I want to write about how much I despise American Idol and all reality television in general, but somehow I am unable to put my feelings into words that I would not be ashamed of, or at least ashamed to have my children read. However, I must say a few things about reality television and I will try to do so in a calm and dispassionate manner. Just know that underneath is a much darker undercurrent! To be fair, Kelly Clarkson can sing and some of her songs were catchy, and Carrie Underwood (despite the fact I don't like country music) is talented. Who was the guy who beat the ridiculously talented Adam Lambert....exactly! In the real world Adam Lambert would have kicked the other guys butt all over the stage (which come to think of it he did, he just didn't win). But for the most part, we watched American Idol for the first three or four rounds where the really really bad, sad, desperate, inept, and hopeless got to have their dreams dashed, their egos completely crushed, and their self-delusions of grandeur made the butt of some international joke. I stopped watching after the first season and have not watched a single episode since...ever. The only reason I know who Adam Lambert or Carrie Underwood are is because their music is on MTV and the radio constantly and they have become authentic music stars. Where are the rest of the winners? How real is a reality show called American Idol where most of the winners are has-beens before they even leave the show. Hardly creating "America's next idols".
The fact that I don't watch reality television doesn't make me more perfect or holy or upstanding than anyone else. I just don't like being lied to. Lets face it and be honest, reality television is not real in any sense of the word. Putting twelve people into a house and subjecting them to stupid competitions and filming all their stupid conversations and cat fights and hook ups is not the real world. Taking a bunch of contestants to exotic locations and making them do basically the same thing is not the real world. Following a bunch of bitchy, lipo-suctioned, women around their hopelessly make-believe lives in Orange County or New York or Atlanta or wherever they will go next, is not reality television. Whenever anybody sticks twenty cameras in your face 24/7 and then edits all of it into a 1/2 hour or 1 hour program complete with the characters providing commentary is not real life. Put all these "real" scenarios together and you get three or four characters in every show yelling, screaming, saying stupid stuff, creating "drama", all in the desperate attempt to snag more airtime than their fellow "competitors". It may entertain people, a lot of people, but don't insult my intelligence by telling me this is "reality". Call it something else. Call it "television to make you feel better about your own life" or "here at the network we got tired of hiring actors so we just follow people around with cameras and pretty soon they start "acting" like what they are doing is real life and we don't pay them much and you all like it". I hear that at least one of Tiger Wood's mistresses is getting a "reality" show. Wow, we are going to follow her around the kitchen where she waitresses and wait for her to hop into bed with another married athlete? That would be a true reality show about her life. That is what she did. But no, she'll have really "deep" conversations with people about how to attract a good man and how to try and avoid all the craziness of fame and how much she hates all the attention that her "mistake" with Tiger has caused her. All with cameras in her face that she agreed to.
I fear for our planet people! I fear that soon everyone watching these shows will begin to think that what they are watching IS reality and that they need to behave like their favourite reality stars in order to have a real life. I believe that would signal the end of civilization and the need for an apocalypse.
In the mean time, I'm going to get ready to watch some REAL reality television. The NFL starts in less than a month.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Going to school can make you out of shape
This is a completely non-academic post. I promise not to talk about anything academic. There is another side to academics, one which I have been fighting for several years since going back to school, the battle to stay in shape. (Quick note: I know there are 22 year old students who still run everyday and play varsity sports - be thankful you are 22 - it doesn't last).
O.K. When I moved here to go to school I wasn't in great shape, but I wasn't out of shape either. I had a job that kept me active and being on stage every week is a workout in and of itself, so I never thought to much about my weight or working out or cardio.
School involves a lot of sitting. Sitting in class, sitting on the bus, sitting in front of the computer late into the night writing papers and doing research. Sitting in lectures, sitting on airplanes...you get the picture. When not sitting, I find myself driving. Driving to the store, driving to the mall, driving to the library (so I can sit and read). The hours that academia forces one to keep do not lend themselves to healthy eating (although my wife is an awesome, awesome cook who does keep me well fed) and I tend to eat while I'm reading and writing and often it is late into the night.
Enter - a belly!!! One day I noticed that I couldn't bend over and tie up my shoes - something was in the way. Upon futher investigation I discovered that I no longer have abs. This was disturbing on two levels. First, it made me realize I am getting old and my metabolism is obviously slowing down, and second (and far more disturbing) a belly on a thin guy is VERY unattractive.
So, I started going to the gym, thinking that lifting weights would be enough of a workout to make the belly disappear. I was of course wrong. Although I have gained many pounds of muscle and finally am beginning to feel comfortable in the gym, working out 4-5 times per week made me hungry and so I ate more, and it did nothing to get rid of my stomach.
So, here is my dilmna. I realize that I have to do two things to get back into shape and get to a point where I can actually take my shirt off without having people stare at this enormous thing around my middle (get your minds out of the gutter). I have to do cardio and I have to eat less sugar and carbs.
I am addicted to sugar and carbs and my attempts at running (yes I have attempted) leave me feeling out of breath, ill, and hating people who make running look so effortless as they move with the grace of a gazelle around the track moving only ever so slightly to avoid the lumbering hulk who is attempting not to pass out in the middle lane.
How does one not eat sugar? Sugar is in everything I love. Even if I gave up donuts and candy, there is still sugar in wine and fruit. Fruit for the love of god. And carbs...no more pizza? No more bread? No more anything good?
My brother has started the p90x and apparently has lost a ton of weight and looks great. I hate him. I tried the arm and chest workout of the p90x and lasted about ten minutes. I can not print what I yelled at the stupid thing. Now it sits beside the TV mocking me as I sit down to watch a movie or the news.
I guess I must summon the willpower to at least cut down on carbs and sugar (no more donuts or beer) and begin a serious cardio regime, which may end up including the p90x.
In the mean time, Mary, pray for us sinners in the hour of our need.
O.K. When I moved here to go to school I wasn't in great shape, but I wasn't out of shape either. I had a job that kept me active and being on stage every week is a workout in and of itself, so I never thought to much about my weight or working out or cardio.
School involves a lot of sitting. Sitting in class, sitting on the bus, sitting in front of the computer late into the night writing papers and doing research. Sitting in lectures, sitting on airplanes...you get the picture. When not sitting, I find myself driving. Driving to the store, driving to the mall, driving to the library (so I can sit and read). The hours that academia forces one to keep do not lend themselves to healthy eating (although my wife is an awesome, awesome cook who does keep me well fed) and I tend to eat while I'm reading and writing and often it is late into the night.
Enter - a belly!!! One day I noticed that I couldn't bend over and tie up my shoes - something was in the way. Upon futher investigation I discovered that I no longer have abs. This was disturbing on two levels. First, it made me realize I am getting old and my metabolism is obviously slowing down, and second (and far more disturbing) a belly on a thin guy is VERY unattractive.
So, I started going to the gym, thinking that lifting weights would be enough of a workout to make the belly disappear. I was of course wrong. Although I have gained many pounds of muscle and finally am beginning to feel comfortable in the gym, working out 4-5 times per week made me hungry and so I ate more, and it did nothing to get rid of my stomach.
So, here is my dilmna. I realize that I have to do two things to get back into shape and get to a point where I can actually take my shirt off without having people stare at this enormous thing around my middle (get your minds out of the gutter). I have to do cardio and I have to eat less sugar and carbs.
I am addicted to sugar and carbs and my attempts at running (yes I have attempted) leave me feeling out of breath, ill, and hating people who make running look so effortless as they move with the grace of a gazelle around the track moving only ever so slightly to avoid the lumbering hulk who is attempting not to pass out in the middle lane.
How does one not eat sugar? Sugar is in everything I love. Even if I gave up donuts and candy, there is still sugar in wine and fruit. Fruit for the love of god. And carbs...no more pizza? No more bread? No more anything good?
My brother has started the p90x and apparently has lost a ton of weight and looks great. I hate him. I tried the arm and chest workout of the p90x and lasted about ten minutes. I can not print what I yelled at the stupid thing. Now it sits beside the TV mocking me as I sit down to watch a movie or the news.
I guess I must summon the willpower to at least cut down on carbs and sugar (no more donuts or beer) and begin a serious cardio regime, which may end up including the p90x.
In the mean time, Mary, pray for us sinners in the hour of our need.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Freedom?
All summer I have been working on a submission to the Supreme Court regarding religious freedom, the criminal code, and the practice of polygamy. This has taken up quite a bit of time but has also been a very rewarding and educational experience. I can't really talk about the content of my report for obvious reasons and because I may have to testify at the trial later this year, but I can say that it is rewarding to put my education to work in a practical application (is that a gramatically correct sentence?).
Initially I was going to write about lawyers and how I have gained a new appreciation for their work (which I have) however I think I would rather write about religious freedom. Are we free to do whatever we want in the name of our religion or does society have some control over what we believe and practice in the name of god? This same question has been the basis for the antinomian controversy that has plagued the church for most of its existence.
America's founders believed in religious freedom but they also believed in rationality and the principles of the Enlightenment. Therefore they struggled to construct a nation (and a constitution) that embodied not only the spirit of freedom, but also the spirit of rational thought and social control. They had no desire to devolve into the religious extremism and chaos of the Middle Ages, nor I think, do we. Although the United States and Canada are different countries and have some differences in their constitutions and beliefs about religion and politics (this is the topic for an upcoming paper I am co-publishing with another graduate student) I believe that in essence both countries look at religion, freedom, practice and social control in roughly the same way.
So, are we free to believe what we want? The answer in both countries is undoubtedly "yes". You can believe that the Reverand Moon is God. You can believe that L. Ron Hubbard had the keys to saving the planet. You can believe that Joseph Smith really discovered golden plates buried in a mountain. You can believe that sickness is all in your mind and medicine is bad. You can believe that Ellen White was a prophet. You can believe in a seven-headed llama from Peru who picks lottery numbers with its ass (o.k. I made that last one up, but you get my point). Are we free to do whatever we wish in the name of religion? The answer, again in both countries I believe, is "no" (this may apply more to the United States, a nation that is less tolerant of practices but more tolerant of religious belief - a point I will explore in the above mentioned paper). In some respects, society has the right to say what a person can and can not do. This forms the basis for our laws. You can't kill or steal or lie under oath or sell crack or rob banks. Those are easy ones. Whether for religious reasons or not, murder is wrong (although this becomes fuzzy when discussing the religious justifications for war, the death penalty, or the beliefs of some extremist sects). You can believe that murder in the name of religion is justifiable but society will stop you from putting that belief into practice.
The same goes for the use of mind-altering chemicals (at least in the US). You can't legally use peyote or marijuana or LDS or psychodelic mushrooms in the pursuit of ultimate truth or a connection with a higher power (despite what native Americans, Rastafarians or any other religious group may claim). You can believe that the use of these chemicals brings you closer to god, but you can't legally go and smoke dope at church (sorry, for now it is the law).
The matter currently before the Supreme Court asks the question, does freedom of religion allow a man to practice polygamy, or is the practice of polygamy so harmful (to women and children) that society must stop it? Currently, the practice of polygamy is a criminal offense in both the United States and Canada yet prosecutors have been hesitant to prosecute for fear of losing if a convicted polygamist makes a constitutional challenge to his (or her) conviction.
Are we free? Ultimately I don't think we are smart enough to be totally free. As individuals we may be, but as a whole I don't think we are. I am not advocating Big Brother or the totalitarian world of 1984. Neither am I suggesting that we allow religion to operate outside of the guidelines of rational thought and social control. I am not sure that I am comfortable saying that freedom has limits however for now I guess that is where I end up. Who decides and enforces those limits, and what forms the basis for these limits is a discussion that needs to continue and I hope that this case before the Supreme Court begins to answer some of those questions.
In the mean time, I am going camping in B.C. and hope to experience some freedom from school for a week.
Tim
Initially I was going to write about lawyers and how I have gained a new appreciation for their work (which I have) however I think I would rather write about religious freedom. Are we free to do whatever we want in the name of our religion or does society have some control over what we believe and practice in the name of god? This same question has been the basis for the antinomian controversy that has plagued the church for most of its existence.
America's founders believed in religious freedom but they also believed in rationality and the principles of the Enlightenment. Therefore they struggled to construct a nation (and a constitution) that embodied not only the spirit of freedom, but also the spirit of rational thought and social control. They had no desire to devolve into the religious extremism and chaos of the Middle Ages, nor I think, do we. Although the United States and Canada are different countries and have some differences in their constitutions and beliefs about religion and politics (this is the topic for an upcoming paper I am co-publishing with another graduate student) I believe that in essence both countries look at religion, freedom, practice and social control in roughly the same way.
So, are we free to believe what we want? The answer in both countries is undoubtedly "yes". You can believe that the Reverand Moon is God. You can believe that L. Ron Hubbard had the keys to saving the planet. You can believe that Joseph Smith really discovered golden plates buried in a mountain. You can believe that sickness is all in your mind and medicine is bad. You can believe that Ellen White was a prophet. You can believe in a seven-headed llama from Peru who picks lottery numbers with its ass (o.k. I made that last one up, but you get my point). Are we free to do whatever we wish in the name of religion? The answer, again in both countries I believe, is "no" (this may apply more to the United States, a nation that is less tolerant of practices but more tolerant of religious belief - a point I will explore in the above mentioned paper). In some respects, society has the right to say what a person can and can not do. This forms the basis for our laws. You can't kill or steal or lie under oath or sell crack or rob banks. Those are easy ones. Whether for religious reasons or not, murder is wrong (although this becomes fuzzy when discussing the religious justifications for war, the death penalty, or the beliefs of some extremist sects). You can believe that murder in the name of religion is justifiable but society will stop you from putting that belief into practice.
The same goes for the use of mind-altering chemicals (at least in the US). You can't legally use peyote or marijuana or LDS or psychodelic mushrooms in the pursuit of ultimate truth or a connection with a higher power (despite what native Americans, Rastafarians or any other religious group may claim). You can believe that the use of these chemicals brings you closer to god, but you can't legally go and smoke dope at church (sorry, for now it is the law).
The matter currently before the Supreme Court asks the question, does freedom of religion allow a man to practice polygamy, or is the practice of polygamy so harmful (to women and children) that society must stop it? Currently, the practice of polygamy is a criminal offense in both the United States and Canada yet prosecutors have been hesitant to prosecute for fear of losing if a convicted polygamist makes a constitutional challenge to his (or her) conviction.
Are we free? Ultimately I don't think we are smart enough to be totally free. As individuals we may be, but as a whole I don't think we are. I am not advocating Big Brother or the totalitarian world of 1984. Neither am I suggesting that we allow religion to operate outside of the guidelines of rational thought and social control. I am not sure that I am comfortable saying that freedom has limits however for now I guess that is where I end up. Who decides and enforces those limits, and what forms the basis for these limits is a discussion that needs to continue and I hope that this case before the Supreme Court begins to answer some of those questions.
In the mean time, I am going camping in B.C. and hope to experience some freedom from school for a week.
Tim
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
tonight I am asking questions
Midnight, and I just finished Norman Cohn's Pursuit of the Millennium. What strikes me immediately is the connection between so many of the millennial, heretical groups of the 12th-15th centuries in Germany, France, and Bohemia, and many of the modern sectarian groups of today. Cohn shows how these early groups influenced both Nazi and Communist ideology and I see parallels with groups such as The Garbage Eaters, Fundamentalist Mormons, the Way International, the Boston Church of Christ, and many others. While these connections interest me, the book on a whole forces me to ask other questions.
First, why is it that in times of economic hardship, ecological disaster, catastrophes, war, death, or social unrest, people turn to religion? Is it because they are truly seeking God, or is it because religious leaders know that in these times people are searching for answers and they use the opportunity afforded by these events to prey upon the needy? I know this sounds cynical in the extreme, but it is a cycle that is repeated throughout history.
Second, is the basis of Christianity really millennial, or is it social and ultimately temporal? When life returns to normal, when the economy recovers, when natural disasters fade into the distance, church attendance declines, religious fervor deteriorates, the status quo returns and churches loose their millennial passion and focus. Is the millennial focus of the Church really dictated by the social and economic trends of society?
Finally, and this is not so much a question as a reflection, I understand the French Revolution, and the resultant Enlightenment much better than I did before reading this book. The anti-religious undercurrents of the French Revolution make more sense after one realizes how much devestation religion and religious wars brought to France. I wonder if the world will undergo a similar anti-religious backlash in the near future thanks to the devestation that religious wars are causing across our globe today?
I have deeper and darker thoughts about this but I will not share them, undeveloped as they are, now. In the mean time I need to read more, to think more, the analyze more, to dialogue about this with others, and search for answers to these questions.
These are not just academic questions for me. I feel that in some respect, they will alter my worldview. Sometimes the questions are more important than the answers. Tonight I am asking questions. Thanks for listening.
Tim
First, why is it that in times of economic hardship, ecological disaster, catastrophes, war, death, or social unrest, people turn to religion? Is it because they are truly seeking God, or is it because religious leaders know that in these times people are searching for answers and they use the opportunity afforded by these events to prey upon the needy? I know this sounds cynical in the extreme, but it is a cycle that is repeated throughout history.
Second, is the basis of Christianity really millennial, or is it social and ultimately temporal? When life returns to normal, when the economy recovers, when natural disasters fade into the distance, church attendance declines, religious fervor deteriorates, the status quo returns and churches loose their millennial passion and focus. Is the millennial focus of the Church really dictated by the social and economic trends of society?
Finally, and this is not so much a question as a reflection, I understand the French Revolution, and the resultant Enlightenment much better than I did before reading this book. The anti-religious undercurrents of the French Revolution make more sense after one realizes how much devestation religion and religious wars brought to France. I wonder if the world will undergo a similar anti-religious backlash in the near future thanks to the devestation that religious wars are causing across our globe today?
I have deeper and darker thoughts about this but I will not share them, undeveloped as they are, now. In the mean time I need to read more, to think more, the analyze more, to dialogue about this with others, and search for answers to these questions.
These are not just academic questions for me. I feel that in some respect, they will alter my worldview. Sometimes the questions are more important than the answers. Tonight I am asking questions. Thanks for listening.
Tim
Monday, July 19, 2010
how a day can get away from you
The problem with Academia, as with all things, is that life gets in the way. Because I can read and write and research late into the night, I am "available" during the day. This is especially true when it comes to family. So, today started off with a trip to the passport office on Jasper Avenue. This is no quick trip - even though we found out we didn't have all the necessary documents for Kyle to get a passport, just standing in line to find that out took an hour. Then Jo had a doctor's appointment so off to the specialist we went. Over the next two hours I was able to read more of Cohn's Pursuit of the Millennium, but still, two hours in a dr's office is not comfortable nor is it condusive to study.
I was supposed to meet my Supervisor at his office this afternoon, but that too went by the wayside (he did leave me a nice message telling me--half jokingly--that I was in shit for missing the meeting).
When we got home we realized that it was already six o'clock and we hadn't even thought about making supper, so we ended up going out to eat.
All this to say, it is now 9 p.m. and I am just sitting down to start really studying.
I've been reading Cohn's book and I am not surprised that The Englightenment came out of France, although I would also not have been surprised if it had come out of Germany. More on this in another blog. For now, I must read and read and I will most likely be awake until at least midnight - but in the world of Academia, that is early.
I was supposed to meet my Supervisor at his office this afternoon, but that too went by the wayside (he did leave me a nice message telling me--half jokingly--that I was in shit for missing the meeting).
When we got home we realized that it was already six o'clock and we hadn't even thought about making supper, so we ended up going out to eat.
All this to say, it is now 9 p.m. and I am just sitting down to start really studying.
I've been reading Cohn's book and I am not surprised that The Englightenment came out of France, although I would also not have been surprised if it had come out of Germany. More on this in another blog. For now, I must read and read and I will most likely be awake until at least midnight - but in the world of Academia, that is early.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Sunday July 18 -
I am going to blog on a regular basis. Not that anyone cares except me. But I need to record my experiences in Graduate School for my own sanity. The PhD is infinately more difficult than the MA. More work, more reading, more writing, more theory, more of everything.
Currently, I am working with the one of the Intervenor's in the legal case before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Criminal Code, the Constitution, and Polygamy. This is not part of the PhD, but rather, something that will someday, perhaps, have some sort of impact on the debate. All I know is that I have spent most of this summer working on my expert witness report for this court case.
In the mean time, I was able to go to New York and present at the International Cultic Studies Association Conference. My topic: "cognitive dissonance, dissent, and early SDA dissenters in the formation of SDA identity."
Currently I have two papers out with editors and I am hoping to publish both of them this term (publishing is a long, arduous, and frustrating process since everything I publish must be peer-reviewed). How I long to publish a novel!!!
Oh well, perhaps I will have time to actually write a novel when I graduate - but by then I will be engaged full time in teaching, researching, and writing and publishing academic papers and books.
So, having said all of this, this blog will be a record of my journey in Academia. For an insight into my world, read my earlier blog entitled "Adventures in Academia."
Enjoy.
Tim
Currently, I am working with the one of the Intervenor's in the legal case before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Criminal Code, the Constitution, and Polygamy. This is not part of the PhD, but rather, something that will someday, perhaps, have some sort of impact on the debate. All I know is that I have spent most of this summer working on my expert witness report for this court case.
In the mean time, I was able to go to New York and present at the International Cultic Studies Association Conference. My topic: "cognitive dissonance, dissent, and early SDA dissenters in the formation of SDA identity."
Currently I have two papers out with editors and I am hoping to publish both of them this term (publishing is a long, arduous, and frustrating process since everything I publish must be peer-reviewed). How I long to publish a novel!!!
Oh well, perhaps I will have time to actually write a novel when I graduate - but by then I will be engaged full time in teaching, researching, and writing and publishing academic papers and books.
So, having said all of this, this blog will be a record of my journey in Academia. For an insight into my world, read my earlier blog entitled "Adventures in Academia."
Enjoy.
Tim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)