“I Personally Believe” These are the Most Illustrious Quotes of 2007

Like such as. Nothing like the Internet to mushroom kooky one-off events into pop cultural phenomena. Below a ranking of the five most memorable quotes of 2007, as reported by Reuters.com (I have no clue as to what metrics they might have used to come up with this list, btw):

1. “Don’t tase me, bro!”

2. “I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and the Iraq and everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for ourgghh.”

3. “In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country.”

4. “That's some nappy-headed hos there.”

5. “I don't recall.”

Can you match the quote to the person who uttered the infamous words?

Don Imus — college student and rabble-rouser Andrew Meyer — Alberto Gonzales — Lauren Upton, Miss Teen South Carolina — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Check out the entire Top 10 list here for some more of those reckless and hare-brained verbal spews that rang and rattled with venomous viral force around the Net this year. Curiously tho, “Leave Britney alone!” was overlooked. What’s that about? Whatevz… Anyway, I’m sure these would all make some funky-ass t-shirts, don't you think?

Pop! Goes the World (Wide Web)

I love the media because it’s at a frenzy: It brims with postmodern delights, and provides at once disarming and unsettling experiences. It dispatches a myriad of visual and auditory episodes at a constant, rapid-fire rate, forcing even the most jaded introvert to wield at least a dash of pop-culture literacy.

The vortex of media today lies online. The Internet is where television, movies, literature, advertising and art all come together, and as such, digital powers up pop culture in ways unprecedented. It both defines and lends pop media (historical?) significance; what was once a trackless waste of disjointed and oftentimes creatively tone deaf cultural concoctions is now the stuff of online analysis, legend and sticky speculation.

Flummery to some perhaps, saddled with meaning and humor for others, pop culture as captured by online is a dynamic, circuitous, and trashy-chic phenomenon that reflects the absurdity and fleetingness of the human condition. Thanks to digital, it is beginning to take on unexpected importance in business, art, and even architecture, as well as in the day-to-day lives of many online professionals.

From comprehensive sites like Cracked.com offering up pop cultural fare such as assessments on the “15 Most (Painfully) Unforgettable Cartoon Theme Songs” and a rundown of the “7 Most Easily Escapable Movie Monsters,” to ezines like PopMatters, “an international magazine of cultural criticism” where literary condescension is par for the course, online is now where pop culture takes its shape.

There’s no denying it. In the catchy words of Men Without Hats, “pop! goes the world.” And my heart. What about yours?

Screenwriters Call Dibs on Profit 2.0

So Hollywood screenwriters are all up in arms about not getting enough dough from Web 2.0 and are calling a strike. Basically, they're fighting over residuals from new media and compensation over work distributed through mobile and online. They want their cut, and they want it now. The consequence is clear: If there's no settlement, the world will suddenly be devoid of those hokey scripts churned out daily out of LA that seem to keep this globe a-turnin'. Reality TV might take over for good. Reruns could rule the land.

Hmm. Ok, I get it. That could be serious. I think. But my question is: Do these copywriters know anything about Web 2.0 that they seem so adamant about collecting from it? I'm all for writers getting paid for their work, but part of me can't help but think this is just a bunch of entitled geeks gunning for the studios so they can keep pretending they're cool and influential or whatever.

My point is, if these Hollywood screenwriters understand new media so profusely, why aren't they using technology to their advantage, rallying troops online, using 2.0 to spread their word (content), and stirring up some support on the Web? And why, when things are down to the wire, haven't they been able to churn out an effective and realistic proposal to monetize their work online, aside from a percentage of DVD sales?

To me, this seems another case of old media realizing too late in the game that the Web is driving nails into their coffin; they're desperately vying to hold on to good days gone by. And producers are doing the impossible to prevent others from taking a dip in their revenue stream, whether it comes from online or off.

Old media can blow chunks, and will inevitably blow away like daffodils in a storm. Soon this will all just be a flash in the pan. Is it really that big a deal if prime time takes a hit? I don't think so. Bring on those reruns. Want to see where scriptwriting is headed? Click here for a sneak peek. It might not be award-winning work, but it evidences this much: The testing grounds for new entertainment--both from an artistic and a business standpoint--are being laid out on the pages of MySpace and YouTube, not on cable or network TV.

So what do you think? Are the screenwriters' demands totally called for, or is this just old media wriggling desperately to survive a changing landscape? Can the Internet somehow strip this strike of its intended impact?

It's Official: There's No Deep Six'ing Hot Gossip

Can't get enough of Britney, even if her latest slip-ups have entered the realm of the cringe-inducing? Has the celebrity game of musical rehab thrown you into a tizzy? Are you losing sleep over the latest blog trysts with the pseudo-news du jour covering B-listers and celeb-politicians? It's all good. You're not morally off-kilter: It's merely your survival instinct turning tricks, apparently.

No amount of hard facts can stem the rising tide of juicy gossip, and there's an evolutionary reason for this. That's right. Check out this article featured in yesterday's Science section of the New York Times, sent my way by one not-at-all-gossip-averse friend in Brooklyn. The article attests that gossip "promotes the 'indirect reciprocity' that made human society responsible." No matter how rational we may be, hearsay and second-hand accounts way in more heavily on our decision-making process than hard truth and figures. Why? Basically, it helps us get along and thrive as a society and whatnot—scientific fact.

Take that, level-headed lobbyists of fair and balanced journalism! Score, media spinsters and PR! Gossip seems to trump facts time and time again, and molds our society with forceful sway.

Duh. It doesn't take a scientist to tell you this. Publicists have known it all along. But now you know for sure: Even the most artless snoozes care for what others have to say, no matter what they say. It's been hard-coded into our DNA and it is essential for our survival as a species.

So don't buy into the hype that totes gossip as an insidious social evil. It does more good than harm, yes sir. No need to read the studies—you can totally take my word for it.

Next time you see a supermarket tabloid screaming sex and scandal on the news rack next to the latest issue of The Economist, make sure to thank the Creator for our impervious instinct at social prying. It's the reason you and I are alive and kicking—even though our collective psyche may end up a little damaged. In the end, the perception of the truth is more important than truth itself. Dare to disagree?

Stay-At-Home Extroverts A Digital Downer

After Thomas Friedman unilaterally announced in the New York Times that the digital generation is way too quiet (labeling it Generation Q), my upchuck reaction was to go online and hate on him on the comment strings of various blog posts and news articles alike. I mean, c’mon! Quiet? If anything, the Internet generation is more opinion-prone and noisy than any other that came before it. Friedman’s assessment did not go down easy with me—after all, I spend most of my time using online as my own personal soapboax, and I know I’m getting heard. I’m proud to say that I’ve skillfully learned the particulars of Internet patois, and I like to think I wield this language with understated professionalism.

After thinking about it some more, however, I’m starting to believe Friedman’s observation was actually teeming with tenacity--more so than I would have ever cared to admit. Here’s my reasoning: The Internet—and on a wider scale, technology in general—used to be the exclusive terrain of techno nerds and Asperger’s geeks. After all, it is easy to tune out through technology when your EQ is on the short end of the bell curve. Now though, being IT literate is a must for anyone who wishes to make meaningful (and lasting) connections with others or for the professional who wants to plump up his or her career. More than this, the Internet has given us the opportunity to work from virtually anywhere—no need to leave our place of residence. Ha! Here’s the rub…

Now, many socially adept professionals have confined themselves to their homes. It is not odd for me to find many a friend on a Friday night at home, hair unwieldy, clothes disheveled, going at it on their laptop computers, desperate to yap it up with anyone who crosses their way. If I was coming home dead tired after a day of hard work, the last thing I would want to do is chat the night away with a smelly roommate in ratty clothes that has spent hours consumed in the Web. A total downer indeed.

Stay-at-home extroverts are a silent byproduct of the digital explosion. I believe high-powered driven types should salvage the wreckage and get office jobs, even if technology allows them to work from home. So what’s your take on this phenomenon? Are we all slowly and silently turning geek?

Our Days Might Be Numbered

Here’s a pre-Halloween treat for all you gore fans shambling sloppily on the Web. Raise the roof for the walking dead! There’s something about zombies that hits a chilling nerve with me. I’m hooked. The whole idea of the dead coming back to create hell on Earth by dismembering the living and eating them alive--especially when converted into social commentary--is at once ridiculous and compelling. On the one hand, zombies are hardly the stuff of political insight, meant only to provoke fear by way of unnatural grotesque (no matter how sucky your day has been, at least your dead uncle isn't munching away at your face, right?). On the flip side--I wonder how much zombies accurately reflect where we stand as a society. Are we surrounded by a social poison that turns thinking men into mindless walking drones? Either way, I find the undead viscerally fascinating.

Anyway, I digress... Back to the main point of this post! In celebration of all things horror (and honoring the fact that it’s a weekend), here are the top four zombie movies I’ve seen of late that I enthusiastically endorse. Check out the clips—nothing beats pints of blood wildly splattering unchecked over rotting minions of undead:

4. Resident Evil 3—So you think you can domesticate zombies? Think again! And who knew the undead didn’t even need human flesh to survive? They just crave carnage, apparently. Click for the trailer here.

3. 28 Weeks Later—Because the Dad turns zombie and still manages to skillfully open doors with his all-access pass. And what about the two-second microscopic glimpse we get at infected blood? Awesome!

2. Dawn of the Dead—The remake. There’s nothing more terrifying than that little girl at the beginning of the movie who everyone thinks is Sarah Polley’s daughter creepily jolting up into place and then charging at the bedroom hungry for flesh.

1. 28 Days Later—Slice up your friends no-mercy style! Who cares if there’s a chance they might not be infected? Now here’s a movie that gets it. I know, I know, they’re not really zombies, as they haven’t technically died yet. Whatever. The infected in this film still own any other zombies out there.

I heart zombies. Do you have any films to recommend? Let me know… and long live the undead!

Peter Piper Picked a Peck of Pickled Pop Ups

Digital media pulls at and molds our everyday experiences in ways unquantifiable. The impact is as exciting as it is difficult to pinpoint; however, as more of us turn to the Internet as our primary means of communication and entertainment, everyday life seems to blur ever more speedily into a postmodern swirl of haphazard and disjointed media experiences.

During an energetic conversation with friends today over Taco Bell takeout and mystery soda, we ended up discussing the possibility that Humpty Dumpty was actually left-handed. Our revisionist theorizations on old-school nursery rhymes were punctuated by ADD-style literary remarks and wacky and disconnected (Western) cultural references. At one point, when I felt my head was spinning out of control into a colorful oblivion of pop media imagery, a friend of mine snapped: “This conversation has too many pop ups!” Ha! What a spot-on way of putting it. I felt Flash ActionScript bubbles and link preview panes popping up around us faster than Google generates an HTML search engine results page. Amidst the multilateral, all-over-the-place back-and-forths, we managed to stay on track. We concluded that Humpty Dumpty was in fact left-handed: The coming together of our disparate media musings confirmed this.

Vh1 was way ahead of its time indeed. Just like the info-nuggets on Pop Up Video, we need maps and callouts to guide us through the maze that is the media so we can focus on the topic at hand and still be true to the tenants of postmodernism. The digital realm is the key. Need to get something on lock? Look it up, blog about it and link to it, no matter how random it may seem. In the end, everything will strangely jive together!

So We Really Do Only Care About WASPs

This is one of the bigger OLA units you'll see on rotation when visiting the homepage of mega-portal Yahoo!. Now, I'm really not one to rip on celebrity gossip mongers and I try to stay on the sidelines when accusations of racism get tossed around, but I really feel I need to call this one out. I don't necessarily find this racist, at least not overtly--but come on! They're all white, skinny, blond celebrities. These photos are almost interchangeable. A lifeless ad cluttered with cookie-cutter Caucasian celebrity pictures at their hackneyed best--zero "click here" appeal, from where I'm standing.

Don't get me wrong. I am actually interested in all these celebrities and have followed their varied careers individually. And I usually rush to click on the first lame-if-strangely-compelling celebrity post discussing who the cutest Hollywood baby is. But how about some variety, eh? Not all cyber-sufers are white I'm sure and most are interested in celebrities of all strokes and ethnicities. Even Jessica Alba, the only non-WASP there, has been completely whitewashed (I guess Jeniffer Aniston has Greek roots, but she totally blew that into bits when she changed her last name). Is this the lowest common denominator?

What's your take on this? Is it implicitly racist?

Online News You Can Use?

It’s no secret that the evolution of the Internet has dealt a mighty blow to many longstanding traditions of mainstream journalism. Today, a new kind of journalism billows from the blogosphere and impregnates the pages of major newspapers, as these publications print news funneled directly out of the online pipeline. Citizen journalism has taken precedence and gained credibility over mainstay journalistic institutions like The New York Times. Through exhaustive and dedicated reporting right from the trenches, bloggers themselves have earned their right, in spades, to take the lead and blaze a trail for other “established” journalists to follow. And follow they have: Today, major newspapers and cable news networks scramble to leverage and understand how the Internet powers up social journalism. In the process, many an established news outlet has tumbled.

I believe the Saddam execution video is an excellent example of this kind of citizen journalism: The broadcasting of the uncensored video online was able to take advantage of the capabilities of social media to shed compelling light on the situation in Irak for the entire world to witness. What troubled me the most when the video was made public was not so much how authorities decided to ardently persecute those responsible for making the video—this was inevitable—it was the fact that mainstream news media censored the video by not airing it completely and doing so without sound.

I believe the world had a right to see first-hand the realities of Saddam's execution in all its raw power, and I hold the person responsible for filming the video and making it available online a journalistic hero. I hope more people around the world follow suit by documenting controversial events on their cell phones or portable cameras and posting these on the Web. Regardless of the motivations, the Saddam video was an act of courage.

Ironically, however, as mainstream news outlets begin to add social media tools to their online publications, it seems news is being watered down, as hard-hitting reports become overshadowed by cutesy and kooky news pieces. Take a look at the mock news from The Onion, which pokes fun at this very situation by headlining an article with “'Most E-Mailed’ List Tearing New York Times Newsroom Apart.” While the piece is by no means real (it's super funny--I highly recommend it), it is dead-on about the effects the Internet is having over corporate news reporting. So the question still remains: While the Web has proven a useful tool in disseminating news with viral speed, is it actually acting as a nullifying force on journalism as a whole? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

More Than a Chatroom With a View

One of my favorite activities during high school and college, back when I had idle time to relax and enjoy TV on a regular basis, was to watch music videos and trash-talk with my friends about how ridiculous or retarded pop videos had become. We picked apart every single element with pretentious posturing ("ugh, it's obvious that that video is a rip-off of Kubrick’s Lolita" or "what an insipid use of irony" or even "those dancers are so busted-looking"), and it was super fun. I thought this was a thing of the past for me. And then the other night, in between closing project tickets online, QA'ing copy for a client, and getting up to speed on the latest Manhattan gossip, I started watching a music video on YouTube called "D.A.N.C.E." by Justice (great video, by the way, I highly recommend it--more so if you are a self-professed hipster). Out of nowhere, on one of the guys' t-shrts featured in the video, the words "Internet Killed the Video Star" flashed in retro eighties colors. Woah.

While the idea is nothing new, I realized all of a sudden that what I used to do before with my friends I do it now online with strangers, on YouTube and Break and MetaCafe and even Facebook. I still love to watch videos and psychoanalyze them to death and pretend I am too cool to walk this Earth, but today I do it online. I am one of those avid commenters that always has something to say about a clip I see on the Web. And then there's the insta-satisfaction I get when reading the comments offered up so freely by other users--sometimes mean-spirited, oftentimes grammarless and retarded, other times thoughtful and insightful, but usually very funny (not to mention random). For me, the World Wide Web is one giant chatroom--a chatroom with a view.

What is TMZ.com if not a digital free-for-all where we all can satisfy our inner voyeur by trashing celebrities from our high horse, along with other users? It's watching TV with our friends, but times ten. The Internet is about looking, but more importantly, it is about participating. Sure, television can satisfy and titillate, but it doesn't captivate or connect in the ways that the Internet does. The music video I saw last night got me thinking: The Internet appeals to the senses much like TV does (through sight and sound), except it also incorporates an extra level of engagement--the sense of touch. By typing away and mousing objects around, users have an active role in shaping the digital media landscape, and this power is evident with every Submit button we click on, every photo we tag, every experience we rate, and every comment we share.

Rainbow Smurfs and Digital Robin Hoods?

I was having sushi last night with some friends at a Korean restaurant off the beaten path in San Pedro (the “Cambridge” of San José, someone once said—the analogy surprisingly fits) when I brought up the issue of my blog. “You guys better check it out, it just keeps getting better and better” I remarked with aplomb, and shot them my trademark right eyebrow lift indicating that my assessment was in fact tongue-in-cheek—this in hopes of getting some sort of reaction from these cynics. I made all efforts to make my blog the focal point of our brisk conversation. Because hitting up my contacts online for comments wasn’t working so well, I decided to shamelessly panhandle live and face-to-face. My efforts have still not been as successful as I would like, but when I checked my blog later that night I found one extra comment. Ahh, my friends! I’m lucky I have them. And it was a carefully crafted remark too—poised and thoughtful. However, commenters have yet to pile on to any of my posts.

Don’t get me wrong, I love having an avid readership, even though it might consist solely of my mom and a couple of friends, but I definitely want to cast a wider net. However, I can’t complain; last night’s blatant self-promotion was fruitful for my digital ambitions to lord over all things digital media. My friends and I had an on-the-spot brainstorming session, a spontaneous attempt to conduct an after-dinner Internet think-tank experiment, where we engaged in a bevy of digital media topics—everything from the grisly to the sugary to the ultra-geek—that could serve as promising topics for future posts. Some of these I’m keeping stashed away for a rainy day, letting them age like a good wine so by the time I decide to author a post regarding one of these topics, I will have a well-thought out argument that absolutely no one will be able to challenge (this is also tongue-in-cheek by the way, I actually hope to stir up a comment string some day so contentious that it will fire up even the most jaded and indifferent reader’s inner Ann Coulter).

So what issues should I touch on right now? Last night we toyed with the idea of the digital Robin Hood, a “good” hacker (I though about naming it a gooker, but it sounds gross, and a little too much like hooker), that instead of accessing restricted networks and opening up cans of digital whoop-ass, would actually patch up security flaws, beautify websites, and create robust and scalable firewalls anonymously and for free. However, we quickly trashed this idea as completely retarded and uselessly absurd. I also thought about discussing my theory of the gay Smurf trifecta: Brainy smurf, Vanity smurf, and Smurfette (who I always though was a full-on tranny—and I’m not talking about a car’s transmission) but this seemed grossly off point and somehow inappropriate. Neither of these seems like a good topic to start the kind of spirited debate I hope to have on the pages of my blog one day. So what do you think? I would love to hear your suggestions.

It's Britney, Twitch

As I was dabbling through my RSS reader this morning sifting through today's posts--scanning headlines in search of something that would grab my attention--I came across various tirades ridiculing Britney Spears' performance on last night's VMA's. So naturally, in honor of my inner voyeur (perennially salivating over salacious celebrity dish--I say Gimme More), I clicked on the play icon of the first video embed I could lay my mouse cursor on. Yes, yes, yes, the performance was a veritable train wreck. Lifeless, awkward, wacky, tacky--stressful even. I know it made me anxious, even though I already knew she wasn't going to fall flat on her face despite what all her spastic movements seemed to indicate. The celebrity audience, hesitant and puzzled, still managed to patter applause. Personally, I was actually impressed Britney was able to keep her balance throughout--I bet it's not easy to stagger around like that to the beat of a song onstage while wearing stiletto boots, a hooker's get-up, and a wig, all while doped up. I should know. I give her props just for that, for sure.

Anyway, the inevitable digital blitz that has ensued is proof that now more than ever, the medium really is the message. The real event wasn't the actual performance per se, but what came after. So Britney bombed onstage--who cares? The answer is, a lot of us do, and we need to talk about it. If it wasn't for the media documenting all her crazy, drug-fueled antics obsessively-compulsively (the head-shaving incident still makes tops--and hey, it's her prerogative), we would have not cared that much in the first place. It is the media that makes it what it is, and that gives it cultural (in)significance. The shocker is not what the live audience saw last night; it is what the media-inclined are experiencing today--on YouTube, on blogs, in news reports and gossip magazines. Last night, it was just one more mediocre, stale-ass performance. Today, it is an event. It is social construction at its best, live and in real time, and we are all invited. That's the power of digital media. Events aren't important the very second they happen; rather, they gain momentum with time and talk.

The Internet is Mentos to pop cultural Diet Coke. As I read and fervently consumed the comments being tossed around regarding Britney's fiasco, I couldn't help but smile. The one that made me laugh the hardest: "It's Britney, twitch." Genius.

I Am African

I like to think of myself as a citizen of the world. With my dual citizenship, I have been afforded the chance to identify with and immerse myself in two different, distinct cultures: that of the United States, that--despite the current sate of world affairs--is still soaked with an endless sense of freedom and opportunity, and that of Latin America, drenched in magic realism and steeped in tradition. I would not pick one over the other. Instead, the combination has served as both platform and springboard to explore and visit other cultures around the world--and I still have a long ways to go. But today, I consider myself international, and believe that globalization, regardless of its discontents, is an exciting phenomenon. Because of my staunch support for global free commerce, I've been called everything from immoral to insensitive to bourgeois, and I've even been labeled a "degenerate"; however, I just shrug these off with a smile. I think all these people are afraid and have axes to grind. I'm all about globalization--it moves in all directions and is in constant flux, and those who wish to keep it in check will only get bulldozed under it's power.

I am North American, South American, African, Middle Eastern, European, Australian, Asian... Or at least I want to be. When I travel, I am most interested not in visiting the sights (although this is fun) but in getting a feel for what it means to live in and be culturally and geographically tied to a certain place. Local media has a lot to offer in this respect. And I've found that, with the forces currently shaping the world, not only is local global and global local--cultural experiences become more acute and immediate. Recently for me, it was London, Motown, the City of Lights, Beantown, Mexico City, and Los Angeles. Soon, it might be Lagos, Islamabad, Tokyo, Stockholm, Buenos Aires. Who knows? As distances shrink and borders fade, even more explosive, exciting, and (probably) violent things are bound to keep happening.

But when it is all said and done, I think we will be better off because of it.

Elements of Zeitgeist: Why Shallow is Meaningful

Recently I touched base with a friend of mine from college I had not talked to in more than two years. The last time we saw each other was ages ago, when I was someone else completely, in my snug apartment in Alphabet City. It was early in the morning--a sad, listless, meaningless morning--and my frustration and impatience erupted in an explosive and derisive verbal attack that punctuated what was perhaps the beginning of the most dramatic falling out I've had with a good friend. I can't remember if I threw him out or if he stormed out, but I can remember the pungent spiritual decay I felt take over me after. I was on a slippery slope and had already decided to take no prisoners and scorch all earth.

Anyway, those were different times. Today I appreciate friendship, and thanks to social media tools, we were able to smooth out the past and bury the hatchet. And as we slowly got up to speed through various wall posts and private messages, I realized that our affinity towards media and pop culture binds us tighter than I would have ever expected. The line that did me in: "Who else in your life can talk about Paris Hilton and Kierkegaard in the same breath?" he pointed out. And he's right. And then the slam dunk: "I'll be sure to fax Lou Dobbs your riot grrl piece." I always found his insights funky yet on point, and both incredibly funny and piercingly honest. It was bubblegum with razorblades in it.

Which brings me back to the point I'm trying to make. Levity and frivolity are powerful tools--they can be coping mechanisms, a way to break the ice perhaps--but it takes a skilled connoisseur to use superficiality to convey something truly meaningful. Back in college, my life was as insipid as Paris Hilton and as hard to swallow as Kierkegaard. Today, it's a whole other story. I enjoy substance and can throw down with even the most uppity intellectual. However, I am most comfortable watching music videos nominated to this year's VMA's on YouTube or catching the latest summer blockbuster. Because today, sometimes a pop song is more telling and has more relevancy to me than say, Dickens. Whether loaded with meaning or as breezy as air, it's the sign of the times. And that's super exciting to me.

A Postmodern Writer's First Post: Let's Watch

I'm buried in work, droopy-eyed, sleepy, and dreading the office tomorrow. And yet I'm excited because I'm blogging for the first time... I'm sitting on the floor with my laptop on my lap, my legs spread forward and crossed, half-listening to a show my friend is watching on TV--something about how a couple of sadistic killers a la Natural Born Killers recorded the screams of their victims during Nazi-era Germany, and then would listen to the tapes during sex to get off. It's actually super explicit, morbid stuff--hard to stomach--but maybe because it's the Discovery Channel the show gets a pass with the PTA crowd. I still believe it should deserve a bit of tsk-tsking. And now that I think of it, I didn't even know they had tape recorders during the 1930's in Europe... sounds totally made up to me. Intense, but made up.

Everything I see or listen to in the media lately sounds completely bogus and fabricated--from the news I read online each morning, to reality TV, to the morning radio broadcasting nutty traffic reports, everything seems neither here nor there. And yet, on a strange, spiritual level, I find it all both comforting and motivating. Because at the end of the day, what is "true" anyway, and do I even want it?

Fleeting--that's where it's at. If it's not here to stay, it's that much more significant. The world keeps turning, wildly, quickly, pulling me in different directions, and when I manage to ease up and listen, I always find a couple of hidden treasures that stop me in my tracks and leave me wide-eyed. What was it for me today? The show on the Discovery Channel? Not so much. It was the tropical drizzle in the evening, the unexpected digital pat on the back this morning, and right now, it's starting this blog, which makes me feel shiny and new.