The summer between my sophomore and junior years of college, there’s this game I learned to play. It’s called Mafia (no, not the one you play on your PS2, an even better one).
Essentially, the game is a role-playing card game. Poker cards are distributed out to each member of the game. Prior to the start of the game, certain cards are designated as “mafia,” “citizen,” “cop,” “doctor,” and so on. Depending on the card that you get, your role is determined. No one tells the other people in the game what card they pulled from the deck. There is a narrator who is, with respect to the game, omniscient once the first “night” is completed. The narrator will tell everyone to go to “sleep.” Sleeping only requires that you close your eyes and keep them closed until the narrator indicates that you can “wake up.”
“Alright, everybody go to sleep,” the narrator typically exclaims. Now, during the night, the narrator will ask certain members of the “community” to wake up, and then go to sleep. When mafia wakes up, they get to “kill” someone. Killing someone merely necessitates pointing at any individual in the circle. Mafia then goes to sleep, and in a short game, the night is over, and everyone can “wake up,” except for the chosen victim. At this point the deliberations begin and someone has to be voted off before the next night can begin.
Now, the basic goal of the game is for the citizens (including the cop and the doctor) to vote off all the mafia members in-between nights. At the same token, the mafia’s goal is to help vote off all the citizens, and to kill them during the night. When mafia outnumbers the citizens, then mafia wins. If the citizens vote off all the mafia, then citizens win. For a more in depth look at the game, check out this website (the rules and game-play are not exactly the same, but similar to the way I learned it).
If you’ve never played before, I’d suggest it as great fun when you’re just chillin out with a group of friends. It’s also a great icebreaker in case you want to get acquainted with a large group of people quickly. Trust me, you’ll know most, if not all, of the people in the room after just a couple games.
Beside the sheer excitement of playing the game, there are many things that intrigue me about it.
It was the one game that college students would get together and play on the weekends, into the early morning hours, that didn’t involve alcohol (we often played in the dorms where alcohol was prohibited). Honestly, I recall weekend after weekend when many of my peers and many strangers would gather just to play Mafia, as opposed to going out and partying.
I couldn’t believe the mass numbers of people that would come out just to play. I recall nights when forty plus people would show up, and sit there and play for 5 or 6 hours straight. One time, there were like ninety people for three nights in a row, so we broke up into three separate games. Get the picture?
Maybe the allure to the game is that you get the chance to become something you are not, like a killer. Maybe the randomness of the game is intriguing; this round you could be a “killer,” and the next round you might be the doctor. Perhaps the shock of finding out that your best friend is the one that “picked you off” during the middle of the “night,” attracts people to the game. I’d imagine that these reasons, along with some others, all play a role in the fascination with the game.
People that you typically wouldn’t be inclined to talk to would show up and, after awhile, you might walk out of the game with a new buddy. The people that you met through Mafia seemed to be just as cool the next day at lunch as they were the previous night during the game. So many times, if you played Mafia with someone, you were easily assimilated into their world and they into yours. While on campus, I honestly met hundreds of people that I probably wouldn’t have had the opportunity to meet had we not played together. I'm really good friends with many of them to this day.
Along that same vein is what ultimately interests me the most about Mafia.
When I first began playing, one of the funny phrases that seemed to be a statute of the game was that “mafia doesn’t celebrate diversity (or relationships or gender or religion...).” To translate: Anybody is fair game once mafia begins to point their fingers. As a result, you often find that your girlfriend or boyfriend might be instrumental in voting you off, or may have actually killed you during the “night.”
The irony in a statement like “Mafia doesn’t celebrate diversity,” is that if you looked around the room, you couldn’t tell. One of the biggest reasons I am an avid fan of the game is that it is the only time that I see such a variety of people willingly coming together in a recreational setting. Nobody is forced to come and play, and yet they do.
Fraternity types, and Sororities alike, often play. As aforementioned, boyfriend/girlfriend pairs frequently play, only to turn on each other just to win one round. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Agnostics, Atheists, etc., all come to play. Indians, Latinos, Native Americans, Whites, Asians, Blacks (and the list goes on) are all likely to make an appearance. I’ve seen Israeli’s and Palestinian’s, Democrats and Republicans, Engineers and English majors, all get along as if there was no difference to speak of.
I don’t know if anyone else does it, but when I see and recognize the incredible range of diversity that is represented in each game of mafia, I sit back, marvel, and smile.
I wish that each day could be like this. I wish that when we meet someone, we could leave our prejudices at the door, and peaceably come together. Before there were Communists, Terrorists and Criminals, there were people. You can’t know what a person is before you meet them. I've never read "Green Party" on anyone's forehead. Hearing someone's religious affiliation isn't a measuring stick. Skin color is certainly no thermometer either.
I recognize that there are some inherent PC concerns with the game, like the notion of what the Mafia (the real one) is and does. And though I kind of take issue with the some of the concepts of the game (mainly that we are “killing” people), I do appreciate that this game can accomplish for a few brief hours what people can’t seem to do in a whole lifetime.
-Maelstrom
Friday, July 30, 2004
Monday, July 26, 2004
Che Guevara
Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Although you might not recognize his name, I’m sure you'll recognize his face. His image has had somewhat of a cult following. I see him all the time on t-shirts as I pass through the mall, the grocery store, down the street, at amusement parks, at weddings, during morning mass. Okay, so maybe not at weddings or at mass, but you get the point. Such popularity begs the question, “who is the man behind the likeness?” And an even bigger question has recently arisen. What does Che Guevara have to do with Jay-Z?
Che Guevara was born in Argentina in 1928. He was diagnosed with asthma, from which he suffered all his life. He received most of his education at home, and was an avid reader of Freud and Marx. He attended college at Buenos Aires University in Argentina in 1947, where he studied medicine in order to learn more about his disease. He also took up a significant interest in Leprosy, from which he became a volunteer in aiding those with the debilitating disease.
Che was an eyewitness to the Fascist regime of Juan Peron in Argentina. It was as a result of this that Guevara grew a hatred for “puppet” governments like the parliamentary democratic one he witnessed, as well as a hatred for military politicians and the army, the capitalist oligarchy, and indeed the wickedness of imperialism. In Guevara’s eyes, there was no better example of imperialism than the United States of America. He hated the USA greatly.
Che became a fighter in many political wars (though he never seemed very interested in the politics of things). He fought in Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the Congo in Africa. He is probably most noted for befriending, helping, and playing a key role in the rise to power of Fidel Castro in Cuba. To make a very long, but interesting, story short, Guevara, believing in the doctrine that each person has a responsibility to their society and brothers, and that no one person or group should reign over others, joined Castro in creating a Communist country and enemy to the United States.
Guevara became Cuban ambassador to the United Nations, where he vehemently argued points that conflicted both with democracy as well as Castro’s communism. Indeed, his views had developed into Socialism, as a book that he wrote indicates. As a result, Castro essentially cut ties with Guevara in 1965. Guevara was later captured and executed while leading a guerrilla revolt in Bolivia in 1967.
So there I am, in my co-Resident Advisor’s dorm room, December 1st, 2001. We, and a couple of friends, have gathered around to watch the highly publicized MTV Unplugged. This episode was going to feature the rap industry’s biggest artist, Jay-Z. And then he hits the stage, once again likening himself unto a rap god by referring to himself as “HOVA.” Throughout his performance, it wasn't his mild-blasphemous references to God that frustrated me, it was his attire. Jay-Z--complete with a beanie, large diamond studded earrings, and a platinum necklace--was wearing a shirt with Che Guevara’s image on it.
Now for those of you that didn’t take the time to read Guevara’s in depth biography, let me let you in on something. Jay-Z is the epitome of what Guevara hated. Here stands a man that is 100 million dollars richer than ninety-some percent of the people that live in the same country he earned his money in. Here is a man that is being exalted by the media and fans despite the fact that he doesn’t live the life that most of the people he is being exalted by live. Furious I was and angry I am.
One might argue that Jay-Z is trying to send a message that Socialism or Marxism or Communism is the way to go. Well, if that is the message that “HOV” is trying to get across, then he should live the life instead of just purporting to be about it. Guevara certainly lived the life. Che’s children have remarked that they hardly saw their father when he was back home in Cuba, because he would work out in the fields alongside the poor for countless hours each day (because of his diplomatic status, Guevara was often overseas, and could only spend weekends at home). He not only preached a doctrine of Socialism, he lived it.
Jay-Z could learn a lot from that. Maybe instead of purporting to understand the philosophies of Guevara, he should live them.
And just like everything else hip-hop artists seem to promote (i.e. Gin from Snoop Dogg, and Courvoisier from Busta Rhymes), I’m sure the sale of t-shirts brandishing the image of Che Guevara went up. At least from observation, it sure seems like it. So now there are tens of thousands of mindless, empty-headed, Jay-Z following cronies out there “flossing” Che Guevara t-shirts.
This certainly infuriates me because I’m sure that most of the people just buy the t-shirt because it’s a fad, and some probably because they saw Jay-Z wearing one. I’d bet some serious money that most people with these t-shirts don’t have a clue who Che Guevara was. No one probably even paid attention to the irony of Jay-Z wearing Guevara's image on a t-shirt while rapping on T/V, wearing expensive jewelry, under a democratic government, in a country that Che Guevara certainly hated, all while rapping about the "Takeover" and "Girls, Girls, Girls."
And unfortunately, the ignorance continues!
-Maelstrom
Che Guevara was born in Argentina in 1928. He was diagnosed with asthma, from which he suffered all his life. He received most of his education at home, and was an avid reader of Freud and Marx. He attended college at Buenos Aires University in Argentina in 1947, where he studied medicine in order to learn more about his disease. He also took up a significant interest in Leprosy, from which he became a volunteer in aiding those with the debilitating disease.
Che was an eyewitness to the Fascist regime of Juan Peron in Argentina. It was as a result of this that Guevara grew a hatred for “puppet” governments like the parliamentary democratic one he witnessed, as well as a hatred for military politicians and the army, the capitalist oligarchy, and indeed the wickedness of imperialism. In Guevara’s eyes, there was no better example of imperialism than the United States of America. He hated the USA greatly.
Che became a fighter in many political wars (though he never seemed very interested in the politics of things). He fought in Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the Congo in Africa. He is probably most noted for befriending, helping, and playing a key role in the rise to power of Fidel Castro in Cuba. To make a very long, but interesting, story short, Guevara, believing in the doctrine that each person has a responsibility to their society and brothers, and that no one person or group should reign over others, joined Castro in creating a Communist country and enemy to the United States.
Guevara became Cuban ambassador to the United Nations, where he vehemently argued points that conflicted both with democracy as well as Castro’s communism. Indeed, his views had developed into Socialism, as a book that he wrote indicates. As a result, Castro essentially cut ties with Guevara in 1965. Guevara was later captured and executed while leading a guerrilla revolt in Bolivia in 1967.
So there I am, in my co-Resident Advisor’s dorm room, December 1st, 2001. We, and a couple of friends, have gathered around to watch the highly publicized MTV Unplugged. This episode was going to feature the rap industry’s biggest artist, Jay-Z. And then he hits the stage, once again likening himself unto a rap god by referring to himself as “HOVA.” Throughout his performance, it wasn't his mild-blasphemous references to God that frustrated me, it was his attire. Jay-Z--complete with a beanie, large diamond studded earrings, and a platinum necklace--was wearing a shirt with Che Guevara’s image on it.
Now for those of you that didn’t take the time to read Guevara’s in depth biography, let me let you in on something. Jay-Z is the epitome of what Guevara hated. Here stands a man that is 100 million dollars richer than ninety-some percent of the people that live in the same country he earned his money in. Here is a man that is being exalted by the media and fans despite the fact that he doesn’t live the life that most of the people he is being exalted by live. Furious I was and angry I am.
One might argue that Jay-Z is trying to send a message that Socialism or Marxism or Communism is the way to go. Well, if that is the message that “HOV” is trying to get across, then he should live the life instead of just purporting to be about it. Guevara certainly lived the life. Che’s children have remarked that they hardly saw their father when he was back home in Cuba, because he would work out in the fields alongside the poor for countless hours each day (because of his diplomatic status, Guevara was often overseas, and could only spend weekends at home). He not only preached a doctrine of Socialism, he lived it.
Jay-Z could learn a lot from that. Maybe instead of purporting to understand the philosophies of Guevara, he should live them.
And just like everything else hip-hop artists seem to promote (i.e. Gin from Snoop Dogg, and Courvoisier from Busta Rhymes), I’m sure the sale of t-shirts brandishing the image of Che Guevara went up. At least from observation, it sure seems like it. So now there are tens of thousands of mindless, empty-headed, Jay-Z following cronies out there “flossing” Che Guevara t-shirts.
This certainly infuriates me because I’m sure that most of the people just buy the t-shirt because it’s a fad, and some probably because they saw Jay-Z wearing one. I’d bet some serious money that most people with these t-shirts don’t have a clue who Che Guevara was. No one probably even paid attention to the irony of Jay-Z wearing Guevara's image on a t-shirt while rapping on T/V, wearing expensive jewelry, under a democratic government, in a country that Che Guevara certainly hated, all while rapping about the "Takeover" and "Girls, Girls, Girls."
And unfortunately, the ignorance continues!
-Maelstrom
Thursday, July 22, 2004
My Technological Resolve
This will be the final installation in my series concerning technology (and all the grief it causes). With e-mail and cell phones out of the way, I can discuss some other aspects of technology, as opposed to fussing about it. But before I get through fussing, just take a quick gander at this link.
From the internet, to camera phones, to instant messenger, technology has certainly become a staple in our everyday lives. However, devices that were meant to make life a little bit easier, and were intended to provide us with a high level of convenience, often cause alarm, frustration, and separate us from each other.
I recall when “surfing the web” was a big deal. There was such a vast ocean of information and knowledge available at anytime. And although you probably had to travel to the public library to get to a computer that had significant internet capabilities, you could search through stockpiles of information infinitely faster than you could running through the library-at Carl Lewis’ speed-looking things up. It may have even been to your benefit to read The News on the web because you could browse through the topics that interested you, and cut out the 20 minutes of T/V news “fat.” Books that you wanted to review, prior to purchasing, were also available on the internet. In order to find a particular book, all you had to do was log on to your favorite search engine (ie altavista.com, yahoo.com, lycos.com), and type the book title in. “Hits” would appear, and the website that you wanted to investigate was just one click away. You’d click on it, read what you wanted to read, and go on your merry way.
You couldn’t just type in (and in many cases still cannot) a book title and expect to get Hits concerning that book only. In fact, before many of the major search engines changed their program algorithms, if you typed in “Little Women,” in search of Louisa May Alcott’s novel, you’d return loads of Hits that had nothing to do with four March sisters, and everything to do with sisters making out with each other, their brothers, and their little cousins. Pornography had permeated the internet in ways that many weren’t aware of initially. Parents would often leave their children to play on the web, or maybe even look up a book like “Little Women” for a book report, only to have their kids be witness to countless pages of sexually explicit filth. Now, with viruses rampant, and pop up windows abounding, the frustration continues in many other ways.
Since I entered college, I watched photography evolve from 35mm film camera’s with elaborate zoom lenses, to “throw away” cameras, to digital cameras. And though the digital cameras certainly have their advantages, there are a couple things that still bug me about them. And as I mentioned before in my series about technology, if a new technological device can’t provide me with everything that its predecessor provided me with, then it is technologically placebo. With respect to digital cameras, the biggest problem I have is the so-called “lag time.” That is the time it takes for the camera to actually take the picture after the button has been pressed.
We all know that with film cameras, this wasn’t a big problem. You tell everyone to say “cheese,” press the button, and it’s a done deal. Now, you have to wait through a succession of warning flashes before the camera gets its mind right and actually takes a picture. This often leads to many people moving or not smiling when the actual photo is being taken, or the cameraman taking shots of the floor because he didn’t realize that the real picture hasn’t been taken yet, and pulls the camera down after “taking the picture.” What that translates into is people having to re-situate themselves in front of the camera in order to do it right (as if that isn’t a hard enough task the first time). Honestly, I at least think there should be a standard warning flash sequence for all digital cameras so that we can eliminate that problem.
Finally, there’s this thing called Instant Messenger. IM is easily one of the most addicting devices technology has to offer. You can get on IM to check to see who else is signed on, and end up communicating on there for 4 hours straight; it’s crazy like that. However, I’ve noticed that IM is quite possibly the worst way to communicate with people.
Communication is dominated by body language and vocal tone. I know that I can understand people speaking a different language pretty well just by watching their gestures, facial expressions, and by listening to the pitch in their voice. You get all of that in person, some of that over the phone, but none of that with Instant Messenger. I know that there have been multiple times when a statement that I “IM’ed” somebody with was completely misunderstood (I’m sure, however, that had I said the statement over the phone, and certainly in person, that it would have been taken as I had meant it to be taken.). So, then I have to explain, in my most pristine language, exactly what I meant. How annoying!
To overcome this, standard IM talk has been established. To express that we think something is funny, we type “lol,” or laughing out loud (which one of my female friends once misinterpreted as “lots of love”). If its really funny, we might type “ROFL” or “lmao.” I find this interesting because how many times are you really laughing out loud when you find something mildly amusing? Probably almost never. In fact, lol is almost as common as “um” in a verbal conversation. Also, if you’re really Rolling On The Floor laughing, maybe you should see a shrink...jk :o)
Abbreviations like btw, bf/gf, and the world’s longest running lie, brb (when you know that you have zero intention of “being right back”), are all apart of this family of communication, if you can call it that. And there is even a family of facial expressions that you can now use to express how you are feeling on IM. Choose one, and the person on the other side will indeed understand you.
I also think its funny how people sometimes describe their every waking moment on their away message. And in a world where stalker’s for real exist, you’d think that people wouldn’t put their personal information out in the open, but sure enough, check a few profiles, and you’ve got easy access to someone’s life. The funniest thing about away messages is everyone’s attempt to amuse the viewing community. People try their hardest to put up an away message that will garner some responses, and are ever-so frustrated when they return to their empty computer screen.
Finally, I think that IM is one of the most separating devices out there. I know, from experience, that friends sometimes go from lunches, to phone calls, to buddy lists. Instead of calling someone, you figure that you can just put them on your buddy list, and talk to them online. Unfortunately, after a while, you just don’t talk in person or over the phone anymore (or certainly not as frequently). Once you’ve gotten past the excitement of finding out that Sally Sue is also on IM (big surprise, right?), IM becomes an afterthought as well.
Be honest, how many of your “buddies” do you really engage in conversation? I have over a hundred “buddies,” and probably talk to less than 10 on a regular basis (although I do check all away messages and profiles frequently).
And in all my disgust with technology, I find myself using it all: Email, the internet (as evidenced by my blog), digital cameras, and certainly Instant Messenger. I use them not because they’re exactly necessary, but because society has created an atmosphere that makes them seem necessary (and if they work like they’re supposed to, they can provide comfort and convenience). I fought the notion of owning a cell phone for years. Then, when I finally broke down and got one 2 years ago, my world changed. That day, and every subsequent day, I had to have my celly or I was a lost individual. That’s the strange thing about it, the week before I had no problem navigating through my life without one. So though it still isn’t exactly necessary, I sure feel like it is.
In the final analysis, I just find it interesting that technology is supposed to make more time for us to do things like hang out with friends, sleep more, enjoy life. Technology is supposed to uncomplicated things. From instant potatoes to the George Foreman grill, everything is supposed to be much easier for us, and we should be able to enjoy our lives at our leisure. However, it seems like the more technology advances the less time we have, and the more frustrated we become. Funny, huh?
-Maelstrom
From the internet, to camera phones, to instant messenger, technology has certainly become a staple in our everyday lives. However, devices that were meant to make life a little bit easier, and were intended to provide us with a high level of convenience, often cause alarm, frustration, and separate us from each other.
I recall when “surfing the web” was a big deal. There was such a vast ocean of information and knowledge available at anytime. And although you probably had to travel to the public library to get to a computer that had significant internet capabilities, you could search through stockpiles of information infinitely faster than you could running through the library-at Carl Lewis’ speed-looking things up. It may have even been to your benefit to read The News on the web because you could browse through the topics that interested you, and cut out the 20 minutes of T/V news “fat.” Books that you wanted to review, prior to purchasing, were also available on the internet. In order to find a particular book, all you had to do was log on to your favorite search engine (ie altavista.com, yahoo.com, lycos.com), and type the book title in. “Hits” would appear, and the website that you wanted to investigate was just one click away. You’d click on it, read what you wanted to read, and go on your merry way.
Well, that was how it was supposed to be. Unfortunately, the selfsame day that “Al Gore” gave birth to the internet, it was corrupted by people who had nothing better to do than to spoil its existence for everyone else.
You couldn’t just type in (and in many cases still cannot) a book title and expect to get Hits concerning that book only. In fact, before many of the major search engines changed their program algorithms, if you typed in “Little Women,” in search of Louisa May Alcott’s novel, you’d return loads of Hits that had nothing to do with four March sisters, and everything to do with sisters making out with each other, their brothers, and their little cousins. Pornography had permeated the internet in ways that many weren’t aware of initially. Parents would often leave their children to play on the web, or maybe even look up a book like “Little Women” for a book report, only to have their kids be witness to countless pages of sexually explicit filth. Now, with viruses rampant, and pop up windows abounding, the frustration continues in many other ways.
Since I entered college, I watched photography evolve from 35mm film camera’s with elaborate zoom lenses, to “throw away” cameras, to digital cameras. And though the digital cameras certainly have their advantages, there are a couple things that still bug me about them. And as I mentioned before in my series about technology, if a new technological device can’t provide me with everything that its predecessor provided me with, then it is technologically placebo. With respect to digital cameras, the biggest problem I have is the so-called “lag time.” That is the time it takes for the camera to actually take the picture after the button has been pressed.
We all know that with film cameras, this wasn’t a big problem. You tell everyone to say “cheese,” press the button, and it’s a done deal. Now, you have to wait through a succession of warning flashes before the camera gets its mind right and actually takes a picture. This often leads to many people moving or not smiling when the actual photo is being taken, or the cameraman taking shots of the floor because he didn’t realize that the real picture hasn’t been taken yet, and pulls the camera down after “taking the picture.” What that translates into is people having to re-situate themselves in front of the camera in order to do it right (as if that isn’t a hard enough task the first time). Honestly, I at least think there should be a standard warning flash sequence for all digital cameras so that we can eliminate that problem.
Finally, there’s this thing called Instant Messenger. IM is easily one of the most addicting devices technology has to offer. You can get on IM to check to see who else is signed on, and end up communicating on there for 4 hours straight; it’s crazy like that. However, I’ve noticed that IM is quite possibly the worst way to communicate with people.
Communication is dominated by body language and vocal tone. I know that I can understand people speaking a different language pretty well just by watching their gestures, facial expressions, and by listening to the pitch in their voice. You get all of that in person, some of that over the phone, but none of that with Instant Messenger. I know that there have been multiple times when a statement that I “IM’ed” somebody with was completely misunderstood (I’m sure, however, that had I said the statement over the phone, and certainly in person, that it would have been taken as I had meant it to be taken.). So, then I have to explain, in my most pristine language, exactly what I meant. How annoying!
To overcome this, standard IM talk has been established. To express that we think something is funny, we type “lol,” or laughing out loud (which one of my female friends once misinterpreted as “lots of love”). If its really funny, we might type “ROFL” or “lmao.” I find this interesting because how many times are you really laughing out loud when you find something mildly amusing? Probably almost never. In fact, lol is almost as common as “um” in a verbal conversation. Also, if you’re really Rolling On The Floor laughing, maybe you should see a shrink...jk :o)
Abbreviations like btw, bf/gf, and the world’s longest running lie, brb (when you know that you have zero intention of “being right back”), are all apart of this family of communication, if you can call it that. And there is even a family of facial expressions that you can now use to express how you are feeling on IM. Choose one, and the person on the other side will indeed understand you.
I also think its funny how people sometimes describe their every waking moment on their away message. And in a world where stalker’s for real exist, you’d think that people wouldn’t put their personal information out in the open, but sure enough, check a few profiles, and you’ve got easy access to someone’s life. The funniest thing about away messages is everyone’s attempt to amuse the viewing community. People try their hardest to put up an away message that will garner some responses, and are ever-so frustrated when they return to their empty computer screen.
Finally, I think that IM is one of the most separating devices out there. I know, from experience, that friends sometimes go from lunches, to phone calls, to buddy lists. Instead of calling someone, you figure that you can just put them on your buddy list, and talk to them online. Unfortunately, after a while, you just don’t talk in person or over the phone anymore (or certainly not as frequently). Once you’ve gotten past the excitement of finding out that Sally Sue is also on IM (big surprise, right?), IM becomes an afterthought as well.
Be honest, how many of your “buddies” do you really engage in conversation? I have over a hundred “buddies,” and probably talk to less than 10 on a regular basis (although I do check all away messages and profiles frequently).
And in all my disgust with technology, I find myself using it all: Email, the internet (as evidenced by my blog), digital cameras, and certainly Instant Messenger. I use them not because they’re exactly necessary, but because society has created an atmosphere that makes them seem necessary (and if they work like they’re supposed to, they can provide comfort and convenience). I fought the notion of owning a cell phone for years. Then, when I finally broke down and got one 2 years ago, my world changed. That day, and every subsequent day, I had to have my celly or I was a lost individual. That’s the strange thing about it, the week before I had no problem navigating through my life without one. So though it still isn’t exactly necessary, I sure feel like it is.
In the final analysis, I just find it interesting that technology is supposed to make more time for us to do things like hang out with friends, sleep more, enjoy life. Technology is supposed to uncomplicated things. From instant potatoes to the George Foreman grill, everything is supposed to be much easier for us, and we should be able to enjoy our lives at our leisure. However, it seems like the more technology advances the less time we have, and the more frustrated we become. Funny, huh?
-Maelstrom
Monday, July 19, 2004
Where's the Humanity?
In my not so many years, I’ve become increasingly frustrated with the gender group I belong to. I think that men are too often incredibly insensitive to the struggles of women, and rarely seek to bridge the many chasms that exist between the two. I guess I shouldn’t be shocked at this since members in whatever majority (i.e. race, gender, and so on) never seem to understand the struggles of those in the minority. It is great to know that there are a few out there trying to help, but those people are indeed only a few.
I’m particularly mad at men right now because I have seen too many instances of direct brutal violence toward women, and have had too many of my female friends inform me that they have been sexually assaulted (one instance is too many, but unfortunately, I’m well aware of more than just one). One might think that these instances are not that numerous, but I can assure you that there are more instances of brutality against women, as well as rape, than most men ever dreamed. One might also think that the men committing these crimes are scarce and that they alone are sick individuals, and don’t represent the general male population. I disagree. If you walk outside, I’m sure you walk past numerous violators, and I wouldn’t be shocked if you talked to a female abuser everyday.
I, being a man, am in a position where I hear how men think (when women aren’t around and men’s wildest thoughts, concerning women, can be aired unencumbered) on a frequent basis. I understand, in large part, why men think the way they do, but cannot believe that so many men buy into misogynistic representations of society and how women and men should interact. Saying that I’m astonished at what men often say (including some of my closest friends), and really think, would be a huge understatement. I’m actually quite outraged.
From my vantage point, the two biggest factors that affect the psyche of men are the media (i.e. T/V, movies, the internet), and what boys see at home as they are growing up.
The media is so unforgiving toward women. I often remark to my friends that in order for a woman to be a newscaster, she has to be incredibly attractive (if you don’t believe me, watch ANY news station during peak news watching hours-7am and 6pm-plus or minus two hours). For the most part, in order for a woman to be a sportscaster, she has to not only be extremely attractive, but she has to portray herself as a sexualized being (e.g. watch The Best Damn Sports Show Period). Countless great actresses, that previously had very powerful roles, had to get naked and “do the nasty” on camera before they could garner the coveted Oscar. In music videos, despite the lyrical skills of the artist, women are often the main dish-served up like ribs at a barbecue.
And if you don’t think these images and representations don’t get into the minds of boys and men everywhere, you are sadly mistaken. If you think that women are supposed to “Git Down on Tha Flo” when David Banner comes on, then when they don’t, your mental map doesn’t represent the map that reality has given you. From a psychological standpoint, I’m sure that this causes rage in some men, and indeed may be, from a mental perspective, the cause for many of the atrocities against women. No one can really tell me otherwise because I have heard too many conversations where men have expressed that they expect their girl to do what the men see women do on T/V, or in movies, and then describe the consequence if they don't.
It has always been my belief that people are merely a reflection of the life that they saw as a child growing up; and that maturity is determined by a person’s ability to either accept or reject the things they saw as a child, and to adjust their map accordingly. For example, if you witnessed your father beating your mother as a child, then certainly that will have an affect on who you are when you grow up. But it is your decision whether or not to follow in his footsteps, or to stand up and recognize that what he did was wrong, and to promise yourself not to be like that.
If my theory on people is true, then it is no wonder that so many men have twisted views of women, and how they are to be treated (As a side note, I will never profess to understand women. Women are an incredible enigma to me, and in all my trying, all I’ve become is more confused about them. However, I write what I write because I can surely recognize injustice, and I think that there is an inherent measuring stick in human beings that knows right from wrong). Too many boys grow up in abusive homes, and even more grow up not knowing who their father is (in which case the media often becomes the teacher).
I thank God that my father exhibited copious amounts of love toward my mother. I never saw him raise his hand in anger towards my mom. I never heard him yell, curse or swear at my mother. I always saw him treat her with respect. He, gladly, wasn’t ashamed or afraid to show affection toward my mother in front of me and my three siblings. I recall one year, on my mother’s birthday, he had gone to great lengths to make her day an awesome one. And as I recall, he had baked her a cake. And I remember him standing there, embracing her, and kissing her for a long time, right there in front of all four of us. In the short few years that I knew him, I learned (by example) how a woman is to be treated. And (unfortunately for any loser out there that seeks to marry my sister) my sister saw the standard by which all men she ever encounters would be measured. We need more positive male examples like my father out there. It is sad, however, that many boys don’t witness anything close to this, and so I can easily see how many of their views towards women are developed.
Although the media plays a role, and your home environment certainly makes an impression on your life as a whole, there is zero excuse for such criminal actions. Just because you may be bigger or stronger than a woman doesn’t mean that you go and rape her. Who gave you that right? What makes you think that you can beat another human being for not “obeying” you? Who do you think that you are?
I think that there are too few male humans and too many bipeds with penises walking around. A human being wouldn’t slash the throat of someone they say that they love. A human being wouldn’t steal the innocence of another human being so that their desire for a sexual conquest can be fulfilled. A human being wouldn’t accept the notion that women should do as they’re told and live under “my” rule (i.e. only go out when “I” let her or only hang out with the people “I” let her hang out with). A human being would understand that it’s wrong for a woman to get paid twenty cents less than a man for doing the same job. A human being would understand that a woman is a human being too, and that the way you talk to her and the way you treat her can have a profound impact on the course that her life takes.
This is not my attempt to win the favor of women worldwide; this is not propaganda. This is the way I think, this is the way I am, and this is a portion of the world as I see it. Maybe my thoughts stem from the fact that I was raised by my mother for most of my life, or maybe because I am so close to my sister. In any case, this is what I know: It’s time for me, and men the world over, to get it together.
-Maelstrom
I’m particularly mad at men right now because I have seen too many instances of direct brutal violence toward women, and have had too many of my female friends inform me that they have been sexually assaulted (one instance is too many, but unfortunately, I’m well aware of more than just one). One might think that these instances are not that numerous, but I can assure you that there are more instances of brutality against women, as well as rape, than most men ever dreamed. One might also think that the men committing these crimes are scarce and that they alone are sick individuals, and don’t represent the general male population. I disagree. If you walk outside, I’m sure you walk past numerous violators, and I wouldn’t be shocked if you talked to a female abuser everyday.
I, being a man, am in a position where I hear how men think (when women aren’t around and men’s wildest thoughts, concerning women, can be aired unencumbered) on a frequent basis. I understand, in large part, why men think the way they do, but cannot believe that so many men buy into misogynistic representations of society and how women and men should interact. Saying that I’m astonished at what men often say (including some of my closest friends), and really think, would be a huge understatement. I’m actually quite outraged.
From my vantage point, the two biggest factors that affect the psyche of men are the media (i.e. T/V, movies, the internet), and what boys see at home as they are growing up.
The media is so unforgiving toward women. I often remark to my friends that in order for a woman to be a newscaster, she has to be incredibly attractive (if you don’t believe me, watch ANY news station during peak news watching hours-7am and 6pm-plus or minus two hours). For the most part, in order for a woman to be a sportscaster, she has to not only be extremely attractive, but she has to portray herself as a sexualized being (e.g. watch The Best Damn Sports Show Period). Countless great actresses, that previously had very powerful roles, had to get naked and “do the nasty” on camera before they could garner the coveted Oscar. In music videos, despite the lyrical skills of the artist, women are often the main dish-served up like ribs at a barbecue.
And if you don’t think these images and representations don’t get into the minds of boys and men everywhere, you are sadly mistaken. If you think that women are supposed to “Git Down on Tha Flo” when David Banner comes on, then when they don’t, your mental map doesn’t represent the map that reality has given you. From a psychological standpoint, I’m sure that this causes rage in some men, and indeed may be, from a mental perspective, the cause for many of the atrocities against women. No one can really tell me otherwise because I have heard too many conversations where men have expressed that they expect their girl to do what the men see women do on T/V, or in movies, and then describe the consequence if they don't.
It has always been my belief that people are merely a reflection of the life that they saw as a child growing up; and that maturity is determined by a person’s ability to either accept or reject the things they saw as a child, and to adjust their map accordingly. For example, if you witnessed your father beating your mother as a child, then certainly that will have an affect on who you are when you grow up. But it is your decision whether or not to follow in his footsteps, or to stand up and recognize that what he did was wrong, and to promise yourself not to be like that.
If my theory on people is true, then it is no wonder that so many men have twisted views of women, and how they are to be treated (As a side note, I will never profess to understand women. Women are an incredible enigma to me, and in all my trying, all I’ve become is more confused about them. However, I write what I write because I can surely recognize injustice, and I think that there is an inherent measuring stick in human beings that knows right from wrong). Too many boys grow up in abusive homes, and even more grow up not knowing who their father is (in which case the media often becomes the teacher).
I thank God that my father exhibited copious amounts of love toward my mother. I never saw him raise his hand in anger towards my mom. I never heard him yell, curse or swear at my mother. I always saw him treat her with respect. He, gladly, wasn’t ashamed or afraid to show affection toward my mother in front of me and my three siblings. I recall one year, on my mother’s birthday, he had gone to great lengths to make her day an awesome one. And as I recall, he had baked her a cake. And I remember him standing there, embracing her, and kissing her for a long time, right there in front of all four of us. In the short few years that I knew him, I learned (by example) how a woman is to be treated. And (unfortunately for any loser out there that seeks to marry my sister) my sister saw the standard by which all men she ever encounters would be measured. We need more positive male examples like my father out there. It is sad, however, that many boys don’t witness anything close to this, and so I can easily see how many of their views towards women are developed.
Although the media plays a role, and your home environment certainly makes an impression on your life as a whole, there is zero excuse for such criminal actions. Just because you may be bigger or stronger than a woman doesn’t mean that you go and rape her. Who gave you that right? What makes you think that you can beat another human being for not “obeying” you? Who do you think that you are?
I think that there are too few male humans and too many bipeds with penises walking around. A human being wouldn’t slash the throat of someone they say that they love. A human being wouldn’t steal the innocence of another human being so that their desire for a sexual conquest can be fulfilled. A human being wouldn’t accept the notion that women should do as they’re told and live under “my” rule (i.e. only go out when “I” let her or only hang out with the people “I” let her hang out with). A human being would understand that it’s wrong for a woman to get paid twenty cents less than a man for doing the same job. A human being would understand that a woman is a human being too, and that the way you talk to her and the way you treat her can have a profound impact on the course that her life takes.
A human being has feelings, compassion, affection. And none of these nouns are evident in the slanted representations of women in the media, or in the conversations that men carry-on on a daily basis.
This is not my attempt to win the favor of women worldwide; this is not propaganda. This is the way I think, this is the way I am, and this is a portion of the world as I see it. Maybe my thoughts stem from the fact that I was raised by my mother for most of my life, or maybe because I am so close to my sister. In any case, this is what I know: It’s time for me, and men the world over, to get it together.
-Maelstrom
Saturday, July 17, 2004
To Be Continued...
A friend of mine sent me the link below! I'm very impressed with the article, and certainly do believe that a great deal of attention should be paid to its message. I am aware of the subject matter (the Left Behind series), and have had a number of issues with it, but haven't really studied it enough to be extremely critical of it. I really do enjoy this article though, and am actually kinda mad that it didn't appear on my blog first. Hopefully you will give the message (even if you disagree with the doctrine of the religions therein) some serious thought. I have intended to tackle the same subject matter in the future (for quite some time now), and will certainly do so. As for now, though, consider this blog "to be continued..."
Enjoy,
Maelstrom
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/opinion/17KRIS.html?ex=1091085646&ei=1&en=96f20ffb08ffe027
Enjoy,
Maelstrom
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/opinion/17KRIS.html?ex=1091085646&ei=1&en=96f20ffb08ffe027
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Can You Hear Me Now?
Although I’m bothered by CD’s, and utterly frustrated with email, the high priest of technological frustration for me has to be the cell phone. It is the single most intrusive, rude, and annoying device that technological advancements have created. Cell phones are everywhere they were intended to be, but also everywhere they shouldn’t be. They now have capabilities that can prove extremely beneficial, but those same options are often corrupted. They work just fine when you want them to, but when you need to get a call through, you are often out of luck. The cell phone is like a gift and a curse.
Ok, so to keep it mad thorough, without cell phones, the chance of verbally connecting with someone who is on a trip thousands of miles away would be far less than it is with cell phones. In fact, the frequency with which a person talks on the phone, while on a trip, has increased astronomically. It is no longer necessary to drop 50¢, plus long distance fees, into a pay phone just to call back home. Cell phones have successfully rid us of the semi-scam “10-10-###” numbers that were becoming so common. And finally, who doesn’t enjoy the fact that when you’re all alone, a friend can “walk” you home while you’re talking to them on your celly?
So, how can a device with so much promise (and that has pretty much replaced the land-line phone in many foreign countries, and is replacing millions and millions here) be so bad?
I think that the simple answer is that cell phones are just too mobile. As a result of their mobility, they become apart of a world that they were never intended to be in. Consider, ten years ago, phones that weren’t in the home were strategically placed as to provide a necessary service without intruding upon the environment it was placed in. There were no pay phones in the classroom; they were off in the corner of a gas station parking lot, or a cubbyhole in the hallway of a building. Office phones were only in offices where they were necessary, not everyone’s back pocket for their convenience. And the next serve at Wimbledon wasn’t interrupted by a “Welcome to Atlanta” ring tone; only the Line Judge and player’s could “phone home.”
I would argue that cell phones, though they have connected us in one fashion, have separated us in many ways. Too many times have I been in deep discussions with a friend, only to have their phone ring right in the middle of the conversation. This wouldn’t be a problem except that the cell phone immediately takes priority; it MUST be answered, no matter how important the discussion was, and no matter how long it’s been since that particular friend and I have spoken. The funny thing is that nine years and three months ago, my friend might have received a similar phone call, but the call would have been picked up by an answering machine that was connected to a landline at my friend’s home. The friend would have gladly returned home and only then handled the phone call. So I just want to know, what makes our phone calls so important today that they must be answered immediately if they could wait until you got home back then?
On top of interrupting lectures, conversations, and the work place, cell phones have found their way into virtually every sacred venue: Churches, exams, weddings, funerals, hospitals, sports events where quiet is necessary (i.e. Tennis), just about everywhere. They can’t be avoided. I often wonder why people even bring their cell phones to these occasions. And if you’re going to bring your cell phone, can’t you at least put it on vibrate?
Many of my friends that have ridden in my car with me might remember that I have a “no cell phone” rule. This is simply because I think it is incredibly rude for you to strike up a conversation in a closed area where I can’t escape your cacophonous exchange. If you’re going to talk on your cell phone, don’t bring the dialogue to me, I didn’t ask to be apart of it. I don’t care to know about your guy problems, or how well you think you did on your last exam.
If you’re in a room full of people watching TV and your phone rings, leave the room. If you don’t, it’s much harder for people to focus on the TV, and any conversations in the room often have to quiet down in order to respect your selfish little discourse. How about you respect everyone else and leave until your conversation is over?
It is my belief that your cell phone should rarely, if ever, ring in the middle of a 1pm class. Why are people calling you during the middle of the day anyhow? Don’t they have a job or class to go to?
There are so many options on cell phones and their usefulness ranges from beneficial to completely pointless. Among them are Palm Pilot features, text messaging, cameras, and now there are even some phones that will record short “movies.” With the exception of saving minutes, it is pointless to continue text-messaging people after you have already established that you both have reception. I’d imagine, due to privacy laws, that camera phones will soon become obsolete, especially since they are already being banned at many public places. And why are you recording a movie on your phone, huh?
Cell phone companies are even getting creative with the plans. Nextel offers a “walkie-talkie” feature, so Sprint begins its “Sprint-to-Sprint” option. Cingular jumps in by offering “rollover” minutes; this way you can salvage all those old minutes from last month that you never got to use. (The irony is, if you need the rollover minutes, you’ll probably never accumulate them, and if you don’t need them, you’ll accumulate thousands.) All of these “do-dads” and gimmicks are a marketing ploy to get you to buy another gadget with options you will NEVER employ.
Cell phones are best when their use mimics that of walkie-talkies. You call someone, you converse, you hang up. All the frills of cell phone technology are just a waste of time.
At the end of the day, cell phones drop way too many calls, often have bad reception, and just don’t provide the same kind of security that a landline does. To compound that, they rudely intrude upon every facet of an otherwise normal life, all while contributing to the frustration that is technology.
-Maelstrom
Ok, so to keep it mad thorough, without cell phones, the chance of verbally connecting with someone who is on a trip thousands of miles away would be far less than it is with cell phones. In fact, the frequency with which a person talks on the phone, while on a trip, has increased astronomically. It is no longer necessary to drop 50¢, plus long distance fees, into a pay phone just to call back home. Cell phones have successfully rid us of the semi-scam “10-10-###” numbers that were becoming so common. And finally, who doesn’t enjoy the fact that when you’re all alone, a friend can “walk” you home while you’re talking to them on your celly?
So, how can a device with so much promise (and that has pretty much replaced the land-line phone in many foreign countries, and is replacing millions and millions here) be so bad?
I think that the simple answer is that cell phones are just too mobile. As a result of their mobility, they become apart of a world that they were never intended to be in. Consider, ten years ago, phones that weren’t in the home were strategically placed as to provide a necessary service without intruding upon the environment it was placed in. There were no pay phones in the classroom; they were off in the corner of a gas station parking lot, or a cubbyhole in the hallway of a building. Office phones were only in offices where they were necessary, not everyone’s back pocket for their convenience. And the next serve at Wimbledon wasn’t interrupted by a “Welcome to Atlanta” ring tone; only the Line Judge and player’s could “phone home.”
I would argue that cell phones, though they have connected us in one fashion, have separated us in many ways. Too many times have I been in deep discussions with a friend, only to have their phone ring right in the middle of the conversation. This wouldn’t be a problem except that the cell phone immediately takes priority; it MUST be answered, no matter how important the discussion was, and no matter how long it’s been since that particular friend and I have spoken. The funny thing is that nine years and three months ago, my friend might have received a similar phone call, but the call would have been picked up by an answering machine that was connected to a landline at my friend’s home. The friend would have gladly returned home and only then handled the phone call. So I just want to know, what makes our phone calls so important today that they must be answered immediately if they could wait until you got home back then?
On top of interrupting lectures, conversations, and the work place, cell phones have found their way into virtually every sacred venue: Churches, exams, weddings, funerals, hospitals, sports events where quiet is necessary (i.e. Tennis), just about everywhere. They can’t be avoided. I often wonder why people even bring their cell phones to these occasions. And if you’re going to bring your cell phone, can’t you at least put it on vibrate?
Many of my friends that have ridden in my car with me might remember that I have a “no cell phone” rule. This is simply because I think it is incredibly rude for you to strike up a conversation in a closed area where I can’t escape your cacophonous exchange. If you’re going to talk on your cell phone, don’t bring the dialogue to me, I didn’t ask to be apart of it. I don’t care to know about your guy problems, or how well you think you did on your last exam.
If you’re in a room full of people watching TV and your phone rings, leave the room. If you don’t, it’s much harder for people to focus on the TV, and any conversations in the room often have to quiet down in order to respect your selfish little discourse. How about you respect everyone else and leave until your conversation is over?
It is my belief that your cell phone should rarely, if ever, ring in the middle of a 1pm class. Why are people calling you during the middle of the day anyhow? Don’t they have a job or class to go to?
There are so many options on cell phones and their usefulness ranges from beneficial to completely pointless. Among them are Palm Pilot features, text messaging, cameras, and now there are even some phones that will record short “movies.” With the exception of saving minutes, it is pointless to continue text-messaging people after you have already established that you both have reception. I’d imagine, due to privacy laws, that camera phones will soon become obsolete, especially since they are already being banned at many public places. And why are you recording a movie on your phone, huh?
Cell phone companies are even getting creative with the plans. Nextel offers a “walkie-talkie” feature, so Sprint begins its “Sprint-to-Sprint” option. Cingular jumps in by offering “rollover” minutes; this way you can salvage all those old minutes from last month that you never got to use. (The irony is, if you need the rollover minutes, you’ll probably never accumulate them, and if you don’t need them, you’ll accumulate thousands.) All of these “do-dads” and gimmicks are a marketing ploy to get you to buy another gadget with options you will NEVER employ.
Cell phones are best when their use mimics that of walkie-talkies. You call someone, you converse, you hang up. All the frills of cell phone technology are just a waste of time.
At the end of the day, cell phones drop way too many calls, often have bad reception, and just don’t provide the same kind of security that a landline does. To compound that, they rudely intrude upon every facet of an otherwise normal life, all while contributing to the frustration that is technology.
-Maelstrom
So you think you know me?
For quite some time now, two words have deeply bothered me. Well, I guess it’s not the words that bother me, it’s the misuse (and often misunderstanding) of the words. Superficial and reputation are words that are commonly, in my opinion, applied incorrectly. Today, I’ll give my most valiant attempt at attacking the word reputation as I see its use in our language.
According to Webster’s dictionary, reputation is:
1 a : overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general b : recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability
2 : a place in public esteem or regard : good name
When a celebrity, who has a good reputation, makes a mistake, they are often defended by some and castigated by others. Someone, like me, might defend the person by saying that “I don’t think (fill in the blank person) would do something like that (i.e. commit such a crime). Then someone might respond to me, “Do you know him/her?” I might respond, “yes,” despite having never actually met the celebrity. I might respond in such fashion because no one really knows anyone. Therefore, we have to rely on the images that we see of any person, whether we know them or not, to determine our view of someone’s character. If that weren’t the case, then we might as well just throw the word reputation out of our language.
If you don’t believe me, consider this: Every year, tens of thousands of women discover that their spouses are cheating on them, or leading a double life. They find out that the man they thought they knew isn’t what he appeared to be. Whole families are destroyed, and sometimes communities are devastated. Now, if a person doesn’t even KNOW the man that they sleep with every night, then why does anyone feel that they know someone else? Well, I’ll tell ya’. They feel that they know the other person because they have been given a snapshot (sometimes a really big one, sometimes a very small one) of a person, and have decided that the person has a particular character and thus is or is not capable of committing some acts.
The biggest example that jumps out to me is of a wealthy man living in Florida. I recall reading this story on CNN.com last year (I can’t find the link now, but once I do, I’ll post it). This man had been married for about forty years. He had a number of children with his wife, and was considered a pillar in the community. During the course of his marriage, he began “dating” another woman from a city that was a number of miles away. He also had kids and a family with this lady. Neither family knew about the other until his wife died in her car when she was suffocated by exhaust fumes with the garage door down. Shortly after his wife died, like two weeks, the man married his mistress of nearly three decades. This caused much suspicion from his dead wife’s children, and that’s when his double life was discovered.
Not only was his family shocked by this revelation, but also his community, and it was so stunning that it made national headlines. His wife and their kids didn’t know; his mistress and her kids didn’t know; no one in the community suspected this (especially out of a man that was so well esteemed). Even though his family knew him, they didn’t really know him. So, the picture of himself that he presented the world with was one that would’ve never suggested he was leading a double life. Anyone that knew him or not, might have given you similar character testimonies about the man. Obviously the people that actually knew him would have deeper insight, and certainly more validation in making such character justifications, but all would’ve been wrong, at least concerning his fidelity. Therefore I, having not known the man, could have made legitimate statements concerning what I think he would or wouldn’t do based on the testimony of those close to him, and by the way he was portrayed to me.
Often, when celebrities go on trial, a group of people that don’t know the celebrity defend the celebrity. Not in the courtroom, but in casual conversations amongst friends. Then there’s always that “aware” person who’s like “yeah, but do you know” the celebrity. Their point being that you can’t defend a celebrity if you’ve never met them.
I terribly disagree.
When a person consistently does good things, they build up trust and respect from the common person; even those people that don’t know them. This is beneficial because when a false accusation comes against that person, their reputation comes up “to bat” for them. People will come screaming out of the wood-work to defend that person because that person stored away a bank full of credibility and trust.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at two prominent athletes that have been accused of the same crime: Mike Tyson, and Kobe Bryant. (Please don’t misjudge me for using cases of sexual assault as my basis for argument. I understand that this is a very serious topic and I understand the gravity of it. However, due to the extensive media coverage of these cases, I think it will be quite easy for me to make my point. Finally, understand that I am taking no sides for or against these athletes; they are either guilty or they aren’t. I am in no position to say either way, I’m just trying to make a point.)
Back in 1991, when “Iron” Mike Tyson was charged with sexually assaulting a young lady at a beauty pageant, there were obviously those that both believed and those that didn’t believe the allegations. As I recall, there wasn’t a huge media outcry to keep Tyson out of jail. Tyson had a history of violent behavior, and indeed had a physically abusive past with his ex-wife Robin Givens. He was often described as an Animal, both in the ring and out. Tyson, though claiming to be innocent, was subsequently convicted and thrown into jail.
Fast-forward to the summer of 2003. Basketball phenom Kobe Bryant is alleged to have sexually assaulted a young lady in Colorado. I watched countless hours of ESPN, and other sports outlets to hear what people were saying. Time after time, I heard people exclaiming that no one should jump to any conclusions and that Kobe was a well respected person, and his clean past didn’t lend itself to such conduct. Only time will tell if Kobe also goes to jail, however, I do immediately recognize a difference in how the two cases were viewed in the eyes of sportscaster’s and the general public.
It’s much easier to put Mike Tyson behind bars than Kobe Bryant simply because Tyson had a bad history, whereas Bryant had a squeaky clean past. Kobe’s good reputation came up to bat for him, whether he’s guilty or not. Tyson's reputation helped to strike him out despite any evidence that may have suggested his innocence.
And I wouldn’t fault anyone that doesn’t know Kobe for defending him because something has to be said for someone that has good enough sense to keep their dirty laundry (if they have any) out of public view. Likewise, I didn’t have any ill-feelings towards people who knew (as if they were in the room when it was happening) that Mike Tyson was guilty, because he was an openly violent person that certainly fit the bill.
My point is that the reputation a person has attained is merely determined by what that person allows us to see of themself. And, even if you’ve never met a person, you could make a justifiable assumption about that person’s character based on what people that know them say. Otherwise, there would be no need for the word “reputation.”
So either throw the word reputation out of the dictionary (since no one really knows anyone), or accept the fact that I can know someone that I’ve never even met before.
-Maelstrom
According to Webster’s dictionary, reputation is:
1 a : overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general b : recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability
2 : a place in public esteem or regard : good name
When a celebrity, who has a good reputation, makes a mistake, they are often defended by some and castigated by others. Someone, like me, might defend the person by saying that “I don’t think (fill in the blank person) would do something like that (i.e. commit such a crime). Then someone might respond to me, “Do you know him/her?” I might respond, “yes,” despite having never actually met the celebrity. I might respond in such fashion because no one really knows anyone. Therefore, we have to rely on the images that we see of any person, whether we know them or not, to determine our view of someone’s character. If that weren’t the case, then we might as well just throw the word reputation out of our language.
If you don’t believe me, consider this: Every year, tens of thousands of women discover that their spouses are cheating on them, or leading a double life. They find out that the man they thought they knew isn’t what he appeared to be. Whole families are destroyed, and sometimes communities are devastated. Now, if a person doesn’t even KNOW the man that they sleep with every night, then why does anyone feel that they know someone else? Well, I’ll tell ya’. They feel that they know the other person because they have been given a snapshot (sometimes a really big one, sometimes a very small one) of a person, and have decided that the person has a particular character and thus is or is not capable of committing some acts.
The biggest example that jumps out to me is of a wealthy man living in Florida. I recall reading this story on CNN.com last year (I can’t find the link now, but once I do, I’ll post it). This man had been married for about forty years. He had a number of children with his wife, and was considered a pillar in the community. During the course of his marriage, he began “dating” another woman from a city that was a number of miles away. He also had kids and a family with this lady. Neither family knew about the other until his wife died in her car when she was suffocated by exhaust fumes with the garage door down. Shortly after his wife died, like two weeks, the man married his mistress of nearly three decades. This caused much suspicion from his dead wife’s children, and that’s when his double life was discovered.
Not only was his family shocked by this revelation, but also his community, and it was so stunning that it made national headlines. His wife and their kids didn’t know; his mistress and her kids didn’t know; no one in the community suspected this (especially out of a man that was so well esteemed). Even though his family knew him, they didn’t really know him. So, the picture of himself that he presented the world with was one that would’ve never suggested he was leading a double life. Anyone that knew him or not, might have given you similar character testimonies about the man. Obviously the people that actually knew him would have deeper insight, and certainly more validation in making such character justifications, but all would’ve been wrong, at least concerning his fidelity. Therefore I, having not known the man, could have made legitimate statements concerning what I think he would or wouldn’t do based on the testimony of those close to him, and by the way he was portrayed to me.
Often, when celebrities go on trial, a group of people that don’t know the celebrity defend the celebrity. Not in the courtroom, but in casual conversations amongst friends. Then there’s always that “aware” person who’s like “yeah, but do you know” the celebrity. Their point being that you can’t defend a celebrity if you’ve never met them.
I terribly disagree.
When a person consistently does good things, they build up trust and respect from the common person; even those people that don’t know them. This is beneficial because when a false accusation comes against that person, their reputation comes up “to bat” for them. People will come screaming out of the wood-work to defend that person because that person stored away a bank full of credibility and trust.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at two prominent athletes that have been accused of the same crime: Mike Tyson, and Kobe Bryant. (Please don’t misjudge me for using cases of sexual assault as my basis for argument. I understand that this is a very serious topic and I understand the gravity of it. However, due to the extensive media coverage of these cases, I think it will be quite easy for me to make my point. Finally, understand that I am taking no sides for or against these athletes; they are either guilty or they aren’t. I am in no position to say either way, I’m just trying to make a point.)
Back in 1991, when “Iron” Mike Tyson was charged with sexually assaulting a young lady at a beauty pageant, there were obviously those that both believed and those that didn’t believe the allegations. As I recall, there wasn’t a huge media outcry to keep Tyson out of jail. Tyson had a history of violent behavior, and indeed had a physically abusive past with his ex-wife Robin Givens. He was often described as an Animal, both in the ring and out. Tyson, though claiming to be innocent, was subsequently convicted and thrown into jail.
Fast-forward to the summer of 2003. Basketball phenom Kobe Bryant is alleged to have sexually assaulted a young lady in Colorado. I watched countless hours of ESPN, and other sports outlets to hear what people were saying. Time after time, I heard people exclaiming that no one should jump to any conclusions and that Kobe was a well respected person, and his clean past didn’t lend itself to such conduct. Only time will tell if Kobe also goes to jail, however, I do immediately recognize a difference in how the two cases were viewed in the eyes of sportscaster’s and the general public.
It’s much easier to put Mike Tyson behind bars than Kobe Bryant simply because Tyson had a bad history, whereas Bryant had a squeaky clean past. Kobe’s good reputation came up to bat for him, whether he’s guilty or not. Tyson's reputation helped to strike him out despite any evidence that may have suggested his innocence.
And I wouldn’t fault anyone that doesn’t know Kobe for defending him because something has to be said for someone that has good enough sense to keep their dirty laundry (if they have any) out of public view. Likewise, I didn’t have any ill-feelings towards people who knew (as if they were in the room when it was happening) that Mike Tyson was guilty, because he was an openly violent person that certainly fit the bill.
My point is that the reputation a person has attained is merely determined by what that person allows us to see of themself. And, even if you’ve never met a person, you could make a justifiable assumption about that person’s character based on what people that know them say. Otherwise, there would be no need for the word “reputation.”
So either throw the word reputation out of the dictionary (since no one really knows anyone), or accept the fact that I can know someone that I’ve never even met before.
-Maelstrom
Friday, July 09, 2004
Holla Back!!!
So, today has turned out to be a busier day than I thought it would be. As a result, I will not be able to post my typical (hopefully thought-provoking) blog. I have heard back from a few people about "The Vortex," but I am anxiously awaiting your thoughts on this site. I have adjusted the settings such that you can comment on any of the posts (or at least I think I did), and would indeed love to hear what you think of the site. I would also like to know how you think this page could be better managed or presented. Compliments as well as criticisms are welcome (though compliments are preferred).
So, post a comment at the end of this blog or any of the other existing blogs. In any case, please do holla back!!
-Maelstrom
So, post a comment at the end of this blog or any of the other existing blogs. In any case, please do holla back!!
-Maelstrom
Thursday, July 08, 2004
E-Jail
Today, I’ll continue with my tirade against technology, and all the agony it often brings. No discussion of technological advances would be complete without discussing the proliferation of Electronic Mail (e-mail or email for short).
Decades after computers became commercially available, and moments after computer-to-computer communication became possible, electronic mail was introduced to the masses. The prospect of being able to send a letter to an acquaintance that lives hundreds of miles away, with only a few keystrokes, was simply remarkable. Not only would one save time, but they’d also save money (stamps and envelopes), pencils and pens, and paper too. Plus, the stress of finding time to get to the Post Office would be alleviated. You could reach a whole world with just a few pushes of buttons, and have your thoughts conveyed to a wide range of people.
Unfortunately, all those advantages have been manipulated and perverted (seemingly in an attempt to frustrate me specifically) and there seems to be no end to the madness.
I recall entering college only a short few years ago. At that time virtually everyone was aware of email and most probably had email accounts at home, though I know not everyone did. I remember that on campus, you could go two or three days at a time without reading your email and be just fine. In fact, Instructors rarely sent valuable information over email because not everyone had become completely acclimated to the idea of checking their email daily. By the end of my freshman year, that had changed significantly. You were expected to read your email everyday because in-class and out-of-class assignments were being given over email in high frequency.
And that’s when the storm came!
The first major “mail storm” that I’d witnessed occurred about March or April towards the end of my freshman year. I received a sickening amount of email from one source, with one message. I didn’t know why this was, or how it happened, however, I did not foresee this occurrence becoming a common thing. Much to my dismay, the mail storms never stopped.
Mail Storms were soon accompanied by their cousin, Spam.
The sad thing was that there was seemingly little I could do about it.
By the beginning of my fourth year, I’d become completely fed up with the email situation on campus and sought to do something about it. I wrote up a proposal concerning what the problem was, the affects of the problem, and how I felt it could be rectified. I don’t even remember whom I sent the proposal to, but I somehow found myself before one of the University Provost. We discussed my proposal for about a half hour, and I was placed on the Student Advisory board for Information Technology. It was through this discussion, and the IT board meetings, that I discovered that there was virtually nothing I could do to end Spam or Mail Storms. The only thing that I could do was to write a letter to Legislatures in order to compel them to create a Bill that would outlaw such misuse of email. Furthermore, even if there was a Law against it here in the United States, email is a worldwide thing, and there would have to be International sanctions on it in order to end such email irritation. Needless to say, I was mad as a six-shooter, and frustrated as a Squirrel that can’t find a nut.
The situation yet continues to escalate. It seems that no matter how many email accounts I open, the “spammers” eventually find me. All of my email accounts are bombarded with junk mail daily. Honestly, there is no end in sight.
What I’ve mentioned here is only part of my frustration with email. I haven’t even mentioned how informal email is (which may indeed be one of its advantages as well as disadvantages). People are beginning to use email as a substitute for letters, even for significant events such as Weddings. When someone only emails you (especially if you haven’t talked over the phone, in person, or through Post Office mail in a while), you get the sense that they don’t value your relationship as much as if they’d use other modes of communication. To receive an email invitation to a significant event like a Wedding is like a very rude slap in the face from someone that you considered a good friend. I'm imagining, however, this practice will someday become commonplace and maybe we'll overlook it. But as for me, at least give me a phone call.
I also haven’t mentioned how frustrating it is to have to filter out your email box, even if you aren’t receiving spam, from forwards that friends/family send you (aye, sometimes even the ones you love get carried away). You struggle to find that 1 out of 37 emails that is sent to you and only you (you know, that really important one you’ve been waiting to receive. Well, it’s probably buried in a pile of junk).
I think email is the King of examples of how something that could be extremely convenient and helpful can be turned into something that is deplorable and corrupt. As you’re sitting there reading this right now, I know you’re feeling me!
-Maelstrom
Decades after computers became commercially available, and moments after computer-to-computer communication became possible, electronic mail was introduced to the masses. The prospect of being able to send a letter to an acquaintance that lives hundreds of miles away, with only a few keystrokes, was simply remarkable. Not only would one save time, but they’d also save money (stamps and envelopes), pencils and pens, and paper too. Plus, the stress of finding time to get to the Post Office would be alleviated. You could reach a whole world with just a few pushes of buttons, and have your thoughts conveyed to a wide range of people.
Unfortunately, all those advantages have been manipulated and perverted (seemingly in an attempt to frustrate me specifically) and there seems to be no end to the madness.
I recall entering college only a short few years ago. At that time virtually everyone was aware of email and most probably had email accounts at home, though I know not everyone did. I remember that on campus, you could go two or three days at a time without reading your email and be just fine. In fact, Instructors rarely sent valuable information over email because not everyone had become completely acclimated to the idea of checking their email daily. By the end of my freshman year, that had changed significantly. You were expected to read your email everyday because in-class and out-of-class assignments were being given over email in high frequency.
And that’s when the storm came!
The first major “mail storm” that I’d witnessed occurred about March or April towards the end of my freshman year. I received a sickening amount of email from one source, with one message. I didn’t know why this was, or how it happened, however, I did not foresee this occurrence becoming a common thing. Much to my dismay, the mail storms never stopped.
Mail Storms were soon accompanied by their cousin, Spam.
Spam was no longer just Luncheon Meat that could sit in a cabinet unharmed despite being bombarded by nuclear weapons. Spam was now an entity brought about by intrusive people who had nothing better to do with their time than to waste mine.Mortgages, weight loss plans, pornography, messages that didn’t even make sense, all these things started coming to me through email, and I really wondered why. I’d never signed up for anything and I didn’t know these people that were sending me this stuff. Plus, this wasn’t like my email account at home where I expected such things; this was my University given, student email account. How could this be?
The sad thing was that there was seemingly little I could do about it.
By the beginning of my fourth year, I’d become completely fed up with the email situation on campus and sought to do something about it. I wrote up a proposal concerning what the problem was, the affects of the problem, and how I felt it could be rectified. I don’t even remember whom I sent the proposal to, but I somehow found myself before one of the University Provost. We discussed my proposal for about a half hour, and I was placed on the Student Advisory board for Information Technology. It was through this discussion, and the IT board meetings, that I discovered that there was virtually nothing I could do to end Spam or Mail Storms. The only thing that I could do was to write a letter to Legislatures in order to compel them to create a Bill that would outlaw such misuse of email. Furthermore, even if there was a Law against it here in the United States, email is a worldwide thing, and there would have to be International sanctions on it in order to end such email irritation. Needless to say, I was mad as a six-shooter, and frustrated as a Squirrel that can’t find a nut.
The situation yet continues to escalate. It seems that no matter how many email accounts I open, the “spammers” eventually find me. All of my email accounts are bombarded with junk mail daily. Honestly, there is no end in sight.
What I’ve mentioned here is only part of my frustration with email. I haven’t even mentioned how informal email is (which may indeed be one of its advantages as well as disadvantages). People are beginning to use email as a substitute for letters, even for significant events such as Weddings. When someone only emails you (especially if you haven’t talked over the phone, in person, or through Post Office mail in a while), you get the sense that they don’t value your relationship as much as if they’d use other modes of communication. To receive an email invitation to a significant event like a Wedding is like a very rude slap in the face from someone that you considered a good friend. I'm imagining, however, this practice will someday become commonplace and maybe we'll overlook it. But as for me, at least give me a phone call.
I also haven’t mentioned how frustrating it is to have to filter out your email box, even if you aren’t receiving spam, from forwards that friends/family send you (aye, sometimes even the ones you love get carried away). You struggle to find that 1 out of 37 emails that is sent to you and only you (you know, that really important one you’ve been waiting to receive. Well, it’s probably buried in a pile of junk).
I think email is the King of examples of how something that could be extremely convenient and helpful can be turned into something that is deplorable and corrupt. As you’re sitting there reading this right now, I know you’re feeling me!
-Maelstrom
Ever Get Lost?
Ok, this blog is quite random, but it might actually prove beneficial to people who travel by car a lot. It is significant to me since I spend a lot of time on the freeway throughout the course of a given year. If you paid close attention in Driver's Ed class, your instructor may have glossed over this information.
There is a very clever numbering system that is used for all Interstate Highways (there is also a similar scheme for US-highways). The system works like this (I'll use Detroit, Michigan as my geographic example):
*Interstate's that run from East to West are even numbered (like I-94 which runs from Detroit through Chicago)
*Interstate's that run from North to South are odd numbered (like I-75 which runs through Detroit all the way down to Florida)
*Interstate's that have three digits and begin with an even number typically run around a major city, and sometimes through the city (like I-275 or I-696 around Detroit)
*Interstate's that have three digits and begin with an odd number are connected to the main (2-digit) Interstate, and typically run through the city (like I-375 which is connected to I-75 and runs into Detroit)
*The last two digits of an Interstate indicate what main Interstate it is a branch of (I-696 is related to I-96, while I-275 and I-375 are related to I-75), which may help one to get back to the main Interstate
So, if you can get a general understanding of how this system is used, then you may be able to find your way around an area that you aren't particularly familiar with (even without the help of a map). In times when I haven't been exactly certain where I am, but know where I need to go, this system has proven extremely beneficial. Hopefully it can do the same for you.
-Maelstrom
For a more in depth explanation, check out this site:
http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/g-l/hiwaynos.shtml
There is a very clever numbering system that is used for all Interstate Highways (there is also a similar scheme for US-highways). The system works like this (I'll use Detroit, Michigan as my geographic example):
*Interstate's that run from East to West are even numbered (like I-94 which runs from Detroit through Chicago)
*Interstate's that run from North to South are odd numbered (like I-75 which runs through Detroit all the way down to Florida)
*Interstate's that have three digits and begin with an even number typically run around a major city, and sometimes through the city (like I-275 or I-696 around Detroit)
*Interstate's that have three digits and begin with an odd number are connected to the main (2-digit) Interstate, and typically run through the city (like I-375 which is connected to I-75 and runs into Detroit)
*The last two digits of an Interstate indicate what main Interstate it is a branch of (I-696 is related to I-96, while I-275 and I-375 are related to I-75), which may help one to get back to the main Interstate
So, if you can get a general understanding of how this system is used, then you may be able to find your way around an area that you aren't particularly familiar with (even without the help of a map). In times when I haven't been exactly certain where I am, but know where I need to go, this system has proven extremely beneficial. Hopefully it can do the same for you.
-Maelstrom
For a more in depth explanation, check out this site:
http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/g-l/hiwaynos.shtml
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
CD's are SO overrated!
I remember when CD’s initially became available to the masses. It was the dawning of a new era in sound technology. CD’s were immortal, and the sound clarity was infinitely better than that of tapes. At least that’s what they told me. However, since their onset, and since I’ve had the opportunity to waste buckets full of money on them, I have become convinced that CD manufacturers indeed duped me and the rest of society.
As far as I’m concerned, there are only two major advantages that CD’s have over tapes. The first, and probably the most significant to the general public, is the ability to skip back and forth through the tracks on an album with near instantaneous response. I must admit, this option has made listening to my favorite songs over and over again much more enjoyable (probably not as enjoyable to anyone that is around, hearing me repeat the same song). The second major advantage is storage space. With CD’s, you can burn an “endless” amount of songs onto one disc, especially if you download songs in data disc form. With tapes, you were limited by the length of the ribbon, and this was typically broken down into minutes. On a good tape, you might get 45 minutes on both sides A and B (remember that, tapes had sides!).
So here’s the recap: Skip ability and storage space are CD’s advantages. THAT’S IT! There are ZERO other significant advantages to CD’s over tapes.
One might note that I have left out the sound quality that CD’s have over tapes as an advantage. Well, that’s because I know most people aren’t even aware of the difference. If you are in the music industry, sound quality makes a huge difference, but not so much for the casual listener. I’m sure most people wouldn’t know the difference if a radio DJ played a song from a CD or a tape. In fact, I know that sometimes DJ’s use tapes and Records because a particular song may not exist on CD (they often make a point of telling the listening audience that they had to use “wax” or a tape because they didn’t have a CD for that song). Furthermore, during the major transition period from tapes to CD’s, there were tapes that had been developed to be CD quality. I remember owning some and listening very closely to see if I could hear the difference. As far as I could tell, the sound quality was virtually the same as the quality from CD’s, and I critically doubt that the average person (indeed even a trained ear) could easily tell the difference. So, for everyone touting sound lucidity as a major advantage, I challenge you to really sit back and listen for a while!
My biggest frustration with CD’s is that they are so quickly and easily prone to skipping. I have had the sad misfortune of pulling a CD fresh out of its package, placing it in the CD player, and having my brand new CD skip. This has occurred more than once, in more than one CD player. Furthermore, if your CD doesn’t skip now, no matter how well you take care of it, it will with time. Either dust, scratches, or the glue coming loose will cause this to occur.
It shouldn’t be that way. I never had that problem with tapes. I’d put a tape in the tape player, press play, and that was all she wrote. There was no skipping of my tape. Now, with all fairness, one frustration with tapes is that sometimes the ribbon would get “chewed up” by the tape player. However, the incidence of that happening was far less frequent than the ever-looming reality of a skipping CD.
A highly significant disadvantage of CD’s is that you can’t take full enjoyment of recording possibilities like you could with tapes. With tapes, if I wanted to record myself playing my saxophone, all I had to do was get a recorder with a microphone (which was virtually every tape recorder), pop in a tape and press record. If I wanted to tape something off of the radio, all I had to do was place a tape in the tape player, switch the radio on and press record. If I wanted to record a mix tape (or dub a tape), all I had to do was place two tapes in a tape deck, and record various songs from many tapes all onto one tape.
All these things I did with high frequency and efficiency with tapes, and can do none of them with the same ease with CD’s. In order to do any of these things with CD’s you need software that has that capability, and that means that you need a computer (and sometimes other accessories like a microphone). Obtaining the computer, software, and accessories alone makes these tasks less likely, but on top of that, this would mean that you’d need a computer around with you to perform these things; even with a laptop, that can be a trying situation.
Finally, tapes were more durable. I could put a tape in its case in my back pocket. In fact, I could put a Walkman (remember those?) in my back pocket; there were even belt buckle and wrist attachments for Walkman tape players. In order to carry around a CD or a CD player, you need another piece of luggage or enormous pants pockets.
As you can see, there are some huge disadvantages to CD’s versus tapes that, to me, outweigh their advantages. Therefore, I believe that CD’s are incredibly overrated and am glad that we are moving out of the CD era and into the digital/mp3 era in music.
In case you’re wondering, I’m not nearly as frustrated with DVD’s versus VHS tapes as I am with CD’s versus cassette tapes. Who knows, maybe I will be in the very near future.
-Maelstrom
Remember that CD’s would last forever? Well check out this site:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/05/06/disc.rot.ap/
It is my belief that for something to be technologically superior to its predecessor, it needs to provide me with most, if not all, of the advantages that its predecessor possessed, and then other obvious, added advantages.Well, in that department, Compact Discs fail miserably.
As far as I’m concerned, there are only two major advantages that CD’s have over tapes. The first, and probably the most significant to the general public, is the ability to skip back and forth through the tracks on an album with near instantaneous response. I must admit, this option has made listening to my favorite songs over and over again much more enjoyable (probably not as enjoyable to anyone that is around, hearing me repeat the same song). The second major advantage is storage space. With CD’s, you can burn an “endless” amount of songs onto one disc, especially if you download songs in data disc form. With tapes, you were limited by the length of the ribbon, and this was typically broken down into minutes. On a good tape, you might get 45 minutes on both sides A and B (remember that, tapes had sides!).
So here’s the recap: Skip ability and storage space are CD’s advantages. THAT’S IT! There are ZERO other significant advantages to CD’s over tapes.
One might note that I have left out the sound quality that CD’s have over tapes as an advantage. Well, that’s because I know most people aren’t even aware of the difference. If you are in the music industry, sound quality makes a huge difference, but not so much for the casual listener. I’m sure most people wouldn’t know the difference if a radio DJ played a song from a CD or a tape. In fact, I know that sometimes DJ’s use tapes and Records because a particular song may not exist on CD (they often make a point of telling the listening audience that they had to use “wax” or a tape because they didn’t have a CD for that song). Furthermore, during the major transition period from tapes to CD’s, there were tapes that had been developed to be CD quality. I remember owning some and listening very closely to see if I could hear the difference. As far as I could tell, the sound quality was virtually the same as the quality from CD’s, and I critically doubt that the average person (indeed even a trained ear) could easily tell the difference. So, for everyone touting sound lucidity as a major advantage, I challenge you to really sit back and listen for a while!
My biggest frustration with CD’s is that they are so quickly and easily prone to skipping. I have had the sad misfortune of pulling a CD fresh out of its package, placing it in the CD player, and having my brand new CD skip. This has occurred more than once, in more than one CD player. Furthermore, if your CD doesn’t skip now, no matter how well you take care of it, it will with time. Either dust, scratches, or the glue coming loose will cause this to occur.
It shouldn’t be that way. I never had that problem with tapes. I’d put a tape in the tape player, press play, and that was all she wrote. There was no skipping of my tape. Now, with all fairness, one frustration with tapes is that sometimes the ribbon would get “chewed up” by the tape player. However, the incidence of that happening was far less frequent than the ever-looming reality of a skipping CD.
A highly significant disadvantage of CD’s is that you can’t take full enjoyment of recording possibilities like you could with tapes. With tapes, if I wanted to record myself playing my saxophone, all I had to do was get a recorder with a microphone (which was virtually every tape recorder), pop in a tape and press record. If I wanted to tape something off of the radio, all I had to do was place a tape in the tape player, switch the radio on and press record. If I wanted to record a mix tape (or dub a tape), all I had to do was place two tapes in a tape deck, and record various songs from many tapes all onto one tape.
All these things I did with high frequency and efficiency with tapes, and can do none of them with the same ease with CD’s. In order to do any of these things with CD’s you need software that has that capability, and that means that you need a computer (and sometimes other accessories like a microphone). Obtaining the computer, software, and accessories alone makes these tasks less likely, but on top of that, this would mean that you’d need a computer around with you to perform these things; even with a laptop, that can be a trying situation.
Finally, tapes were more durable. I could put a tape in its case in my back pocket. In fact, I could put a Walkman (remember those?) in my back pocket; there were even belt buckle and wrist attachments for Walkman tape players. In order to carry around a CD or a CD player, you need another piece of luggage or enormous pants pockets.
As you can see, there are some huge disadvantages to CD’s versus tapes that, to me, outweigh their advantages. Therefore, I believe that CD’s are incredibly overrated and am glad that we are moving out of the CD era and into the digital/mp3 era in music.
In case you’re wondering, I’m not nearly as frustrated with DVD’s versus VHS tapes as I am with CD’s versus cassette tapes. Who knows, maybe I will be in the very near future.
-Maelstrom
Remember that CD’s would last forever? Well check out this site:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/05/06/disc.rot.ap/
Is it Just Me?
Over the past few years, I have become increasingly frustrated with technology and the grief it often brings me. As a result, I have decided to dedicate a few blogs to my ever-growing anguish over the advance of technology. These particular blogs will be written in a “matter-of-fact” fashion, so just bare with me as I cruise down frustration lane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)