The Last Airbender

I am so heartbroken.

The Last Airbender opens tomorrow, and there is nothing I can do about it, or its casting choices.

If you read my last article on one of my favorite shows, Avatar: The Last Airbender, you know that I was outraged that the asian-accented Iroh, formerly voiced by the late great Mako, was replaced by a caucasian voice-actor imitating an "asian" accent. It was annoying, it was kind of offensive, but the studio was in a hard place with the untimely death of Mako, so the choice to find an imitator was at least understandable, if not excusable. In contrast, the casting choices for the live-action adaptation of this amazing series has left me in shatters. An all-white cast, then the last minute opt-out for Dev Patel, a south asian (Indian) actor for Zuko.

I'm just stunned at how these choices were approved by execs, and even more stunned that fans of the original series are crying out in defense of these choices. Let's get the opinions out of the way first: WTF. They look/act/feel nothing like their original characters. It kind of distracts from the texture of the original series, doesn't it? I mean imagine if Middle Earth, a fantasy world quite obviously based in European folkore, were populated by Asian people. It would just make it a very different movie than the books author would have intended for it to be.

Barring those arguments, here is the problem with what's happening that is completely not opinion: The casting for The Last Airbender is RACIST. I'm not going to describe my initial reactions to you, I think you can find that kind of expletive-riddled anger-confusion all over the internet. But what I am going to tell you is that I was honestly heartbroken. Here was a series that for once, was clearly Asian influenced, and extremely positive. Now I'm known in my social circles as being extremely Americanized, to the point where some call me "whitewashed" (a term I also find offensive). But in the privacy of my own home, I'd watch Avatar: The Last Airbender, and marvel at these characters who looked like me, had the same cultural background as my ancestors, spoke English fluently and were brave, virtuous, confident. For those of you who are caucasian, you can't imagine how it felt, after 20 years of growing up on shows where the heroes look like YOU, for me to finally be mesmerized by heroes that looked like ME. Heroes who talked like ME. Asian characters who were not meek and fragile, who did not have thick unintelligible accents, and who didn't simply play sidekick to a more competent, superior white man.

For Paramount to take that away from me in the live-action adaptation is so wrong I can't even verbalize it. The casting choice reinforces what I've been subliminally told my entire life: Asians aren't lead characters. Asians don't want to be seen or heard. Asians are background props.

Asians aren't heroes.

I know this topic has been done to death, and that's great because if I were the only one who felt this way I actually might kill myself. But let me adress some of the counter arguments that are so common from people saying, what's the big deal?

1) The cast is the most diverse cast of any paramount tentpole movie. (paraphrased from M. Knight himself, probably parroting his PR team)

For this kind of issue, you don't just look at this one film, you look at the pattern that it reinforces. How many times are white people cast in parts originally written for colored characters? Apparently, these instances are instances of colorblindness, where race wasn't taken into consideration. Except then you look at the reverse question. How many people of color, specifically Asians, are cast into roles originally written for white characters? ZERO. I guess when you're casting the role of the latest action hero, the character is obviously supposed to be white, so an Asian guy can't fill that role. Then when it's a role written for the Asian man, c'mon, let's not be racist here, race shouldn't be a consideration.

The Last Airbender is racist not because it doesn't have diversity in the cast, but because it denies an already unrepresented minority the opportunity to diversify the industry as a whole. Asian male actors already hit a wall when it comes to claiming parts written for whites, or even "any ethnicity" in general. Their only hope was going for parts written specifically for them, of which there are very VERY few. Now it seems like Asian males can't even get parts originally intended for asian males; white actors simply do it better.

2) The actors in TLA are prolific, talented, recognizable actors. There just aren't any Asian actors of comparable fame, so kids don't want to see them.

OK, let's take your assumptions at face value for right now. THAT'S EXACTLY THE ****ING POINT!!! There ARE very few asian actors of repute, because there are so few roles for Asian actors! Asians are trying to get into the spotlight, but when your only options are extras and one-line bit parts, you're not going to become A-list real fast.

Second of all, if you are trying to tell me that the cast of TLA is composed of extremely prolific and recognizable actors... I don't know what to say to you. Noah Ringer has no experience. He's not the best martial artist his age, he's not the best actor his age, and he doesn't look the most like Aang out of all the kids his age. I'm not attacking him personally, I'm sure he has his merits, but I'm just saying he doesn't bring the fame, the skillset, or the looks to convince me that he beat out every asian candidate on merit.

Thirdly, there are many asian actors that would have been capable. If you're going to cast Dev Patel as Zuko, you certainly could have considered Dante Basco, the original voice actor and a very famous, very talented asian actor. I think fans would have loved that. Casting "unknowns" wouldn't have been a crime. This movie is targeted towards kids who don't generally favor certain actors, they just want to be entertained. Many great movies of our time cast largely unknown actors with great results. Fame doesn't equal talent.

3) It's a cartoon. They aren't any race, in fact, they look white to me. What is the big deal?

Cartoons are symbols, meant to represent a reality enhanced in your mind. Snoopy doesn't look like any dog I've ever met, but I know the character represents a dog. The only reason the characters of A:TLA look white to you, is because you are so entrenched in the paradigm of white as a default race that whenever there is any doubt, YOU fill in the blanks with WHITE.

The creators themselves have told us that these characters are Asian, in an Asian-influenced world, and in fact based on real life Asian Americans. I can't believe this is even an argument. Use the visual clues: The surrounding artwork, the fact that they eat with chopsticks, the fact that they wear traditional asian costumes (which also means clothes, relax my brothers) the fact that their writing is CHINESE?!? And the fact that many ancillary characters do speak with Asian accents, characters that look like the main characters or are related to them.

As for what the big deal is, well, that's really my only point. Any time the Asian American male is marginalized, it's not a big deal. Imagine if in the live action adaptation of The Boondocks, an obviously African American cartoon, was cast similarly with all-white actors. These actors could get a tan, get a perm, dress "ghetto", and look as much like their symbolic cartoon counterparts as much as anyone else would (in fact, if you consider The Boondocks' artistic influence, the characters look Asian!). IMAGINE the uproar. It would be unspeakable. Why is it ok to marginalize Asian Americans in a way that would be completely unacceptable for any other minority?

Please, PLEASE boycott this movie whether you are white, black, brown, yellow, red, or whatever. Asian American children need some positive messages in media. They need some hope.

It's all the the family

Modern Family is an amazing show. It's funny, it's progressive, and it's very very heart-warming. At times the plot can be cliche, but they navigate used story lines so artfully and under such a fresh premise that this complaint is really quite trkvial (and in itself, cliche). ABC's Modern Family is exactly what the title suggests. The show portrays a modern take on the extended family: There's the nuclear family with two liberal parents and their three kids, the gay couple that's adopted an asian baby, and the aging rich father with his hot young foreign wife. The show is in a single camera mocumentary format, and unlike a lot of new mocumentaries springing up lately, MF deals with the camera expertly. Subtle looks gives the camera presence at times, but they don't over do it or ignore it.

What I truly love about this show is that it is hilarious without trying to be super edgy. It seems like the trend of television has been towards the shock factor. Zany goings ons that are meant to shock and offend. Gratuitous sex and drug use in order to "be hip" and speak to an increasingly corrupt young generation. Even as part of this corrupt young generation, I have to say that it's a nice breath of fresh air to find a show that deals with modern subject matters while still maintaining a family-friendly environment.

Bottom line, this is a really great show that will keep you and whoever you watch it with smiling and feeling good. The characters are treated fairly; every one is flawed but that's what makes them fun to watch. The stories are compelling in a very real, quotidian sense. I instantly fell in love with all the characters, and I proudly admit that I'm hooked. Check it out Wednesdays at 9/8c on ABC, or do what I do and just watch it on Hulu.

Micro Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Shockingly horrible to the point of being comical.

Seriously, I came out of the theater laughing at it's suckiosity. The film was pretty good (maybe even very good) for the first hour or so, although it dragged on and made you feel like one of the old people in the movie just passing time. Then it just tried to do too much.

Benjamin Button seemed determined to become the new Forrest Gump, throwing mounds of metaphors, historical references, etc. etc. The problem is, none of it worked well. Historical events the movie referenced only in passing, and with not enough tie-in to the plot to really matter at all. Love scenes were tedious, you began to lose connection to the characters as soon as Pitt isn't a sweet old man. (Or maye the womenfolk in the audience started really paying attention?)

For some reaosn, the film begins with narration by a dying, old, old, women who is old. Her mumbled death throws are barely audible and mostly incomprehensible, then within a few minutes the director must have realized this and told her to abandon the dying voice thing all together, and quite suddently. By the end, the film is ludicrous. He is your father! ooooo! Of course this is your father, otherwise why would the entire movie be veneered by such a thin premise? The hummingbird comes out of nowhere as if to say, "Hey! I was that one hummingbird Benjamin saw for 5 seconds earlier! Here I am! Magic!" By this time, there were literally snores in the audience. I had been holding pee for nigh 2 hours, yes the film is 3.

My final feeling is that this movie is not meant for my target audience (non-senial people) and is instead geared towards the aging baby boomers. The message seems to be, "Hey, it sucks you're getting old and dying, but at least you're not getting younger! Oh, and do you remember all this stuff that happened in history?" It has a great, sappy soundtrack if you're into that kind of thing (I am) and will keep you entertained here and there, usually in flashbacks that have nothing to do with the main characters. I'm not sure why this movie rated so high with critics. The cheesy forrest gump feel? An aging critic base? Bradd Pitt's ass? Whatever the reasons, I learned soemthing today: pseudo-pedophelia is ok when it's an older women with a young male, but not the other way around.

Iroh's New Voice is Offensive

For those of you who don't watch Avatar: The Last Airbender, I highly recommend it. Avatar is a kid's cartoon show on Nickelodeon with a heavy "asian mysticism" motif. I'm not going to elaborate, except to say that although the target audience is probably for children, the show is appealing to all ages from my young brother to my not so young mother. I, obviously, am also a huge fan.

The character of Uncle Iroh is a wise, hilarious and warm-hearted old man. Those of you who know the show probably love Iroh as I do. When Mako, the actor who provided Iroh's voice died, the show replaced him with Greg Baldwin. For those who don't know, Iroh is a somewhat archetypal old asian wiseman with Mako's voice. This old asian wiseman voice is now provided by Greg Baldwin, and reviews are lauding his performance, saying, "I can't even tell the difference! This is great!"

This is not great. I can't believe I haven't found an outpour of outrage. If I were to create an archetypal- hell, I'll just say in - stereotypical old black character (let's say, Boondock's Uncle Ruckus) and have him voiced by a guy named Greg Baldwin (think, middle-aged, overweight, and white) the NAACP would be all over the producers of that show like white on rice, pun intended. Are you kidding me? Why hasn't Baldwin's portrayal, which by the way, sounds NOTHING like the old Iroh to educated ears and minds, drawn parallels to black-face? Why are all you people taking this sitting down? I'm sick of the "Last Samurai" being Tom Cruise. I'm sick of Jackie Chan and Jet Li playing supporting roles to Michael Anthony Angarano. And I'm sick of Uncle Iroh being voiced by Greg Baldwin.

The Pretty Package

Thanks for the suit, Sam Abouhassan!

Succeeding through a Successful Image

The quarter is coming to a close for us loitering in this ePortfolio seminar, and inevitably there's now a mad scramble to haphazardly piece together a decent ePortfolio. Depending on what your ePortfolio is trying to package, you will probably have different content. Clearly though, there are some core elements that every ePortfolio posseses, as was brought to our attention by Dr. Scott's assignment for the week. The reminder was timely, because I certainly would've omitted an introduction on the first page. I was forming an "About Me" section, but I forgot that I needed an "About this Portfolio". Also, I was at a loss as to what to put on the index page and now I know. My ePortfolio is stronger for the intro.

Working with the portfolio as well as exploring a multitude of ePortfolios, I also realized that are other factors that can add power to your ePortfolio. For better or worse, one of them is the portfolio's look. Mentally sift through all the ePortfolios that you've visited over the quarter and note down what impressed you or turned you away. Personally, when I come across a beautifully made portfolio with graphics and banners, I tend to take it more seriously than a portfolio that is perhaps text only or obviously drafted by a novice. That's horrible to say, and I can already feel the stones of judgement pelting me in my deserving nogin. But think about it...

Let's say you're a manager in a business, and you're looking to hire. Two candidates walk in the door. Both have impressive credentials. Both are well qualified for the job. The first candidate, Ima Spiring, is perfectly groomed and very composed. She has a nice black leather brief case with shiny buttons, and a slick suit that is crisp and pressed. The second candidate, Willy Gethired, is in a tweed suit that has a few buttons missing and strange hairs on it. He hasn't shaven in a few days, there's the reminants of possibly week-0ld scrambled egg in his whiskers. He's got a strange and unsettling odor, and is missing more than a few teeth. Willy may be just as qualified (perhaps even more so) at the job he's applying for, but I doubt that you will pick him over Ima. Unfortunately, appearance can be a factor whether we like it or not.

This applies to our ePortfolios if we expect them to be used as viable portfolios. Obviously content is the foundation of a good ePortfolio. The prettiest wrapping paper in the world won't make an empty shoebox a great gift. But in the case of ePortfolios, its more than advantageous to package your great credentials in a professional manner than leaves an impression with its reviewer. Employers and schools have to glance over hundreds of applicants, and like any good student I'm sure they appreciate it when they are ENGAGED rather than ENRAGED.

All this being said, it's much easier to preach from my soap box than to actually get out there and do it. My own ePortfolio right now is a few scattered trinkets wrapped in wet newspaper, so I've got some work ahead of me. See you next week!

Two Kinds

Image borrowed from here.

With the quarter's close coming fast upon us, the time is near to figure out what classes we'll all be taking next quarter. For me, determining classes is an intricate process of balancing what's important to me about my class schedule.
I have obligations in life: school, work, friends, sports. I need to find classes that not only satisfy my long term scholastic goals, but also fit in with my short term time restrictions. For instance, I have work every weekday from 1-5. Every other day I need to have some free time in the evening or morning to go to Jiu Jitsu, and besides that I need time for my friends and family while they're awake and stuff is happening.
With all this in mind, I've decided to take the good majority of my classes online next quarter. Online classes offer me much needed flexibility. Other than that, the benefits can be argued both ways. When I tell people I'm taking online classes, I get one of two responses:

"Online Classes? That will be a breeze, you don't have to waste your time in class, you can do school whenever you want. Plus, open book tests? I might do that too."

"Online Classes!? I could never do that! You just keep putting it off and you can never bring yourself to actually do the work. Plus you don't have a teacher to help you and you have to do the reading. No thanks!"

I've already made it clear in previous posts that I'm a big fan of online classes, but an even bigger fan of the hybrid. It's untrue that you are necessarily deprived of teacher interaction just because your class is online. With today's technology there's always the option of personal messages and e-mail, and the teachers I've ran into online (for the most part) have been extremely involved. Then again that's not always the case, and there is something to be said for that "human touch" in a day and age where almost everything is becoming automated.
Are online classes easier? I'm not sure. For instance with that music class I've written extensively about, the tests were all open book. If you look at my quiz average for that class versus a physical english class, it was much higher for much less stress. Then again, I actually read all the material, and if the goal of a quiz is to make sure you're reading the material anyway... I think the online open book format accomplished that goal.
All this said, the reason there are two schools of thought, I believe, is because there are two generic factions of people. Some just will not do well in an online class. Faced with very long term deadlines, no distinct class time, and odd due dates/times, many people will just never get to their online class. It's not necessarily because they're lazy or apathetic, but they may lead overwhelmingly busy lives, and "online class" just becomes "more free time" to meet their other obligations.
The other faction seems to have the ability to treat an online class exactly the same as they do normal classes. They don't have a problem "attending class" regularly and keeping up with assignments. To them, there's no real difference between an online class and a classroom class.
I'm not really sure what causes this difference. Is it personality? Is it some past experience with technology? Regardless, I think that people who can take an online class and succeed display a distinct drive and motivation. I feel that some people don't take online classes seriously. A lot of students I talk to who give the first response of the two I provided above don't feel that an online class is legitimate. Because there's not four walls and a clock to stare at, an online class is somehow ... less. Yet these same people either don't try it, or fail if they do.
What do you think is responsible for the difference? Do you think online classes are indeed easier/harder? I'm confident that, in time, the outsider's view of online classes will change as drastically as the internet has changed the world.

Pride or Prejudice: The Real Deal with an Imaginary Existence

In my post two weeks ago, "Digital Existence", Dr. Scott left an intruiging question for me that I've been ducking until I could come up with an answer. Here's his question...

"...I wonder: if your brother was addicted to, say, reading, would it be any better. Reading is a solitary activity. It means you're not outside playing ball.... Or what about TV? I watched something on the order of eight hours per day growing up -- zero today. In retrospect I'm not sure it was really so bad for me. One reason I have a large vocabulary, for example, is that I'd watch news programs at an early age blah blah blah. So is it the unfamiliarity of video games which scares us, or is it really "different" from other activities altogether?"

Like I said in my post, my brother's lifestyle scared me but I didn't know why. In my post and in Dr. Scott's analysis of it, video games (and TV) were proven to be valuable educational tools. Is it really just the unfamiliarity of this new virtual universe that turned me apprehensive, or is there solid evidence that living a digital existence has negative consequences that outweigh its benefits? My thoughts on the subject are far from complete or adamant, but after mulling over these questions for about a week now, I think I've finally come up with an answer.

First, understand I recognize many benefits to video games. Also, I don't have a concrete opinion one way or the other. All I've figured out is why video games scare me so much, and why I think addiction to these video games is far, far worse and more frequent than addiction to say, books or even television.

--------

As living beings, we have needs. Many of the things we need are necessary for survival like air, food, water, heat... We also have social and mental needs. Our minds need to be challenged and stimulated. On some degree, we have a need to set goals and fufill them. We need to feel loved and wanted and accomplished. If these are taken away or not adequately met, our life spans are shortened, our mental sanity is comprimised, and generally we don't turn out to be "healthy" individuals. For the purposes of argument, lets simplify all needs into physical or intellectual needs.

First and foremost, our physical needs have to be met. If we're starving and shivering in some ditch in a desolate pasture, we're not really in a position to be "bored" because our lot in life consists solely of finding food. In our well-off society today, however, it can be argued that our physical needs are pretty well met. Since we're talking about education here, let's look specifically at students.

Our concern of the day isn't making that long pilgrimage to the pantry to hunt for the last Snickers bar. Once we find that Snickers bar, are we then content to relax on the couch, feeling that we've accomplished enough for one sunrise? No, we pursue other things. We go to school to study and try to get good grades. We aim for that promotion or that bonus at work. We dress well to catch the eye of that girl or boy in our English class.

This may all seem like I'm beating around the bush and skirting the issue. What the heck does any of this have to do with video games??? My belief is that video games, in excess, is destroying what sums up all these needs into one word: MOTIVATION.

As sober individuals with our basic physical needs more or less met, we are motivated by accomplishment rather than desperation. I want a promotion not just to pay for that extra packet of Ramen noodles from Costco, but also because I'm making something of myself. I'm moving forward in life. As a motivated individual, that feeling of progression is really important to me. I'm sure most of you can relate if you're in this seminar, after all you're all honors students.

But video games are like a drug. They can give you that feeling without giving you anything at all. In a virtual universe, your social needs can be met in a way that just might not be possible in the real world. You're a reputable commander. You've managed to find the biggest, baddest looking sword in the whole game. You've got all the friends that you could want, fighting dragons and ogres beside you, and they all recognize you as the greatest warrior that's ever lived. You've got riches beyond your wildest dreams, and the citizens of the country look up to you while your enemies fear you.

What's important to you now is getting that next level, scoring that new piece of equipment, exploring that cave you've never explored before. What a rush to be rapidly advancing in the ranks, cutting down all manner of mythical creatures in your path while real live players watch you do it from their own screens.

As you progress through the game you achieve and make gains in a manner most undoubtedly more exciting than, say, waiting for a promotion at a desk like the one I'm sitting at now. The way video games are now, they fufill the majority (if not all) of young children's social needs. Why do your agonizing homework for .01 more points in your grade point average, when you can be running cold steel through scantily clad sirens to find a mystical goblet? Why run all those laps to get 3rd place in the track meet when you have one more quest to turn in until you move up a level? Do you want friends? Make them online. Have relationships? The carefully drawn and fully mobile 3-D characters in video games these days probably surpass even the hottest of L.A. 10's, and you've already got a lot in common because you're doing the same quests and playing the same game.

Speaking only from personal experience, students have a remarkably hard time doing "what's better for them in the long run". This is exacerbated when your short term motivational thresholds are being met in some other, more pleasurable way. Like books and television, video games have collateral benefits. They will definately boost your speed reading. They will train you to preform moderately complex calculations in your head. They will improve your motor skills, your typing skills, maybe even your social skills and vocabulary. But kids aren't addicted to games because they're learning from them. Kids are addicted to them because in a stroke of their designers' genius, video games have managed to ENGAGE and MOTIVATE kids in a way that instructors in their schools and bosses at their jobs have never been able to. Go ask my little brother what's more important to him, his next 10 point math quiz or 100 imaginary gold pieces in his game's local currency? Video games punish us mildly for our flaws while rewarding us immensley and immediately for our achievements. Unfortunately, all those gold pieces and magical sets of armor instantly dissolve into static with the gentle push of a power button.

Tick, Tock, Clock...

"This is your life, and it's passing you one by one minute at a time..."

Look at the picture to the right ->

Does it look familiar? Well it shouldn't, if you're getting as much as you can out of your classes. Sometimes, I'll get a class that is so enthralling, I'm heavily involved and don't even realize when class is over. Sometimes, I'll get a class that's so numbingly difficult I hype myself up on coffee and tape my eyelids open so that I don't miss anything, but usually end up doing so anyway. Most of the time, I'm watching that little red hand go steadily around on its race track. I'm trying to employ the latent telekenisis powers I unfortunately don't possess to will the long black hand quickly to the big 12 at the top. I'm "stretching out my back" to get hopeful and dissapointing glances at this merciless dictator.

Why should class be like this? Shouldn't I feel my mind expanding, forming new synapses in my brain while I absorb intruiging content? Or should I feel rooted to my seat by some cruelly smug invisible force while I feel my cells slowly decay with age? A few days ago, I realized that one of my professors was drawing EVERY example and lecture out of the book. We ate up countless minutes of the hour painfully sketching intricate graphs that were printed for us in the books we dropped a hundred bucks or more for. I groaned as internally as possible as the professor entertained the most mundane and irrelevant questions about the nutritional value of icecream, the evils of collegiate beauracracy, and the trials and tribulations of marriage. I'm not going to give him away because he seems like a nice guy, but let's just say that the class has nothing to do with any of these in anything but the farthest stretch of a diseased imagination. I decided enough was enough. I waited until the break, packed my bags discretely, and didn't return. I went and got my allergy shots at the Palo Alto clinic. I made myself a great meal at home, and read the chapter we had been talking about. I used the online resource that came with the book to quiz myself briefly, and with a cumulative study time of about half an hour, I was confident in the material and had gotten a lot done. I took the test today, and breezed through it. There was one question that I was even at all unsure about, and even then I'm pretty sure about my answer. The only negative I suffered from electing to use my time efficiently was that I missed a hand-out that was given at the end of class.

The teacher hadn't taken any time to discuss the hand out, and we ended up doing it the next class because no one did it anyway. Had he collected the hand out, I would've lost points because I didn't want to dwindle my life away in that ridiculously under-sized desk not learning the subject matter. You know what could've been done? The handout could've been posted online. In fact, the way this specific instructor "teaches" the class could be conducted entirely online. It is, but the fact is how is anyone to know that the instructor is going to teach this way before it's too late to do anything about it? I specifically chose this course as an in-class endeavor because I thought I'd benefit from the face-to-face interaction. But I come to class to get something extra, to go more in depth. I'm the kind of guy who can benefit a lot from an enganging teacher and a fervent class discussion. I'm the kind of guy who prefers to waste a hundred dollars on a text book and sell it back at the end of the quarter, having not opened it at all if I can get away with it, simply because the lecture was so informative. If we're learning directly and exclusively out of the text, please let me do it on my own time, in my own manner. The PA clinic only does allergy shots from 8:30-11:30, and every discussion about why using Big Macs in an example isn't politically correct is costing me potential salvation from congestion.

I've spoken on my online Music class before, how it employed eTudes to deliver tests and quizzes, announcements, and essay questions. The text was throrough and interesting while the open book exams were designed in a manner that ensured you read every word. Another facet of this class was that it was what I consider "hybrid". A student had the option of coming into class when he/she wanted to. The instructor gave credit for turning in class worksheets and class notes, and posted a schedule of what chapter would be taught each class so you could keep up and decide on classes you wanted to go to. Since the grading system was based entirely on accumulated points, students had incentive to go to class if they didn't understand the material and were doing poorly (not only to further their understanding, but also to get extra points). I never went to a physical class and got an A doing everything online, but I'm sure that if I did go to class I wouldn't feel that I was wasting my life away. I'd know that I was there only because I wanted/needed to be, and that if class wasn't helping me I'd have the option of not attending with no artificially ill consequence. After all, Big Macs are only so interesting for so long...

Digital Existence: living through the fingers.

Image from http://www.additudemag.com

Engage me or Engrage me?


The discussion topic this week has sparked a reflection of my life and the life of someone close to me, my little brother. We're only five years apart, but I feel like we are clearly from different generations. Maybe I'm just behind my own times? Something about Penksy's Speech really disturbed me, but the more I think about it, I can't pin my finger on exactly why. Every day when I go home from work, I expect to find my brother sitting in front of our computer, clicking away. Once in a blue moon he won't be there, and for a brief moment I'll trip out and wonder "Is he ok!? Did he get kidnapped walking back from school!?" Then I'll hear the tell-tale flush of the toilet or the clink of dishes in the sink and he'll come trodding back into his throne, from which he commands his universe. When dinner is out, I actually have to remind him that it's time to eat, and he finishes as fast as possible so that he can return to his game. I'm left with the unshakeable suspicion that he only eats to sustain conciousness so he can continue raiding his dungeon or whatever he's doing. He takes breaks to watch TV occaisionally. More often, he has the TV on while he's on the computer, so that in the brief loading times or down times, he can simply turn and tune immediately in to the program he's pre-recorded. The only time he's not on his computer or watching TV, is when he's reading or doing his homework from school.

The constant stream of video games has definately benefited his education in many ways. He was reading at an earlier age than I did, not to mention he can read extraordinarily fast. Paragraphs flash for nanoseconds on the TV screen when he's playing video games, and I often have to ask him to slow it down or at least tell me what the little characters are saying. My one shred of technological pride stems from the fact that I can type faster than he can, but not by much. He's great at math. His online games require him to keep track of hit points, of magic points, of fake money, of armor statistics and all manner of numbers and calculations. He understands the concepts of memory, of pixels, of terms that would make me look foolish if I repeated them, because I can't even begin to fathom what they mean. At 13 years old, he is programming his own games, with custom characters and animations. He has created a forum for him and his friends of which he has surprisingly many. I could go on, but I think you're getting the point. Video games have given him all these skills, and no doubt they will be valuable skills in the "real world".

Speaking of which, the lines between what is real and what is virtual have all but blurred into inexistence. I've delved briefly into his universes, and horrified that I'd be stranded, forcefully removed myself quickly. But for my brief stay, I have to say that I wasn't aware how far along gaming technology has come. I was immersed in a world that operated on real time. There were sunrises and sunsets, there was grass, there were beaches, there were seas and lakes. You could hunt animals or fish, ride trams and fly on mystical creatures. You could buy different clothing, you could fight evil, you could buy trinkets, dance, laugh, jump, cry... In a nutshell, you could live. What was scarier still, was that there were millions of other characters all over this massive world (which probably would've taken hours or days to traverse on foot) were REAL people playing the same game. They have unions, they have craftsmen, and there is a booming virtual economy. On a morbidly hilarious note, the in-game currency is actually worth more than the currency of some developing countries.

My point from all this, is that my brother and kids like them HAVE benefitted from this engaging new revolution. They've learned math skills, they've learned computer skills, they've even learned to interact with people ableit virtually. Acknowledging all this, it still scares me to death. Maybe I'm just old fashioned and, like I said before, behind the times. I don't really know what it is. All I know is that I'm going to continue to make my brother eat and sleep, and once in a while I'll have to throw him outside and lock the door for a few hours, if only to get him enough sun to process his calcium...

Customize your Life.

It seems like everything these days is about options. You go to a burger joint. Choose a burger out of a hundred different kinds, all with unique combinations of ingredients. Choose a side order: fries, curly fries, fried zucchini... Choose a drink. Want dessert?
The abundance of choice is event more prevalent in services offered online. Search engines offer custom homepages, where you can add anything from your email's inbox status to a local weather report to the recipe of the day. And for those of you in this honors seminar, did you see all the options for the look and feel of your blog?
This brings up an interesting topic for e-Portfolios. From our meager research we all already know that there's a plethora of different services out there, no doubt each with its own unique twist. Uniqueness is important, but how far should it go? An e-Portfolio is supposed to reflect the individual. Every individual is different in their own way, and the portfolio should show that. But also take into consideration that these ePortfolios are often used for professional reasons. If ePortfolios are to have any credibility and become a widely accepted way to present yourself to an employer, there needs to be standards and protocol. Imagine you're an employer, and you want to find out X, Y, and Z about potential applicants. A thousand applicants send you their ePortfolio, and every single one has their credentials in a different place, their philosophies in a different place, etc. That would be aggravating, and you probably wouldn't be in the best "hiring" mood.
I'm not sure where to draw the line. Like all things in life, it's obviously important to find a balance between individuality and conformity, between chaos and organization. How do you think an ePortfolio can accomodate a standard without stifling creativity?

Secure, or not secure, that is the question.

This picture borrowed from oziosi gallery


Internet security is an issue, but like Scott said, crime isn't the unique province of the web. The internet has opened up an entirely new plane of existence, so it brings with it parrallel crimes like theft, highjacking, etc. I think the main issue is when someone else is vastly more knowledgable than you are, then you are at risk. At the same time, major companies are developing a lot of stuff to keep people safe. For instance, I just got an email that claimed it was from PayPal. I've recently started using PayPal, and I guess some how some people got a list. The email was authentic, it looked just like a normal paypal receipt you would get after a purchase. It said something like, "your transfer to smileysmith38@hotmail.com of $639.99 has been sent" etc. etc. and at the bottom it said "if you have any questions or concerns click this link. The link takes you to a site that some con artists have designed to look very much like the PayPal homepage, with login fields. The URL is even masked to say "http://paypal.com", and when someone enters their username and password, BAM the criminals have access to your bank accounts and credit cards. Pretty heavy stuff. Anyway, the point of my story is that gmail caught it, put it in the spam folder and notified me that someone had just tried to "phish" me. It had a link detailing the scam, so that's how I found out how all that worked without learning it the very hard way. So through all this, I guess I personally believe that yes, con artists are out there developing really slick ways to scam you via the net, but at the same time legitimate companies are beefing up their security to negate the negatives. Following my previous metaphor a bit, I do think that in the future the internet can be just like a country. It will have its shady areas and its glossy areas, and most people will hopefully be informed enough to differentiate which is which.

The Price of Free.

Image borrowed from Sach's Report.


CHEAP AS FREE

If you're reading this, you're taking advantage of a free service. When we start creating ePortfolios for this class, that will be a free service as well (for me anyway). It used to be that there were some things in life cheap or free, and then the same type of thing that you had to pay for. What differentiated the two was that the pay-service was obviously better than the free-service. But as we progress, this has become less and less the case. Companies offering "free" services are making more money than companies that charge. Remember Napster? The free program that people used to find songs (for free) dipped into the profit margins of major record companies (charging $20 a CD) so significantly that multiple law suits insued. Even today, creators of free P2P services (like Limewire) are making more money than pay-per-song or subscription sites that offer the exact same service (like iTunes or the new Napster).
We can thank the internet for this. The internet boasts an unimaginably huge audience. Inevitably, this means a dramatic range of exposure for companies advertising physical goods. The days of free hats and frisbees with company logos on them are gone. Say hello to pop-ups, spyware, and banners. Free websites now rake in ad revenue based on their traffic. This trend wasn't born on the internet (look at TV, radio, newspapers) but the internet has given it a much larger context. How many of you have clicked on those little mini-games in the banners of websites, only to find that your "prize" was an entire website of advertisement.
My curiosity lies in Blogs and ePortfolios. This class is about blogs and ePortfolios, and their potential roles in education. If you've ever taken an economics class at foothill college, you're more than familiar with Aplia Inc. They charge you a modest fee of $30 per quarter to use a program that counts for a major portion of your grade. They sustain themselves by this subscription, and the $30 the student has to part with solidifies his place in the class. There aren't any pop-ups or banners that I know of. At the same time, the eTudes service doesn't require students to pay for its use directly. The eTudes site (I'm guessing here) is probably funded in part by the school, and in part by enrollment into the online class.
But how are blogs funded? There are some subscription blogs. There are a lot of free blogs that count on ads. In fact, there are some websites (Xanga and Myspace come to mind) that bombard you with pop-ups and advertisement until your dizzy. Blogger doesn't do this, nor does it charge a subscription, so I'm at a loss as to how they keep this up. Then again, Google isn't exactly taking huge losses, so I'm sure they know what they're doing.
My question to you is this: Do you think its better to have to pay a subscription to blogs and ePortfolios, or accept a free service with the inevitable pop-ups and email spamming? Specifically, how about in an educational context? Being a college student, I've always gone the second route, so I can't attest to any feelings of liberation or giddiness when free from aggressive advertising. I actually don't mind the ads. However, there are always discussions about how advertising has gotten out of hand. How do you guys think it affects us?