11 posts tagged “culture”

Neil Diamond theme night!  Were it not for my father-in-law, Ed, and Matt, I would certainly be less interested in tonight's American Idol theme, but I know these two men really like Neil Diamond!  Forever in Blue Jeans is a song that both of them would likely choose to play as the theme background music to their life.  In fact Matt said tonight, "It's the song of my life; I want to be forever in blue jeans."  Oh, little does he know that at least his wife would beg to differ on the forever in blue jeans part!  The message of love and commitment behind it is great, but I like my man to throw on a pair of khakis and a button down shirt every now and then!

Let me also say that I did not like the format of tonight's show having the performers sing two rounds of songs and rushing through the judges' comments!  What was up with Paula!?  In a way, I'm not surprised she got confused; I even couldn't keep up fast enough with how the judges rapidly shared their comments at the same time for the performers' Round 1.  We recorded the show and I kept hitting the rewind button.  Seriously though, Paula must have been on another planet to start sharing her critiques on both songs of Jason Castro when he'd only sung once!  She must have written down comments from the dress rehearsal and started going off on sharing her thoughts about Round 2 prematurely, or somethin' went really haywire there!  The first half of the show felt rushed through with much lack of substance.  Round 2 was better, but I agree with Simon, it was a chaotic night!

Lastly, I'm still shocked Carly Smithson was the one to go home last week!!

Jason Castro:  Forever in Blue Jeans and September Morn
1)  His soothing voice is great for this song!  I like how he kept it simple.  I'm not sure what unique aspect he brought to his performance, but I think the song choice will carry him through to the next round...or maybe I'm just biased about the song choice.  <grin>
2)  I like Jason, but I agree with Simon, it just doesn't seem like he's trying that hard.  He's so laid back, which I appreciate, but honestly, I am not sure the music business is really his passion or something he'd enjoy that much.  The song choice was boring and it was a bit of a rote performance. 

David Cook:  I'm Alive and All I Really Need is You
1)  David just does a good job with everything, it can be said!  He also has great stage presence and the song choice for him was really good.  Solid performance!
2)  I am not familiar with this song, but the way he presented it made me like it!  He really has a good range of vocals and sings with much emotion, but it's never over the top.  And I gotta say, I think he will be the next American Idol! 

Brooke White:  I'm a Believer and I Am I Said
1)  Sorry, but I like other versions of this song MUCH better.  It was a fun song choice, but I didn't like the style she brought to it.  It was good to see her jammin' away after last week's goof, but I don't think it was one of her better performances. 
2)  I enjoy Brooke on the piano, and I liked this song much better than her first one.  One of her best performances in awhile!

David Archuleta:  Sweet Caroline and Coming to America
1)  I know BigMama loved this one!  I'm sure there were several Carolines in the audience that swooned over this song choice.  In my expert opinion (please hear the strong sarcasm behind those words), I felt like he was signing towards a teeny bopper crowd, so it didn't appeal to me.
2)  Fitting song for American Idol!  Sure got me pumped and the chills runnin'.  I really liked his additions to the song, and the ending...awesome! 

Syesha Mercado:  Hello Again and I Thank the Lord for the Night Time
1)  After the face paced songs, I wasn't quite in the mood for a slow song; I thought it was a bit boring.  Her high notes felt like she was shouting to me.
2)  So-so.  I think the fact that I don't have much to say about her performance is indicative that it was just not a memorable night for Syesha. 

Bottom 3: Jason Castro, Brooke White, Syesha Mercado
Prediction of Who's Going Home:  Jason Castro...but I hope Syesha Mercado
Favorite Performance:  David Cook

Since Matt was still under the weather, we decided to stay home from small group so we wouldn't infect the rest of the gang with his germs.  Instead, I watched American Idol to post my thoughts on the performances of the 6 finalists.  I didn't know what the theme of the night was, so when I found out at the beginning of the show that Andrew Lloyd Webber was the theme, I was stoked!  If any theme would be a challenge to the contestants, however, this would be it!  Granted, I do not know anything about what makes a song sound good, but I'll nevertheless offer my inexperienced view on the matter.  After all, my vote does count!

Sometimes I feel like the guest artists don't offer helpful suggestions, or their answers are pat.  Andrew Lloyd Webber (ALW), on the contrary, did a fabulous job giving participants feedback that was constructive and unique.  I appreciated how he directed the finalists on the dramatic side of the song, and instructed them based upon the context and meaning of the song.  What a classic guest to have, no wonder he's Sir Lloyd Webber!

Syesha Mercado:  She sounded great, and I think she wore the same earrings that my sister-in-law, Julie, gave her bridesmaids!  She obviously had a lot of fun with the song and felt comfortable.  While not my favorite performer, she offered a great start to the evening...one which proved to be a challenge for most contestants.  Syesha made it "memorable and contemporary", just like Simon wanted, yet she refrained from taking away the classic sound of Broadway, which I appreciated.

Jason Castro:  I loved ALW's comments about Jason's choice of song and being "jolted" by seeing a man sing "Memory", a man no less in dreadlocks!  I was quite skeptical when I saw the rehearsal snippet, and he probably should have chosen a different song, but he drew me in with his performance.  It was quite soothing and reflective.  I preferred seeing him sing it as opposed to a pussy cat!  I have heard better from Jason, but I thought he did a good job.

Brooke White:  Awww, Brooke!  I felt so bad for her, but she recovered very nicely in that she stayed strong.  I'm obviously not one that knows rules of performance, but I would've stopped and started over as well!  I didn't really like the choice of song, but you could tell she was believing in what she was singing.  My heart goes out to Brooke!

Just got a call from Julie, saying to vote tonight 'cause all her favorites were doing badly!  I'll vote!  I'll vote!  I loved getting the call!  I know, I'm a sentimental schmooze, but a simple call like that from her means so much!  It put a smile on my face.  By the way, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JULIE!!

David Archuleta:  I love this song!  It's been one of my favorites since seeing Phantom of the Opera for the first time when I was a teenager, and I've played it on the piano before.  I liked what he did with the song, too.  And he kept his eyes open!  David did a great job, and I totally disagreed with Simon!  I will remember this performance because he took a hit Broadway song, made it his own in a unique and respectable way, and sang it beautifully.

Carly Smithson:  So glad she changed song choices; ALW gave her some good advice on that.  She had a lot of fun with the song, and she did a good job, but it wasn't my favorite by any means.  I'll remember David's performance more.

David Cook:  Another one of my favorite songs, and also a hard one to sing!  I was looking for passion, sophistication, and intensity, and in my humble opinion, he nailed it!  I got chills!  I was waiting to see what he'd do different to the song, and the ending definitely caught my attention.  Most definitely I disagree with Simon.  I also appreciate how David comes across as a very humble man. 

Bottom 3: Jason Castro, Brooke White, Syesha Mercado
Prediction of Who's Going Home:  Brooke White  :(
Favorite Performance:  Toss up between David Archuleta and David Cook

I did vote!  And after American Idol, I switched over to Dancing with the Stars, and I must say, I think this was one of my most favorite episodes of the season...even as a results show!  I appreciated how Derek and Shannon apologized for their dramatic response to their low scores the night before; I LOVED watching the 12 and 13 year olds dance...they were fabulous; and the Irish Riverdance gives me chills every time; it is spectacular!  I remember being just as enamored with the energy and talent when I saw it in Chicago in college.  And a huge round of applause to Marlee Matlin; she should feel so accomplished!  What a night of entertainment!

I am thrilled about today's post!  I have been very blessed to remain in contact with my high school English teacher, Diane Peterson, who is more than anything, a very dear friend.  How fun it is that my English teacher reads my blog regularly!  You gotta know that is extra incentive for me to triple check my posts, yet I still find that misspelled word occasionally...or those mixed up dates.  As part of Ink Pots 1 year Blogoversary celebration, I've asked her if she would be a guest blogger and submit a book review for a book she's read recently that impacted her (hence, one of the questions on the Blogoversary Giveaway).  So without further ado, please help me welcome Diane, a very special lady who has written an informative and engaging book review!

My Sister's Keeper

My Sister's Keeper
by Jodi Picoult

When I first retired from teaching six years ago, I looked forward to reading for pleasure--not just to keep up with the titles I required my AP English students to read. And I have managed to read a great deal in that time. I am always on the lookout for a new author and an interesting story. I recently read all of Philippa Gregory's historical fiction works about the Tudors and enjoyed them very much. I was pleased that my intellectual curiosity was still intact when I found myself searching online to verify certain events or characters in the novels.

However, I was at a loss as what to read next after I finished these stories. Since I volunteer at our local county library, (what else would a former English teacher do?) I get the opportunity to browse many titles while shelving the books. One day as I was working in the PIC fiction section, I noticed an intriguing cover and title. It was My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult and had a lovely photo of two young girls posed back-to-back in ballet outfits. I knew that Jodi Picoult was a popular author but I had yet to read any of her works. Since I had practically raised my youngest sister, this title appealed to me. I checked it out and then read the blurb on the back cover only to discover this was not anywhere near the story of the Simpson sisters of West Texas.

This was a story "ripped from the headlines" as they say. It dealt with stem cells and "designer babies," the ethics of politicians and the emotions of a family in a very strange turmoil. I almost didn't read it, but I am so glad I didn't let the blurb discourage me. Far from the checkout counter tabloid reading I imagined, this was a poignant page-turner that left me with a lot of questions and no easy answers.

Picoult paints a heart-wrenching portrait of a family dealing with a dying child. Each chapter is devoted to a different character's point of view on the matter of Kate's impending death. This style of prose enhances the overall perspective of the story. Over the course of the novel you discover what makes these people the way they are and why they respond as they do to their terrible situation. As a reader you can also see that the adults and children actually learn from each other, a seeming rarity in today's literature.

This isn't just a chronicle of a family waiting for the death of a child; it goes so much deeper. We are immersed in a justice system that isn't prepared for the advanced medical technology of today. We are also forced to take a hard look at the medical ethics and morality involved in putting one human being in pain or danger for the well being of another.

The main plot deals with a young girl who was conceived and born to save her older sister by being a "donor." This young girl has over the years saved her sister through numerous medical procedures. However, Anna is now seeking medical emancipation even though her sister will surely die without her continued help. This is just the beginning of the complexity of sibling rivalry, parental angst, and medical/judicial melodrama.

If it all sounds cut and dried, it isn't by any means. We meet a family entangled in a truly horrible situation. Unfortunately, not all the characters are finely drawn. Sara, the mother, is perhaps the most poorly developed character. You wonder how she really feels about BOTH her daughters, not just the dying Kate. Her feelings are often not believable and she isn't always a sympathetic character. On the other hand, her husband is a firefighter in both the literal and figurative sense. He tries to maintain balance in the family while keeping Jesse, his pyromaniac son, from acting out what the rest of the family feels.The dying daughter, Kate, is resigned to her fate and does not judge her sister for wanting to be free of her biological burden. You cannot hate Anna who is tired of doing "What's right" and making the sacrifices she was bred for. She is a remarkably delineated character and the reader is captured by her plight. Adding to this tragic family is a guardian ad litem appointed by the court and a consulting doctor who have a past relationship. This relationship provides a very interesting and thought-provoking subplot for the novel. It's one of those "I didn't see it coming" twists in the plot. Not only do the doctor and his dog provide much needed humor, but also evoke questions of ethics and morality.

I love mysteries but can usually figure out "who dunnit?" before the actual denouement. This book isn't a mystery, but it has a wallop of an ending that I doubt you'll see coming. The ending may seem overly melodramatic; however, it raises some haunting questions of spirituality and morality. I thought about this book and its resolution for days. It is formulated from many layers that the reader isn't aware of until the final page. For this reason it's a great selection for a book discussion group and will no doubt be argued on many levels. I have read several of the author's other novels, but in my opinion, they don't measure up to the experience that is My Sister's Keeper.

 

The results are in!

Last Wednesday, I posted an entry called "Religious Views & Reality TV", which had an optional survey for readers that asked them questions about if and how their votes are swayed by a contestant's religious views on reality television programs like Dancing with the Stars and American Idol.  Thank you so much to the nine people who voted!  I love having your participation!  Here are the standings:

Question #1

Question #2

Question #3

Question #4

Question #5

My hypothesis was that 1) most voters would be swayed in their votes, 2) mostly influenced by a contestant with a different religion than their own, 3) with most of the voters affiliated with Christianity.  The second part of my hypothesis was that the voters with a religious affiliation of Christianity would be the most likely to have their votes influenced by a contestant's religious viewpoints.  Obviously, I was slightly off in my prediction:  a majority 56% indicated their vote wouldn't be influenced either way by a contestant's religious views. 

Maybe I analyzed reality TV, which is for shear entertainment, too much like I would the political arena, a more serious context for this discussion; in which case, I think my hypothesis would hold up.  A few questions remain for reality TV, however:  what things are voters swayed by; what things should voters be swayed by, and which things shouldn't influence voters?  When voting for contestants on programs like Dancing with the Stars and American Idol, I would think that people are likely more drawn to vote for the contestant in which they have things in common like which State they're from or where they went to college.  Even factors such as dress, appearance, and demeanor influence votes for reality TV (at least I will admit to voting based upon some of those factors, and have been tempted to watch American Idol with my eyes closed to try and simply base my vote on the sound of the performance).  Let's not forget the votes made based upon the skill and performance of the dancing and singing itself, the whole purpose of the competitions.  Based upon my own voting history, there is also the occasional voter that submits a pity vote for the contestant who's not doing so well but begs not to leave the show.  Furthermore, according to this small survey, 22% of viewers say their votes are swayed by a contestant's religious affiliation. 

I think saying that people approach voting for a national election more responsibly than voting for reality TV programs is safe to say, right?  It is rather fascinating though:  while we're looking at factors that influence votes for reality TV contestants, some of those same factors have impacted national elections:  i.e. appearance--I remember reading in history class that John F. Kennedy received significant number of votes from women based upon his appearance; and demeanor--I'm going to respectfully not broach this factor!

So lest I continue to ramble, which I probably have already done, I'd love to hear your thoughts about the results from the survey.  Did they surprise you?  Not surprise you?  What do you think about the factors that influence voting for reality TV programs?  Should they affect the votes?  What about those same factors influencing national elections? 

I don't know about you, but I'm gonna enjoy watching both shows tonight!!

The other evening when I was with Mac and Julie, we had an interesting discussion about if knowing a contestant's religious viewpoint affects the way we think about, and vote for, a participant on reality television programs such as Dancing with the Stars and American Idol where the viewers call, text, or submit votes online for their favorite performance(s).  And if so, how does it affect us?  We went back and forth on the subject:  one thought knowing about a contestant's religious views didn't affect viewers' votes at all and another thought it would, at least to some degree, influence how viewers vote for a contestant.  We were all quite transparent about our thoughts on the matter.  I won't disclose our opinions at this point, as you'll see why below.  Obviously this topic can lead to an even bigger question:  how does a political candidate's religious viewpoints affect how we vote?  Reality TV, however, is a more light-hearted arena to pose these types of questions, so for the moment, we'll stick with it.

I'm curious to know what you all think about the matter.  If you are willing to participate in a small survey of 4-5 questions about this issue of religious views and reality TV, click here.  The survey is completely optional and will be used for this blog only; all submissions are anonymous.  After you fill out the form, your answers will be linked back to a spreadsheet in my Google Docs to help track the answers.  I will post the most current results next Tuesday, April 15th.  Please only submit your answers once.

In addition, you're always welcome to leave your thoughts in a comment.  You'll have to sign up for a free Vox account, but it's pretty simple, and something you'll have to do in order to participate in the awesome blog contest coming up next week, so might as well get a head start!

This is fascinating!  Jordan's Queen Rania has launched a YouTube channel calling for people to engage in a global dialogue about stereotypes of Muslims and the Arab world, with the hope that this will help people better understand cultural differences of the Arab world and dismantle such stereotypes.  She's quoted as saying that she wants people, "to see the personal side of my region, to know the places and faces and rituals and culture that shape the part of the world I call home."  Click here to see her YouTube channel. 

As a topic that has become dear to my heart, I am very interested to see how she answers the plethora of questions already posed!

After my last blog, I suppose I got a taste of my own medicine.  It was quite a long read, but the feedback of insight and links to information dwarfed my dissertation!  Thank you all for your interesting thoughts and for participating in the discussion.  Thanks to Rob and Kim who provided deeper insight into what progressive means in political and religious contexts respectively, and thanks to Meg for tossing out the challenge of providing an example of how Christians can engage in conversations that transcend religious talk and appeal to the public.

As far as an example goes, I think there is one distinction that must be made clear first.  As a Christian, I may believe something to be true because I read it in God's Word and that practice is not something to be discarded.  It is important for anyone to know why they believe what they believe, and the challenge of bringing that issue to the table of public discourse does not negate the value of religious study or discourse.  However, when bringing issues before the public sector for debate, an argument based upon God's authority will not engage the irreligious, and the debate will be unfruitful.  This is where the translation is necessary.

That said, a simple example that comes to mind is one that I frequently hear on the Dave Ramsey Show.  This is a financial advice talk show "where debt is dumb, cash is king, and the paid off home mortgage has taken the place of the BMW as the status symbol of choice."  He offers "the same advice your grandmother would give, only he keeps his teeth in."  Dave happens to be a Christian, but this is not a "Christian radio show".  However, since he answers questions according to what he would do in his callers' shoes, his Christian values sometimes have opportunity to shine through.

An example of one question I have heard more than once is when a young man calls in asking whether it would be financially prudent to move into an apartment with his girlfriend in order to save money as one of them may be experiencing financial difficulty or they simply want to save money.  So what should the Christian response be?  Should Dave quote Scripture to the caller explaining why this is a morally wrong decision?  While the Bible is an authority in his life (and he will still often say he believes it to be morally wrong), he knows his audience and gives reasons for not living with each other until marriage that the caller can relate to.  If you're curious, he usually sites that statistics show that living with your future spouse before marriage significantly increases your likelihood for divorce.  He also shares examples of how mixing significant amounts of money with a boyfriend or girlfriend outside of a marital commitment is financially dangerous.  I believe that many Biblical truths can be supported by corroborating evidence found outside the Bible.

If you found the speech by Barack Obama interesting, you may also be interested in a debate that some other dear friends recommended.  It is a debate between Alan Keyes and Alan Dershowitz in answer to the question, "Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?"  I found this to be a very interesting read (you can listen to the first portion of the debate as an MP3).  I think that it is a great spring board for forming your own answer to that question and for continuing the discussion.  I would love to hear your thoughts about this debate as it touches on many issues key to the role of religion in society and government.  Like all heated debates, the debaters occasionally try to set traps around hot issues, but I also found it interesting to hear each side make their case.  Too often we only listen to one side of an issue (our own) and miss where the true disagreement lies.

I do have a couple of thoughts to share about the Alans debate, but I will postpone that to another time since I have already exceeded my word-count-quota.  But if you do read or listen to the debate, pay close attention to what the basis of right and wrong is for each participant.  Put another way, what is the basis of their morality?  What is the role of morality in government?

I'm afraid my blogging activity has dwindled from a co-blogger with Meg to a "cameo-blogger" who only shows up from time-to-time.  To my many fans (sense the exaggeration/sarcasm), I apologize, I don't see it getting much better.  But I will still try to make a cameo appearance now and then.

So, if my blogs will be few and far between, why not stir things up a little bit?  And what better way to stir things up than to discuss religion and politics?

I came across an interesting speech on religion's role in politics that I think made some points that are worth considering.  When it comes to politics I usually fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, although there are also a few issues I think liberals do a much better job.  Given my background, you will be surprised to learn that this keynote address at a conference was delivered by Barack Obama.  I encourage you to give it a read or even watch the video.  In this post, I will simply comment on a few quotes from this speech.

"And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse."

I may be rather uninformed, but this is the first time I've heard liberals refer to themselves as "progressives".  I am actually a little confused by the term because I would expect all Americans to categorize themselves as wanting to see progress in our country.  Perhaps a primary distinction between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are more aggressive to abandon ideals and principles held in the past for the latest and greatest values of the present time.  Meanwhile, conservatives hesitate to release such ideals until it is 100% clear (sometimes, to a fault).  One other comment I'd like to make about the concept of a progressive nation is a phrase I recall reading in C.S. Lewis' writings, chronological snobbery.  Wikipedia defines this as "describing the erroneous argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior when compared to that of the present."  While I believe in progress, I think that when it involves a change to our core values as a country we must be wary of falling prey to chronological snobbery.

"But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

I felt that this was a great statement that is very difficult to come by in any political dialog.  More relating to this in the final quote…

"For one, they [conservative leaders] need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it." (My emphasis added).

This is a very important statement, but I have mixed feelings about it.  I am pleased to hear Mr. Obama state the true meaning of "separation of church and state" in his final sentence, but, this definition is rarely used by liberals in politics (this is the first time I have ever heard it).  On the contrary, the liberal definition is usually the same "check your faith at the door" policy he denounced earlier in this message.  I do concede, however, that in an increasingly religiously-pluralistic nation, these discussions do become more challenging, which brings me to my final quote.

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason…I have to explain why [fill in your conviction] violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

This is where many Christians fail in politics, and probably why many avoid politics.  We need to learn to translate our values and views into the vernacular in order for them to be heard and discussed in political circles.  I am the first to admit that I am not good at this, and that the prospect is even scary.  But I think that it is a shift that needs to happen.  I think that it is also important to note that this principle doesn't only apply to Christians, or to the "religious", but also to atheists and agnostics.  Once people of faith learn to articulate their positions in politics, the challenge will also go to those with a godless faith.  The presupposition that there is no god also brings with it a vocabulary of its own that is not "accessible to people of all faiths".

I found this speech very refreshing and, as a Christian, very challenging.  Of course, when considering a political candidate, speeches should not hold as much weight as their voting record.  While I very much enjoyed Mr. Obama's speech, his voting does not appear to have been effected by these discussions much as of yet, his record is still far from being moderate.

What do you think?

WOW!  WOW!  WOW!  What an amazing football game!  My heart was pounding and my hands were sweating as I jumped out of my chair in exuberance and awe that Eli Manning and his NY Giants pulled it off, winning against the favored and undefeated (until now!) New England Patriots!  It was one of the best Super Bowl games of all time, I believe, and worth every minute of anxiety.  I'm still taking in the momentum of the Giants' defense and the team's undeniable desire and determination to win, persevering through all the doubts, pressure and comparisons.  I am overjoyed for the Giants, and I really am not that big of a fan.  Way to go!

Even the commercials were pretty good this year, and I thought it would be fun to see which commercial was the favorite among our readers.  The following poll is open until midnight February 10th.  Which commercial was your favorite?