Religion has always advertised - regardless of the denomination. That's not a value statement, but one of fact.
Some say it's brainwashing disguised as philosophy and others consider it existential salvation. The reason doesn't really matter - in order to acquire new members and continue their heavenly mission most religions must press the flesh and bring in new converts.
We're all familiar with the traditional methods - the pamphlets, the yelling, the slightly disturbing comics handed out by grammar-school-age children who aren't actually in school - but none of those matter anymore.
They are relics of an archaic time.
Organized religions are lagging behind in their proselytizing technique. The Internet is the religious wave of the future - and Scientology is riding it like champion surfer.
The press has been remarkably unkind to the Church of Scientology and often fails to point out the positive things it does.
I can sympathize with the media though. It's got to be difficult cherry picking the good stuff when the weird stuff just pours all around you. It's like trying to find a silver dollar in a swimming pool full of Jello.
All joking aside, this lack of positive mainstream attention has forced Scientology to take its message to the public in a rather modern way - it uses the Internet.
Those looking to join the Church of Scientology can log onto its Web site, look over recruitment materials and read about the history of the church. There is also a free online personality exam, which comes with a caveat as potential Scientologists must sign up for a meeting time to find out the exam's result.
That last part makes the whole thing kind of sketchy, but there are some interesting lessons to be learned from this.
Traditional organized religions do have a presence on the Internet, but most sites are superficial at best. Those with resources have Web pages that look slick and feature Web 2.0 interfaces that pop with color and flashy graphics, but ultimately they fail to deliver in substantive ways.
These sites miss the point of the religious experience. To most people, religion is about a personal connection with their chosen deity and the self-evaluation and betterment that come about from that connection.
Whether it's a scam or not, Scientology's personality exam and Web community are strong ways of getting its potential members to evaluate their lives and draw them into the church.
That's the one thing that seems to terrify people most about Scientology - it understands what its followers want and uses it to draw them in.
Traditional organized religion could learn a thing or two from Scientology.
I know I'm on shaky ground here. After all, I just suggested that traditional religions should take advice from a group that is widely classified as a cult and a scam.
My reasoning is sound, though.
All major religions in the United States are interested in the acquisition of young people. They are aware of the mortality of their current congregation and many churches are seeking out new, younger members.
Some churches, such as the modern full-gospel churches that blend pop music with religion, have done an excellent job of modifying their style to attract younger adherents.
However these groups are not organized into a unifying structure and often exist as regional centers with loose affiliation to other regional groups.
More organized religious groups, most notably the Catholic Church, have struggled in recent years to draw in new blood and their ranks have diminished.
The Internet could be solution to this problem.
With each successive generation, knowledge of and access to the Internet has increased, and its penetration into society will only grow deeper with time. It's foolish for traditional religions, both organized and regional, to ignore the Internet.
Scientology has a natural advantage. After all, the odds are pretty good that someone interested in a religion based on a science fiction novel would also be fairly Internet savvy.
That's just a head start, though, and doesn't mean Scientology will replace traditional organized religions. However, they are competing for the same prize.
Whether people like it or not, modern religion is more like a business than it ever has been.
Churches are competing for congregants and the leaders are treated like the CEOs of major companies.
If traditional organized religions are going to compete for the attention of young people, they will have to adopt modern methods to do so, but not just superficially.
Flashy sites without substance will not cut it. The online presence of traditional organized religion must convey the sense of community and belonging they represent.
Otherwise they may find themselves behind the curve even more.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Comic book movies bring complex heroes to our youth
When gazing over the crowd at any comic-book movie, one sees a wide range of characters both on- and off-screen.
While their groups vary in demographics, their mission is the same - they want to see that awesome new movie where one person takes the weight of the world on his or her shoulders and proves there is something good deep inside all of us - except things are a little different these days.
The days of patently good and evil characters are long gone. Many of our modern heroes are awash in a sea of grey intentions and complex goals - yet their audience remains unchanged. Like the current generation of adults, today's teens are growing up with comic books. But do gray heroes create a gray populace?
The business of comic books had been in trouble for a long time. The sales of actual comic books have been sliding for many years and Marvel Comics even declared bankruptcy in the '90s.
For both Marvel Comics and its chief rival DC Comics, movies have been the saving grace, making them millions of dollars. Just this past weekend Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" set box-office records.
With their popularity, comic-book movies are set to supercede their paperback forefathers as the creators of cultural mythos.
In the past, comic books have served as the dyed-in-the-wool representations of right and wrong - Captain America defeated the Nazis, Batman fought the Joker and so on. Each representation of evil was clean-cut and clear.
This was done partially because comics were marketed toward a young market. However, the content of comic books has always reflected the society that produced them.
The world itself was not so cut and dry, but the image presented was that simple. Our enemies were evil, and the U.S. a force of pure good. The true complexities of the characters involved and the collateral damage of war were left hidden and unreported.
The messages given to both adults and children were similar and, in truth, those comic books were not far from the propaganda the U.S. government used to rally the nation to support its cause.
Times changed though. The fall of communism and a more intrepid media led the world to a new era of knowledge. Adults were now steeped in the truth that there is no dichotomous good and evil.
Comic books didn't really change all that much, though. Sure there were some more complex stories, but the market and the message remained the same. There are those who are good and those who are evil.
Here we see a slight break in the portrayal of the world. Our children are still sheltered from the world, but we are not.
The late '90s and early 2000s, Sept. 11 specifically, changed damned near everything.
The complex arguments and discussions that were hidden in the past are now out in the open. TV news is business and our society is more complex and faster.
Children are no longer protected from the complexity of the world. It is now beamed into their homes through the Internet and television. Rising to the occasion, comic books found a new medium and a new hope: movies.
Interestingly, some of the earlier comic-book movies that adhered to the old style of good and evil fail at the box office. Joel Schumacher's "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin," with their campy portrayal of violence and lack of complexity, bombed at the box office.
Comic-book movies hit it big in the 2000s with the popular movie versions of The X-Men, Spider-Man and Frank Miller's gritty Sin City.
The old medium is gone. Kids aren't reading comics nearly as much as they have in the past - they now come to their heroes through the big screen portrayals of these characters, who themselves are more complex than ever.
"The Dark Knight" portrays Batman as a vigilante, both loved and hated by the populace he protects. Mobsters and convicted criminals are now victims and the hero has some rather severe psychological problems.
These movies will not create a gray populace - they feed one that already exists.
Today's kids don't need the heroes of years past because the world they live in is faster and harder than ever. They can no longer relate to pristine imagines of valor.
In the end, it will not be the heroes themselves that matter, but young people's critical reasoning and ability to understand complexity.
We don't seem to understand that yet, though, and still cling to old standards.
Maybe we really do need Batman.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
While their groups vary in demographics, their mission is the same - they want to see that awesome new movie where one person takes the weight of the world on his or her shoulders and proves there is something good deep inside all of us - except things are a little different these days.
The days of patently good and evil characters are long gone. Many of our modern heroes are awash in a sea of grey intentions and complex goals - yet their audience remains unchanged. Like the current generation of adults, today's teens are growing up with comic books. But do gray heroes create a gray populace?
The business of comic books had been in trouble for a long time. The sales of actual comic books have been sliding for many years and Marvel Comics even declared bankruptcy in the '90s.
For both Marvel Comics and its chief rival DC Comics, movies have been the saving grace, making them millions of dollars. Just this past weekend Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" set box-office records.
With their popularity, comic-book movies are set to supercede their paperback forefathers as the creators of cultural mythos.
In the past, comic books have served as the dyed-in-the-wool representations of right and wrong - Captain America defeated the Nazis, Batman fought the Joker and so on. Each representation of evil was clean-cut and clear.
This was done partially because comics were marketed toward a young market. However, the content of comic books has always reflected the society that produced them.
The world itself was not so cut and dry, but the image presented was that simple. Our enemies were evil, and the U.S. a force of pure good. The true complexities of the characters involved and the collateral damage of war were left hidden and unreported.
The messages given to both adults and children were similar and, in truth, those comic books were not far from the propaganda the U.S. government used to rally the nation to support its cause.
Times changed though. The fall of communism and a more intrepid media led the world to a new era of knowledge. Adults were now steeped in the truth that there is no dichotomous good and evil.
Comic books didn't really change all that much, though. Sure there were some more complex stories, but the market and the message remained the same. There are those who are good and those who are evil.
Here we see a slight break in the portrayal of the world. Our children are still sheltered from the world, but we are not.
The late '90s and early 2000s, Sept. 11 specifically, changed damned near everything.
The complex arguments and discussions that were hidden in the past are now out in the open. TV news is business and our society is more complex and faster.
Children are no longer protected from the complexity of the world. It is now beamed into their homes through the Internet and television. Rising to the occasion, comic books found a new medium and a new hope: movies.
Interestingly, some of the earlier comic-book movies that adhered to the old style of good and evil fail at the box office. Joel Schumacher's "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin," with their campy portrayal of violence and lack of complexity, bombed at the box office.
Comic-book movies hit it big in the 2000s with the popular movie versions of The X-Men, Spider-Man and Frank Miller's gritty Sin City.
The old medium is gone. Kids aren't reading comics nearly as much as they have in the past - they now come to their heroes through the big screen portrayals of these characters, who themselves are more complex than ever.
"The Dark Knight" portrays Batman as a vigilante, both loved and hated by the populace he protects. Mobsters and convicted criminals are now victims and the hero has some rather severe psychological problems.
These movies will not create a gray populace - they feed one that already exists.
Today's kids don't need the heroes of years past because the world they live in is faster and harder than ever. They can no longer relate to pristine imagines of valor.
In the end, it will not be the heroes themselves that matter, but young people's critical reasoning and ability to understand complexity.
We don't seem to understand that yet, though, and still cling to old standards.
Maybe we really do need Batman.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Thursday, July 17, 2008
McDonald's boycott has social movement potential
People are finally starting to boycott McDonald's - but not for a good reason.
The newly-established McDonald's boycott isn't because it treats its employees poorly or because it serves food that rots you from the inside. No, those things actually make sense and would be great reasons to boycott McDonald's. We're dealing with a different type of boycott here. A select group of folks based in our neighboring state of Mississippi have chosen to boycott McDonald's because the chain "supports the gay agenda."
I know it's easy to just brush this off as another example of the religious right freaking out about something, but this little social movement is actually pretty interesting and may function as a litmus test for future American social movements.
This whole issue started in early 2008 when Richard Ellis, vice president of communications for McDonald's USA, took a seat on the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce board of directors.
The NGLCC is a non-profit organization that encourages and helps develop businesses owned by members of the LGBT community. While it is not an official government agency, though its name implies such, it does act as a middle man between gay and lesbian business owners and their local chamber of commerce.
It's pretty easy to see where this is going.
The American Family Association, a religious group based in Mississippi, took issue with this business deal because its members believe the McDonald's corporation is supporting the gay agenda.
The AFA, also a non-profit organization, is concerned with the preservation of the American family, so the rusty and broken-down chain of logic is obvious - homosexuals are bad people; McDonald's has someone on the board of an organization that helps homosexuals; thus McDonald's is also populated with bad people. Not because it makes bad food, but because it supports gay people.
The AFA has called for a national boycott of all McDonald's restaurants because, as posted in an article on its internally run Onenewsnow.com site, "The AFA took issue with McDonald's refusal to remain neutral in the culture war."
Currently the AFA is telling its members to boycott eating at McDonald's restaurants and to call their local franchises to inform the management staff of McDonald's secret plot to help out the gay community.
This isn't the first time the AFA has called for a boycott of a national corporation that supposedly supported the gay agenda. In 2006 the group called for a similar boycott of Wal-Mart that was scheduled to take place over the post-Thanksgiving shopping weekend.
When threatened with the loss of sales on Black Friday, Wal-Mart backed down and issued a statement confirming its neutrality on gay marriage. The AFA subsequently canceled the boycott.
They haven't canceled this one yet.
Through a letter sent to the AFA, McDonald's confirmed its commitment to diversity and has refused to back down.
It's crunch time for the AFA. Can they make the mighty McDonald's bow down?
Sure there are some faulty causal mechanisms at work here, and I'm honestly not sure who is putting together this so-called gay agenda, but this group has serious potential as a mechanism for social change.
In a column this past spring I wrote about the potential power of conservative Christians as a voting block. While my focus was on the political power of conservative Protestants, it's not the only possible outcome - this boycott could serve as a field test for the modern social power of religion.
Here in the U.S., that translates into the social power of conservative Christians.
By their sheer numbers conservative Christians represent a large portion of the U.S. population. According to the 2007 Pew National Trusts Survey on Religious Life, more than one quarter of U.S. citizens self-identify as evangelical Protestant - the group of denominations most commonly associated with conservative Christianity.
Conservative Christians are more than just evangelical Protestants and may self-identify with any denomination. However, they do frequently share beliefs on hot-button issues.
A unified belief on an issue can certainly serve as the glue for a social movement. In this circumstance the culture war against the gay agenda serves as a very strong bonding element. When combined with a large potential audience, you have the makings of an old-school social movement.
Their opponent, however, is a grease-spewing juggernaut that will be fairly difficult to topple.
That doesn't mean they can't have an effect though. After only a few weeks of threats the AFA got Wal-Mart, also a large and powerful corporation, to back down and claim neutrality - so there is precedent and potential.
Whether that potential will open us up to a new era of activism or condemn us to an oppressive theocracy is still up in the air.
The newly-established McDonald's boycott isn't because it treats its employees poorly or because it serves food that rots you from the inside. No, those things actually make sense and would be great reasons to boycott McDonald's. We're dealing with a different type of boycott here. A select group of folks based in our neighboring state of Mississippi have chosen to boycott McDonald's because the chain "supports the gay agenda."
I know it's easy to just brush this off as another example of the religious right freaking out about something, but this little social movement is actually pretty interesting and may function as a litmus test for future American social movements.
This whole issue started in early 2008 when Richard Ellis, vice president of communications for McDonald's USA, took a seat on the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce board of directors.
The NGLCC is a non-profit organization that encourages and helps develop businesses owned by members of the LGBT community. While it is not an official government agency, though its name implies such, it does act as a middle man between gay and lesbian business owners and their local chamber of commerce.
It's pretty easy to see where this is going.
The American Family Association, a religious group based in Mississippi, took issue with this business deal because its members believe the McDonald's corporation is supporting the gay agenda.
The AFA, also a non-profit organization, is concerned with the preservation of the American family, so the rusty and broken-down chain of logic is obvious - homosexuals are bad people; McDonald's has someone on the board of an organization that helps homosexuals; thus McDonald's is also populated with bad people. Not because it makes bad food, but because it supports gay people.
The AFA has called for a national boycott of all McDonald's restaurants because, as posted in an article on its internally run Onenewsnow.com site, "The AFA took issue with McDonald's refusal to remain neutral in the culture war."
Currently the AFA is telling its members to boycott eating at McDonald's restaurants and to call their local franchises to inform the management staff of McDonald's secret plot to help out the gay community.
This isn't the first time the AFA has called for a boycott of a national corporation that supposedly supported the gay agenda. In 2006 the group called for a similar boycott of Wal-Mart that was scheduled to take place over the post-Thanksgiving shopping weekend.
When threatened with the loss of sales on Black Friday, Wal-Mart backed down and issued a statement confirming its neutrality on gay marriage. The AFA subsequently canceled the boycott.
They haven't canceled this one yet.
Through a letter sent to the AFA, McDonald's confirmed its commitment to diversity and has refused to back down.
It's crunch time for the AFA. Can they make the mighty McDonald's bow down?
Sure there are some faulty causal mechanisms at work here, and I'm honestly not sure who is putting together this so-called gay agenda, but this group has serious potential as a mechanism for social change.
In a column this past spring I wrote about the potential power of conservative Christians as a voting block. While my focus was on the political power of conservative Protestants, it's not the only possible outcome - this boycott could serve as a field test for the modern social power of religion.
Here in the U.S., that translates into the social power of conservative Christians.
By their sheer numbers conservative Christians represent a large portion of the U.S. population. According to the 2007 Pew National Trusts Survey on Religious Life, more than one quarter of U.S. citizens self-identify as evangelical Protestant - the group of denominations most commonly associated with conservative Christianity.
Conservative Christians are more than just evangelical Protestants and may self-identify with any denomination. However, they do frequently share beliefs on hot-button issues.
A unified belief on an issue can certainly serve as the glue for a social movement. In this circumstance the culture war against the gay agenda serves as a very strong bonding element. When combined with a large potential audience, you have the makings of an old-school social movement.
Their opponent, however, is a grease-spewing juggernaut that will be fairly difficult to topple.
That doesn't mean they can't have an effect though. After only a few weeks of threats the AFA got Wal-Mart, also a large and powerful corporation, to back down and claim neutrality - so there is precedent and potential.
Whether that potential will open us up to a new era of activism or condemn us to an oppressive theocracy is still up in the air.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Digital distribution has potential advantages for students
One day in the future, nearly everything you need will come to you digitally - without boxes, cases or instruction manuals.
That's right - books, video games, music, nearly anything you can think of that doesn't rot - will be beamed directly into your home through that magic system of tubes: the Internet.
While it's true digital distribution may be the wave of the future, we're not there yet. The infrastructure that currently exists is not set up to deliver a full digital package and some of the hitches are surprisingly low tech.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, digital distribution is a method of product delivery that shoves aside the packaging of a product in favor of shipping it to the consumer via the Internet.
Most students at the University are already too familiar with the concept, however not in the legal way. I imagine most University students are familiar with it's free-spirited cousin - peer to peer networking.
Peer to peer (P2P) networking involves the sharing of media
between individual users - usually distributing pirated software, music and games.
While P2P networking does distribute things digitally, its not what I'm talking about here.
The type of digital distribution I'm referring to is next step in a process the general population is already familiar with - it's like shopping, except you don't go anywhere and never get to actually hold anything.
The legal version of digital distribution involves manufacturers selling it to consumers directly and then allowing them to download the product at their leisure.
It's already pretty popular.
iTunes and Rhapsody.com already make millions of dollars from digitally distributed content, and sites such as Netflix.com have recently opened up on-demand downloadable movies.
Even video games are transitioning to digital distribution with Nintendo's WiiWare and Microsoft's X-Box Live Arcade.
Digital distribution may be in its infancy now, but the road to complete digital distribution will lead University students to some big payoffs.
For the general population, digital distribution may actually be more expensive than traditional methods of shipping.
Blogger Nick Beaudrot, of the site Cogitamusblog.com, calculates that it's still cheaper to ship products the old fashioned way. Production of the items that are easily digitally distributed is still remarkably cheap. The CDs and DVDs that contain our music, movies and video games are pressed out rapidly, and the packaging is usually pretty meager outside of special editions.
The cost of production and light weight of transport make them relatively cheap to ship compared to the cost of bandwidth. As one anonymous comment on Beaudrot's post said, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes.
In truth, Beaudrot's idea is sound, and the increasing cost of gas and increasing availability of broadband Internet will eventually make digital distribution paramount.
What Beaudrot doesn't take into account is the other forms of digital distribution - namely books, magazines and academic journals.
These are the media that most directly apply to University students.
University students already have access to many periodicals and e-journals through Middleton Library.
But that's not where the real gain for students is.
For University students, the real gain will be from e-books, podcasts and digitally distributed lecture videos that are already here in some cases and on the way for others.
Other universities are already on top of this. Universities such as Purdue, Washington State and U.C. Berkeley, among others, offer podcasts and in some cases videos of lectures that students can download.
The University has taken the first steps toward getting it all lined up, but the future holds tons of promise.
Unlike DVDs and movies, the benefit of digitally distributed books is easy to see. Books are costlier to produce than disc-based media and it would be much cheaper to distribute them electronically.
Podcasts and videos of lectures may get bogged down in image rights, but by far the biggest hurdle here is an administrative one.
If podcasts and videos of lectures are online, why would students take notes? Would attendance matter anymore? These are anything but trivial issues, and they cannot be resolved easily.
The age of digital distribution is coming, but it's not here yet.
In the case of popular media, it's close and coming fast. For the academic community, it's merely a tiny shadow on the horizon of an academic revolution.
It'll be here eventually, but in the meantime we should all invest in bigger hard drives.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
That's right - books, video games, music, nearly anything you can think of that doesn't rot - will be beamed directly into your home through that magic system of tubes: the Internet.
While it's true digital distribution may be the wave of the future, we're not there yet. The infrastructure that currently exists is not set up to deliver a full digital package and some of the hitches are surprisingly low tech.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, digital distribution is a method of product delivery that shoves aside the packaging of a product in favor of shipping it to the consumer via the Internet.
Most students at the University are already too familiar with the concept, however not in the legal way. I imagine most University students are familiar with it's free-spirited cousin - peer to peer networking.
Peer to peer (P2P) networking involves the sharing of media
between individual users - usually distributing pirated software, music and games.
While P2P networking does distribute things digitally, its not what I'm talking about here.
The type of digital distribution I'm referring to is next step in a process the general population is already familiar with - it's like shopping, except you don't go anywhere and never get to actually hold anything.
The legal version of digital distribution involves manufacturers selling it to consumers directly and then allowing them to download the product at their leisure.
It's already pretty popular.
iTunes and Rhapsody.com already make millions of dollars from digitally distributed content, and sites such as Netflix.com have recently opened up on-demand downloadable movies.
Even video games are transitioning to digital distribution with Nintendo's WiiWare and Microsoft's X-Box Live Arcade.
Digital distribution may be in its infancy now, but the road to complete digital distribution will lead University students to some big payoffs.
For the general population, digital distribution may actually be more expensive than traditional methods of shipping.
Blogger Nick Beaudrot, of the site Cogitamusblog.com, calculates that it's still cheaper to ship products the old fashioned way. Production of the items that are easily digitally distributed is still remarkably cheap. The CDs and DVDs that contain our music, movies and video games are pressed out rapidly, and the packaging is usually pretty meager outside of special editions.
The cost of production and light weight of transport make them relatively cheap to ship compared to the cost of bandwidth. As one anonymous comment on Beaudrot's post said, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes.
In truth, Beaudrot's idea is sound, and the increasing cost of gas and increasing availability of broadband Internet will eventually make digital distribution paramount.
What Beaudrot doesn't take into account is the other forms of digital distribution - namely books, magazines and academic journals.
These are the media that most directly apply to University students.
University students already have access to many periodicals and e-journals through Middleton Library.
But that's not where the real gain for students is.
For University students, the real gain will be from e-books, podcasts and digitally distributed lecture videos that are already here in some cases and on the way for others.
Other universities are already on top of this. Universities such as Purdue, Washington State and U.C. Berkeley, among others, offer podcasts and in some cases videos of lectures that students can download.
The University has taken the first steps toward getting it all lined up, but the future holds tons of promise.
Unlike DVDs and movies, the benefit of digitally distributed books is easy to see. Books are costlier to produce than disc-based media and it would be much cheaper to distribute them electronically.
Podcasts and videos of lectures may get bogged down in image rights, but by far the biggest hurdle here is an administrative one.
If podcasts and videos of lectures are online, why would students take notes? Would attendance matter anymore? These are anything but trivial issues, and they cannot be resolved easily.
The age of digital distribution is coming, but it's not here yet.
In the case of popular media, it's close and coming fast. For the academic community, it's merely a tiny shadow on the horizon of an academic revolution.
It'll be here eventually, but in the meantime we should all invest in bigger hard drives.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Poverty problem affects everyone, not just the poor
Poverty is a complex issue. On the surface it seems like someone else's problem, but a deeper look can show its impact on others. You don't have to be poor to see the effects of poverty.
As a teenager, I thought poverty was something that in itself couldn't actually affect anything. I felt poverty was an outcome of someone else's poor decisions and lifestyle choices. The poor were merely unable to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps - as the saying goes.
In hindsight, I didn't really think about it at all. I imagine most people don't. As with many other aspects of the world around us, our exposure to poverty is mainly through the lens of television cameras. The poverty we see on the news is real, but it's not just on TV - poverty is problem all over the United States, and especially here in Louisiana.
In its most base definition, poverty is deprivation. People living in poverty are often deprived of access to healthy food, clean water, proper shelter and education.
People are classified as impoverished when their income is lower than the poverty line or they meet federal poverty guidelines.
The poverty line itself is calculated by the U.S. government and considers inflation and the cost of living, and is used primarily for statistical classification. The federal poverty guidelines are a little more flexible and are used to grant access to government programs such as Women's Infants and Children's Nutrition Fund.
They are both highly influential in the classification of people in poverty and the public perception of what constitutes poverty.
The 2008 poverty line for a single person is $10,400 dollars of yearly income, according to the Federal Register. That means a single person who earns less than $10,400 is technically living in poverty. The line changes for the number of dependents the head of the household has, adding $3,600 for each dependent, so a family of two must be less than $14,000.
They're not the most holistic methods of measuring poverty, but they're the easiest way to see poverty from the outside.
On the national level, 13 percent of the U.S. population lives below the poverty line according to the 2006 U.S. census. That seems like a fairly low number, but in terms of poverty prevention and intervention, the U.S. is one of the lowest-ranked developed nations according to the United Nation's development program. On the human poverty index the U.S. ranks 18th - below most of western Europe and Japan.
That's pretty awful, but poverty in our state is even worse.
Around 14.4 percent of all families in Louisiana are impoverished, as are 19 percent of individuals according the U.S. Census 2006 American Community Survey.
Locally things don't look so good either. 2006 figures show 20 percent of Baton Rouge families and 27 percent of individuals living in poverty.
There are certainly some post-Katrina factors in those statistics, but arguments about the definition of the numbers won't change anything - we're still in pretty bad shape.
The big deal here is that many of the same factors that keep Louisiana on the lowest tier of nearly every U.S. ranking are the result of or a determinant of poverty. The issue really isn't as individual as people tend to believe - poverty affects entire regions.
Two of the major determinants of poverty, education and healthcare, are major problems in Louisiana and have far-reaching effects.
Our poorly funded and staffed schools keep our children uneducated and unskilled in a world that is rapidly requiring advanced training for even the simplest of jobs. Our future workforce will be tainted by poor living conditions and unskilled for the future.
Our inadequate medical facilities can barely handle the sick they have now, but children born into poverty have a lesser chance of survival than those born out of it. High infant mortality is inexcusable in the modern world, but it is also something that damages the future of our state by cutting our population.
Both of these measures seem distant and abstract. But new young people and their education are of utmost importance to the betterment of this state and to the public policy that will be drafted by the state. These are just two examples, but there are many more.
Whether an individual is poor or not is almost irrelevant. Poverty itself is influential and will affect our future.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
As a teenager, I thought poverty was something that in itself couldn't actually affect anything. I felt poverty was an outcome of someone else's poor decisions and lifestyle choices. The poor were merely unable to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps - as the saying goes.
In hindsight, I didn't really think about it at all. I imagine most people don't. As with many other aspects of the world around us, our exposure to poverty is mainly through the lens of television cameras. The poverty we see on the news is real, but it's not just on TV - poverty is problem all over the United States, and especially here in Louisiana.
In its most base definition, poverty is deprivation. People living in poverty are often deprived of access to healthy food, clean water, proper shelter and education.
People are classified as impoverished when their income is lower than the poverty line or they meet federal poverty guidelines.
The poverty line itself is calculated by the U.S. government and considers inflation and the cost of living, and is used primarily for statistical classification. The federal poverty guidelines are a little more flexible and are used to grant access to government programs such as Women's Infants and Children's Nutrition Fund.
They are both highly influential in the classification of people in poverty and the public perception of what constitutes poverty.
The 2008 poverty line for a single person is $10,400 dollars of yearly income, according to the Federal Register. That means a single person who earns less than $10,400 is technically living in poverty. The line changes for the number of dependents the head of the household has, adding $3,600 for each dependent, so a family of two must be less than $14,000.
They're not the most holistic methods of measuring poverty, but they're the easiest way to see poverty from the outside.
On the national level, 13 percent of the U.S. population lives below the poverty line according to the 2006 U.S. census. That seems like a fairly low number, but in terms of poverty prevention and intervention, the U.S. is one of the lowest-ranked developed nations according to the United Nation's development program. On the human poverty index the U.S. ranks 18th - below most of western Europe and Japan.
That's pretty awful, but poverty in our state is even worse.
Around 14.4 percent of all families in Louisiana are impoverished, as are 19 percent of individuals according the U.S. Census 2006 American Community Survey.
Locally things don't look so good either. 2006 figures show 20 percent of Baton Rouge families and 27 percent of individuals living in poverty.
There are certainly some post-Katrina factors in those statistics, but arguments about the definition of the numbers won't change anything - we're still in pretty bad shape.
The big deal here is that many of the same factors that keep Louisiana on the lowest tier of nearly every U.S. ranking are the result of or a determinant of poverty. The issue really isn't as individual as people tend to believe - poverty affects entire regions.
Two of the major determinants of poverty, education and healthcare, are major problems in Louisiana and have far-reaching effects.
Our poorly funded and staffed schools keep our children uneducated and unskilled in a world that is rapidly requiring advanced training for even the simplest of jobs. Our future workforce will be tainted by poor living conditions and unskilled for the future.
Our inadequate medical facilities can barely handle the sick they have now, but children born into poverty have a lesser chance of survival than those born out of it. High infant mortality is inexcusable in the modern world, but it is also something that damages the future of our state by cutting our population.
Both of these measures seem distant and abstract. But new young people and their education are of utmost importance to the betterment of this state and to the public policy that will be drafted by the state. These are just two examples, but there are many more.
Whether an individual is poor or not is almost irrelevant. Poverty itself is influential and will affect our future.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Social structure plays major part in obesity problem
Americans hear about their worst problem every day.
It's barked at them by TV drill sergeants and blasted on the radio by people who claim to be doctors. It's made millionaires out of chemists and celebrities out of washed-up athletes. It's also a problem of our own creation.
The problem is: Americans are fat.
It's been common knowledge for years now that America has high rates of obesity and all of the fun health problems that go along with it.
Previous attempts to rectify the problem have focused almost exclusively on motivating the individual. These attempts have failed and we're getting fatter.
Perhaps it's time to look at things differently. We should think about some of the other factors that may be at the heart of the problem.
More than 66 percent of Americans are overweight, according to 2007 survey funded by the National Center for Health Statistics. Even more unsettling is the fact that the same survey shows that more than 32 percent of Americans are obese, which means their weight puts them at heightened risk for health problems.
Rates of obesity have increased dramatically in the past 15 years. The NCHS data show 56 percent of Americans are overweight. The percentage of overweight Americans increased to 65.2 percent in 2002, an increase of nearly 14 percent. What's even more startling, is that rates of obesity have more than doubled since 1994, with 32 percent of Americans listed as obese compared to 1994's 15.
These statistics have not been kept secret. They've have been force-fed down the throats of everyone with access to a TV, radio or the Internet.
So if everyone knows about the problem, why hasn't anything happened?
Nobody knows.
Well, some people claim to know, but their solution to the problem seems to be calling everyone lazy and then flexing their own rippled abs.
I disagree - it's not completely an issue of laziness.
I can't say for sure what the problem is, but I think we've taken a rather individualistic approach to this problem. We've taken an approach that may ignore issues grounded in our social structure.
Americans have tried, and spent millions of dollars in the process, to incorporate exercise into their daily routines. The government has spent millions pushing programs that focus on getting people out there and moving. We're all doing the Louisiana two-step, right?
Most of the previous efforts to slim down Americans focused on getting individual people to make healthy choices.
However, individual people often have more things going on in their everyday lives than just trying to lose weight - they have families, responsibilities and other stresses.
They also exist within a structure that may not be all that supportive of making healthy choices.
Recent academic research has brought light to food deserts, or areas where access to high-quality food is limited. These areas could be limited by location - meaning there are no local supermarkets, by finances - they can't afford to buy good food or they lack the cooking skills to prepare fresh food.
Food deserts are most common in areas that are highly rural or urban - areas that, according to the NCHS and US Census, just so happen to have the highest rates of obesity and poverty in the country.
The most common scenario for a food desert is an inner city ravaged by urban sprawl. As the wealthier population leaves the city, so do most of the large scale businesses, including supermarkets. This leaves poor residents with very few options for healthy food choices - especially if they lack transportation.
A mother can either buy a few apples for five bucks, or she can buy a lot more junk food for the same price. If you're concerned with feeding your family for the long-term, the junk food may look like a better option.
I'm sure she wants to keep her family healthy, but it may seem better to have them eat poorly than not enough.
That's not to say it's wrong to place some blame on the individual. Of course our individual actions play a part in our health, but those actions are always set in the context of our environment and that effect cannot be ignored.
It's easy to call people lazy or weak when they are unable to lose weight and become healthier. However, not everyone goes through life with the same access to skills and resources.
Until we begin to address obesity at the structural level we are not going to see changes. We're not going to get healthier, and we may be faced with a generation of Americans that were condemned to sickness and disease by their lack of resources before they realized it.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
It's barked at them by TV drill sergeants and blasted on the radio by people who claim to be doctors. It's made millionaires out of chemists and celebrities out of washed-up athletes. It's also a problem of our own creation.
The problem is: Americans are fat.
It's been common knowledge for years now that America has high rates of obesity and all of the fun health problems that go along with it.
Previous attempts to rectify the problem have focused almost exclusively on motivating the individual. These attempts have failed and we're getting fatter.
Perhaps it's time to look at things differently. We should think about some of the other factors that may be at the heart of the problem.
More than 66 percent of Americans are overweight, according to 2007 survey funded by the National Center for Health Statistics. Even more unsettling is the fact that the same survey shows that more than 32 percent of Americans are obese, which means their weight puts them at heightened risk for health problems.
Rates of obesity have increased dramatically in the past 15 years. The NCHS data show 56 percent of Americans are overweight. The percentage of overweight Americans increased to 65.2 percent in 2002, an increase of nearly 14 percent. What's even more startling, is that rates of obesity have more than doubled since 1994, with 32 percent of Americans listed as obese compared to 1994's 15.
These statistics have not been kept secret. They've have been force-fed down the throats of everyone with access to a TV, radio or the Internet.
So if everyone knows about the problem, why hasn't anything happened?
Nobody knows.
Well, some people claim to know, but their solution to the problem seems to be calling everyone lazy and then flexing their own rippled abs.
I disagree - it's not completely an issue of laziness.
I can't say for sure what the problem is, but I think we've taken a rather individualistic approach to this problem. We've taken an approach that may ignore issues grounded in our social structure.
Americans have tried, and spent millions of dollars in the process, to incorporate exercise into their daily routines. The government has spent millions pushing programs that focus on getting people out there and moving. We're all doing the Louisiana two-step, right?
Most of the previous efforts to slim down Americans focused on getting individual people to make healthy choices.
However, individual people often have more things going on in their everyday lives than just trying to lose weight - they have families, responsibilities and other stresses.
They also exist within a structure that may not be all that supportive of making healthy choices.
Recent academic research has brought light to food deserts, or areas where access to high-quality food is limited. These areas could be limited by location - meaning there are no local supermarkets, by finances - they can't afford to buy good food or they lack the cooking skills to prepare fresh food.
Food deserts are most common in areas that are highly rural or urban - areas that, according to the NCHS and US Census, just so happen to have the highest rates of obesity and poverty in the country.
The most common scenario for a food desert is an inner city ravaged by urban sprawl. As the wealthier population leaves the city, so do most of the large scale businesses, including supermarkets. This leaves poor residents with very few options for healthy food choices - especially if they lack transportation.
A mother can either buy a few apples for five bucks, or she can buy a lot more junk food for the same price. If you're concerned with feeding your family for the long-term, the junk food may look like a better option.
I'm sure she wants to keep her family healthy, but it may seem better to have them eat poorly than not enough.
That's not to say it's wrong to place some blame on the individual. Of course our individual actions play a part in our health, but those actions are always set in the context of our environment and that effect cannot be ignored.
It's easy to call people lazy or weak when they are unable to lose weight and become healthier. However, not everyone goes through life with the same access to skills and resources.
Until we begin to address obesity at the structural level we are not going to see changes. We're not going to get healthier, and we may be faced with a generation of Americans that were condemned to sickness and disease by their lack of resources before they realized it.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Educators cannot ignore effects of technology
Technology will revolutionize the education system, but not in the way most people think.
Educational technology has advanced by leaps and bounds within the past 10 years. Nearly every classroom here at the University has a computer that can connect to the Internet, show videos and DVDs and play PowerPoint presentations. All of these are technological advancements that our parents and early educators would have never dreamed possible. But for all the advancement they represent, they are not the advancements that will truly alter the education of future generations.
On the contrary, it's not the technologies themselves that will change education, but the after effects of these technologies will shape the education of our children.
We live in a time of great technological advancement, but the true benefit of technology is not reaped by the first generation to experience it. It's the subsequent generations that truly explore, exploit and refine technology.
This isn't a knock on the intelligence of older generations. It isn't an issue of capacity, but one of exposure.
The easiest example of the diffusion of technology through generations is the Internet.
The early adopters of the Internet were a few tech-savvy members of Generation X. This generation, born between 1965 and 1982, helped nurture the Internet into its current state. In those days the Internet was more of a person-to-person method of communicating - similar to the message boards we have today. However, because of the advanced knowledge required to access the Internet, only a small set of Gen X have been exposed to it in significant amounts.
While Gen X is credited with furthering the Internet, it is not the generation most entrenched in it.
The Millennial Generation, unlike its predecessor, came of age when the Internet was just beginning to take off and is most heavily associated with its use.
This group, born between 1982 and 1997, were exposed to the Internet on a much larger scale than the general population of Gen X. The millennial generation has extensive experience with the Internet, but it was still introduced after its early socialization - the Internet merely augmented an existing world-view instead of being the focal point.
The Millennial Generation is the group that has popularized sites like Facebook.com and Myspace.com - they are social Internet users.
The generation after the Millennials, which some have taken to calling Generation Z, was born with the Internet. Many of those young people were at keyboards before they could ride bikes and are quite familiar with the Internet and its possibilities.
At the heart of the Internet is information, specifically instant information. There are few questions that cannot be answered, or at the very least enlightened, by a quick Internet search.
For those socialized and educated through the old way of learning, such as using a card catalogue in a library, this new method of information seeking exists in contrast to the old way, and makes it better.
For the new generation coming up, there is no old way. The technology that has brought amazing advancements to Gen X and the Millennials will be the status-quo for Gen Z- they won't know anything else.
Rapid access to information will become, or already is, the norm. I imagine there are hundreds of students at the University right now that have no idea what a library card catalogue actually looks like, much less how it works.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that generation will need new skills to deal with this information.
This new generation shouldn't change for us - we should better ourselves and up the ante. Future educators will need to revolutionize the way they dole out and teach students to analyze information.
It's already happening in other parts of society.
In a 2008 study, The Context-Based Research Group found that young people responded better to information that was processed in quick, successive waves. Each wave increasing the level of detail, until a full picture was established. Using that information, several Associated Press branches tailored their style and found a great deal of success.
The writing is on the wall. While it may seem blasphemous to those that still remember the old ways, those ways may need to go the way of the Edsel and Windows ME.
Of course not all areas of education will change completely. Medical doctors will still need to know how to troubleshoot a patient's problems, and scholars will still have to be familiar with the body of work in their area. But the steps leading to those levels of education cannot remain as they are.
Without revolution or innovation we may find ourselves a shallow, under-educated society that has access to all the world's information, but without the capability to use it.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Educational technology has advanced by leaps and bounds within the past 10 years. Nearly every classroom here at the University has a computer that can connect to the Internet, show videos and DVDs and play PowerPoint presentations. All of these are technological advancements that our parents and early educators would have never dreamed possible. But for all the advancement they represent, they are not the advancements that will truly alter the education of future generations.
On the contrary, it's not the technologies themselves that will change education, but the after effects of these technologies will shape the education of our children.
We live in a time of great technological advancement, but the true benefit of technology is not reaped by the first generation to experience it. It's the subsequent generations that truly explore, exploit and refine technology.
This isn't a knock on the intelligence of older generations. It isn't an issue of capacity, but one of exposure.
The easiest example of the diffusion of technology through generations is the Internet.
The early adopters of the Internet were a few tech-savvy members of Generation X. This generation, born between 1965 and 1982, helped nurture the Internet into its current state. In those days the Internet was more of a person-to-person method of communicating - similar to the message boards we have today. However, because of the advanced knowledge required to access the Internet, only a small set of Gen X have been exposed to it in significant amounts.
While Gen X is credited with furthering the Internet, it is not the generation most entrenched in it.
The Millennial Generation, unlike its predecessor, came of age when the Internet was just beginning to take off and is most heavily associated with its use.
This group, born between 1982 and 1997, were exposed to the Internet on a much larger scale than the general population of Gen X. The millennial generation has extensive experience with the Internet, but it was still introduced after its early socialization - the Internet merely augmented an existing world-view instead of being the focal point.
The Millennial Generation is the group that has popularized sites like Facebook.com and Myspace.com - they are social Internet users.
The generation after the Millennials, which some have taken to calling Generation Z, was born with the Internet. Many of those young people were at keyboards before they could ride bikes and are quite familiar with the Internet and its possibilities.
At the heart of the Internet is information, specifically instant information. There are few questions that cannot be answered, or at the very least enlightened, by a quick Internet search.
For those socialized and educated through the old way of learning, such as using a card catalogue in a library, this new method of information seeking exists in contrast to the old way, and makes it better.
For the new generation coming up, there is no old way. The technology that has brought amazing advancements to Gen X and the Millennials will be the status-quo for Gen Z- they won't know anything else.
Rapid access to information will become, or already is, the norm. I imagine there are hundreds of students at the University right now that have no idea what a library card catalogue actually looks like, much less how it works.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that generation will need new skills to deal with this information.
This new generation shouldn't change for us - we should better ourselves and up the ante. Future educators will need to revolutionize the way they dole out and teach students to analyze information.
It's already happening in other parts of society.
In a 2008 study, The Context-Based Research Group found that young people responded better to information that was processed in quick, successive waves. Each wave increasing the level of detail, until a full picture was established. Using that information, several Associated Press branches tailored their style and found a great deal of success.
The writing is on the wall. While it may seem blasphemous to those that still remember the old ways, those ways may need to go the way of the Edsel and Windows ME.
Of course not all areas of education will change completely. Medical doctors will still need to know how to troubleshoot a patient's problems, and scholars will still have to be familiar with the body of work in their area. But the steps leading to those levels of education cannot remain as they are.
Without revolution or innovation we may find ourselves a shallow, under-educated society that has access to all the world's information, but without the capability to use it.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, May 2, 2008
Empathetic understanding opens social world
On April 2, 2008, the Housing Authority of East Baton Rouge Parish indefinitely closed the waiting list on all public housing. To most University students, that doesn't mean anything.
Why should it? University students are currently freaking out about final exams, projects, papers and - for the lucky few - graduation. All these things can distract us from the world around us. Besides, they're not University students - what does it matter?
The truth is, it does matter, and in reality, we are all tied together. Every person you see is a part of the same system - our social world - and its exploration is key to our development both as people and as a civilization.
When one takes into account all of the things that go on in our lives, it's easy to think of someone else's plight as distant and remain detached from another's problems.
Take the recent closing of the Housing Authority waiting list. East Baton Rouge Parish Officials have closed the list, meaning they are no longer accepting applications for public housing, and there are already too many people on the waiting list.
They offer no estimated date as to when the waiting list will be reopened.
On the University's campus, it's easy to ignore something like that. The University can create a bubble that, outside of national news coverage via the Internet and page two of The Daily Reveille, can be difficult to see past.
Odds are that most students didn't even know the waiting list was closed and may not even know anything about the process of finding public housing.
But for a portion of the Baton Rouge population, the closing of this waiting list is a big deal and has dire consequences on not just their future, but on their family's future as well.
That still seems distant to some people, but in reality, there are public housing units located within a couple of miles of the University.
Some of the people we see on our drives to and from campus are likely some of the same people affected by the closing of that list, and some students may even know people directly affected by this situation.
Regardless of how far away or irrelevant some things may seem, we are all a part of the social world - even though it's often easy to ignore people outside of those we are directly in contact with.
On the odd occasions we do help out others, it's abstract and often removed from the people themselves.
University students recently slept in boxes to raise money for the Homeless Awareness Organization of Louisiana. At the event, participants played Frisbee golf and had a good time. It was a noble thought, and the money went to a good cause. But it's still detached from where the problem actually lies.
We apparently only think about the plights of others when they are separate and abstract.
Social scientists often use the term "verstehen" when thinking about the lives of the people they study. In German, verstehen is a verb meaning "to understand."
In the social sciences, it means "an empathetic understanding" - to attempt to understand people with respect to their situations and their circumstances.
Empathetic understanding is the least we can offer both the people we interact with and the ones we don't.
Regardless of what we go through, it's important we take time to explore our social world - to think about what happens around us and the effects those actions can have in our lives and the lives of those around us.
I can't urge everyone to be active in helping others. I don't believe that everyone has the heart or the will to reach out to everyone they meet - it's time consuming and nearly impossible.
But I can urge everyone to stop for a bit and think about the social world that exists around us.
Take a minute after a final exam, five minutes during an intense paper-writing session or maybe 10 minutes during the long-awaited summer vacation to just look at the people around us and at least think about what they must be going through.
It won't put food on anybody's plate or give them a place to sleep, but if we all start thinking about our social world empathetically, we may be able to do something before it's too late.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Why should it? University students are currently freaking out about final exams, projects, papers and - for the lucky few - graduation. All these things can distract us from the world around us. Besides, they're not University students - what does it matter?
The truth is, it does matter, and in reality, we are all tied together. Every person you see is a part of the same system - our social world - and its exploration is key to our development both as people and as a civilization.
When one takes into account all of the things that go on in our lives, it's easy to think of someone else's plight as distant and remain detached from another's problems.
Take the recent closing of the Housing Authority waiting list. East Baton Rouge Parish Officials have closed the list, meaning they are no longer accepting applications for public housing, and there are already too many people on the waiting list.
They offer no estimated date as to when the waiting list will be reopened.
On the University's campus, it's easy to ignore something like that. The University can create a bubble that, outside of national news coverage via the Internet and page two of The Daily Reveille, can be difficult to see past.
Odds are that most students didn't even know the waiting list was closed and may not even know anything about the process of finding public housing.
But for a portion of the Baton Rouge population, the closing of this waiting list is a big deal and has dire consequences on not just their future, but on their family's future as well.
That still seems distant to some people, but in reality, there are public housing units located within a couple of miles of the University.
Some of the people we see on our drives to and from campus are likely some of the same people affected by the closing of that list, and some students may even know people directly affected by this situation.
Regardless of how far away or irrelevant some things may seem, we are all a part of the social world - even though it's often easy to ignore people outside of those we are directly in contact with.
On the odd occasions we do help out others, it's abstract and often removed from the people themselves.
University students recently slept in boxes to raise money for the Homeless Awareness Organization of Louisiana. At the event, participants played Frisbee golf and had a good time. It was a noble thought, and the money went to a good cause. But it's still detached from where the problem actually lies.
We apparently only think about the plights of others when they are separate and abstract.
Social scientists often use the term "verstehen" when thinking about the lives of the people they study. In German, verstehen is a verb meaning "to understand."
In the social sciences, it means "an empathetic understanding" - to attempt to understand people with respect to their situations and their circumstances.
Empathetic understanding is the least we can offer both the people we interact with and the ones we don't.
Regardless of what we go through, it's important we take time to explore our social world - to think about what happens around us and the effects those actions can have in our lives and the lives of those around us.
I can't urge everyone to be active in helping others. I don't believe that everyone has the heart or the will to reach out to everyone they meet - it's time consuming and nearly impossible.
But I can urge everyone to stop for a bit and think about the social world that exists around us.
Take a minute after a final exam, five minutes during an intense paper-writing session or maybe 10 minutes during the long-awaited summer vacation to just look at the people around us and at least think about what they must be going through.
It won't put food on anybody's plate or give them a place to sleep, but if we all start thinking about our social world empathetically, we may be able to do something before it's too late.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, April 25, 2008
Social class at heart of pro wrestling illegitimacy
Everyone I know says professional wrestling isn't a sport because it's fake. I disagree - I think it's a class issue.
When my friends tell me wrestling is fake, I simply bring up the Olympic sport ice dancing.
Both pro wrestling and ice dancing have strong performance elements, involve acts of athletic skill and, at some points, require you to pitch your partner - or "opponent" in pro wrestling - across the room.
Sure, the outcomes are scripted, but the biggest criticism launched at pro wrestling - the ignorant fans, the crass subject matter - are all dependent on class and illustrate our cultural inability to openly discuss it.
We all have some generic conception of what class is - but if pushed, we're often hard-pressed to come up with an idea that doesn't rely on economic terms. Class is one of those social concepts everyone knows about but few people can put into words.
Class has a strong cultural meaning that is often an extension of its economic meaning. Pro wrestling is considered a low-class event and non-legitimate sport. But it bears a strong resemblance to the serious Olympic sport of ice dancing.
Ice dancing is kind of like the bastard cousin of figure skating and ribbon dancing - it's done on ice, there aren't any big jumps - the choreography and performance are the most important aspects.
The corollary to professional wrestling is easy to see. Pro wrestling is the bastard cousin of amateur wrestling and performance art wherein jacked-up men and women in tiny, often spangled pants athletically play-fight for the entertainment of millions.
The main theoretical difference between pro wrestling and ice dancing is the presence of a regulatory body and an official judging committee that legitimizes ice dancing.
It's a sport because someone judges it and decides there is a legitimate winner. The same thing happens in pro wrestling, it's just that the judge picks the winner before and rewards the best performer with future success afterward.
Professional wrestling has never had a sanctioned regulatory body. Since its earliest days in the traveling carnivals of Europe, pro wrestling has been largely self-regulated. It was briefly managed by local boxing commissions, but that was more a joke than anything else because many boxing commissions were already aware of the dubious nature of the pro wrestling.
The common roots in performance make the comparison between ice dancing and pro wrestling legitimate. It's impossible to compare pro wrestling to competitive sports like baseball or football. In those sports, two teams compete for an undetermined, unscripted outcome, and a winner is decided by the rules of the game, not by a committee of judges.
Ice dancing is a different story.
In ice dancing, judges grade the skaters on the performance of movements and skills inclusive to their sport. Ice dancing involves a very specific skill set of memorized and repeated movements that are choreographed - quite similar to pro wrestling, where movements are choreographed, but there is no judging body outside of a promoter and the fans.
The lack of a judging body is somewhat irrelevant in this argument, because it's wrestling's low-class image that truly keeps it from achieving legitimate status.
If pro wrestling instituted a judging system and legitimacy was confirmed, I imagine it would be placed somewhere above cock fighting but slightly below NASCAR in the strata of respected sports.
Academic research supports this, and in a 2002 Sage publication, Thomas C. Wilson found a paradoxical relationship between social class and sports involvement. People in higher economic and cultural classes are more frequently involved in sports in general, according to Wilson.
That relationship changes when the type of sport is considered. People in higher cultural classes are less likely to be involved in lower-class sports.
Class is more than how much money one makes. It can reach as far as the type of sports we like and why we like them or in the case of pro wrestling, why we are embarrassed by them.
It's easy to argue against the vulgar and violent content of pro wrestling. But, many of the themes featured in the average wrestling broadcast are no more high class than those featured on an episode of MTV's "The Real World" or VH1's "Rock of Love." Yet people are not embarrassed to discuss those shows in public.
Pro wrestling receives little respect because it carries the heavy social stigma of lower-class status, which comes partially from its fans, who are often portrayed as ignorant and low class by the media and most public intellectuals. Being called a "fake sport" doesn't help either.
In the end, my comparison of ice dancing and pro wrestling is apt but mainly demonstrates how pervasive class assessments are in the way we think.
I imagine few people know of ice dancing, and in many circles, it's mere mention would certainly raise a few eyebrows, but that in itself demonstrates the power of cultural class.
Consciousness of class may be one of the last dirty words in America, and it's sad that it can be seen in something as simple as the division between sports and entertainment.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
When my friends tell me wrestling is fake, I simply bring up the Olympic sport ice dancing.
Both pro wrestling and ice dancing have strong performance elements, involve acts of athletic skill and, at some points, require you to pitch your partner - or "opponent" in pro wrestling - across the room.
Sure, the outcomes are scripted, but the biggest criticism launched at pro wrestling - the ignorant fans, the crass subject matter - are all dependent on class and illustrate our cultural inability to openly discuss it.
We all have some generic conception of what class is - but if pushed, we're often hard-pressed to come up with an idea that doesn't rely on economic terms. Class is one of those social concepts everyone knows about but few people can put into words.
Class has a strong cultural meaning that is often an extension of its economic meaning. Pro wrestling is considered a low-class event and non-legitimate sport. But it bears a strong resemblance to the serious Olympic sport of ice dancing.
Ice dancing is kind of like the bastard cousin of figure skating and ribbon dancing - it's done on ice, there aren't any big jumps - the choreography and performance are the most important aspects.
The corollary to professional wrestling is easy to see. Pro wrestling is the bastard cousin of amateur wrestling and performance art wherein jacked-up men and women in tiny, often spangled pants athletically play-fight for the entertainment of millions.
The main theoretical difference between pro wrestling and ice dancing is the presence of a regulatory body and an official judging committee that legitimizes ice dancing.
It's a sport because someone judges it and decides there is a legitimate winner. The same thing happens in pro wrestling, it's just that the judge picks the winner before and rewards the best performer with future success afterward.
Professional wrestling has never had a sanctioned regulatory body. Since its earliest days in the traveling carnivals of Europe, pro wrestling has been largely self-regulated. It was briefly managed by local boxing commissions, but that was more a joke than anything else because many boxing commissions were already aware of the dubious nature of the pro wrestling.
The common roots in performance make the comparison between ice dancing and pro wrestling legitimate. It's impossible to compare pro wrestling to competitive sports like baseball or football. In those sports, two teams compete for an undetermined, unscripted outcome, and a winner is decided by the rules of the game, not by a committee of judges.
Ice dancing is a different story.
In ice dancing, judges grade the skaters on the performance of movements and skills inclusive to their sport. Ice dancing involves a very specific skill set of memorized and repeated movements that are choreographed - quite similar to pro wrestling, where movements are choreographed, but there is no judging body outside of a promoter and the fans.
The lack of a judging body is somewhat irrelevant in this argument, because it's wrestling's low-class image that truly keeps it from achieving legitimate status.
If pro wrestling instituted a judging system and legitimacy was confirmed, I imagine it would be placed somewhere above cock fighting but slightly below NASCAR in the strata of respected sports.
Academic research supports this, and in a 2002 Sage publication, Thomas C. Wilson found a paradoxical relationship between social class and sports involvement. People in higher economic and cultural classes are more frequently involved in sports in general, according to Wilson.
That relationship changes when the type of sport is considered. People in higher cultural classes are less likely to be involved in lower-class sports.
Class is more than how much money one makes. It can reach as far as the type of sports we like and why we like them or in the case of pro wrestling, why we are embarrassed by them.
It's easy to argue against the vulgar and violent content of pro wrestling. But, many of the themes featured in the average wrestling broadcast are no more high class than those featured on an episode of MTV's "The Real World" or VH1's "Rock of Love." Yet people are not embarrassed to discuss those shows in public.
Pro wrestling receives little respect because it carries the heavy social stigma of lower-class status, which comes partially from its fans, who are often portrayed as ignorant and low class by the media and most public intellectuals. Being called a "fake sport" doesn't help either.
In the end, my comparison of ice dancing and pro wrestling is apt but mainly demonstrates how pervasive class assessments are in the way we think.
I imagine few people know of ice dancing, and in many circles, it's mere mention would certainly raise a few eyebrows, but that in itself demonstrates the power of cultural class.
Consciousness of class may be one of the last dirty words in America, and it's sad that it can be seen in something as simple as the division between sports and entertainment.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, April 18, 2008
Google Earth blurs line between information and politics
I really like Google.
What's not to like? Every product it puts on the market is wonderful.
First, it took the world by storm with its search engine, then its e-mail client. And now, it's working its way into the world of word-processing software and office program suites.
It looks like Google can do no wrong - or can it?
Media outlets and bloggers have recently criticized Google for a new feature it has added to its Google Earth program.
Google Earth now displays images and detailed information about the Darfur crisis on maps of the area. The images may bring even more media attention to the situation in Darfur, but they also raise serious questions about the implications of further politicization of media.
On April 15, Google Earth launched its "Crisis in Darfur" initiative. The program, a joint venture between Google and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, allows users to view the effects of genocide in Darfur through pictures of the destruction and detailed statistics.
Google Earth was originally released under the name "Earth Viewer" in 2004. It was developed by Keyhole Inc., who sold its program to Google later that year. The program was re-released as Google Earth in 2005.
The software is a fairly complex product that produces a very simple result. Using detailed satellite pictures stretched over a 3D globe, Google Earth allows users to view specific addresses and locations with a reasonable degree of detail and accuracy.
The resolution on the images is not sufficient to make out fine details but is good enough for users to identify their house on a map.
Early critics of Google Earth were concerned it would be used to invade the privacy of others. More specifically, countries around the world were upset that a private American company was able to view top-secret areas and provide free pictures to the whole world.
This ruffled a few feathers and - shortly after the program's release - numerous dignitaries and national leaders demanded Google remove the pictures of the top-secret locations from their site.
Google caved to their criticisms and agreed to blur out images of certain locations, thus protecting important locations such as Pakistani military sites and the royal stables in Norway.
Now Google Earth is getting itself into a different situation - with entirely different consequences.
Google hopes the addition of the Darfur initiative feature to Google Earth will help draw attention to the situation and inform more people of the atrocities that have happened there.
The Darfur initiative shows Google has its heart in a great place, and it will undoubtedly bring much-needed attention to the area. But an unintended consequence of its inclusion could be a further blurring of the line between information and politics.
Some see Google's support of the relief effort in Darfur as political statement.
It's no secret the line between information and politics has always been somewhat blurry. In the early days of the U.S., newspapers played an important role in the election process. Today, accusations of political partisanship are hurled towards specific television news outlets on a daily basis.
So why is Google's political statement so different?
The simple answer is exposure.
For many people, Google isn't just a brand of search engine in the same way that Fox News and CNN are brands of news outlets - to many, Google is the only search engine and outlet.
There are other search engines, but the name "Google" has become synonymous with search engines in general and isn't just a part of the online market - Google is the online market.
It's exactly the same as the way many Southerners refer to any soft drink as "Coke," how all brands of facial tissue paper can be called "Kleenex," or how some people still refer to playing any video game as playing Nintendo.
When a product transitions from a mere brand name to an inclusive catch-all for its service, people may forget it is a large company and begin to view it more as an institution.
Implicit in the assumption of institutional status is the assumption of political neutrality - which may be dangerous in the case of Google.
Google.com isn't a direct source of information - it's just a search engine.
However, Google Earth is a source of information. Its use to champion a political cause may be the first step toward further politicization of information - which is especially dangerous because Google's Internet omnipresence makes this shift nearly invisible.
Because so many people view Google as their window to new information and facts, many may confuse Google's stance on future political issues with official information.
Admittedly, my argument here is a slippery slope, and I doubt anyone will outwardly criticize Google supporting relief efforts in Darfur - the situation is terrible and everyone knows genocide is an atrocity.
But Google Earth's Darfur initiative does set a precedent for information-sharing bodies, in this case seen as unbiased, championing political causes - one that could come back to haunt us in the future.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
What's not to like? Every product it puts on the market is wonderful.
First, it took the world by storm with its search engine, then its e-mail client. And now, it's working its way into the world of word-processing software and office program suites.
It looks like Google can do no wrong - or can it?
Media outlets and bloggers have recently criticized Google for a new feature it has added to its Google Earth program.
Google Earth now displays images and detailed information about the Darfur crisis on maps of the area. The images may bring even more media attention to the situation in Darfur, but they also raise serious questions about the implications of further politicization of media.
On April 15, Google Earth launched its "Crisis in Darfur" initiative. The program, a joint venture between Google and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, allows users to view the effects of genocide in Darfur through pictures of the destruction and detailed statistics.
Google Earth was originally released under the name "Earth Viewer" in 2004. It was developed by Keyhole Inc., who sold its program to Google later that year. The program was re-released as Google Earth in 2005.
The software is a fairly complex product that produces a very simple result. Using detailed satellite pictures stretched over a 3D globe, Google Earth allows users to view specific addresses and locations with a reasonable degree of detail and accuracy.
The resolution on the images is not sufficient to make out fine details but is good enough for users to identify their house on a map.
Early critics of Google Earth were concerned it would be used to invade the privacy of others. More specifically, countries around the world were upset that a private American company was able to view top-secret areas and provide free pictures to the whole world.
This ruffled a few feathers and - shortly after the program's release - numerous dignitaries and national leaders demanded Google remove the pictures of the top-secret locations from their site.
Google caved to their criticisms and agreed to blur out images of certain locations, thus protecting important locations such as Pakistani military sites and the royal stables in Norway.
Now Google Earth is getting itself into a different situation - with entirely different consequences.
Google hopes the addition of the Darfur initiative feature to Google Earth will help draw attention to the situation and inform more people of the atrocities that have happened there.
The Darfur initiative shows Google has its heart in a great place, and it will undoubtedly bring much-needed attention to the area. But an unintended consequence of its inclusion could be a further blurring of the line between information and politics.
Some see Google's support of the relief effort in Darfur as political statement.
It's no secret the line between information and politics has always been somewhat blurry. In the early days of the U.S., newspapers played an important role in the election process. Today, accusations of political partisanship are hurled towards specific television news outlets on a daily basis.
So why is Google's political statement so different?
The simple answer is exposure.
For many people, Google isn't just a brand of search engine in the same way that Fox News and CNN are brands of news outlets - to many, Google is the only search engine and outlet.
There are other search engines, but the name "Google" has become synonymous with search engines in general and isn't just a part of the online market - Google is the online market.
It's exactly the same as the way many Southerners refer to any soft drink as "Coke," how all brands of facial tissue paper can be called "Kleenex," or how some people still refer to playing any video game as playing Nintendo.
When a product transitions from a mere brand name to an inclusive catch-all for its service, people may forget it is a large company and begin to view it more as an institution.
Implicit in the assumption of institutional status is the assumption of political neutrality - which may be dangerous in the case of Google.
Google.com isn't a direct source of information - it's just a search engine.
However, Google Earth is a source of information. Its use to champion a political cause may be the first step toward further politicization of information - which is especially dangerous because Google's Internet omnipresence makes this shift nearly invisible.
Because so many people view Google as their window to new information and facts, many may confuse Google's stance on future political issues with official information.
Admittedly, my argument here is a slippery slope, and I doubt anyone will outwardly criticize Google supporting relief efforts in Darfur - the situation is terrible and everyone knows genocide is an atrocity.
But Google Earth's Darfur initiative does set a precedent for information-sharing bodies, in this case seen as unbiased, championing political causes - one that could come back to haunt us in the future.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, April 11, 2008
'Banking system of education' outdated, obsolete
As an undergraduate student, I hated scantron exams. In hindsight, I had every right to - scantrons represent a detached system of education that may not give students the best possible education.
Recent technological innovations have given unprecedented access to information, but students are still educated in nearly the exact same manner as their parents - memorization and repetition.
This method - labeled the "banking system of education" by educational theorist Paulo Freire - has ruled our educational system since its inception, but challenges from new educational mediums and the failure of our system to prepare its students for the real world are leading many to question our educational system as a whole.
These questions may be unanswerable, given the structure and nature of the system - a system that seems to value numbers graduated more than the education and viability of its students.
Freire's concept of the banking system of education is fairly simple. As expressed in his 1970 work "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," the banking system treats students as an empty bank account. As empty accounts - or blank slates - students are instructed to open their minds and allow educators to fill them with relevant data and information.
The end result is passive learning - education without agency.
Freire rejects the banking approach to education. In his view, the banking system creates oppression of both the student and the instructor, inadequately preparing students to handle the outside world.
In place of the banking system, Freire advocates an education system that ignores the traditional student-teacher relationship and creates a reciprocal relationship between the two - the student also teaches, and the teacher also learns.
Freire believes in the idea of active education.
In our fast-paced world, this feels like a romantic notion calling back to the days of wise philosophers and their apprentices - a world that doesn't exist today.
One look at the structure of the University makes it clear the aforementioned romantic notion of a reciprocal student-teacher relationship may be long forgotten.
In my mind, the Cox Auditorium is a monument to the banking system of education and an outright rejection of active education.
Each morning, students cram themselves into a modern structure designed to pump their brains with as much knowledge as possible, while at the same time keeping interaction with their instructor as limited as possible.
Slideshow presentations blasted onto giant screens illuminate sleepy faces. The flashing bullet points drill home the important points of a lecture, telling students what they should write down and pay attention to.
In fact, students don't even have to raise their hands to give feedback - they have clickers.
I see students sitting in seats that have been manufactured to ensure maximum capacity, their eyes glazed as another bullet point slides across the screen and then leeches its way onto their spiral notebook. The students clasp a multi-buttoned clicker with their free hand, ready to pick the pre-fabricated answer to a multiple choice question.
If that's not the banking system of education, I don't know what is.
With all that said, I don't blame the instructors one bit. I find it hard to believe any professor or instructor at the University came into their job with the intention of turning students into zombies armed with remote controls.
Most graduate programs the instructors completed are designed as the antithesis of that mentality - graduate students often work with their professors. Unless grad school was a traumatic experience, the benefits of active education are remarkably clear.
Reliance on the banking system of education is a product of the administration and the nature of the American higher-educational system. Public universities are encouraged to graduate as many students as they can.
An educated populace is a successful one - or so it seems.
This places the administration in a tough position. They need state funding but must balance it with the educational needs of their students. Sadly, undergraduate students seem to lose out most often and - outside of a complete reboot of our education system - it seems unlikely active education will ever dominate our universities and schools.
There is hope though, and it resides in something the administration can't do anything about: student responsibility.
Students enter the University for a variety of reasons: some see it as a path to a future job, some as personal betterment and some see it as just something to do. Whatever the reason, students should take responsibility for their education.
At any University, the classroom experience is unavoidable and imminently valuable. Its nature has changed little in the past 50 years and is unlikely to undergo a revolution anytime soon. The difference-maker in our educational experience will be the work we students put into the subject matter - outside of our large classrooms.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Recent technological innovations have given unprecedented access to information, but students are still educated in nearly the exact same manner as their parents - memorization and repetition.
This method - labeled the "banking system of education" by educational theorist Paulo Freire - has ruled our educational system since its inception, but challenges from new educational mediums and the failure of our system to prepare its students for the real world are leading many to question our educational system as a whole.
These questions may be unanswerable, given the structure and nature of the system - a system that seems to value numbers graduated more than the education and viability of its students.
Freire's concept of the banking system of education is fairly simple. As expressed in his 1970 work "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," the banking system treats students as an empty bank account. As empty accounts - or blank slates - students are instructed to open their minds and allow educators to fill them with relevant data and information.
The end result is passive learning - education without agency.
Freire rejects the banking approach to education. In his view, the banking system creates oppression of both the student and the instructor, inadequately preparing students to handle the outside world.
In place of the banking system, Freire advocates an education system that ignores the traditional student-teacher relationship and creates a reciprocal relationship between the two - the student also teaches, and the teacher also learns.
Freire believes in the idea of active education.
In our fast-paced world, this feels like a romantic notion calling back to the days of wise philosophers and their apprentices - a world that doesn't exist today.
One look at the structure of the University makes it clear the aforementioned romantic notion of a reciprocal student-teacher relationship may be long forgotten.
In my mind, the Cox Auditorium is a monument to the banking system of education and an outright rejection of active education.
Each morning, students cram themselves into a modern structure designed to pump their brains with as much knowledge as possible, while at the same time keeping interaction with their instructor as limited as possible.
Slideshow presentations blasted onto giant screens illuminate sleepy faces. The flashing bullet points drill home the important points of a lecture, telling students what they should write down and pay attention to.
In fact, students don't even have to raise their hands to give feedback - they have clickers.
I see students sitting in seats that have been manufactured to ensure maximum capacity, their eyes glazed as another bullet point slides across the screen and then leeches its way onto their spiral notebook. The students clasp a multi-buttoned clicker with their free hand, ready to pick the pre-fabricated answer to a multiple choice question.
If that's not the banking system of education, I don't know what is.
With all that said, I don't blame the instructors one bit. I find it hard to believe any professor or instructor at the University came into their job with the intention of turning students into zombies armed with remote controls.
Most graduate programs the instructors completed are designed as the antithesis of that mentality - graduate students often work with their professors. Unless grad school was a traumatic experience, the benefits of active education are remarkably clear.
Reliance on the banking system of education is a product of the administration and the nature of the American higher-educational system. Public universities are encouraged to graduate as many students as they can.
An educated populace is a successful one - or so it seems.
This places the administration in a tough position. They need state funding but must balance it with the educational needs of their students. Sadly, undergraduate students seem to lose out most often and - outside of a complete reboot of our education system - it seems unlikely active education will ever dominate our universities and schools.
There is hope though, and it resides in something the administration can't do anything about: student responsibility.
Students enter the University for a variety of reasons: some see it as a path to a future job, some as personal betterment and some see it as just something to do. Whatever the reason, students should take responsibility for their education.
At any University, the classroom experience is unavoidable and imminently valuable. Its nature has changed little in the past 50 years and is unlikely to undergo a revolution anytime soon. The difference-maker in our educational experience will be the work we students put into the subject matter - outside of our large classrooms.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, April 4, 2008
New sins for Roman Catholics challenge social issues
The entire world was rocked off its axis three weeks ago when the Catholic Church announced a list of seven new sins.
OK, so maybe the world wasn't actually moved from the invisible line that keeps it upright, and maybe most University students didn't even blink at the announcement.
But the sins themselves have some rather interesting social repercussions and could signal a change in the direction of the Catholic Church and religion in the United States in general.
The new sins officially rolled out March 10 in the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, by Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, who is the head of the bureau in charge of sin and penance.
In the article, Girotti stated what he thought were the new sins for modern Catholics. Girotti started by expanding the definition of what Catholics considered sin and added in several new ones.
"You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain or coveting your neighbor's wife but also by wrecking the environment, carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA or harm embryos," Girotti said.
The sins, meant to accompany the original seven deadly sins issued in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory the Great, include bioethical violations, morally dubious experiments, drug abuse, pollution and social issues such as the expansion of the wealth gap and the creation of poverty.
Catholics stratify their sins between mortal and venial sins. Venial sins are minor sins, which on their own, do not condemn one's soul to eternal damnation. Mortal sins, including the seven newly-minted sins, are serious business and can keep one from entering heaven without proper repentance.
The first few sins are just official codification of previously held beliefs.
For example, abortion and the use of birth control - forbidden in the Humanae Vitae but never officially made a sin - can be easily filed under "Bioethical Violations" and stem cell research or human cloning would undoubtedly be a case of morally dubious experiments.
These sins are not surprising.
Other sins, such as drug abuse and pollution, are sins that bring the Church up to date on hot button issues. These two issues have only been big issues for the past 30 years, so these sins aren't that surprising either.
The sins that are surprising are the ones concerning issues that are social in nature - namely the Church's crusade against poverty.
The fight against poverty is not a strange concept to Catholics. Mission work into impoverished areas of the world has been a mainstay of the church for several years now.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church has always taken a stance against excessive wealth. Most clergy are required to take a vow of poverty upon entering religious life and are restricted from holding certain earthly possessions. While the clergy may not hold steadfast to this vow, they are still required to make it.
Outside of the clergy, however, no formal law regarding poverty or excessive wealth had been put into place by the Catholic Church, which raises the question: Why these laws, and why now?
These sins, mostly social in nature, may represent an attempt by the Catholic Church to regain some its flock.
A 2008 Pew National study indicates the percentage of Americans self-identifying as Catholic is down drastically. While one of three Americans surveyed was born into the Catholic faith, only one of four Americans currently self-identifies as Catholic.
The Catholic Church isn't losing ground to any faith in particular, either. The same Pew National study also found the group with the largest increase in population were those Americans self-identifying as unaffiliated. The religious landscape in the U.S. is more dynamic than ever, and with numbers decreasing rapidly, the Church may see these new sins as a way to attract some of those undecided congregants into their flock.
By preaching against excessive wealth and income disparity, the Church also takes a shot at the growing evangelical Christian population. The Evangelical doctrine of prosperity theology that preaches wealth as a reward for doing God's work stands in stark contrast to the Catholic Church's new social sins.
That's not to say that evangelical Protestants are against mission work. It's quite the contrary; evangelical churches spend a great deal of time and effort ministering in foreign nations.
But the doctrine of wealth through the work of God sends a message that is antithetical to the recent expansion of Catholic dogma.
Protestants aren't without their own new sins, however. Shortly after the Catholic Church's announcement of new sins, the Southern Baptists Convention issued their own statement on the perils of environmental destruction.
It seems everyone is taking a stand on social issues these days, and while the message they deliver can be debated, the fact that organized religion is paying attention to social issues will certainly bring them more coverage - and hopefully some progress, too.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
OK, so maybe the world wasn't actually moved from the invisible line that keeps it upright, and maybe most University students didn't even blink at the announcement.
But the sins themselves have some rather interesting social repercussions and could signal a change in the direction of the Catholic Church and religion in the United States in general.
The new sins officially rolled out March 10 in the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, by Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, who is the head of the bureau in charge of sin and penance.
In the article, Girotti stated what he thought were the new sins for modern Catholics. Girotti started by expanding the definition of what Catholics considered sin and added in several new ones.
"You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain or coveting your neighbor's wife but also by wrecking the environment, carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA or harm embryos," Girotti said.
The sins, meant to accompany the original seven deadly sins issued in the 6th Century by Pope Gregory the Great, include bioethical violations, morally dubious experiments, drug abuse, pollution and social issues such as the expansion of the wealth gap and the creation of poverty.
Catholics stratify their sins between mortal and venial sins. Venial sins are minor sins, which on their own, do not condemn one's soul to eternal damnation. Mortal sins, including the seven newly-minted sins, are serious business and can keep one from entering heaven without proper repentance.
The first few sins are just official codification of previously held beliefs.
For example, abortion and the use of birth control - forbidden in the Humanae Vitae but never officially made a sin - can be easily filed under "Bioethical Violations" and stem cell research or human cloning would undoubtedly be a case of morally dubious experiments.
These sins are not surprising.
Other sins, such as drug abuse and pollution, are sins that bring the Church up to date on hot button issues. These two issues have only been big issues for the past 30 years, so these sins aren't that surprising either.
The sins that are surprising are the ones concerning issues that are social in nature - namely the Church's crusade against poverty.
The fight against poverty is not a strange concept to Catholics. Mission work into impoverished areas of the world has been a mainstay of the church for several years now.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church has always taken a stance against excessive wealth. Most clergy are required to take a vow of poverty upon entering religious life and are restricted from holding certain earthly possessions. While the clergy may not hold steadfast to this vow, they are still required to make it.
Outside of the clergy, however, no formal law regarding poverty or excessive wealth had been put into place by the Catholic Church, which raises the question: Why these laws, and why now?
These sins, mostly social in nature, may represent an attempt by the Catholic Church to regain some its flock.
A 2008 Pew National study indicates the percentage of Americans self-identifying as Catholic is down drastically. While one of three Americans surveyed was born into the Catholic faith, only one of four Americans currently self-identifies as Catholic.
The Catholic Church isn't losing ground to any faith in particular, either. The same Pew National study also found the group with the largest increase in population were those Americans self-identifying as unaffiliated. The religious landscape in the U.S. is more dynamic than ever, and with numbers decreasing rapidly, the Church may see these new sins as a way to attract some of those undecided congregants into their flock.
By preaching against excessive wealth and income disparity, the Church also takes a shot at the growing evangelical Christian population. The Evangelical doctrine of prosperity theology that preaches wealth as a reward for doing God's work stands in stark contrast to the Catholic Church's new social sins.
That's not to say that evangelical Protestants are against mission work. It's quite the contrary; evangelical churches spend a great deal of time and effort ministering in foreign nations.
But the doctrine of wealth through the work of God sends a message that is antithetical to the recent expansion of Catholic dogma.
Protestants aren't without their own new sins, however. Shortly after the Catholic Church's announcement of new sins, the Southern Baptists Convention issued their own statement on the perils of environmental destruction.
It seems everyone is taking a stand on social issues these days, and while the message they deliver can be debated, the fact that organized religion is paying attention to social issues will certainly bring them more coverage - and hopefully some progress, too.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Sunday, March 30, 2008
LiveBlog: Wrestlemania XXIV
6:01 p.m. - It is pure pandemonium here in Orlando! Eric W. Freeman, Jr., blogging live from Casa de Gremillion, as tonight we will focus on the grand daddy of them all, the biggest sports-entertainment extravaganza of all time, Wrestlemania XXIV! Where it all begins, again. I will be joined tonight by Opinion Editor Neal Hebert, as well as fellow columnists Caitlyn Scott and Skylar Gremillion, where we will gang-blog the bejesus out of tonight’s event. Many matches will be covered tonight, and we will be taking turns, as well as providing insightful analysis. By “insightful,” I mean “worthy enough for post.” So sit back, relax, and enjoy tonight’s madness.
Introduction
Pyro
6:16 p.m. - The pyro looks stunningly normal in front of gray skies and outdoor settings. I don’t know if the rain will play a major role, but we’ll see.
John Bradshaw Layfield v. Fit Finlay - A Belfast Brawl
Experiencing technical difficulties, people...
So while waiting for wrestling to come back on I just did the unthinkable…
…and incredibly pretentious act of googling myself.
On a related note...
Here's the deal:
Ric Flair v. Shawn Michaels - Career Threatening Match
Flair v. Michaels (continued)
Playboy Bunny Diva Showdown
Randy Orton (C) VS John Cena VS Triple H for the World Heavyweight Championship
Floyd Mayweather VS Big Show
Undertaker VS Edge
Read the original blog posts at The Daily Reveille...
Introduction
6:11 p.m. - Fighter jets fly across the top of the arena as the rain falls slowly over the Orlando sky. We are introduced to Grammy-award winner John Legend, wearing a pink shirt and shades, to sing America the Beautiful. Comments among us arise as to whether or not John Legend is the Steve Urkel of music, as he is a safe black man. Great rendition.
6:13 p.m. - Basic promo, as the superstars talk dramatically about immortality, stealing the show, and making the most out of every opportunity. There’s nothing like a pre-event montage.
Pyro
6:16 p.m. - The pyro looks stunningly normal in front of gray skies and outdoor settings. I don’t know if the rain will play a major role, but we’ll see.
John Bradshaw Layfield v. Fit Finlay - A Belfast Brawl
6:15ish:
Opinion Editor and proud wrestling enthusiast Neal Hebert here.
Entrances and video montages are setting the stage for what I expect to be a total massacre of stiff (i.e., not pulled) punches and physicality.
Here’s the thing I love about John Bradshaw Layfield (JBL hereafter) - his entire persona is a contemporary updating of Ronald Reagan’s public image.
Finlay comes out accompanied by a leprechaun.
And they’re off, absolutely beating the hell out of each other. You see, the paternity of the leprechaun is in question during the match - the leprechaun is supposed to be the son of WWE Chairman Vince McMahon, but JBL claims the leprechaun is actually Fit Finlay’s son.
Sorry for the backstory - in the interim both competitors have begun beating each other repeatedly with garbage cans, steel steps and the dreaded cookie sheet.
So we’ve been having computer problems, and for that I apologize. The leprechaun involved himself in the match, but to no noticeable effect.
Pretty spectacular visual - Fit Finlay dives out the ring in a plancha like superman, only to have JBL tee off on his head with a garbage can lid as he flies past. Then he threw the garbage can at the leprechaun.
This is so awesome.
And Finlay has recovered from this devastating turn of events because of the damage done to his leprechaun son.
And we’re experiencing technical difficulties. Thanks Cox Communications.
So I’ll just use this opportunity to go on about how much I like JBL. You see, I’m a big fan of wrestling’s potential for social commentary - and I think the JBL character is the best thing going in pro-wrestling right now. The stereotype of the average wrestling fan - whatever that means - is a rural conservative Southerner. So the idea of taking a bad guy like JBL and having him use conservative talking points as a way to make fans hate him is pretty impressive.
If you were to have told me a few years ago that the best way to get people to hate you in pro-wrestling would be to proudly proclaim “Morning has come to America!” I’d have called you a liar. If you’d have told me that using nativist and xenophobic rantings about immigration would be a way to get middle America to hate your guts, I’d have laughed.
But JBL did that to make crowds hate him, and it worked.
So what’s pretty cool is that you have a character that embodies the kind of thinking that so dominates mainstream political discourse, and crowds soundly reject him both as an individual and as a representative of the right. It’s always pretty cool to see someone so completely embody the zeitgeist of a particular cultural moment - and I think JBL is that character, and this is that moment.
Experiencing technical difficulties, people...
Still Neal Hebert.
So here’s the deal - I’m sitting on Skylar Gremillion’s couch with my metaphorical thumb up my metaphorical butt, wondering what happened to my rasslin’ show.
I’m pretty upset.
I’m thinking we as a University should take to the streets with torches, demanding my blue collar entertainment.
Because - honest injun - I’m doing this for all of you. And these Cox Communications issues make me feel like God is trying to keep me from giving all of you what I promised.
-neal
So while waiting for wrestling to come back on I just did the unthinkable…
…and incredibly pretentious act of googling myself.
For the record, the .pdf State of Louisiana v. Neal Hebert was not me. I did not serve as a cocaine mule.
More importantly, I’ve learned that several of the columns I wrote for The Daily Reveille were transmitted far and wide across www.land and I’m quite pleased.
The American Muslim linked to my column “Can we stop calling everything Islamofascist?” column as one of the best tools to combat anti-Muslim hatred and the loathesome Islamofascism Week.
The column I wrote about MTV’s “A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila” got pretty significant linkage as well, posted on loads of cool websites and looked to me to be one of the featured opinion pieces on University Wire that day. It was everywhere, seemingly.
Sadly, Tila didn’t myspace me.
-neal
On a related note...
…if you do a Google.com search for Caitlyn Scott, images of SG President Cassie Alsfeld appear. A Google search for Eric Freeman reveals a Salsa dancing instructor.
Hilarity has ensued as Skylar talks to Cox Communications employees about the problem we’re having. He assumed the employee could spell “Gremillion” without prompting. When asked what the problem is with our television and what we’re seeing on TV, Skylar simply says “Blackness.”
It’s a propos, because that is all we see. But more importantly, it’s an apt description of my metaphorical heart.
My heart has been raped. Raped by lack of wrestling.
-neal
Here's the deal:
Neal Hebert here.
We’ve had to move locations to keep this going.
So we’re at my apartment. But I don’t have wireless, so all our laptops are gone.
We’re saving the liveblogs to a flashdrive and porting it to my desktop (that was new in 2001).
Please forgive any delays - we’re doing our best, here.
Ric Flair v. Shawn Michaels - Career Threatening Match
Kane won the ECW title in three seconds.
Why oh why is Raven Symone on Wrestlemania? Oh, she’s introducing a bunch of Tard kids. Dreams come true for the mentally challenged.
Now we have a Ric Flair montage. I am seriously getting teary eyed. Watching Ric Flair with my Grandpa is one of my fondest memories as a child. WOOOOOO. This is so emotional. We have the Nature Boy versus the Showstopper.
Ric looks stunning in robes of deep blue with white feather trim.
This is a career threatening match. If Ric loses he must retire.
And introducing Shawn Michaels in a sleeveless sequin shirt. He looks ready to perform at Dick’s Cabaret or any bachelorette party. A part of me wishes he had assless chaps.
Skylar Gremillion here calling the action for you. Caitlyn Scott, overcome with emotion has passed the torch.
This match represents the ultimate in pro-wrestling. The legend, Ric Flair. A man who’s packed arena’s around the world and wrestled longer than I have lived is putting his career on the line against Shawn Michaels. At more than 60 years old Flair is an institution in professional wrestling.
The two men square off, Flair takes the lead early with a hammerlock. Michaels counters and the two exchange holds for a bit. Charles Robinson, also known as Lil Natch, is the ref, which is also appropriate.
Flair backs Shawn in the corner, and Michaels responds with a hard slap. Flair is bleeding from the mouth and fires away at HBK with several stiff chops. The two exchange chops in the corner. The crowd enthusiastically “Woo’s” with each chop by Flair.
This won’t be high flying, this won’t be technical, this is a fight.
Flair goes up top….this may not be good. Flair scores with a cross body block off the top, shades of his first NWA title win over Harley Race.
Michaels misses an Asai moonsault landing stomach first on the announce table outside the ring. The Ref is counting, HBK may not make it, but he rolls in at the count of 9. That spot will be shown on TV for years to come. Shawn may have broken ribs.
Flair attacks with a backdrop suplex, working the newly injured ribs of Michaels. He follows with a butterfly suplex . Flair scores with a vertical suplex and scores a nearfall.
Flair takes a tumble over the top and lands on his back. Shawn goes up again, nailing a moonsault off the top rope to the outside. He didn’t get all of it though, and I think HBK may have taken the worst of it.
They exchange stuff chops again. Michaels ducks out of it and responds with a diving forearm off the ropes.
Flair v. Michaels (continued)
Still Skylar:
Atomic drop by Michaels leads to a Flair flop. Michaels goes up top, looking for the elbow drop and it connects. He jumps up, but is clutching his ribs in pain. That Asai moonsault to the table really did it’s damage.
HBK’s looking for Sweet Chin Music, but he couldn’t do it. He couldn’t hit his idol with the superkick. Flair responds with a double leg takedown and the FIGURE FOUR LEGLOCK. Jumbo Tsuruta, Nick Bockwinkle and other legends have all fallen to this move, but HBK makes it out.
The two exchange chops again, leading to a series of pinning combinations. Michaels reverses a knee breaker into a sunset flip, but his ribs are too damaged to take flair down.
Flair chopblocks HBK and begins to work on the legs, but Michaels reverses into a roll up. Flair escapes and locks in the figure four once more. Michaels is in the center of the ring, I’m not sure if he can make it to the ropes. HBK is screaming in pain, but makes it to the ropes in time.
HBK is safe for now.
SWEET CHIN MUSIC out of nowhere. Flair is down, this could be it. FLAIR KICKED OUT. TWO COUNT.
A replay reinforces the strength of the kick. I don’t know how Flair is still conscious.
HBK tunes up the band again, but flair is down.
Flair was faking and takes Michaels down with a low blow, which gets a 2.9 count.
Michaels takes flair down with a double leg and applies his own modified figure four, but flair makes it to the ropes. The buckle pad gives way but Flair gains control with a Greco roman eyepoke.
More traded chops. Another Sweet Chin Music and Flair is down.
HBK looks hesitant to kick Flair again. This is his childhood hero, can he end his career tonight?
A third Sweet Chin Music and Flair is done. 3 count and a fall.
With that last superkick HBK has put an end to the career of Ric Flair. Michaels can’t even face his icon and leaves the ring immediately, not even looking back at his fallen hero.
Flair has tears in his eyes and the crowd is on their feet.
Caitlyn Scott “ I feel like my favorite gladiator just got the thumbs down.”
I can’t even think of what to say. Flair hugs his kids and kisses his wife. There’s no speech, Flair walks to the back with tears streaming down his battle worn face.
Flair mouths “I love you, thank you” to the fans and takes a final bow.
We’re all fighting back tears. Neal Hebert is weeping.
Thank you Ric, you’ve never let me down.
Playboy Bunny Diva Showdown
Eric is back. No lying about tonight’s pyro display. Literally every orifice of the stadium just exploded into fireworks.
Next is the Playboy Bunny Lumberjack match, hosted by Master of Ceremonies Snoop Dogg. Snoop gets a shameless plug for his reality show, as he comes out struttin’ his stuff with the help of the divas. He’s driving a Mercedes Golf Cart with leopard interior and rims on the outside. He leads a trail of divas to the ring. I guess this is the only way to make people feel better about the retirement of Flair: gratuitous boobage. The consensus in the room is that Snoop is already stoned out of his mind. He gives a shout out to Flair with two Woo’s, then goes straight into the fa shizzle dizzle nizzle.
Coming out first are Ashley and Maria. The two have each been on the cover of Playboy twice, with Maria gracing the current cover. They immediately start grinding on Snoop, who just laughs.
Next out are Melina and the WWE Women’s Champion, the Glamazon, Beth Phoenix. The two are escorted by Santino Marella, the self proclaimed Italian Stallion. Santino and Maria have had tiffs leading up to tonight. Snoop is sitting in a giant throne on the outside, throwing up the West Coast sign. It’s mentioned that Shawn Michaels once posed for Playgirl, but it didn’t count because “he didn’t show his noonoo.”
We start with Ashley and Beth. Beth is convincingly mannish looking, as Melina gets tossed out of the ring and instantly surrounded by lumberjacks. She’s thrown back in, and it’s ten seconds before Melina gets a Bronco Buster from Maria.
Ashley is tagged in and pulls off a nice hurracanrana. Ashley gives Melina a nasty facebuster, but Melina takes charge and throws Ashley out. She is then tortured by the lumberjacks, who toss her back in. Melina throws Ashley into a Beth Phoenix bear hug. Melina is tagged back in, goes to the top of Beth Phoenix’s shoulders, then promptly backflipped onto Ashley.
Tags to Beth and Maria. The lights just went out, and no one knows what just happened. Spotlights are shown on the ring, as Beth and Maria continue to duke it out. Maria counters an arm stretch into a bulldog. Melina tries to hold Maria, but Beth inadvertently spears Melina off the top rope. Maria tries to pin Beth, but Santino pulls her off. Jerry “The King” Lawler walks over and right hands Santino, but Maria walks into a Fisherman’s Suplex from Beth Phoenix, who pins her for the win.
After the match, Santino gloats in the ring, but Snoop Dogg walks in and clotheslines the hell out of Santino, before making out openly with Maria. Solid match, gratuitous eye candy, and Snoop. What more could you ask for?
Randy Orton (C) VS John Cena VS Triple H for the World Heavyweight Championship
Neal Hebert back, ready to blog.
Next up is John Cena v. Triple H v. Randy Orton (c)
This is a Triple Threat Match, where the first man to score a pinfall or submission wins the title.
John Cena just made his entrance: it was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Cena is beloved by women and children, and is this generation’s Hulk Hogan.
Naturally, I despise him. I am old enough to remember Hulk Hogan, and I didn’t like him either.
Triple H is entering right now, and he looks like nothing so much as a real life Conan the Barbarian. This guy is ripped, and the lights make him look like his body is smeared in Preparation H. Daddy, Triple H is bad and we know it.
I mean, the guy was in Blade: Trinity for God’s sake.
Aside: my cats are really freaked out with so many people in my apartment.
The announcers just announced that this match is one fall to a positive finish – no pinfalls or submissions. Strangely enough, they remain silent on the fact that Triple H’s tiny pants are emblazoned with an Iron Cross.
And the champion Randy Orton is coming out. He looks like nothing so much as a fraternity boy with a penchant for slipping roofies to the ladies of Reggie’s.
I’m comfortable enough with my sexuality to note Randy Orton is a good looking man. Seriously.
One quick note before the action starts: John Cena is sporting blue jean shorts instead of tights. Caitlyn Scott hates them as much as I do. As another aside: Triple H and I have identical beards. This was not intentional.
The bell rings and we’re in the middle of the action. Orton starts by smashing Triple H in the face with his belt – there are no disqualifications, folks! They’re brawling on the outside, but alas it doesn’t last.
Skylar: “There’s irony in a bunch of guys kicking each other in the balls.”
Orton has taken control, and is throwing more knee drops than Harley Race in 1976. But all good things must come to the end, and they segue into a really contrived spot where they’re all in the same turnbuckle fighting on each others’ shoulders. Then they trade hard clotheslines, and make up for it.
Deep thought: If these guys start bleeding, would it show up on their heavily tanned bodies? I mean, they’re more orange than a pumpkin.
Orton has now taken control and is waiting for his moment to strike – but is countered by Cena. Cena takes it to the outside, but Orton counters and rams Cena’s head into a ring post.
Ouch.
But in the interim, Triple H has recovered and punishes Orton’s knee. That’s why they call Triple H “The Cerebral Assassin” – and by “they” I mean the WWE marketing and T-shirt department.
Stuff’s been happening too fast to type, but the result is John Cena has mounted the bare back of Randy Orton and wrapped his meaty biceps around Orton’s supple neck – and is squeezing for all he’s worth. But Triple H gets upset and makes them stop.
They’re flipping around, and Cena returns to Orton’s bare back. And Triple H again takes issue, but rather than breaking them up places Cena’s hand between his thighs and locks on the Crippler Crossface – a move used by former WWE Champion and family annihilator Chris Benoit. The room kind of gets quiet.
See, Benoit was my favorite wrestler for about ten years – same with Skylar. And when we heard he died, we watched the Monday Night Raw Tribute show and cried. Then we found out he killed his family, and this is the first night since then that I’ve watched wrestling and had fun. So this was kind of an unfortunate thing – one move kind of dissociated me from the experience and make me think about some stuff that, frankly sucks.
But they’ve moved past it in the ring, so I will too.
Triple H hits Cena with his finisher The Pedigree, but Orton runs in and soccer kicks Triple H’s head while Triple H was pinning Cena. Orton slid in and got a quick three count on Cena – who was already knocked out by Triple H.
Totally dick move from the bad guy champion, so I kind of dug it. It deflated the crowd a bit, though – no one expected Orton to win this match.
Floyd Mayweather VS Big Show
Caitlin Scott
Here we are with the classic David and Goliath story. In one corner we have Floyd Mayweather weighing in at not very much at all. Then we have Big Show weighing in at a bunch. Either Mayweather is going to get seriously hurt, or we are going to have a true underdog story. It’s like a rat terrier versus a pitt bull. But rat terriers can be mean.
They are calling Mayweather the greatest fighter in the world. I’m not so sure I agree with that one.
Big Show weighs 441 lbs. That’s big.
Now Floyd “Money” Mayweather is coming out while money falls from the sky. He’s actually making it rain. I wonder if he does that at strip clubs. He’s wearing a fur shirt and fur shorts and necklace that spells the word filthy as “philthy.” I feel like he might shoot me in a dark alley. He only weighs 159 lbs but his entourage is considerably larger.
I hate it when people spell things with a ph. It makes me angry, and you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.
The philthy necklace has come off and the bell rings. Mayweather darts under Big Show’s first attempt. He might just run circles around Big Show until he gets dizzy and falls down. This kind of resembles a large grizzly bear trying to catch a rabbit. Mayweather has gotten some hits in, which is more than we can say for Big Show. Mayweather is now drinking from a blinged out chalice. Big Show just beat one of Mayweather’s posse.
Uh oh. Big Show has Mayweather but not for long. Now Big Show has him by the throat but Mayweather is quick to jump on his back and choke him. Big Show should just fall backward on him. This reminds of the scene in “The Princess Bride” where Westley jumps on Andre the Giant’s back and chokes him into submission. I wonder if Mayweather watched that film for inspiration.
Big Show steps on Mayweather’s arm. I wonder if he broke it and how much that arm is worth. Now Big Show is standing on Mayweather’s back as Mayweather screams in horror and pain that I cannot even imagine. His posse yells “You can’t be standing on him.” Apparently he can. And a sidewalk slam by Big Show.
Big Show stands on Mayweather again. I wonder how much longer this can go on.
The posse attempts to take Mayweather from the ring but Big Show is in pursuit. He’s throws members of the entourage by the wayside and drags Mayweather back. He looks like an abusive father with a naughty five year old. Mayweather’s entourage has tried sacrificing themselves for Floyd, but to no avail. They are not pro wrestlers. They will fall.
Mayweather has found himself a chair and beats Big Show with it.
Mayweather got himself some brass knuckles. This is shaping up to be bloody. I hope there’s blood. Big Show climbs for the ropes and Mayweather is declared the winner. David beat Goliath once again, and this time he didn’t even need a slingshot – just brass knuckles and a folding chair.
Undertaker VS Edge
Skylar Gremillion here. Attendance in Orlando is officially listed as 74,635, that’s a whole lot of folks.
Up next we’ve got The Undertaker defending his Wrestlemania streak against Edge. As it stands now the Undertaker holds the longest Wrestlemania win streak of 15-0. Edge, the Rated R Superstar looks to end that streak.
A video package details the storied history of the rivalry. There’s an ongoing bet amongst the attendees as to how long Taker’s entrance will take. We’re hoping for a hearse and druids.
We’ve got chanting and fire. No druids, lots and lots of fire though. Undertaker is wearing what can only be described as a leather studded dress. Professional wrestling is the only place where a man can walk out from a gaping hole of hellfire while wearing bondage gear and be cheered by thousands.
The entrance took around 4 minutes 20 seconds, short by Undertaker standards.
Edge makes his way down to the ring to the soothing sounds of some awful Nu-Metal band.
I must admit, I’m not looking forward to this match. Taker is looking a little long in the tooth and I’ve never been a big fan of Edge.
Edge and Taker trade shots early on, Edge bails to the outside but taker follows him out. Back in the ring Taker fires away on edge with some stiff body-shots.
Old School top rope walk by taker, Edge counters but Taker counters the counter with some sort of lucha arm drag thingie. Taker goes for a knee press in the corner, Edge dodges and Taker sails to the outside.
Edge works over Taker’s back. This is lackluster so far.
Edge with a neckbreaker, sending Taker back to the outside. You know, I love wrestling and all, but I think I may be nearing my saturation point. I’m not feeling this at all.
Edge nails a spear in the corner and follows it up with a series of punches. Edge goes up top and takes a hard bump to the outside. That had to hurt.
Taker dives over the top rope to the outside, you gotta hand it to the guy. He’s nearly 50 and keeps taking huge bumps like that.
TAG!
Freeman is back in!
Taker holds Edge, stomps to the stomach, and sets up for the Last Ride. His back didn’t give way, and Edge counters with a kick to the head and pin for a two count.
Now to the outside, as Edge backdrops Taker on top of the barricade, careening Taker into the crowd. Taker gets up and is rolled back in by Edge, who covers Taker for another two count. Now Edge works the submission, grabbing Taker’s leg in a twist. Taker reverses into a cradle, but Edge kicks out. Edge goes back on the leg, as the Ultimate Opportunist continues to apply the pressure. Taker gets back up, and counters Edge’s chop with a right hand. They exchange right hands, inspiring Yays and Boos from the crowd. Taker Irish Whips Edge into the corner and crushes twice for a splash. Taker hits Snake eyes, dropping Edge’s face on the top turnbuckle, but Edge counters with a missile drop kick.
Taker reaches for the chokeslam, but counters into a great DDT! Cover…two count. Amazing kick out.
Edge goes for the spear, but Taker reverses and hits the chokeslam. Cover…two count! Once again, amazing.
Taker grabs Edge’s arm and tries to go to the top rope for Old School, but Edge counters again, sending Taker’s groin straight onto the rope. Edge takes Taker’s head to the top, and sets up for the superplex. He hits it.
Skylar informs us that Neal, Caitlyn and I are tied for Wrestlemania picks. It all comes down to this match, as Caitlyn and I both picked Taker, while Neal picked Edge. Come on Taker!
Taker tries to set up Edge into the Last Ride, but Edge reverses into a sweet neck breaker. Taker gets back up and Last Rides Edge. But Edge kicks out!
Taker with the thumb across the throat, signaling it’s time for the Tombstone Piledriver. Edge counters again. He’s a countering machine! Edge covers, but only a two count again. This main event is living up to the hype.
Taker boots Edge in the face, and picks him back up, twists the arm, and goes to the top rope for Old School, but this time it connects. Taker runs to kick Edge in the face, but hits the ref. It’s about to get good.
Edge drops Taker with a DDT, and screams at him like a petulant child. Taker chokes him, but Edge kicks him in the balls without the ref watching it. Edge now goes outside and gets a video camera. He brings it back in and nails Taker in the head. The ref is still out, but Jimmy Corderas fell off the apron.
The Deadman sits up.
Edge mock chokes, and Edge tries to go for the Tombstone Piledriver, but Taker reverses into his own Tombstone. He covers Edge, but there’s still no ref. A blonde ref runs his ass off from the back into the ring to make the count, but Edge kicks out.
Edge’s two cronies run from the back, but Taker disposes of them quickly, then turns around into a spear from Edge. Taker kicks out, and Edge sets Taker up for another spear, and he hits it, but doesn’t go for the cover. Taker catches Edge in the triangle choke, the submission move that has made so many in the past bleed.
After an initial struggle, Edge taps out!
Undertaker is the new champion. He goes to 16-0 at Wrestlemania, and, most importantly, Neal is defeated. Caitlyn and I will split custody of the grand prize of our pool, Wrestlemaniac, an action thriller starring Rey Mysterio. Insane pyro goes off, as Taker cradles his new championship under a banner of fireworks. Thank you for tuning in to our blog, as we are treated to a post-Wrestlemania montage, easily the best part of Wrestlemania. Reveille Opinion Section out!
Read the original blog posts at The Daily Reveille...
Friday, March 28, 2008
Computer animated films near 'Uncanny Valley'
Sometimes the characters I see in computer animated movies creep me out.
I understand they are not real and there's nothing dangerous about them. Something about the way they look just makes me uncomfortable.
They're beginning to look too real.
I'm not alone in my way of thinking. For more than a century, psychologists and social theorists have pondered the point where artificial life will become too life-like for human society.
Today, theorists refer to this point as the "Uncanny Valley." But, that concept is couched in the psychological principles of what humans conceptualize as familiar and unfamiliar.
Many link the first psychological conceptualization of the uncanny to German psychologist Ernst Jentsch. In his 1906 essay "On the Psychology of the Uncanny," Jentsch explored the psychological boundaries that separate the familiar from the unfamiliar.
Jentsch felt the boundary was often violated when we are forced to question if an object is really alive or not. While Jentsch if often credited with coining the term "The Uncanny," it was actually brought to prominence by Sigmund Freud.
In his 1919 essay, "The Uncanny," Freud expanded the concept to examine the way things we encounter in daily life can be familiar yet strange at the same time. For Freud, these situations created conflicts of feelings and thoughts, described as cognitive dissonance.
Both Jentsch and Freud based their conceptualizations in the literature of E.T.A. Hoffman, a German fiction writer known for creating characters that exhibited uncanny characteristics.
While the term and concept of "The Uncanny" was discussed, science was not ready to bring the concept to the public, the implications of "The Uncanny" were not realized, and its discussion was regulated to literature.
Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori reintroduced the concept into popular culture in 1970.
In his article, "The Uncanny Valley," Mori asserted that as robotics become more advanced and their appearance more life-like, the small imperfections in appearance will cause them to appear eerie - thus causing cognitive dissonance as Freud asserted years earlier.
Mori's theory interest in robotics will proceed until we reach the point when they become too lifelike. When that saturation point is reached, interest in robotics will fall, and people will react adversely to them - thus we fall into the "Uncanny Valley."
Mori's solution to the problem of the Uncanny Valley was that we simply shouldn't make robots that look so much like people - for the most part, we haven't.
Despite recent advances in robotics and automation technology, robots are still slow and awkward-looking.
In recent years though, computer generated animation has become immensely popular and may hold the key to a modern concept of the "Uncanny Valley."
Companies, such as Disney-owned Pixar Animation Studios, have produced several high-quality computer films that have won several major awards and rake in millions of dollars.
But not all computer animated films have been as fortunate.
Other films, like Columbia Pictures' "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," have been panned by both critics and the public, leading to poor sales.
While both movies were seen as technically impressive and visually appealing, the difference may lie in their approach to the human form.
Pixar's films, and other successful computer-generated films, have often taken a semi-realistic approach to animation. Less successful films, such as "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" and "The Polar Express" have attempted a more realistic view of computer animation.
Their failure to achieve substantial success in the market may the first sign of a tangible manifestation to the "Uncanny Valley."
There is one caveat to the idea of "The Uncanny," though. Some believe that exposure to the uncanny reduces the cognitive dissonance it causes and that we can get used to seeing the unfamiliar - thus the "uncanny valley" may never be realized.
That idea doesn't comfort me much though - I'll stick with cartoons for now.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
I understand they are not real and there's nothing dangerous about them. Something about the way they look just makes me uncomfortable.
They're beginning to look too real.
I'm not alone in my way of thinking. For more than a century, psychologists and social theorists have pondered the point where artificial life will become too life-like for human society.
Today, theorists refer to this point as the "Uncanny Valley." But, that concept is couched in the psychological principles of what humans conceptualize as familiar and unfamiliar.
Many link the first psychological conceptualization of the uncanny to German psychologist Ernst Jentsch. In his 1906 essay "On the Psychology of the Uncanny," Jentsch explored the psychological boundaries that separate the familiar from the unfamiliar.
Jentsch felt the boundary was often violated when we are forced to question if an object is really alive or not. While Jentsch if often credited with coining the term "The Uncanny," it was actually brought to prominence by Sigmund Freud.
In his 1919 essay, "The Uncanny," Freud expanded the concept to examine the way things we encounter in daily life can be familiar yet strange at the same time. For Freud, these situations created conflicts of feelings and thoughts, described as cognitive dissonance.
Both Jentsch and Freud based their conceptualizations in the literature of E.T.A. Hoffman, a German fiction writer known for creating characters that exhibited uncanny characteristics.
While the term and concept of "The Uncanny" was discussed, science was not ready to bring the concept to the public, the implications of "The Uncanny" were not realized, and its discussion was regulated to literature.
Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori reintroduced the concept into popular culture in 1970.
In his article, "The Uncanny Valley," Mori asserted that as robotics become more advanced and their appearance more life-like, the small imperfections in appearance will cause them to appear eerie - thus causing cognitive dissonance as Freud asserted years earlier.
Mori's theory interest in robotics will proceed until we reach the point when they become too lifelike. When that saturation point is reached, interest in robotics will fall, and people will react adversely to them - thus we fall into the "Uncanny Valley."
Mori's solution to the problem of the Uncanny Valley was that we simply shouldn't make robots that look so much like people - for the most part, we haven't.
Despite recent advances in robotics and automation technology, robots are still slow and awkward-looking.
In recent years though, computer generated animation has become immensely popular and may hold the key to a modern concept of the "Uncanny Valley."
Companies, such as Disney-owned Pixar Animation Studios, have produced several high-quality computer films that have won several major awards and rake in millions of dollars.
But not all computer animated films have been as fortunate.
Other films, like Columbia Pictures' "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," have been panned by both critics and the public, leading to poor sales.
While both movies were seen as technically impressive and visually appealing, the difference may lie in their approach to the human form.
Pixar's films, and other successful computer-generated films, have often taken a semi-realistic approach to animation. Less successful films, such as "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" and "The Polar Express" have attempted a more realistic view of computer animation.
Their failure to achieve substantial success in the market may the first sign of a tangible manifestation to the "Uncanny Valley."
There is one caveat to the idea of "The Uncanny," though. Some believe that exposure to the uncanny reduces the cognitive dissonance it causes and that we can get used to seeing the unfamiliar - thus the "uncanny valley" may never be realized.
That idea doesn't comfort me much though - I'll stick with cartoons for now.
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Friday, March 14, 2008
"Steak and Blowjob Day" a product of patriarchy
Today is "Steak and Blowjob Day".
I wish I were kidding, but the faceless masses behind the Internet have created a new holiday for everyone to enjoy. It's no ordinary holiday either - this one's a holiday designed for men by men.
It's how guys are supposed to be rewarded after the pain of Valentine's Day - that wretched holiday where men are forced to buy their special someone a gift or possibly say, "I love you."
"Steak and BJ Day" takes place March 14 each year and is a holiday for men to be honored by their lovers with a giant hunk of grilled beef and mandated fellatio, according to UrbanDictionary.com.
It's not on any calendar, and it's highly unlikely that Hallmark will ever sell cards for it - I doubt local bars will even have a "Steak and BJ" theme night.
That's OK though because "Steak and BJ Day" is deeper than bar theme nights and greeting cards - it's a day for men to take back their sexuality from the "control" of women.
It's like "separate but equal" for relationships.
And it's lame.
In practice, the day's activities aren't stupid. As far as I know, steak has never been illegal and oral sex has been OK since at least 2003. It would be short-sighted of me to fault anyone for enjoying either of those, and I'm not here to debate the matter either.
What's dumb about "Steak and BJ Day" is its basis in patriarchal principles that should have no place in the modern world.
The idea that Valentine's Day is a holiday exclusively for women - one of the basic tenets of "Steak and BJ Day" - is a half-baked idea that owes its origins more to corporate interests than it does to women putting one over on men.
Historians often credit the origin of Valentine's Day to secret marriage festivities in ancient Rome. The 20th century version of Valentine's Day was meant as a day for lovers to celebrate their feelings for each other with cards and small gifts.
The illusion that Valentine's Day is a holiday exclusively for women is born out of corporate interest and marketing - specifically by the flower, greeting card and diamond industries. All three of these industries rely on stereotyped views of women to push their products. Twenty or so years of constant marketing have left most believing that women only want those things and that only women should be treated specially on Valentine's Day.
Honestly though, simply misunderstanding the meaning of Valentine's Day isn't the problem with "Steak and BJ Day." The big issue is the proliferation of outdated female stereotypes and the female challenge to male privilege.
I imagine most people don't look at the underlying principles behind things like Steak and BJ Day, but those principles are important.
The day is predicated on the idea that men only desire things that will further the species - namely food and sex. Women, however, want frilly and non-essential things like candy, flowers and romance.
It's 2008, and some people still can't get past the idea that women like sex too.
Amazing.
I'm willing to bet some men even like candy and flowers.
That belief forms the basis of a society which has, for the most part, been dedicated to and run by men. Our patriarchy awards men privileges based upon their biological sex.
The results of male privilege can be seen in the unequal wages women are paid and their frequent lack of political agency. There wasn't even a female-sized crash test dummy until 1998.
In the light of a patriarchy, "Steak and BJ Day" looks like an insecure reaction from a group that fears the challenge of female empowerment.
The sad thing is the challenge seemingly comes from a holiday perverted by corporate interests and not an actual direct challenge to male rule. I'd imagine there are several women willing to voice complaints about Valentine's Day.
Despite its sad attempt at giving the illusion of gender equality, "Steak and BJ Day" can't hide from what it really is - a reaction based on tired concepts of male privilidge and the insecurities that challenges to it produce.
Those holding fast to ideas that Valentine's Day is meant for women and that men deserve a day for themselves need to examine things a little more broadly and look at the big picture.
"Steak and BJ Day" is just another stupid Internet holiday, but unlike "Talk Like a Pirate Day", it hints at the gender inequality issues that are still prevalent and problematic.
Knee-jerk reactions to perceived threats serve no purpose and do nothing to advance society.
Besides, who needs a special day to eat steak or ... do other things.
Know what I mean?
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
I wish I were kidding, but the faceless masses behind the Internet have created a new holiday for everyone to enjoy. It's no ordinary holiday either - this one's a holiday designed for men by men.
It's how guys are supposed to be rewarded after the pain of Valentine's Day - that wretched holiday where men are forced to buy their special someone a gift or possibly say, "I love you."
"Steak and BJ Day" takes place March 14 each year and is a holiday for men to be honored by their lovers with a giant hunk of grilled beef and mandated fellatio, according to UrbanDictionary.com.
It's not on any calendar, and it's highly unlikely that Hallmark will ever sell cards for it - I doubt local bars will even have a "Steak and BJ" theme night.
That's OK though because "Steak and BJ Day" is deeper than bar theme nights and greeting cards - it's a day for men to take back their sexuality from the "control" of women.
It's like "separate but equal" for relationships.
And it's lame.
In practice, the day's activities aren't stupid. As far as I know, steak has never been illegal and oral sex has been OK since at least 2003. It would be short-sighted of me to fault anyone for enjoying either of those, and I'm not here to debate the matter either.
What's dumb about "Steak and BJ Day" is its basis in patriarchal principles that should have no place in the modern world.
The idea that Valentine's Day is a holiday exclusively for women - one of the basic tenets of "Steak and BJ Day" - is a half-baked idea that owes its origins more to corporate interests than it does to women putting one over on men.
Historians often credit the origin of Valentine's Day to secret marriage festivities in ancient Rome. The 20th century version of Valentine's Day was meant as a day for lovers to celebrate their feelings for each other with cards and small gifts.
The illusion that Valentine's Day is a holiday exclusively for women is born out of corporate interest and marketing - specifically by the flower, greeting card and diamond industries. All three of these industries rely on stereotyped views of women to push their products. Twenty or so years of constant marketing have left most believing that women only want those things and that only women should be treated specially on Valentine's Day.
Honestly though, simply misunderstanding the meaning of Valentine's Day isn't the problem with "Steak and BJ Day." The big issue is the proliferation of outdated female stereotypes and the female challenge to male privilege.
I imagine most people don't look at the underlying principles behind things like Steak and BJ Day, but those principles are important.
The day is predicated on the idea that men only desire things that will further the species - namely food and sex. Women, however, want frilly and non-essential things like candy, flowers and romance.
It's 2008, and some people still can't get past the idea that women like sex too.
Amazing.
I'm willing to bet some men even like candy and flowers.
That belief forms the basis of a society which has, for the most part, been dedicated to and run by men. Our patriarchy awards men privileges based upon their biological sex.
The results of male privilege can be seen in the unequal wages women are paid and their frequent lack of political agency. There wasn't even a female-sized crash test dummy until 1998.
In the light of a patriarchy, "Steak and BJ Day" looks like an insecure reaction from a group that fears the challenge of female empowerment.
The sad thing is the challenge seemingly comes from a holiday perverted by corporate interests and not an actual direct challenge to male rule. I'd imagine there are several women willing to voice complaints about Valentine's Day.
Despite its sad attempt at giving the illusion of gender equality, "Steak and BJ Day" can't hide from what it really is - a reaction based on tired concepts of male privilidge and the insecurities that challenges to it produce.
Those holding fast to ideas that Valentine's Day is meant for women and that men deserve a day for themselves need to examine things a little more broadly and look at the big picture.
"Steak and BJ Day" is just another stupid Internet holiday, but unlike "Talk Like a Pirate Day", it hints at the gender inequality issues that are still prevalent and problematic.
Knee-jerk reactions to perceived threats serve no purpose and do nothing to advance society.
Besides, who needs a special day to eat steak or ... do other things.
Know what I mean?
Originally published in The Daily Reveille...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)