Moments ago, while watching a rerun of Scrubs on Comedy Central, I bore witness to the most nauseatingly sexist display of advertising douchebaggery ever to sully the airwaves.
Allow me to set the scene: a breathy female voice says, "Get close", in what I can only imagine is some filthy, over-paid ad moron's idea of a clever double entendre. Carmen Electra, clad in a ludicrously tight, short, low-cut dress that reveals about 97% of her fake double-D's, sashays toward the camera, batting her eyelashes seductively. She flirtatiously says, "Hey guys, how do you expect to get a close shave if your beard is laying down?", sounding every bit as uneducated and illiterate as I've always imagined Carmen Electra to be. The next shot is--and I am not making this up--a field of beard hairs leaping to attention like an army of penises who have just spotted Carmen Electra's shiny, silicone cleavage. Carmen then sidles up to the man whose five-o'clock-shadow demands the assistance of the obviously superior razor for which the commercial is advertising, and she proceeds to suggestively caress his face. The ad concludes with a close-up of Carmen's heavy-lidded sex face, leaving me to wonder how exactly this ad is supposed to be selling razors.
I am fully aware of the old adage that "sex sells". I am also aware that feminine beauty is prized above feminine intelligence, which is why everyone knows who Carmen Electra is, and only my boyfriend and I seem to know who Rachel Maddow is (I love you, Rach!). Therefore, it doesn't shock me that this company decided to use a sexy, beautiful female to get the attention of their audience of beard-sporters. However, it sure would be nice if these ad idiots (or Adiots, as I like to call them) would show their consumers an inkling of respect by avoiding such blatantly sexual advertising for a product whose connection to sex is tenuous at best. The failure to do so results in the tacky, tasteless, trashy TV spot that sucked ten seconds out of my precious evening.
I have a love-hate relationship with advertising. It's sort of the way I feel about the Kardashians. They make me sick to my stomach, but, for some reason, they oddly fascinate me. I try to avoid them as much as I can, yet, every so often, I find myself pondering their mysterious origins and how they came to dictate the course of all our lives. I think I need TiVo.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
A Message From The Depths of Reality TV Purgatory
These days, many bizarre things pass for entertainment. For example, there's a show on one of the network channels in which people attempt to traverse an obstacle course comprised of bouncy slides and spinning igloos. There are also, of course, the numerous iterations of dating shows like The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, The Spinster, The Old Maid, The Viagra Addict, and the Old Man in the Nursing Home Who Hits on the Janitor. On the rare occasions in which I actually sit in front of the TV with a big bowl of kale chips, hoping to be dazzled by the products of the multimillion-dollar television industry, I invariably find myself wondering, "Is this supposed to be entertaining?"
It's no secret that I'm a snob about, well, everything. You think classical music is all about Beethoven? Pfft. You've don't know who Camus is? Pshaw. You can't even pronounce Camus correctly? The horror! Thus, it should come as no surprise that I'm extraordinarily discerning when it comes to TV shows. Which brings me to...
The Real Housewives series.
No, you did not misread that. No, you're not mysteriously suffering from hallucinations. I am actually, sincerely, profoundly addicted to The Real Housewives shows. I cannot explain it. I cannot justify it. I can only admit it.
I confess, loyal readers, that this addiction has plagued me for nearly a year. In an attempt to take control of so raging an obsession, I have long desired to write a blog about the strange, disturbing television series that has hijacked my delicate sensibilities, compelling me to spend hours staring in rapt horror at the daily antics of aging, self-obsessed women when my time would be better spent doing...well, pretty much anything else.
For those of you who are blissfully unfamiliar with The Real Housewives monstrosity, allow me to bring you up to speed. The Bravo series follows the trials and tribulations of well-to-do women living in interesting locales such as Orange County, New York City, Atlanta, New Jersey, etc. We learn about their husbands, finances, children, and interpersonal conflicts, all in such gory detail that I have had several disturbing dreams about Teresa Giudice's complicated feud with her sister-in-law. Divorces and gigantic falling-outs between friends are the norm, as are bankruptcy, lawsuits, evictions, and dinner parties from Hell.
It shouldn't surprise you that much of the general public latches on quite easily to the series. It's scandalous, brainless fluff to fill the boring days of middle-class American life. But the fact that I've latched on to this series with alarming fervor should surprise anyone who knows Ms. Incendiary Wit--she who scorns popular music and can't stomach the notion of Chick Lit.
To make amends with this distressing source of cognitive dissonance, I choose to assert that my penchant for the Real Housewives is simply a devotion to cultural and sociological studies of gender relations in Western society. For example, I've learned from The Real Housewives of Atlanta that racial stereotypes associated with black women are allowed to persist in modern society for multiple reasons, not simply because of a hegemonic desire to maintain the status held by women of color. Would anyone argue with me when I say that NeNe Leakes single-handedly hinders the progress of black women every time she opens her mouth?
Similarly, the idea that attractive women use their feminine wiles to ensnare men with money who will, in turn, lavish them with jewels, cars, plastic surgery, and beautiful homes is reinforced with stunning conviction in every permutation of The Real Housewives. Gorgeous, fit women with incredible tans, gigantic breasts, and immovable foreheads croon over the hideous, paunchy, Black American Express-card wielding men they married in the most disgustingly obvious displays of legal prostitution.
However, to say that all of the Real Housewives are kept women is a fallacy. Many, if not most, of the Real Housewives (and I think ALL of the Real Housewives of New York City) make their own money. Granted, not one is a nuclear physicist or a cardiothoracic surgeon, but the career-minded women do well for themselves in the fashion industry, business, marketing, and many other fields that are not terribly intellectually-demanding. One of the Atlanta Housewives is an attorney. An Orange County Housewife owns an insurance distribution company. So the title "The Real Housewives" is a bit of a misnomer, as a good portion of the women are not housewives, and, indeed, many are not even wives at all.
Regardless, they all have one thing in common: The Real Housewives, like most Real Women, love love love love LOVE getting attention. Why else would an otherwise sane person consent to having cameras capture her precious, intimate moments with her children and husband for all the world to see? Who would desire to have the scrutiny of strangers, strangers who never hesitate to publicly criticize the parenting, financial, and relationship decisions made by these women? The answer is: any woman who is starved of her daily required intake of attention. In lieu of sufficient attention from her husband, children, and/or other loved ones, a woman WILL seek attention from any living, breathing individual, including strangers. I would argue that this is true to an even greater extent for women who are attractive, whether it's attractive for their age (like the 40-something Cougars who permeate the series) or simply HOT HOT HOT(like Gretchen Rossi of the Real Housewives of Orange County). This is because attractive women tend to expect more, because they believe that their aesthetic appeal renders them entitled to more: more attention, more bling, more romance. When attractive women with wealthy lifestyles are left wanting more, well, The Real Housewives franchise blossoms.
At the end of the day, the women on The Real Housewives shows are sad, sad individuals with some deeply-rooted psychopathology that causes them to desire the approval and love of strangers. I shouldn't be feeding into their narcissistic quests for self-acceptance, right? Right? Oh, please, somebody come and disconnect my cable! I can't stop watching this crap!
It's no secret that I'm a snob about, well, everything. You think classical music is all about Beethoven? Pfft. You've don't know who Camus is? Pshaw. You can't even pronounce Camus correctly? The horror! Thus, it should come as no surprise that I'm extraordinarily discerning when it comes to TV shows. Which brings me to...
The Real Housewives series.
No, you did not misread that. No, you're not mysteriously suffering from hallucinations. I am actually, sincerely, profoundly addicted to The Real Housewives shows. I cannot explain it. I cannot justify it. I can only admit it.
I confess, loyal readers, that this addiction has plagued me for nearly a year. In an attempt to take control of so raging an obsession, I have long desired to write a blog about the strange, disturbing television series that has hijacked my delicate sensibilities, compelling me to spend hours staring in rapt horror at the daily antics of aging, self-obsessed women when my time would be better spent doing...well, pretty much anything else.
For those of you who are blissfully unfamiliar with The Real Housewives monstrosity, allow me to bring you up to speed. The Bravo series follows the trials and tribulations of well-to-do women living in interesting locales such as Orange County, New York City, Atlanta, New Jersey, etc. We learn about their husbands, finances, children, and interpersonal conflicts, all in such gory detail that I have had several disturbing dreams about Teresa Giudice's complicated feud with her sister-in-law. Divorces and gigantic falling-outs between friends are the norm, as are bankruptcy, lawsuits, evictions, and dinner parties from Hell.
It shouldn't surprise you that much of the general public latches on quite easily to the series. It's scandalous, brainless fluff to fill the boring days of middle-class American life. But the fact that I've latched on to this series with alarming fervor should surprise anyone who knows Ms. Incendiary Wit--she who scorns popular music and can't stomach the notion of Chick Lit.
To make amends with this distressing source of cognitive dissonance, I choose to assert that my penchant for the Real Housewives is simply a devotion to cultural and sociological studies of gender relations in Western society. For example, I've learned from The Real Housewives of Atlanta that racial stereotypes associated with black women are allowed to persist in modern society for multiple reasons, not simply because of a hegemonic desire to maintain the status held by women of color. Would anyone argue with me when I say that NeNe Leakes single-handedly hinders the progress of black women every time she opens her mouth?
Similarly, the idea that attractive women use their feminine wiles to ensnare men with money who will, in turn, lavish them with jewels, cars, plastic surgery, and beautiful homes is reinforced with stunning conviction in every permutation of The Real Housewives. Gorgeous, fit women with incredible tans, gigantic breasts, and immovable foreheads croon over the hideous, paunchy, Black American Express-card wielding men they married in the most disgustingly obvious displays of legal prostitution.
However, to say that all of the Real Housewives are kept women is a fallacy. Many, if not most, of the Real Housewives (and I think ALL of the Real Housewives of New York City) make their own money. Granted, not one is a nuclear physicist or a cardiothoracic surgeon, but the career-minded women do well for themselves in the fashion industry, business, marketing, and many other fields that are not terribly intellectually-demanding. One of the Atlanta Housewives is an attorney. An Orange County Housewife owns an insurance distribution company. So the title "The Real Housewives" is a bit of a misnomer, as a good portion of the women are not housewives, and, indeed, many are not even wives at all.
Regardless, they all have one thing in common: The Real Housewives, like most Real Women, love love love love LOVE getting attention. Why else would an otherwise sane person consent to having cameras capture her precious, intimate moments with her children and husband for all the world to see? Who would desire to have the scrutiny of strangers, strangers who never hesitate to publicly criticize the parenting, financial, and relationship decisions made by these women? The answer is: any woman who is starved of her daily required intake of attention. In lieu of sufficient attention from her husband, children, and/or other loved ones, a woman WILL seek attention from any living, breathing individual, including strangers. I would argue that this is true to an even greater extent for women who are attractive, whether it's attractive for their age (like the 40-something Cougars who permeate the series) or simply HOT HOT HOT(like Gretchen Rossi of the Real Housewives of Orange County). This is because attractive women tend to expect more, because they believe that their aesthetic appeal renders them entitled to more: more attention, more bling, more romance. When attractive women with wealthy lifestyles are left wanting more, well, The Real Housewives franchise blossoms.
At the end of the day, the women on The Real Housewives shows are sad, sad individuals with some deeply-rooted psychopathology that causes them to desire the approval and love of strangers. I shouldn't be feeding into their narcissistic quests for self-acceptance, right? Right? Oh, please, somebody come and disconnect my cable! I can't stop watching this crap!
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Did Hell just freeze over?
There are many good reasons to tell a story. In fact, I think we all learned about these reasons in elementary school. We tell stories to inform, to entertain, and to persuade. I believe that, with the Harry Potter franchise, Warner Brothers has epitomized a fourth reason for story-telling, with blockbusting conviction: to make a shit-ton of money.
A quick Google search will surely yield the exact box office totals for all eight of the Harry Potter flicks. Whatever the number is, I doubt that any of the masterminds behind the series are ever going to eat Ramen Noodles for dinner again. These movies have made Big Bucks.
Where am I going with this? Well, I was a fan of Harry Potter before Harry Potter became Harry Pot-of-Gold. And I'm happy that these books (which are really, really fantastic, by the way) have been adapted to the screen and are reaching larger audiences through a different medium. However, I have always felt that the films are a bit...empty, compared to the books. While the books are brimming with whimsical humor and imagination, the films are rather dull and formulaic. I can practically see some Warner Brothers exec in the background of each shot, smoking a cigar and jingling his money bags.
To illustrate this point, let me take you through an exercise. I can remember almost every minuscule detail of the outrageously convoluted plots of each of the seven Harry Potter books; I have even been known to recite lengthy passages verbatim. Conversely, I can only remember one or two important factoids about each of the first seven Harry Potter films (I will share my profound thoughts about the final film at the end of this fascinating post). That is how forgettable and soulless I found the film adaptations of the stories I have cherished and adored for much of my childhood and adulthood thus far. For example:
Movie 1: Introduction to Dan Radcliffe's solitary facial expression: Shock-and-Awe.
Movie 2: ...Nothing comes to mind. Oh, right: the movie ends with an awkward applause scene that somehow centers around a teary-eyed Hagrid.
Movie 3: Completely different art direction and cinematography. Sirius and Lupin are way too old. Left out tons of important plot stuff.
Movie 4: Dan Radcliffe must have taken some acting lessons and learned how to do a convincing crying scene. Cedric Diggory is pretty hot. All the guys mysteriously have the same ridiculous mullet-style hair-do.
Movie 5: Lots of new characters and dream sequences. Snooze-fest.
Movie 6: I SERIOUSLY REMEMBER NOTHING ABOUT THIS MOVIE.
Movie 7.1: Naked Harry and Hermione make out. WTF?
So there you go. There are some stories that just don't translate well into film, and the story of Harry Potter is one of them. To put it simply, the story works perfectly well AS A SERIES OF BOOKS. But there are too many characters, details, and settings to cram into a three-hour script spoken by children and adults with English accents over booming sound effects and a soaring musical score. It's too overwhelming to make any sense at all, even to devoted fans like myself who already know the books better than they know their own academic disciplines. So why try to force such a story into a format that doesn't serve it well, and why disappoint the fans of the series by doing so? I'll give you a hint: CHA-CHING!
I have no interest in making Warner Brothers even more filthy rich by continuing to be disappointed by their lackluster adaptations of the story I adore. Therefore, I was somewhat unenthusiastic about The Deathly Hallows, Part 2. Sure, it has about a 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes at press time, but I attributed that to some sentimental notions on the part of the critics over the end of an era. Either way, I went into DH2 expecting to be disappointed.
Well, after all these years and all these disappointments, Warner Brothers and all their billions of dollars in revenue finally got it right.
DH2, unlike its predecessors, was thoroughly memorable. It moved me (to tears, and many times, but don't tell anyone). As I left the theater, sobbing like a child on an airplane, I wondered what was different about this one. Had I, like the movie critics I had been scoffing at for their rave reviews of the film, experienced a wave of nostalgia due to the end of the Harry Potter era? No, that wasn't it. I realized, after carefully analyzing my feelings (cut me some slack, I'm on summer vacation and have too much time on my hands) that this film was superior to the previous Harry Potter films simply because it actually TOLD THE STORY.
It didn't hit the major plot points in a perfunctory, check-list fashion. It didn't throw characters at you for no reason. It didn't deviate too much from J.K. Rowling's perfectly good vision, but it also didn't dogmatically adhere to every last detail. It took liberties without falling short of the mark. In other words...it was kind of like the Lord of the Rings movies.
It's no secret that I'm a lifelong fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy: both the books and the remarkable, outstanding films directed by Peter Jackson. But it wasn't until fairly recently that I became aware that the strength of these films lies in the fact that Peter Jackson and company clearly decided to adapt the books to the screen not to make money, but to TELL THE STORY! (Sure, it doesn't hurt that they made a ton of money off the films, but it truly doesn't seem to be what they were all about when they set out to complete this project). And believe me, their motivations came through in the films: in the loving, genuine, sincere way that the story came to life, in the sensitive, nuanced performances of the actors, in the dedication to making Middle Earth seem as real to the viewer as our own world. This last Harry Potter film more closely resembles a Lord of the Rings film than a Harry Potter film, and, in my opinion, there can be no higher praise.
A quick Google search will surely yield the exact box office totals for all eight of the Harry Potter flicks. Whatever the number is, I doubt that any of the masterminds behind the series are ever going to eat Ramen Noodles for dinner again. These movies have made Big Bucks.
Where am I going with this? Well, I was a fan of Harry Potter before Harry Potter became Harry Pot-of-Gold. And I'm happy that these books (which are really, really fantastic, by the way) have been adapted to the screen and are reaching larger audiences through a different medium. However, I have always felt that the films are a bit...empty, compared to the books. While the books are brimming with whimsical humor and imagination, the films are rather dull and formulaic. I can practically see some Warner Brothers exec in the background of each shot, smoking a cigar and jingling his money bags.
To illustrate this point, let me take you through an exercise. I can remember almost every minuscule detail of the outrageously convoluted plots of each of the seven Harry Potter books; I have even been known to recite lengthy passages verbatim. Conversely, I can only remember one or two important factoids about each of the first seven Harry Potter films (I will share my profound thoughts about the final film at the end of this fascinating post). That is how forgettable and soulless I found the film adaptations of the stories I have cherished and adored for much of my childhood and adulthood thus far. For example:
Movie 1: Introduction to Dan Radcliffe's solitary facial expression: Shock-and-Awe.
Movie 2: ...Nothing comes to mind. Oh, right: the movie ends with an awkward applause scene that somehow centers around a teary-eyed Hagrid.
Movie 3: Completely different art direction and cinematography. Sirius and Lupin are way too old. Left out tons of important plot stuff.
Movie 4: Dan Radcliffe must have taken some acting lessons and learned how to do a convincing crying scene. Cedric Diggory is pretty hot. All the guys mysteriously have the same ridiculous mullet-style hair-do.
Movie 5: Lots of new characters and dream sequences. Snooze-fest.
Movie 6: I SERIOUSLY REMEMBER NOTHING ABOUT THIS MOVIE.
Movie 7.1: Naked Harry and Hermione make out. WTF?
So there you go. There are some stories that just don't translate well into film, and the story of Harry Potter is one of them. To put it simply, the story works perfectly well AS A SERIES OF BOOKS. But there are too many characters, details, and settings to cram into a three-hour script spoken by children and adults with English accents over booming sound effects and a soaring musical score. It's too overwhelming to make any sense at all, even to devoted fans like myself who already know the books better than they know their own academic disciplines. So why try to force such a story into a format that doesn't serve it well, and why disappoint the fans of the series by doing so? I'll give you a hint: CHA-CHING!
I have no interest in making Warner Brothers even more filthy rich by continuing to be disappointed by their lackluster adaptations of the story I adore. Therefore, I was somewhat unenthusiastic about The Deathly Hallows, Part 2. Sure, it has about a 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes at press time, but I attributed that to some sentimental notions on the part of the critics over the end of an era. Either way, I went into DH2 expecting to be disappointed.
Well, after all these years and all these disappointments, Warner Brothers and all their billions of dollars in revenue finally got it right.
DH2, unlike its predecessors, was thoroughly memorable. It moved me (to tears, and many times, but don't tell anyone). As I left the theater, sobbing like a child on an airplane, I wondered what was different about this one. Had I, like the movie critics I had been scoffing at for their rave reviews of the film, experienced a wave of nostalgia due to the end of the Harry Potter era? No, that wasn't it. I realized, after carefully analyzing my feelings (cut me some slack, I'm on summer vacation and have too much time on my hands) that this film was superior to the previous Harry Potter films simply because it actually TOLD THE STORY.
It didn't hit the major plot points in a perfunctory, check-list fashion. It didn't throw characters at you for no reason. It didn't deviate too much from J.K. Rowling's perfectly good vision, but it also didn't dogmatically adhere to every last detail. It took liberties without falling short of the mark. In other words...it was kind of like the Lord of the Rings movies.
It's no secret that I'm a lifelong fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy: both the books and the remarkable, outstanding films directed by Peter Jackson. But it wasn't until fairly recently that I became aware that the strength of these films lies in the fact that Peter Jackson and company clearly decided to adapt the books to the screen not to make money, but to TELL THE STORY! (Sure, it doesn't hurt that they made a ton of money off the films, but it truly doesn't seem to be what they were all about when they set out to complete this project). And believe me, their motivations came through in the films: in the loving, genuine, sincere way that the story came to life, in the sensitive, nuanced performances of the actors, in the dedication to making Middle Earth seem as real to the viewer as our own world. This last Harry Potter film more closely resembles a Lord of the Rings film than a Harry Potter film, and, in my opinion, there can be no higher praise.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Re-Mixes That Should Never Have Happened
Christmas means Christmas shopping. Christmas shopping means malls. Malls mean involuntary exposure to the latest horrific pop music clogging the local radio stations (a traumatic experience for a self-proclaimed music snob who vehemently avoids pop music at almost all costs, with the obvious exception of Lady Gaga…who is fabulous). Anyway, it appears that many songs, months or years after their initial release, undergo the so-called “re-mix” process, ostensibly to increase their appeal to the ardent masses. As far as I can make out, this process involves the following:
1. Increase the tempo.
2. Add a thumping, techno beat.
3. Throw in a few synthesized sound effects.
4. Unleash the track upon the world, where it will embed itself into the collective subconscious for all eternity, immune to our efforts to get it out of our heads.
The mentality behind this endeavor is clear: you take a song—ANY song, mind you—and you make it danceable. The perceptive reader should now be thinking, “But Rhea, not every song lends itself to dancing. ‘My Heart Will Go On’, for example, will never be a club song.” And I concur with that…which brings us to our list of re-mixes that should have never been.
5. Cascada’s cover of Rascall Flatt’s “What Hurts The Most”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9qN9XqoHtQ
Why it sucks: This song is depressing as hell. Does that make you want to dance? Me neither.
4. DJ Sammy’s remix of Bryan Adams’s “Heaven”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUuqbSyTHY
Why it sucks: Adams’s original song is heartfelt, sad, and lovely. It’s the kind of power ballad that should be sung tenderly to a lover by a roaring fireplace while holding said lover’s hands and gazing deeply into his or her eyes. Ergo, the lyrics do not lend themselves to bumping and grinding. When the average club-goer is gazing into the eyes of his or her intended’s, they’re likely not thinking along the lines of, “Once in your life you find someone / Who will turn your world around / Bring you up when you’re feeling down”. They’re thinking along the lines of, “I’ma get get get get you drunk / Get you love drunk off my humps”.
3. Celine Dion’s “To Love You More”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crcDJ6kK2_w
Why it sucks: Most of the people shaking their booties in the clubs probably have no idea who Celine Dion is, let alone the extent of her incredible talent. Regardless, this is a winsome song about unrequited love…doesn’t that just make you want to celebrate, get a little rowdy? No? Play this after “What Hurts the Most”, and you’ll have half the club downing gin and sobbing on each other’s shoulders.
2. Cascada’s cover of “Last Christmas”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds6oTHYmqRc
Why it sucks: I take issue with the original (not that it isn’t a good song, per se, it’s just not particularly cheerful, and I prefer cheerful Christmas songs. Then again, it’s no “Christmas Shoes”, so I’ll take it). Cascada’s version has a cutesy beat and an uncomfortably fast tempo that suggests that you’re supposed to dance to it. Again, unrequited love? Not a very celebratory topic for most.
1. DJ Dark Intensity’s remix of Lady Antebellum’s “Need You Now”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSIioUyyqAM
Why it sucks: When I heard the bizarre remix of this song, I knew it was a shoo-in for the top spot. While the original has elements that are, arguably, appropriate for a party atmosphere (a reference to “another shot of whiskey”, for example), it is in its entirety a plaintive tune about a lonely person making a drunken booty call. Thanks to the talent of the two vocalists, you can literally hear the pain in their voices. If this doesn’t put a damper on your party, I don’t know what will. Maybe dead baby jokes?
The message that I would like all of us to take away from this list is as follows: there are some songs that are meant to be listened to as you’re sobbing into your pillowcase with a carton of Ben & Jerry’s on your bedside table atop an empty case of Franzia, and there are some songs that are meant to be listened to as you’re having fun. And ne’er the two shall mix.
1. Increase the tempo.
2. Add a thumping, techno beat.
3. Throw in a few synthesized sound effects.
4. Unleash the track upon the world, where it will embed itself into the collective subconscious for all eternity, immune to our efforts to get it out of our heads.
The mentality behind this endeavor is clear: you take a song—ANY song, mind you—and you make it danceable. The perceptive reader should now be thinking, “But Rhea, not every song lends itself to dancing. ‘My Heart Will Go On’, for example, will never be a club song.” And I concur with that…which brings us to our list of re-mixes that should have never been.
5. Cascada’s cover of Rascall Flatt’s “What Hurts The Most”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9qN9XqoHtQ
Why it sucks: This song is depressing as hell. Does that make you want to dance? Me neither.
4. DJ Sammy’s remix of Bryan Adams’s “Heaven”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUuqbSyTHY
Why it sucks: Adams’s original song is heartfelt, sad, and lovely. It’s the kind of power ballad that should be sung tenderly to a lover by a roaring fireplace while holding said lover’s hands and gazing deeply into his or her eyes. Ergo, the lyrics do not lend themselves to bumping and grinding. When the average club-goer is gazing into the eyes of his or her intended’s, they’re likely not thinking along the lines of, “Once in your life you find someone / Who will turn your world around / Bring you up when you’re feeling down”. They’re thinking along the lines of, “I’ma get get get get you drunk / Get you love drunk off my humps”.
3. Celine Dion’s “To Love You More”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crcDJ6kK2_w
Why it sucks: Most of the people shaking their booties in the clubs probably have no idea who Celine Dion is, let alone the extent of her incredible talent. Regardless, this is a winsome song about unrequited love…doesn’t that just make you want to celebrate, get a little rowdy? No? Play this after “What Hurts the Most”, and you’ll have half the club downing gin and sobbing on each other’s shoulders.
2. Cascada’s cover of “Last Christmas”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds6oTHYmqRc
Why it sucks: I take issue with the original (not that it isn’t a good song, per se, it’s just not particularly cheerful, and I prefer cheerful Christmas songs. Then again, it’s no “Christmas Shoes”, so I’ll take it). Cascada’s version has a cutesy beat and an uncomfortably fast tempo that suggests that you’re supposed to dance to it. Again, unrequited love? Not a very celebratory topic for most.
1. DJ Dark Intensity’s remix of Lady Antebellum’s “Need You Now”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSIioUyyqAM
Why it sucks: When I heard the bizarre remix of this song, I knew it was a shoo-in for the top spot. While the original has elements that are, arguably, appropriate for a party atmosphere (a reference to “another shot of whiskey”, for example), it is in its entirety a plaintive tune about a lonely person making a drunken booty call. Thanks to the talent of the two vocalists, you can literally hear the pain in their voices. If this doesn’t put a damper on your party, I don’t know what will. Maybe dead baby jokes?
The message that I would like all of us to take away from this list is as follows: there are some songs that are meant to be listened to as you’re sobbing into your pillowcase with a carton of Ben & Jerry’s on your bedside table atop an empty case of Franzia, and there are some songs that are meant to be listened to as you’re having fun. And ne’er the two shall mix.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Five Quick and Easy Ways To Tame Miley Cyrus
I was recently subjected to Miley Cyrus's latest display of premature hyper-sexualization: the music video for her latest shrill, repetitive, poorly-written single, "Can't Be Tamed". The video features Miley earnestly trying to appear sexy, and, as a result, is just as embarrassing and yucky as one would imagine a video of a scantily-clad young teen gyrating and being fondled by large crowds of people would be. However, the song itself brings up an interesting fallacy, and that is this idea that Miley Cyrus can't be tamed. Au contraire, says a person who knows hundreds of real-life teenagers, and who witnesses and participates in the taming of such teenagers on a regular basis! Here is a list of suggestions for taming Miley Cyrus.
1.) Confiscate her cell phone.
2.) Delete her Facebook account.
3. ) Ground her.
4.) Take away the keys to the Range Rover/BMW/Jaguar/whatever ridiculously extravagant car that the inexplicable popularity of her miserable, annoying records has allowed her to obtain.
5.) Force her to listen to her own music until she cooperates. While I realize that this suggestion is borderline cruel and inhumane, I know that I'd agree to almost anything if threatened with "Party In The USA" on a loop.
Billy Ray, I hope you're taking notes...that is, if you're not too busy Google-ing how to get Miley in Playboy.
1.) Confiscate her cell phone.
2.) Delete her Facebook account.
3. ) Ground her.
4.) Take away the keys to the Range Rover/BMW/Jaguar/whatever ridiculously extravagant car that the inexplicable popularity of her miserable, annoying records has allowed her to obtain.
5.) Force her to listen to her own music until she cooperates. While I realize that this suggestion is borderline cruel and inhumane, I know that I'd agree to almost anything if threatened with "Party In The USA" on a loop.
Billy Ray, I hope you're taking notes...that is, if you're not too busy Google-ing how to get Miley in Playboy.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
I wonder if Ann Coulter knows she's a punch-line? Musings on hatred and hypocrisy.
Today, I did something I couldn't bring myself to do for three years.
I picked up a copy of Ann Coulter's book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. And I held it in my hands. And I resisted the urge to seize it from the corners of the opposing pages and rip until it fell apart in a flurry of pages tainted with hatred, hypocrisy, and poor fact-checking.
Furthermore, I actually took it to my table at Barnes and Noble and allowed myself to be seen reading it. I suppose I could have done that three years ago, when it was published, but come on! People know me at my local bookstore; I was much too embarrassed to be seen reading such unadulterated nonsense.
Finally, after three whole years of itching to write a scathing blog post about the garbage that is contained within the covers of this book, I decided to risk possible humiliation and association with Coulter's nauseating conservative views and managed to get through about fourteen pages of Godless.
To begin my series of incredulous musings, I had to look no further than the front cover of the book, which proudly identified it as "the incendiary New York Times #1 Best-Seller!" This begs the question: if you are one of the many who exchanged your hard-earned money for this steaming block of shit, what does it feel like to be a walking, talking, brain-less Droid? And what's it like to be so blind to hypocrisy that you can't see the disgusting hatred being promoted by this alleged "Christian"? Or did you just not care? (For the record, I didn't buy the book. I skimmed through it while seated at the cafe, trying desperately to refrain from vomiting. Please! Why would I drop $14.95 on this poorly-researched carton of nonsense when there's a perfectly good collection of essays by Noam Chomsky right next to it, waiting to be purchased?)
Needless to say, this front-cover proclamation stopped me in my tracks and demolished all my good intentions of writing a review of this book. Plus, the sight of Coulter's smug, hate-filled face incited such a powerful rage in me that I knew I didn't stand a chance of reading this book cover-to-cover. There's a lot to be said for knowing the arguments of those who have opposing beliefs, but clearly, the premise of this book is so vastly absurd and counter-productive that it doesn't even merit attention.
However, there are a few things that I simply cannot resist pointing out.
First, Coulter proudly identifies herself as a Christian, and even goes so far as to assert that she thinks everyone should be a Christian as well. In 2007, Coulter stated on CNBC's The Big Idea that Christians consider themselves to be "perfected Jews", and that it would be better if everyone was a Christian. She also takes issue with anyone who thinks it's important to protect the environment, believes in a woman's right to choose what happens in her own body, disagrees with abstinence-only sex education, and gives a damn about poor people. Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, for I'm just a heathen, pagan-lovin' Hindu, but isn't charity and social justice a central principle of Christianity? Doesn't Christianity advocate "loving thy neighbor"? Yes, I do believe it does. Coulter is clearly doing an excellent job of loving her neighbor when she describes her eloquent and well-researched views on foreign policy: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." (This comes from her own disgusting column, written a few days after 9/11.) Oh, what's that you said? If they're not American, they're not really my "neighbor"? So Christianity says it's okay to kill, subjugate, and torture people who aren't American. Gotcha. Then I wonder what Jesus would have thought of Coulter's description of President Obama's book, Dreams From My Father as a "dime-store Mein Kampf" (really, Ann? You read Mein Kampf? Wait, did you read Dreams From My Father? In fact, are you even literate?), and I also wonder what Jesus would have thought of Coulter's statement, "Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you (black people). Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it."
If Ann Coulter thinks that racist, white WASPs are charming, I guess she's never been to a Tea Party rally, where toothless rednecks with mullets and grease-stained pot-bellies dominate. But that's not really the point; the point is, Coulter truly believes that she and other white, American Christians are inherently superior. Can somebody please indicate what principles of Christianity support such an ignorant, hateful belief? In fact, there's only one ideology that I've identified that holds any similarity to Coulter's belief system and that's...Islamic fundamentalism.
Gasp! But Coulter hates Islam! She has openly shown her support for the airlines that performed some of the most egregious acts of racial profiling against Muslims, and has made several public statements that contained extremely ignorant and hateful epithets about Muslims. She even suggested "flying carpets" as a possible mode of transportation for Muslims denied permission to travel on commercial airlines. (Hilarious, Ann--did you develop that razor-sharp sense of humor while pursuing your degree in Basket-Weaving or Women-Hating or whatever it was you studied at Cornell?) With such unabashed hatred of Islam, it's really ironic that Coulter shares some profound ideological similarities with the Islamic fundamentalists who were behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Belief in moral and religious superiority? Check. Mindless indoctrination into a belief system? Check. Advocating the use of violence to convert others to one's own religion? Check. Disdain and hatred for anyone who follows a different religion? Check. An astonishing hatred of women? Check. In fact, I don't know if Coulter is aware, but she would make a great suicide bomber. No one would even miss her.
The point is, if Coulter truly believes that she is a good Christian, she clearly missed some crucial lessons in Bible-study. Love, acceptance, and morality are obviously irrelevant to her, while self-promotion, hatred, and racism are the principles she chooses to practice in the name of Christianity.
The second abomination that I have to point out is Coulter's disbelief in Darwinism. This is the real reason why I couldn't get through more than fourteen pages of Godless. Having studied evolutionary principles as a student of Physiology/Neurobiology for much of my adult life, I simply couldn't stomach the shrill proclamations of a woman whose education is in history and law and who currently earns a living as a public nuisance that evolution is "bogus science" and has never really been proven. Excuse me? You're telling me that people who have devoted their entire lives to researching and proving natural selection--people who hold advanced degrees from top universities and have published literature in the most reputable scientific publications, people who hold more scientific knowledge in their pinkie fingers than you hold in your entire emaciated body--are wrong, and you're right? Yeah, okay. Thankfully, I have an academic background that enables me to dismiss Coulter's diatribes as nothing more than arrant nonsense. When was the last time Coulter engaged in a legitimate discussion with an actual scientist about evolution? I'm going to go ahead and say never, since this is a woman who wrote a book called, How to Talk to A Liberal (If You Must), and is thus presumably not a huge proponent of intellectual discourse with people of the opposing viewpoint. I'd like to make a suggestion to Coulter: leave the scientific topics to the real scientists. For that matter, leave all those other topics in your book to the people who know what they're talking about.
There is a third topic that I wish to point, one that bewildered and revolted me so much that I actually feel the tiniest bit sorry for Coulter and the obvious self-hatred and/or the distorted self-image that governs her beliefs, and that is her blatant disgust towards women. I suppose I should qualify this by saying that Coulter presumably doesn't hate all women, despite the fact that she has publicly stated that denying women the right to vote would be a good thing. However, the prevailing hatred that Coulter has towards women seems to be, as far as I can tell, directed towards a certain breed of militant, tree-hugging, PETA-affiliated, hippie-loving feminists. Evidently, Coulter feels disdainfully about women who are activists, and she chooses to demonstrate this disdain mostly by taking pot-shots at their physical appearance. In the mere fourteen pages of Godless that I read, Coulter made FOUR references to women of opposing viewpoints to her own and their apparent lack of physical beauty. Excuse me, but how exactly is the appearance of a pro-choice activist relevant to her differing opinion on abortion legislation? Besides, why would any intellectual use such a subjective characteristic as physical beauty as a means to discredit her critics or opposition? I think it's hilarious that Coulter, who has been parodied on many occasions for her own appearance, chooses to emphasize her perception of the women with whom she disagrees as being physically hideous. Beauty (which is irrelevant to the topics that Coulter is supposed to be describing in her book) is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose that there are men out there who find masculine-figured women with prominent noses attractive, but still, does Coulter really think that she has a leg to stand on when criticizing ugly, shrill women?
The bottom line is, the fear I described in my previous post is appreciably exacerbated by Christian fundamentalist "pundits" like Ann Coulter, who have a very public platform on which they are able to express their hatred, ignorance, and blatant disregard for progress, equality, and social conscientiousness. If you're going to read Godless as a reliable resource, I beg you to consider: Ann Coulter has no higher education or expertise in politics, international relations, history, sociology, or philosophy. She has repeatedly expressed racist, xenophobic views. She doesn't even properly cite her sources in Godless; in fact, she scarcely uses those pesky old footnotes that you so often see in real non-fiction books about politics, and the few sources that she does cite don't appear to be objective, non-partisan ones. Why would you take this woman, or her ideas, seriously?
The good news is, there are plenty of people who don't take her seriously, and have, in fact, dismissed her for the ignorant, greedy, callous, self-important, hateful excuse for a human being that she is. I would love for her to take a look at some of the blog posts, articles, cartoons, and videos that have made her into a punch-line, such as this one.
Hate hurts, doesn't it, Ann?
I picked up a copy of Ann Coulter's book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. And I held it in my hands. And I resisted the urge to seize it from the corners of the opposing pages and rip until it fell apart in a flurry of pages tainted with hatred, hypocrisy, and poor fact-checking.
Furthermore, I actually took it to my table at Barnes and Noble and allowed myself to be seen reading it. I suppose I could have done that three years ago, when it was published, but come on! People know me at my local bookstore; I was much too embarrassed to be seen reading such unadulterated nonsense.
Finally, after three whole years of itching to write a scathing blog post about the garbage that is contained within the covers of this book, I decided to risk possible humiliation and association with Coulter's nauseating conservative views and managed to get through about fourteen pages of Godless.
To begin my series of incredulous musings, I had to look no further than the front cover of the book, which proudly identified it as "the incendiary New York Times #1 Best-Seller!" This begs the question: if you are one of the many who exchanged your hard-earned money for this steaming block of shit, what does it feel like to be a walking, talking, brain-less Droid? And what's it like to be so blind to hypocrisy that you can't see the disgusting hatred being promoted by this alleged "Christian"? Or did you just not care? (For the record, I didn't buy the book. I skimmed through it while seated at the cafe, trying desperately to refrain from vomiting. Please! Why would I drop $14.95 on this poorly-researched carton of nonsense when there's a perfectly good collection of essays by Noam Chomsky right next to it, waiting to be purchased?)
Needless to say, this front-cover proclamation stopped me in my tracks and demolished all my good intentions of writing a review of this book. Plus, the sight of Coulter's smug, hate-filled face incited such a powerful rage in me that I knew I didn't stand a chance of reading this book cover-to-cover. There's a lot to be said for knowing the arguments of those who have opposing beliefs, but clearly, the premise of this book is so vastly absurd and counter-productive that it doesn't even merit attention.
However, there are a few things that I simply cannot resist pointing out.
First, Coulter proudly identifies herself as a Christian, and even goes so far as to assert that she thinks everyone should be a Christian as well. In 2007, Coulter stated on CNBC's The Big Idea that Christians consider themselves to be "perfected Jews", and that it would be better if everyone was a Christian. She also takes issue with anyone who thinks it's important to protect the environment, believes in a woman's right to choose what happens in her own body, disagrees with abstinence-only sex education, and gives a damn about poor people. Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, for I'm just a heathen, pagan-lovin' Hindu, but isn't charity and social justice a central principle of Christianity? Doesn't Christianity advocate "loving thy neighbor"? Yes, I do believe it does. Coulter is clearly doing an excellent job of loving her neighbor when she describes her eloquent and well-researched views on foreign policy: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." (This comes from her own disgusting column, written a few days after 9/11.) Oh, what's that you said? If they're not American, they're not really my "neighbor"? So Christianity says it's okay to kill, subjugate, and torture people who aren't American. Gotcha. Then I wonder what Jesus would have thought of Coulter's description of President Obama's book, Dreams From My Father as a "dime-store Mein Kampf" (really, Ann? You read Mein Kampf? Wait, did you read Dreams From My Father? In fact, are you even literate?), and I also wonder what Jesus would have thought of Coulter's statement, "Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you (black people). Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it."
If Ann Coulter thinks that racist, white WASPs are charming, I guess she's never been to a Tea Party rally, where toothless rednecks with mullets and grease-stained pot-bellies dominate. But that's not really the point; the point is, Coulter truly believes that she and other white, American Christians are inherently superior. Can somebody please indicate what principles of Christianity support such an ignorant, hateful belief? In fact, there's only one ideology that I've identified that holds any similarity to Coulter's belief system and that's...Islamic fundamentalism.
Gasp! But Coulter hates Islam! She has openly shown her support for the airlines that performed some of the most egregious acts of racial profiling against Muslims, and has made several public statements that contained extremely ignorant and hateful epithets about Muslims. She even suggested "flying carpets" as a possible mode of transportation for Muslims denied permission to travel on commercial airlines. (Hilarious, Ann--did you develop that razor-sharp sense of humor while pursuing your degree in Basket-Weaving or Women-Hating or whatever it was you studied at Cornell?) With such unabashed hatred of Islam, it's really ironic that Coulter shares some profound ideological similarities with the Islamic fundamentalists who were behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Belief in moral and religious superiority? Check. Mindless indoctrination into a belief system? Check. Advocating the use of violence to convert others to one's own religion? Check. Disdain and hatred for anyone who follows a different religion? Check. An astonishing hatred of women? Check. In fact, I don't know if Coulter is aware, but she would make a great suicide bomber. No one would even miss her.
The point is, if Coulter truly believes that she is a good Christian, she clearly missed some crucial lessons in Bible-study. Love, acceptance, and morality are obviously irrelevant to her, while self-promotion, hatred, and racism are the principles she chooses to practice in the name of Christianity.
The second abomination that I have to point out is Coulter's disbelief in Darwinism. This is the real reason why I couldn't get through more than fourteen pages of Godless. Having studied evolutionary principles as a student of Physiology/Neurobiology for much of my adult life, I simply couldn't stomach the shrill proclamations of a woman whose education is in history and law and who currently earns a living as a public nuisance that evolution is "bogus science" and has never really been proven. Excuse me? You're telling me that people who have devoted their entire lives to researching and proving natural selection--people who hold advanced degrees from top universities and have published literature in the most reputable scientific publications, people who hold more scientific knowledge in their pinkie fingers than you hold in your entire emaciated body--are wrong, and you're right? Yeah, okay. Thankfully, I have an academic background that enables me to dismiss Coulter's diatribes as nothing more than arrant nonsense. When was the last time Coulter engaged in a legitimate discussion with an actual scientist about evolution? I'm going to go ahead and say never, since this is a woman who wrote a book called, How to Talk to A Liberal (If You Must), and is thus presumably not a huge proponent of intellectual discourse with people of the opposing viewpoint. I'd like to make a suggestion to Coulter: leave the scientific topics to the real scientists. For that matter, leave all those other topics in your book to the people who know what they're talking about.
There is a third topic that I wish to point, one that bewildered and revolted me so much that I actually feel the tiniest bit sorry for Coulter and the obvious self-hatred and/or the distorted self-image that governs her beliefs, and that is her blatant disgust towards women. I suppose I should qualify this by saying that Coulter presumably doesn't hate all women, despite the fact that she has publicly stated that denying women the right to vote would be a good thing. However, the prevailing hatred that Coulter has towards women seems to be, as far as I can tell, directed towards a certain breed of militant, tree-hugging, PETA-affiliated, hippie-loving feminists. Evidently, Coulter feels disdainfully about women who are activists, and she chooses to demonstrate this disdain mostly by taking pot-shots at their physical appearance. In the mere fourteen pages of Godless that I read, Coulter made FOUR references to women of opposing viewpoints to her own and their apparent lack of physical beauty. Excuse me, but how exactly is the appearance of a pro-choice activist relevant to her differing opinion on abortion legislation? Besides, why would any intellectual use such a subjective characteristic as physical beauty as a means to discredit her critics or opposition? I think it's hilarious that Coulter, who has been parodied on many occasions for her own appearance, chooses to emphasize her perception of the women with whom she disagrees as being physically hideous. Beauty (which is irrelevant to the topics that Coulter is supposed to be describing in her book) is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose that there are men out there who find masculine-figured women with prominent noses attractive, but still, does Coulter really think that she has a leg to stand on when criticizing ugly, shrill women?
The bottom line is, the fear I described in my previous post is appreciably exacerbated by Christian fundamentalist "pundits" like Ann Coulter, who have a very public platform on which they are able to express their hatred, ignorance, and blatant disregard for progress, equality, and social conscientiousness. If you're going to read Godless as a reliable resource, I beg you to consider: Ann Coulter has no higher education or expertise in politics, international relations, history, sociology, or philosophy. She has repeatedly expressed racist, xenophobic views. She doesn't even properly cite her sources in Godless; in fact, she scarcely uses those pesky old footnotes that you so often see in real non-fiction books about politics, and the few sources that she does cite don't appear to be objective, non-partisan ones. Why would you take this woman, or her ideas, seriously?
The good news is, there are plenty of people who don't take her seriously, and have, in fact, dismissed her for the ignorant, greedy, callous, self-important, hateful excuse for a human being that she is. I would love for her to take a look at some of the blog posts, articles, cartoons, and videos that have made her into a punch-line, such as this one.
Hate hurts, doesn't it, Ann?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Fear and loathing in America
I’ll be honest: some Americans scare the crap out of me.
I was not born in this country. My family immigrated to the U.S. from India when I was about three months old. I’ve spent my entire life thus far feeling grateful for having been raised in the U.S. instead of in India for numerous reasons (better educational opportunities! A functional, secular democracy! More progressive attitudes towards women!). Even today, in the age of Tea-Party lunatics and the Rush Limbaugh school of hateful ignorance, I am grateful to be a U.S. citizen. I know, from having had exposure to foreign countries, including India, that life can be a lot worse than it is for many or most Americans.
So don’t brand me as some ungrateful, unpatriotic foreigner when I tell you that there are ultra-conservatives all over America whose disgustingly backwards views about foreigners, politics, President Obama, and the so-called “unique American culture” should instill fear into the hearts of any sane person.
Earlier today, I read a book by John Avlon, senior political columnist from TheDailyBeast.com, entitled Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. I won’t say that this book shouldn’t be taken with a grain of salt, because it absolutely should (Keith Olbermann is described as a Wingnut representative of the Left, for instance), but it essentially illustrates the extreme, misguided opinions promoted by conservative and liberal talking heads on the fringes of both viewpoints. Does it surprise anyone that the majority of Wingnuts appear to be conservative? While the right boasts Wingnuts so prolific and omnipresent as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea-Partiers (or Tea-Baggers, if you prefer to call them as such), the Birthers, the Three-Percenters, the Oath-Keepers, the Truthers, and the Bible-thumping “Baby Killer” shouters, the only left Wingnut that Avlon can come up with is the relatively harmless, albeit impassioned, Olbermann. Again, are you surprised? I’m not.
The unfortunate reality is that there are millions of very vocal conservatives all over America who know nothing--I repeat, nothing--about politics beyond what they hear on Limbaugh’s extremely popular radio show and what they see on Fox News Channel. If you didn’t have any expertise on a subject other than the talking points that wash over your American Idol-obsessed brain for thirty seconds a day, wouldn’t you think, “Hey, I don’t know much about that. Maybe I shouldn’t talk about it in public and risk making myself look like an idiot.” I sure would. Unfortunately, such reasoning has not entered the minds of the conservative lunatics who have rallied against President Obama since his election in 2008, and those who have most recently congregated to protest the health care reform legislation passed by Congress last Sunday evening. Polls show that the average American devotes very little time and energy to learning about current events. But this doesn’t stop certain average Americans from having the opinion that President Obama is a Communist Muslim who was born in Kenya, or that socialized medicine will result from the current health care legislation.
Some Americans appear to be unclear on a few important facts. First, that President Obama is not pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage. There appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of, for example, a certain pastor in South Carolina, who, on November 5, 2008, advised his parishioners to refrain from taking communion if they had voted for President Obama, citing the president-elect’s “pro-abortion” views as being in violation of the Bible. Second, the fact that President Obama is not a Muslim (and why exactly would it matter if he was?) Please refer to the senior citizen who was featured at a 2008 McCain rally, shrieking about how Obama is a Muslim who sides with the terrorists (also, just for yuks, observe as a very embarrassed McCain tries to shut her up). President Obama is not a Muslim. Oh, and just so you know, Muslims aren’t evil. Third, the fact that the current administration is not behaving in a way that is un-Constitutional or in violation of human rights. You might not think that the health care reform legislation is going to improve the quality of health care administration, or that the current legislation is really necessary. However, if you oppose the legislation on the grounds that you believe it’s a sign of “big government take-over that will violate individual human rights”, where were you during the Bush administration? You’ve clearly never heard of the Patriot Act, which allowed the Attorney General to detain any foreign-born American on any arbitrary “secret evidence”, sometimes for months on end, without a trial. That didn’t bother you, but legislation that requires every American to purchase health insurance does? And by the way, why don’t you take a break from Facebook-ing (which Americans spend, on average, at least five times as much time on as they do on looking up current events and news) and Google “violation of human rights” and read about violation of human rights that occurs throughout the world, far greater in severity than a simple mandate to purchase health insurance?
The elephant in the room is this: there is a large majority of white, conservative Americans who are uncomfortable with an administration led by a black man. This translates into a depressing series of misconceptions: the government is going to force you to give all your money to poor black people, President Obama is the Anti-Christ (according to a certain conservative, Christian faction in Southern California, the Bible states that the Anti-Christ will come from Africa, and, funnily enough, is named Barack!), and President Obama hates all white people and loves the terrorists, just to name a few. White minority politics terrify fringe lunatics: if whites aren’t represented in top-level government positions, who is going to make sure that white people stay in power? What’s going to stop the minorities from taking over and subjugating the white people? Subjugation sucks, right? Never mind the fact that this country was established through white subjugation of the natives, and made to flourish via the subjugation, rape, and abuse of African slaves. But all of that is besides the point: the point is, having a black President really does not mean that white people are going to be relegated to second-class citizen status. Really.
The ever-nauseating Sarah Palin recently spoke at a campaign event for Senator McCain, who is up for re-election in November. Palin exalted the Tea Party movement, calling it a “beautiful” movement that captures the heart of America, and stated that the perceived violence and hatred of the conservative party in response to the passage of the health care legislation is a “distracting” side issue (I wonder if she realizes that the children of members of Congress who voted in favor of the legislation are being threatened? Or that the map she kindly posted on her Twitter page that showed where these members of Congress lived with rifle cross-hair images marking the spots probably helped the lunatics who have thrown bricks through Congress members’ windows and cut off the gas pipe-lines to their homes?). She also ranted about how the American people have nothing to apologize for. But she’s wrong: the American people have a lot to apologize for. Fringe lunatics who shout racial and ethnic slurs at Congressmen on Capitol Hill. Pastors, priests, and community leaders who make racist remarks about the President and “pray for his death” (I didn’t make this up.) The fact that the majority of the world considers the United States to be the biggest threat against world peace, according to Noam Chomsky in Imperial Ambitions. Vigilante Americans who hover at the Mexican border with rifles, shooting at people attempting to cross the border into the U.S. The threats against President Obama’s life, which the Secret Service has indicated is the largest number of threats against any president in U.S. history (coincidence?). The many acts of violence enacted against Muslims and Sikhs after 9/11. As Americans, we should be embarrassed by our ignorance, our hatred, our susceptibility to misinformation and the influence of fringe lunatics.
Sorry, Sarah, but there are a lot of things that are wrong with this country. Aside from the obvious fringe lunatics, there are the people who insist that the “unique American culture” is in jeopardy as a result of the influx of immigrants to the U.S. Oh, I’m sorry, by “unique American culture”, do you mean, “white majority comprised of white people who immigrated to the U.S. a few generations ago from a variety of European countries”? For instance, I was asked by one of my patients if I planned on taking my American medical education back to “my country” once I was finished studying. And yes, he did mean to be derogatory. And no, he was not asking out of genuine ignorance. I found it interesting that, in my 22 years, I have managed to achieve more academically, professionally, personally, and in terms of community service and activism, using the educational and community resources provided by “my country” (which IS the United States, since I AM A U.S. CITIZEN!) than this man has achieved in his 62 years. So how dare he insinuate that I belong to this country any less than he does? I use this anecdote as an example of the stereotypical, improperly-informed American who attempts to articulate on opinions of which he knows little to nothing. You want to keep people out of this country because of their skin color, or their country of origin? Why don’t you worry about the ignorant lunatics and morons in your own country who are busy making America look bad to itself and to the rest of the world?
A little truth goes a long way. Unfortunately, there are plenty of Americans who can’t be bothered with truth. Lies and catch-phrases spouted from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and, of course, Sarah Palin, are so much easier to comprehend. Reason, logic, and facts don’t stand a chance against such fringe lunacy. And, for anyone who cares about taking a rational approach to politics and social reform, that’s a scary thought.
I was not born in this country. My family immigrated to the U.S. from India when I was about three months old. I’ve spent my entire life thus far feeling grateful for having been raised in the U.S. instead of in India for numerous reasons (better educational opportunities! A functional, secular democracy! More progressive attitudes towards women!). Even today, in the age of Tea-Party lunatics and the Rush Limbaugh school of hateful ignorance, I am grateful to be a U.S. citizen. I know, from having had exposure to foreign countries, including India, that life can be a lot worse than it is for many or most Americans.
So don’t brand me as some ungrateful, unpatriotic foreigner when I tell you that there are ultra-conservatives all over America whose disgustingly backwards views about foreigners, politics, President Obama, and the so-called “unique American culture” should instill fear into the hearts of any sane person.
Earlier today, I read a book by John Avlon, senior political columnist from TheDailyBeast.com, entitled Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. I won’t say that this book shouldn’t be taken with a grain of salt, because it absolutely should (Keith Olbermann is described as a Wingnut representative of the Left, for instance), but it essentially illustrates the extreme, misguided opinions promoted by conservative and liberal talking heads on the fringes of both viewpoints. Does it surprise anyone that the majority of Wingnuts appear to be conservative? While the right boasts Wingnuts so prolific and omnipresent as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea-Partiers (or Tea-Baggers, if you prefer to call them as such), the Birthers, the Three-Percenters, the Oath-Keepers, the Truthers, and the Bible-thumping “Baby Killer” shouters, the only left Wingnut that Avlon can come up with is the relatively harmless, albeit impassioned, Olbermann. Again, are you surprised? I’m not.
The unfortunate reality is that there are millions of very vocal conservatives all over America who know nothing--I repeat, nothing--about politics beyond what they hear on Limbaugh’s extremely popular radio show and what they see on Fox News Channel. If you didn’t have any expertise on a subject other than the talking points that wash over your American Idol-obsessed brain for thirty seconds a day, wouldn’t you think, “Hey, I don’t know much about that. Maybe I shouldn’t talk about it in public and risk making myself look like an idiot.” I sure would. Unfortunately, such reasoning has not entered the minds of the conservative lunatics who have rallied against President Obama since his election in 2008, and those who have most recently congregated to protest the health care reform legislation passed by Congress last Sunday evening. Polls show that the average American devotes very little time and energy to learning about current events. But this doesn’t stop certain average Americans from having the opinion that President Obama is a Communist Muslim who was born in Kenya, or that socialized medicine will result from the current health care legislation.
Some Americans appear to be unclear on a few important facts. First, that President Obama is not pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage. There appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of, for example, a certain pastor in South Carolina, who, on November 5, 2008, advised his parishioners to refrain from taking communion if they had voted for President Obama, citing the president-elect’s “pro-abortion” views as being in violation of the Bible. Second, the fact that President Obama is not a Muslim (and why exactly would it matter if he was?) Please refer to the senior citizen who was featured at a 2008 McCain rally, shrieking about how Obama is a Muslim who sides with the terrorists (also, just for yuks, observe as a very embarrassed McCain tries to shut her up). President Obama is not a Muslim. Oh, and just so you know, Muslims aren’t evil. Third, the fact that the current administration is not behaving in a way that is un-Constitutional or in violation of human rights. You might not think that the health care reform legislation is going to improve the quality of health care administration, or that the current legislation is really necessary. However, if you oppose the legislation on the grounds that you believe it’s a sign of “big government take-over that will violate individual human rights”, where were you during the Bush administration? You’ve clearly never heard of the Patriot Act, which allowed the Attorney General to detain any foreign-born American on any arbitrary “secret evidence”, sometimes for months on end, without a trial. That didn’t bother you, but legislation that requires every American to purchase health insurance does? And by the way, why don’t you take a break from Facebook-ing (which Americans spend, on average, at least five times as much time on as they do on looking up current events and news) and Google “violation of human rights” and read about violation of human rights that occurs throughout the world, far greater in severity than a simple mandate to purchase health insurance?
The elephant in the room is this: there is a large majority of white, conservative Americans who are uncomfortable with an administration led by a black man. This translates into a depressing series of misconceptions: the government is going to force you to give all your money to poor black people, President Obama is the Anti-Christ (according to a certain conservative, Christian faction in Southern California, the Bible states that the Anti-Christ will come from Africa, and, funnily enough, is named Barack!), and President Obama hates all white people and loves the terrorists, just to name a few. White minority politics terrify fringe lunatics: if whites aren’t represented in top-level government positions, who is going to make sure that white people stay in power? What’s going to stop the minorities from taking over and subjugating the white people? Subjugation sucks, right? Never mind the fact that this country was established through white subjugation of the natives, and made to flourish via the subjugation, rape, and abuse of African slaves. But all of that is besides the point: the point is, having a black President really does not mean that white people are going to be relegated to second-class citizen status. Really.
The ever-nauseating Sarah Palin recently spoke at a campaign event for Senator McCain, who is up for re-election in November. Palin exalted the Tea Party movement, calling it a “beautiful” movement that captures the heart of America, and stated that the perceived violence and hatred of the conservative party in response to the passage of the health care legislation is a “distracting” side issue (I wonder if she realizes that the children of members of Congress who voted in favor of the legislation are being threatened? Or that the map she kindly posted on her Twitter page that showed where these members of Congress lived with rifle cross-hair images marking the spots probably helped the lunatics who have thrown bricks through Congress members’ windows and cut off the gas pipe-lines to their homes?). She also ranted about how the American people have nothing to apologize for. But she’s wrong: the American people have a lot to apologize for. Fringe lunatics who shout racial and ethnic slurs at Congressmen on Capitol Hill. Pastors, priests, and community leaders who make racist remarks about the President and “pray for his death” (I didn’t make this up.) The fact that the majority of the world considers the United States to be the biggest threat against world peace, according to Noam Chomsky in Imperial Ambitions. Vigilante Americans who hover at the Mexican border with rifles, shooting at people attempting to cross the border into the U.S. The threats against President Obama’s life, which the Secret Service has indicated is the largest number of threats against any president in U.S. history (coincidence?). The many acts of violence enacted against Muslims and Sikhs after 9/11. As Americans, we should be embarrassed by our ignorance, our hatred, our susceptibility to misinformation and the influence of fringe lunatics.
Sorry, Sarah, but there are a lot of things that are wrong with this country. Aside from the obvious fringe lunatics, there are the people who insist that the “unique American culture” is in jeopardy as a result of the influx of immigrants to the U.S. Oh, I’m sorry, by “unique American culture”, do you mean, “white majority comprised of white people who immigrated to the U.S. a few generations ago from a variety of European countries”? For instance, I was asked by one of my patients if I planned on taking my American medical education back to “my country” once I was finished studying. And yes, he did mean to be derogatory. And no, he was not asking out of genuine ignorance. I found it interesting that, in my 22 years, I have managed to achieve more academically, professionally, personally, and in terms of community service and activism, using the educational and community resources provided by “my country” (which IS the United States, since I AM A U.S. CITIZEN!) than this man has achieved in his 62 years. So how dare he insinuate that I belong to this country any less than he does? I use this anecdote as an example of the stereotypical, improperly-informed American who attempts to articulate on opinions of which he knows little to nothing. You want to keep people out of this country because of their skin color, or their country of origin? Why don’t you worry about the ignorant lunatics and morons in your own country who are busy making America look bad to itself and to the rest of the world?
A little truth goes a long way. Unfortunately, there are plenty of Americans who can’t be bothered with truth. Lies and catch-phrases spouted from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and, of course, Sarah Palin, are so much easier to comprehend. Reason, logic, and facts don’t stand a chance against such fringe lunacy. And, for anyone who cares about taking a rational approach to politics and social reform, that’s a scary thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)