Lady GaGa > Ke$ha

What's really the difference between Lady GaGa and Ke$ha? Both have numerous songs that describe endless, wild parties, both dress pretty crazy (who could forget GaGa's meat suit or Ke$ha's 'tribal' neon paint job?), and both have massive, largely youth followings. Ostensibly, both just seem like your typical, run of the mill, party girl pop stars, with not a whole lot distinguishing one from the other.

Obviously, I disagree with that. While Ke$ha is definitely just another wild child starlet, Lady GaGa is  a lot more than just party music and crazy clothes. Lady GaGa is one of very few stars who effectively uses her celebrity for the greater good. Among the issues she's tackled are homelessness, HIV/AIDS, and the earthquake aftermath in Haiti. In fact, by some measures, she was 2010's most charitable celebrity.

But it's not just about her charitable donations; pretty much every celebrity donates to charity if for nothing else than PR brownie points. The thing that really sets Lady GaGa apart not only from Ke$ha, but from pretty much all celebrities, though, is her ability to spur new, refreshing conversations about important issues. She wears bizarre clothes and makes bizarre statements, but to create dialogue about the issue surrounding what she's saying, not her world tour or who designed her outfit. Unlike Ke$ha who uses her eccentric nature to draw attention to herself, GaGa's outlandish ways are her tools to foster social change and equality for the otherwise ignored. GaGa gives agency to those the present social agenda glosses over when they're not exactly in vogue. I mean, really, when is homelessness ever considered a pressing issue in the celebrity activist world, especially since it's far more glamorous to take pictures with babies in Africa?

GaGa's also unique in her use of her music to challenge pop culture to be more inclusive and kind to everyone. Now that's not just to say that her music is widely accessible, because that's nothing unusual. What's different about GaGa is the way her lyrics actually mean something to both the cheerleader and the band kid, the homecoming queen and the outcast (please excuse the petty high school stereotypes, they were just to make a point). A shining example of this is her new single "Born This Way," which preaches, in a nutshell, that you're perfect exactly the way you are. And though that's a pretty common message, no one proclaims it better than the one-and-only GaGa.

So let's recap. Ke$ha and Lady GaGa both dress, act, and sing pretty crazily, but that's where the similarities end. GaGa gives a damn about a lot more than partying and fitting into some stereotypical, rebellious pop star mold; she speaks up about social issues with creative means (ARE YOU LIIISTENING?) and her lyrics seek to include everybody, while handily avoiding being generic. Seriously, what really distinguishes Ke$ha from Britney's "Slave 4 U" romp or Christina's "Dirrty" phase?

Ke$ha is bound to last as long as she can get away with brushing her "teeth with a bottle of Jack," so to speak, but GaGa's movement (it's naïve to say it's anything less than that now) is far more than just drinking and partying; and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

But that's just what I think.

OBieberCare

I'm not quite sure why I chose the title for this post since it's a play on words for a term so often used to the detriment of a historic bill that I vehemently support. Plus it's not even that clever. So please excuse the pun, I thought of it and kind of got stuck on it so here it is.

Anyway, last week the most adorable guy on the planet gave an interview in Rolling Stone. This courageous little cutie tackled social and political issues that most politicians won't even briefly comment on. One of these issues was the flawed American healthcare system. When asked if he'd ever become an American citizen Bieber said:

""You guys are evil," he jokes. "Canada's the best country in the world." He adds, "We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home.""


While I loved his take on such a heated issue, it was not so well-received across the board. Last Friday on CNN, radio host Pete Dominick said that "he shouldn't be commenting on politics...he's 16, what does he know about the world?" Basically, these issues are much to complicated for JB to tackle given his less-advanced knowledge on them (again, because he's 16); and I couldn't disagree more.


The problem is actually pretty simple: people, like Biebs' bodyguard, go broke through no fault of their own because they can't pay for healthcare. In a country that put a man on the moon before anyone else could (and during a tumultuous time in our history, too!), that just doesn't seem right. In my mind, people should be able to go to the doctor if they're sick, get treated, and move on with their lives-without having to stress over medical bills.


It doesn't really matter if it's socialism (it's not, by the way) or the government infringing upon your freedoms (it isn't that either, you can choose your healthcare provider according to HR 3200). What matters is that people need affordable healthcare, and that's not going to happen without some serious government help. So the GOP can continue to claim the unconstitutionality of the bill all they want because people like me, Biebs, and my other level-minded comrades will defend it to the last blog post, editorial, town hall, petition, and election. And ya know, it's easy to defend the status quo when it works for you, it's not quite as easy to consider the well-being of others.


But that's just what I think.

MTV's Mixed Messages

It’s no surprise that Teen Mom 2 is giving MTV some pretty big ratings and has definitely opened up dialogue on an increasingly important issue. Teen pregnancy is a pretty big problem in this country so it’s certainly something on which people need to be educated; and the show provides a unique, up-close and personal perspective on said problem.

But at what cost?

A huge viewer demographic, intentional or not, is bound to be teenage girls (with a title like Teen Mom how could it not appeal to teenage girls?), and it’s common knowledge that teenage girls are highly impressionable. So while MTV might intend for the stories of its stars to be cautionary tales, that’s not necessarily how its young, impressionable audience might take them. As a matter of fact, I know that’s not how they always interpret the show. My cousin told me about a 13 year-old girl (13 years-old!) who, after watching the show, said she wanted to have a baby and name it Bentley after Maci’s, a character from the first season, son. Odds are that this girl isn’t alone in having these kinds of ideas.

And if MTV really wanted to send a clear message that teen pregnancy is not a good situation, then why would they glorify the behavior that often ends in pregnancy by advertising their new series Skins during the show’s commercial breaks? Ads for Skins appeared on nearly every commercial break before the show’s debut on January 17 and still appear frequently during Teen Mom 2. What kind of message does this send? “Look at how hard these young girls’ lives are with children for 7 or 8 minutes, then see how fun drinking, partying, and hooking up with boys can be in this commercial!”

I applaud MTV for shedding light on a tough issue that’s so often overlooked as just a ‘parenting problem’ rather than a sociocultural (now there’s a CCP word) problem. At the same time, however, they have to acknowledge the influence their shows have over their young, vulnerable audiences and absolutely have to be responsible about it. I watched MTV (TRL specifically) almost every day after school growing up, starting when I was as young as 10 or 11; and I clung to every word they said about being a ‘cool’ teenager (thankfully I have long since grown out of that, hence the nerdy title of this blog). It’s hard to imagine that girls today are much different.

So please MTV, be careful with your power of influence over young girls. Send a clear message that teen pregnancy is not a good thing.

But that’s just what I think.

Black and White, with Shades of Gray...

Abortion. Perhaps the most controversial and provocative word presently in the English language. The current discourse would have you think it’s a black and white issue: you’re either for it or against it. Left or right, right or wrong.

Unfortunately this is exactly the type of dialogue that has led to the ideological stalemate in which we currently find ourselves. Until now it was easy for someone who considers themselves to be a shade of gray in this debate to ignore the static and focus on more pressing issues. It is no longer static, however, since House Republicans introduced a bill this week in order to limit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions for rape victims that essentially re-defines rape. According to these refreshingly sensitive experts we call Congressmen “rape is only rape if it involves force.”

Now wait a minute. Rape is characterized by lack of consent, meaning one person says “no” to another person’s sexual advances; or is not in a mental state that enables them to give consent; or is not of the consenting age. Therefore, ALL rape involves force, regardless of whether or not broken bones and/or bruises are present in the aftermath.

While the intent of the bill, as stated, is to further limit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions to exclude cases of rape without “force,” its implications are potentially far greater. Rape is already one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute, but what if a federal law is enacted that, in effect, creates two very hazy definitions of rape? (Congressmen Chris Smith-R-N.J., who introduced the bill, and his other 172 mostly Republican co-sponsors have offered no clear definition of “forcible rape”) How exactly is a judge supposed to punish a perpetrator of this heinous crime when there exists a federal law that further complicates precisely what it is that constitutes rape? If a rape victim can’t use federal funds to pay for an abortion if the rape wasn’t ‘forcible,’ then is that rape less traumatizing, and thus warrants less jail time for the offender? Is this really the way we want to treat victims of an extremely painful, harrowing crime-telling them their rape wasn’t ‘forcible?’

And let’s not forget-these women are victims. Having thankfully not been a victim of rape myself, I cannot even begin to imagine what they are going through. As a result, I would never try and tell an impregnated rape victim what she should do with her precarious situation. It’s easy for me to say that I could never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong-I’ve never been faced with such horrible circumstances. I doubt it’s as easy for a rape victim to say the same thing. So like I said, I would never try to tell them what is best for their healing, nor would I support a law that limits their ability to decide for themselves.

A rape victim’s decision is between her and her god, not me, and sure as hell not Congress.

Besides, doesn’t Christianity teach that only God can judge His people? I’m not condoning abortion here, all I’m saying is that in these situations people should think really carefully before they judge a really sensitive issue.

But that’s just what I think.




*This entry was written on 2/2/11 and the next morning the "forcible rape" language was removed from the bill. I decided to still post it, however, because I think the overall issues I raise in this post are still relevant (and are likely to be for awhile).