How I Love to Hate You

I love Brats. I'm a firm believer that the $7 I spent on a t-shirt in July is the best investment I have made to date. It has saved me hundreds of dollars on Wednesday nights with half price drinks. What a great idea. Well done Brats! But nights like last night, I hate Brats. So much. Last night, for those that live in a hole in the wall, was Flip Night at Brats. The night started out calm and what I like to call "Dad's night" because the bar was initially filled with men who could play golf with my father. Fast forward two hours later, and it seemed that every person I've ever hated was in that bar- but I didn't know any of them. All these people, with absolutely no concept of personal space. I got spilled on, bumped into, elbow jabbed. I later announced that I hated everyone in the bar (ok, I got "diva"...whatever.). I seriously wanted to punch someone. But like most people, I'm all talk and very little action. So, Flip Night is officially a night I love to hate at Brats.
Rewind to Sunday. Another one of the things I love to hate is not a night, nor a bar, but a whole state. A whole group of people: Ohio State. I don't know if anyone else felt like this, but I almost cried when that final buzzer sounded in the Badger Game. The emotional roller coaster that I rode for two and half hours, watching our boys fight and claw their way back in the game, giving one of the best performances of the season (personally speaking), was ridiculous. This was an experience I shared at Brats, with other Badger fans who wanted the win so badly. Yes people were bumping into me, yes they were spilling on me, but they were also high fiving when Alando Tucker sailed across the lane to slam a basket in that ogre Greg Oden's face (sorry if anyone who is reading this is a family member of Oden- but I want proof of age. That guy has a Volvo and a family somewhere, I swear it!). And then, even though the refs were obviously in the pockets of OSU, the fans had the nerve to rush the court. We get it, you're number one. It wasn't an upset. You were expected to win by five and a half points (which reminder you didn't- you won by one point with 9 seconds left). Ever since I was a freshmen and we beat OSU at that football game, I've hated anything to do with them. Any time we play them, any time their name comes up- I want to hit that stupid mascot in the face. Seriously. After the game was over, there was hardly a word to be heard in the bar...people simply picked up their coats and filed out. It was actually one of the most depressing times in my life, no exaggeration there.
I don't really know how to wrap this post up, so suffice it to say I hate Flip Night and Ohio State..and I love to hate them.

Oh and lastly- Here's an article by Gregg Doyel. He's a classless idiot who referred to Brian Butch's injury as "Cryin' Brian Butch". I encourage everyone to email this man and tell him what a worthless piece of garbage his writing is, and that he has absolutely no soul.

What?

Last week, I was struck with ebola. Not really, but I was really sick and therefore missed out on all my classes all week. As a result of this misfortune, I was left to figure out last week's reading assignments on my own. Needless to say, I am less understanding of what is going on in these readings.
First, there are the chapters from N. Katherine Hayles' book Writing Machines. Her chapters made less than no sense to me. It seemed that she was trying to convey the computer as a human and how the changing focus of our society is directly effecting the changing development of the computer. Basically, for me, if the medium is the message, this message sucked. I had no idea what she was actually trying to get me to understand. I swear she was making up words. Her second chapter continues to become increasingly confusing to me when she began to describe Lexia to Perplexia and its outline. She states, "Communification arises when the circuit is completed, that is when humans and intelligent machines are interconnected in a network whose reach is reinforced by naming the few exceptions "detached" machines" (p. 56). Ok, what does this mean? Communification distracted me, in and of itself, because I just kept thinking about Homer Simpson mumbling "Saxamaphoooonnne" in an effort to play the saxophone. But I understand as far as humans and machines working together to form an exclusive network. We all do that, and that part wasn't as hard to decode for me.
Following the chapters by Hayles, there was a piece by Mark Taylor. This piece started out clear enough, fooling me into thinking that I would understand what I was about to read. My mind started to make connections involving statements such as "Taylor is far superior to Hayles because he says X in a way that she says ?". Needless to say, these statements didn't pan out. Because I wasn't in class, I missed how this tied into our discussion on the network and technology. The only connection I could make is simply that the way the Internet and other technological networks have been built is comprable to how great pieces of architecture have been built. I would be so clueless to believe that this whole piece was about architecture if it wasn't for the mention of chaos theory.
So here's my question to the class: Can you fill me in? What did I miss and did everyone else understand it also?

When I read “Writing about Cool” by Jeff Rice, I couldn’t get myself to focus on his alternative meaning of the word “cool”. I kept thinking about how people say “That’s cool” meaning “awesome”, “sweet”, or “fetch” (who doesn’t love Mean Girls). So it was a struggle. Then Rice begins to describe how colleges use “cool” to describe their school, therefore tricking their prospective students into thinking that they are enrolling in an institution, majoring in fiesta. Little do they know, that word “cool” means that they are enrolling in a very technologically focused college.

McLuhan, on the other hand, is no more clear than Rice. I found McLuhan’s articles (The Medium: Hot and Cold and The Medium is the Message) incredibly confusing. When we talked about McLuhan in my Comm Arts class, my professor made it seem very clear and concise. It all made sense. Bring on McLuhan’s ACTUAL article. Now, I find it all confusing. I agree that the way something is said (i.e. via in electronic lights, an email or on paper) can effect the message it brings. For example, if an environmental club advertises to save the trees by printing up thousands of flyers, its not going to be an effective message sent. Now, how effective is McLuhan’s message when using the word “cool”, if his definition (a media of low definition, McLuhan p. 36) is nowhere to be found other than in his book? This is hardly an accessible definition. Therefore, I think that this would be a definite issue with his personal statement “The medium is in the message”. It seems that his own message is jumbled due to miscommunication and inaccessibility.

On a final unrelated note: The Badgers are Number One…

It's all relative

Everyone loves Disney World, right? Picture this: a five year child, mesmerized by this magical place. Colorful surroundings, giant cartoon characters, hundreds of rides, and lots of candy. This child, so entranced by all of the bright attractions, loses sight of her parents. Finally, she spots the back of her dad's head, and runs to catch up. And then, a searing pain. That child was me, and that searing pain was a burn from my dad's cigarette (before he quit that dirty habit...no judgment). To this day, I will take a wide route around any walker who is smoking. We all know one of those aggressive walkers who swings his/her arms very violently while walking. I'm scared the backswing of the arm will cause ME to be burned with a cigarette.
This little anecdote is an example of how one life experience can effect the way a child acts for the rest of his/her life. This is what I'm studying this semester. 4 out of my 5 classes deal with children, their development, and their families. Much of my studies revolve around networks, whether they be social or technological. One experience can set of a series of reactions that will change the course of a child's life, either mildly or to the extreme.

My Space and Stalker-book

Do you have MySpace? How about Facebook? If you are anything like millions of college students around the country (the original audience for Facebook), then you more than likely own a profile on one or both of these mediums. You periodically (or obsessively) check your profile to see if a new friend is awaiting you, or a dire message from the love of your life has found its way into your mailbox. And, more so with MySpace than Facebook, you write about your day and how your jerk of a professor added another three sections of reading to the fifty-five you already haven't made it through.
Now imagine that when you log into your account, you have immediate access to all the entertainment news and gossip you can imagine...wait, you do! This is what Dawn Shepherd and Carolyn R. Miller call "mediated voyeurism" in their article "Blogging as a Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog". Mediated voyeurism is described as the desire to learn about others' (usually famous) lives from the outside, as a spectator.
This topic brought forth a pretty interesting discussion in class. Do we expect honesty from all these profiles we link ourselves to? In most cases, yes, we do. In the instance of "Kaycee", a hoax blog about a girl who died of leukemia, there was great uproar about the dishonest postings of the woman posing as the mother of a dead teenage daughter. On Facebook, we assume that those we connect to are who they say they are...even Brett Favre. But, what about all those Dateline specials about catching predators and teaching your tween children not to be idiots about the information they provide to their "friends"? Obviously, we are a skeptical society. Is everyone out to hurt our children? Most likely not, but you can't be too sure.
Now, we can connect blogging to things that are common to us, such as Facebook or MySpace, but where did it all come from? According to Shepherd and Miller, blogs are a result of a genre of pamphlets. Excuse me? Pamphlets do not equal MySpace, or These Aren't My Pants. Or do they? Pamphlets get people to pay attention to a cause. Well, there you go. You can see the transition. Someone like Justin Timberlake (as I mentioned in class) has a MySpace profile. Yes, he as almost 600,o00 friends, but they are all there to see when he is going to drop his next single, what city he will be in, where people can buy merchandise. It's genius. Without spending more than a few minutes of his time, he just advertised his profession to 600,000 people! Amazing. All the perks of the pamphlet without wasting loads of paper and ink. But, again, back to mediated voyeurism; is that really him? Are you being presented with a truthful front? Or is it a sweaty, forty year old man posing as a sexy pop idol?

Viva la New Media!

For as long as I can remember, going to school meant projects, tests, quizzes and of course: papers. I often dreaded this aspect of coursework, mostly because I am a huge procrastinator and have little to no drive to get anything done ahead of time.
Upon coming to UW, I took a class dedicated completely to writing papers and the correct form to be used. The five paragraph essay was the end of my existence. Academic writing was completely defined by research, citation, and a specific form. Things are beginning to change significantly. This class is a perfect example; it's an english class dedicated to new media and the use of it as an academic process.
Unfortunately, this is the only class that this holds true for. The rest of my coursework is dedicated to the five paragraph essay. Paper, after paper, after paper, await me throughout the semester. I often feel suffocated in the midst of writing a research paper. Where does my personality show through? Nowhere...it is fact after fact after fact, all attached to someone else's name. But there are definite advantages to academic writing.
If new media were to take over all classwork in a university setting, a very important skill would be diminished. As much as we all hate it, paper writing is the very foundation of many careers. All students benefit from the practice of writing. The one english class I took as a freshmen prepared me for the rest of my classes of my college career (with some limitations, but that's a different entry completely). If students didn't learn how to do the research aspect of a paper, and correctly form a thesis, how would new research come to be? It is thought that much of new research is spurred by review of old. Also, on a more personal note, I'm not very good at new media. Perhaps as a result of years of objective writing, where I'm not supposed to let it be known that the person who wrote the paper has personal opinions, I am horrible at forming, much less expressing personal ideas about pieces. For example, I feel like I do not know how to "react" to readings/discussions/etc, and when asked to do so, I freak out.
On the flip side of this issue, being able to navigate new media is definitely a necessity in the business world today. The use of new media is an up-and-coming skill that may not get you ahead, but get you in the running. It's becoming a skill that is a prerequisite for many careers. When was the last time you were asked to write a research paper on a job interview?

Writing? Or Not So Much?

Life in the fast lane

Some reading notes on “Rhetorics Fast and Slow”

p.3 (of text): Usage of garbage playing time as a metaphor for the 2000 Presidential Election

- Really liked this; I hadn’t considered the way elections are run, but this made sense

p.4: Definitions of fast and slow rhetoric

p. 4: The take over of fast rhetoric and its dominance in every day life

p. 5: The Internet as the answer to all of our world’s problems

- This seems to be a little too optimistic. I couldn’t believe that people saw the Internet as the solution to racism, poverty, and every other man made problem out there.

p.6 Too much information is too easily accessible, making things more confusing to people

- I definitely am guilty of almost all 8 signs that I’m living a life of fast rhetoric; I also agree that the fashion of fast rhetoric has taken over slow.

p. 7: “Speed brings risks”

- The use of Internet and fast rhetoric has already introduced new risks into culture that once weren’t imaginable. I realize this is a ridiculous example, but look at “Girls Gone Wild”. Women in the 1970s and 80s on spring break weren’t exactly paranoid that their image would be broadcast for all the world to see

p.8 Slow rhetoric as a part of curriculum: outdated or overlooked?

- It is true that fast rhetoric is being widely used in classes, but I still write a lot of papers that are based on book research and work.

The class discussion about the article by Faigley and Yancey seemed to be at a standstill. Many people agreed with Faigley, and many agreed with Yancey. It was somewhat comforting to know that I was not the only person who grew up in schools that did not have readily accessible computers and Internet access. I think it is important to keep in mind, when considering both articles, that not everyone has the ability to access the media needed to keep up with changing rhetoric. If children do not have access to Internet and computer applications, then how can we expect them to be able to manipulate these programs in a class setting? While I agree with Yancey that Internet needs to be incorporated into everyday classroom work, I’m not sure it’s as easy as she makes it seem. Faigley, on the other hand, is much more skeptical and emphasizes the need to slow down. However, slowing down would yield detrimental results as well; children who aren’t exposed to the new mediums of communication will undoubtedly be further behind when they reach a high school or college level class.

I’m not going to lie and pretend that I’m the greatest reader in the world. In all honesty, I usually don’t comprehend much of what I read until other people start talking about it, and then the neurons in my brain slowly start to make the connections necessary to grasp the material my eyeballs took in days, hours, or even moments ago. In going over the article presented in class about Wikipedia, I realized that there are a lot of things out there that I’m not at all familiar with. I’ve never used Wikipedia. I always thought that it was a joke website, similar to getting your information off Facebook. Obviously, it’s more scholarly than I originally thought; more than one person discussed how articles are reviewed by professionals and corrected as soon as possible. But, is it really a common practice to use a site like Wikipedia to write papers? Only since I changed my major has paper writing become a large part of my academics. So I was curious if this was a widely used research source that a lot of people use for their papers? Like I said, I likened Wikipedia to Facebook, and therefore, the thought of using it to write a college paper didn’t even cross my mind. The article given to us in class seemed like absolute lunacy (as my group mates heard from me) because it wasn’t an option I was even aware of.