After seeing Elona's post, I was forced to comment. There is just something about this topic that brings about a lot of opinions in me. Here is what I had to say:
People in class, myself included, dismissed the notion of violent television being linked to violence in society because these studies often confuse correlation with causation. No one can definitively state one way or another if watching violent programs makes one violent. If it were as simple as that, everyone would be violent. We are all exposed to violence during our lifetimes – be it fictionalized or real – starting at a young age, and as was pointed out in class, violent crime rates are down. I think, like most people who believe in these studies, you are looking for an easy answer to a difficult question.
As far as the content of the programs you watched being "evil," I also disagree. Heroes fighting bad guys is nothing new. Children's tales such as Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel – and I could go on – depict good triumphing over evil often through violent means. Many of these have been made into movies by Disney; should Disney films not be watched by children?
Also, I have watched a lot of superhero cartoons, and I have never seen the hero kill the villain. When it comes to heroes like Batman and Superman, they never kill the bad guy because that would, well, kill off the bad guy, thus ending any chance of a return. Writers do not like killing off villains in serialized shows because that would lead to less rogues to draw from.
As far as Looney Tunes goes, I'll worry about them when drive-by anvilings become a societal problem.
As for your opinion on Eminem, I also disagree. You think he needs to "stop playing stupid, because he knows he is looked upto [sic] by younger kids." Eminem's music SHOULD NOT be listened to by children. If it is, that falls on the parents, not the artist. Eminem does not make music for seven year olds. Eminem has never tried to market his music to seven year olds. He should not have to censor his art simply because a child might happen upon it or want to listen to it. Parents instill values, not hip hop artists. Should painters who paint explicit portraits stop doing so because a child might see it? Of course not. The same holds true for recording artists.
I also think you are way off base in saying that Eminem needs to "be a man and own up to his mistakes." What mistakes? Corrupting the youth? You know who else was charged with corrupting the youth? Socrates. Why is Eminem to be held accountable for the actions of others?
Eminem is hardly the only recording artist who has touched on violent subject matter. Do you remember The Dickie Chicks' murder-filled revenge-story song, "Goodbye Earl"? Should The Dickie Chicks be reprimanded for creating such a song? What about Phil Collins? Ever heard "In the Air Tonight"? Should Phil Collins be censored?
More than just recording artists have delved into violence. What about Truman Capote? He made his name by exploiting a real-life violent crime. Should people not be allowed to read In Cold Blood? How about William Shakespeare? How many of his plays dealt with violence? Should people not be exposed to Shakespeare?
If you think that young people should not be watching violent programs like Looney Tunes or listening to Eminem, that's fine, but there is a simple solution: turn them off. Simply say, "No, you can't watch/listen to that. You're too young." Eminem makes music for older listeners. It is him having a one-way conversation with adults. Why is that not OK? Why can he not speak to a more mature listener? Do adults not have different conversations when children are not around than they do when they are? Eminem's songs are no different.
At the end of the day, the responsibility for instilling proper morals and values falls on parents, not Eminem or Looney Tunes.
Monday, March 21, 2011
In Defense of Eminem
And last week, I seen a Schwarzaneggar movieThose are lyrics to the Eminem song "Who Knew" from his 2000 album The Marshall Mathers LP.
Where he's shootin all sorts of these motherfuckers with a Uzi.
I sees three little kids, up in the front row
Screamin "Go," with their 17-year-old Uncle.
I'm like, "Guidance - ain't they got the same moms and dads
Who got mad when I asked if they liked violence?"
For years Eminem has been a lightning rod for controversy with his violent lyrics being one aspect of said controversy.
The very first words on his major-label debut, The Slim Shady LP were "Hi, kids, do you like violence?" on the opening track, which also happened to be his first single, "My Name Is." That is what the above quote from "Who Knew" is referencing.
Eminem has violent lyrics; there is no debating that point. Songs like "Stan" and "Kim" from The Marshall Mathers LP as well as "'97 Bonnie & Clyde" and "Guilty Conscience" from The Slim Shady LP contain tremendously violent lyrics.
Does that mean that Eminem should shoulder any of the blame for violence in our society?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
If you look at a lot of his lyrics following the "My Name Is" controversy you will see what his stance is.
First we have this from "If I Get Locked Up Tonight" which is not from one of his albums, but from the Funkmaster Flex-Big Kap compilation album The Tunnel (Side note: Every hip-hop fan should do themselves a favour and grab this underrated album if they haven't already. It's great!). In the song, Eminem says:
Psych I'm just joking, for Christ's sakeThis was the first instance I could find where Eminem admits that people should not take his words so seriously.
Don't get so bent out of shape
'Cause I went out and raped six girlfriends
Some people just don't get it, but I won't let it upset me
Cause they don't know better
His sophomore album, The Marshall Mathers LP, is littered with tracks that have him telling people to calm down and stop taking what he says so literally. But one line from one song best exemplifies his feelings on the matter:
From "Criminal":
Shit, half the shit I say, I just make it upThis is about as blunt as Eminem can be when trying to defend himself. But while many dismissed, or simply did not hear this explanation, Eminem went one step further on 2002's The Eminem Show
To make you mad so kiss my white naked ass
From "Sing for the Moment":
It's all political, if my music is literal, and I'm a criminalDoes he need to spell it out any more plainly than that? His point is if he was the violent sociopath that he portrays in some of his songs, he would clearly be unfit to raise his child.
how the fuck can I raise a little girl?
I couldn't, I wouldn't be fit to
Many have tried to come up with a reason that Eminem is attacked more than most for his violent content. Two songs, "The Way I Am" from The Marshall Mathers LP and "White America" from The Eminem Show, display lyrics that give Eminem's opinion on why he is so frequently the target.
From "The Way I Am":
Sometimes I just feel like my father, I hate to be botheredFrom "White America":
With all of this nonsense it's constant
And "Oh, it's just lyrical content!"
The song "Guilty Conscience" has gotten such rotten responses
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a fuck
When you won't just put up with the bullshit they pull
Cause they full of shit too
When a dude's gettin' bullied and shoots up your school
And they blame it on Marilyn - and the heroin
Where were the parents at?
And look at where it's at
Middle America
Now it's a tragedy
Now it's so sad to see
An upper class city having this happening
Then attack Eminem cause I rap this way
But I'm glad cause they feed me the fuel
That I need for the fire to burn and it's burnin' and I have returned
See the problem is, I speak to suburban kidsThe entire second verse from "The Way I Am" is a scathing retort to people taking him too seriously, and the reason for it is because his music hits the ears of white teens in middle-class homes. What he is clearly saying is that if he was one of any number of black hip-hop artists who talk about the same subject matter and reached a predominantly black audience, no one would care.
who otherwise woulda never knew these words exist
Whose moms probably woulda never gave two squirts of piss
'til I created so much motherfuckin' turbulence!
Straight out the tube, right into your living rooms I came
And kids flipped, when they knew I was produced by Dre
That's all it took, and they were instantly hooked right in
And they connected with me too because I looked like them
That's why they put my lyrics up under this microscope
Searchin' with a fine tooth comb, it's like this rope
waitin' to choke; tightenin' around my throat
Watchin' me while I write this, like I don't like this (Nope!)
All I hear is: lyrics, lyrics, constant controversy, sponsors working
round the clock to try to stop my concerts early, surely
Hip-Hop was never a problem in Harlem only in Boston
After it bothered the fathers of daughters startin' to blossom
So now I'm catchin' the flack from these activists when they raggin'
Actin' like I'm the first rapper to smack a bitch or say faggot, shit!
Just look at me like I'm your closest pal
The poster child, the motherfuckin' spokesman now
The entire third verse from "White America" tackles the same subject matter as "The Way I Am" did. It seems like Eminem is forced to tread the same waters because no one listens the first time around.
It is interesting to note that following The Eminem Show and his smash-hit movie 8 Mile the controversy around his lyrics seemed to die down. The semi-autobiographical tale of 8 Mile seem to give Eminem a little sympathy, especially among older people. I can't count how many times I caught people who ridiculed me for listening to Eminem suddenly bopping along as "Lose Yourself" (the lead single from the soundtrack to 8 Mile) was played on the radio. Eminem has became acceptable. He was no longer the Boogeyman that needed to be feared.
In 2009, Eminem made a comeback, and it is funny to note that no controversy arose upon his return. Yet, in 2009, he released probably his most violent record to date in Relapse.
Songs like "3 AM," "Same Song and Dance," and "Stay Wide Awake" are littered with violent lyrics much more explicit than anything from The Slim Shady LP or The Marshall Mathers LP. As a fan, I am glad the same inane arguments did not arise again in 2009 like they did in 1999 and 2000, but it does make me wonder why it didn't happen considering the lyrical content of Relapse.
Back when Eminem came on the scene, he was an easy scapegoat for all those people who hold media effects studies to be unimpeachable. He was the Marilyn Manson of rap.
But Eminem is no more to blame for causing violence as the writers of horror movies are. Musicians, like any other entertainer, peddle in make believe. While Eminem may have used his real life as a basis for his songs, he is no more at fault for causing people to act violently than those who make movies or TV shows that are "based on a true story" are.
If we are truly worried about violence in our society, we need to get over blaming musicians like Eminem. What someone like Eminem makes music about does not cause people to be violent. Eminem is simply an artist making art.
P.S. I know this is an extremely long post, but my I am very passionate about this subject – both Eminem and studies linking violent entertainment to violent behaviour. So I apologize for going way over the allotted word limit. Sometimes you have to bend a few rules for the greater good.
Friday, March 18, 2011
My Response to "Can we REALLY say sports are religious?"
Marcia decided to tackle the subject of the religious nature of sports. Being as she came to the conclusion that one cannot call sports religious, I decided to respond to some of Marcia's points against the religious nature of sports. Here is that response:
I think you have made some interesting points, but I would like to provide a few counterpoints to your argument.
For one, I don't think God is necessarily needed for something to qualify as religious. Buddhists do not have a "Higher Being," and I don't think that makes them any less religious than any religion with a God.
I cannot refute the fact that there is no life after death for fans. However, there is very much a life after death for the athletes involved. Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Johnny Unitas, Walter Payton, Wilt Chamberlain and Maurice Richard, to name a few, have taken on a mythical status among fans, with their performances having achieved a transcendence that lasts long after their playing days, and lives, are over. This is not afforded every deceased athlete, but it is possible if one puts in enough hard work.
I also disagree in that there are no morals or values present in sports. I learned plenty of values from sports, such as the rewards for hard work and the need to sacrifice in order to achieve greatness. I learned that sometimes winning requires putting the needs of others above your own. I also learned the very important value of teamwork. Values can very much be instilled by sports.
Sports also brings people together. It is rare for a Sunday in the fall to go by without the men in my family – father, brother and myself – gathering around the television to watch football. With the recent birth of my brother's son, I look forward to the day that he will join us in our Sunday ritual. Sports has a way of bringing people together.
Does any of this prove one way or another that sports are religious? I guess I can't really say. I don't think it makes sports not religious. For me, sports is religious. But like any religious experience, I think it is all about what the individual believes.
I think you have made some interesting points, but I would like to provide a few counterpoints to your argument.
For one, I don't think God is necessarily needed for something to qualify as religious. Buddhists do not have a "Higher Being," and I don't think that makes them any less religious than any religion with a God.
I cannot refute the fact that there is no life after death for fans. However, there is very much a life after death for the athletes involved. Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Johnny Unitas, Walter Payton, Wilt Chamberlain and Maurice Richard, to name a few, have taken on a mythical status among fans, with their performances having achieved a transcendence that lasts long after their playing days, and lives, are over. This is not afforded every deceased athlete, but it is possible if one puts in enough hard work.
I also disagree in that there are no morals or values present in sports. I learned plenty of values from sports, such as the rewards for hard work and the need to sacrifice in order to achieve greatness. I learned that sometimes winning requires putting the needs of others above your own. I also learned the very important value of teamwork. Values can very much be instilled by sports.
Sports also brings people together. It is rare for a Sunday in the fall to go by without the men in my family – father, brother and myself – gathering around the television to watch football. With the recent birth of my brother's son, I look forward to the day that he will join us in our Sunday ritual. Sports has a way of bringing people together.
Does any of this prove one way or another that sports are religious? I guess I can't really say. I don't think it makes sports not religious. For me, sports is religious. But like any religious experience, I think it is all about what the individual believes.
Monday, March 14, 2011
If Sports is Religion, Then I Must Be Job
Let me start by saying that sports is my religion. I can recite stats as easily as one can recite scripture; I can quote from athlete autobiographies as easily as one can quote from the Bible. I spend my Sundays in front of the television watching some game, any game, for longer than one spends in church. We can argue about the merits of sports as religion, but it is not always about scholarly approaches. Sometimes it is just about feeling, and I feel like my religion is sports.
With that out of the way, if sports is religion, I guess that would make me Job.
We all know the story of Job, right? Pious man tested by God to see if he will still worship him despite God allowing Satan to inflict tremendous punishment on Job.
Why am I the sporting equivalent of Job? Here is a look at the team I cheer for (and the last time they won their league's championship):
CFL: Hamilton Tiger-Cats (Last Grey Cup: 1999)
NFL: San Francisco 49ers (Last Super Bowl: 1994)
NCAA-F: Notre Dame Fighting Irish (Last National Championship: 1988)
NBA: New York Knicks (Last NBA Championship: 1973)
NHL: Toronto Maple Leafs (Last Stanley Cup: 1967)
MLB: Chicago Cubs (Last World Series: 1908)
So it has been over ten years since one of my teams has won a championship, and in three cases I was not even alive (and in the case of the Cubs, no living member of my family was alive) the last time they were crowned champions.
But it has not been all bad. Prior to this drought, I had it great. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Ti-Cats and 49ers were playing for and winning championships frequently. The Leafs in the early 1990s and late 1990s were playing some of their best hockey, reaching four conference finals (1993, 1994, 1999, 2002). The Irish were a perennial top-10 team. The Knicks reached two NBA Finals (1994, 1999) and were always in the mix, only to be thwarted by the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls. Even the Cubbies had Sammy Sosa. I had it pretty good when I was younger... just like Job.
Then the sporting Gods decided to test my faith. All of a sudden, a playoff appearance became a rare sight. The 49ers have not been to the playoffs since 2002; the Leafs since 2004; the Knicks since 2004. The Cats just ended a half-decade-long drought in 2009. The Irish have not been legitimate contenders since the mid-1990s. The fact that the most success one of my teams have had is the Cubs winning back-to-back National League Central division titles (2007, 2008) should speak volumes.
My faith in my teams was tested, but like Job I refused to lose my faith. I know (hope?) that one day my ship will come in and I will be basking in the glory of a championship season.
I mean, I'm due, right?
This year is the year.
The Cats are going to win the Grey Cup. The Knicks are going to upset everyone and take home the NBA title. The Cubs are going to break the curse. It's going to happen!
See what I mean? Forever the optimist. Never one to lose faith.
But if 2011 closes without a championship season by one of my teams, I will shrug my shoulders and say what all sports fans say, "There's always next year."
With that out of the way, if sports is religion, I guess that would make me Job.
We all know the story of Job, right? Pious man tested by God to see if he will still worship him despite God allowing Satan to inflict tremendous punishment on Job.
Why am I the sporting equivalent of Job? Here is a look at the team I cheer for (and the last time they won their league's championship):
CFL: Hamilton Tiger-Cats (Last Grey Cup: 1999)
NFL: San Francisco 49ers (Last Super Bowl: 1994)
NCAA-F: Notre Dame Fighting Irish (Last National Championship: 1988)
NBA: New York Knicks (Last NBA Championship: 1973)
NHL: Toronto Maple Leafs (Last Stanley Cup: 1967)
MLB: Chicago Cubs (Last World Series: 1908)
So it has been over ten years since one of my teams has won a championship, and in three cases I was not even alive (and in the case of the Cubs, no living member of my family was alive) the last time they were crowned champions.
But it has not been all bad. Prior to this drought, I had it great. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Ti-Cats and 49ers were playing for and winning championships frequently. The Leafs in the early 1990s and late 1990s were playing some of their best hockey, reaching four conference finals (1993, 1994, 1999, 2002). The Irish were a perennial top-10 team. The Knicks reached two NBA Finals (1994, 1999) and were always in the mix, only to be thwarted by the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls. Even the Cubbies had Sammy Sosa. I had it pretty good when I was younger... just like Job.
Then the sporting Gods decided to test my faith. All of a sudden, a playoff appearance became a rare sight. The 49ers have not been to the playoffs since 2002; the Leafs since 2004; the Knicks since 2004. The Cats just ended a half-decade-long drought in 2009. The Irish have not been legitimate contenders since the mid-1990s. The fact that the most success one of my teams have had is the Cubs winning back-to-back National League Central division titles (2007, 2008) should speak volumes.
My faith in my teams was tested, but like Job I refused to lose my faith. I know (hope?) that one day my ship will come in and I will be basking in the glory of a championship season.
I mean, I'm due, right?
This year is the year.
The Cats are going to win the Grey Cup. The Knicks are going to upset everyone and take home the NBA title. The Cubs are going to break the curse. It's going to happen!
See what I mean? Forever the optimist. Never one to lose faith.
But if 2011 closes without a championship season by one of my teams, I will shrug my shoulders and say what all sports fans say, "There's always next year."
Sunday, March 13, 2011
My Response to "Justin, I love you & I got your back"
It seems like the Justin Bieber posts just keep on coming. I know I already commented on one, but Elisa's post got me a little bit worked up, so I felt the need to comment again on the young man who is becoming the most talked about figure in the class.
Here is what I had to say:
I have to say I was somewhat offended by what you wrote. Here are some excerpts that I took particular offense to:
Your comment also says nothing of adults who dislike Bieber. I am an adult that is not a fan, but it has nothing to do with jealously. I just do not like the kid’s music. I do not think there is anything wrong with not liking an artist just because he happens to be “a good kid.”
You might not feel that people have a reason to dislike Justin Bieber, but I am sure if you were to ask those that do, they would have reasons. You might not agree with their reasons, but they probably do not agree with your reasons for liking him.
In your second paragraph you ask a lot of questions of others, but provide no answers. I am not necessarily criticizing you for that – I would not have the answers either – but I think that if you are going to say that other students may have made erroneous judgments on Bieber’s AMA performance of “Pray” and the accompanying music video, you need to go out of your way to find out what the facts are before criticizing others. You criticized those that made assumptions but then used assumptions to prove your case.
You have made a lot of accusations at people who are not fans of Bieber’s that I think are unfair and unwarranted. As I stated before, I understand the need to defend what you like, I just think, perhaps, you could have gone about it better. But that is just my two cents.
Here is what I had to say:
I have to say I was somewhat offended by what you wrote. Here are some excerpts that I took particular offense to:
“I feel that a lot of people ‘hate’ on Justin Bieber because they are motivated by being a part of minority group that doesn’t like him. Specifically teen-aged boys that use a lot of homophobic rhetoric to make fun of Justin or his music which is not only inappropriate because they are discriminating against the homosexual community but...let’s face it...Justin can pretty much get more girls that any single man in the world at this time!!! My point is that I don’t feel that anyone has any real basis to hate on Justin.”I am going to assume that you are a fan of his. That is fine. I like plenty of things that other people have “hated on,” and I understand the need to defend your likes. But to make a statement that male teenagers hate Justin Bieber because he can get more girls than them is specious at best. I am sure there is some jealously there, but at the end of the day, random male teenagers and Justin Bieber are not pulling girls from the same pool.
Your comment also says nothing of adults who dislike Bieber. I am an adult that is not a fan, but it has nothing to do with jealously. I just do not like the kid’s music. I do not think there is anything wrong with not liking an artist just because he happens to be “a good kid.”
You might not feel that people have a reason to dislike Justin Bieber, but I am sure if you were to ask those that do, they would have reasons. You might not agree with their reasons, but they probably do not agree with your reasons for liking him.
“I feel that people are too hard on this seventeen year old kid that has so much talent and is just trying to pursue his dream.”Why does Bieber get a pass because he is talented when we never afford that to any other talented individual? I have seen criticisms of many other supremely talented people – even more talented than Justin Bieber – that have been criticized for much less than Bieber gets criticized for. Talent does not get to be a force field to protect one from criticism.
In your second paragraph you ask a lot of questions of others, but provide no answers. I am not necessarily criticizing you for that – I would not have the answers either – but I think that if you are going to say that other students may have made erroneous judgments on Bieber’s AMA performance of “Pray” and the accompanying music video, you need to go out of your way to find out what the facts are before criticizing others. You criticized those that made assumptions but then used assumptions to prove your case.
You have made a lot of accusations at people who are not fans of Bieber’s that I think are unfair and unwarranted. As I stated before, I understand the need to defend what you like, I just think, perhaps, you could have gone about it better. But that is just my two cents.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Faith + 1
I do not listen to Christian music. I could not name one Christian band. Creed, maybe, but do they still count? Heck, are they still even together?
Anyway, whenever I think of Christian bands, there is one name that always comes to mind, and did again this past Tuesday:
That is Faith+1, the Christian band consisting of Eric Cartman, Token Black and Leopold "Butters" Stotch.
For those that do not know, they are characters from the show South Park.
In the season 7 episode, "Christian Hard Rock," Cartman forms a Christian rock band in order to win a bet. Realizing that Christian music is a top-seller, Cartman decides to take pop ballads and, by changing the word "baby" to "Jesus," turn them into Christian songs. Here is a sampling of what Cartman comes up with:
This is one of my favourite South Park episodes because of how ridiculous the whole thing is.
But because my knowledge of Christian bands is severely limited, Faith+1 is my go-to reference when it comes to Christian music. I know I mentioned Creed earlier, but I can honestly say that I cannot think of one other Christian band.
This got me thinking, and I asked myself this question: why do I not know any Christian bands?
One reason could be that I am not Christian. But I am not Icelandic either, but I (unfortunately) know who Björk is. (Side note: I hate Björk.)
Another reason could be that I do not listen to Christian music. But I do not listen to country music either, but I still know who Faith Hill is.
In all honesty, I am at a bit of a loss as to why I do not know any Christian bands. When Petra and Switchfoot came up on Tuesday, I was like, "Who?"
If not for Faith+1, I would not know any Christian bands. But they are fictitious, so I guess at the end of the day, I still do not know any.
Does this say something about me? Something about Christian music? I do not know, but what I do know is that I do not know any Christian bands.
I guess it is back to my Faith+1.
Anyway, whenever I think of Christian bands, there is one name that always comes to mind, and did again this past Tuesday:
For those that do not know, they are characters from the show South Park.
In the season 7 episode, "Christian Hard Rock," Cartman forms a Christian rock band in order to win a bet. Realizing that Christian music is a top-seller, Cartman decides to take pop ballads and, by changing the word "baby" to "Jesus," turn them into Christian songs. Here is a sampling of what Cartman comes up with:
This is one of my favourite South Park episodes because of how ridiculous the whole thing is.
But because my knowledge of Christian bands is severely limited, Faith+1 is my go-to reference when it comes to Christian music. I know I mentioned Creed earlier, but I can honestly say that I cannot think of one other Christian band.
This got me thinking, and I asked myself this question: why do I not know any Christian bands?
One reason could be that I am not Christian. But I am not Icelandic either, but I (unfortunately) know who Björk is. (Side note: I hate Björk.)
Another reason could be that I do not listen to Christian music. But I do not listen to country music either, but I still know who Faith Hill is.
In all honesty, I am at a bit of a loss as to why I do not know any Christian bands. When Petra and Switchfoot came up on Tuesday, I was like, "Who?"
If not for Faith+1, I would not know any Christian bands. But they are fictitious, so I guess at the end of the day, I still do not know any.
Does this say something about me? Something about Christian music? I do not know, but what I do know is that I do not know any Christian bands.
I guess it is back to my Faith+1.
My Reponse to "Finding Positive Pop Icon Role Models (Like Finding a Needle in a Haystack)"
A lot of people wrote about Justin Bieber this past week. They were all very good, but something about Kathleen's post sparked something in me. Here is my response to what she wrote:
I must start off by saying… who the heck is K$sha and why is she wearing an American flag as a head towel in that picture?
I completely agree that Justin Bieber is not for us. I am 29, and Justin Beiber is not meant for me, in the same way that Dr. Dre is not meant for my mother and Queen was not meant for her mother.
That said, I think your choice of who to compare Justin Bieber to was a bit erroneous because you compare a 17-year-old to two 24-year-olds and a 28-year-old. The age difference is a big factor that needs to be taken into account.
Also, I do not see Lil Wayne or Lady Gaga as any different than Snoop Dogg or Madonna was for me and my peers in the early 1990s. Nor do I see them as being that much different than Mariah Carey and Eminem in the 2000s. In fact, these artists should not be role models for young people for the simple fact that young people should not be listening to their music. Just because they are in the top-40 does not mean they should be role models for children.
Having said that, I am not naïve enough to think that children are not listening to these artists. When I was an 8-year-old boy, I was listening to NWA, Tupac and Run-DMC, so I know that kids are listening to Lady Gaga and Lil Wayne. But that does not mean that they need to be role models for young people. I am sure if you asked the artists themselves, they would say that their music is aimed at older teenagers and 20-somethings, not tweens and under, which is the crowd that Justin Bieber is aimed at.
Justin Bieber projects a very wholesome image that many parents can get behind… but so did Britney Spears. My objection with Justin Bieber is not his message or in his being a role model, it is on the pressure placed on his shoulders. He has to be perfect, and I do not think that that is a fair standard to hold ANY 17-year-old to. The problem I see is not in whom children idolize, but more in the age of the ones being worshipped. Justin Bieber might be able to maintain his clean image, but when Lindsay Lohan made The Parent Trap no one thought she would turn out the way she did when she got older.
Justin Bieber needs to be able to make the same mistakes that every other teenager makes. But with the spotlight shinning so brightly on him, I worry that any tiny misstep will be treated as a major disaster. Just look at the hubbub over Miley Cyrus getting high. She was 18, in the privacy of her own home – or wherever the heck she was – and she did something that a vast majority of 18 year olds do. Yet, because she used to be on a TV show aimed at children, this was treated as a catastrophic event. All of the people who judged her based on this one indiscretion, need to look very hard in the mirror and ask themselves if they would have wanted a camera turned on their 18-year-old selves. I doubt they would. Heck, I know I wouldn’t.
I do not have a problem whatsoever with Justin Bieber as a role model based on his content. Based on his age, however, is another matter. Maybe he will be able to keep it together, but it is possible he could be another Drew Barrymore.
I must start off by saying… who the heck is K$sha and why is she wearing an American flag as a head towel in that picture?
I completely agree that Justin Bieber is not for us. I am 29, and Justin Beiber is not meant for me, in the same way that Dr. Dre is not meant for my mother and Queen was not meant for her mother.
That said, I think your choice of who to compare Justin Bieber to was a bit erroneous because you compare a 17-year-old to two 24-year-olds and a 28-year-old. The age difference is a big factor that needs to be taken into account.
Also, I do not see Lil Wayne or Lady Gaga as any different than Snoop Dogg or Madonna was for me and my peers in the early 1990s. Nor do I see them as being that much different than Mariah Carey and Eminem in the 2000s. In fact, these artists should not be role models for young people for the simple fact that young people should not be listening to their music. Just because they are in the top-40 does not mean they should be role models for children.
Having said that, I am not naïve enough to think that children are not listening to these artists. When I was an 8-year-old boy, I was listening to NWA, Tupac and Run-DMC, so I know that kids are listening to Lady Gaga and Lil Wayne. But that does not mean that they need to be role models for young people. I am sure if you asked the artists themselves, they would say that their music is aimed at older teenagers and 20-somethings, not tweens and under, which is the crowd that Justin Bieber is aimed at.
Justin Bieber projects a very wholesome image that many parents can get behind… but so did Britney Spears. My objection with Justin Bieber is not his message or in his being a role model, it is on the pressure placed on his shoulders. He has to be perfect, and I do not think that that is a fair standard to hold ANY 17-year-old to. The problem I see is not in whom children idolize, but more in the age of the ones being worshipped. Justin Bieber might be able to maintain his clean image, but when Lindsay Lohan made The Parent Trap no one thought she would turn out the way she did when she got older.
Justin Bieber needs to be able to make the same mistakes that every other teenager makes. But with the spotlight shinning so brightly on him, I worry that any tiny misstep will be treated as a major disaster. Just look at the hubbub over Miley Cyrus getting high. She was 18, in the privacy of her own home – or wherever the heck she was – and she did something that a vast majority of 18 year olds do. Yet, because she used to be on a TV show aimed at children, this was treated as a catastrophic event. All of the people who judged her based on this one indiscretion, need to look very hard in the mirror and ask themselves if they would have wanted a camera turned on their 18-year-old selves. I doubt they would. Heck, I know I wouldn’t.
I do not have a problem whatsoever with Justin Bieber as a role model based on his content. Based on his age, however, is another matter. Maybe he will be able to keep it together, but it is possible he could be another Drew Barrymore.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
My Response to "Go away, I'm watching TV"
Vanessa's post was on the subject of TV being more personal and less communal. Here is my response:
I wholeheartedly agree that, in this modern age, the ability to watch television shows alone has grown by leaps and bounds. You mention DVRs, torrents and online streaming as ways that the audience has been segregated.
But I think we can trace back this segregation even further than that: to the rise of multiple television homes. The rise of multi-television homes occurred, at least in my family, around the early-to-mid 1990s. I had a TV set in my room when I was 14 (that was in 1996), but we had two sets – one in the living room; one in the basement – as early as 1991. This allowed for my mom to watch what she wanted and my dad (and usually me, since it was mostly sports) to watch what he wanted. Now, there are three of us living under one roof, and not only do we have our own TVs, we have our own high-def TVs, with all the necessary accoutrement.
I also see a dearth in what I refer to as appointment viewing. I just recently wrote about Lost, which I view as the last of the shows that needed to be watched when it aired. But aside from live sporting events, there really is not one show I see on the TV schedule that can be considered “must-see.” I have spent the better part of a year looking for another show that my friends and I can experience together, but to no avail. I love the communal aspect that a great television show can provide, but sadly none seem to exist in the current TV climate.
Having said that, The Office is the only show that I watch with any regularity that I do not watch when it airs. However, the only reason for that is because I am usually on a Go bus coming home when it is broadcast.
Perhaps I am the last of a dying breed, but I still do carve out the necessary time to watch my favorite shows when they air – South Park is the only exception because it airs later in Canada than it does in the United States. If it aired at the same time, I would not watch it online – and I still hold out hope that another Lost will come around so I can once again share an experience with some of my friends.
I wholeheartedly agree that, in this modern age, the ability to watch television shows alone has grown by leaps and bounds. You mention DVRs, torrents and online streaming as ways that the audience has been segregated.
But I think we can trace back this segregation even further than that: to the rise of multiple television homes. The rise of multi-television homes occurred, at least in my family, around the early-to-mid 1990s. I had a TV set in my room when I was 14 (that was in 1996), but we had two sets – one in the living room; one in the basement – as early as 1991. This allowed for my mom to watch what she wanted and my dad (and usually me, since it was mostly sports) to watch what he wanted. Now, there are three of us living under one roof, and not only do we have our own TVs, we have our own high-def TVs, with all the necessary accoutrement.
I also see a dearth in what I refer to as appointment viewing. I just recently wrote about Lost, which I view as the last of the shows that needed to be watched when it aired. But aside from live sporting events, there really is not one show I see on the TV schedule that can be considered “must-see.” I have spent the better part of a year looking for another show that my friends and I can experience together, but to no avail. I love the communal aspect that a great television show can provide, but sadly none seem to exist in the current TV climate.
Having said that, The Office is the only show that I watch with any regularity that I do not watch when it airs. However, the only reason for that is because I am usually on a Go bus coming home when it is broadcast.
Perhaps I am the last of a dying breed, but I still do carve out the necessary time to watch my favorite shows when they air – South Park is the only exception because it airs later in Canada than it does in the United States. If it aired at the same time, I would not watch it online – and I still hold out hope that another Lost will come around so I can once again share an experience with some of my friends.
Confessions of a Cult Member
The article we all read for class this week featured a section on cult TV shows under the title "A Mystery Religion." I would like to quote a passage from page 205:
I have never watched any of these shows. Well, that is not entirely true. I have seen episodes of all three, but I never cared for them. (Sorry, Professor, but I hate Sarah Michelle Gellar and I cannot force myself to watch her "act.")
The article was written in 2003, so the show that finally turned me into a cult member had yet to be produced. I am sure everyone knows which show I am talking about...
Yes, folks, I am a Lostie. For six seasons I followed the adventures of Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Hugo and all the other survivors of Oceanic flight 815. From the day I first saw them crash on that damn island I was hooked.
I am going to stop myself because some of my comments might spoil aspects of the show for those that have yet to watch it. So if you have not seen it and still plan to, quit reading. I do not want any angry comments about how I ruined Lost for anyone. So if you do not want to know what happened on The Island, then stop reading right now.
What started as, seemingly, a modern version of The Lord of the Flies turned into a hatch-opening, Others-fighting, time-traveling, Smoke-Monster-battling, Sci-Fi epic.
Watching Lost became a communal experience. Not only did I and three of my friends gather every week to watch it, we would talk about what we just saw after the show ended. I would also go to work and talk endlessly to a few of my co-workers about what had happened on that week's episode. It got to the point where I think people stopped hanging around us because all we talked about was Lost. To this day, nearly one year after the show ended, we still debate the intricacies of just what the heck happened. I bought the Blu-ray boxset when it was released in the summer, and I have done a complete rewatch of the series... twice.
In this age of DVRs and online streaming, Lost was appointment viewing. Fans worked their schedule around when Lost was on. With the way television programs are now being consumed, it is possible that Lost will be the last show to seen as "must-see" television.
"Shows that inspire passion, that fuel hours of online chatter, that attract a dedicated cult following are quite rare. But when viewers find their show, they tape it, anticipate it, and refer back to it. Conventions, costumes, and communal celebrations follow."The authors give examples of shows to emphasize their point. They use Star Trek, The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, to name three, that have this cult following.
I have never watched any of these shows. Well, that is not entirely true. I have seen episodes of all three, but I never cared for them. (Sorry, Professor, but I hate Sarah Michelle Gellar and I cannot force myself to watch her "act.")
The article was written in 2003, so the show that finally turned me into a cult member had yet to be produced. I am sure everyone knows which show I am talking about...
Yes, folks, I am a Lostie. For six seasons I followed the adventures of Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Hugo and all the other survivors of Oceanic flight 815. From the day I first saw them crash on that damn island I was hooked.
I am going to stop myself because some of my comments might spoil aspects of the show for those that have yet to watch it. So if you have not seen it and still plan to, quit reading. I do not want any angry comments about how I ruined Lost for anyone. So if you do not want to know what happened on The Island, then stop reading right now.
What started as, seemingly, a modern version of The Lord of the Flies turned into a hatch-opening, Others-fighting, time-traveling, Smoke-Monster-battling, Sci-Fi epic.
Watching Lost became a communal experience. Not only did I and three of my friends gather every week to watch it, we would talk about what we just saw after the show ended. I would also go to work and talk endlessly to a few of my co-workers about what had happened on that week's episode. It got to the point where I think people stopped hanging around us because all we talked about was Lost. To this day, nearly one year after the show ended, we still debate the intricacies of just what the heck happened. I bought the Blu-ray boxset when it was released in the summer, and I have done a complete rewatch of the series... twice.
In this age of DVRs and online streaming, Lost was appointment viewing. Fans worked their schedule around when Lost was on. With the way television programs are now being consumed, it is possible that Lost will be the last show to seen as "must-see" television.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Christ Figures: What Does It Add?
One of the pertinent questions that was raised this past week about Christ figures in film was: what does it add?
It seems as if every character in every movie can be seen in some way as a Christ figure. Just go back and read Kozlovic's article. He seemingly name drops every major character from every major film. For Christ's sake (pun intended) he names John Connor from Terminator 2: Judgment Day! I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how John Connor is in any way a Christ figure.
There are some legitimate Christ figures in film. Characters like Neo from The Matrix and at least three characters – Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker – from Star Wars and its various sequels that could be considered Christ figures depending on how one views them. That said, not every main or heroic character in every movie needs to fit into the Christ-figure category. While Kozlovic goes to extreme lengths (25 different categories, really?) to try and shoehorn in almost every character from modern cinema, the designation just does not fit certain people.
Which brings me back to the point: what does it add? Does categorizing John Connor as a Christ figure add anything to the Terminator franchise? Personally, I fail to see one way in which it helps the narrative of the story to see him as one. Also, I highly doubt it helped the box office of the films either (in this case I am referring to the three sequels: Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Terminator: Salvation because John Connor, despite what Kozlovic writes WAS NOT in The Terminator except as a fetus in Sarah Connor's uterus at the end of the film) because the movies already had built-in audiences. Adding the Christ-figure designation might help some movies at the box office, but the sequels to The Terminator did not need such help.
So where is the advantage of calling John Connor a Christ figure? In my humble opinion, there is none. While Christ figures do exist in film, they do not exist in every film.
It seems as if every character in every movie can be seen in some way as a Christ figure. Just go back and read Kozlovic's article. He seemingly name drops every major character from every major film. For Christ's sake (pun intended) he names John Connor from Terminator 2: Judgment Day! I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how John Connor is in any way a Christ figure.
 |
| The Four Faces of Christ? |
Which brings me back to the point: what does it add? Does categorizing John Connor as a Christ figure add anything to the Terminator franchise? Personally, I fail to see one way in which it helps the narrative of the story to see him as one. Also, I highly doubt it helped the box office of the films either (in this case I am referring to the three sequels: Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Terminator: Salvation because John Connor, despite what Kozlovic writes WAS NOT in The Terminator except as a fetus in Sarah Connor's uterus at the end of the film) because the movies already had built-in audiences. Adding the Christ-figure designation might help some movies at the box office, but the sequels to The Terminator did not need such help.
So where is the advantage of calling John Connor a Christ figure? In my humble opinion, there is none. While Christ figures do exist in film, they do not exist in every film.
My Response to "I believe in God, America and the Packers"
If you have yet to read Katleen's post about football being the American religion, I suggest you do.
Great post, Kathleen.
It is not just Americans who are caught up in football fever. I too spend every Sunday after Labour Day to the first Sunday in February watching the National Football League. It is a ritual for my father, brother and I to don our “Sunday best” – my Dad in his customary Peyton Manning, #18 Indianapolis Colts jersey; my brother in one of his many jerseys, usually his #82 Jacksonville Jaguars Jimmy Smith jersey; me in my Detroit Lions Calvin Johnson #81 jersey – and watch football all Sunday. Funny thing is, my Dad is a Bills fan and I have cheered for the 49ers for over 20 years, yet neither of us wear a jersey of a player from our favourite team. What fantasy football can do to a person. But I digress
Without a doubt football on Sunday has become somewhat of a religious endevour for me and my family. We even have cousins and aunts and uncles come over to enjoy the festivities with us from week to week. We are all doing our best to indoctrinate the newest member of our family – my five-month-old nephew – into the cult of the NFL. In short, we all do worship at the Temple of the NFL. It is customary for us to shun all other responsibilities from 11:00AM Sunday morning to almost midnight. Perhaps calling it our family's religion would not be that far off. None of us identify with any other religion, but we all identify ourselves as football fans.
Having said that, and knowing that the NFL is the most profitable professional sports league in the world, I do not know if using the Super Bowl-viewing numbers is an accurate way to gage whether football is the American religion. Notice in my previous paragraphs how I did not mention my mother. That is because she hates football. Yet, without fail, there she is on Super Sunday watching the Packers take on the Steelers. The spectacle of the Super Bowl brings out a lot of viewers that do not normally follow or care about the NFL. That is not to say that the NFL does not have a devout following. They very much do. Perhaps, however, it would be more accurate to look at the weekly television numbers from the regular season to see how large this American religion is.
In any event, fantastic post, and it was nice to see someone other than me talk about sports for once.
Great post, Kathleen.
It is not just Americans who are caught up in football fever. I too spend every Sunday after Labour Day to the first Sunday in February watching the National Football League. It is a ritual for my father, brother and I to don our “Sunday best” – my Dad in his customary Peyton Manning, #18 Indianapolis Colts jersey; my brother in one of his many jerseys, usually his #82 Jacksonville Jaguars Jimmy Smith jersey; me in my Detroit Lions Calvin Johnson #81 jersey – and watch football all Sunday. Funny thing is, my Dad is a Bills fan and I have cheered for the 49ers for over 20 years, yet neither of us wear a jersey of a player from our favourite team. What fantasy football can do to a person. But I digress
Without a doubt football on Sunday has become somewhat of a religious endevour for me and my family. We even have cousins and aunts and uncles come over to enjoy the festivities with us from week to week. We are all doing our best to indoctrinate the newest member of our family – my five-month-old nephew – into the cult of the NFL. In short, we all do worship at the Temple of the NFL. It is customary for us to shun all other responsibilities from 11:00AM Sunday morning to almost midnight. Perhaps calling it our family's religion would not be that far off. None of us identify with any other religion, but we all identify ourselves as football fans.
Having said that, and knowing that the NFL is the most profitable professional sports league in the world, I do not know if using the Super Bowl-viewing numbers is an accurate way to gage whether football is the American religion. Notice in my previous paragraphs how I did not mention my mother. That is because she hates football. Yet, without fail, there she is on Super Sunday watching the Packers take on the Steelers. The spectacle of the Super Bowl brings out a lot of viewers that do not normally follow or care about the NFL. That is not to say that the NFL does not have a devout following. They very much do. Perhaps, however, it would be more accurate to look at the weekly television numbers from the regular season to see how large this American religion is.
In any event, fantastic post, and it was nice to see someone other than me talk about sports for once.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Branding and Sports: Loyalty Beyond Reason?
All this talk of brands and marketing got me thinking of the only brand I tend to have any long-lasting affiliation with:
Yes, I love the New York Knicks, San Francisco 49ers, Notre Dame Fighting Irish, Chicago Cubs and Toronto Maple Leafs, but nothing approaches the level of devotion I have for my hometown Tabbies.
Just looking in my closet I have, and this might shock many, six jerseys (Kevin Glenn, Arland Bruce, Jamall Johnson, Stevie Baggs, Dave Stala and Otis Floyd), five t-shirts, four hats, two toques, two hoodies, a pair of winter gloves and a winter jacket. I also own a travel mug and am a season-ticket holder. (I also operate a blog about the Tiger-Cats, which I started almost one year ago.)
Some might say, and in fact many of my non-Tiger-Cat-fan friends have said, that my devotion to the Tiger-Cats is irrational, or to use a phrase from the video we watched in class, that my loyalty is beyond reason.
I disagree. I have a reason, a very well-founded reason: I'm from Hamilton. Being from Hamilton means two things: you only ever drink Tim Horton's coffee and you cheer for the Tiger-Cats. It's in one's blood when they come from Steeltown. We in Hamilton where the Tiger-Cat logo like a badge of honour. You probably see me every week sporting some form of Tiger-Cat merchandise. That's not an accident. It is my way of showing that I am part of the tribe. When you see someone wearing the Black & Gold, you shout "OSKEE WEE WEE!" at them or give them a high five.
Come to think of it, maybe our devotion is somewhat irrational; maybe our loyalty is beyond reason. While we do not cheer for the Cats because of an advertisement, our devotion is just as deeply held (maybe even more so) than those who consider themselves "Mac people" or "Xbox people" or what Leah Burke wrote about, "sneakerheads." Perhaps it does not take an ad to get us to become loyal beyond reason. Perhaps all it takes sometimes is a birth certificate.
Yes, I love the New York Knicks, San Francisco 49ers, Notre Dame Fighting Irish, Chicago Cubs and Toronto Maple Leafs, but nothing approaches the level of devotion I have for my hometown Tabbies.
Just looking in my closet I have, and this might shock many, six jerseys (Kevin Glenn, Arland Bruce, Jamall Johnson, Stevie Baggs, Dave Stala and Otis Floyd), five t-shirts, four hats, two toques, two hoodies, a pair of winter gloves and a winter jacket. I also own a travel mug and am a season-ticket holder. (I also operate a blog about the Tiger-Cats, which I started almost one year ago.)
Some might say, and in fact many of my non-Tiger-Cat-fan friends have said, that my devotion to the Tiger-Cats is irrational, or to use a phrase from the video we watched in class, that my loyalty is beyond reason.
I disagree. I have a reason, a very well-founded reason: I'm from Hamilton. Being from Hamilton means two things: you only ever drink Tim Horton's coffee and you cheer for the Tiger-Cats. It's in one's blood when they come from Steeltown. We in Hamilton where the Tiger-Cat logo like a badge of honour. You probably see me every week sporting some form of Tiger-Cat merchandise. That's not an accident. It is my way of showing that I am part of the tribe. When you see someone wearing the Black & Gold, you shout "OSKEE WEE WEE!" at them or give them a high five.
Come to think of it, maybe our devotion is somewhat irrational; maybe our loyalty is beyond reason. While we do not cheer for the Cats because of an advertisement, our devotion is just as deeply held (maybe even more so) than those who consider themselves "Mac people" or "Xbox people" or what Leah Burke wrote about, "sneakerheads." Perhaps it does not take an ad to get us to become loyal beyond reason. Perhaps all it takes sometimes is a birth certificate.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
My Response to "I'd first like to thank GOD!"
This is my response to Vanessa's post about celebrities thanking God during their acceptance speech:
Your post got me thinking about another group that praises God regularly: athletes.
As a sports fan, I often find it ridiculous when athletes, after a big win, will start their post-game interview by saying, "First, I'd like to thank our lord and saviour Jesus Christ." Former St. Louis Ram, New York Giant and Arizona Cardinal quarterback Kurt Warner was fond of saying this. In Warner's eyes, God, it seemed, had a vested interest in the goings-on of professional athletes.
The thing I always wondered was: do these same athletes praise God after they lose or is God only on their side when they win? Did Kurt Warner thank Jesus after his Arizona Cardinals lost to the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Super Bowl XLIII? I wonder.
Then something occurred this past NFL season that surprised even me. After he dropped a game-winning touchdown catch in overtime against the Steelers, Buffalo Bill wide receiver Steve Johnson went on Twitter and actually blamed God for dropping the pass. Yes, he blamed God. The Tweet went as followed:
"I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!! THX THO..."
While most people ridiculed Johnson's statement as asinine, I found it refreshing that Johnson would not let God off the hook for his drop, even if he still manages to thank God at the end.
But Johnson's tweet was exactly what I was looking for. He brought home the point that if God is with you when you win, he must also play a role when you lose.
I do not know if these athletes and celebrities are consciously making a decision to thank God (OK, Kurt Warner most definitely is), but the end result is still the same.
Whether Scarlet Johannson or Kathy Griffin's quotes are crass or not is beside the point. Think about what Johannson said. At the end of the day, does God really give a darn if Kurt Warner won a football game or if so-and-so won a Golden Globe? According to the people who thank God, I suppose he does.
Your post got me thinking about another group that praises God regularly: athletes.
As a sports fan, I often find it ridiculous when athletes, after a big win, will start their post-game interview by saying, "First, I'd like to thank our lord and saviour Jesus Christ." Former St. Louis Ram, New York Giant and Arizona Cardinal quarterback Kurt Warner was fond of saying this. In Warner's eyes, God, it seemed, had a vested interest in the goings-on of professional athletes.
The thing I always wondered was: do these same athletes praise God after they lose or is God only on their side when they win? Did Kurt Warner thank Jesus after his Arizona Cardinals lost to the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Super Bowl XLIII? I wonder.
Then something occurred this past NFL season that surprised even me. After he dropped a game-winning touchdown catch in overtime against the Steelers, Buffalo Bill wide receiver Steve Johnson went on Twitter and actually blamed God for dropping the pass. Yes, he blamed God. The Tweet went as followed:
"I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!! THX THO..."
While most people ridiculed Johnson's statement as asinine, I found it refreshing that Johnson would not let God off the hook for his drop, even if he still manages to thank God at the end.
But Johnson's tweet was exactly what I was looking for. He brought home the point that if God is with you when you win, he must also play a role when you lose.
I do not know if these athletes and celebrities are consciously making a decision to thank God (OK, Kurt Warner most definitely is), but the end result is still the same.
Whether Scarlet Johannson or Kathy Griffin's quotes are crass or not is beside the point. Think about what Johannson said. At the end of the day, does God really give a darn if Kurt Warner won a football game or if so-and-so won a Golden Globe? According to the people who thank God, I suppose he does.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
My Beef With Dustin Kidd
My beef with Dustin Kidd does not go that deep. There will be no East Coast-West Coast feud here. I will not take the roll of Tupac to Kidd's Biggie Smalls. As they say in the rap game, I'll keep this on wax.
That said, I do take issue with his article. The crux of his argument, based around Emile Durkheim's theories on the usefulness of crime, posits that there are five ways (creating norms, maintaining boundaries, developing rituals, producing innovation, and producing social change) in which to judge the validity of pop culture. The example that Kidd uses is the Harry Potter series.
After spending his time defending Harry Potter, Kidd takes a shot at reality television and pro wrestling by saying on pages 86-87 that those two "may really be the cause of some social ills in the twenty-first century."
I stated in class that I am an unabashed fan of pro wrestling. In fact, I have been for over 25 years. My first experience was when my Dad took me to Copps Coliseum to see Hulk Hogan take on Roddy Piper in 1986. From that day forth, I was hooked. I make no apologies for my fandom. I am not ashamed to admit that I watch Monday Night Raw and Friday Night Smackdown every week, or that I attended SummerSlam at the Air Canada Centre in 2004, or that I count being at the SkyDome in 2002 for WrestleMania X-8 to witness The Rock take on Hulk Hogan as one of my life's greatest moments. I am proud to be a fan of professional wrestling.
My problem does not lie with Kidd not liking pro wrestling. That is his decision to make, after all. My problem lies with him categorizing pop culture institutions into the spheres of defensible and indefensible. As we saw with Elona's post, you can find a way to defend nearly anything.
And that, in the end, is my problem. Kidd has created a checklist for us to measure our interests against. It is almost as if Kidd's need to justify his choices to someone who questioned him means he believes that we all must do the same. At the end of the day, we like what we like. So Kidd can read his copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets while I to pop in my DVD copy of WrestleMania X-8 and relive the epic encounter between The Rock and Hulk Hogan, with neither of us having a checklist by our side when we do so.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
My Response to "Are the Duggars Good Role Models?"
You can read Georgia's post in its entirety, and I suggest you do, but here is my response to what she wrote about the Duggar family from TLC's 19 Kids and Counting:
Well, I'm glad my post could inspire another. Interesting because when I was thinking about Ned and the gang, I tried to think of other families on television that might also be ripe for criticism. The Duggars were not one of them, if only because I do not watch their program.
While we can argue whether the Duggars are role models for young people – the show is on TLC after all, not exactly a known hotbed for young viewership – the fact still remains that they have a platform to espouse their beliefs. On top of which, TLC, by airing their show, bares some responsibility for what information the Duggars present to their audience. It is a slippery slope to air a television program that would have these anti-birth control beliefs as its premise, which is exactly what this show is based around, or at least conceived (pardon the pun) around. This show would not exist had the Duggar parents not been anti-birth control. There would be no 19 kids, there would be no television cameras, and there would be no fame. Like you said, the Duggars created their own fame. This is just as dangerous as what Paris Hilton did. I do not mean to offend anyone by comparing the Duggars to Paris Hilton, but their respective rises to fame are not all that dissimilar.
The other area that I am equally as uncomfortable with is the idea of the “buddy system.” These children did not choose to be in this family, yet they bear the responsibility of raising their brothers and sisters? Something about that just doesn’t seem right to me. Thrusting child rearing on them does not seem like the right way to go about teaching your children about responsibility. Besides, what kind of example are the parents setting by basically saying, “Have as many kids as you want. You can just get the older ones to raise them.” Not a good one, in my opinion.
Very thought provoking post.
Well, I'm glad my post could inspire another. Interesting because when I was thinking about Ned and the gang, I tried to think of other families on television that might also be ripe for criticism. The Duggars were not one of them, if only because I do not watch their program.
While we can argue whether the Duggars are role models for young people – the show is on TLC after all, not exactly a known hotbed for young viewership – the fact still remains that they have a platform to espouse their beliefs. On top of which, TLC, by airing their show, bares some responsibility for what information the Duggars present to their audience. It is a slippery slope to air a television program that would have these anti-birth control beliefs as its premise, which is exactly what this show is based around, or at least conceived (pardon the pun) around. This show would not exist had the Duggar parents not been anti-birth control. There would be no 19 kids, there would be no television cameras, and there would be no fame. Like you said, the Duggars created their own fame. This is just as dangerous as what Paris Hilton did. I do not mean to offend anyone by comparing the Duggars to Paris Hilton, but their respective rises to fame are not all that dissimilar.
The other area that I am equally as uncomfortable with is the idea of the “buddy system.” These children did not choose to be in this family, yet they bear the responsibility of raising their brothers and sisters? Something about that just doesn’t seem right to me. Thrusting child rearing on them does not seem like the right way to go about teaching your children about responsibility. Besides, what kind of example are the parents setting by basically saying, “Have as many kids as you want. You can just get the older ones to raise them.” Not a good one, in my opinion.
Very thought provoking post.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Are the Flanders Good Christian Role Models?
 |
| The Flanders Family |
Everyone thinks of the Flanders family from The Simpsons as a good, wholesome, Christian family. They care for others, they go to church religiously (pardon the pun) and seem to be pure and good in every possible way.
But one thing springs to mind when looking at the Flanders: are they good Christian role models?
In class we watched the classic episode of The Simpsons entitled "Homer the Heretic." In that episode Homer quits going to church. During the course of the episode various characters try to convince Homer to return to church: we have Marge questioning whether Homer has lost his faith and Rev. Lovejoy going to the Simpson residence for dinner (and sharing a hilarious exchange quoting Bible verses). But it is the lengths that the Flanders go to "win [Homer] back to the flock" that have me questioning whether they are good Christian role models.
It almost seems as if the Flanders view Homer's desertion of the church as some kind of personal insult. They ambush Homer while he is at home, knocking on his door to sing the Christian hymn "Rise and Shine" in the hopes that he will change his mind Then, after Homer rebukes them, they ambush him again by continuing their singing while Homer is driving his. When Homer attempts to speed away, the Flanders give chase. The whole scenario ends with Homer headed to Garbage Island.
The lack of tolerance for Homer deciding to discontinue going to churhc shows that the Flanders are more interested in keeping their church's numbers up than they are in being true to any faith. This lack of acceptance is something I find very problematic.
So, are the Flanders good Christian role models? I'd have to say, based on how they are presented in this particular episode, no. The Flanders clan comes off as pushy Christians who believe that the only way is their way.
P.S. If Marge and the kids are at church when Homer sets the house on fire, how is Ned available to save Homer from the fire? Shouldn't Ned have been in church as well? Hm...
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Blog Title and Me
Alright, so you see the name and you probably think: Um, what the heck?
Let's see if I can explain this.
Buddy Christ
Please tell me that I'm not so old that I was the only person in this class to see Kevin Smith's Dogma in theatres when it was released in 1999?
You should all know what the Buddy Christ is. There is a bobblehead version of the Buddy Christ on the course syllabus!
In case you still do not know, the Buddy Christ was brought up in the film Dogma by George Carlin's character as a way to make the Catholic Church cool again. They unveiled this new Christ near the beginning of the film.
Make sense so far? Good.
Next up...
Jesus Piece
You know Kanye West, right? Of course you do. He's only one of the biggest-selling recording artists in the world. If you have not heard of Kanye West, well, um...
Kanye, for some reason, likes to wear a chain with a diamond-encrusted Jesus on it. Kanye's weird, I think we can all agree on that. Talented people tend to be a little off (see Wilson, Brian). Kanye wearing a chain with Jesus's face on it would be weird enough. Add in the diamonds and it goes way out there. But without Kayne's eccentricities, I would not have a pithy title for my class blog. Thanks Kanye.
Me
My name is Smith, Josh Smith. (I've always wanted to do that.)
I am unsure of how much you really need to know (or, honestly, really care to know) about me. You have my name, you have my picture (Side note: that was taken over a year ago. My beard is much smaller now... but should be that large again by the end of the semester), and you have this address. You probably do not care what I am majoring in, when I will graduate or anything else personal. If you do want that information, just ask me. I'm the big Ginger with the beard who is always wearing Hamilton Tiger-Cats stuff (Hamilton, represent!) that will likely be listening to an iPod. One thing I will not be doing, however, is rocking a Jesus Piece. That is just ugly.
While I do plan to take this seriously, I will use humour from time to time to get my point across. Let's be honest, we watched The Simpsons on the first day of class. I think humour is to be expected.
Alright, that's a long enough introduction. I'll get to the serious stuff soon.
Let's see if I can explain this.
Buddy Christ
You should all know what the Buddy Christ is. There is a bobblehead version of the Buddy Christ on the course syllabus!
In case you still do not know, the Buddy Christ was brought up in the film Dogma by George Carlin's character as a way to make the Catholic Church cool again. They unveiled this new Christ near the beginning of the film.
Make sense so far? Good.
Next up...
Jesus Piece
Kanye, for some reason, likes to wear a chain with a diamond-encrusted Jesus on it. Kanye's weird, I think we can all agree on that. Talented people tend to be a little off (see Wilson, Brian). Kanye wearing a chain with Jesus's face on it would be weird enough. Add in the diamonds and it goes way out there. But without Kayne's eccentricities, I would not have a pithy title for my class blog. Thanks Kanye.
Me
My name is Smith, Josh Smith. (I've always wanted to do that.)
I am unsure of how much you really need to know (or, honestly, really care to know) about me. You have my name, you have my picture (Side note: that was taken over a year ago. My beard is much smaller now... but should be that large again by the end of the semester), and you have this address. You probably do not care what I am majoring in, when I will graduate or anything else personal. If you do want that information, just ask me. I'm the big Ginger with the beard who is always wearing Hamilton Tiger-Cats stuff (Hamilton, represent!) that will likely be listening to an iPod. One thing I will not be doing, however, is rocking a Jesus Piece. That is just ugly.
While I do plan to take this seriously, I will use humour from time to time to get my point across. Let's be honest, we watched The Simpsons on the first day of class. I think humour is to be expected.
Alright, that's a long enough introduction. I'll get to the serious stuff soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)