Archive for South Park

Enough About Lindsay Lohan

Posted in pop culture with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 24, 2010 by Kyle Fleming

What I said back in February about Tiger Woods holds true about Lindsay Lohan: who cares?

I turned on CNN today after class today hoping to be enlightened about the world. I know that there is so much going on in the world–the BP oil spill, the deadly airplane crash in India, and Clinton’s talks with North Korea–that it was going to be a really enlightening hour before I had to leave to run errands for the day.

But imagine my dismay when, once the TV warmed up, I was greeted to a live feed of a courtroom. And sitting in the courtroom was none other than Lindsay Lohan. She was on trial because she missed probation classes. She was going to find out her fate of not seriously trying to sober up, and was eventually sentenced to some community service, and a bracelet that is able to detect alcohol content in the blood stream.

But the question returns: who cares?

I’m a firm believer that if someone’s life isn’t affecting mine, I’m not going to worry about it. If Lindsay Lohan wants to party all the time and get absolutely ripped on a bunch of different drugs, I don’t care. Let her do it. She can be an example to other young “starlets” that a life of partying does nothing but ruin your reputation and could kill you before your big break.

CNN, I don’t know why you thought this was newsworthy, but you were dead wrong. Instead of covering the drama associated with the BP oil spill, you fabricated “drama” about the dramatic sentencing of Lindsay Lohan. Even Lindsay wasn’t interested in her hearing: Her eyes were drooping, she looked tired, and it was obvious she didn’t want to be there, because she was four minutes late to the hearing. If anyone watched the “saga” unfold, you could see that Lindsay appeared absolutely bored out of her mind.

Either that, or she was completely hammered.

There are far too many news stories more important than “Celebs Gone Wild.” Front page of the Des Moines Register today had a fascinating article on the Guatemalan child labor trials in Postville, IA, something far more newsworthy than, “LiLo Sentenced To Wear Jewelry!”

My plea will probably fall on deaf ears once again, as we’re still talking about Tiger Woods’ impending divorce nearly four months after his accident, which lead to news about his affairs.

Honestly though, Lindsay Lohan is not worth the air time. If you’re that desperate to fill time with “news,” why don’t you find some feel good stories to balance out the tragedy in the world? Make the news something pertinant to your viewers interests. Celebrities are only interesting when they’re in movies, or in concert, or guest starring on TV shows. They are not interesting when they’re caught with hookers, drugs, or alcohol, nor are they interesting when they’re beating up their friends, family, and fans.

To quote that famous episode of South Park I mentioned before: Looks like another good harvest this year…

Why Censorship is a Big F—ing Deal

Posted in opinion with tags , on April 30, 2010 by Kyle Fleming

If you haven’t been able to tell by now, I’m a huge liberal. Anything that a Liberal stands for, I probably do, too. Gays should be married. Abortions should be legal. I’m not sure how I feel about pot yet, but after some research, I should have an answer.

But one of my biggest causes that I support is censorship. Specifically, that it shouldn’t exist.

It’s a hard position to defend, because there are so many different scenarios to consider. But overall, to me, censorship is a waste. The freedom of speech should only be limited by common sense, and not based on what the FCC feels is offensive this week.

In thinking about how I got to feel this way, I thought back to my childhood, when the Parental Advisory stickers started being put on CDs (and yes, I remember a time when they didn’t exist. The stickers, I mean, not CDs).

While I didn’t know it at the time, I realize now that the seeds were planted. When the Parental Advisory stickers started appearing on music CDs, I was being told what to find acceptable for my fragile, virgin ears. Never mind that I was exposed to very colorful language back at home. If Snoop Dogg drops an N-bomb on an album, then it is not the album for me.

At first, I thought it was weird that this “offensive music” was appealing to me: this black sticker in the corner is specifically telling me that I’m not allowed to hear this music yet. But somehow my interest in this sort of thing grew, and now that I’m an adult, I can buy whatever I want, no matter how offensive. And I’ll admit, it still makes me smile to hear an uncensored version of a song I heard on the radio, if only to finally hear the swear words I already knew existed.

But this post isn’t about my obsession with filthy lyrics. This post is about the censorship of art. Music is an art form, and by offering censored versions of music, I feel it is a slap in the face to the artists who made it. In most cases, these musicians are pouring their souls and feelings into this music, but just because they drop and F-bomb or two, they need to offer two versions of the album.

I’m a firm believer in words only having the power you put into them. If you are offended by something, it’s only because you chose to be offended by it. Words have no power unless you give power to them. To me, this is nothing but fact. “Infruntist” isn’t an actual word, but if I use it often enough in a certain tone enough, it begins to mean something.

The best example I saw of this in action is an extremely controversial sketch from Chappelle’s Show, called “The Niggar Family.” It was a family of white people with the last name of Niggar. Of course, all of the uses of the word were in the sketch–“Niggar, please”; “I know how forgetful you Niggars are when it comes to paying bills;” etc.–as well as the confusion between the name Niggar and its homophone.

About midway through this sketch, I realized that the word no longer had any effect. It was an effect called Repetition Blindness. The word “Niggar” was repeated so many times that it completely lost its meaning. Any word can do this. Pick a random word out of the dictionary. Repeat it over and over again. It will soon sound like a random collection of sounds, devoid of any meaning.

But it’s not just words. It’s whole concepts that shouldn’t be censored. This week’s posts were inspired by the whole controversy with last week’s South Park episode. Comedy Central, fearful and intimidated, censored the episode.

In Wednesday’s post, I posted a comment from a good friend of mine, and the phrase “art is a revolution” sticks out in my mind. The very fact that art offends people is the whole reason for art. If art doesn’t arouse a feeling in someone, good or bad, it’s not good art. South Park, in this instance, is art. A show that for 14 years has never held back criticism is suddenly censored because of criticism.

I don’t know Matt Stone or Trey Parker personally, but I’m pretty sure that they would gladly lay down their lives for their art, no matter who it offends (and if Matt Stone and/or Trey Parker is reading this, please correct me if I’m wrong).

Bottom line: censorship of art is wrong. Nobody’s freedom of speech in any medium should be limited or taken away. Use common sense: shouting “Fire!” in a crowded room is stupid, but making commentary or satirizing something is Constitutionally encouraged.

Don’t let anyone inhibit your freedom of speech through fear, intimidation, violence, or anything of that matter. Speak your mind. It’s how progress is made.

Islam v. South Park: Who Went Too Far?

Posted in opinion, pop culture with tags , , , , , , , , on April 26, 2010 by Kyle Fleming

It’s a well-known fact that I’m a huge fan of the show South Park on Comedy Central. Of all the shows on television, I feel that this show is spectacular in that it is a no-holds-barred look at anything and everything in the world. Nothing is off-limits: religion, pop culture, even celebrity deaths are mocked every week. South Park says what no one else will, making it the most hilarious and honest show on television.

But the two most recent episodes of South Park (creatively titled “200” and “201”) were frustrating to me, because despite the fact that the show and its creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, pride themselves in making fun of everybody, Comedy Central dropped the ball on redefining the culture.

A quick synopsis of the situation: In honor of their 200th episode, South Park decided to call back every celebrity they ever made fun of. The story goes that Tom Cruise comes to South Park to go “fly fishing” (which is actually working at a candy factory in the fudge department). Stan, while on a class trip to the candy factory, sees Tom Cruise and observes that he’s a “fudge packer.” Cruise gets upset and decides to sue South Park along with the rest of his celebrity friends.

In an effort to drop the lawsuit, Randy pleads with Cruise, promising to bring anyone he wanted into South Park to drop the lawsuit. Cruise calls for Muhammad, prophet of the Muslim faith. The next two episodes follow the saga of trying to give Muhammad to the celebrities (to get his “goo” so that they can no longer be made fun of), while at the same time trying not to have the town destroyed by the Gingers, and finding out who Cartman’s father really is.

The two-part episode went out of its way to make fun of everything and everyone, and the first episode went off without a hitch: a few censored images of Muhammad here, a few shots of the townspeople looking up to the sky for bombs there, and a perfect cliffhanger for next week.

It was only when a message on the website Revolution Islam (now not working) did things start to get a little scary. Coupled with the picture of Theo Van Gogh, the filmmaker who was shot and nearly decapitated on the streets of Amsterdam after making a film about Islam’s mistreatment of women, the message for Matt and Trey said, “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

It was after this threat that “201” became completely different. Every mention of Muhammad was censored. Even at the end, when the show goes into its formulaic “I’ve learned something today” section, the entire moral of the story was bleeped out. The last few minutes of the show was one gigantic tone, interrupted with, “I’ve learned something today,” “That’s right, Kyle,” and “Absolutely.”

At first, watching it, and digesting it for a while, I figured it was some huge joke, a commentary on doing whatever it takes to not offend anyone. I had no idea what was behind the huge bleeps, but I figured it was nothing important, and laughed at the ridiculousness of the situation.

Then, on the front page of the South Park Studios website, was this message from Matt and Trey (emphasis mine):

In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker were doing what they do best: mocking the world around them. And Comedy Central, the station that supported this behavior for 14 years, suddenly didn’t want to offend anyone.

The situation reminded me of an article I read a few weeks back called Nothing is Exempt from Criticism. It’s a short article about how nothing is so special that it can’t be criticized, but the point of the article is expressed in these two paragraphs:

Furthermore, why should anything be exempt from criticism? Criticism is the most important pillar of modern society. Without criticism, how would we sort the good ideas from the [bad] ones? Without criticizing the inane…, how do we ever improve anything?

If you criticize an idea, and it stands its ground against your remarks, then it’s probably not too bad of an idea…. On the other hand, if you have an idea and it falls apart in the face of criticism, don’t get indignant and claim that your idea deserves special treatment. It’s a stupid idea…. Trash it already.

Islam, like any other religion, is not exempt from being made fun of. If it is part of the world, it is able to be made fun of. What should be interesting to note in all of this is that in 2001, South Park showed an image of the prophet Muhammad, a member of the religious superhero group “The Super Best Friends.” He was fully seen, spoke a few lines, and showed off his power of fire. Nothing happened, and no one was offended.

It appears that the religion of Islam is one of the most vocal and violent religions when they get offended. The threats and the violence are over the top and not necessary. Christians and Jews get mocked constantly, and the level of offensiveness with these mockings know no bounds. Yet there are very few instances of Christians or Jews getting so offended that they explode in violence, and the wide difference between these two worlds is striking. Make a few Holocaust jokes, and the Jews are upset. Mention Muhammad in an off-color joke not even about Islam, and people are brutally murdered on the streets.

This post isn’t to tear down Islam. Rather, this post is about not being fearful of speaking your mind. To paraphrase Jon Stewart in the opening of Thursday’s episode of the Daily Show: The Muslim extremists that are in America are free to practice their religion, praise Osama bin Laden, celebrate the anniversary of 9/11, and nearly anything else they want to do, because they are given that freedom in the Constitution. However, that freedom is a two-way street: sure, they can say or do whatever they want, but they must also respect the fact that the rest of America has the freedom to mock them, and not use fear and intimidation to inhibit those freedoms.

If you want to have limited freedom of speech, stay in the Middle East.

Kudos goes to Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and everyone who works at South Park, for continuing to push the envelope, and for not going with the flow when your art is compromised. Keep up the good work.

Coming soon will be separate posts about Islam in general and Censorship. Keep watching, and thanks for reading.

Enough About Tiger

Posted in current events with tags , , , , , on February 19, 2010 by Kyle Fleming

Today, Tiger Woods held a press conference to discuss his accident, his affair, and his future. Tiger apologized to his fans, his family, and his sponsors. He said that he would return to golf in the future, but didn’t know when. Probably after more rehab. He’s deeply sorry for everything he’s done, and hopes that one day we can believe in him again.

Okay, are we done now?

Ever since Tiger’s accident in November, the media has been covering the “incident” non-stop. Reporting everything under the sun that turned out to just not be true, Tiger Woods has been the go-to story for all media outlets: magazines, newspapers, CNN, Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS, ESPN, ESPN2, blogs, radio, smoke signals, Pony Express, everyone had something to say.

And now that he’s made his public apology and has told everyone exactly what is going on, we can finally leave him alone.

Except that ESPN was analyzing every crucial detail of the press conference, from his stilted delivery of the speech he wrote himself, to the fact that the single camera went out at around the 9-minute mark of his 13-minute, 32-second speech. Was it sincere? When will he return to golf? What will Elin, his wife, do in response to this press conference?

But here’s a question that no one is asking: Who cares?

The only reason that his has been such big news for the last three months is that Tiger Woods is a “squeaky clean athlete,” known for his positive demeanor and his superhuman golf skills. His marriage is “perfect,” his life is “perfect.” Everything about him is perfect and unblemished.

And then he gets into an accident, and we’re all worried about what happened to our fantastic golf star, the most successful Black golfer the world has ever seen. How is his condition? Will he survive? Was drugs or alcohol a factor in the crash? Will he ever be able to walk again?

And then we learn that he was having an affair, cheating on his beautiful wife, and we’re concerned about what else he is hiding. Is this a one-time thing? If not, how many times and with how many partners has he done it? Is he using performance-enhancing drugs? Is he using any drugs at all? Is he in a cult?

There is so much going on with Tiger Woods that isn’t important and has nothing to do with the bigger picture of life itself. Here’s all that we need to know about the incident: Tiger Woods cheated on his wife. His wife found out, and confronted him about it. He panicked and sped away from his house. He got into an accident. And he’s really sorry about all of it.

Ta-da. The end. Case closed. End of discussion.

Except the media, in trying to get as much ratings as possible, will continue to speculate about every little thing about his actions, where he’s getting treatment, and his return to golf. This is something that happens with every public figure, every celebrity, and every athlete. It’s not news, it’s a daily occurance. It’s disheartening, but true. But because it’s Tiger Woods, this discussion will never end, and will never go away.

One of the correspondents for ESPN, in analyzing the speech, mentioned that where he was watching it (in the lobby of a hotel), people were crowded around the TV, silent for all 13 minutes and 32 seconds of the speech. He said, “It was almost like one of those ‘Where were you when…’ sort of moments.”

“Where were you when Tiger Woods issued a formal apology about his affair.” It’s a memory for the ages, just like, “Where were you when the World Trade Towers fell?” Or “Where were you when Kennedy was assassinated?” Or “Where were you when the Challenger exploded?”

Comparing Tiger Woods to topics of national, and in some cases international, concern makes one look like a fool. Tiger Woods’ private life is none of our concern, and never has been of our concern. That’s why it’s a private life.

This whole ordeal reminds me of the South Park episode with Britney Spears, and how we learn that Britney “has do die for the harvest.” Celebrity human sacrifice through the papparazzi. It was a genius episode, and it was on the other night, which makes this whole Tiger Woods thing even more eerie.

The media won’t let up about Tiger Woods. It makes me wonder if he is the next human sacrifice for the upcoming harvest. I mean, we’ve followed the formula: we’ve built him up and practically worshipped him, and he’s on top of the world. And then we scrutinize and judge, all in an attempt to bring him down to the ground again, so we can completely ruin him. It’ll all end with his suicide and a bountiful harvest.

In the paraphrased words of Chris Crocker: Leave Tiger alone. Leave his wife alone. Leave his kids alone. Leave his family alone. Leave his personal life alone. Move on to bigger, better, and more important things.