The new Megan Fox.

 Shia Labouf talks Megan Fox.

The new transformers movie is going to come out this summer, but this time the lead female role and love interest will no longer be played by the beloved by men Megan Fox.  This time around, director Michael Bay has chosen Victoria's secret model Rosie Hunington-Whitely-a tall blond-as Megan Fox's replacement.  This New York Times article features an interview with Shia Labouf about the departure of Megan Fox from the third Transformers installment, and he speaks of Fox's insecurities of being put in the spotlight essentially through one film series and subsequently being perceived as the sexiest woman in America.  He talks about how she was uncomfortable with Michael Bay's demands for the role, which didn't involve a lot of lines, but rather sexy poses and a lot plain old "looking hot."  This article perfectly ties into the idea of the male gaze and the fetishistic perception of an ideal woman being portrayed through a camera lens.  Since Fox no longer felt comfortable doing the same thing for three films in a row, he ended up hiring an alternate that happens to be a Victoria Secret model; obviously sexy poses are what she does for a living so this acting job would not be much of an insecurity issue for her.  It is fascinating to see how directors will use woman in order to make money, because for example, this is Rosie's first acting job.  It proves that the image of a woman's body is the ideal way of making profit of a big Hollywood Blockbuster in America.

Hangover Drops the N Bomb

I am a fan of the first Hangover, so naturally I went to see the second one. I was excited and sat down with GREAT expectations, but the movie failed me. The humor was so over the top and the plot was exactly the same, just with new locations. I was extremely disappointed. It depicted so many stereotypes. What angered me the most though was the fact that the N word was used MULTIPLE times by three different characters in different ways, none of which were acceptable. I do not mean to spoil the movie at all but the use of the word was by three individuals who were not of African descent and even if they were I still don’t think it was acceptable. The writers then went on to defend the use of the word in an article by saying that, “For someone to say that word so cluelessly, it’s funny because it comes out of a place of ignorance, and Alan doesn’t know any better; he’s just an idiot. Anyone who would say that so loosely is an idiot. That word can be very inflammatory but Alan is such a dimwit, it’s not excusable at all but you’re making fun of people that would say that word.” I however did not see the humor in it at all.

Source: http://www.eurweb.com/?p=106591

Four Weddings

I recently fell in love with a television show called “Four Weddings” on the Learning Channel. In the show, these four brides believe that they are having the best wedding ever. The network makes them guests at each other’s weddings and the brides vote on who had the best wedding. The winner then gets to take a honeymoon that the network pays for. It seems innocent enough, however you have brides of all economic backgrounds coming together to compete. I see this as a major flaw in the show. Sometimes it is comedic how ridiculous the weddings are and we as viewers know that there is no way that some weddings will win. Then we have to ask ourselves is it fair that the woman who had the nice 80,000 dollar wedding should win an all expense paid honeymoon, versus the woman who had a 7, 000 dollar wedding and probably can’t afford that type of honeymoon. We as viewers even scoff at the woman with the cheap wedding and the editors of the show clearly depict the bad parts of the weddings so the viewers make up their mind that the cheap wedding just cannot win. It also doesn’t help that the bride who is usually having the cheap wedding is a woman of color and of course of a lower class. However, as a viewer I cannot deny that this is entertainment.

Illinois grants same-sex marriage.

Today is a good day if you happen to be gay and are looking to get married.  I had just discussed the notion of the value of marriage itself within American society.  Even though the divorce rate is up to 50% today in comparison to the 1950's where marriages and childbirths where at an all time high, people still want to get married.  What is interesting though is the fact that more and more heterosexuals are not wanting to get married and in opposition more same-sex couples are.  Today Jamie Gayle and Robin Petrovic of Cook County in Illinois where granted Civil union, which is obviously a first for our states.  It is fascinating to see how many gay couples want marriage considering how many straight couples increasingly do not in fear or divorce and breaking social norms.  It is arguable that reason so many gay couples may want marriage is solely because of equality-much like woman not having the right to vote 50 years ago-which seems absurd to us today.  Regardless of reasoning, this is a step up for Illinois because we are one of the very few states now that allow same-sex marriage.  I'm proud of the fact that we are breaking social norms and looking at gays as equals rather than inferiors.  This poses a step up for the gay community, and a step in the right direction for the entire nation.

link: http://www.suntimes.com/5712829-417/gay-couples-line-up-for-licenses-as-illinois-civil-union-law-takes-effect.html

The Great Idiot of Social Science Goes Too Far

Satoshi Kanazawa, author of a very contentious blog in Psychology Today recently wrote (and quickly deleted) a very racist post. However, you can't really delete anything on the internet. It's right here. Some things you should know about Satoshi Kanazawa: there is currently a campaign for his dismissal from the University of London as a professor of economics, when you search his name in google, google suggests 'Satoshi Kanazawa Idiot' (his nickname in the title of this blog post, given to him by evolutionary biologist P.Z. Meyers, has stuck), he thinks Ann Coulter, if she were president, would have handled 9/11 and its aftermath better than anybody else he could think of, he has an interest in prostitutes.

What is so discouraging about this man's existence is that he does everything he does in the name of science. He claims that he knows everything and that he can predict events before they happen, not because he is a genius or because he's special in any way, but because he's an evolutionary psychologist. An evolutionary psychologist. To me, that's just a fancy title for an anthropologist who can charge you by the hour to talk to him. This man is dangerous.

He's dangerous because he's willing to generalize people in unthinkable ways. Furthermore Kanazawa is guilty of something that has been a growing trend with the increasing popularity in reality TV and the internet: he creates inflammatory material with the specific intent of getting a reaction and gaining sympathy or popularity or whatever satisfaction racists get from being racist. I was made aware of this piece by CNN's LZ Granderson so it was obviously very widely syndicated. Content is constantly sacrificed for clicks. That is most profitable, presumably. Kanazawa is a professor of economics after all.

Psychology Today had been overwhelmed with responses, and many of their writers took offense to Kanazawa lowering the publication's credibility, he was denounced by Daniel R. Hawes and Nathan A. Heflick with the consensus conclusion being: Kanazawa's research was not objective at all, making it quite racist.

Psychology Today issued this statement last week:

“Last week, a blog post about race and appearance by Satoshi Kanazawa was published–and promptly removed–from this site. We deeply apologize for the pain and offense that this post caused. Psychology Today’s mission is to inform the public, not to provide a platform for inflammatory and offensive material. Psychology Today does not tolerate racism or prejudice of any sort. The post was not approved by Psychology Today, but we take full responsibility for its publication on our site. We have taken measures to ensure that such an incident does not occur again. Again, we are deeply sorry for the hurt that this post caused.”

A BIG Help

The horrific storms and tornados that ripped through Missouri last week left quite the mess with the people of Joplin. After seeing pictures, I couldn’t believe that some people were left with absolutely nothing and even lost family members. Gosh, what a horrible horrible disaster to have happen. While reading an article on CNN about the cleanup that is occurring in Missouri, I saw that an elephant from a nearby circus was brought in. Not only did the elephant provide somewhat of a happy entertainment for the folks of the town to see, but it also helped move heavy debris. I feel that this was a great idea to not only help out the town but also help lift spirits in town at the same time. Some people were outraged claiming that the elephant was in danger. I’m no expert on elephants, but I don’t see the big deal? They are one of the strongest and largest animals, so wouldn’t it make sense to have allowed it to help with a natural disaster? Maybe it’s just me, but I think whoever allowed for the use of this animal did a good thing for the town and its people in an effort to a speedy recovery.

He Did WHAT!?

I don’t know how shocked I was to read about Arnold and Maria’s latest split. I of course that it was sad that the family was splitting, but the part that shocked me most is the fact that Arnold had a love child with a housekeeper 10 years ago!! Apparently, the woman Arnold had a child with (besides his wife) worked at the family’s home for years and was practically considered part of the family, how crazy is that!? And the worst part, is that Maria and the housekeeper carrying Arnold’s child were PREGNANT AT THE SAME TIME! What I don’t understand is how Maria didn’t think something was going on with those two? I mean maybe she did, but im sure she didn’t think that the woman who worked for her was carrying her husband’s child! I just felt really bad for Maria when I heard this (here I am calling her Maria as if I know her). But anyways, I think that the fact he knew exactly what was going on for 10 whole years and never thought to share it with his wife is a very big deal. Also, the fact that he is leading the state of California and he’s that much of a liar get me thinking, what is he hiding from the people of California?

The Name Game

So Kim Kardashian is choosing to ditch her last name, and that is shocking to us? I mean all we’ve heard about is how Kim is “desperate” to get married and how she wants her “fairy-tale wedding”, why wouldn’t she think to change her name? I understand that many celebrities decide not to do so because they still want to be recognized for who are they are and the work they have accomplished, but why is it such a big deal for her to change her name? I feel that it is most appropriate for her to do so because of how much she longed publically for her prince charming. Going along with the whole traditional marriage thing (and not getting married in a few short days quite like Khloe did) it would only make sense to change her name. From the article I read, it seems as though Kris Jenner doesn’t want Kim to change it, especially because of how much her name is worth to fans. But look at Kris Jenner, hers is changed too, isn’t it?

The Wire

OK, I might be a little late, but my boyfriend and I have been watching The Wire via DVD. It was very interesting. I admit, I like it, a lot. I cannot wait until I have more time to watch more of the show. We only got through season 1, but season 1 is all that you need to keep you coming back. The show is primarily about drug dealers, the drug game, and the narcotics team that are after them. The drug lords in the wire are Black, and this is what really caught my attention. I began to wonder would I have the same interest in this show if they were not Black? Also while watching the show, the Smith-Shomada article we read in week 3 stuck out. I am not quite sure who the director or producer of the show is, but I feel that the show more than likely was targeting the Black audience. The show portrays Black men as trouble makers, liars, drug lords, and manipulators. The Wire premiered on HBO, a fairly mainstream network. I wonder if it made its premier on BET would the hype around The Wire have been the same. BET was criticized about showing Blacks in a not so positive light and for the uplifting of Blacks not being their 1st priority. So why is HBO not criticized for how they have portrayed Blacks. Shows such as The Wire are entertaining and obviously made a profit because it had more than one season. I just do not understand why HBO is not criticized for making a buck while BET is criticized for trying to make the same buck.

The show is every interesting and it gives viewers some sort of insight to the drug game and what is happening on a lot of urban streets. However, my concern is the relationship between the success of the show and the television network. AP

The Internet is Everything.

The other day I was blogging for work for Everyday Communications, an educational communications company, and came across a response from one of our twitter followers. This follower is not a teacher, student, or parent, so I was about to delete them from all of our contacts so as to stay relevant. Luckily I did not, because I later realized that they were bringing new followers just for the sake of being interested in Education and the school system in general. Not only did this woman mention us in her blog and twitter but she created many Follow Fridays for us. After racking my brain to figure out why this was occurring I realized there are people out there that just sit at home and look for topics that interest them and research them, interact with them. It leads me to wonder if this is the new library. Twenty years ago, would this same person be going to the library and looking up educational communications company's? Would they be referring us to their friends with Word of Mouth or through letters? Would my advertising and marketing for us cover enough reach with just a newspaper or magazine? Its media and culture questions like these that interest me. The fact that the internet has become such a vital way of communication is insane. Everything is online now, and with society's 'get it now' mentality, there's less people fiddling around in the library checking out books for their information. If they want academic journals they will go online through an accredited academic source via search engine. Really, the question is, will this escalate, and what will this mean for libraries in general?

Cheryl Cole is out.

Recently, Cheryl Cole had been axed from the US version of X Factor after only two episodes.  Simon Cowell himself was excited to bring her along as one of his British sidekicks on the show, but the true reasoning as to why she had been dumped from the show is unknown.  Speculations arise that the reason she may have been let go is because of her think British accent and fear that the American public may not understand her.  There have also been other rumors pertaining to her having to shape up her image to be more visually pleasing to the American Public, and instead has been offered a judging spot on the UK version of the show.  Cole did not accept the offer and the reason of her departure remains unknown as of yet, but many factors contribute to there being some truth behind the rumors.  Pussycat Doll singer Nicole Scherzinger became her replacement, and Kelly Rowland is to judge the UK version.  It is a mystery why it only took two episodes for her to get released, and shows a very hegemonic way of dealing with the issues if the rumors are true.  By using the pretext that she is hard to understand, it proves that Americans prefer to listen and see only what is most comfortable and pleasing as the UK singer's expense. 

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/may/30/cheryl-cole-x-factor-judging-panel

You Got the Wrong TV, SILLY Head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZAAZ7iXN-o

There is a recent commercial for Best Buy's new buyback program, where they offer a ridiculous deal to buy back any item you have bought once the new one comes out. The commercial parodies our obsession with having "the newest" technology available, even though we know the corporations already have their next item prepared before the last one even hits the shelves. The best part of the commercial is the father, who has just purchased a 3D television, being taunted by his young daughter when the 4D comes out. She adorably tells him "you bought the wrong TV, silly head", but she is completely right despite her naivety. This concept is something that is torturing our world, as we are letting the political economy of technology and entertainment overtake any level of sensibility. It is obvious that when they come out with the IPhone 1G there will be at least 5 more g’s to follow, but for some reason we desire each one. This idea is highly reflective of our culture as a whole, because we have become infatuated with being up to date, and have developed some extreme insecurity about not having the latest things. Although this commercial is an advertisement above all else, it does have satirical purposes. Best Buy, a leading seller in electronics, has recognized our recognition of this technology craze, and is finding some way to capitalize on our inherent inability to be content. – C.S.

Should I Dumb It Down for you?

Being simple can be tough at times. If one tries to explain a concept in a simple way, one might think they are simple minded when it could also be the reverse. Harriet Meth is the co-founder of Core Ideas Communications and a full time blogger on Messagedtothedeaft.blogspot.com. Recently, she was asked by a media training client for help with "dumbing down" a intricate idea he wanted to explain in a t.v. interview. Apparently, the reporter and audience were not intelligent enough in the media training clients mind. The client felt it important to say that it must be specifically "dumbed down" a bit. The implication of this is that the client thinks that her audience is stupid which is no way to approach any business decision when it involves potential customers. Insulting one's clientele is an easy way to go out of business and approaching any task with this idea about your clientele gets you going in that direction. A good way of putting it would be to simplify the idea. You can eliminate wordiness and extra fluff by simplifying an idea to it's main core. One can still get their point across by simplifying an idea. "Dumbing down" an idea, or being simplistic, risks insulting the audience and stripping the idea of it's main elements which make it what it is. It can be tough to be simple, but it will pay off in the end. It will also keep respect for your organization if you respect your clientele. - Victor

Ignorance in its purest form.

I came across this article in Marie Claire Magazine which is obviously a magazine that is directed towards women, fashion and beauty.  The article is titled, "Should Fatties Get a Room? (Even on TV)" and it talks about the new CBS sitcom Mike and Molly.  This article truly upset me because not only does Maura Kelly contradict herself over three times in the article, but is rude and disrespectful to anyone struggling with issues with weight.  By even titling the article with the word "Fatties" makes people that are overweight seem like complete outcasts and inhuman.  She clearly states; "So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room — just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine addict slumping in a chair."  A sentence later she says "Don't get me wrong..."  So the problem lies here that by making it seem like overweight people are undeserving of not only love, but anything really unless they lose weight, the "male gaze" subsequenly is further encouraged with images in media of what is a more socially acceptable body type.  Because these people may be more "aesthetically displeasing" to look at to her and others arguably, it diminishes what is the common perception of regularly shown heterosexual couples on television.  Therefore, a fetishistic view within scopephielia is not possible, and further encouraged.  What bothers me is the fact that she is truly ignorant to many issues going on in America, including the present "food deserts" in certain underprivileged communities.  She states that overweight people should simply get up and get moving, buy healthy food, and "stand" as much as possible.  She is not aware though, that many times the socioeconomic status and location of individuals does not allow for this, because if a grocery store is not present within a 10 mile radius, chances are a gym isn't either.  She may be lucky to be able to attend a gym in her high society fashion editor life style, but it is not fair to ignorantly publish an article pertaining to only a fraction of the population that can allow for the luxuries of the gym and healthy eating. 

Read more: Mike and Molly Show - Overweight Couples on Television - Marie Claire

Lady Gaga Impersonator

In a school district in New Jersey, fifth grade students gossiped about a special teacher that had been helping their regular teacher prepare them for the NJ ASK state administered exams. To reward the students for their hard work preparing for the state exams, this assistant teacher promised the children that Lady Gaga would Skype Video Chat the students. The teacher claimed she worked for MTV previously and that she had the connections to make this Skype video conference. The day finally arrived and the video conference was a success with all students truly believing they had met Lady Gaga online. The students all received personalized autographs to top things off. A few days later, the school notifies parents that the whole thing had been a lie and that the teacher had done this video conference trick in four different elementary schools fooling teachers and students alike. The teacher lied to hundreds of students and allowed an complete stranger enter the classroom and completely lie to them. A student had analyzed the autographs she received with a variety of them online to discover that the whole plan was fake. This has a variety of ethical implications as it involves children who are merely growing up. I can't imagine these students ever having trust or confidence in older people as someone as trust worthy as a teacher blatantly lied to them all. Lying is never good! The reputation and credibility of the teacher and school district is damaged for allowing something like this to happen. What is worst of all is that this involves children who are still learning the up's and down's of life. There is nothing worse then being betrayed at such a young age. You hold on to it forever.
-Victor

Rampage Jackson Interview

When first watching this interview I thought it was hilarious. I thought Rampage gave one of the funniest post game interviews I have ever seen in my life. I thought it was playful, funny, and really out there. I also thought very highly of the person giving the interview who I later found out to be Karyn Bryant. She seemed to think it was funny as well and I thought that she was very cool to understand the joke and not take it offensively.

After scrolling down a bit I noticed someone posting a comment about a Maggie Hendricks who at the time I thought to be Karyn Bryant. The comment talked about how she felt it was sexual harassment so I naturally checked it out. It turned out Maggie Hendricks was not affiliated with the situation and was simply a writer for Yahoo Sports.

I have mixed emotions on this topic. For one, I have worked with many female reporters as per interning with Comcast Sportsnet and having a show on Radio DePaul. I understand how it is a disadvantage to be a female trying to break into the sports field and know how tough it must be to often not be taken seriously. I think that it is especially brave of a woman like Karyn Bryant to work in an industry like MMA which is male dominated.

But I also have played sports and have been in a locker room. I can tell you from first hand experience that a male locker room is not the place for a woman to be in. People are naked or close to it, pulling childish pranks, and there is a high testosterone level. I want to leave it off with this question because it is what I will discuss further in my blog paper: Why is it that we do not see men in women's locker rooms but women in men's?

Wiz Khalifa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KVDHnM4sU

As most of you know, Wiz Khalifa performed at DePaul last Friday for our annual FEST concert. It was a fun concert and all, but was he an appropriate choice to be allowed to perform at the world's largest Catholic university in the country? As seen in this video and through many of his lyrics, Wiz loves smoking weed and being under the influence of other substances. Sure, I understand the notion of freedom of speech, however, at what does ethical norms and religious beliefs come into play?

I personally loved Wiz being here and think his music is awesome. With that being said, I am a 20 year old college student, not a University president. In the music video, Wiz is seen overtly rolling joints, drinking, and smoking. This all is cool for Wiz in freedom of speech and expression aspects, however, what are we teaching not only kids, but young adults? That if you're famous you can do whatever you want (even on camera) and avoid the law while still making money? I don't want to be a stickler about this, but people make such a big deal about what you post on Facebook, while here you see a public figure blatantly committing acts frowned upon in society. Also, if the cops were to see a picture (let alone a video) of me doing this stuff, I would get into trouble. Wiz is not only staying out of trouble, but making a fortune about breaking the law and singing about it. I don't know whether to call him an idiot or a genius, but whatever the case may be it is strange how our culture works.