Neil Postman, Technology and Culture

Greetings faithful blog readers (Read: mom and possibly some classmates from COML 509)! This will be my third and final blog post for the COML 509 Series. However, be not dismayed! I have some interesting life developments that should be coming to fruition in the near future, and I will do my absolute best to narcissistically keep you informed via this blog site. I mean, what could be better than an entire webpage devoted to my life developments? You are correct: nothing.


In this post, I am going to do two things. First, I am going to give you a brief introduction to one of my favorite authors, cultural critic Neil Postman. Second, we’re going to look at one of the key generalizations Postman makes and then consider whether there is any merit to his claim. In the end, not only do I hope we all have a little better knowledge of Postman and some of his work, but also a better understanding of how awareness of some of Postman’s principles can help enhance our lives.

Neil Postman, born March 8, 1931, is best known for his criticism of technology in books such as Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly. In addition to these two books, Postman wrote an additional 16 books and more than 200 articles for magazines and newspapers. Because of his strong viewpoint, Postman can evoke emotions in his readers ranging from complete cynicism to full support. Postman wasn’t completely pessimistic in his outlook, but he did have strong feelings about the impacts that technology is having, and could have, on society as a whole. While not exclusively humanistic in principle, many of the opinions Postman gives in his work can be attributed to his humanist worldview.

Now that we’ve very briefly looked at Postman as a person, let’s take a look at a couple “generalizations” he made in his 1992 book, Technopoly.

In talking about technological change, Postman claims that it is neither additive nor subtractive, but rather ecological. In other words, Postman claims that when it comes to technological change, “One significant change generates total change.” While not as chaotic in theory as something like the “butterfly effect,” where a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas, Postman essentially argues that culture cannot remain the same with the introduction of a significant new technology. Is this an oversimplification? I would argue that it is not.

Think of a significant technology introduced in the last 100 years. The Wright Brothers flew in 1903, and the Model T was introduced in 1908. The first communication satellite was launched into space in 1958. The atomic bomb was first tested in 1945. Were these additive technologies, or did their invention completely change our society?

You might be thinking to yourself right now, “well you’ve picked some of the most influential technologies ever invented! Of course they changed things.” Well then let’s consider some more minor technologies such as the light bulb, typewriter, toothbrush or scissors. Whether we will admit it or not, even each of those minor technologies has changed our society. Rock-Paper-Scissors, anyone?

If we can agree that significant technology absolutely changes culture, then the next question we have to ask ourselves is, “what is the impact of that change?” Postman states, “[It] is a mistake to suppose that any technological innovation has a one-sided effect.” For example, the airplane is a wonderful invention that has enabled us to traverse the globe in hours as opposed to months. However, the plane also makes it possible to attend business meetings 2,000 miles away. Well that’s a positive, right? Not always. What if the meeting happens to be scheduled for the week of your child’s first birthday? In the not too distant past, there would be little expectation for someone to attend a meeting outside of your local community due to the infeasibility of traveling such a long distance. Now, with the convenience of air travel, many employees are not only expected to make such trips, but also to be available to make them on short notice.

This is just one example out of many that testifies to the dual impact of technology. Television both entertains and desensitizes. Computers enable the sharing of both ideas and child pornography. Guns can be used to both protect the peace and incite violence. All that said, I believe, and Postman would agree, that technology is not inherently evil! In fact, Postman and I would both be hypocrites if we claimed it was since we have both relied on the technology of printed language to convey our thoughts. However, some final conclusions can, and arguably should, be made in light of the dual nature of technology.

First, you’ve heard it said before and the same is true of technology: education is the key to prevention. We should never assume that technology is good or that just because something is newer it is better. It is our job to be both responsible citizens and consumers by educating ourselves on the technology we chose to utilize.

This leads to the second conclusion, we need to be aware of the potential consequences of the technologies we use. For example, a new laptop computer may make writing emails to friends or following a web-based recipe much easier, but what will the drawbacks be? Perhaps you or your loved ones will now spend more time on the internet now that it is so portable, taking away time that used to be spent together. A notorious drawback of the cell phone, an amazing technology which gives us the ability to contact people whenever we need to, is the creation of the compulsive texter. I can’t remember the last time I went out to eat with friends where our conversation wasn’t interrupted by a text-based conversation. A social faux pas of the past has now become common place thanks to the convenience of mobile-based communication.

Finally, we must evaluate our “values” and then evaluate the potential impacts that technology could have on them. If “family” is our priority, then perhaps the new two-seater sports car isn’t such a great idea. If we value privacy, then we may want to stay away from a public Facebook page.

In closing, there is no doubt that technology can enhance our lives. However, when we choose to allow a new technology into our lives, we must do so, as Postman puts it, “with our eyes wide open.” For the most part, technology has no moral value. It is our personal application of technology that dictates the moral consequences of its use.

References

http://www.livescience.com/technology/090803-top10-inventions-1.html

Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992)

News: Truth or Narrative?

In his essay, The Grisly Truth About Bare Facts, Carlin Romano makes the following claim:

“If journalists understood – as some philosophers and scientists increasingly do - that what they present to the reader is not a mirror image of the truth, but a coherent narrative of the world that serves particular purposes, what the press covers could become more flexible and better suited to our needs as readers and writers.”

For this, my second blog post in The COML 509 Series, we are going to discuss three key aspects of this claim. First, we’ll look briefly at some definitions for “truth.” After all, if we are going to be having a full-blown discussion on the claim that journalism is NOT the “mirror image of truth,” then we should at least know what our definition of truth is, right? Second, we’ll look at some ways in which the news can help provide us with a “coherent narrative.” Finally, we’ll discuss Romano’s final claim: that readers need a “coherent narrative” as opposed to “truth.” Shouldn’t the two be the same? Or perhaps a more important question, how are the two different?

Let us begin!

Once again starting with one of my favorite sites, Dictionary.com has eleven different definitions for truth. (Slightly ironic, don’t ya think?) The most basic definition defines truth as “conformity with fact or reality.” The most complex definition states that truth is, “ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.” Taking those two definitions, ask yourself this question: Does the news report the truth? I would argue that it does not. I would also argue that the majority of readers/viewers would agree with me. A quick web search will confirm that I am right, but only slightly.

According to a September 2010 Gallup Poll, fifty-seven percent of Americans say they have “they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.” Fifty-seven percent! This number seems rather low to me considering the fact that our only exposure to some of the more salient social issues is via news media. For example, I would have no idea what side Presidential candidates take on political or social issues if it weren’t for the news. Yet I’m supposed to cast an educated vote for one of them with a mean average of confidence in the range of forty-three percent? This would seem a bit risky, but “43%” is only an issue if you are looking to the news for truth. And as Romano claims, we shouldn’t be. We should be looking to the news for a “coherent narrative.”

If more journalists and consumers would view news as a narrative as opposed to straight, truthful fact, I believe that criticism would increase on both sides of the fence, leading to a news source that is, as Romano states, “more flexible and better suited to our needs.” Why? Because people don’t question facts.

At sea level, water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
Humans can’t fly unaided.
One plus one equals two.

These are facts that the average person will not question. However, average people question narratives often.

“Dude, I met the hottest girl last night!”
“I’m sorry, officer. I’m just really late for an appointment.”
“I really wanted to come to your party last night, but something popped up.”

We can easily see how these examples of every day conversation cause us to react differently than we would to statements of fact. As opposed to blindly accepting them as fact, we view them more skeptically, more critically. We look to additional sources of information such as body language, past experience with the person and perceived credibility in order to enhance the narrative and determine its “truth.”

So what then happens when journalists and consumers assume that the news is truth? Bottom line, we view it differently than we would a narrative. Take the following example from this recent news story:

“The woman who told President Barack Obama that she was ‘exhausted’ from defending him and his economic policies and waiting for the change she expected after voting for him has another reason to be put out: She's lost her job.”

There are elements of truth in this story. First, the woman mentioned did in fact tell President Obama that she was “exhausted” from defending him. Second, she did lose her job. However, if we just look at those two pieces of information simply as truth as opposed to pieces of a larger narrative, we can come to an unsubstantiated conclusion: that this woman lost her job because she “talked back” to President Obama.

Now the story goes on to state that the woman lost her job as part of her organization’s attempt to cut expenses, but even the story’s headline, “Woman ‘Exhausted’ Defending Obama Loses Job,” seeks to establish “truth” where it most likely does not exist. In fact, if this woman did not lose her job because of her perceived insubordination, then does this story even have news value? People are laid off every day. Why is this woman special just because she spoke up at a town hall meeting? The answer: she’s special because the news media is attempting to connect the two events.

Now how might this story have been handled differently if journalists viewed their job as creating a coherent narrative? First off, I don’t think this story would have run at all. Second, the reporter might have done a more thorough job of trying to find the facts that prove these two events were related. In my mind, this story is an excellent example of how the media attempted to create truth under the guise of narrative, and in doing so did a disservice to their readers.

So now that we have discussed some definitions of truth and given a concrete example of how the media can create either truth or narrative, let’s move on to the final section of this post. Why do consumers need narrative as opposed to “truth”?

I believe this answer can be summed up rather easily: because, in many cases, truth is subjective. When it comes to major issues, “truth” can be dependent upon values or morals, hidden information, perception, opinion, and a countless number of other factors that can reside at individual and societal levels. People need news in narrative form in order to better make sense of that information within the larger context of their lives.

For example, a prevailing “truth” that currently exists is that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. Disguised as truth, these two statements would make voting for most people pretty straightforward. Those who tend to be conservative in their viewpoints would vote Republican, and those who are more liberal would vote Democrat. However, we don’t get the whole story when the news uses these two statements of fact. Did you know that there are such things as Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats? How about a Democrat who is liberal on social policies, but tends to be more conservative with fiscal policies? Without narrative, none of these “truths” would be revealed.

I have a four-year old son, and I have told him a few times now, “if you’re not telling me the whole truth, than you are lying.” To me, this seems to be a foundational lesson, learned early in life, that journalists and consumers forget when it comes to the news.

Internet: Global village or community killer?

Good afternoon, readers of my blog! Whether you are one of my classmates from COML 509, Social Dynamics of Communication Technology, or one of the three people who occasionally perused my ramblings before I stopped writing a while ago, welcome! While everyone from my class knows exactly why I am making this post right now, I’d like to take a brief moment to explain my return to the blogosphere to anyone else who might have stumbled upon this post, whether by mistake, misguided interest, or pure boredom.

As I mentioned above, I am currently enrolled in COML (that stands for Communication & Leadership) 509, a Master’s-level class at Gonzaga University. For this class, we are required to write three short reflective papers (approximately 2-3 pages) on various aspects of computer-mediated communication, or CMC. To spice things up, our forward-thinking teacher (big shout out to Assistant Professor Nobuya Inagaki) has given us the option to either write these papers in a traditional format or post them to a blog. For me, this was a no-brainer! Not only will I be able to avoid some of the annoying nuances of a more formal paper, but it also makes sharing my genius with the “cyberverse” as easy as posting a link.

You’re welcome.

Now that that’s out of the way, let us continue on to the meat of this blog post. During the discussion portion of this class, we were given a list of questions to consider. In this post, I would like to discuss just one of these questions. Now I say “discuss” as opposed to “answer” because the blog format affords every reader the opportunity to contribute to the conversation. I chose this particular question because, in a class designed to study the implications of CMC, I believe it is one of the most important questions we can discuss. The topic we will be discussing is:

Has the internet contributed to the construction of a global village or to the destruction of community?

Oooooh…exciting! Let us begin.

As a precursor to the discussion, I think it’s important that we define “community.” Here are the first three definitions according to dictionary.com

1. A social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.
2. A locality inhabited by such a group.
3. A social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics
or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (usually prec. by the ): the business community; the community of scholars

.
For our purposes, each definition can work. Definition 3 may seem to fit the best since it eliminates the factor of a shared locality. However, when we consider that the internet is as much a locality for information and socialization as a library or local bar would be, the first two definitions make sense as well.

Now that we have defined “community,” we are one step closer to determining the impact the internet has had on it. Neil Postman, a popular media theorist and cultural critic once (or maybe more times) said, “Technology always has unforeseen consequences, and it is not always clear, at the beginning, who or what will win, and who or what will lose” (Source cite). So what have been the “unforeseen consequences” of the internet? Who wins with the internet? Who loses?

I know some who would claim that the internet and other forms of CMC are simply meant to be extensions of face-to-face communication. In fact, the concept of the internet was originally created by the Defense Department as a way to communicate in the event of a nuclear war, an event that would make face-to-face communication impossible in many situations.

Internet aside, there is little question that, up until the advent of communication technologies such as the printing press and telegraph, the ability to communicate face-to-face formed the basis for most “villages” or communities. If not already accomplished by older technologies, the internet has completely obliterated the need for two people to be face-to-face in order to communicate. Additionally, it would seem that the internet has significantly increased our ability to connect with people who share common characteristics or interests: two factors necessary to form community according to our definition.

So with all of this in mind, it seems safe to claim that the internet has indeed helped construct a sort of global village. While not physical locations, sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Match.com and eHarmony have definitely become gathering places for millions of people all around the world, making them mega virtual villages in their own rights. Facebook alone operates in approximately 70 translations for its more than 500,000 users. Did I mention that people spend more than 700 billion minutes PER MONTH on Facebook? If I did my math right, that’s a combined 1.3 million years spent on Facebook every month. Now Rome wasn’t built in a day, but the world’s largest skyscraper, Burj Khalifa2, was built in approximately 22 million man-hours. If we took the “man-hours” spent on Facebook each day and used them to build skyscrapers, we would have 17 by close of business. In my book, that classifies as a small-to-medium sized village.

So when it comes to the internet, Neil Postman was right. Created to allow for communication after a nuclear holocaust, the unforeseen consequence of the internet is the ability to easily waste (in this grad student’s opinion) a fairly significant amount of time. Who wins in this scenario? Well obviously Facebook is doing pretty well. Who loses? We’ll start to answer this…right now.

We can safely assume that the internet has helped construct a global village. However, has this construction of a global village contributed to the overall destruction of community? Since this is only supposed to be a three page reflective paper and not a 40-page research project, I’m going to keep things somewhat simple. My answer: it depends.

Not everyone uses the internet the same way. For some (and most likely a shrinking minority), the internet is simply a tool, another resource they can use to enhance their life. For others, however, the internet has become almost necessary for their survival. Online banking, shopping, scheduling, troubleshooting and socializing can all be done online. To steal a recent status message from one of my friends, who will remain anonymous, “Who will become my 400th friend? The Internet says I have 399 friends, but my Friday nights say I have, like, 2.” Ouch. That quote hits home in a kind of painful way! Personally, I haven’t spoken to a bank teller in well over a year. Most of my Christmas shopping this year will be done on Amazon.com. I share stories about my kids with friends over Facebook. Three events that would traditionally be accomplished via a face-to-face encounter have been reduced to me, a keyboard and a conglomeration of binary, bits, packets and code that completely baffle me.

In a way, the internet has dissolved some of the personal connections in my community. The internet has also created other connections, but none as personal as human-to-human interaction.

On the flip side, I am currently writing a blog post that has the potential to be seen by tens and tens of people (I try to keep my expectations realistic). While I will most likely have a personal connection with a few of the readers, the vast majority (including my professor and classmates) will probably be people with whom I have never had a face-to-face conversation. In this way, the internet has constructed personal connections for me in a virtual community that would have never existed otherwise.

So has the internet destroyed community? In a way, yes. In another way, no. But I’m just one person in this global village. What is your opinion?



Online references
http://www.suite101.com/content/origin-of-the-internet-a52825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/41963.Neil_Postman

What...what happened? How did we get here?

That is how I feel, as the last two weeks have been an absolute blur. Kai's picture sums it up well. A lot has been going on since Jan 17, so I'll try to keep things as organized as possible while I progress through the period of our life I will refer to as "The 'AHHHHHH!!!!1!*' Period (TAP).

Jan 17 - Present

I'll start with the events that have going on for the entirety of TAP as they set a good basis for the "A" in TAP. Hang with me through these less interesting parts, and I promise it will get better.

I am currently in the middle of two academic classes that are consuming the vast majority of my free time. The first class is COML 501: Methods of Organizational Research. It's an online graduate class that's part of Gonzaga's MA in Communication and Leadership. I won't go into much detail apart from the fact that it has required upwards of 300 pages of rather dry reading, a hypothesis formulation and a 12-page intro, literature review and hypothesis introduction.

The next class is really a bunch of classes put together, called Squadron Officer School. It's one of the Air Force's Professional Military Education requirements. There are two ways to complete SOS: in-residence or by correspondence. Completing it "in-residence" looks better on your military resume, but in order to get a slot to attend in-residence, you pretty much have to complete it by correspondence first. Slightly confused as to the logic of that? So am I. Whatever. When you enroll in the correspondence course, you are given one-year to complete it. My goal is 8 weeks. You know what they say: shoot for the moon...

Jan 17 - Jan 31
Now on to a smaller time frame. Despite the busyness of school, this was a pretty fun time as we were getting ready for Aiden's 3rd birthday. We had plans to drive up to Teaneck, NJ to go to the Children's Museum of NJ and to hang out with some good friends that we hadn't seen in a while. This was the first birthday where Aiden actually understood what was going on, so it was both hilarious and heart-breaking when he would tell us on a daily basis, "It's my birthday today. Can I open presents?" I think we ended up letting him open one on a particularly pathetic day, but it barely made a dent in the huge pile he had accumulated from family and friends.

The day prior to our leaving for Teaneck, Kate made Aiden's much anticipated cake. Initially, he had insisted on a sheet cake with a T-rex on top. He changed his mind short-notice to a rather complicated triceratops cake. Of course, Kate is Supermom, so she took on the challenge. The results were pretty amazing.

When all was said and done, the cake was eaten, presents were opened, Aiden had fun at the party, and Kate and I had a great time hanging out with good friends.

Feb 1
But all was not said and done. February 1 may have changed our lives forever.

(Note: Slight exaggeration may occur in the next few paragraphs)

On February 1, 2009, Kate and I decided that we would stop by Ikea on the way home from Teaneck to buy our son a new bed. It was his birthday, we had just received our tax refund, and we were sick of Aiden waking up in the middle of the night because he had whacked his head while rolling over. Seemed like the perfect time. As we entered the store, all felt right in the world. Nothing in particular had happened, that's just the way Ikea makes you feel. :::Siiiiigh:::

As we rode up the elevator to the showroom floor, Kate and I let out a collective squeal as we simultaneously spotted the sign for the "Ikea Children's Playplace" We had seen this wonderland last time we were at Ikea, but were not able to take advantage of it since Aiden wasn't potty-trained. But now, Aiden could pop-a-squat with the best of 'em, and we were about to embark on an Ikea adventure whilst our eldest son frolicked in the supervised gloriousness of twisting slides, tumbling mats and an oceanesque ball-pit.

One height measurement and a kiss later, Kate and I were free to roam the store with only sweet Kai, who is more like a miniature cherub than a human child, while our "spirited" boy dashed off towards Toddler Utopia. As we passed the large plate glass window looking into the playplace, I looked up to see Aiden do a perfect belly flop off a three-foot platform into the ballpit. He emerged with a look that can only be described as rapturous, and immediately made his way back to the platform for another go. Kate and I smiled, Kai gave us a look that said, "Finally, just the three of us. I promise to meet every expectation you have of me for this trip. If I get hungry, tired or deficate in my diaper, I will politely let you know my screwing up my nose and letting out the tiniest, closed-lipped whine" and we rounded the corner into the Ikea Children's Section.

Nothing of note occured in the next 45 minutes. We picked out a bed, mattress, a sweet tent canopy for the new bed, some shelves and a few little odds and ends that Ikea masterfully places around the store. At one point, a lady asked where we had picked up the beautiful angel sculpture. We explained that it was actually our son. She blushed and apologized, we smiled, Kai politely nodded and we went on our way.

When we picked up Aiden, his hair was a mess, his face was red and sweaty, and in a feat that would have confused any other parent, his shirt was on backwards and he was wearing some other kid's pants. Business as usual. As we cheerfully made our way to the downstairs showroom and furniture pick-up, we had no reason to suspect that our wonderful day had already begun to sour.

Once downstairs, we strolled through the meandering aisle that leads towards the checkout and through another few thousand square feet of amazing Ikea merchandise. Aiden was slightly worn out at this point, so I had him in one cart, and Kate was pushing Kai in another. When we arrived at the floor rug section of the showroom, I walked to the right of the aisle to browse the huge area rugs, and Kate veered off to the left to peruse some other treasures. Aiden was visably tired at this point, and it was then that he triggered the total ruin of our day with four little words:

"Daddy, I want Mommy."

"Sure, buddy," I replied, and I lifted him out of his seat and stood him on the floor. As he started off towards Kate, I turned and watched him to ensure he made it there safely. My eyes were not enough. As he approached the aisle, several things happened at once. First, Aiden went from walking to running. Second, I noticed that he was completely invisible to oncoming cart traffic as he was hidden behind a rather large table piled high with rugs. Third, Kate and I noticed that there was significant cart traffic. Fourth, we both yelled at Aiden to stop. Fifth, Aiden did not stop.

As Aiden bolted out into the aisle, he found himself face-to-face with a rather menacing looking Ikea shopping cart driven by a particularly dazed looking customer. (I do not blame the customer for what happens next. Ikea dazes us all.) Time slowed down. Aiden clenched his jaw and half-squatted in preparation for the attack. The shopping cart surged forward, knowing full-well that its sheer size and metal composition gave it a distinct advantage. Aiden, looking like a Spartan warrior in a backwards shirt and too small pants, engaged the enemy. The outcome was swift and definitive. Aiden used his eye to parlay the initial blow, but as he repositioned for a retalitory strike, the cart quickly redirected its attack to Aiden's rather vulnerable forehead. The sound of iron striking skin and bone filled the store and was quickly replaced by the agonized cries of the fallen warrior. Aiden had been defeated. The shopping cart and its driver laughed mercilessly and continued on in search of its next victim. (Not really, but me telling the lady it wasn't her fault and her profusely apologizing doesn't really add to the story.)

Aiden was crying fairly hard, but no harder than any other toddler would be after having their butt handed to them by a large metal object. He was holding his forehead, and I knelt down and gently removed his hand to see how large the bump was. There was no bump. At least, I couldn't see one under the blood that was smeared and streaming down his face. I quickly put my hand back on his forehead, and as calmly as a could said to Kate, "Um, he's bleeding quite a bit. Do you have a rag." Kate fished a cloth out of our diaper bag, and a rather nice older lady handed us a handful of wet wipes from a packet she was carrying around in her purse. As I held the rag on his head, I readied a wet wipe to clean away the blood and survey the real damage.

I must admit that from the amount of blood, I was prepared to see skull, multiple lacerations, or a piece of shopping cart embedded in his head. As a wiped the blood, my heart dropped...then soared. About two inches above and to the left of his left eye, there was a cut about a quarter-inch in length. I'd seen pimples that looked worse. It was still bleeding pretty bad, but I knew that some direct pressure would be enough to stop the flow. My heart then soared even higher. Not because the wound was minor, but because I realized that my son was both brave and a military genius.

When encountered with a more powerful adversary, Aiden's courage had led him to stand his ground and attempt battle. However, in the heat of battle and amidst the fog of war, he realized that his sound judgement had been overshadowed by his enthusiasm for a good fight. He then had the presence of mind to change strategy mid-attack. While his wound wasn't incapacitating, he knew the speed at which it had been afflicted was indication that he was facing a more dominant opponent, and that defeat was inevitable. He then quickly changed to a new stategy: deception. While the tactics of the shopping cart were brutal, Aiden knew that it would still maintain its honor in battle. Based on this, Aiden knew the cart would no doubt cease its attack if it felt it had achieved victory. He was correct. All it took was a flop and a scream, and the cart ended the attack and went on its way.

As I picked my bloodied warrior up off the floor, I said, "I'm so proud of you, buddy. You were so brave." He didn't answer me, but as he looked over my shoulder towards the retreating cart, the look in his eyes reaffirmed my pride. His eyes were calm, confident and held a wisened look that said, "I underestimated you, foe. You may have won this battle, but rest assured my overconfident, metallic friend, you will lose the war."

I can't wait to go back to Ikea to see what Aiden has planned.

Feb 2 - Present
It's been a week since our Ikea adventure, and the results of that trip are still lingering. Remember when I said (about eight paragraphs up) that our day had already begun to sour? Well I guess Aiden picked up something from the ballpit. He has since passed it on to the rest of us. I took him in to the doctor on Wednesday, and he was diagnosed with a sinus infection and possible fluid behind the ear. Whatever virus Aiden got, Kate picked it up first, then Kai started coughing a bit, and finally my throat started to get scratchy.

For our current situation, Kai is still coughing, Kate is upstairs sleeping with a cold that turned into an upper respiratory infection, and Aiden and I have just returned from the doctor because he had an allergic reaction to the antibiotics the doctor gave him for the sinus infection. I alone maintain health, and have been taking Vitamin C like there is no tomorrow.

And now you know how we got here.

*For those of you who don't know, the "1" in a line of exclamation points is an exponential factor roughly equivalent to a bajillion exclamation points.

Overheard today...

"Mom! Swiper swiped my underwear!"

You can imagine the rest. That is all.