Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Dos and Don'ts for Internet Communication

DO: Say the first thing that comes to your mind. It doesn’t matter if it’s not entirely relevant or if people might misunderstand what you mean. Just add whatever you’ve got to say.

DON’T: Spend too much time editing your comments. You want them to be as natural as possible, like they are in real life.

DO: Insult people if you think they insulted you. Your instinct is usually right about this, so jump in quickly with an insult of your own.

DON’T: Let people get away with disagreeing with you. If someone says something that is contrary to something you said, call him on it. Make sure he understands that you’re right.

DO: Attack someone’s character when you cannot come up with a logical response to what the person said. He or she probably had it coming.

DON’T: Waste time looking up to see if what you're saying is true. It probably is, and it's more important to be timely than right.

DO: Respond with something like, "Yeah, well, you're dumb," if you don't know what else to say. This will make the person realize that he or she is stupid, and that you are right.

DO: Use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS if you're SURE that you REALLY know something, but you're aren't exactly sure how to say it. People will realize that you really do know what you're talking about, and they will appreciate all the emphasis in the right places.

DO: If someone says something you don't like, point out to everyone else that that person is a troll. A troll is someone who disagrees with you.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

You're entitled to your own facts, but not your own opinions

The Colbert Report is in its second week of reruns. For over a week now, I’ve had to think about the news. A couple times I tried to watch The O’Reilly Factor, because Bill O’Reilly is also pretty good at telling me my opinions, but his show is in reruns, too. I’ve had to come up with my own opinions about the issues of the day, and I’ve got to tell you – I’m tired.

I mean, sure, I can go over to Daily Kos and let them tell me what to think. The people over there will do it, for sure, and in a very forceful manner. Or, I could head on over to TekJansen.com, where the members can relate to what I'm going through, and they can talk to me in that same snarky way that Colbert talks to me. But all that’s keeping that group together is the Report (and Tek, of course), and they don’t have any strong unifying opinions about current events. They won’t come to any consensus, and they won’t tell me what to think.

It’s hard, watching the news and reading the papers. I sometimes don’t know which stories are important. Should I pay the most attention to the one about John Snow leaving his job, or to the one about the woman who attacked her husband with a can of bug spray? And should I be glad that Snow is leaving, or do I want him to stay? Should I be on the lookout for criminals with bug spray, or should I buy a can for myself? I just don’t know.

I’ve still got a few days before I’ll feel at ease in the world, knowing that I will have my opinions told to me. I won’t feel comfortable again until Monday, when The Colbert Report is back on the air. Until then, I will try to avoid the news. I will try to avoid anything that causes any sort of conflict for me, something that would require me to come up with my own views of the world. Because that is just too difficult.

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Meta-Blogging

Having recently determined that there really isn’t a common thread of any sort running through this blog (it’s just random shit), I’ve decided to just call it what it is: a place where I write stuff that I like and where I write stuff about stuff that I like. I’m aware that that’s pretty much the running definition of a blog, anyway, but I spend most of my time at Daily Kos, where if people just write whatever damn thing crosses their minds, they’re likely to be troll-rated.

Here, there is no troll-rate button, and I’m in charge. And I’m writing about whatever I want. Here is a list of things I might write about in the future:

Making money
Chewing gum
People who like me
The Colbert Report
Bugs that hit me in the face while I’m riding my bike
Country Music Awards
People who don’t like me
My cats
Tom Cruise’s sexuality
Bigfoot
What I did yesterday that is so awesome that you just have to read about it
A philosophical discussion about the bumper stickers I have on my car
More about my cats
Meta-diaries
Sex
Why people are mean and stupid because they don’t agree with me
Pepsi or Coke?

So, look for those things in the future.

The Daily Cynic

A study has shown that The Daily Show turns people into cynics. Researchers are upset by findings that show that viewers of the show develop “lower opinions of politicians and greater cynicism toward the mainstream media and the electoral process itself.” They have asked Jon Stewart to stop encouraging his viewers to be critical thinkers.

Americans are impatient and demanding; rest of the world says ‘I told you so’

A recent study has shown that Americans like instant gratification. They especially dislike having to wait on hold on the telephone and waiting in lines at grocery stores, and if a business makes them wait too long, they are less likely to return in the future. In a related story, President Bush is now considering changing the name of the Long War to the A New Car Bomb Every Day War.

Friday, May 26, 2006

Gunfire reported on Capitol Hill; Congressmen okay because they have nachos

Earlier today, investigators closed off part of Washington D.C., alarmed because construction workers were “doing their routine duties.” Congressmen were forced to stay inside the Rayburn building until officials gave the all clear. They managed to survive on “a few muffins, a stash of nuts.”

Friday, May 19, 2006

Libya

Since April 29, members of the blogosphere have been praising Stephen Colbert for his performance at the White House Correspondent’s dinner. Colbert is the new Swift, and he’s been telling it like it is for some time now. (Watch for “Klassic Kolbert” on The Daily Show or at least pick up a copy of Indecision 2004.)

Last night on his show, Colbert talked about how great it is that Bush lifted sanctions on Libya, saying that it’s “not a moment too soon for fun-seekers” who might enjoy a vacation in Libya. He says people can thank the Bush administration for “the chance to take your Libyan dream vacation” because even though the process of reconciliation may have started during the Clinton administration, “it’s got all the hallmarks of the Bush administration: sanctions and diplomacy.”

It’s at about this time that the audience realized Colbert’s true meaning behind The Wørd, which wasn’t about Libya at all. As Colbert says, in a rare serious moment, this new relationship with Libya “proves the President’s deeply held belief that when there’s a dangerous authoritarian Arab regime led by a madman with dangerous weapons and links to terrorism, there are always peaceful solutions.”

Everyone recognizes the threat we face from this showdown with Iran. However, there are not enough people who realize that the largest threat comes from the United States. Bush can live up to his promises and try to smooth things over diplomatically with Iran, or he can bomb it. Nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I doubt many people want the United States to have them, either.

Using the Internets for Research, or How Not to Be an Idiot

"What did Betsy ross do during the war? Nothing tells me this. i need to know that great thing she did, and if i dont figure it out, i could get a bad grade. so, please, find out and put it on this website. I need it for a project by the end of this week. which is a short time. plus i have a math test on thursday. so cant go on the website then. i kind of need it now. Byee and Good luck!!!!!"

That was written on a discussion page at Wikipedia. I can only hope a college student didn’t write it. It’s bad enough that anyone would write it. However, not wanting to do schoolwork certainly isn’t new. We all tried to get out of it, especially in high school. No, that’s not the problem. This comment is representative of a larger issue facing academia: nobody knows how to do research anymore.

Thus, I have written the following guidelines for anyone wishing to conduct research here on the Internets. Happy researching!

1. Use Wikipedia discriminately. Read the discussion pages to see if there are any disagreements about what is written. Remember that people like you wrote the articles. Would you trust yourself?

2. Don’t use webpages if you don’t know who created them and what the creators’ biases are. For instance, if you go to Daily Kos, don’t expect to find all sides to an argument. Same thing for Red State. Find out why the sites exist. If you think a site is completely unbiased, you’re probably quite dense.

3. Don’t rely completely on Google. Come on. This is as bad as writing a comment on Wikipedia asking other people to do your research for you. Dig a little.

4. Leave. Get off the computer. Go to the library. Find something that you can hold in your hands. Wander through the stacks. Read old newspapers and magazines. Talk to a librarian. If you think you can find all the information you need while sitting in front of your computer, then you are helping to bring down our nation’s level of intelligence. Don’t do that.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Let's play with Google

If you have a blog, you should write a post about the Bush Administration and the Hindenburg. Try it! Let's see what happens.

Friday, May 12, 2006

Trouble in Utah

Fish in Utah are chasing their tails. It's only a matter of time before humans begin doing it, too.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Stephen Colbert is a Troll With Trusted User Status

I was thinking that I might write a diary on Daily Kos with that as my title. I mean, what with the recent obsessions over there, I thought it would be appropriate.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Drug-Fueled Sex Crimes and Escapism

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President. In 2003, Arnold Schwarzeneggar became the governor of California. Last week, my mother said she wants George Clooney to be our president. And this week, people on Daily Kos are flooding the site with diaries about Stephen Colbert and his stand against the administration and the press.

I admit it; I was one of those bloggers who added to the Colbert hysteria. And, hell, here I am, doing it again. But what did he do? Did he take political action? Did he raise our awareness of problems we need to find solutions for? As I said in my previous diary on Daily Kos, Colbert is a comedian; he’s a satirist. He “exposed” problems that we already knew existed. He showed the absurdity of what the President and media are doing.

Last night on his show, Colbert claimed that celebrities have a job “to provide escapism, period.” Their “humanitarian mission is to get people to watch TV shows about doctors and aliens so they won’t waste all that time worrying about the NSA and immigration.” George Clooney is dangerous because not only is a good actor, writer, and producer, but “in calling for action against the genocide in Darfur, he has unfortunately chosen the unassailable moral high ground.” Clooney is going to influence other people and “spawn a host of latter-day Fondas, Asners, Aldas, and Redgraves.”

You know what? Colbert is right. It is not up to Hollywood (or New York) celebrities to solve our political and societal problems. It is not up to them to take action. If they decide to do so, great. But while we sit at our computers and cheer them on, the problems continue. We can thank Colbert over and over again, we can watch Good Night and Good Luck until our DVDs wear out, but really, what are we doing?

In an age when more people know about The Simpsons and American Idol than about the First Amendment, it is up to us, the heroes, as Colbert would say, to do something. We need to get up off our asses and do whatever we can to solve the problems facing us right now. We need to be active. We need to do more than blog. Right now, we’re preaching to the choir. Most people don’t know about Daily Kos, and the ones who we most need to reach aren’t even remotely interested in it.

I have thanked Colbert for his speech. I thanked him for providing me with a half hour of entertainment. It was absolutely great to see the guy who goes on and on about how “great” Bush is on a nightly basis actually stand up in front of him. But Colbert is not a solution. Colbert is not our god. Colbert is a man doing his job, and we need to do ours.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Satire: Exposing Vice and Folly


SATIRE, n. An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a soul-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.
- Ambrose Bierce

250 years ago, Jonathan Swift suggested poor Irishmen eat their children to keep from starving. Of course, we all (hopefully) know that Swift did not wish this plan actually be carried out; he wanted the English, who ruled Ireland, to help those who were starving. However, had Swift appeared before the British Parliament and actually suggested that Englishmen offer assistance to the suffering Irish, he would never have been taken seriously. He would have been given a small note in the vast history of the fight for Ireland.

Today, Stephen Colbert is suggesting that you put down your books and feel the truth from him. Four nights a week, he appears on our television screens and tells us what to be afraid of, who is destroying America, and why George W. Bush is the greatest president ever. And, last Saturday, Colbert appeared in front of the man himself to give the truth directly to Bush.

Any “it-getter” knows what Colbert really thinks of Bush. But as Swift could not tell Parliament what they really should do, Colbert could not tell Bush what he truly felt. Colbert could not stand in front of Bush and say, “You are a poor excuse for a human being. You have been given power, and you abused it. You have broken laws, you’ve lied, and you’ve deceived the very people who have placed their trust in you. You’re pathetic.” But, also like Swift, Colbert had a tool that he could use: satire.

Satire exposes madness, hypocrisy, follies. Under the British crown, Irish Catholics lived on land owned by the Anglo-Irish aristocracy. They lived in terrible conditions, and Swift exposed it with his appalling proposal. According to Swift, the solution to the problem of Irish poverty was to simply get rid of the surplus population while providing nourishment at the same time. It sounds reasonable enough until you consider the way in which the plan would be carried out.

And, Colbert is also a master at exposing hidden absurdities. For instance, how does he feel about Republicans bringing issues such as gay marriage into politics? He tells Americans that they need to “raise the National Umbrage Level.” They need to continue bringing up topics that are sure to enrage people because “righteous fury seems like the best way to get people to the polls.” And then you realize that that’s exactly what the Republicans are doing – making people angry so they vote the right way.

Satire allows Colbert, as it allowed Swift, the luxury of criticizing hypocrisy, abuses of power, and absurdity because he never explicitly attacks his targets; he employs the technique of reductio ad absurdem, agreeing with the very things that he is satirizing. Bush is his “hero,” Bill O’Reilly is “Papa Bear,” and he retired Tom Delay’s congressional district like it was a ball player’s number. Thus, Bush could not do anything but sit and watch as Colbert skewered him at the White House Press Correspondents Association dinner. He had to take it because Colbert was just telling jokes; he wasn’t being serious or anything, right?

Yes, Colbert was telling jokes. He did not come right out and say what he felt, because his talent as a satirist provides him with a much stronger tool than would the ability to simply give a speech about what’s wrong with our government and the press. Colbert attacked the madness and inadequacies of the current administration and the press, and he exposed them to ridicule.