Idiocracy: America Land of the what?

Current Health Care Reform debates, [I use that term loosely] and the town hall meeting discussions[even more loosely] both clearly illuminate America's tepid free fall into a land full of idiots. Harsh words, maybe, but simply take a look around at attitudizing customer service workers, entertainment news media, but really politics in particular. Words like Socialism, Fascist, Racist, Vampires, Rapists, Death panels, Nazi, Euthanasia, and the list goes on, continue to float out of mainly Republican pundits mouths way too easily, without any concern or regard for the outcome. Well, free speech is a wonderful thing and I would never advocate censorship. But, the reality is we live in a society in which opinion is often ingested as fact. I would discuss the birther movement, but that's too easy. Something so ridiculous should have never gained traction in this country, but again to the point of this blog, idiots consume and color the the landscape.

Simply look at health care town hall rallies across the country a place where sensible and reasoned discussion should take place has instead become a breeding ground for idiots and charlatans, taking their propaganda and spreading it like wildfire. People [citizens] should know that Nationalized Health Care will not take away anyone's ability to choose. Likewise, consider other government institutions, the postal service or public education, both compete against private corporations or entities.

For example, consider this, if you don't want your child to go to public schools, then guess what? Little Suzie or Johnny don't have to go. As a parent, you can choose to send them to a private school. And, do we all [American citizens] pay for public education? Absolutely! I am a single man with no dependents. Can you guess how much more I pay in taxes than a married couple with children? A lot! Do I care? No! I realize a function of the federal government is to empower it's citizens. Education is central to and for a well maintained and functioning society. It's no accident that a society which glorifies ignorance is also hell bent on opposing government programs that will ideally benefit the vast majority of Americans. Why? Because idiots generally lack empathy. They have a more nationalist worldview that eagerly attaches to "us" vs. "them" rants. The kind of thinking that leaves little room for progress.We can have discussions about controlling cost and reforming a broken system. Let's not have a discussion that is seeped in fear and trepidation. So to all those Americans who are so afraid right now, take note. Your country is still yours. No one has taken anything away from you. If you like a federal government that runs on autopilot then get ready for a weakened infrastructure, lack luster public facilities, and protections, when the storm approaches and the levees break, don't cry to the federal government because you supported cutting the program aimed at fixing and maintaining the foundation.

Divalicious Moment # 2 Jody Watley

Strike a pose! VOGUE! This line from Madonna’s 1990 hit sparked a global interest in this gay urban street dance style. And, although Madonna is usually given mainstream credit for bring voguing to the masses, it was another diva that really tapped into this stylistic and queer dance craze; her name is Jody Watley and she is the subject of this Divialicious moment # 2. Jody Watley first began her career in the late 70s on the popular television show Soul Train as one of its featured dancers. A few years later in the early 80s she, along with Howard Hewitt and Jeffery Daniel formed the pop/R&B group Shalamar. They held mediocre success, especially given today’s standards, with hits such as A Night to Remember and The Second Time Around. I can remember rummaging through my dad’s album collection and jamming to some of their songs. Then a few years later it happened, I saw this goddess dancing in a video. She wore huge loop earrings, black heels, black hose under a black skirt that resembled fishnet stockings, a black off the shoulder top that revealed her belly button along with black chains and rings, the pitch black big hair, those cheekbones, a killer black assemble theme. Almost unrecognizable from her Shalamar days, it was Jody Watley singing about finding a new love. She was like an edgier more grown-up version of Janet Jackson in the late eightes. Her style was truly unique and identifiable. She was like this really fierce campy drag queen. So, you know I was hooked. Maybe she was the root for my fascination with drag and female impersonation. In probably one of her least successful singles from her first solo album, the video for Still a Thrill, housed voguing. That’s right kids, Jody was voguing before Madonna. Give her props. In a career that spans well over 20 years, I still love me some Jody.

Favorite Jody Songs
12. I’m the one you need
11. Love Injection
10. Don’t you want me
9. Some Kind of lover
8. Real Love
7. Friends
6. Everything
5. I want you
4. Most of All
3. Ecstasy
2. Looking For a New Love
1. Still A Thrill (she really should re-release this song; it was so before it’s time)

Check out the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nArOa8OViw

CNN and Tyler Perry

For me, representation is mostly about style, and like many of my blog post, I’ve tried to air on the side of caution in putting too much stock into what gets produced for mainstream audiences. But, it would be foolish to think that representations in movies or on television do not affect the populous perceptions about particular social groups. To what degree, of course it is debatable. But, most of you reading this might agree that appearances, no matter how subtle, subverse, or flamboyant are nonetheless seductive.
I want to take a moment and discuss Tyler Perry, the reigning king for producing and directing movies geared toward predominantly African-American audiences. In the past 5 years Tyler Perry movies have become a staple among black audiences. Perry is the first African American to own a major film and TV studio. He has taken his Madea character, which originated in his plays, and transformed his drag performance into money making enterprise. And, make no mistake it is a drag performance, one in which could have some positive effects for the gay community’s relationship with the black community. I’ll return to this point.
In terms of story telling, the first main problem I have with Perry is his transparent and over the top plot structure. He uses the same narrative throughout most of his films. Character A is a tragically flawed person or victim of social circumstance, he or she, usually a woman, meets Character B, a man, who is explicitly cast as the ultra masculine, confident, yet humble man. She [Character A] refuses [Character B’s] advances at first. Finally, through some great epiphany her eyes are opened. She falls in love and finds her way back to the man and God. [Interestingly enough can you see the man/God parallels here; you (a woman) need a man and you need God] I realize that was a real brief generalization, but it’s pretty much the basic structure, girl meets boy. Of course, he has various, mildly intriguing characters covering the landscape; and, Madea is obviously the comedy relief for the stories depicting her character, too.
Secondly, I find the constant reinforcement of Christian religious undertones throughout his movies extremely problematic. Yes, a lot of black folks enjoy and love praising Jesus, and maybe that’s the audience Perry is only concerned with influencing. He has created a niche for himself that seems to be working well, monetarily. And, he is giving a lot of black actors’ work, which is a great thing. But, why is he the only voice, giving life on the big screen to black experiences? Not every black experience in America is centered around and dominated by the church, which is what most of his movies would suggests. This single and monolithic vision for depicting the black experience is one dimensional, but it’s what dominates in the media. And it is all too often the kind of representation that gets cast as “authentically black,” [check out CNN’s Black in American II coverage, I’m sure black folks and church will encompass most of the conversation]

Divalicious Moment # 1

This is the first installment of what I'd like to call my Divalicious Moments. The moment can be anything from an old school R&B video or a new pop song. What's important is that the female vocalist does something memorable in a performance or song, which captures my interest, prompting me to sample their repertoire of music. Some will be powerhouse vocalist and some won't. Basically, old or new music, it doesn't matter because these are the women that have the "IT" factor; I call them Divalicious. Look for blogs about female vocalist that I feel really encapsulate the word DIVA.

D= Delightfully charming,

I= Incredibly talented,

V=Vocal gymnast

A=Authentic performer, that is a Diva.

The first on my list is the audacious vocal styling of Stephanie Mills. This woman gives singing a whole new meaning. She can take a song and infuse so much emotion and strength into it. Sadly, she was so underrated in the 80s. She was pigeonholed as a R&B artist, making it that much harder to crack that mainstream pop ceiling. Regardless of success, she is totally fabulous.

Here's a little bit of trivia for you about Ms. Mills. She briefly dated Michael Jackson in the late 70s while she performed on Broadway as Dorothy in The Wiz. Cheers to you Stephanie.

My top Ten List

10. Whacha going to do with my Lovin

09. (I've learned to Respect) The Power of Love

08. I feel good all over

07. I Never knew Love like this before (such a gem)

06. You're Puttin a Rush on Me

05. All Day, All Night

04. Home

03. Feel the Fire

02. Comfort of a Man

01. Something in the Way you make me Feel (check out the video)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3pS1Ig5N2Y

It would seem given this past weekend’s box office numbers that Sacha Cohen’s latest attempt at supreme satirical profundity is a major hit, slam-dunk. But, I guess that would depend on your definition of what makes for a box office hit. And, of course many of you may consider these questions: Did it fit into your idea of a comedy? Did it make you laugh? Did it offend you? Did it disgust you? Most moviegoers whom flocked to see Bruno may have left feeling a host of adjectives after viewing Cohen’s creation.
Bruno, unlike his predecessor Borat, is far less universally likable, yet he’s more infectious. The multi-layered movie has so many rhetorical dimensions that deserve discussion. Yet, I’m going to focus on the obvious one. For many, the characterization of Bruno was offensive to gay Americans and this movie was simply another in a line of continued perpetuated negative stereotypes?
Let’s back track for a minute, and consider the idea of “social contracts”. MySpace, Face book, and maybe even Twitter to a certain degree all form various functions as social networking cites. But, they also reveal some pretty interesting things about human interaction and the expectations that exist. For example, what happens when you send someone, let’s say a really hot guy a friend request, you two share friends, run in the same circles, have similar interest, thus it’s seems you two are primed for a great friendship. Well a day goes by, then two, then three, then a week, and now its two weeks and he hasn’t accepted your request. What gives? You feel perturbed, unsure, and insecure possibly. Why? Because he didn’t keep or meet your or the unspoken rules that dominate social networks. Most people that run in the same circles will generally accept one another’s friend request. But he didn’t accept yours. Consider this statement, “when expectations are not filled is when we realize we’ve made assumptions about what the person “ought” to be (Goffman). The point here is that Bruno, the character, represents an assumption about what gay depictions should not be.
Bruno may be an archetype of the overtly flamboyant gay male stereotype seen in Hollywood movies for ages. But, Bruno isn’t an every [gay] man personality and shouldn’t be seen as such. What’s laudable about this character is that he takes a lead role. The story develops around his adventures. He is not the sidekick or supporting character giving meaning to another character’s moral dilemma. Bruno takes center stage. And, he may not fit an ideal role model for gay men, but keep in mind Cohen’s intention is not to cast Bruno as a role model per se. Leave those characterizations to the Sean Penn’s of the world. Is this a politically incorrect movie? Absolutely! Often that is what comedy and satire is all about, making you [the audience] uncomfortable, uneasy, and a bit anxious. Those are the emotions that make you question and critically think about your beliefs, attitudes, and opinions. [Hooray for critical thinking!]
Bruno’s antics are shockingly ridiculous and outrageous to say the least. But, let’s keep in mind that aside from his sexuality, they would still be shockingly ridiculous and outrageous, think Johnny Knoxville in Jackass.
I think what floats below the radar, and possibly what might strike some as offensive or inordinate behavior is his refusal to successfully cover/pass his identity. There is no mistaking Bruno is really gay. In the movie, Bruno is a complete effeminate narcissist. His adventure to America is an attempt to absorb himself into the shallow and vain arena of celebrity hood. He fails. And, subsequently believes he must become “straight” or “straight acting” to survive as a viable pop media star. Essentially, he tries to “hide” what and who he is in order to fit in, thus gaining acceptance. Of course, he doesn’t cover or pass well enough. He soon realizes that he’s gone astray and like most fairytale type stories he marries his prince in the end.[Happy Ending] Still, Bruno only feels stigmatized when he identifies his nature/sexuality as the culprit, keeping him from his goals.. For Bruno, what he does is normal. He is normal. It is not until his dreams in America are not realized that he becomes a somewhat tragic or self-loathing character. Otherwise, he flaunts and reveals in his sexuality with childlike abandon. Now, isn’t that what Gay Pride is all about. Sure looks that way at most of the parades I’ve attended. Thus, for me, outside of the lute, obscene, and questionably moral behavior, I think Bruno only loosely perpetuates a gay stereotype if you look at the character with that particular social frame in mind, given the fact that it is a “straight” actor sort of putting on the armor of a gay male. On a broader scale it is the classic tale of self-acceptance, with lots of raw and raunchy jokes coloring the landscape. Of course whether or not the movie does anything to really expose homophobia, or empower it, I guess the jury’s still out?

Bill O'Reilly on Michael Jackson

Here again I’m amazed at the simple minded approach Bill O’Reilly peddles through to his viewers on Fox. Should I be surprised; hell No! O’Reilly is an expert at stripping any topic down to its most base and simplistic level, then of course positioning himself as the authoritative expert. In other words, he frames the discussion and tries to pass his opinion off as fact. How does he do this you wonder; well let’s take a minute, albeit a long minute, which is more time than he deserves and deconstruct his approach.
Here is the link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/gretchen-carlson-michael_n_226707.html
Last night on his show, O’Reilly along with his two cheerleaders ponder this question; “Why are Black Americans so interested in a Guy with White kids and a face?” First, the question itself positions black Americans as being somehow misguided in their adulation for Jackson. A more general question to ponder may have read; “Why is the American public so interested in Michael Jackson?” It is a less nuanced question, but one that is much more inclusive because it doesn’t allow O’Reilly to subtly play the race card. What he suggests to his predominately white audience is that “those black folks, they are so silly, going on and on about that man who didn’t even like the color of his black skin.” Watch the clip; it is pretty much what O’Reilly is suggesting. When one of his co-host attempts to fire back, offering a bit of rationalization for Jackson’s appeal to blacks, “he was one of the first African-American crossover artists in pop music.” O’Reilly immediately interjects. Remember in his infinite wisdom he knows best, or everything. He claims Jackson was not the “First” to crossover pop artist, appealing to both black and white audiences. Mr. O’Reilly, he was not the “First” but he was surely a part of the pack that history considers the “First”. He continues to argue that other Motown artists were doing that long before Jackson. Ah, Bill you forget; Jackson was a Motown artist; the Jackson 5 were apart of that push into mainstream pop for African-Americans.
And, as an adult artist, although not the first black artist to be played on MTV, his success on the station was far more influential for generations to come. Consider this, although Susan B. Anthony, Madeline Albright, Maxine Waters, and Geraldine Ferraro were some of the “first” to crack the ceiling for women in politics, it is most likely Hilary Clinton’s 2008 run for the Democratic nomination that people will remember and the case that history will cite as being the most influential, thus far.
O’Reilly once again you treat your audience to minimalist thinking. Simply put, because Michael Jackson’s skin color changed doesn’t negate the fact that his musical success is some how less than to African-Americans. And, to answer your question, African Americans claim Jackson because there is a history in the culture to laud and be loyal to celebrities, especially in music and sports.
But, I realize that at times that adulation and loyalty may be miss-appropriated and in it, opportunities for engaging criticism are lost. The real analysis O’Reilly could have expressed or exposed, instead of the racial issue, is gender expression & sexuality issue, and how despairingly pervasive homophobia in the black community still is. For me, Jackson was a stark reminder of how many individuals in the black community are slow to embrace difference, especially if it doesn’t fit the community’s social script for masculinity. Questions about Michael Jackson’s sexuality were so ubiquitous in the black community that he became the standard joke. The man was ridiculed and seen as somehow less than. His effeminate behavior was characteristically patronized as something tragic. But, O’Reilly really doesn’t have the balls [or academic background] to supply a deeper analysis here, one that doesn’t placate to his audience’s sensibilities. O’Reilly you’ve cried wolf too many times to now try and sit in judgment on a topic that does deserve attention. Maybe his criticism was an attempt to shine a light on an inconsistent view, but seeing this man in action, I seriously doubt it. He lacks total credibility.
Still, it’s no secret that the Michael Jackson was an eccentric man. He was not your average Joe, so to speak, which most artistic people are not. He was a true iconoclastic personality, challenging traditional notions of masculinity and race.

Lady Gaga, the New What?

Cher, Madonna, Tina, & Aretha, what do these women have in common? Well, they are legendary, iconic and they’ve been recording music for the last 50+ years, excluding Madonna, 30+ years for her. Cher has her own show in Vegas, Tina just wrapped another world tour last year, and Aretha graces us at prominent industry events, where she can control the air conditioning, now that is a diva. And Madonna’s last two tours have grossed millions upon millions of dollars. These women all for me represent longevity and relevance. Longevity because let’s face it, if you can still pull crowds and keep people interested as long as they have, then they’ve got to be doing something right. They are relevant because each continue to influence female artistry today. So to the Question is Lady Gaga the next Madonna? First, it’s a loaded question, too many variables to consider. Who is Lady Gaga influencing? Will her next album tank? Is she a fad? Is she the next Madonna, probably not, but she is a breath of fresh air. I like her image and performance style; she’s different. That is where I draw the line. Come on peeps, we don’t need another hero; Madonna still gets my vote.