Kids these days, with their loud music and their scandalous outifts...

Last night (Sunday) was the Grammy awards, and I watched the majority of the telecast. The live performances were not consistently great, but pretty good in most cases. The decisions about awards, at least the ones shown on TV were odd, to say the least (for example, Lady Antebellum won what seemed like 138 Grammies for a mediocre song they put out about a year and a half ago). What captured my attention most, though, were all the crazy things performers did to capture people’s attention. From Lady Gaga’s horrible pointy shoulders to the multitudes women with hairstyles that required an impressive amount of neck strength to support, it seemed like everyone was trying too hard to be noticed. I’m all for freedom of expression, but it seems as if people are resorting to greater and greater lengths to stand out, even though they are already quite famous. This speaks to the nature of celebrity in the world today, and what is required, or what people think is required, nowadays to realize the classic “American dream”.

Nowadays, it seems as if stardom doesn’t come to those who are the most talented, attractive or intelligent. Instead, it comes to those who are the best at garnering attention. The time was when a band didn’t need outrageous outfits or flashy gimmicks to get noticed. The Beatles, arguably the best and most famous group in history, performed in suits and ties. The biggest celebrities then were talented movie stars, musicians, and athletes. Now, Lady Gaga is inexplicably climbing in and out of eggs and Cee-Lo Green is dressing up like the Froot Loops parrot. There’s nothing wrong with this per se, but it seems to me like they’re trying too hard to stir up public interest, when it shouldn’t really be necessary. Case in point: Arcade Fire’s performance near the end of the telecast featured blinding strobe lights that probably caused dozens of seizures in the audience, and also several random people riding around on bicycles. It’s as if they forgot that they would be performing onstage, and that everyone in the audience would already be looking at them. I’m ambivalent on the band and its music, but I came away from the Grammies hating them, just because the show was so ridiculously overproduced.

I don’t mean this post to be too old-geezer-esque, and I don’t mean to be overly nostalgic about the past (though looking over it, it seems to be both these things). I realize that Elton John dressed just as flamboyantly as most modern stars, and that Zsa-Zsa Gabor was probably no more deserving of fame (to the extent that anyone can be objectively judged in that manner) than Kim Kardashian. Still, the trend of people doing more and more outlandish things just to get noticed speaks to a decay, however small, in our culture and it might be nice if people could get attention simply for being good at whatever it is they do.

Shots Heard 'Round the Nation

Lately, the news has been dominated by the continuing protests in Egypt, and rightfully so. That the Egyptian people are rising up to reject quasi-dictator Hosni Mubarak is both exciting and inspiring. However, there has been another development in the Muslim world that has gotten very little coverage and that, while not as globally important, is perhaps almost as interesting.

For my history class, I’ve been closely monitoring Pakistani news, and this news often involves the United States. Last week, a U.S. official identified as Raymond Davis was arrested in the murder of two Pakistani men. A full summary of the story can be found here.

As many of the circumstances surrounding the murder are unknown, it’s hard to avoid speculation. It’s clear, though, that nationalism is playing a big role in how this crime is viewed. The U.S. government was quick to defend Davis, saying that he acted in self-defense and that he was being robbed by the two men that he shot. Pakistan, on the other hand, insists that the two men were completely innocent and that Davis is a murderer. These diametrically opposed perceptions of the same man are intriguing, especially considering that this entire case is steeped in mystery, and that no one really knows who Raymond Davis is exactly. I’m kind of curious as to why a consular official would need to walk around the streets of Pakistan packing heat, but I feel unqualified to render any further judgment on this man. It seems as though the average Pakistani has the same amount of facts as I do, but they have made up their minds to the point that there are daily protests calling for his hanging.

It’s hard to believe that nationalism can drive people to such extreme measures, but that’s really the only explanation for what’s happening in this situation. Davis is seen as a symbol of the U.S.; if he is acquitted, Pakistan’s subservience to America will be on display for the world to see. On the flip side, Americans see this man as a symbol of their government as well. Therefore, he must not be guilty; surely he had good reason to shoot and kill those two men, just as the U.S. government has good reason to launch unmanned drone attacks on Pakistani citizens.

No matter what the verdict, this trial will be huge news in Pakistan, and possibly on the global stage as well. I know that I will be following it closely. The trial will most likely say just as much about the balance of power between America and Pakistan as it does about Davis’s innocence or guilt.

Catch-22 Revisited

When I was about 14 years old, I read the book Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. I got the sense that it was a good book, and even enjoyed it a little, but I was very confused the whole time. The writing was simply over my head at the time. I resolved to reread the book later, when I might have a better chance of understanding what was going on. Since I recently had two weeks off of school, I decided to do exactly that over break.
The plot of Catch-22 is difficult to describe succinctly because there are so many tangents and subplots, but I’ll do my best. The main character is Yossarian, a very reluctant soldier in World War II. He seems to be the only one aware that there are thousands of people trying to kill him, and as a result is very paranoid. He is extremely afraid of dying, and does all he can to keep from flying missions. The missions he is avoiding are extremely dangerous, so much so that any soldier willing to fly them is declared insane and is thereby released from service. However, if a soldier ever asks to be released on these grounds, he must be sane and has to keep flying the missions. This law is known as Catch-22 (hence the title), and is one of many oxymorons and hypocrisies in the book. The book contains many wacky characters with colorful names (Major Major Major Major and Major ——— de Coverley being two examples), and reads more like a piece of satire than a war drama. The strong anti-war message of the book still resounds, and is made stronger by some of the cruel ironies in the story.
This book came out after WWII but before the Vietnam War, so it preceded the wave of cynical negativity surrounding war that swept across the US. As a result, the book was received to very mixed results, with some loving it and some hating it. Much of the controversy centered around Heller’s unconventional writing style, which is choppy and irreverent.
I loved Catch-22 the second time around. There were still parts where I was confused (there are many characters who appear with no introduction, and then are never mentioned again), but I definitely got more of the main themes and “deeper meaning” this time. Personally, I enjoy Heller’s sardonic style, and I think it’s most of the reason that this book is a classic.

An Eye on the Media: Exploring the Julian Assange Arrest

A major subject in the news recently is the WikiLeaks website, and its controversial founder Julian Assange. WikiLeaks has caused some problems for world governments by posting secret internal documents on the internet, and making secrets public that many say are detrimental to these countries. Recently Assange was arrested in conjunction with a case that seemingly has nothing at all to do with WikiLeaks; he has been charged with sexual assault and molestation. Obviously, it’s impossible for me to know if he is guilty or innocent at this point. What I do know is that there is a ton of speculation going on right now. Some say that Assange is a rapist and should go to jail, while others say that the charges are merely a smear campaign waged by “The Man” to whom Assange is trying to “stick it”. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I think it’s interesting how different news sources have covered this important story. I recently read two articles that came at the story from very different points of view, and I found this dichotomy interesting.

The first article was on the CNN website, in the “world” section. I assumed that this would mean that the article would have a global focus and point of view, but I quickly realized that it was written with a distinct anti-Assange slant. Many American sources (though CNN is an international news organization, it is run out of Atlanta and is, for all intents and purposes, American) have been quick to condemn WikiLeaks, while very few have succeeded in staying neutral Searching the CNN website, I found a variety of viewpoints on how horrible WikiLeaks is, but failed to find any sources to contrast these one-sided articles. I’m personally not sure how I feel about WikiLeaks. I can see the good and the bad, but I’m wary of having my views shaped, even somewhat, by a potential bias in the media. In the article about Assange’s arrest, it seems as if the writer has already decided that Assange is guilty. The article contains no opinions, but the facts are presented in such a way that the criminality of Assange is emphasized, whereas any doubt over the legitimacy of the charges (the real story here, in my opinion) is kind of swept under the rug.

I didn’t notice the bias (which I think/hope is subconscious) so much at first, but then I read an article on the Al Jazeera site that was, in my opinion, more impartial and just better-written in general. The article had more quotes from a more varied array of sources. Whereas the CNN article seemed to be holding Assange’s attempted takedown of the U.S. government against him as it wrote the article about his arrest, Al Jazeera seemed more fair. It’s not as if Al Jazeera doesn’t have a reason to hate Julian Assange (indeed, it seems everyone has a reason to hate Assange): it was accused in one of the leaks for being a pawn of, and mouthpiece for, the Qatari government. Despite being somewhat embroiled in the controversy itself, Al Jazeera did a great job of reporting it, in my opinion, and it was interesting to see how different articles could tilt indisputable facts to get a point across.

The Power of Stories

In English, we are currently reading the book Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi. The book chronicles Nafisi’s efforts to teach a literature class for a group of young women, an action that directly rebels against the strict Iranian government. The book is obviously specifically about Iran and its oppressive regime, but the main idea of the book can, in my opinion, be made much more universal. This fundamental idea is that stories are often the best, or at least a good, defense against tyranny.

In places where people’s lives are not what they would like them to be, stories can serve as a form of escapism. In Iran, for example, I would imagine that reading F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby would be eye-opening for Nafisi’s students (I haven’t read this far in the book yet, but I will soon find out what kind of meaning the students take away from this book). The Great Gatsby describes, in great detail, a world that Iranians, especially women, would be unfamiliar with. It’s important for an oppressed people to be exposed to a culture that is radically different than their own (in the case of The Great Gatsby, an extremely materialistic one, to the point of excess), even if that culture is only experienced through stories. If these stories are not made available, there is the possibility that the population as a whole will be brainwashed, in a way, into believing that the current societal norms and culture is the only option. This can be very dangerous, as it often perpetuates tyranny.

Interestingly, it is just as important for stories to come out of places like Iran as it is for them to go in. Only by hearing first-hand experiences of everyday people can the rest of the world begin to understand what they go through, and try to help them. Stories like Persepolis and Reading Lolita in Tehran can go a long way toward getting the rest of the world to sympathize with the oppressed, and possibly do something to help.

The Smartphone STD Test: Good or Bad?

Recently, I saw a story on my Google Reader that intrigued me, and that I think speaks to a larger narrative within our society. When I read the article, which in essence said that British researchers have developed a program that allows smartphones to analyze the user’s urine and check for STDs, I was skeptical. After reading that the user does not pee directly onto the phone, but rather onto a computer chip that is then plugged into the phone, this seemed like a slightly better idea.

Actually, it may seem silly, but this development has the potential to be a very good thing. People who are too lazy (or embarrassed) to see the doctor might be able to catch these diseases earlier than they could have without the app. That being said, this seems like one more demonstration that our society is too reliant on technology. When a phone starts to replace actual professionals with advanced medical degrees, it’s not a good sign. The phone app can’t be right 100% of the time, and sometimes a person might rely on it when it shows a negative test when there might actually be a problem. Unlike a doctor, a program on a phone can’t be held accountable when it makes a mistake.

Technology is good in most instances, but we need o have boundaries on what we expect to be done for us. In my opinion, the STD app is probably a little much. That being said, I’m interested to see how, and to what extent, it gets used in the future.

Disappointment

I know I've been writing a lot about the midterm elections lately, but as they just occurred this Tuesday I thought it would be appropriate to bring them up one last time. For the last couple weeks, it was hard to turn on the TV without seeing either a campaign ad or a pundit predicting or analyzing election results, so it's obvious that Americans have been bombarded, like it or not, with news about this major event, so I think I can be excused for adding my two cents one last time.

Obviously the elections can't be neatly summed up in a word, considering the multitudes of people that participated, all with different outlooks and opinions. That being said: disappointment. In my opinion, this word most accurately describes the climate of this election. While legions of incensed Tea Partiers got a lot of media attention, these people did not represent the majority of American voters. Aside from the far-right Obama-haters and the die-hard Obama fans, the majority of the country's voters were simply disappointed with the direction that the country is headed. To back up this theorizing with some data, the Global Language Monitor conducted a study and found that the terms "frustration" and "disappointment" were far more frequent than "anger" or "rage". Of course, whenever people are unhappy with the way Washington is working, they look to blame the party that is in power, and therefore should be in a position to do something about it. In this case that party was the Democrats.

There's nothing wrong with being disappointed and informed, as many voters were. However, acting on uninformed disappointment can be problematic. In other words, it is difficult to pick out members of our government to "blame" our current mess on. Washington is so complicated that often the"bad guys" are hard to find. The "good guys", however, are substantially easier to pick out. One apparently negative outcome from Tuesday's elections was Russ Feingold's loss in the race for the Wisconsin Senate seat. He has authored a lot of important legislation on campaign finance, a huge problem in politics today. He also has a reputation as a good compromiser, which is something that voters supposedly were interested in. Still, Feingold, who was greatly respected for voting his conscience and not strictly adhering to party lines, was ousted along with many other incumbents in favor of Ron Johnson, an adamant global warming denier.

Though I do lean left politically, I don't see anything wrong with the disappointment directed at the Democrats, though I do think both parties should shoulder some of the blame. When one party has a clear majority in Congress and has control of the executive branch, they are expected to pass major legislation that will affect Americans' lives for the better. With the possible exception of health care reform (which is largely unpopular), this hasn't happened. Therefore, it's okay for voters to be disappointed and to want to get some new faces in Washington. That being said, I think they could have been a little smarter about it, and tried to differentiate between good incumbents and entrenched career politicians. It's a fine line, but I assumed Americans were intelligent enough to tell the difference. Instead, I was a little disappointed.