With all of the information that is being presented and the easy access to it, people have to pick and choose what they will listen to for news. Unfortunately, many people choose to listen to what reaffirms their beliefs rather than unbiased news outlets. This led to a startling phenomenon of "reliable news media sources" being flooded with untrue news from the Internet. These rumors gain credibility when they are substansiated by other outlets, but the story remains untrue.
Elizabeth Kolbert's article "The Things That People Say" detailed an occurrence of this during Barack Obama's presidential campaign. "Birthers" insisted that President Obama was not a citizen of the United States because he didn't have a birth certificate. Even when evidence was presented that he was a citizen, people continued to ignore that news in favor of news that discredited him because they disagreed with his policies. The Internet did not help matters because anyone could find articles to support any theory that they had because the Internet news sources aren't held to that same journalistic standards as legitimate journalists.
Another example of this is the "death panels" that Sarah Palin alleged were going to be covered under Barack Obama's health care plan (noticing a theme here...?). Even after all of the news media have rescinded their initial reports about the fake story, some people still bring them up as a reason not to support the health care bill. In this current state of biased media it's not a question of truthfulness, it's a question of what verifies MY point?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Trust Me, It's Not Just Google That's Making Us Stupid
In this age of instant information at your fingertips, how crazy is it that we don't actually even take the time to read the information? It's not like we don't have the time. I mean, it arrives in an instant. We didn't wait four months or have to travel to get it. Why can't we just focus and take our time now that we have the means to do so?
This modern era is making us try to cram all of our activities into as little time as possible. The idea is, the less time we use, the more time we'll have. But for what? And while we're talking about information in the digital age, just the question that the title of the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" speaks to a large and widespread problem that we have today. Why are search engines so prominent in our everyday life? Who played that guy who died on Season Two of the Wire? Google it. Go to IMDB. Whatever you do, don't think. We will soon live in an age where everyone's knowledge is based off of what they see on the Internet.
But let's not make the Internet the sole scapegoat for a growing lack of brain power in society. Films do this to books. How many people have read "The Shawshank Redemption"? No, Morgan Freeman is not one of the characters. We take shortcuts and try to find the quickest way to receive information until it becomes a question of why we're even looking for the information in the first place. By the time we get it, we have already moved onto looking for the next bit, which is ridiculous because we received 100 million Google results in .02 seconds.
Did you read this post or did you skim it? I'll say this again, it's not just Google that's making us stupid : it's us too.
This modern era is making us try to cram all of our activities into as little time as possible. The idea is, the less time we use, the more time we'll have. But for what? And while we're talking about information in the digital age, just the question that the title of the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" speaks to a large and widespread problem that we have today. Why are search engines so prominent in our everyday life? Who played that guy who died on Season Two of the Wire? Google it. Go to IMDB. Whatever you do, don't think. We will soon live in an age where everyone's knowledge is based off of what they see on the Internet.
But let's not make the Internet the sole scapegoat for a growing lack of brain power in society. Films do this to books. How many people have read "The Shawshank Redemption"? No, Morgan Freeman is not one of the characters. We take shortcuts and try to find the quickest way to receive information until it becomes a question of why we're even looking for the information in the first place. By the time we get it, we have already moved onto looking for the next bit, which is ridiculous because we received 100 million Google results in .02 seconds.
Did you read this post or did you skim it? I'll say this again, it's not just Google that's making us stupid : it's us too.
Traveling So Far To Be In The Same Place Quicker
There's so much talk of the progress that has been made in technology over the last decade, but in reality the progress we have made technologically is only further enhancing previous technologies and making them more convenient.
The argument that technology is evolutionary and not revolutionary is becoming more and more apparent in modern times. We have not seen new media create any different content, we have only been able to access old content through a new medium. New media absorbs the old media's messages and regurgitates it back in a more user friendly manner.
Television has lost its cache because of DVR, Tivo and Hulu. Television requires a schedule to sit down and watch something. The new media has eliminated the time pressure associated with watching TV and has replaced it with convenient segments of shows that can be fit into any schedule, no matter how hectic.
Film is being replaced by Netflix and bit torrents that beat going to the movies in both speed and convenience. These mediums are almost instant, cheap and are simple to use. The issue of time is less prominent here than in television because for many people, going to the movies is a date or an outing. However, when it comes to buying DVDs, films are losing money from consumers who just decide to watch it on Netflix or download the torrent.
It's becoming a question of how to monetize these new mediums to insure that the corporations creating the product get paid. It's hard to charge for the Internet, especially with pirated versions of almost everything floating around, but something tells me they will find a way to do it.
The argument that technology is evolutionary and not revolutionary is becoming more and more apparent in modern times. We have not seen new media create any different content, we have only been able to access old content through a new medium. New media absorbs the old media's messages and regurgitates it back in a more user friendly manner.
Television has lost its cache because of DVR, Tivo and Hulu. Television requires a schedule to sit down and watch something. The new media has eliminated the time pressure associated with watching TV and has replaced it with convenient segments of shows that can be fit into any schedule, no matter how hectic.
Film is being replaced by Netflix and bit torrents that beat going to the movies in both speed and convenience. These mediums are almost instant, cheap and are simple to use. The issue of time is less prominent here than in television because for many people, going to the movies is a date or an outing. However, when it comes to buying DVDs, films are losing money from consumers who just decide to watch it on Netflix or download the torrent.
It's becoming a question of how to monetize these new mediums to insure that the corporations creating the product get paid. It's hard to charge for the Internet, especially with pirated versions of almost everything floating around, but something tells me they will find a way to do it.
Privacy
Privacy. It no longer exists in this increasingly digitized world, right?
How many people have you told your social security number to? A few at Kumble Hall? Maybe your employer? Does your mom know? And this isn't a problem because they don't memorize this information to use against you, right? Right? Why are we known by numbers anyway? The big government database of people and their information is something we don't think about in our everyday lives. Number 000000000001 is a white male, 37 years old, in this tax bracket, with this number of children, divorced, no prior arrests and God knows what else information. All of this exists and has existed since Social Security has.
People were paranoid about all of this information being kept in a solitary space and some are still not comfortable with the idea, leading to all sorts of conspiracy theories involving the government spying on people. However, these conspiracy theorists don't take into account the all powerful, omniscient being that is the Internet.
Evan Ratliff's experiment on trying to disappear was very telling. He had to work really hard to drop off the grid, creating misinformation and not just electronically. He lied to everyone he met, changed his appearance and even stopped using his own car. The effort it required to stay unfound was too much for him. He had to use the help of people online and had to check what his hunters were theorizing to throw them off.
All of these precautions were to avoid being found but they weren't all digital precautions. There were precautions against other humans who could meet him and maybe blog about it, putting him back on the grid, against the world, traffic light cameras could get images of him or his car. Ratliff assumed a fake name and used cash transactions, but couldn't sustain his cover for as long as he had posited.
This article does bring up an important question about people's privacy. We assume it's there because it's not being violated, but in reality, if someone wanted to, they could most likely find out everything about us twice and then steal our identity. However, the notion of privacy still exists and some people are truly off the grid. People born into homelessness may not have been born in a hospital. There is no record of their existence, no social security number and I doubt they have Twitters. Do they exist? Of course they do. But according to the Internet, they don't. Perhaps they have the closest thing to privacy that one can hope for in this day and age.
The Extremes Of Online
The "online community" is a reflection of society today.
This sentence is a scary sentiment. Can it be that the vicious, falsified, hateful and ignorant legions that reside in our computer screen are really reflective of the ever increasingly "tolerant" society that we claim to be forming?
Matthias Schwartz's article, "The Trolls Among Us" takes a look at the truly heartless dregs of our online society and try to come to terms with why someone would do this. The anonymity of the internet creates a shield around these people, allowing them to assume perfectly normal everyday personas that are socially acceptable, while online they harass and inflame. In the article, two very different trolls share their reasons for doing what they do. One insists that people should know these things and that he can't be held responsible for someone's stupidity. The only way for them to learn is through bad experiences and he is more than happy to provide them. He felt no remorse for an epileptic being tricked into clicking something that gave her a seizure. The other insisted that he only wanted everyone off of the internet who didn't deserve to be there. I imagine the list of motivations goes on and on, but can't relate to actually wanting to hurt people, even in a setting with almost no repercussions.
On my own blog show, I deal with trolls in a different way than most. Most people get mad and kick them or ban them. That only attends to the problem in the moment. They can easily log onto their other account (trolls always have another account) and continue the abuse and now they know they've affected you, which means they win. I don't kick or ban. I allow the trolls to stay and I let them verbally abuse me, but it doesn't affect me. I continue my show and I charm and I humor and eventually they either leave or subscribe. It's funny how many former trolls have subscribed to my show and shower me with compliments now.
This brings me to the other extreme of the internet. Its vast capacity to promote community and good tidings between people is astounding. When someone creates a memorial page to a loved one, thousands of people spend minutes of their day offering condolances and prayers. Strangers for a single moment see the suffering of someone else and can still feel a human connection. The para-social connections we make online are important and can become another family. Several of the trolls that used to attack me now defend me on my show. There have been stories about the anonymous community on 4chan banding together and helping to catch child predators. The very same tactics used to harass and defame others is used to protect and help people. So I say take the bad with the good when it comes to online interaction because the extreme terribleness that the internet can proliferate can yield an extreme good.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Rock Jocks
1. What were some of the factors that contributed to the burst of growth in FM radio during the late 1960's?
In the late 1960's there was a mass movement for the "counter-culture" of America. AM radio was "mainstream" and manufactured to have mass appeal, so certain groups of listeners were falling through the cracks. The AM stations were too broad for the rebellious youth of the 1960's. With the growing drug culture and social unrest caused by moves towards equality, many of the youth of America were looking for a way to express themselves and looking for comradeship among their peers. FM radio started as a free expression forum for these disenfranchised outcasts, in which they could discuss what was important to them with very little to no regulations. This became a popular forum because of the special communities it created and the loyalty of their base.
2. What strategies did these stations and their personnel use to establish a bond with their listeners? What role did music play in this?
The stations spoke about topics that were important to their listeners and allowed for audience participation. They had events that led to groups of people congregating and meeting each other. A community was formed and then the FM stations began to play new and interesting music. Experimental bands were given a chance by the counter culture who were open-minded and receptive to their radical ways of playing and writing music.
3. Describe the factors that led to changes in the way FM operated as the years passed.
FM became popular and could no longer sustain itself to reach the mass audience that it attracted. FM had to become merged with business. Corporations saw FM only as a way to profit and began to apply sound business tactics to what the DJs considered an art form. The corporations saw risks in what the DJs were doing even though these risks and innovations were what created the large audience in the first place. Regulations were put on what could and could not be said on the air and DJs were at the mercy of the station's owners. The content became bottled and soon there was a very clear and safe format for FM that was profitable.
4. In your view, can new developments like web radio and satellite radio bring back some of the qualities of these early FM rock stations?
Yes, because one of the best qualities about the internet is that it cannot be bought. Since no one can own all of it, there is no fear of a monopoly forming and there will always be unregulated content that pertains to some other culture than the mainstream media. These new media radio stations incorporate all of the ideals of free expression that FM set forth with the added benefit of being able to create a global community.
In the late 1960's there was a mass movement for the "counter-culture" of America. AM radio was "mainstream" and manufactured to have mass appeal, so certain groups of listeners were falling through the cracks. The AM stations were too broad for the rebellious youth of the 1960's. With the growing drug culture and social unrest caused by moves towards equality, many of the youth of America were looking for a way to express themselves and looking for comradeship among their peers. FM radio started as a free expression forum for these disenfranchised outcasts, in which they could discuss what was important to them with very little to no regulations. This became a popular forum because of the special communities it created and the loyalty of their base.
2. What strategies did these stations and their personnel use to establish a bond with their listeners? What role did music play in this?
The stations spoke about topics that were important to their listeners and allowed for audience participation. They had events that led to groups of people congregating and meeting each other. A community was formed and then the FM stations began to play new and interesting music. Experimental bands were given a chance by the counter culture who were open-minded and receptive to their radical ways of playing and writing music.
3. Describe the factors that led to changes in the way FM operated as the years passed.
FM became popular and could no longer sustain itself to reach the mass audience that it attracted. FM had to become merged with business. Corporations saw FM only as a way to profit and began to apply sound business tactics to what the DJs considered an art form. The corporations saw risks in what the DJs were doing even though these risks and innovations were what created the large audience in the first place. Regulations were put on what could and could not be said on the air and DJs were at the mercy of the station's owners. The content became bottled and soon there was a very clear and safe format for FM that was profitable.
4. In your view, can new developments like web radio and satellite radio bring back some of the qualities of these early FM rock stations?
Yes, because one of the best qualities about the internet is that it cannot be bought. Since no one can own all of it, there is no fear of a monopoly forming and there will always be unregulated content that pertains to some other culture than the mainstream media. These new media radio stations incorporate all of the ideals of free expression that FM set forth with the added benefit of being able to create a global community.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
My Most Memorable Slasher
I am a connoisseur of horror movies and especially of the ever popular "slasher" genre. I have seen cheesy slashers, funny slashers, gratuitous slashers and everything in between. After a while, they begin to follow the same format and become predictable and eventually lose their power to induce fear in me. These days, I view slashers in a clinical sense, dissecting the onscreen dissections with a removed attitude. The characters are so two-dimensional that their deaths are nothing more than the vehicle that drives the story forward. The killers are almost one-dimensional, giving us these soulless killing machines that may or may not have a snappy one-liner before they dispatch another "good guy". To truly be memorable, a slasher must be innovative and break this tried and true mold. There must be a human element added to the characters to make it so that the limit is reached. My desensitized heart strings must be revitalized and tugged to their breaking points. My blood should boil and my hair should stand on end. And at the end of such a film, I should be left wanting to close my curtains and sleep with my sister that night. The last slasher I saw to give me a semblance of those feelings was Michael Haneke's 2007 movie, "Funny Games". The movie made me uncomfortable. I didn't enjoy watching it. I wanted to turn it off. And I remember it to this day even though I only watched it once. "Funny Games" spent its time making you grow to enjoy a small family's quirks and habits, only to bring two sadistic killers in to ruin it. There was no final girl and there were no rules. No one was safe. And when I turned it off, I didn't feel safe. This is what horror is supposed to do. It should pull you in and force you to confront the things that scare you the most.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
We Now Take A Break From Our Commercials For Your Show
The biggest problem with using mass media as a forum for artistic ventures is the constant struggle between the capitalistic nature of media and the integrity of artistic freedom. Television is one of the clearest examples of this struggle. There are thousands upon thousands of shows each year that are produced and optioned and generally put through the motions of the business. A very small percentage of these shows are ever seen by the general populace because television stations are essentially businesses. They calculate the probability of the success of a show and rarely take chances on experimental ideas. Why, you may ask, don't these stations invite new and different ideas? Why don't they thrive on programming a variety of shows that help generate artistic development? The answer is advertising.
Advertising is the life blood of television as we know it. Advertisers pay to have their commercials up on certain channels and this money accounts for a lot of the expenses that a television station must pay to remain afloat. Commercials take away from the airtime of a show and interrupt at different intervals within the show to try to get people to pay attention so they won't miss anything.
Television is so dependent on advertising that the executives at these stations mold the types of shows to work with the advertisers. This leads to many bottled and packaged type of shows that are clearly formulated to hook a certain demographic. Variety exists, but within strict constraints of formulaic television shows. This allows the advertisers to neatly package their products and place them with an easily classified companion that shares its demographic. But the audience suffers. The audience is not given a choice of a multi-layered or experimental show because it's hard to sell things when there is no one group that you can sell to. And so, we are at the mercy of commercials and the shows are easily identifiable, making television less of an art and more of a business.
Stalking Made Easy: Facebook's Live News Feed
Any casual Facebook user could tell you that the news feed in Facebook makes it exceedingly difficult to not snoop in your friends' business. The news feed is in real time, updating a user on each new development of their friend's online lives. This news feed wasn't always on Facebook and its introduction was initially to a resistant and hostile public. Facebook users described the news feed as "creepy" and complained about their lack of privacy. The nature of the news feed is a completely observable environment in which all of someone's friends are easily monitored. None of their actions are hidden, but online there would always be a log of their activity.
The main issue that many people had with the news feed was that it brought their activity to the forefront of other people's Facebook experiences. As a person goes about their normal Facebook activities, the live news feed informs them of every move that their friends are making. That caused some alarmist cries of "Big Brother!" and an Orwellian fear of being monitored by the mysterious and illusive "them". But these reactions to what was perceived as such a radical shift in the way Facebook operates were overblown and had little legitimate foundation. Parallels can be drawn between these ill-advised cries about the "radical" change in Facebook's functions and Winston's theory of evolution versus revolution in the progress of technology.
Facebook's news feed was treated as a revolutionary idea in social networking and communication as if it had come out of nowhere. This is, of course, not true. The idea of communication with people outside of your immediate physical realm is a relatively new one. Communication for decades had been inextricably intertwined with technological advances in travel. Messengers on horses turned into messages sent by trains. Travel was eventually cut out of the evolution when the telegraph and, subsequently, the telephone were created. Information began to move faster and cost less to obtain. Communication shifted from a luxury to a staple of modern society. People began to expect faster ways to connect and more accessibility. This led to the cell phone, instant messaging and social networks like Facebook, which had to keep up with the world obsessed with instantaneous results by providing instantaneous results. And so, dear readers, it is the "victims" themselves who have created the monster we all know and love : The Live News Feed.
The main issue that many people had with the news feed was that it brought their activity to the forefront of other people's Facebook experiences. As a person goes about their normal Facebook activities, the live news feed informs them of every move that their friends are making. That caused some alarmist cries of "Big Brother!" and an Orwellian fear of being monitored by the mysterious and illusive "them". But these reactions to what was perceived as such a radical shift in the way Facebook operates were overblown and had little legitimate foundation. Parallels can be drawn between these ill-advised cries about the "radical" change in Facebook's functions and Winston's theory of evolution versus revolution in the progress of technology.
Facebook's news feed was treated as a revolutionary idea in social networking and communication as if it had come out of nowhere. This is, of course, not true. The idea of communication with people outside of your immediate physical realm is a relatively new one. Communication for decades had been inextricably intertwined with technological advances in travel. Messengers on horses turned into messages sent by trains. Travel was eventually cut out of the evolution when the telegraph and, subsequently, the telephone were created. Information began to move faster and cost less to obtain. Communication shifted from a luxury to a staple of modern society. People began to expect faster ways to connect and more accessibility. This led to the cell phone, instant messaging and social networks like Facebook, which had to keep up with the world obsessed with instantaneous results by providing instantaneous results. And so, dear readers, it is the "victims" themselves who have created the monster we all know and love : The Live News Feed.
Manners In The Digital World
One of the most prevalent issues in the world of digital interaction is the decline of civilized discourse. Whether it be in the comments section of a website, an instant message or even over the phone, people have become less concerned with being polite as the physical consequences have beeen eliminated. Meyrowitz talks about the formation of para-social relationships within the digitized global community, but one of the most destructive forms that can occur is a group of Internet "trolls".
"Trolling" is the act of posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community. It detracts from the work of the website and becomes a spectacle that can cause people to stop coming to certain websites. "Trolling" is not a concept that is new to the Internet. Prank calls can be considered a form of "trolling" on the phone. In times before the social space became something that was intangible, people were held accountable for their actions in a physical state. Now, phones and to a much larger extent, the Internet provide people with anonymity and the ability to say whatever they want without the fear of reprecussions and, and this is what I think makes it so prevalent, because they don't see a real life effect to what they are doing. The Internet has become a free for all forum of depravity, obscenity and ill-mannered ruffians who would do well with some finishing school.
The problem is and always will be : How can you police the Internet? The answer is that it is not possible to do a widespread solution to "trolling" without having a completely censored version of the Internet. And really, do we want to trade the purest form of free speech just so that mean people will stop saying mean things?
Here's a taste of what manners were in the late 90's for phones. Imagine what this lady would have to say about the Internet.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Facebook: Social Destruction or Enhancment?
Facebook, Facebook, Facebook. It's a popular culture phenomenon we hear about in an alarmingly increasing rate. Is Facebook the new way to network? Will Facebook become a business tool? What makes Facebook different from Myspace?
What is it about Facebook that makes it so prevalent while other social media websites die? Well, first we must define Facebook and its functions. We all know Facebook is a "hot" medium. There are text, pictures and videos. But for what? Why even use a social networking site? Many people comment on the apparent triviality of Facebook as its downfall. I find it to be one of its biggest strengths. Why use a social networking site to communicate with friends who live in your dorm? Its frivolous. No matter how "hot" the medium, nothing can be more engaging than face to face physical interaction. However, a quick check of most college students' Internet tabs would show that this frivolity is widespread. Facebook is something to click on when blocked on a paper. Facebook is something to check in between classes. Facebook is something to go on when there's nothing else to do. And sometimes that's all you need.
Some people say that this rampant misuse of the website for insignificant interface with easily accessible real-life friends is a negative thing. They say that it makes people lazy and errodes actual interaction. I find this to be false. In all of my obeservations of Facebook and real life interactions, I have found that Facebook cuts down on the exposition of life. If you want to know how yesterday was for me overall, check my status. Tracy McClendon had a crappy day. Now there's a topic of discussion that didn't need to be dragged out. Facebook highlights the major events - someone entering a relationship, a birthday, a party - and allows the user to be more up to date on their friend's lives. And there are some of you Orwellian fear-mongers out there who may say, "Well that sounds creepy." And to you I say, don't update your Facebook every five seconds.
What is it about Facebook that makes it so prevalent while other social media websites die? Well, first we must define Facebook and its functions. We all know Facebook is a "hot" medium. There are text, pictures and videos. But for what? Why even use a social networking site? Many people comment on the apparent triviality of Facebook as its downfall. I find it to be one of its biggest strengths. Why use a social networking site to communicate with friends who live in your dorm? Its frivolous. No matter how "hot" the medium, nothing can be more engaging than face to face physical interaction. However, a quick check of most college students' Internet tabs would show that this frivolity is widespread. Facebook is something to click on when blocked on a paper. Facebook is something to check in between classes. Facebook is something to go on when there's nothing else to do. And sometimes that's all you need.
Some people say that this rampant misuse of the website for insignificant interface with easily accessible real-life friends is a negative thing. They say that it makes people lazy and errodes actual interaction. I find this to be false. In all of my obeservations of Facebook and real life interactions, I have found that Facebook cuts down on the exposition of life. If you want to know how yesterday was for me overall, check my status. Tracy McClendon had a crappy day. Now there's a topic of discussion that didn't need to be dragged out. Facebook highlights the major events - someone entering a relationship, a birthday, a party - and allows the user to be more up to date on their friend's lives. And there are some of you Orwellian fear-mongers out there who may say, "Well that sounds creepy." And to you I say, don't update your Facebook every five seconds.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sanctuary
Day 5.
Thank God for school. Things will get about 9000 percent easier now since I have literally no time to sit around and want to play video games. My jam-packed schedule concludes with me getting home at around 11 pm and having massive amounts of work to do, so I don't anticipate having anymore problems on the game deprivation front. Cheers to that!
Thank God for school. Things will get about 9000 percent easier now since I have literally no time to sit around and want to play video games. My jam-packed schedule concludes with me getting home at around 11 pm and having massive amounts of work to do, so I don't anticipate having anymore problems on the game deprivation front. Cheers to that!
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Ai-yi-yi
I am no longer concerned with my lack of video games as I have bigger issues with my school work looming. I've lost a notebook and I have a project that may be in jeopardy. I can't help but blame my loss on my mental state. More later.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
So here I am at the precipice
I know it's really late and I should be asleep, but my haunted eyes keep drifting to the blinking light on my Playstation 2. I must be strong. There have to have been days that I went without playing videogames. I'm positive that there were, even in the near past. I think this is a psychological dependency that I have manufactured for myself. If I had the option to play, I'd probably be asleep right now. Instead, I am dwelling on the memories of my past encounters with this wretched medium. Like a woman possessed, I sit here and contemplate cheating, just to get this out of my system. But I won't do it, if only to be fair to everyone else in the class. I hope you guys appreciate this.
Thank God for flea infestation
Day 3.
I'm out of my house because of our generosity to a kitten. The rain was so harsh and the kitten was so small...but covered in fleas. So our house is being bombed and I have freedom from my fortress of fun. Fun that I cannot have. Oh, the hours will pass by so quickly until my next meeting with my will power...
I'm out of my house because of our generosity to a kitten. The rain was so harsh and the kitten was so small...but covered in fleas. So our house is being bombed and I have freedom from my fortress of fun. Fun that I cannot have. Oh, the hours will pass by so quickly until my next meeting with my will power...
Friday, October 16, 2009
Ahh, the day has slipped by!
Day 2.
So I wake up at about 8 am today and I feel nothing for about 10 hours since I had to run errands all day. But then, at like 6:30, a crushing realization settles over my bones. I am not allowed to play video games when I finally do get home. So I try to put it out of my mind - it's nothing, I'll be fine, etc. - but the weight of my decision is like a monkey frantically clawing at my back. I get home at about 9 o'clock shivering from the cold one would presume, but nay. It is from the exertion of avoiding the steely gaze of my various game systems. My dad looks at me and his customary, "You wanna play some Left 4 Dead, Tray?" upon my arrival is cut short by my low whimper of, "I'm going to go clean my room." A stunned silence falls over my bag-encumbered mother and my John Grisham novel-reading father as I turn to go and distract myself from the pain of withdrawal. Once inside my room I realize that to be completely fair I must forgo my PC games as well. The Sims on the desk urges me to forget my pact. "I'm JUST a PC game. You said no VIDEO games. Come on..." I throw it in my closet. Pacing back and forth, I begin to wonder what I can do to avoid a slip-up. Television will be too tempting, as the console is attached, my computer has games that it wants to throw in my face and the people in my family must always play with me. Books! That will distract me. Unfortunately, my eyes glaze and I find myself wanting the forbidden fruit. The thing I cannot have is the thing I desire. Oh, irony prevails. I check facebook listlessly, reflecting briefly on the fact that I am so cavalier about accessing what some people are struggling to give up. Eventually, I remember that the assignment needs to be documented on the internet. Sooo...hi.
So I wake up at about 8 am today and I feel nothing for about 10 hours since I had to run errands all day. But then, at like 6:30, a crushing realization settles over my bones. I am not allowed to play video games when I finally do get home. So I try to put it out of my mind - it's nothing, I'll be fine, etc. - but the weight of my decision is like a monkey frantically clawing at my back. I get home at about 9 o'clock shivering from the cold one would presume, but nay. It is from the exertion of avoiding the steely gaze of my various game systems. My dad looks at me and his customary, "You wanna play some Left 4 Dead, Tray?" upon my arrival is cut short by my low whimper of, "I'm going to go clean my room." A stunned silence falls over my bag-encumbered mother and my John Grisham novel-reading father as I turn to go and distract myself from the pain of withdrawal. Once inside my room I realize that to be completely fair I must forgo my PC games as well. The Sims on the desk urges me to forget my pact. "I'm JUST a PC game. You said no VIDEO games. Come on..." I throw it in my closet. Pacing back and forth, I begin to wonder what I can do to avoid a slip-up. Television will be too tempting, as the console is attached, my computer has games that it wants to throw in my face and the people in my family must always play with me. Books! That will distract me. Unfortunately, my eyes glaze and I find myself wanting the forbidden fruit. The thing I cannot have is the thing I desire. Oh, irony prevails. I check facebook listlessly, reflecting briefly on the fact that I am so cavalier about accessing what some people are struggling to give up. Eventually, I remember that the assignment needs to be documented on the internet. Sooo...hi.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Madness Begins...
Day 1.
My eyes already itch from the pain of separation from my constant zombie horde. How will I live without my Xbox 360? How will I live without the journeys through Morrowind, driving recklessly as characters from the Simpsons, and the satisfaction of fighting the zombie infection one bullet at a time? I am ill-equipped and emotionally bereft. Goodbye sanity.
My eyes already itch from the pain of separation from my constant zombie horde. How will I live without my Xbox 360? How will I live without the journeys through Morrowind, driving recklessly as characters from the Simpsons, and the satisfaction of fighting the zombie infection one bullet at a time? I am ill-equipped and emotionally bereft. Goodbye sanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
