It may be yet another week following far too short of a weekend, but there’s really no choice but to own up to the Mondays and dig in anyhow. I guess that’s part of why I write this Must Read/See/Hear series — to get over my “Mondays” and start the week with something good for me to share, and hopefully, something good for you to read.

Anyhow, here we go: new things for your enjoyment on a Monday morning.

.

MUST READ

One of my favorite online reads is elephantjournal.com, a Boulder, Colo.-based blog, webcast, and general guide to well-being that provides a lot of articles relevant to what founder (and friendly face) Waylon Lewis calls ‘the mindful life’. If you ask me, elephantjournal.com really embodies what living in Boulder is all about: living conscientiously, and sharing that mindset with others.

Although I’m not in Boulder anymore — and I know that I’m pretty vocal about missing it so much — it’s really nice to be able to read about politics, spirituality, health and much more from the Boulder state of mind when I’m all the way out here in California. But the reason that works out so well is that it’s not just  ‘Boulder’ thing to be mindful of one’s lifestyle — it’s something all of us should be concerned about, and it’s relevant no matter where you live. I also follow @elephantjournal on Twitter to keep up with what’s going on.

My favorite pieces lately include posts talks about farmer’s markets and eating in support of sustainability and an older post about slow food vs. vegetarianism. There’s also a fair amount of humor and politics to go around, and I can always get a quick solution to homesickness with the abundance of videos featuring Waylon and the ele-crew enlightening and entertaining the Boulder community.

.

MUST SEE

Thanks to elephantjournal.com, in fact, I saw this great segment of Jon Stewart mocking Glenn Beck on the Daily Show. Stewart channels Beck not just for the sake of comedy but because Beck, regardless of political affiliation, deserves to be called out for his absurd theatrics.

.

MUST HEAR

“What? Jen, you like Spoon? No way…”

All right, all right. I know. I can’t leave it alone. But Spoon played at SXSW this week and the entire 18-song (!!) set that was aired during a live webcast is now online at NPR.org. It’s just way too good not to share!

If you like rock in any capacity, you’ll definitely like this. If you have never heard Spoon before, it’s a great opportunity to hear why they have such an incredible fan base. And if you love Spoon as much as I do, you can download the set and listen to it anytime!

You see, Twitter has been getting on my nerves for many months now. I first started getting tired of Twitter when CNN started to pick up on it, asking people to voice their opinions and basing entire shows off of the concept of giving viewers a voice. The problem with that, if you ask me, is that a lot of the hot topics on the news are far more serious than 140 characters, and require much more space, time, and context than a mere tweet. Of course, that’s been a problem in journalism for a while now; 140 characters is extreme when examining the way that half-hour news programs have severely limited the quality of content while becoming a prime source of news for most Americans.

I could go on and on about user-generated content, the importance of editorial discretion, why journalism is dying, etc., and it’s all relevant — but it’s only distantly related to my unhappiness with Twitter.

Twitter is beginning to tire me out because of the way it is being used by a large amount of its user base. When I first joined Twitter, I thought it was a neat concept; I could broadcast something I wanted to say to a lot of people, and they could get it on their phones if they wanted to. I could keep updated on what my friends are doing without having to ask each person separately what their plans are for the weekend or if they felt like seeing a movie. I, like many others, never anticipated Twitter becoming quite as huge as it is now, nor did anyone actually anticipate the rush it has become to gain followers, build a brand, start discussions, etc. In all honesty, I’m quite disappointed that it has become such a big deal.

And don’t even get me started on all the social media guru stuff that goes around. The hundreds of top ten lists that circulate the Internet, written by supposed social media experts? I get so tired of it. But like I said — don’t get me started.

I’ve been involved in a few arguments over Twitter lately with people whom I know personally to some extent. Funny enough, the arguments have been sports-related. Now, I’m pretty into sports; I’m a Cubs fan, I love the mechanics and the rules of football, I play and love watching ice hockey, and I tend to get pretty involved when the World Cup rolls around. But by no means am I a Super Fan (though I’ll always be devoted to the Cubs), and I think I have a hard time understanding such intense fandom when it becomes personal. Regardless of my stance on sports, it was the combination of debate/argument/discussion with the incessant need to pursue the topic over Twitter that really turned me off. I was accused of not wanting to stand up for what I was saying, amongst other things, especially when I wanted to stop the discussion. In fact, it’s the exact opposite — I want to stand up for myself and continue a discussion, but it’s not possible to do so on Twitter. I don’t believe that Twitter is the proper medium for arguments; it is not a glorified chat room, nor does it provide much space for one to properly and thoroughly discuss a topic.

On top of that, what’s the result of trying to halt such an occurrence? Name-calling, unfollowing, blocking, and really just unpleasant behavior. Come on, people. It’s Twitter! It’s not necessarily the right place to start a serious conversation. If I mean to start a serious conversation, I wouldn’t start it on Twitter. Therefore, what I talk about on Twitter is not serious. There’s a reason I don’t delve into most of what I do at work on Twitter. There’s a reason I stopped talking about my love life on Twitter. Those reasons, with different pieces of nuance to each, all come down to the same things. Plain and simple, Twitter is just not the place for a multitude of valuable interactions; it takes away from quality, just as not all news can be summarized in 30-second snippets or within a half hour of a news program. Regardless of the different ways it can provide a great service, it just isn’t the best place for everything — especially long-winded and rather public arguments.

Even though I find it ludicrous to create a policy for something one doesn’t take so seriously in the first place, I think I will have to put some time into writing about the reasons I use Twitter and what I expect (or don’t expect) from others when interacting on Twitter. For instance, I really like Jeremy Tanner’s Twitter policy. Although I think that it’s slightly dated in the sense that following/unfollowing is no longer one of the top issues users have with etiquette and behavior, it’s still a pretty solid start.

In the meantime, I don’t mind hiding out from Twitter for a while. I’ve discovered that the less time I spend on Twitter, the more time I spend reading a good book or two. The less time I spend on Twitter, the more I get done at work. And the less time I spend on Twitter, the less I get pissed off at asinine arguments that are best conducted through other media.

Yeah, I forgot about this one — it was filmed at least a year ago. That’s when I didn’t wear glasses (and was rounder?). It’s kind of weird to hear myself talk on video…

Anyhow, this was filmed for the purpose of showing incoming students or potential students the kinds of opportunities available at CU. I’m not so sure why they followed lil’ ol’ me around, but it was a fun experience, and I hope they like their video.

Honestly, the Rocky Mountain News was not necessarily my paper of choice in the Denver area. I wasn’t a huge fan. In my father’s opinion, it was too conservative. My favorite thing in the newspaper used to be the hockey coverage, and I didn’t like that in the RMN, either. We read this paper in a few classes in high school, and for some reason, I never really took a liking to it.

There was another newspaper I liked, and still do. The Denver Post, with which the RMN established a Joint Operating Agreement in 2001, was what we read in our household, and I continue to read it more regularly than the RMN. Now it is the sole paper in Denver.

Unfortunately, this is the way it will to have to be in Denver. Denver is just not big enough to carry two major newspapers. I’m sad about the Rocky, even though I didn’t agree with its editorials and I prefer the Post. It marks a huge loss in journalism, from a smaller job market for journalists to a larger dominance of a single editorial board, both of which are ultimately, if ever-so-slightly, detrimental to free speech and opinion. Furthermore, Colorado is considered one of the most flexible states in terms of journalistic rights; journalists in Colorado are more protected from libel than journalists in most other states. It’s a shame that the amazing freedom of the press in this state is witnessing the closure of one of its oldest and most storied institutions.

For that, for the other journalists in Denver, I am truly disappointed that the Rocky has seen its final day.

Rocky Mountain News Final Edition

After a brief caucus training with the Boulder for Obama staffers at the UMC Ballroom on the CU campus, we were treated to a short speech and a Q&A with Academy Award-winning actor Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland, Phone Booth, The Crying Game). Not being the type to ask for autographs, I simply thanked him for visiting and shook his hand (it was still very awesome!). I also managed to snap a shot with my Crackberry while he spoke.

Darin McGregor, a photographer I remember from the Greeley Tribune,was at the event, now shooting for the Rocky Mountain News. (The information is a bit dated, obviously, but you can see some of his work in that link.) My friend and former classmate Trevor, now working for MTV, was also at the event. I think I knew more journalists in the room than I did students (and probably more Obama staffers at that), but I enjoyed it quite a bit and it was really neat to see Mr. Whitaker up close and hear his argument for Obama. Hopefully Darin shot some good photos that I might also be in, so I guess I’ll have to bug him about his results.

Hillary Clinton

As I was watching the coverage of Hillary Clinton’s three-percentage-point victory over Barack Obama in today’s New Hampshire primary, I have to admit that I was not terribly impressed by the media’s insistence upon this being such a huge victory. In fact, some anchors, pundits and other politicos were ready to declare this one of the biggest upsets in history.

Although polling seemed to indicate that Obama would win by a rather notable margin, Hillary took a three-point victory over the Illinois senator as around 50% of the precincts had reported. Why I keep repeating this three-percentage-point difference should be rather clear; however, television media were incredibly excited to overlook this point and declare Hillary’s win as if it were some kind of slaughter. This was by far no huge victory for the admirable yet over-politicized, mechanized New York senator.

I’ve got to run a little disclaimer before I continue: it’s not that I hate Hillary. I was on the Hillary boat between the time she began indicating her candidacy for the Oval Office and more than weeks after Obama declared his candidacy. I believed that Obama’s limited experience in politics was a huge disadvantage and that Hillary was primed and ready for the presidency. I no longer view the experience issue in this manner, and I now truly believe that Obama’s fresh face is rather preferable compared to Hillary’s over-saturation in politics. As a fellow blogger pointed out to me through Twitter: shouldn’t we be concerned that two families will have run this country for the entire lifetime of a young generation?

And it’s not to say that I don’t miss Bill Clinton. Heck, any of those Democratic contenders are light years better than our current president, not to mention that I would support any of the Democratic contenders over any of the Republican candidates. And it’s not so much partisanship that drives me to this opinion; as my father said, “The Democrats’ problem is that all of the candidates are just so good. The Republicans’ problem is that all of the candidates are just so bad!” Even John McCain has lost a great deal of my admiration after asserting that bombing Iran has some degree of hilarity to it.

I’ll give the television journalists one thing: change is indeed the voters’ message this time around, and change is what the candidates are going to need to promote to carry a convincing campaign. But Hillary does not represent change; if anything, she represents the underlying fear of standing apart from the majority. Hillary has catered to the popular conveyed opinion; that is, she has made her political choices based on the media’s projections of what the American people want. In other words, she is complicit. In harsher words, she panders. It depends on your prerogative.

On a more basic and obvious level, in the line of what her critics have been saying, Hillary is too mechanized. She is steeped in institutionalized politics, something that is a far cry from the kind of change we need to revive the integrity once viewed as a quality essential to being the American president.

What I ultimately don’t believe is that Hillary is the answer to uniting our country. I don’t believe that her message carries the kind of optimism for our country embodied by Barack Obama. Nor do I believe that any of the Republican candidates even come close to inspiring hope for this country. And where Obama shows true promise for me is in that he has the potential to win this election while still being more viable than the other Democratic candidates who share his vision. As far as I’m concerned, Hillary is closer to being a Republican candidate in the spectrum of the entire field of contender because she lacks the appeal of being able to bring this extremely divided country any closer together. Her message is about promoting herself, as are the messages of virtually every single other viable, big-name candidate aside from Obama and Edwards. The change we need will begin with electing a president who draws voters by giving us a vision, not through “I-told-you-so” or “look-at-me” politics.

I do not want a candidate whose message is essentially self-promotion, nor does the vast majority of my generation. After seven years of severe incompetency, this is not about a single candidate’s whims and desires. This is not about the candidate who wants their name in the books.