St. Valentine's Self-Refutation

Spring is nearly upon us and love is in the air; young romantics search for ways to express their emotions to the objects of their affections. We have been socialized to concentrate our caring gestures and loving attitudes on one particular day: Valentine’s Day. This day has been marked as the ultimate day to show love, give gifts and remember those whom we truly care for.

The problem, though, is that people give gifts, love and attention because it is expected. Marking a specific period of time (in this case, a day) to show close friends, family and significant others love and attention takes away from the meaning of that gesture. It’s like the concept of free will in love, similar to how God gives humanity free will to choose: if one is forced or expected to show love or care, are there they truly showing their feelings? Or are they simply following dictated trends and commands?

Take, for example, the husband who buys his wife flowers one day as a surprise. Undoubtedly, she would thank him and be filled with joy and love at the thought of this sweet gesture. The next week, the husband returns with another floral gift; bouquets begin to follow the husband home on a regular, weekly basis. Soon, the wife will begin to expect the husband to repeat these gestures – people are creatures of habit, both internally and externally – and at this point two things will happen. The wife will no longer be impressed with the husband’s displays of affection (they are routine, after all- what’s so special about something that happens day in and day out?), and if the husband should neglect to bring his weekly romantic gestures, the wife will naturally assume that something is amiss in their relationship; something must have caused him to change his behavior. Constant, returning gestures of romance, while promoted as ideal, are in reality self-destructive.

The other issue with Valentine’s Day is the materialism. Today’s capitalist society has told the Western populace that, in general, the most significant way to show love and devotion is to buy the loved party materials gifts, or purchase services offered by themed promoters. In essence, we must buy the love we show others; to do otherwise is considered cheap or uncaring.

Now, I’m not saying not to buy gifts for loved ones, and I’m certainly not saying that showering loved ones with gifts, care and attention is wrong; indeed, love is a constantly evolving, action-based state. I have dated my girlfriend for almost 15 months; I constantly show my love for her with acts, deeds and gifts with random surprises and gestures of affection (I love you, Kelsey). But to devote one particular day to romance – to expect romance – is essentially a self-refuting concept.

Haiti and the Need to Appear Caring

It really bothers me that Haiti has been such a huge factor in the news for the last two weeks. People have seemed so caring and eager to help those in need. I really have to doubt, however, the sincerity of the populace's actions, as well as question the motives behind their interest in the situation.

The situation in Haiti (which you would be unfamiliar with only if you lived in a depp, dark cave somewhere in the northern province of Uzbekistan) has recieved only constant media attention. Coverage of aid and relief by mass media has bombarded the public. Everyone, from FOX News to Facebook, is hopping on the social justice bandwagon. Why? Because it's the right thing to do, and to not care abotu people hurting and dying and starving is morally reprehensible.

Wake up! When do we as Americans EVER give a damn about something other than the bottom line and the size of our pocketbooks? As cold-blooded capitalists, it's our duty to look out for number one and step on as many hungry, starving, dying people as it takes to satisfy our instiable need for profit, wealth and self-satisfaction. Why do we care so much about people who's lives have been destroyed by a natural disaster? After all, it's their fault for living in such an unprepared manner.

I heard a quote the other day that really hit a nerve. I hate to be a hypocrite, but I can't soundly attribute the quote or cite it directly. However, the essential message behind was, "It's depressing that it takes a tragedy like the one in Haiti to really wake people up around aiding and helping others." It seems really hypocritical to make this kind of comment at a time like this. You are saying that you think people should care more about aiding others, but you are only pointing it out when there's a crisis to be concerned about. The speaker in this case is just as pompous and arrogant as the rest of the populace for caring about a social justic cause only during a time of crisis. You're no better than everyone else you are criticizing.

It's depressing that people only notice about people caring (or not) for others only during a time of crisis.

It's depressing that no one stops to think about this.

Christmas Happenings

I know, I know, I'm ridiculously late posting this. Bad Robby, bad.

Christmas was actually pretty good for me this year. Usually I hate Christmas. H-A-T-E, hate. Everything is so commercialized- the advertising, the sales, the gift exchanges and returns. Everyone talks about 'the reason for the season', and justifies themselves by rading their Bible for 10 minutes Christmas morning, then diving into their material posessions like a greedy pack of starved hynenas.

But I digress.

My Christmas was actually not bad. I got a lot of useful presents this year- clothes and food. For a college student, getting free stuff like that is like hitting the jackpot at Morengo (which the guy next door actually did last semester. Still trying to get "my share" from him…). For the most part, it was an average, relaxing Christmas. It was what happened after Christmas that really shook me up.

My girlfriend of over a year broke up with me.

She told me over the phone on New Year's Day. According to her, "When we started dating, we needed each other. Now, we don't."

Talk about a punch to the stomach. I didn't know what to do. For the first couple of days after we rang in the new year, I was a miss. I missed her, obviously. But there was something constantly nagging at the back of my head: What did I do wrong? Could I have stopped this from happening?

Well, at that point there was nothing I could do. We had split, and that was that. I knew that I had to move on… and hey, I was single! Not that being single was really a high point. After spending almost fourteen months with someone, you tend to get a little attached to them. There was something about her smile, her laugh, her embrace that just… captivated me. Face it, I was lost. I wanted her back, and I would do anything to have another chance with her.

After a few weeks of talking things through and letting the dust settle, she came out to CBU. We went out to dinner and talked things over. We talked about the good parts of our relationship, the not-so-good parts, the parts we wanted back and the parts we wanted to fix. After four hours of laughs, tears and double-doubles, we decided that we wanted our relationship back- sort of. We are now back together, but we have dialed back nearly every aspect of our relationship. Physically, spiritually, emotionally- we are starting over.

And you know what? It feels great. God is a God of new beginnings. I know that he has given me a new beginning with my girlfriend, a new opportunity to care for her and love her. And I'm not going to mess things up again.

Journalism's Shift

So let me get this straight. You want to take money from the U.S. Federal Government, the biggest, most corrupt bureaucracy in the world, and dole it out to struggling media outlets, often considered the political watchdogs to the federal entity? Please. The whole of this idea is a sloppy, contradictory mess. It's certainly not worth a second glance.
A recent report from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism is advocating that exact idea. According to the report, local public-affairs journalism outlets are dying out, for a variety of reasons. They want the IRS or Congress to, among other things, create, "... [a] national Fund for Local News ... with money the Federal Communications Commission now collects from or could impose on telecom users, television and radio broadcast licensees, or Internet service providers and administered in open competition through state Local News Fund Councils."

...

I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.

...

Are we good? In the back, are you good? Ok, let's move on.

In essence, the authors of the report want to take money already used by the federal government to essentially bail out failing local news outlets (either that, or let's just raise taxes. Hell or high water, we lose). The authors, and other small-time and non-profit journalists who have jumped on board, point out that the government has produced other entities that operate in the same manner, such as the nation Endowment for the Arts, the Humanities, etc. Still, journalism has always been (and I'm going to shoot myself for advocating this point) a capitalistic, free-market operation. Newspaper are private companies- allowing the government to provide legitimate funding for their operation opens the door to the slippery slope argument of eventual government control of media outlets. This has been, and always should be, the antithesis of the press in American society.

Even proponents of the idea admit that there are serious risks. Joel Kramer at Inside MinnPost says that, “The funding would not be for specific stories, but for broader, longer-range innovations in newsgathering and organizational sustainability. Even so, it’s easy to imagine that that process could become highly politicized.”

So to summarize: We're going to take money from an already shaky, rebuilding economic system, give it to press and media outlets as a free handout, and pretend like nothing illegitimate is going on. Karl Marx would be proud.

Ok, I'm done with my ranting and raving.

The report did contain a lot of informative information. A significant portion was dedicated to an analysis of how journalism has changed and evolved in recent years do to a shifting market, changing public opinions and cultural principles, evolutions in media and technology, and so on. My newspaper advisor, Professor MaryAnn Pearson, is also researching this topic. I recently wrote an article for The Banner about how the changing trends in journalism are affecting both professional and student journalists alike.

"You really do need a combination of skills to work as a journalist," said Pearson.

She also said that, despite the large influx of Web-based writing and the massive spread of information, newspapers do not appear to be dying out like they were a few years ago.

"Journalism is landing on its feet," said Pearson.

So I plug my own work shamelessly. Bite me.

http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1212611716674/page/1212611716651/JRNSimplePage2.htm

http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JRN/Render/DocURL&binaryid=1212611716626

http://www.minnpost.com/insideminnpost/2009/10/19/12627/a_modest_proposal_for_federal_funding_of_journalism#

Media's Meaningless Message

Anger. Rage. You want to talk about what really ticks me off? Try living in a society where a flawed, hopeless worldview is constantly shoved down the throats of the next generation by the most powerful propaganda machine ever created (and no, I'm not talking about McDonald's. We'll save that for another time).

Allow me to explain. We live in a media-dominated world. We are constantly bombarded with messages telling us how to live, how to act, what to wear, eat, say, think and do. It's everywhere. Children are being influenced by the media at a younger and younger age. They are being taught everything they know by the most corporate arm of society. Modern media is controlling the western world, and is forcing a system of values and principles on a generation that is searching for guidance. We are finding nothing but empty promises and blind hope in the answers.

Today's media is perfection's home. Of course, everyone wants the nice home, the great family, the white picket fence. But does this ever happen in reality? No, of course not. Life isn't perfect. To paraphrase Thomas Hobbes, life is poor, nasty, cold, brutish and empty. The only place we ever find perfection and a shining sense of optimistic contentment is in the modern media. If we follow through this in a simple, linear manner, we run into a huge philosophical dilemma. If everything we learn (perfection from the media) is not possible in real life (and if you try to tell me that life is perfect, you're more delusional than the people who churn out today's debilitating mass media), then how can we expect to raise a generation of intelligent, realistic humans?

Granted, much of the perfection in the media can't be argued against. Advertisements are what they are, and if it's someone's job to create a false image of society, that's not my issue. That argument has been worn out, and no one will ever reach a practical agreement. But there are aspects of the media that, while not intentionally harmful, are having a devastating effect on today's youth. Examples bound endlessly, but I will focus on one small concept. Much of what children learn today, at least from a practical, informal standpoint, is based on what they see and hear. And given today's societal standards for information gathering practices, I would reason that we have cause to be highly concerned. Translation: Kids get everything from TV and movies, and it's warping their fragile little minds to the point of no return. Corporations like Disney have been churning out sentimental, feel-good movies for decades. By today's media standards, children are concretely learning that, simply by believing and dreaming enough, they can do anything they want. This certainly seems like a noble message, but if we are taking it at face value, and applying it to our lives in a practical manner, this creates a gaping hole between the fantasy world of the media and real world of today. But hey, it's Hollywood. That's what it's all about, right?

Hollywood. I guess that's where it all starts. Just flip to any Disney owned channel- there's enough peppy, happy optimistic cheer to nauseate the most hardened sailor. Take, for example, Disney's High School Musical, or any of their modern Cinderella adaptations (I can't even begin to count how many there are- and I took Calculus. I can count pretty high). Every good guy wins, every villain loses, there's no pain, sorrow or consequences, and everything tidily wraps up just before the commercial break. Sure, that's fine- for entertainment. But today's children are so wrapped around this concept that their lives can be just as perfect as their Disney heros' that they have lost focus on reality of the situation- that success takes hard work, patience, dedication. And sometimes, you just don't win. But I guess that is a lesson that's too painful for our children to learn. We wouldn't want to hurt them, would we? So instead, we hide them behind a cloud of false optimism and meaningless media nonsense.

I was never one for sentimentality. Practical, applied logic has been my proven approach for over eighteen years, and it has served me well. To be frank, that clichéd approach of "following your heart" and seizing the day with blind optimism can only lead to the bitter, empty reality of one too many crushed dreams and far too few goals met. Sure, go ahead, chase after your dreams, hoping that Disney's "if you believe, you can succeed" mentality will carry you through your next crisis. After all, it's only a matter of time before your bank starts taking "dreams" for the mortgage payment.

Hey, Hollywood can do it. Why can't you?