The Unknown...

There was a picture of the NJ Nets' Vince Carter in the paper today. There he was, high above the rim, arms extended. On his left arm, there was what appeared to be a shirt sleeve. What is that?


I remember guys would cut or tear the sleeves off of a t-shirt to look cool. Do we now rip the shirt off the sleeves to look cool, or am I missing something?

Yayyy

The View just got a lot nicer. They cleaned out the Rosie.

Lesson Learned? Media

I was left wondering about something today. I intend to make this my last discussion of the matter this week, but it really has been something for me to think about.

There's no doubt that the media is under fire for its mishandling of the Cho Seung-Hui "manifesto". Some bad choices were made, and there really can be such a concept as "too much information" in instances like this one.

What I'm curious about is the quality of media being governed by supply and demand theories. Suppose out of all the print and broadcast media, one entity had decided its mission would have been to handle the coverage with grace, dignity and consideration for those left behind in the wake of this nightmare. Their releases would have shown a lot of discretion and good taste in disseminating the information, perhaps merely acknowledging the existence of Cho's words and video, but holding back the sordid details. In light of such a supposition, would you, being offered such an option, have chosen to tune in to, or purchase a copy of this particular entity's publication or broadcast?







If somewhere, some journalistic entity were to choose such a direction, would you move toward supporting it?

In situations such as this, there are calls for reprimand, for boycotts, etc. And while emotions run high, people might entertain such notions, but in the real world, boycotts rarely hold up. And as long as there is a demand for this quality of coverage, it will continue to happen this way. But I really wonder, if someone were to offer alternatives, would there really be a market for it?

Do we?

Princess Diana died nearly 10 years ago. This summer, to mark that 10th anniversary, Tina Brown, the former editor of the New Yorker and Vanity Fair, is going to release "The Diana Chronicles".

My question is this: do we really need another book about Princess Diana, especially one that seems intent on further sullying the Princess' image? If you read and absorb every single word, how does that benefit you? I'm just curious why there's a need for this book.

Maybe I missed something.

I'm sure it will be a best-seller.

Lessons Learned? Or More to Come?

I've been doing a lot of reading the last few days, since the horrors of the Virginia Tech tragedy. It's been mostly a random selection process, reading one article, following links, and so on.

I notice that events like the Virginia Tech Tragedy can revive the debates over Gun Control laws, Constitutional rights, and the like. People haven't even gotten through the mourning process before the soapboxes are out, and the arguments start raging.

I don't think even the most stringent, most ideal gun control legislation would have had one bit of effect in this situation. I think the only was this madman would have been denied a gun would be if there were no guns on the planet at all.

But I'm not looking to spark any gun control discussions. I'm neither qualified, nor capable of making my opinion seem any more valid than anyone else's, so I'll stay away from that one altogether. It's not really what's on my mind.

I think we are in a lot more trouble than what can be fixed by perfect legislation. I started reading some of the articles written from both perspectives, pro and con, and all I got from them was my own observation on something else.

No matter what side of the equation the writers were on, the articles all had a similar tone. It seems that everything I read had a formula:

• Insult anyone who doesn't agree, usually at the very beginning of the article.


• Use the most extreme, yet simplistic examples to illustrate a point


• Use harsh language, condemning the thoughts and ideas of anyone who takes the other side of the debate


• Typically, at some point, vilify a government leader, demean some spokesperson, and basically trash any dissent in the nastiest terms

And therein lies a major problem for me.

To me, it seems the Internet, the media, both print and broadcast, have become hotbeds of all that's mean and nasty in this country. Spend an hour or two reading Internet message boards, forums, and blogs and you're sure to find some wicked stuff. Look at what passes for TV entertainment these days. And just try to find an unbiased newspaper article. Or for that matter, try finding much in the way of real news.

We've become a mean culture in so many ways. It's very disturbing to me as a parent to try and imagine what's waiting for my kids in their adult years, because these days, it seems as if it's a no-holds-barred society we're living in, and I can't imagine what it will be like if things keep moving in the current direction.

Lesson Learned? Humor

Think about what has happened to humor over the past few years. Nearly everything that passes as comedy today involves some sort of humiliation, put-downs, people being mean to others, or extreme behaviors.

I'm not a pollyanna looking for the "good ol' days" of Dick Van Dyke, or "Family Ties", "Full House", "Three's Company" or the like. I enjoy my share of adult humor, R-Rated movies, etc. the same as everyone else.

This isn't necessarily a "moral" discussion, but rather a look at trends. We tend to get our humor from popular culture, and its influence over our lives is undeniable. It just seems to me that popular culture has taken a turn toward anything that leaves someone feeling bad. A recent example of "popular" humor is the "Borat" movie which contained more than its share of scenes where people were made to look foolish. In some cases, the humiliation was crafted without the subjects' knowledge or consent, based on some of the lawsuits that sprung up after the film had it's run.

While the "reality" shows of late aren't necessarily packaged as comedies, look at some of the more recent offerings. "American Idol" took some heat this season over how some of the obviously unqualified contestants were allowed to pass through early audition stages to be allowed to appear in front of the cameras. There's little doubt that anyone thought these people were talented, and it's pretty obvious that they were put in the spotlight for comedic value.

But when did we become a society that would sit and laugh at people like that? The "Idol" producers were obviously trying to meet a demand with their cruel presentations, and they had to get an idea somewhere along the line that there was a demand like that, right?

And browse around the websites that offer user videos. YouTube, AOL Video, all offer videos made by and selected by users, and see what's going on out there with what people consider "funny". One video that made a good illustration of the point I'm making is located here

What has happened to us that some director or producer would parody the events of 9/11/01 and think that a comedy of this sort would be something people would want to see? And would think was funny? They have to get the idea somewhere, right?

So many videos are posted where people are met with violence or injury,(I'm talking about real violence and injury, not contrived) and people think it's all very funny. Kids being humiliated by other kids now not only have to live with the original humiliation, they have to add the extra demoralization of having thousands of other people watching the videos, and laughing. And most of these sites have sections where viewers can comment and share their enjoyment with others. It's as though "America's Funniest Home Videos" has morphed into a Frankenstein monster or something.

And mean humor spills down. What kids haven't learned from the adults around them, many have no problem checking out through any of the media they seemingly have unrestricted access to. And who do kids practice this on? Other, weaker kids. And so it begins.

Lesson Learned? Disappointment

I think back about 25 years, and I remember a couple of really spoiled brats that I knew. And they haven't lost their little place in my memory, mostly because they stood out, in a small minority of the kids I hung around with and went to school with. Their behavior was really noticeable because it wasn't very common. In other words, they were the exception, rather than the rule.

I didn't grow up in a utopia by any means. Kids have misbehaved, thrown tantrums, and carried on throughout history, I'm certain. But for the most part, the really bratty ones have always seemed to belong to a very elite club. Most parents wouldn't put up with it. It was that simple. It's not so simple anymore.

Every generation has had its identity, and thus a moniker all to itself; Baby Boomers, Flower Children, Generation X, etc. I'm starting to think, however, that The Me Generation isn't going to evolve and go so quietly.

A big problem, besides the inability and unwillingness of contemporary parents to refuse to indulge their kids, is that we've seen for certain that this indulgence has created a large population of folks who don't deal well with disappointment. It doesn't always become apparent until these people age and get more involved with society. At home, they rule the roost, but once out in the world, there is a big surprise coming in the form of people who aren't so willing to give in to the demands and expectations of the spoiled lot. And since they aren't very well prepared to deal with disappointment in a civilized manner, we see a whole lot of acting out. They react with the gut instinct, which is to lash out, throw tantrums, or in some cases, inflict violence.

Think of these folks who've been videotaped acting inappropriately at children's sporting events. Think of the father who interrupted a wrestling match involving his son, or the man who ran out and tackled a small boy during a football game. Or the more extreme example, a few years back, when one father beat another to death over a kids' hockey game.

Where does that behavior come from? What could possibly motivate an adult to attack a child in an amateur sports environment?

It's a problem of a. developing unrealistic expectations and b. not being prepared to accept that those expectations will most likely not be met.

Of course, we can't forget self-control, but I think in many ways, self-control is a learned behavior as well, so who knows.

Something is lacking.

Virginia Tech Memorial

click arrow to start

Virginia Tech Resources

I know that I am not alone in my sadness over the Virginia Tech massacre. The story gets worse every day, and I'm at a loss for words. How do you say anything remotely meaningful when something like this happens?

I've been doing some reading online, and there are a few things people can do to help out here. I'll just post some links here.

April 16th Memorial Website

Share your condolences

Transcript of Nikki Giovanni's Convocation Address

Give to the Memorial Fund  (use this link if the previous one doesn't work)

List of Victims

In Memoriam

The sadness takes hold.

We must not allow the sadness to make us forget

the lives that were lived.

Their light has not been put out,

rather, it has been released to the heavens.

And there it will shine, for all to see,

for all to remember.

To remind those who were loved,

that they are loved.

Because love never dies.

A Plan

So what's wrong with my idea?

I see this huge super-store down the highway a bit. (gives the story a rustic feel, ya know?) I go by there quite often. I receive their flyer in the mail weekly, and they have it all. You name it, they stock it. I figure, everything I need, or want is inside those four monster-sized walls.

But I don't want to pay for all that stuff, so I asked my friends.

What if I wait till the store closes. Then, when no one is watching, I could sneak in the one delivery door that no one seems to lock, or guard, and there's no security camera either. I could go in, without worrying about waiting in line with all the paying customers, don't need to be bothered with cashiers, credit cards, or any of that. I won't be greedy, I'll take just what I want and need, and maybe leave a little behind for the paying customers. I could even go into the grocery, eat what I want on-premises, go take advantage of what would be free eye-care products in the optometry section while I'm there. Why not?

And for protection purposes, I'll gather up a whole lot of other guys who feel the same way, and we'll all pile in when no one is looking. We'll try our best not to clean the place out, but no guarantees, ok? I figure it's like this: there will be so many of us, they'll figure there's no way to round us all up, so they'll just let it go. And when we all have our fill, maybe enough to take home and share with the families, we'll all split up and go back to where we came from. Think anyone will notice?

My friends looked at me like I was nuts. They couldn't believe I could cook up such an idea.

"Why?" I asked.

"It's illegal, you moron!"

Oh really?

Celebdom

Chosha over at "A Little East of Reality", got me thinking about something tonight. She wrote about paparazzi, and in particular, how a picture of Jake Gyllenhaal and Reese Witherspoon could command a healthy sum of money.

I wonder what goes on with this whole "celebrity" thing. I read a lot of blogs, and the ones that deal with celebrities muster a lot of traffic. However, when I glance over the comment sections of these blogs, celebrities sure get a lot of negative commentary. Those comments are some of the darkest, nastiest and most vicious I've read.

Yet, somehow, the "celeb market" sure is an economic force. Something has to put those publications in the position to fork over that kind of dough for photographs. It's a strange thing. So many people loathe the celebrities we read about daily, yet someone has to be buying the magazines.

I wonder this: suppose there was to be a boycott of all the celebrity gossip magazines, Star, People, US Weekly, proposed. Would you participate? If not, why not?

Or what if we only agreed to buy the magazines that didn't use "predatory" photographs? You know, only printing photos taken at events, premieres, galas? No unauthorized pics. Would you consider that? Again, if not, why not?

Just curious.

And Justice For All.

"What surprises me, I guess, is how choosy the anti-P.C. crowd is about which hate speech it will not tolerate." Read more here

Gimmickry

I've always had a problem with the idea of "paid endorsements". I don't think any of us can resist being just a little skeptical of any praise heaped upon a product or service by someone who happens to be a celebrity, who happens to be receiving compensation for that praise. And I think we might all agree that making a real estate purchase based simply on the fact that Erik Estrada recommends or endorses it might not go on record as the most intelligent decision of all time.

I remember Kirstie Alley starring in a sitcom some years back. It was called "Fat Actress", and it put her back into the spotlight. The show made fun of Hollywood's body-stereotypes, and made light of the difficulties being a big woman in a Barbie world. I even remember a few interviews and television appearance where she showed that big can be beautiful.

She then changed course and decided it was time to slim down.

Alley had some major success under the guidance of the Jenny Craig weight-loss system. She unveiled the new "thinner" Kirstie amidst much fan-fare, even "unrobing" the finished product on an episode of "Oprah",

She should get credit for what she did. It's never easy to lose weight, and I don't begrudge her the position of spokesperson for Jenny Craig, because, hey it worked, and she could legitimately endorse the products. Nothing wrong with that.

But I didn't stay on that ride for long. Enter Valerie Bertinelli.

See, now Ms. Bertinelli is jumping aboard the Jenny Craig Weightloss Bandwagon. I'm not in any way criticizing her for wanting to lose weight. I'm not even sure I'm criticizing anything. I'm just saying, the whole thing lacks a little credibility for me, because Bertinelli is going to go under the microscope now, so to speak. We're going to follow along on her quest-for-less-Valerie. But she's a paid spokesperson, receiving what I would presume to be fairly decent compensation for her troubles. I think that I might have been better impressed had we treated to, another "success story made", as opposed to "compensated test-case".

Let's face it, who among us wouldn't give the weight-loss wagon a more willing test drive if there were a little cash waiting at the end of that rainbow?

Just my two pounds err, cents.

Happy Easter

Replay