If "Freedom" is the name of a song, who do I pay to make it the name of my blog post?

TOPIC 1

The documentary "RIP: A Remix Manifesto" is not really about freedom of expression, or even the entire First Amendment. Yes, it has a lot of undertones and elements of this, but downloading music for personal use has nothing to do with freedom of expression, nor would exactly copying and profiting from a new invention be self-expression (beyond expressing your desire to make money). RIP is really about an entirely free society in which ideas are, once released, merely a part of the "collective conscious." Anyone can tap in and make it their own.

There is bound to be backlash against this assertion. Our society doesn't exactly have a "mi casa, tu casa" mentality. We have an, "I do what I have to to get mine" mentality. Some people have gotten theirs (even if they want more). When the rules are changed halfway through and people are informed that nothing is really theirs, they are less likely to see the universal truth in that statement and more likely to get a little butthurt. Butthurt people with lots of money are a force to contend with.

The most concerning things I saw in the documentary had to do with this concept. Begrudging a woman 24 songs and charging tens of thousands of dollars in lawsuits is overboard. Telling kids they can go to jail for 5 years for downloading songs is not a great use of our energy (or already ridiculously overcrowded jail cells). I don't think even those involved in the prison-industrial complex can bullshit their way into that being logical. I remember being a 12 year old girl downloading *N Sync on Napster and making dance routines with my friends. Possibly, I could have continued these activities with the kids in juvy, had push come to shove.

Also, copyrighting Ayahuasca (or any other plant or living thing) is disgusting. To Amazonian indigenous peoples, that is sacred spirit medicine. Whether or not you agree with that philosophy, that's something capitalism shouldn't touch. Also, when patents on scientific ideas stop scientific progress, obviously our economic system has overgrown its utility. Our corporate brand of capitalism is crippling us.

Of course, this trickles down into freedom of expression, as guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. Parody, satire, and reimagingings of cultural icons is an integral part of the critical thinking process of the artist (which, by the way, is a term I believe encompasses every human being in one way or another). An engaged mind assimilates information and says, "Wait a minute. This is what you think you all see, but this is what it really looks like to me." This can range from bold political statement to funny YouTube video. On a trajectory closer to the latter, Girl Talk is a nauseatingly unoriginal and boring "musician," but still, this glorified DJ isn't claiming that he wrote these songs; he's claiming that he smashed them together into something he hopes is unexpected and ironic. On the more political tip, Dan O'Neil isn't pretending that he invented Mickey Mouse; that would totally defeat the purpose of using the character. Pop culture and advertisements surround us - of COURSE they will be subject matter for our art. The game is whether people accept it (as they usually do, as you can see from the myriad of mash-ups, sampling, silly youtube videos, etc) or if they come after you, claiming you have somehow wronged them.

Girl Talk is a very blatant example because his music is hardly changed from the originals, but sampling has been going on for a LONG time. Before even digital technology existed, people covered other people's songs, they paid homage to other musicians by using some of the lyrics or instrumentation as a small part of their own song, and they reworked other musician's songs to make something different. Once recording technology became available, the playground gates burst open. I personally LOVE a lot of music that uses sampling, which is basically the entire basis for music genres like hip-hop, drum n base, jungle, dubstep, neosoul, and pop. Where is the line when it becomes your own? In great, original works of art, the original samples give way to something completely different than the original.

Consider these examples:

 

It's a nice little romantic song, but do you recognize that little riff at the beginning? Of course you do! It's been in a ton of songs, none of which are even considered the same genre as this song. Like these below:

(Note: can't condone the stuff they say about women in that last one, it's just an example of the sample. Luckily, I think rap is starting to move a bit away from this mentality)

Here is another example of ways a song has been sampled to create something fairly different:

This is the original. A really nice instrumental. Some hip hop artists have used this to make some pretty nice beats:

Even more considerations are the extensive use of funk and soul samples like the "Think break" and the "Amen break" in DnB and other electronic and pop songs.

There are many reasons to sample. They include:

1) To pay homage to to original artist. In the case of hip hop, "crate digging" is a big thing. It's understood that these are samples, so digging in the crates (of records) and using cheap drum machines (like an 808 for example) was how hip hop was made possible in its beginnings.
2) To overcome social stratification. Like I said, a lot of these drum machines, turntables, etc, were pretty cheap. Way cheaper than buying traditional instruments and drumsets, and of course more convenient and portable. Sampling evened the playing field and allowed black artists to reclaim "ownership" (WITHOUT resorting to copyright laws) of music that was originally made by black artists but was being covered (for profit) by white musicians. This is an example of the system self-regulating due to creativity, rather than being regulated from overhead (of course, it's really complicated, and I like Led Zeppelin and the Beatles as much as the next person, but I'm just highlighting this little piece of that puzzle).
3) To create satire or parody of the original work or the culture which produced it...from exposing perceived evils to simply "putting them in a headlock and pouring a beer over their head"

All of these reasons seem well within the range of being reasonable, but when does it go too far? It goes to far when the origin is not transparent. Maybe not everyone knows that their favorite Dr. Dre song is extensively sampled from Parliament, but it's not something that Dr. Dre would hide or deny. Whether or not you think it is different and creative enough is something for the listener to explore. However, when Vanilla Ice was originally sued for using a David Bowie song, one could say, "Hey Bowie, don't you already have quite a bit of cash? Is it necessary to make a stink about this?" But apparently it was because Vanilla Ice denied having sampled the song...what? Anyone who tries to claim that other people's work took not part in their creative process, though it is actually the primary feature, has taken their sampling too far.

TOPIC 2

I don't have a strong opinion on Wikileaks itself because I have not spent a lot of time on the actual site. However, the concept of making available classified information, as long as it truly does go through the rigorous process he said in the video (ie. verify authenticity AND make sure it does not put anyone in harm's way), then I think it is a very good and necessary service. It is especially needed right now when our news is so skewed, our major media is so tightly controlled by a handful or corporations, and our news is often geared toward entertaining, sensational stories, rather than important ones. Julian Assage's mission to "nurture victims" (in his own combative way) is much more noble than the motives which caused the information to be classified in the first place.

For example, I believe that Wikileaks (not singlehandedly, but as a large part) was part of the reason that people became so thoroughly informed about Guananamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons. We also learned of various chemical warfare means which we were using in the Iraq and Afghan wars. When those wars started, it was in the wake of 9/11. Approval for the war was high and Middle Easterners were considered a derelict and backwards race (I would know - I am one). However, as more and more videos and documents were leaked which reminded people of the humanity of Arabs and the inhumanity of torture, approval began to wane. Now, I think the majority of people would have preferred we not begin the war in, at least, Iraq, as it had nothing to do with anything at the time.

Currently, I believe free speech and expression are at an all time high AND an all low, simultaneously. I say it is high because I find that the courts usually rule in favor of free speech and have not often upheld vague concepts like "obscenity" and "sedition" for a long time. This is regardless of if the speech is reprehensible or not (such as openly white supremacist symbols or even the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church). Also, the internet allows people a place to say whatever they want. However, the internet is a black hole. It doesn't accomplish much unless you apply it to the real world. I think the people's right to peaceful assembly has been called into question frequently, particularly when the Occupy Wall Street protests and the black Lives Matter protests were happening. Some of those protests got out of hand, but most were peaceful. Still, people were asked to go home and punished if they did not. Also, of course Julian Assage himself (and Chelsea Manning, still referred to as Bradley in the video) have faced consequences for their actions. I also think that media is tightly controlled, so while it is possible to independently say what you want, if you want to be a journalist or anchor for a more major news source, there are strict rules one must play by.

Overall, rabble rousers like Julian Assage are an extremely important part of society. One of my favorite quotes ever is from the author Edward Abbey. He says, "Society is like a stew. If you don't stir it up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top" (and my own personal addition: and the bottom gets burned)

Society is like a stew. If you don't stir it up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edwardabbe387411.html

Buddha's Favorite Snack?

First, I have to own up that I didn't do proper investigative journalism for this one. I have not tried this particular snack, but its packaging caught my eye as a little off kilter.

 

There is not a particular ad for this product that I could find, only the marketing on the packaging and the website. For my analysis, please take a brief look at this website:

https://lesserevil.com/

DESCRIPTION: These snacks protray a happy, serene Buddha holding a bowl of popcorn. The art and text is simple and spacious, but also prominently displays their various certifications. The website instantly reveals the demographic they are aimed towards, because the first thing it says is "Official Snack Sponsor of Wanderlust Festivals." For any who don't know, Wanderlust is a huge annual yoga festival. Although yoga isn't particularly tied to Buddhism, it isn't uncommon for many modern people with some spiritual leanings to adopt a variety of eastern ideas into their own western ones. Buddha figurines are often seen adorning people's homes, offices, massage studios, doorways of all kinds, and various works of art. The fact that now its on a bag of popcorn is really no surprise. I don't see this brand at the regular grocery stores, but it is popular enough that it is in all the major "health food" stores. 

ANALYSIS: This company would like you to believe that they are benevolent, there for you, available for personal connection. This company pushes the message "YOU CAN TRUST US." This persuasive technique is not one which is mentioned in the book, but it is quickly becoming one of the most popular strategies and is also my least favorite. It is not possible that a corporation wants to connect with you personally, beyond product assistance. Where I work does this - "emotional connection" is a marketing technique we are encouraged to use in order to keep the customer shopping at our store. Current marketing strategies are preying on our need for connection and using it in a phony way, rather than the organic way in which it is actually useful. That isn't to say that the founders of this company aren't nice, caring people, but people care for one another. A company does not care for you. 

In a less forward manner, they use (and this may sound odd) simultaneous plain folks approach AND snob appeal. That is the only way to describe it, although I don't want to imply that "plain folks" are not health conscious or that caring about what you put in your body makes you a snob (It doesn't - it makes you conscious of your health, one of the most important things you've got. Besides, I've seen just as many people be snobby about the number of burritos they can eat in one sitting as about turning up their nose at fried chicken.) I say plain folks because they emphasize that though their ingredients are better, their pricing is no higher than regular snacks of the greater evil variety (this is true - it's $1.25 per single serving bag if you order the 6 pack off the website). Besides, it is chips and popcorn. "Indulge, like everyone else!" they seem to say (bandwagon appeal), "but better!" (snob appeal). Let me add a caveat here - it isn't snobby to be health conscious, but it is a wee bit snobby that as part of their campaign, they bring in mindfulness (as in the meditation practice) as being made more possible in your eating by these snacks. I am drinking a beer exceedingly mindfully right now, thank you very much. I can experience it through all 5 senses, feel how it goes down and enters each part of my body (well, down to the digestive tract, in which I have no sensory nerves.) Having to buy a particularly snack to be mindful is missing the point.

There is some association prcinciple at play here. There is the aforementioned mindfulness (we already feel like snacks help us feel better anyway, what if we can take that a little further and say they make us feel spiritual and enlightened, like the Buddha?). Also, there is the association with Wanderlust (and thus yoga and sunny good festival times). There is no connection, other than sponsorship, between popcorn and yoga (although the website tried to draw some sparse connections by pulling the currently popular Ayurveda-card when talking about their ghee-flavored popcorn).

 I think the success of their company shows that their platform is fairly successful. They appeal to a lot of people's sensibilities. There are a confusingly large amount of people who found it worth their time to talk about them on youtube videos. Have fun with these.

Spoiler: She thinks that they are calorie free

Here's another (this woman is a proffesional):

There's about 10 minutes of your life well spent. Lots more where that came from!

Bottom line: People are impressed with the simplicity and purity of ingredients (and this seems to be the case whether or not they know what those ingredients are, so that's interesting.)

INTERPRETATION: This ad/marketing technique is not new or different as far as touting purity and quality. The reason it caught my eye is the Buddha figure paired with calling the snacks a "Lesser Evil" (value judgement paired with a religious figure) and equating healthy eating with mindfulness (which are only so tangentially related as to nt be worth mentioning when it comes to commercial snacks). They are geared toward health conscious and weight conscious westerners who still want to snack and may or may not do yoga or have some eclectic claims of spirituality. I find it silly that a Buddha would be included on the front of a bag of popcorn. It is similar to placing Muhammad or Jesus on the front of a bag of popcorn and claiming that this bag of popcorn will bring you closer to the ideals of that religion. Buddha is such a ubiquitous figure in our culture, yet with such little understanding of the history or practice of Buddhism, that this symbol, which is held dear to many people, is reduced to trinkets and a snack mascot. It made me notice it; it did not make me buy it. Buddhist imagery and concepts used for commercial gain is a shame.

EVALUATION: The strengths of this packaging and website are the simplicity and navigability of its art. Everything, from pictures to wording, is very simple, reaching a large audience. The weakness is that it perpetuates stereotypes and strips sanctity of beloved figures. I suppose that this makes it memorable, but it doesn't pop out and grab you like some showier ads. However, it seems effective. The odd thing is that, although yoga-practicing middle class urban America was who I assumed it reached out to, all the YouTube videos I saw were by southern women on restricted calorie diets. Maybe it is missing their target audience but cathcing success in another.

ENGAGEMENT: Lesser Evil uses their social media to post pretty, feel-good pictures. Take a looksie at this one:

https://www.facebook.com/LesserEvilSnacks/photos/a.173234290637.162672.134914980637/10155352464220638/?type=3

I could not get the picture itself to embed, but seriously, it is laughable.

I found an article which is about a much wider topic, but actually, to my surprise, included the same sentiments about the chips. I highly recommend giving this short article a read. It emphasizes what I've said about these chip bags, while bringing in a much wider perspective about our culture doing this as a whole.

Culturally Appropriating Buddhism

Clearly, these snack makers didn't mean any harm. I imagine that they felt they were doing some good. Still, I would not go out of my way to buy this product, but that isn't a fair assessment on my part because I tend not to buy bagged chips or popcorn of any variety. Still, I would not recommend them to a friend. I might point them out to a friend and say my thoughts about it. Either the friend would agree with me, or I would act as an inadvertent advertisement and my friend would come back to the store to purchase every flavor later. Hard to say.

Hope you enjoyed the read! Have a wonderful weekend!

Maybe if I'm witty enough you'll want to buy my blog?

Happy Thursday!

Using my Twitter account, I looked up a local company which I like and actually buy from fairly regularly: Herb Pharm. If anyone is not familiar with Herb Pharm, they are an herbal tincture company (ie. they make medicinal plant extracts, usually in alcohol). I have personally known people who worked there and never heard anything but amazing things about the people who run it and their processes. I thought they would be good to analyze because of three things: 1) although we view successful companies as usually having litle integrity, herb pharm appears to have a healthy dose of it but is still highly successful. There is obviously some serious marketing going on because they have outcompeted all the other tincture companies, winning the most prominent spots not only in health food stores, but even regular grocery stores like Fred Meyer. 2) I am well trained in herbalism, so am aware of its nuances. Tinctures are the most convenient and shelf-stable preparations for plants. For many plants, they are also the strongest and most effective. For other plants, they are much less effective than water extracts (or in some cases, even eating the plants). Herb Pharm still makes tinctures of many of these plants, such as nettle, reishi, and turmeric, because they are popular and convenient for the consumer. 3) regulations forbid that herbs and other supplements claim to treat, prevent, or cure any disease. The bottles only mention very vague uses (usually just a body system) rather than actually giving the user much of an inkling of what to use it for. Most products have the luxury of being able to extoll all of their supposed virtues. Herb Pharm has to cater to people who already wants their products, say "you should buy our products because you like us!," and hope that nobody kills themselves. (Not that that would be likely, but you never know)

They try to remedy some of this on their website (so not social media) by talking about plants in as much depth as they can get away with in their blog. Then they talk about all of their practices and every little detail about their business model. A place on the internet dedicated exactly to them, all about them.

Their Twitter is a little different. In fact, I didn't see a single picture of a tincture bottle there. I saw people and I saw plants. Specifically, when I saw people, they were with plants. Herb Pharm has non-descript, honestly not especially attractive, expensive little tincture bottles (if you take the herbs at their normal doses, then taken daily, you will have taken the contents of one bottle within a week or so, depending on the herb. Echinacea I've downed in a matter of days, when needed.) If you're following Herb Pharm on twitter, or any social media, they're no longer trying to convince you to buy their product - you probably already have. They are reminding you that each of those little bottles has a story - a human story, a plant story, a story of mindful harvesting, a changing the world one bottle at a time story. They're inspiring you to keep up your journey with herbs - and likely buy some of their product along the way (the fact that it's at my local grocery store here in Albany is seriously convenient if I'm ever in a pinch and really need something, even though I personally could grow/forage and make preparations I'd feel better about). But how can you not smile at the thought when you see a picture paired with the caption, "Mark gently massages the root ball of a Lavender start before tucking the plant in the soil for the growing season." Gently massages? Tucking in? What beautiful euphemisms for ripping apart the root ball of a plant before burying it.

I think this campaign is very effective because the target audience is people who are mildly interested in to even well-versed in herbal medicine. They are Oregonians (mostly - we actually even had Herb Pharm tinctures at my local co-op in Indianapolis - so 3,000 miles away) who are still part of the back to Earth movement, likely will eat food which is organic, are concerned with sustainability and other environmental issues. We want to see beautiful gardens worked by people with vision. I think the second half of the efficacy of the campaign is not just that it effectively reaches the target audience, but that is comes there from a genuine place. Coca Cola doesn't care about connection and togetherness, they care about you buying a Coke with your name on it. Dawn doesn't care about wildlife, or they wouldn't have been a dish liquid company. Honey Nut Cheerios does not care about honey bees, or they wouldn't use pesticides which harm them. Herb Pharm, on the other hand, does care about the legacy of herbal medicine, the quality of their products, and the sustainability of their operation. Their success is rooted in truth, even if that truth has a marketing division.

Here is their Twitter so you can see all the pretty pictures: https://twitter.com/herbpharmoregon

If I were the product manager, I would recommend that they market to naturopaths and, if they're feeling gutsy, MDs. They may already do so - I know that they supply herbal education programs with their tinctures, such as the one which I attended in Portland. I would recommend that their label not be such a garish mustard, though it seems to be working anyway.

TOPIC 2: PERSUASIVE TECHNIQUES 

Advert 1: WORKS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShwRCbnw6Sk

 

Ok, ok, I know, it's a little "cheesy," but you have to forgive me; I don't watch TV. Of course, I am exposed to ads, but mainly flipping as fast as I can through them to get to my youtube video or otherwise tuning them out. Nothing really came to mind, so I thought of the ads I liked back when I was a kid (you know, back when having a jingle was considered the ultimate marketing strategy).

1. In this ad, a cute little kid sings a blues song about macaroni. She says that if her dad wants to make her happy, he'd better get her Kraft mac n cheese. Of course, that is a very bratty thing to say, but her singing-dancing-smiling self and the pictures of delicious mac n cheese are enough to make any kid not really notice that. This one also mentions a new kind with ABCs. Maybe parents are supposed to think this makes it an educational food. The part which stands out of course is the jingle, which sticks in your head. I always remembered, and sometimes even would sing, the version that the dude with the saxophone and the louis armstrong type voice would do, but I couldn't find them.

2. The target audience has to somewhat be parents of younger children, since they are doing the buying, but I think more-so it is the children themselves. The image of a house made of furniture that looks like cheese wedges and the silly jingle appeals to kids. This is in line with their other commercials, which included dinosaurs, the flintstones, etc...anything which they could feasibly put in a fountain of cheese.

3. Persuasive Techniques: 

a.) Plain folks Pitch: everyday families with everyday kids on an everyday budget. You can give your kid something they will love - cheap, fast, easy! It is hard to say who that's more appealign for - the parents or the kids.

b.) irritation advertising: ok, this might be accidental, but any jingle played ad nauseum is going to get, well, irritating. That doesn't mean that it won't stay in your head though. It might not even be the TV itself, but your kids singing the jingle, irritating you all the way to the grocery store.

c.) association/stereotype: i put these together because it is a bit of a chicken or the egg thing. This is associating dads as the "fun" parent, so the kid knows that when mom is away and its just her and dad, she can get mac n cheese (maybe also implying that dad is lazy and wants to make the easy meal). Adults oten already hold some of these stereotypes, so get them strengthened when TV programs present them as universal realities. Kids make new assocations (maybe they had never thought of dad as the mac n cheese parent til now, but now they're going to try it out), so the stereotype lives on.

4.) These techniques worked because they make sense. Kraft is not trying to use snob appeal because it isn't a high quality product. I think they DO have a line of supposedly more "gourmet" products, but we all know what a block of kraft cheese looks like. None of their higher end products outsell the original thing in its little blue box (except maybe shells and cheese - I would dream about the lucky times I got to get the shells and cheese instead of the powder and noodles - what opulence!) The plain folks pitch fits the product. Jingles fit children (who rarely tire of anything, even the "song that never ends") and the era. And associations/stereotypes...well, it is hard to tell how well they work across the board, but for people who already agree with them, yes, they work.

Advert 2: DUD

1. In this Tidy Cats ad, the cat is having a hard time finding his little box because he can't smell it
2. The target audience is cat owners
3. Persuasive techniques: 
   a.) "Famous-person testimonial" ok, this is a bit of a stretch, but in American eyes, all cats are famous people. Have you seen the internet? Portlandia had a "marketing campaign" for art of "put a bird on it." That may work for the more artistically cultured, but for the masses, put a cat on it.
   b.) Bandwagon effect: "Cats everywhere are having a hard time smelling their litter boxes" implies that many people are already on this wagon and are having...desirable?...results
   
   
   4. Ultimately, this is one of the dumbest advertisements I've seen. I am a cat owner and have lived in multicat households before. This ad gets two things very, very wrong. 1- cat's don't find their litter box by smelling it. In fact, if their litter box is full, they are more likely to go elsewhere. 2 - if they did find it by smelling it, why on earth would you want them to have a hard time with this??? The image of a cat "holding it," on the verge of letting loose on the floor, is a horrible thought which most cat owners avoid at all costs.
   
   
    

Living in a Digital Age

I have not taken part in social media since 2011 when I deleted my Facebook account. Now, I have a Twitter account just for this class. *sigh* Rob, I will never forgive you for this.

I went ahead and followed a whole bunch of people, organizations, musicians, publications, and breweries. Immediately, a whole bunch of uninteresting twaddle populated the screen. So, a small sample of who I followed:

First, these are 3 people I DIDN'T follow

1) Donald Trump

2) or any other politician

3) Kim Kardashian

Ok, now that that's out of the way, here are some people/entities I followed and why

1) KivaRose Bell-Hardin (@FaeryThorn) - Herbal medicine is one of my passions. Kiva is not necessarily one of the herbalists I'm most familiar with or identify with, but she seems to be one of the only well-known herbalists with an active Twitter account. Getting her "tweets" for the duration of this class will hopefully get me out and about in nature, or at least in my kitchen making concoctions, and not just totally focused on school and work all the time.

2) Warp Records - Because I have been wanting some new music lately and this is a label I've always liked. They did put out an interesting article which I read just now, while I was supposed to be finishing this blog. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jul/03/artificial-intelligence-compilation-album-warp-records-idm-intelligent-dance-music

3) BBC Mundo - because I do, after all, want some real form of news, but dammit I want it in Spanish and from a non-US source. It shows me what is going on in the world from a slightly different perspective and improves my Spanish-skills.

An article I liked was in Spanish, written by El Pais (the country): 

https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/07/07/opinion/1499427117_731612.html?id_externo_rsoc=TW_CM

Its title,"La batalla feminista en el proceso de paz en Colombia: Las mujeres que participaron en los diálogos con las FARC relatan cómo fueron relegadas" translates to "The feminist battle in the process fo peace in Columbia: Women who participated in the dialogue with the FARC tell stories of how they were marginalized." It stood out to me because I was raised in an Egyptian family and am more aware of different political and social movements happening in certain parts of the world. I want others to understand and see that social structure and feminism are fluid and dynamic cycles throughout the world. I feel like they think that women in the Middle East, Latin America, etc, are all just weak and brainwashed, but it isn't the case. They are amazing and brilliant.

I think any tool can be used to empower and strengthen if you use it well, but we don't all tend to use social media and other technologies very well. I think we CERTAINLY create our own echo chambers, probably just as much as they are created for us through algorithms. When I had a Facebook, I don't feel like it empowered me to do much of anything. I thought that I needed it at the time because I was booking concerts, but putting up a Facebook event and promoting anythign via Facebook seemed to actually have no effect whatsoever on whether people showed up or not. It was word of mouth and publications which people specifically went to in order to find out which was going on that night (such as the local zine, Do317 [Indianapolis], etc). Social media allowed people to completely ignore the event (being bombarded with other events) or confirm that they were coming, but then not show up at all. Also, while I had a Facebook, I felt like it was keeping me informed and that if I deleted my Facebook I'd miss important things. Then, I deleted it anyway due to all the other crap that goes along with social media, and found that this wasn't the case. I didn't become less informed, I just talked to people and sought things out on my own. I didn't miss Facebook at all.

Sherry Turkle's talk about us becoming more isolated through our technological connection is very true. For example, a lot of my coworkers are in their very early twenties, and they are all about their Snapchats. It seems like they are incapable of having a conversation without someone's Snap story coming into it. They also are on their phones ALL the time, and not just them, but to a certain extent everybody, including myself. I think it's because we compulsively turn to these things every time we feel the least bit awkward or bored. This is especially concerning to me because I grew up really never knowing what boredom was (except during class in middle and high school, but that's different.) I always had something I was thinking about or doing, and I never felt like there was an empty space in my life. Now that technology has become such a big part of our lives, my brain is actually wired differently. I broke my phone a while back and didn't have it for a few days. I literally remembered what boredom felt like during those two days. I don't think all this supposed "communication" is bringing us closer or empowering us at all. It's sapping our creativity, our spontaneity, and, like she said, our ability to be by ourselves and be just fine with that. During the course of writing this blog so far, I've read and responded to probably 10 texts. Why? Was it necessary? Couldn't it wait until I was done?

I have made my car a device-free zone, for obvious safety reasons. I actually feel more mindful in the car now and I notice more things. Cool, huh?

Mindfulness and practice are the steps I take t make sure I am listening to others. I usually don't have a problem listening to others because of technology and love listenting to others. This is, to be fair, partially due to some of my lifestyle choices. I have a phone, but I would never pull it out while I'm having a conversation with someone, or even out with them. However, I don't have a TV. When I'm somewhere that has a TV, I find it distracting, even if I'm not actually interested in the content on the screen. I can't help but keep glancing at it, even though it's the least important thing in the room.

I haven't downloaded any games to my devices other than just one that I did a long time ago back when I lived in the same state as my parents. It was called "Wordament." It is a simple, nerdy game where you just had to find words on a grid, but it would rank how you did compared to other people and you could have "friends" on it so you could see their scores too. My mom was a total whiz at it, so sometimes I'd play, thinking that meant I'd connect with her. I remember we were playing one time her score was probably triple mine. She, without looking up from her phone at all, says to me "You really need to get better at this" and kept playing.

I don't do gaming or social network, but I feel like texting is its own scial network which I'm very guilty of. It's easy to do because it seems to be everyone else's preferred mode of communication, even for full blown conversations. It means that I keep in touch with some of m friends who I otherwise wouldn't. I have a friend who recently moved to Washington. She and I text every single day, even though if texting didn't exist I double we would call each other hardly ever. I don't know what this means or says about relationships or texting to be honest. I think humans are hardwired to become closest to the communities immediately around them, but technology blurs those lines of who is actually "around."

Food for thought: This uncertainty is something which I think has been mirrored in the videos we watched these past 2 weeks. This week's TedTalk about connection/isolation and last week's about the Arab Spring featured speakers who had both given previous TEDTalks in which they, considering themselves quite immersed in this limitless new world, had expounded the virtues of technology. Then, they did something very, very rare in our culture. They came out publicly in another TEDTalk and said, "I was wrong." All of this technology is very new, relatively, and I think we are only just beginning to understand it. The dust has far from settled on how exactly it is going to fit into our world and culture, and we are just the guinea pigs of the digital age.