Help us raise money for merchandise!

“Television is altering the meaning of ‘being informed’ by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation. Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information - information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.”

                                                           -Neil Postman

I’d like to start this entry with an experiment.  Close your eyes for a moment and think about George Washington.  What’s the first thing that comes into your mind?  Was it an image of him heroically navigating the waters of the Delaware or the dollar bill?  I’ve performed this experiment on many of my friends.  Interestingly, upon being asked the question, there is a consensus among them.  With slight variations according to each person I’ve asked, the experiment always goes something like this, “What’s the first thing that comes into your mind when you think about George Washington,” to which they respond—as would I—after a short pondering, “an image of George Washington.”

Now contrast the reaction of the 21st century person with what we can presume would be the reaction of a 19th century person.  Had you mentioned a name such as Abraham Lincoln, the mind of a 19th century inhabitant would not immediately think of an image, but rather, something which Abraham Lincoln might have said or wrote.  The reason for this is quite practical: the 19th century person’s mind was not inundated with images provided by the moving picture boxes we’ve come to love in the 20th and 21st century.  What is frightening, is that the television, has become a valid source of information and what we see on the tube, is what we talk about at the coffee shops, bars and water coolers.  Below, I discuss two reasons why television is not a good medium for reporting objective information.   

News channels create flawed ad hominem arguments (arguments based on emotion and not based on reason or logic) using images and soundbites.  Take, for example, the current situation in the Gulf of Mexico.  This spill, is a horrible thing.  It’s had a devastating effect on the homes of many Americans.  With that said, how many of you, have gotten information on this oil spill directly from FOX, NBC, CNN or ABC news?  If you’ve stopped to flip on the tube at any point in the last few months, you’re likely to have seen that ever so stimulating image of oil gushing from the pipes of one of BP’s guilty rigs.  This image, is responsible for a large majority of the bullshit currently springing up from the mouths of the disinformed. 

In his eye-opening book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman defines disinformation as, “…information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.”  Think for a minute about the substance one receives from studying an image, as opposed to the substance one receives from reading a carefully researched essay on a certain topic.  An image has the ability to immediately trigger an emotional reaction.  This means, that upon seeing a picture such as this, an emotional reaction is immediately in tow of one’s visual perception.  Whereas, if I were to provide a first-hand, written account of this boys life, you would have to read quite a bit into the account to get any reaction at all.  But just think for a minute, how much more information you could receive from reading a written account of this boy’s life rather than simply looking at a picture!  An account of this boy’s life would most likely include a birth date, accounts of his parents, how he got to where he was and why there’s no one there to help him out of such a dire situation.  These are all things which the image above would utterly fail to convey.  Compare this with the image of oil spilling from an oil rig, and you receive a similar result.  Questions like, ‘why is this happening,’ ‘how do we stop it,’ ‘what caused this mess,’ and ‘who’s working on it,’ could not be answered by any combination of a single ghastly image and a twitteresque report on the subject.  

Secondly, information reported through the television puts an irrelevant emphasis on outward appearances, which distracts viewers from the actual content of what a politician, celebrity or news anchor might say, do or even think.  And don’t think for a second that those politicians aren’t taking advantage of this simple, yet elusive truth.  Think for a second, of our 27th president: Howard Taft.  There’s just no way in hell that guy could ever become president in this day and age.  Let’s imagine for a minute that Taft had all the answers to everything.  It’s my opinion that in this day and age, intellectual duds like the last 6 (minus 1) presidents of the US would still hold a favorable advantage, simply because they’re good-looking or have a status outside of politics.  Do you contest?  Maybe a simple reminder might be of assistance.     

My point is this: we should read more, watch less.  We can’t let our worldviews become shaped by the bias’ of personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman.    Yes, it does require more thinking and more reading, both of which are things we’ve come to despise at least in some way, but is the alternative worth it?  Is our transition into an information-deprived culture worth the trade of our intellectual freedom to read, think and discuss to the best of our ability?  Stand up and fight for your right to think.  

I am in this case working with a presupposition, that one of the government’s primary purposes is to protect the conscience of its people.  In other words, they are to protect the American people from being forced (enslaved) to take actions that go directly against their moral convictions.  I believe this can be achieved by giving more power to the states when it comes to social issues (abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, the social aspects of illegal immigration…).  Therefore, the federal government should not be in charge of regulating whether or not health organizations should be allowed to use any public funds to pay for abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, or when a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape.  

President Obama has cleverly figured out a way to give Congressman Stupak and other anti-abortion democrats what they want—without actually giving them anything—in exchange for their cooperation in voting for Obamacare.  In the EO released a while back, Obama reinforced the Hyde amendment, by assuring anti-abortion democrats that the stipulations of said amendment would continue to “…prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer abortions.”  A bit of a peculiar move for a man that was adamant about his pro-choice position one year ago.  I’ve since learned the reasons for such a “non-partisan” move.

(1) The Hyde amendment must be voted on every year.  With congress as left heavy as it is these days, it might be alarmingly easy for the democrats to throw the hyde amendment out completely when they vote on it in October.    

(2) The authority of executive orders does not extend over laws passed by congress, which means that Obama can make the politically safe move while his buddies in congress make the tougher move.

(3) Congressman Stupak, the leader of the anti-abortion democrats, was about as loyal to his moral convictions as Fredo Corleone was loyal to his brother Michael.  You can look to the 750,000 dollars just pocketed back when the EO was released for improvements to an airport in his district.  

Whene’er I take my pipe and stuff it

And smoke to pass the time away, 

My thoughts, as I sit there and puff it, 

Dwell on a picture sad and gray:

It teaches me that very like

Am I myself unto my pipe. 

Like me, this pipe so fragrant burning

Is made of naught but earth and clay;

To earth I too shall be returning.

It falls and, ere I’d think to say,

It breaks in two before my eyes; 

In store for me a like fate lies.

No stain the pipe’s hue yet doth darken;

It remains white.  Thus do I know

That when to death’s call I must harken 

My body, too, all pale will grow.  

To black beneath the sod ‘twil turn, 

Likewise the pipe, if oft it burn.

Or when the pipe is fairly growing, 

Behold then, instantaneously, 

The smoke off into thin air going, 

Till naught but ash is left to see.  

Man’s fame likewise away will burn

And unto dust is body turn.  

How oft it happens when one’s smoking:

The stopper’s missing from its shelf, 

And one goes with one’s finger poking

Into the bowl and burns oneself. 

If in the pipe such pain doth dwell, 

How hot must be the pains of Hell.

Thus o’er my pipe, in contemplation

Of such things, I can constantly

Indulge in fruitful meditation,

And so, puffing contentedly, 

On land, on sea, at home, abroad, 

I smoke my pipe and worship God.  

-J.S. Bach

Let’s talk about selling out.  How much do you hate it? How much respect do you lose for an artist that “sells out”?  Do you hate it enough to stop burning CD’s and start buying them so that The Killers won’t have to give a salute to Dr. Pepper™ and all of it’s 33 wonderful flavors, a 12-pack of which may be purchased at CVS for a mere eight dollars (don’t mock my terrible attempt at humor I’m fragile)?  

No, The Killers did not go and advertise with Dr. Pepper, but I doubt they let Nike use their song for free on that ‘get-psyched-out-of-your-mind-pump-up’ commercial ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ae3tFI8wXE )  they aired during the olympics.  That commercial made them a lot of money and it’s still making them crazy amounts of money and guess what?  There’s nothing wrong with that.  There are those of us who would say something to the effect of, “dude, they basically wrote a song and made millions of dollars for it.  I wish I could get paid that much to basically do nothing.” Wrong.  A good song is a culmination of a lifetime of work.  You don’t just pick up a guitar and write a lick, then make up some words that rhyme and record it.  It’s a little bit more complicated than that. 

Do you know how many songs a song writer has to write before they write the “one”?  Do you know how many song writers go there entire lives without writing the “one”? Do you have any freaking clue how many of their songs are stolen before they finally make any money at all on the “one”? And lastly, do you even care about how much they love what they do?

Here’s the crux of the matter: Most song-writers will never write the “one”.  They’ll go their whole lives writing good songs but they’ll never write the song that sets them up for life.  SO STOP TREATING AN ARTIST’S MUSIC LIKE THEY’RE MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. We’re not all The Killers.  

A quick ‘angry’ note to Christians: You claim to live by the words of Jesus yet I know personally some of you have over 40,000 stolen songs on your iPods.  Go buy 40,000 songs on iTunes and see how much you spend.  It’s not free.  Someone created it, and they didn’t give you permission to take it.  Music is a product (no comments from the guy in the Ramones shirt please. Punk is dead. Get a haircut) that provides musicians with money to live and support a family.  And don’t simply deflect  by pointing out my issues in defense.  I know I have problems, but apparently you don’t think you do.  Repentance is a staple of living a right life before God, and if you’re continually doing something, which you know is wrong without repenting, you’re rejecting repentance in favor of what the world offers.

It’s not that we want a lot of money, it’s that we want to keep doing what we love, but we’ve still gotta buy bread.  Don’t get me wrong, I’ll never stop making music just because I keep hauling in a paycheck of a whopping zero dollars, I’d just like to be able to make music without being stressed out of my mind about how I’m going to make it to the next paycheck.

By the way, I love all of you.  This whole thing just rubs me the wrong way. You know?

A tour of the studio were workin in.

Don’t worry I’ll include a “favorite things about southern california” list later.  I’ll just need a LOT more time to think about it.

1. Too much sun - Any of the infamous leathery-skinned cougars that occupy the region would tell you that the sun is the best thing about Southern California, as would any one who has some sort of seasonal depression disorder.  However, my skin is healthy and the rain makes me happy.  I’m not even asking for flash-flooding (which can be just as annoying as too much sunshine) I’d just like to see a little bit more contrast in the weather. The sun can’t be beautiful every day, you need the rain to remind you that it’s beautiful.

2. Congestion - I would say traffic, but to be honest, it really doesn’t bother me as much as it does some people.  However, I do find myself being annoyed by it at sometimes, so I’ll include it in a broader category: Congestion.  Being from Houston, I’m used to being able to drive about 15 minutes to open spaces (fields, trees, nature in general).  This is something I wish I would have taken more advantage of when I lived there.  Since everyone and their mother wants to live in Southern California, such luxuries cannot be afforded around here.  Even if you don’t utilize these luxuries, it’s nice to know that you can go somewhere else at a reasonably close distance besides your room when you just want to get away from people.

3. Douche bags - There is an alarming amount of douche-bagery committed in this region.  Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of douche-bags in Texas, but this area is saturated with them.  Most californians refer to them as “bros” rather than douche-bags, but don’t let the name fool you, they’re douche-bags.  Here are the characteristics that make up what a southern california douche-bag or “bro” is: 1) Crippling insecurities which lead to a need for validation in all the aspects of life that don’t matter (clothing, automobile, the appearance of being tough), 2) Huge biceps and skinny legs (countless hours spent on sculpting the money muscles and ignoring all others.  In other words, if you find yourself having to fight one, kick ‘em in the knees.), 3) a strong belief in their innate ability to compete in the Ultimate Fighting Championships, and 4) a tendency to act like an idiot, regardless of their actual IQ (although I would imagine it’s usually pretty low).

Of course I’m missing some popular ones (rude people, USC football fans, pollution, soap-boxery, the lakers, name-dropping etc.) but these are my three least favorite things about Southern California.

Every since I heard the song “Be Calm” by fun, I don’t feel like anything I have to say is significant.

“High School is such a serious thing… these problems matter.” (note the sarcasm).

Even though you have to sometimes fight through Seth McFarlane’s political agenda to enjoy it, Family Guy is one of the best shows on television for this reason: It reminds us of how ridiculous we look when we take things that don’t matter way to seriously.  I am among the guilty party.

I hated high school because of the lens through which I viewed it.  It was my life.  If something bad happened, it was forever.  If something good happened, it was forever. In my mind, my problems could never be fixed, because my “problems” were of great significance, due to the inflated lens through which I viewed these “problems”.

To a certain extent, I have grown out of this unfortunate phase in my life.  I’m able to think more in the longer term than in the shorter, which provides me with more choices and a better understanding of how life works.  This is not to say that I’ve got anything figured out.  Anyone will tell you that every time you learn something new, you also learn a little bit more about how much you don’t know.  I guess what I’m saying is that I’ve learned how to evaluate certain situations and their significance and leave them behind me.

I understand that there are certain things that happen in high school that bring about legitimate grudge-holding.  Having your girl stolen from underneath your nose by your best friend is a crappy situation, and while I’ve never personally experienced a situation like that, I can imagine how much it would suck.  These kind of significant events obviously take a while to get over.  Getting your heart broken by some guy or girl is another unfortunate situation which obviously takes some time to get over (see previous post). But what drives me insane is when people hold grudges over insignificant events in high school.  It’s amazing the kind of drama people can commit to memory (you know what I’m talking about) for the sake of having “problems”.

So I guess here’s what I’m trying to say:

Get over it.  We were all growing up, we were all stupid and we were all oblivious to both of these things.  The people you hated in high school have probably turned into pretty cool people or they might still be assholes.  But if you can’t get over insignificant drama from high school, you’re an asshole too.  :)

So I just finished watching the movie “500 Days of Summer”.  I’m no movie critic, but I thought it was very well done.  The episodic structure of the movie was perhaps the most interesting part about it.  The contrast between the various periods of the relationship between Summer and Tom was vivified by the quick mood changes provided by the non-chronological scene changes and stark transitions.  The soundtrack was perfect.  The acting was great.  The story was not original, but it didn’t matter.

I hated it.

Every second of it.

It had nothing to do with the overall composition of the movie (although at times it seemed a little pretentious).  My reason for hating it is also the reason for its success. I’ve never seen a movie that more accurately and vividly portrays the utter pain that unrequited love brings about. I was depressed the entire time my eyes were glued to that stupid screen.  I felt like my stomach was in knots over a girl, including during the more pleasant scenes when the relationship seemed to be going swimmingly.  I was only reminded of how painful it was to make a joke and have it be brushed off with careless eyes.  I was reminded of cold responses to questions asked with romantic significance attached and perhaps most painfully, I was reminded of the heart break which accompanies seeing a girl that you love with someone else, knowing that there’s nothing you can do about it.

Don’t believe those stupid youtube videos advertising the movie as a deceivingly innocent “I love you, you love me” type of flick, especially for those of you who know what unrequited love feels like.  It will only bring you back to those awful moments that everyone wishes to forget and leave you strangely begging for those moments to reoccur.  Paradoxical I know. You’ll understand once you see the movie.

Great film.

I freaking hated it.