She was beautiful. She was beautiful in the way that only a 12-year-old boy could understand. Cheap lip gloss. White teeth. Soft hands. A laugh that could lighten up a room. Faint freckles that most people didn’t notice. But I noticed them.

She wrote me a note. As a matter of fact, she was the first girl to ever write me a note. I no longer have it. I don’t even remember what it said. I do remember though that she wrote it on reddish pink notebook paper. Almost magenta like. I remember her penmanship. I remember the way she drew her hearts. It’s funny how sometimes we can only remember the most trivial things like the color of a note, but not the important words that were contained within.

The first time we kissed I was elated. I felt like I never wanted to kiss another girl again. I remember the taste of her lip gloss. I remember the little giggle she let out after as she ran to her dad’s blue Dodge Dakota pickup. I remember feeling so nervous thinking he may have seen us. I remember feeling so excited knowing that I would kiss her again the next day.

Our first dance I was sweating my ass off out of nervousness. I was 13, maybe 14. It was a Hawaiian theme. She looked beautiful. We danced slow. I felt like we were holding each other close close, but when I think about it you could probably fit a semi-truck between us. I never had a problem dancing with other people.

Times change. People change. We mature. We grow apart. We find new people to fill the holes of people we lose.

The last time I kissed her I was 19 years old. It was raining. I told her I would always love her. She told me she loved me too. We never spoke of our confession or the kiss again after that night.

The last time we danced was January 10, 2009. I was 21 years old. I know that because it was my wedding day. We laughed and talked about things I can’t remember. I cannot be certain what she was thinking. However, I know in my mind I felt a moment of sadness. I felt while a new chapter had just been started in my life, another chapter was being closed, this time for good.

Her messages to me always made me feel special. She spoke of missing me. We talked about how we wished we were living closer to one another. She would reach out to me in times of need. I would do the same to her. She became more than a teenage love story from the past. She became a friend. She became the friend you confide in. The friend you knew you could trust in a time of need.

We didn’t always keep in touch like I wanted to. Sometimes I would message her, and it would take days for her to get back to me. Sometimes I wouldn’t always get back to her right away either. It wasn’t intentional or malicious. It’s just how it was.

Her obituary said she had a laugh you could pick out in a crowd. They were right.

I miss her. A part of me will always love her.

Celebrity Worship: Conforming Under Charismatic Clowns

As a man born in nineteen eighty-seven, many could say that I grew up during an exciting time.  As a child I grew up during the evolution of the computer, the coming of the pager/cellphone, and the developments of musical/video distribution. I have watched music and television format transform from cassette, to CD/DVD, all the way into digital format.  As a child of eight I can remember rolling around on my bedroom floor, shredding my air guitar while blaring Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” on cassette, completely unaware of the hidden political messages within.  Later, at the impressionable age of twelve, I would be one of the first to own the album No Strings Attached by NSync as described by Chris Anderson in our text (494). Finally, at the age of fourteen my brother, who was away at college, explained to me over AOL Instant Messenger how to download music off the internet and play it on our “impressive” ten gigabyte hard-drive computer.  Since then laws against music sharing have been put into effect, but music sharing still happens. People still purchase music but much more often in digital format. However, while I feel I grew to appreciate technology and its advancements from an intellectual standpoint, the majority of my peers have become hell bent on using modern technology for keeping up to date on the tween-twerking tweets of the celebrity world. To say that I am disgusted by society’s contemporary pop culture obsession would be an understatement. Still, one must ask the question: Why did we end up here? What changed in humankind that made so many drop their goals of becoming successful in a work environment and opt for the subpar achievement of getting drunk on an international reality show? Why do people live vicariously through celebrities exploits? The answer isn’t a simple one and not one that can be completely answered in a brief essay. However, I believe a large part of it has to do with social norms / conformance, charismatic authority, and technology. We as human beings strive to feel a sense of belonging and desire to be like people we admire. This has been true for almost our entire existence.

            One could trace celebrity admiration back to our Neanderthal heritage.  Undoubtedly our species has always had at least a mild obsession with whom we view as alpha characters within society.  The want and desire for power and respect for leaders has always existed on some sort of level. Overtime mankind evolved and monarchal hierarchies were put into place to establish power, and law. Gossip unquestionably came along and reinforced social connections amongst individuals especially at lower positions within society. In the text book Sociology A Brief Introduction Richard T. Schaefer brings to light another form of authority hypothesized by Max Weber that describes celebrity obsession: charismatic authority. He explains: “The term charismatic authority refers to power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers” (367).  In essence they garner power through inspiration. Society has had many people throughout history that have furthered our way of thinking by taking on a charismatic authoritative role.  Without people like General George Washington, John Adams, Fredrick Douglas, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Martin Luther King Jr., Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates we would not be the society we are today. All of these people are fantastic examples of authority garnered through charisma. While their intentions may not all have always been pure, they essentially built America and shaped ideals and beliefs that we still have today. However, this change happened at a much slower pace due to their lack of technology.  Messages and beliefs couldn’t reach the masses as quickly as they would today.

            In today’s American society you can find almost anyone’s thoughts, values, or beliefs in a matter of a few seconds.  The entire world is connected via a massive web of networks we call the internet.  Due to almost everyone’s feelings of self-importance I find that I am constantly forced to sift through the countless memes and word vomit that plagues web pages everywhere. It seems as if everyone has an opinion, and they cannot wait to defecate it on their social networking site.  I suppose I cannot be overly harsh on my peers though since I own a minority outlook on the situation.  They are after all adhering to their preprogrammed social norms. Jeffery S. Nevid describes social norms in his textbook Psychology Concepts and Applications. He draws on research conducted by Steven Gaulin and Donald McBurney that states “Social norms prescribe behavior that are expected of people in social situations” (533).  In his example he explains, “People are more likely to make a charitable donation when they are asked to do so by a coworker in full view of others than when they receive an appeal in the mail in the privacy of their own homes” (533). Let’s digest this for a moment. Essentially that means you are much more likely to adhere to social norms when in a room of a handful of your coworkers.  Let’s now take that same situation and apply it to social media, a forum where hundreds, maybe even thousands of your acquaintances and friends can interact with your thoughts and have influence on your actions.  It’s no wonder millions of conformists misinform the masses every day with heartfelt fallacies that instruct their readers to re-share or re-blog their fabricated messages. This same science applies to interests within pop culture.  Going back to my hypothesis on the evolution of gossip, what better forum to excrete the irrelevant happenings of modern pop culture celebrities than the internet?    We can now even link directly into the celebrities’ day to day activities by following them on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.  If George Washington were able to tweet the masses about his victory at Yorktown I am sure he would have. Who knows, maybe King George would have even responded with a derogatory comment. Instead we are blessed today with celebrities’ thoughts (many of which, in my opinion are ignorant) on life, love, fashion, and how to be a “better” person. We get to see low quality images of their lunch, with a quirky quote about how they should start serving pizza at church on Sundays instead of some crumby wafer to increase Christianity beliefs. If they offend someone with their obtuse web posts it isn’t a big deal since they can apologize immediately with another web post to their addicted conformist followers. While this may be a far-fetched example, almost anyone can recall reading about some celebrity that offers a formal apology for something they have said. 

            When you link it all together it makes complete sense. It is because of the culmination of charismatic authority, conforming to social norms, and the advancements in technology that people follow celebrities with such vigorous passion. The people of America used to be influenced more so by their parents, religion, and education. As technology grew it started to corner a market in the education industry and even the entertainment industry. People began to use computers for everything from work to play. For some individuals it became their sole existence. Their new methods for learning the things they care come from watching television, and listening to music. In turn they become hooked on the people making the music, and starring in these television broadcasts. They want to become these people. They want to feel that role of being an alpha person in society. They watch The Kardashians, and follow people like Kanye West to deal with their own inadequacies of not becoming a charismatically authoritative person. To reinforce this behavior they adhere to social norms. As they see what their friends conform to and believe they too follow suit.  This behavior is a psychological and sociological format that is the byproduct of thousands of years of evolution and advancement. Unfortunately I view modern celebrity obsession to be a regression of society.

            I feel it is acceptable to have role models even if your role model is someone that you have never met, or will ever meet. Role models give us a starting point. They shape who we want to be and what we want to become.  In some cases, they even grant us guidance on the career paths we want to take.  My issue with society’s obsession with modern celebrities is moralistic. I think many pop culture celebrities reinforce nonproductive behavior and encourage our youth to fall in love with a sublevel standard of living. Being unprofessional or unproductive is “cool” or “comedic” and breaking laws is a romantic way to live in many of their messages.  People can point out that their personal celebrity icons represent what they believe.  However, I can recall a personal account in which I watched a celebrity debate on a political issue on their reality show. Instead of offering up factual or personal evidence to back their beliefs they just continued to hackle their opponent on their level of intellect by saying something along the lines of “Oh my gawd, you’re just so stupid” over and over again.  In my opinion this celebrity did not know anything at all about the political issue at stake, but rather felt they should use their status as a celebrity to their advantage. How on earth could their opponent ever be in the right on this issue when they have no charismatic authority?  When people use their “holier than thou” celebrity status as a means for argument they abuse their charismatic authority in the same way a tyrant would.  The time has come for us as humans to formulate our own opinions and ideas. If not, I believe America will fall behind as a society.

            In conclusion I think it is important for us all to remember what matters in life.  It is important for us to focus on our similarities and how we have developed overtime. However, it is also important for us to continue to progress our way of thinking. I am not saying that the tweens of today that idolize their pop culture icons cannot one day solve our nation’s problems.  I am saying however, that they will have to develop a new way of thinking, and one that goes beyond a desire to attain international social status. They need to not be afraid of being an individual, and abandon their pop culture conformance way of thinking. I think our thirty-fifth president said it best when he made the statement “Conformity is the jailer of freedom, and the enemy of growth.” Be proud of who you are and what you can do. “Because “Today you are you! That’s truer than true! There is no one alive that’s you-er than you! –Theodor Geisel

                                                                            Works Cited

.

Anderson, Chris. “The Rise and Fall of the Hit.” The Bedford Reader. Ed. X. J. Kennedy, Dorothy M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron. 11^th ed. Boston: Bedford, 2012. 494. Print.

Nevid, Jeffery S. Psychology Concepts and Applications. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2013. 533.          Print.

Schaefer, Richard T. Sociology a Brief Introduction. 9^th ed. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 2011.           367. Print.

“The Great Abomination in American Society”

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (The Catholic Bible, Leviticus 18.22). As a young catholic boy going through my weekly two hour long sessions in hopes of one day being confirmed and fully recognized as an adult within the church, I must say I have no recollection of ever focusing on this passage within the Old Testament during my religious classes. However, in today’s society that verse is used over and over again amongst conservatives and religious individuals everywhere. For whatever reason they do not focus on Deuteronomy, or other “off the wall” verses about sexual conduct within Leviticus. It is almost always Leviticus 18:22. Throughout the Old Testament many verses seemingly condone rape, murder, and polygamy. I can remember being slightly fascinated by the Old Testament and all of its gory glory while reading it during unexciting liturgies about that New Testament “goodie-two-shoes” Jesus.  After becoming a “confirmed” catholic I moved on to high school, which was a different form of education that could seemingly thwart any person’s religious ideals.  I started to develop my own opinions based upon science and my own personal interactions with others.  I later joined the United States Air Force which truly helped shape me into the person I am today, but again based largely upon my own personal insight. Somewhere during that time though, something changed. I became agnostic. For me The Bible couldn’t be real, because logically it didn’t make sense. Following my same logic there had to be some sort of “ultimate creator” though because in order for something to exist something else had to exist to create it. Regardless, I could no longer be another “sheep” in the flock. I could not believe that homosexuals were evil or hold views of homosexuals as substandard citizens that are refused the same rights as everyone else. There are many arguments against homosexual marriage, some of which are valid in my opinion, and some of which are not. While the validity of these claims is centered on people’s beliefs and morals, I want to ask you, the reader to open your mind and “Know this, my dear brothers: everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath” (James 1.19).

            Recently, I read a profound online article by Peter Sprigg entitled “Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal”.  Within this article Sprigg makes many valid points in regards to the fallout related to homosexual marriage.  In my opinion, the most valid argument he makes is the ability for same sex married couples to collect government benefits. Under current laws spouses are eligible to collect social security survivor benefits. He explains “(t)he fact that Social Security survivors benefits were intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from a former employer has not kept homosexuals from demanding the benefit.”  Next, he explains the fact that taxpayers would be forced to pay for homosexual government employee’s health insurance along with their dependents. In regards to these benefits he states “Never mind that "dependents" were, when the tax code was developed, assumed to be children and stay-at-home mothers.” Now I challenge you the reader to research the United States of America Tax Code. If you do, you will find it is the one of the most complex, and in many cases unfair documents ever created in American history. Even former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman admitted that the 14,000 page tax code is so complex he uses someone to help him prepare his taxes. The point is that Sprigg’s issue in this argument is not with homosexual marriage. His issue is with our government and its laws on benefits to married couples. The fact that he brings up these laws were put in place to help stay at home moms is definitely an excellent observation. In many married families today regardless of sexual preference both spouses are working and able to receive these benefits. America has always (for whatever reason) given people incentives to be married. I feel this should not be the case.  As a government employee my family uses the health insurance provided to us by the military. The fact that I am in a heterosexual marriage is irrelevant.

            Another valid issue that Sprigg brings to light is the idea that freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.  In this argument he explains that religious liberty is more than just ritual: “It applies not only to formal houses of worship, but to para-church ministries, religious educational and social service organizations, and individual believers trying to live their lives in accordance with their faith not only at church, but at home, in their neighborhoods, and in the workplace.”  While I do not agree with the tax codes’ current benefits it gives to state religious organizations, I do agree with Sprigg in the sense that the government should not impede on the rights of business owners. As an independent my political ideals often find themselves neither travelling too far to the left or right. One of my feelings is that business should be allowed to operate their business as they see fit. That is the power of the free market. Personally I would be disgusted by a business that would not sell their product to homosexuals or other minorities. In turn, I would not shop there. The business too would be losing money by turning away possible patrons found within these minorities. Again, this is still an issue that Sprigg has with the government laws emplaced to prevent discrimination. His lack of empathy for homosexuals are based upon his feelings, and laws should never be governed by emotion. Unfortunately in today’s society people often lack this logic.

            The last argument from Sprigg I will debate upon is the conservative horrifying view that homosexual marriage will lead to a demand for legalized polygamy.  The irony laced within his text is humorous. On one hand it is obvious that his ideals come from a Christian background.  Undoubtedly he has quoted Leviticus 18:22 at some point in is lifetime. Is he not aware that polygamy is common in the bible? All throughout the Old Testament (the book Leviticus is in) polygamy is expressed commonly. Genesis, Chronicles, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus all speak about how common polygamy was in the bible, even amongst prophets. It is also scientific fact that polygamy has existed extensively historically. While The New Testament is known to condemn polygamy, it also does not condemn homosexual relations anywhere, so why stick to The Old Testament in regards to anti-homosexual beliefs?   Katha Pollitt points out in her article “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?” that “marriage as we understand it – voluntary, monogamous, legally egalitarian, based on love, involving adults only – is a pretty recent phenomenon. For much of ancient history, polygyny was the rule” (571).  The common argument people hear is that ways have changed since then.  Of which I reply they are right. Ways have changed, and views on homosexuality should change too.

            Another argument that has been plaguing homosexual marriage rights is a view best outlined by Charles Colson. While Sprigg outlines this same argument in his article, Colson describes his argument in what can only be viewed as a textbook description of logical fallacy. In Colson’s argument (and many like it) he provides us with several disturbing statistics about broken homes, juvenile delinquents, rapists, murders, and ties all of this in with the fact that they never had a father (577). Essentially he is saying homosexual parents lack the ability to play both roles within child rearing. To make this assumption is obtuse and definitely qualifies as a “hasty generalization.”  The fact is that it is difficult to study actual outcomes of homosexual parenting because there are so few of them. While some research has been conducted, the data is often conflicting and misleading depending on who is presenting it. It is important to ask yourself regardless of the data being presented: Can we allow people to make their own choices in this country both good and bad, so long as they are not physically or financially hurting anyone? I think the answer is yes, and it always has been yes. We do not outlaw single parenting, bad parenting (except in cases of abuse/neglect), and we should not outlaw gay marriage because it can lead to the possibilities of homosexuals parenting children. 

            As I wrap things up I want to tell you that I do not think homosexual marriage is a simple issue to tackle. However, it is a human right that should be afforded to those that wish to attain it. Marriage is an institution that was created by man, and it has evolved throughout history. Unfortunately, we live in a country that encourages its people to get married by affording married couples benefits.  Add to that the distribution of misinformation, emotional ties of religion, and the constant feelings of self-entitlement within this country and anyone can see why this is such a heated debate in today’s society. As I said earlier though, it is important to not let people’s emotions govern this country. If we as Americans can remove human emotion and focus on laws that prevent physical, or financial harm instead of “hurt feelings” I think we would have a pretty good start. By allowing people to make their own choices, live their own lives, love who they want to love, and believe what they want to believe we will truly become a country of freedom. The only real great abomination in our society is denying individuals the same rights as others regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.  And while I do not agree with religion in most aspects, I think we can all agree Jesus said it right in his second greatest commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22.39).

             

             

Works Cited

.

Colson, Charles. “Gay “Marriage”: Societal Suicide.” The Bedford Reader. Ed. X. J. Kennedy,            Dorothy M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron. 11^th ed. Boston: Bedford, 2012. 576-578. Print.

Kellard, James. "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal." Gay Marriage. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit:            Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Do We Have a Constitutional Right to Ban    Gay Marriage?" 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

Pollitt, Katha. “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?” The Bedford Reader. Ed. X. J. Kennedy,  Dorothy M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron. 11^th ed. Boston: Bedford, 2012. 570-572. Print

Sprigg, Peter. "Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal." Gay Marriage. Ed. Debra A. Miller.        Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex     Marriage." Family Research Council, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16       Apr. 2015

The Catholic Bible. Personal Study Edition. Ed. Jean Marie Hiesberger. Oxford University Press.        1995. Print.