an issue for any device. And if we ever figure out how to transmit data in a similar fashion, omg the possibilities! Okay, I'm about to have a geekgasm, so I'll calm down. But, I also found an article on Nokia patenting a self-charging cell-phone. Why would anyone ever hate science? Look at all the cool shit we get out of it. Next time you think about looking down on science or claiming it's 'boring,' look at that cell-phone in your pocket that couldn't have existed five or ten years ago. And that HDTV. And the computer ten-thousand times faster than the first one. Technology is awesome.

Just in case you weren't sure . . .

Fox News has made a move that perfectly shows how 'Fair and Balanced' they are, in signing Sarah Palin on as a commentator, according to the Washington Post. Her job will also encompass writing a column on Fox News' web site. The only thing I'm surprised at is that it took this long for her to join their spurious ranks. She isn't the first out-of-work Republican to be snatched up by Fox, Karl Rove has been appearing regularly for some time. Seth Ackerman of FAIR wrote a lengthy article on Fox News' overabundance of conservative and Republican pundits and commentators way back in 2001. Dropping the vaguely Liberal Alan Colmes from Hannity's show so he could fly solo was just another sign back in 2008. Their media bias (that thing Liberals do Hannity rants and froths about on a regular basis on both his television show and radio show) is so overwhelmingly apparent, it's hard to understand anyone who believes otherwise has a firm grasp on reality. If they want to be conservatively biases, fine. Just admit to it, and stop calling yourself fair and balanced. Republicans outnumber Democrats or Liberals on your network by far,and most stories slant to the right in some way. Sarah Palin offers no balance to an already unbalanced network, I'm surprised she can stand up how unbalanced she seems. I'm curious how soon it will be before her imaginary 'death panels' come up again. Want balance? Give Al Gore a show. No, that's a bad idea. But seriously, stop pandering to your already secure fan base. No one is shocked or caught of guard by this. Maybe Clinton would work for you, if you can keep him away from your aides and interns.

Facebook Activism

I joined Facebook last year at the promptings of a certain individual, and, much like Myspace, have regretted it ever since. I like the ability to connect with friends and family around the world, catch up with old compadres and chat with cousins you don't get to see. However, some of these people have little else to do but sit on their computer and play Farmville all day, constantly poking their friends and making various useless comments. Fine. This I can deal with, but there is one thing that I get which I have found exceedingly aggravating, and that is the 'cause' function of this site. You can join any various hollow cause with a few mouse clicks, and then 'invite' all your friends and relatives, assuring that they know you support this particular empty effort. I have not joined a single one of these, despite many friendly attempts by people in my circle. No, I will not join to Keep God in Schools, the last place religion needs to have any influence. Sorry. I don't care if it's to Stop the Senseless Slaughter of Endangered Field-mice by Feral Cats, I'm not going to join an effort that you yourself will do nothing more about than to mention 'how very sad' this is, or how important, knowing that in days-no-hours, you will give it little or no more thought. Please stop this, and I will stop deleting your requests, and I might even try to take you more seriously as a person. Regards, an annoyed Internet user.

Lyrics Schmerics

I have a bizarre and morbid fascination with bad lyrics, which may be why I catch myself listening to Pokerface, or the occasional country song when I happen to be in the wrong car at the wrong time. There are several reasons why I may not like a particular band or style of music, whether it's because I find it boring, generic, tedious, too 'pop music', or the band has such a low sense of musical integrity *cough* 3 Doors Down *cough* that I just can't listen to them. But every once in a while, I hear something that I have to stop and think about for a minute, and I become obsessed with how utterly and magnificently terrible it is.

Some classic gems amidst the bag o' jewels that was 70-80's hair metal scene are lines like:
"I'm hot, sticky sweet, from my head to my feet" Def Leppard - Pour Some Sugar On Me and
"Only time will tell, if we stand the test of time" Van Halen - Why Can't This Be Love

In that same vein of horrid, and more recently in the music scene, I have found a new goldmine of sentences gone awry; Canadia's own Nickelback. They have two kinds of songs; sad/sappy songs and dirty/sexy/stripper songs. I actually heard a local DJ refer to Nickelback as 'stripper music,' a humorous and more-than-apt term, in my opinion. Some of their worst include Animals a,d Something in Your Mouth, but their newest entry in lyrical torture, Shakin' Hands. the chorus goes something like this:
"Well she ain't no Cinderalla when she gettin' undressed
'cause she rocks it like the naughty wicked witch of the west"

When I first heard this, I was hoping it was a joke, because I didn't think anyone would take music like this seriously. Is it worse that Chad Kroeger looks like Jesus? I think so. The Antichrist of good music. If you happen to come upon this song on the radio, do yourself a favor and turn it off. You should thank me.

(Government) News Corporation

I've talked before about how terrible our newspaper industry is doing, in the face of the immediate availability of information on the Internet and the convenience of 24/7 cable news channels. You had to know that someone in the government would find a way to step in and help out. Reuters reports that the idea of a bailout of sorts is cooking within the creaky, dirty walls of the Congress.
The last thing the government should step in and help out is the media. Mass media has already skewed the idea of freedom of speech. However, Henry Waxman, a Dem Chairman on the House Energy and Commerce Committee thinks differently. Complaining of a failing business model, he warns that, "Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues." Despite how terrible the media is right now, letting the government step in and take the reins is a terrible, aside from concerns over censorship. With a bailout comes restrictions, like in the case of the government bailout of the auto industry; salary caps, concessions, streamlining, trimming the corporate fat, basically. Restrictions on how they functioned and what they could and couldn't do also applied. An auto company that should have been left to implode is one thing, a struggling but evolving thing such as media is another. I don't fear so much what would happen to the massive, lumbering conglomerates that haven't been able to keep up with the changing nature of media, but how the smaller, moderate news outlets and such would be affected. Once politics collides head on with free speech and the free press, there's no telling what could happen, particularly when there are large sums of money involved. Case in point, FOX News has pretty much become the speaking arm of the Republican party, as 'fair and balanced' as they would like to appear. Thomas Paine must be spinning in his grave.

Don't censor us, censor that!

The GOP keeps creating proof that they will oppose anything the Democrats believe in or support, including Freedom of Speech, particularly via the Internets. Obama has shown support for net neutrality and recently spoke to the Chinese leader about limiting their notorious Internet censorship, nicknamed the Great Firewall. From the very beginning of his presidency, even before he was sworn in, groups like the MPAA have tried to pressure Obama and the FCC to censor the Internet and the RIAA would love to turn it into a virtual police state where nothing is free or easily accessible.
Showing their love and consideration for big business ahead of the actual citizens of this country, Republicans in congress introduced legislation months ago to appease the big ISP's to stymie efforts by the FCC to enforce neutrality and ban restricting or slowing certain types of information sent over the Internet. More recently, AT&T got its shorts in a wad over comments the Obama admin has made concerning any regulations on Internet access. Basically, Republicans are taking sides with companies and media groups over the rights of its own constituents, since they must not pad their pockets as well as the corporations do.
Censoring or filtering the Internet in any way is another step toward limiting our right to freedom of speech and the press, as is done in countries like China, Iran and North Korea, you know, Communist and dictatorship countries. The ones we get along with so well. I guess it really doesn't surprise me much, since conservatives are more likely to ask books to be banned or burned since they don't agree with their set of values, the only ones that matter.

Kiss My Bias

I was recently called out on exposing my personal biases in a recent post, and rightfully so. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm biased. I'm young, intelligent, poor, and angry. I grew up with a passed-down religion, but drifted away in my late teens and finally broke free a few years ago. It hasn't been enough time to heal. I live in a Conservatively dominated religious area, a near opposite of what I may be considered. Not showing a bias is nearly impossible, especially if you have a short temper and an attitude. But, really, am I the only one guilty?
As far as I am considered, everyone is biased in some way or another. Media outlets are nearly all heavily biased, despite claims to being "fair and balanced." If the content was completely two sided and politically correct, no one would watch it, because it would come off as boring. Journalists try to remain unbiased, as do documentary filmmakers. And how well do they do in theaters? It takes biased gentlemen like Micheal Moore to really make money. Too bad he's a douchebag, using tricky editing and playing off people's emotions. But it just proves my point. Everyone is biased, whether it is against certain skin colors, intelligence levels, chosen automotive brands, weight, religion or whatever you find most displeasing in a person.
Does this excuse me or anyone else from at least trying to maintain some semblance of fairness when they write, speak or make inappropriate hand gestures? Probably not, but I can still try, and at least admit when I'm being biased. It is a personal problem, and can be overcome. I have really tried, honestly, to overcome the antipathy I grew up with toward Mexicans, from growing up in Southern California. Biases get passed on, picked up, or just develop, due to one bad experience or years of them.
Right now, the biases I haven't yet deconstructed are toward the fervently religious, conservatives, Republicans and bad drivers. They just make me so angry. And don't get me started on blacks and the Jews.

Not Music to Their Ears

The idea of ownership in our country was brought over by the Europeans, and has been the framework for 90% of our legal system. We took the land from the natives who had no concept of property, and created an entire institution, capitalism, around this idea. It evolved into consumerism, wanting more stuff, having what others have, getting something better than the neighbors. And in the Information Age, this want has turned digital. Now you could buy anything, anywhere in the world, instantly, and have it shipped to your home within weeks. But something happened. People began to realize that they didn't have to pay for things, things they wanted, particularly things they weren't willing--or able--to pay for.
Media and information began to be traded freely, swapping tracks, photos and articles over the vast, blossoming network of copper wires that has connected the world together. Napster unified those seeking free music, pictures and videos until it was shut down and turned into a pay service. Many others have come and gone in the years since, and currently torrents are more popular than P2P programs like Kazaa and Limewire. What people, particularly the younger generation, are willing to pay for has changed; and we just don't want to pay for music anymore.
For decades we were raped by the recording industry, convinced we need to pay upwards of $20 for a new album. One with one or two goods songs, and the rest, crap. Sometimes we just wanted that one song, or a few, or to try the album out and see if we like it before we spend the money. So now we download it, burn it, copy it, mp3 it, delete it and forget it. We don't have a stack of cd's worth $200 that we never listen to anymore. We find new bands and discover old favorites online and for free, a majority of the time.
But there are hazards to this. The RIAA, major labels and some big bands don't like it. Especially if you share what you have with others. Your mother was wrong. Do not share anything; use it once, destroy it and get the next thing. If you want to get it again, pay for it again and never borrow. If you do, you could end up being charged $1.92 mil for sharing.
Radio has been a thorn in the side of corporate music's side for years, letting just anyone listen to the music they send them for a nominal fee. Bastards. If I hear that 3oh!3 song one more time, I might just sue them myself.
I'm fairly certain that what this industry is doing to itself is cutting the leg off to spite the foot. They spend millions prosecuting offenders for, often, just a handful of songs. Thus alienated, many fans buy less music than before. In my case, I purchase maybe 2-3 albums a year, which was about 10 or more a decade ago. I just don't want to pay for music anymore. I still am willing to pay to watch bands play live, which is how they actually get money, since royalties are a mere pittance compared to the cash raked in by the labels for their music. I want my money to go to the musicians who deserve it, not the suits who sit around giant tables deciding what's going to be 'hot' this fall. I would rather pay for new amps and better guitars, not yachts and Armani suits.

Twitter Me This . . .

If you're reading this, chances are you have heard of Twitter, a social networking/messaging site that has the media and celebrities alike ga-ga over their own self-importance. When it began a mere three years ago, I doubt the founders could have imaging its current popularity. But how long will it last? The web-o-sphere has been particularly unkind to social-networking trends, even ones that run for years. Myspace, once an exponentially growing behemoth of the internets, has been slowing down for months now. Facebook (the current trend) has surpassed Myspace in popularity. Things are not going well for the site, who just laid off two-thirds of their international employees, a week after laying off a third of their American staff. Facebook, a marginally more simple site, is still growing, but its popularity will fade and the active users will decline, just like its predecessors. Anyone remember LiveJournal? It's still around. Friendster? Bebo? Tagged is another up-and-comer that will grow and recede like HotorNot. The popularity curve of these kinds of sites isn't as harsh as your average Internet meme, but applies nonetheless. Twitter is the next 'big one' to soon retreat into the depths of our bookmarks folder, somewhere between Myspace and that dramatic prairie dog video link.
Every time I read a story or watch a news clip that mentions Twitter (which, gratefully, isn't very often), I sigh. Loudly and drawn out. When TV news anchors are wowed by something, or using it to draw more attention to themselves or their channel, it reeks of FAD. I'm not postulating that Twitter will go the way of Lolcats and Chuck Norris jokes, but it will not remain important. The only reason I see that it is as popular as it is right now is due to mainstream America's declining attention span. No one has time to read more than a 180 character message anymore, at least not people who aren't preoccupied with the lives of celebrities and those dull enough to condense their thoughts into 180 characters. A well thought-out and interesting article or blog post does not interest these people. They would rather browse a list of tweet's from twits and your occasional twat. It's one-way text messaging that you can send to everyone who might want to read it. We all know how intellectual those conversations are.
Eventually,Twitter will fade into a memory, the nascent idea will mature and grow old surprisingly quick. The one thing I do see having some staying power is the blog, or the weblog, for those who actually know where the alien-species-like name came from. Blogging has been growing steadily for years, and I believe will continue running strong. Those who mock it as a poor-man's form of journalism may actually not be too far off. I don't see the blag as the new face of journalism, but as a new journalism, a form of storytelling for the masses, by the masses. Anyone who has the time to actually sit still and read something like this without wondering what's new on Perez Hilton or TMZ, anyway.

Musical Integrity - 1, WalMart - 0

One of my long-time favorite bands, Green Day, just raised themselves up a little higher in the pantheon of musical gods for me. Their new album, 21st Century Breakdown, will not be sold at WalMart. The company wanted them to edit (censor) their album so they could sell an edited (censored) version of the album, and GD said no. Billie Joe continued by saying. "We've never done it before. You feel like you're in 1953 or something." So kudos to the boys, I'm glad their sticking up for what they believe in while so many other bands cave and edit their albums just to appease the mega-corp. Are the few extra sales really worth the slow loss of your integrity and soul? It would seem so. What WalMart is doing is dumbing down music, making it safe and palatable for everyone, so your teenagers and tweens can have those new, top-ten albums without the bad words and messages and reality and all that terrible stuff.
When I was younger, dumber, and more naive about the world, I ended up with a few edited albums. I always felt something was missing, and got annoyed by the skips and reversed words in the middle of songs. It totally changed the mood of a song, pulling you out of a vibe and wrecking the continuity. I couldn't have said that then, but I still knew something was wrong. I turned completely against edited music within a few short years, got rid of my tainted albums, and started appreciating music. I still have a hard time listening to the radio because many songs, particularly good ones, end up edited. I cringe every time I hear an edited Pink Floyd or Alice in Chains song. But radio is a whole other problem.
The problem here isn't necessarily rooted in WalMart, it's the customers. WalMart is just trying to cover their asses while getting the maximum sales possible. I'm sure a team of lawyers concocted this to end the angry letters and phone calls because poor, innocent little Jimmy ended up with a CD that had a few swears on it. It's not right, it's just business.

Don't cry for me, I'm already wood pulp.

I am a professed news-junkie. the first thing I do in the morning is get online and browse Drudge, Digg, Consumerist and other various sources of news. If I see a newspaper lying around I flip through it, looking for anything that might catch my interest. I read (real) magazines fairly often, flipping through Time or Pop Sci in the office when I have nothing else to do, always looking for a story that I can become engaged in. I'll watch TV news if nothing else is on, and I'll even watch FOX News if I absolutely have to, just to get the skewed information. But in the current economy, something is happening at a more precipitous rate than ever before.
Each time I see a story of a failing newspaper, I should feel slightly saddened, but I don't. When a daily paper closes its doors for the last time, there is a sense of impending finality coming down the road of history; soon to be gone are the days when people went down to the corner to pick up a paper, but I'm not distressed.
Some might believe that journalism is dying, as papers disappear, but it isn't. It's changing. It has to, or it will end up where the entertainment industry is going, as they cling onto the last shreds of their antiquated ideas until the 24th hour. Just about every major newspaper has gone online, and some have even stopped printing in favor of their websites. Blogging has exploded in recent years, showing that everyone has a story to tell, no matter how mediocre it is. There is a massive thirst for information, and you can satiate it indefinitely on the Internet. I've learned a lot about the world from bits of information flowing through copper wires over the years, and my desire for news has grown exponentially.
Journalism has been evolving for decades, since the idea of 'New Journalism' came around in the apex of the beat generation. There's always another way to tell a story, and now, there's another where. Information is available so much faster online, stories can break even faster than on television, and the information can be accessed by anyone, almost anywhere (at least in countries with free access to information). Even if the newspapers all die off and there's not a New York Times left anywhere to drape over a lone hobo, journalists will always be out there, getting the story, relaying information, speaking to the people. And we'll save a few more trees out of it as well.

F*ck you, sir.

A few weeks ago, I read this blurb on Consumerist about a Texas woman who was arrested last year, way back in August, for saying the f-word within the hearing range of a fire marshal, who apparently have the right to arrest people. I think someones briefs are a little too tight, particularly since the conversation in which the expletive was uttered was with another adult, and not directed at anyone in any nature. He handcuffed her after a brief altercation and took her out to his car to write her a citation. This was while people were trying to prepare for a tropical storm landing. The charges were dropped last month after a judge basically decided that where was no case.
Believe it or not, your right to free speech is being attacked constantly, from small incidents like this, to the thousands of book censorship requests every year, to seemingly arbitrary and cautious things like self-censorship. I've always had a problem with censorship, long before I ever read Fahrenheit 451. If left unchallenged, censorship leads to state-controlled media much like in Iran, North Korea, China and others. People love to have the ability to control others, it's one of the sinister sides of our nature.
Controlling how we act leads to controlling how we speak, which eventually leads to controlling how we think. Still haven't read 1984? Maybe you should. Censorship is all part of control, and it is rarely for purely altruistic reasons. They say you shouldn't read this because it's 'offensive,' but what they really mean is that it has ideas they don't like. You shouldn't say this word or that one, because it's offensive, but it's merely that they find it offensive.
I don't hear atheists walking around telling Christians that their beliefs are offensive (at least, not very often), but Christians don't mind one bit tell everyone else they don't agree with how they feel. Why? Because they're the majority, and feel they can. And they can say whatever they want, but I also have the right to disagree with them, just as loudly and obdurately as they do with me. And the next time someone gives be a dirty look or 'excuses me' because they are eavesdropping onto my conversation and overheard a swear, I will let them know exactly how I feel. "Hey, mind your your goddamn business."

Why I Hate the News Media

Here is an example of why I have a strong distaste for 'journalism,' particularly FOX's brand. The unnecessary quotations are a dead giveaway that something is going to be amiss in this story. 'World's Deadliest Spider' sure is eye catching, but as you read the article the horror-inducing moniker downgrades into 'one of the most lethal,' and further into 'harmless to humans.' Apparently the spider was most likely misidentified, and furthermore it was destroyed so no one knows for sure. Basically, this is what they call a non-story. A frightening headline leads into an article that produced no sound conclusion, merely letting you wonder, and possibly implying that buying organic foods from those liberal, health-food stores is dangerous.
This is extremely shoddy journalism, amounting to crying wolf in order to get a few extra hits on your website. FOX is guilty of this ad infinitum, employing fear-mongering personalities like Hannity and O'Rielly, and journalists as well, it would appear. I have no respect for anyone that cannot write an article that holds up under its own merits. The only interesting thing coming out of this article was a comment at the very end about this, as it turns out, not-so-lethal spider, may lead to treatment for erectile dysfunction. Go figure.

Embarrassed has A's in it?!?

My suspicions have been rewarded, as a recent study of Americans ability to spell (compared to Britons) shows just how far down the linguistic hill we have slid. And this study comprised adults, mind you, not our Internet savvy and grammar- and punctuation-challenged youth. Our ability to spell and comprehend our our language is declining, and this observation is not counting the lazy attitude taken toward it when instant messaging. I will often intentionally skip capitalization and omit commas and periods, I'll even go as far as shorting my words in the popular method kids use these days, but I can write out a sentence with the proper structure anytime I want to. Alas, I cannot say the same for some of the people I know, although I love them dearly.
I see this as part of a much larger problem. As a society, we are becoming lazier when it comes to our own language, preferring to skip or change letters to make something seem more hip, in some obscure way. Extreme has become x-treme!, and anything with an S that can be changed to a Z is done so with frightening regularity. This bothers me not just as an English major, but also as a speaker and reader of this, our bastardized language. We are taking one of the more complex languages on the planet and deconstructing it to fit our lifestyle. Far too often I have heard (or said) 'sup,' instead of 'Hey, how are you doing?' or even 'What is up?' the line from whence this completely used-up contraction came from.
The examples are many, and tiresome to repeat here. My basic grievance with this problem is that I fear it is a sign of our communal declining intelligence. People just don't seem to care that they cannot spell properly. These are the same people who read very little, or not at all. We should be proud to have control over such a difficult language, something I consider the bastard son of German and Latin, with Greek thrown in for good measure. We use words from many different languages on a regular basis, and most don't know or haven't considered where them came from. Anyone who straps on a pair of Nike's should know of the fleet-footed god it descended from. How many people think that guacamole is a Spanish word? Most, I'm sure, do not know of it's native South American origin. There is just no interest in our tongue.
I foresee a day when our words have become either phonetic or completely fallen out of common usage, if this trend keeps up. The loss of handwriting I can live with, but the complete ruination of our language? That is just too much. Research has shown that we lose a distinct language every two weeks on this planet, that's twenty-five a year. Instead of tossing our distinct language into the pit of decay, we should be refining it, making American English something to be proud of, not scoffed at by the British or ruined by advertising agencies. I really don't know where it will go from here, this trashing of the only language most of us grew up with. I really don't see the sense in demanding new-comers to this country to speak our language when we can hardly handle it ourselves. Just put down the remote for a moment, or back away from the keyboard, and pick up a book, or dust off the dictionary and learn a new word or two. You'll be amazed at what you can learn from your own language.

The Way of the Dodo

Being the English major that I am, this article easily caught my eye. It would seem more interesting to a communications major or someone who studies calligraphy, orthography, typography or some other area to do with writing or the manual creation of letters, but as I like to write, I feel I have some stake in this possible dilemma.
This article by Anne Trubek points to the slow disappearance of handwriting as an applicable and necessary skill. I remember back in grade school when they vainly tried to teach us good penmanship skills, focusing more the structure of your lettering than the importance of your words. This had little effect on me, as I took my poor handwriting and wrote anyway, creating barely legible but readable stories as early as the first grade. I can still write in cursive if I need to, but see no real use for it when I can Ctrl+i and write in italics right here, if I want to emphasize something. So I can definitely see her point in proposing that these skills are no longer needed. But, as an art, should handwriting go the way of typewriters, papyrus scrolls and clay tablets?
Comics and graphic novels often rely heavily on text for meaning, (good) graffiti is all about textual representation, and kanji tattoos are still quite popular. The art of writing isn't quite dead, but maybe handwriting may be. Even newspapers are succumbing to the information age as everything goes online. It's much easier to search for information on Google than by digging through reams of microfiche (does anyone really do that anymore?). Nearly everyone in my generation is digital. I don't know a person below the age of fifty that doesn't have a blog, a web page, a myspace/facebook page or an email account.
Yet, when I do my real, intensive, meaningful writing, it's sitting in bed at three am with a notebook, scribbling phrases and general accusations with a pencil, making notes in the margins and editing with my eraser. I do feel some nostalgia for putting a pencil or pen to paper rather than typing on a cold, uncaring machine, making my eyes go blurry from staring at a monitor. But maybe I'm just the last of a dying breed of writer. Maybe everyone in twenty years will pour their souls out onto cyberspace, hammering away at keyboards in the middle of the night on word processors wondering if voice-recognition software and brain-analyzing scans that record their dreams will take the place of the keyboard.
So what of handwriting? Will our children or grandchildren learn to type instead of writing out the alphabet? Will they send their homework to a teacher through a wireless tablet instead of turning in sheets of scribbled answers? I surely don't know the answers, but we may see. As the anachronism of the daily paper slowly fades into history, maybe writing will follow it, or maybe not. Who knows?

*Note: I was going to use a classic Gary Larson Far Side comic on my page, but his lawyers have been tracking down every unauthorized usage of his comics and forcing capitulation or else.*