Have We Actually Moved On From Black and White TV?

After hearing the topic discussed briefly during an American Studies class, I began to pay attention more to how race is displayed in modern television, and specifically how segregated television is.  After watching any major TV network for 30 minutes, it becomes increasingly clear that our televisions are really still black and white.

While first examining commercials, I naturally wanted to look at the the most significant and most viewed commercials in America.  So what better commercials to analyze than the those that played during the most recent Super Bowl, the most watched event in the world.  I conveniently found all of these commercials on one website.  The first video I watched was one that the NFL itself aired.  It consisted of NFL players appearing in giant boxes to thank NFL fans for being there for them.  Throughout the entire commercial, not one African-American fan was "thanked", and the only African-Americans in the commercial were a few of the NFL players.  

After watching more commercials I came across another interesting example, but this one did have an African-American person in it - but just one.  This Budweiser commercial was set in some upscale restaurant or club, and shows several close-ups of people in expensive clothes having a good time.  The end of the commercial cuts to an aerial view of a table with about thirty people.  Only then do I see the one and only African-American in the whole commercial.  And to me, it almost seems like someone in at Budweiser made the director put in one African-American man in order to avoid accusations of excluding African-Americans.

Then, I began to think about television shows today.  It took me about 15 minutes to finally think of even one show in which the main character or characters are African-American.  I thought of "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air", and that show isn't even on anymore.  And after more thought I began to wonder if in this instance the underlying joke of the whole show was that there could even be an African-American family with that much money. The creator of the show is Andy Borowitz, a white man, which made my theory even more plausible. Also, the main character in the show is Will, who has not outgrown his roots in urban Philadelphia.  This ostracizes him from the rest of his family in many ways because he is the only member of the family who acts like the stereotypical African-American teenager. 

I do not understand the lack of other races being shown on television when we call this country a "cultural melting pot".  Why do you think TV is so predominantly white?  Do you think it matters that there is not an equal representation of races on TV?

What Happened to Real Music?

What does the fox say?  We've heard the answer over a hundred time in Ylvis' new video that has gone viral over the past month.  We've seen this pattern occur before with Psy's "Gangnam Style" video.  A no-name artist makes a catchy song with unintelligent lyrics, and after a few days on YouTube, this former irrelevant figure in music becomes the latest world celebrity, making millions of dollars.  All because of one song.

Whatever happened to making quality music?  Thousands of artists spend years perfecting their crafts, attending music schools, working under successful musicians, and spend years playing small gigs in bars; and the vast majority of these people never end up making it big.  But now it only takes one person with a computer that can computerize their vocals for their comical lyrics to make millions of dollars and achieve instant fame.  I think this is a very upsetting trend that is becoming more and more common in today's world.

What do you think of this new trend in music?  Do you think it's here to stay?

Vandalism or Virtuosity?

One of Banksy's many works of graffiti that appeared this month in NYC

Every day this month, New York City has been greeted by a new work of art courtesy of world renowned street artist Banksy.  Each day, the people of the city have woken up to find a new masterpiece by Banksy, in which he has used every corner of New York City as his canvas.  Thousands of New Yorkers have been flocking to see his latest work and to take pictures with his sometimes humorous work.  But, not everyone in New York is thrilled to have Banksy taking a "residency" in their city.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a press conference that "...graffiti does ruin people’s property and it’s a sign of decay and loss of control...
I just think there are some places for art and there are some places [not for] art. And you running up to somebody’s property or public property and defacing it is not my definition of art."

First of all, I do understand that rules are rules, and by law, graffiti is illegal, and I understand that.  But, I really think that in this instance, New York should tolerate Banksy's work.  They should be grateful and honored that the most famous street artist in history has chosen their city as his canvas for the month.  Also, I do not think that he is "defacing" the city of New York because frankly, his work is really good.  It's definitely an improvement to any of the dirty, rusted urban structures he utilizes as a canvas.  New York is one of the biggest cities in the world, and is known for its incredible art scene, so it makes even less sense that there would be criticism or opposition to having one of the best artists in the world giving away free work to the city.

Do you think New York and other cities should be more tolerant of graffiti?  Do you think graffiti laws should be changed?

There's a Storm A Brewin'

Nevin Shapiro with a former Miami football player

After three long years of intense investigation, the NCAA has finally reached an agreement on how to punish the University of Miami for committing, "...a wide array of the most serious violations in the NCAA Division 1 Manual", according to Ivan Maisel of ESPN's recent report. 

These violations include:

• Bylaw 11, involving impermissible compensation to coaches;
• Bylaw 12, involving amateurism of athletes;
• Bylaw 13, involving improper recruiting activity; and
• Bylaw 16, involving extra benefits to athletes

In addition, former Miami athletics booster Nevin Shapiro, pictured above, was accused of giving a large portion of these benefits to players in the form of nights out to clubs, cash, and other expensive gifts.  At the time the initial report came out in 2011, NCAA president Mark Emmert said, "If they're found to be true, it appears we've had a third-party individual have a really pernicious impact on a huge cross-section of student-athletes. The breadth of that would be pretty shocking."

Yet when the NCAA finally issued its punishments upon the University of Miami, the country was shocked at how little Miami will actually be affected for committing some of the biggest violations in the history of college athletics.  Their punishment is the reduction of nine football scholarships and three basketball scholarships over the next three years.  That's it. So for years of repetitive violations of the rules of the NCAA, Miami will lose having a few of their benchwarmers in each sport be on scholarship.

In its defense, the NCAA has said that the reason for seemingly soft penalty is that the University of Miami was cooperative with the investigation, and also gave itself a two year bowl ban.  While that is a slightly significant penalty, it seems like the punishment could have been somewhere around a 6 year bowl ban with seven scholarships removed a year instead of three.

The NCAA has no regulations on how they do their investigations and punishments, and this is just another example at the injustice that the NCAA has served college sports for years.  Something needs to be done sooner or later, or else the world of college sports could be in the midst of a colossal revolution.

What do you think needs to be done to fix the broken system of the NCAA?  What do you think Miami's punishment should have been?

Teach Kids the Facts

As the state of Texas is preparing to select the biology textbooks the state will use for the next decade, a lot of controversy is being created over what should be in those textbooks.  As stated in this article, there is a lot of debate on whether the schools should teach evolution, creation science, or a combination of the two.

Creation science is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.  The problem with teaching creation science is that it is mainly a religious belief, and I do not believe religious beliefs should ever be taught as facts in public schools.

In this particular instance, I think the people in charge need to put aside their personal beliefs and realize what makes sense.  Just because you believe in creationism, or evolution, or anything else does not mean that the students in your state should believe that same thing as you.  The job of schools is to educate the students on the proven facts, and not skew facts with their personal opinions.  Opinions are personal after all, so they should be made the individual students, and not the people teaching them.

Could you imagine if you came to class one day and your teacher proceeded to explain to you that 9/11 was an inside job, staged by President Bush in order to get the American people to support the war effort, as if those were the facts?  This is why the schools should simply teach the facts as facts, and teach theories as theories.  What would make most sense would be for the schools to present the scientific evidence we have to support evolution, as well as the gaps in the evidence we have, and also teach that creation science is another popular theory.

Do you think schools should decide what particular ideas to present to its students?  Do you think religious concepts even belong in public schools?

Bombs Away

The bombs dropped over North Carolina were 260 times as powerful than those dropped in Japan

In light of the recent happenings in Syria going on for the last month or so, the topic of nuclear weapons has come up a lot recently.  This past Friday, September 20, investigative journalist Eric Schlosser obtained a document that sheds light on what could have been the biggest catastrophe to ever strike this country.  The article from The Guardian can be found here.

To summarize, Schlosser found that two nuclear weapons were accidentally dropped over North Carolina in 1961 during a routine fly over of the east coast by the U.S. Air Force.  In one of the bombs, three of the four safety mechanisms to prevent accidental detonation failed.  The only thing standing in the way of nuclear disaster was a "vulnerable", low-voltage switch.  The fallout of the explosion would have reached New York City, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.  Clearly, this would have killed millions of people in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, and would have caused major health and economic problems even to this day.

The uncovering of this near catastrophe brings to light the greater issue of why we even have these things in the first place.  In my opinion, every single nuclear weapon that exists in every country needs to be destroyed.  There is no practical purpose for this weapon, and the use of it in any war could very likely lead to a worldwide nuclear shootout that would result in the destruction of the entire planet.

While I do not know about international laws and policies to come up with specifics, there needs to be a secure way in which everyone can destroy their nuclear arsenals, and in a way where we can be sure that no countries are secretly keeping them.  Also, it should become legal for the U.N. to destroy any facility in any country that is found to be used for the production or storage of nuclear arms.

Even though these weapons were created to protect us, I fear that in actuality they may end up doing the exact opposite.  The risks are too high, and these weapons are to powerful to even be in existence.  Do you think that the nuclear bomb should be banned worldwide?  How do you think we could ban them effectively?

Taking Advantage of the Athlete$

In the most recent issue of Time Magazine, Texas A&M football star Johnny Manziel appeared on the cover, which you can view here.  But, if he wants to sell autographed copies of the cover to his biggest fans, the NCAA will not allow it.  Why?

Manziel makes "money-making" hand gesture during A&M's season opener

This debate has gone on for decades, and was brought to national attention when University of Michigan's "Fab Five" made it to the Final Four in 1991.  During the season, stores across Michigan and the country were selling t-shirts with the players' names and faces on it, yet the players were not receiving a dime.  This theme has continued to grow and spin out of control as colleges nationwide makes millions of dollars off the work of their students, and the only money these students can receive is scholarship money.

This summer, the NCAA investigated allegations that Manziel was paid to sign autographs on multiple occasions, which is a clear violation of the NCAA's rules.  After a long investigation, the NCAA did not find a lot of evidence, therefore Manziel was only suspended for the first half of their first game against Rice.  But the pressing question is why Johnny Manziel and college athletes across nation aren't allowed to make money off of their own celebrity status.  Most of the athletes in college will never play professionally, so this is probably the most valuable they will ever be in their lives.  For instance, Manziel won the Heisman Trophy last season as college football's best player, yet  he still does not project to be a successful NFL quarterback.  He may spend four or five years in the league, and then could become employed.  So imagine how athletes with no possibility of any professional sports career feel when they are putting in over 50 hours a week for their team, but their success only results in millions for the universities, and nothing for themselves.

I believe that college athletes should be able to make money off of their own "celebrity", but should not be paid by colleges to play for their school.  For example, athletes should be able to receive money for autographs, endorsements, television appearances, apparel sales, and such.  This makes perfect sense because the money is not coming from the universities, and the players are making money off of their names, not the universities' names.  Obviously, I do not think that players should be paid for playing from colleges because then it would become a bidding war for the best high school players, and the whole college sports scene would be tarnished.

So I say let Manziel and the others capitalize on a time in their lives where they will never be more valuable, and the NCAA should do this sooner rather than later.

What do you think about college athletes being paid?  Do you think the universities should be able to pay them?  Should they be able to make money off of their celebrity?  Or do you think the rules should remain the same, and athletes should receive no money?