response to keen

so maybe this post won't have anything to do with football or alcohol but it is still class related.

i was talking to a friend about the keen book, portraying keen's main points about the internet and its 'flattening' of the culture.
my friend vehemently disagreed with keen's points about "too many voices" and i started to see the other side of the argument in fresher terms. and here i've composed a list of points that we were discussing, sort of combating keen's pessimistic view on how we handle the internet. first and foremost, it's obvious how much shit is on the internet. there's no way to really defend that.

my friend, Sam is his name, made the point that yes, we do have the ability to read/write that we just ate a sandwich, something ultimately trivial and pointless, but don't we also have the ability not to read that? isn't it up to us to filter out the good and bad? To say that the internet is ruining us is to say that we don't have the ability to filter out the shit from the good stuff -- we can find websites on the internet that are good, thought provoking, and artistic, and yes we may have to find them.. but isn't that the same anywhere?

and what's our alternative? mainstream media? isn't that why there are so many voices in the internet in the first place -- because we think mainstream media sucks? look at postman -- he's been criticizing the media in the television age -- you could view the internet as adding to the mess but in some cases it also seems like a solution where we can finally look up what we want to hear, not just talking heads.

another thing: who cares about the movie industry? instead of making double digit billions of dollars, now they have to many single digits. boo fucking hoo. i have a limited amount of economical knowledge, but it seems to me that if any jobs are being lost its from the middle class. you really think the guys at the top are making any less money than before? they're the greedy ones, not the working class who feels unjust for paying $10 for a movie. and yeah, the movie prices probably started raising as piracy became more prominent, but like i said, i don't think the millionaires running the film industry and taking any slack. they're probably just fucking up the quality of movies by cutting out the people who make it happen, as opposed to lowering the paychecks of the people who fund it.

and as far as music stealing goes, i can sympathize, but i think it's naive to think that record stores were going to stay open when the internet came about. obviously, in a capitalistic society, things are going to run cheaper and easier... when a record company takes part in a capitalistic society and then gets upset when they get run out of business because of newer technology -- again, boo fucking hoo. you should've known what you were getting into when you agreed to become a corporation. you should've known better to participate in an economy based on the phrase "time=money". don't criticize the evils of capitalism when you are inherently part of the system.

well there's my negative rant of the day. sorry for being so pessimistic, but i'm sick & grumpy.

Hard Hits

A new subject of debate in the NFL surfaced last week after a bunch of hard, "dangerous", hits caused player injuries such as concussions, of brief losses of memory. Last Sunday night, NBC commentator and former NFL player, Rodney Harrison, known for his hard hits during his career, boldly proclaimed the need to suspend players for dangerous hits, as opposed to simply fining them. He said, "When I got fined, it didn't stop me -- missing four or five games is the only way they'll stop."

The next day the NFL issued a report saying that a reform would be issued to abstain from further injuries, prohibiting deliberate hits to the head and neck area. It seemed that the NFL acted on Rodney Harrison's words, and quickly. Later that night, the usual analysts on ESPN, Steve Young, Trent Dilfer, Tom Jackson and the rest of the ex-player/coach crew, freaked out in objection to this rule, cynically saying that the game of football as we knew it was over. They acknowledged the safety issue with it, but said that from a football player's mind, they understand what they're getting into, the game is inherently violent, and frankly, we watch football because of those hits.

It's been an interesting debate that many have talked out about this past week. What interests me the most, however, is how fabricated the media made the issue. I didn't hear much about what the player's seemed to think, but again it doesn't matter. The NFL is a company, designed for making money. The executives in the NFL don't want the league to get the image of being brutal (although who are they trying to fool), so because of a week of football with a condensed amount of heavy hits, they make a radical change.

I'm not sure what I really believe. I want to say that above all, people shouldn't be at risk of dying on the field, or off the field a few years down the road. It's no surprise that retired football players suffer from head trauma, and early, untimely deaths. Should we just accept it as is, or should we change it? Do you we support the fact that football players are really just millionaires running around, so the risk they take is justified? And are we or the media to judge how these players play this game they choose to play, or do we change it to appeal to what we want to see (and is it safety or is it more brutal hits?)

I don't know what I agree with, I'll open up the table for ya'll.

20-17

20-17

football's on
what a night
haze eyed guys
stirring round
a tube -- lights

school nights are stresses in disguise
what a joke to worry about
any particular
thing
-
what a stress to worry about --
time for class
time to read
time to meet
what about time to dream?

the clouds cried today as they usually do
dull mondays
skyless days
topped
with inky red night
dark cherry chocolate
lighting up the sky

football's on
field goal to win it
eight seconds left
and when he kicks it through
i will anticipate the surprise

A Response to Eating a Dinosaur, While Drinking a PBR

This was actually fun "homework". I had heard of the Unabomber before, but never knew exactly what it was -- I was completely interested in Ted Kaczynski, his Luddite ways, his extremism. Klosterman is a great writer (funny guy too). So all this talk about knowing the truth yet refusing to be proactive about it (Emerson once wrote "inaction is cowardice") provoked me to take a look at my own life, and attempt to psychoanalyze myself to figure out why I do the things I do.

Tonight's agenda -- beer. Good ole' frosty beer. I love beer, especially good beer (which as of late never can afford), and I like shitty beer. I like Labatts and PBRs, and my dad drinks Busch so I had to get used to swiping those in my high schools days. And liquor. Mostly, whiskey. No light liquors, give me some dark shit, and make it burn my lungs and wake me up and warm me up.

But why? Why do I love drinking beer? Do I love the actual beer or what comes with it? Can it be both? And why do most people my age and many younger and older drink so much of it? Why can't I go a week without drinking beer one night? (Yes I am aware that I will probably become an alcoholic one day -- it runs in the family).

I once read a book by Tom Robbins called B is for Beer a story about a little girl who persistently asks her parents what beer is, yet to no avail. Her parents are always busy, and eventually a beer fairy comes down and gives her a "tour" or beer showcasing different situations where beer is present (football games, the breweries, etc.). Without boring you with more plot summary, the book resonates with the idea that beer is consumed by humans because it reverts us back to our more animalistic state. It allows us to dance. It allows us to talk freely (which Robbins will argue is actually a good thing because it inhibits us to tell the truth). And though the book has its flaws and isn't really my book of worship, it was reminiscent when I was reading Klosterman's essay.

Why do we indulge ourselves in what we hate constantly? We're in a class vehemently arguing against the growth of media and it's ill-effects, yet here I am writing on a blog?? (I'm not criticizing you Prof. G!) Like Klosterman concludes, we get enough out of it to not totally isolate ourselves from it. The internet isn't insulting us or punching us in the stomach -- it's a passive hatred. A passive-aggressive hate, where you know the hate is there but you can never call it out. Fuck you internet you sly, sly dog.

Welp, the coincide with my blog's stereotypical-man, primitive theme I want to relate this idea to why we (America) drinks beer. We love beer. We're the only country (arguably) where most adolescents drink until they become zombies. We throw up at bars, on our friends, we shit and puke at the same time some mornings because our insides are confused as to where to put all this waste. I'm poisoning myself right now (and have been since sentence one) and yet fuck it. I'm feeling loose. (ASIDE: you probably noticed the grotesque picture of the girl puking up there near my blog's title. I literally typed in "football and alcohol" into google images and that's the first hit I got. Apparently she drank too much at a football game and that's what happened to her at half-time).

But I must admit, intellectually I feel weak drinking. In my purest state, I hate myself for using drugs to achieve states of mind (sorry, marijuana) because if I tried enough I wouldn't have to drink in order to dance at a bar. If I wasn't weak I could sit through my two-hour snooze class sober, instead of getting stoned to make my thumb-twiddling seem entertaining. Klosterman proposed that technology gives short-term satisfaction, but long term negative effects; couldn't the same be said about drugs?

If as I write this, I don't see myself in 20 years quitting drinking. I mean, I don't plan on being an alcoholic (fingers crossed), but I do believe that moderation is a good thing. I'll be advocating the legalization of marijuana until that shit goes down, but I don't plan on being stoned all day, every day.

Hmmmm. America is up there in terms of citizens who binge-drink. And I mean this is nothing new. I'm not trying to make the argument that heavy drinking simply started when media started expanding. But maybe it did (I'll do more research on it later, and I'd actually love to find out). But let's say, for a second, that my statement holds some merit. If drinking, symbolically speaking, is our response to our depression, our anxieties, a simple sedation -- and we acknowledge that over time it is bad for our bodies and minds (and physical appearance). And if the media is expanding exponentially, and has been for quite some time --- then isn't there some correlation? If what Klosterman (and our class, pretty much) says that more technology equals less personal freedom, and if drinking is increasing then there must be something up!?

I don't think this is the whole shebang, but I know when I drink I feel more alive. Not intellectually, not socially, but I feel the immediate effects of what I'M DOING to my body. I think Dan made the comment last week about piercing and tattoos giving us the power to make a choice -- I think my idea resonates in the same degree. When we drink we become more instinctual, which I think is inherently good but we usually overdo it and exaggerate it. We cut off that "blocker" between thought and word -- our thoughts spew out of us without regulation. We don't censor ourselves, we do, in Robbins' sense, become more animalistic.

Now I know my point is subject to debate, and I don't think that I'm covering every aspect of the beer-technology comparison. But I just wanted to offer it for thought. I feel like I preached enough and I thank you for reading if you've made it this far. I just find it interesting that I'm drinking a beer, feeling more in touch with my instinctual, active side -- but aren't I also ignoring the source of the problem? Shouldn't I be able to do the things drinking "allows" me to do; do I need to be empowered by a drug? Or is it society that causes me to have to do this? Do I have any other option?

And how can you criticize a beer drinker when you do the same thing with technology? What's the fucking difference?

Welcome

Hey everybody,

Most of you reading this will probably be in my Press in America class, but just in case any strays find this blog, let me explain its purpose. We were assigned to create a semester-long blog in order to respond to various aspects of the media, using the theories we've learned, such as the libertarian theory, or different terms, such as deep ecology, to help explain our relationship to the world through the media lens.

In attempt to be creative, I decided to theme my blog around football and alcohol (though not every post will relate to these topics) because these are two entities in American media and culture that, in a way, represent us. Football is the new American sport, and alcohol is one of our oldest pastimes. Also, I happen to be a fan of both these things, and therefore want to focus on them in order to investigate why I, like many other Americans, am so attracted to watching people hit each other and intoxicating myself in order to have fun. WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? Hopefully, throughout the course of the semester I will discover that, or at least gain some headway.

But first, let me explain my reason for choosing this blog. It all started last Sunday night, October 4, when I was sitting at my kitchen table, drinking some Labatt Blues (classy, I know) and watched the Giants/Bears game on Sunday Night Football. First let me admit, I am a Jet fan, but root for both New York teams (I was raised a Giant fan but eventually learned the correct path), and watching the Sunday Night Game is something me and my housemates usually do, especially if the matchup is good. But unlike any other Sunday game, the Sunday Night Football game is the worst; it airs on NBC, 8:20 p.m. (prime-time), it's catch phrase is "Football Night in America", and worst of all, every half time is full of two minutes of Bob Costas explaining a new phenomenon (if you even want to call it that) that's "hot" during that week in the NFL.

The latter of these three might be the worst.

See, Bob Costas represents my main issue with football. I'll admit, I like the hits, the excitement, the fact that these athletes are supermen, and the fact that they play once a week. But i'm not a brute-headed fan; I played football throughout my life, up in junior year in high school, and was always fascinated by the complexity of it. Good football, to me, is an art, like any other kind of sport performed at a very high level. Did you know that most football teams spend most of the time each week in the film room, studying tapes and thinking of strategies, thinking of every possibility for every formation, personal, and filed situation? They may be brutes, but in order to be a good football player, you need more than brawn.

But back to Bob Costas -- why do I need to listen to this schmo' tell my about the severity of quarterback concussions, or have him make a big deal about Donovan McNabb (ex. QB of the Philadelphia Eagles) returning to play his former team with the Washington Redskins, with Costas telling me the background like it was some soap opera? (Donovan McNabb, the one who would be most affected by the situation, is actually unfazed about the Hollywood aspect of his situation). Why does Sunday Night have to be Football Night in America?

"Hey kids, gather round the television!"

There's dad, beer in hand, the only one paying attention to the pre-game show.

Mom, running around making pigs in a blanket, chips n dip, serving her family faithfully, cuddling up next to Daddy, his arm around her, her trying to figure out what all these yellow flags mean.

Lil' Billy, wearing his jersey, only 10, can't wait for the game, a big hit, wants to talk to his friends all about it tomorrow before recess starts and they have a little game of their own.

Susie, two years older, in it for Sheryl Crow's weekly edition of "Are you ready for some football?" which is the same song NBC's been showing for the last several years, only for Sheryl Crow to alternate the lyrics depending on the teams.

And of course there's Rover, laying down, unamused, waiting for some hot dogs to roll his way (that's why he's sitting next to lil' Billy).

But is this what NBC means? Why do they try and paint that picture?

Yet I'm sitting there, drinking beer, waiting for the game, listening to these talking heads -- and I never felt more American. And when i say American, I mean the media America. I like beer and I like football, yet I wanna get a head start on my puking when I see these networks sensationalize football. It's a game, and now a game that's changing fast, a game that's in trouble of even happening next season cause the players have become so greedy they want MORE money, a game that's being used as a tool for beer, liquor, food, and you-name-it, to incorporate advertising. Everyone's trying to ride football's coat tails

And I love the game I truly do, and if the Jets win the Superbowl I'll lose my mind and skip school for a week to go on a 5 day drinking binge. Yet I realize, they got me.

I like football for my own reasons, but when I sit there, in front of the television, beer in my hands, meat on the stove, cigarettes, and bongs, and heavy hits, and all my friends, and half time chugs, and Bob Fuckin' Costas, and the :03 field goal-fourth quarter --

I'm being the American they want me to be.

p.s. sorry for the rant