So I've been going a little heavy on societal issues lately, and I thought I'd switch it up this time and do something a little less...I don't know....melodramatic?
I was just thinking about this the other day. Heaven, as we typically envision it, is actually very similar to the ideal communist society.
The Dictionary.com definition of communism is:
1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Referring to #1, in Heaven, everybody is selfless, or else they wouldn't be there, so they definitely share everything. As for #2, it's pretty safe to say that God is not going to give up his seat on the throne of Heaven to some bozo, so God's the only political party in Heaven. He/she is also the greatest totalitarian leader in the history of human existence. Just listen to Psalm 139:
"O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD.... Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there."
Yup, God knows EVERYTHING about you. He always knows where you are, what you're thinking. That's pretty totalitarian.
The other tenet of communism that dictionary.com doesn't mention is the overall idea of equality, and in Heaven, it's safe to say that all are equal except God (and Jesus/Mohamed or whoever you believe in).
Heaven definitely qualifies as a communist society, which brings me to another point.
Why is it that some of the most religious nations in the world really, really hate communism, since communism actually embodies their idea of paradise?
Similarly, why does communism historically hate religion? Wouldn't it be to their advantage to say that they were building Heaven on Earth? Communism could be so much more successful if they would use the church as a basis for their government.
Anyways, just a little something to chew on. If I ever become a communist totalitarian dictator, I will totally use the whole heaven angle for my benefit. ;)
Note: I do not mean to offend or make light of religious matters. I am religious, but I like to think that God has a sense of humor. If he didn't, I wouldn't be alive....
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Giving the People What They Want
Whenever the media is called out for offensive content, lack of diversity, sexism, etc., they have a golden excuse that never seems to fail. They're just giving the people what they want. If you've got a problem with that, just stop watching. When enough people stop watching to actually affect our business plan, maybe we'll talk to you.
Yeah, right. The problem with this seemingly golden philosophy is
1) People who are offended (and rightfully so, at times) find it hard to rally thousands of other viewers to their cause. People don't want to seem like they're being unreasonable or obnoxiously politically correct, so they're not going to hold marches, and therefore won't attract very much attention.
2) Usually people aren't so offended as to want to stop watching one of their favorite shows (if they care enough to talk to the network, they obviously like the show). They might just have a question or a suggestion i.e. "Was it necessary to the plot of this episode to make the Hispanic guy have an accent?"
3)Not enough people notice any problems to begin with because they're fine with the way things are. I mean, if you sit the average little kid down in front of the TV screen, he's not going to say, "How come all the women on this show are blond and unnaturally thin? This is not an accurate representation of reality. Let's sue."
Desipte the fact that the media is supposedly so liberal, it's actually pretty slow to change, unless profits start to decline, of course. And because profits haven't declined, movies and tv shows are basically in the same place as they were 15 years ago.
The easiest way to describe what I mean is to go the race route (sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, because it really shouldn't).
For the most part, TV is not overtly racist anymore, which is great. However, it's still a Caucasian dominated industry, and it seems to be determined to stay that way, awkward racial overtones and all. Network television seems to think that if a part on a TV show does not have BLACK or ASIAN or HISPANIC stamped on it, then black, Asian, and Hispanic actors aren't an option.
This is particularly true for comedies such as Two and a Half Men and Samantha Who. Two and a Half Men doesn't have any minority cast members, despite the fact that it's set in California, one of the most diverse places on the planet, and Samantha Who has one black character--who is her doorman, who spouts "bluesy wisdom" (thank you Michael Scott) and sass. There aren't any minority bit players either. None of the many girlfriends of the Two and a Half Men are minorities, and neither are any of Samantha's former paragons. Now, is it really so difficult to offer a small 1-2 episode love-interest role to a minority? Or does interracial sex still raise too many eyebrows?
And don't even get me started on medical shows. My biggest beef with them is that 15% (as of 2000, so that's a pretty low estimate) of doctors in the United States are Asian American males and females. An estimated 12% of students entering medical school in 2006 were Indian (from India....duh). So how many Asian American actors are portraying doctors on television?
I can only think of one.
Now let's compare this to the representation of African Americans on medical shows. Every medical show has at least one black character, sometimes two, which is great. But African Americans only compose 4% of America's doctors.
I'm not saying that you should eliminate those roles for African American actors or downplaying the role of African Americans in the medical community, but it's obvious that the media is capable of casting minority actors on TV shows. Which is why it's so frustrating when Asian Americans don't get the roles, particularly Asian men.
A similar thing is going on for shows set in Hawaii (particularly reality shows), which invariably boast a glut of suntanned blondes, when Asians make up over 50% of the population.
Or how about (my favorite) the newest Barbie movie: Barbie Island Princess, in which pretty blond Barbie lives on a tropical island with elephants and red pandas. Well, pretty blond Barbie wouldn't last a day in the Caribbean without succumbing to severe sunburn, even with her magic wand or tiara or whatever it is she's weilding this time. Oh Mattel, when will you realize that blondes don't live on tropical islands. This could be your perfect chance to bring out black Barbie, or Pacific Islander Barbie, but NO. That would be too difficult for you.
Why is Hollywood so reluctant to show things the way they are? Do they really think that they'll lose that much viewership if they put a Hispanic girl on How I Met Your Mother, or an Indian man on Grey's Anatomy?
So Hollywood's giving the American public what they want.
Well, how are they supposed to know what it is they want if they're only given one choice? If you've been eating Cheerios since birth, and you never see anything else, you're not going to get up one day and buy some Honeycomb. How are we supposed to want something we've never seen? How can we miss what's never been there to begin with?
How can you be sure that what you're spooning out is what America wants? Do you know specifically that what I'm asking for is what America doesn't want?
Look, I really don't want to have to march to get what I want this time. I'd much rather you just wire it through my cables.
Yeah, right. The problem with this seemingly golden philosophy is
1) People who are offended (and rightfully so, at times) find it hard to rally thousands of other viewers to their cause. People don't want to seem like they're being unreasonable or obnoxiously politically correct, so they're not going to hold marches, and therefore won't attract very much attention.
2) Usually people aren't so offended as to want to stop watching one of their favorite shows (if they care enough to talk to the network, they obviously like the show). They might just have a question or a suggestion i.e. "Was it necessary to the plot of this episode to make the Hispanic guy have an accent?"
3)Not enough people notice any problems to begin with because they're fine with the way things are. I mean, if you sit the average little kid down in front of the TV screen, he's not going to say, "How come all the women on this show are blond and unnaturally thin? This is not an accurate representation of reality. Let's sue."
Desipte the fact that the media is supposedly so liberal, it's actually pretty slow to change, unless profits start to decline, of course. And because profits haven't declined, movies and tv shows are basically in the same place as they were 15 years ago.
The easiest way to describe what I mean is to go the race route (sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, because it really shouldn't).
For the most part, TV is not overtly racist anymore, which is great. However, it's still a Caucasian dominated industry, and it seems to be determined to stay that way, awkward racial overtones and all. Network television seems to think that if a part on a TV show does not have BLACK or ASIAN or HISPANIC stamped on it, then black, Asian, and Hispanic actors aren't an option.
This is particularly true for comedies such as Two and a Half Men and Samantha Who. Two and a Half Men doesn't have any minority cast members, despite the fact that it's set in California, one of the most diverse places on the planet, and Samantha Who has one black character--who is her doorman, who spouts "bluesy wisdom" (thank you Michael Scott) and sass. There aren't any minority bit players either. None of the many girlfriends of the Two and a Half Men are minorities, and neither are any of Samantha's former paragons. Now, is it really so difficult to offer a small 1-2 episode love-interest role to a minority? Or does interracial sex still raise too many eyebrows?
And don't even get me started on medical shows. My biggest beef with them is that 15% (as of 2000, so that's a pretty low estimate) of doctors in the United States are Asian American males and females. An estimated 12% of students entering medical school in 2006 were Indian (from India....duh). So how many Asian American actors are portraying doctors on television?
I can only think of one.
Now let's compare this to the representation of African Americans on medical shows. Every medical show has at least one black character, sometimes two, which is great. But African Americans only compose 4% of America's doctors.
I'm not saying that you should eliminate those roles for African American actors or downplaying the role of African Americans in the medical community, but it's obvious that the media is capable of casting minority actors on TV shows. Which is why it's so frustrating when Asian Americans don't get the roles, particularly Asian men.
A similar thing is going on for shows set in Hawaii (particularly reality shows), which invariably boast a glut of suntanned blondes, when Asians make up over 50% of the population.
Or how about (my favorite) the newest Barbie movie: Barbie Island Princess, in which pretty blond Barbie lives on a tropical island with elephants and red pandas. Well, pretty blond Barbie wouldn't last a day in the Caribbean without succumbing to severe sunburn, even with her magic wand or tiara or whatever it is she's weilding this time. Oh Mattel, when will you realize that blondes don't live on tropical islands. This could be your perfect chance to bring out black Barbie, or Pacific Islander Barbie, but NO. That would be too difficult for you.
Why is Hollywood so reluctant to show things the way they are? Do they really think that they'll lose that much viewership if they put a Hispanic girl on How I Met Your Mother, or an Indian man on Grey's Anatomy?
So Hollywood's giving the American public what they want.
Well, how are they supposed to know what it is they want if they're only given one choice? If you've been eating Cheerios since birth, and you never see anything else, you're not going to get up one day and buy some Honeycomb. How are we supposed to want something we've never seen? How can we miss what's never been there to begin with?
How can you be sure that what you're spooning out is what America wants? Do you know specifically that what I'm asking for is what America doesn't want?
Look, I really don't want to have to march to get what I want this time. I'd much rather you just wire it through my cables.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
What Happened to Serendipity?
Everything these days seems to be tailored to our own convenience. iTunes, TiVo, Amazon, Google- the whole internet, really, are all streamlining our personal experiences so that we don't have to sift through all of the junk that's out there in order to get what we really want, whether it be a particular song, the last episode of The Office, a novel or even a credible source for your next research paper (aka NOT Wikipedia).
But what if we don't know what we want?
Technology and the world in general are catering towards a specific kind of consumer, a consumer that fits into a specific mold or stereotype and so can be counted on to like certain things according to some sort of mathematical formula, like when Amazon pops up with related search items that you might be interested in. This approach is very lucrative for companies, as it allows them to market items specifically towards the people who are most likely to buy them.
However, this approach is also lacking in a very important aspect of of human life- individuality. These algorithms cannot take into account all of the ins and outs of human likes and dislikes, because algorithms only work if their subjects make sense. And we all know most humans don't make a lot of sense.
So why does this matter?
Well, companies are marketing this way because it gives you the tools to assemble your own identity. All American society can think about right now is "being uniquely you", so of course we gladly seize upon anything that can aid us in our endeavor. However, when we use these tools, they squeeze us into a sort of box. If at this point in your life, you like emo music and you look for emo music using iTunes, Amazon, Google, etc, all you'll get back is emo music because these tools are designed to give you what you want. So, if you stick to using these tools for the rest of your life, you'll continue to listen to emo-related music for the rest of your life because you're not going to encounter anything else.
Which is fine if you like emo music. But what if you're not really an emo music kind of person and you just think you are because your friends happen to be? What if you're really a country kid and you just never found out because all you ever saw was emo stuff? I know it sounds melodramatic, but when people start implanting computers in their heads (it'll happen eventually), they're going to rely on them to make their lives easier by pointing them towards the things that they need and want according to past preferences, simply because it's much more convenient. Unfortunately, this convenience sucks out all the unpredictability from life, and so pretty much sucks out the essence of life itself.
Take, for instance, Match.com. When you get on Match.com you take a personality and interests test and your results are matched to people in your area. The profiles you get back are the ones that are the most similar to yours, so in essence, you're looking to date yourself in a slightly altered physical form.
Think of all of the successful relationships you've witnessed, or the person you're dating now. Are you exactly like your partner? The answer is probably no. In most relationships people obviously have some sort of common ground, but are also different in substantial ways. If you really wanted to be with someone just like you, you could just buy a mirror.
Now, I'm not saying that Match.com is necessarily bad. It can be great for some people. But if the entire world was looking on Match.com to find their soulmates....well, the birthrate would decline pretty rapidly, just because something like love tends to be random. How many people do you know who married the exact kind of person they always thought they would marry? Haven't you ever liked someone you never thought you would like?
Look, we've all met people who could definitely qualify as living, breathing stereotypes, but you've got to admit that most people just don't fit into a mold. The problem is, when companies give us a mold, we tend to try to smush ourselves into it. They say they're helping us break out of conformity, but what they're really doing is giving a choice in what we conform to. It doesn't seem like a big deal now, but in another ten years, technology and society will have evolved to the point where we don't have to go out and find things for ourselves; they'll just be brought to us via Wi-Fi. And since technology can never be as complex (knock on wood) as a human being, it can never truly bring us what we want, it can only bring us what it thinks we want- and thus what we think we want.
All I'm asking is, what happened to serendipity? What happened to finding a cool band in a record store? What happened to discovering some cute clothes at some random store in the mall? What happened to finding a new favorite book at the library? What happened to channel surfing? And what happened to love at first sight? Did all of these little, everyday things just fade away to be replaced by some math equation?
The way things are going now, there's not going to be any more "expect the unexpected", because the internet is not capable of giving you what you don't expect. If it did, it would have a major design flaw. The internet is a great tool, but it's just being overused.
So, the next time you're looking for something, sacrifice convenience for serendipity. Turn off your iPod and laptop and get up and go find it yourself.
Bring back the magic, people. Bring back some serendipity.
But what if we don't know what we want?
Technology and the world in general are catering towards a specific kind of consumer, a consumer that fits into a specific mold or stereotype and so can be counted on to like certain things according to some sort of mathematical formula, like when Amazon pops up with related search items that you might be interested in. This approach is very lucrative for companies, as it allows them to market items specifically towards the people who are most likely to buy them.
However, this approach is also lacking in a very important aspect of of human life- individuality. These algorithms cannot take into account all of the ins and outs of human likes and dislikes, because algorithms only work if their subjects make sense. And we all know most humans don't make a lot of sense.
So why does this matter?
Well, companies are marketing this way because it gives you the tools to assemble your own identity. All American society can think about right now is "being uniquely you", so of course we gladly seize upon anything that can aid us in our endeavor. However, when we use these tools, they squeeze us into a sort of box. If at this point in your life, you like emo music and you look for emo music using iTunes, Amazon, Google, etc, all you'll get back is emo music because these tools are designed to give you what you want. So, if you stick to using these tools for the rest of your life, you'll continue to listen to emo-related music for the rest of your life because you're not going to encounter anything else.
Which is fine if you like emo music. But what if you're not really an emo music kind of person and you just think you are because your friends happen to be? What if you're really a country kid and you just never found out because all you ever saw was emo stuff? I know it sounds melodramatic, but when people start implanting computers in their heads (it'll happen eventually), they're going to rely on them to make their lives easier by pointing them towards the things that they need and want according to past preferences, simply because it's much more convenient. Unfortunately, this convenience sucks out all the unpredictability from life, and so pretty much sucks out the essence of life itself.
Take, for instance, Match.com. When you get on Match.com you take a personality and interests test and your results are matched to people in your area. The profiles you get back are the ones that are the most similar to yours, so in essence, you're looking to date yourself in a slightly altered physical form.
Think of all of the successful relationships you've witnessed, or the person you're dating now. Are you exactly like your partner? The answer is probably no. In most relationships people obviously have some sort of common ground, but are also different in substantial ways. If you really wanted to be with someone just like you, you could just buy a mirror.
Now, I'm not saying that Match.com is necessarily bad. It can be great for some people. But if the entire world was looking on Match.com to find their soulmates....well, the birthrate would decline pretty rapidly, just because something like love tends to be random. How many people do you know who married the exact kind of person they always thought they would marry? Haven't you ever liked someone you never thought you would like?
Look, we've all met people who could definitely qualify as living, breathing stereotypes, but you've got to admit that most people just don't fit into a mold. The problem is, when companies give us a mold, we tend to try to smush ourselves into it. They say they're helping us break out of conformity, but what they're really doing is giving a choice in what we conform to. It doesn't seem like a big deal now, but in another ten years, technology and society will have evolved to the point where we don't have to go out and find things for ourselves; they'll just be brought to us via Wi-Fi. And since technology can never be as complex (knock on wood) as a human being, it can never truly bring us what we want, it can only bring us what it thinks we want- and thus what we think we want.
All I'm asking is, what happened to serendipity? What happened to finding a cool band in a record store? What happened to discovering some cute clothes at some random store in the mall? What happened to finding a new favorite book at the library? What happened to channel surfing? And what happened to love at first sight? Did all of these little, everyday things just fade away to be replaced by some math equation?
The way things are going now, there's not going to be any more "expect the unexpected", because the internet is not capable of giving you what you don't expect. If it did, it would have a major design flaw. The internet is a great tool, but it's just being overused.
So, the next time you're looking for something, sacrifice convenience for serendipity. Turn off your iPod and laptop and get up and go find it yourself.
Bring back the magic, people. Bring back some serendipity.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Phil Bredesen and Racial Slurs
I've never had a problem with Phil Bredesen, and I still don't. However, the Tennessee governor serves as a good example of how people react to being accused of racism.
The other day, Phil, who's visiting China, sucessfully used what some would call a racial slur in a dispatch home. He said, "The scale, the energy, the focus of this place is astonishing. I’ve thought of China as a giant, poor third world country (remember those Chinese coolies who built the railroads?) now charging onto the industrial stage for the first time." http://support.tennessean.com/blogs/?p=5340
The word in question here is "coolies", which is an ethnic slur, according to dictionary.com and other sources. I actually find the whole sentence mildly offensive, although I'm sure he didn't mean it that way, in that he's using poor Chinese laborers (albeit hardworking ones) as prime examples of what China is- in his eyes, a pool of poor laborers.
Why was it necessary to interject that into his sentence? That's like visiting Africa and saying- "I've always thought as Africa as poor (remember those slaves who worked on cotton plantations?)" You would NEVER do that? He's unconciously belittling the struggle of those "coolies" to build the railroads that they never got credit for.
But that's beside the point. I still like Phil. He didn't mean to be racist, and you could definitely argue that there's nothing wrong with what he said, as the word is in historical context. However, it's just one of those little things that slips out because he wasn't thinking at the time and he's not used to dealing with Asians in Tennessee.
What I'm getting to is the reaction when the folks over at the Tennessean picked this up on one of their blogs. Bredesen immediately fired off a brusque email completely denying that his words were offensive.
http://support.tennessean.com/blogs/?p=5348
Not the best move, Phil. What you SHOULD do in that situation is apologize and say that you didn't mean to offend anyone and you won't do it again. Denying that your words are offensive doesn't make the people who were offended by them any happier. Even if he wasn't trying to be racist or just didn't know that that word had negative connotations, he should still apologize. It's just what you do. You'd do it in everyday life- like if you accidentally insult your friend's friend, you apologize even though you didn't mean to offend them. It's polite.
But when racism enters into the discussion, all the shields go up and people just freak out and immediately shift the blame to the people who were offended, saying that they're too sensitive. And then people (usually white people, sorry) go off on rants about how everybody's too PC and minorities are out to get them, etc. Take this comment on the Tennessean blog:
"So the PC dictionary calls it offensive, but a liberal professor on modern Chinese history says it’s not. Maybe we should talk to Wang Dang Bang to find out for sure. Oh, is that offensive?"
Ok, Wang Dang Bang? Are you kidding me? That's pretty offensive. In trying to make a legitimate point, this person gets way too defensive and lashes out at the Asian community, bascially saying that they're stupid for being offended- even though the Asian community wasn't responsible for the article- and (the connotation is) should shut up and go away.
Or how about this comment?:
Phil used the term correctly in it’s historical perspective. My ancestors are called many names. Does that hurt me? NO! Because I’m not a PROFESSIONAL VICTIM as so many of our contemporaries are today! I don’t go around looking, scratching, digging for insult to me through long-dead, generations past relatives.
I’m a MAN, and I’m confident in my stature, and don’t have time to trifle if others want to be petty.
If I may quote some ages old kindergarden philosopher:“Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Um, excuse me. First of all, you don't know how to use an apostrophe...or spell kindergarten...or break. The first sentence of this guy's comment was valid. But then it went on to accusing minorities of scratching in the dirt for possible insults. Hate to break it to you, but minorities don't have time to sit around trying to be insulted. We have jobs. We work. We go to college. We can spell "break". This guy's defensive mindset completely obscured the point he wanted to make. He honestly thinks that minorities are out to get him.
This is why we cannot discuss racism in America. People get too worked up and start throwing around insults because they can't possibly believe that they're racist, because racism ended with the "I Have a Dream" speech, right?
So instead of taking in a thoughtful comment, like the one the Tennessean made, people immediately blame minorities for being offended or calling into question someone's behavior. And then minority activists get even more worked up and start saying things that they shouldn't, completely reinforcing the views of their opposers, so everyone forgets about the initial issue and nothing gets solved. It's ridiculous. As long as these attitudes are around, we're not going to change anything in America.
The other day, Phil, who's visiting China, sucessfully used what some would call a racial slur in a dispatch home. He said, "The scale, the energy, the focus of this place is astonishing. I’ve thought of China as a giant, poor third world country (remember those Chinese coolies who built the railroads?) now charging onto the industrial stage for the first time." http://support.tennessean.com/blogs/?p=5340
The word in question here is "coolies", which is an ethnic slur, according to dictionary.com and other sources. I actually find the whole sentence mildly offensive, although I'm sure he didn't mean it that way, in that he's using poor Chinese laborers (albeit hardworking ones) as prime examples of what China is- in his eyes, a pool of poor laborers.
Why was it necessary to interject that into his sentence? That's like visiting Africa and saying- "I've always thought as Africa as poor (remember those slaves who worked on cotton plantations?)" You would NEVER do that? He's unconciously belittling the struggle of those "coolies" to build the railroads that they never got credit for.
But that's beside the point. I still like Phil. He didn't mean to be racist, and you could definitely argue that there's nothing wrong with what he said, as the word is in historical context. However, it's just one of those little things that slips out because he wasn't thinking at the time and he's not used to dealing with Asians in Tennessee.
What I'm getting to is the reaction when the folks over at the Tennessean picked this up on one of their blogs. Bredesen immediately fired off a brusque email completely denying that his words were offensive.
http://support.tennessean.com/blogs/?p=5348
Not the best move, Phil. What you SHOULD do in that situation is apologize and say that you didn't mean to offend anyone and you won't do it again. Denying that your words are offensive doesn't make the people who were offended by them any happier. Even if he wasn't trying to be racist or just didn't know that that word had negative connotations, he should still apologize. It's just what you do. You'd do it in everyday life- like if you accidentally insult your friend's friend, you apologize even though you didn't mean to offend them. It's polite.
But when racism enters into the discussion, all the shields go up and people just freak out and immediately shift the blame to the people who were offended, saying that they're too sensitive. And then people (usually white people, sorry) go off on rants about how everybody's too PC and minorities are out to get them, etc. Take this comment on the Tennessean blog:
"So the PC dictionary calls it offensive, but a liberal professor on modern Chinese history says it’s not. Maybe we should talk to Wang Dang Bang to find out for sure. Oh, is that offensive?"
Ok, Wang Dang Bang? Are you kidding me? That's pretty offensive. In trying to make a legitimate point, this person gets way too defensive and lashes out at the Asian community, bascially saying that they're stupid for being offended- even though the Asian community wasn't responsible for the article- and (the connotation is) should shut up and go away.
Or how about this comment?:
Phil used the term correctly in it’s historical perspective. My ancestors are called many names. Does that hurt me? NO! Because I’m not a PROFESSIONAL VICTIM as so many of our contemporaries are today! I don’t go around looking, scratching, digging for insult to me through long-dead, generations past relatives.
I’m a MAN, and I’m confident in my stature, and don’t have time to trifle if others want to be petty.
If I may quote some ages old kindergarden philosopher:“Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Um, excuse me. First of all, you don't know how to use an apostrophe...or spell kindergarten...or break. The first sentence of this guy's comment was valid. But then it went on to accusing minorities of scratching in the dirt for possible insults. Hate to break it to you, but minorities don't have time to sit around trying to be insulted. We have jobs. We work. We go to college. We can spell "break". This guy's defensive mindset completely obscured the point he wanted to make. He honestly thinks that minorities are out to get him.
This is why we cannot discuss racism in America. People get too worked up and start throwing around insults because they can't possibly believe that they're racist, because racism ended with the "I Have a Dream" speech, right?
So instead of taking in a thoughtful comment, like the one the Tennessean made, people immediately blame minorities for being offended or calling into question someone's behavior. And then minority activists get even more worked up and start saying things that they shouldn't, completely reinforcing the views of their opposers, so everyone forgets about the initial issue and nothing gets solved. It's ridiculous. As long as these attitudes are around, we're not going to change anything in America.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Myspace: the new record store?
Back in the day, when people wanted to buy music, they went to actual physical stores (the kind that are in buildings) like Tower Records. Record companies made tons of money off of charging you an extra $10 for the packaging on your CDs, and life was great-but not for long...
Apple came along with its iPod and changed the face of the music industry. Music became the first of the information commodities, signaling a global economic change- the move towards virtual over physical (Facebook gifts, anybody?). Music became more affordable and available. And, with the ability to purchase individual songs, your music collection reached new heights in personalization- something that my generation is all about. No longer did you have to buy a whole CD to get one good song; you could just get one and forget about the rest.
Now, I have to admit- I find this system preferable to the old one, but there's something about it that's lacking: browsing.
I get that you can look at different songs and artists on iTunes, but it's not the same as looking through stacks of CDs and pulling out something that looks interesting. iTunes was made so that you could avoid that whole ordeal and get specifically what you want. It's more convenient. Unfortunately, with convenience comes the loss of exposure to new artists and ideas. With iTunes, it's easy to restrict yourself to one genre that you think "fits you".
But have no fear. As always, some new technological innovation has come about that makes it all better.
Well, Myspace isn't exactly new, but it certainly is more popular than ever- and if you use it right, it can be the digital equivalent to the old-time record store. It's the perfect venue for new artists who have no label, an indie label, or who just aren't famous yet.
Today I spent my limited spare time on Myspace- not checking out my friends' Top 8- but instead browsing the ever-popular music section (yet another way to waste time! see previous posts...)
And guess what I found? A good 15 or so up-and-coming artists that, when they hit it big, I can say I liked first. All I had to do was go to the top artists page and click on links. A page would pop up, a song would start playing, and if I liked it, I stayed. If it involved loud thrashing, screaming, or unintelligible gibberish, I could steer away in the blink of an eye. You can search bands by location, by name, or (my personal favorite) by a general genre- and since most artists identify across genres, you still get a lot of variety.
So, check out Myspace Music- you never know what you'll find.
Some fruits of my labor:
Ingrid Michaelson
The Scene Aesthetic
Michelle Featherstone
Sea Wolf
Gary Jules
Five Times August
Derek Webb
Laura Marling
A Rocket to the Moon
Jason Reeves
Daphne Loves Derby
Seriously
and of course Anna Bikales
And yes, I realize that the choices are very random and all over the place style-wise. That's the beauty of Myspace Music.
Apple came along with its iPod and changed the face of the music industry. Music became the first of the information commodities, signaling a global economic change- the move towards virtual over physical (Facebook gifts, anybody?). Music became more affordable and available. And, with the ability to purchase individual songs, your music collection reached new heights in personalization- something that my generation is all about. No longer did you have to buy a whole CD to get one good song; you could just get one and forget about the rest.
Now, I have to admit- I find this system preferable to the old one, but there's something about it that's lacking: browsing.
I get that you can look at different songs and artists on iTunes, but it's not the same as looking through stacks of CDs and pulling out something that looks interesting. iTunes was made so that you could avoid that whole ordeal and get specifically what you want. It's more convenient. Unfortunately, with convenience comes the loss of exposure to new artists and ideas. With iTunes, it's easy to restrict yourself to one genre that you think "fits you".
But have no fear. As always, some new technological innovation has come about that makes it all better.
Well, Myspace isn't exactly new, but it certainly is more popular than ever- and if you use it right, it can be the digital equivalent to the old-time record store. It's the perfect venue for new artists who have no label, an indie label, or who just aren't famous yet.
Today I spent my limited spare time on Myspace- not checking out my friends' Top 8- but instead browsing the ever-popular music section (yet another way to waste time! see previous posts...)
And guess what I found? A good 15 or so up-and-coming artists that, when they hit it big, I can say I liked first. All I had to do was go to the top artists page and click on links. A page would pop up, a song would start playing, and if I liked it, I stayed. If it involved loud thrashing, screaming, or unintelligible gibberish, I could steer away in the blink of an eye. You can search bands by location, by name, or (my personal favorite) by a general genre- and since most artists identify across genres, you still get a lot of variety.
So, check out Myspace Music- you never know what you'll find.
Some fruits of my labor:
Ingrid Michaelson
The Scene Aesthetic
Michelle Featherstone
Sea Wolf
Gary Jules
Five Times August
Derek Webb
Laura Marling
A Rocket to the Moon
Jason Reeves
Daphne Loves Derby
Seriously
and of course Anna Bikales
And yes, I realize that the choices are very random and all over the place style-wise. That's the beauty of Myspace Music.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The Rich Man's Guide to Environmentalism
Being an environmentalist is easy as pie. All you have to do is make money. Lots of money. And you don't even have to give up the comforts of your cushy lifestyle. Great bargain, right? In this wonderful new age of indulgences, you can have your Hummer AND snazzy "Save the Planet" to adorn it.
Or at least that's what Al Gore would say.
Al Gore is the face of the new environmentalism, where everything is okay, as long as you make up for it by planting trees or buying carbon-free tickets (scathingly referred to as indulgences by the New York Times). So basically, you can keep your fancy cars, private jets, and mansions with $30,000 energy bills (sound familiar, Al?), and as long as you have extra dough to cough up to buy "green" energy and offset your "carbon footprint", it's fine.
Honestly, Mr. Gore, would it kill you to turn off a few lights every once in a while?
The major problem I have with this theory of environmentalism is that it concentrates on making up for whatever damage you've done to "Mother Earth" instead of eliminating it (or at least reducing it) altogether. It functions on this idea of free passes, but only you have the money to donate to some random company that claims to plant trees in the Amazon. It really doesn't surprise me that so many of America's rich and famous back Mr. Gore's environmental campaign because it lets them save the world without lifting a finger, and give them feelings of self-righteousness about it, too.
It doesn't matter if you're using green power or coal power: you're still using electricity, and the less you use, the better. Same goes for carbon coupons. If you just USED LESS instead of gabbing about how great you are for planting trees, the world would be a better place. You don't even know if those companies you're giving money to are actually doing anything. They're probably just taking your money and stashing it in a bank account in the Bahamas.
I guess what I'm saying is that this road towards saving the world is not going anywhere. As long as there are huge McMansions sucking up energy, there will be blackouts. Come on, people, do you really need 6,000 square feet for a family of four?
What happened to less is more?
And the other issue I have with Mr. Gore's theories is that, well, the vast majority of Americans, or humans in general, don't have an extra thousand or so bucks a year to spend on offsetting their carbon emissions. Most people are spending that money on FOOD. So, his message doesn't really apply to them.
In fact, if all the Hollywood bigshots who loaded up An Inconvenient Truth with Oscars lived like the poor Americans did, there wouldn't be an energy problem. You don't see clotheslines or people taking the bus in Beverly Hills, do you? Well, maybe you should. I find it ironic that the best methods of saving energy are the ones that are most stigmatized by American society. Take a hike (or a bike), and turn off your energy guzzling stereo systems and giant TVs. Set the air conditioning to 74 and deal with it. Hang your socks up to dry. Make an effort to be energy conscious, if only because it saves you money. Do all that stuff and more, it's great. But please, don't drive a Hummer and tell me you want to save the environment.
Indulgences were yesterday's news in 1517. Why should today be any different?
Or at least that's what Al Gore would say.
Al Gore is the face of the new environmentalism, where everything is okay, as long as you make up for it by planting trees or buying carbon-free tickets (scathingly referred to as indulgences by the New York Times). So basically, you can keep your fancy cars, private jets, and mansions with $30,000 energy bills (sound familiar, Al?), and as long as you have extra dough to cough up to buy "green" energy and offset your "carbon footprint", it's fine.
Honestly, Mr. Gore, would it kill you to turn off a few lights every once in a while?
The major problem I have with this theory of environmentalism is that it concentrates on making up for whatever damage you've done to "Mother Earth" instead of eliminating it (or at least reducing it) altogether. It functions on this idea of free passes, but only you have the money to donate to some random company that claims to plant trees in the Amazon. It really doesn't surprise me that so many of America's rich and famous back Mr. Gore's environmental campaign because it lets them save the world without lifting a finger, and give them feelings of self-righteousness about it, too.
It doesn't matter if you're using green power or coal power: you're still using electricity, and the less you use, the better. Same goes for carbon coupons. If you just USED LESS instead of gabbing about how great you are for planting trees, the world would be a better place. You don't even know if those companies you're giving money to are actually doing anything. They're probably just taking your money and stashing it in a bank account in the Bahamas.
I guess what I'm saying is that this road towards saving the world is not going anywhere. As long as there are huge McMansions sucking up energy, there will be blackouts. Come on, people, do you really need 6,000 square feet for a family of four?
What happened to less is more?
And the other issue I have with Mr. Gore's theories is that, well, the vast majority of Americans, or humans in general, don't have an extra thousand or so bucks a year to spend on offsetting their carbon emissions. Most people are spending that money on FOOD. So, his message doesn't really apply to them.
In fact, if all the Hollywood bigshots who loaded up An Inconvenient Truth with Oscars lived like the poor Americans did, there wouldn't be an energy problem. You don't see clotheslines or people taking the bus in Beverly Hills, do you? Well, maybe you should. I find it ironic that the best methods of saving energy are the ones that are most stigmatized by American society. Take a hike (or a bike), and turn off your energy guzzling stereo systems and giant TVs. Set the air conditioning to 74 and deal with it. Hang your socks up to dry. Make an effort to be energy conscious, if only because it saves you money. Do all that stuff and more, it's great. But please, don't drive a Hummer and tell me you want to save the environment.
Indulgences were yesterday's news in 1517. Why should today be any different?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wasting time is (unfortunately) devilishly easy.
I've heard before that the #1 useage of the internet is porn (cue "The Internet is for Porn" from Avenue Q). I don't know if that's true, or how you'd gather those statistics, since you can measure page hits, but not how long someone's actively using a site- or at least not on an internet-wide scale.
However, I think everyone would agree that the #1 use for the internet is wasting time. Add up all the porn time, plus game time, plus youtube time, plus facebook, myspace, xanga, friendster, cyworld time, blog time, and you probably log a lot more hours than actual useful sites, such as E-Trades or Bank of America or something like that.
I would say that the internet is possibly the biggest distraction since...well...I can't think of anything remotely comparable.
In fact, I can't even imagine what people used to DO before the internet. How did you find out your news? How did you research papers? How did you talk to your friends?
I mean, we just take it for granted that we can turn on our little Thinkpads or Macbooks or whatever and talk to people who live on the other side of the world. We're used to typing in a word into our Google toolbars and pulling up thousands of pages of information about that word. Whenever a major event happens in the world, we know within, at most, 10 minutes.
A century ago, that same information could take days, even weeks, to reach us.
We're ridiculous, spoiled, lazy- and possibly the smartest people in the world, just because we CAN know things in a blink of an eye.
Of course, just because we can know doesn't mean we necessarily do, but the fact that we have the ability to learn anything we want to know gives us a huge advantage over everyone else.
So next you're wasting your time on the Internet, pat yourself on the back. Every second you spend expands your knowledge far past anything your ancestors could have dreamed of.
However, I think everyone would agree that the #1 use for the internet is wasting time. Add up all the porn time, plus game time, plus youtube time, plus facebook, myspace, xanga, friendster, cyworld time, blog time, and you probably log a lot more hours than actual useful sites, such as E-Trades or Bank of America or something like that.
I would say that the internet is possibly the biggest distraction since...well...I can't think of anything remotely comparable.
In fact, I can't even imagine what people used to DO before the internet. How did you find out your news? How did you research papers? How did you talk to your friends?
I mean, we just take it for granted that we can turn on our little Thinkpads or Macbooks or whatever and talk to people who live on the other side of the world. We're used to typing in a word into our Google toolbars and pulling up thousands of pages of information about that word. Whenever a major event happens in the world, we know within, at most, 10 minutes.
A century ago, that same information could take days, even weeks, to reach us.
We're ridiculous, spoiled, lazy- and possibly the smartest people in the world, just because we CAN know things in a blink of an eye.
Of course, just because we can know doesn't mean we necessarily do, but the fact that we have the ability to learn anything we want to know gives us a huge advantage over everyone else.
So next you're wasting your time on the Internet, pat yourself on the back. Every second you spend expands your knowledge far past anything your ancestors could have dreamed of.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
My favorite company....
Have I mentioned that I really don't like the College Board? They make up tests to stress teenagers out and have the gall to charge exorbiant prices for them. They've got us so freaked out that there's a whole industry thriving on trying to calm us down through guidebooks, tutoring, etc.
Do you have any idea how much money College Board makes out of stressing teenagers out?
Let's do a little math.
How many tests does the good, motivated student take in order to get into college?
Well, there's the SAT, which most people take at least twice, two SAT IIs, the PSAT, and let's say 4 AP tests.
So, that's $43 (x2), $20 (x2), $13, and $84 (x4), which totals to a nice and tidy
$475!!!
And that's not counting the $20 late fees, $21 change fees if you need to change where you're taking your test, the $50 in-depth score reports for the overacheiving student.
Let's assume that all of the people who applied to Harvard last year took at least the number of tests mentioned above (although most probably took more). How much money did College Board make off of just the applicants to Harvard last year?
475 x 22,796= $10,828,100!
Yes, that's right, folks, College Board made over ten million dollars (and this is a conservative estimate) on just the applicants to Harvard last year.
And did I mention that College Board is a non-profit organization?
Do you have any idea how much money College Board makes out of stressing teenagers out?
Let's do a little math.
How many tests does the good, motivated student take in order to get into college?
Well, there's the SAT, which most people take at least twice, two SAT IIs, the PSAT, and let's say 4 AP tests.
So, that's $43 (x2), $20 (x2), $13, and $84 (x4), which totals to a nice and tidy
$475!!!
And that's not counting the $20 late fees, $21 change fees if you need to change where you're taking your test, the $50 in-depth score reports for the overacheiving student.
Let's assume that all of the people who applied to Harvard last year took at least the number of tests mentioned above (although most probably took more). How much money did College Board make off of just the applicants to Harvard last year?
475 x 22,796= $10,828,100!
Yes, that's right, folks, College Board made over ten million dollars (and this is a conservative estimate) on just the applicants to Harvard last year.
And did I mention that College Board is a non-profit organization?
Monday, September 24, 2007
And since I'm blogging...
I find it extremely entertaining how my generation, me included, has absolutely no respect for copyrights whatsoever.
I realized this when I was on Youtube trying to find an episode of the office, but all of them had been taken off. I got really angry before I realized that technically it isn't legal for me to be watching copyrighted material on Youtube, anyways. It belongs to someone else. But I'm so used to having everything right at my fingertips that I have the gall to actually get angry when I can't find any stolen material.
Wow.
However, with the wonderful Internet, there's absolutely no way companies can stop us from copyright infringement. Every time they find one contraband website, a new one pops up.
I think this would be an appropriate time for companies to start saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
If they would just post all of their episodes online for free on their own website, they would have control over their material and could still advertise and all that jazz. If the official website's right there, why would I waste brain/finger power on looking for another viewing spot?
And it wouldn't hurt their DVD sales, either, because people who buy season DVDs of the Office don't buy them because they want to watch one episode every few months; they buy them because they want easy access to their show on a nice big television screen with all of the extras and deleted scenes and other such goodies.
Same goes for music- have a few songs posted on the internet- not for downloading, just for streaming- to satisfy your casual listener, and then promote albums and such so that more serious fans can go buy them. You could also make a tidy bundle off of sound advertisements that play every few songs.
So, oxymoronically enough, the solution to internet piracy is actually to post more free stuff. Who knew?
I realized this when I was on Youtube trying to find an episode of the office, but all of them had been taken off. I got really angry before I realized that technically it isn't legal for me to be watching copyrighted material on Youtube, anyways. It belongs to someone else. But I'm so used to having everything right at my fingertips that I have the gall to actually get angry when I can't find any stolen material.
Wow.
However, with the wonderful Internet, there's absolutely no way companies can stop us from copyright infringement. Every time they find one contraband website, a new one pops up.
I think this would be an appropriate time for companies to start saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
If they would just post all of their episodes online for free on their own website, they would have control over their material and could still advertise and all that jazz. If the official website's right there, why would I waste brain/finger power on looking for another viewing spot?
And it wouldn't hurt their DVD sales, either, because people who buy season DVDs of the Office don't buy them because they want to watch one episode every few months; they buy them because they want easy access to their show on a nice big television screen with all of the extras and deleted scenes and other such goodies.
Same goes for music- have a few songs posted on the internet- not for downloading, just for streaming- to satisfy your casual listener, and then promote albums and such so that more serious fans can go buy them. You could also make a tidy bundle off of sound advertisements that play every few songs.
So, oxymoronically enough, the solution to internet piracy is actually to post more free stuff. Who knew?
I guess I'll blog again
Ok, so sickness has struck my household, and I'm trying to figure out where it came from. There are many possible webs of contagion because pretty much everyone I've talked to in the past couple of weeks has been sick. For instance:
Gym class buddy
Friend who I am with constantly
Little Brother
Violin Teacher
A certain insane avian
Chorus girl
So, how, with this constant exposure, how could I NOT get sick? It's not my immune system...it's the world!
Gym class buddy
Friend who I am with constantly
Little Brother
Violin Teacher
A certain insane avian
Chorus girl
So, how, with this constant exposure, how could I NOT get sick? It's not my immune system...it's the world!
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Survivor
So I watch Survivor every once in a while, and I must say that this season is not as interesting as the last one.
However, I think it's interesting that once again, almost all of the white contestants are gone, while the general favorite competitor is an old and shriveled up (but still appealing in that cute-grandfather way) Asian man named Yao Man, who's in an alliance with a strong African-American guy named Earl. This officially proves that race really doesn't matter in forming relationships. In fact, the contestants that chose to segregate themselves last season (they were white, sorry) were picked off by the racially diverse team.
Final verdict (according to Survivor): Diversity= stronger team (different skills and perspectives, perhaps?) while a homogenous team= weaker team
However, I think it's interesting that once again, almost all of the white contestants are gone, while the general favorite competitor is an old and shriveled up (but still appealing in that cute-grandfather way) Asian man named Yao Man, who's in an alliance with a strong African-American guy named Earl. This officially proves that race really doesn't matter in forming relationships. In fact, the contestants that chose to segregate themselves last season (they were white, sorry) were picked off by the racially diverse team.
Final verdict (according to Survivor): Diversity= stronger team (different skills and perspectives, perhaps?) while a homogenous team= weaker team
So Nestle Bought Gerber
The title says it all----
WHAT IS THIS??? Baby food plus Gerber equals bad.
This makes me feel like in about ten years there will only be ten companies because they'll all have bought everybody else.
I'm betting on Google, Viacom, AT&T, Proctor and Gamble, and Starbucks to make it.
WHAT IS THIS??? Baby food plus Gerber equals bad.
This makes me feel like in about ten years there will only be ten companies because they'll all have bought everybody else.
I'm betting on Google, Viacom, AT&T, Proctor and Gamble, and Starbucks to make it.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
unfairness
Why do guys get to be funny? It's so NOT FAIR.
Perhaps it's a confidence issue- guys get up on stage and talk, and they're pretty much automatically funny (unless they're sucky guys), whereas girls get up on stage to talk, and they're worried the whole time about how they look, or what their friends will say about them.
There are very few naturally funny girls that can be funny in front of people, not just with their friends. I mean, the only female comedians I can think of right now are Rosie O'Donnell (shoot me) and Margaret Cho (quasi-shoot me).
Maybe that's why guys typically get the leadership positions in co-ed schools. We all know that we pretty much vote for the person with the funniest speech unless our friend is running against him/her (usually him). I mean, I was at USN and I was looking at the officer board, and almost all of the officers were guys.
I guess all-girls schools might actually have a point....
Perhaps it's a confidence issue- guys get up on stage and talk, and they're pretty much automatically funny (unless they're sucky guys), whereas girls get up on stage to talk, and they're worried the whole time about how they look, or what their friends will say about them.
There are very few naturally funny girls that can be funny in front of people, not just with their friends. I mean, the only female comedians I can think of right now are Rosie O'Donnell (shoot me) and Margaret Cho (quasi-shoot me).
Maybe that's why guys typically get the leadership positions in co-ed schools. We all know that we pretty much vote for the person with the funniest speech unless our friend is running against him/her (usually him). I mean, I was at USN and I was looking at the officer board, and almost all of the officers were guys.
I guess all-girls schools might actually have a point....
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Delusional People
Why is it that people that no one likes are mean?
Why do people kill themselves in the name of their peaceful, loving god?
Most importantly, why do people who are obviously tone deaf audition for American Idol?
These are oxymorons that are yet to be solved- and they continue to vex the American populace day after day.
Scenario 1:
Okay, let's say that no one likes you because you are annoying/smell/or are just very strange. You don't notice that people don't like you because you are socially challenged. However, because you think that you're really cool, you make snotty remarks all the time to prove your superiority, and thus people dislike you even more.
Scenario 2:
Ok same thing, no one likes you because _______(fill in the blank, that's what it's for). You know that people don't like you and you don't know what to do about it. Therefore you make snotty remarks all the time because you are insecure.
So chicken or egg, do people dislike mean people because they were mean to begin with, or do people become mean because people don't like them?
To me, Scenario 1 makes a lot more sense; a person is mean, therefore people do not like him/her.
Scenario 2 just makes no sense whatsoever. What makes people think that being mean to others will remedy their sad situation? But it happens all the time. Maybe they've given up hope; or maybe they just have issues.
I guess you could turn this into a philosophical discussion- are people inherently evil (Scen. 1) or inherently good (Scen. 2)?
*peace out*
Why do people kill themselves in the name of their peaceful, loving god?
Most importantly, why do people who are obviously tone deaf audition for American Idol?
These are oxymorons that are yet to be solved- and they continue to vex the American populace day after day.
Scenario 1:
Okay, let's say that no one likes you because you are annoying/smell/or are just very strange. You don't notice that people don't like you because you are socially challenged. However, because you think that you're really cool, you make snotty remarks all the time to prove your superiority, and thus people dislike you even more.
Scenario 2:
Ok same thing, no one likes you because _______(fill in the blank, that's what it's for). You know that people don't like you and you don't know what to do about it. Therefore you make snotty remarks all the time because you are insecure.
So chicken or egg, do people dislike mean people because they were mean to begin with, or do people become mean because people don't like them?
To me, Scenario 1 makes a lot more sense; a person is mean, therefore people do not like him/her.
Scenario 2 just makes no sense whatsoever. What makes people think that being mean to others will remedy their sad situation? But it happens all the time. Maybe they've given up hope; or maybe they just have issues.
I guess you could turn this into a philosophical discussion- are people inherently evil (Scen. 1) or inherently good (Scen. 2)?
*peace out*
Friday, March 30, 2007
Generation Why?
So why are we Generation Y, anyways? Are we just not original enough to have our own special name, I mean, come on, we are SO different (aka better) from Generation X, so why should we be named after them?
For some odd reason, no one's come up with a good name for us.
Some people want to call us the Internet Generation (NetGen), while others point to our selfish natures and call us Generation Me.
That's just sad.
I think we should be Generation Global or Globe Gen, or something along those lines. We are the generation that is the most connected with the rest of the world. We have things in common with kids halfway around the world, and we talk to them about it via IM, email, blogs, etc. We also hear world news every day-- Invisible Children, anyone?
Plus it's much more flattering than Generation Selfish.
For some odd reason, no one's come up with a good name for us.
Some people want to call us the Internet Generation (NetGen), while others point to our selfish natures and call us Generation Me.
That's just sad.
I think we should be Generation Global or Globe Gen, or something along those lines. We are the generation that is the most connected with the rest of the world. We have things in common with kids halfway around the world, and we talk to them about it via IM, email, blogs, etc. We also hear world news every day-- Invisible Children, anyone?
Plus it's much more flattering than Generation Selfish.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
My fit of activism
In a celebratory mood, I decided to look up the names of various racial groups on the internet.
I googled Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and African American. I found that African American had the highest number of matches, followed by Asian, and then Hispanic/Latino (I googled both and added the results together).
I was feeling in an activist sort of mood, so I also googled Asian American stereotypes, Hispanic stereotypes, and African American stereotypes. The rank of hits per racial group was the same as it was before.
I find it interesting that Hispanics have the lowest number of hits despite the fact that they are soon going to be the largest minority group in the U.S. Also, I found that it was surprisingly hard to find good information on Asian-American stereotypes, despite the fact that they are extremely prevalent in the media. On a whim, I searched Asian on blogspot--apparently the top-ranked blog with the word Asian in it is about Asian sex, while the second ranked blog is about Asian Sirens (I clicked, it was basically porn)
Just a few findings to make your day better.
I googled Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and African American. I found that African American had the highest number of matches, followed by Asian, and then Hispanic/Latino (I googled both and added the results together).
I was feeling in an activist sort of mood, so I also googled Asian American stereotypes, Hispanic stereotypes, and African American stereotypes. The rank of hits per racial group was the same as it was before.
I find it interesting that Hispanics have the lowest number of hits despite the fact that they are soon going to be the largest minority group in the U.S. Also, I found that it was surprisingly hard to find good information on Asian-American stereotypes, despite the fact that they are extremely prevalent in the media. On a whim, I searched Asian on blogspot--apparently the top-ranked blog with the word Asian in it is about Asian sex, while the second ranked blog is about Asian Sirens (I clicked, it was basically porn)
Just a few findings to make your day better.
And the blog is born!
So here's my new "experiment": blogging, which was coerced into by a force of nature, known only as S.S. (initials only to protect privacy and prevent BAD INTERNET THINGS from happening)
Someone better read this at some point or another
No seriously.....someone needs to read this
Someone better read this at some point or another
No seriously.....someone needs to read this
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
