A picture perfect lifestyle
A picture perfect wife
Family, house, kids, and sleeping dog.
We drive the right car
We listen to the right music
We vote the way our preacher
Says God thinks we should vote.
We buy the right foods
We wear the right clothes
We watch the right TV
Never skipping the advertisements.
We raise the right kids
All perfect in school
Never fighting
Never rebelling
Never thinking.
We read the right magazines
We watch the right movies
We play the right games
We hear the right Ads.
All of the perfect components
All nice and clean edges
Of our cookie cutter existence.
Why try for anything different?
Why open my mind?
Life's been just fine right here,
We pay the right taxes.
We support the right government
Surely they know best.
Why should we change?
There's nothing more to life
Than this baking sheet
We read the right Bible
We go to the right church
We vote for the right candidate.
We embrace change!
Bring on the cures for cancer!
Bring on the faster computers!
Bring on the cheaper electronics!
We buy from the right people
Surely they treat their workers
The same way I am treated
We've paid the right taxes
We've voted in the right man
We've defended the right people
...Haven't we?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A "Happy" Meal
At a young age, our generation had already been centered in the crosshairs of one of the largest marketing systems in history. We were no longer children to be nurtured and protected, but now were a profitable demographic. The simple change in culture would soon serve as the catalyst for a much larger domino effect in our culture, our economy, and our diet. The shift in viewing our generation came about recently, when the Fast Food Giant (FFG) noticed increasing numbers of children eating at their restaurants.
Children have always been in restaurants, but the FFG's targeted system has changed this around. Rather than having the children with their parents, the FFG wanted the children to bring their parents. This simple shift in the family hierarchy was achieved only through extensive marketing, which we have all felt. I remember loving to go to McDonald's on the weekends where it was allowable in the budget. It was all about the bright colors, the “tasty” food, and the cheap plastic toys. All of these positive experiences served to create a quite potent system of operant conditioning, and to hook the youth on Fast Food. However, the darker side of the FFG has been exposed in the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser.
This conditioning to enjoy the plastic, unchanging environment of the FFG has also brought with it a darker side, the conditioning to enjoy the food. Our nation's youth, myself included, gets a fond feeling when they think of their favorite fast food place, and has fond memories of the food. However, the food that we seem to be enjoying, and seem to crave actually poisons us, and rots us from the inside out. The quality control is terrible enough to result in high counts of fecal coliform bacteria, or feces, which is found in dangerously high amounts in the meat. We don't know what we're eating, and that is where our targeted generation is flawed. The FFG has painted us a “Happy” meal to enjoy, and expects us to enjoy it without question. The dangerous part of this isn't the food that we're eating, it's that we're buying what they're selling. The dangers of the FFG are many, but one of Schlosser's points brings this idea across. “...Market research has found that children often recognize a brand logo before they can recognize their own name.” (Schlosser, FFN, p.43) The very targeted advertising, coupled with the conditioning that the restaurants provide make for a very addicting combination, “hooking” a demographic just as a pusher hooks a user.
The drug-like FFG has entered almost every part of our culture. This is painted perfectly by my elementary education. Every Thursday was Burger Day, where for lunch the school brought in several hundred Burger King Whoppers. We weren't anywhere near a fast food restaurant, but we were still under the arm of the FFG. On weekends, whenever the budget would allow it, lunch on Saturday was to be had at either a McDonald's, or at somewhere local. It was several years before my family ate anywhere but McDonald's, after my family finally convinced my siblings and I that the local places tasted better. My childhood was punctuated by the FFG, as was my slightly older youth. In junior high, we spent a lot of time traveling. One fond memory was of a Germany trip, where we got derailed from going to the dinner place we were hoping for. Instead of a fancy dinner planned for 7pm, we ended up having to settle for a McDonald's at 10pm. Even halfway around the world, the FFG has spread its grip. This reach has been expanding, but there are pockets of hope.
The city of Humboldt, CA, has no chains in it. The local people don't support any outside businesses, or anything that is a mass chain. A year ago, a Taco Bell moved in, and was subsequently the first Taco Bell to go under. There is no support for chains, or for anything that is part of the FFG. Though our generation has been targeted, and quite successfully, there are spreading examples of resistance, and spreading information about the drug-like follies that this giant brings us.
Children have always been in restaurants, but the FFG's targeted system has changed this around. Rather than having the children with their parents, the FFG wanted the children to bring their parents. This simple shift in the family hierarchy was achieved only through extensive marketing, which we have all felt. I remember loving to go to McDonald's on the weekends where it was allowable in the budget. It was all about the bright colors, the “tasty” food, and the cheap plastic toys. All of these positive experiences served to create a quite potent system of operant conditioning, and to hook the youth on Fast Food. However, the darker side of the FFG has been exposed in the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser.
This conditioning to enjoy the plastic, unchanging environment of the FFG has also brought with it a darker side, the conditioning to enjoy the food. Our nation's youth, myself included, gets a fond feeling when they think of their favorite fast food place, and has fond memories of the food. However, the food that we seem to be enjoying, and seem to crave actually poisons us, and rots us from the inside out. The quality control is terrible enough to result in high counts of fecal coliform bacteria, or feces, which is found in dangerously high amounts in the meat. We don't know what we're eating, and that is where our targeted generation is flawed. The FFG has painted us a “Happy” meal to enjoy, and expects us to enjoy it without question. The dangerous part of this isn't the food that we're eating, it's that we're buying what they're selling. The dangers of the FFG are many, but one of Schlosser's points brings this idea across. “...Market research has found that children often recognize a brand logo before they can recognize their own name.” (Schlosser, FFN, p.43) The very targeted advertising, coupled with the conditioning that the restaurants provide make for a very addicting combination, “hooking” a demographic just as a pusher hooks a user.
The drug-like FFG has entered almost every part of our culture. This is painted perfectly by my elementary education. Every Thursday was Burger Day, where for lunch the school brought in several hundred Burger King Whoppers. We weren't anywhere near a fast food restaurant, but we were still under the arm of the FFG. On weekends, whenever the budget would allow it, lunch on Saturday was to be had at either a McDonald's, or at somewhere local. It was several years before my family ate anywhere but McDonald's, after my family finally convinced my siblings and I that the local places tasted better. My childhood was punctuated by the FFG, as was my slightly older youth. In junior high, we spent a lot of time traveling. One fond memory was of a Germany trip, where we got derailed from going to the dinner place we were hoping for. Instead of a fancy dinner planned for 7pm, we ended up having to settle for a McDonald's at 10pm. Even halfway around the world, the FFG has spread its grip. This reach has been expanding, but there are pockets of hope.
The city of Humboldt, CA, has no chains in it. The local people don't support any outside businesses, or anything that is a mass chain. A year ago, a Taco Bell moved in, and was subsequently the first Taco Bell to go under. There is no support for chains, or for anything that is part of the FFG. Though our generation has been targeted, and quite successfully, there are spreading examples of resistance, and spreading information about the drug-like follies that this giant brings us.
Monday, April 28, 2008
A religious Discussion
[Originally Posted on 4/15/08]
Me: and they're all black
Dani: like your soul?
Me: black ink is nice
Me: haha
Me: naw, i dunno if i even have a soul
Dani: orly?
Me: if i do, it's probably greenish blue
Me: ya rly
Dani: why greenish blue?
Me: cuz i like that color
Dani: lol
Dani: k
Me: what color would your soul be?
Dani: hrrrm
Dani: probably orange
Me: you look good in orange
Dani: thank you.
Me: welcome.
Dani: do you believe in souls?
Me: i dunno
Me: i really have no clue
Dani: hmm
Dani: ok
Me: my religious views can be summed up by "Sh*t, I dunno...."
Dani: lol
Dani: do you mind if i ask why?
Me: sure
Me: uhm
Me: I've grown up in the church
Me: but
Me: I'm very scientifically minded
Me: and honestly
Me: there isn't clear evidence to either side
Me: and until there is, I'm not currently motivated to cast my bet on either team
Dani: hmm how did you come to the conclusion that there's not clear evidence on either side?
Me: took 4 seminars on it, 2 from my church, 2 at Stanford (the Stanford ones were taught by evolutionary biologists)
Dani: i hope i don't sound combative, i really am curious
Me: yeah, not at all
Dani: ah cool
Me: all four agreed
Me: that there is no clear truth to either side
Me: there's proof for both
Me: and proof against both
Dani: such as?
Me: pick something, like DNA
Me: it's a regular system across all life
Dani: ok
Me: that can point to two possibilities:
Me: common ancestor, or intelligent design
Me: there's no proof of either
Dani: true, but there is evidence pointing in the direction of common ancestor
Me: if you look at Darwinian evolution, there's nothing about punctuated equilibrium, which is what the fossil record shows
Me: such as?
Me: *hoping for a link to an archeology journal*
Me: or a bio journal
Me: everything I've read has had the opinion of "sh*t, i dunno"
Dani: lol
Dani: hrrrm
Me: here, let's look at another part
Dani: ok
Me: do you think Big Bang theory and Creationism agree or disagree?
Dani: er, depends on the versions of each theory i suppose
Dani: why?
Me: Bing Bang theory: Compact mass, flash of light (explosion), and universe gets swirled into creation
Dani: alright
Me: now, do you think the Flash of Light mentioned in Genesis is the same one
Me: or different?
Me: haha
Dani: lol
Dani: i wouldn't know i haven't read it
Me: see, they both agree and disagree on so many parts, that there's no concrete proof to either side
Me: in Genesis
Me: it says "God said let there be light (now here's where the translations differ) And there was a great flash, and light was."
Me: or it says
Me: “God said let there be light, and there was light”
Me: either way
Dani: huh.
Me: big bang
Me: and creationism
Me: have parallels
Me: yet
Me: they also want to contradict
Me: for example, common ancestry
Me: goes against creationism
Dani: mm hm?
Me: sort of.
Dani: go on
Me: it can also be argued (and i heard one pastor make a VERY convincing argument on this)
Me: that God used evolution as his means of creating life, starting from something simple (like dirt), and ending with a human
Me: in Genesis, God grabs some dirt and makes Adam, the first man out of it
Dani: hmm interesting interpretation
Me: and, if we believe evolution and common ancestry, we can see that it may have come form the bacteria in the dirt
Me: so both agree and disagree at the same time
Me: everywhere we look, there's nothing concrete for either
Dani: I've never heard an argument for religion that draws parallels to science rather then contradicts it
Me: they both seem to mesh a lot more than people give credit though
Me: it's not common, but it's a growing school of thought
Me: it's the one reason i still have an open mind to Christianity
Me: because both mesh and contradict, yet don't in so many places
Dani: true, but i don't think attempts to reconcile religion and science will ever be TRULY successful
Me: so i can't pick a stance until i see more info
Me: i think they will
Me: we're just not there yet
Dani: really?
Me: yeah
Me: want a scientific faith example?
Dani: sure.
Me: gravity
Me: tell me what it is.
Dani: ah see i cant, but that is why science is so much more powerful then religion
Me: haha
Me: but here's the catch
Dani: mm hm?
Me: scientists don't know what causes gravity
Me: they have NO idea
Me: there's theories
Me: but it can't be documented
Dani: not yet anyway
Me: you can study the effects, same way you can study the effects of religion on human population
Me: but you can't fully define it
Me: but, you have faith in its existence, because you experience it on a daily basis
Dani: but i don't experience god on a daily basis, so where's the parallel?
Me: you're not religious
Dani: no
Me: for those who are, they find a way to experience it
Me: for example, my mother sees the hand of God in every day actions
Me: she can "see" the effects of something she believes to be true
Me: but there's nothing concrete
Me: except the effect on human life
Dani: hmm
Dani: I'd like to continue this conversation but I'm worried about offending you
Me: you have the gravity "scientific faith" side of the view, she has the religious
Me: dear, you can't offend me
Me: so please
Me: continue
Dani: okay
Dani: we have 'faith' in gravity because it has a physical effect on the world which is measurable
Dani: your mother has faith in god because she chooses to
Me: same for the psychological and human effect of religion
Me: there's a dichotomy between religious faith and scientific
Me: both have measured effects
Me: for example
Me: it's been documented that patients who are "prayed" over heal more rapidly than those that aren't
Me: what causes that, i have no idea
Me: but
Me: the effects are there
Me: it's documented and clear that there ARE effects, but the cause of them we can't begin to guess at
Dani: i am sure that religion has profound effects on the physical well being of believers; that does not make it true
Dani: oh
Dani: something really interesting!
Me: hm?
Dani: dawkins theorized as an evolutionary biologist that religion is another survival mechanism
Me: yes
Me: but
Me: he had also theorized evolution as a change mechanism, not as a creation mechanism
Me: he made no claims (that I'm aware of) about where life came from in the beginning
Me: Darwinism does NOT equal life creation or first life
Dani: this is dawkins :P
Me: yeah.
Dani: oh ok
Dani: i thought you misread it as Darwin
Me: no
Me: er
Me: oh
Me: yeah, i did
Me: wow
Me: mybad
Dani: lol
Dani: no worries
Me: but yeah, it's my position that scientists and religious folks have yet to reach a concrete decision on where we all came from
Me: and until that's solved
Me: i can't see myself being fully engaged in a religion
Dani: hmm
Me: my brain is too logically based to work off of blind faith
Dani: yeah
Me: i wish i had the ability to, but I'm not wired that way
Dani: really?
Dani: why?
Me: because you don't have to think as much. :P
Dani: eh
Dani: Craig
Dani: don't even wish for that :P
Dani: most people don't think
Me: btw, there is no possibly way that anyone can argue that the church is bad
Dani: ...orly?
Me: it does wonderful things for the public, the economy, other nations, and so on
Me: the gov't hasn't done anything after Katrina
Me: new Orleans has been mostly rebuilt by churches
Dani: i agree with you, mostly
Me: there are countless 3rd world countries that would not have been rebuilt and would not have clean drinking water had the church not helped
Me: what part do you disagree with?
Me: I'm curious
Dani: oh well i don't exactly disagree actually
Dani: i do think you can argue that the church is bad but you're right
Me: how so?
Dani: most churches do only good things
Me: there are always exceptions
Me: exceptions**
Dani: exactly
Me: for example, the "god hates fags" church
Dani: yup, that one...
Me: the dudes who protest at soldier's funerals
Dani: if you can call it a church :P
Me: i loathe people like them
Me: they go against EVERY biblical teaching
Dani: yup they're f*cked up
Me: yeah.
Me: but yeah, i think the church has done just as much (if not less) harm than any gov't institution has
Me: but it has also done far more good
Me: than any gov't could ever hope to
Dani: the only argument i can make against mild-mannered, charitable churches is that they discourage rational thought
Me: oh, but they don't
Me: not at all
Dani: mm hm?
Me: most of the information I've quoted i learned from Pastor Ortberg at Menlo Pres.
Me: they encourage you to view the facts and make your own decision
Dani: that's good
Me: and we're a very mild mannered church
Me: it's quite common for modern Christian churches to encourage you to come to your own conclusion
Me: well, around here anyway
Dani: yeah
Me: the ones that aren't in that line are Catholic and Baptist, as well as a few others
The concludes the transcript. Hope you read it all, and it'd be fun to hear your opinion on it.
Me: and they're all black
Dani: like your soul?
Me: black ink is nice
Me: haha
Me: naw, i dunno if i even have a soul
Dani: orly?
Me: if i do, it's probably greenish blue
Me: ya rly
Dani: why greenish blue?
Me: cuz i like that color
Dani: lol
Dani: k
Me: what color would your soul be?
Dani: hrrrm
Dani: probably orange
Me: you look good in orange
Dani: thank you.
Me: welcome.
Dani: do you believe in souls?
Me: i dunno
Me: i really have no clue
Dani: hmm
Dani: ok
Me: my religious views can be summed up by "Sh*t, I dunno...."
Dani: lol
Dani: do you mind if i ask why?
Me: sure
Me: uhm
Me: I've grown up in the church
Me: but
Me: I'm very scientifically minded
Me: and honestly
Me: there isn't clear evidence to either side
Me: and until there is, I'm not currently motivated to cast my bet on either team
Dani: hmm how did you come to the conclusion that there's not clear evidence on either side?
Me: took 4 seminars on it, 2 from my church, 2 at Stanford (the Stanford ones were taught by evolutionary biologists)
Dani: i hope i don't sound combative, i really am curious
Me: yeah, not at all
Dani: ah cool
Me: all four agreed
Me: that there is no clear truth to either side
Me: there's proof for both
Me: and proof against both
Dani: such as?
Me: pick something, like DNA
Me: it's a regular system across all life
Dani: ok
Me: that can point to two possibilities:
Me: common ancestor, or intelligent design
Me: there's no proof of either
Dani: true, but there is evidence pointing in the direction of common ancestor
Me: if you look at Darwinian evolution, there's nothing about punctuated equilibrium, which is what the fossil record shows
Me: such as?
Me: *hoping for a link to an archeology journal*
Me: or a bio journal
Me: everything I've read has had the opinion of "sh*t, i dunno"
Dani: lol
Dani: hrrrm
Me: here, let's look at another part
Dani: ok
Me: do you think Big Bang theory and Creationism agree or disagree?
Dani: er, depends on the versions of each theory i suppose
Dani: why?
Me: Bing Bang theory: Compact mass, flash of light (explosion), and universe gets swirled into creation
Dani: alright
Me: now, do you think the Flash of Light mentioned in Genesis is the same one
Me: or different?
Me: haha
Dani: lol
Dani: i wouldn't know i haven't read it
Me: see, they both agree and disagree on so many parts, that there's no concrete proof to either side
Me: in Genesis
Me: it says "God said let there be light (now here's where the translations differ) And there was a great flash, and light was."
Me: or it says
Me: “God said let there be light, and there was light”
Me: either way
Dani: huh.
Me: big bang
Me: and creationism
Me: have parallels
Me: yet
Me: they also want to contradict
Me: for example, common ancestry
Me: goes against creationism
Dani: mm hm?
Me: sort of.
Dani: go on
Me: it can also be argued (and i heard one pastor make a VERY convincing argument on this)
Me: that God used evolution as his means of creating life, starting from something simple (like dirt), and ending with a human
Me: in Genesis, God grabs some dirt and makes Adam, the first man out of it
Dani: hmm interesting interpretation
Me: and, if we believe evolution and common ancestry, we can see that it may have come form the bacteria in the dirt
Me: so both agree and disagree at the same time
Me: everywhere we look, there's nothing concrete for either
Dani: I've never heard an argument for religion that draws parallels to science rather then contradicts it
Me: they both seem to mesh a lot more than people give credit though
Me: it's not common, but it's a growing school of thought
Me: it's the one reason i still have an open mind to Christianity
Me: because both mesh and contradict, yet don't in so many places
Dani: true, but i don't think attempts to reconcile religion and science will ever be TRULY successful
Me: so i can't pick a stance until i see more info
Me: i think they will
Me: we're just not there yet
Dani: really?
Me: yeah
Me: want a scientific faith example?
Dani: sure.
Me: gravity
Me: tell me what it is.
Dani: ah see i cant, but that is why science is so much more powerful then religion
Me: haha
Me: but here's the catch
Dani: mm hm?
Me: scientists don't know what causes gravity
Me: they have NO idea
Me: there's theories
Me: but it can't be documented
Dani: not yet anyway
Me: you can study the effects, same way you can study the effects of religion on human population
Me: but you can't fully define it
Me: but, you have faith in its existence, because you experience it on a daily basis
Dani: but i don't experience god on a daily basis, so where's the parallel?
Me: you're not religious
Dani: no
Me: for those who are, they find a way to experience it
Me: for example, my mother sees the hand of God in every day actions
Me: she can "see" the effects of something she believes to be true
Me: but there's nothing concrete
Me: except the effect on human life
Dani: hmm
Dani: I'd like to continue this conversation but I'm worried about offending you
Me: you have the gravity "scientific faith" side of the view, she has the religious
Me: dear, you can't offend me
Me: so please
Me: continue
Dani: okay
Dani: we have 'faith' in gravity because it has a physical effect on the world which is measurable
Dani: your mother has faith in god because she chooses to
Me: same for the psychological and human effect of religion
Me: there's a dichotomy between religious faith and scientific
Me: both have measured effects
Me: for example
Me: it's been documented that patients who are "prayed" over heal more rapidly than those that aren't
Me: what causes that, i have no idea
Me: but
Me: the effects are there
Me: it's documented and clear that there ARE effects, but the cause of them we can't begin to guess at
Dani: i am sure that religion has profound effects on the physical well being of believers; that does not make it true
Dani: oh
Dani: something really interesting!
Me: hm?
Dani: dawkins theorized as an evolutionary biologist that religion is another survival mechanism
Me: yes
Me: but
Me: he had also theorized evolution as a change mechanism, not as a creation mechanism
Me: he made no claims (that I'm aware of) about where life came from in the beginning
Me: Darwinism does NOT equal life creation or first life
Dani: this is dawkins :P
Me: yeah.
Dani: oh ok
Dani: i thought you misread it as Darwin
Me: no
Me: er
Me: oh
Me: yeah, i did
Me: wow
Me: mybad
Dani: lol
Dani: no worries
Me: but yeah, it's my position that scientists and religious folks have yet to reach a concrete decision on where we all came from
Me: and until that's solved
Me: i can't see myself being fully engaged in a religion
Dani: hmm
Me: my brain is too logically based to work off of blind faith
Dani: yeah
Me: i wish i had the ability to, but I'm not wired that way
Dani: really?
Dani: why?
Me: because you don't have to think as much. :P
Dani: eh
Dani: Craig
Dani: don't even wish for that :P
Dani: most people don't think
Me: btw, there is no possibly way that anyone can argue that the church is bad
Dani: ...orly?
Me: it does wonderful things for the public, the economy, other nations, and so on
Me: the gov't hasn't done anything after Katrina
Me: new Orleans has been mostly rebuilt by churches
Dani: i agree with you, mostly
Me: there are countless 3rd world countries that would not have been rebuilt and would not have clean drinking water had the church not helped
Me: what part do you disagree with?
Me: I'm curious
Dani: oh well i don't exactly disagree actually
Dani: i do think you can argue that the church is bad but you're right
Me: how so?
Dani: most churches do only good things
Me: there are always exceptions
Me: exceptions**
Dani: exactly
Me: for example, the "god hates fags" church
Dani: yup, that one...
Me: the dudes who protest at soldier's funerals
Dani: if you can call it a church :P
Me: i loathe people like them
Me: they go against EVERY biblical teaching
Dani: yup they're f*cked up
Me: yeah.
Me: but yeah, i think the church has done just as much (if not less) harm than any gov't institution has
Me: but it has also done far more good
Me: than any gov't could ever hope to
Dani: the only argument i can make against mild-mannered, charitable churches is that they discourage rational thought
Me: oh, but they don't
Me: not at all
Dani: mm hm?
Me: most of the information I've quoted i learned from Pastor Ortberg at Menlo Pres.
Me: they encourage you to view the facts and make your own decision
Dani: that's good
Me: and we're a very mild mannered church
Me: it's quite common for modern Christian churches to encourage you to come to your own conclusion
Me: well, around here anyway
Dani: yeah
Me: the ones that aren't in that line are Catholic and Baptist, as well as a few others
The concludes the transcript. Hope you read it all, and it'd be fun to hear your opinion on it.
Poetry! Oh Noetry!
[Originally posted on 4/24/08]
If you're thinking,
you're winning.
Your mind is your only tool
Not much else has value anymore.
From the child on the bike
To the adult in the space program
We're all young, naive, careless
We've only been here for a short bit
We seem to enjoy dividing
We make it our goal to split
We regulate how anything can happen
But when the expected comes
We panic.
A product of our own system
This terrorist
We controlled all aspects of life
His cry for freedom is what?
A headline that will sell,
A headline that will bleed
An explosion, a poem.
What's the difference?
Both are a cry for expression
Both try and prove a point
Yet when your own system creates this
You lash down on it
And you expand.
We're sinking our web into ourselves
We're spreading out our control
We're "saving" the world
We're creating more of them.
If you're thinking
You're winning.
Notice what's happening around you.
If you're thinking,
you're winning.
Your mind is your only tool
Not much else has value anymore.
From the child on the bike
To the adult in the space program
We're all young, naive, careless
We've only been here for a short bit
We seem to enjoy dividing
We make it our goal to split
We regulate how anything can happen
But when the expected comes
We panic.
A product of our own system
This terrorist
We controlled all aspects of life
His cry for freedom is what?
A headline that will sell,
A headline that will bleed
An explosion, a poem.
What's the difference?
Both are a cry for expression
Both try and prove a point
Yet when your own system creates this
You lash down on it
And you expand.
We're sinking our web into ourselves
We're spreading out our control
We're "saving" the world
We're creating more of them.
If you're thinking
You're winning.
Notice what's happening around you.
Poetry Attack
[Originally written/posted on 4/28/08]
We are the modern generation
Our words are our weapons
We've been tamed by the media
But change is on the wind
No longer is it CNN
No longer is it FOX
We are the modern generation
Our Diggs are our weapons
No longer is it Main Stream
We want REAL news
We want RELEVANT stories
Our podcasts are our weapons
We don't want the prepackaged story
We don't want your scientifically
weighed opinion, carefully crafted.
Our social news sites are our weapons.
Revolution used to mean picking up guns
Revolution was taking to the streets
Change is on the winds
We are the modern generation
Our weapon is faster
Our weapon is stronger
Our weapon cannot be erased
Our weapons are legion.
We are the modern generation
Our words are our weapons
We've been tamed by the media
But change is on the wind
No longer is it CNN
No longer is it FOX
We are the modern generation
Our Diggs are our weapons
No longer is it Main Stream
We want REAL news
We want RELEVANT stories
Our podcasts are our weapons
We don't want the prepackaged story
We don't want your scientifically
weighed opinion, carefully crafted.
Our social news sites are our weapons.
Revolution used to mean picking up guns
Revolution was taking to the streets
Change is on the winds
We are the modern generation
Our weapon is faster
Our weapon is stronger
Our weapon cannot be erased
Our weapons are legion.
New Blog
Well, I trashed all the old stuff, as it's time to get into some serious blogging. That's right, this thing's going to be updated fairly regularly now, and should actually be interesting to read. I'm going to begin by migrating over a bunch of things from my Facebook notes. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)