Jerzday

Jerzday article

In honor of the day of the week, I will discuss an article I found last week in the Times. At the UChicago Conference on Jersey Shore studies, (the fact that that exists baffles me), it was brought up that all the ruckus they caused in Italy was offensive to some Italian-Americans who watched from their couches.

My response to the claim that it is offensive is that I disagree. As evident in the article, many of the characters are not even full blooded Italian. I feel as though Jersey Shore is a means of entertainment, a foolish one at that. But for some reason, I, along with many americans, am captivated. Like a train wreck, you just can't take your eyes off it. In conclusion, I am not offended by a bunch of idiots making a million dollars being idiots, it's their prerogative.

Are you offended?

Back Home...

WTNH News Coverage

Earlier this morning, a student was tazed at my former high school in Hamden, CT. Though this is out of my pop culture realm, I still feel as though it is pertinent.

Apparently, PCP was an instrumental factor is the student's actions. But this isn't the first time that something of this manner has happened. For the four years I was there, we had six bomb scares, three of which evacuated the entire premises. There were guns, as well as knives on a fairly regular basis. For some reason though, I never felt endangered. Note the freshman mother's reaction to the incident. I laughed at her. What some naive people are yet to realize is that there is a ton of good to counter the bad everywhere. On some days unfortunately, the bad is what makes it to the news.

This spectacle will most likely bring up the question of whether or not to put metal detectors in schools. This always happens, and never gets passed. With all of the entrances and key cards, I do not foresee it happening. Plus, as the officer said, the system was proven effective today. Tasers had been put into effect two years ago, and since then no one involved in an incident was seriously hurt.

I would like to see if metal detectors in other schools have worked, or have they promoted other ways to conduct violence? Does anyone know of their former schools that use metal detectors?

Skewed Reality Presentation

Real News Story
Parody Auto-Tune

About a year ago in Hunstville, Alabama, Kelly Dodson was attacked by a rapist in her own bedroom. WAFF News covered the story, and interviewed her brother, Antoine Dodson who candidly warns the rapist that he is appalled, to say the least.

Rape is a serious manner, and the way the news channel covered it is tentative. A parody was made with Antoine's comments, and spread rapidly across the Web. If you were to YouTube search "Huntsville Rape", you won't be able to find the original news clip on the first page. The fact that a serious matter was over swept by a spoof shows how technology can actually skew reality. When the spoof went viral almost immediately after the original clip was posted, adults and children everywhere laughed at Antoine's auto-tuned speech. The fact of the matter is that a young girl was endangered, and half of the people who have made a joke about the incident do not know the initial incident that sparked the so called "hit single".

In True Enough, Farhad Manjoo suggests that "how you see something is how it really is" (155). Apparently, many people saw it as a laughing matter, when in fact rape is nothing to laugh about. Earlier in the novel, Manjoo proposes, "How can so many people who live in the same place see the world so differently?" (7).

As Farhad Manjoo said in relevance to All in the Family, "Even when the whole country is watching the same thing, in fact, we aren't, not really. Not everyone in America got the joke" (74).

Also pertinent are the two photoshop incidents, one involving an Army solider and the other involving John Kerry. Ken Light, the initial photographer of John Kerry before he was photoshopped into an anti-war rally, said that "Truth is now often ignored as phony" (82), which is exactly what happened with the news footage and the parody.

I'll end this by quoting Manjoo once more, as he reflects that "Digitalization has been good to us; it's given us the Web, DVDs, and the iPod, among other wonderful things. But computerized documents have also deepened the disconnect between what we perceive through our senses - what we see and what we hear - and what's actually going on in the world" (81).

In reality, an incident of rape had occurred, but to many Americans all it did was cause a laugh because technology had skewed the basis of the matter.

Dying To Live or Living To Die?

I now understand why George Orwell's thought provoking novel 1984 is so thoroughly discussed throughout American Literature. I find it incredible that people can still draw parallels to it so long after it was written. His predictions of the future reveal how genius of an imagination the man had. But more than that, the novel is filled with themes and symbols that are certainly open to multiple interpretations. There are certain human truths that great authors try to reveal within their work. In this case, one parallel I drew was between the classical Athenian character Socrates and Orwell’s Winston Smith. The relationship is much similar than it first might appear to be.

One of the first themes I began to investigate as soon as I began reading was the recurrence of hope throughout the novel. Winston’s thoughts early in the novel are, “Truisms are true, hold on to that. The solid world exists; its laws do not change. Stones are hard; water is wet, unsupported objects fall toward the earth's center” (Orwell 83). This passage reveals Winston’s sufficient understanding of the world he lives in despite all the control imposed upon him. This is also significant because Winston previously had questioned the meaning of life in a society like such. For him to grasp and formulate those ideas reveals that he is a truth-seeking human, a very hard characteristic to maintain in a state where thoughts are controlled by an external group, such as The Party.

His rebellious nature only grows once he meets Julia, whose attitude I believe he feeds off. Julia is a free spirit who Winston is captivated by, and precedes to fall head over heels for. During their “good” times, I feel Winston is on his way to finding happiness. Then it all goes awry. O’Brien is not the rebel who Winston perceives him to be, and Winston and Julia are separated as Winston is sentenced to The Ministry of Love. There he is tortured, and Orwell’s descriptions are gruesome. Winston is faced with a head cage of rats, his worst fear. At the last moment, he opts to pass on the punishment to his once beloved Julia and ends up surviving “Room 101”.

Furthermore, the end of the novel left me in disbelief. I had faith in Winston that he wouldn’t act in the selfish manner that he did, but I guess that is due to The Inner Party’s controlling nature. When he passed on the pain to Julia, I felt as if I was the one receiving it because of how much I thought Winston would overcome the odds of being pushed into the mindset of Ingsoc. I had faith in Winston to not give up his rebellious nature and optimistic philosophy. As I look back though, it was inevitable, and not as bad as I first thought it to be.

After analyzing the plot and reflecting upon it, I drew a parallel to the story of Socrates and “The Apology”. Socrates, like Winston is a free spirit in a bound society. Both are convicted because the majority do not approve of the way they think. Though the fates of both men differ towards the end of each story, I feel as if they resemble the same person in their respective eras.

Winston’s focus has long been to simply survive in the society he found himself in. “They can’t get inside you. If you can feel that staying human is worthwhile, even when it can’t have any result whatever, you’ve beaten them” (Orwell 170). This foreshadows the surrender of himself to Big Brother to stay alive.

It can be argued that Socrates followed a similar path in the sense that they both had to make a decision that questioned their motifs and desires. Socrates has a firm belief along the lines of any man who knows a thing knows he knows nothing. He questions all those labeled as “wise”, and finds that it is those who admit their flaws and lack of knowledge to actually be wiser. Once Socrates is convicted of corrupting the youth and not believing in a god, by a rather slim margin, he reflects on his upcoming execution:

“I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king, will not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if death is like this, I say that to die is to gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this?” (Baird 123).

As evident in the above passage, Socrates is not terrified of his sentence. He was known to be a traveler as well as an inquisitor, and it appears he is ready to continue his journey, wherever it may be. Socrates does seem timid about one thing, that being where he is actually going after death. He thinks death consists of either one night or a whole new life in which other deceased members can congregate.

Previous to his appearance in court, Socrates’ life had been full of exploration while he gained vast amounts of wisdom. It seems that he accepts death, as it will ironically further his exploration of life. Though Winston Smith lives and Socrates “dies”, they both do so in hopes of gaining something. Socrates blatantly explains that, “to die is to gain” while Orwell writes upon Winston’s submission to Big Brother:

“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother” (Orwell 308).

The use of the term “the struggle was finished” confirms Wilson’s state of being content, and his willingness to proceed on in life despite the tribulations that The Party brought him. Winston’s sacrificing of his own thought process is not an act of weakness, but an act of wisdom, as was Socrates’. Socrates chose death because he had done what he wanted to do with his life, and wanted to continue exploring what comes next. Similarly, Winston gave in to Big Brother because he had done all he could, and his ignorance towards The Party had lost its strength that was once so powerful. His mindset changed from rebellion to conformity. Winston’s decision to surrender shows how cynical the society truly is, but also how smart he is to finally realize he is a prisoner of The Party as well as his own body, and that there is no other option in order to stay alive. Both figures understand what is needed in order to continue on their respective ways, that being death for Socrates and submission for Winston Smith. 

True Enough?

            In the book titled True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society, Farhad Manjoo attempts to investigate how modern day technological advances have shaped the sort of free-for-all society we now live in.

            Manjoo’s writings begin with the story of Eliza Jane Scovil. Eliza was taken to the doctor with what was presumed as a common cold. They treated her per usual for a child her age, having no idea that Eliza’s mother, Christine Maggiore was HIV positive since 1992. Manjoo writes, “Maggiore had come to accept the unconventional views of a sets of activists who argue that HIV does not cause AIDS” (Manjoo 10). This being said, once Eliza Jane had passed, her mother denied the fact that AIDS was a leading cause. Despite the denial, the child’s body underwent an autopsy, and the examiner most certainly ruled that AIDS took Eliza Jane. At this point in the book, I was wondering where Manjoo could possibly go with this idea until he continues to explain his thesis for us:

“The death of a little girl in Los Angeles may not look immediately germane to the thesis of this book: that the limitless choice we now enjoy over the information we get about our world has loosened our grip on what is—and isn’t—true,” writes Manjoo. “What killed Eliza Jane, then, was not only a disease but more precisely the lack of notice and care for a disease—a denial even, that her condition existed. What killed her was disregard for scientific fact. It was the certainty with which her parents jettisoned the views of experts in favor of another idea, their own idea, far removed from observable reality. It was a willingness to trade in what was true for what was merely true enough” (Manjoo 12)

            In the last sentence, it is seen what he is getting at. Our society is tricked into believing things that may in fact be partly true, but there is no effort that is put into personal beliefs. It is almost as if we develop our so-called morals and virtues throughout our childhood, being heavily influenced by our surroundings, and then they are set. The way we receive information once our beliefs have been established is classified by Manjoo as “selective perception”, a process in which filter out what we don’t necessarily believe in within a story and simply extract what we feel is pertinent.

            As the book continues, Farhad Manjoo runs with the idea that our society, as a whole, has the option to believe whatever we want, and in some cases this freedom is actually so widespread that there are multiple truths to every instance. He looks further into the Swift Boat Veterans and the John Kerry scandal, Fox News, Lou Dobbs, Bush’s reelection, All in the Family, Apple and Microsoft debates, as well as other examples of how we consider truth whatever we want it to be. Most relevant to myself and other Americans though, Manjoo discusses the incidents that occurred on the dreadful morning of September 11, 2001.

            However, as you read the book and begin to buy into his theory that society often is tricked into false truths via manipulation of reality. Manjoo’s points make readers start questioning what lies they could have potentially been living through, and a sense of trust is lost. Immediately, a reader then initiates distrust in the exact words being read. What if Farhad Manjoo is using the same psychological strategies he talks about in his book to in turn color the evidence and literally write a whole entire book of lies. According to Manjoo, this is acceptable because although it may not be entirely true, it is True Enough.

Lfe wthout my Phone4.

As you can see, something from the title is missing. That something is the letter "i". I stands for me, and without my iPhone, I must admit it to be fairly difficult to remember that at the moment, I do not have an iPhone in my possession.

My iPhone stopped working approximately 30 days ago, and I must say I have felt rather different. I couldn't text very efficiently and email was no where to be found. I couldn't twit twat and I couldn't post statuses on how often I walk my siamese cats. The service has flat out sucked, and I can't win any more games in Words With Friends. My world ranking in Tiny Wings has taken a blow, to say the least and I feel like an outcast.

In all seriousness, I realized how lazy and dependent new-age technology has made us. Though I am still trudging along with this Pantech piece of a phone [disregard that I anxiously await my new iPhone 4S], I think I'll be fine.

In even more seriousness, Steve Jobs was an innovator and I think that I, as well as many others, owe him more than what is had. Rest in peace to a man who truly made this place so easy to live in, and don't forget about him as you look down to answer your next text message on your iPhone plugged into your MacBook.

Enough With True Enough

I really wanted to read more about the 9/11 conspiracies, but it seems that Farhad Manjoo had alterior motives. Those being to talk about Lou Dobbs for an excruciating amount of words.

In order to be interested in the Lou Dobbs issue, I feel as if one must be already somewhat politically inclined. In comparison to the 9/11 scandal, Lou Dobbs does not stand a chance. This is the case because of the fact that the September 11th terrorist attacks affected the nation, and as a patriotic American citizen, it is almost automatic to be appalled at the proposition that our government could do such. But even with the little evidence that Manjoo draws from his sources, it is far more believable than you first may think.

I also like how Manjoo goes after "selective exposure". This reminds me of the cat in the box conundrum. If a cat is covered by the box, does it still exist. There are a few different possibilities, but you cannot prove with immediate logic that in fact the cat is still beneath the box. Basically, Manjoo is saying that the evidence for anything is so far up in the air with all of our technological advances that it is hard to decipher what is true and what is not, and that sometimes something has to simply be declared "True Enough".

I would like for Manjoo to go deeper back into September 11th, but if he does not, perhaps we can watch some film in class?