Saturday, August 18, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Unveiling South Park: Popularity and International
Even with all of this having been said, South Park is still in the end both influential and aware of this influence on America. While the popularity of the show has somewhat declined significantly since its conception, Matt Stone attributes this drop off to previous news hype and the subsequent trimming of his audience to the “true” fan base, the show’s awareness is shown through the metafictional way of several characters speaking directly into the camera. But before the writer’s audience can be fully addressed, much less the deeper issues including the ramification of South Park’s influence particularly concerning the portrayal of the Middle East, it is pertinent to discuss why the show was chosen, a brief history, its construction, its continuing themes, and its eventual somewhat predictable form.
South Park was chosen to be this essay’s subject of analysis because not only is the show edgy and popular, as already stipulated in the opening paragraphs, but because it is grounded in public perception. This latter trait is largely used to describe more traditionally analyzed media like The New York Times or Time but I would argue that South Park at times can be just as effective as print.[1] Cable television and increasingly the internet are used to deliver South Park episodes to a more global audience. South Park is and will continue to be written for consumption in the United States, but that hasn’t prevented nations like Australia, Canada and even Latin American and Russia to pick up the show. Cable television networks have smaller audience pools but they make up for this through specialization. South Park fans quote Cartman’s pronunciations of words like “authori-tie” and buy shirts by the millions each year. South Park may have become so successful in other countries, especially those speaking other languages than English, because of the show’s trademark of low-tech animation allows the character to be easily dubbed over. The international broadcasting of South Park isn’t completely smooth as one show in particular “Free Willyzx” featuring Vladmir Putin as greedy and weak caused the show to be censored in Russia.[2] Another part of South Park’s continued success lies in is its ability to adapt rapidly in order to make shows involving the latest hot topic. South Park’s SNL like work schedule, sometimes producing an entire from start to finish in one week, has enabled the show to be as timely as The Economist. For instance when the controversy over Terri Schiavo was all over the news in 2005, Matt Stone and Trey Parker were able to write, produce and even do the majority of voices in a week’s time for “Best Friends Forever,” a show dealing with euthanasia.[3] While periodicals deal with primarily the assimilation of facts, Stone and Parker unabashedly show their opinions of the debate as a whole. This includes the writer’s portrayal of not only the events themselves but how they are portrayed in the media, private industry, public, and government. So in the aforementioned “Best Friends Forever” Stone and Parker focused not so much on euthanasia, as they interpreted this to be not the main issue, but instead the media coverage of Mrs. Schiavo’s death. As satirically shown through the death of Kenny, it could be easily recognized the disgust of Parker and Stone’s disgust of the media constantly showing the face of a dying women for political objectives.
[1] Both of which have praised South Park.
[2] Season 9 Episode 13.
[3] Stone and Parker do the majority of voices in every South Park episode. The writers digitally raise the pitches of their voices three half tones to do the voices of the children (up two for women’s voices and up five for chimpmonks). Original air date: March 30, 2005. “Best Friends Forever” was Season 9 episode 4.
Unveiling South Park: Intro
Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s revolutionary show of South Park defies authority, hypocrisy, the polarization of American politics and elitism. It’s cult-like and wide ranging young audience seems to come for the controversy and stay for the increasingly sophisticated bathroom humor. Memorialized by plush dolls and t-shirts, South Park’s characters, which are simultaneously both loved and loved to be hated, propelled Comedy Central into mainstream television. America soon became addicted to the show’s voice of black humor which exposed the ridiculousness of modern America which had been deafened by the ceaseless shouting politicians, looped tabloids, and 24hour television news cycle.
South Park’s twenty-two minutes of relentless and often vulgar satirical punches on the topics of censorship, capitalism, roles of women and minorities to the commercialization of Christmas and euthanasia have led some to mistakenly interpret the show as a vessel for social or political change. And while it may be true that South Park’s decision to confront controversial issues directly may often spark political, societal, or cultural conversations, it would be erroneous to overstate the initiation of such needed discussions as somehow South Park’s goal oriented advocacy for change. Instead the true purpose of the show, which would essentially go onto spawn the network that carries the critically acclaimed programing The Daily Show and The Colbert Report,[1] remains to be unquestionably the primary objective of entertainment. The writers have joked they would like to leave the change to people like Obama and seem to be genuinely uncomfortable when they are questioned by “eggheads” where their political leanings lye much less their desires for modification of American consciousness. As Jon Stewart often says, “the purest form of comedy is grounded in truth,” Parker and Stone’s South Park seems to be deeply rooted in such a philosophy. Just as the “eggheads” may overthink the objective of South Park to be advocacy for political, social, or cultural change, cynics erroneously proclaim South Park’s primary goal to be that of profit. While this latter claim may be true at one level, Parker and Stone do work in capitalist America, the decision for the writers to be one of the first shows to archive and freely disseminate all episodes and clips of South Park on the web seems to discredit profit as a primary motive of the show.[2]
[1] South Park first aired in 1997 and by 1998 Comedy Central jumped from being disturbed in 9.1 million homes to over 50 million thanks to it being picked by more cable networks largely due to the show’s incredible popularity. It would be equally relevant to not that in South Park’s second year it had amassed eight of the top 10 most popular non-sports cable episodes on television (each episode hovering between 4 and 5.5 million viewers). Johnson-Woods, Toni. 2006. Blame Canada!: South Park and Contemporary Culture. London: Continuum, p.6-8.
[2] I would like to first thank MLB for the use of the word “dissemination” without their expressed written consent. Legal streaming of Comedy Central became available in March of 2008 and the current website can be located at “SouthParkStudios.com.”
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Electronic Voting Doesn't Work
Read the Article: PC World
More on Voting From MountainPassIKnow:
From the Horse's Mouth
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: First of all, it's important to say that I don't know exactly what the prime minister is going to be coming with. We haven't gotten any indication that there is some sharp "ask" that is going to be presented. Both the United States and Israel have been in constant consultation about a very difficult issue, and that is the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is something that has been one of my top five foreign-policy concerns since I came into office.
We, immediately upon taking over, mapped out a strategy that said we are going to mobilize the international community around this issue and isolate Iran to send a clear message to them that there is a path they can follow that allows them to rejoin the community of nations, but if they refused to follow that path, that there would be an escalating series of consequences.
Three years later, we can look back and say we have been successful beyond most people's expectations. When we came in, Iran was united and on the move, and the world was divided about how to address this issue. Today, the world is as united as we've ever seen it around the need for Iran to take a different path on its nuclear program, and Iran is isolated and feeling the severe effects of the multiple sanctions that have been placed on it.
At the same time, we understand that the bottom line is: Does the problem get solved? And I think that Israel, understandably, has a profound interest not just in good intentions but in actual results. And in the conversations I've had over the course of three years, and over the course of the last three months and three weeks, what I've emphasized is that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn't just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States, and that when I say we're not taking any option off the table, we mean it. We are going to continue to apply pressure until Iran takes a different course.
GOLDBERG: Go back to this language, 'All options on the table.' You've probably said it 50 or 100 times. And a lot of people believe it, but the two main intended audiences, the supreme leader of Iran and the prime minister of Israel, you could argue, don't entirely trust this. The impression we get is that the Israeli government thinks this is a vague expression that's been used for so many years. Is there some ramping-up of the rhetoric you're going to give them?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it. It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran's military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that.
I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let me describe very specifically why this is important to us.
In addition to the profound threat that it poses to Israel, one of our strongest allies in the world; in addition to the outrageous language that has been directed toward Israel by the leaders of the Iranian government -- if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, one that is rife with unstable governments and sectarian tensions. And it would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation.
GOLDBERG: What would your position be if Israel weren't in this picture?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It would still be a profound national-security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
GOLDBERG: Why, then, is this issue so often seen as binary, always defined as Israel versus Iran?
"Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?"PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it has to do with a legitimate concern on the part of Israel that they are a small country in a tough neighborhood, and as a consequence, even though the U.S. and Israel very much share assessments of how quickly Iran could obtain breakout capacity, and even though there is constant consultation and intelligence coordination around that question, Israel feels more vulnerable. And I think the prime minister and the defense minister, [Ehud Barak,] feel a profound, historic obligation not to put Israel in a position where it cannot act decisively and unilaterally to protect the state of Israel. I understand those concerns, and as a consequence, I think it's not surprising that the way it gets framed, at least in this country, where the vast majority of people are profoundly sympathetic to Israel's plight and potential vulnerabilities -- that articles and stories get framed in terms of Israel's potential vulnerability.
But I want to make clear that when we travel around the world and make presentations about this issue, that's not how we frame it. We frame it as: this is something in the national-security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community. And I assure you that Europe would not have gone forward with sanctions on Iranian oil imports -- which are very difficult for them to carry out, because they get a lot of oil from Iran -- had it not been for their understanding that it is in the world's interest, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. China would not have abided by the existing sanctions coming out of the National Security Council, and other countries around the world would not have unified around those sanctions, had it not been for us making the presentation about why this was important for everyone, not just one country.
GOLDBERG: Is it possible that the prime minister of Israel has over-learned the lessons of the Holocaust?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Old and the New: Casting Your Vote
Watch America at the Ballot Box: Technology Through the Years on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Talk of War: Iran
It may just be another effect of elections season, but there seems to be a ranching up of the rhetoric against Iran (particularly from the GOP). Here are some less political and more pragmatic words from the Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta, one of the primary foreign policy advisers to President Obama.
Video from Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane reports from Washington
Basically calm down people. Do not fear an Armageddon, rather naval retribution.
If Israel attacked Iran in a preemptive strike:
1. It won't work. A strike would delay rather than prevent the development of a nuclear weapon.
2.Empower Iranian Government and make the U.S. a target of Iranian retribution.
American war games result: 16 downed ships (including an aircraft carrier) and 1000s of casualties.
Video from Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane reports from Washington
Basically calm down people. Do not fear an Armageddon, rather naval retribution.
If Israel attacked Iran in a preemptive strike:
1. It won't work. A strike would delay rather than prevent the development of a nuclear weapon.
2.Empower Iranian Government and make the U.S. a target of Iranian retribution.
- American Navy
- Hurt the American and Western European Economies (cutting off oil)
American war games result: 16 downed ships (including an aircraft carrier) and 1000s of casualties.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
John Kiriakou: American Spy to be Charged under espionage Act
John Kiriakou’s
Path From Ambitious
Spy to Federal Defendant
- NYTimes.com:
Former CIA officer John Kiriakou,
left, and his attorney John Hundley,
leave federal court in Alexandria,
Virginia. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP
The Witnessing
Of American
Torture
Former CIA Agent Charged Under Espionage Act For Reporting Torture -Buzzfeed
"He's not a "whistleblower." He's a guy who hunted down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan who decided waterboarding was a bad idea and decided to say so.
People already knew waterboarding was going on. He just said it didn't work, pointing out that Abu Zubaydah was talking immediately and didn't need to be waterboarded 83 times.
Pretty embarrassing for the government. So, they found one reporter to say that Kiriakou gave him one name.
Oh. And they fired his wife this week for good measure."
-AdminPassword via Reddit
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Scottish Independence
Scotland may be having a referendum for independence from the United Kingdom.
This is a slice of perspective with a side of Old World's sobering wit.
This is a slice of perspective with a side of Old World's sobering wit.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
American Military: Cutting Increases in Spending
The American Government is in the process of trying to cut $450 billion in spending.
How much and what programs would you cut?
Good news the N.Y. Times is here to help with this interactive article
 |
| The Future Military: Your Budget Strategy |
Thursday, January 5, 2012
American Military Changing Strategy: Defense Strategic Review
President Obama started off the discussion on forward defensive strategy in the Pentagon today, something unprecedented. This came at a time when our government is looking to reduce costs everywhere.
It seems that while now may have been the time to rethink military strategy anyway (with the withdraw from Iraq and deescalation of Afghanistan) the budget debate has forced this transition to the political forefront.
Obama noted that while the projected military spending will decrease the overall military budget will continue to increase (just at a reduced rate).
"Four Over Arching Principles":
-The United States will expand its allies and partners and will invest in NATO
-Reversibility in Downsizing Ground Forces
There is no question that we have to will have to make some trade offs and that
Conclusion:
I believe that in many ways that we are at a crises point but that in every crises there is opportunity. Out of this crises we have the opportunity to end the old ways of doing business and to build a modern army for the 21st century that can win today's wars and successfully confront any enemy and respond to any threat and any challenge for the future.
It seems that while now may have been the time to rethink military strategy anyway (with the withdraw from Iraq and deescalation of Afghanistan) the budget debate has forced this transition to the political forefront.
- The Strategy Review has included the President for the first Time
Obama noted that while the projected military spending will decrease the overall military budget will continue to increase (just at a reduced rate).
The new military strategy going forward for the United States includes $478 billion in cuts over the next 10 years and will, in Panetta's words, cause "some level of additional but acceptable risk."
 |
| Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary and former Head of the CIA, followed up the president's somewhat political announcement with more detail. |
- "We must maintain the world's finest military, one that supports and sustains the unique global leadership role of the United States"
- "We must avoid hollowing out the force, a smaller, ready and well equipped military is much more preferable to a larger ill-prepared force that has been arbitrarily cut across the board.
- "Savings must be achieved in a balanced manor, everything must be on the table including politically sensitive areas that will likely provoke opposition from parts of the Congress, from Industry, and from advocacy groups. That is the nature of making hard choices."
- "We must preserve the quality of the all voluntary force, and not break faith in our men and women in uniform or their families.
-The Emphasis will shift to the Broader Middle East and the Pacific
- maintain its capability across the board
- be smaller and it will be leaner but its greater strength is that it will be more flexible, more agile, ready to be deployed more quickly, innovative, and technologically advanced
-The United States will expand its allies and partners and will invest in NATO
- more of a partnership role like that shown in Libya and Latin America
- emphasis on rotational deployments
- requires greater flexibility to quickly deploy anywhere
- how we defeat the enemy will vary across conflicts
- as a global force our military will never just be responsible for one thing
- better use of diplomacy, development, and security force assistance
- The Army and Marine Corps will no longer need to be sized to support the kind of large scale long term stability operations that have dominated military priorities and forces over the past decade
- increase new technologies: like ISR (Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance) and unmanned systems in space and in cyber space as well as the capacity to quickly mobilize if necessary
-Reversibility in Downsizing Ground Forces
- maintaining a healthy National Guard and Reserve
- maintaining experienced cadre of NCOs and mid-grade officers
- maintaining defense industrial base
- different from the Cold War, the post-cold war of the 1990s, and the forces of the last decade that was built to engage in large scale ground wars
"we invest in new capabilities maintain a decisive military edge against a growing array of threats."
"we will be taking on some level of
additional but acceptable risk."
We will consolidate our duplicative operations and will reduce waste. But budgetary reductions of this magnitude will inevitably effect the size and capabilities of our military.
Conclusion:I believe that in many ways that we are at a crises point but that in every crises there is opportunity. Out of this crises we have the opportunity to end the old ways of doing business and to build a modern army for the 21st century that can win today's wars and successfully confront any enemy and respond to any threat and any challenge for the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)