Late Bloomer Theories

I am the very definition of a "late bloomer." I hit puberty later than normal. I'm not interested in things until they're out of style. I am 26 and I'm just now deciding that I could use some muscles on my body. Now, before this gets to be a self-pity session, I want to point out some benefits of being a delayed adapter. A hip-skeptic if you will. I think I might be onto something.

Fame, fashion and popularity are fickle things that change with every issue of Entertainment Weekly. So it goes with many other things in life. The root of these changes is impulse. In fact, impulse drives the majority of the world forward, inspiring people into action with only a few primal gestures of persuasion. New! Improved! Sexy! Hip! Limited! Bargain! Luxury! Its hard not to fall victim to desire when you see those words rushing right at your corneas. The key to resisting these impulses could possibly lie in your hormones.

Now, I admit this is bordering on pseudo-science, but I'm sticking my neck out here to draw some correlation. The desire to adapt to modern trends can be based on your body's synchronicity with the targeted market for a particular product. Consider: A 26 year old with delayed development will not recognize their self as an ideal consumer for a product marketed to their age group. As a late bloomer, this makes sense to me. Then again, it is 3am and I'm writing this because I couldn't sleep.

While I often make friends with people much older than me, I find myself interested in things meant for the younger crowd. I never feel like I fit inside the shoes that someone my age is supposed to fill and this sensation has conditioned me to outright reject most suggestions for things I could possibly enjoy. Well, the first thing we learn in Psychology 101 is to never diagnose yourself, but this is nice food for thought.

I think I'm on the verge of listening to indie music for once.

Preparing for Battle

Some people love confrontation while others shy away. Then there are those who don't like confrontation, but strangely thrust themselves into it because they feel compelled. Tonight's entry is a short one, but it was fun to experience.

I am currently selling all of my furniture because I want to move out of my apartment in a month with little to no excess possessions. My most recent buyer was a very short and petite middle-aged woman (we'll call her Mara) who had her sights set on my nightstand. The piece, originally bought at Ikea for about $45, was listed for $15 in my craigslist post. Considering it was coming pre-assembled and in perfect condition, it was a good deal.

Mara showed up at my apartment and had her game face on. She was in no mood to make friends as she first assessed the size of the nightstand proclaiming, "I'm not carrying this." She inspected the stand quickly and reached into her wallet. She hesitated briefly before pulling out a 10 dollar bill and two 1's. "So, twelve?" she asked, holding the money out and expecting me to pause briefly before caving to her generosity.

"No, the ad said fifteen."

She cocked her head to the side. "Don't you need to sell this?"

"Yeah, but I can get $15 for it. This isn't the first one I've sold."

I stared Mara in the eyes, but she put her head down and marched to the door. With her hand on the door knob, she turned back to me with a theatrical flair.

"Don't you move tomorrow?" she asked with an accusing tone.

My response was a couple notches below smug. "Actually, I move in a month. I'm just getting rid of my stuff now."

Mara sulked against the door knob before placing her hand on her purse.

"Well, do you have change for a twenty?"

HA! Got 'er!

There's more to it, but that would be gloating. The moral of the story is that we sometimes psyche ourselves up for confrontations because we feel that they are necessary. In the event that a confrontation was not necessary, we can end up making fools of ourselves. She could have used some charisma to talk me into a $3 discount, and could have walked out with a bit more pride when I turned her down. Instead, she couldn't look me in the face the whole time I helped her with the nightstand down to the curb.

I don't want to sound like I think I'm superior to dear old Mara, because I'm not. I'm just as susceptible to overhype as anyone else. The only thing that really needs to be said is that this could have been an unremarkable exchange, but instead I got a little chuckle out of it. Just another lesson in the discipline of relaxed living.

Practical Considerations of Piracy

I will admit to downloading many albums of music, many movies and a handful of books without rightfully paying the owner, creator or distributor. I guess that makes me a dirty thief. I could tell myself a thousand lies about how I have a right to this stuff that I've taken, but the truth is that I saw a chance to get something easier and cheaper than is conventionally available and I took it. At the same time, I have purchased more than my fair share of CDs, DVDs and paperbacks. I still don't think I am justified, but I am not about to repent.

There are three ways to look at piracy; the first way is to consider it in terms of loss. This notion is based off the idea that stealing media somehow decreases the potential amount of money to be gained or that it even forces a loss upon the potential profiter. This is part true and part false; a blurry gray line that large organizations love to straddle to drum up sympathy with one hand while swinging the axe of their legal department with the other. Loss is very easy to see because people are now getting for free what they previously had to pay for, with no business model adjustment to compensate. What isn't easy to see is the expanded exposure that an artist may receive by his work being spread through the most viral of marketing trends.

(For the sake of my sanity, I am going to use the music industry as the main example from here on out. It would take too much effort to justify all impacted industries in this article.)

In my opinion, it is impossible to gauge the losses that record companies have incurred from piracy because of a constant downward trend in the music industry's popularity. You could rightfully argue that piracy has caused this trend, while at the same time one could just as well cite the declining quality in both the artistic merits of popular artists and the sound quality of the recordings. Sticking with the idea that piracy is bringing down the industry, it should be worth noting that piracy will probably never go away. As the Internet continues to mature and proliferate throughout the world, piracy will simply perpetuate. Companies victimized by piracy will be forced to adjust, but the question remains; how do you make money when your product is free?

The second way to look at piracy is as though music (or movies) should be public domain. This, like the first way, is part plausible, part bullshit. Music, especially that enjoyable enough to broadcast, is meant to be shared. People have said that music wants to be free. Some artists have embraced this concept in their own business model of burgeoning stardom and it has gotten them pretty far. Jonathan Coulton is a good example of this. The problem here is that an artist must have some other product aside from their recording that people are willing to pay for. In Coulton's case, he puts on many live shows and has been hired to create music for projects such as Valve's Portal. He started as a normal guy who wrote a new song every week and put it online for anyone to download. When you're gunning it solo and starting from scratch, I imagine that every ear that your music reaches is a good thing, whether they paid to hear it or not. In the case of larger enterprises that might take more money to operate, grass roots don't dig deep enough.

Trent Reznor, an outspoken opponent of the current record industry business model, offers the advice to beginners that if you have a genuine talent and a creative message, then the internet can provide you with the tools you need to make your mark without the use of a record label. So what of the artists who deal solely in recorded music without live performance? Some need protection from piracy because music sales are the only ways for them to make money. What about artists who require fancy packaging? Some need to sign on the dotted line because their vision is larger than their pocketbook. There is no simple solution that makes piracy "OK" in all instances. Though, I suppose if you can't justify it to be kosher, you can at least justify it as a form of expression equal to the music you steal.

The third way to look at piracy is as a form of activism. Those dirty pirates are sticking it to the man! Their motivation: overpriced CDs, greedy executives who make more than the artists whose backs they ride upon, antiquated business models. Many people download music to send a message that they will no longer participate in the free market that constantly tries to take advantage of them. Digital Rights Management (DRM), an agreement through which a user may pay to download music with the stipulation that they could not share it, was an attempt by record labels to acquiesce to the changing landscape of music distribution while retaining their rights to the music. The public's response to DRM was that of disgust. Suddenly this new technology was providing them with a product that was even less portable than a CD.

When the consumer base speaks, the companies that listen are bound to profit. Apple's iTunes Store dropped their DRM and welcomed a slew of grateful new customers. Other companies that stuck with the DRM model, such as Microsoft and Yahoo!, subsequently folded their music stores, leaving their customers with music they paid for but could not listen to because they did not own the licenses required to do so. This is evidence of a bumbling incompetence bred from panic mixed with the rabid greed of a flailing industry. What lessons do they have to learn and when will they learn them?

Piracy is bad when used to circumnavigate the payment process. Let's get that much clear. While we aim to harm the label, we also harm the artist. While we aim to teach a positive lesson, we also close our eyes to the negative implications of our actions. Will I stop stealing music? No. As a consumer, it is far easier and faster for me to get what I want when I go through "illegal" routes. If there were to become a subscription alternative to the ease and speed of, say, The Pirate Bay, I would consider it. As it is, my musical tastes leave me unimpressed with iTunes and other services because they don't carry my favorite artists either because of obscurity or rights disagreements. As well, the formats some services offers cannot be played by my portable MP3 player. My message to the music industry: make it hard for me and I will make it easy for myself.

MMMC: Products With Personality

Is anyone else creeped out by the talk of marketing executives when they say they want a product or service to appeal to a certain demographic? "We want kids to see how cool this drink is." This absolutely smacks of manufactured desire. The purpose is to introduce another thing that people will want despite having existed quite capably without it for however long. Let's look at how branding works on us and how badly we fall for it.

I have to start with the corporation responsible for the best branding in the world; Apple. I say it is the best because it is nearly seamless. Apple doesn't need to tell you that their products are hip, cool and creative because all of your friends tell you for them. I consider myself familiar with Apple, despite currently only owning one product of theirs (an iPhone). When I was growing up, my first 2 computers were Apples, so I was privy to the whole buzz about how they were THE brand of computer for anyone interested in graphics. This wasn't just idle gossip back then, it was really true. Apple had the first mainstream operating system capable of 256 colors, then full color graphics. Somewhere along the line, everything evened out when Microsoft vaulted into the market with Windows and the comparative graphic design capabilities of the two operating systems became indistinguishable. That didn't prevent Apple's Macintosh from retaining the mystique of a niche product for creative types. Even when the array of "creative" software available for Windows vastly overshadowed that available to a Mac, the myth persisted.

Apple cashed in on that myth by introducing products and marketing that fed off the creative mystique. As a consumer who typically knows exactly what he wants, I don't see myself purchasing anything from them (excepting of course my iPhone, which is exactly what I want). Conversely, a consumer with only a cursory overview of what a Mac offers against a PC, or what an iPod offers against a Walkman MP3 will likely fall into the trap of walking the path that the cool kids all did. That is the power of branding! Consumers will feel a comforting familiarity with a product, even without having ever interacted with it before, even if it is inferior and more expensive.

I'm not immune to the branding game though. I've made purchasing decisions based on a brand that I've regretted. One company that typically pleases, but also often disappoints is Sony. Here we have a company that makes consumer-friendly products with the air of sophistication and style, but the truth is that Sony's competence across all of their product lines reads like a punch card. They use their excellence in one field to establish respectability in another field. I can tell you that Sony CRT televisions and audio devices are excellent. Their digital cameras, LCD monitors and computers are suspect. Regardless, Sony product launches are generally successful (ignore: PS3) because people see their name and trust it.

There should naturally be a big huge caution flag waving around all brand-related decision making. Sometimes you need to read the fine print. Let's take IMAX as the best example. When you think of IMAX, you typically think of huge movie projection screens that encircle your entire scope of vision, allowing you to watch movies in complete immersion. That's a shame because recently IMAX has been lending its brand name to a breed of movie theater with a screen no different than that of a modern movie house. The only thing setting it apart, in fact, is an enhanced audio system. Still, consumers are lead to believe that this is the IMAX that they heard about from their friends and they put forth a few extra dollars for their tickets. IMAX can get away with this because its not selling IMAX, it's the IMAX Experience. Buyer beware.

Sometimes brands can go bad, so the company associated with them has to jettison their dead cargo before it can sink them. Consumers have to be aware of rebranding, As the internet boomed, it was fueled by equal parts ambition and ignorance. One company filled with ambition and eager to feed off of the massive tide of ignorance was the Gator Corporation. For anyone geeky enough to know about them, their name was synonymous with spyware. This company created software that managed to install itself on millions of computers and proceeded to harass users with unending amounts of advertisements. As you could guess, the Gator Corporation received a lot of bad publicity and was eventually ordered to change its methods. This wasn't before they managed to duck out of the public eye by magically renaming their company to Claria. While word of mouth could prevent a large number of people from falling into a trap simply by avoiding its name, the change of identity allowed the company to squeak out a new last gasps before they were brought down by the courts.

The purpose of this entry is to inspire people to think about the decisions they make that are based on the familiarity they have with a brand. Be realistic about what a brand is; a personality given to an underlying product or service - a sugar coating to help you swallow it easier. Now just imagine if Jelly Belly changed the color of their licorice jelly beans to blue. Wouldn't you still spit them out? (And if you actually eat the black ones... ew!)

Making his presence known...

Earlier today, I was sitting in the park with the writing group that I frequently attend. We had heard all weekend that it was going to rain, but so far it was mostly blue skies behind fluffy white clouds. It wasn't quite overcast, but you could see the dark clouds off in the distance. Part of the writing group experience includes a portion where members volunteer to read their works to the group in hopes of receiving helpful critique. It was my turn to read, so I decided to go with reading my blog entry about religion. Well, as soon as I started reading, little drops of rain started pattering around us. During the middle, I looked up to see people huddled under umbrellas. We had a good laugh, but that's not all there is to this story. As I finished reading the last paragraph, the last drop of rain fell and that was it.

A lot of people would take this as some sort of omen or sign or communication, but I have to laugh at the coincidence. The rain was actually kind of welcome, as the day was quite humid. It was refreshing. Oddly enough, nobody felt like giving me any critiques. I think they were all weirded out.

A lot of busywork has been made of rain dances and animal sacrifices to the gods in hope of rain. To think that they had it wrong all along is astounding. They shouldn't have been praising and groveling to the gods, they should have been denouncing their existence. I feel like I learned something today.

Impressions of Religious Arguments

I'm an atheist, but I don't really like the term. The point has been made that calling someone an atheist is just the same as calling a black person a non-white. However, if using this term allows my points to be understood better than, say, "non-believer" or something else, then I guess I have to use it when I try to communicate. Unfortunately these words will probably never meet the eyes of someone who disagrees with them. They will probably never tell someone something that they didn't already know. This is, like most articles about atheism, preaching to the choir.

A conversation that I had earlier today with a friend had me stating that atheism is not just "another religion" nor is it a system of belief in any way. These distinctions are important because atheism's argument against religion is nowhere near similar to the feuding differences between any two religions (pick Christianity & Islam for an example). The basis for atheism (or, more accurately, the absence of any need for faith) is science and the scientific method. Science is not a belief system because you do not need to take anything for granted when studying it. Every element of scientific law can be proven through experimentation. The same cannot be said for religion and all forms of spirituality, which rely on a person's faith that something exists despite the lack of proof. Trusting science is not a matter of believing because it is obvious, apparent, repeatable and predictable. In other words, you can set your clock to science - not to religion.

A common religious argument seeks to undermine what science calls "theories." (See: evolution, big bang.) It can be seen as noble to courageously challenge such rigorously held principles, but the shameful part about those arguments is that they are presented by those who know the least about science. In fact it is their denouncement of science that in turn weakens their competence in challenging said theories. As with any respectable institution, science has a set of rules that hold all of its theories to strict standards of evidence and logic. The challenges, made with counter-arguments of dueling concepts, adhere to absolutely NONE of those standards of evidence and logic.

One thing that I've learned in life about dealing with people is that you cannot heed another person's opinion before forming your own. It is important to experience another person in order to decide if you like them or not. This idea can be applied to more than just people, so let's talk about how religion tries to form the opinions of its followers before they have a chance to make up their own minds. I've recently watched the film Jesus Camp, which is a documentary that simply shows footage of Evangelical Christian church. The film focuses on the church's intent to indoctrinate children and to form their opinions of many things in life far ahead of any chance they'll have to experience them. They use symbolism and effigy to illustrate good and evil to impressionable kids. We are presented with the statistic that 43% of all Evangelical Christians are "born-again" before the age of 13. What this tells us is that the base of this religion is built upon the intellectual innocents who are devoid of any real world knowledge. Many members of this religion are no different than a sapling that has been strapped to an artificial spine to ensure it grows straight.

Many religions exist harmoniously with others, so you have to wonder what drives certain ones to impose themselves. Judaism, for instance, is not known for aggressive indoctrination or cultural revisionism. They simply exist and often find themselves victimized by the zealotry of other religions. On the other hand there are the Mormons, Catholics or (Hello, again!) Evangelicals who have rigorous methods of "recruitment" and who fight passionately in cultural and political battles for not just their own recognition but the denouncement of others. This friction creates conflict in a world already coming apart at its seams (or rather crashing together at its seams if you want to get technical). Struggle creates unity, so it is natural for any movement to seek out conflict in order to breed conviction. This is human nature; we are stubborn assholes and our psyches traverse many logical gaps to deliver a message to our conscience that we are correct and justified in whatever we do. For religions, which deal in such dire commodities as purpose and existence, it is doubly important to be right and just. There is no room for doubt, which is scary because it conjures images of a rhino charging forward at full speed with no course correction. Worse than that; given how contained and sheltered the lives of these religious radicals are, how do they know they're charging at the right target? Faith, I guess.

When speaking of humanity's convictions to its own justifications, we must address people who claim to have experienced God in some form. As an individual who has known many of these people in my life, I have never heard an "encounter" story from someone who seemed at all doubtful or inquisitive about their revelation. With all of religion's teachings smacking of self-service, the mind of man is busy at work rewriting the path to his own lie so that even he cannot retrace it to its truth. The arguments against finding evidence of revelation or having doubt in its occurrence belie the motives of faith; to suspend an individual's perception of reality upon a string tied to a cloud.

So, what do articles like this hope to achieve? Well, the hope is that it reaches someone high up in those clouds and that they become aware of that string. Maybe they can untie it themselves and when they hit the ground they can embrace its firmness, solidity and foundation. Unfortunately, I'm sure that would take an act of God.

Let Me Introduce You To Dan Ariely

Make sure you have about 35 minutes to spare before you begin watching the following videos:

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?
Dan Ariely on our buggy moral code

These links were posted by a friend of mine on Facebook and I took the time to watch the videos today. I found myself very pleased with the material covered in them.

The first video introduces the idea that the decisions we make can be influenced more by external factors than our own intuitions. I've long been a believer that situations often trump personal feelings in influencing a person's actions and decisions. This video articulates that point better than I could ever hope to.

The second video talks about morals and how, once again, situational variables are the most prominent influence in how "moral" we act. I personally don't give any moral argument much attention because of exactly this. Situations and environments can coax us to forgo any moral convictions we might have, all the while convincing us that we are still in the right.

The public, in general, is quick to jump down the throats of any wrong-doer who is unlucky enough to end up in the news. The truth is that there are very few "bad" men in the world, but people can certainly lose sight of all standard "morality" in the face of powerful circumstances. Some of those circumstances stroke a person's confidence enough to coax them into manipulation. Some circumstances press at a person's patience to induce an irrational panic. There is some delusion that men who face such circumstances and resist their powerful influence are somehow heroic or noble. It could be that they are simply immune to the stimulants that others would be "corrupted" by.

Watching these videos certainly press the reset button on your preconceptions of morality and decency. I will certainly be posting more thoughts as I think deeper on the subject.

What "Milk" Teaches Us About Democracy

I just watched the recent Sean Penn movie "Milk" that details the life of Harvey Milk, a gay rights activist who fights his way through adversity to eventually become the first openly gay person elected to major public office. You can debate all you want about the cinematic merits of this movie, but the one element about it that stuck with me was its passionate use of democracy. Yes, it was only a Hollywood movie, but it was based on real events and everything that happens in the movie surrounding politics shines a light on the real world, letting us know that we too can direct our destinies if we know how the game works. Here are a few select points that I took away from the movie that helped me realize how tangible the concept of democracy really is. This article is written for everyone who has ever wanted to make a difference in their world. (It also contains spoilers.)

Note: The movie takes place in the 70's, which was a totally different social landscape from today, but there were still many similarities. The biggest difference is the existence of the internet. The influence of the internet has changed the way we look at politics, and I intend to address those changes herein.

Local politics have a larger impact on your life than national politics. As a child of the internet, I frequently find myself in debate with people who want their opinions heard in every corner of the world. We can't help it because that's what the internet promises us; from our tiny home offices we can broadcast our ideas across the ocean. Now, when we think of an issue, we think of it as a national issue. We look to President Obama to fix our problems when we should be looking a little closer to home. The reality is that most legislation passed in Washington D.C. does not affect you nearly as much as the ordinances passed in your local town hall, co-op board meetings, or home owners' association. Those are the real policies that affect your lives. The beauty here is that once an example is made on a local stage, it can easily spread to wider consideration with the right momentum.

In the movie, Harvey Milk sees his livelihood threatened by a vote that takes place on the clear other side of the country, but he realizes that he can still protect his own turf. Though he cannot save the many people affected in other cities and states, he can still stick up for the gays in his own city. He also realizes that his fight has the potential to set a national example, but he doesn't take the fight to Washington, he takes it to the City Hall. After having taken City Hall with his influence, the fight is brought to the entire state of California, where the war of Proposition 6 became a culmination of many local battles fought all over the world.

Local politics are easier to influence than national politics. Let's start by saying that before you go national, you have to start local. Once again, the internet has warped our sense of locality and the debates that we start are aimed at people spread out in many different geographic and cultural areas. We start arguments that cannot be settled by a single resolution that pleases everyone. This is why local politics are both necessary and easier to resolve. When you act locally, you are appealing to more people who share something in common with you. You are also trying to convince a LOT less people, which should do wonders for that ulcer you'll develop as you spend your life in constant debate.

In the movie, several failed elections go by before the district that Harvey is running as supervisor for gets redefined and he realizes that his constituents are a mix of hippies and gays. If you're going to run on a platform of tolerance and progressive ideas, you couldn't ask for a better public to answer to. Sometimes, to get your voice heard, you don't need to convince the non-believers, you just need to gather enough support from your own kind.

You have to be willing to fight for what you believe in. Sometimes politics can get ugly. Most people who get into them are there because they want to make life better for others, not just themselves. They are willing to give the hours of their lives and sometimes even their own blood to make sure that their kind is protected. Rioting, a fact of life, occurs when the people are angry and are not given a proper forum to demonstrate their views. The internet, I believe, has taken us out of the streets and set us comfortably in our chairs, but this dispersion of passion can only serve to weaken the collective voice. Taking a message to the streets presents the government with a tangible point that it must address directly.

In the movie, there is mention of riots at every turn. The public gets angry and begins to gather in the streets. Milk sees it as his responsibility to prevent riots by giving his public an outlet for their anger by marching them to City Hall to deliver a message to city officials. This is true passion in action; a gathering of people whose only resort is to demonstrate. There is also mention of riots that happened, in which seriously wounded demonstrators continue to fight, showing that they were prepared to stand up to anything in support of what they believed is right.

Minorities matter because they are people too. Democracy is not about a majority taking over and making decisions for everyone. It is about the majority's responsibility to recognize and uphold the needs of its minorities. Democracy is not about one right solution trumping all others; it is about a balance that allows many different people to live in the same country together. This is why we have states, counties, cities, and districts. Those of us petitioning for our opinions to be heard and heeded need to do so with the understanding that we share this world with many people who have different viewpoints than us. Though we may be compelled by our creeds to exclude others in our considerations because they defy our ideals, it is important to understand that we are all living, breathing, feeling human beings and we share this land together whether we like it or not.

In the movie, Harvey Milk is a guy who just wants to lead a life like any other person while being true to himself. He cannot help that everywhere he turns he is shunned, ridiculed and blacklisted because of something as private as sexual orientation. His strategy for combating this is to make the ignorant people realize the impact that gay people have on their lives by showing them that they all know someone who is gay. This minority may only be 10% of the population, but their influence still touches everyone. They are, for better or worse, part of the society that we are all proud of.

To conclude this, there are many aspects of democracy that allow us, as individuals, to make a larger impact than we know. Because the national stage is often over-emphasized, we begin to feel as if the balance of power in this country lies with a few key players resting at the top of Capitol Hill. The truth is that the power in a democracy begins with the informed individual and their knowledge and use of the system. If we learn to use what we have available to us on the local stage, through grit and perseverance, we can make a difference in our world. No matter where we want to get, though, we always have to start with the block we live on.

New York City for the Uninitiated

I have lived in New York City for four and a half years now, and I am still in awe of it. There is a sense of pride that comes with being so close to the most iconic city in the world; being surrounded by details I first learned about in reverence from afar, only to find my life shaped directly by them now. Despite the concerns that New York is becoming homogenized, it remains a very special place where things happen that you cannot find in any other part of the world together, interacting peacefully. It is because of this pride that I feel the need to describe this city, through the eyes of a newcomer, to everyone who has never experienced it before.

Let me open up by admitting that I've never been to the top of the Empire State Building, I've only been to one New York museum and I've only seen one show on Broadway. If you're a tourist, you may not appreciate much of what I have to say, because my appreciation for New York comes from the charm of interacting with its inhabitants, not necessarily its landmarks.

To contradict that point, I will start the praise with my favorite landmark; Union Square. Located at a central point between the campuses of several different colleges, Union Square is a stage for everyone to use. A statue of George Washington looks down upon an open ground that has seen countless performances, protests, and gatherings. This is where people gather before they march. This is where they petition for a better world. This is where they mourn in public. This is where the strange is the norm. Last year, I attended a silent rave held in Union Square. A few hundred people showed up with their MP3 players and danced together, to their own music. Weeks later, a public water fight. After that, a pillow fight. It is where a wandering parade of pandas gathered to start Pandamonium. Even when there is nothing going on, it is where people sit and rest, to watch everyone else. Last night, for instance, I watched a small crowd engrossed in a rapping battle, right there in the square, beneath the statue's proud gaze.

I moved to New York because I saw it as the center of the universe. It is a city of people who came to paint a new picture for their life with the stories of others; where they each bring their own unique tastes and influences to contribute to the palette. They dip their brushes in the unique colors that they see in the city around them and each make their own stroke upon each others' canvas. They come from London, Los Angeles, Cape Town, Warsaw, Minneapolis, Prague, Seattle and Little Rock. The sharing and acceptance of culture from all over the world creates knowledge within every citizen here that you cannot gain by staying home.

There is an opportunity for everyone within the city. When I first arrived, one of the things I found most welcoming about living here was that there was always something for me to do if I knew were to look. You can take the wanderer route and stumble into a bar on any night and see some talented musician put on a show. You can join a club for just about any activity by searching through craigslist or meetup.com (I'm a member of a writing group that meets weekly). You can take a class on any subject at any of the hundreds of schools, centers and institutions around the city. The key, though, is that every citizen of this city has to take control of their life and choose how they want to spend it.

I come from Los Angeles, which is a city of faceless people. The only viable mode of transportation through the city is by car. As the song goes, nobody walks in LA. Because of this, there are several drawbacks to living there, or anywhere else where cars are necessary. When you go out, you can't drink too much because you still need to get home in one piece. When you can hop in a cab, bus or subway train to get back, you can drink as much as you please. When you drive a car, your social interactions are limited to the two end points of your trip, in comparison to a subway ride, where social interactions happen at every moment. It spices life up a bit and exposes you to humanity. You will see things you like and things you never want to see again, but you'll appreciate the stories you'll have to tell afterward.

The city has taken me in and taught me all about diversity and tolerance. We adopted New Yorkers share a sort of pride that comes with having learned the lessons that living in such a colorful city can teach. As we walk, block by block, and see our landscape slowly transform from neighborhood to neighborhood, we realize that we live in a city that represents the lives of everyone; from rich to poor. No matter what kind of life we live with in the city, we must face all sides of it, and we grow with every exposure.

Some recent sights in the city:

- A guy bashed in the front passenger-side window of a car parked outside my apartment building. He reached inside and grabbed something from the front seat and bolted across 2-way traffic, almost getting hit in the process. I notified security.
- For two weeks in a row, I've sat near guys on the subway who happened to be bleeding from their head all over themselves.
- A gathering of about 14 fashion models (male and female) lounging around in Central Park, taking an afternoon off during a fashion festival.
- An impromptu concert in the middle of the street, with the musician using GameBoys to create his music.
- A 3-block-long line of people waiting to order a hamburger. (Gotta love Shake Shack.)
- Free admission if you check your pants at the door.

Sexual Exclusivity and You (and Me)

I've heard sexual exclusivity being described as utter and complete devotion to a single person and I wonder if I'm too jaded to think this is sane or if I simply haven't felt that way about someone yet. I've been in love before, but its never been that chick flick kind of love where you simply can't imagine your life without that person. I don't know for certain, but that sounds a lot more like fear than love. Every time I've been head over heels for someone, I've felt quite devoted to them, yet I could never stop imagining what sex would be like with someone ELSE. This is my curiosity speaking to me, which is more a function of my intellect than my emotions. So, what is the appeal (or better yet, the purpose) of being chained to one person for eternity?

I would like to first explain that there is a difference between sexual exclusivity and monogamy. Monogamy covers the realm of emotional relationships, while sexual exclusivity covers... well... just sex. Since I'm a guy, these things are separate to me and so I will discuss them as different entities. It is possible to be monogamous while having multiple sexual partners. This post isn't about emotional relationships, though, its about the ownership a relationship partner imposes on their significant others' sex life. I find it pointless, like torture for the sake of character-building.

Let's focus first on why it may hurt when someone you love has sex with another person. I'll rattle off a few thoughts and you just call out if any apply to you:

- You are not enough for them. (You aren't. You will never be. Unless your partner has the sexual intelligence of a male mantis, a single partner will never fully satisfy their curiosity for sex.)
- They will enjoy the other person more. (This is an ego thing and should be gotten over. There is a sensation that is hard to replace, which is the novelty of something different.)
- Sex is an expression of love. (Its not. Sometimes sex is simply advanced masturbation with a real live sex doll.)
- They are sharing themselves with someone else. (Since when do you own them?)
- Its unsafe. (With trust and proper precautions, this is simply an excuse.)
- God/my morals say its bad. (Wow, you're gonna hate reading this blog.)

Imagine a relationship where you tell your partner that they can have sex with whoever they like. Exclude any misgivings you might have with this (see list above) and think about what you would need in order to sanction it. We'll start with the obvious; trust. You need to be able to trust your partner, to know that everything they say is honest and true. Not only that, you need to know that they are intelligent enough to know what is best for them, for you, and for your relationship. Without trust, diverse sexual experiences in a relationship can be devastating. The second need is communication. We all have soft spots and communicating them to your partner is necessary to making sure that nobody gets hurt. You would probably like to know what your partner is up to and you might also want to give them notice about things you don't want them to do (hopefully only because you want to do them together first). The third need is priority. Obviously, this relationship will never work if you're sitting at home wanting sex while your better half is out shagging with someone else.

Now, when you think of it, don't all relationships need those three things regardless of the terms of engagement? My point is that most relationships where sexual diversity is forbidden are usually lacking those needs in the first place. The compulsion to restrict your partner's sexual experiences comes as a defense mechanism for the insecurity you feel within your relationship. Once a couple has established themselves with a solid foundation of trust, communication and priority, the concept of sex can be expanded to include many different elements, including other people.

There is also a school of people who simply have no qualms with letting their partners fool around with others. No matter what state the relationship is in, sex is always a free act to be shared with whomever. This is a very fertile and open environment to foster a relationship within. Starting from the point of sexual freedom allows a relationship to grow on other virtues rather than the burden of ownership. A bond is then created between two people because of something other than the fact that they have sex with each other.

Referencing my previous blog post about drama in entertainment, it stands to reason that sexual exclusivity is one of the leading sources of conflict in all forms of storytelling. This is good if you're on your couch with a bowl of popcorn to munch on, but if you're actually one of the characters in the tale, you'll be asking for a new scene. The reason why the breach of contract happens so easily and so often is simply because we, as humans, cannot sustain the self-deprecating discipline necessary to uphold an exclusive obligation. Nature wants us to diversify.

Its really none of my business how people conduct themselves in their own relationships, but I cannot help myself when going up against one of the pillars of modern social standards. The truth is that extra-curricular sex is already more pervasive than people are willing to accept. The other truth is that I'd love to prepare society to accept what I consider to be more logical standards. The more people who accept this reasoning, the more people I am eligible to be with. You certainly wouldn't have me, knowing that we disagree on an issue as sanctified as this.

MMMC: Advertising as Entertainment

One of my favorite subjects, apart from sex, is advertising. To be honest, I hate most of it, but the concept of advertising is vast and fascinating. A good friend of mine named Art had a turn of phrase that he used in relation to advertising and branding pervasion: mass media mind control. His vigilance in identifying the role of advertising in our every day decisions has influenced me to take a look at my own life and see how I have been affected. For instance, at a glance and without even leaving my seat, I can identify the logos of 30 different companies affixed to products laying within 5 feet of my chair. As much as I can protect myself from the manufactured want that advertising pushes upon us, the act of consumption manages to invite advertising into my own personal realm. When I roll out of bed and stumble to the bathroom to brush my teeth, I've already seen the logos of 10 different brands. By the time I return to my bed at the end of the day, I will have witnessed over 10,000 attempts to get me to buy, hire or like something.

Most people think of advertising as something that just calls attention to a product or service. The goal of advertising is much shadier than that. Advertising exists to create a desire for something where it did not exist before. The message a company wants to send through an ad is more than "try our product," it is an attempt to shape your world. For those of us who care about true individualism, the answer is not to buy a product in one of 8 colors, but to not buy the product at all.

What I would like to focus on today is advertising disguised as entertainment. I am not easily offended, but this comes close to doing that. The internet may seem like the information superhighway to most, but the reality is that web pages, apart from any actual revenue, are valued based on the number of opportunities they have to advertise to viewers. This is why Google paid $1.65 billion for YouTube, a website that was actually profitless at the time. The worth was not in YouTube's ability to drive straight revenue, but in its ability to attract users for advertisements to be shown to. Now YouTube is THE place that people flock to in order to actually view advertisements, trailers, teaser clips, and "viral video" that all serve to promote products that businesses would like us to buy.

Many companies have created special websites for their products that allow customer interaction. OfficeMax let you "Elf Yourself" during the holidays. Burger King allowed you to order around a subservient chicken. McDonalds graciously invited people to create homemade videos based on their food. Hyundai now encourages you to piece together footage and music to create your own commercial for THEIR car. Facebook is a hive crawling with "applications" that serve no better purpose than to get people to use them for the sake of spreading around the name of a product or company. If this is fun for you, by all means, go for it. In my time working at an internet marketing firm, I spent many hours listening to account executives spouting idea after idea for viral inspiration. Their only goal was to make money; the entertainment was simply the draw. It really is that insipid.

Product placement is another form of advertising as entertainment. You might think of product placement as a relatively new concept that hit its stride in the last 10 years or so (directly corresponding with Will Smith's career), but it has been around for ages. For example, Blue Velvet, a David Lynch movie from 1986, has a scene with its main character Jeffrey Beaumont raving about Heineken beer for a single line without any motivation before moving on to other conversation. There was no logo shown in the shot, only a shining verbal endorsement from a character who would later sneak into a woman's apartment and watch her undress from within her closet. I bring this up to illustrate how advertising is deeply embedded within our culture and that it has been shaping our world and our perception of it for decades.

The acclaimed television serious Mad Men depicts a savvy advertising firm from the 1950's and its creative director passionately searching for the soul of a product for the purpose of a straightforward pitch. The show itself is incredible, but the scenes that depict the creative process of advertising are admirably candid. They explain why advertising is so powerful and they provide a good point of origin for our society's immunity to it. That immunity is why we must now endure a Nokia ad even after we've already paid $12 to watch the new Star Trek movie. Where it once began as a solid black division, the line between content and sales pitch has blurred, splintered and zagged over time. We are almost at the tipping point where all entertainment IS advertising.

I would like to rebroadcast my friend Art's call for vigilance in identifying advertising. Know when something is trying to create a need within you for some product that you never needed before. If you see something you want, be honest with yourself; recognize why you want it. Resist if you can help it.

Future mass media mind control blog topics: brand loyalty, subliminal advertising, brand image, and infotainment. Stay tuned for more.

Our Role Models

I feel that drama has been bred into us by entertainment. I believe that entertainment is in no way a reflection of who we are, but in fact an ideal we strive to reach. Even if the subject in our entertainment is flawed and illogical, it is always more interesting than our own lives; especially if you’re the type who consumes it in the first place. The resulting culture from entertainment consumption is one where satisfaction cannot be had without struggle and peace must be unnecessarily interrupted in the name of progress.

Because I am not the only person living in my apartment, I often find myself watching programs that I don’t particularly like. I use opportunities like those to observe rather than simply consume. The average episodic drama is character-driven, as opposed to plot-driven. This is a great model for longevity because all of the twists and turns come from the characters themselves rather than some series of events that compels them forward to an end. The drama comes from character interaction instead of a sense of impending closure. Because of this, the formula must be stocked with flawed characters that do stupid things and, in most cases, never learn from their mistakes.

Flawed characters create flawed ideals, but they still manage to become role models to the audiences watching them. The viewer manages to find some affinity with their small-screen icons. The characters are always forgiven for their shortcomings and we think we will be too. Life tries to imitate art, and that is where I start to get annoyed. When you meet someone new, don’t you ever think, “Haven’t I met you before?” That’s because you have, and you were sitting on your couch at the time.

This brings me back to the drama that we live with. Imagine the butterfly effect of attention-craving theatrics placed in a situation where calm level-headed patience should suffice. We don’t know how to remain calm because entertainment teaches us that drama is necessary to reach a peaceful conclusion. We are raised to believe that things must get worse before they get better because characters with the wit to solve problems without conflict do not sell advertising. We are pressured to believe that standing up for ourselves requires a heroic and decisive climax because pacifism doesn’t quite dilate your pupils.

One has to realize that the formula for a drama show requires a fictional character to have the emotional intelligence of a 9-year-old. Even this realization will not prevent people from subconsciously absorbing the childish lessons on display. If I were to wish for one simple thing to come out of expressing my opinion on this matter, it would be to have people realize the effect of entertainment on themselves and to have them reflect on how much of their personality and tact can be attributed to the made-up characters they feel they can identify with. I’ll settle for Gossip Girl getting canceled.

Confessions of a World of Warcraft Addict

On the quest to be entertained, one may stumble upon the holy grail of entertainment. What, for $15 a month, could provide endless time-filling occupation better than World of Warcraft? Nothing, I say. I know of which I speak because I have been addicted to WoW, as they call it, on and off for over 4 years. My addiction has seen many attempts to quit, often on the heels of some disappointing drama. Somehow, I keep coming back to its simplistic offer of brainless boredom salvation. I've recently called it quits for the fifth time, once again hoping that this will be the time that sticks. I wrote a similar article for my forth attempt, but even that proved futile in my resistance.

For the uninitiated, World of Warcraft is an online multiplayer role-playing game where players control customized characters in a fantastic 3-dimensional world that covers roughly the same area as the state of Rhode Island. Players are compelled to work their characters up to a maximum level of 80, but the real game doesn't start until you do. At the maximum level, a player equal to those around them must go to various lengths to acquire weapons and armor that will set them apart from the rest and give them an advantage against others.

My previous reasons for quitting the game were simple enough; it was taking up too much of my time. Nothing I did in the game amounted to anything in my real life. I was foregoing parts of my social and professional life to play the game. All of that holds true this time, too. What is the draw, then? The game can't be just a time sink for someone to just throw their life into it without some feeling of satisfaction. Let me explain.

WoW is a game of personal and group investment. Players are encouraged to seek out each other and band together to form large teams. These teams act as support systems, guilt trips, social circles and, most of all, binding obligations. The average player will find themselves involved in a guild of 30+ people who regularly play together to accomplish some goal with the lure of better equipment and social prestige. There are some who play solo, or in smaller groups, but there is always something for them to accomplish, no matter how large or small the scope of their involvement is.

The most accurate description of the game that I have heard is the analogy of a dollar auction. In a dollar auction, you are obligated to pay for your bid, even if you don't win. The only problem is that in this auction, you're bidding against the bank. Every action you do adds value to your play experience, and if you were to walk away, everything you've done will have gone to waste. For players engrossed in a large guild, their responsibility to their role and their obligation to their fellow players acts as a solid grip on their conscience. This is the situation I found myself in, time and time again.

This last time around was different. I had never been more involved in the game before. I was the leader of a guild. Not just any guild, but one that consciously worked to be one of the best. I played the game with a goal and was driven to constant investment of time and thought. Three to four nights a week, I scheduled events called raids where I organized 25 players together and coached them through dungeons that required strategies and skill. Our goal was to prove that we were the best guild at doing this and this took a lot of work.

Raiding was a lot more than 3 nights a week. It was research on strategies. It was practice beforehand. It was gathering materials necessary for all the supplies that would be used while raiding. It was managing of 25 players and their personal schedules. It was recruitment and public relations. For every 3-hour raid night that I was involved in, I spent another 6 hours of preparation. I also had immeasurable emotional investment in the success of the raid that I was leading.

I've known plenty of people who can look at WoW and say they don't see how people can get so involved, but this is only because they haven't given a single minute to the game. Investment is the key here, as commitment is not possible without the feeling that a little bit of you belongs to something. Once you give a little of yourself up, it snowballs into a part of your life that balloons within your cramped schedule and manages to push things out of the way.

In comparison with the other times that I have gotten involved in WoW, I felt like this last time was more controlled at first. I did not give the game any more time or effort than it deserved and I maintained a social life in spite of any commitment within the game. That all changed when I was presented with the opportunity to create and run a raiding guild. This had always been a secret desire of mine because I knew how to do two things well; play my character and lead people. This was my opportunity to show my skill at both. I dove into it with enthusiasm.

At this time, I did not have a job. I had been a victim of the current recession and my schedule was wide open. Seeking occupation for the many free hours that I now had, the investment needed to head such an operation was an easy reality. I took to it with passion and fervor. There were moments when I felt like I could have been using my time more wisely; like generating some cash while I didn't have a job. I pushed those thoughts to the back of my mind while I focused on the more immediate and pressing issue of raid planning. A couple months into it, I could have claimed my guild to be a success, but it was by no means in cruise control. It took constant attention to keep players happy, egos in check and the roster full. My job search suffered because of this.

What makes someone invest so much time into a game? For me, as I've stated, it was to exercise my abilities as a player and a leader. I've always been convinced that leading people is what I was born to do, so I jump at any opportunity I get to do so. I saw it as both a chance to prove myself and a way to practice what I hoped to do some day in my actual life. I suppose it is best to get the kinks out in an environment where there is no accountability. Accountability, it seems, is what ultimately drove me to quit this last time.

Quitting takes an intervention of some sort. For me, its usually from my own conscience. The guilt of playing builds up with all of the reasons why you should quit, but they are pushing against all of the reasons why you have to keep playing. It usually takes one big push... a happening that shakes your grounding in the game enough to dislodge your imaginary investment from its mooring. The motivation for my severance came in the form of a recurring argument. Arguments in the game always shake things up because they snap people out of the comfortable trance of mindless entertainment and make them rethink why they are playing.

When you put so much effort into something, you hope for a couple of things. The first of which is success, which we had. The second thing is respect, which is a nebulous concept in a world of anonymity. When held to the fire, I realized that in a game where accountability could be erased by typing a few commands, using my brand of passion and sacrifice was like feeding caviar to your cat. Vague, I know, but it doesn't matter what happened. All that matters is that I have quit and I am now using what I learned to help my life in areas that actually matter.

Does anyone want my account?

Don't Feed the Animals

It pains me to be referencing Chuck Palahniuk when explaining the origin of my blog's name, but I happen to have gone through a phase in my life where I liked his work. I constantly reflect on a part in his novel Choke where he explained that animals in the zoo resort to masturbation because they have been emasculated and tamed. The animals' natural survival instincts become unnecessary when their food is delivered on a schedule, their lives are suddenly entirely contained in a very limited and fake habitat and they become bored and confused. So they rub one out. All day long.

That sounds familiar.

If its not actual masturbation, then its ego-stroking. Its hourly Twitter updates. Its triple-digit Facebook friends. Its an up-vote on your witty comment. There are so many ways to live our lives within this cage of media surveillance that we don't even miss the wilderness. What wilderness? I'm not talking about the weekend you just spent in the Poconos to give people the impression that you're not lost to the city. I'm not talking about your vacation to Europe where you traced your ancestry to a remote village in Austria where nobody seemed to give a shit. No matter how far we go, we all come back to the cage.

I call this life the pursuit of entertainment. We are desperate for that midnight snack at every hour of the day. If we can't be masturbating, at least occupy our minds. There's Netflix in the mail, a new movie in the theaters, a full drive in your DVR, and a basketball game on live TV. Here's a tip: you should be suspicious when most of the commercial time is given to promoting even more programming. A product's worth is determined by how much of your time it owns. Here we are, eating it up like a guilty pleasure.

This blog will be dedicated to all minutes I have lost in life because I couldn't bear not knowing what happened next. Stay tuned to find out.