I have now officially been a resident of V-town for three days. Lord, beer me strength.
Seriously, though, I have one friend. Just the one. I have no job. I live with my parents, who give me funny looks if I express my desire not to go to church with them. Church is, at least, good for a few laughs. My bed is next to the family computer. I'm also allergic to my bedroom.
It's only for a few months. This is my mantra. Just a few months. Just a few months. Just a few...
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
A New Day Will Soon Dawn
I can't believe the day is finally here. It's December 11th, 2009 (No matter what Blogger tries to tell you to the contrary). In eighteen and a half hours a woman in a funny hat will put a piece of cloth around my neck, I will walk across a stage in some silly-looking clothes, and someone will hand me an empty cardboard tube. And then I will be a Master. A Master! Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Law of Diminishing (Internet) Returns
If you note the trend of my blogging, from its beginning in late 2007 to its recent renaissance at the end of 2009, you will see a progressive decline in frequency. I blame this on all my non-readers out there. If all of you would just read my writing and comment on it, I would be writing progressively more.
That said, I think all Web 2.0 media work this way. You start out with a burst of prolific content creation. Then, when your content is inevitably (at best) tepidly received, you slowly lose interest in investing in its creation. Eventually you give up altogether or, as I have done, go on hiatus for months at a time until something inspires you to give it a try again. Don't ask me what's inspiring me to give blogging another go. Escapism? Fear of separating from my friend group of the past six years? The result of several thesis-intense months? Who knows?
That said, I think all Web 2.0 media work this way. You start out with a burst of prolific content creation. Then, when your content is inevitably (at best) tepidly received, you slowly lose interest in investing in its creation. Eventually you give up altogether or, as I have done, go on hiatus for months at a time until something inspires you to give it a try again. Don't ask me what's inspiring me to give blogging another go. Escapism? Fear of separating from my friend group of the past six years? The result of several thesis-intense months? Who knows?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
We Are Visual Creatures
I read this article today detailing the ongoing legal battle over whether to release photographs of abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush had refused to release the photographs after they first came to light. President Obama had initially reversed this decision, but after some apparently very persuasive arguments from the military, Obama changed his mind and signed a law forbidding the photos' release.
As I read, I kept asking myself, "Why are the president and the military so afraid of releasing these pictures?" The article took its sweet time answering that question. Finally, within the last few paragraphs, the article mentions that the photographs could pose a danger to troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the effect they would have on perceptions of those troops in the region. This, despite that fact that the contents of the photographs are known to the public (they are described in the article). Also public knowledge is the fact that some of the soldiers in the photographs were prosecuted for the actions recorded by the camera.
Apparently a verbal description of a photograph is nowhere near as damaging as the image itself. The people in the region must be aware that such abuses have taken place. Yet months of discussion of the abuses and resulting prosecutions will supposedly have a far lesser effect on people's perceptions than a few seconds of glancing at visual proof of those abuses.
How did our government and military come to this conclusion? I'd think that the Abu Ghraib scandal had a lot to do with it. Those abuses and the name of the prison where they occurred are forever etched into the memories of anyone who spent even a mere minutes looking at the Abu Ghraib photos. We learned then that images are much harder to erase from people's minds than words.
Seeing is believing, the saying goes. I think that for humans you could also say "seeing is remembering." The government is right to fear the power of images. Whether they are right to let that fear restrict the public's access to information is another case.
As I read, I kept asking myself, "Why are the president and the military so afraid of releasing these pictures?" The article took its sweet time answering that question. Finally, within the last few paragraphs, the article mentions that the photographs could pose a danger to troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the effect they would have on perceptions of those troops in the region. This, despite that fact that the contents of the photographs are known to the public (they are described in the article). Also public knowledge is the fact that some of the soldiers in the photographs were prosecuted for the actions recorded by the camera.
Apparently a verbal description of a photograph is nowhere near as damaging as the image itself. The people in the region must be aware that such abuses have taken place. Yet months of discussion of the abuses and resulting prosecutions will supposedly have a far lesser effect on people's perceptions than a few seconds of glancing at visual proof of those abuses.
How did our government and military come to this conclusion? I'd think that the Abu Ghraib scandal had a lot to do with it. Those abuses and the name of the prison where they occurred are forever etched into the memories of anyone who spent even a mere minutes looking at the Abu Ghraib photos. We learned then that images are much harder to erase from people's minds than words.
Seeing is believing, the saying goes. I think that for humans you could also say "seeing is remembering." The government is right to fear the power of images. Whether they are right to let that fear restrict the public's access to information is another case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
