Review: Eating the Dinosaur

In his new book, Eating the Dinosaur, Chuck Klosterman delivers another thought-provoking exploration of pop culture very similar to his Sex, Drugs, and Cocopuffs. The book ranges in topics from comparing Kurt Cobain to David Koresh, dissecting time-travel, and critiquing the writings of Ted Kaczynski. 


Klosterman is the master of probing seemingly innocuous or forgotten events and people of popular culture, dismantling them, and exposing new ideas and concepts. He is able to find similarities and analogies in things that seem completely different.

Klosterman's main thematic focus, as in Cocopuffs, is his examination in how musicians, artists, filmmakers, athletes, and the media define reality. Klosterman takes hold of the power of the increasingly simulated experience of modern life and breaks it down, shakes it out, and sees what falls through. This is what makes Klosterman one of my favorite writers—he can discuss a variety of subjects that all come back to his central focus.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in media/cultural studies or anyone who is interested in a good laugh as the book is also funny in a sardonic kind of way.

Where are Fox News' Comments on Global Warming Now?

In some parts of the US (mainly the Northeast), temperatures reached up to 100 degrees and with the humidity it felt like 110. The heat forced me to stay inside and I got a chance to watch some quality news on the 24-hour networks. And while I was watching, I realized no one was saying anything about how the heat proved climate change or global warming. Of course, this statement has no scientific merit at all but, in the same token, it didn't stop anyone from saying the blizzard earlier in the year debunked the theory.

If you remember there were countless comments and reports, from Fox News in particular, about how global warming and/or climate change is not a legitimate theory because it snowed in January. Now that it's July and it's hot out, you'd think there would be some report about how it proves global warming and/or climate change. I'm assuming that the people at Fox News are praying no other news outlet will pick up on this. But they won't because other news outlets know better than to make outrageous and uninformed claims about things they know nothing about.

By the logic of Fox News, today's 100 degree weather proves global warming. And by normal logic, it proves that Fox News is an embarrassment to journalism.

Bonehead Op-Ed of the Week: Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker from the Washington Post just published an articled explaining why Obama is our nation's "first female president" much like how Clinton was our "first black president" according to Toni Morrison. But there lies a vast gulf in meaning in both articles. Morrison's sets out to show similarities in the social experience of Clinton and a typical black person in America (i.e. single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas). Parker's article, in inexplicable boneheadedness, just reaffirms gender stereotypes and illuminates her own internalized oppression in regard to the position females should take in America.

She writes, "Our enlightened human selves may want to eliminate gender norms, but our lizard brains have a different agenda." She's saying that gender norms are biologically grafted into our brains. A delusion that was practiced with much fervor by misogynists and racists during most of the 20th century. This is the kind of thinking that gave way to phrenology and other psuedosciences that attempted to disprove the aptitude of women and people of color.

Almost everything Parker says about the way women do things is choked with an air of inferiority. She goes on to describe the president's actions during the oil spill as "passive" and his "lack of immediate, commanding action". So this is why he is our first female president? Because he's passive and lacks action? From the way she describes women in authority, you'd think she never wants to see a real female president in office.

For attempting to erase 40+ years of women's lib and social progress, the Bonehead Op-Ed of the Week goes to Kathleen Parker. Kudos.

A Really Pretentious Entry on Life Philosophies

Recently, a friend told me that she "lives in the moment". By this she means she focuses on the present—what's happening now. I took it as the foundation of her general take on life. I've heard this from a lot of people—this kind of foundation; I would assume it's a popular way to live one's life. I don't live in the moment and I don't think anyone else should either.

I like to think ahead. I envision shit. I like reflecting. Conversely to my friend, I live in all moments. Of course I leave room for spontaneity, but generally I have a plan. For me, "living in the moment" means living with tunnel vision. Imagine looking through a telescope onto a lake and spying a speed boat. You follow it along the water, skidding and bouncing. It's quite exhilarating. But you're missing the rest of the lake. In fact, you might forget that it's a lake that the boat is on because your looking at it through a telescope. That's what I imagine life to be like by living "in the moment". It's fun but the actual scope of experience is quite limited and therefore missed or forgotten.

This is exactly what Hemingway was talking about in his short story Snows of Kilimanjaro. It was about a writer who lives a decadent life and never actually wrote anything down. And in the final moments of his life, he realizes that he has nothing to show for his exceptional journey.

I imagine that people who live in the moment are always comfortable. While that's not bad at all, it can lead to complacency. I can't allow that in my life and I wouldn't want that to befall anyone else. I just can't imagine living a fulfilling life by "living in the moment". The character in Hemingway's story was a writer who didn't actually write. I see that as a metaphor for someone who didn't actually live, or at least didn't live up to any expectations.

John Stossel and Rand Paul are Racist F*cks

Even his mustache is racist.

I remember watching John Stossel on TV when I was a boy and thinking, "Okay, I like this guy. He tells it like it is". Now, I think he is a complete jackass. Recently, Rand Paul made comments about amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is a clause that includes public accommodation—this means that any business or organization that has the public come and go (like a restaurant) can't practice segregation. This apparently doesn't sit well with Rand Paul and now Stossel who went on TV like an idiot and announced that he is "in total agreement with Rand Paul".They believe private business owners should be able to discriminate their patronage based on race, religion, or any other demographic criteria.

So John Stossel and Rand Paul believe that racists should be able to segregate their private business. But they also state that they "don't think they should" but they can if they want to. Basically they wipe their asses with the part in the Declaration of Independence that says people should be entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Since both these morons are liberatarians, they can argue that they are just promoting individual freedom. But they're also sanctioning racism, segregation, and attempting to take American society backwards about 60 years. Nice work. John, for the record, you can't say you want to amend the Civil Rights Act like this and say people shouldn't be racist. That's like using the "n" word with your white friends and telling everyone else that you're not a racist. You can't have it both ways. If you allow racism to exist, then you have to be racist. Now please resign and live alone in the mountains. You too, Rand.

My Time at a Magazine

I want to be reflective. Right now, I'm thinking about my career so far at a city/regional magazine in the Chesapeake region of Maryland. As much as I've learned and grown during my time at the magazine, I can say confidently that I do not want to ever work for the media any longer. There are three things that are certain to happen when you work for the media and they are all bad.

When I tell people that I work for a magazine, they automatically assume that I write for the magazine. And when I tell them that I don't, they get confused and inquire "what is it that I actually do". For the general public, there is apparently no other work to be done at a magazine—other than write. If you don't write, then what could you possibly do for a magazine? Well, I produce video and I manage the website. This type of work just does not compute for most people.

The next thing that happens when someone finds out I work for a city/regional magazine, is they assume that I aspire to win a Pulitzer (because I'm there to write, apparently). I received the same expectation from the general public during college when I told others my major. "Oh, so you're going to be the next Spielberg, eh?" No, I'm not. I don't aspire to be the next Spielberg or Scorsese or Coppola or anyone else. I just want to do my job and do it well. This extra pressure from the general public grows thin very quickly.

The third thing that happens to employees of regional media companies, is the extra attention. Whether I like it or not, the local business community knows who I am. I work with them frequently on video and new media projects. A lot of these businesses are restaurants and going out to eat is very uncomfortable. Not only do the restaurants give me more attention than I want, but they give me this look like I owe them something. In their mind, because they gave me a free appetizer, I have to write a blog about them or plug them in a newsletter. When I go out to eat, I want to be a nameless, faceless patron who eats with his head down and leaves promptly. That's it. Just like everyone else.

There is a reason for these observations—I'm not just making this up. And the reasons are totally inescapable. Media is made to be consumed—magazines to be read, radio stations to be listened to, and movies to be watched. The amount of skill, expertise, and know-how to create the stories and programs is immense. But anyone can be a critic. That's the rub—I can go to film school, get a BS, go get a master's, spend $10,000 on a film and take 2 years producing it but it only takes 15 minutes for some knucklehead to tear it to pieces. I've used the term "general public" a lot in this entry for a reason. I needed to define the audience. Since anyone can (and they do) read my magazine, it is susceptible to not only  the criticism but an unbreakable bond to other, most esteemed magazines. This is why people can somehow put me in the same league as Andrew Sullivan or A.O. Scott. This only happens with the media. In no other industry are two completely different circumstances compared. If I worked at Northrup Gruman, no one will ask me why I'm not working for Raytheon. No one will tell me that their missiles are better. The general public doesn't know anything about missiles. But they know a lot about media. If I was the supply manager for Target, no one would tell me to work at Wal-Mart because their supply chain is more efficient. Again, the general public doesn't know these things. But if I tell them I work for a magazine, they tell me I should freelance for the New York Times because "it's a good newspaper". If I tell them I'm a video producer, they tell me they have a cousin in Hollywood who might be able to help me. Thanks, asshole, but no thanks. The common theme behind it all is, success in the media is easily defined for the general public, i.e. you're on TV, your movie is a blockbuster, your magazine is on every newsstand, your book is on the New York Times bestsellers list, etc. No one will ask a sociology student when they'll win the Albert O. Hirschman Prize; either because no one has heard about that prize or no one cares about successful sociologists.

And since the general public "knows" the ins and outs of the media, they find it incomprehensible that other professions could lie inside. Again, using Target as an example: I could say that I was either a register clerk, a store manager, or a truck driver for Target and no one would bat an eye. But every time I tell someone I don't write for the magazine, it's like trying to explain to someone that the sky is actually purple. This is the thought processes: Magazines companies produce magazines which are read, therefore the only types of employment to be found at a magazine company are writing positions.

The media has such a hold over the American zeitgeist that everyone is an expert on the subject. Preconceptions abound. And even though I'm aware of the thought process, it still gets to me. After four years of people telling me how they "can't wait to see my name in the lights", I get really bummed out that it hasn't happened yet. And when I see someone I know who does get their name in the lights, I feel even worse. Business majors don't have to deal with that. Biology majors don't either. It's not like a biology major is constantly asked "so are you going to be the next Crick or Darwin?" But since the general public consumes more TV shows, films, and magazines than biology textbooks, they expect great things from us lowly media employees.

We Are So Smart

After taking an object-oriented programming class and a PHP/MySQL class, I have this new and incredible respect for the human brain. In PHP (which, if you're not familiar with, is a standard web programming language), syntax is very important. If you forget a semicolon or a curly bracket, your webpage will not work. The web server is very unforgiving when it comes to syntax. And it got me to thinking how incredible the mind is and how unnecessary syntax is in human language (well at least in English). This is because our brain focuses on semantics, or the actual meaning of strings of characters, rather than the individual placement of characters. So I can write:

Ths pzza is rlly awsm.

And everyone who reads this blog will be able to understand it. Our brain is somehow able to extrapolate meaning out of this extremely grammatically incorrect sentence. But if I were to write this inside a PHP block:

$x=10;
$y=12;
$Sum=$x+$y
echo $Sum;

It wouldn't work because I didn't put a semicolon behind "$Sum=$x+$y". It can't just understand what I'm trying to do, like my brain would (coincidentally, this makes programming very difficult). This is really interesting (and kind of scary) because even after 50+ years of computing, we have not even scratched the surface of the capabilities of the human brain. You'd think that we'd be somewhere close to having some kind of relative AI functionality. Most of the web is focused on syntax rather than semantics, which can make searching for things difficult. Facebook recently "linked" everything in it's users profile pages to either an existing fan page or to a newly created page that pulls form Wikipedia and related user-created examples. But it's very flawed in it's execution because of this syntax problem. For example, one of my favorite books listed in my profile is Choke by Chuck Palahniuk. And when I click the link on Facebook, all the user-generated results have nothing to do with the book—these users are using "choke" to define the physical action or the sports term. Facebook doesn't know what I mean by "choke". It just sees it as a five-character string and it compiles a list of people who have mentioned the same string (c-h-o-k-e).

As frustrating as it is to purchase a computer in the zenith of the Information Age and not have it be all that you want it to be, it does highlight how incredible the human brain is. I think we should appreciate much more how incredibly smart we all are. The ability for our mind to just make sense of complete nonsense (like the high school text message above) is nothing short of extraordinary.