On manufactured entertainment

More and more, I find myself bombarded by "drama" that is 100% manufactured. The media insists upon shoving down my throat some crap that is only "good" because they say it's "good."

Consider the reality TV craze. We are given the impression that many of these shows take everyday folks like you and me and challenges them in a unique way; we are also given the impression that these people are acting as they normally would in their everyday lives were these challenges and circumstances to arise.

Bullshit, I say. Do the creators of these shows mean to tell me that the casting directors don't intentionally choose the most belligerent, irritating, attention-starved, easily-manipulated, stupid, offensive people they can find? They don't intentionally choose groups of people who will not mesh? Do the creators of these shows mean to imply that the behavior of these people is in no way effected by the fact that they're on camera? That the directors and crew are giving them subtle suggestions on how to behave?

And what about the manufactured obstacles the competitors deal with on these shows (when there is a competition)? Does it seem a bit unusual that business people should be forced to write a jingle in one day? Perhaps not a task they would face in reality? In their everyday lives, is it a reality that these contestants regularly find themselves chasing clues that take them across the globe? Is it common in their reality to have to vote who among them should be eliminated/ killed/ eaten?

Moreover, why are there four versions of the exact same show on, often at the exact same time? The "Celebrity judges and some angry Brit judge your talent" show (AKA "American Idol," "So You Think You Can Dance," "America's Got Talent," "The One: Making a Music Star," etc.) needs to go. Why do the networks make it their strategy to air the exact same show as counter-programming? Wouldn't it be prudent for at least one of the networks to recognize that if people are changing the channel from "American Idol," it's safe to say that they might very well detest that kind of shit?

Perhaps the worst part of these shows, though, is that the contestants on them sincerely believe that this is their big break. They believe that this show will launch their careers as the next Madonna/ Prince/ whoever the hell it is they want to be. What they fail to realize is that after the season's over, the network execs are going to stick to the contract; beyond they, they will not lift a finger. They only gave a shit about you because you brought them ratings; they don't care about your music/ screaming/ juggling career. Not unless, of course, that is the entire purpose of their show.

Enter Cheyenne. Now, I've never had the stomach to sit through an entire episode of this show, but as far as I can tell, the thing that makes this girl special, that makes her deserving of her own reality TV show is that she has her own reality TV show. The premise of the show is, "Let's see if a girl who meets all the basic criteria of being a popstar -- young, pretty, decent voice, etc. -- can succeed when MTV bends over backwards to see to it that it happens. You know what? I have a similar experiment. Let's see if, given a jet-pack, a 9/10th mile headstart, and a loaded pistol, I can run the mile faster than Olympic runners. Oh, and if they're about to pass me, I can shoot them.

The only way I could be more insulted by being force-fed is if Paris Hilton had a song that the radio insisted on playing.

Oh, Dear Lord.

On Stem Cell Research

I figured a light-hearted non-contraversial everyone-can-agree sort of post was the way to start this off. If you haven't heard about it, but the cave you live in connects to ARPAnet, you can learn more about it here.
In the name of Jeebus, our beloved president yesterday vetoed the stem cell research bill. This bill would have legalized the research that is currently (among the foremost scientists in the world) believed to hold the cures to such diseases as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and many others.

Some argue that stem cells are human beings, and that using them for research is the taking of innocent human life. They argue that a stem cell has just as much right to life as you, me, or Crazypants McGee. They argue that to use stem cells in such a way is "murder".

I cannot enumerate all the reasons these arguments are deeply flawed, but here are a few big ones:

• I have yet to see proof that stem cells are "human." Don't get me wrong; I don't doubt that they have the same DNA as a human being, nor do I doubt that they are they have the potential to grow into a human being. What I do doubt is that stem cells have the same rights as what we traditionally think of as human beings.
  A thought experiment: you're trapped in a burning building. In the room with you is a rack of test tubes filled with thousands of stem cells. After you begin to lose consciousness from the smoke inhalation, a firefighter bursts in through the previously-stuck door. He steps over you, hoists the rack up on his shoulders, and in so doing saves hundreds of human lives. The fireman is lauded as a hero; in a building with hundreds of human beings in it, all but one were saved from the fire.
  Ask yourself: do I find the outcome of this story ludicrous? If so, you may be a regular human being with logical thinking patterns. If not, you may be a 700 Club nutjob.
• I have not seen any proof, either, that stem cells have rights. As a matter of fact, as far as I can tell, the only right for which stem cells currently have protection is the protection from being studied for the betterment of mankind.
• Finally, based on the previous two observations, I would argue that there is no proof that the experiments in question are murder. Murder: the illegal, immoral killing of another human being. Human being? No proof. Illegal? Well, that's what we're discussing. Immoral? Well, if you're a non-nutjob, and like me you believe that stem cells are, in fact, a tiny clump of cells with as much of a soul as the cells lining your stomach, then likely you believe that it is not immoral either. Barring even one of those three, there is no murder. Barring all three? Not even the motion of murder.

I wonder about the people who weep for the souls of those clumps of cells. Do they weep when, while defecating, the scrape from the wall of their anuses cell capable of "precious human life"?

Truly, the only distinguishing feature of stem cells (as opposed to other types of cells) is that they can develop other types cells. While that is indeed a very rare ability among cells, it is by no means proof of ensoulment, humanity, or any other kind of life-rights.

It is my sincere hope, reader, that with the acquisition of the ability to parse letters into words and words into sentences, you have also acquired the ability to make observations for yourself. The observation I ask you to make this time is that this is a non-issue, and it's being spun. It's being spun so that the Republicans can cling to what's left of the Right Wing Christian vote. It's being spun so that Bush can have some chance of winning back his fellow party members after his first non-moronic policy suggestion (immigration) since he was sworn in as President. It's being spun so that the news media has a story; they do best when there's two, easily-distinguishable groups who are very angry at one another.

Most importantly, though, this story is being spun to insult our collective intelligence. Truly, I'm insulted.