Back again

I edited these last posts but they are from 2014!

I keep returning to blogger. 

What iteration will "the serpent" take this time? Will my interest last longer than two entries? 

where i transform from blogstar to wives of atlanta to guru to wrestler to still worried

I started this blog as an assignment in community college. I'm currently doing my third stretch of university. This blog was an outcome of the second. I don't want to do that anymore. I want to meet new people through this blog. First, a compliment here and there, a hardy har har every once in a while.

The love of my life is leaving me. I have a sweet new job travelling this summer. No body knows about it. I don't know what I'm going to do with my pets.

He used to joke as if "if" we ever were to go our separate ways he would automatically get the canine. I mentioned something about dog-sitting for a couple weeks last night and he said the apartments he has been looking at are not fido-friendly. hypocrite.

I always make sure i can have a dog where I'm staying, even if I don't have a dog at the moment.

Perhaps this is a pretty astute metaphor (why are you all sitting so low? rearrange these pillows or whatever so we're at the same height. isn't that better? I hate it when people do that. It's like some wierdo psych thing)

And then you pick me up by my ankles, toss me over your back, and fling me forward, slamming my body against the ground. I told you. My back.

You're not laughing, but you're not not amused. Where is the dog going to stay? Why did you say all that shit to me? You said it knowing it wasn't ever going to come true. I guess I say stuff like that as well, like, when I'm a bajillionaire you can have your own private jet, no questions asked. When I say it, I absolutely mean it.

But if i really could afford extra private jets, I probably would put more thought into it.

If you were a rapper, we would be the type of divorcee's where you would pull me up on stage (I could have backstage passes whenever) and introduce me as your best friend, but, you would leave me standing awkwardly beside you.

It's whatever, I would tell myself. At least he can watch the dog for a couple weeks...

the baby was offering me advice - not the other way around, duh...

Instagram

In any conversation about youth and the internet, the issue of cyberbullying through social networking sites rears its head. For years now, we have the proof screaming in our faces, that onlineharassment causes real-life damage to young adults, without much more information about how to prevent these incidents or explanations of why they happen in the first place. Less commonly commented on is the internet's overall themes of apathy and hate and how these pop culture mores play a part in the online persona of young people, ultimately leading to things like online bullying. It is not the internet itself which contributes to youth's obsession with excess and intolerance of opinion, but out culture is simply magnified. Our consumer culture has paved the way for this behavior, with or without social networking, young adults would still be bullying each other and making bad decisions. The internet has regurgitated, made famous, and reinforced these ideals. Too often the conversation stops at internet etiquette and parental oversight of       online harassment and bad behavior. Instead, our pop culture values and consumer driven morals should be the object of scrutiny.

 

Instagram is a popular online photography program. Users can set up web pages, which host thousands of pictures, free of charge and use the easy artistic photo manipulation technology across a variety of sites. What once required professional photography skills to enact, now only takes moments, as any picture can be rendered beautifully aged, ochre-toned, and painfully hip with the press of one button. Celebrities may hire whole teams of professionals to achieve these looks, but kids on the internet can use instagram to ape the stylized looks of their role-models, and thus, believe they have done something important or artistic. Recently, a blog called “The Rich Kids of Instagram” has become popular for bringing together images of the shallow, excessive consumerist bent that young adults display through this social medium. While the connection between cyberbullying and TRKOI may not be apparent right away, the bad decision making inherent in each stems from an overall ignorance pertaining to how to conduct oneself online, a lack of empathy or ability to see the world outside oneself, and a rejection of subjective views about right/wrong.

These attitudes about life epitomized online reach far beyond rich kids showing off. Take, for example, the recent photographs which caused an uproar world-wide, young Israeli soldiers posing happily before supposedly going into battle with Palestine. They've tagged themselves with words like #armytime and #boring and captioned the photos saying, "ready for war" and "we're coming for you Gaza", while tensions in the Gaza strip build to a horrendous reality for many.

Technology has changed the way we interact with the world around us (as well as how we interact with others, certainly) but technologies have also changed how we are intrinsically. With the advent of the motion picture, humans were challenged to change the way we think about sequences of events. On a daily basis, we suspend disbelief in order to enjoy our favorite TV shows and movies, and this is a learned behavior. While we gained the ability to accept what we saw on-screen, we also began "accepting the premise that mere sequence was rational including the idea that whatever is, is acceptable." (Weinbrenner, 654).

There are certainly those in the millennial generation using their comfort with the internet for amazingly selfless and courageous purposes. Social networking sites were integral to the Arab Spring and some authors have suggested that young people's use of the internet will usher in a true democracy for America. Until our values change intrinsically and young people are encouraged and rewarded for their exhibitions of empathy and sensitivity, young white men wearing “Help me I'm poor” t-shirts and posing next to their Porsches will be the daily rigmarole we are all sadly subjected to online.

<http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/post/36290227905/ironic-porsche>
<http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2012/11/15/14/enhanced-buzz-22878-1353009393-7.jpg>

 Certainly the presidential nominees are aware of the general consensus held against attack ads. Any reasonable person in the United States would say, if asked, that the political arena can be a vicious place and much of this viciousness is apparent in commercial television advertisements, regardless of party or person. This election season it is easy to find anecdotal evidence proving that the public is quite sick of any political advertising, negative or positive. Politicans still spends hundreds of millions of dollars on ads, however, and almost all of it are ads attacking the opposition.

Mitt Romney has a peculiar campaign ad running on YouTube and across the country. In it, he provides proof that Barack Obama uses deceit to shore up his own political advertising. “Barack Obama has a history of attacking his opponents with lies” its says, “and his attacks against Mitt Romney are simply not true.” Romney shows footage of Hillary Clinton also denegrating the use of attack ads, saying Obama spends millions of dollars on disparaging ads and that he should be ashamed of himself. There is a quote from the Washington Post saying, “on just about every level this ad is untrue.” Romney finds notoriously non-conservative sources to shore up his argument that Obama uses attack ads more frequently and in an abnormal manner.

The ad goes on to say Romney “has a plan to get America working.” This in and of itself implies that Obama does not have a plan. It goes on, quoting the Department of Labor Statistics that Obama has the worst job record since the Great Depression.

In a thirty second span, the Romeny advertisment criticizes Obama's use of attack advertising by attacking Obama for using it. Hillary Clinton is shown forcefully waving and pointing, saying, with much conviction, “So, shame on you Barack Obama”. Towards the end of the commercial, the Romney endorsed voiceover outright attacks Obama on his job stance. Under the guise of factual information, this ad shows that attack ads are the routine in contemporary television political campaigns. By showing Clinton and the Post (notorious liberal institutions) as having a bipartisan connection with Romney, the anti-mudslinging stance, Romney kills two birds with one stone: showing his ability to work in a bipartisan way against things he disagrees with and that he is “better” than Obama because he disagrees with political attack ads.

The Department of Labor Statistic he uses is meant to be proof that Romney knows better that Obama in terms of jobs for the American working class. Instead, this last bit of information only proves that Romney is not above also using disparaging remarks against his opponent. Instead of showing how bad the President is at something, if Romney were truly against attacking him, he would simpy show some idea he himself had to improve the job situation in the US. By adding this remark and statistic in the last ten seconds of the commercial, Romney seems to use that campaign tool which he initially has said was beneath him, the attack stance. However, if we analyze the commercial more thoroughly, it is the entire thirty seconds which is attacking the POTUS, even though Romney means to say he is above that common political tool, the attack ad.

As much as we, the people claim to hold certain beliefs and standards opposing using harsh criticism towards others, these ads would seem to show otherwise. Who wasn't taught in childhood that the way to "get ahead" was by proving yourself and earning respect, that those who put others' down in order to make themselves look better were bullies and therefore, underserving of any respectable position. Politicians use this money because the advertisements work. The commercial described above shows that these ideas are common knowledge, but the practice still remains the same. This ad is achingly transparent. Although Romney claims that he does not use the attack strategy, he is in fact using an attack against Obama. This is somewhat of a catch-22. If a politician goes on television to denounce the use of attack ads, is he, by default, criticizing all other politicians who have not made the same statement? Furthermore, these attitudes are only perpetuated by the greater society who can concurrently complain about attack ads and yet support the candidates who use them exclusively.

YouTube

Since communities began gathering, creating, and sharing, there have been individuals who insist on harsh criticism and forms of bullying, from the tyrannical sort to simply just pushing someone around. Bullying online is a huge controversial issue in the media currently. The YouTube comments section of almost any user uploaded video is bound to have plenty of negative, hateful comments.  It is impossible to patrol any commentary online, as the internet runs rampant with trolls-  people who“post a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"(urbandictionary.com). Is this online commentary a form of bullying? What causes people to feel obligated in sharing their hate for a certain YouTube user channel? First Amendment rights are human rights, but is there a line that is crossed, such as online stalking or teenagers turning to suicide after online harassment? As many “trolls” as there are online, many users still characterize an enduring human spirit, as many continue on unfazed, posting their own no-budget renditions of pop hits with seemingly no sense of embarrassment  or even more surprising, use these comments (which often are not constructive, but merely just critical) to appease their viewers and hopefully make their content more likable.

New media uses the online comments sections as a communication platform. As opposed to risking face-to-face criticism or navigating the complicated logictics inherent in the music industry, many aspiring musicians use YouTube as a form of exposure. Certainly there have been celebrities “found” on these networking sites, such as Justin Beiber or Rebecca Black. Conversely, some people use the comments section of these musicians' channels to voice harsh, hateful opinions about the work. These comments would be considered the pinnacle of anti-social, aggressive behavior if they were vocalized in a face to face setting. Online however, this behavior is the norm. The YouTube comments section is particularly interesting because of its “lack of clear rules of conduct and the way in which it challenges traditional conceptions of social space.” (Signs of Life, 446). In fact, trolling is a new form of communication and shapes facets of our collective popuar culture . Anecdotal evidence shows that these behaviors are generally believed to be the work of younger users, but“some YouTube participants and observers suggested that maturity plays a role in prompting hating behaviors, others argued that many young people are quite intelligent and are capable of participating on YouTube without making hateful comments.”(Lange, “Commenting on Comments”). The internet has simply offered a way to express unpopular emotions without risking societal reprimand concerning rules about public courtesy. 

UrbanDictionary.com (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolls  Oct. 2012)

Lange, Patricia G.  “Commenting On Comments: Investigating Responses to Antagonism on Youtube”

(http://sfaapodcasts.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/update-apr-17-lange-sfaa-paper-2007.pdf,   Oct. 2012)

circle K/seven 11/whatever

I learned tonight that a convenience store is selling red, republican Romney cups and blue, democratic Obama cups. Supposedly, the selling of each will be tallied and the chain will announce a "winner".  It seems unlikely that a marketing scheme like this will have an effect on anything or that this poll will be accurate in any way. It's crazy to think about the implications of something like this though. Pop culture advertising can morph seemingly any and everything into a meaningless exercise in consumerism. The fact that the political sphere is so intertwined with the corporate advertising, branding, marketing, and distribution (i.e. money) is disturbing to me. I consider myself highly political, knowledgeable, and aware, as far as things like this go, and I realize most people do not give a damn either way if there are certain coffee cups to use to show your affinity for a certain candidate. Pop culture has invaded the political spectrum of our society, however. It's not something you can really argue about, but I the two things should be separate! It is almost offensive, in a way, that these huge businesses would engage such a serious topic (after all, our government affects all of us) without any regard for a certain sense of dignity about the whole thing.