Random Musing:
Murphy's Law, Paranoid Delusions, or International Communist Conspiracy?
I noticed something about my life today that has forced me to ruminate on things, and forced my mind to dwell in very uncomfortable places. You know, like in the back of Volkswagons.
Why is it that whenever I don't need a job, like when I'm in school or have a job that meets my financial needs, the economy is wonderful and I could get a job by virtually tripping on an uneven patch of sidewalk? Yet, whenever I need a job, the economy is flushing down the toilet? Every time over the past decade when I have been diligently and earnestly in search of a job, the economy has taken a nosedive into a mini- (or larger) recession. It never fails. It's uncanny. It's almost as if there's some vast international communist conspiracy involved.
Lousy Commies.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Stay Classy, Fox News
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/fox_obama/index.html
I don't even have to comment on this. By this time next week, I figure Fox News will just be using the N-word when referring to Obama. Or maybe the euphemism "urban," which seems to be a common one from them.
Fair and balanced, indeed. Stay classy, Fox. Stay classy.
Oh, and because this guy's funnier about it than I have time to be, a link:
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/13-ways-of-thinking-up-a-black-slur-contd/
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/fox_obama/index.html
I don't even have to comment on this. By this time next week, I figure Fox News will just be using the N-word when referring to Obama. Or maybe the euphemism "urban," which seems to be a common one from them.
Fair and balanced, indeed. Stay classy, Fox. Stay classy.
Oh, and because this guy's funnier about it than I have time to be, a link:
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/13-ways-of-thinking-up-a-black-slur-contd/
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Internet Is My Mental Health Clinic
The comedian Lewis Black, a regular on Comedy Central's Daily Show, and a stand-up comic whose rage-fueled sociopolitical rants rival those of the legendary George Carlin, once said that the International House of Pancakes - or IHOP for those of you who have never read the franchise's full name - was his "health club." He stated that no matter how fat and unhealthy you might be, if you went to an IHOP, you could always find somebody in worse shape than yourself. And, at the very least, that made you feel healthier than you really were. It gave you the illusion of health. There is something to be said for the self-esteem boost that gives you.
Over the years, I have noticed something about the Internet that has caused me to think of it in the same terms. In this case, however, it relates to mental health, not physical. Indeed, I consider the Internet to be my "mental health clinic."
Read the vast majority of blogs on LiveJournal, Blogger, or the myriad competitors. Read especially the LJ "communities." Read video game message boards, or the infamous 4chan. Look at MySpace profile pages. Hell, read YouTube comments, if you're of a hearty constitution.
If you are an average person - of average intelligence and average neuroses - then there are two undeniable impressions you should receive from engaging in these activities. The first is that the vast majority of people on the Internet are incredibly, irrevocably, irredeemably stupid. It is a wonder that they have enough brain function to be able to breathe, let alone type. And yet, these paramecia behind the keyboard manage to hit enough random keys to produce something that may - just perhaps, if you look at it through a squint after downing a six-pack of beer in 10 minutes - resemble English. It's uncanny, and it just lends credence to the popular belief that if you place a hundred monkeys in a room with a hundred keyboards, given enough time they could reproduce the works of William Shakespeare.
Mind you, much like the monkeys and the keyboards reproducing Shakespeare, this phenomena of the Internet also produces hundreds of ocean-going oil tankers worth of shit every week.
The second impression you should receive is that a disturbingly high percentage of the population of the Internet are certifiably insane in some fashion. The Internet seems to cater to the mentally unwell in a way that "real-world" society does not, and thus it is no surprise that the Internet does not provide an accurate statistical sampling. However, the genuinely mentally unwell are not the real problem. The problem arises from the two major "cults" on the internet: the cult of the victim and the cult of anonymity.
First, there is the cult of the victim, which is not at all a phenomenon unique to the Internet. In fact, it is a mainstay of Western culture, especially American culture. And, due to American economic and cultural imperialism, has spread throughout the rest of the world. The wonders of globalization never cease, do they? Still, the Internet seems to be entirely about playing the "victim" card. No-one is ever responsible for his or her own actions. Nay, they are always the victim of something. The genuinely mentally unwell sometimes play this card, but often the "victim" only suffers from one ailment: the aforementioned rampant stupidity.
That aside, it is fascinating, on an intellectual level, to witness the variety in which the "victim" card is played: passive-aggression, straw man, and innumberable logical fallacies. These people tend to have a veneer of false intellectualism about them that is quite amusing to watch crack and crumble under scrutiny. It is then that the raw force of their stupidity comes rushing out, drowning you in ludicrous statements.
Then, there is the cult of anonymity. Penny Arcade summarized it best with "John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theorem," in which it was demonstrated mathematically that a normal person plus anonymity plus an audience equaled a total fuckwad. Never has a sociopolitical "mathematical" theorem been more true and more tested and proven.
That theorem is only valid, of course, if we assume that person is "normal" to begin with. As I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of the Internet population is so stupid as to make Paris Hilton seem like the president of MENSA. If you add the "cult of the victim" and anonymity onto that, and you have a person who is what is known in the mental health industry as "batshit insane."
An average person perusing the internet should come to these indelible impressions: that everyone on the Internet is either (a) completely fucking stupid, (b) completely fucking insane, or (c) both. And since the average person outside of the Internet isn't one of those three things, how can the Internet not make that person feel better about their mental health?
No matter how screwed up in the head you might be, there is always somebody on the Internet more FUBAR, mentally speaking, than you are. Thus, you can feel better about yourself and your mental state. This is why I say that the Internet is my mental health clinic.
The comedian Lewis Black, a regular on Comedy Central's Daily Show, and a stand-up comic whose rage-fueled sociopolitical rants rival those of the legendary George Carlin, once said that the International House of Pancakes - or IHOP for those of you who have never read the franchise's full name - was his "health club." He stated that no matter how fat and unhealthy you might be, if you went to an IHOP, you could always find somebody in worse shape than yourself. And, at the very least, that made you feel healthier than you really were. It gave you the illusion of health. There is something to be said for the self-esteem boost that gives you.
Over the years, I have noticed something about the Internet that has caused me to think of it in the same terms. In this case, however, it relates to mental health, not physical. Indeed, I consider the Internet to be my "mental health clinic."
Read the vast majority of blogs on LiveJournal, Blogger, or the myriad competitors. Read especially the LJ "communities." Read video game message boards, or the infamous 4chan. Look at MySpace profile pages. Hell, read YouTube comments, if you're of a hearty constitution.
If you are an average person - of average intelligence and average neuroses - then there are two undeniable impressions you should receive from engaging in these activities. The first is that the vast majority of people on the Internet are incredibly, irrevocably, irredeemably stupid. It is a wonder that they have enough brain function to be able to breathe, let alone type. And yet, these paramecia behind the keyboard manage to hit enough random keys to produce something that may - just perhaps, if you look at it through a squint after downing a six-pack of beer in 10 minutes - resemble English. It's uncanny, and it just lends credence to the popular belief that if you place a hundred monkeys in a room with a hundred keyboards, given enough time they could reproduce the works of William Shakespeare.
Mind you, much like the monkeys and the keyboards reproducing Shakespeare, this phenomena of the Internet also produces hundreds of ocean-going oil tankers worth of shit every week.
The second impression you should receive is that a disturbingly high percentage of the population of the Internet are certifiably insane in some fashion. The Internet seems to cater to the mentally unwell in a way that "real-world" society does not, and thus it is no surprise that the Internet does not provide an accurate statistical sampling. However, the genuinely mentally unwell are not the real problem. The problem arises from the two major "cults" on the internet: the cult of the victim and the cult of anonymity.
First, there is the cult of the victim, which is not at all a phenomenon unique to the Internet. In fact, it is a mainstay of Western culture, especially American culture. And, due to American economic and cultural imperialism, has spread throughout the rest of the world. The wonders of globalization never cease, do they? Still, the Internet seems to be entirely about playing the "victim" card. No-one is ever responsible for his or her own actions. Nay, they are always the victim of something. The genuinely mentally unwell sometimes play this card, but often the "victim" only suffers from one ailment: the aforementioned rampant stupidity.
That aside, it is fascinating, on an intellectual level, to witness the variety in which the "victim" card is played: passive-aggression, straw man, and innumberable logical fallacies. These people tend to have a veneer of false intellectualism about them that is quite amusing to watch crack and crumble under scrutiny. It is then that the raw force of their stupidity comes rushing out, drowning you in ludicrous statements.
Then, there is the cult of anonymity. Penny Arcade summarized it best with "John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theorem," in which it was demonstrated mathematically that a normal person plus anonymity plus an audience equaled a total fuckwad. Never has a sociopolitical "mathematical" theorem been more true and more tested and proven.
That theorem is only valid, of course, if we assume that person is "normal" to begin with. As I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of the Internet population is so stupid as to make Paris Hilton seem like the president of MENSA. If you add the "cult of the victim" and anonymity onto that, and you have a person who is what is known in the mental health industry as "batshit insane."
An average person perusing the internet should come to these indelible impressions: that everyone on the Internet is either (a) completely fucking stupid, (b) completely fucking insane, or (c) both. And since the average person outside of the Internet isn't one of those three things, how can the Internet not make that person feel better about their mental health?
No matter how screwed up in the head you might be, there is always somebody on the Internet more FUBAR, mentally speaking, than you are. Thus, you can feel better about yourself and your mental state. This is why I say that the Internet is my mental health clinic.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Like Ra's al Ghul of the Batman comics, this blog is impossible to truly kill. It has entered into the Lazarus Chamber, and emerged renewed. Well, okay, dispensing with a flair for the dramatic (not to mention the nerdly -- Ra's al Ghul? That's a reference I might live to regret), though it adds a certain panache to the place... Anyway, I decided to resurrect this ancient blog. I'm keeping the one and only post I ever made for purposes of historical preservation. However, the old title of "To Rant Is To Live" is gone. Mostly because I won't always be in the mood to rant when I should decide to use this thing.
Well, more to come later, should I have something on the ol' brain I want to expound upon. No guarantees of when that may be, however. Not that anyone reads this but me (and perhaps some friends that I send the link to should I add something substantive), but I like to cover my bases... and my ass.
Until next time... same Bat-time, same Bat-channel!
Well, more to come later, should I have something on the ol' brain I want to expound upon. No guarantees of when that may be, however. Not that anyone reads this but me (and perhaps some friends that I send the link to should I add something substantive), but I like to cover my bases... and my ass.
Until next time... same Bat-time, same Bat-channel!
Tuesday, January 22, 2002
I've got a question that's been bothering me for awhile now: When did the concept of "teaching" become an anathema?
Not only do we value a man who can hit a three-pointer more than a man responsible for the future of our society -- paying teachers less than almost every coporate position above entry-level -- not only do we have a near-crisis in the form of a dearth in teachers, not only do we as a society treat teaching as a FAILURE -- "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." -- but those who ARE teachers have a tendency to be BAD at it. They didn't WANT to be teachers, it was just what they ended up doing. This is really quite true in the sciences, where more than a fair share of teachers wound up in that job because they couldn't hack in the field. It's a fallback, a safety net. And it's killing the value of the education received.
And don't think this is only limited to high schools. Oh no, not in the slightest. The institutions of so-called "higher learning" suffer from this teaching malaise, as well.
Allow me to illustrate.
Imagine yourself a professor in a prestigious university. For some of us, that's not too hard. Now, imagine you're assigned to teach a graduate-level class in some specialized aspect of a scientific field. How would you do that? Would you assume that your students, even being graduate students, knew as much as you? Would you assume that you could give out homework exercises that utilize material that you've NEVER covered, even in passing? Would you assume that your students could read your mind as to what you expect of them? I doubt many of you would make these assumptions, yet it is a tendency I have spotted amongst FAR too many professors.
Is good teaching style NOT teaching at all? Is good teaching style avoiding your students when they have questions? Is good teaching style refusing to help your students? Is good teaching style publically insulting students who ask questions in class? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you should be shot and left out for the vultures.
In order to be a good teacher, one has to CARE. Care about their job. Care about their students. And one has to ENJOY what they do. You can't teach if you don't like people. You can't teach if you hate explaining things to people. You can't teach if you expect people to already know everything about a subject.
So why they hell are some of these people teaching?
Not only do we value a man who can hit a three-pointer more than a man responsible for the future of our society -- paying teachers less than almost every coporate position above entry-level -- not only do we have a near-crisis in the form of a dearth in teachers, not only do we as a society treat teaching as a FAILURE -- "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." -- but those who ARE teachers have a tendency to be BAD at it. They didn't WANT to be teachers, it was just what they ended up doing. This is really quite true in the sciences, where more than a fair share of teachers wound up in that job because they couldn't hack in the field. It's a fallback, a safety net. And it's killing the value of the education received.
And don't think this is only limited to high schools. Oh no, not in the slightest. The institutions of so-called "higher learning" suffer from this teaching malaise, as well.
Allow me to illustrate.
Imagine yourself a professor in a prestigious university. For some of us, that's not too hard. Now, imagine you're assigned to teach a graduate-level class in some specialized aspect of a scientific field. How would you do that? Would you assume that your students, even being graduate students, knew as much as you? Would you assume that you could give out homework exercises that utilize material that you've NEVER covered, even in passing? Would you assume that your students could read your mind as to what you expect of them? I doubt many of you would make these assumptions, yet it is a tendency I have spotted amongst FAR too many professors.
Is good teaching style NOT teaching at all? Is good teaching style avoiding your students when they have questions? Is good teaching style refusing to help your students? Is good teaching style publically insulting students who ask questions in class? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you should be shot and left out for the vultures.
In order to be a good teacher, one has to CARE. Care about their job. Care about their students. And one has to ENJOY what they do. You can't teach if you don't like people. You can't teach if you hate explaining things to people. You can't teach if you expect people to already know everything about a subject.
So why they hell are some of these people teaching?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
