Making the move to tumblr.

just right this way... :)

high together

don't wanna forget deez linkz.

Housemeister

Wish I could find the album..

First heard deez fellas via their remix of Chromeo's "Night by Night," which coincidentally samples a similar effect from this song. lobes it.

Amsterdam Osdorp

Amsterdam Osdorp from The QBF on Vimeo.

reposted from Prolly is not Probably.

yeah, yeah, yeah WOO!

CANNOT wait for the new album.

Physics makes us all its bitches

Well hello stranger. Haven't seen you in a grip! In the midst of moving back to Columbus, lil' bloggo took a backseat, as did shaving my legs, and administrating my life effectively. So what the fuck! ANYWAY, things I'm high on right now: Tokyo Police Club, Scioto audoban park, cocaine, hipstamatic. Care for a taste?

In reverse order, just to piss me off.

35mm canon or some shit like that.



hipstamatic-it's a new app!




cocaine:
(kidding)

Scioto Audoban park climbing wall:


Tokyo Police Club: Just released their most recent album Champ on June 8th. Because we are all greedy, conniving pirates, everyone's prolly already heard it. There is not one song that I can't bump to. Especially: "Bambi," "Wait Up," and "End of a Spark." Wanna taste? Too bad, lala doesn't exist anymore. I'm bummed too.

Clock Opera

Kudos to Nicky for this fresh jelly. Compared to other remixes I've heard, this one takes the cake. Absolutely stunning.

Do You Speak American?

In his article “Media, Unlimited,” Gitlin asserts that people adopt American culture because it “is a way of being in the world, the experience of a flow of ready feelings and sensations bobbing up, disposable, dissolving, segueing to the next and the next after that—all in all, [that] kinetic feel” (Gitlin 443). After reading this I began to wonder what makes America so fundamentally different from other countries that worldwide, everyone wants to be American, and not English, Chinese, or Brazilian? Gitlin’s answer to this question is that the entertainment industry in America has been aimed at entertaining the common man, and has been widely tested by a diverse domestic population that makes it especially appealing and powerful abroad. But I don’t feel that Gitlin’s explanation is substantial enough. And I can’t help but feel there is something missing.

Why is American culture so pervasive? Brazil, for example, and many Spanish-speaking countries have extremely diverse populations. Brazil gained independence from Portugal much later than the United States, thus cultural influences from Europe are quite apparent, not to mention influence from African countries of Mozambique and Angola that contribute to the culture of the south of Brazil. I would even venture to say that Brazil is more demographically diverse (ethnically and racially) than the United States. So what makes us different?

My feeling about American culture’s permeability revolves around a concept we’ve read and talked about in class: Whiteness. I do not think American culture is attractive because it is so “diverse”, as Gitlin claims, but rather because it is so white. Historically as a country, we have perpetuated that idea that whiteness is the superior color, that whites are the most successful. And for the most part, this rings true in the United States. This idea is accepted in countries like Jamaica as well (as we read about in Outliers)—that the whiter you are, the higher social standing you have.

We even see the entertainment industry dominated by whites. Gitlin claims that many actors are from foreign countries, which is true certainly, but he doesn’t account for many of the directors and producers (Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen) that are white men. Even director Wolfgang Petersen, whom Gitlin references as a successful German director, is of course, white. Sure the actor demographic may be diverse, but the people behind the productions do not appear to be.

So why not England? So why not Australia? These countries have a primarily white demographic as well, so why aren’t children in China saying “Gidday Mate”? I am not suggesting that whiteness is the only contributing factor to American culture dominance, but that it should be considered a contributing factor. Consider the following: America was built under a free market system promoting success and the American dream in which anyone could do anything they dreamed possible. America was first populated by white Anglo-Saxons. White Anglo-Saxons have been successful under the American system. Therefore white people are associated with success. This seems like an utterly elementary theory, but this is essentially how the human mind works. We are conditioned to learn associations between two originally unrelated things (whiteness and successfulness) and the association sticks in our minds as long as we continue to see it played out, which we have.

I think that Gitlin raises a good point with the Americanization of countries around the world being imminent, but I do not think the reasons he offers for this globalization are the only explanations. I think that race definitely plays into it, even though no one from China would admit that they are eating McDonald's because white people eat there. I am simply suggesting that America has perpetuated white superiority both covertly and overtly for so long, that it retains some force in shaping how people perceive American culture as dominant, subconsciously.

Some people may consider Vicky Cristina Barcelona a foreign film. What makes it foreign though? The Latino actress? The location (Spain)? The title? This film was directed by American screenwriter Woody Allen.

392-Rearing

In his/her article “”Is Raising Your Child to be Gender Neutral Possible?” Associated Content contributor WS writes a brief analysis on two texts examining the possibility of raising gender-neutral children. The first is “An Unconventional Family,” in which Sandra Lipstiz Bem highlights two steps needed to successfully raise a gender-neutral child:

1) The first step is to inform the child about biological differences in gender without teaching them stereotypes associated with them

2) The second step is to teach the child to be skeptical of any cultural messages or stereotypes they are exposed to in the media or in everyday life
The idea is to “provide the child with a critical lens that would predispose them to ‘read’ the culture’s conventional messages in an unconventional way” (WS). I like this method because rather than shielding the child from media—limiting what they can watch and read, whom they can talk to—you provide them with the tools they need to view the world with their own critical eye.

In the second article examined, “Family Structures and Gender Personality: Chodorow, Familism, and Pyschoanalytic Sociology Revisited” Denise Segura and Jennifer Pierce assert that rearing children to be gender-neutral is nearly impossible. Some cultures promote community child-rearing and place emphasis on communitarian rather than individualistic goals. In this case, it seems that employing a “critical lens” while examining cultural messages would be, well, detrimental to the culture. A society such as this requires a certain amount of solidarity and conformity among its members to function appropriately, which leaves little room for the individuality that Bem feels is so important.

The author of this article poses some interesting questions at the end in response to what Bem, Segura, and Price have said. Author WS asserts that we should worry not about raising gender-neutral children, but rather try to raise children with gender-appreciate values. He/she writes “we know that there are distinct differences between men and women; there are some things that women are better at than men and vice versa” (WS). But this claim comes from someone who has (likely) been socialized in a gender-biased society, like most of us are. Are there really distinct differences in the capabilities of men and women? I don’t think so. I think that these “differences” can be overcome by a little psychological overhaul.

There are certainly biological and hormonal differences that make women good with fine motor skills and men good with heavy lifting, but that does not mean that these differences cannot be overcome. It’s an age-old argument, but a good one I believe—we all have certain natural advantages regardless of gender that put us on an uneven playing field, not to mention circumstances that we share with many other people, both men and women. This is not to say that men are incapable of dancing ballet and women of carpentry; just that traditionally we have lent ourselves to these roles. Once we detach ourselves from these traditional obligations, there should be no reason that we cannot do anything.

If we were to raise our children to “appreciate gender differences,” we would, I believe, would be emphasizing the differences and giving people an excuse to blame gender for their shortcomings. I think the better practice is Bem’s, at least for our society, in which children are taught to be skeptical of cultural messages. Using this method we create a society of individuals taught to question and think for themselves, rather than a society that just accepts the stereotypes.


Associated Content-Article

Neon Single

Got Neon Indian's new single on the brain. Alan Polomo, 21, originally created Neon Indian as an alter-ego type catch-all for everything that didn't fit his original music persona VEGA. Check, check, check, check it out.

SLEEP PARALYSIST

Inner Animals, yo

Dis is mah friend's band. CD release coming at you from Skully's March 26th, yo.

What does this mean?

Does this video even have a plot? Probably not. Leave it up to yeasayer to set their video in a futuristic casino and spontaneously develop the skillz to play kryptonite as a musical instrument.

O.N.E. video

Alice

Just caught Alice in Wonderland this past weekend. Johnny Depp had a spectacular performance, Alice was somewhat of a disappointment. However, this video containing spliced clips of the original film, leaves nothing to be desired.

392-American on the Verge of Collapse?

The first chapter of Outliers uses an example from American society to introduce the idea of thinking in terms of community. Roseto, a small Italian community in Pennsylvania, has puzzled physicians for decades—Rosetans seems to live significantly longer, healthier lives than neighboring communities. Many speculated that Rosetans follow a healthier diet due to their Italian roots, or have genetics that are naturally more resistant to disease. After close research, however, physicians found little deviation in their habits and genetic makeup than those in surrounding communities. Physician Stewart Wolf suggested that perhaps it is neither nature nor choice that could account for their health, but rather the atmosphere and community that they exist in. The structure in Roseto is egalitarian, grounded in social ties and family. Wolf asserts that perhaps it is not free will that affects our health, but rather our place in the larger society.

Last summer I was required to read Jared Diamond’s book Collapse, which studied the causes of societal collapse throughout human history in a variety of specific examples. Diamond adopts a socio-enviro-anthropological perspective to explain why, exactly, societies so quickly fall apart. And after reading the first chapter of Outliers, I was reminded so much of Diamond’s five point framework. Ironically, after reading about how Roseto manages to produce such healthy individuals and function so effectively, I questioned how it is that certain societies function so ineffectively at times. We must sometimes look to the “bugs” in a system to figure out how it functions normally

Diamond’s five-point framework of collapse outlines five primary factors that exist when a society is on the verge of tragedy. They include 1) environmental degradation due to abuse of resources, 2) climate change, 3) relationships with friendly neighboring societies, 4) negative relationships with hostile societies leading to conflict, and 5) political, economic, social, cultural features within the society that essentially contribute to all the above factors. Diamond places great influences on the fifth factor. Though he concedes that certain societies, for environmental reasons, are more fragile than others, cultural factors and values often dictate how problems will be solved within the society.

I am totally under-qualified to claim that American Society is on the verge of collapse, and I would certainly oversimplify the matter if I tried. However I do think that America fits eerily into Diamond’s framework. He asserts that major reasons as to why the Greenland Norse collapsed were their strong commitment to religion, and unwillingness to learn from their neighbors and adapt to changing conditions. Although the Norse were a far more religious folk than we are, Americans tend to hold fast to other values such as individual success. This value jeopardizes the solidarity within our society and compromises our relationships with other nations. The Norse were unwilling to adjust to the cold winter conditions, and did not learn the techniques of kayaking and seal-hunting (perhaps out of spite) that the Inuits practiced. Like the Norse, Americans usually set trends rather than follow them. Although we can see that socialized medicine is successful in Europe, we resist it because individual success is of the utmost importance. For the Norse, their pride was a detriment.

Another factor that contributed to the Norse collapse was social cohesion. The Norse were extremely close-knit, but so are the Rosetans. What’s the difference? The Norse collapse can be attributed to the fact that they were cohesive, but not self-sufficient. They relied heavily on Europeans in Norway for resources instead of developing other methods of acquiring them. The Rosetans, on the other hand, relied on neighbors, relatives, and close friends for their resources. Like the Norse, we are not independent of other nations. As a post-industrialized nation, we rely on other countries for gasoline, meat, etc. To succeed, we either need to become independent, cohesive unit, or coexist with other nations completely. Right now we are somewhat in limbo.

Now that we have identified a framework for determining how previously successful societies fail, we should be able to prevent our downfall. Wrong. Diamond suggests that even if societies perceive the problems, there is no guarantee that they’ll attempt to solve them, or if they do, choose a route that effectively solves the problem. In American society, I feel that we have perceived the problem, but there is still a good amount of resistance to solving it. Because we are a democratic society, policies take a long time to become established, and diffuse through society…Sometimes, I fear, too long to solve the problem before it spins out of control. At this point, I think we need to work on our flexibility and tolerance to new ideas. We need to be open to new innovations in energy, agriculture, transportation and continue to be plastic in a world where values are in constant flux. We need to, most importantly, put our pride aside and realize that our society is an interdependent unit of the larger world, or else we may experience a fate not unlike the Norse.

Bluish

Bluish from Shannon Schnittker on Vimeo.

fabo'd this earlier today. It's certainly good enough to enjoy a double post. They look like they're having a blast. This also happens to be my favorite song of the day.

Post-Macworld Depression 392

Apple inc. has long been revered for it’s success, which is no surprise considering Apple currently commands over 6% of the US market, putting it far ahead of Dell, and just steps behind Intel. When Steve Jobs took over as CEO of the company in 1997, he turned the company completely around. Though Apple’s successes have a polarizing effect in everyday conversation. In an article “How Apple Got Everything Right by Doing Everything Wrong,” Leander Kahney scrutinizes Apple’s business tactics and employee treatment practices, which effectively render it a bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy is a term we defined just this week in 392, as a formal organizational system used to manage and regulate a large group for a special purpose—in this case—making a profit. The characteristics of a bureaucracy include 1) a division of labor, 2) an hierarchy of authority, 3) written rules and regulations, 4) impersonality, and 5) employment based on technical qualifications.

The article begins curiously, reporting on Apple’s projection of an egalitarian image to outsiders: the parking lot of Apple inc. headquarters in Cupertino, California is set up without reserved spots for higher-ups and executives. Instead, employees who arrive late to work are punished with a bad parking spot. To anyone outside the company, this seems like a fair set-up, and a dream that all cubicle employees fantasize about. However, Kahney reports a dark side—Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple since 1997, has been witnessed abusing handicapped spots when in a hurry. His employees have been known, however creatively, to bust his chops for this, leaving notes under his wipers that read “Park Different” and converting the handicap symbol to a Mercedes logo, matching his hood ornament. All in good humor, right?

Kahney believes not. Her description of Apple inc. as a business model screams bureaucracy. Let’s break this down:

1) Division of labor: Apple certainly boasts a division of labor. Jobs’ employees are specialized in different areas. The hardware and software developers are even housed in two completely different wings (so as not to share information with one another and to avoid understanding the ‘big picture’ of the project). There are few, if any employees that can do anyone else’s job.

2) Hierarchy of authority: Jobs is (obviously) at the top of the food chain. Although Apple generally keeps the dynamics of its headquarters under wraps, we can assume supervisors and managers of each department are under Jobs, developers and researchers, then those that physically build the products. Jobs is certainly the be-all end-all. He has been rumored to be “a notorious micromanager. No product escapes Cupertino without meeting Jobs' exacting standards, which are said to cover such esoteric details as the number of screws on the bottom of a laptop and the curve of a monitor's corners” (Kahney).

3) Written Rules and Regulations: With a company so large and prosperous, it is necessary to keep all employees on the same page. Whether or not this be with memos like in Office Space, there is no doubt that Apple has a way of controlling employees’ every move. Secrecy is key: “At times, Apple's secrecy approaches paranoia. Talking to outsiders is forbidden; employees are warned against telling their families what they are working on” (Kahney).

4) Impersonality: In any large-group setting there is an element of impersonality. Although Apple generally treats its employees well and rewards them with plentiful benefits, there is not much job security. With Jobs, “Even the most favored employee could find themselves on the receiving end of a tirade” (Kahney). It doesn’t matter who you are or what good you’ve done, one lapse in judgment could cost you your job.

5) Employment based on technical qualifications: There is no question really as to whether Apple’s employees are qualified in what they do. To be hired, employees must first undergo a rigorous training process in an area based on past experience in the field. This process, too, is kept incredible private.

Sure, it seems like Willy Wonka’s famous Chocolate Factory with all of its secrecy, but Apple is just playing the game. They’ve found it beneficial to keep their company vertically integrated—unwilling to collaborate or cooperate with hardware manufacturers outside their payroll. It is certainly a bureaucracy by all traditional standards, but is this bad? Office Space regards bureaucracies as structures that strip you of individuality and creativity, etc. But creative “sparks” in Apple employees are encouraged. It is impossible to believe Jobs is responsible for all of the innovation. He knows what consumers want, but his employees are responsible for making it happen. Overall, I think this article is a bit too accusatory (and was probably written by a PC owner). Apple has produced some of the most powerful, yet simple and elegant products on the market. Because all of the software is produced by them, they know how to fix bugs. And everything works together so harmoniously. I mean, really. Have you ever tried running iTunes on a PC? Fat chance.

How Apple Got Everything Right

Here's a humorous video I found. Not really related to this, but still funny.

WHAAA?

pencil printer

Pretty incredible right? A printer that recycles your small pencil stubs into compressed powder and prints onto paper using a carbon-transfer type of technique. AND, it can erase!

The Odd Couple

Incredibly impressed by the fluidity of this compilation, even if it is paired with absolutely (synonyms for awesome) hair stylage. Ever since I heard the Top 40 of 2009 mashup, I had lost a little bit of hope...

want.

Sharky.

An adorable idea followed by thoughtful execution. The Sharky tea infuser has an air chamber in the "fin" that keeps it floating while it steeps your rooibus. Such sport :)