Snap, Crackle, and Popular Culture

Housewives gone wild

There is a lady on my television. She has awkwardly large nostrils and keeps mentioning the words “AARP”, “Healthcare”, and “Endorse” while standing up within what appears to be an intimate room in front of many people. It has become apparent to me that she knows nothing about the relationship of those words, nor how to use them. As she yells, not only do her nostrils inflame, but so do the behaviors of the people around her. She almost sounds good. She is a suburban rhetorician and right before the end of her diatribe, people began to clap. Her name is probably Suzan, but it is likely that her husband calls her “Sue.” This was her 30 seconds of fame.

There are many people like Sue, dentist-wives who have become bored engaging in oft-consuming activities such as consuming (shopping), and have now begun to channel their energies to “learning” about social-political changes without actually learning. This is her new hobby, Sue’s new hobby, and it’s free- Blind Advocacy. Her husband works, and while she has great health care, she likes to put on a show for those around her. She is a victim to media hype, she is now just another silly sensationalist.

Bright Signs make you right

But this is becoming all too common. Another woman in Pensylvania was reported using words such as “founders”, “constitution”, and “restore”. She believes she is the new Erwin Chemerinsky, though nobody else does, but she is mad, and we all known how that works: If you appear mad, and you are yelling, well, then, you must be right. However, this is a problem because I am genuinely concerned about the alleged point this woman was trying to make in regards to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Though, i’m struggling, after much thought I believe this woman is trying to make the argument that the original framers of the constitution did not intend to create policies which might, in our retrospective modernistic approach, be considered socialistic. Ok, so what? Historians and constitutional law scholars have argued for years on what they believed to be the original intent of the framers. This is nothing new and I certainly am not willing to take watered down advice from a mom who probably knows more about waffles than Madison and Jefferson. Although I am willing to coincide that I might be wrong if she could just somehow prove to me that somewhere in her expensive name brand purse, there exists a copy of the federalist papers.

Ultimately it is my belief that these women, while proponents of something that some of the greatest minds don’t understand, are just victims- blind advocates. Certainly, imbued in modern social policies are arguments for and against, which have underpinnings of “liberal” and “conservative” political ideology. I believe that it is no more than her support for one of these ideologies that she believed she was representing (probably the latter). The issue I take, however, is that people are vehemently advocating things that they probably know nothing about and they are getting airtime! It should be obvious that I can never be certain whether or not these people are scholars of some sort which, if they were, would lend them credibility on these issues, but I can say one thing with certainty and that is: Scholars are slightly more revered.

You see, Government oversight is complex. In fact, it is purposely designed to be comprehensive and complex. Arguments that oversimplify something that is designed to be comprehensive and complex appears to make people angry. The line between opinions and truth has become blurred, and for some made up reason people feel intelligent by crafting what have historically been seen to be “intellectual” arguments that are best set aside for similar issues, which in the past, have appeared to make people appear “intelligent.” Because those who run the news might be incoherent, there is no reason why they should aid in making the rest of us so by airing thoughtless arguments superglued together by people who have little or no experience on the issue just for the sake of “feeling like” they are now part of a “cause.”

I’ll admit it, I’m a guy and I went to see 500 Days of Summer (voluntarily). But, this was only after I saw the preview of this film which enlightened me to what I could expect to be on the soundtrack for this flick (ie., artists such as: Regina Spektor, and The Smiths). Though none of this could have prepared me for the conundrum of what this movie is about to do to our culture.

Let me explain…

Within the past two years or so, there seems to appear a new type of character in modern cinema. Slowly, this character has made her way into the critical dynamics of the protagonist’s life. This character, a female, is the post-modern, metro-independent, iconoclastic, semi-feminist incantation of Dorothy Day meets Dorris Day. She is beautiful but not in the way we normally understand and have come to understand beauty through our bleach-blonde-bulimic-obsessed hype. Rather, she is beautiful for not being beautiful and she is sexy because is she commonly being pursued by the protagonist. In this film, her name is Summer (Zooey Deschanel), but in Adam Sandler’s Funny People her name was Daisy (Aubrey Plaza). Both women have dark hair, are sophisticated, exist in their mid thirties, live in modern urban environments, and at times, expressly refer to their independence. If this is not a statement by and for the “modern-woman,” then I don’t know what is.

These women want what men have historically had: The freedom just to be free and now they have it. But there is a problem, a big problem (albeit there is an inherent fallacy that this is being written by a man), and that problem is that the historical notion of the relationship is under attack. Understandably this can be criticized as me being too androcentric, and I think that is an argument better made for another place and time because the crux of my argument is that gender roles are slowly being recharacterized, and the relationship is being reengineered- not that I am, or have feelings which encourage the diminution of a woman’s freedoms.

The result of the implementation of these characters into movies leads to the development of the modern relationship- An open, anti-label, less-than-semi-emotional dynamic between two human beings who are just trying to live. That would make this simultaneously existential and nihilistic.

These characters are placed into movies intentionally by Hollywood so as to manipulate and mold customary human interaction and relationships. It is my opinion that this will be accomplished by women, who watch these movies, and then slowly begin to reproduce the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and ideas of these neo-women characters, these archetypal iconoclastic sandbags, and introduce these newly engineered frameworks for relationships into every day life.

But what’s the big deal?

Firstly, it can be seen that this style of relationship will perpetuate casual intercourse. This will, in effect, lead to an increase in transmission of infectious diseases.

Secondly, this type of modern relationship, will slowly digest the emotional aspect of the relationship, making love and attraction historical anecdotes.

Finally, this modern relationship will contribute to the destruction of our historical understanding of gender roles.

These are all serious concerns and I admit, maybe it is for the better. Maybe the good outweighs the bad. For instance, a possible positive attribute could be the fact that this modern type of relationship will give people an opportunity to “be with” more people which in turn, will give the individuals a better understanding of who or what their ideal candidate for a partner is. Furthermore, that might lead to an increase in happier, longer-sustainable relationships, which will decrease the amount of divorces. Therefore, this type of relationship could inadvertently contribute to the restoration of historical values including monogamy.

Another serious problem is that this is a subtle attempt by Hollywood to manipulate the dynamics of human interaction and impact the relationship man and women naturally have, though I’ll be the first to admit that “natural” is a very amorphous term. This furthers the influence and puppeteering perpetrated by Hollywood, which makes people less free and less independent. Thus, the image of the independent women would be, and is, a myth built by smoke screens and blue screens. It is a complete fabrication built on a stage that plays into the values and desires which people have been encouraged to regard highly.

By going to www.saynotohollywood.com readers will now be redirected to this website.

– Posted Mobilly From My iPhone

Judges wear black robes so that the parties arguing in front of them cannot gather an idea of the personality that exists under that robe. Judges are supposed to be detached, and objective. Fortunately, or unfortunately, they are also human which often times interferes with the ability of the judge to separate their past personal life experiences from the issue at hand. For example, it would certainly be hard for a judge, who as a child, was the victim of sexual abuse, to conduct a trial objectively, where the defendant has been accused of sexual abuse. Recognizing this, Legal Realists offered a social legal theory that attempts to pigeonhole the problems with our modern legal justice system.

Simply put, Legal Realism is a philosophy that disavows the notion that the law is a separate metaphysical reality. Rather, legal realists, offer that the law is a machination, which comes about due to the result of the beliefs and behaviors of those who are in power. That is, there is no such thing as real law, but rather, law is imposed in a way that reflects the historical biases of the judge (who can at times be equivocated as a lawmaker contrary to his constitutional role). Therefore the law is indeterminate.

So for instance, if a former Puerto Rican activist woman is nominated and appointed to the Supreme Court, it is likely that because of her past activity as an activist (beliefs and behaviors), there is a high probability that she may not carry out the rule of law objectively. Rather, she may carry out the law or vote on the bench in a way that mostly favors her personal social, economic, political, and social beliefs. This translates into Judicial Activism, which is a pejorative term that encompasses the result of a judge or a court acting in a way that exceeds its article 3 power.

This is a problem because this theory acknowledges fallibilities in the law, which slowly breaks down our traditional understanding basic justice and equality. Without which, the law fails, or becomes nothing more than a historical joke.

Furthermore, Critical Legal Theorists, argue that when this happens, the rule of law becomes nothing more than a myth. Certainly, the judicial system has mechanisms in place to try to avoid this (appeal processes), but the problem is that when this sort of behavior is propagated in the highest court, the Supreme Court, there is no appeal process. Although an argument can be made that the hedge against this happening in the Supreme Court is that appointments to the Supreme Court are not life appointments. Rather, the Judges serve on a term for as long as they maintain “good behavior” (which can, and often is, a life time term).

As technology grows, and the demand for communication increases, the media churns out reports that don’t necessarily promote an objective view by the masses of the appointee. Rather, stories are filled with past acts, rulings, and other ways to give individuals ideas about the personality of the nominee. This in turn personifies and humanizes judicial nominees which makes it harder for individuals to see how the law will ever be carried out objectively. Certainly, it is not only the judicial nominee that becomes a victim to media reports and allegations, it is also the spectators who too become victimized, as they soon become dissuaded from attempting to perceive the nominee as an objective individual.

Now that the blog is mobile, I will be able to provide up-to-the-minute excitement. Stay tuned.

– Posted Mobilly From My iPhone