In class movies

Out of all of the videos, I found the Disney documentary to be the most interesting. I think it is important to analyze media that is aimed at children. This documentary in particular took a critical approach, and examining their claims can be useful in understanding how we should approach Disney and the media that children are exposed to. The film raised many important issues, from gender roles, to history, to racism. I found myself agreeing with some claims, while disagreeing with others, and will lay out my thoughts in this blog post.

The first thing to mention is that when one examines the Disney films of the past, it is clear that the films use stereotypes, as well as altered history. There are obvious issues with this, as the documentary points out, but there is a factor that they overlook. In pointing out the flaws, the documentary fails to recognize that Disney is trying to craft a story, and therefore must use certain devices. For example, the film mentions the Beast's temper in Beauty and the Beast, and the condoning of it. However, the reason for the temper of the Beast is to create a conflict to be resolved. Without conflict, you have a week and boring story. The Beast, in this instance, is troubled by his past, and is therefore angry and lonely. This causes him to lash out a Belle, but overtime she helps him to accept his circumstance, and he is able to change. This doesn't seem wrong to me, but the documentary takes a biased approach in this case. Disney also uses gender and racial stereotypes as storytelling shortcuts, so we understand how a character fits into the film. Furthermore, the documentary condemns Disney films for altering history. Again, this is only done in the name of storytelling, which I believe is Disney's top priority.

Does this mean that it is okay to use stereotypes and altered history in children's films? Far from it actually. I'm just pointing out that it is understandable that Disney would use such devices. Many were common in animation for their time period, and Disney was just following suit.

The most important thing is for parents to be aware of the stereotypes that exist in past Disney films, so they can explain them to their kids. I do not believe we should shelter children from Disney, as it is one of the greatest forms of entertainment a child can have, and will give them lasting memories. It is the responsibility of the parent, however, to understand what their kids are watching, learning, and absorbing. If aware, parents can use these movies and teaching tools.

Looking forward, I believe Disney has a responsibility to avoid stereotypes in their films and marketing. We are living in a different age, where we are more aware of the way kids learn and develop. We are also constantly advancing in our social knowledge, and we are creating a world where tolerance and acceptance are at the forefront. It is possible to create films without stereotypes, and Disney must be aware of the lessons that they are teaching kids.

Patrick Garner-Class Videos 6/14/10

I found the last video we watched today (Disney Video) the most entertaining. It basicly discussed how Disney is such a monopoly that they almost dictate the movies, toys, clothes, etc. parents buy there childeren. They also discussed that Disney owns so many other company's such as ESPN and ABC that they never let anything bad be said about them. Most importantly the video discussed how characters are portrayed especially how women and men should be. It also discussed stereotyping races to certain characters such as the crows in Dumbo were portrayed as African Americans.

I found this extremely interesting that some parents and adults are so angry about these Disney movies. What we all have to recognize is that most of the movies such as Dumbo were made around 1930 and 1940. If I remember correctly it was 1942. This was how society was brought up back then and things that were spoken of such as the way women and men were portrayed and even different races were portrayed was ok at that time. Yes, things have changed and they are better but these movies are extremely old and if you do not want childeren to see them do not let them watch them. There are a ton of movies made after the fact that are more appropriate for our society. My other argument is that Disney was not always as big as a Monopoly as it is today. When it first started it gradually became very popular. So obviously people enjoy the products from Disney even from the beginning and the goal of any company is to make money. If your company is making money then why change your techniques that the majority of society likes so much.

As for the discussion question. Do you really think the way disney portrays things in there movies are a big problem, particularily the way some of the people on the video made such a big deal about how men and women are portrayed. I really do not think it is a big deal because in society today pretty much all movies and things of this sort portray men and women all the same way. Eventually childeren will see things of this sort and my opinion is that we cannot sugar coat everything for childeren. From the people I grew up with, the kids that lived sheltered lifestyles went crazy when they got freedom in college and did things their parents had nightmares about. In my opinion, I think all those people on that video suck the fun out of everything and need to look at the entertainment and enjoyment that many people get from Disney products. For the record, Disney has themeparks out of the country in Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. A big portion of profits come from these parks and some have even more demand than the parks in the U.S. Therefore I do not think the way some ethnicities are portrayed, such as Asian, make anyone from over there too angry.

6/14/2010 - Class Videos

After watching today's class videos, I found the last one - the Critical Look at Disney the most interesting, so this is the one I would like to focus on. I really found the analysis of disney movies and their "monopoly" on the children's market. They really do dictate how children consider and view our history and what seems to be important in our society. For example, skinniness for girls and relying on men and not being able to be dependent, men to be all muscles, that the English got back on the boat to go back to their main land and leave the new found land for Indians, the lack of African American presence in cartoons, and the use of the chihahua as the latin character. These are just some of the examples that the people interviewed in the video pointed out and are all really good points. I know myself that I have heard little white kids that I was babysitting to pass the "skin colored" crayon (and it just so happens to be peach - indicating light colored skin) which they obviously have no way of knowing how incredibly offensive it is. As sad as this is, it is the reality we live in today. It was just this year (some almost 80 years after Disney was started) that they just came out with their first movie starring a black child from New Orleans (Princess and the Frog). Even though in this movie, the black female (the main star) is the hard working independent girl, yet she still falls in love and ends up marrying a prince.

Although I realize how true these observations are of Disney and the pattern in which they occur in, when I first heard such suspessions I thought they were totally ridiculous. The most publicized problems I have heard of with Disney until today's class is the sex undertones in the cartoons and in the muppets. I realize that I had simply dismissed these allegations as many people had done with the examples I had mentioned above from the video. I guess I cannot help but wonder what would happen if disney focused more efforts on truer storytelling and less racist and sexist movies. What would cause Disney to ever head down this direction?

Roman - Class Videos

In class today we viewed videos on the Cyber Declaration of Independence (cool graphics by the way), copyrights as they relate to restricting our freedom, and Disney as a questionable media mogul. All of the videos brought up how the idea of technology as something that can drastically change our worlds. I found the video on Disney to be the most interesting.

The documentary on Disney had some valid points. We often look at Disney as such an icon of purity and we rarely associate business with the classic tales. However, Disney is very much a business that needs to stay afloat and succeed. This is fine, but the content Disney has provided is now being analyzed and is often found to present dangerous ideas to young, impressionable children. Themes of racism are present in certain movies as are images of unrealistic women helpless without a male companion.

Do you think Disney, as a company in control of impressionable content, has a responsibility to its viewers? Or do you think the responsibility falls on parents to screen their children from certain harmful ideas from Disney? Who's at fault or is there really any problem at all?

-Roman

Mix It Up ch. 10-Rachel

Changes in the forms of communication we use everyday affect the way we interact with others and the way we perceive the world. Some argue that video games enhance certain skills in individuals such as decision making skills for the professional world, problem solving, and achieving complex goals. People are constantly surfing the internet, reading blogs, emails, and reading their news online. The book discusses potential affects this may have on us. Due to the decrease in article lengths and the short capsule summaries now even featured in the New York Times could be affecting the way we focus while reading and our ability to absorb detailed information. An interesting fact and something I learned is that playing games online can be quite addicting for some and every year, about $60 billion is illegally gambled through online Poker games.
Not only has the increase of technology affected our lives in those ways, there are some major health risks involved as well. An increase in loneliness and a lack of face-to-face contact is a major problem. Also, this loss of personal connection had been associated with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. It can also be a struggle for some to maintain positive images of themselves if they post pictures or communicate their actions with others online. That information can spread very quickly, and one cannot always control where that information goes. An interesting point to discuss would be how we have been affected either positively or negatively by the media or how it has affected our close family and friends.

Mix it Up Ch 10

Chapter ten deals with how media affects not only how we communicate but how we interpret messages. Interestingly, video games are said to facilitate collateral learning, while textbooks and reading are explicit learning. The zone is a place where we can go where society norms are held at bay or temporarily suspended. A break from reality that more and more people are drawn to via the internet. The idea of face to face contact is seen as cumbersome and less people are apt to do it. Virtual life can alter and change a person's real life. Either in a relationship, divorce, love, hate, envy. All these emotions can be felt for real through the internet. Sites like Rate my Professor can be used by more than students. For example, lawyers, employers and fellow faculty. Privacy on the internet is very rare commodity. That linked with how many people lie, cheat, and all around mean. It's a harsh reality for a naive person.I found the part talking about the Chinese digital sweatshops really fascinating. I had no idea gamers paid for upgrades earned by others on ebay. and that it was someones job to play this game for hours in order to earn upgrades that can then be sold. Where do you belive the internet will take us in the future? Is culture spread via digital media more so than actual life?

I thought the videos in class today were interesting. The first video was visually very distracting. On to the Disney movie, I am partial to Disney as I grew up on them. After saying that, I believe Disney movies should not be so over analyzed. They are first and primarily a top corporation whose sole goal is to make money. They know what makes money and especially what sells. Marketing is key to their success as their brands and icons are featured on hundreds of items. I thought the people talking in the movie were a making big deal out of Disney's movies, but why just Disney? Are they analyzing every children's movie producer, for example Pixar (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc.), Dreamworks (Madagascar 1 and 2), 20th Century Fox (Ice Age series)? Are moveis these movies meant to be analyzed or enjoyed?


-Kayla O

Mix it Up (chapter 10)

We start out with this chapter explaining how the Nigerian e-mail scam is actually a newer form of the Spanish prisoner scam that has been around for quite some time. What will become of the news media in the internet age? Playing the video Grand Theft auto is actually good for you because it teaches you how to better react to constantly changing situations. How people can sometimes get addicted to games, particularly gambling games. How “top gamers” achieve a Zen like state of conscience while playing. The line between the real and the digital world is becoming blurred. We learn the details of a very sad case of online bullying. How the traditional printed news media seems to be obsolete and may soon be gone. Although, others argue that there may be a few major papers left. However, this is little consolation for small town news readers. Anyone can post anything on the internet but it’s not necessarily true nor does it go through the normal process of vetting, fact checking, proof reading, etc. Finally we learn of the arcane nature of the current copyright laws.

The fact that the Nigerian scam has actually been around for so long, I thought it was relatively new.

The current copyright laws extend to 70 years. I believe copyrights, like patents, should expire after 15 years. After that time period people should be able use your work in any way they feel. If they decide to sell the work that they’ve created based on your work, they should have to pay you a small percentage of the profits until your death. Do you agree?

Lou Coban

Mix It Up - Ch10

Chapter 10 discusses the ways in which technology influences modern society and popular culture. It begins by stating the pros and cons of video games and online gambling. Complex video games can assist in cognitive development, expanding one's problem solving abilities, and training leaders. However, both video games and online gambling can become addicting to the users. Technology addictions can cause many problems due to lack of face to face communications. Next, the author explains the fusion of the real world and virtual worlds, such as video game economies and anonymous rating of professors. Newspapers all over the country are encountering problems making profit, due to the abundance of free online news sources. Finally, Grazian covers the three trends of media in the digital age: convergence of content across platforms (movies, books games), participation of audiences to produce content (youtube), and collective intelligence as media power (open source software).

I found it interesting that such a good argument was made toward the benefits of video games. I had already thought that it could help in developing logic and problem solving abilities, but it never really occurred to me that the same type of leadership in an online MMO could resemble that required by corporations.
For discussion, do you think that in the future watching video game tournaments will become a spectator sport? Blizzard has been pushing for this with Startcraft and the World of Warcraft Arenas; worldwide invitational's are held each year and broadcast live. The reason I think they will not catch on is that they do not offer spectators anything to attach themselves to. For instance, in Pittsburgh we can get excited for the Steelers or Penguins because they represent us. However, in these online tournament, it is basically just some no-name people with no connections to the spectators.

-Derek Leidemann

P.S. I used to play wow quite a lot years ago, and none of the games being played in the picture on page 202 are World of Warcraft, I don't know where he got his info.

Patrick Garner- Mix it Up Chp. 10

In Chapter 10 of Mix it Up, Grazian discusses the growth of technology. He discusses the way society has evolved with the new technology and abilities along with how it has affected industry over the years. In the very beginning of the chapter Grazian speaks of the Nigerian e-mail scam. He basicly opens up with this to show how easy it is to be taken advantage of in this day and age. He then goes into how everything with technology is quickly paced and the way we read is not as thorough as it used to be because of the way the internet is set up with breif summaries and headlines. Grazian then speaks of how people no longer communicate in person as much as we used to. It takes away the normal people skills that society used to have and many people are just so used to using portable devices. Information travels much more quickly. Although it is extremely efficient people are becoming lazy and very dependent on portable devices. Also, games such as world of War craft give people a chance to live a life as someone else and is un heard of in any other day and age.

What I found extremely interesting is that in society today we are extremely efficient with information flow and communication. However, it is scary how dependent people are on the technology we have and if we ever lose the technology we have who knows what will happen. Basicly, it is crazy that something that works so good can still have negative effects on society.

This leads me to my question. Do you think society is too dependent on the technology that we have? Will technology eventually dig a hole to deep where society cannot resort back to older ways of communication and interaction? What do you think?

Mix it up Chapter 10

In this chapter of Mix It Up Grazian discusses how the internet provides consumers information. It seems as though that Grazian attempts to show how the internet is mostly harmful to people by giving a few grim examples of people who have been negatively affected by online activities. One of which who committed suicide after learning a boyfriend she thought was real, was simply a lie. Grazian also discusses the positive side of video games, which he claims and supports help kids develop important analytic and problem solving skills. Also he claims that MMORPG's help people train to become natural leaders in the real world from their online experiences. Do you think video games overall are helpful to people? or do you think they are detrimental? Personally it is sometimes sad to see people who are fully enveloped by a game and fail to interact successfully in the real world and lose their social life, but on the other hand these games do usually offer challenging puzzles that make people think and develop new strategies to solve these problems.

I think that video games in moderation are definitely a good way to exercise your brain and keep you sharp. The argument of people becoming aggressive after playing video games such as grand theft auto is not acknowledged in this chapter but it is a subject of hot debate. Do you think video games can really inspire violence? or do you think the people who become aggressive were that way to being with and it was bound to happen sooner or later?

Lastly on the topic of the internet begin helpful or hurtful Grazian talks about how people get less truth from online sources. This point I cannot argue, there are hundreds of thousands of websites with wrong information, but I think this should make people smarter and more careful. By now hopefully most people know that you can't always trust what is read online so it should make people search for reliable sources, or multiple sources to make sure what they found is correct. Do you think this massive amount of information in one place that is easy to access is better overall? or worse? Grazian also attempts to point out some of the negative parts of the internet which is respectable but the arguments he uses are from people who already had problems to begin with. If someone is truly addicted to gambling they will gamble, whether its online or at a casino its the nature of the person, not the technology that enabled it. Also the girl who committed suicide had issues with depression before the incident on MySpace. Do you think that these people really would have been better off without the internet? or do you think these events were bound to happen sooner or later and they just happened to occur online?

Roman - Mix it Up Ch. 10

Chapter 10 of Grazian's book is devoted entirely to the digital age (the internet). He presents the good and the bad that's come from the advent of online life. The good is obvious to see. We now have entertainment and knowledge at our fingertips, making our fun and our learning more efficient. It's harder to see what can go wrong, but certainly the internet can dumb us down quite a bit if we're not careful. With so much information out there, it's hard to concentrate on any one thing for very long.

Interestingly, Grazian makes use of many extreme cases to illustrate the harm of the web. These examples include the college class president at Lehigh that gambled away 7500 dollars to online poker then robbed a bank as well as the girl on Myspace who committed suicide because of bullying. Are these just isolated events or are they something we're all sort of subjected to? I think the extreme cases are isolated events having to deal more with the sanity of the people involved than the internet itself. The internet is truly harmful in sneakier ways. Having so much information rush over us at once results in conflicting and often untrue information that can be harmful in the long term.

So, for discussion... Do you think the internet gets blamed for things that are really our own personal faults? For instance, with the gambling college student. Was he a victim of the internet or did he just abuse his self control? Do we need to keep a closer eye on the web or should we trust it?

-Roman

June 14th, 2010: Mix It Up (Ch. 10)

1. Summary:

Chapter 10 of Mix It Up focused on the growing of communication and new abilities with the new advances in technology and how it has affected industries that have existed for many years. Author Grazian starts off by discussing the mass use of spam and cons that the ideas of such can be traced back to the 16th century. The main difference compared to past cons and a current example – like the Nigerian email scam is that the mass use of email (and the difficulty in tracing its roots) allows such cons to send out the scam to thousands of people for little to no cost. Grazian also discusses how new computer and video games like World of Warcraft encourage and build users’ techniques of making decisions in a few seconds and dealing with the consequences and learning from such decisions. Grazian also talks about the disappearance and new competitiveness that many newspaper companies have experienced in more recent time since news is available online for free – although it may not be from the most reliable sources. Almost any industry, company, or individual can be negatively affected by the mass use of internet (like some “bad” professors on Ratemyprofessor.com) if someone chooses to post negative comments about their business.

2. What I learned/found interesting:

I found his examples interesting of how video and computer games better players’ decision making skills – to the point that they may be better decision makers than some Fortune 500 company owners. It seems that there have been many reports that say that such gaming is bad for concentration and causes anti-social habits in people – which are very different than what Grazian argues. I am not claiming one is right or better than the other – I just find this interesting.

3. Discussion Point:

Do you think it is now or will ever be considered acceptable to discuss skill sets learned from online/video gaming in an interview for a job? How would the argument of skills learned from such online games be compared to the skills learned from playing organized sports? If such two subjects were mentioned in an interview today, would the interviewer (person from the company asking the questions) receive and respond to both skill sets the same? Why or why not?

Chapter 10 of Mix it Up

In this last chapter of the book, Grazian covers a lot of ways in which technology affects our lives on a day to day basis. He opens the chapter by using the example of the Nigerian e-mail scam, showing the reader that just by opening your e-mail and taking it seriously, you can essentially lose a good bit of money if not all of it. This was also done since the 16th century (and probably longer) in a scam regarding a Spanish Prisoner unjustly put in captivity. The quick pace of the internet has changed the way we absorb what we are reading. Research suggests that due to the flashy advertisements online and scanning headlines, nowadays we no longer read as thoroughly as we used to and do not concentrate deeply on the material. Online gambling has left people broke, and because of portable technology, people no longer interact as much as they used to. Second Life and World of Warcraft have given people the opportunity to live life as another person that they are able to design, avatars, and anything done in normal everyday life can now be done in Second Life as well, including getting a blow job. Online news, although it allows people to get their news rather quickly and conveniently, many newspapers are now going out of business.

What I appreciated most about this chapter and Grazian's views was that he gives both the positive and negative. For example, he talks about what the skills gained through playing video games. I had always thought of video games as a mindless activity, but according to Grazian, it helps with "development of cognitive skills" and decision making (198). He also includes that the organization skills gained through gaming may be utilized in the professional world as well. Even online gambling like poker, although the author talks about the down side of people's, especially college student's obsession with the game, he also says the those who play these online games master a sort of yogic focus.

My question is then purely subjective. Do you think the good of playing video games outweigh the bad? In America do we just have an exceptionally bad view of video games which makes us consistently look at them negatively and consider them just a waste of time? Is gaming actually an activity that can be just as productive as other recreational activities only in a different way? I would be very interested to hear whatever you have to say about this.
A. Gorno

Mix it Up- Chapter 10

"Strange Days," examines the position digital technology plays in everyday society- particularly as a medium for social interactions and interpersonal communication. In one section, Grazian discusses the various suggestions that digital technology expands and heightens learning skills. Video games, for example, can hone collateral learning, developing vital organizational and decision making skills ideal for positions of leadership (ie,business). Yet Grazian points out the downside to "online surfing" which reduces the ability to concentrate upon and analyze texts in a thoughtful and critical manner. This correlates to the current capsule nature of magazines, newspapers, and commercials. Digital technologies also create the zone; online gambling is an example of this and boundaries are blurred to the point where reality no longer exists and potential for addiction increases. The zone simply exacerbates the isolation, diminishes face-to-face interactions, and introduces and increases health problems. Grazian explores the porous wall between cyber and natural reality (ie, digital sweatshops and SL) and the impact the cyber world has on our everyday lives, particularly our identities and reputations. Though the future of online media is uncertain, Grazian suggests that the digital age is defined by the emergence of three phenomena: the convergence of content across various media mediums and industries; active participation of audiences in shaping their media experiences; and collective intelligence which challenges and produces new media forms. The chapter culminates with the assertion that popular culture in this digital age requires unfettered discourse in order to thrive.

I thought the Second Life portion of chapter ten was interesting. Seriously, trading actual money for cyber money to buy cyber things? I am shocked that online gamers spend over a billion a year on virtual assets!

Grazian quotes Klein's argument that "that culture is something that happens to you. You buy it at the Virgin Megastore or Toys 'R' Us and rent it at Blockbuster Video. It is not something in which you participate, or to which you have the right to respond. " Do you think Klein is correct?
-Lolia

Ch 1-4 Mix It Up-Rachel

The book starts off discussing popular culture and what that exactly means. popular culture must be well liked by the public. Examples of pop culture well liked by the public are movies. recent popular movies are The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Prince Caspian, and the Indiana Jones movies starring Harrison Ford. Also, some actors and actresses are famous and well liked regardless of their talents and acting ability.Culture is another fascinating topic that is discussed and sociologists of culture are interested in all different types of rituals and social activities. These types of activities are dating, retail shopping, sports participation, cigarette smoking, casino gambling, and many others. When studying culture, it is important to study the cultural objects of society. These are social expressions of meaning that have been transformed into a tangible item. An example of a cultural object id Homer's Iliad. Media and popular culture can be defined by combined efforts that produce movies, musical compositions, novels, advertising, and many others.
The functionalist approach is discussed in Chapter 2, which is associated with the French sociologist Emilie Durkheim. Durkheim was interested in the role that religion played within society. I found it very interesting that Durkheim studied very early religions. Early religions that Durkheim studied were the ancient spiritual faiths of the Native Americans as well as Aboriginal Australians. Religion in these societies structured their everyday living like their way of governing themselves and, work schedules, and the way they viewed the natural world. Durkheim also looked into the sacred and the profane aspects of religion.
Karl Marx is another prominent person to mention. Marx was one of the first thinkers to notice the problems with pop culture in a capitalistic society. In a piece of writing called The German Ideology, Mark makes an important argument. He argues that dominant ideologies in a society are in place to benefit the wealthier ruling classes and so that they can also maintain their power. Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, who was imprisoned during Mussolini's reign of power drew on Niccolo Machiavelli's sixteenth century political work called The Prince to understand the ways in which the media can control a society through the power of persuasion.
There are so many recognizable brands in society- Kellogg's, Nike, Microsoft, Apple, and Nintendo are just a few that the book mentions. Coca-Cola was ranked number one under criteria such as consumer loyalty, customer demand, and predictions of future revenues. Chapter four explores another inportant theorectical approach in Sociology, the Interactionist Approach. This focuses on smaller-scale interactions between people and groups of people. Erving Goffman explains personhood as a mixture of presentations of self that we that we express when participating in social activities. We act differently when around different types of people such as a close group of friends, teachers, police officers, and our parents. How else can we explain the differrent eays we act around different groups of people?

MIU, Chapters 1-4

In the first chapter, the author talks about the pop culture and pop music, and how it transformed over time. He discusses the pop music and culture then and now, as well as the people of the pop culture. Next, Grazian discusses the functional side of pop culture. According to the author, there can be good and bad sides of pop culture. On one hand, pop culture can serve to connect people. On the other, it can also divide them. Grazien goes into the negative sides of pop culture further in the third chapter. As such, he explains the view that the pop culture is controlled by those, who profit from it. Thus, it is not the everyday people who make the pop culture, but those who control the industry. The fourth chapter takes on a different approach. Here, the view is that it is, in fact, the people that determine the popular trends and culture through interaction.
It was interesting to see the two opposing theories in chapters 3 and 4. Never having thought of pop culture as being "fed" to us, chapter 3 gave me some food for thought. Yet, things such as music need to be liked, in order to thrive in the business. Although, there may be something i don't know. Do you believe that somebody can really dictate what you will like or not?

Mix it Up (Chapters 1 - 4)

In the beginning we see how many “remakes” there are of songs and movies. How popular culture comes about, how it makes people like Paris Hilton famous when she never really did anything of interest to warrant such fame. How the rituals and activities that people take part in keep and hold people together. We see how there is some organized rebellion against popular culture and also that there is a dark side to it. How advertising effects and molds popular culture and how few companies control most of the media outlets (music, news and books.) How sometimes it can create social inequalities such as positioning employees who are less attractive or less well dressed to positions where they can’t be seen. We see the influences that social networking has on popular culture, i.e. Facebook, MySpace.

I found it strange that a sociological society took up the position that we should rename the sports teams that are name after Indians. That American Indians like westerns and identify more with the cowboys. It is interesting that there are very few companies that control most of the media, books and music. I was surprised to see that “Office Space” was a box office flop, that movie is awesome.

I could see the football team the Washington Redskins being considered a racial slur on American Indians but I think that to say that you can’t give any team an Indian name is silly, what are your thoughts?

Lou Coban

Patrick Garner-Mix it Up Chapters 1-4

In "Mix it Up" by David Grazian he describes pop culture in terms of the world today or recent events. He describes exactly what pop culture means. Chapter 1 deals with music evolving throughout history. Describes how different types became popular and faded out. The author describes the different types and the people who follow these types of pop culture. Chapter 2 focuses on the functionalist prospective,which is one of the three approaches to describe pop culture. The author takes a stand point that we talk about and get hooked on people in the media to be able to talk about things in their lives instead of our own. Chapter 3 deals with the critical approach. He discusses the power of culture industrys. For example, how people become obsessed with brand names. Also, how big name brands such as coca-cola take over and sell limitless varietys of other products such as Dasani, Crush, Sweppes, etc. This is what people know and they become obsessed with certain realms of large firms. Chapter four deals with the interaction approach. This approach is how people think from what other people say. For example, someone might tell you that coca cola products are no good so you drink pepsi products. Really you do not know this but you listen to the gossip.

I found interesting chapter 3 and the power of culture industrys such as Disney. I did my industrial engineering intership at disney last spring and I know how obsessed people get with it. Because something is Disney owns people who are obsessed with it love that too. Anything with the Disney name on it will usually sale. We think it is crazy in the United States, the Disney name is even more popular around the world. I mainly found it interesting just looking at it through the critical approach.


Do you think people really follow celebrity's through the media to help make their own lives feel better? From my own perspective I do not follow celebrity gossip because half of it is nonsense. I am just wondering if anyone can agree that it is an outlet for people to talk about dumb things the celebritys do to free themselves from their private lifestyles.

MIX IT UP; Chapters 1-4

In the text Mix it Up, Grazian first explores the definition of popular culture or "pop culture." He breaks it down into what is well known, liked, and dumbed down enough that they are understandable and relate-able to the masses. He also looks at the ritualistic exercises of society in the US, drawing connections to today's use of sports. Grazian claims that sports allow people to commune without distractions that otherwise obstruct communication. He also talks about celebrity gossip and things of this nature that are not particularly thought provoking but draw people together without any other facts that would otherwise hinder their convergence with others. Regarding these outlets, Grazian assimilates them to folklore and says, "...They give tangible form to otherwise abstract ethical dilemmas concerning the nature of human relations and social behavior" (33). He also touches upon the negative aspects of pop culture, for example, the common objectification of females of all ages, schools building facilities for sports and, hence, not emphasizing education as much as recreation, etc. Today's culture seems to be dominated by products and company names. There is manipulation of the basis of greed. Grazian basically notes that capitalism is sucking culture dry by taking away tradition and promoting, in the words of Marx, "inequality between labor and capital" (56). Lastly, in chapter four, he discusses how things are passed along not on the mass scale but in smaller communities like groups of friends, families, etc. There is a small scale to popular culture. Overall, from these four chapters, one may say that there is a hierarchy to pop culture.
What I found most interesting was Grazian's approach to analyzing sports. I had never looked at this convention in this way. It is true that they serve as a meeting point for a lot of different people who would, perhaps, otherwise be too caught up in other factors to talk to one another. Consider that sports really have no social-class standards. EVERYONE can be a Steelers fan in Pittsburgh, regardless of how much money they make a year. (And they are.)
My question is then, are there any social outlets like this that aren't so shallow? We have celebrity gossip, sports - I guess what also brings people together is tragedy and current events, especially when considering things as recent as September eleventh. But even this didn't last very long and ended somewhat poorly. What do you think?
A. Gorno

Roman Extra Credit - Future of Democracy

I know I'm a bit late on this one as Jeremy already posted on it earlier, but it recently sort of popped into my head.

On the surface, the idea of direct democracy makes so much sense. The majority of people will be satisfied with the outcome of every decision. But then I realized a ton of problems would rise out of this.

First of all, if we're voting that frequently will we really put adequate research into each decision? I think we're more likely to just follow the crowd. This could lead to poor decision-making. Also, people in the minority will never be represented as they are now. Currently, the nation is largely composed of Democrats yet Republicans still have a huge say in what goes on. This system keeps both parties in check. If direct democracy were in place one of the parties could very easily fall into obscurity. The two party system we have now is much fairer than it may seem on the surface.

-Roman