Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Fun with Guns

The media storm concerning Vice President Dick Cheney's shooting of fellow hunter Harry Whittington has peaked my interest. Not only has the reaction from comics and talk show hosts been absolutely hilarious, the press corps response has been as well. This is where we need to ask more questions about the efficacy of our modern press. The press is up in arms about how Cheney didn't call the press and alert the whole world right after it happened. So, all the pressure has eventually led the VP to publicly apologize for the mistake. But what about EVERYTHING else this administration has done? We've been consistently lied to about the genesis and current status of the war in Iraq. Cheney is looking as if he is the person who gave information concerning Valerie Plame, but the Press is up in arms about Cheney's hunting accident?

We, as a country, need to rethink our ability to question our leadership. Actually, let's start smaller. Let's just start thinking at all. It's time to revitalize the public and get some discussion about what constitutes the press and our government.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Social Protest or Social Pest?

Today on campus here at ASU, there was a man praising the word of the Christian God, calling on college students to repent in their promiscuous ways. Surrounding the man as he spoke was a collection of college students that would either listen or argue back at him about the topics under consideration. When I was at Chico State in California, the same sort of thing would happen. There, a group would come out with sandwich boards dictating the fate of the binge-drinking students. Because of sex, drugs, alcohol and a host of other things, everyone was damned.

I wonder how effective this is as a form of social protest. Do they expect everyone to suddenly toss aside their lifestyles and convert? It seems to me that, if anything, this sort of social action is more likely to cause damage to the Christian movement rather than support. I would think that the individuals watching would write this man or the other group off as an extremist and disregard the whole performance.

Any thoughts?

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Super Bowl Bonanza

For those of you who watched that cultural spectacle known as the Super Bowl, you may have been bored to tears by the quality of play. However, the commercials provided some interesting points to examine.

First, the Burger King commercial had to be one of the oddest I’ve seen in a while. The ad featured a collection of women dressed as parts of a Whopper. As they danced around in a showtunes sort of way, they created a full sandwich by the end of the commercial. Now, I’m not much for fast food anyway, but this ad was particularly nasty. For one, the different parts of the burger were people, which is a bit odd. But more importantly, by the end of the ad, the message had become: “Burger King: where sandwiches are made out of a bunch of women piled together.” This message hinted at the consumption of women as objects, but this time it couldn’t be more literal. Any thoughts?

The other ad that was interesting was the Dove Self Esteem Fund. This ad was a montage of girls (maybe ages 5-10) that described how they were unhappy with their bodies. I think one of the more striking elements of the ad was how it was situated in relation to the other ads during the Super Bowl. Usually, Super Bowl ads are full of fairly blantant sexism, but this ad was taking a new stance. But even within that message, you could read a couple of subtexts. First, the company selling the product is a beauty product company. How is that potential contradiction solved? Second, does this commercial recreate the image of women as victims?

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Last night, Kristy (my partner) and I went and saw Michael Franti and Spearhead. We've seen them about 6 or 7 times now, but every time that I see them, I'm always amazed at the way the band packages their political message into song. Their music is a type of jazz, hip hop, rock fusion sort of thing. The crowd that is there is usually a funny, eclectic mix of individuals, each one finding their own draw to the music. While I was there, I noticed two specific things. First, the messages in the music are usually a form of political criticism, especially of the state and this administration. Michael Franti went to Iraq and filmed a documentary about his experiences there. Pretty amazing stuff...But I wonder about the effect of his criticism. He is out spreading the word and raising consciousness about specific issues. How does an audience member receive that message? What do they do with it? If there are any fans out there that are familiar with the music, tell me about your experiences. I'm curious.

Second, there was a indigenous peoples social movement representative there. Kristy and I stopped at her booth to speak about the issues she and her movement are fighting for. The movement is called the "Native Movement Collective". It seems that the movement is fighting specifically for the rights to San Francisco mountain up in northern Arizona. Interesting stuff, check it out. According to their information, the fake snow that is produced for the snowboarding park is full of medical waste and other nasty stuff.

All in all, the experience at the concert was a fascinating mix of politics and dancing; to witness and take part in the embodiment of the political message. When Kristy and I saw them in Nevada City a couple years ago, by the end of the concert, Michael Franti had come down from the stage and had the entire crowd arm in arm with each other, singing the chorus in harmony. Powerful message, powerful collective.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006


The State of the Union usually provides some interesting fodder for discussion, but this time, I’d rather talk about what happened around the speech instead. If you haven’t heard, Cindy Sheehan was arrested outside of the hall, along with Beverly Young, the wife of Republican Representative Bill Young. You can find the story here. Sheehan was wearing a shirt which protested the war. Ironically, Young was not. While this funny coincidence of circumstances is interesting in its own right, her acts of protest have resulted in some unfortunate limits to our abilities of free expression. Why aren’t we allowed to stage these types of protest at these sorts of times? It seems that to engage in protest, our society is wrapped up in forms and procedures instead of preserving our ability to speak. Somewhere along the line, we began privileging decorum over freedom of expression and protest. Even if you don’t agree with what Sheehan has to say, doesn’t she have the right to say it? The example in the news story seems to indicate a place where this system breaks down, where the police arrest people who are even suspect of protest. The police had to apologize for their actions, especially to Young, who was arrested by mistake. Is this indicative of a larger problem with our society and the limits of protest?