Lingering Effects of the Internet

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

-----------------------------------------------

Nicholas Carr is upset and not staying quiet any longer. In Is Google Making Us Stupid?, a recent article published in The Atlantic, he mourns his inability to enjoy long texts the way he once did before the Internet, which he blames. He admires the Internet, but feels that it may get out of hand if its influence reaches any further. And it may have already extended its reach too far to stop its advancement.

Beginning with a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, Carr explains that Google’s ability to obtain any information with the click of a button has shortened society’s attention span. He remembers a time when long essays and books consumed readers’ thoughts, giving them the ability to completely submerge themselves in the text. He laments the loss of the love of reading and believes the problem stems from the Internet, referencing his friends’ and other professional writers’ struggle with long content. Even Nietzsche’s style of writing changed when he acquired a typewriter, but Carr believes the Internet is completely refiguring the way we read, write, and even think. The creators of Google envision an Internet similar to HAL in Stanley Kubrick's thriller, but Carr does not think we should be connecting artificial intelligence to human intelligence, especially when human thought is at a loss. Nicholas Carr appeals to the readers’ logos throughout most of the article, but I feel that his strongest point is that the Internet’s ability to gratify audiences so quickly will destroy a certain aspect of art: silence and patience.

By appealing to readers’ reason, Carr is consistent, using evidence to support his claims that the Internet is a detriment to society’s reading habits. He supports his angle of vision by pleading to his readers, asking them if they feel the same (and knowing that they do). It makes sense that longer passages have become less popular since the Internet’s explosion, and he understands it, but although society is always looking for better, there are oftentimes unforeseen casualties accompanied with what we consider progression. In this case, Carr is referring to books and articles, the best of which are often inadvertently cut out with the fat. People frequently do not even notice.

While most of Carr’s argument is rational, he does reference art once and it seems to me that it is his strongest point. Movies, music, and all other art forms are, in my opinion, best when they leave something for the viewer to figure out. Unfortunately, society’s distaste for deep thought has transformed previously artistic endeavors into instantly gratifying enterprises. A good example would be David Sedaris, a very popular author right now, whose writing style is short, to the point, and chock full of quick laughs. Although I myself am a fan of Sedaris, his format for stories is a new-age compilation of short essays and social commentaries, similar to blogs seen on the Internet. His technique is nothing similar to Herman Melville, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, or even J.D. Salinger. Again, I enjoy Sedaris’ writing but it would seem that his style is exactly what Carr is complaining about in his article. “[Carr’s] mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving streams of particles. Once [he] was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now [he] zips along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” Long, in-depth books are no longer what sell or what people want to read anymore, and the overabundance of small, swiftly satisfying stories have made even the book lovers, such as Carr, unable to dip below the surface.

Many of my friends and I feel the effects of the Internet, constantly chastising ourselves for not discussing anything of any real merit or quality, rather we resort to conversing about blogs, online videos, and whatever cover stories Yahoo is running that day. Many of us even read the blog of a famous rapper, Kanye West, who never posts anything of substance and his social commentaries are always shallow, but since he is a renowned celebrity, his opinion is valued by us, the college kids. “The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations.” Though the act of reading Kanye’s blog is injurious enough to our reading habits, we further the damage by discussing it, indulging ourselves further in to substance-less muck.

The Internet is reshaping us, molding us into nothing more than consumers. “The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network’s reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web – the more links we click and pages we view – the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements.” Facebook, for example, checks what websites its users browse frequently and post advertisements on their page accordingly. Our intelligence is losing its human nature and turning into a big blob of random information, unable to form a singular competent thought. Carr makes some very strong points about his perception of the Internet, but he seems hypocritical, since his article is available online. He complains about shorter articles and blogs that are so to-the-point, there is no art left in writing. But it would seem he is contributing to the problem. Although many of his sentences are long, detailed, and full of information, almost every paragraph begins or ends with a short and simple summary of the section to catch the skimmers. “Maybe I’m just a worrywart,” he states at the beginning of one subsection, then he goes on to explain in detail why that is. He is attempting to attract the very readers he seems to have disdain for, because he fears that he too may be becoming one of them. He cannot control The Atlantic, and has little to do with the fact that an online version exists which mirrors the print, but The Atlantic too takes advantage of Google, bloggers, podcasts, streaming video, and everything else Carr feels is harmful to readers.

Sedaris’ stories are well-written, as are Carr’s, and though they can both be easily skimmed, I, along with many others, enjoy reading them. They are not however nearly as in depth as what most high-schools and colleges consider literature. My thoughts on the subject matter are difficult to interpret in my head, because I have a blog, I write short stories, and I often wonder, “Who am I to question David Sedaris?” But although I may be contributing to the problem (or perhaps merely a product of it), I cannot help myself from wondering how it has become this way. The bottom line, however, is that whatever gets people reading, be it Melville or Sedaris, is good enough. The real reason this is happening to music, to movies, and to books is that they all have to sell. All of these forms of art have a business behind them and it is that business, the drive to make whatever sells, which contributes to the transformation of all of these art forms.

A summary of this article is available here.

xO

Karl/Marx '08

I was watching the Obama Channel the other day and after an hour and a half of listening to Obama's "amazing story," which included a mere fifteen to twenty minutes of actual policy, something occurred to me.

Has Obama ever considered the fact that the reason our economy is in the toilet just might stem from taxes being so high that companies have little incentive to give a damn anymore? "Tax breaks"? REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!? I am tired of the political jargon and the catchy campaign slogans about change and believing. Obama has as little experience as Palin (though hers seems to be the only inexpertness the media has decided to follow) and his hubris, I believe, will be his Achilles Heal. Not since Bill Clinton has a politician been so charismatic, but Bill had experience. I wish McCain would compare Obama's quick rise to Presidential candidate to George W's. The similarities are uncanny and that might get people thinking. From Texas Governor to Presidential hopeful before the end of his first term... And the general consensus is that he has not fared too well, isn't it?

This ad too, an obvious response to this, made me think. Obama responded to McCain's attack because he had to. The nature of the beast that is politics is that a candidate must defend himself or lash back, or it will come back to haunt him later. Obama's purpose, like much of his campaign, was to bend the truth about McCain's history and shed a negative light on it. He is appealing to his audience's emotions through flawed logic; bent truth.

His audience is most likely people who already support him, his "middle class" who are hurting the most right now from the economy and see him as a political Jesus, the Great Healer of Washington, come to make things right again. I believe this because people who are not already supporting Obama will most likely research the claims he made about McCain and realize that although there may be truth found in these false pretenses, it is not the whole truth.

Unless they're teenagers.

xO

Consequences

A little over two months of inactivity and all I have to say is that it feels so good to be back.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27015257/

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-bailout4-2008oct04,0,6267511.story

----

Today I was discussing the bailout bill that was just approved by the House of Representatives, then quickly signed by 'W,' and it got me thinking. Though I had already decided my feelings towards the bailout, playing devil's advocate with myself made me feel almost sympathetic - the key word being almost.

A part of me is upset. These companies, specifically the mortgage companies, and the people who bought into the low flexible rate made a decision financially that ended up coming back to 'bite them in the ass,' as it were.

Should they not incur the consequences of their actions?

Capitalism, you have the floor. What is your response?

Capitalism: Yes!

From what I understand, the basic gist of a free market is that a person or company rises and falls on its on merit.

So is this the death of capitalism?

Or, since this is "the biggest government intervention in the financial system since the Great Depression," is America going to rebuild and become even stronger than it was before, as it did after the G.D.?

Time answers all, I suppose, but some food for thought would be this:

When companies are taught that their actions have little or no consequences, what is the incentive to be an ethical company that really thinks about its actions rather than making decisions on a whim?

Is there one? If there is, it seems to be disappearing.

Actions without consequences create rebels without causes.

Maybe the government will enact an ethical bailout bill next, where it will tell personal business owners how to run their companies so as not to offend anyone under any circumstance. Ever.

Oh shit.

xO

Why So Serious?

"Violence and sexuality are overabundant in movies and television nowadays," said Dad.
"I agree. Poor little Jimmy can't even look up to sports icons anymore. Thank goodness there are still good wholesome superhero movies to take him to so he has some heroes to look up to, even if they are fictional."
"I don't know, sweetheart," interjected Dad, "Iron Man had a decent amount of sexual inuendo..."
"Sure, but Jimmy din't understand that part. That's for us adults," Mom said, giggling.
"Good point, dear. What time does Batman start?"

...But a Batman movie that even adults might not fully comprehend? We, the proud American parents, will have none of it. This is, after all, a comic book movie, so it's likely that a few parents' egos were bruised when they realized the Joker couldn't quite be figured out.

The worst part about it? He makes a hell of a lot of sense.

The Dark Knight has no sexual inuendo, that I can remember, minus the Joker's single reference to Rachel as Harvey's "squeeze;"
The violence is not excessive, as nothing involving blood is actually seen on screen;
Most importantly, the moral of the story is a great one: Batman champions the common good and fights for what is right, even if it is not in his best interest.

So why has The Dark Night become the latest scapegoat du jour for parents of pre-teens and young children?

"It's too violent and the kids just won't understand. It's too dark."

But ultimately, that's the point. No one understands the Joker. No one knows where he came from, what kind of gain he is attempting to achieve, and this is why parents are not very fond of the newest installment in the Batman series.

The conflict in the Dark Knight is a philosophical one. The Joker believes that nothing about life is sacred since it can be taken away at any moment, for no reason, and nothing is ever guaranteed. Since Batman is the opposite, believing life is more sacred than anything else, the Joker is calling his life, his fight against injustice... A bad joke.

Funny, no?

Perhaps the Joker is an analogy for the modern day terrorist. People fear most what they don't understand, which is why the Joker is such a frightening figure. Similar to terrorists, he is not looking for monetary profit, he is not afraid of death, and he refuses to tell his audience exactly what his motivation is.

That being said, The Dark Knight is easily the best film of the Summer, and probably one of the most impressive films in years, encompassing action, drama, humor, and horror all at the same time. However, it is NOT simply a comic-to-film adaptation. Anyone under the influence that this is a simple story should steer clear of the movie theatres for a while.

Might I suggest renting the 1966 Batman which starred Adam West? It's probably right up your alley.

xO

Politics of Fear[ing Political Cartoons]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080714/pl_politico/11719
--

The Obama campaign is upset about the cover of an upcoming issue of the New Yorker, which shows caricatures of Barack and Michelle Obama in terrorist garb, burning the American flag, with a picture of Osama Bin Laden above their fire place.

So, in turn, the McCain campaign expressed its sentiments of disappointment with the magazine's cover as well (if for no other reason than to seem sensitive to the issue so as not to have it used against them later in the campaign).

For Christ sakes, this is satire, people!

These kind of cartoons have been around forever and have always had the intent of pushing people's buttons. And there are entire websites dedicated solely to cartoons ridiculing George W. Bush.

Example: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushworstpresidenthistory.htm

So it's acceptable to poke fun at the current President for mental retardation, but not the Democratic nominee for religious beliefs because the latter is an issue that might actually jeopardize Barack's chances of being the President?

My understanding is that Obama himself has not made an official statement about the magazine cover, but I'm guessing he shares the sentiments of his campaign (or else he would have asked them not to make it an issue).

Dear Mr. Obama, if this irritates you, I suggest you pray to God (or perhaps Allah) that you do NOT win the election, as you will only be scrutinized, satirized, and made fun of even more than you currently are. I know you haven't been in politics for that long, but surely you were around to see the cartoons making fun of John Kerry during the 2004 campaign... Just because you're only the nominee does not mean that you are not subject to the same kind of parodies as every other pundit involved in the government.

So get over yourself.

"The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: 'On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.'"

Sad that even when the magazine explains satire, it's still not enough.

'Thank You For Smoking' and the idea of placing a skull and crossbones on cigarette packs come to mind.

The 'Politics of Fear' issue of the New Yorker goes on sale Monday, July 21, 2008.

I'm going to buy a copy and frame it, before its distribution is banned.

I may buy a second copy and mail it to Ray Bradbury with a note attached reading, "You were right, Ray."

Something wicked this way comes...

xO

Just Wondering...

Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?
Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks and trailers are?
Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago?
When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines?
Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?
Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets?
When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a "vanilla" Iowa , because that's the way God wants it?
Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?
Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people?
How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again?
----
The media has an interesting way of reporting what it wants to the way it wants to.
Things are only as important we make them, people.
So what's important to you?

xO

Obamanomics

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26935

"...during just three years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has already voted 94 times for higher taxes. Barack Obama doesn’t understand the American economy and that’s change we just can’t afford."

-----------------

I'm not telling you who I'm voting for.

And I'm not simply bashing Obama.

I'm just putting this up, in hopes that it might make at least one 18 - 24 year old Obama supporter find out what they really like about the candidate.

Because, truth be told, I'm tired of hearing catchy slogans, empty promises, and eloquent well-written speeches from politicians who have no idea what the fuck they're doing.

So if you're going to say you support a certain candidate, support yourself and figure out what exactly it is that you're supporting.

xO

Ramblings Without a Cause

Perspective:

I've never pretended to know everything.

But I never realized how little I really did know.

Recently I've found myself wishing things were the way they were.

But at the same time, completely different.

I miss the way I used to feel.

It was cold, but it was home - what I was used to.

But I can't go back to the cold, because once you've felt the warmth, it's just impossible.

I can't be the way I was, but am I scared of what I might become?

I need a new perspective, and I'm not sure what exactly I need to do to get that perspective, but I need it.

I need something internal to turn positive.

Is there a way I can take both the blue and the red pill?

Today turned out to be... Inspiring, surprisingly.

Crazy what you can learn from people you previously though you had heard say everything when you really listen.

xO

Who Are The Candidates Again?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/obama.wright/?iref=mpstoryview

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said he is "outraged" by comments his former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made Monday at the National Press Club and is "saddened by the spectacle."

Obama feels that Wright is trying to steal the spotlight.

Guess what, Barack.

It's working.

For the past two weeks, Wright has been on magazine covers, the center story for news stations, while Obama, Clinton, and (especially) McCain have taken a back seat.

Wright claims that the media's bad press is not simply an attack on him, but an attack on the black church.

It bothers me when a person defends himself by hiding behind a group. Wright was being called out for specific comments he said, and if he can only defend them by grouping himself, he's a coward and doesn't really know how else to back up his opinions.

To defend himself against accusations of anti-American hate speech, at an NAACP fund-rasing dinner, he pointed out that he served six years in the military.

"Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?"

It would seem that Obama and Wright are distancing themselves from each other as much as possible. In a recent interview, Wright told an interviewer that he would not hesitate to go after Obama even if he were to win the Presidency. And Obama claims that, having known Wright for twenty years, the man he has seen speak over the past few weeks is not the man he met twenty years ago.

I disagree with much of what Wright says, but I don't have a problem with him saying it. I believe he should be able to say whatever he wants... But I have just as much of a right not to listen.

A mentor of mine told me this analogy:

His family loves fruit cake; he does not.

Every year, when he gets together with his family, they make fruit cake; he does not eat any.

He has no problem with them making fruit cake, but they seem to have a problem with him not liking it. They constantly bother him to "just try it. You'll like it!"

Wright can make all the fruit cake he wants to.

But no matter how much he tries to make me like it...

I'm not eating any.

And just for humor's sake, here's a video you should all enjoy:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=167429&title=festival-of-wrights

xO

Starchange

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_16/b4080000943927.htm

-

I know through personal experience with local Starbucks around the greater Houston area, as well as employment at a local location and in Galveston, plus trips to others around the nation that the quality of the company's coffee has been on a downfall for a while now. Other coffee shops around the city (and nation, I presume) are beginning to compete with Starbucks. Although this is hardly a novel idea, this is the first time the other companies are seeing real success in taking the big boy's customers. To make up for their shortcomings, Starbucks has begun to offer a $1 cup of coffee with free refills.

Starbucks is still trying to grow, as impossible as that may seem, and the company cannot be blamed for trying to do all it can to maximize its profits. But what happened to the charitable, customer-friendly, partner loving organization I worked for? When I was an employee, the company stressed the idea of being the "third place" for customers. Home being number one, work being number two, and Starbucks being number three, where customers go to get away, hang out with friends, and all the things that people do at their regular "hangouts."

Starbucks began as a company with a big heart and a big dream, but as of late, it would seem that only the dream remains and it has been perverted into screwing over the little guy. I never would have thought Starbucks would become a Wal-Mart kind of association, but gradually it seems to be heading in that direction, intent more on a quick sale and a quick fix (cup of coffee) rather than dedicated employees, happy customers, and competent managers.

Starbucks’ stock dropped nearly 50% in 2007 and, so far in 2008, it has dropped about 15%. Howard Schultz, the founder who resigned eight years ago, has reclaimed the CEO position for the company. His thoughts on why the company has not been doing well (as well as what he plans to do about it) shed some light on how Starbucks may manage to cast off its current negative image and shine the way it used to – through exceeding customer expectations and increasing the quality of its product. The recent implementation of Pike Place Coffee, the coffee for the everyday man, is only the first of many changes soon to be put into place.

Lucky fucking Starbucks... Schultz is back to save the day.

And by day, I mean the company's future.

In a recent interview, Schultz expressed his own disappointment in the company, but insisted that extenuating circumstances were present. When asked why people were buying less four dollar lattes, he responded that “[Starbucks’] research suggests [potential customers are] not going anywhere else; they're just coming to us less frequently. So we have to do everything we can to demonstrate to our customers that Starbucks is an affordable luxury. We have to surprise and delight them. And this launch of Pike Place Roast in reinventing brewed coffee is just the beginning.”

Schultz’s positive attitude combined with his optimistic (but achievable) goals for the company’s future are exactly what Starbucks needs. Although keeping the details under wraps, the future of Starbucks should be “exciting and innovative,” like nothing we have seen since Starbucks first appeared in the industry. Starbucks’ goal, however, is clear. To quote their new cups, “…Since 1971. The best cup then. The best cup now."

We'll see about that.

xO

The Government Doesn't Care About Black People

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080411/D8VVUAHG0.html

I've got two words for Alicia Keys:

Occam's Razor.

Sure, this is a plausible idea, if... if... IF...

I wouldn't mind hearing her ideas on how exactly the government came up with the idea for 'Gangsta Rap,' but I find it interesting that she came to this conclusion after reading the autobiographies of certain Black Panthers.

Didn't the Black Panthers consider Martin Luther King's non-aggressive ideas useless?

I wouldn't put much faith in a Black Panther, but that's just me.

Green Day may have pulled off intigrating politics into their music, but I'd suggesst Ms. Keys stick with love songs.

To quote Ms. Keys:
I've been there before
But that life's a bore
So full of the superficial.

xO

Act Patriotic... And Stay Home

Chicago's Ban on Gang Loitering: Making Sense of Vagueness and Overbreadth in Loitering Laws

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0008-1221(199501)83%3A1%3C379%3ACBOGLM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

Just read the bottom below Abstract.
-----------------

It would seem that this article is discussing criminal gang activity, but with further looking into, I found out that drug dealers look for large groups of kids hanging out and that of course will be their next group of customers.

So basically, kids shouldn't hang out in groups. Fly solo, kids!! Spread your wings.

A perfect example of this would be a local Starbucks. After 9:00 P.M., any group of kids larger than three is asked to leave promptly after buying their coffee by a police officer... Not a security guard, but a police officer. I have been witness (multiple times) to kids walking into the Starbucks, purchasing numerous drinks, walking out to their cars and discussing in the parking lot where to go, and before coming to a consensus, being run off by said police officer. On top of being paying customers, these kids are only on the property for about ten minutes or less.

Now, I have no qualms with said officer. I actually happen to be fond of the cop, who is just doing their job. But this is bullshit and I cannot believe it has not become an issue yet. Perhaps it's because of where this Starbucks is located (next door to a mildly upscale neighborhood, that considers itself extremely high-class), but it has been happening nation wide.

Essentially all large cities and enforcing loitering laws even if they clash with First Amendment protection of free speech.

I am a legal adult, and I expect to be treated as one, regardless of whether I am wearing a t-shirt and a hat or a suit and a tie.

Personally, I find this frightening. Infringing on our protected amendments? Who the hell would let them do that? Next thing you know, the government is going to pass an act with some sort of patriotic title that will infringe on our rights even more.

Oh, wait...

xO

Why Do We Lie To Hurt So Much?

I find it interesting that people would rather judge each other about what school they attend, what kind of car they drive, what their SAT score was… And all that other bullshit that’s really quite frivolous when you think about it, when it’s so much easier to accept each other for our differences. Embrace them, even. Or maybe it’s just easy for me.

And why can’t people ever save themselves? Everyone is looking for a savior, but Jesus is never the answer anymore. Everyone wants a personal Jesus. People need to realize that no once can fulfill that role. Fulfillment must be found through self.

Just something to think on.

xO

Hello 2008; Hello Blog; Hello Life

So the new year is here, and with it comes new resolutions toward how the new year will go, but all too well known as well are the regrets from the prior year.

So I'll cover the negative aspects first to get them out of the way... And because they are the ones always at the forefront of most people's minds (even if they deny it).

From mid-2006 through most of 2007, I was not a very happy person. I was displeased with the choices I was making. At the time, I felt like the victim and, to a certain extent, I still feel as though much of what happened was undeserved and not my fault. But I've come to realize that those times were times where I learned a lot about myself, my limitations, and life.

Then, I would look back at my life and feel regret and anger. Now, as I look back at my life so far, I realize that it all happened for a reason and has helped shape me to be the person I am today... And the person I will one day become.

I look at the four walls of my room and my head is filled with memories; both good and bad. Two of the walls are covered in posters and pictures of friends and family. While some of these images bring about the feel-good emotions of a Reese Witherspoon movie, others have connotations of melancholy. Ex-girlfriends, deceased relatives and friends, relationships gone awry... I leave these images up because this is my room; this is me - unabridged.

I am not going to attempt to remove memories from my life just because they were painful. These memories and experiences helped make me who I am, and I am definitely not interested in hiding that. Some of the pictures make me think about what things about myself that I have drastically changed after a certain... Shall we say... Drastic experiences. A few memories jump into the front row seats of my mind and others show up late and slink into the back.

I think of how easy it is to let the bad memories stay with you and write off the good ones. For this very reason, I do not remove the hurtful pictures from my walls. They have helped define me. And, over a certain period of time, I have learned to appreciate them... Enjoy them, even.

Regrets are like quicksand. If you spend too much time dwelling on them, you're pretty much fucked. So we'll move on the promise of a new year.

I have many expectations for this upcoming year, but I'll keep most of them to myself... I've found that the more I talk about something happening, the more disappointed I am if it doesn't. Those who know me well know the things I expect to see from myself... And from others.

Sometimes people get caught up on the idea of the New Year's Resolution. Not me. I prefer to have a New Year's Outlook. This year, my outlook has changed my perception of life in general. I've realized that indifference is overrated. And definitely not cool.

As cliche as it sounds, what is cool is being yourself. But what's not cliche is defining what that is. Don't play into the norm of what everyone else wants and expects of you. And realize that you may be doing just that if you read this and are smirking to yourself thinking, "Keever's a fucking tool." Figure out what you want and what you expect from life. You'll be surprised how many people you impress.

Hell, you might even impress yourself.

xO