Oh, look, what's this? I'm posting again in this blog. I like writing too much it seems. My foray into anime blogging is going well, and I don't foresee giving it up any time soon. In addition to that, I've decided to be an idiot and try out this NaBloPoMo thing on top of my annual NaNoWriMo; for that purpose, I've set up yet another blog! But I do have good news for this blog, I think. Lately, I've been thinking too much about random things again that don't belong in anything else I write. This means that this blog might be seeing a bit more action, in spite of everything. No promises though. No promises.
Anyway!
I was thinking some about the distinction between blogs and journals online and how, in general, the terms are lumped together. I don't agree with this synonym thing though. When I think "journal," I think about Livejournal, which for the most part is filled with teen angst and personal things -- things that you might have found in traditional journals. Private thoughts for a limited audience, generally friends, however broadly one may use that term. Of course, Livejournal has its exceptions -- I utilize my own Livejournal both for personal things and for semi-professional things. It is not impossible to use the site for blogging just because "journal" is in the name, but then those individual accounts would be deemed blogs, not journals.
Blogs are intended for a mass audience. They are intended to be read by both friends and strangers. They should be geared towards general topics and not focus on the daily going-ons of an individual's life. That isn't to say that personal things won't leak through -- they will -- and really, that's what makes blogs interesting. They are full of opinions, but they are accessible. The typical stranger likely won't care about the fact that your girlfriend just broke up with you after cheating on you with your brother, but if it's just a passing mention on a blog that is otherwise filled with intelligent discussions of, say, animal rights, then it's still a blog.
The ironic part is that I tend to view blogs as being more journalistic in the newspaper sense. They feel more professional, like the co-op an editorial columns of a paper (okay, okay, so those are debateably "professional," but you know what I mean). So maybe I meant that journals are more diary-like and blogs are more journalistic.
Wow, is the English language confusing or what? Why do I love this language so much?
And I suppose that's all I really wanted to say. This is a blog. Here, I discuss things.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Other Ventures
I'm sure that no one reads this anyway, but just in case, I've started an anime blog over yonder. I'm uncertain as to whether I'll still be posting in here though my activity here's only ever been lackluster at best. For the while though, my blogging energies will mostly be focused at the aforementioned. Thanks for reading.
Monday, April 21, 2008
In Defense of Wikipedia
Yes, I haven't updated in two months and after I post this, I probably won't post again for two months because I'm ever-so-wonderful at maintaining a blog. What can I say? Even amongst friends I usually can't be bothered with long-winded explanations and justifications of my opinions, so why should I care enough to tell the ever apathetic Internet? But this entry is spur-of-the-moment and prompted by a bit of indignation after a conversation with one of my professors.
He told me that Wikipedia is crap [sic].
Well, I can agree well enough that it's pretty inappropriate and lazy to cite for research papers, or even just papers in general. But crap all around? I would have to disagree, sir. Wikipedia is our generation's mine field of information. Many people use it as their only news source, ahead of newspapers, blogs, and televised media. It's usefulness cannot be denied. Now it's accuracy?
Certainly there will be inconsistencies and bias now and again, but I firmly believe in the power of psychotic Wikipedians to correct things that are amazingly wrong and blatantly slanted. Most of the time, anyway. That's why articles are locked. Of course, lesser known and less important articles will be vandalized for the hell of it and maybe sniplets of falsities will be taken as truth by the unsuspecting browser, but the most important things are, for the most part, kept straight.
Wikipedia should probably never be your only source of information. But isn't that why all articles include at least one citation to another source so you can follow up on it? Isn't it useful for at least that? I'm getting tired of discussing this already... My opinion is obviously biased anyway, just like my professor's is. I grew up on the Internet and have great respect for it while simultaneously knowing all of its incredibly faults. I love that information is at the tip of my fingers and amazingly easy to access while knowing that the people giving me this information may not always be credible. It's a risk that comes with the rewards, I guess. But sometimes I think people like to point out all the errors and forget the amazingness of the people that are honestly working hard to make Wikipedia the best that it can be.
I dunno. In my own defense, I was only using Wiki to verify what I already knew. Who the hell's going to vandalize an article on Sadako Sasaki and the Thousand Paper Cranes anyway?
And now back to your regularly scheduled silence.
He told me that Wikipedia is crap [sic].
Well, I can agree well enough that it's pretty inappropriate and lazy to cite for research papers, or even just papers in general. But crap all around? I would have to disagree, sir. Wikipedia is our generation's mine field of information. Many people use it as their only news source, ahead of newspapers, blogs, and televised media. It's usefulness cannot be denied. Now it's accuracy?
Certainly there will be inconsistencies and bias now and again, but I firmly believe in the power of psychotic Wikipedians to correct things that are amazingly wrong and blatantly slanted. Most of the time, anyway. That's why articles are locked. Of course, lesser known and less important articles will be vandalized for the hell of it and maybe sniplets of falsities will be taken as truth by the unsuspecting browser, but the most important things are, for the most part, kept straight.
Wikipedia should probably never be your only source of information. But isn't that why all articles include at least one citation to another source so you can follow up on it? Isn't it useful for at least that? I'm getting tired of discussing this already... My opinion is obviously biased anyway, just like my professor's is. I grew up on the Internet and have great respect for it while simultaneously knowing all of its incredibly faults. I love that information is at the tip of my fingers and amazingly easy to access while knowing that the people giving me this information may not always be credible. It's a risk that comes with the rewards, I guess. But sometimes I think people like to point out all the errors and forget the amazingness of the people that are honestly working hard to make Wikipedia the best that it can be.
I dunno. In my own defense, I was only using Wiki to verify what I already knew. Who the hell's going to vandalize an article on Sadako Sasaki and the Thousand Paper Cranes anyway?
And now back to your regularly scheduled silence.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Naive Infatuation. Maybe.
I was hunting for summer jobs in New York, ran over a few blogs that touched on the subject of the city a bit, then decided to re-read some material from blogs I'm familiar with about it. There seems to be a general consensus between older bloggers that too many people, especially younger people, hold the city up on a pedestal and that there really isn't much need to clamor over its grandeur. I can understand that viewpoint well enough; after all, what is there in New York that isn't anywhere else? With the amazing pervasiveness of the Internet, there is a diminishing need to be physically close to where the action is and the cost of living there is so damn high, it pretty much offsets a ton of the advantages, right? So what's so great about this place?
Maybe it really is just my age, but two summers working in Manhattan has yet to disillusion me from its magnificence. The aesthetic appeal never seems to diminish. I love the 50-story buildings and the sea of taxis streaming down Fifth Avenue. I love the rush hour foot traffic swarming 7th Avenue towards the transit lines. Even when it's raining cats and dogs and there are a dozen peddlers trying to sell you umbrellas for five bucks (and they will probably break by the third or fourth use). I love the ignorant tourists and the fact that most people are perfectly happy to disregard traffic laws. I love the incredible diversity. Every little thing is just so incredibly artistic and I find that feeling hard to escape. Just being there in the city always seems to inspire me somehow. I want to write; I want to draw; I want to work. I want to live.
And that's all just the feeling I get from standing there. Job hunting reveals the amazing proximity of everything. It's one of those facts that you sort of know, but don't really realize until you really look into it. I had worked in the second and third floors of an office building on Broadway and 35th. Five blocks away is an animation studio I was looking at. Five blocks in the other direction is a small gallery also offering internships. Viacom is five blocks away. The Times building is five blocks away. National Geographic is closer. This is amazing to me, that such a motley crew should be stationed so close to one another. But as illustration can be applied to many a different fields and companies, it's amazingly convenient that I could take the same commute into the city for a hundred different jobs.
Obviously, the offset of all of this is the cost. I don't delude myself into thinking that I could afford a Manhattan flat on an intern's salary (if it's even a paid internship). For now, I'm lucky enough to have an uncle who lives in Jersey and also commutes into the city, but I would still love to live in the city itself some day. Would it be worth it to scrape by just to live there though? I don't know. Probably not in the long term, but even the other boroughs offer a proximity that I would love and with any luck, I'd be able to round up some awesome roommates to share space with. That would be worth it to me - good friends, good city, good inspiration. Hopefully good job? Haha.
It's almost like the urban fairytale land. It's where so many great things have started and ended. Wouldn't you love to be a part of it? Even for a little while? Many people seem to grow out of it and years later, after they've moved away, they reflect on it in a more cynical light. I'm a cynic too. But also sometimes a romantic. It's a weird combination, I suppose, but the city definitely brings out the hopeless romantic in me. I love New York and don't really see myself outgrowing that. Maybe I'll have to eat those words in a few years, but.
Maybe not.
Maybe it really is just my age, but two summers working in Manhattan has yet to disillusion me from its magnificence. The aesthetic appeal never seems to diminish. I love the 50-story buildings and the sea of taxis streaming down Fifth Avenue. I love the rush hour foot traffic swarming 7th Avenue towards the transit lines. Even when it's raining cats and dogs and there are a dozen peddlers trying to sell you umbrellas for five bucks (and they will probably break by the third or fourth use). I love the ignorant tourists and the fact that most people are perfectly happy to disregard traffic laws. I love the incredible diversity. Every little thing is just so incredibly artistic and I find that feeling hard to escape. Just being there in the city always seems to inspire me somehow. I want to write; I want to draw; I want to work. I want to live.
And that's all just the feeling I get from standing there. Job hunting reveals the amazing proximity of everything. It's one of those facts that you sort of know, but don't really realize until you really look into it. I had worked in the second and third floors of an office building on Broadway and 35th. Five blocks away is an animation studio I was looking at. Five blocks in the other direction is a small gallery also offering internships. Viacom is five blocks away. The Times building is five blocks away. National Geographic is closer. This is amazing to me, that such a motley crew should be stationed so close to one another. But as illustration can be applied to many a different fields and companies, it's amazingly convenient that I could take the same commute into the city for a hundred different jobs.
Obviously, the offset of all of this is the cost. I don't delude myself into thinking that I could afford a Manhattan flat on an intern's salary (if it's even a paid internship). For now, I'm lucky enough to have an uncle who lives in Jersey and also commutes into the city, but I would still love to live in the city itself some day. Would it be worth it to scrape by just to live there though? I don't know. Probably not in the long term, but even the other boroughs offer a proximity that I would love and with any luck, I'd be able to round up some awesome roommates to share space with. That would be worth it to me - good friends, good city, good inspiration. Hopefully good job? Haha.
It's almost like the urban fairytale land. It's where so many great things have started and ended. Wouldn't you love to be a part of it? Even for a little while? Many people seem to grow out of it and years later, after they've moved away, they reflect on it in a more cynical light. I'm a cynic too. But also sometimes a romantic. It's a weird combination, I suppose, but the city definitely brings out the hopeless romantic in me. I love New York and don't really see myself outgrowing that. Maybe I'll have to eat those words in a few years, but.
Maybe not.
Friday, February 15, 2008
shut up and love
This has become my place to rant about all of the opinions I usually don't share with people because someone's going to get offended. Go me for not bothering to advertise this blog much.
Anyway, I'm really tired of people ragging on Valentine's Day. Much like Black Friday, I find it pretty ridiculous that people should rail on it because it's a highly commercialized holiday. Realize that it's only so highly commercialized because people buy into. Obviously, if no one wanted to buy things, no one would bother decking out the pink, red, and white decorations and going crazy. If you hate it so much, don't buy things. It isn't that hard, is it? And maybe the people complaining about it really don't buy into it (although I severely doubt that they'd turn away chocolate hearts on principle alone if they were offered some) and are just using it as another excuse to go on a tirade about how humanity is deteriorating and how people care about the most trivial of things.
I think people's perception of the holiday (yeah, so some people refuse to even call it a holiday; power to you, guys, but I'm rolling my eyes) change in stages based on age. In elementary school, V-Day was cool because you got nifty cards and candy. In middle school, it was exciting because lots of people were experimenting with and just starting out with relationships. In high school, if you were in a relationship, it was great fun, but if you were single, you were probably anti-the-holiday. And beyond that, I think most people either came to embrace it as a celebration of love or continued to scorn it as another commercialized holiday. Or there are a few people who genuinely don't care, though a I find that a lot of people that claim this will still talk/complain/act bitter about it.
I think the whole Single's Awareness Day thing is kind of hilarious too. I guess a majority of our society likes to label it a day for romantic love, but come on, I'm sure the number of platonic love relationships in the world far outnumber the former. When you were a kid, you gave those Valentine's Day cards to everyone in your class and couldn't leave anyone out. If you don't have a significant others but still want to celebrate, go hang out with your other single friends. Now was that so hard? Stop being so damn bitter about it. Or you know, how about use it as an excuse to finally ask the guy or girl out? It's an excuse. May as well use it.
People say that we don't need a holiday to express love, that we should every day and appreciate it every day. And sure, that's true, but is it really so bad to have a day dedicated to it? It's like Mother's Day and Father's Day. I sure hope you appreciate your parents for more days than that, but isn't it nice to have a special day set aside for them? I see Valentine's Day the same way. It's an excuse to sit back and think about and appreciate all the awesome people in your life, whether or not you're romantically involved. Why is this bad? And if you just happen to be buying lots of flowers and candy and glittery, heart-shaped balloons for the day, so what? Our economy's in a slump and needs the help anyway.
And that's my tirade. Shut up, stop whining, and go tell someone they're awesome.
Anyway, I'm really tired of people ragging on Valentine's Day. Much like Black Friday, I find it pretty ridiculous that people should rail on it because it's a highly commercialized holiday. Realize that it's only so highly commercialized because people buy into. Obviously, if no one wanted to buy things, no one would bother decking out the pink, red, and white decorations and going crazy. If you hate it so much, don't buy things. It isn't that hard, is it? And maybe the people complaining about it really don't buy into it (although I severely doubt that they'd turn away chocolate hearts on principle alone if they were offered some) and are just using it as another excuse to go on a tirade about how humanity is deteriorating and how people care about the most trivial of things.
I think people's perception of the holiday (yeah, so some people refuse to even call it a holiday; power to you, guys, but I'm rolling my eyes) change in stages based on age. In elementary school, V-Day was cool because you got nifty cards and candy. In middle school, it was exciting because lots of people were experimenting with and just starting out with relationships. In high school, if you were in a relationship, it was great fun, but if you were single, you were probably anti-the-holiday. And beyond that, I think most people either came to embrace it as a celebration of love or continued to scorn it as another commercialized holiday. Or there are a few people who genuinely don't care, though a I find that a lot of people that claim this will still talk/complain/act bitter about it.
I think the whole Single's Awareness Day thing is kind of hilarious too. I guess a majority of our society likes to label it a day for romantic love, but come on, I'm sure the number of platonic love relationships in the world far outnumber the former. When you were a kid, you gave those Valentine's Day cards to everyone in your class and couldn't leave anyone out. If you don't have a significant others but still want to celebrate, go hang out with your other single friends. Now was that so hard? Stop being so damn bitter about it. Or you know, how about use it as an excuse to finally ask the guy or girl out? It's an excuse. May as well use it.
People say that we don't need a holiday to express love, that we should every day and appreciate it every day. And sure, that's true, but is it really so bad to have a day dedicated to it? It's like Mother's Day and Father's Day. I sure hope you appreciate your parents for more days than that, but isn't it nice to have a special day set aside for them? I see Valentine's Day the same way. It's an excuse to sit back and think about and appreciate all the awesome people in your life, whether or not you're romantically involved. Why is this bad? And if you just happen to be buying lots of flowers and candy and glittery, heart-shaped balloons for the day, so what? Our economy's in a slump and needs the help anyway.
And that's my tirade. Shut up, stop whining, and go tell someone they're awesome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
