On a sidenote, my contact list in my cell phone is down to 19 and I recently trimmed my facebook friends list from the already anemic (according to my friends) 190+ to 91. Still, not a day goes by without someone showing up on the news feed that makes me question why I'm "friends" with that person and whether I will ever interact with them online again. Just because I give you the obligatory "bro nod" at the gym when I see you, doesn't mean we're friends or need to be facebook pals. Every so often I consider simply deleting the whole thing, and I know that I will eventually do just that, but with graduation likely not far off and some slim amount of meaningful communication still coming through FB every once in a while, I figure I can put it off until New Paltz is in my rearview mirror and 80% of the remaining friends I have are just college memories - the handful that won't be are among the 19 contacts in my phone anyways.
Edit: Since posting, I felt the need to go on another facebook friend trimming spree. Down to 65 TOTAL friends. 11 family members. 30 current or former teammates. 24 other, including my girlfriend, her siblings, close family friends, professors and any actual friends from college/high school. To be clear, I don't think there's something wrong with people who choose to have hundreds of FB friends, but I'd rather be stingy with my digital "friendship" and let my facebook be a more realistic indication of people who actually matter in my life.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Unreality
Last night I headed into the city to watch the New York Rangers turn in a dismal performance and get embarrassed in front of their home crowd at Madison Square Garden. For the first time ever at a sporting event, my section was selected to answer a random trivia question (why, I'm not sure; we got it right and won... nothing). Now I've been to at least 100 Rangers games and probably another 100 sporting events in total, so I'm not unfamiliar with these kinds of things, but I usually just see them carried out by another section on the jumbotron.
I'm not sure what I expected (don't think I ever really put much thought into it...) but participating was different from anything I could have imagined. As a spectator it had always looked like they bring the cameras over to a section where they have handed out 8x10 cardboard signs (or perhaps the section was selected before the game and the signs are at the seats when the patrons arrive) that read 1, 2 or 3. When the camera is set up in front of the section, they show the trivia question on the jumbotron and read it aloud and then all the fans in that section hold up their signs with the number they think corresponds with the correct answer.
In reality, an entire team of MSG personnel came over to our section, pulled people from another section to fill in any empty seats, informed us of the question ahead of time, took a group consensus on the answer, handed everyone a sign with the number 3 on it, planted some 2s and 1s in a few people's hands, told us all to start cheering like crazy and then turned the camera on. There we were up on the big screen, cheering like mad even though the game was paused for a TV timeout. We were then told to quiet down by the MSG staff while the jumbotron displayed the question, before being told to raise our signs to display our answer. Finally, we were told to flip our signs around (the back read Let's Go Rangers!") and go crazy again.
I suppose if I'd ever been asked to put any thought into it before, I could have guessed at a similar process, but always having been a spectator, what is shown on the jumbotron seems much more organic than what actually goes on. It's basically a little mini-reality TV moment. I was a little bit surprised at how many MSG staff came over to our section, how many were wearing headsets and issuing/receiving commands at a constant rate and how produced the moment actually was. The two most ironic bits, for me, were the fact that all of the staff and cameras and instructions were actually kind of an annoyance, especially for someone who was only there for hockey in its purest form and who didn't ask to participate in any kind of in-game entertainment (I'm at the game TO be entertained as it is) and that this completely produced moment displayed on the jumbotron was one of the most enthusiastic instances from the crowd all night, and it wasn't genuine. With the Rangers playing like dung, the crowd was quiet, and the only times the crowd went wild were when producers from the MSG staff stood in front of them, pointed at a camera and indicated that they should do so. It felt so fake that it cheapened the experience for me a little bit.
Don't get me wrong, going to a Rangers game (when I can actually afford the massively overpriced tickets and the transportation) will always be a treat, but I wish they hadn't come over to my section and revealed the true nature of all these on-screen events that occur during the game. Like I said, I might have been able to guess at the truth, had I ever considered it, but receiving instructions on when to clap, when to stop, when to chant, when to hold up a sign and realizing that these same instructions were probably issued every time Rangers fans were shown cheering on the jumbotron really killed the mystery for me. I love hockey enough that I'd always allowed myself the naivety to believe that every chant, cheer and bit of shenanigans captured on the screen were pure and genuine reactions from others who share the same love of the game.
Oh, and did I mention that the trivia was "brought to you by Sprint!" and every one of the cardboard signs we held up was adorned with a matching Sprint logo? Sometimes I wonder if, when I put on a Nike T-shirt or pick up my Verizon cell phone, there's a hidden camera nearby capturing it all for marketing purposes. The only thing that's missing is someone jumping out and asking if I could try and smile while picking up, just before the phone rings.
I'm not sure what I expected (don't think I ever really put much thought into it...) but participating was different from anything I could have imagined. As a spectator it had always looked like they bring the cameras over to a section where they have handed out 8x10 cardboard signs (or perhaps the section was selected before the game and the signs are at the seats when the patrons arrive) that read 1, 2 or 3. When the camera is set up in front of the section, they show the trivia question on the jumbotron and read it aloud and then all the fans in that section hold up their signs with the number they think corresponds with the correct answer.
In reality, an entire team of MSG personnel came over to our section, pulled people from another section to fill in any empty seats, informed us of the question ahead of time, took a group consensus on the answer, handed everyone a sign with the number 3 on it, planted some 2s and 1s in a few people's hands, told us all to start cheering like crazy and then turned the camera on. There we were up on the big screen, cheering like mad even though the game was paused for a TV timeout. We were then told to quiet down by the MSG staff while the jumbotron displayed the question, before being told to raise our signs to display our answer. Finally, we were told to flip our signs around (the back read Let's Go Rangers!") and go crazy again.
I suppose if I'd ever been asked to put any thought into it before, I could have guessed at a similar process, but always having been a spectator, what is shown on the jumbotron seems much more organic than what actually goes on. It's basically a little mini-reality TV moment. I was a little bit surprised at how many MSG staff came over to our section, how many were wearing headsets and issuing/receiving commands at a constant rate and how produced the moment actually was. The two most ironic bits, for me, were the fact that all of the staff and cameras and instructions were actually kind of an annoyance, especially for someone who was only there for hockey in its purest form and who didn't ask to participate in any kind of in-game entertainment (I'm at the game TO be entertained as it is) and that this completely produced moment displayed on the jumbotron was one of the most enthusiastic instances from the crowd all night, and it wasn't genuine. With the Rangers playing like dung, the crowd was quiet, and the only times the crowd went wild were when producers from the MSG staff stood in front of them, pointed at a camera and indicated that they should do so. It felt so fake that it cheapened the experience for me a little bit.
Don't get me wrong, going to a Rangers game (when I can actually afford the massively overpriced tickets and the transportation) will always be a treat, but I wish they hadn't come over to my section and revealed the true nature of all these on-screen events that occur during the game. Like I said, I might have been able to guess at the truth, had I ever considered it, but receiving instructions on when to clap, when to stop, when to chant, when to hold up a sign and realizing that these same instructions were probably issued every time Rangers fans were shown cheering on the jumbotron really killed the mystery for me. I love hockey enough that I'd always allowed myself the naivety to believe that every chant, cheer and bit of shenanigans captured on the screen were pure and genuine reactions from others who share the same love of the game.
Oh, and did I mention that the trivia was "brought to you by Sprint!" and every one of the cardboard signs we held up was adorned with a matching Sprint logo? Sometimes I wonder if, when I put on a Nike T-shirt or pick up my Verizon cell phone, there's a hidden camera nearby capturing it all for marketing purposes. The only thing that's missing is someone jumping out and asking if I could try and smile while picking up, just before the phone rings.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Inundated
These past few weeks when I was hopping around on crutches or otherwise immobile (thank god that's over... with all the technology we've come up with, you'd think they could have made crutches more comfortable by now), I spent a lot more time sitting around with my foot propped up and staring at a screen than I'm accustomed to. In 2.5 weeks I must have watched close to 24 hours of TV total, which is astronomical for me, considering I probably average less than 5 per week, unless I have time to catch a Rangers game.
During that time I watched pretty much whatever my housemates put on and this included some gems like:
VH1s 50 Greatest Pranks
100 Dumbest People (one of those marathons like cop chases and stuff)
The T-Ocho Show (Terrell Owens and Chad Ochicinco's sport's talk show)... numerous times
Jersey Shore (after about 20 minutes I had to hop up stairs and do something else for fear of permanent brain damage)
With the help of a painkiller here and there, I continually thought of the phrase comfortably numb while laughing with my housemates at other people's stupidity and recognizing all the while that what I was doing with my time was tantamount to "absolutely nothing". I kept justifying my inactivity by telling myself there wasn't much else that I could do without uncomfortably crutching about (which I did plenty of; consider my Christmas shopping just about done) and that all the TV watching was quality bonding time with my housemates who I do enjoy spending time with. Another thing that stood out to me was the fact that whenever we would all laugh at the same moment or crack a joke that the rest of appreciated were the most enjoyable times and that otherwise, sitting around watching TV is pretty boring. If my housemates hadn't been there I don't think I'd have made it through more than an hour of programming; the small amount of interaction that the TV created between us was it's only saving grace, really.
And then I ditched the crutches and started going to the gym again, spent more time out of the house running errands and got back to my usual TV free (except for Rangers games) lifestyle where I question everything I hear and live in a vague paranoia fueled by the fear that the governments of the world have no problem keeping us dumbed down while they profit and eventually destroy the planet. All jokes aside, however, a few guys from the New Paltz hockey team were talking the other day about how they (experts, I suppose) say we have about 40 years worth of oil before we run and out and how they just hope they're dead before that happens. Seriously? I fully understand where they're coming from because a big part of me thinks I would rather be dead than live through the crisis we will face when we ultimately do run out of oil (and part of me says 40 years is probably an optimistic estimate intended to avoid immediate fear and panic), but the attitude is all wrong.
How about we DO SOMETHING in our lifetime to try and save this planet? Don't look at me because I don't know what to do, but I don't think the apathy and "we can't change it so let's get drunk and have fun before we're old and the world is ending" attitude is helping. I know what isn't helping; all of the TV I watched the past couple of weeks. It's all carefree bullshit that has no relevance or value but keeps us happily distracted from facts like: We ARE running out of oil fast. Distracted. That's just about the only thing TV is good for. It keeps us distracted from hundreds of other things that we COULD be doing if sitting on our asses all day wasn't the most comfortable and convenient option. Like I said, I don't know what CAN be done about our environmental and societal problems, but I have a feeling that if millions of people devoted just a few of the hours they spend watching TV EACH DAY that we could probably come up with something better than "have fun and hope you're dead before the shit hits the fan". People who are out of shape say they want to get fit, and when they finally get off the couch and hit the gym for an hour a day instead of staying home to catch Dancing With The Stars, their problem kind of solves itself. Maybe if we all decide we'd rather not watch our planet die from pollution and deforestation we can do the same thing. One thing is for certain -- We have nothing to gain from sitting in front of the television. The news isn't news. The entertainment is without value. It serves one purpose and that purpose is distraction. It kept me distracted from my injury when I couldn't walk around for a couple of weeks and it keeps Americans distracted from all of the ways in which the same corporations who own the television channels are (not so) slowly destroying the world we live in.
But then, my opinions never have been very popular.
During that time I watched pretty much whatever my housemates put on and this included some gems like:
VH1s 50 Greatest Pranks
100 Dumbest People (one of those marathons like cop chases and stuff)
The T-Ocho Show (Terrell Owens and Chad Ochicinco's sport's talk show)... numerous times
Jersey Shore (after about 20 minutes I had to hop up stairs and do something else for fear of permanent brain damage)
With the help of a painkiller here and there, I continually thought of the phrase comfortably numb while laughing with my housemates at other people's stupidity and recognizing all the while that what I was doing with my time was tantamount to "absolutely nothing". I kept justifying my inactivity by telling myself there wasn't much else that I could do without uncomfortably crutching about (which I did plenty of; consider my Christmas shopping just about done) and that all the TV watching was quality bonding time with my housemates who I do enjoy spending time with. Another thing that stood out to me was the fact that whenever we would all laugh at the same moment or crack a joke that the rest of appreciated were the most enjoyable times and that otherwise, sitting around watching TV is pretty boring. If my housemates hadn't been there I don't think I'd have made it through more than an hour of programming; the small amount of interaction that the TV created between us was it's only saving grace, really.
And then I ditched the crutches and started going to the gym again, spent more time out of the house running errands and got back to my usual TV free (except for Rangers games) lifestyle where I question everything I hear and live in a vague paranoia fueled by the fear that the governments of the world have no problem keeping us dumbed down while they profit and eventually destroy the planet. All jokes aside, however, a few guys from the New Paltz hockey team were talking the other day about how they (experts, I suppose) say we have about 40 years worth of oil before we run and out and how they just hope they're dead before that happens. Seriously? I fully understand where they're coming from because a big part of me thinks I would rather be dead than live through the crisis we will face when we ultimately do run out of oil (and part of me says 40 years is probably an optimistic estimate intended to avoid immediate fear and panic), but the attitude is all wrong.
How about we DO SOMETHING in our lifetime to try and save this planet? Don't look at me because I don't know what to do, but I don't think the apathy and "we can't change it so let's get drunk and have fun before we're old and the world is ending" attitude is helping. I know what isn't helping; all of the TV I watched the past couple of weeks. It's all carefree bullshit that has no relevance or value but keeps us happily distracted from facts like: We ARE running out of oil fast. Distracted. That's just about the only thing TV is good for. It keeps us distracted from hundreds of other things that we COULD be doing if sitting on our asses all day wasn't the most comfortable and convenient option. Like I said, I don't know what CAN be done about our environmental and societal problems, but I have a feeling that if millions of people devoted just a few of the hours they spend watching TV EACH DAY that we could probably come up with something better than "have fun and hope you're dead before the shit hits the fan". People who are out of shape say they want to get fit, and when they finally get off the couch and hit the gym for an hour a day instead of staying home to catch Dancing With The Stars, their problem kind of solves itself. Maybe if we all decide we'd rather not watch our planet die from pollution and deforestation we can do the same thing. One thing is for certain -- We have nothing to gain from sitting in front of the television. The news isn't news. The entertainment is without value. It serves one purpose and that purpose is distraction. It kept me distracted from my injury when I couldn't walk around for a couple of weeks and it keeps Americans distracted from all of the ways in which the same corporations who own the television channels are (not so) slowly destroying the world we live in.
But then, my opinions never have been very popular.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Still thinking about Klosterman...
Just posted this in response to Dan's blog post, but it something I've been thinking about prior to his post prompting me to write it, so I just figured I'd put it here on my own blog as well:
With regards to good and bad technology being inseparable:
I honestly believe that they cannot be separated and that technology, as a whole, is then a detriment to humanity (in the context that, the good comes with the bad... I believe the bad then outweighs the good, or as Postman would say, that the problem is not what we're watching but that we're watching). Yes, there are myriad examples I can think of to illustrate positive effects of technology, but none that I think I wouldn't give up to erase the bad effects.
Some tongue in cheek examples:
Medicine: Yes, it helps us live longer, but technology, like the pollution from factories or the radiation from cell phones also causes cancer. Plus many people believe there are cures and remedies for everything that can be found in nature, and not synthetically in labs, if you know where to look.
Communication: Yes, having a cell phone to call someone in an emergency is always a good thing, but without technology being the source of most emergencies, such as a car accident, how often would you need to call someone for help? If you get mauled by a bear in the woods, well... I guess that's just survival of the fittest.
Keeping in Touch (yes, this is sort of communication as well): Yeah, technology helps us to stay in touch with friends and family members who we would otherwise not be able to speak with often, but at the same time, families didn't fall apart before the creation of facebook, email, or even the telephone. A nice handwritten letter every so often can keep you up-to-date enough with anyone a great distance away, and it would prevent the rapid decline of penmanship in our generation as well. Heck, I'm facebook friends with many relatives that I STILL don't communicate with once a month. I think a letter every now and than would more than suffice. As for being able to be in touch with our immediate families over the phone or via the internet, a complete lack of technology would simply lead to a more tribe-like existence. Clans would stay close. You would be educated locally, work locally, as a part of a community and stay close to the people that mattered to you.
I mean, obviously I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek and everyone can think of circumstances in which technology simply IS beneficial, but I think on the whole, because you can't have the good without the bad, I would rather go without than have it all. The only problem is that I'll only go without if you all will follow me, because while living in the woods and working my own land to survive appeals to me, doing it alone does not. We are social creatures. We can also fulfill our social needs without the aid of technology. You know, face to face.
With regards to good and bad technology being inseparable:
I honestly believe that they cannot be separated and that technology, as a whole, is then a detriment to humanity (in the context that, the good comes with the bad... I believe the bad then outweighs the good, or as Postman would say, that the problem is not what we're watching but that we're watching). Yes, there are myriad examples I can think of to illustrate positive effects of technology, but none that I think I wouldn't give up to erase the bad effects.
Some tongue in cheek examples:
Medicine: Yes, it helps us live longer, but technology, like the pollution from factories or the radiation from cell phones also causes cancer. Plus many people believe there are cures and remedies for everything that can be found in nature, and not synthetically in labs, if you know where to look.
Communication: Yes, having a cell phone to call someone in an emergency is always a good thing, but without technology being the source of most emergencies, such as a car accident, how often would you need to call someone for help? If you get mauled by a bear in the woods, well... I guess that's just survival of the fittest.
Keeping in Touch (yes, this is sort of communication as well): Yeah, technology helps us to stay in touch with friends and family members who we would otherwise not be able to speak with often, but at the same time, families didn't fall apart before the creation of facebook, email, or even the telephone. A nice handwritten letter every so often can keep you up-to-date enough with anyone a great distance away, and it would prevent the rapid decline of penmanship in our generation as well. Heck, I'm facebook friends with many relatives that I STILL don't communicate with once a month. I think a letter every now and than would more than suffice. As for being able to be in touch with our immediate families over the phone or via the internet, a complete lack of technology would simply lead to a more tribe-like existence. Clans would stay close. You would be educated locally, work locally, as a part of a community and stay close to the people that mattered to you.
I mean, obviously I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek and everyone can think of circumstances in which technology simply IS beneficial, but I think on the whole, because you can't have the good without the bad, I would rather go without than have it all. The only problem is that I'll only go without if you all will follow me, because while living in the woods and working my own land to survive appeals to me, doing it alone does not. We are social creatures. We can also fulfill our social needs without the aid of technology. You know, face to face.
Because Chemistry Class Is Boring...
Life in the Litter Box
We know what you need.
The landscape is bleak,
And the future is dreary.
Kneel before the alter.
Guidance is transmitted;
Gadgetry and fashion.
"4G is faster!"
The fat cats laugh
Each time they stop by.
Mass is broadcast to the masses;
The consumerism sermon.
We know what you need.
Confess, my child...
Have you been watching enough TV?
Have faith in our doctrines:
"Part of a well balanced breakfast."
"So 'G' double 'O' 'D' good!"
The fat cats cackle above
And we sink deeper into the litter
Of discarded needs and wants
That the pastors sold us last year;
Proof of a pious life.
We know what you need.
We know what you need.
The landscape is bleak,
And the future is dreary.
Kneel before the alter.
Guidance is transmitted;
Gadgetry and fashion.
"4G is faster!"
The fat cats laugh
Each time they stop by.
Mass is broadcast to the masses;
The consumerism sermon.
We know what you need.
Confess, my child...
Have you been watching enough TV?
Have faith in our doctrines:
"Part of a well balanced breakfast."
"So 'G' double 'O' 'D' good!"
The fat cats cackle above
And we sink deeper into the litter
Of discarded needs and wants
That the pastors sold us last year;
Proof of a pious life.
We know what you need.
How I Hope "Fail" Succeeds
Chuck Klosterman can't heed his own warnings. In the excerpt "Fail" from his book "Eating a Dinosaur" Klosterman discusses, in depth, the nearly undeniable detrimental effects that modern media has on society but admits that he is a slave to the very technology his essay seems to rail against and cannot change his ways. I, like Klosterman can see tremendous merit in the ideas that Ted Kaczynski put forth in his manifesto (although I admit, I have barely familiarized myself with them beyond Klosterman's description) and actually lament the fact that Kaczynski felt so desperate about the fate of his fellow man that he thought he needed to resort to random acts of anonymous violence in order grab the attention of the people he was ultimately trying to save. Like many historical mad geniuses, I can imagine Kaczynski sitting in his cabin regretting the perceived necessity of his actions but justifying it with the old "what's a few lives to save thousands?" line of thinking.
I also can't help but think that in eras long past revolutionaries were the kind of people who saw their society heading down a dark road and took drastic, sometimes violent action in hopes of changing the course of history that they were perceiving. Although Kaczynski's victims were random and guilty of no crime (other than, most probably, being themselves slaves to the system Kaczynski hoped to take down), a few hundred years ago they may have been considered unfortunate but necessary casualties of a revolutionary hero. Now, let's be 100% clear... I am not calling Kaczynski a hero or attempting to praise him any more than Klosterman was. His angle just got me thinking about it a little more and I thought I could take it a step further. Ultimately what Kaczynski did requires some sort of unhinged malice and he deserves the punishment he has received. But he deserves it for hurting innocent bystanders, not for attempting to take down or alter an insidious system that I believe still needs, at the very least, to be altered.
Klosterman, unfortunately, admits that he will not be the one to lead the way. I empathize with his candidness about his addiction to mainstream media, most specifically, the internet, and I also feel the appeal of apathy and of simply choosing not to change because to go on living as a willing participant in our digital society is both easy and convenient. But I just can't. And I don't believe Klosterman wants me to. Well, actually, I can imagine Klosterman's attitude would be that he doesn't care one way or the other, but I can't help but feel like, even if Klosterman writes with a tongue in cheek honesty about his own inability to change he still wrote "Fail" because he hoped he could inspire a stronger audience to do so. I feel, with depressing certainty, that if that audience isn't reached in the near future our society will be heading into an irreversible downward spiral.
I also can't help but think that in eras long past revolutionaries were the kind of people who saw their society heading down a dark road and took drastic, sometimes violent action in hopes of changing the course of history that they were perceiving. Although Kaczynski's victims were random and guilty of no crime (other than, most probably, being themselves slaves to the system Kaczynski hoped to take down), a few hundred years ago they may have been considered unfortunate but necessary casualties of a revolutionary hero. Now, let's be 100% clear... I am not calling Kaczynski a hero or attempting to praise him any more than Klosterman was. His angle just got me thinking about it a little more and I thought I could take it a step further. Ultimately what Kaczynski did requires some sort of unhinged malice and he deserves the punishment he has received. But he deserves it for hurting innocent bystanders, not for attempting to take down or alter an insidious system that I believe still needs, at the very least, to be altered.
Klosterman, unfortunately, admits that he will not be the one to lead the way. I empathize with his candidness about his addiction to mainstream media, most specifically, the internet, and I also feel the appeal of apathy and of simply choosing not to change because to go on living as a willing participant in our digital society is both easy and convenient. But I just can't. And I don't believe Klosterman wants me to. Well, actually, I can imagine Klosterman's attitude would be that he doesn't care one way or the other, but I can't help but feel like, even if Klosterman writes with a tongue in cheek honesty about his own inability to change he still wrote "Fail" because he hoped he could inspire a stronger audience to do so. I feel, with depressing certainty, that if that audience isn't reached in the near future our society will be heading into an irreversible downward spiral.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Food for thought
I don't necessarily know about all of the different cultural beliefs mentioned in the article, nor do I subscribe to any specific spiritual beliefs or know if I believe 2012 will hold ANY significance for humankind or not, but I do think that the main point that's being outlined here - that we must collectively change the way we're living - is the idea that keeps calling me back to the kinds of eclectic searches and theories that I've become so enthralled by over the last few years. This is the kind of media use that's typical of my everyday: http://www.realitysandwich.com/2012_time_odyssey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)