From the Waste Land to the Promised Land

April 4, 2008 marked 40 years since Martin Luther King, Jr., arguably the most important figure of the 1960's Civil Rights Movement, was shot to death on a hotel balcony. In March of 1968, Dr. King, in what would be his final mission,traveled to the aid of Memphis sanitation workers in the midst of a battle for higher wages. The detestable mistreatment of these sanitation workers culminated with the deaths of Echol Cole and Robert Walker who were crushed in the back of an old garbage truck; compacted like the trash they collected.

An article by Miami Herald columnist, Leonard Pitts, ran in the Dallas Morning News on April 6 detailing the events leading up to Dr. King's final breath. King's last campaign thoroughly described the rarely-discussed, highly-volatile situation into which King marched. According to Pitts, "MLK helped these men turn their demand for higher wages into a demand for something more". From the march Dr. King led that erupted into violence, to the infamous speech in which he declared "I've seen the Promised Land", Pitts walks his readers through some of the less-publicized thoughts and plans that plagued King in his final days.

In the days surrounding this momentous occasion, television specials and public service announcements permeated the channels of our television sets. News channels, such as CNN, aired specials that spanned several days as they covered the life Dr. King and attempted to unveil little known facts surrounding his murder. A common thread that repeatedly appeared in these tributes was the speculation that King foresaw his own death. Writers and reporters alike (including Pitts) sited sections of speeches King gave in February and March during which he mentioned his own death. In each of these orations, King appears to come to grips with the escalating danger facing him on a daily basis and talks of accepting the fact that his death may come earlier than many may have hoped. I find myself questioning when and why the focus shifted to such a topic. Is there an underlying attempt to attach a sort of mystical or angelic quality to Dr. King? To place Dr. King somewhere between a man and a spiritual being in touch with things we could never see?

Not to dampen the beautiful tributes and well-written articles reminding us of Dr. King's legacy, but let us not take the focus off of the objective of Dr. King's life's work. While it is enlightening to learn of King's very real reckoning with mortality, let us instead focus on allowing his memory to re-spark that fervor for striving towards social and economic equality.

A Lesson In Acronyms: They're Not the One's You Grew Up With

Laser. Light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.

Radar. Radio detection and ranging.

NASA. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

What happened to the days when acronyms were just that simple? Now, popular television commercials poke fun at the very real phenomenon that has become its own pseudo-language. An SMS (short messaging service)-aka text messaging-language.

OMG: Oh my goodness/gosh/God. LOL: Laugh out loud. BRB: Be right back.

These are now familiar staples of text messaging shorthand. This language has infiltrated the lives of our youngsters and, in many cases, replaced their use of acceptable English grammar; even in their school writing assignments.

Now, the latest commercial for the popular television teen drama, Gossip Girl, flashes the acronym "OMFG" (you'll have to fill in that 'F' for yourself) while provocative sex scenes unfold in the background. This widely watched TV show, with its highly impressionable audience, uses sex and expletive-laden, new-age acronyms to draw its viewers into this week's episode.

I think this raises a couple of questions:
1. Is it now OK to show "text language" with curse words that aren't allowed to be spoken on TV? When my 3 year old nephew, who's just learned his letters and is amazing at picking them out, started repeating "OMFG!" (along with the "bowchikawowow" tune he learned from another commercial)-do I tell him that's not a nice word?
2. Is anybody going to rein in the kiddos using these terms? As long as it's just the acronym, is it OK to use in the classroom? If not, then what about the ever-popular "B.S"?

In the end, this is just another case of re-drawing lines... So, where do they go?

Latest Teen Trauma Means the Blame Game Has a New Opponent

The newest trend of "cyber bullying" has reached a new low. In addition to using websites like JuicyCampus and Facebook to terrorize their peers, teens have begun to use YouTube as a means of victimization.

CNN, along with several other networks and news outlets both mainstream and alternative, released a video of a 16-year-old girl being brutally beaten by six teenage girls from her school in Florida. The teenage girls, along with two teenage boys, lured the girl into a house where they proceeded to attack her for more than 30 minutes. The teenage boys kept watch outside of the house as the girls, both individually and collectively, beat the victim until she fell unconscious. The girls began the assault again after she regained consciousness. The attack was video-taped by several of the girls and posted on YouTube.

As the networks replayed the brutal beating over and over again, one could not help but become intrigued by the sheer disregard for human life that these girls displayed as they continued to assault the victim even as she screams for mercy from the fetal position.

The parents of the victim, who was hospitalized with blurred vision and hearing loss, began to speak out via the news networks against the websites YouTube and MySpace saying that "MySpace is the anti-Christ for our children". The suspects involved in the beating alleged that the victim had bad-mouthed them on MySpace.

And so began the blame game...who's fault is it?

Analysts are now beginning to point fingers in the direction of these popular networking and gossip sites as the culprits for influencing such violent and reckless behavior. They claim that the enticing "anyone can be famous" premise of YouTube and an ever-increasing shock tolerance has driven teens into a cycle of progressively appalling behavior. These individuals propose that kids do not see the postings made to these websites as punishable behavior and; therefore, feel virtually untouchable. As a result, using these websites as a means of torture or victimization has become commonplace.

Simply looking at the extensive comment lists on various blogs and news sites will show the intense debate on the subject. Proponents of the sites claim that it is not fair to blame these useful tools for those who use them inappropriately. Individuals of a variety of ages left comments criticizing everyone and everything including the girls, the sites, the parents, and even the victim for refusing to physically defend herself.

While it is not shocking that we find ourselves playing another round of blame game-teenage behavior edition, the area of cyber-bullying is unchartered territory. Do these new issues indicate that the reins should be tighter on these sites and those that use them? Ask the eight teenagers who will be tried as adults and could be facing life in prison for what, I'm sure, they thought was a good idea at the time.

Could've Been Another Waco

I am sure that, as the headlines blasted the news of the latest religious compound bust-up, flashes of David Koresh and the flames that engulfed that compound crept into readers’ minds.

News of a raid on the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, Texas broke Saturday afternoon. CNN’s headline reported that more than 100 children were removed from a polygamist colony “in Texas”, causing the hairs on my arms and neck to stand at attention. It wasn’t until later (when I had an opportunity to read CNN’s article via Blackberry) that I was momentarily comforted.

“I was fearful that it would be another Waco…and with a town this small, a Waco would be devastating,”-Eldorado resident, Jimalee Dutton.

As I read on and found that the members of this colony are from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I find myself, once again, questioning religion and its many variations and doctrines. How is it that Christ can be a part of their beliefs, yet horrific things like arranged marriages between 50-year-old men and 16-year-old girls are regular practices. This, then, led me to question our morals and heroic role as many other religions worldwide encourage similar behavior.

Unfortunately, these queries are matters for one with infinite wisdom. However, one thing is for certain, the activities going on beyond the gates and guards of Warren Jeffs’s compound are illegal and should be stopped. One can be thankful that the rescue of those many women and children took place before we witnessed another Waco.



219 Children, women taken from sect’s ranch-CNN (April 5, 2008)

Well, If Barbara Walter's Says You're Sexy...

Barack Obama made an appearance on The View last Friday adding to the number of cable TV interviews and appearances he has up on Mrs. Clinton. (Remind me, again, how he beat Hillary to the punch on this one? It's The View for heavens sake!)

One might have expected the usual banter between hosts while the guest struggles to get a word in edgewise; however, this was not the case. Instead, the highly opinionated women of the morning talk-show were utterly silent as Obama basically gave mini-speech answers. Even the audience was quiet as Obama recapped the major topics such as the dead horse (aka: the Rev. Wright situation) and his health care plan. It was as if everyone was in a trance.

But of course, after Obama delivers a joke and a smile, the women snap out of it and revert to treating him like the average guest again by peppering him with ridiculous questions like "is it true you're related to Brad Pitt somehow?" or embarrassing statements like "well, you know, we all think you're very sexy". That last pearl of wisdom was delivered by none other than Barbara Walters herself. And as we all know, if Barbara thinks you're sexy...

The Princess and the Paps

I’d like to propose an equation:

Mental illness + star power and money + crude curiosity / greed = a cyclical disaster resulting in a downward spiral of those on all sides

This equation explains the tumultuous situation surrounding the infamous Britney Spears.

An article by David Samuels in The Atlantic chronicles the rise of an industry that helped contribute to the dramatic and notorious fall of Spears. According to the article, it all started when Bonnie Fuller took over Us Weekly and began the trademark photo-feature “Stars-They’re Just Like US” which featured celebrities engaging in regular day-to-day activities. She tapped into a market that was interested in knowing that stars enjoy coffee and have to pump gas and, believe it or not, have to eat--just like us normal people. Needless to say, she hit the jackpot and spawned an industry that considers an exclusive picture of a celebrity pregnancy worth 5 or 6 figures.

As a result, little cults of “paps” have popped up and begun literally stalking stars for an opportunity to get a shot of--well, anything. These men, recruited from pizza delivery chains and valet parking services, are armed with telephoto lenses and digital cameras and responsible for hunting down celebrities no matter the cost. We, the public, just look on as car crashes and physical altercations take place as a consequence of the reckless behavior of these paparazzi. The so-called photographers will do anything, including a practice known as “door-stepping”, which involves waiting outside the entrance to a celebrity’s home for 12 or 14 hours, just hoping for a shot of anything at all.

And what do we do? We buy into it. The industry only survives because we, the public, suck up every piece of trash they dish out to us. These masters of mindless destruction are counting on us to soak up these ridiculous photos and the nonsensical captions attached. We help to perpetuate the cycle and are thus aiding in the destruction of human lives like that of Britney Spears. While we complain and grimace at the behaviors of both the star and the paps, we continue to fuel the fire. So why would they stop?

So I pose the question: who is the villain? The mentally ill Spears who thrives on the attention, sometimes going so far as to help stage photos (a practice also enjoyed by stars like Paris Hilton-go figure)? The insensitive paparazzi who risk the lives of others for a shot of her picking her nose or showing her private parts? Or the readers who continue to buy the product?

The Alternative: Now, that's my kind of news.

As one of the more popular destinations for “alternative” news, and all of its hilarity, The Onion takes a satirical approach to the current happenings in our nation. Loosely based on actual topics (i.e. the political campaign, popular video games, etc.), the publication reports ridiculous occurrences that challenge even the most pensive to refrain from laughing.

In a fun article in today’s edition, The Onion reports a “rise in effeminate violence” due to video games put out on the latest console craze-the Wii. The publication revealed a sudden jump in “limp-wristed” attacks like those perpetrated by a 13-year-old on his peers. They also claim that the games themselves, with their “pastel imagery, graphic representations of adorable characters, and disorienting kaleidoscopes of color”, have resulted in an increase in “aggressive frolicking and angry fluttering”.

The Onion takes a light-hearted jab at the recent Nintendo Wii insanity that has resulted in everything from parents fighting over the final console, to brand new injuries caused by the nature and intensity of the game. One has to appreciate this alternative view on the latest craze as it forces us to laugh at ourselves and the ludicrous behaviors that we engage in.

A look at the various other headlines that fill the publications web page will quickly clear up any questions one may have had over the legitimacy of the facts of these stories. Much like popular faux-news shows, like the Cobert Report, The Onion is able to find that perfect mix between fact and fiction that results in pure comedic genius. Rather than the obvious sarcasm in the tag: “America’s Finest News Source” beneath their title, perhaps they should simply offer the caption “Lighten up”.

The Reaching Game.

Of course, Spring Break could not even escape the election madness. It has totally consumed the news networks, and thus our minds, such that sometimes the story itself will be just how ridiculous all this has become.

We were all listening when the candidates started out with their optimism and determination to "get away from the way we've always done politics". And we've watched as the candidates have slowly but surely digressed to the point of bringing the general public to nausea at the very mention of the presidential race. Yet, as the race continues and it becomes increasingly clear to the democrats that the concept of "winning" the nomination may have to be rethought , the candidates-or the media-have turned to increasingly obscure issues.

Who's supporter has made the latest vacuous remark? Which spouse is helping or hurting who's campaign? These types of topics have effectively replaced concern over who has the best plan for health care reform or the clearest stance on the war. The media is applying that old adage of "guilt by association" with a fun game.

Here are the rules so far:
1. A presidential hopeful is automatically and inextricably linked to his/her supporters thus the following must hold true: supporter comment=candidate's true feelings. The supporter must meet one or more of the following criteria: famous (for whatever reason), affluent, family member, community or organization leader, or political office held currently or previously.
2. Accordingly, only by publicly "denouncing" or "rejecting" the supporter and/or their comments can the contender be let off the hook.
One must be considered a key or important supporter in order to enter into the above equation.
4. A candidate can receive the upper hand by: demanding denouncement or rejection before the connected candidate has an opportunity to do so OR denouncing or rejecting the comments/supporter before the opposition has a chance to pounce.
5. If the connected candidate rejects when they should denounce or happens to denounce without the proper fervor, he/she loses that battle and is considered a loser connected to a psycho (until they similarly or more intensely undermine the opposition)

Presently, there appears to be no end in sight; however, stay tuned for additional, more absurd rules as the reaching game extends further into the infinite abyss.

Welcome Back Ethics **insert "Welcome Back Cotter" theme music**

Remember the controversy several months ago surrounding the possibility of Prince Harry going to Iraq and the associated security threat posed by the media? Well, the situation revisited us last Thursday when the Drudge Report broke the news that Prince Harry had been serving in Afghanistan for 3 months.

Interestingly, networks, such as CNN, have made it clear that they purposely did not break the story for the security of both Prince Harry and his regiment. This was a commendable decision, in my opinion. However, my question is why go ahead and confirm the story now? Perhaps I'm missing a crucial piece of the behind-the-scenes inner-workings of the news world; but why couldn't the networks have simply ignored the Drudge Report and not corroborated the assertions of the blog? Could they not have just left Matt out to dry? Instead, they seemed to say, "Well it's out there, now. Might as well break it too... but let's make sure people know we weren't in the dark, we chose not to break the story because we're responsible".

Regardless of previous ethical responsibility, the top story of the major news networks' (complete with video footage) resulted in the premature withdrawal of Prince Harry from duty. While his family was certainly relieved, Prince Harry was "frustrated" at the unexpected removal.

On the other hand, Jon Snow, a news broadcaster in London, was extremely frustrated with the decision of the media to withhold the information for so long. He was thankful for the Drudge Report leak saying that he wondered whether the public would be able to trust the media again.

It all comes down to this: at what point is breaking the story first, or simply not being last, more important than the safety and security of military missions and individuals? In this case, I believe we have our answer.

Let's Talk About Race. (Be prepared: it's not what you think)

While many are still pondering the legitimacy and exponentially increasing popularity of the blog, news organizations are taking notice (I think it's also worth noting that I'm blogging about a blog). NPR published an article highlighting a particular blog and the growing buzz and controversy it has ignited. "Stuff White People Like", an ongoing list of "white" preferences and behaviors, had generated nearly 4 million hits (since the article was written, the count has reached well over 6 million) in its 2 month long existence as well as an immeasurable amount of controversy. Each post, an addition to the list (we're currently up to #78), takes a satirical stab at the white race through what the author says is a "scientific approach to highlight and explain stuff white people like." He goes on to say, "They are pretty predictable".

Clearly, in this case, the term "scientific approach" is used quite loosely and, perhaps, even sarcastically.

NPR reported that naysayers criticize the blog for being racist and endorsing stereotypes. Critics also argue that the author, Christian Lander, equates economic status with race. Meanwhile, according to comments found on the blog's "about" page, it also has an enormous following of individuals who praise its fearlessness and creativity.

A multitude of comments can be found on each post (more than 530 on the latest entry alone) praising, condemning, and even offering up suggestions for future additions to the list. Lander insists the blog is simply "good provocative fun" and actually captures many of his own behaviors.

In the February 26 airing of NPR's talk radio show, Talk of the Nation, listeners called in to profess their realization of being white (according to the listed characteristics) or suggest new items to be incorporated in the list. During the show, featuring Lander, the race of the author was not questioned as it often is on the blog itself. However, one might conclude that he is, in fact, a white man based on his comments and statements during the show.

At a time when race has, once again, become a prime topic in the media as a result of recent racially driven crimes (i.e. the Jenna Six case) and the presidential election, it is interesting to see the other side of that coin. Instead of the typical Black vs. White conflicts, we get a glimpse at a rare instance in which the racial card is playable by the latter.

Have a look at it and decide for yourself: Stuff White People Like

UPDATE: Lander has uploaded photos of himself on the blog today-check out the "photos" section of "Stuff White People Like" and complete the puzzle of perception on just who this guy is.

Death and Inspiration.

I was extremely moved by Randy Pausch's final lecture. In fact, I was moved to tears as he so candidly spoke of his upcoming death; yet could not speak of his three children without tears welling up in his eyes.

I was moved by clarity. His strength and wisdom is humbling. A new-found appreciation and perspective on life followed my initial guilt at the selfish and shallow level on which I have been carelessly living. How dare I fuss and fret over nonsensical irritants. What right do I have to whine when this man refuses any sympathy on his behalf?

What a wake up call.

Have a look at his health update web page

Meet the Candidates...

I was pondering our conversation concerning the personal information of the presidential hopefuls. What is fact and what is just plain crap? Are they hiding anything and, if so, do we really want to know what it is? Do we have a right to know what it is, or should we be satisfied with whatever they choose to let us in on?

How much do we need to know about someone who wants to be the most powerful individual in the world?

I decided to go straight to the horses' mouths (no pun intended) and have a look at what they say about themselves. I visited their campaign websites and found each of their versions of an "about me" page. Each of the three major candidates had a video along side, or in place of, a bio. Here's what they want us to know:

Barak's Video
--Check out our cheerleader for hope in a 5 minute-long compilation of clips consisting of a relatively small amount of personal info. coupled with a healthy dose of his political background information. Be sure to spot those not-so-inconspicuous inspirational, of-the-people kind of images delightfully sprinkled in. Notice the other individuals in the video: their race, sex, apparent income group. There is a clear message being sent here...and I think it involves pompoms.

Hillary's Bio and Video
--Our favorite pimp took another route. While her bio. page doesn't ooze inspiration from every graphic, she helps us catch the high points by categorizing her life for us. How nice of her. Something I thought...neat...was a page she calls "The Hillary I Know" which exhibits the individual clips of about 40 people "who know her best". In each video, a different person gives their own personal account of her character, capabilities, and impact on their life. Senator Clinton lets others provide those personalized, intimate anecdotes you know you love to watch. But again, notice the individuals themselves and the nature of their stories. Dare we suggest that a common thread has been sewn throughout this message as well?

John's Bio/Video
--Finally, we have good old Johnny. What I like, and simultaneously dislike, is his straightforward approach. No beating around the bush here. No need to ponder over what he's trying to convey. He flat out tells you...at every opportunity. His message is literally written all over the page. Until now, I was blissfully unaware of just how many times it's possible to squeeze the words "courageous" and "service" into such a small space. Senator McCain's "about me" video was actually today's website intro.; yet, just in case you missed it, it accompanies his bio as well. Note the fun terminology and imagery we have here. And, as stated above, no need to ponder the underlying message--it's floating right on the surface for you.

I found these sites pretty informative; although no so much for the thing or two I learned of the candidates' lives. What was truly intriguing was everything in between the lines...or I guess in this case...between the pixels.

You're On Facebook...FOREVER!! MWAAAAHAHAHA!

An article in The New York Times today revealed that it is virtually impossible (no pun intended...well, maybe a little) to completely remove your information from Facebook.

I found this interesting as one of our classmates expressed her concern that "your information just floats out there in space forever...". Well, according to this article, and apparently many other disgruntled members, one can delete their account but Facebook will continue to hold your information on file...just in case. According to one of the social network's spokespersons, this is supposed to be a convenience; making it a breeze to reactivate your account if you change your mind. But in one case reported by the New York Times, even after repeated requests, certain information was still retained.

But how convenient is it when you're still getting e-mails from individuals who accessed your old, supposedly terminated e-mail information through your "deactivated" account (as one reporter was able to do)? Isn't it even a little creepy that they keep it anyway?

Why would anyone want to deactivate their Facebook account? It's so wonderful! I know this is what's going through your Facebook-obsessed heads. Consider the executive who discovers that his junior associates and interns are looking at his pics from a crazy night out last weekend? Maybe you don't want your student workers knowing all of your personal business and who your friends are? Or perhaps you just got incredibly fed up with all of the applications!

Who knows why people would want out. But don't you think they should be able to do so without worrying if their information is still "out there"?

A Good Time For a Good Laugh

I was rather relieved today when, after a week of very serious and stressful politics including "suspensions" and surprises, i saw this delightful clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOHquOkpaU/div>

Copy and paste it. It's hilarious.

More importantly, I enjoy the fact both candidates were equally poked at. So often, these fun little breaks from all of the seriousness tend to lean toward one hopeful or the other. Not so with this one. I know we were all watching the Super Tuesday madness with gleeful anticipation into the wee hours as each report rolled in (or maybe that was just me since I was stuck in the bed with the flu that day...). But after all of those analyzations and re-analyzations and analysis of those analyses...it got a little crucial. This video said, "Lighten up. Get over yourselves and laugh." Because in the great scheme of LIFE how crucial is Super Tuesday? Really? It's little clips like these and the John Stewarts of the world that help bring us back to earth. Thanks guys.

....Now back to your candidate stalking.

A Spin on Advertising-the Candidates go all or nothing

An article in The New York Times explored the advertising campaigns of the presidential candidates as they near Super Tuesday. According to this article, Clinton and Obama have spent a combined $19 million in almost all 22 states holding caucuses on Super Tuesday-"the most ambitious and geographically expansive television effort in a presidential primary". 

In addition to an unbelievably large amounts of money, the candidates have released ads specifically tailored to geographical areas and their stances on certain issues. For example, in Hartford and Fargo, voters are watching ads that will remind them of Obama's antiwar sentiment and emphasis on the planet's restoration set to rock music. Meanwhile, Clinton is running an ad in California that focuses on energy and the necessity of ending our dependence on foreign oil. She will also run an advertisement featuring Robert Kennedy, Jr. in hopes of countering the support of Obama by Edward and Caroline Kennedy. 

Each candidate is focuses less on mud-slinging, and more on their individual stances with regard to that area's most important concerns.

Should this offend Americans or simply be viewed as good marketing? The thing is, I'm not sure that Americans like the idea of being marketed to or worked; however, could the candidates come close to succeeding without them? Probably not...Definitely not.

THE SUPERBOWL COMMERCIALS :-(

I think we can sum up this year's superbowl commercials quite easily: sub-par. They really let me down. The only memorable ones were done by Coca-Cola and Budweiser...the usual standouts. Nothing else was even the least bit special. You would have thought it was just a regular game. Some of the ads were regular commercials we see each day! Companies like Alltel didn't even bother to produce any new material, but simply aired the same lame ad they've been running for weeks.

So where are we headed in advertising when the most anticipated and sought after television ad spots of the year are no longer coveted?

RE: Media use at BU Basketball Games

I completely agree, it is totally and utterly ridiculous to have a random clip of McLovin' during the game...especially since it has absolutely nothing to do with the game. I understand that they're trying to appeal to the students and what they're watching these days...but was this really the route they want to go? One has to wonder whether they're even aware of the movie's plot. I, somehow, doubt it.

It's just weird and awkward.