Constructing the self.. Canadian identity

In terms of the reading from week 2 " as Canadian as possible", we see that there is evidence and the construction of the Canadian identity, which is in turn expressing their unique place or role . The reading looks at the cross-culture between Canada and the USA and how Canada tries to detach itself from the assumption of being just like USA or being in the shadow of the United States. Looking at the construction of the self, we see that it is a destructive/constructive pleasure. Self theory is a method of critical thought that is created and used for the self. The main theme around it was national identity an d Canada's lack this of due to America’s influence on their culture. When i look in the media and see people like Jim Carrey and Justin Bieber, the fact that they are both Canadian shocks me. There is no sense of this Canadianism in either of them and i would never tell, maybe because I'm foreign myself but there is not distinguishing features about Canada. Maybe that is why they are trying so hard to build a Canadian identity.

Consumerism

I would be lying if I didn't say that sometimes when I'm bored in class I'll look at clothes on the internet and sometimes even bags or shoes. Consumerism is everywhere in today's society, and according to Juliet Schor's essay The New Politics of Consumption, it's starting to cause a rift between Americans. "The new consumerism, with its growing aspirational gap, has begun to jeopardize the quality of American life." (Schor, 186) This also relates to the idea of symbolic violence, which is the idea that the capitalist system forces Americans into bankruptcy because we are constantly trying to compete with one another for the best and newest clothes, cars, houses, yachts...the list goes on. The image that I chose in the cover of Nirvana's album Everyday and shows a baby reaching out for a dollar bill, symbolizing that we are taught to appreciate and strive for money from the time we are born because consumerism is so ingrained into our way of life.

Portrayal of Current Events on South Park

When I was younger, I was never interested in watching South Park, but as I got older I started watching the show more and more not only because it was funny but because of the way Trey Parker and Matt Stone addressed current events on the show. One of my all-time favorite episodes is Elementary School Musical (Season 12, Episode 13) because of the way it parodied the portrayal of high school in Disney's High School Musical franchise. Mostly recently, South Park has dedicated three episodes of its current season to mocking BP's response to the Gulf Oil Crisis. This clip relates back to our readings this week because without seeing the actual BP president's apology video, the parodied one is insignificant. As Ted says,
"they can call attention to and critique visual and auditory signifiers of power like the suits, impersonal terminology, 'breaking news,' and 'expert opinion' tropes of contemporary U.S. journalism, while also exposing those institutions for the biased and conservative forces they are. However, responsive tactics are also limited by that same methodology. Although they can certainly “speak truth to power,” to borrow Foucault’s terms, they cannot reinvent the structures of power themselves. In other words, they react rather than recreate." Although South Park has successfully altered its viewers as to how they feel about the apologies, they can only make fun of the apologies and not change the outcome of the events.

Coon 2: Hindsight
Tags: SOUTH
PARKEric Cartman,more...

Like a few others have posted, I also never really watch South Park before this class. After watching episodes in class, and the latest readings by Ted, I feel that not only do I want to start watching, but that it may also be beneficial to my knowledge of current events.

Through the reading I found that the show is very allusive about its overall stance on politics, the economy, norms, pop culture, etc. After some research, I found that this allusiveness reflects on the views of the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Here are lines from an interview for their upcoming film in which they were asked about the term "South Park Republican":

Q: I don't know if you've heard about this, but there have been essays written about the concept of the "South Park Republican."

TREY: Yeah, we have seen that. What we're sick of—and it's getting even worse—is: you either like Michael Moore or you wanna fuckin' go overseas and shoot Iraqis. There can't be a middle ground. Basically, if you think Michael Moore's full of shit, then you are a super-Christian right-wing whatever. And we're both just pretty middle-ground guys. We find just as many things to rip on on the left as we do on the right. People on the far left and the far right are the same exact person to us.

In another exchange from the same interview:

Q: You seem to feel free to roast everybody equally.

TREY: Everybody needs a good roasting.

MATT: It's been pretty funny on both sides.

TREY: And it comes from an honest belief we have, which is... George Bush doesn't know what's going on. Michael Moore does not know what's going on. And Alec Baldwin definitely does not know what's going on. Basically, this shit is gigantically complicated.

I believe their middle-ground stance (along with the parodic, satiric, and ironic humor of course!) is what makes the show as interesting as it is . It's multiple allusive elements provides a critical ontology to help the viewer think outside of the box on current events, issues, and concerns that would often be displayed inarguably in news media. I say this because when I watch news stories, the convincing way in which they are presented almost always buy my sympathies as they are made to do so. South Park helps me think in new ways and to see things from different perspectives. This is due in part to the overall critique of conservative and liberal alike--as shown in the interview above, they dish it out to everyone. The disruptive ontology in South Park helps me recognize how ridiculous we American's can be sometimes.

Laughing At? Or Laughing With?

Before this class, I

have never seen episodes of South Park or the Chappelle Show. I didn’t know too much about either, I just knew a basis for each of these comedy shows was to make fun of certain ethnicities, races, and

subcultures. I understand that both of these shows are very different in some respects, but a main similarity is that they both share a common audience. Whether that can be a good thing or not, is debatable. W

hile watching segments of each clip I started to realize what Ted was saying about why Dave Chappelle stopped his show; because he couldn’t tell if people were laughing at him and with the jokes, or laughing with him and at the jokes. After Ted said that I started to think about that a little more about comedy in general. When people, ethnicities, races, subcultures, etc. are being made fun of there is always a change that at least one person in the audience is laughing at the criticism of the stereotypes. Knowing this, are certain comics promoting racism? I just

thought it was funny to think that even after the strides people have made to overcome racism, it still strongly exists.

South park- not afraid to address taboo's

South Park has never failed to make everyone crack up, there may be a moment of uncomfortable if you have never watched the show before but as it goes on and even to viewers, you can not help but laugh at the parodies that south park is know for.
After reviewing Ted's conclusion in his book, with the second paragraph i noticed the use of "convergence culture" i had no idea what this meant so googled.
the unity of old and new media. realistically the show uses profanity and thus can't be watched by everyone, it addresses issues that go on day to day to make fun of them and addresses even the taboo's that are in society. This may be why people feel uncomfortable sometimes, but with the shows ridiculous nature sometimes its hard to to find it hilarious. Overall i think it goes beyond just being a cartoon, and is an extremely clever show!

Watching South Park

Before this class I had never seen a full episode of South Park. When I was younger my parents did not completely ban me from watching the show, they just let my brother and I know that they strongly disapproved. The reason for me never watching the show was not my parents’ discouragement though, it was the fact that I was never exposed to it and didn’t have the desire to really go out of my way to view it. Now that I have been exposed to it and know a little more what the show is all about, I find myself interested and motivated to seek out more episodes. I never realized that South Park critiqued our media culture intelligently and in a way that is fascinating, entertaining, and funny.

South Park has always been one of my favorite shows since Season 2 when I started watching. Many of my friend’s parents would not let them watch South Park because they believed the show was outrageous, and it would teach their children bad morals. My parents on the other hand let me watch South Park. They saw the humor in it and realized that most of the episodes were really only making fun of the stupid things in the media and the present. I began to fall in love with South Park because “they react rather than recreate.” South Park always seems to make the serious things funny.

Disruptive

In class we always compare the critical in postmodernism with The Daily Show and the ontological with the Colbert Report. The differentiating factor between critical and ontological is that the disruptive can inhabit what it is parodying. THe critical is merely reactive. Colbert embodies the stereotyped right wing nut and sometimes even takes it to a farther extent. One of my favorite segments he does is with his gun "sweetness." It is inhabiting paranoid gun owners. However the razor line that these ontological critique-ers must walk is marked by people thinking they are actually being serious. In this interview Colbert says that he says things he doesn't believe and that it is a character, but numerous group of conservatives mark him as a leader or important figure. It is a little ironic that they are putting something nonexistent on their pedestal.

In reading Geoffery Baym’s article, I immediately felt like I could relate to the demographic that was being discussed. Although I hardly ever watch the daily show, it seems as if all of my knowledge that is directly related to ‘the news’ is retrieved from other sources of media (that is mostly looked down upon: reality TV shows, pop culture radio stations, celebrity magazines, etc.) sources that may not necessarily be viewed in a positive way. I can honestly say that I do not read the newspaper or watch the news, but I do watch reality TV and read the ‘trashy’ magazines. Surprisingly enough through my sources of media, I am still learning about current events occurring in our world. I had a similar reaction to Drew’s blog post because I realized that even though I am not necessarily watching the highest education of news I am still learning about what is going on in the world. As embarrassing as it is, in 2005 when I was in eighth grade I was obsessed with show Laguna Beach. Towards the end of the second season, there was an episode in which an epic landslide was discussed. Realistically if I didn’t watch this pathetic show I would have had no idea. I’m from Boston so at that point I could imagine what it would be like to have a landslide take out a huge number of people and ruin their lives. This is just one example that I felt related to the reading because that episode educated several of teenagers who most likely wouldn’t have heard about that natural disaster. (Fun Fact: because of this episode my eighth grade class raised a ton of money for this natural disaster)

The "Real" Daily Show

The article by Geoffrey Baym discussed a lot of interesting points about the state of news media today. The transition the 18-24 demographic has made to relying on other media outlets for information makes a lot of sense to me. As Baym mentions, the comedic elements of shows like The Daily Show allow the audience to be more involved with the news, rather than just listening to events being listed off. Also, it allows the show to be self-deprecating, which actually legitimizes the content even more because it gives the impression of being unbiased. The whole article made me think of something that it failed to mention and I think people completely forget about (or never knew). I don't really watch The Daily Show as I avoid politics, but back in the old, old days of Comedy Central (like pre-South Park) I did watch The Daily Show...hosted by Craig Kilborn. It is interesting to think that Jon Stewart took over and the show almost immediately took off, but the subject matter also changed. Craig Kilborn's was much more of a "local news" style in which topics of all kinds would be talked about and there was not so much emphasis on politics. It was a lot less funny, too.

News and outsourcing

This article reminded me of my internship with Saturday Night Live. At that point in my life I was extremely attentive to the actual news, not just getting my daily dose of information from South Park. One of my jobs every single morning was to lay out five different publications of news papers for the writers and cast members. The television sets around the office were always tuned to CNN. It was the most politically informed time of my life. It was important for my job to know what was going on. If I wanted to ne day work in the same office I had to be informed directly from the "real" source of the media because the parodies had to be created from that real. To quote Baym, "Any notion of fake depends on an equal conception of real." The news parody began with SNL's Weekend Update and from there spawned, The Daily Show/Colbert Report, ect. Packets of real headlines would be emailed to everyone in the office so you could write your own punch line to it. Again- these were real headlines that if you did not know the backstory you would not be able to successfully write a funny punch line. Since I returned to college and now do not run around getting coffee and news papers for NBC I find myself still informed but on the other end of the spectrum. Instead of being at the source of information aiding in creating these parodies I once again watch them to be informed.

This SNL weekend update was written solely by Amy Pohler during my internship and is a great example of media, comedy, and the fake/real news. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/update-palin-rap/773781

CNN: obsolete?

This reading was coincidentally assigned at the perfect time. This morning in a religion class that I’m in, we started talking about Mormonism, which somehow led into a discussion about Scientology. As embarrassed as I am to say this, I was able to recite the basic histories and beliefs of both religions – because of South Park. In fact, I think a lot of the people in the class felt the same way. Later today when I started reading the article, I realized just how much Baym’s ideas relate to my method of getting news.

CNN is probably the TV channel I watch most; in my apartment it is almost always on in the background, or at least on mute. In spite of this, I honestly feel like I learn, understand, and retain information much better from shows like The Daily Show or South Park that take issues that are being discussed in the news and present them in a more entertaining way. For instance, when Scientology became popular among celebrities, South Park took that idea and used iconic figures such as Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, and John Travolta to essentially report the same news story, but in a much more memorable way.

There aren't any clips of these episodes on YouTube that I can embed, but here are the links to both of the full episodes: Trapped in the Closet & All About the Mormons.

Jon Stewart's Influence

I am a huge fan of the Daily Show. I'll watch the show even if it's just a typical unhyped episode.
That said whenever there is a new Jon Stewart interview with either right-wing politicians, or political commentators, I will sit myself down and watch the entire thing, most likely more than once. There aren't as many of these instances are I would like, because with each one I watch I find myself more and more engaged in the rhetoric with which Jon openly criticizes and debates his opponents. I have 2 examples below, neither actually taking place on his show. The first is a famous appearance Jon made on CNN's crossfire, that was cancelled in response to his epic beat down of the pundits and the show's premise. The second is an interview from the 2004 election time period in which Bill O'Reilly questions the legitimacy of the Daily Show as a news operation. While reading Geoffrey Baym's essay on the show I instantly recognized all of his point on the significance of the show as a critical media satirical news show. No matter who Jon is speaking to, or debating, or arguing with he constantly hides behind the "fake" news banner. Which as a viewer I understand, because it is true, but also feel doesn't give the show enough credit.

The Best Show Ever: Whale Wars

Reading Geoffrey Baym’s article made me think about myself, how much I watch the news, and if I really even like it at all. I thought about it, and I realized that I rarely watch the news or read the newspaper, but for some reason I always know what is going on in the world or on reality television. Baym’s article made me realize that I get my information from all the other television shows I watch, such as the Daily Show, Jay Leno, South Park, and other shows like them who make fun of and tell the news in a funnier and more enjoyable way. South Park has always been one of my favorite television shows to watch and over the past few years they have been getting ideas from what is happening presently in the world. Now, not all of it is always true, but I can get just enough information from it that either is enough for me, or it will make me go look it up on the Internet. Here is a video of one of the South Park episodes that is a parody of the show Whale Wars. It not only informed me about the actually television show, but it also informed me about people killing whales.

Humor vs. Monotone

While reading the article about The Daily Show by Geoffrey Baym it became apparent that young audiences in this day of age are no longer affected by “serious” media. Often something may be important, but if not introduced in an interesting way it will be overlooked. This made me think of a related example that many young adults have experienced being “preached” to in school and health class surrounding the importance of having safe sex. Usually it was the authoritative manner in which it was presented and the seriousness that caused these talks to go in one ear and out the other. However, for example, in this condom commercial young people are more apt to listen to important information if it is introduced through the use of humor, as is true with The Daily Show. This aspect of humor keeps the audience interested and able to reflect upon the actual information instead of letting the overall message be swept away in a haze of monotone speeches.

Political Figures and "Fake" News

In Geoffrey Baym's essay, he forges a connection between young people getting their news from "late-night talk shows such as NBC's Tonight Show with Jay Leno and CBS's Late Show with David Letterman" (Baym, 260) and also Saturday Night Live. He further proves this connection by pointing out John Edwards chose to announce his candidacy for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination on The Daily Show. The clip I attached below is an excerpt from Barack Obama's appearance on The Daily Show in which he addresses current political issues such as the healthcare reforms. This relates to Baym's essay because political figures are trying to reach out to a younger demographic through appearing on media outlets that appeal to this younger audience.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Barack Obama Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

"Fake News" shows

The article by Geoffrey Baym focused on the comedic “fake news” show, The Daily Show with John Stewart. Although the article discussed many aspects of the show and it’s relation to political journalism, one point in particular really stood out to me. In the first pages Baym gave statistics illustrating audiences of real news shows vs. audiences of comedy news shows. The figures supported the idea that more people watch shows like The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and The Late Show with David Lettermen. It then went on to discuss The Daily show in more detail. I find myself to fit in among these statistics. I am semi ashamed to say that I tune to SNL, Leno, and lettermen more then I tune into the major news stations. My reasoning was not really mentioned in the article though. I do this simply because of entertainment. Sometimes I feel as if real news shows don’t really teach me anything I don’t already know of. Either that or it’s hard to voluntarily watch something boring in the hopes that something of value might be mentioned. So I choose to watch shows I find enjoyable and slightly informative. Sure these might be “Fake News” shows, but I find the content to usually relate to important issues of the time. I have attached a link to a video of clips of Amy Poehler in SNL’s Weekend Update. Weekend Update is real “Fake News” created for comedy, though there is sometimes a bit of truth to the stories. I feel like it is a lighthearted clip that relates to this readings message. There is a link because the Embedding was disabled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cJ2cfTEkT0

Is it News or "News?"

Geoffry Baym discusses in his article “The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism," the modes of discourse presented in "fake" newscasts like the Daily Show. Baym says, “This is not simply the move toward “infotainment,” although the fundamental blurring of news and entertainment- a conflation that cuts both ways- certainly is a constituent element. Rather, it is a more profound phenomenon of discursive integration, a way of speaking about, understanding, and acting within the world defined by the permeability of form and the fluidity of content. Discourses of news, politics, entertainment, and marketing have grown deeply inseparable: the languages and practices of each have lost their distinctiveness and are being melded into previously unimagined combinations." This can be clearly seen in the video above. In the very opening scene we see a title reading "The Daily Show" that is very similar to that which you would see on a news cast. It then cuts to Jon Stewart at his desk, talking to his audience like it is a talk show. These are two forms of the discourse of which Baym discusses. Baym also says, “Drawing on live broadcast coverage of public statements and government proceedings, the content of The Daily Show resembles much of the mainstream news media. Empowered by the title of “fake news,” however, The Daily Show routinely violates journalistic conventions in important ways. For one, while it covers the same raw material as does the mainstream news, its choices of sound bites turn contemporary conventions on their head.” (264) This is a technique that is often used by both the "real" news and the "fake" news. This is the process by which audio clips are manipulated to make the same argument as the rest of the news clip.

Reality, Symbols, and Society

Baudrilliad makes a strong argument that the real is not real- it is an abstraction of a created reality. This concept has been popular in the media for about ten years. When the Matrix came out it was the newest and most radical idea of reality being an "un-reality". Simulacara is a philosophy of the relationship between reality, symbols, and society. This article reminded me of the very beginning of the semester when we discussed symbols and sounds and the affect they have on the human psyche, stop sign/bathroom signs ect. While watching the most recent episode of Family Guy I saw a perfect example of Baudrilliads quote, " No more mirrors of being and appearances, of the real and its concepts; no more imaginary coextensively: rather genetic miniaturization is the dimension of simulation."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy1kfJDvjSQ&feature=related

What is real?

In Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulations, he presents the concept that map is not territory, that "it is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges subsist here and there, in the deserts which are no longer those of the Empire, but our own" (145). He asserts that the world we live in has essentially been replaced by a copy of its former self; when both the real and the representation cease to exist, they leave only the hyperreal in their place. The idea of hyperreality is seamlessly integrated into The Matrix, which portrays a false world created only by perception. When Neo awakens into the real reality – the "construct" – Morpheus says "welcome to the desert of the real." Neo's appearance is now "residual self-image, the mental projection of [his] digital self." The version of hyperreality feels like a dream, providing artificial stimulation and creating an ideal place to detach from consciousness. It asks: what is real? And is what is real even still real?

Stepford Wives

In the beginning of Thomas Franks article, “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent” he discusses the system of conformity and what it means to descend for example in the 1950’s. I immediately pictured the movie Stepford Wives where a suburban neighborhood is filled with women who creepily conform to being a “housewife”. They completely go about their lives cleaning, doing laundry and cooking gourmet meals until we eventually realize that the real women have been replaced with robots. Franks indicates that, “The Establishment demands homogeneity; we revolt by embracing diverse, individual lifestyles.” To revolt against this rigidness in the 1950’s was much easier to do then than today, all you had to do at that time is listen to rock n’ roll and break rules. Present day is less conformed so to revolt is to attempt to go against everything that society is made up of, it’s more extreme as it’s difficult not to get caught up in some form of consumerism or another. This is why I find the Stepford Wives as a good metaphor for dissent because they are the depiction of “conformity” yet they are in actuality robots and a level of “perfection” that is impossible to achieve.

This article was about the abstraction of a base idea. It reminded me a lot of a movie we watched in my film class. The movie was titled the Andalusian Dog. It was a paradigm of the Surrealist movement. Surrealism, like the article, was about obscuring meaning. the article referenced obscuring the original meaning. In the case of the map, it becomes so detailed that it conceals the original intention or meaning. Surrealism was all about obscuring any and all meaning and leaving it open to the viewer. Surrealism and the map are puzzles of narratives.

The Desert of the Real Itself

One of the big concepts that I got from Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulations is the idea that map is not territory. It's funny to think that on a map the lines are so distinct, though in real life there is no actual line at all. Wars break out over who own what because there are no actual "lines." One example would be the Sino-Indian war and another example would be the redistricting of countries in Africa.

Putting a modern twist on this concept that there is no "black and white" in the real, I thought of the division of person items after divorce. When someone gets half of everything, what is half? You have to negotiate the terms, which is similar to when countries negotiate the borders of countries.



In regards to the quote "The desert of the real itself," I asked myself "What exactly is real?" Zizek comments on this exact quote. He discusses the fact that because media allows us to imagine tragedy, we cannot fully grasp tragedy when it actually happens. The example he used was the terrible event of 9/11. He explains that because there are so many similar images on film of building collapsing and people panicking, that we can't fully grasp the gravity of the situation.

Internet and Globalization

Kahn and Kellner’s article talks about the Internet as a part of globalization and the politics concerning it. The article discusses how the Internet has played an important role in globalization and will continue to and it will start involving more politics. Obviously there can be many positive, negative, and unsure views on this topic because there already are concerning if globalization is even a good thing or not. Personally, I believe that the Internet as a part of globalization is awesome. Yes, it has caused many problems up until today and Kahn and Kellner clearly stress on the internet as a part of globalization as being an issue, but I feel like sometimes we forget that bad things can come from any part of communication. Meaning that so what if the internet as a part of globalization has caused problems? I believe that even if it was not a part of globalization, the problems that have occurred would naturally arise.

Oppositional Politics and the Internet: A Critical/Reconstructive Approach Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner

The article for this week focused on the growth and global influence of the internet, with an accentuation on it's involvement in globalization. Internet politics are predicted to be widespread and promote revolution of every day life. To me, the internet is such a necessity, and I know it is in schools, in businesses, when sometimes work logs are documented online, or homework is posted, such as the wiki. Kahn and Kellner's essay addresses the withstanding issue that the internet is a form of globalization and today's internet activism that is a growing domain of current political issues. During a time of terrorism and war, the central worldwide pro-peace/anti-war and social justice movement is thus reinforced in this argument, becoming a more democratic medium. New creative forms of web design and creative websites, like wikis, blogs, facebook, myspace, etc, are groundbreaking developments of the internet's hypertextual architecture. This video is very appropriate, relevant, and i think you will enjoy it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAycYsxgmMw

The Role of the Internet in Globalization

I feel as though sometimes we don't really count the internet as a means of globalization, and Kahn and Kellner's essay brings this issue to the forefront. Although their essay focuses on Internet politics and the effect that the Internet has on increase in political involvement, to be honest I really couldn't get past the fact that the underlying message Kahn and Kellner were trying to get across was the undeniable effect the Internet has had on globalization. Below is a clip from the movie The Social Network, based on a true series of events surrounding the formation of the extremely popular website facebook.com. Facebook has about 500 million viewers worldwide, which results to about 1 in 14 people on Earth has a Facebook page. To say that Facebook has impacted globalization is definetly an understatement.

Internet activism

The article by Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner discusses the Internet and the politics surrounding it. I found the article to be informative, although it was slightly confusing at some points and I was turned off by the obvious presence of bias. When discussing Internet Activism the authors seemed to make it an opportunity to use democratic ideals as positive examples. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with using the Internet in democratic politics, In Fact I think it has done a lot of good, but I would have liked to see some points from the other side of the political spectrum. There was also a lot of “Bush Hate” going on in the article. I’m not saying that I like Bush (I don’t, by the way), I just think that they could have left some of their resentful opinions out and still be able to criticize the Bush administration in a more credible way, But that’s just my opinion about the article. On a lighter note, I found the authors’ arguments about Internet Activism to be refreshing. I agree that the Internet has provided the opportunity, for those who have not been able to in the past, to get involved with issues. I found a video clip that illustrates Internet activism. It is one of those Google search stories. It tells the store about how one person can get involved with politics through the Internet.

Pride or Dissent?

After the reading "Why Johnny can't Dissent," there where several instances that came to mind about dissent that goes on today within society. From the fight against conformity, anti- corporate power, oppression.. the list goes on.
One instance that stuck out for me is the use of the Confederate flag is seen as dissent. Although to many in the south it is used of a symbol of southern pride, for many African American's this same symbol can be a shameful reminder of slavery and segregation. The Confederate battle flag has also been appropriated by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist hate groups. For this reason the use of the confederate flag is very often frowned upon. An example of this is in North Carolina and the fact that they still fly the flag proudly, no matter how many NCAA games don't get played there! The NCAA continues to enforce its boycott of the entire Palmetto State due to their adorable insistence on flying the Confederate flag on the grounds of the state capitol.That raises the question as to whether those who wish to fly the flag are now the ones that are oppressed in not being able to show their supposed southern pride, as this is one of the main reasons why people carry out dissent.

I Think of Them as Friends

I found "I Think of Them as Friends"- Interpersonal Relationships in the Online Community by Nancy Baym to be a very interesting article on a couple different levels. This article discusses the people on R.A.T.S. (a soap opera discussion and opinion site) and how they interact with each other. So, you would think that a website filled with cat loving (it says it in the text!), soap opera watching women talking about their opinions of the show would be full of opposition, but it is surprisingly not so. They call oppositional language "flaming," and it is looked down upon in the R.A.T.S. community. Instead of resorting to "flaming," these women avoid confrontation. The do this by qualifying their opinions (like "I may be wrong but...), apologizing for disagreeing, and by framing their argument as non-offensive (as in "I think it's funny that..." or "No offense but..."). They also build interpersonal relationships online to avoid confrontation. They use each others names, partially agreeing with differing opinions, acknowledging other perspectives, and elaborating on their opinions to avoid confusion. But what I'm asking is "who cares?" My view is that you're never going to meet these people.

The weird thing is...they do meet each other. They send each other gifts and lend each other their cars when members from out of state are in town. Some of them consider each other their best friends! I find this so interesting that they initiated their entire relationship on the fact that they like the same soap opera. I can't imagine not seeing a person more than once a year and considering them your "best friend." I mean, I haven't seen my friends from high school and our friendships have already lessened. Maybe I'm just a skeptic, but I don't really believe in online dating or any of that nonsense. Maybe this is just a giant conglomeration of non-confrontational people, and that is why they get along so well.

Nerdiest Blog Post Ever

When reading Thomas Frank’s article about consumerism, the nerd in me kind of came out. I immediately correlated Storm Troopers to “It is a stiff, militaristic order that seeks to suppress instinct, to forbid sex and pleasure, to deny basic human impulses and individuality, to enforce through a rigid uniformity a meaningless plastic consumerism.” The only thing I felt like was different was that Storm Troopers live to serve Galatic Empire, while Frank’s drones serve the empire of the monopolized media-based consumerism. When Frank said “The Establishment demands homogeneity; we revolt by embracing diverse, individual lifestyles,” I immediately thought “Jedi.” The Jedi were people that chose to use the forces of good instead of evil for the sake of the “free world” or the New Republic. Storm Troopers and the rest of the Galactic Alliance cannot love. An example would be how Padme dies after Anakin Skywalker becomes evil.

Ultimately, it turns out that this article had nothing to do with Star Wars because Frank says “As existential rebellion has become a more or less official style of Information Age capitalism, so has the counterculture notion of a static, repressive Establishment grown hopelessly obsolete. Princess Leia sent a message saying “Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you are my only hope,” showing that there was no way to embrace the surrounding culture and turn it into a counterculture full of options.

The very end of the article is what struck me most as ironic and unfortunate. Even though as a social group one may be trying to revolt, there is still big business cheering you on. THey have to because if they are cheering you on they they are obviously not "big business." However once they start supporting, the movement becomes null an void. It doesn't matter what you do, big business is backing you and that makes you fight yourself. It is a lot like the "More" video by MArk Osbourne. Once the main character invents his googles to make everything better, to get out of his big business environment where he churns out products at a mundane job, he becomes what he was fighting. All of his inner light is gone.

I read "Why Johnny Can't Dissent" by Thomas Frank right after I finished my paper on masculinity in advertisements. I found that what Thomas Frank wrote about was very similar to some of the point I make in my paper (using masculinity to promote a product). My first paper was on the Viagra ad above. I argued that this ad persuaded a man who had Erectile Dysfunction that he had lost his masculinity, and Viagra was his only answer to restoring his masculinity. This would make a man feel like he has also regained his power and dominance, putting him in a different category from the men who have not restored their masculinity. This is very similar to some of Thomas Franks’ arguments. An ad that tells people to “break the rules” or “resist the usual” can make them feel powerful and better than everyone else; therefore they are going to be the ones leading the new conformist group. I believe that there are conformist waves. People see the newest and greatest product and buy it because they will be “cool” and “different,” and they will lead the new conformist wave. As soon as a new product comes out though, it is a race to see who can be the new “first.”

Globalization effects..

When we look at cultural studies, we see that culture is the pattern of social groups or human activity. Culture draws widely in what people wear, the food they eat and the morals and beliefs they hold and how they carry them out. With Globalization we are joining different cultures together and blending them together. Cultural boundaries are broken down through Globalization and traits that are usually well known within one specific country are slowly making their way accessible worldwide. The internet helps to break down cultural boundaries, through interaction and information. Although Globalization is fantastic in the way it is connecting cultures and integrating global networks some also feel that there are negative effects as culture is being imported and directly exported into different countries. This leads a concern that bigger and more powerful countries like the US and England for example may overrun smaller countries with their ways and brands. This refers to process’ that are known as Americanization and McDonalization.

Globalization Versus Cultural Imperialism

Globalization and Cultural Imperialism are two sides of the same coin. Globalization is usually the way the culture spreading looks at it and Cultural Imperialism is how the culture being hegemonized. Globalization is making citizens more aware of other countries, ideas, and ways of life. Cultural Imperialism is the intense and bad version of globalization. In class on Monday, I made the argument that if citizens weren't patrons of the imperialized cultures businesses then they wouldn't be there. After thinking of this picture, I thought that it might be nearly impossible to avoid. Even in our own lives as AMericans, how easy is it to frequent only mom and pop businesses in all aspects? This Cultural Imperialism is overwhelming. It is inescapable. Once the first store or idea is planted, it spreads like a virus. It infects everything until it is hard to pick when the change actually happened. Cultural Imperialism is Globalization, it just depends on which side your on.