Blimey Cow, Fandoms, and Human Complexity

"But at least it's just a kid thing, right? At least people grow out of this behavior when they get older. Adults don't join groups and justify the actions of the members of said groups no matter how insane or even criminal they are. Oh wait, I just described politics. Well kids have fun with your fandoms. Apparently it's just practice for the real thing."

This is how Blimey Cow ends one of their videos from the past month titled "The Fandom Menace (Or: Why I Hate Fandoms)". The video was a bit hard to watch. Not only did many fans and casual viewers hate the video but I myself found it hit very close to home. I'm not a huge fangirl but I won't lie when I say I do many of the things presented in this video, both on the fan side and the outsider. I constantly push Harry Potter on people yet also refuse to watch Dr. Who because of how insane the fans are about it. In a way, I'm glad Blimey Cow brought up the issue of fandoms while also calling me out. They always seem to do that which is why I admire them and have been a long time subscriber.
But the video did more than call people out and make some even feel alienated. It brought up an important truth about fandoms that surrounds the extreme admiration of individual people. This I am glad to say I have put behind me. Sure I still greatly admire certain folks but I no longer obsess unhealthily over them. Blimey Cow dared to go the distance and compared fandoms to politics. This is when the video takes a dark turn and the satire is just so damn good.
How have we failed to recognize this as a culture? Perhaps we did but the thoughts couldn't quite formulate properly in our brains. Perhaps we did but didn't want to admit it. Either way, it has been brought to our attention now in a very uncomfortable way and we must ask - where do we go after watching said video?
I think it is important to see all sides to the connection Blimey Cow made. They connect fandoms to politics but what is it about politics that gives a negative connotation? From my experience, I'd say it is the in-authenticity that bothers people about politics. No politician is ever straight faced with the public it seems. They all skew the truth or hide it. And when it leaks, people freak out. Politicians do bad things because their power allows them to do so and like many people, they may imagine getting caught but don't believe it could possibly happen. How does this connect with fandoms? Well, aside from the quote at the beginning, it allows the said individual who is idolized to get away with much more than a normal person would be allowed. Take Taylor Swift for example. Many of her songs are extremely hateful and could easily come across as bullying and targeting. Yet she is another American sweetheart for some reason. People quote her lyrics biblically and she is not the first nor the last person to be treated as an idol. Even sports stars get special treatment. Take O.J. Simpson for example...I don't think I need to say anything more.
In a way, we are all part of fandoms. We all tend to idolize people for their virtues but fail to see them as...well, people. Flawed people. It isn't the fandom itself that is the problem because fandoms bring people together and allow them to feel accepted. It is the idea of the fandoms that are troubling. The idea that someone has their room covered in One Direction photos so they can kiss the guys to bed and has internet debates about the validity of One Direction song lyrics and watches nothing else but One Direction on the family room television isn't healthy and is also a bit stalker-ish. Those guys aren't perfect and neither is the President (or any politician for that matter), Taylor Swift, O.J. Simpson, or any person in the public eye. I think it is great to celebrate talent and goodness, but we must realize that human complexity is much stronger than the faces people put on for the cameras. 

Getting to the Core of the Elliot Rodger Shooting

Some people know that Elliot Rodger is the son of Hunger Games co-director, Peter Rodger. What people mostly know him for though is the event in which he shot innocent people and in turn, took his own life. An event like this breathes tragedy. It is an event that is linked to other tragic events, like a paper chain you make in kindergarten. Suddenly people are linking this event to other really horrible events like Columbine and Sandy Hook. They are linked by tragedy but can easily be separated just by tearing the paper. This chain leads to popular thoughts such as the rapture is near and the end of the world will soon be upon us. I'm sure the new movie adaption of the popular (but God awful) book series, Left Behind, will only add to this chain or for some people complete the chain. People will also go to lengths to shake their heads and comment on how effed up our country is. Instead of trying to understand the situation, they act superior to the event altogether.
But there is a lot more to this story and Elliot that people aren't taking into account. Almost every article and opinion piece I have heard or read has taken a different approach to this event and often these approaches are polar opposites. It is almost as if people are arguing about what describes a blueberry Popsicle. "It's blue!" some say. "It's cold," others retort. Well yes, those are both right answers but blue and cold isn't exactly what a blueberry Popsicle is. The same can be said about this situation.
In this post I am going to attempt to flesh out Elliot Rodger and what he did in a non-biased way. I will try to address every single aspect of his story and ask for forgiveness if I miss something. A fair warning that this will be a long blog.

I did a bit of background research on Elliot to see what his life was like before all of this happened. My research wasn't digging too deep but just enough to get an overview. Elliot's parents are different races - his father, the Hunger Games co-director Peter Rodgers, is white and his mother is Asian. Elliot's multiracial background is said by some to have played a big part in his earthly struggles. Elliot was also taking a drug called Alprazolam, also known as Xanax. Apparently he was addicted to this anxiety drug, though that could just be a dramatic fabrication by reporters seeking more readership. Either way, he was taking the drug but it didn't seem to be helping him and what he did supports that hypothesis. Before Elliot went on his slaughtering rampage, he not only recorded a video but wrote a 141 page essay on his plan and how his entire life led up to this moment. He titled it, My Twisted World. The essay is available online via PDF. I plan to read it soon but unfortunately did not read it before writing this blog so I can't comment on anything inside. I did glance over it though and from what I saw, it is a detailed account of Elliot's every year on this earth.
What struck me while reading articles about Elliot and what he did, was the lack of emotion towards his death from his parents. Neither of them even mentioned Elliot's suicide; only the victims of Elliot's revenge plot and their families were mentioned. Perhaps this was a political/media manuver to keep themselves in a good light, that even though they grieved for their son they were afraid to show it. Or perhaps they had no sympathy towards their son. Either they loved him and cherished him while alive but now believe him to be a monster or they never showed him much affection and therefore have little to say about his demise.
I watched Elliot's retribution video after a friend of mine posted it on Facebook commenting on how messed up Elliot was as most people were doing. I had formed an opinion before Elliot's video was even over. I took an extreme interest in this story and did some hunting for other stuff this guy had posted. Turns out, he has a YouTube channel where he posted tons of videos very similar to his last...minus the day of retribution stuff. Almost every video possesses the question, why aren't girls attracted to me? And he goes on with the usual perfect guy crap and self pity.
After watching most of Elliot's videos, I felt a strange but familiar feeling. His narrative voice resembled that of a character in a novel. If Elliot was a fictional character, I would probably have been sympathizing with him in his struggles. The way his story ended would be a perfect tragedy with an artistic message about loneliness, entitlement, and what it means to be alive (and I don't mean the sensation of being alive like you get when you go skydiving or something but to feel your heart beat and breathe air through your lungs kind of alive - like how Harry feels before he enters the forest at the end of Deathly Hallows). The first video itself also showed Elliot in a fictitious light. Between his occasional dark giggles and putting his hand to his chin, one could say he reminded them of a Disney villain. Either way, if this were a fictional story I think our take on it all would be much different. You may be laughing at the very idea of this but let me point out a few stories that display a character who is murdering innocent people. Sweeney Tod, the demon barber is a huge example.Then times him by ten and you've got A Song of Ice and Fire (known as a Game of Thrones to many). In the series there are tons of characters who murder for revenge and it is usually a character we like and route for! My point in bringing this up is that the reason we sympathize with these characters is because of their history of pain and suffering. What Elliot did was wrong. There is no question about that. But to understand this story in its entirety, we must view it through a narrative lens and see our character, Elliot, as a whole and not just the parts we want to see.
Elliot's character was that of quiet reflection. He seemed to love watching sunsets while Belinda Carlisle's voice echoed her popular track Heaven is a Place on Earth over the radio. He would often reflect on the loss of his innocence and the current state of his sad life via poetic musings. He yearned for love just as every person does. In his day of retribution video he states, "All I ever wanted was to love you [girls], and be loved by you." You can argue that his idea of love was sick and twisted and I would have to agree. But his longing isn't unique. It is universal. Everyone has a longing to be with another person in some sense.
In many cases, Elliot's situation can be compared to more classic tales such as Macbeth and Phantom of the Opera. First, the Phantom is a tragic character who fan girls love to swoon over (just go on any Phantom message board) yet he murders so many people to get what he wants and to be with Christine. Fans feel for his character and excuse his dark deeds all because he did them for Christine and had a deformed face. Sounds very similar to Elliot in my opinion. Of course the end gives Phantom his moment of redemption by fleeing but that doesn't change the fact that he is a murderer. Then look at Macbeth! I recently watched a documentary on Netflix about the classic play and it seemed to scream Elliot Rodger. It not only shows a man descending into madness but begs the question of fate and free will. Was it the witches or Macbeth's own lust for power that motivated his decisions. For Elliot we must ask, was it societal pressures and girls or his own insanity that brought on this tragedy? And I think the answer for each character is both.
Upon first watching the day of retribution video, I saw a narcissistic college student who had been led to believe that loosing his virginity was his sole cure for loneliness and lack of identity. He said things such as, "I have been forced to endure an existence of loneliness, rejection, and unfulfilled desires," and, "I'm 22 years old, I'm still a virgin. I've never even kissed a girl," and it is quite plain that this identity he has formed almost accidentally has become his own subconscious way of victimizing himself. This kid was extremely lonely and searching in all the wrong places for find happiness. His first problem was his big head. Something he says repeatedly throughout all of his videos is how fabulous he is. Second, he has been led to believe that sex equals happiness. He doesn't just want a girlfriend or intimacy. He just wants to be able to say he is not a virgin. And how can we fault him for this notion with movies like 40 Year Old Virgin making fun of virginity and our schools sex ed programs that don't teach kids about sex properly? Kids are regularly taught by school, the media, and even their parents that their self worth can be found in how much their lives revolve around sex. And lastly, Elliot is clearly very lonely. I feel like I've written that a million times already but it is true. He is so lonely that he has convinced himself it is the fault of others and nothing to do with him. "I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it," he says in his video. It seems Elliot has a magic mirror complex...which harks back to my Disney villain accusation. Let's talk about the Disney villain who Elliot's demeanor reflects so well, the Evil Queen from Snow White. Elliot is far too often blaming others for his loneliness, just like the Queen blames Snow White for her insecurity about her own beauty. What Elliot needs is a mirror to see his own reflection and realize he is a large part of the problem, but he would most likely begin swooning over himself than see his faults just as the Queen only sees herself being fairest in the land. So if a mirror wouldn't have helped Elliot, what would?

Well it looks like he turned to pills to help him deal with his anxiety. The pills were said to help him. But the pills didn't seem to work and it can be argued they made his condition much worse. It can't be denied that Elliot was mentally unstable. Between his recording a video full of villainous laughter and discussing his plan to "enter the hottest sorority house and slaughter every single spoiled, stuck up blonde slut," one can't say mental health had nothing to do with this. Sure Elliot was angry and frustrated, but if he wrote a 141 page essay on his life and never once stopped to think about what he was doing and what the consequences were, something must have been wrong. It takes a long time to write 141 pages! He had plenty of time to question what he was doing and what it meant. It makes me genuinely mad when someone claims mental health played no part in this story. I'm a regular listener of a podcast called The Moonshine Jesus show and they spent an entire episode discussing Elliot. The episode was titled Mass Media, Mass-Murder, Mass Misogyny and the two guys discussed the "portrayal of women in mass media" and "how misogynistic perspectives contributed not only to the UCSB mass-murder...but to constant negative, abusive and domineering directed toward women on a daily bases." Okay, sounds like interesting conversation, right? And it was. It was a really great conversation actually and I encourage everyone to listen to it. But the two guys on the show made me extremely frustrated when they said, "What we tend to hear mass media doing is trying to be dismissive of it from a mental imbalance or saying this person had some type of a mental issue that led to this which is a really easy out because that's not the reality." Yes that is part of the reality. It isn't the full reality but it is a huge part of it. Obviously another big part of the reality is the way women are viewed by the media and men in general but saying mental health had no part in this story but is just an easy explanation is simply ludicrous. Elliot's perspective on how women should treat him was distorted but even that isn't the root cause of how he felt and what he did. So if simply having a girlfriend wouldn't have helped Elliot, what would have?
Quite frankly, it seems, Elliot had a real sense of entitlement. This is where I believe distorted ideas of woman comes into play. Elliot felt entitled to have a girl not because she wanted to be with him but because he wanted to be with her. He felt entitled to have a lover and someone to love him when no one has a right to force love. His concerns aren't totally out of the blue of course. I can remember being in high school and not having a boyfriend and wondering what guys didn't see in me. Fortunately I didn't define myself on a scale of having a boyfriend or not and knew that even though people said sex mattered, I was okay with waiting. My point is that Elliot's mindset isn't uncommon and isn't specific to his male gender status. Everyone wants to be loved. But we aren't entitled to love. Elliot is among a generation labeled for their sense of entitlement. I would know - I'm a part of that generation. It is ironic that this whole event happened during the same week my mom and I were arguing about why millennial's are so entitled. She claimed that it is because everyone received trophies just for participating and therefore everyone expects reward just for being. I strongly disagree with this argument. It bothered me to an extreme and while at work my brain began to buzz and throughout the day I wrote snippets to disprove her case. My fragmented argument about entitlement can be viewed here. The point is, entitlement in young males plays a role in this event too. So if Elliot learned he did not deserve reciprocated feelings, would that have changed things? I don't think so. We've hit another brick wall. I hope you are noticing a pattern here. There are many hypothesis's to fix Elliot's attitude but none would actually be a valid solution. A mirror would not teach Elliot he was his own problem because he was so vain that he would only admire himself. A girlfriend wouldn't have helped Elliot unless she submitted to his every desire sexually. And telling Elliot he wasn't entitled to be loved would have only damaged him further. I doubt he was at a stage to sit and learn that he wasn't the one the universe revolved around.
No problem of this scale is ever simple yet we tend to dress up fake solutions in a hope to move forward until the problem returns again and someone else has to suffer and deal with it. The best example I can think of to explain my point further is war. War solves nothing. It is a temporary solution to a problem. For example, war eventually ended the Holocaust but prejudice still continues today and Holocausts still go on and war will never fix that. The Holocaust was a branch on an ever growing tree, the root of which is, as already stated, prejudice.
There are many branches that stem from Elliot Rodger. Each continues to add to the discussion and to his story but soon the tree becomes crowded with branches and confusion. Which branch is the strongest? The American Dream and Hollywood's illusion, men's rights, mental health, narcissim, loneliness, sex and virginity, violence, life and death, gun rights, portrayal of women in the media...have I missed any branches? I apologize if I have because it is very likely something is missing. Yes, all of these things are branches in Elliot's story and have to do with what he did, why he did it, and how he did it. But what is the root cause? What holds up this tree and lives deep within the earth? I believe it has to do with our perception of what it means to live: to be alive, give life, receive life, and have a good life.

It doesn't seem like Elliot had a good life and from what I have read and seen, he seems to have struggled with the idea that his life was perfect yet it was also haunted. Besides being lonely, Elliot seems to have also struggled with his race and bullying. He was half white and half Asian and according to Aliazeera.com, it played a big role in Elliot's pursuit to be the true Alpha male. It would make sense since to be a true Alpha male in American culture you must be a white man, which Elliot was not 100%. But I don't think this was among Elliot's big concerns, otherwise he would have mentioned it in his day of retribution video. I still have yet to read his 141 page essay so perhaps he mentions it in there. Perhaps he felt his feelings on his race were implied by the language he chose to use. After all, I think bullying played a role in this yet he didn't mention being bullied in his video either.
One thing I seem conditioned to do when watching a YouTube video is to scroll down to the comments. When I watched Elliot's YouTube videos, most of the comments were openly stating how messed up he was. It's hard to disagree when a video contains a person saying how fabulous they are. But something else I noticed about Elliot's channel is that most of the videos were posted only days before his violent attacks and one commenter made a point that some were posted after his death. After doing a bit of research, I learned that Elliot's videos must have been reposted - by who I don't know. What I was also interested to learn is that the videos were up a while before all of this madness became headlines but Elliot made them private when he received tons of negative feedback. Regardless of how messed up this kid was, no one is immune to the hurt you feel when you state your feelings out in the open and have them shot down in a harsh way. Some people responded in a healthy way toward Elliot by creating video and audio responses not insulting him but discussing his points made in his videos and then explaining why they weren't very logical. But for the most part, no one reached out to help him. All anyone could do was insult him which I already decided wouldn't have solved anything and it didn't. Just as war kills people but doesn't fix our hearts, negativity killed Elliot internally but didn't fix his own heart. A good character study of bullying and gun violence takes place in a book by Jodi Picoult called Nineteen Minutes. It is a favorite of mine and it takes a look at a boy who was bullied all his life and decided to devise a school shooting. The book deconstructs school shootings and reveals branches while also revealing roots. I'm not saying bullying is the root of the issue, just another branch.
In an attempt to make himself more attractive, Elliot often brought up his luxurious style. He had a nice car and a pair of sunglasses worth $300. Of course he could afford these things with a rich Hollywood Papa but you can't say Elliot is the only person who uses possessions to pump up their exterior and hide the filth on the inside (one word - Kardashian). I think we all do this in some form or another to lie to ourselves that we are better than so and so. In a song titled Not So Nice by the Vespers, they sing, "When my baby brother fell, they didn't even stop to help, Not so nice at all, not so nice. But even though I have this much to say, I'm just like them in my own way." The song is basically recognizing that hey, there are people who are jerks and you know it but guess what, you can be a jerk sometimes too. It is essentially forcing us to recognize that no one is perfect and we can't be hypocritical. Sin is sin and you can't hold one wrong way above another. It speaks to the idea that we all have a bit of Elliot Rodger in us in a unique way and that Elliot Rodger most likely had a piece of us too. He was searching for compassion in a destructive way. Many people do this everyday through less public acts like one night stands or binge drinking, all in the attempt to get rid of loneliness. Isn't it strange how and why people do certain things? Strange but fascinating.
I have now talked out what I believe to be the root of Elliot's issue, a distorted view on life. Banning guns won't stop shootings and women's rights won't convince all men they aren't entitled to women (trust me, I witness ignorant men on a daily basis). But by teaching our kids the value of what it means to live and breath and learn that we are all human and need to respect one another, hopefully we can help kids find their self worth and find worth in those we disagree with.
I think there is a quality ingrained in all of us that makes us naturally jealous of those who have what we can't. Of course everyone handles this jealousy differently but it still exists in all of us. I remember the summer when I was 9 and my brother was 6 and he got a new cool loft bed and bright green stereo. I cried the day they set the bed up and my dad sat me on his lap and explained how lucky I was to have a double bed and a better black stereo. I suddenly began to appreciate what I already had. I think it is really easy for us to put blame on others as Elliot did for having things we don't or just blaming people for doing something that we also do but may not realize. As the Vespers song continues, they sing, "I'm afraid I might be everything I hate." Elliot was, like many of us, an accidental hypocrite. He didn't take the time to reflect on himself but rather what others had done (and not done) to him and therefore did not understand the evil he was conjuring.
I have already pointed out many ways fiction reflects our reality. Allow me one more example. Let's look at Victor Hugo's classic Les Miserables. When Jean Valjean is constantly wronged, one person shows him love and he becomes an honest man. It took many people to wrong him and enforce revenge but only one to push forgiveness. Forgiveness is hard and I know it is easier to talk about, especially when you are on the outside of a situation. I was not personally involved with Elliot or what he did yet I feel attached to the situation. That being said, while I can sit here and forgive Elliot, I have an easier time doing it than the mother of one of the girls Elliot shot.
From a Christian perspective, we must forgive because God forgave the unforgivable in us. Do not let what Elliot did poison you. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let Elliot's decision, and the similar decisions made by others in the future, be a learning experience. I pray all the families involved can find forgiveness in their hearts. Forgive others as Jean Valjean. Don't let one hateful act or several spread like wildfire. We have the power to put the fire out.
I believe what would have helped Elliot would have been a person who reached out to him. Perhaps some feel nothing would have helped and Elliot was the Joffery Baratheon of our world and can't be redeemed. Either way, let us recognize that Elliot was a person who was hurting. Let us recognize what he did was wrong and let us forgive him and mourn those who suffered because of his actions. And finally, let us learn from what happened and see the event for what is really was at it's roots instead of arguing. I pray we as a human race can look for those who are troubled and help them to prevent people from making rash decisions like Elliot did.
I'm interested to know what you make of this situation. Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Feel free to disagree with me. I would love to have a conversation!

World Vision's Decision to Revoke Hiring Gay Employees

When I was 15 years old, I went to a concert in Philadelphia called the Revolve Tour where several Christian artists and speakers came to empower young women. While there, the performers constantly brought up World Vision and even showed a video talking about what the organization was and how we could help.  As a 15 year old who was eager to do her part and do good to follow Jesus, I suggested to my friend that we sponsor a child together.  It would be $40 a month which we would split to pay $20 a month. She agreed and so her mom helped us fill out the paperwork and we even received white wrist bands for our charity. I had no job and no source of income but felt that it wasn't an issue. I felt that I had the money to give and starving children needed it. After a few months though, I was out of money and had to pull out of the entire thing. I'm not sure if my friend and her mom kept the sponsorship or not.
Recently there was an issue involving World Vision and the law stating that companies and corporations couldn't deny an applicant for discriminatory reasons such as race, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. World Vision complied to this law and made a statement that they would be hiring gay employees from now on. The statement was not taken lightly and before long, tons and tons of World Vision advocates pulled the plug on their monthly donations.  It wasn't long after when World Vision revoked their statement and gave a formal apology.  This is my understanding of the story.
I think my biggest issue with this situation is the fact that people are willing to ignore starving children because of this decision. Suddenly, because of a political decision, starving children can no longer be supported by certain people?  It's okay to support them when your money is traveling through an organization that believes everything you believe but not when you believe different things? I mean, I know it was a big decision for World Vision to make and I know gay marriage is a huge issue that people take strong sides on...but shouldn't we be more concerned about where the money is going instead of what the company believes? Isn't it enough that you both agree that you want to feed starving children and obliterate poverty?
Let me break this down. I'm not ignorant to the fact that people want to support an organization that stands up for what they personally believe is right. Often times a Republican won't donate or support a Democrat's organization, and vice versa. Or think of businesses and organizations like Chick-fil-a and Susan G. Komen. Some people will defend Chick-fil-a because their beliefs are their beliefs and nothing more when it comes to business practices (or they support them because they agree with their beliefs). Others will no longer eat there because the profits are said to go toward organizations that are blatant gay hate groups. The same can be said for Susan G. Komen. Many support this organization because it is doing good to forward the research to cure breast cancer and how can we not support curing cancer in any form? But some don't support this organization because it is said the money doesn't always go toward breast cancer research but abortion clinics. There is one key component here that both sides are missing - a common variable. One side believes the company has a right to believe what they believe while the other takes it step further by saying these businesses/organizations are using their power to fund hate groups, controversial medicine and are choosing political sides. In both of these cases, people stand up against the big guys because their money isn't going toward what they believe it should be going toward and it is only fair that the consumer has a right to know where there money is actually going.
Then there is World Vision. Can I ask, would this decision affect where the monthly donations go? No! We already know that not 100% of World Vision's donations go toward starving kids and most likely goes to funding other things in the organization but that isn't what this whole thing is about...and as for employee pay, it's unfair to say that a sinner of any nature doesn't deserve the right to a job, whether you believe being gay is a sin or not. But in the end, World Vision's decision to hire gay people doesn't change where there money is going. Other factors may change this but hiring gay employees doesn't.
That being said, what I gather from all of these monthly donators pulling their money out of the pot is that they seem to care more about this false moral objective of the company rather than what the company is really about. They support World Vision and since most Christians object to gay marriage, they don't want to show support any longer because if they are hiring gay people, then World Vision isn't on there side.
Okay...but I have two questions.  One - who does the money of a non-profit go towards, their company or what they do? The right answer would hopefully be what they do which is supporting starving children (though as I said, I'm not sure 100% of World Vision's profits from monthly donations goes towards preventing starvation and everything else World Vision says they are doing). Two - who's side are we on? You see, I thought that all World Vision supporters were on the same side - the side to end world poverty. I thought poverty and the belief of standing up to it meant more than a political stance. And more importantly, I thought we as Christians were taught, "let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone" from John 8:7 in the Bible. Is it just me or has this organization created to fund love and end poverty become a source for outsiders to learn about hate in the Christian community? Because when I take a step back and look at the whole picture from a non-Christian perspective, I see a group of people betraying their said goal of love in order to cast hate on another group - as if we are all not worthy of love and attention but only a select few. Hosts on the podcast Christ and Pop Culture comment saying, "[These] poor children [World Vision sponsors] are a political football."  And it is quite true.
What is super ironic is that last night I watched Dumbo and it wasn't until I was halfway done writing

this post that I made a connection between this situation and the early Disney film. In the beginning, Dumbo is delivered to his mother and love ensues the train car the elephants inhabit. But when Dumbo sneezes and reveals his big ears, panic is released. He is different and different is bad. You may be thinking, you can't compare an animated movie about an elephant with big ears to humans rejecting gay marriage.  Well, I would argue that I can compare the two. Disney characterizes the elephants as a proud race and this is a big deal to them who take pride in their appearance. It is just as important an issue as gay marriage is to Christians. Moving forward, there is a scene in particular where Dumbo is sitting alone in a corner crying after his mother is taken away from him and chained, all because she tried to protect him (another incident in which John 8:7 takes precedent since the boy making fun of Dumbo's big ears has big ears himself). All of the other elephants are huddled in a circle, gossiping. They want to disown Dumbo as an elephant because he is different. When Dumbo walks over to be with his kind, they not only block him from joining their circle but ignore him and pretend they don't see him there and this strips Dumbo of his humanity...or his elephant-ness is you want to be specific. Aren't Christians doing the same thing with this World Vision incident? Oh, so you're gay? You can't have my God or be a part of my good works. I mean...really? Are we that big headed? Author Richard Snickel says of the scene in his book The Disney Version, "The hugeness of the beasts contrasted gorgeously with the smallness of their souls."  And indeed, the hugeness of Christian pride and self-righteousness contrasts wonderfully with the smallness of our souls.
At the end of the day, we can't let our feelings direct our actions and I know that is a challenging idea and one I struggle with a lot. But it is important for us to see every side of the rubik's cube because if you don't, you won't ever solve the puzzle but be ignorant to other solutions. It is important to ask, how does this affect me, if it doesn't affect me than who does it affect, and why does it matter in the context of the situation?
In the case of World Vision, the situation does not affect me since I don't donate money or need someone to support my well-being because I don't have the means to. The decision to hire gay employees doesn't affect my well-being and certainly doesn't affect my theology but it certain tests my theology and makes me stop and think. The decision of the World Vision donators pulling out their money doesn't affect me but it affects the kids that the money goes toward. That donation may have given a child a net to protect them from mosquitoes. Now, because World Vision gives anyone the right to be an employee, other children will not have the opportunity to have nets to protect them and the whole thing is absurd. What does a person's belief in gay marriage matter to an organization feeding, clothing, and supporting poor children?  Well...it doesn't.

Why Disney Princesses Are Good Role Models, Part 2

In September of 2012, I wrote a blog defending the Disney Princess name.  I was defending them for a number of reasons.  In the blog I talked about society's definition of feminism and why it isn't necessarily a healthy definition and how it applies to the Princesses and their impact on girls.  I then went on to address a blog condemning the Princesses by selecting specific points and proving why these points were essentially invalid arguments to say that these characters are bad role models.  And finally, I stated why each of the Princesses are good role models and their virtues.  If you have not yet read that post, click here.
Well, it is National Princess week and this is as good a time as ever to post a follow up to my first
blog.  Note - although I posted this during National Princess week, the week after I wrote it I had a sudden inspiration so I rewrote much of this piece so it isn't entirely in it's original form.  But it's a whole lot better now so I'm content.  A lot has happened since I wrote Part 1.  Two new Princess movies came out and both attacked the issue of feminism in their own way.  There was also a Princess redesign that sparked a lot of controversy.  This blog post will do accomplish three things.  It will discuss the millennial generation and why the study of this general gives a good look at why people view Disney and their Princesses the way they do.  Next, I will discuss the Princess redesign in comparison to the release of Average Barbie.  And finally I will talk about the new films, how the new Princesses are good role models, and why these two new films aren't focused enough on making a genuinely good film.
I was reading an article in Relevant Magazine by Jesse Carey titled Generation Rising.  The article discussed the growing controversy of how the world defines the millennial generation.  Either we're lazing and entitled or authentic and creative.  There is no middle ground apparently.  After presenting a lot of research and perspectives from all sides of the spectrum, it is implied that our generation feels like we were lied to.  We were told to believe in ourselves and anything is possible.  But that isn't true and I think Disney played a big part in sending this message out.  One of Disney's biggest criticisms today is their message of dreams coming true with little to no work (magic) or, for a girl, finding a man to do the hard work for her.  I think there is a bit of misconception to this idea which I discuss in my first defense of the Disney Princesses post but I digress.  
Reading Carey's article was a real wake up call for me because even though it had nothing to do with Disney, it screamed the answer as to why this debate exists between Disney and the public.  The millennial generation is defined as being born between the years of 1980 and 2002.  Disney peaked in 1989, right in the middle of the millennial generation, and they continued to capture children from this generation with their spectacular films.  Essentially, critics believe that Disney held a stick with a hundred dollar bill tied to it and millennials kept chasing it, believing that one day they would catch up and get that hundred dollar bill.  But it isn't that easy and neither is achieving your dreams.  When the harsh reality set in, people became angry and the the public began to look for someone to blame for their misconception.  Disney was the scapegoat.  What bothers me about all of this is that there is something that people have failed to see about the movies Disney released during the years millennials were growing up.  Yes, Disney promoted easy ways to reach dreams.  It is Disney's market and signature and has been since 1940 when Gepetto wished upon a star for a real boy.  To say that Disney has lied to our generation is an overstatement.  You might as well say they lied to every generation (which I disagree with).  But people fail to see what Disney did right during their Renaissance and through most of the corporations career in film and other aspects of entertainment.  Disney has a keen sense of depicting the inner reality of it's viewers and making films that are just plain good.  In other words, they are good at what they do.  If we can learn anything from Disney, we can learn from their artistic depictions of the inner reality of the child within all of us.  We can learn from the detail and research they put into their movies.  We can learn from the hard work they put into their animation.  We can learn from the well crafted musical scores and numbers.  No, Ariel's choices are not going to necessarily push young girls on the right path.  What Ariel's choices do is depict a human being - a 16 year old girl who yearns for adventure in the unknown and finds out the hard way that things are so easy.  No, young children aren't going to have good advice from films that use magic to solve their problems.  But whoever said we are to take fairy tales literally?  When we read Harry Potter books, do we believe brooms will magically carry us away when a bully comes near?  Of course not.  And when we watch the Wizard of Oz, do we believe tapping our red shoes three times together while take us home?  No.  So why would we expect Disney to be any different?  I fail to see why critics are being more harsh on Disney than any other fairy story.  They have just as much right to stretch fantasy as the next story-teller.  I think it okay for me to speak up as a millennial myself because I too fell for this lie that your dreams will come true no matter what.  However, if I ever had to blame an institution for planting this idea in my head, I would blame the school system that told me one day I could be a writer and follow my dreams.  Even in high school I was lied to when my teachers said when I went to college I would be able to focus on what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.  Well, that is a clear lie for the simple reason that gen-eds exist.  My point is that Disney should not be blamed for the so called ideas they plant in our heads.  They are a company that makes fantasy films.  It is time we stopped viewing these movies as kid movies and stick to Walt philosophy of making films for the child in all of us.  Disney is not to blame for making kids a certain way.
I think the millennial generation is a generation searching for authenticity and sometimes Disney movies don't come off as very authentic.  Fair enough.  A statistic in Carey's article says that 60% of millennials have abandoned religion and it is fairly clear as to why.  Religion, like the idea of dreams in Disney movies, has proved to be a let down.  Not only that but religion is represented by hypocritical people who constantly aren't who they say they are.  My generation is searching for truth in places other generations have not looked.  As a millennial who is still involved in religion, I can say that religious leaders are not what Christianity is and secondly, Disney actually dips into religious topics with their characters.  I would love to talk about all the ways Disney brings Christianity into their films but I will stick to the Princesses in this post.  A question many people are asking is if we should be telling girls they are Princesses or not.  Are we all royal in God's eyes or is there a problem with this terminology?  In my opinion, there are two sides to calling a little girl a Princess.  Of course God views little girls as Princesses and little boys as Princes.  He values them and loves them and wants the best for them.  However, we shouldn't expect God to treat us as Princes and Princesses.  We should expect God to be God, to be fair in the ways he sees fit which won't necessarily seem fair in our earthly ways.  Another issue that I sort of skimmed over in my last blog was the issue of following your heart.  Disney promotes this idea but points more toward doing the right thing and saying that your heart will guide you toward doing the right thing.  But the Bible says otherwise.  Jeremiah 17:9 states, "The heart is

deceitful above all things and beyond cure.  Who can understand it?"  I don't think Disney wants to promote getting your way all of the time.  Their films point to doing the right thing when the easier choice is to do what you want.  But their films also promote this idea that if you want something and work toward it and pray when it feels necessary, you will earn your heart's desire.  I don't want to get into all of the reasons why Disney distorts Christianity though, I want to talk about how the films promote it.  Christian symbolism is littered throughout Disney movies, even in the newer ones.  Many of the Princesses present Biblical imagery whether we are aware of it or not and I want to share this with you all.  I will not include some of the Princesses because I do not want to force symbolism.  If I saw it, I will include it.  Let's start with Elsa.  Elsa is the prodigal son figure.  She runs away and then returns accepted and forgiven completely and earns redemption.  Anna is a Christ figure.  As I said above, her love for Elsa never dwindles even when Elsa mistreats her and in the end, she gives her life up for Elsa as Christ did for his people on the cross.  Rapunzel's tear could symbolize baptism.  When she cries onto Eugene, she renews his soul and gives him new life and he is a new man.  Pocahontas is a very spiritual Christian figure.  She teaches us to love and accept the nature around us and use it to speak to God by listening to the wind or the flowing rivers or the animals speech throughout the forest.  Belle is another Christ figure next to Anna.  She gives up her life for her father when she becomes prisoner in the Beast's castle.  And finally, Snow White shows grace.  Her character is seemingly perfect and when others are not so perfect, she still accepts them just the same as we all should love and accept one another for our similarities and our differences.

Back in April/May last year, Disney gave their Princesses major designs.  The results were shocking.  Disney has always milked the Princesses for marketing.  They release videos with the Princesses, dolls, McDonald's toys, clothing and shoes, posters, notebooks and pencils, backpacks, etc.  The Princesses are always dolled up in their signature dresses and many have complained that this takes away from their character.  I would have to agree with that.  I would love to see Belle in her village outfit with a book or Cinderella in her maid outfit but at the same time, I'm okay with the glamor because a lot of girls like to dress up their dolls and it seems fitting.  I'm not okay with the Princess redesigns though. The Livejournal blog titled "Oh No They Didn't" spoke out straight away about the new Princesses, saying things like, "This is the Kardashian-ization of the Disney Princesses" and "It can be subtle (Rapunzel) or it can look like cosmetic surgery.  Cinderella now looks strangely like Taylor Swift, while poor Belle - I can't decide if she looks more like Kim, Kourtney or Khloe."  And I have to agree.  Most of the changes are horrifying and it isn't just for the reason that they look like culture clones and that their redesigns take away who they are as characters.  Not only that but they all look like they were designed to be sexually objectified.  This redesign begs us to ask the question, what is beauty?  Because the definition of beauty has changed over the years. Another big issue is with the popular doll, Barbie.  I grew up playing with Barbie dolls and I never had any issues as an adult.  But apparently some people feel differently and so not long ago Barbie was redesigned and sent out to toy stores with the name "Average Barbie."  You know, there is Dentist Barbie and Scuba Barbie and now there is an Average Barbie.  But apart from her figure, people say she doesn't look much different than any other Barbie.  Her face is still our ideal model of beauty, which begs the question - is Average Barbie really average?  She is still thin, still has a typical beautiful face, and wears nice clothing.  What about the girls who don't dress "nice" and like to wear all black or prefer not to wear bright blue or plain old blouses?  What about the girls who are heavy?  What about the girls who aren't white?  In my opinion, there is a screaming problem with this whole thing.  Constantly we think that telling girls that everyone is beautiful will solve things, yet that isn't true.  Too many girls are learning that they define themselves by what they look like.  They are still learning to identify with their outward appearance rather than being taught to find beauty in other places.  Hannah Anderson, author of the book Made For More, said in an episode of the Christ in Pop Culture podcast when discussing Average Barbie that "we are so focused on womanhood, we forget to focus on personhood."  This is the argument I was making in my first blog.  We need to stop looking at ourselves by what makes us different but rather what unites us.  Yes our skin may be different colors and gender differs but it is who we are on the inside that matters.  We are all people when it comes down to it.  The reason these Princess redesigns bother me is that they take away from these characters their personhood.  They have become culture clones rather than their individual selves that people can relate to.  They are a tool used to make money off of kids. 
Disney has been criticized for years about their female characters, specifically the Princesses.  We have now entered a modern age where Disney faces public scrutiny from every direction.  People are so focused on films being politically correct, especially Disney movies.  I think people are more critical of Disney because they are seen as a company that makes kids movies.  I think the real issue with all of this is, 1. a film shouldn't be judged by how it represents people/places/or things and 2. animated movies should not be judged as kids movie because many kids movies are animated.  Number 2 I touched on in my first point and is not an issue I plan to discuss any further in this blog but it is something to be aware of.  Number 1, however, is a real issue with animation today, especially when it comes to Disney movies.  Instead of critics and moviegoers paying attention to the film's artistic integrity, they are only focusing on it being politically correct.  In this case, people are expecting a female character to not be rescued by a man and be her own hero.  I am all for doing something different.  It is known that Disney typically has male and female characters interact very intimately and that men are usually there to either save the day or help save the day.  I am okay with Disney changing it up instead of doing the same thing over and over again (though while Disney does this style over and over again, they change up the way they come to the conclusion and in my opinion, they do a really good job with each story) but what I am not okay with is them creating a story that conforms to a certain expectation from outspoken moviegoers.   In my opinion, it takes away from the artistic integrity of the piece.  It shows that Disney is working around this limitation rather than just making a good movie.  This is particularly apparent in Disney's newest Princess movie, Frozen, when they adapted the story The Snow Queen, which had a strong female character already in it and Disney changed it.  The film would have had a strong female character if Disney had stuck to the story yet they went in and changed it completely and in my opinion ruined their chances of making a strong female movie.  It was still a strong female movie...but a particularly silly one.  It will be hard to take seriously in years to come.  Disney's newest Princesses are very much in the expected feminist Princess mold and the public seems to be eating it up.  Just look at the bucks Frozen brought in.  Money doesn't lie.  I'm happy that Disney has been successful and I am happy they are changing things up...but I'm not happy with the reasons for doing it.  Disney has taken a new approach to advertising their new Princess films as well.  They are trying to veer away from their typical Princess movie and instead make a general family movie for both genders and all ages to enjoy.  This theory in itself is silly to me since Beauty and the Beast didn't try hard to do this yet was a genuinely good film and was enjoyable by all ages and both genders.  Today, Disney creates silly movie trailers that give little to no detail about the actual film that will be released in order to give their new film a particular look.  They want to portray a family cartoon.  I see their reasoning behind this tactic but like many choices Disney has made in the past ten years (like switching to making movies in CGI permanently because Home on the Range was a poor movie made in 2-D animation), it is a poor one and won't work in the long run.  Soon they will be searching for new ideas.
The newest Disney Princess movies have not fallen victim to the redesign.  Although Merida was given a new look, people became infuriated and Disney cowered under pressure and switched her back to her original design.  Why just Merida though?  Why didn't all of the Princesses get some defense?  Well, maybe we will find out by looking at the newest Disney/Pixar Princess movie Brave and Disney's newest animated feature, Frozen.  I saw both of these movies in theaters and want to comment on both.  First, let me talk about the story in each one.  Brave's story was all over the place which made it very weak.  Some of Disney/Pixar's best films are simple ones and Brave was trying too hard to be all kinds of stories rather than telling a good story in itself.  The movie borrowed too much from different places and didn't have time to return back to the things they borrowed from which made the film feel incomplete.  Frozen fell victim to the same issue where it tried too hard to accomplish many things and ultimately left us feeling unsatisfied.  Both films only fixed one of the issues they created and everything else was left unexplained.  Of course, many people didn't notice this because the things these two films accomplished had to do with feminism and as far as today's moviegoers and critics are concerned, that is all that matter.  Never mind telling a good story, right?  The characters in Brave were typical and forgettable.  Merida was...unique.  I definitely think she is an awesome Princess but once again her character was simply created to fit a gender ideal for our modern day.  I cared more about Merida's mother than Merida herself though.  It seemed to be a story about a woman struggling with the job of motherhood and how she could learn not only to accept her children for who they are but also learn to teach them without making an enemy of them.  The characters in Frozen weren't as strong as the characters in Brave.  Again, very generic apart from Elsa.  Elsa was the only character worth caring about.  Anna has depth to her character but her silliness ultimately ruins it for me.  I did like however that Anna wasn't an obvious feminist character.  Besides her annoying silliness, she surprised me at the end when she found that true love didn't always have to be romantic love.  At least Frozen did something right.  The music in Brave isn't really worth commenting on as it didn't drive the movie.  It had the cultural Scottish instruments and fit the movie well.  Frozen's music started out epically and then all too quickly became a generic pop phenomenon, lacking any culture that it had previously established.  The lyrics were very ditsy and American.  The instrumentals could have easily had a culture feel but there was none.  I won't say I don't enjoy the music but it doesn't hold up next to most Disney films and will be forgotten in 50 years.  And finally, I want to comment on the animation.  Both films were beautiful but my biggest issue is character animation.  Brave is a Pixar film and so I knew what I was getting into and they didn't disappoint.  Merida's character design bothered me though.  Why is her face so circular?  Frozen had terrible character animation in my opinion, specifically for the girls.  Why are their eyes so huge?  And why all the makeup on Elsa?  I mean, I get that the animators were experimenting but couldn't they have experimented with a short film?  She looked like Shakira with her sexy hips during "Let it Go" and almost like...well, like a redesigned Disney Princess.  Overall, as you can probably tell, I don't hold either of these films in high regard.  They are both okay at best. 

But let's talk about why the newest Princesses are good role models.  I had a hard time with these three ladies but I think I have come up with unique attributes for each of them.  I will start off with Merida.  Merida is a good role model because of her belief.  Right away we see her believe in herself and she has confidence.  She believes when she goes out to get a potion to change her mother's attitude, she believes when she takes her mother to the woods to change her back from a bear to a human, she believes when she lets the wisps guide her, and she believes at the end that she and her mother will mend their relationship.  Anna is a good role model because of her unfailing love.  All throughout her life she is seeking love from her sister who does not show love in return but gives Anna the cold shoulder.  In a desperate attempt to accept love whenever it comes her way, she clings to Hans who immediately shows her love and wants to be with her for the rest of his life (seemingly).  Then, when she becomes aware that Elsa has been lying to her for her entire life, Anna still goes after her sister and believes she is not a monster despite what everyone else is saying.  Then, she jumps in front of her sister to give the ultimate sacrifice of love by giving her life.  And finally, Elsa is a good role model because of her humble nature.  While teaching her to fear her own powers was never the right away to go about things, her experience was almost a mirror to Harry Potter's.  Harry was shut in a cupboard under the stairs while the Dursley's hoped to stomp the magic out of him.  When he discovered he was a wizard, he came from a mindset that he wasn't good enough and therefore went into the world always thinking himself to be average because he had been led to believe that he was never special.  Elsa as well was taught that she wasn't special in her powers and that they needed to be contained, just like Harry's magic.  When she becomes free in the mountains, she tests what she can do and does this without hesitation because she is alone.  Once it is recognized that she is not to be feared, she gives her magic to the people but not to gain anything for herself or take any credit and therefore shows her humble nature just as Harry shows he is humble when he doesn't take full credit for the things he has done when recognized.
After looking at these three Princesses by discussing their movies and now their attributes, I want to bring up the question off goodness.  Do we want a Disney Princess to be relatable or to be a good role model for young girls?  In my opinion, these three new Princess are more relatable than good role models while the Princesses previous are genuinely good role models while also still relatable.  I believe that Disney doesn't reflect our outer reality in terms of their stories because we know no one can create ice with their hands and people don't turn into bears but Disney reflects our inner reality and that should be what matters because it is good fiction.
That concludes my Part 2 post of Why Disney Princesses are Good Role Models.  Do you have anything to add?  Do you feel the newer Princesses are better or worse role models than their predecessors?  Why or why not?  Do you see the Christian symbolism that I mentioned?  Was there some I left out?  What do you think of the newest Princesses movies?  Did they exceed your expectations or do you think Disney is losing it's touch?  I would love to hear your feedback and what you have to say!

Wasted Wednesday: Cancerous Christianity

Welcome to the first Wasted Wednesday of 2014!  It feels good to be back and writing!  The topic I am writing about today is one I have been thinking about for quite some time.  For the past few months, a lot of things have been happening to me that have me questioning my mortality (let me also state that the things that have been happening are extremely minor so that statement doesn't mean I am suffering in any major way).  The event that really had me questioning all of this took place in November of last year.  Through a bunch of circumstances, I was in a situation where I inhaled a large amount of acidic content that basically equated to concentrated vinegar.  The incident seemed bad at first.  I couldn't get the smell of vinegar out of my nose nor the taste out of my mouth all day and my head was swimming.  That night, I spent a good amount of time trying to get the taste out of my system by blowing my nose and spitting until my throat felt raw.  Disgusting, I know.  I ended up going to the CVS minute clinic the next day and was told that inhaling a large amount of vinegar is virtually harmless.  I just had to give it time.  My biggest concern was that every time I took a deep breath, I could feel something constraining my lungs.  I started freaking out inside of my head.  Would this damage my lungs for life?  When I grew old, would I have issues?  Could something like this be the cause of cancer?  The freaking out continued over the next few days though I didn't really show it all that much.  I now can say that I am fine.  My lungs are back to normal and I no longer can taste vinegar in the back of my throat...though every time I catch the scent I am immediately brought back to that horrible day when I breathed it all in in the first place.
When the thought of cancer crossed my mind, I began to think about everything that we avoid to prevent ourselves from getting the dreaded disease.  We don't stand in front of microwaves, don't put our cell phones in our pockets or by our beds at night, don't drink diet sodas...the list could go on and on.
So, how does this relate to Christianity?  Well, it actually presents a very relevant example to how most Americans practice their Christian faith (and this includes me as well).  American Christianity takes on the same approach as Americans trying to avoid cancer, except we are trying to avoid hell.  Christians do everything in their power to make it seem like they are perfect and to make sure that their good works will make them okay with the big guy upstairs.  We donate money to special causes and the church (but not to a liberal cause, of course), make sure to go to church every Sunday (but don't really pay attention), listen to Christian music (that often holds as much truth as a Justin Bieber CD) and read Christian books (because that literature has too many swear words for my self-righteous taste).  I get it.  I can be just like those people sometimes and I resent when I act this way.  Because, this is not what the church, Christianity, or Jesus is about.  Christianity is about one thing - Jesus and the love he has for us.  Too often we do things that we believe will prevent us from going to hell over the next person.  If we go to church every single Sunday, we will go to heaven.  Not true.  Listening to Christian music over secular will get us into heaven.  Not true.
Remember the song, Jesus Loves the Little Children?  The lyrics say, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world."  It doesn't say some of the children or the children who go to church every Sunday.  It says ALL!  We are all Gods children and he loves us all equally because he created us all!  Good works isn't how Jesus preached it and I am still trying to learn this simple truth.
The purpose of the cross is to show that Jesus put on flesh and humbled himself as a man and then took the blame for all of our sins and then died because of them so that we wouldn't have to!  We are all sinners seeking redemption and he is our redeemer because of his unfailing love!  Gosh, just writing that makes me feel elated.
We must learn, myself included, that this cancerous Christianity can't continue.  It must end.  The key to Christianity is Jesus Christ himself and Jesus equals love.  As Jeff Bethke says, "Religion says do, Jesus says done."  Your sins have been paid for so don't try to better yourself and make yourself seem more worthy than the next person.  We are all equally sinners and all equally unworthy and yet God loves us still and that is the amazing thing about real Christianity. 

Wasted Wednesday: Miley Cyrus - Why I don't think she is as crazy as she appears

Allow me to start off this blog by saying that I have never been a fan of Miley Cyrus.  When Hannah Montana was a show, I could not stand her.  It was a combination of me hating the show, hating her singing, and hating that so many people bought into how awesome she was.  Okay, so maybe I was a bit of a hater.  I admit it.  I will now also take the time to say that I saw Miley in the Nicholas Sparks movie, the Last Song, and thought her acting was god awful.  It wasn't until a few years ago when I saw her in a music video titled The Big Bang (Rock Mafia) when I began truly began to see her in a new respect.  The music video told a story and was artistic, plus it wasn't made just to have Miley in it.  She was not the star but a side character and I loved it.  Not long after, I saw a graphic posted online comparing Miley to Taylor Swift.  Curious, I read the post.  I don't remember the exact words, nor do I have the graphic to post in this blog, but the basic point was that people call Taylor Swift an angel even though she writes hate and revenge songs and has been with tons and tons of guys while people calls Miley a slut even though she has been with the same guy and engaged for so and so years.  I know Miley and Liam are broken up (haven't heard much about it to be honest), but this was a post I saw probably over a year ago.  My point is that Miley has always been getting hate and I can be included in that.  But this all comes down to the fact that we don't view celebrities as people - we view them as objects.  Miley is extremely talented and I had come to see that after all those years of despising her.
During the summer of this year, Miley began going a bit crazy.  I am not counting her chopping her hair off or anything like that.  I am talking specifically about her performance at the VMA's (which I still haven't seen by the way) and her Wrecking Ball music video.  It was hard not to know about Miley's performance at the VMA's.  I would check Tumblr and Twitter and there would be tons and tons of posts about her.  It was a tweet by Eugene Cho saying:

"That so many would be outraged by #MileyCyrus and yet, so apathetic by what's going on in Syria, Congo, & North Korea...is truly outrageous."

It was a bit of a slap in the face but I hadn't tweeted about Miley or Syria so I felt I could be excused

(and decided to find out what was going on in Syria).   Then the whole Wrecking Ball incident happened.  I watched the music video - it was pretty horrifying - and found that I actually liked the song.  I read some YouTube comments saying that the song seemed to be about her ex-fiance Liam and as the video progressed, Miley stripped herself of clothing revealing not only her body but herself as a broken person as if being hit by a wrecking ball.  The video depicts her vulnerability.  That is one way of looking at it though there are people who will say that is BS.
With all of this Miley stuff going on, I began to think about child stars and wondered why it is always them that go crazy.  Just look at Macaulay Culkin and Lindsay Lohan.  But then there are child stars that are doing okay for themselves like the golden trio Harry Potter actors Dan Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson.  All five of these people grew up with fame yet their fates are far apart and I knew that statistics would not help me with my questions about Miley.  I began to think about what her childhood must have been like - living with a famous father, being destined for talent, having to deal with millions of fans after being on a TV show, having the pressures of being on a TV in general, having her "dating" life advertised to the public for criticism and observation, etc.  I remember when I was fourteen and posting a video of me singing on YouTube.  I am not a good singer but I wouldn't go as far to say I am awful.  I am just okay...but my video did not get any positive feedback.  The only comments I received were saying rude things to me that I prefer not to restate on this blog.  I felt so terrible that I removed the video and have since never done anything of the sort again.  I was upset about reading two or three mean comments.  Imagine being Miley and have millions of negative comments written about you daily.  Yeah, it sounds like it sucks.
I came to the conclusion that Miley was not crazy as people were saying.  Sure she was acting out (because no other sings act out - Lady Gaga, Madonna, Katy Perry, Rihanna, need I say more?) and sure she is another seemingly classic example of broken child stardom - but I don't think that either of those points to her going off the wall.
About a month ago, my thoughts were confirmed when someone posted another graphic - this time quoting Miley about the TV show Breaking Bad.  The comment says:

"America is just so weird in what they think is right and wrong. Like, I was watching 'Breaking Bad' the other day, and they were cooking meth.  I could literally cook meth because of that show. It's a how-to. And then they bleeped out the word 'f***.' And I'm like, really? They killed a guy, and disintegrated his body in acid, but you're not allowed to say 'f***'?"

I've only watched the first two or three episodes of Breaking Bad and so far, I am not hooked but repulsed and wracking my brains wondering, why is this beloved again?  Hearing Miley's quote was a bit refreshing but also had a good point about America and this weird way in which we make sense of things.  Miley is spot on with her quote.  Why is it that we can have shows about illegal drugs that teach people how to make the drugs and yes the F-word is bleeped out.  Seriously?
My point is - I don't think Miley is as crazy as everyone thinks.  It seems like she is maybe trying to tell us something in the only way she knows how - by performing and acting.  That was how she was raised.  I have no doubt that she has a good head on her shoulders but I hope that she knows how much her actions are influencing the youth of America and I pray that she is able to deal with her issues and not worry about what the media says about her.

Wasted Wednesday: My Thoughts on Syria

When I go to bed every night my usual routine is this - I read, do a sudoku puzzle, and then browse through twitter for a little bit.  I like browsing twitter because believe it or not it is my main source for news.  I feel very ashamed to say that I am not up with the worlds latest news.  My sources for news besides twitter are Tumblr, Relevant Magazine, the podcasts I listen to, etc.  The hype of last week was the VMA's and the crazy sexual and over the top performance put on by Miley Cyrus.  I'm not an MTV fan nor do I care for the VMA's so I did not see the performance and still have not seen it...I've only seen articles and lots of pictures.  While I would love to talk about my thoughts on the whole issue, there is another issue that is at stake that I feel I need to voice my opinion on and that is Syria.
As I scrolled through twitter gazing lazy eyed at all of the Miley Cyrus hate tweets (and some compassion tweets), I came across one tweet from Eugene Cho that said, "That so many would be outraged by Miley Cyrus and yet, so apathetic by what's going on in Syria, Congo, & North Korea...is truly outrageous."  The tweet was the first that actually made me stop and think.  Why, you ask?  Well...mostly because I had not seen or heard anything about Syria and didn't even know there was an issue going on.  I immediately felt ashamed of myself.  Since that day, I've been doing my best to try and make sense of the situation and have been listening curiously to see what President Obama's plans are.  The more I learned, the more I knew I had to make Syria my next Wasted Wednesday topic over everything else.  In fact, Syria should be the top topic to everyone else too because the decisions that are soon to be made will affect us all in America.
This post will not explain to you what is going on in Syria.  This post will not explain why the U.S. is involved in it all.  This post is just my opinions on three topics that all relate to Syria: war, power, and weapons.
Let me outright state before I write anything else that I do not feel it is right to enter war with Syria.  This opinion of mine is not based on the facts and the history of America and Syria's history together.  This opinion comes from my years of taking history classes and learning about history everyday through the books I read, the podcasts I listen to, the movies I watch, the conversations I have with diverse groups of people, and the videos I watch on youtube.  I have learned that America has a way of pushing her ideals on other countries and that this has caused many of the conflicts that still exist today.  This idea is apparent when looking at the war on communism (The Cold War) and when looking at the war on terrorism.  The same idea can be compared to Hitler who imposed his views on a country that eventually spread around Europe.  America has become a global empire that wants control and in some ways she has gained it, however she has become too big headed and because of this it has also spun her out of control.  America wants to control everything and have wreaked havoc because of this.  I believe America should stick to America and not get involved (or crash the party) with another country's problems and here are my reasons why.
War: I hate war.  If history has taught us anything, war solves nothing.  It merely gives people an excuse to kill and harm each other over an issue that the government could talk out but have too much pride to do so.  I had a conversation with a friend about Syria the other day and I voiced my opinion that I stated above.  I told her I was sick of America getting involved in which she responded that this issue has to do with the U.N. and that other countries are not volunteering to do anything, making America the country to pick up the pieces.  Whether what she said was true or false, I'm not sure.  But her comment got me thinking; why must we, America, pick up the pieces at all?  Why is it always America who has to get involved?  The entire concept reminds me of the Christians who waged wars on other religions because they did not believe the same things.  Why is the answer to differing views always war?  Don't get me wrong, there are some things that people in other countries do that I think is just plain awful and wrong.  But there is a cultural barrier between us.  Just as I believe that they are doing many evil things, they could look at me and say the same exact thing.  Starting a war will only get both parties angry and will kill innocent people who aren't really fighting this battle and have virtually nothing to do with it. 
Power: After learning about plenty of wars in history classes, I have come to the conclusion that governments (and people in power) are what case wars.  Governments are always too headstrong to talk things out and always are fighting for having the upper hand - even if that means killing thousands to millions of innocent victims in the process - all to get what they want.  To bring in a pop culture reference, just look at the second book in the series A Song of Ice and Fire, A Clash of Kings (TV Show known as Game of Thrones).  In the book, we see Stannis and Renly Baratheon both claiming that they are the rightful king of the seven kingdoms.  Stannis feels inferior to Renly because Renly is beloved by all even though Stannis is the true king since he is the oldest brother.  At one point, the brothers come face to face and have an argument of wits as to who should sit on the iron throne, sending threats at each other every other sentence.  Finally, Catelyn Stark intervenes and lectures the two of them, saying that if they were her sons she would put them both in a room together and make them work things out.  The conversation is no longer about who is the rightful king.  The conversation is about family history and hurts that each of there brother's experienced growing up.  They each still have deep loathing for the other and are willing to risk many lives instead of forming an alliance together as brothers.  They are both too proud.  This plot is a perfect example at how each government has hurt one another in some way and instead of uniting and looking past petty differences, they wage war. 
Weapons: I bring weapons up last because they pose another threat entirely.  With war comes deadly weapons, mainly nuclear weapons.  The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor so America bombed them right back.  That is all war is - back and forth battles.  To this day, America still feels the hurt from the attack of Pearl Harbor and I imagine Japan feels the same because of what America did to them.  Haven't we learned out lesson?  Yes the atom bombed technically ended the second world war but it only ended the fighting.  There is still hostility in this relationship.  The war is not over and no war ever will be until there is legit peace and that means no more weapons.  Just look at the cold war.  Russia and America both were making bombs to prepare for an attack from the other.  They also wanted to see who could make the best.  Another example is the space race.  America put thousands of dollars into the space race, as did Russia...all because of differing political views about how a government should be run.  Instead of putting money toward things such as education, the homeless, etc., America spent millions on getting one man into space.  While it is an achievement, I can't help but think that our priorities are in jeopardy.  Creating weapons will not protect us but will put us at more risk. 
My basic conclusion is that we can all learn from a few sayings: Treat others as you would want to be treated; If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all; Two wrongs don't make a right.  I know my ideas in this post are a bit scattered and I apologize.  I had a hard time writing this and I know there is a lot more I could have said but didn't.  All I know is that America's priorities are mixed up and there needs to be another option before war.  We need to take the advice we give to our children - violence is not the answer.  And my most basic and innocent question is - why can't we all just get along?  I know the issue is very complex but when you think about it, it isn't that complex at all.  The answer is simple - it is human beings that make everything more complicated. 
I find it ironic that all of this cropped up into my life on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have A Dream speech.  A call for war arises on the anniversary for a speech that longed for peace...

Wasted Wednesday: The Value of Life

At the end of July, Relevant Magazine posted a really interesting blog post titled Can You Be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty? - Examining the tension between defending life and condoning death.  I haven't actually read the post yet because I wanted to figure out my own opinions and thoughts and talk about them here on The Reader without watering everything down by repeating the blog's message with different wording.
First off, let me state my stance on both of the subjects.  Essentially, I consider myself pro-life when it comes to my own body and I feel very strongly about this statement.  I believe that every single child has a right to life and that right should not be taken away no matter what.  That being said, I also consider myself pro-choice when it comes to other women because ultimately it is not my decision whether someone wants to have an abortion or not.  It is the mother's choice.  This may seem to be a weird view coming from a Christian but I firmly believe that God loves each and every one of us for who we are right now at this very moment and will love us during every moment of our lives.  While I believe life occurs right after conception and that every single living soul has the right to life, that is not something I struggle with.  I can not make this decision for anyone.  It is extremely personal.

The death penalty is something I only recently began to grasp my opinions on.  For a while, I believed in it because I believed that people should be killed for doing bad things.  But now that I am older and have read many books and have come in contact with many varieties of people, I think the real question we need to ask is - what is so bad about death?  Our culture constantly portrays death as this horrible thing and they paint it in such a black and white light but death is much more complicated than we have been taught.  Is death really the worst punishment?  No - I don't believe so.  Do two wrongs make a right?  No - not at all.  I now believe that, as I mentioned in my review of Torn by Justin Lee, that sin is sin.  I believe that murder holds the same amount of weight as a child purposefully stealing from a candy store.  Sin is sin.  Do we have a right to kill?  No.  Therefore, I do not agree in the death penalty.  What scares me most about America sometimes is that we seem to like celebrating the death of those we hate or are afraid of.  The night Osama bin Laden was killed, my entire college campus erupted in loud applause and riots throughout the quad and on campus began.  Sure, I was happy too that the threat this man posed was gone but I began to wonder - is it really gone just because this man is dead?  Not at all.  And then I wondered how we could celebrate taking a human life.  Thinking about this really started putting things into perspective for me.
Donald Miller points out in his brilliant novel Blue Like Jazz that America is run by a system of checks and balances.  As a Christian, this system just doesn't work.  Christianity sits on the idea that our being is reflected in Jesus Christ.  God is love and in Him we are forgiven.  He removed all of our sin when He died on the cross.  Whatever I have done or will do, He has forgiven me as long as I put my identity in Him.  America, and organized religion for that matter, believes that when someone does something wrong they should be punished.  The bigger the crime, the bigger the punishment.
To be pro-life means that you believe in new life.  It means that we should save the ones who don't have a voice and deserve a chance in this world.  To be pro-death penalty means that life should be taken away because of wrong doings.  To be both of these things is just downright hypocritical in my opinion.  To say you believe in life in some cases but not in others is an oxymoron.  Either you believe in life or you don't.  Now let me be clear - I'm not saying that those who are pro-choice don't believe in life.  Many pro-choice people believe in saving a woman's life and giving her the right to choose.  But this stance is about saving a person who is already alive.  What connects those who are pro-life and those who are pro-death penalty is that they are both speaking about a life entering this world and a life leaving this world.  It isn't about choice or about health risks.  It is purely about life.
This idea of life can even tie into the gun control discussion that has been widely talked about over the past several months.  The question seems not to be about how to restrict guns but how to teach children the sanctity of life.  Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  And with that in mind - if a pro-life person claims that we do not have a say in an unborn humans life, who is to say that we have a say in the lives of those who are already alive?