As I had flu over December, I have been very busy taking my finals from last semester. The coming weeks are going to continue to be rough, with finals, five new classes to do reading in, fellowship and internship applications. However, we’re trying to make this site more viable in the long run. I am slowly, but perhaps steadily, recruiting guest bloggers that are hopefully going to represent much of the blog in the long run. Currently, we have Jon, who has been posting before and our newest addition Catherine. She is going to be blogging on environmental issues mostly, but also general things from time to time.

To follow up on Gary’s rare move into the world of culture I wanted to share an article from tomorrow’s NYTimes magazine on the lexicography of the text message. I am mostly extremely annoyed by this phenomenon, especially within the context of AIM conversations, where laziness rather than necessity lends to the brevity. Having said that I find many of the messages noted in the article to be difficult to decipher (my roommate and I took some time at it) and unlike the Chinese I would prefer someone just leave me a voice message. Nevertheless, what they say is true:.

This may be the universal attraction of text-messaging, in fact: it’s a kind of avoidance mechanism that preserves the feeling of communication – the immediacy – without, for the most part, the burden of actual intimacy or substance. The great majority of text messages are of the “Hey, how are you, whassup?” variety, and they’re sent sometimes when messenger and recipient are within speaking distance of each other – across classrooms, say, or from one row of a stadium to another. They’re little electronic waves and nods that, just like real waves and nods, aren’t meant to do much more than establish a connection – or disconnection, as the case may be – without getting into specifics.