Funny Video

I just thought this video was funny and, since I have completed my required 20 posts, I feel safe in putting it up.

Trust me, you'll like it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrlSkU0TFLs

I don't know if anybody still looks at these blogs, though...

Google Me

As many of you may have suspected, my name Googles extremely well. There are exactly 25 hits for my name and each and every one of them is actually me. I have no googlegangers whatsoever.

I really liked the Wall Street Journal article because it makes me seem like I will be able to be more successful because of my unique name. People will be able to learn about me quickly and easily and therefore network with me more efficiently because I am apparently the only Cairna Bode in the entire world.

So at least there are a few perks for having a weird name...

I Learn Best Angry

iSpy has been described as the most dense book we've read yet this semester. People have complained about the author's lofty vocabulary and lengthy diatribes. In spite of all this (or maybe because of it), I have actually enjoyed reading this book more than any other.

The reason I like this book is because it is so controversial. I find myself reading on so that I can pick holes in his arguments. And, in fact, I have solidified my own ideas by constructing them in opposition to Andrejevic's.

We've had the very best discussions as a result of this book. We've gotten very passionate and engaged to the point that it's difficult to make us stop talking at the end of class time. (Heck! We even talked about this book during break.)

Many of the other books we've read are difficult to disagree with. I mean, how can I say that design and symphony aren't good things? But I really have enjoyed trying to understand another point of view and then coming up with a persuasive argument against it.

Please keep the book in the class. It's worth our read. Just don't expect anyone under the age of 25 to agree with it on any level (after all, we're already brainwashed--haha).

I <3 Politics

I'm just going to throw it out there--the political blog I most frequently look at is wonkette. it's just so friggin' funny. But for the purposes of this blog, I chose to engage with a political blog that was a bit more scholarly and serious. That's right, I'm talking about the Daily Kos.

When I googled "Daily Kos", the blurb that came up about the website said, "Daily weblog with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective." So, in case there was any doubt, this website is left of center. And, indeed, it seems to favor Obama heavily.

Lots of people keep diaries on the Daily Kos website, but the people who contribute to the main blog (the one you see when you first go to the website) are basically a group of people who are unhappy with the current administration and are looking for a more liberal solution.

The blog discusses politics. The posts I looked at seem focused a lot on polls and demographics (which makes sense because today is the much-anticipated Pennsylvania primary).

The people who comment on the blogs seem to be pretty liberal as well. In fact, the comments I read were extremely liberal and unabashedly elitist.

I liked the blog. It had a witty, fun-to-read style and raised intelligent points. I also liked that it steered clear of wonkette-ish dribble (like OMG! Obama to Die of Syphillis). So that's refreshing.

How to Keep Your facebook Clean

I read this article in Reader's Digest about how to clean up your online profile. What I really appreciate about the article is that it gives really good tips for people (like me) who think that they have done nothing questionable online.

My though on the whole iSpy issue is that I really have done nothing I am ashamed of. I mean, I'm a pretty clean-cut kid. The article brings up a few little things, though, that potential employers could be find questionable about my online profile.

For example, people have not been hired in the past because of things they've written on other people's walls. I know, I know, it's their own dumb fault, but some of the comments are things that we wouldn't normally think of as being vocationally harmful.

So, that is all to say that my profile is now limited only to actual friends.

Political Identity

The fact that I have only voted Democrat on rare occasions does not mean that I have a whole lot of party loyalty. I have a few issues that are the most important to me--most of them socially conservative. Ideally, I would like to vote for a candidate that is socially conservative and fiscally liberal--an independent thinker who refuses to toe the party line. These candidates are few and far between, however. Usually, I just vote for the lesser of two evils.

I basically consider myself a crunchy con--an unusual combination of the two basic stages of my life. From birth to age 18, I was raised on conservative political media (and this Fall I plan on attending Focus on the Family Institute) Though I also consumed more mainstream media (like NPR, The Washington Post, and CBS News), I was very very far right. College, however, has made me more liberal on some issues. Now my media diet also includes The New York Times and the Daily Show. I'm open-minded and a hodgepodge of ideas having been influenced by both my family and my teachers.

The Right to Bash?

I just wanted to draw everybody's attention to a recent UMBC Underground piece entitled "4 Professors Not To Take."

There has been a recent backlash from the teachers mentioned calling the piece a form of backlisting--especially since it is published on a sorta school sponsored blog.

So the question that many teachers are raising (both on the blog and in other media) is whether or not this is permittable or ethical.

Is this a freedom of speech issue? Is it harmless fun? Should the mysterious "short" have the right to say whatever he/she wants about anybody? And even if "short" doesn't have the right, what recourse do we have against a nameless virtual entity?

This issue is coming up more and more these days. Knowing that potential employers will Google our names, how can we protect ourselves from anonymous cyber-slanderers?

Dystopian internet, anyone?

Facebook Chat

FACEBOOK INSTANT MESSAGING

Who else is very excited about this?
My friend is an MIT alum (so of course she gets to use the Beta version before the rest of us) and so I got to see the new chat feature. It's actually really nice and super convenient. A little box just follows at the bottom of any screen on facebook. The box tells you who's online and lets you just click on it.

I can't wait until the real chat is released to all the rest of us. It just might be the death of AIM as we know it.

Moveon.org--A Bunch of Crazies?

The biggest thing that struck me as I was doing the assigned readings was how completely reasonable and inspiring MoveOn.org appeared. Although I'm a conservative, I thought that the leadership of MoveOn.org (and specifically Tom Matzzie, Wes Boyd, and Eli Pariser) was portrayed as very thoughtful and well-intentioned.

So, I was thinking, why did I think of MoveOn.org as such a bunch of crazies? Somehow, that is the way they have been portrayed in the media.

Basically, the only thing I used to think of when I think of MoveOn.org is the General Betray Us ad.

Oh and hey look--Stephen Colbert interviewed Eli Pariser almost 2 years ago (gosh! I love Colbert!). The interview is in three parts so make sure you click on them all. ONE TWO THREE

So, the book has given me newfound respect for MoveOn.org. I feel bad that I discounted them without actually listening to what their leaders had to say. Although I'm not about to sign up to be on the email list (I'm still a conservative, after all), maybe they aren't the crackpots they were made out to be.

Maybe the democratic nature of MoveOn.org is the reason it has a slightly crazy image. I mean, how about that guy Chuck Fazio who seemed (at least to me) to have very poorly constructed arguments? MoveOn.org leaders have admitted that their biggest challenge is to move members beyond a general hate for Bush and toward something more constructive and positive (like what they actually stand for).

Regardless of whether MoveOn.org is crazy or just has that image (for some people), you can't deny that it has had a great amount of success because it utilized new technologies and tapped into an effective medium for our society. And that is, after all, the point.

Our New News Source

The New York Times had an article this morning about how young people are becoming more active in politics (voting, campaigning, etc.), but how they are doing it on their own terms--via media like facebook and YouTube as opposed to traditional CNN broadcasts or newspapers (notice they mentioned the Washington Post as the outdated new medium and not the NYT--that was funny).

I really thought this article rang true. A lot of times when "old school" media try to comment on what "kids these days" are doing, it sounds kind of out of touch. But I felt this article was an apt description of how I get my media (except I do start each day with a hard copy of the New York Times and Sundays with the Washington Post too). I read blogs which link to other stories and include both images and video clips. I also get my news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, which they mention in the article as well. (The only difference is that I watch the shows online--I can't seem to fit the actual television version into my schedule.)

One girl is quoted as saying, 'If the news is that important, it will find me.' That flies in the face of previous generations scouring the newspapers for the pertinent stories and maybe it's not the most effective way to ensure I'm getting the news I need, but that's the way I feel. I guess I'm very much a part of my generation and culture. I have embraced all these new news sources.

Too Much Information

For everyone out there who either:

a) enjoys solid funny writing

OR

b) is interested in the effect of the media on its listeners

I would highly recommend an article in yesterday's Washington Post Magazine called "Cruel and Usual Punishment". It's by Gene Weingarten who is a very good writer and, I think, an American Studies student at heart. (He also wrote this article which is one of my favorites in the whole world and this one which is actually applicable.)

Anyway, I thought the article sort of ties in with our class because it speaks to the way that too much media (in this case punditry) actually detracts from the quality of the media and makes the public immune to it.

I think that this phenomenon occurs a lot when it comes to blogs and other easy-to-create online media. There are so many blogs out there that it is hard for one to become super popular. A lot of times a blog will have a specific readership that it is going for. So blog readers can be spread thin over many different blogs. And the poorly done blogs often disillusion internet-goers from picking random blogs to follow without any credentials. The overwhelming noise of blog chatter can be a big turnoff so that no one really cares anymore.

It seems today to be a problem with too much information...

MY PODCAST

Hey Everybody, check out my podcast!


http://jonjonology.dyndns.org:85/cairna/cairna_podcast.mp3

Check Your Time

What is most important to me:
faith
family
friends
education

Within a week, I probably allot my hours thus:
faith--7 hours
family--30 hours
friends--10 hours
education--45 hours

I was really proud as I completed this activity because I discovered that I basically do practice what I preach (though I could put in a few more hours when it comes to faith). I think that meaning does not necessarily have to change what we do, but it does change the motivation behind it (thereby giving it meaning). So, two people could do the exact same things and one could find meanings within her life that coincide with her value and the other person might not. So, while I'm driving to and from work (and that takes up a great deal of my life), I'm finding meaning in the traffic jams and hours of listening to talk radio. Those hours in the car are steps toward accomplishing my educational and vocational goals. Because I realize this, I'm able to go through more difficult times knowing that they will only make me a better me.

Follow the Links

I began at Alabama.gov, a website found for me by U Roulette. I clicked on the education link, and learned that Helen Keller was from Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Within a few clicks, I was at the official website for Faulkner University, a Christian university in Montgomery, Alabama. From there, I began reading about Faulkner’s Master of Liberal Arts Degree which attempts to teach liberal arts by in-depth discussion of “Great Books”. There I hit a dead end.
Next, I began at the Stanley Kubrick Collection Official Authorized site, which I also found through U Roulette. I clicked on the Eyes Wide Shut link and was shown clips from the flim. Although there were no further links, I decided to type Eyes Wide Shut into Wikipedia and see what popped up. From there, I clicked on the link to Sydney Pollack, who played Victor Ziegler in the film. From Sydney Pollack, I went to Michael Clayton, a film that Mr. Pollack produced and acted in. There, I clicked on a link to the Michael Clayton score on allmusic which proceeded to freeze up my computer.
In a final attempt, I began at the Official Site of Pez Candy, which I also found through U Roulette. Though I went all over the site and learned about a lot of different Pez characters (Bratz, Shrek, Sully from Monsters Inc.), I found no links to outside sites. Disappointing.
I also went to a number of dead-end sites not even worth mentioning. The symphonic relationships online were very interesting, but not particularly fruitful. More than anything, I was struck by how difficult websites have made it for people like me to follow random links. Maybe companies are behind the times. Or maybe they purposely do not want me to be going to websites other than theirs’. I think it would benefit all of the companies, however, if they cooperated and added more off-site links to the websites. That would help those of us trying to develop r-directed thinking.

On Classroom Discussions: A Right Brained Tribute

“Humanities major!” they scoffed and they sneered,
“that major’s a joke if you’ve a brain ‘tween your ears.”
But Jill, a right-brainer determined to try,
Had faith in her classmates and held her head high.

Jill entered the classroom one blustery eve
Took a front seat and sat down prepared to receive
A bombardment of knowledge of the internet
But mostly what she got she would rather forget

For, you see, Jill’s classmates had a different thought
That humanities are for saying whatever you want
“To hell with the readings! I’m too cute for that!”
They said as they gave their own shoulders a pat.

As the girl raised her hand with a well-thought out phrase
The classmates in the corner, their hands did not raise
They just hollered and yelled and overpowered poor Jill
And Jill, with good manners, why, her hand is up still.

The moral of the story, kids, it’s sad but it’s true
If you major in humanities, they’ll overpower you too.
They are inconsiderate and cocky and just flat out rude
They put the studious ones in a terribly foul mood

Unless someone stands up for the ones who “can’t hang”,
Discussions will be dominated by the voices that clang.
A response’s quality will be subject to its volume
And trivial anecdotes will fill our classrooms.

The rude ones don’t do homework so they won’t read this at all,
But a person’s a person no matter how small.

Of Two Minds

The purpose of this post is really just to prove that, yes, I do the readings. In fact, I did this reading far ahead of time (it's a pretty interesting read).

Above all, I was hoping that this book would help me decide whether I am left or right brained. Reading the title, I prayed that I was one of the right brainers who "will rule the future".

What I decided, since reading the book, is that I am relatively ambi-brained. Though my left brain is likely dominant, I can make the decision to build my right-brained abilities (like counseling and relating)so as to become more successful.

This is how I know that I am inherently left-brained. Figure 3.1 (on page 49) made perfect sense to me. The diagram (and the chapter surrounding it) made me a believer in what Pink had to say. Figure 3.2 did less for me; it struck me as less persuasive, less substantial.

I had planned on being a lawyer after college. Basically it seemed to be the most lucrative way to manifest my more right brained likes (intercultural communication). Now, having read the first part of this book, I think that I believed it to be the most lucrative way because it was the most left-brained way. Maybe I don't have to have left brained credentials to make my way in this world. Maybe I should focus more on creating and empathizing and I'll be just fine.

Not So Happy Meal

This clip features a woman representing the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood. Aside from very funny (I mean, come on, it's Colbert), I found it interesting that a woman would be so offended by a little coupon for McDonald's. The organization Campaign for a Commerical Free Childhood is reminiscent of ACT, which we read about in Kids Rule!



I personally don't feel that youth are corrupted by McDonald's and I don't see the harm at all in providing free McDonald's coupons for children who earn good grades. I received many similar coupons (Book It, anyone?) when I was in school, and though they were not my sole motivator, it was very nice to be rewarded for a job well done. I do not have Diabetes nor am I obese, so clearly children are not as susceptible to corruption as some may believe. I appreciate all the companies that have encouraged my education.



These companies not only did not corrupt me, they actually improved my quality of life by giving me the tools to get an education. Even if I was slightly corrupted, it was well worth it to get my scholarship money/kids' meal/free tokens/personal pan pizza. I don't mind being brain washed with commercials a little bit to reach my goals.

Why The Internet is Different from TV

Channel-surfing is typical of both radio and television. Void of a TV Guide, audiences scan the channels for a program they might enjoy. However, such scanning simply does not occur on the internet because a) it’s impractical (short of recklessly following links or typing in random URLs, how could you?) and b) it’s dangerous. Because of the fact that the American populace is generally internet savvy enough not to stumble upon sites with content they find offensive, it is not necessary for the government to regulate Internet content in the same manner it does TV or radio.

Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule. Speech that is not lawful elsewhere should not be tolerated in virtual format either. For example, speech that is likely to incite imminent lawless action must be curtailed. That means that a terrorist cell within the United States should not be allowed to set up a website telling the world the most effectively way to blow something up. Also, child pornographers and sex predators must be held accountable for their online actions and their sites should be deleted from the internet.

Overall, though, I think the internet is a pretty safe place without the government interfering. Though I have stumbled upon some sites I thought were in poor taste, I’ve never found a site I found deeply offensive (and I have pretty high standards). Furthermore, parents concerned about what their children view should just use a parental filter like the one that comes with MSN.

Does anybody remember when the internet was just emerging and there were always commercials for internet filters? We were very afraid of this new technology and we thought that porn sites would just be popping up even if we were looking up benign things. I think the internet is a great example of something for the people and by the people actually working out. Maybe innocent people really were stumbling upon pornography back then (I doubt it, but maybe), but now the people have spoken and the most popular sites are those that internally regulate their content. Isn’t that why Facebook is so much more popular than MySpace? Facebook allows you to report inappropriate pictures and they actually take care of them. Another perfect is example is Wikipedia which maintains a pretty high level of integrity despite the fact that the government has nothing to do with it and anybody can change it.

So, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The government should leave the internet alone.

Nick's Got Nothing on This

My parents have never paid for what we watch on TV. That means no satellite and no cable. That means 2 channels we can see all the time and 4 more if we go outside and turn the antenna. So, I did not watch Nickelodeon as a child. I watched PBS Kids. So do my younger siblings. And I think we're better for it. Because PBS does not rely on commercial sponsors, it can maintain a commitment to education that just cannot be found on channels like Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network. That's not to say that those channels don't have their place, but I think that PBS children's programming has some real advantages that cable stations just cannot compete with.

First of all, PBS has no commercial interruptions. That means that kids can receive more educational content per hour that they watch TV. Second of all, PBS does not have to answer to companies marketing to kids, the company does not have to be constantly pushing the limits to entertain kids.

The future of adult public television may be at an end, however. The programming on PBS in the evenings is usually mind-numbingly boring and catering to a very niche audience. I would exchange a few minutes of commercial time to watch something that is both informational and interesting. Fortunately, there are plenty of cable channels where one can do just that. Channels like National Geographic, TLC, the Discovery Channel, and Animal Planet provide viable alternatives to the boring shows on PBS.

So, basically I agree with the article when it comes to adult programming, but think that it fails to account for the great children's programming on PBS. Public television is not dead, but it does need to reinvent itself in light of the changing face of television. While I still think the children's programs are popular and successful, the adult programs refuse to up the ante. (The narrator on the PBS show NOVA has a voice like Ben Stein.) For every good PBS show like Frontline or BBC World News, there are 5 painfully worn-out ones like Masterpiece Theater (granted it is doing Jane Austen this month, so that's pretty cool) or Mystery!. Then there are the dumb ones like Century of Quilts or Keeping Up Appearances (which I unfortunately have watched). If the adult programs on PBS are to survive (and I hope they do because they really do contribute to academia and society as a whole), they have to think more about marketing and programs for the 21st century. It's time for PBS to catch up with the fresh new things being done at PBS Kids.

One Big Happy Family

There are 9 people in my family (I'm the oldest of 7 kids). It's chaos almost every minute of every day, but I absolutely love it. That's why I go home every weekend, and call home in the meantime. Once people turn 18, they are technically liberated from their family as a community, but I opted to keep mine. It's the one community I'm the most hesitant to abandon.



Above all else, my family's main value is unity and togetherness. That may sound cliche, but I definitely think that some families value getting along more than others. My family definitely falls in the category of one that values respect for the individual as well as the collective.



And I think we really do a good job of working together and supporting each other. (I think big families are usually like that.) We work together on just about everything and spend a lot of time with each other. For example, I go to almost every one of my brother's basketball games, and the whole family helps him practice for baseball tryouts.


It's probably atypical for a 20-year-old college student to be such a determined part of her family. I'm graduating in a couple months and, though I could go anywhere and be anything, I most want to live in Charles County and spend time with my family. They understand me and yet still accept me. I hope that the future doesn't make me give up this, my favorite community.

Collector of Identities

I'll admit it. I spend a lot of my time on the internet. Except for myUMBC and Facebook, however, my internet viewing habits are rather random and varied. I can't exactly say that I have one particular site I regularly check. Honestly, I think that says more about me than if I said that my favorite website was one devoted to some niche identity like poultry farmers or something.

The beauty of the democratic internet is that not only can I visit several different sites, but I can visit them all at once in separate tabs within the same window. So I can try on several identities at one time. What does that say about me? Well, it either says I'm cosmopolitan and wordly or a dilletante with only a passing knowledge of everything. Probably the latter.

I realize that the above was a rather noncomittal answer, so I'll list a few of the websites I often visit:

PNC.com--I love online banking. And when one is as broke as I am, one has to be constantly aware of how little money one actually has.

Specific YouTube users--I find that YouTube as a whole is filled with a lot of horribly-made videos not deserving of my time. However, if I receive a link to a YouTube (or Vimeo) from a reliable source, I am only too happy to view it. For example, I got a kick out of watching the lip dubs posted on Professor Regales's blog, but I never would have found them on my own because, in my experience, searching YouTube for random entertaining clips only results in a lot of trash I'd rather not see (connection to porn, anyone?). So I like to watch YouTubes from users like Lenayiskindofcool and Tubopopcorn. I don't really know why. It's still mindless and egotistical, but at least its wholesomely so.

Boundless Webzine--This is a Christian site that publishes daily articles about life in general. Although I often don't always agree with what the articles say, they are food for thought. So I read them (usually not the entire article--they're a little too long for internet reading in my opinion).

Oldnavy.com--I never buy things from Oldnavy.com. I just imagine what it would be like if I did. Old Navy has cute clothes, and I like keeping up with what is curently fashionable even if I'm not wearing it.

BBC.com--My print news source is always The New York Times. I like to supplement it with a little news from overseas, however. BBC is an excellent news source, and I especially like it because it is not U.S.-centric. Of course, it has its biases, but at least its biases don't reinforce the biases I'm receiving from popular American media.

Freerice.com--I like expanding my vocabulary. I like ending world hunger. It's really a win-win.

So, there you have it. My collection of identities. I'm a Christian, a news junkie, poor, a linguist, and a twenty-something who buys into pop culture (with my media choices and not usually with my actual dollars).

Who me? Spend Money?

I come from a long line of savers. My Mom has actually taught courses on making budgets and sticking to them at the local community community college. She is coupon-clipping, sales paper scanning, and frugal. Okay, she's cheap. And she's definitely passed her cheapness on to me. I'm always saving. My only real expenses are gas and school. I have to work and save hard to afford those two things alone. My priorities are pretty pragmatic. In the future, I see myself still being a saver. After I'm finally done with school, I'll still be saving. The only difference is that my expenses will be mortgage, car, and food. I'm not looking forward to it.

Okay, that's not exactly true. I'm occasionaly a failure as a saver. I feel really guilty about it. Sometimes marketing gets to me and I go out and buy a new shirt or go see a movie. Afterwards, I feel a bittersweet mixture of pleasure and remorse. The pleasure is at marketing successfully realized in me. The remorse is over my perceived lapse of responsibility.

Thus, I'm probably not the ideal consumer citizen. I've never had cable (until I came to college), so I was never part of the Nickolodeon Nation. I appreciate branding, let it affect me and define me, but I rarely actually purchase the brands I like. That about defines me. Conservative and boring, but occasionally I break loose and buy something.