63 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/06/10 12:35am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I have no idea what I’ll say to you. I mean, I know we haven’t seen each other in a while. It’s been about five months. But this Christmas, when we reunite, I’ll certainly be at a loss for words.Because I know all about you — about your ridiculous workload, your long nights at the library, your hilarious roommate and your professor who says the weirdest things. I saw your Halloween costume; you looked great. And yes, I agree that Taylor Swift sucked at the CMAs. We’ve been friends for a while now, and I do feel the pressure to have some kind of grand reunion where we meet for dinner and catch up on all we’ve said and done since we’ve last seen each other. But let’s face it; we both have Facebook and Twitter. There will be no secrets to share. No stories to tell. We’ve kept in touch 140 characters at a time.This year, the U.S. Postal Service anticipates that Americans will send 200 million fewer holiday letters and greeting cards than they did last year.And while some blame postage prices, and others cite the incredible amount of time and effort required to send such holiday cheer through snail mail, I blame social networking.When it comes down to it, we just don’t have anything new to say.It’s not that we’re sending e-cards instead. We seem to realize that forwarding a pre-written message adorned with animated elves dancing in the snow just isn’t that cool. We’re simply sending fewer holiday greetings in general.To be sure, Christmas cards aren’t dead yet. The Greeting Card Association reports that 60 percent of all greeting cards printed each year are sold during the holiday season.But if current trends are any indication, in a few years, these traditional holiday greetings could be a thing of the past.It used to be that families would write an annual Christmas letter, updating friends and relatives on the past year’s events. Adorned in matching sweaters and seated in front of a fireplace, the annual family portrait would show who had gotten taller, who had lost weight and who had changed their hairstyle.But with twitpics and Facebook albums, what’s the point? I saw your haircut the day you got it, and I hated it as much then as I do now.I admit, just because I know the raw details of your life, doesn’t mean I totally understand all that’s happened since we’ve been apart. I don’t know your plans, your fears, your goals and emotions.But I still know too much about you. When it comes to Facebook, abstinence makes the heart grow fonder. A little self-restraint can make all the difference. Nothing’s more intriguing than someone who has a few secrets.Maybe it’s time to keep some details of your life to yourself because some thoughts aren’t meant to be shared, and some stories are best told in person. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(11/29/10 12:44am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>My biggest fear is twofold. I’m afraid that one day, I’ll grow up to be just like my father. And I’m scared to death that I’ll never be anything like him. Chances are, in 40 years, I’ll look in the mirror and see him. I’ll open my mouth and hear him. My thoughts will become more and more similar to his. But right now, that day seems rather distant. We barely understand each other. Frequently, our conversations are clouded by miscommunication. We hardly seem able to speak. Most often, our words collide. He says one thing, and I hear another. I respond, confusing the situation even more.It’s all rather frustrating. This Thanksgiving, we weathered another relational storm. And though it’s tempting to wallow in self-pity, making myself out to be some sort of holiday martyr, I know that’s not true. I hurt him. He hurt me. But we’re not the only family to experience friction. In fact, I have a feeling that my holiday experience might resemble yours. A friend of mine texted me on turkey day, reporting that Thanksgiving could officially begin because his mom had “spiked the cider.” With the way families tend to behave during the holidays, her preventative measure is almost reasonable; family gatherings often serve as new platforms for old problems. That’s what happened with me and my dad. Simmering tensions erupted. Sound familiar? The National Center for Fathering reports that more than 55 percent of Americans admit to having “unresolved problems” with their fathers.While it’s enticing to believe that those conflicts might resolve themselves, I question if time really heals all wounds. I’m thinking it takes some effort too. And that’s difficult. I’m also beginning to think that our relationships with our fathers determine a lot about who we are. Freud certainly thought so. And a lot of smart people since have agreed. I might go so far as to say that our relationships with our fathers is the most important relationship we’ll ever have. If he loves us well, we’ll feel secure. But if he loves us poorly, we’ll search for his attention somewhere else, finding it where we can.I’m starting to believe that no matter how hard we try, we can’t escape our father’s influence. I know I can’t. When I work tirelessly without interruption, he’s there. (Dad’s the hardest worker I know.) And when I wash my roommate’s dishes, I feel like him. (He’s rather selfless, too.) In fact, my dad has served as the caregiver to my maternal grandfather, who’s come to live at our house in his old age. Though Dad’s work is thankless and unending, he performs it dutifully. My strong sense of personal responsibility comes from him. Home isn’t always easy. Sometimes, home sucks. But these next three weeks, I want to consciously prepare for my return. Dad will still be there. And though he can be one tough man to love, I do. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(11/21/10 11:54pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve never had good skin. Ever. Even after three rounds of Accutane, I still break out as bad as I did in middle school.But you’d never be able to tell by looking at my Facebook. Because I’ve photoshopped unflattering pictures of me for as long as I can remember.No, I don’t have massive identity issues. I like who I am and how I look. I just prefer not to be seen with zits. It’s not like I perform virtual plastic surgery every time I fix a picture. I simply smooth out the major blemishes on my face. It takes two minutes at most. But to me, it makes a huge difference. And I’m not alone. Because airbrushing isn’t just for the stars anymore. It’s for people like us. Last week, the New York Times reported that photo retouching was becoming increasingly common in school portraits.And it’s no surprise why. At an age when individuals are incredibly sensitive about their appearance, it makes sense that parents would pay any price for a retouch option that could remove blemishes, cowlicks and scars from students’ faces. The act of photo retouching is nothing new. In the 1940s, trained artists would paint over pimples by hand. Today, Lifetouch, Inc (a company that snaps more than 30 million student portraits each year) uses image editing software to retouch individuals’ school photos. Indeed, the company estimates that 10 percent of elementary aged children have their photos retouched. In high school, about half of all school portraits are retouched.While some raise the flag of concern, suggesting that parents who choose to retouch their children’s photos might be contributing to negative self image and low self esteem, I beg to differ. Airbrushing is God’s gift to memory. Who wouldn’t want a nice Gaussian blur to cover the sting of middle school bullies? Or to smooth out the scar of high school insecurity?We need to know and love who we are, but we don’t have to stare at it every time we open the photo album. Maybe I don’t mind airbrushing photos because my memories have already been retouched.I don’t remember the zit you had on Halloween or your massive pit stains after Little 5. And I’d hope that you wouldn’t remember mine. When I flip back through the album of our friendship, I want the focus to be on what was said, done, felt, enjoyed — not on our looks. And by airbrushing images that might have caused the attention to be placed on a particular bodily imperfection (a stray zit, a dangling boogie, etc.) I’m truly directing our attention toward what’s most important: our time together. Who wants presence of a zit in a photo to trigger memories of the overwhelming stress and embarrassment felt before the party, when there are so many more wonderful things to remember about the party itself? Photos exist to capture memories, not destroy them.And a little bit of airbrushing goes a long way in ensuring that what I remember is what’s worth remembering. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(11/07/10 11:18pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The U.S. Air Force has officially expressed its interest in finding a way to dumb down the opposition.Issuing a $49 million call for research, the military is asking scientists to explore methods to “degrade enemy performance” by artificially overwhelming their “cognitive abilities.”This isn’t the first time the military has targeted enemy minds. Most infamously, the U.S. Army asked volunteers to use psychoactive drugs, such as marijuana, LSD and PCP, to study the disorienting effects of those substances.That research resulted in the development of a hallucinogenic artillery round, which could leave subjects in a sleep-like state for days. It also led to the short-lived abundance of tie-dye shirts and black light posters in Army surplus stores across the country. But that was then. This is now.Harnessing the power of hallucinogenic drugs might have been cutting-edge stuff in the 1960s, but the counterculture has since exhausted all experimental options related to hallucinogenic substances.With $49 million up for grabs, we have to become creative. It’s time to explore ideas that might have previously seemed too sinister or too evil to be exercised by a moral republic.It might be dark and difficult, but I’m willing to go there.In the search for a new mind-altering weapon, the U.S. needn’t look farther than the hypnotizing locks of Justin Bieber, whose disorienting and destabilizing effects have been well documented.Last November, Bieber incited a panicked frenzy at the Roosevelt Field Mall in Long Island, N.Y., where more than 10,000 fans gathered in hopes of meeting the then 15-year-old megastar.When it was announced that the singing, dancing sensation would have to cancel his appearance for security reasons, things got ugly. The Bieber-induced riot that followed led to one arrest and about 9,999 broken hearts. While the military generally frowns upon disorder, inciting hysterical panic in the enemy’s camp could be tactically desirable. However, if we were ever to deploy the Bieber, we’d have to get around the tricky legal fact that he’s technically Canadian property. Hopefully, our NATO ally to the north would be willing to make a deal.But if Bieber ultimately proved inaccessible, we have other options. In fact, the most devastating mind-altering interface ever devised by man was crafted by American college students in Massachusetts. Enter Facebook.Each day, the social networking juggernaut sucks a total of 8 billion minutes out of the lives of its 300 million users.If we truly desire to invade and occupy enemy minds, leaving them shallow and useless, we’ve found the most effective means. And the basic coding should be easy enough to steal. Mark Zuckerberg already did it once.But wait. If we could harness and combine the destructive powers of Bieber and Facebook, condensing and focusing their devastating effects into a single, powerful weapon, would we really dumb our enemies down? Or simply make them more like us?E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(10/31/10 10:50pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On Halloween, you shouldn’t put anything in your mouth until your mom and dad have examined it. It’s just not safe. There are all kinds of crazy people in the world — folks with evil intentions, bad motives, shifty smiles, greasy hair and dirty kitchens. And they’re out to get you. In fact, every Halloween, they try to poison you. But mom and dad’s intervention has helped you make it this far. Remember that Tootsie Roll with the compromised wrapper? Sudden death, for sure. What a close call! You’ve got a lot to be thankful for.It’s a shame we have to live this way, imaging an enemy behind every front door with the porch light on. The world used to be a friendlier place, you know. Back in the 1950s, before the Commies tried to ruin it. Before Nixon and the war on drugs and Waco and the liberal media. Before everyone sued everybody. You used to know your neighbors, your milkman, your bank tellers and your local sheriff. But now, you can’t trust anyone. Or so the story goes. The thing about stories, though, is that they’re usually fiction. It’s time to forget what you’ve heard about arsenic and razor blades. Because the truth is that there’s never been a single, verified incident of a nameless, faceless, soulless stranger poisoning other people’s children on Halloween. To be fair, Halloween candy has resulted in a few mysteries. Our fear of Milk Duds is not entirely unfounded. But a look at the facts suggests that we shouldn’t worry about some ambiguous, unidentifiable threat down the street. If anyone’s trying to kill you, it’ll probably be someone you know. Because in the few cases where Halloween candy has resulted in death, the poisoned apple hasn’t died far from the tree. In 1974, for example, an 8-year-old boy died after ingesting Pixi Stix powder that his father had laced with cyanide. Desiring to collect on his son’s life insurance policy, Ronald O’Bryan tried to sugar coat his greed, but earned a murder conviction instead. In another instance, a 5-year-old died after using and overdosing on his uncle’s heroin. Attempting to disguise their illegal and negligent behavior, the family sprinkled their stash into the child’s Halloween candy. Those investigating, however, were not fooled. So forget the mysterious enemy next door. He’s not there. And don’t worry about a murderer in your own household, unless you’ve got a giant life insurance policy or neglected piles of heroin on your coffee table. Death by candy just isn’t that realistic. Neither are a lot of the things we fear. A liberal agenda. A Republican wave in Congress. Our political candidates are not out to get us. This Election season, let’s be careful not to exaggerate the danger of the opposition. While they might be wrong, they probably aren’t evil. And they certainly aren’t seeking to poison our country.This November, as many forecast doom, remember: We’re always safer than we think. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(10/24/10 10:25pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I know I’m a pretty emotional guy — that not all men get as excited or as frustrated or as teary-eyed as I do. And I’m OK with that. I am who I am, right?For years, I’ve lived under the assumption that my sensitivity was a strength, that passionately engaging with the world could never backfire.I was convinced that we needed more people who would stand up, speak out and fight for what they believed. With passion. With conviction. With purpose. But then I saw Phil Davison’s speech to the Executive Committee of the Republican Party in Stark County, Ohio. And everything changed. Last month, Davison addressed this committee in order to express his desire to be nominated as the party’s candidate for county treasurer. While many such speeches never make it out of the meeting room, a camera was rolling as Davison took to the podium. It seems like someone had an idea about what was about to go down. Davison proceeded to shout his poorly written campaign speech, pacing across the stage and screaming, “Politics is not touch football. Politics is winner-takes-all. It always has been, and it always will be.”Frantically and feverishly stringing together line after line, Davison’s tirade lasted six awful minutes. And when the dust settled, this fiery-eyed man, who claims to hold a master’s degree in communication, effectively conveyed his lack of emotional stability to attendees.I can’t deny that watching Davison spiral to the depths of insanity was hilariously captivating. Indeed, since his speech was first posted on YouTube, it has received more than 1.7 million views.But I won’t argue that Davison should get a grip and take local politics a little less seriously. On the contrary, he understands what many don’t — that individuals with a desire for political change should not overlook the humble local-level offices where many important decisions are made.What’s most troubling about Davison’s outburst is that he doesn’t see any problem with it. “I’m raw and I’m real and I’m rugged. And that’s who I am, take it or leave it,” Davison said, defending himself in an interview aired on the Fox News Channel.I choose to leave it. Because passion without discretion is destructive.While we certainly have the right to say what we feel, to get angry, to stick it to the man, we aren’t entitled to behave recklessly and then excuse our actions by calling them “real.” In our culture, it’s easy to forget that “I am who I am,” was first spoken by the God of the Bible — not some 20-year-old on MTV. The phrase was initially used to express a depth of character, not a lack of it.Being “real” and “raw” has come to be code for being childish and uncontrolled.But remember, spitting out the first thing that comes to mind isn’t necessarily a sign of authenticity. Usually, it’s a declaration of stupidity. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(10/17/10 10:49pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Debating the future of the secularist movement, atheists, humanists and other religious skeptics gathered in Los Angeles last week to argue the best way to publicly criticize religion.Some insisted that friendlier, more accommodating rhetoric could open doors for atheists to receive the support of religious moderates. Others asserted that it’s best for atheists to be bold and confrontational, loudly opposing any religious belief.Discussions about how best to evangelize have traditionally been held among religious individuals desiring to advance their beliefs in non-believing places. However, the debate at the Los Angeles conference suggests that secularist leaders are quite interested in multiplying their ranks. And if it’s growth they desire, I have a few suggestions from a young, religious rhetorician’s point of view. If secularists want their movement to grow beyond the walls of the ivory towers where they have a strong foothold, if they desire to “save” those who might not hold a college degree, they must work to shed their status as intellectual elitists. The perception of atheists as all brain and no heart can prove to be intimidating, overly-confident and rude to religious believers. A popular, religious perception of atheism asserts that it is a world view that claims to have discovered the truth behind religion. It’s believed that atheism is an objective, scientific understanding of the universe that has correctly investigated religion, rightly dismissing it as an inferior world view. I hardly intend to argue the merits of atheism’s claim to superior knowledge of what’s true or real. I do, however, wish to suggest that atheists’ self-presentation as enlightened should cease if they intend to gain a larger following. Though they might rightly believe that they have transcended religion, this position has allowed atheist rhetoric to arrogantly dismiss the actual objections to atheism that religious people hold. Famously, best-selling atheist Richard Dawkins objected to debate William Lane Craig, one of the most academically-respected modern Christian theologians, by stating, “I don’t take on creationists. ... I’m busy.” Such a position is absurd and arrogant. If Christians and academics respect Craig, it seems reasonable for Dawkins, as a leading atheist apologist, to give him the rhetorical time of day. In a recent interview with the New York Times, science writer Chris Mooney accurately noted that many Christians reject science because of a “perceived conflict with moral values.”While the common atheist response to critics of evolution has been to argue that evolution is scientifically indisputable, that claim fails to address the real need of religious objectors, namely, the assurance that an objective standard for morality could exist without God. If atheists intend to advance their cause to segments of the population that are not immediately persuaded by their intellectually-based rhetoric, they must address the beliefs that undergird individuals’ resistance to atheism. Addressing the specific terms of debate in Los Angeles, it seems that a more accommodating atheist movement might gain supporters while a more confrontational atheist movement could gain momentum. Only a rhetorically relevant movement, however, will gain new converts. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(10/10/10 11:59pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Mothers everywhere have been wondering what college has done to their daughters, or so I imagine. Choking back tears, they’ve expressed their frustration similar to this: “She went away a Glee-watching, bestie-hugging, Nicholas Sparks-reading angel, and now she’s posting ‘I like it on the floor’ as her Facebook status. Why would I agree to send her to that liberal cesspool anyway? I blame her father.”Don’t worry, mom. It’s not what you think. I promise. During the past few weeks, women across the country have been posting “I like it on [the floor, the chair, the kitchen counter, etc.]” in their Facebook status bars. But these suggestive statuses aren’t nearly as scandalous as they seem. Contrary to initial assumption, these women are, in fact, referring to where they like to put their purses once they get home. This status actually has noble intentions. It’s part of a Facebook campaign to raise awareness for breast cancer research. It’s designed to grab the attention of both men and women and get them asking questions. But it has a few flaws. First, it’s ambiguous and requires interpretation. So, it’s likely this message of awareness and advocacy is going over the heads of half the population. Namely, men. Guys just aren’t always that sharp. Ladies, you know this; you tell us all the time. Why launch a publicity campaign to raise awareness for breast cancer that requires individuals to investigate the multiple meanings of a specific phrase and to determine which one is most appropriate and accurate for the given context? Here’s a general rule of thumb: If it takes more than three seconds for a guy to figure something out, he’s already moved on.While this status certainly raises eyebrows, it might not raise true awareness. And a recent study suggests that it certainly doesn’t raise money either. Of the more than 350 nonprofit organizations that focus on breast cancer, none has reported an increase in donations as a result of this campaign. While the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, which is responsible for those well-recognized pink ribbons and numerous other fund-raising efforts, did see an increase in visits to its website in January (the last time such a campaign was launched) they did not witness a surge in donations. And that’s disheartening. Because breast cancer research certainly needs public attention, but it needs money even more.However, there are online campaigns that succeed in raising those much needed funds. For example, the Komen foundation launched its own online campaign (#fightbreastcancer) that directs individuals to 69-seconds.org, where they can make pledges or become directly involved in breast cancer organizations. This campaign has proved itself as much clearer and much more fruitful in its contribution to the fight against breast cancer than innuendo-ridden Facebook statuses. So while you’re free to do what you want with your status, if you really want to make a difference, and not just a bold statement, there might be better ways to do it. And, your mom would sleep a whole lot easier at night. Email: tycherne@indiana.edu
(10/03/10 11:46pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Apparently, I look like a sinner. I guess that’s easy to do when you dress like an English major. Who knew that wearing bright colors could be so damnable? Not me. Until last week, that is, when Brother Jed made his annual stop at the Ballantine clock. On my way to class, I was individually approached and specifically stopped by one of his associates who asked if I was a child of God. Before I could even answer, he told me I was headed to Hell. Hell? I thought I was on my way to literary theory — although I can see how those two could be confused. How could he be so sure of my final destination? The truth is, I don’t often think about Hell. And you probably don’t either. Why would we? We all seem to be convinced we aren’t going there. In fact, only one-half of 1 percent of Americans expect they’ll go to Hell after they die. Maybe that’s why we don’t talk about it. It seems irrelevant. Or maybe the whole “lake of fire” thing has us a little freaked out? Regardless, I’m now soundly convinced that our silence about Hell has created disaster. Because when it comes to understanding the eternal fate of unsaved souls, Americans seem to be confused and divided. Here’s the situation: about four out of 10 people believe Hell is “a state of eternal separation from God’s presence.” About one-third said it is “an actual place of torment and suffering where people’s souls go after death.” And the rest think it’s living without their iPhone. Despite this division, there seems to be a pretty strong consensus that it’s a bad place to be. Indeed, Jesus said it will be filled with “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And while scholars debate what exactly will cause such frustration — whether those in Hell will be burning in flames or incredibly lonely, etc. — they strongly agree that no one there will much like it. Which leads many to ask how a good God could allow people to go there in the first place. Why would a benevolent God let the people he loves suffer such an awful eternity? This dilemma, which people in religious studies call the “problem of Hell,” has been raised repeatedly and consistently by theologians, who struggle to reconcile God’s mercy with his justice.While some have found those attributes irreconcilable, many modern theologians have used concepts like choice and free will to bridge the gap. Most famously, C.S. Lewis insisted that Hell is a natural result of decisions made in the present life. In fact, he was so bold as to assert that “the doors of Hell are locked on the inside.”To him, anyone in Hell was a “successful rebel.” Because those there wanted nothing to do with God while they were alive, they would get exactly what they wanted in death: a place where God is not. Which is slightly more frightening than literary theory. But only slightly. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(09/19/10 10:40pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In our house, no one does the dishes. Ever. Well, I guess that isn’t entirely true.They’ve all been cleaned at least once since we moved in, but it’s never been without a fight.Each time, the argument is the same. Everyone insists, “It’s not my mess,” something we all know is a lie. It’s hard to believe that no one has used a single plate, pan or fork when the sink is full of dishes, and our stomachs are filled with food. A few of my roommates have tried to confront this problem head on, suggesting we make a dish washing schedule and assign chores. But I prefer the status quo, because many times it gets me out of dish duty. Diverting blame and conveniently retreating to my second floor bedroom has made all the difference on multiple occasions. At the end of the day, it’s easier to sit back, shut up and shirk responsibility. And while a public forum probably isn’t the best place to confess my apathy for household chores, I’m not too worried. I doubt my roommates read what I write anyway. I used to be ashamed of such behavior, but now I’m over it. Because the latest scientific research suggests that my quiet evasion of duty is actually a huge benefit to our house. Let me explain.Last month, researchers at the University of Bath in England compared the growth of uniformly active yeast populations with those of mixed yeast populations (where some were incredibly vigorous and others proved terribly sluggish). They quickly noticed that, contrary to their hypothesis, the cultures containing mixed yeast populations outgrew those in which all yeast consumed and produced equally.After careful analysis, these scientists came to understand that the inactive yeast, which consumed food without producing, actually caused the active yeast to focus their efforts and work more efficiently. It seems, sometimes, slackers can be a huge help. Such research raises a strong counterargument to the common assumption that systems work best when everyone does their “fair share.” It seems, instead, that systems work best when some work and others don’t. And maybe they work even better when everyone has someone to blame. Because, in all honesty, this confession isn’t really a fresh disclosure. My roommates are on to me. They’re starting to wonder why I’m conveniently busy every time we decide to clean. It’s made me the common enemy. But that’s a valuable role.Because there’s a reason polls show one-third of employees said their managers are incompetent. And there’s a reason we complain about “that guy” in class projects. Nothing unites like distaste and distrust.When it comes to our house, I’m the one the roommates talk about. I’m the one they can blame for every stray piece of trash and every unexpected mess. For every broken appliance and unlocked door. As long as it keeps me from doing the dishes, I wouldn’t have it any other way. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(09/13/10 12:40am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I could use my middle name as a last name. I mean, who isn’t friends with at least one Megan Anne or Sarah Nicole? And Tyler Douglas does have a nice ring to it. But the goal is to be smart, not ridiculous. It seems like this Facebook face-lift is going to be tougher than I thought.Not that I have anything to hide. I don’t. Seriously. I just want to be proactive about my online persona. About my Internet identity. About who people meet when they Google “Tyler Chernesky.”You can call me narcissistic, but don’t pretend like you’ve never wondered how you come off online. You have. In fact, the Pew Research Center has shown the majority of American adults use search engines to keep tabs on their world-wide webutations.Chances are, you’ve removed a poorly articulated status on more than one occasion. And you’ve probably untagged an unflattering photo as well. Profile management is a fact of life in the Internet age. Whether it’s choosing to publish your birthday or deciding whether “Jesus shaves” accurately describes your religious views, each bit of personal information posted online paints a portrait of you for the world. And not only is the portrait painted, it’s preserved.Last month, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt suggested young people should be entitled to change their identities so they might escape the details of their “misspent” youths. These details, of course, have been meticulously recorded, catalogued, stored and made available to all by the very corporation he runs. Until Schmidt’s suggestion becomes reality, however, you and I seem to be tethered to our pasts, which is nothing new. Reputations have followed people for as long as we’ve been doing things that are smart, stupid or scandalous enough to inspire others to talk about it. Nevertheless, I wonder if we should embrace Schmidt’s words and panic. Because I don’t want a new identity. I rather like the one I have now. But in two years, it’ll have to go, right? Or maybe there’s another way? Maybe I don’t need to begin the new name hunt just yet. Maybe legislation will save my employment prospects. A new German law bars employers from using social networking sites to research potential employees. It would be unethical for a company to examine the abundant information found on social networking sites, these lawmakers are imagining and legislating a future where personal pasts don’t interfere with professional futures. Such a law, which protects personal privacy and individual autonomy, seems like it would play well in the American political sphere.Or, I guess I could live a life that, even if it were accurately portrayed on Facebook, wouldn’t paint me as an irresponsible, lying addict. It wouldn’t suggest I was immature or out of touch. It might require a large dose of discipline and a whole lot of self-control. But it sure beats Tyler Douglas.E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(09/05/10 11:03pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Thanks for reading this. I know you’re pretty busy — who isn’t? — but I’m quite grateful that you would deem this worthy of your time.If you read at an average adult pace you’ll probably finish this column in less than two minutes, and with your busy schedule, that’s a valuable chunk of time. I know your calendar is overflowing and reading this is certainly keeping you from the eight other things you need to be doing. But for the next few minutes, let’s slow down and talk honestly about our business. It shouldn’t be too hard. This probably won’t be the first discussion you’ve had about your overwhelming schedule today. Wherever I go, I hear people talking about how overbooked they are. When did “busy” replace “fine” as the standard answer for “How are you, today?” If your experience is anything like mine, you encounter apologetically overbooked individuals all the time — in fact, I see one every time I look in the mirror. They are so sorry for being in a hurry, but were caught there before making it here and will be back later but first they have the other thing, so it was nice to catch up. Really, it was. But now they have to run. They seem to love to rush, but why?This summer, psychologists from the University of Chicago took up this question, asking if humans had a basic need to fill their time. They asked volunteers to complete two surveys, with a 15-minute gap between them. After completing the first survey, participants could choose to hand it in and wait patiently for the next, or they had the option to drop it off at a distant location, filling the 15-minute gap between surveys with a commute to and from the more distant site. Most volunteers “chose to stay busy by going to the faraway location.” The researchers concluded those who occupied their time were “happier than those who chose to be idle.” Wait, happier? I thought schedules were overwhelming and overbearing. Aren’t we bound by them? Our language certainly suggests we are. It’s fairly obvious you and I are both “tied up” at the moment — don’t worry, I’ll “let you go” soon — but until then, neither one of us is really “free”. These are the words we use, aren’t they?But who are we kidding? We aren’t forced to be busy. We’re worn-down, blood-shot, droopy-eyed messes because we want to be. We could step out from behind the rhetorical tricks that make it seem like our schedule controls us and admit that we control them. But where’s the fun in that?I’d love to talk more about this sometime, but now I really do have to go. Please forgive me. But we really should do this again. When? Lunch is full, and dinner’s out for the next two weeks. And brunch won’t work. Ever. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(08/31/10 12:58am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I found a plastic sword the other day. It was buried in the couch under the pillows right next to the stale pretzels. I’m pretty sure my roommate’s little brother left it there. (You know how little guys love swords.) It was late at night, and I was surprised to discover it, so I did what any responsible, mature, college-educated man would do. I attacked my roommate.In seconds, I had dismembered and decapitated him — imaginarily, of course — and neither one of us could quit laughing and shouting as I hacked him with the toy blade. Sometimes, a little violence can be fun. And I’m not the only guy that feels this way. The popularity of Halo, Call of Duty, UFC and Nerf prove the point: there’s something about a hard-fought battle that captures the heart and imagination of a man. And all men are boys at heart.So it should come as no surprise to parents or early childhood educators that young boys often play violent games where fingers become our guns and two hands in the air mean you’re flying. However, such play has come under attack.Last month at their annual conference, members of the American Psychological Association bemoaned the effects of fantasy violence. Insisting that modern superheroes promote aggression and emotional detachedness, the APA asserted, “Watching superheroes beat up villains may not be the best image for boys to see if society wants to promote kinder, less stereotypical male behaviors.” Now I’m all about kind behavior, and I don’t always fit the mold of what’s stereotypically male, but is a little fantasy violence really that bad?Apparently, early childhood educators believe it is. In a recently released survey, half of the 98 female teachers polled reported “stopping or redirecting boys’ play” on a regular basis. Knowing that female educators make up 97.8 percent of the pre-K and kindergarten labor force, it’s logical to assume that the free play of young boys across the country is being squelched and curbed.And that’s a shame. Because a little violence never hurt anyone.I remember playing games with all sorts of fighting as a young boy. You probably do too. What child of the ’90s didn’t pretend they were a Power Ranger on more than one occasion? Aggressive play is simply part of growing up.As socially-minded, earth-saving, peace-loving young adults, we must remember that violent-themed play is what it is: play. There is no malicious intent, no real hate behind it. Psychologist Michael Thompson suggests the violent play of boys is most often halted by young mothers and female educators who did not participate in and cannot relate to the style of aggressive play that boys find so enthralling. So to them, I say this. When a little guy calls you “bad” and runs after you screaming “Die! Die!” he’s not angry. He’s just pretending. Let him be the hero. Just calm down and fire back. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(12/07/09 3:56am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Are you on an intensely individual journey toward the meaning of life? If so, you should probably blog about it. Most likely, it will turn out like all the other personal blogs written by pretentious 20-year-olds. You might say something about beginning a journey of a thousand miles with a single step toward making the change you want to see in the world on the first day of the rest of your life. Or maybe you’d take a more cynical approach. Perhaps you’d use your vast life experience to comment on the absurdity of all modes of thought and reason contrary to your own.Or maybe you’d just post YouTube videos. Who knows?No doubt the words “journey,” “movement” or “discovery” would appear in your blog’s title. And you’d probably put a picture of a sunset in the header – just to give it some extra validity. A nice blurb in the “About You” box could tell your readers that your favorite color is purple and that you like math.But in the end, who really cares?I guess it’s understandable that you’d want to write. You’re a smart university student with a bright future. Highly educated and ready to share your wisdom, you fit the mold of the average blog author.Indeed, 75 percent of all bloggers have a college degree. After years of parading your thoughts in front of eccentric professors, it could be tough to stop writing about obscure personal points of interest that few others outside of your close circle of contacts care about. With more than 133 million blogs in existence, there’s plenty of room for your thoughts on the World Wide Web. However, it’s questionable whether anyone will read them. In 2007, Google CEO Eric Schmidt remarked that the average blog has one reader: its writer. And though blogs have gained increasing popularity and validity, recent research suggests that the average reader spends 96 seconds reading a blog post.For all the hours you’ll spend perfecting that poem about crying in the rain, you’ll only get a minute and a half of attention (sorry, emo bloggers). The fact is, if someone happens to stumble his way to your little corner of the blogosphere, he probably won’t stay for long. But maybe you’re not in it for the fame. Perhaps you write for fulfillment or self-satisfaction. In that case, you’re not alone. In its annual “State of the Blogosphere” report, Technorati (a blog about blogs) claimed that 70 percent of bloggers measure their success by the internal joy they receive in publishing. And that’s something we can all understand. Sometimes, it’s just nice to feel like someone cares about what you have to say.So when your first post is finished, make sure you copy and paste that url into your Facebook status. I wouldn’t want to miss your work. And don’t forget to tweet about your new post either. That won’t make you look desperate at all. E-mail: tycherne@indiana.edu
(11/29/09 11:34pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When I grow up, I’ll make sure my children fear bearded men. Not that there’s anything wrong with bearded men. In fact, I’d like to be one someday. It’s just that I, like every other responsible parent, will want my kids to be on the constant lookout for strangers who might do them harm.And everyone knows bearded men are up to no good.I know not all people with beards are bad. It’s true, Bob Ross had one. But he’s the exception. Ted Kaczynski, the BTK strangler, and Osama bin Laden are each notorious beard wearers. All evidence considered, the connection between facial hair and criminal activity is obvious.I want to be open and honest with my children, giving them specific people, objects and organizations to fear. No vague references to “strangers” for me. What good does that ill-defined, all-encompassing term do, anyway? If I succeed, anyone with a beard, dirty mustache, dark sunglasses, leather coat, lost dog or acid wash jeans will be utterly distrusted by my kids. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.Parents used to be frank with their kids. But now, I wonder if it hasn’t all been lost to left-wing multiculturalism and tolerance.I say, anyone who grows a beard wants to be stereotyped. That applies to men or women; I don’t discriminate. In 1987, HBO aired a television special titled, “How to Raise a Street Smart Child,” in which they asked kids to define stranger. Look at these exemplary responses. “A stranger looks mean and ugly.” So true. “A stranger is like a punk rocker that drinks beer all day and sits around in a vacant lot.” Impressive! This response shows a nuanced understanding of stranger food and behavior preferences.But this answer takes the cake: “A stranger sometimes wears a hat ... and is a guy with a beard.” Bingo! I wonder if today’s kids would be so wise?Probably not. Today’s parents probably know that 93 percent of child sexual assault perpetrators are known by their victims. They probably realize that it is more likely that a child will suffer a heart attack than be kidnapped. They probably act on these facts, failing to instill a healthy degree of paranoia into their children.And that’s a shame!Because scared children become scared adults – adults who cross the street when they see a suspicious-looking homeless man ahead, or who hit the automatic lock button when a bearded man passes on the sidewalk. We need more of these proactive citizens.We need grown-ups who understand that the panhandler is most likely a belligerent alcoholic who’d spend the dollar they’d give him on booze. In a climate where Americans toss out 40 percent of their food, we can’t afford to waste anymore of it on shifty individuals who wouldn’t even help themselves if they could.Naive optimism cannot stand. All beards and bums must be suspect. Or, could it be that the real stranger danger is never getting close enough to see they’re people?
(11/16/09 2:52am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’d never call myself trendy. I know I own black-framed glasses and am particularly fond of sweaters, but I don’t orient my life around the latest fads. Honestly, I don’t. I bought my pea coat before the craze and have been a fan of Regina Spektor for a while. It’s not that I’m afraid of being seen as cool, or in, or hip, or stylish. In fact, if you think I’m any of those things, I’m quite all right with it. I’m just nervous that someone, somewhere, will think I’m a conformist.You see, in college, conformity is the worst of sins. Although I’ve been consciously trying to avoid it for some time, I can’t help but feel like it’s already too late. Take my Nalgene bottle, for instance.I carry it with me everywhere, sneaking sips in and between classes. I bought it last year in an effort to become “more healthy,” which, I now see, was a quest to drink more water and tell others about it so I would feel good about myself.I decided to buy a Nalgene brand bottle because it seemed like the ultimate fusion of style, purpose and social responsibility. And everyone else had one.My environmentally conscious friends were particularly supportive of my decision, and I was beginning to care about people thinking I cared about nature.I bought a blue bottle because I like that color, and the narrow mouth because I frequently spill when drinking from large mugs. I’ve used it for more than a year now, and I have to admit, I feel in touch with youth culture every time I unscrew the black plastic lid.I think I feel this way because I’m supposed to. Nalgene Outdoor and its remarkable marketing staff have gone to great lengths to ensure that. I’d read on Nalgene’s Web site that they’re “not just about making things” but are really focused on “helping people simplify their lives while being kind to the environment.” I’d visited FilterForGood.org, a Web site launched by Nalgene in cooperation with Brita, where anyone can take a pledge certifying his or her commitment to reducing water bottle waste. It seemed like the right thing to do. In fact, the company claims that more than 170 million water bottles have been kept out of landfills thanks to its efforts and the commitment of Nalgene users. Wait, 170 million bottles? Maybe my conformity isn’t so bad after all.I know it’s the charge levied against the frat bros (or is it brahs?), sorority sisters, honors students, campus Christians, campus atheists, hipsters, yuppies, scene kids, English majors – basically any group with a shared set of ideas. Critics seem particularly upset when a like-minded group advertises and markets its ideas. Leave my beliefs alone, they say, mocking anyone who does something because someone else does. But isn’t that what learning is? Monkey see; monkey do. Repeat what works. When it comes to saving the environment, trendy plastic bottles are simply Nalgenius.
(11/09/09 3:35am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If the clock outside Woodburn Hall felt guilty, I wouldn’t blame it.
During the years, it has endured its fair share of condemnation. Generations of street preachers have stood at its base, proclaiming the sins of IU students.And while we can walk away after we’ve had our share, the clock can’t. It’s stuck.In September, it was forced to face Brother Richard Roskovich’s condemnations of evil “psycho- terror-devils” who love gangster rap.I can’t begin to imagine how much this hurt the faithful timepiece. Everyone knows that clocks everywhere have loved rap since Flavor Flav first hung one around his neck.Unable to defend itself, it stood condemned, silent, without uttering a single objection – except for its regular outburst at the top and bottom of the hour.This past week, the clock listened angrily to the teachings of Jed Smock, also known as Brother Jed, one of the nation’s most famous – or would it be “infamous” – campus preachers. Traveling across the United States from August to December, Smock will speak at more than 35 universities this year.“How is this man even yelling at me?” the clock might wonder. Because the clock knows that in order to make a bunch of noise on campus, you’ve got to have support. It was paid for by the IU Student Foundation, and has been ticking ever since. But who in their right mind would support Smock’s ramblings?A rock star within the public preaching movement, Smock is among the best in the country at judging and accusing students (and clocks) he’s never met.He’s also a master of controversy.At Ohio University, Smock handed out pamphlets titled, “Convincing Reasons Homos are Hellbound.”And while speaking at Arizona State University, Smock claimed “the only thing Mexicans contribute to society is burritos,” and asserted that “Jewish people are only good at making bagels and running banks.”But wait, Jesus didn’t run a bank or a restaurant. I’m confused.And the clock is, too.Smock leaves out a lot. While he occasionally mentions love and somewhat addresses forgiveness, he largely neglects the best parts of the Bible, and that’s a talent.Heavy on conviction, he glosses over a crucial component of the Christian message: grace. He successfully takes the message of Jesus’s life – a message that was called “good news” by the earliest Christians – and twists it into vicious condemnation.And then he screams it at a clock, because that’s the only thing that will listen.Let’s face it: Smock’s preaching persuades no one.His message, which he’s fondly labeled “confrontational evangelism,” fails because it’s designed simply to excite emotions, not to discuss truth.Everyone understands that a masturbator today is not a homosexual tomorrow. And just because a young lady has sex doesn’t mean she’s a whore.The larger truth, which Smock minimizes, is that everyone makes mistakes, is loved anyway and is invited into a new kind of life.If this clock could talk, I’m pretty sure it would tell Smock, “Your time is up.”
(11/02/09 1:42am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I was sitting at Wright, minding my own business, when I heard it.“You’re a stupid whore.” Pause. “Baby, I was just kidding.”Instantly, I recognized it: the mating call of an unhealthy relationship. This wasn’t my first time hearing the call. In fact, it echoes across campus. You just have to listen for it. I’ve heard it in hallways and classrooms, on dorm floors and at parties. I’ve listened to half of its utterance on the way home from class as frantic lovers cry complaints and apologies into a cell phone, vowing to change everything just to make it work. How about letting it end?The fact is, when it comes to relationships, we are far too easily satisfied. Studies claim that 59 to 66 percent of college students have been in a couple where one half is unfaithful. And 36 percent of never-married undergrads claim to have been victims of abuse – physical, verbal, emotional or otherwise – while dating. Though many are wise and leave their toxic romances as soon as possible, many more don’t. We’ve all seen it – and not just as eavesdropping observers. A close friend of mine is in a terribly unhealthy relationship. And though he recognizes it for what it is, he won’t call it off. He’s subtly manipulated and made to feel guilty. The weight of time is all that’s keeping him in it. And it’s awful to watch, because these relationships tend to end in two distinct ways: badly, or in marriage. Both are unacceptable. The 50 percent divorce rate in America doesn’t seem so outrageous when we look at how many awful college couples are out there. It’s weird. We put so much effort into preserving dating relationships that shouldn’t last, but once we make a commitment, we find it easy to leave. This isn’t how it’s supposed to be. Bad relationships are made to end, not to turn into committed ones. They aren’t supposed to be worked out because there’s nothing worth fighting for. This doesn’t mean that forgiveness can’t enter a broken relationship. People do make mistakes sometimes. But true forgiveness can only enter a healthy relationship. Reconciliation needs a foundation. Forgiveness in an unhealthy context is really just excusing. It involves permitting and overlooking unacceptable actions. That doesn’t bring healing or change. It just perpetuates the problem.A breakup is not something to fear. Your partner is not your identity. You can live without them. Just put some sad song lyrics in your Facebook status and move on. Acknowledge your experience for what it was – a bad decision that shouldn’t be tried again. Don’t stick it out.The biggest problem with bad relationships is that they keep us from experiencing good ones. Without saying goodbye, we can’t say hello to something new and better. You deserve to be respected and loved.If someone calls you a “stupid whore,” there are some serious questions that should enter your mind, and probably words like “goodbye” that should exit your mouth.
(10/25/09 11:17pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Two weeks ago, Richard Dawkins visited the IU Auditorium and things haven’t been the same since. Immediately, conversations started across campus as students began to question their faith. While atheists commended the words of their most notable leader, concerned believers persistently questioned his claims. Shocked by Dawkins’ confident rejections of faith, many were quick to label him a militant atheist extremist. I did.But now, I’m not buying it. While Dawkins might be an intelligent, Oxford-educated biologist with a keen ability to piss people off, he’s hardly hardcore. In fact, compared to the founding fathers of atheism, he’s a wimp, according to recent campus lecturer John Haught.In his 2006 bestseller, “The God Delusion,” Dawkins claims, “We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.”This isn’t exactly the view of the classical atheists. When famed existentialist/pioneering atheist Jean-Paul Sartre spoke about his beliefs, he said, “Atheism is a cruel and long-range affair.” Friedrich Nietzsche, though confident in God’s death, maintained that most would be too weak to accept the terrifying reality of a world without religion.In overthrowing something as fundamental as God, classical atheists understood that intense cultural change would necessarily occur. Dawkins’ post-religious world, however, seems much like ours – just without churches, mosques, religious prejudice, absolute values and, most importantly, freedom from the greatest of all evils: creationists. But that’s not how it works. You can’t say no to something without saying yes to something else. Atheism isn’t a simple shunning of “irrational,” faith-based belief. It’s an embrace of naturalism. It’s an acceptance that this is all there is. It demands a willingness to wonder if there’s a purpose to life. It requires that individuals assume total responsibility for their actions, which is an incredible burden.True atheists must grapple with lawless nihilism. They should see no tragedy in suffering and should find no praise for altruism. Certain ways might be preferable, but they cannot be inherently better. Because things just are. Period. This doesn’t mean that atheists want us to suffer or that they desire a world without happiness. It doesn’t imply that many atheists have come to their belief without processing these bleak thoughts.This doesn’t mean that atheists are bad people. I love them. Many are my friends.I’m simply asserting that atheism is not a world view that should be as easily and rationally accepted as Dawkins suggests. It’s not a joyous enlightenment that one experiences. It should be tough.And though he can be quite the attack dog, I’d never call Richard Dawkins tough. While I might be intimidated by his bold denunciations of all faiths, I see him for what he is: a half-hearted atheist, who only partially embraces the implications of his belief. He is, at best, a naive proponent, fully knowledgeable of the biology behind his world view but reluctant to acknowledge the depressing reality of the existence he advocates. He’s one who would attack God, but not finish Him off. A pansy. A juvenile noob. Or, as Dawkins might say in his refined British way, a bloody sissy.
(10/20/09 12:51am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’m dropping out. Who needs a degree anyway?Midterm papers are due and exams are approaching. The days are getting shorter and the nights longer. Seasonal depression has set in. It won’t stop raining. I haven’t done laundry, and nothing in the food court looks edible. I owe money to the bursar, the credit card company and my parents. This isn’t working out.And I know I’m not the only one thinking it. Only 70 percent of students starting at IU-Bloomington in 2003 had graduated five years later. The rest left for one reason or another. While some may have transferred, many just called it quits.And I’m ready to join them because some days, it’s hard to see the point.Am I here to be educated, indoctrinated or to learn how to please a professor whose conception of reality I question? You can’t tell me this pretentious exchange of ideas is preparing me for life. Or is it?I guess it doesn’t really matter, because I’m done. Well, I want to be. But I can’t quite say goodbye.Because the fact can’t be ignored: Individuals who earn a bachelor’s degree make 54 percent more on average than those who attend college but don’t finish. But for an English major who’ll probably make his living as a Starbucks barista with or without a diploma, does it even matter?Sure, while you’re at school there are things to do, sites to see and places that are open after 10 p.m. – something I can’t find at home. You can do as you please, go to sleep when you want and work when you feel like it.But I still want to go.Maybe it’s the constant pressure – meeting after meeting, paper after paper. Where’s the time to explore? My intellectual pursuit is less of a personal quest through uncharted territory and more of a walk down the well-worn path to Ballantine. I have quickly learned that professors’ requests for an “original thesis” really means one fitting within the context and patterned systems of thought they hold.And they give the grades, so I suck it up. But I can’t do it anymore.I’m also tired of feeling like I’m not doing enough.Everywhere I look around campus, I see people doing more, rising higher faster. How could anyone ever measure up?Because it’s not just what you do in class; it’s about service and letters of recommendation. I know since I’ve been here, I haven’t volunteered for any charity. I’ve rarely – and by rarely, I mean never – gone to office hours. And you know you haven’t either.Last week, I thought of starting an organization called “Students Making Change.” Though our mission would be providing quarters and dimes to individuals in need of converting their paper money to coined currency, I think the club name could really pop off the page in the eyes of a potential employer.Who knows, it could even make up for my non-existent diploma.