I remember reading a study a few years ago which said that because the human body is always changing, it is entirely possible for a person who never had a problem with allergies before to suddenly develop them later in life. Well, I'm living proof of that. I never had an issue with allergies before I turned 30 and now the second spring rolls around it feels as though my sinuses are permanently clogged. The other problem is I really can't tell what I'm allergic to, so I'm not sure when that specific allergy season is over. To try and figure out when I can once again breath without the aid of medication, what I've been doing the past couple of weeks is to skip taking my allergy medicine for a couple days and seeing how I feel. Yeah, it's just as good an idea as it sounds.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Weekly Sporties
-Since we're inching closer to when the league was scheduled to get started, the NBA lockout is starting to feel real. With both sides saying the negotiations are so far apart that fans shouldn't expect an NBA season this year, it ain't looking good. Commissioner David Stern has taken the now-expected step of saying he won't take a salary as long as the league is in lockout-mode. First off, I find it really odd that no one knows how much Stern makes a year. Reports have it between $10-$20 million. The fact that no one knows for sure shows just how bad-ass David Stern really is. But, I do find it ironic that Stern will be working for free now, the time when he has to do the most work he has ever had to do as Commissioner. Not all publicity stunts are smart.
-Forgot to get to this one last week, but oh well: Boise State has long been famous for its blue football field. While no one had a problem with it when the blue turf was just a gimmick to hide the fact that the school wasn't very good at football, the Broncos have become a perennial Top-10 team and can beat people for real now, which suddenly makes it an issue. As such, when they switched conferences their new rivals passed a rule saying they couldn't wear their blue uniforms on their blue field, because it created an optical illusion. This feels very bush league to me. If these schools think this is a real issue then they should have dealt with it when they were beating Boise by 21 points every year. I don't hear anyone complaining about optical advantages enough to make schools with green uniforms, but 2-10 records start painting their fields a different color.
-Speaking of college football, Notre Dame is going into the year ranked #18. While it's not a great ranking, it's higher than expected. So, Coach Kelly, you'd better not end the year ranked any lower or else the rumbling will start. You could have flown under the radar to start this season, but you had to beat USC and win a bowl game. Welcome to the world of unreasonable expectations.
-So, earlier this week reports began to come out that Alex Rodriguez may have been involved in high-stakes poker games which featured cocaine, Hollywood stars and some guy getting beaten up when he couldn't pay his debt. (Of course, Alex was playing in the World Series when this alleged poker game took place, but let's not let a little thing like 'facts' get in the way of a good story.) Now, major league baseball always freaks whenever gambling and baseball are linked up, because their worst fear is organized crime getting their hooks into a star player and forcing him to throw games. (Yeah, cause that can happen when guys get $15 million a year. Let's worry about gambling and ignore steroids. Priorities, people!) But, this story did give me the greatest quote of the year. A source close to Commissioner Bud Selig reported he is fed up with A-Rod because, "It seems like every week there is new drama surrounding Alex Rodriguez." I'm not sure if there has been a more perfect sentence to sum up a professional athlete in the history of ever.
-Speaking of athletes who can't escape drama, earlier this week LeBron James took to Twitter to defend Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow, who's game has been critiqued rather harshly this off season. LeBron said he doesn't like it when people on ESPN act like they were all-world when they played and wondered why analysts spend so much time ripping guys instead of talking about the things they do well. You know, they always say what a person writes reveals more about them than about their subjects. Um, LeBron, sounds like someone is using Tim Tebow's problems to do a little venting. Is there anything you want to share with us?
-The big story out of Dallas this week was that Cowboys coach Jason Garrett wasn't allowing any of the Cowboys' rookies to have decals on their helmets because they all had to. "Earn their stars." First off, this kind of thing would only work in Dallas. I can't see Norv Turner making new Chargers earn their lightning bolts. But, everyone was talking about this was a great motivational tool. Yes, it was... when Bill Parcells did it a decade ago. Garrett totally ripped this idea off. I can't believe no one brought that up all week.
-We'll end this week's sporties with a few words about Randy Moss, who announced his retirement a couple days ago. I'll start by saying I don't totally believe he's retired. I think if a good team calls him once training camp is over and offers him enough money, he'll show up. He just doesn't want to play for a team that is looking at a 6-10 record. But, if that doesn't happen and he stays retired, Randy Moss will still be a first-ballot Hall of Famer and top-10 all-time receiver. That being said, I'll always view his career as a bit of a disappointment. Even his staunchest supporters will acknowledge he took plays off if the ball wasn't coming his way or if he was on a team that was having a bad year. Had he gone all-out on every play, he could have been the best ever. Top-10 is nice, but Randy's career will always be plagued by this nagging feeling it could have been even better.
-Forgot to get to this one last week, but oh well: Boise State has long been famous for its blue football field. While no one had a problem with it when the blue turf was just a gimmick to hide the fact that the school wasn't very good at football, the Broncos have become a perennial Top-10 team and can beat people for real now, which suddenly makes it an issue. As such, when they switched conferences their new rivals passed a rule saying they couldn't wear their blue uniforms on their blue field, because it created an optical illusion. This feels very bush league to me. If these schools think this is a real issue then they should have dealt with it when they were beating Boise by 21 points every year. I don't hear anyone complaining about optical advantages enough to make schools with green uniforms, but 2-10 records start painting their fields a different color.
-Speaking of college football, Notre Dame is going into the year ranked #18. While it's not a great ranking, it's higher than expected. So, Coach Kelly, you'd better not end the year ranked any lower or else the rumbling will start. You could have flown under the radar to start this season, but you had to beat USC and win a bowl game. Welcome to the world of unreasonable expectations.
-So, earlier this week reports began to come out that Alex Rodriguez may have been involved in high-stakes poker games which featured cocaine, Hollywood stars and some guy getting beaten up when he couldn't pay his debt. (Of course, Alex was playing in the World Series when this alleged poker game took place, but let's not let a little thing like 'facts' get in the way of a good story.) Now, major league baseball always freaks whenever gambling and baseball are linked up, because their worst fear is organized crime getting their hooks into a star player and forcing him to throw games. (Yeah, cause that can happen when guys get $15 million a year. Let's worry about gambling and ignore steroids. Priorities, people!) But, this story did give me the greatest quote of the year. A source close to Commissioner Bud Selig reported he is fed up with A-Rod because, "It seems like every week there is new drama surrounding Alex Rodriguez." I'm not sure if there has been a more perfect sentence to sum up a professional athlete in the history of ever.
-Speaking of athletes who can't escape drama, earlier this week LeBron James took to Twitter to defend Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow, who's game has been critiqued rather harshly this off season. LeBron said he doesn't like it when people on ESPN act like they were all-world when they played and wondered why analysts spend so much time ripping guys instead of talking about the things they do well. You know, they always say what a person writes reveals more about them than about their subjects. Um, LeBron, sounds like someone is using Tim Tebow's problems to do a little venting. Is there anything you want to share with us?
-The big story out of Dallas this week was that Cowboys coach Jason Garrett wasn't allowing any of the Cowboys' rookies to have decals on their helmets because they all had to. "Earn their stars." First off, this kind of thing would only work in Dallas. I can't see Norv Turner making new Chargers earn their lightning bolts. But, everyone was talking about this was a great motivational tool. Yes, it was... when Bill Parcells did it a decade ago. Garrett totally ripped this idea off. I can't believe no one brought that up all week.
-We'll end this week's sporties with a few words about Randy Moss, who announced his retirement a couple days ago. I'll start by saying I don't totally believe he's retired. I think if a good team calls him once training camp is over and offers him enough money, he'll show up. He just doesn't want to play for a team that is looking at a 6-10 record. But, if that doesn't happen and he stays retired, Randy Moss will still be a first-ballot Hall of Famer and top-10 all-time receiver. That being said, I'll always view his career as a bit of a disappointment. Even his staunchest supporters will acknowledge he took plays off if the ball wasn't coming his way or if he was on a team that was having a bad year. Had he gone all-out on every play, he could have been the best ever. Top-10 is nice, but Randy's career will always be plagued by this nagging feeling it could have been even better.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Best Of The Bunch
While I love movies, I'm not usually a patron of movie theatres. I prefer to start the movie when I'm ready, make my own snacks, pause the production should nature call and spread out on a comfy couch. But, should a really good movie or some production that seems very special-effects driven come out I will make an exception because even though TVs have come a long way, there really is no replacement for the full movie theatre experience. The again, there are downsides of the full movie theatre experience, which was what I got this afternoon.
We headed out to see "Captain America". I know, not exactly high cinema, but I wanted to see it, and it's been out for a couple of weeks, so I thought the theatre would be mostly empty. At first, I was right. When we initially showed up there was only one other person in the seats and by the time the lights dimmed for the previews there were only seven people in the entire place and nicely spread out, so I figured we were good. I was wrong. Not only did more people come in after the lights were out, but directly behind me sat a man with his two young, loud-popcorn-chewing, louder-talking, kicking-the-back-of-my-seat kids and then a couple who brought in the crunchiest nachos ever and who looked at my 98% empty row and decided that one seat away from me was the best seat in the house. Suddenly, I remembered why I usually stand to wait for stuff to come out on video.
Still, it is so rare that I can give you a review of a movie that is actually still in theatres, I figure I'd better get while the getting is good. While my group was split on whether or not this was a good movie, I liked "Captain America". First off, I'm kind of a sucker for WWII movies, which is just what this is. Despite the lasers and improved special effects, it still felt like a throwback of a film. The ending left me with a few questions that do not seem to hold up to the "common sense" test (that would be anything that immediately makes you go, "Wait, why would you do that? Wouldn't you do X instead?"), but I understand every movie makes a few of those. (Still, you just really shouldn't end a movie with one, as it taints the rest of the film.) Also, as a side note, do not wait through the credits for the extra scene, as the minute clip is not interesting enough to off-set sitting through 5 minutes of names scrolling on a screen.
Keep in mind, I wasn't holding this film up to normal scrutiny. Obviously, it isn't going to stand against some dramatic role where the lead actor is openly trolling for an Oscar nomination. At this point, I think so many superhero movies have come out that they make for their own category. And if you are judging it strictly by a jury of its peers, then "Captain America" stands up very well. It's certainly the best superhero film I have seen in the last few years. Now, at this point it has been in theatres for a few weeks and if you haven't gone out and seen it by now then that is because you don't want to. But, if you like superhero movies then add it to your rental list in a couple of months. I'm sure it won't be the worst movie you have ever had sent to your home.
We headed out to see "Captain America". I know, not exactly high cinema, but I wanted to see it, and it's been out for a couple of weeks, so I thought the theatre would be mostly empty. At first, I was right. When we initially showed up there was only one other person in the seats and by the time the lights dimmed for the previews there were only seven people in the entire place and nicely spread out, so I figured we were good. I was wrong. Not only did more people come in after the lights were out, but directly behind me sat a man with his two young, loud-popcorn-chewing, louder-talking, kicking-the-back-of-my-seat kids and then a couple who brought in the crunchiest nachos ever and who looked at my 98% empty row and decided that one seat away from me was the best seat in the house. Suddenly, I remembered why I usually stand to wait for stuff to come out on video.
Still, it is so rare that I can give you a review of a movie that is actually still in theatres, I figure I'd better get while the getting is good. While my group was split on whether or not this was a good movie, I liked "Captain America". First off, I'm kind of a sucker for WWII movies, which is just what this is. Despite the lasers and improved special effects, it still felt like a throwback of a film. The ending left me with a few questions that do not seem to hold up to the "common sense" test (that would be anything that immediately makes you go, "Wait, why would you do that? Wouldn't you do X instead?"), but I understand every movie makes a few of those. (Still, you just really shouldn't end a movie with one, as it taints the rest of the film.) Also, as a side note, do not wait through the credits for the extra scene, as the minute clip is not interesting enough to off-set sitting through 5 minutes of names scrolling on a screen.
Keep in mind, I wasn't holding this film up to normal scrutiny. Obviously, it isn't going to stand against some dramatic role where the lead actor is openly trolling for an Oscar nomination. At this point, I think so many superhero movies have come out that they make for their own category. And if you are judging it strictly by a jury of its peers, then "Captain America" stands up very well. It's certainly the best superhero film I have seen in the last few years. Now, at this point it has been in theatres for a few weeks and if you haven't gone out and seen it by now then that is because you don't want to. But, if you like superhero movies then add it to your rental list in a couple of months. I'm sure it won't be the worst movie you have ever had sent to your home.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
...Or You Could Just Show Me
My favorite part of any DVD is the extra features. I like watching outtakes and extended scenes, as well as the quick documentaries about how a very difficult sequence was ultimately put together. If it's a sports movie and the DVD has a documentary about the real story behind the movie I just watched, that is even better. I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff. The point is, I expect every DVD to offer me some type of additional features. In fact, if I put the DVD into the player and it only gives me the options to choose the scene, change the language or play the movie, I actually find myself getting very annoyed. How dare this production company not supply me with entertainment beyond the multi-million dollar film I'm about to watch for the next two hours?
The thing is, my need to watch additional footage pretty much begins and ends with movies, but it seems no one told the people who produce TV shows. Increasingly, it seems that when I am watching a show these days, at some point a graphic will appear along the bottom of the screen which reads, "For more behind-the-scenes footage and other exclusive content we couldn't show you, head to the show's website." I find this to be very annoying, because on more than one occasion my curiosity has gotten the better of me and I have gone to the website, where it turns out the vast majority of the time the "exclusive footage" is stuff they very well could have showed us, they just didn't. There is nothing exciting, interesting or provocative about it, it simply didn't fit in the time allotted.
I think the reason I get more annoyed when a website's extra footage is not worth my time versus when a DVD's is because the extra effort that has to be put in to watch the TV show's stuff. Often you've got to fire up your computer and if your computer is anything like mine has been lately, that can take a while. After a few minutes of waiting, going online to watch this footage begins to feel like homework. When I watch a DVD's features it take an extra 20 seconds; going to online to see this content takes considerably more time. If I'm going to put in the effort to sit through buffering and a couple of quick commercials (because there are always commercials on websites these days. Hell, half the time the 'exclusive content' is nothing more than a glorified commercial), then you had better give me something better than 10 seconds of footage where it is painfully obvious as to why it was on the cutting room floor.
Now, I know why shows do this kind of thing: it's another way to see just how many people are loyal and dedicated fans of a show. Those page views translate into figures the marketing people use to a better idea of just how much they can charge the advertisers, both for the show and space on the website. I get all that and I'm more than willing to be an unofficial participant in your little survey. I just feel like these shows aren't holding up their end of the bargain. If I'm going to help you make more money, the least you could give me is something interesting for my time. And, just in case you're wondering, watching people stand around and talk about how much they love the car they get to drive on the show doesn't count as interesting. If that was on a DVD I would have already returned to the Main Menu.
The thing is, my need to watch additional footage pretty much begins and ends with movies, but it seems no one told the people who produce TV shows. Increasingly, it seems that when I am watching a show these days, at some point a graphic will appear along the bottom of the screen which reads, "For more behind-the-scenes footage and other exclusive content we couldn't show you, head to the show's website." I find this to be very annoying, because on more than one occasion my curiosity has gotten the better of me and I have gone to the website, where it turns out the vast majority of the time the "exclusive footage" is stuff they very well could have showed us, they just didn't. There is nothing exciting, interesting or provocative about it, it simply didn't fit in the time allotted.
I think the reason I get more annoyed when a website's extra footage is not worth my time versus when a DVD's is because the extra effort that has to be put in to watch the TV show's stuff. Often you've got to fire up your computer and if your computer is anything like mine has been lately, that can take a while. After a few minutes of waiting, going online to watch this footage begins to feel like homework. When I watch a DVD's features it take an extra 20 seconds; going to online to see this content takes considerably more time. If I'm going to put in the effort to sit through buffering and a couple of quick commercials (because there are always commercials on websites these days. Hell, half the time the 'exclusive content' is nothing more than a glorified commercial), then you had better give me something better than 10 seconds of footage where it is painfully obvious as to why it was on the cutting room floor.
Now, I know why shows do this kind of thing: it's another way to see just how many people are loyal and dedicated fans of a show. Those page views translate into figures the marketing people use to a better idea of just how much they can charge the advertisers, both for the show and space on the website. I get all that and I'm more than willing to be an unofficial participant in your little survey. I just feel like these shows aren't holding up their end of the bargain. If I'm going to help you make more money, the least you could give me is something interesting for my time. And, just in case you're wondering, watching people stand around and talk about how much they love the car they get to drive on the show doesn't count as interesting. If that was on a DVD I would have already returned to the Main Menu.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
A Low-Watt Hearing Test
While every area has a few low-wattage, small, independent radio stations to fill the dial between the big stations with the more powerful signals, I feel like Cape Cod has more than average. Once you get around the Cape you can't turn the dial in either direction without landing on some station broadcasting from just off the beach. (In one case I discovered over the weekend, you can't even drive down to the local strip mall without finding an independent radio station occupying one of the store fronts. Because nothing says, "take us seriously" like being located between a 99 Restaurant and the local adult video store.) Still, I like these smaller stations - they pretty much only advertise local business and serve an actual purpose. Heck, my first couple years out of college I tried to get a job at half of them. But that doesn't make them any easier to listen to.
The problem with low-watt stations is that their signals are very easy to interrupt. Anything giving off a radio wave can end up being more powerful than the signal these guys are putting out. Some guy in a delivery truck with a two-way radio to talk to his dispatcher can accidentally cause the station to stop broadcasting without even knowing that he's doing it. That's why you should really wait until after dark to listen to some of these smaller stations, as there are fewer people with that kind of equipment at work, which means less potential problems to disrupt the signal. But even then you have to be precise with the radio tuner.
This is something I was reminded of when I was down the Cape for the weekend. Driving around I was listening to a station just a couple of towns over that was having a "Class Reunion Weekend", where every hour featured songs from one specific year. Patiently waiting for it to get to the year I graduated from school, it started to get late and I wanted to get to bed. However, the radio in the bedroom down at the beach house isn't very new (nor should it be, as we are talking about the beach house) and just has an old-school tuner, not a digital dial. So I couldn't get exactly onto the station I wanted; just close enough to get around 97% of their signal, with the other 3% faintly coming from the next station on the dial.
Now, when I was working as a DJ I often worried about hearing loss. I mean, you can only sit with headphones on and the volume up for so long before you start to do some real and permanent damage. Turns out I shouldn't have worried, because my ears are amazing. Laying in bed I could hear the 3% of the other station clear as a bell. I should have to take all hearing tests laying down. In fact, I was more focused on figuring out what song the second station was playing than the station I was officially 'listening' to. Any time they played a song I recognized it was even worse, because now I knew what I should be listening for, which only seemed to make the 3% station come in louder. And of course, because the main station I was trying to hear had a weak signal, it would occasionally fade out, making the second station come in clearer and louder. Suddenly, it was as though I was creating my own little mash-up remix from two radio stations playing drastically different formats.
As you can imagine, this was confusing the hell out of my brain and making it very hard to get to sleep. The only relief came once I discovered that the station I was trying to hear was not doing the years in any type of order, so waiting around for my class year was unnecessary. I eventually decided to give my brain a rest, move away from this section of the dial altogether and up to a station with a stronger signal. I never did end up hearing any of the songs for the class of '98, but at least I got reassurance that my hearing is fine.
The problem with low-watt stations is that their signals are very easy to interrupt. Anything giving off a radio wave can end up being more powerful than the signal these guys are putting out. Some guy in a delivery truck with a two-way radio to talk to his dispatcher can accidentally cause the station to stop broadcasting without even knowing that he's doing it. That's why you should really wait until after dark to listen to some of these smaller stations, as there are fewer people with that kind of equipment at work, which means less potential problems to disrupt the signal. But even then you have to be precise with the radio tuner.
This is something I was reminded of when I was down the Cape for the weekend. Driving around I was listening to a station just a couple of towns over that was having a "Class Reunion Weekend", where every hour featured songs from one specific year. Patiently waiting for it to get to the year I graduated from school, it started to get late and I wanted to get to bed. However, the radio in the bedroom down at the beach house isn't very new (nor should it be, as we are talking about the beach house) and just has an old-school tuner, not a digital dial. So I couldn't get exactly onto the station I wanted; just close enough to get around 97% of their signal, with the other 3% faintly coming from the next station on the dial.
Now, when I was working as a DJ I often worried about hearing loss. I mean, you can only sit with headphones on and the volume up for so long before you start to do some real and permanent damage. Turns out I shouldn't have worried, because my ears are amazing. Laying in bed I could hear the 3% of the other station clear as a bell. I should have to take all hearing tests laying down. In fact, I was more focused on figuring out what song the second station was playing than the station I was officially 'listening' to. Any time they played a song I recognized it was even worse, because now I knew what I should be listening for, which only seemed to make the 3% station come in louder. And of course, because the main station I was trying to hear had a weak signal, it would occasionally fade out, making the second station come in clearer and louder. Suddenly, it was as though I was creating my own little mash-up remix from two radio stations playing drastically different formats.
As you can imagine, this was confusing the hell out of my brain and making it very hard to get to sleep. The only relief came once I discovered that the station I was trying to hear was not doing the years in any type of order, so waiting around for my class year was unnecessary. I eventually decided to give my brain a rest, move away from this section of the dial altogether and up to a station with a stronger signal. I never did end up hearing any of the songs for the class of '98, but at least I got reassurance that my hearing is fine.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
How The Internet Works...
Like most people, I no longer wait until the nightly news to see what has happened in the world today. Instead, I check the Internet throughout the day and see what stories pop up. It's nice to learn about the news as it happens. However, when I click on a news link, I have to try and be extra careful about not scrolling down too far. You see, if you go too low on these pages, then the space where everyone with an Internet connect is allowed to comment on the story comes into view and that's never a good thing.
The comment sections of the Internet makes me sad. It is nothing but awful things said by uneducated people (all of which is usually misspelled and poorly-worded), who hide behind clever screen names because these people would never want their friends and neighbors to know just how racist and bigoted they really are. When people talk about the downside of the Internet, this is the part they are referring to. People let their deepest and darkest thoughts flow in this part, because they are allowed to hide behind a screen name. It's almost like they believe that if "CaptainAmerica121" said it, it's not really how they feel.
[Sidebar: One of my favorite moments in Internet history came when a Dallas Mavericks player was caught joking around during a celebrity softball game. He made some comments about how he didn't stand quietly during the National Anthem because it wasn't 'his' anthem and basically made an ass out of himself. Now, Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is probably the most Internet-savvy owner in sports and has always made himself available through the Internet so, as you can imagine, lots of people sounded off to Cuban about what he needed to do with this player. And, because it's the Internet, they then used him to make larger generalizations about the African-American Community (you can imagine how politically correct those were). But, here's where the story gets awesome: Cuban decided to publish these emails on his website, complete with every writer's email address. I was personally shocked to see how many .gov and .edu's were attached to these racist rants. Finally, someone made people stand behind something they wrote on the Internet. Let's see how they like it when people can fire back at them.]
But, back to my point: as sad as the racist and homophobic comments make me, at the end of the day I remain confident that these are the same people who make the showy political gestures that no one likes and they have to do this kind of stuff to get attention because they have no real friends. Instead, the commenters who now drive me the craziest are the people who click on a story (usually a pop culture story) and then leave some version of the following comment: "Um, why is this news? Who even cares about this stuff? There are real problems in the world, you know."
Ok, two things:
1. Clearly you care, otherwise you wouldn't have clicked on the link to begin with.
2. If you're in the 'Entertainment' section of Google News or on some pop culture site and you're expecting it to have stories about the wars or the debt ceiling then you're the one in the wrong place. You don't go to gossip sites for their hard-hitting news.
Additionally, this bugs me because I want to track these people down and ask them if they even know how the Internet works. It's all about getting page views, which drive up revenues. You do this by figuring out what people are interested in reading about and write about it more. And most sites determine what people are interested in by what topics get the most page views. By clicking on the story, even if it is just to leave their snarky, holier-than-thou comment, they are adding to the page view total and making the people in charge assume the topic which annoys them so much must be popular. They would be better off ignoring the link.
The same thing goes for Twitter. Every now and again, something stupid will be a trending topic. But most of the time, when you click on that link out of curiosity to see why "Dear Santa" is trending in August, it turns out to be so popular because people are sending out Tweets asking why "Dear Santa" is trending and complaining about how stupid they think it is. Well, if you stop Tweeting about how moronic you think it is, and especially if you stop using the very phrase you find so annoying, it will stop trending. Otherwise, you're just adding to the problem and, like a hamster on a wheel, you're not going to make any progress. But if you shut up, problem solved.
So, here's my advice for all those people who are unhappy that something they don't like is popular: ignore it. By giving it attention, even negative attention, you are only making it worse. If you see a headline that you know is going to be about a person or event that annoys you, don't click on it. The Internet is a business. Just like in any business, once something stops making money for the people in charge it goes away. But, if you do still feel the need to send in emails about how much something bothers you, at least be smart enough not to email Mark Cuban about it, because at the very least he's just going to show the world how bad a speller you really are.
The comment sections of the Internet makes me sad. It is nothing but awful things said by uneducated people (all of which is usually misspelled and poorly-worded), who hide behind clever screen names because these people would never want their friends and neighbors to know just how racist and bigoted they really are. When people talk about the downside of the Internet, this is the part they are referring to. People let their deepest and darkest thoughts flow in this part, because they are allowed to hide behind a screen name. It's almost like they believe that if "CaptainAmerica121" said it, it's not really how they feel.
[Sidebar: One of my favorite moments in Internet history came when a Dallas Mavericks player was caught joking around during a celebrity softball game. He made some comments about how he didn't stand quietly during the National Anthem because it wasn't 'his' anthem and basically made an ass out of himself. Now, Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is probably the most Internet-savvy owner in sports and has always made himself available through the Internet so, as you can imagine, lots of people sounded off to Cuban about what he needed to do with this player. And, because it's the Internet, they then used him to make larger generalizations about the African-American Community (you can imagine how politically correct those were). But, here's where the story gets awesome: Cuban decided to publish these emails on his website, complete with every writer's email address. I was personally shocked to see how many .gov and .edu's were attached to these racist rants. Finally, someone made people stand behind something they wrote on the Internet. Let's see how they like it when people can fire back at them.]
But, back to my point: as sad as the racist and homophobic comments make me, at the end of the day I remain confident that these are the same people who make the showy political gestures that no one likes and they have to do this kind of stuff to get attention because they have no real friends. Instead, the commenters who now drive me the craziest are the people who click on a story (usually a pop culture story) and then leave some version of the following comment: "Um, why is this news? Who even cares about this stuff? There are real problems in the world, you know."
Ok, two things:
1. Clearly you care, otherwise you wouldn't have clicked on the link to begin with.
2. If you're in the 'Entertainment' section of Google News or on some pop culture site and you're expecting it to have stories about the wars or the debt ceiling then you're the one in the wrong place. You don't go to gossip sites for their hard-hitting news.
Additionally, this bugs me because I want to track these people down and ask them if they even know how the Internet works. It's all about getting page views, which drive up revenues. You do this by figuring out what people are interested in reading about and write about it more. And most sites determine what people are interested in by what topics get the most page views. By clicking on the story, even if it is just to leave their snarky, holier-than-thou comment, they are adding to the page view total and making the people in charge assume the topic which annoys them so much must be popular. They would be better off ignoring the link.
The same thing goes for Twitter. Every now and again, something stupid will be a trending topic. But most of the time, when you click on that link out of curiosity to see why "Dear Santa" is trending in August, it turns out to be so popular because people are sending out Tweets asking why "Dear Santa" is trending and complaining about how stupid they think it is. Well, if you stop Tweeting about how moronic you think it is, and especially if you stop using the very phrase you find so annoying, it will stop trending. Otherwise, you're just adding to the problem and, like a hamster on a wheel, you're not going to make any progress. But if you shut up, problem solved.
So, here's my advice for all those people who are unhappy that something they don't like is popular: ignore it. By giving it attention, even negative attention, you are only making it worse. If you see a headline that you know is going to be about a person or event that annoys you, don't click on it. The Internet is a business. Just like in any business, once something stops making money for the people in charge it goes away. But, if you do still feel the need to send in emails about how much something bothers you, at least be smart enough not to email Mark Cuban about it, because at the very least he's just going to show the world how bad a speller you really are.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Portrait-Mobile
There is a car dealer from my hometown who loves himself very much. He can't put his name or face in too many places. He has billboards all over town with his mug plastered for all to see and even put two near-life-sized pictures of himself on all his trucks. (Those readers from Massachusetts know exactly who I'm talking about, but I refuse to name him because I don't want to give him the satisfaction of seeing his name on another website.) Anyway, these trucks with his pictures on them are extremely creepy. In one picture, it looks as though he is standing in the back doorway of the vehicle with an armful of boxes, a goofy grin on his face and a pair of creepy eyes that seem to follow you around the room, like a painting in a scary movie. The other is on the side and has him leaning out a driver's side window, as if he was driving the van from the middle, which is just as unnerving to have staring at you as the one in back. I really don't like being around any of these trucks in traffic. Still, as I learned this weekend, as bad as those vehicles are, they could actually be worse.
Driving down to the Cape on Friday I hit one small patch of traffic. This gave me enough time to check out some of the cars around me. One of them was a small van advertising an artist. The side of the vehicle said his specialty was portraits and his van was covered by a giant decal showing off many of his works. This guy clearly has made some money doing this because a decal this size could not have come cheaply. I thought it was a little tacky, but who am I to say what makes for good taste? The bad part didn't arrive until I was able to pull up to the driver's door. That was when I realised the portrait on the driver's door just below the window was of the artist, who was also driving the van. It's very strange to see someone behind the wheel of a vehicle... and then see a picture of that same person two feet lower. I don't think even the most narcissistic person in the world would think this is a good idea.
Here's the even stranger part: the portrait wasn't very good. Now, since I'm a terrible artist this guy's work was better than anything I would ever paint, but if you were planning to have a self-portrait right underneath you as you drive down the highway for all to see, wouldn't you want that self-portrait to be the best thing you've ever painted? I mean, it's the clearest indicator of your skills. If you can't paint a good picture of yourself then why would someone expect you to paint a good picture of them? Just for the sake of comparison I would think you'd put a little extra effort into that one.
I looked at the guy and back at the painting and it was close enough that I could tell it was supposed to be the same person, but it wasn't that great. Certainly not good enough that I would have suspected this artist could make a living painting portraits of other people. If I could have gotten his attention I definitely would have advised him to work on it a little more before we went and stuck on the side of his main form of transportation. Or if he didn't think he could make the painting any better at least move it to a different spot on the van. At least that way people aren't weirded out and disappointed at the same time.
Driving down to the Cape on Friday I hit one small patch of traffic. This gave me enough time to check out some of the cars around me. One of them was a small van advertising an artist. The side of the vehicle said his specialty was portraits and his van was covered by a giant decal showing off many of his works. This guy clearly has made some money doing this because a decal this size could not have come cheaply. I thought it was a little tacky, but who am I to say what makes for good taste? The bad part didn't arrive until I was able to pull up to the driver's door. That was when I realised the portrait on the driver's door just below the window was of the artist, who was also driving the van. It's very strange to see someone behind the wheel of a vehicle... and then see a picture of that same person two feet lower. I don't think even the most narcissistic person in the world would think this is a good idea.
Here's the even stranger part: the portrait wasn't very good. Now, since I'm a terrible artist this guy's work was better than anything I would ever paint, but if you were planning to have a self-portrait right underneath you as you drive down the highway for all to see, wouldn't you want that self-portrait to be the best thing you've ever painted? I mean, it's the clearest indicator of your skills. If you can't paint a good picture of yourself then why would someone expect you to paint a good picture of them? Just for the sake of comparison I would think you'd put a little extra effort into that one.
I looked at the guy and back at the painting and it was close enough that I could tell it was supposed to be the same person, but it wasn't that great. Certainly not good enough that I would have suspected this artist could make a living painting portraits of other people. If I could have gotten his attention I definitely would have advised him to work on it a little more before we went and stuck on the side of his main form of transportation. Or if he didn't think he could make the painting any better at least move it to a different spot on the van. At least that way people aren't weirded out and disappointed at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)