Smorgasbord of Fun...Eat Up

"I'm So Happy--Feeling Snappy"

2005-04-24T17:03:00.000-10:00

My very last required blog! *Gasp* Where is the good in goodbye? Where is the fair in farewell?I can barely see the screen because of the tears that are streaming down my face. Ack! The violent sobs are causing my hands to tremble so that I can barely type. I must pull myself together…especially since I have news to share with all you weary souls who are losing sleep due to thoughts of the exam (if the ten page paper is not all consuming). Alicia of the nine o’clock class informed me of a possible study session on Wednesday (Reading Day), sometime in the afternoon (like two or three). Nothing is concrete though, so if I find out more, I’ll post. The more the merrier! (Ha…so cliché).
Maybe I am so emotional from all those melodramas. Teehee. I was a little disappointed we kind of glossed over the subject of chapter eight—the Christian perspective versus the classic Hollywood film, the melodrama. I thought some interesting points were made in that chapter. One being the thought of this inherent goodness of man portrayed in them; that we can resolve everything on our own. As we sit in our pajamas on the couch with our tear-wet popcorn, we watch the family reunite after their struggles and attribute it to their own inner pulls of virtue (nothing to external forces). I also had never really thought about why a melodrama giving an “exaggerated place to emotions” can lead to making them “the universal and ultimate judge of any situation” and how “sentimentality manipulating your emotions by telling you how you should feel.” Feelings can be so swift in flight (apparently females struggle with this more :) ) and can be deceiving. I once heard it said that if you base your Christianity by “a feeling,” you wouldn’t be a Christian half the time. If we repeatedly watch media like this…soon we’ll all be a bunch of basket cases…like I am now. *sniff*

"It's Too Hot Here"

2005-04-24T09:43:00.000-10:00

Okay. I am done being the devil’s advocate. I think William Romanowski has a feasible argument without bringing up anything about this supposed “cultural mandate.” (I found it rather amusing when he states in the introduction, “My analysis begins with an assumption that is clear in Scripture…” saying he has this clear instruction from the Bible, yet calls it an assumption—there by it not being clear. Perhaps I am being too critical, yet I like to poke fun…just like poking the Pillsbury Doughboy.) Anyways, if all Christians are not going to stand against the filth that can be popular culture (Hollywood would have to listen then…), but look to learn how to “discern and evaluate perspectives in these representations of life in God’s world,” Eyes Wide Open does do an adequate job in laying a foundation for viewing, as a key point in this strategy of revolution is being of one mind in interpretation of movies. If we expect to be taken seriously as a strong, informed voice in the industry, we can not have Yankee Doodle’s comments on the latest movie praising it for the way it portrayed ideals and values, but then have Izzy Fashizzy’s comments saying it was a very bad depiction of life in general. Romanowski points out that you have to know what it means to be a Christian first. This involves setting aside petty differences and what past events might have shaped our perspectives, to come together as a body in Christ whose goal is to reach out to the spiritual lost by engaging in popular art to seek the truths in order to mold the good into maps of realty of biblical truths. We can’t set a good example if our maps of truth end up taking you to Kansas instead of Florida. (Who would want to go to Kansas anyways?)

“Werden Sie mir nicht folgen?”

2005-04-23T10:27:00.000-10:00

Ich habe eine Idee; wir werden populäre Kultur mehr nicht behandeln müssen. Sagen Sie auf Wiedersehen zu "Die O.C.," Britney Spears, und Harry Potter. Let us all cast off our woes and become…Amish. If you had already donned the prayer kapp and forgone buttons, you would know the German (literally) translates into “I have an idea; we won’t have to treat popular culture more. Say goodbye to [popular television, music, and books.]” To say they do not consume any media is wrong though, as they read “The Budget” to get caught up in who died, who is going where, and well being/prices of produce. No, I am not making fun of their simplistic, conservative lifestyle. With a strong Amish heritage, growing up with the German dialect, Pennsylvania-Dutch, and the head covering (yes, I am Mennonite), not to mention being an avid reader of Beverly Lewis, I have a strong respect for the community. In many ways, I think they have the right idea, but according William Romanowski, they are not being stewards of creation and therefore, not heeding the cultural mandate. However, if I may take on the role of devil’s advocate (and pretend like I am a theologian), I think they are justified in their ways. Despite many misconceptions about the Amish, many at least know they are hard working people, working the earth and caring for their livestock. In this they are doing as told, for we were told to be stewards of His creation thus far, it being good in his sight. He did not tell Adam and Eve after they had sinned and brought about evil to be stewards of their evilness. Genesis 1:28 should not be tweaked to what it was not intended to be. Instead of familiarizing our selves with popular culture for the purpose of understanding (which I can’t help but think is a crutch for desire), if all who proclaim Christianity took a stand, changes would happen, and at a faster rate.

"It's a Me, ah Mario"

2005-04-17T18:24:00.000-10:00

On a "duck hunt" for a blog, (hahaha- I know my allusion to the famous Nintendo game was hysterical) I decided to share my idea with all you. I had noticed that when talking about fanatical fanedom, people would blog about the movie or someone they knew (including me) instead of themselves. A term was put to it in class entitled "the third person effect." I know I blogged about someone else's fanedom because I had not deemed myself worthy of a blog. The only thing I collect are penguins and I am a fan of many people, yet my passion doesn't come out through following their every move through magazines or newspapers for example. I then thought it would be cool to create an "interesting" parasocial relationship and see what reaction it would get. Since I happen to have a plush Mario near (compliments of a Wendy's kids' meal) I thought he would make the perfect subject. (Who doesn't like a man with an accent? :)) I would don blue overalls, a red shirt and cap, make comments about us hanging out together, and carry his likeness with me where I would go. I then realized how much I did not want to succumb myself to such behavior which would make people think I was crazy. I found I have a respect for those who are able to show their fandom in ways that take them out of a comfort zone.

"Confessions"

2005-04-17T16:25:00.000-10:00

"You're always trying to figure out what I am all about. If you don't know what the answer is then just shut up and kiss. It shouldn't take forever to put it all together [CHORUS:] If you can't do the math then get out of the equation. I am calling you back- this is * 69."

[Chorus:] "I'm not ill; I don't need to take a pill to fix what you do. Cure can come through, cuz baby all I do is suffer from the symptoms of you."

If your “guilty pleasure” is the same as mine, then you know that the first song chunk is a Hilary Duff song entitled “The Math” from her album “Metamorphosis.” The second piece is by Lindsey Lohan, entitled “Symptoms of You” from her album “Speak.” I figured since Mallory was brave enough to say she loved Hanson, I can admit that I have downloaded songs by both these “teenie-bopper” pop sensations (because I refuse to buy their actual albums) and enjoy listening to them. I could not resist posting some lyrics because I find them absolutely hilarious on the verge of ridiculous, which makes me embarrassed and consider it “low culture”, yet I like the music. I was introduced to Hilary Duff’s music by my older brother (interesting story) and when we are driving around together, sometimes we will play it and belt it out (especially “The Math”…because he is a math majorJ). In trying to understand my media diet, in a way, it serves as a connection, a unity between him and me. I heard Lohan’s voice from the movie “Teenage Confessions of a Drama Queen” with the song “That Girl.” The aspirations sung about kind of spoke to my ideals/values.
Yea for Brahms, Gershwin, and Hilary Duff…

"Anyone Got A Match?"

2005-04-17T10:02:00.000-10:00

And now it’s time for “Beating the Dead Horse with Alisha,” the part of the blog where Alisha speaks out and kicks the dead horse (and then makes pretty things with the glue; waste not, want not). Yes, yes—welcome to another site featuring Friday’s class discussion on the question of all questions, the “light the fire under your posterior and get you riled up” question. The “should we, as Christians, be weary of fanatical fandom?” question. I always find such discussions interesting because people who don’t think it’s a big deal aren’t going to change their minds, just like those who say you can not serve two Masters, yet we agrue about it like someone will come up with this almigty epiphany that will settle the matter into a nice little box. Though you can recognize good points on each side, I think you can’t define it one way or another because it will be different for each individual. For example, if you know you have problems overeating, you should get a smaller plate to decrease portion size and put away the food so you don’t take seconds. Apply it to being a fan of "Star Trek." If you know it might get out of hand you should have restrictions, but some know that they can handle being an ardent fan (like cross-dressing and composing folk songs) without their passion superceding God. I think the problem is making those own personal restrictions, (and I think everybody ought to have some, concerning time and money) in which those that know it’s becoming their entire life make excuses for their behavior. We talked about how you can glorify God in different ways and the point was made that it could be a witnessing tool, but the intent of the behavior is what matters. It’s like someone saying they go to bars to witness and then just sits and orders drinks, waiting for some burley guy to come up and say, “Yo dude, my life is messed up and I need a shoulder to cry on as I share my emotions.”

"Two Peas in a Pod"

2005-04-10T17:55:00.000-10:00

In talking about parasocial relationships, we have focused on television, and rightly so, as the television probably gives us the number one source of relationships of this kind. I would like to widen the pigeonhole if I may and refer to one of favorite movies, “Ten Things I Hate About You,” (which has a lot of quoting potential, like “Am I that transparent? I want you; I need you; oh baby, oh baby.”) Paraphrasing (because access to any of the sites with scripts is apparently not possible) Mandella’s response to Michael asking her if she likes Shakespeare, (seeing all the pictures in her locker) “More then like…we’re involved.” Now in today’s world, you can read up on your favorite celebrity or show or get the latest scoop in a variety of texts and know everything there is to know about that subject. Though we have Shakespeare’s works, we do not have a clear picture of what he was like. Mandella is “involved” with Shakespeare, though for the most part what he is has been crafted in her head. We are not talking paranormal relationship as she does not employ such devices, but can we say parasocial? I think we tend to think it is weirder since in carrying on the one-sided relationship, you can't ever "meet," and in a sense, that would be the ultimate goal in the "relationship."

"Finger-painting and the Experts"

2005-04-10T17:54:00.000-10:00

The reading entitled “Mass Society/Popular Culture Debate: A Historical Overview” made some interesting points and got me thinking. Amongst all the hype over what popular culture is doing to elite art, Edward Shils finally speaks what was on my mind in saying “…much of what is labeled “high culture” is extremely mediocre in quality.” The reading defines the elite art as “consisting of technically complex and thematically unique creative forms that are produced…in accordance with (or opposition to) an accepted canon of works and within a conscious aesthetic standard.” I’d now like to bring to your attention a wonderful 20/20 segment on March 11th entitled “You Call that Art?” in which high culture was challenged. ABCNews.com showed four reproductions of modern art works that are considered great along with six pieces that were not. Four of the six art works in the test were done by 4-year-olds, and when their artwork was shown on the Web, and shown to people at the mall, the kids' work ranked ahead of most of the masterpieces.
“I assumed real artists wouldn't fall for the trick, so we invited some to take our test. Most of them also put at least some of the kids' work up there with the masters. One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as "a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art." When I told him the work was done by a 4-year-old he said, "That's amazing. Give that kid a show." More than 1,800 people said their work was great art.”
Perhaps this could validate me asking how anything can be “debased” if it’s label is in the eye of the beholder?

"Captain Kirk, It's Dinnertime!"

2005-04-10T15:43:00.000-10:00

Despite knowing that some people do go to the extremes when it comes to a devotion to a favorite show or media figure, I was still wide-eyed and gaping like a fish to the religious-like zeal bestowed upon “Star Trek.” I was waiting for them to interview the person who has cardboard cut-outs of the cast who is treated like their family. I actually know a Trekkie, and he was willing to share about his parasocial relationship. His name is Data (name changed to satisfy alter ego) and these are his thoughts:
“I didn't miss an episode [of Star Trek- The Next Generation]. At that point I was in 7th grade, heavily interested in space travel and I dreamed of designing spacecraft. Call it an ego trip or a dream, but I felt I was going to help develop warp drive. I wanted to command my own ship, so at first I connected with Kirk, but he was too spontaneous. Picard I related with even more because he was very structured and stuck to his guns, but was merciful in a heartbeat. For a young man without a father, Picard was my role model. It wasn't until a few years ago when I was diagnosed with OCD, (obsessive compulsive disorder) that I started to relate more and more with Data. I noticed that we had much in common, both very logic oriented individuals and how I felt very different from everyone else. We both wanted to be normal. Then there was the irony. Data throughout all the episodes "longed" in his artificial, non-emotion way, to be more human and to have emotions, and many times I was the opposite—I just wanted to rid myself of them. Maybe this was unhealthy, but I tried my hardest to emulate him. I also really related with Spock because his kind chose to discipline themselves against their emotion. I cried when the original crew was contacted to return to starbase for decommission and when the Enterprise-D (Picard's ship) was destroyed.”
For Data, it’s evident that his “relationship” gratified many aspects of his life, from his love of spacecraft to coping with his disorder.

"One Smart Cookie"

2005-04-03T17:45:00.000-10:00

While putting up drywall with a group of girls, (yeah, it was interesting, especially when the only nail you can hit is your fingernail) the Pope was mentioned as being the first pope who took advantage of what the media had to offer. I thought this was worthy of a little investigation. I thought it was interesting he would be given such a title, given that John Paul II became the pope more than two decades ago, way back in 1978 and he has had the advantages of the transformations of technology, unlike those prior to him. Wilton Wynn, the former Rome bureau chief at Time magazine, said, “Other popes, of course, in the past have used different kinds of communications, but this man is the first who fully understands that the church has a great opportunity here to reach the entire world by using the mass media." Instead of rallying against the using of media like one might expect for a religious public figure, he saw he could reach millions of people with his messages. Over the years the Pope has done such things as hold conversations via satellite with thousands of Catholic youth in 1987, publish best-selling books, got the Vatican online with a Web address, and (this is my favorite) came out with a music video, featuring him singing and reciting psalms and the Gospels, and he also recorded the rosary. On his first travel abroad in 1979, he astonished the Vatican press corps by answering reporter’s questions. In the early years, it might have been considered viral marketing with people not expecting the church to become modern, but the new delivery systems caught on. He has left the doors wide open to his replacement in advancing the work he has started.

"Feeding Trough"

2005-04-03T15:45:00.000-10:00

This little piggy went to the market for some imitation bacon bits; this little piggy went to the basketball game for a beef hotdog; this little piggy sat and watched television until the wee, wee, wee hours in the morning. What do you suppose this piggy watched? Maybe a little “Extreme Makeover,” (perhaps pondering a tummy-tuck) or perhaps “This Old House,” (learning to avoid huff and puff danger) or whatever gratifies that little piggy. The uses in gratification theory, in which we are actively choosing and watching media, while ignoring others, to fulfill motivation, based on our psychological factors in how we were brought up. So as I have kept track of all the visual media I have consumed for the past ten days, it has been easy to reflect on what I have chosen to gratify my motivations. Scanning the list (depressingly short due to being chained to homework, of course) I thought about why I chose the specific programs I did. Then the train of thought chugged along into thinking how though we are “actively choosing” our media diet, the media conglomerates despise free will and aid us in making these choices. This is how I think of the content aggregators. It makes perfect sense that they would have a reason for following one show with another. They figure if you like the show at nine, maybe you will stay tuned the next half hour. For example, the remote is out of reach and the distance of the television would require you to actually get up, so your show ends and you catch a little of the next one. Hmmm, it seems okay, and you watch it. I don’t call this actively selecting. Take a look at the lineup for ABC on Tuesday night- “My Wife and Kids,” “George Lopez,” “According to Jim,” and “Rodney.” All are family oriented humor. Thursday night’s on CBS you can find “Survivor,” “CSI,” and “Without a Trace.” All are drama-like with gritty events. It’s easier to choose when it is given to you with a cherry on top.

"What' s New Pussy Cat?"

2005-04-02T15:20:00.000-10:00

“What’s with this wacked-out title?” you may ask. Well, I was thinking to myself (after I had finished talking to myself) that Friday’s class dialogue was right up my alley, like an alley cat pawing at a hobo. The cause of my intrigue is due to the nature of my thesis for my delightful paper. I pondered whether or not I wanted to blog about my nickel worth of thoughts (who likes just two cents worth?) because I might let the air out of my final project balloon. Then I remembered I had three blogs to do… Anyways, Gerbner’s second point in his cultivation theory got us thinking when he said heavy (as in a duration, perceived as four hours) viewers of television were more likely to perceive the world as “mean and scary,” like the above hobo is going to rob a store than kill me and possibly the cat. Now my thesis concerns how the news mediums portray crime and how that will affect us. One theme is how our news is framed, by what is shown and how it is reported, more like drama shows. Memos to those working at NBC News were to have news stories “display the attributes of fiction, of drama.” This is what a study liked to call “infotainment,” or less complex media content. That study showed that local news hyped with crime did increase fear of crime. Of course there were those who watched more comprehensive media content which led way to more complex thinking about crime and didn’t skew their thoughts to the same extent. Gerbner pointed out though if the heavy viewers watched television for more than ritual/entertainment purposes, this decreased the likelihood of being affected. This makes think that those types of people are more prone to watch the more complex content.

"I Can Sell Just About Anything"

2005-03-27T18:51:00.000-10:00

Because I am sure everybody's eyes were glued to the television, you all noticed how it seems advertisers can some how make correlation to basketball and whatever product they are selling, like cars. Whether "March Madness" is just the perfect time for a huge sale or they try to make some silly connection, it is there lurking about. This really can't be an example of convergence because college basketball is not a big company with products to sell through other products. The advertisers then get nothing from the hype they give to the games, so why do they use this approach? A “silver bullet” route (media equals the gun, and the brain is the target) might relay as follows. As you watch the commercials, perhaps they are hoping that if you will file away in your memory what you saw because it reminded you of the basketball games. Then, as fate unfolds itself and the winners and losers are determined, you might end up with a pleasing experience from your days of television viewing. From there, you unconsciously associate happy feelings with what your brain thinks of when it pulls up the file marked basketball. However, as expected, results are not going to be uniform and such. Is the tie to basketball really any more effective?

“The Simpsons”

2005-03-27T18:47:00.000-10:00

With the intent to watch “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” I, however, was drawn into the promise of a new episode of the “The Simpsons.” Already at the always hilarious opening of the animated, dysfunctional family we all know and love (and secretly relate to) I had switched off my brain’s thought process abilities for the evening, (or perhaps that happened a long time ago) but to my surprise, they were kicked back into high gear. “The Simpsons” is quite good at capturing aspects of life and turning it into jabs of humor, and tonight a lot of the content poked fun at…the media! To be a little more specific, it was the news. To set up the scene just a little, Mayor Quimby was being investigated for having an affair. Lisa observes the “media circus” coming, consisting of local and national news vans going down the street. At the press conference, dialogue and actions convey the competition between the local news, Channel 6 “Springfield Action News” with Kent Brockman, and “Global News” with a woman’s name I can’t remember. In response to hard-hitting questions, the mayor whips out a puppy and woos the spectators and Kent into a perspective of not guilty, but the woman from the national news is shown to be competent and accomplished, with video proof. Kent jumps in and (trying to recover the station’s pride) reminds the audience that Channel 6 has car chases every night, the weather girl wears a tube top, and if she doesn’t, you get a free pizza. My favorite part was when Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather played “monkey in the middle” with the microphone with Kent in the middle. Despite the gales of laughter, I thought about the ideals that we had talked about for better programming. Point number eight talked of “story-telling venues relocalized,” which would aid in the reduction of the “gate keepers” narrowed political agenda. The point made by “The Simpsons” seems to suggest the local setting of the news has many drawbacks. On a more intimate level, there is more station competition which requires such activities like “make-over Monday” and other such deadweight in a broadcast. National news tends to be more news orientated because the broadcast’s credibility is a main feature, given the nature of the audience. With more resources, it contains a more in-depth broadcast and doesn’t need extra draws, for those constrict what stories we see.

“I Hope the White Team Wins”

2005-03-27T14:13:00.000-10:00

Mom sits in her chair with a focused, tense look. Why is this? [*Asks why this is*] Illinois is down by a certain amount of points in their basketball game. A basketball aficianado who embraces the brackets and knows her stats is my mom…in NO way. Yet she goes about asking the score, and if it is on while she is in the kitchen, she will keep an eye on the television (Lord knows what goes in dinner then :)). In fact, she just now asked what UK stood for and muttered something about United Kingdom. Indeed, this is “madness.” I have yet to watch a game despite the fact that I actually know a little about basketball, thanks to my sophmore year doing girls’ basketball stats. So I pondered this, as I usually have a habit of pondering the wonders of life for hours on end. Mother laughed when I inquired as to why “March Madness” makes her care about this genre that does not tickle her fancy anyother time of the season. She said, “Might as well get excited about it, especially if one of the Big Ten teams win.” The later part of the blog prompt, concerning Jessica Fishman’s insight on genre, got me thinking. Using Fishman’s ideas on what genre tells us about institutional status and popular ideals, the mystery can be unveiled, to the extent at which the pyschological factors then come into play. It is not enough that a team is labeled conference champs; we want to see who is the best of the best. This institution of being champion reminds me of “survival of the fittest,” how all the weak teams will be cast away. However, the ideal of the underdog proving what they are capable of and overcoming their setting is embraced. Putting store into a team and then beliving that they can win (wearing the underwear that you don’t wash because you wore it the last time they won) gives a sense of loyalness that makes us feel good, even if the team goes through a losing streak.
Though it doesn’t matter much to me, for mom, it provides an emotional roller coaster of high and lows. I'm sure she feels the losers' pain.

“You Took My Pickles, But You Can’t Take My Airwaves”

2005-03-19T17:54:00.000-10:00

“Radio Free Canton is a service of private, sovereign citizens of the United States of America. Our mission is to enrich our community with no hold barred free speech. We are not out to generate money, but instead to create truly free art. Not limited by commercialism or controlled by it. Congress does have the power to regulate commerce, but has no power to regulate speech. And since our station is not involved in any type of commerce, we are truly free. "Pirate" radio is often what we are called, but it is not correct. For we have not stolen anything. The frequency, on which we broadcast, is unoccupied. And as sovereign Americans, we already own the airwaves. We are part of a growing movement of artists and creators who have taken notice of the absolute dull drudgery of commercial radio. Public radio isn't much better. And our hope is to create a better aural landscape in the center of our city.” We had been shocked in class a week ago to learn that our beloved Vlasic International Foods had been bought out and we were near hysterics when we introduced to the idea that even our own airwaves might be taken from us. In talking now of independent media, this Radio Free Canton group makes it clear the will fight for our airwaves and they will free us of our “dull drudgery” in its movement of resistance to media industry processes and products. Thank goodness for their resolve for “no hold barred speech”…I wonder if they plan to “enrich our community” like Judge Judy did with her “no holds bar justice.” That is just what our community needs of course. Forget homeless shelters and soup kitchens, we need a station for kids to listen to that tells it how it really is (without money doing all the talking) in all its obscure and obscene splendor.

“Hey, Uh, This Sounds Good”

2005-03-19T17:52:00.000-10:00

Fourscore and seven years ago, (or maybe it was nine years ago) our founding fathers said, “Yo, this whole media fa shizzle is getting kinda trippy fo’ sure, brother! Can I get an amen?” So with the determination of a cookie-laden mouse after milk, they set about to release the demons from within. After an intense session of pacing around in circles, they finally appeared, weary and wigs aloft, with a little piece called the People’s Communication Charter, as part as the Cultural Environment Movement. The Charter hit some good issues and made a lot of lofty goals. I think they forgot to include in the agenda for action to create a super hero team to carry out these ideas. Flash the distress signal and out the “Charter Troopers” come to ensure privacy, justice, respect, freedom, and access. Otherwise, mayhem could very well come upon us all. Everybody has a different opinion on when lines have been breached because there are few concrete lines. It is nice that they want “fair and equitable access to local and global resources…” but to be politically correct, they tack on that restrictions can be made for “good and compelling reasons.” This seems like a lot of leeway for people to decide it is in the public’s best interest to restrict access. When do you say the “protection of privacy does not interfere with the freedom of expression?” Article eleven on children’s rights would make Barney happy, it is just too bad “the media products designed to meet [children’s] needs and interests and foster…development” seems to be packaged in somewhere around the animated violence and what-not. Oh wait, article fourteen, with its stance on how violence should not be presented as normal, “manly,” or entertaining…” will take care of that, right? Wouldn’t the purposed ad-free zones for schools interfere with their right to access?
Start up the distress signal…

"Big Daddy"

2005-03-19T11:30:00.000-10:00

Conglomeration seems to be this taboo word; a “hot potato” getting gingerly passed around. And now for your enjoyment, vocabulary enhancement will ensue: Dr. Rudd’s word from Monday’s class: hegemonic—“preponderant influence or authority over others; domination.” (Thank you Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.)
The word strikes fear, resulting in huddling in the corner with a slow rocking of the fetal position. But let us look at it in this way. There are plenty of regulations regarding concentrations. A merger or takeover just cannot happen willy-nilly and overnight. There are measures in place to ensure that businesses do not practice anti-competitive measures. Since the late nineteenth century our government has taken action, in the form of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and broke up John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company and several other large firms that had abused their economic power. The government had to struggle to define differences between “bigness” and monopoly. The Clayton Antitrust Act laid out more of the ideas of what constituted violations, and the Fair Trade Commissions Act followed in the early twentieth century. With a foundation from the past, we now move towards more modern times. The appeal to merge is reviewed and in some cases has been denied. Though stating that retail in general is unconcentrated, in 1997 office supply company Staples and building supply company Home Depot had plans to merge, but it was ruled that these retailers “compete in distinctive economic markets” and would be anti-competitive. When SC Johnson bought out DOW Brands, SC Johnson had to sell assets because the FTC found that each company had leading products in household cleaning.
Can we not have a little faith in our authoritative figure then? The government isn't going to get it right all the time, I recognize. Like the progressive theory says, our faith in government and big business (power of the elite) will allow us to move forward. Advancements of varying nature aid us all in the long run, even the little guys.

"Pass the Loon"

2005-03-17T15:08:00.000-10:00

Hear the mighty loon call as it gracefully meanders its way to me. Thank you, loon, for giving me the right of passage to share my own testimony about conglomerations (in general). [Insert sound of boisterous knocking]. Inspired by Ashley White’s thought-provoking “testimony,” I too have felt the dampness of conglomerate’s saliva (in real life, despite the comical tone). Now if this was the “Sound of Music,” I would break out into, “Let’s start at the very beginning; a very good place to start.” Well then, my papa was born on a hot day in July…or maybe I’ll cut to the chase. The year of 1989 brought about a job at a small, privately owned company that designs software applications for other companies, like Heinz and Planters for example. So what’s the big deal? Because my dad’s company’s livelihood depends upon their client’s steady employment of their software, it matters a whole lot on what that business decides to do with its future. When they are called by Darth Vader to the “dark side,” will they accept? What does this mean for my papa? Consider the saga of Clairol (under Bristol-Myers Squibb) and Gillette (a partnership with Bristol-Myers Squibb). In a galaxy far, far away, the aforementioned companies used the software, but alas, were pulled in (darn tractor beams) to the conglomeration known as Procter and Gamble. Now it’s up to Procter and Gamble to decide if they will continue to use the software that came with Gillette and Clairol. Either the company loses two clients, or they score big with Procter and Gamble, which owns such household favorites like Swiffer, Foldgers, Tide, Comet, Charmin (commence cha-cha bears), Bounty (God bless that quilted-quicker-picker-upper), and you get the idea. Ah…conglomerations. What a double-edged sword.
Now go forth, ye loon, into other waters.

“Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?”

2005-03-11T16:11:00.000-10:00

"One of Hollywood’s most dependable genres," horror, (so says an article from Friday’s edition of USA Today) is a genre I have never been keen on. From a psycho man with a taste for people to driverless trucks terrorizing a small community, (umm, I’m sure the book was better) there has been little safe from the minds of screenwriters. Scott Bowles, the author of the aforementioned article, chronicles an alteration in the way studios are producing such films and reshaping how the genre is perceived. He notes that "studios are opting for suspense over splatter." Who is responsible in the lack of movies like "Wow There is so Much Blood" and its sequel, "Knives, Knives Everywhere"? Ah—the feedback loop between producers and the receptors means the cries of the female population are being heard. "[They] are driving the success of recent horror films, sometimes accounting for as much as sixty percent of the audience." The timing of this article comes with the premiere of The Ring Two, its elder the top-selling horror DVD since 2003. Bowles quotes Tom Sherak (co-founder of Revolution Studios) on why the production elements are changing: "[Girls] don’t want to be grossed out. That’s more for the guys. Girls want to be scared in a more realistic way." I couldn’t agree with him more. If I were to partake in a horror film, it would definitely be something that toys with my mind, not something that makes me avert my eyes. My older brother, however, will sit down to watch just about anything that comes out. Ring Two director, Hideo Nakata, says "Horror movies are kind of like roller coasters. You have to have the buildup; you have to have the anxiety. Then you take them over the edge. If you give them a good ride, they’ll keep coming back."
Hmmm, this is interesting. The baby monitor seems to be picking up some other signal…

"I'd "Rather" Watch Peter Jennings Anyways"

2005-03-10T16:17:00.000-10:00

The mighty mountain goat stumbles down into calmer valleys. Speaking of animals that will "eat up anything" for their livelihood, (tin cans, as the children’s book goes, stories about President Bush’s National Guard Service, et cetera) Dan Rather said goodbye to his twenty-four year span as the CBS Evening News anchor. Do the math and that puts him on the throne since 1981, succeeding Walter Cronkite. Beginning his career in media in 1950 as an Associated Press reporter, he has covered a plethora of important historical events. In my chattering on this event that led to much joy, I shall try to be as unbiased as Dan Rather would have been. I’ll also try to steer clear of phrases like, "This race is hotter than a Times Square Rolex," of which was said on the 2004 Florida presidential contest.
While he paraded around on his little donkey, (use your semiotic knowledge, not a dirty mind) someone should have told him that the news should not come with his opinionated, tasteless side dish of woohoo to liberals and boohoo to conservatives. Quoting from an article by Rich Noyes from the Media Research Center, "Pick any policy issue that divides liberals and conservatives, and you would find Rather using his newscast to frame the debate in ways that favored the liberal side." Ol’ Dan might as well prance around with a sign proclaiming: "Republicans secretly want the government to go down in flames so they warm their hands of the cold." I detect a hint of the "presence of a conspiracy" myth. This is the "big story that organizes meaning" for him and his perhaps brainwashed audience. He could probably take a story on a little girl’s lemonade stand and state that Halliburton is trying to squash her little enterprise.
Oops—this blog sounds just a little biased. I should have tried harder. Well, anyhow, for blogger.com, Alisha Hershberger reports. Good night, and to each of you who watched his broadcasts, "Courage," because now you’ll have to think for yourself.

“One Country Bumpkin’s Thoughts”

2005-02-27T14:15:00.000-10:00

Reminisce my friends back to that glorious class day when we talked about how genres are categorized. We spent a lot of time talking about aesthetic standards, or the role critics play. ‘Tis a lovely intermingling of critic and audience interaction that producers feed off. We then pondered the fact that many of us in the class don’t read much/ give much heed to what critics have to say in newspapers or magazines and the like. Next stop on the train of thought was how we ourselves are critics by telling our friends what we liked and didn’t. So I thought to myself, “Hey, why don’t I go on-line and read regular people’s comments about one of my favorite movies?” At the “Internet Movie Database” web site, I found a flurry of comments on “The Other Sister.” If you are not familiar with the plot, it is basically about two mentally-handicapped people trying to become independent and develop a relationship together. Upon perusing through the comments, I quickly became aware of one thing: ignorant people should refrain from posting. (I think there should be an IQ test before you are allowed to make a comment on a site.) I’m not saying that anyone who doesn’t agree with me is ignorant, but when someone hated this movie because, “I'd be absolutely disgusted and offended at this movie. The actors play their roles as if they were six year olds trapped in adult bodies” then they need to understand that sometimes, that IS the case. Thankfully, some who are actually related to people with mental disabilities said it was a pretty good portrayal of them. I dreaded even thinking about what people might have to say about other movies that require a little background knowledge. I found an appreciation for critics because they would have to understand what it is that they are talking about to continue having an audience. I think we could at least learn something from critics, like how to dissect a movie by its features instead of basing it off inadequate subject knowledge, whether you agree with that critic or not. If you can discern what is fact and opinion in their comments, you can always learn something about the movie.

"Hollywood in Canton"

2005-02-26T16:33:00.000-10:00

“There and back again: Alisha’s tale.” My mind has wandered back to our Hollywood simulation on the twenty-first. A shout out to all my homies in “Big Time Studios” and to our minions, er, writers and actors, who kept up our long tradition of “movie excellence” and bringing in the money. I had been pondering how we were able to become victorious (while basking in the glory of winning) and I thought I would share my observations. During the scramble of being pitched plots and being hassled by (evil) agents, I remember a comment that was made in our group. When thinking about how much we wanted to spend towards actors versus the script, one thought that we should allot much more money towards actors because people will still watch a weak movie with their favorite actors. Then in class on Wednesday while discussing the role play, I believe another studio made the comment about budgeting for good writers. This makes sense as well because word of mouth can go a long way. Now, the two movies that tied were “Transatlantic” and “The Sphinx”. Now, I figure “Transatlantic” gained from having a well-liked actor and actress, and “The Sphinx” gained from seeming to have an interesting plot line. So, when it came to a quick decision, familiarity won out. The other needed publicity, or “buzz” because as stated previously, critically acclaimed films will usually also do well in the box office. As it is, sizeable studios have the money to decide what stories get told, and they usually cash in on cultural capital—using big stars with a stabilized audience and any ol’ script. It’s kind of like, “Build it, and we will come.” It may be a mediocre movie, but its buzz makes the buzz of the good movie get muffled. If studios didn’t know that any old movie with so-and-so would be profitable, more profound movies would go mainstream. Golly gee, we make it so easy for them. It will sell itself and this means smaller studios, who can’t invest in big names, have to put more money into publicity for their movie—money they don’t have.

“Something is Rotten in the State of New York”

2005-02-20T19:22:00.000-10:00

And now, ladies and gentleman (*the answer is “Twenty-One”*), for ten thousand dollars: what quiz show featured (*“Twenty-One”*) two contestants each in a soundproof booth, earning the coveted twenty-one points by a (*Say “Twenty One”*) question’s degree of difficulty? If you answered “Twenty-One”, you are absolutely correct, and you get to call yourself a winner, er, cheater. The 1950s brought about the wildly popular quiz shows which offered unprecedented amounts of money. People got hooked by the high-stakes of returning champions. Instead of it being purely a match of intellect, the people who made the money had different ideas. As we talked about in class, shows were sponsored by a product (commercial interest shaping genre) and in this case, Geritol sponsored “Twenty-One” and invested in a strategy to keep revenue high. Instead of your everyday-type person staying for awhile and going, they latched on to those with charisma by feeding them answers to ensure months of high ratings, making NBC happy and increasing Geritol sales. “People get what they want. Who gets hurt? It’s entertainment—we’re in show business.” The most popular case was Charles Van Doren and his long appearance after defeating reigning champion Herbert Stemple—accomplishing this only by the fact that “[Herbert’s ratings] had plateaued” and was told to purposefully miss the question. A disgruntled Stemple then goes on to testify before a court with his shocking truths. This leads no where as he’s labeled a “mentally unstable finger-pointer” and the presentment is sealed, thereby protecting NBC and Geritol from possible decreased ratings/sales. An investigator doesn’t let the mater drop until he has a confession by Van Doren admitting cheating. Results were not all as hoped, as NBC and Geritol got off the hook because the producer claimed their ignorance (but don’t worry about him because NBC still gave him jobs). “I thought we were gonna get television. No, television will get us.” The popular show returned in 2000 for a time. Ha...
~Quoted material from “Quiz Show.”

"Up for the Highest Bidder"

2005-02-19T13:55:00.000-10:00

The makings of a television show…half of this and half of that and voila: the best thing since Jekyll and Hyde. Oodles and oodles of possible hybrids are ripe for the choosing. The following ideas had crossed my mind: crime meets shopping network in “Black Market Network”-finally, no waiting line for organs and a device that will clear the snow from the sidewalks (an added bonus in that the sidewalk will then no longer be there for future snows); documentaries meet reality television in “Wild Thing”-where men finally get to act like the true animal they are; soaps meet sports in…oh wait, that’s wrestling. Despite the hits these would turn out to be, I decided on the joining of reality television and TV evangelicals. What invention will come out of this convention? Allow me to introduce to you “Who Wants to be the Next Billy Graham?” Perhaps we can even get the Pope to host from his Popemobile! The show will be set-up in a manner consistent with various other reality shows. A set amount of contestants with the right qualifications (i.e. seminary degree) go through challenges each week to see who has what it takes. Challenges will gauge the competitor’s skills in diverse areas associated with the duties of a “crusader for Christ.” Such tasks will include raising the most money on Trinity Broadcasting Network, who can clear a temple the fastest, fasting for two or three weeks and then face temptation, organize service projects for communities (feeding five thousand homeless for example), and maybe we’ll toss in an exorcism. Would America tune in? They would if they don’t want to miss the suspense, the edge of competition, and the acquaintance to a different type of lifestyle. Till then, “Pope John Paul II; out!”
*It’s evident I have amused myself with the possibilities. These plots do not represent shows I think need produced… just mulled over. Enjoy!

“Producer + Formula= Shows We Know and Love”

2005-02-13T16:53:00.000-10:00

What a formula…best thing to hit the equation shelf since Einstein’s E= everybody doesn’t care. A formula that some might say (or used to) is at its best on Friday nights. The telly sat before me and on came ABC’s “Hope and Faith” with the latest installment, “Hope Couture.” I couldn’t let a perfectly good blogging opportunity go to waste, so I recorded how well it fit into the mold. It started off with the counterplot, consisting of father and son (Charley and Justin) getting ready for a camping trip. Laughter entails as the young lad gasps in disbelief at his dad’s idea of roughin’ it. We then turn our attention to the main plot as Faith comes in with niece Sydney, announcing they have entered a mother/daughter fashion show. Hope, Sydney’s mother, is hurt that Sydney didn’t ask her and the truth coming out that they think she is unfashionable is quite comedic. Hope covertly decides that she will enter with her other daughter Hayley. We’re left to guess what hilarity will ensue after this short “teaser”, as a commercial comes on. As predicted, we then find out the extent of the conflict as other characters are introduced. In the counter plot, those characters are another father/son camping, except to them that means cable TV, video games, and cooking over an open grill. In the main plot, the competition is on as Faith realizes Hope has entered and the new characters are last year’s not-so-nice winners. After a commercial break, we get into “act three” where things try to get resolved. Fed up with their neighbors, he goes over to tell the father the way he should be bonding with his son. Back at the fashion show, Hope and Faith are tied and start to wish each other well, until Faith’s dress is found torn, a prelude to things heating up in “act four.” All their dresses end up ruined as accusations fly. We find out that last year’s winners were responsible for the damage in the first place. In the woods, it starts to rain and they retreat into their shabby tent. Things are then resolved for both, as the sisters apologize and continue with the show together. Charley talks to Justin about bonding with his own dad and how much he appreciated it (of course the tent collapses then and they opt for a hotel). We see how “characters five and six” mirrored the big picture about bonding (or the lack thereof). God bless the sitcom and a half-hour of predictability.

"Little Box of Wonder"

2005-02-09T04:42:00.000-10:00

Why, hello little box that makes images dance upon your little pixels. Onward to answer deep theological questions, like why we are here, but more importantly, what does DirecTV’s commercial have for me to scrutinize under my semiotic microscope? If you weren’t too distracted by the bear or the barrel of monkeys, perhaps you noticed the commercial with the little boy who grew up right in front of our eyes. Our tale begins in a traditional living room, with the telly on to the episode “Vitameatavegamin” from “I Love Lucy”. I think a lot of people can identify with their own childhood and recall fond memories of the red-head America fell in love with. The young lad then enters through a door, as he morphs into an adolescent, and steps into a classic diner. The television is turned on to “The Lone Ranger” as we here the triumphant command to his horse Silver. Seems fitting for a youth his age to walk into a popular hangout, and what boy of that time didn’t dream of becoming a cowboy? The next phase is at a party and our now young man has a gal at his elbow. DirecTV went with a clip from “The Dick Van Dyke Show,” a humorous emphasis of the young couple, instead of, say, “The Andy Griffith Show.” The next shift was interesting as he is clothed in military garb, as I to say this is the way a young American should grow up. On the television at the bus station (that’s a guess) is a telecast of the Neil Armstrong’s glorious feat for mankind, as if to shout, “American pride!” again. The narrator has also begun to talk, and at this time explaining the television’s start, with the technology of the cathode ray tube, and goes along with the technology advancement of space exploration, perhaps why they chose the moon walk and not something from the Civil Rights Movement. Our military man now becomes a father to a baby girl (ah, daddy’s little girl she’ll be) and on the television is “All in the Family.” This was a show centered on a family during changing times, as our man’s life is now changing and as TV is progressing. The narrator tells us how TV “serves as portal, a window…” as our father walks into his kitchen where the family is at dinner, and to exemplify the narrator, the television is showing the fall of the Berlin Wall. The man progresses in age and we see him at a sports bar catching Mark McGwire’s winning homerun in the race with Sosa. What’s the narrator saying now? “…we follow [television’s] every move, loyal to the end…” They probably chose baseball because it’s America’s pastime and being loyal is supposedly an American trait. Finally, he has reached his elderly stage and is back in a similar looking living room with a grandson, ending on a poignant moment as we are told “It’s time to rethink TV.” We’ve seen how far it’s come, now we’ll see where it can go.

“The USA: Symbol Emporium”

2005-01-30T20:02:00.000-10:00

Ah, the fascinating realm of semiotics. I was intrigued with the discussion of first and second level signification, so I wanted to explore origins to understand the revolving process. I happen to have obtained a dictionary of symbolism from a good friend of mine, containing a hodgepodge of “cultural icons and the meanings behind them.” With purpose in mind, I plunged in to bestow myself with the nuggets of knowledge held within, like a McDonald’s Happy Meal. Something that I have always wondered about is the rainbow’s transformation of meaning in the homosexual community. (Please note: this is NOT about homosexuality being wrong/right and the like.) Anyone who believes the Bible understands it to be a reminder to God that He will never destroy the Earth in a flood again; as God bringing harmony back to heaven and earth. Of course, even without Bible knowledge it is still reasonably well-known. I would imagine a symbol ordained by God would have relatively little change, yet the secular world slaps it on a bumper sticker with “gay pride.” Why is this? In trying to retain a little of the rainbow’s origins, perhaps to them it is a symbol of harmony with one another, or their “freedom.” Obviously we can not go and copyright a natural occurring symbol, yet how can one go about choosing symbols all willy-nilly like? What is the point then of having codes?
Another pondering is whether to fly the Confederate flag, or “The Southern Cross”, or not. Some see no harm in displaying our history, while some would say we might as well just fly a swastika. A flag itself symbolizes the charge to victory. If we look at the meaningful context that surrounds the symbol (sound familiar?), then we see Southern pride…but at the expense of disunity within the nation. We see patriotism…but at a time when America’s conduct of slavery was nothing to be proud of.
I wonder what you all think…

"Perhaps a Pile of Beans"

2005-01-26T17:46:00.000-10:00

“But what can you do with a man who says he ‘has read’ them, meaning he has read them once, and thinks that this settles the matter? . . . . We do not enjoy a story fully at first reading. Not till the curiosity, the sheer narrative lust, has been given its sop and laid asleep, are we at leisure to savor the real beauties. Till then, it is like wasting great wine on a ravenous natural thirst which merely wants cold wetness.” —C.S. Lewis, “On Stories” in Essays Presented to Charles Williams .
I gasped in horror in class on the 14th of January, when Dr. Rudd shared C.S. Lewis’ thoughts on what it means for someone to be unliterary and it’s come back to my mind again and again. Maybe I can not put up much of an argument for a disagreement, but I can still try (and shake my clenched fist). Well, here goes. It seems to me as though Lewis is lashing out on “neglect” of books, or in his words, all we want is to wet our whistle instead of being submerged. However, once you’ve got “the big picture” (possibly reading it once), have you not done the book justice, as a book is written to bring across a point? If you look at it from Lewis’s perspective of reading things, it is impossible for him to say “Till then [you won’t fully enjoy it]” because it would never be. If enjoyment lies in appreciation (hence, not neglecting), it would be an infinite process, less you start to neglect. In the words of Arby’s “Oven Mitt”, “Will it never end?” Well, apparently not, since you would never get anything else read because of the following equation: study of another book=neglect of another. It is then impossible to appreciate anything, then making it impossible to enjoy anything. Reading one book might qualify you as being unliterary…

.

"Get a Life"

2005-01-19T19:08:00.000-10:00

Watching Frontline’s “Merchants of Cool” (when my eyes weren’t averted from the crude images) put me in a very pensive mood. We teens are so impressionable, our population is a huge, billion dollar industry. So many youth let the world, which continuously changes, define who they are. It reminds me of squirrels and shiny objects. We chase after what we deem pleasurable instead of being grounded in a firm reality (also known as God, who doesn’t change). Ashley E. made the comment in her first blog, “it is easy to see how much of our perceptions, opinions, and views are shaped and molded by mass media.” Frontline phrased this beautifully: “We’re selling a lifestyle, not just a product.” At “Lifestyles ‘R’ Us,” the receipt does not show that they now have your soul…or maybe just your brain. Our lifestyle determines what situations we come across (for the most part) and these situations determine how we think, as is the definition of situated cognition. My fictional store would always be brimming with costumers though because Frontline pointed out an interesting irony: what eventually becomes cool is suddenly not cool anymore- they give us “life version 6.1” and then it becomes, like, so yesterday, and in comes “life version 6.2.”
Another thought… where did they find the people for these “focus groups”? What is their definition of normal anyway? Somehow I do not think they would want me.

Test Post

2005-01-12T06:19:00.000-10:00

The inner workings of my brain are at times rather weird, but I think a visit will be worthwhile to engage in witty reportee with my brain.