The end of an era

So last weekend marked kind of a momentus event. Sherman sold his race car. Now those who know me well know that the race car was the subject of MANY discussions/issues/fights/sore feelings/happy feelings and other "things" of the like in my marriage. Over the almost 7 years I have known Sherman he has raced and sometimes it was really great, and sometimes it wasn't, but it was one of the things he loved to do.

For as much as I have had strong feelings about this hobby, and as much as my family has had very strong feelings about this hobby, its hard to be hugely critical of something that created an opportunity for us to start out relationship. When Sherman and I first met, we lived 300 miles apart, but we were able to make a relationship work because he was in Bellingham every weekend to race. It worked really well for a couple of years.

But then I graduated and moved, but racing didn't. Even though we both now lived in the same town, racing was still 300 miles away. And in the mean time, life proceeded to happen. A house was bought, a marriage happened, and yet still, racing remained. These last couple of years it was actually fun for both of us as I got to work in the pits on the car and become more involved overall. But every year it just gets harder. Gas gets more expensive, schedules start filling up, and house projects start to happen. And in the end, the smart decision was made.

After talking to a co-worker about this, he asked me what Sherman was going to do now. "Because he has to have something to do". I personally think doting over me is hobby enough, but I can see where that would not be much fun for him, so the answer right now is I don't know. It never occured to me that he might find another hobby that would more consuming than racing, but I don't think he will. Regardless, with two brothers still racing in Bellingham we are guaranteed to still make frequent trips there during the summer. Which is ok because I really like the area.

So to my husband, I know this was a hard decision for you. But it just reinforces my beliefe that I married the right man. Thank you.

A little dose of Mr. Chomsky

Few people of this century have influenced our ability to critique mass media and their control on our thoughts and opinions quite like Noam Chomsky. Noam was one of the first people to challenge the commonly held notion that our news sources were bias neutral. Today, anyone who watches “Fox News” and evaluates it with a critical eye, only taking some of what they say at face value because they know the news is coming from a biased sourced has been influenced by Chomsky’s theories.
Noam Chomsky is reported as being the most “cited living person” with over 4,000 of his citations being listed in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index for the years 1980-1992 (Barsky, 1998). He holds rank against the likes of Plato and Aristotle as being one of the most quoted people of all time. This is likely because of the vast plethora of written works of his from which to quote from. Chomsky has written books on a great number of subjects, including linguistics, theory and syntax of linguistics, politics, and mass media critique. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his arguments, one has to admit that with close to 200 published books and articles, the guy can write. And while some of his political pieces are easy to understand and comprehend, one only needs to read a few pages from “Systems of Syntactic Analysis” to realize his ability to write, and think, at a level far beyond the comprehension of most people.
Yet, when one reads an article by Chomsky, then proceeds to see him on video, they can get the strange feeling they have perhaps just experienced two very different people. This same Noam Chomsky, who can be so convincing in print, comes across as somewhat meek and mild when seen in real life. While Chomsky’s words can be strong and convincing, his live delivery, and his presence can hinder those arguments.
To clearly see this, one only needs to watch Chomsky’s opening statements at his appearance in Nanaimo, BC at the beginning of Manufacturing Consent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb_dTOOUuVYChomsky starts out this talk with discrediting himself in a sort of way, by explaining that while some people refer to him as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, they also accuse him of having a rather simplistic thought on foreign policy. And while this can be seen as a way for Chomsky to soften the crowd by ensuring they don’t think he is some kind of egotistical blowhard, he also sets the tone and thought of he’s not a great as some people claim he is.
It is easy to argue that Chomsky is much more convincing in print because Chomsky in real life is much like Chomsky in print – lacking significant and important non-verbal cues. Words are Chomsky’s specialty. The speaking of those words is not. When Chomsky speaks, his tone and spoken rate varies very little. You never really hear him raise his voice or hear verbal excitement. He uses lots of large words and long sentences. While in an interview or giving a speech, he lacks large physical movement. To listen to Chomsky speak and really comprehend his arguments, one has to really focus on the words, and not count on the fact that he will speak in a way in which to keep you engaged. You have to force yourself to concentrate on what he is saying. And the minute you don’t, you have missed a significant point to his criticisms. If you carefully examine some of the interviews shown on the movie “Manufacturing Consent” you can almost see the exact time when the person giving the interview tunes out. The viewer almost gets uncomfortable watching Chomsky go on and on when the person sitting across from Chomsky is obviously no longer listening. This is probably because Chomsky thinks and speaks at a level far beyond that of most people interviewing him.
Much like the Kennedy/Nixon Presidential debates of 1960, in which we saw just how influential the visual perception of someone can be, Chomsky’s visual presence is almost a hindrance to his fantastic work. What arguments he can present so well in writing, he cannot portray with the same excitement in live presentation. While reading a Chomsky political work I may be compelled to rise up and be an active member of war opposition. But listening to Chomsky make that same argument will most likely not have that same effect. This illustrates what some may think of as a fault within our society. The fact that we put so much weight on how someone presents as opposed to what they are presenting I believe shows a failing of humans as highly intelligent specie. We are drawn to that Gatorade commercial featuring Michael Jordan because Michael Jordan has good visual presence. He speaks well, he’s cute, and if he tells me drinking Gatorade will help me become a professional athlete, then I believe him. So I go out and buy Gatorade, but I am no professional athlete. Why? The resounding reason (which is very convincing but not related to this paper) can be found by reading Chomsky’s “Propaganda Model”.
Whether heard orally or read in a book, everyone should experience some of Chomsky’s works. His arguments are some of the most influential of our time, and whether you agree with them or not, they give you a whole new way of viewing and critiquing the world around you.
Achbar, M & Wintonick, P (Directors) 1992. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky
and the Media [motion picture]. Canada: Necessary Illusions and the National Film Board of Canada.
Barsky, R. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Canada: ECW Press.
Chomsky, N. & Herman, E. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of
the Mass Media. New York. Pantheon Books.

Blogging because I feel the need to

Its been a bit of an ugly week - between the election, work, school, gym, I am flat exhausted.

Let first start with school. I am a little disappointed to see that NO ONE left any comments on my last post/paper. But then again, I probably wouldn't comment on it either. I only need one person to like it anyway... I have decided I am most likely going to write my final research paper for this class on blogging because I am finding it to be a rather interesting subject. I have only read one article on it so far and have found some of the concepts surrounds blogs to be rather curious. Do I blog because its a good way to keep in contact with many people quicky and with minimal effort? Or do I blog because I just like to hear myself talk (is this just a forum for one?). I will let you know what I come up with.

As so I gotta talk about it - the election. The DH and I voted the same, but my mother and my best friend voted opposite. And I have had to endure quite a bit of conversation from both about who the right person is to win this race. I am disappointed. I don't know if I am more disappointed in the presidental election or our state governor race, but its close. I am just going to try and remain optimistic. But I am scared.

Work - is kicking my arse. I still struggle so much with this position in that at times I am way over my head, and I am just scrambling to get done what I am able. Sometimes I get tired of feeling so incompetitent. I just want to feel confident in my job. I think if I can just make it to Christmas, the first of the year will be better.

Gym - this is an added stress for me right now that I probably don't need. I am trying so hard to get myself qualified to teach a kickboxing class. Right now that means just taking as many classes as I can. So I am currently taking kickboxing on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday, and teaching spin on Tuesday and Thursday. I don't know how much longer I can continue this schedule. My body is starting to object a bit and its really hard on the weekly schedule. I just don't have enough time. But I have another month of having to do this. My weekend long training for the class is December 5th, and I need to get as much practice as I can before then. So I guess I will just have to buck up and deal with it. I find it interesting how I have gone from thinking I was going to quit when i started school to tryint to do a new program. Sometimes I wonder why I do the things I do.

School - not much to say here except that I am ready for a few weeks without it.

I am wondering if I have a breaking point. I don't want to find out, but I am a little tired of being this busy. Ok - no more whining. Everything is optional. Nobody is making me do any of this.

Do you write angry emails?

While writing my paper for this post, I likely will edit, erase, correct, and rephrase wording many times in order to produce a paper that says what I want it to say, in proper English grammar, and with the right tone. This is the beauty of having time to write a paper. Now, if we were having a conversation, it is almost a given that something would not be said quite right, using poor grammar, or even contain arguments I wished I would have phrased differently. Given this information, it is fair to say that I would present an idea with better information and emotion if given time to put it in text. I believe the same concept applies to angry emails. For an average angry person, the ability to put an argument into written form allows more passion and emotion to be seen. This is precisely because (as our text states) of the presence of reduced social cues, and the distance allowed in which to compose thoughts into text.
How many times have you thought out a conversation or argument you are about to have? Probably plenty and you probably thought you had every angle to the argument covered. Of course, when we actually have that conversation or argument, it usually doesn’t turn out the way we predicted. This is precisely because we cannot fully forecast what another person is going to think or say. Sometimes the angle they take on a subject completely changes our argument and can leave us scrambling for new arguments. And sometimes the words spoken are exactly what were predicted, but there is an emergence of unanticipated emotion.
For some people, the tone and direction of a conversation or argument may completely change depending on if the person being talked to starts to cry, scream, or produce other strong emotions. The presence of tears or anger can completely change the thought process or reasons of one’s anger. But when there is a lack of this feedback, an angry person who is writing has little check (other than his conscience) to keep his own emotions in line. This can lead to CMC seen as significantly angrier than FtF communication.
Our text cites work by O’Sullivan and Flanagin as the need “to always contextualize online communication and to avoid simplistic explanations for what are otherwise complex social interactions” (Thurlow, pg 69) and in doing so, present a valid point. While we can argue that CMC may allow more anger to be seen, it can only be seen if the receiver interprets text as anger. In the same way we can identify a “failed flame” we can state that if the receiver of an angry email does not interpret it as aggressive, then the argument may not have been any angrier than it would have been if spoken.
Another reason emails can be angrier is because as Raymond A. Friedman describes in his paper “Conflict Escalation: Dispute Exacerbating Elements of E-Mail Communication”, they are hugely antisocial. “E-mails are typically received and written while the writer is in isolation, staring at a computer screen – perhaps for hours at a time, so that awareness of the humanness of the counterpart may be diminished (Friedman, 2004).
A second reason for angry emails is the concept of distance. In this example, “distance” is the time in which to carefully (and emotionally) compose thoughts into text. The idea that people can (theortically) takes as long as they need to compose an email that conveys thoughts, complete with emotions. As Friedman (2004) points out, “greater revisability can enhance escalation in another way as well. Because each party knows that the other has time to revise messages, it is more likely that whatever message gets sent will be perceived as being intended and fully thought-out. It was not an accident, or a slip of the tongue”.
Comparatively speaking though, our authors provide research suggesting that angry messages were more likely to happen when people were under a time pressure (Thurlow, pg 71). I too agree that this can be a factor. Especially now that people can type at closer to the rate of thought than they can write, which allows more emotions to be put into writing, without as much thought about the consequences. And it takes only a split second to “seal the deal” and send that nasty, emotion laden, email.
If you Google “Angry Emails” you get a return of over a million hits. A large number of these hits comprise of sites with information on how to handle creating, or receiving angry email. This suggests that the exchange of angry emails is a problem for many people. One particular site provides tips such as “Cool Down”, “Do your homework”, and “schedule a meeting” which all encourage talking out a problem with someone as opposed to emailing them (www.michaelhyatt.com).
Just as we tend to play by social rules when communicating with people face to face, we should remember those same rules when communicating via text. Every word we say (or write) when eventually experienced by another person will have an effect. Though we may not see that effect immediately, it will do more good if we can always remember it is there.

Friedman, Raymond A. and Currall, Steven C.,Conflict Escalation: Dispute
Exacerbating Elements of E-Mail Communication. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=459429 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.459429

Hyatt, M. (2007). Stop: Don’t Send That Angry Email. Retrieved November 1, 2008,
from http://www.michaelhyatt.com/fromwhereisit/2007/09/stop-dont-sen-1.html.