Fictional Villains Who Kind of Had a Point

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

Image

In fiction, villains are figures we’re not supposed to sympathize with and are mostly no good since they’re usually the main obstacle in the hero’s goal. Sometimes they’re evil personified but other times they could just be evil overlords serving as dragons to a higher power, very selfish people who don’t give a shit about anyone else, or just an adversary. And of course, villains tend to do bad things to make sure he or she gets his or her way and doesn’t care who gets hurt. Many of times these villains tend to have inherently evil motivations or ones that are at least misguided. However, though some of them might not have done things that might not be good, some of them tend to have motivations that seem rather complex and somewhat justified. They just probably tried to accomplish it the wrong way.

1. The Wicked Witch of the West

From: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)

Why She’s Evil: The Wicked Witch of the West basically spends the entire time trying to pursue and kill Dorothy because she’s wearing her ruby slippers as well as killed her sister as well as conquer Oz and does whatever she can to get them such as throwing a ball of fire, sending the flying monkeys, enchanting the poppy fields, and threatens the Scarecrow with fire. She’s also a pretty menacing figure who strikes fear into Dorothy and her friends. It’s easy to see why the Wizard and Glinda wanted her dead.

Why She has a Point: Aside from wanting to conquer Oz bit, the Wicked Witch of the West does sort of have a reasonable motivation for the slippers and wanting to kill Dorothy to get them off her. For one, the slippers couldn’t be removed while Dorothy was still alive. Second, the ruby slippers belonged to her sister which she probably was supposed to get but Glinda basically put the slippers on Dorothy’s feet upon the latter’s arrival in Oz via tornado. And the Wicked Witch of the West wasn’t even consulted on the whole thing. The fact that Dorothy ends up accidentally caught up in this as her adversary which compels the Wicked Witch of the West to focus all her energies on is what makes her the villain. Also, the Wizard is pretty much a phony while Glinda was just using Dorothy as a pawn so she can control Oz herself since she made the girl go all the way to Oz when she just could’ve tap the ruby slippers in the beginning which would’ve solved everything. This sort of makes Glinda the bigger villain since she may not have the kind of motivation The Wicked Witch of the West did.

2. Madame Defarge

From: A Tale of Two Cities

Why She’s Evil: She’s a bloodthirsty French revolutionary who is all to happy to inflict violence and anti-royalist sentiment however way she can. Politics aside, she also puts the climate of the French Revolution to her advantage such as her everlasting hatred for the noble Evermonde family and her obsessive desire to see Charles Darnay guillotined. Not to mention, she almost gets her way with that when Darnay and his companions return. I mean almost.

Why She Has a Point: Madame Defarge has every reason to hate the Evermonde family since Dickens goes to great lengths to show that this family is a pretty nasty bunch who even Charles Darnay doesn’t even want to do with (since he basically changed his name and moved to a different country to get away from them). Not to mention, Dr. Manette basically denounced the clan while in prison at the Bastille. The fact that Madame Defarge is a peasant may be enough to justify her hatred for the Evermonde but her hatred for that bunch is even more personal than that as well as dates back to her childhood. The real reason? She witnessed her mother being raped by Darnay’s father and uncle, which was also the incident that put Dr. Manette in prison since he was the guy treating her. Not to mention, the Evermonde twins were never brought to justice and probably died peacefully. Still, the fact that Charles Darnay is the last living Evermonde she knows, Madame Defarge is determined to have him pay dearly for his family’s sins as a scapegoat. On the other hand, while Dr. Manette hates the Evermondes every bit as much as Madame Defarge, he’s willing to see Charles Darnay as the person he is and lets him live in his house and marry his daughter.

3. Heathcliff

From: Wuthering Heights

Why he’s Evil: Heathcliff basically makes life hell for most of the characters involved by buying Wuthering Heights and makes Hindley’s life a living hell as well as takes advantage of his alcoholism. Also, though he may be a self-made man, we never know how he got the money. Not to mention, he marries Isabella Linton out of spite for Cathy for dumping him and Edgar for marrying the only person in his life who doesn’t make him look like a psychopath. And he treats Isabella like shit as well as well as curses everyone in the room when Cathy dies which sort of makes Wuthering Heights haunted ever since. Basically he’s a complete bastard and Cathy and him might have had the same dad.

Why He Has a Point: Heathcliff probably wouldn’t be the asshole he became if Cathy’s old man didn’t die when he did. It’s perhaps plausible that Heathcliff’s love for Cathy as obsessive and destructive it is, is perhaps the only redeeming quality he has. The fact that Cathy’s father died pretty early on pretty much sets Heathcliff off a course to infamy led by Hindley’s bullying, Linton’s class prejudice, and Cathy’s rejection of him. And Heathcliff pretty much has a good reason to treat Hindley the way he did when he returns to Wuthering Heights. Heathcliff might not have been a sweet kid but he certainly wouldn’t have turned out as bad as he did if he had a decent adult in his life who might have given him the parental guidance he surely needed. The fact he’s the bad guy is that he’s all doing his deeds in revenge for bad treatment and not being seen as good enough for the world around him.

Image

4. King Richard III (or Richard, Duke of Glouchester)

From: Richard III

Why He’s Evil: Well, if we’re to credit Shakespeare, he basically knocks off Lady Anne’s father and previous husband as well as tries to marry her which he does over the man’s corpse. Not to mention, he’s a complete bastard who later poisons his wife, drowns his brother in a vat of wine, and knocks off two of his nephews in the Tower of London so he could have the crown for himself. Evil man indeed.

Why He Has a Point: For one, Richard III was a real historical figure who probably not as bad as Shakespeare said he was or no worse than any other medieval king at the time. Not to mention, Shakespeare wrote he play during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I so it probably isn’t nearly 50% accurate given the guy who defeated him was the Queen’s grandfather. Though a great work of literature, it’s also historic propaganda. Also, though Richard III did take the throne from his nephews and put them in the Tower of London, he simply did it by stating the fact that Edward IV was engaged to another woman at the time he married their mom which not only serves as grounds of illegitimacy but also was perfectly legal at the time. Plus, the boys were children (and England had boy-kings before with disastrous results) and he was basically running the country anyway. Many people in his place would’ve done the same thing, especially during the Middle Ages. Oh, and there’s the fact that he also had his other nephews and nieces including five of Edward IV’s daughters (including Elizabeth of York who married Henry VII and was Elizabeth I’s grandmother) and two of George of Clarence’s kids as well. And there are no Tower stories about them either maybe because many of them were women and he didn’t off them but still. Not to mention, he might not have been responsible for killing the Princes in the Tower. However, the main reason why he’s depicted as a villain is that he was the last king of of a royal dynasty (who usually ends up having a bad reputation) and the fact his death brought the end of the Wars of the Roses and the beginning of the Tudors in England. Also, the fact he seized the throne also counts as well. Sure Richard III might have been bad, but he might have just as been a victim of circumstance.

5. Raoul Silvia

From: Skyfall

Why He’s Evil: For one, he basically a James Bond villain who kills a bunch of people as well as destroys MI-6 headquarters via hacking through the computers. Oh, and he has a massive beef with M and sort of gets even James Bond to question whether his own boss has his best interests.

Why He Has a Point: Face it, compared to most James Bond villains, Raoul actually has a good excuse to make M’s life a living hell, even if his actions aren’t entirely justified. I mean he used to be an agent for MI-6 as well as one of the best and M was probably the closest thing he ever had to a mom (since most recruits at MI-6 were orphans). Not to mention, James Bond sort of views M the same way. Still, how would you feel if you were tortured to the point of insanity severe facial deformity and later learned that you were left for dead by your own boss? Sure M was only doing her job but it really hit Raoul pretty hard that someone he cared for like that would ever betray him. In any case, Raoul has every reason to be angry with her, but maybe not to the point of doing what he did.

6. Stanley Kowalksi

From: A Streetcar Named Desire

Why He’s Evil: Basically he’s an abusive jerk who beats his pregnant wife and treats her sister like an unwelcome guest the whole entire time. Oh, and he basically rapes Blanche to the point of insanity on the night of her birthday, right after he takes his wife to the hospital in labor. Also, he sabotages Blanche’s relationship with Mitch as well as is a selfish man and all around hyper aggressive brute.

Why He Has a Point: By no means, do I find much sympathy with this bastard of a man. Yet, you have to have some understanding with him since anyone would probably not like if their wife’s sister suddenly turned up at their doorstep after little communication for years. Oh, and it’s pretty obvious that Stanley doesn’t know her that well in the beginning but he does his research. Also, he’s basically one of the characters of the whole thing who’s quick to point out Blanche’s rather unpleasant qualities such as that she doesn’t care for him being a Pole, after Belle Reve was lost she moonlighted as a prostitute at some seedy motel which she was kicked out of, drove her husband to suicide after she discovered him having an affair with another man, and being fired from her teaching job for having sex with a seventeen-year-old boy. Not to mention, she’s basically staying with Stella because she has nowhere else to go and has been going to great lengths to conceal her checkered past. Sure Stanley was no saint by any means nor had any right to rape her, but Blanche was certainly not one either. Not to mention, raping vulnerable and mentally unstable woman seems more terrible than having questionable consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old, as far as post WWII America was concerned.

7. Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus

From: The Pink Panther series

Why He’s Evil: Basically went nuts and not only tried to kill Inspector Clouseau multiple times but also tried to destroy an entire country out of angry at being lied to about Clouseau’s assassination as well as whereabouts at one point or another. And he tried to pull that off pretty treacherously as a matter of fact.

Why He Has a Point: Because he’s Inspector Clouseau’s boss and later replaces him once he ends up in the madhouse. Not to mention, Clouseau is such an idiot and borderline incompetent that he basically gets through on cases despite his own stupidity and it’s pretty apparent that he’s the one who drives Dreyfus over the edge but not intentionally though. Clouseau can drive just about anyone familiar with him crazy. Still, what makes Dreyfus a villain is that he wants Clouseau dead and is willing to kill him, instead of maybe simply firing him or getting him transferred like most people would.

In Iowa, the Blind Can Buy a Gun, Take Aim, and Fire

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

There are probably plenty of people who shouldn’t own a gun, not just blind people. Still, it’s pretty logical why we shouldn’t issue gun permits for people who can’t even see. As a side note, Michigan and Texas are the only two states that allow blind people to hunt. While blind people in Texas are required to have a sighted companion, a blind person in Michigan can hunt alone. Still, involving the blind on gun issues tends to border on a level of silliness more than anything.

Why Modesty Doesn’t Prevent Being Objectified

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

As a young woman, I’m thoroughly aware that people are going to notice me by the way I dress as well as be told how I should dress in public in order to divert unwanted attention from the opposite sex whose lustful feelings I may entice which might put me in a terrible situation. Still, I’m also aware of the way the media objectifies women in the way that is unhealthy for young girls which I highly object to. Sure I’m aware how the media tells girls that wearing scantily outfits makes them look attractive but I know that the media’s agenda is to make money but portraying women in the media is an entirely different story. Besides, I never really follow fashion trends nor place my appearance as a high priority, at least not above my brains, health, or personality. I may want people to respect me but I want them to do so because I’m a human being regardless what I wear or how I look in public. However, though I think the way women are shown in the media is a great concern, many of these conservative groups blame the 1960s as to why we keep showing women as objects and so provocatively as well. Not to mention, they tell girls that if they cover up, people will respect them and they will not draw unwanted attention from guys who want nothing to do with them. Yet, though modesty does have a place in society, it’s not going to prevent women and girls being objectified which is the result of some bigger problem of society as a whole which has roots way before 1960s ever swept the world.

1. Objectification of women has been prevalent throughout history-When conservatives talk about the objectification of women, they usually use the 1960s as a starting point since that the era of the Sexual Revolution, feminism, rock n’ roll, and the miniskirt. However, like most aspects of life during the 1960s, objectification of women didn’t start in the 1960s, it was just the time when people noticed the trend and saw it as problematic.  Even so, while many people link objectification of women as an unfortunate side affect of women’s liberation, it is not and never has. Namely the reason why we start seeing this is that people in the media just used feminism and the Sexual Revolution as an excuse to depict women as more scantily clad and sexual in ways they couldn’t do otherwise. And this was all for money since sex has always sold and many guys thought that portraying women this way would make them look like they were supporting female empowerment when in fact, they weren’t. Also note that the people behind these kind of ideas were men. Feminism doesn’t just mean women having sexual freedom, but also freedom to be treated as human beings to the same degree as men are, despite their flaws or other unlikeable qualities. Still, the notion of depicting women as objects while prevalent as ever today didn’t start with feminism, but rather is a notion as old as perhaps civilization itself, maybe even earlier than that. Throughout history, women have not only been treated as objects to be bought and sold but also used to fulfill men’s needs. In stories they were seen as prizes to be won, as ornaments to be adorned, as idols to be worshiped, and even as decoration to entice people to buy some sort of product. Yes, women have been objectified throughout history, always being told to concentrate on their looks in order to be attractive as well as respectable and be good to their loved ones unconditionally, while their voices, needs, and desires don’t matter. And what these women wore didn’t make any difference since being objectified doesn’t require a person to be scantily clad. Still, there were also plenty of people who spoke out on it then as well, including women.

2. Appearance doesn’t always affect chances of getting attention- Sure it’s a given that everyone is going to judge a person by their appearance, especially a woman. And it’s also a given that we will all draw unwanted attention to ourselves in one way or another, sometimes based on what we wear, but most of the time not. Sometimes a woman would receive unwanted attention because guys simply find her attractive or whatever. Sure she may turn men’s heads while prancing around in a miniskirt but she’s just as likely to do the same in sweatpants but while some may get distracted, most of them probably won’t go any further than ogle or mildly harass her until she’s out of their sight or at least try to concentrate on what they’re doing. Some men may think about asking her out but  few would ever think of actually doing anything to her that she didn’t want. If any of those guys did try to harass or assault her, then it’s their fault not hers. Some people think that women’s clothing choices are dependent on the chances of receiving unwanted attention, while in reality, there’s no correlation between the two whatsoever. To say so is an insult to men as well since they are said to be unable to control their sexual urges as well as an insult to say that women are responsible for them and must cover up to protect themselves. If that notion was true then the Middle East would have a low rate of rape incidents and marital fidelity would be almost nonexistent. Men certainly can control their sexual urges and do so all the time regardless of how women dress or behave themselves. The prevalence of many happily marriages serve as living proof that men can be responsible for their sexual behavior and certainly do say no and not because of impotence either. The reason why some men say they can’t because they don’t want to take responsibility, just don’t want to resist the temptation, or want to have their way regardless of what the other person says. Still, because there are men who don’t want to take responsibility for their sexual behavior, it’s women who get blamed for tempting them even though they had no desire to draw that kind of attention as well as repeatedly said no. Still, that doesn’t stop other men from blaming women for their own rapes and use any excuse to try to justify why she’s responsible such as dressing provocatively, being a slut, or being drunk which they say is sort of “asking for it.” However, regardless of how slutty a woman may appear, if she was asking for it, she wouldn’t be raped and therefore, isn’t responsible for the rape itself.

However, a woman doesn’t always have to be attractive to attract unwanted attention, sexual or otherwise. For one, not every man has the same criteria of beauty standards and might find one woman attractive that others may find disgusting. Second, you may have women being harassed and gawked at for simply being ugly or wearing something that’s utterly ridiculous. Then in some areas a woman might receive unwanted attention just for simply being one in an area where there are mostly men, like in North Dakota.

3. Modesty standards are defined by culture and vary through history- Whenever conservatives use the term “modesty” it’s usually by their standards whether they be in the US or anywhere else in the world. And modesty standards will always be dictated according to culture and customs. What may be inappropriate in one culture might be perfectly fine in another. For instance, many conservative groups may not think women should wear a bikini in this country, an African Bushman may see a woman with her bikini on as way overdressed. And of course, a woman in a Christmas sweater and pajama bottoms would look too much like a slut, according to the Taliban who wish their women wear burqas. At another time in history, anyone within means would cause a scandal if they went around in public dressed in something comfortable and weather permitting in the Western world (if you ever go tour the Confederate White House in Richmond during the summer, you’ll see why). Every culture has a different standards on what’s decent and what’s not and can be subject to change depending on climate, economy, social norms, religion in some cases, or other factors. Significant events in history can also alter our perception of decency standards like wars, social movements, and aesthetic trends.

4. Modesty only enforces the importance of appearance- Since objectification of women is rather dependent on a woman’s looks modesty doesn’t at all prevent a woman from being seen as an object since it only reinforces the notion of women being judged by their outward personal appearance, which is no help to make women more human or develop a healthy body image. And for the longest time, society has always taught women that their appearance is important which has made many women and girls insecure about their body image. Still, modesty isn’t necessarily a bad thing nor is lecturing about the importance of one’s own appearance either. I fully understand that appearances are important when living in society and that people should always try to look respectable. We can all agree that no one wants to see anyone out in public in their birthday suit and that there’s nothing wrong with store owners putting signs out  that read “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service.” Public nudity is always a distraction no matter what the person looks like or what feelings he or she projects on other people, everyone is going to assume that the nudist is a freak if he or she’s old enough to know better. Not to mention, public nudity is illegal in most areas so any nudist showing his tallywhacker will surely be arrested for indecent exposure. This is where modesty standards are okay since a taboo against public nudity is applied to everyone in which their only expectation is that they at least cover their privates in a public setting.

However, modesty can be used in harmful ways, especially when it’s unfairly applied and contributes to a negative body image or personal shame. And women have been the brunt of this kind of negative appearance reinforcement since modesty has not only been used to control them but also to judge them by their appearance as well. And the more people judge women on their appearance the more they tend to see them as objects and treat them that  way as well. Not to mention, it doesn’t help that countless women have been taught to value their physical appearance above all their personal attributes as well as that their looks are key to their success in life. Modesty may teach people to judge others by the way they dress, but it can also judge people by the way they look as well and not always fairly. For instance, a woman in a skimpy outfit would be seen as slutty but while an attractive woman in the same clothes would come off as distracting to the guys in the room, a woman who’s not so attractive, overweight, and/or over the age of 40 would be judged as disgusting wearing the same thing. Being seen as distracting to others because of your outfit may not be a good thing or cultivate a healthy body image as well as contribute to some degree of humiliation, but to some girls being criticized for wearing a skimpy outfit might be a compliment to them since it might give them an affirmation that they’re attractive. Being seen as ugly and disgusting, on the other hand, is hurtful for a woman to hear and further encourages her to develop a negative body image which could lead to further problems. Covering up because of oogling eyes is one thing, covering up because there’s something unsightly about your body is another. If we want to encourage people not to treat women as objects, we need to humanize them and see them as people first, not tell them to cover up when they’re in a skimpy outfit.

5. Objectification comes in many forms and is not always sexual- When we talk about objectification, we talk about women being seen and used as sexual objects for men’s wishes and needs, we also don’t talk about how else we treat people as objects to do what we ask them while placing very little value on them as human beings. For instance, slavery is a classic example of people being treated as less than human since slaves were forced to work each and every day with little benefit to themselves and were seen as easily disposable as well as had to do whatever their bosses wanted since he or she owned them. Paid labor has also suffered from this kind of objectification as well, especially in the days when people had to work twelve hour days six days a week while getting very little for it in return for bosses who had no regard for their well being. Things might have changed since then but even in this country we still have people being exploited by their work places whenever the upper management can get away with it, particularly in places that prohibit their workers from forming a union (which I think is unconstitutional) but still treats them as if they were a commodity which will work cheaply because he or she can’t get it anywhere else and can be disposed at will. This is increasingly evident in today’s economy where benefits are being cut and layoffs are just a fact of life. People may not always like unions but even so, unions serve a purpose in society by making employers see workers as human beings whose contribution to the economy should be recognized and valued since they are just as responsible for a company’s profits as the CEO. Business and politics tend to have habits of using people as pawns all for the money and power, but that’s another story.

Useful Relationship Deal-Breakers You Wouldn’t Find in a Relationship Manual

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

Sure we know the kind of deal breakers that most relationship experts tell us such as cheating, abusive behavior, financial deadbeat, or what not. Here is a list of dealbreakers that you don’t find in those manuals or other things either because they’re too obvious, don’t happen in real life, or don’t seem to cross other people’s minds. Also, these deal breakers are much more interesting to read about. And by the way, though I may use he or she, these apply mostly to both sexes.

1. If his previous relationship had ended with his significant other’s mysterious disappearance, especially if she was last seen with him. (Okay, she might not be murdered nor he may not have killed her, but still.)

2. If his last significant other died under mysterious circumstances which may or may not be due to natural causes, an accident, or suicide. (If her cause of death even remotely seems to be murder, you might want to head for the hills. And if it was murder and they never found who did it, that’s also a deal breaker.)

3. If he’s on the Megan’s Law database. (Which means he’s a registered sex offender.)

4. If he’s appeared on the Dateline during To Catch a Predator moments. (As seen on 30 Rock. Actually any show like that, really.)

5. If she planned her dream wedding almost to a T before you even propose to her or even started dating her. (This might mean that she doesn’t value your opinion or possibly cares more about the wedding than the marriage. Gaston sort of falls in this as well who basically set up a wedding before he even proposed to Belle and they weren’t even a couple.)

6. Works for an organized crime syndicate.

7. If she’s a little too much into 50 Shades of Grey.

8. Has an arrest record that can be its own epic.

9. Has a bad case of amnesia.

10. Has killed your family, friends, and/or previous significant other. (Also, applies to his own friends, family, or previous significant other. Many ancient and medieval rulers did this quite frequently.)

11. If he expresses any desire for a dream wedding that includes getting married in a Nazi uniform, especially if you’re Jewish. (And for any reason.)

12. If he’s brainwashed by his mother who uses him as an enemy spy. (As you can guess this is from The Manchurian Candidate and you can guess what happened to Janet Leigh in this one.)

13. If he’s been caught trying to elicit gay sex, especially from an undercover cop in a public restroom. (I’m looking at you Larry Craig.)

14. If he has had a history of dumping his previous significant others for their serious illnesses. (a.k.a Gingrich clone.)

15. If he goes hiking on the Appalachian Trail. (And I don’t mean actually hiking on the Appalachian Trail. I mean disappearing without notice for a certain amount of time to carry on an extramarital affair {or some other act of infidelity}. Derived from the Mark Sanford scandal who used “hiking the Appalachian Trail” as an excuse for his disappearance while he was actually was seeing a woman from Argentina.)

16. If he has a sexual discretion that won’t make him able to have sex with you and he doesn’t tell you about it until your wedding night. (And by discretion, I don’t mean erectile dysfunction either or anything that can be treatable and also don’t mean being gay either. Also, this is from The Barefoot Contessa. Also, applies if he has an STD and never tells you about until after you have sex.)

17. If he plans to move after getting married and doesn’t tell you until shortly before the wedding.

18. If he is of comfortable income and/or has a decent paying job but doesn’t pay child support or wants nothing to do with his kids. (This only applies if he has kids to a previous partner  and he’s not raising them. Not to mention, this also applies to deadbeat dads {or moms} who can afford child support and take the time to see their kids but chooses not to. This doesn’t apply to deadbeat dads {or moms} who don’t play a role in their kids lives under the mother’s {or father’s} discretion, those who can’t afford to pay child support or have other legitimate reason, men who have no knowledge of their child’s existence, and women who had given up their children for adoption.)

19. If she works in the “adult” entertainment business or sex trade. (By this, I mean occupations like stripper, “exotic” dancer, porn actor, porn model, or prostitute. Also applies to men who can also be in these professions as well as people of both sexes involved in the business and administrative side of things. Sure going out with someone in that line of work might make your friends jealous but most of us would have a problem with being in a relationship with one. I mean would you want to let your parents know you were dating a porn star? Also, some pimps tend to use dating as a recruiting tool. And ditto, if he or she is a sex trafficker.)

20. If he is just going out with you only because the person he wants to be with is unavailable or won’t date him. (This only applies to those people who don’t have much interest in their current partners.)

21. If he’s a clergyman or is closely related to one that isn’t of your denomination. (Of course, for those dating Catholics who aren’t of the faith, only the latter applies since most priests aren’t permitted to marry {except in the Eastern Rite and permanent deacons}. Also, monks and nuns can be considered as clergymen as well but they’re also known to be celibate mostly. However, this doesn’t apply if the clergyman in question is of the extended family and a different religion than the rest. While I wouldn’t have much problem with dating or marrying someone outside my religion, I would definitely reject a guy if I found out he’s a minister or related to one.)

22. If his personality reminds you of a leading male character of a Hitchcock movie. (Trust me, most major male characters in Hitchcock films tend to be evil, crazy, in trouble, aren’t particularly nice once you get to know them, or are a combination of a few. Still, even the good guys aren’t particularly men you’d want to date like Max de Winter {killed his first wife and wasn’t willing to talk about her}, John Ballantyne {suffers from amnesia brought on by PTSD and is suspected of murder}, Barry Kane {suspected of terrorism}, Richard Hannay {suspected of murder}, Guy Haines {cheats on his wife and may not have the best social skills}, L. B. “Jeff” Jeffries {peeping tom}, Roger Thornhill {suspected of murder as well as being used as a decoy}, John Robie {ex-con but still has notoriety}, and John “Scottie” Ferguson {crazy, obsessed with a woman he’s never met [because she’s dead], and kind of a creep}. The villains are much worse, naturally.)

23. If he is a religious fanatic or an obnoxiously religious person. (I’m not bashing religious people here for as a liberal Catholic in Pennsylvania, I know plenty of nice religious people throughout my life. I have nothing against them though I may not always agree with their views. I’m just bashing religious people who are either willing to commit violent acts in the name of God, use their religion as an excuse to subject their crazy beliefs on everybody, or tend to discuss their faith in a way that seems so self-righteous and egotistical that they just become a major pain in the ass {like Tim Tebow}. I have no problem with religion or religious people in general. I just have a problem with religious assholes who think they’re right about everything just because their faith says so. This also applies to atheists and other non-religious people as well.)

24. If he’s in a cult. (Could also apply to Scientology to some extent.)

25. If he’s a professional athlete. (Seriously, if you hear what kind of assholes pro-athletes can be since many tend to have big egos, a history of alleged criminal behavior, and multiple kids to a bunch of different women, at least male ones, that is. As for female athletes, many of them tend to be lesbians. Also, many professional athletes have never grew up.)

26. If he has absolutely no sense of humor.

27. If he frequently posts pictures of his junk to random people on the internet. (Like Anthony Weiner. Seriously, I don’t know why people would do such a thing when they really shouldn’t.)

28. If he has a problem with women who are smarter and more successful than him. (Men, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with women who are smart and successful in their own right. Anyone who has a problem with a woman’s success is an asshole.)

29. If he’s a gambling addict. (Or someone who can’t be trusted with money, not necessarily someone who doesn’t have any.)

30. If he’s a regular on a reality show. (Honestly, you two will have no privacy in this department.

The Moral Ambiguity of Bathroom Humor

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

In the American media, we have these moral crusader advocacy organizations that aren’t above decrying moral indecency whenever the media depicts something that greatly offends them. Some can range from offensive depiction of certain groups or creeds which is understandable since many of conservative decency organizations tend to be religiously affiliated while liberal ones tend to represent ethnic or religious minorities.  Some could pertain to the depiction of sex and nudity which is also understandable to moral crusaders and parents alike (however, moral outcry over depictions of a homosexual couple just sharing their life together is just a major overreaction. Same for separate beds and showing pregnancy.) Sometimes it could be the depiction of drug use, violence, or profanity which is understandable as well since most people don’t want their kids using drugs, inflicting violence, or swear (though that may not be possible) and sometimes these three things can be shown as cool in the media. However, there’s a kind of category which many moral crusaders tend to see as non-family friendly or flat out inappropriate in general which I don’t see as something you should shelter kids from which is, you guessed it, bathroom humor.

Now I understand that the human body does conduct certain bodily functions that are typically seen as crude and disgusting as well as in poor taste to talk about them in a humorous context. And when such bodily functions are sometimes brought up on TV it’s usually in advertising pertaining to health as well as discussed as discreetly as possible. For instance, in an ad for Activia yogurt, you have a bunch of women saying how the two-week Activia challenge helped “regulate” their “digestion.” Of course, you’d have to be a two-year-old not to know that what these women are talking about are their bowel movements (a parody video of this has the girl on the toilet towards the end).  Still, I can understand why you’d put women in a commercial like that instead of men because they’d probably be much more blunt about it and perhaps use profanity. Then there are plenty of commercials for laxatives and adult diapers as well. Of course, you also got the fart jokes in Gas-X but still, many of these commercials that tend to be discreet and boring all aimed for adults. And whenever there is an ad that contains bathroom humor like the farting horse commercial from Bud Light, then people complain about it citing poor taste, indecency, disgust or not suitable for children. Sure bodily functions like urinating. defecating, or farting are in poor taste, disgusting, or even indecent but there’s no way that jokes about any of them aren’t suitable for children. For God’s sake do you think you can corrupt little kids by telling them poop jokes? No, for toilet humor pertains to certain things everyone does on multiple occasions every single day of their lives. Not to mention, toilet humor has been around for a very long time and is present in almost every culture on the planet. Besides, there are many children who make their own poop jokes and think farts are funny and don’t ask me why, they just do. Still, at least potty humor in a commercial is much more entertaining than a commercial devoted to a more serious discussion of bowel movements, especially in the format of a pharma ad.

Thus, we can’t always assume what is in poor taste is always considered  something we need to shelter our kids from. Basically the only thing what bathroom humor does to children is make them more likely to engage in bathroom jokes of their own. But if references to bodily functions aren’t something we need to shelter our kids from, then why aren’t there more scenes in the media depicting people going to the bathroom? Because going to the bathroom is such a mundane activity that the act itself doesn’t really contribute to the plot unless something out of the ordinary happens while in it. Also, the notion of privacy is an issue as well even though going to the bathroom wasn’t always something people did alone. Take the Romans who had communal public toilets, for instance. Still, this doesn’t mean that these characters aren’t going to the bathroom. Going to the toilet just isn’t that important in fiction and not many people want to see that sort of thing since it’s kind of disgusting, especially when the piece is set in historical times. And believe me, you may not want to know how they conducted their business.

Fictional Third Wheels and Why They’re Better Off That Way

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

A third wheel is someone in the love triangle who doesn’t end up with the girl or guy since the object of their affections will usually pass over them for someone else. Still, in many ways fans tend to root for the third wheel usually for he or she may be the underdog or the one who’s more of a long shot. However, many times it’s better that they stay third wheels since many would probably not make compatible or viable partners to the object of their affections or have some issues preventing happiness anyway. Here are some examples and my explanation why they’re probably better off without their beloved or why their beloved is better off without them.

1. Eponine Thenardier

From: Les Miserables

Beloved: Marius Pontmercy

Why she didn’t get the guy:  Marius never considered Eponine as a love interest as well as no more than a friend or someone he felt sorry for. Not to mention, he falls in love with Cosette and ends up with her.

Why we root for her: Eponine is from a much poorer family and in many ways has to rely on herself. Also, she’s very loyal to Marius and is willing to do anything to make him happy (at least in the musical) even if it means him not returning her feelings. Also, she risks her life for him. Cosette on the other hand, may have been the kind of girl we’d feel sorry for but as an adult living with Jean Valjean, many fans don’t find her that interesting.

Why they’re better off apart: In many respects, Marius and Eponine are much better off without each other because it wouldn’t work out if they got together. For one, Eponine’s parents are the Thenardiers (yes, the innkeeper and his wife who mistreated Cosette before Jean Valjean came along). And it’s pretty apparent that the Thenardiers wouldn’t make the best in-laws and are certainly not people you’re willing to trust. Also, they’re willing to steal from just about anybody. Not to mention, Eponine steals from people as well but she has her standards. Then there’s the notion that if Eponine did end up with Marius, she wouldn’t find her life very happy with him. Sure she may have a roof over her head and fancy clothes to wear, but she wouldn’t be fully accepted in neither Marius’ world nor in his family. It’s also not helped by the fact that Marius’ mother also married a guy outside her background who her family didn’t like. Though she loved the guy, she died when Marius was little which resulted in a custody battle between his wealthy noble maternal grandfather and his dad. And the maternal grandfather won as well as made sure that the elder Pontmercy would never see his son again and that Marius would never know of his dad’s existence. Of course, Marius does find out about his dad when his old man dies and ends up becoming a revolutionary because of his daddy issues. If Eponine and Marius had kids and Marius died when the children were still young, there’s no doubt Marius’ family would do the same thing to her as they did to his dad. As for Cosette, despite her childhood, she seems pretty well adjusted as well as has a great dad in Jean Valjean who saved Marius’ ass. Besides, Cosette is fairly pretty and well off enough that Marius’ family accepts her. Trust me, Marius and Eponine are better off as friends.

2. Sidney Carton

From: A Tale of Two Cities

Beloved: Lucie Manette Darnay

Why he didn’t get the girl: Lucie Manette already had a boyfriend when the two of them met who was his client Charles Darnay who she later married. Not to mention, she only sees Sidney as a friend.

Why we root for him: For one, he really loves Lucie even though he’s perfectly content to be in the friendzone as well as hang out with her family once in awhile. His love for her also makes him a far happier guy who’s willing to do anything for her to make her happy such as taking her husband’s place at the guillotine. Also, he let Lucie know he loved her unconditionally.

Why they’re better off apart: For one, Sidney probably is an alcoholic and isn’t a very ambitious attorney compared to his partner Stryver. Also, he’s not that fun to be around with and can get fairly depressed. Not to mention, even Sidney can admit that Charles Darnay is a better choice since like Lucie he’s French as well as willing to hold a steady job and fairly well-adjusted (though he has issues with his family).

3. Heathcliff

From: Wuthering Heights

Beloved: Catherine Earnshaw Linton

Why he didn’t get the girl: Catherine wanted to leave Wuthering Heights for a wealthier lifestyle so she dumped him for Edgar Linton while Heathcliff was away.

Why we root for him: For one, he’s handsome, dark, and mysterious. Second, he always loved Catherine since they were kids for she was very sweet to him. Third, we also feel bad for how Catherine’s brother treated him on account of his background as well as everyone else.

Why they’re better off apart: Despite his status as a romantic hero, Heathcliff is a complete bastard, especially to those who hurt him in any way, and that includes Catherine. Sure he was treated like shit for being “different” but that doesn’t excuse him for what he does when he gets back from his adventures. Not to mention, forgiveness isn’t one of his virtues and he doesn’t care who gets hurt from his schemes. For one, to get back at Catherine for marrying Linton, he basically marries Linton’s sister Isabella out of complete spite and inevitably neglects her afterwards. Then he also mistreats Catherine’s alcoholic brother as well. Overall, he’s basically selfish, cruel, and controlling as well as has absolutely no remorse for his actions. Also, there’s a possibility him and Catherine might have had the same dad since we don’t know where Heathcliff came from or why he was brought to Wuthering Heights to begin with.

4. Severus Snape

From: The Harry Potter series

Beloved: Lily Evans Potter

Why he didn’t get the girl: Mostly because he had a falling out with Lily by calling her a “mudblood” during their Hogwarts days as well as hanging out with the future Death Eaters of Slytherin. Also, she ended up marrying James Potter, one of the kids who used to bully him at school.

Why we root for him: Well, we don’t actually root for Snape since Harry might not have been around if he and Lily got together and the fact there wouldn’t be s story either. However, we like him because he’s a very powerful wizard, has a great deal of charisma, and was willing to do everything he could to defeat the man who killed the woman he loved and protect her son. Not to mention, he’s said to be one of the best loved characters in the whole series. On the other hand, James was kind of a jerk as a teenager as well as died young.

Why they’re better off apart: For one, we don’t get to see Snape’s good side until he hears of Voldemort’s plan to kill Harry. Before that Snape was a Death Eater and even then, he was willing to let Voldemort kill Lily’s husband and son as long as he spared her. However, Lily was willing to die than see her own son killed. Still, if Voldemort went after someone else, Snape probably would’ve still stayed a Death Eater. Also, though Snape may be willing to protect Harry, he doesn’t like the kid for basically looking like his dad and treats him pretty terribly, too. Not to mention, Snape came from a broken home with a pure blood supremacist mother and a muggle father who constantly bickered at each other so he probably has no idea how to have a healthy relationship. Then there’s the notion of what he might have become like if he did end up with Lily, one can only wonder.

5. Jay Gatsby

From: The Great Gatsby

Beloved: Daisy Buchanan

Why he didn’t get the girl: Well, she probably wasn’t too into him to begin with and settled for major asshole Tom Buchanan when Gatsby left to fight in WWI.

Why we root for him: Because this guy was willing to work hard and rise to riches so he could have Daisy and he loves her a great deal. He also gives lavish parties and is a far nicer guy than Tom Buchanan.

Why they’re better off apart: Though we may agree that Daisy is better of dumping Tom for Gatsby, she’s also a real piece of shit in her own way. In Gatsby, he’s certainly would be better off without Daisy. For one, she leads Gatsby on for years and makes him think he has a chance to win her heart, even though she’s not going to leave Tom at least on a permanent basis. Also, Daisy’s pretty shallow as well as only receptive to displays of wealth, which Gatsby has. Also, she’s pretty much responsible for his misery and partially for getting him killed and doesn’t even show up at his funeral.

6. Erik, The Phantom

From: The Phantom of the Opera

Beloved: Christine Daae

Why he didn’t get the girl: Christine only viewed Erik as a mentor and never considered him as a love interest material since he was much older than her. Besides, she preferred guys her own age like Raoul, her fiancee and childhood friend.

Why we root for him: Because he’s more of an underdog since he’s ugly and lonely in his opera basement who can use a friend. However, he’s also brilliant, charming, dark, and mysterious. Also, has had a hard life and has good taste in the finer things. Not to mention, he wears half a mask.

Why they’re better off apart: If his physical attributes were the worst part about him, we wouldn’t hold it against him. However, he has an ugly personality to match. For one, he’s controlling, has a terrible temper, and doesn’t take rejection well at all. Second, he’s not above bullying the opera staff in order to get his way. Third, his relationship with Christine is kind of creepy since he’s obsessed with her to the point that he stalks her and later kidnaps her so he could have her all to himself. Then there’s the fact that he’s only seen on New Years Day Masquerade Ball which is also kind of creepy in itself. Sure he may be enchanting, but Erik is the kind of guy you’d sure as hell want to stay away from.

7. Rebecca

From: Ivanhoe

Beloved: Ivanhoe

Why she didn’t get the guy: Ivanhoe basically passes her over for a childhood friend in Rowena, though he does save her. However, he only sees her as a friend.

Why we root for her: For one, she’s Jewish and spends the entire time supporting and pining for Ivanhoe. Also, even Sir Walter Scott himself though Ivanhoe should’ve ended up with her. Besides, Rowena is kind of useless.

Why they’re better off apart: Well, she’s Jewish, she’s in England, and she’s living in the Middle Ages. Also, at that time intermarriage was unheard of (or so we thought.) Not to mention, if Rebecca and Ivanhoe did end up together, imagine what kind of crap the two of them would have to deal with from people who may not know any better (and, yes, Antisemitism was rampant in those days). Also, consider the fact that the story was written in the 1800s where interfaith marriages were kind of controversial and this story kind of makes the idea acceptable. Thus, for Ivanhoe, Rowena was the safer bet. Sorry, but Sir Walter Scott had to have it happen.

Why I’m Fed Up with the Job Market

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

Even though I’m a college graduate, I’m still unemployed and living with my parents. Perhaps this makes me kind of an unproductive loser who’s mooching off my folks while contributing nothing to society but I don’t mind nor do I feel sorry for myself. Sure I may not be earning money right now but that doesn’t make me a lowlife by any means. I’ve never been a slacker for I’ve written pieces on word documents I’ll publish eventually on this blog and when I get enough clicks on this site, I plan to get a way to make money from the advertising. But for now, it’s too early. Not only that but I also wrote a book which I published on Amazon and am well on my way to writing a second one. Not to mention, I volunteer for a museum a couple of days a week to fill in the collection records on Microsoft Excel. Also, since I graduated from college I’ve worked two temp jobs and practically worked myself out of the second. Maybe I don’t have a regular source of income I could count on yet but I have plenty to show that I work hard and I’m making a difference. I’m just not getting paid for my contributions, that’s all and I’d still be living with my parents whether I was employed or not. Perhaps the only reason that I’d ever want a job is just because I need the money to pay off my student loans and I don’t want to go to jail for robbing a bank. Still, though I understand that the stakes of finding a well paying job in this economy aren’t great right now, I know that whatever job I do get isn’t going to last long. However, even though I know there are jobs out there, the thing that’s hard for me isn’t finding a job, doing a job, or even applying for a job (though I do know I’m at a disadvantage when they ask for experience since I barely have any job experience to begin with). Rather it’s trying to get the job which is the most difficult and stressful for me for a lot of reasons, especially when there’s the interview which is fairly challenging.

I know job interviews are no fun and I don’t feel up to the challenge either. As an applicant, I’m expected to give the interviewer what he or she wants and the person never really tells you anything except be there at such and such a time. Still, it’s not that I want a job but I don’t want the process to be ridiculously complicated and unpredictable either which basically means putting myself under a magnifying glass and making sure I don’t screw up my chances. Rather I prefer to come prepared and think ahead of time so I could know what to expect. I also wish that I didn’t have to jump through hoops like trying to charm the interviewer or getting him or her to like me or seeing whether I could fit in or trying to make that perfect first impression. Sure a first impression could tell a lot about a person, well, sort of sometimes. I think are plenty of instances where first impressions don’t tend to reveal a lot about a person such as in history or on the news. I mean there are plenty of people who’ve been misled by a good first impression like victims of crimes for instance. This is especially true in the workforce with reports of people committing crimes against their own employers, which happens almost all the time. Obviously these people made a good first impression during their job interviews or they wouldn’t be able to rob the store in the first place or possibly set fire to it. I mean how reliable are first impressions? They might mean that you could fit in the workplace and perhaps get along with your co-workers but doesn’t determine whether the candidate is a competent worker or even trustworthy. Not to mention, there are plenty of other job candidates who would fail to make a good first impression but would otherwise make fine additions to a staff. I mean there are plenty of people who don’t have the best people skills but they can get stuff done nonetheless and won’t steal from the company either. I am not a person who either gives a good first impression nor automatically judges people from their first impression but when I eventually get to know them better. Not to mention, when given a task to do (as long as it doesn’t consist of chores), I set myself straight to work and won’t quit until it’s done. I also try to get the job done as best I can as well as try to show up on time and would rarely miss a day unless it was for some good reason. Not to mention, though I may lack social skills, I do have certain ethics as well as try to get along with my co-workers the best I can. Yet, to the world of the job interview, first impressions are everything and it’s because first impressions are so important that many times the most qualified candidate doesn’t get the job. Sure first impressions may be important but like people skills in general, tend to be overrated.

Another problem I have in terms of getting a job also stems from the job listings themselves as well as the kind of jobs willing to hire anyone. As a college graduate who lacks certain people skills and has no driver’s license, I know I’m not going to have an easy time with my job search especially since many of the jobs out where I’m at require at least either, not that I would want any either. And it also doesn’t help me that I live in the country where it basically requires a car to go anywhere. As with the jobs I might like to have, well, there’s always something. For one, the job might be in Pittsburgh and require me to move, which I’m in no financial shape to do so. For another, the job in question may require something known as “experience” in the field like over two years even for an entry-level job, which is put there by the employers to drive college graduates away since they don’t want to train people for the position. Also, it’s mostly due to the recession since employers know they can get someone else for that job. And even if I do apply for it, chances are likely that I’m not going to be called for an interview.

Then there is the fact that no matter how I try to find a job, the process just seems never ending cycle of filling applications, attending interviews, and being turned down afterwards. When I graduated from college, I thought that I might have a job within a few months but that wasn’t the case. In fact, after a while it began to be apparent that the concept of getting a job was taking over my life and soon my reasons for finding a job eventually became less about money and more about not having to look for one anymore. In other words, I was so frustrated putting as much effort as I could into getting a job and wasn’t getting the result I wanted. Perhaps I felt that I had to work harder than everyone else while my sister seemed to land jobs pretty easily. Maybe I just didn’t want to work as hard getting a job as doing the job and saw how much work had to be put in the former such as charming people and making myself seem more appealing than I was. In some ways, I was probably more concerned with keeping the job than getting the job since I didn’t want to spend my life trying to get someone to want or like me. And perhaps I was tired of the concept of finding a job and trying to get one because it so obligatory and something you couldn’t give up on. But maybe I was just tired of being seen as worthless or not good enough for a certain position or thought that trying to find a job was starting to become a waste of my time. Then again, perhaps I was just tired of being judged by my social skills and appearance instead of my abilities to do the job. Yet, the reasons why I wasn’t getting a job were sometimes blurred for me. At first it seemed that I wasn’t a good job candidate since I don’t have good social skills and have tried to improve my abilities. Not to mention, I’d sometimes showed up at interviews with greasy hair and at times answered the questions in ambivalence. And I’ve tried to improve on my abilities to handle job interviews and all the steps of the application process. Then again, from what’s been going on in this economy who knows since it’s always the employer who tends to make the decisions on hiring and maybe I’m just one of the ones who don’t make the cut. And many times, it might take a longer time for the employers to make a hiring decision or perhaps not hire anyone at all. I may not be sure why the job market hasn’t been kind to me but sometimes I feel that the notion of the job application process doesn’t seem to be helpful nor does the fact that I have to compete with people who may have a better hiring potential than I do and for a common retail job at that. In some ways, I feel disgusted by the fact that I have to go through the same process time and time again just to get the job I applied for when I rather earn my money my own way where I don’t have to worry about another job interview or being disposed of after a certain amount of time. Rather I would rather earn money where I wouldn’t have to count on being social and likeable to strangers nor have to count on a first impression. Well, perhaps I just want to get a job in a way I wouldn’t be at an unfair disadvantage and just not care about pleasing anybody because I think the process on getting a job seems to amount to kissing ass. No thanks, I’ll stick to writing about how dumb the job application process is.

Trashy TV

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

I’m not a fan of Miley Cyrus nor MTV in that matter so I didn’t even bother to watch the MTV VMA Awards last night since MTV’s brand of pop culture has never been the kind that interests me. Nevertheless, the VMAs are a pretty big deal as far as the mainstream current is concerned since Miley Cyrus’ stunt is basically what everyone’s been talking about since this morning with every kind of media outlet giving their two cents in, including the local sports station my dad listens to on the radio. And from the pictures I’ve seen and the comments I’ve read which are universally, I could admit that, yes, she was acting pretty trashy and her performance seemed pretty tacky and disgraceful, especially being censored by MTV for it. It’s pretty clear that Miley doesn’t seem to have much class as a performer. Yet, as far as I’ve known, obnoxious celebrity behavior has always been a staple of the VMAs and there’s at least one scandal that comes up from it every year. Who could forget about Madonna and Britney Spears kissing each other or Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech? The VMAs have always been been pushing the envelope of what’s shocking and what’s not. Not to mention, MTV has always been a network known to stir controversy since it came on the air during the 1980s. Ditto the fact that it’s a network that doesn’t seem to have the least problem with making reality shows that pertain to teen pregnancy which I think is just simply disgraceful and exploitative.

Still, as far as TV goes, as bad as Miley Cyrus may look on stage during her performance at the VMAs, what she did only contributes to a small fraction of the limitless crap that hits our airwaves just about every freaking day. I mean there are reality shows about little girl beauty pageants for God’s sake. In fact, we have reality shows on just about anything and nobody is going to argue with me that most of them aren’t contributing to the betterment of society nor providing any cultural enrichment whatsoever. In some ways, reality TV is pretty degrading and exploitative in my opinion which elevates certain people to stardom who shouldn’t be famous as well as perhaps degrading entire demographics or maybe making certain things acceptable when they shouldn’t be. And in no way does it seem to depict the kind of reality I have or desire. I sometimes wonder who watches such unredeeming crap that has no educational or cultural value because I’m certainly not nor have any desire to watch another reality show for as long as I live for I don’t see much entertainment value in a TV genre that lacks all substance, insight, or charm. Rather, I’d be more than happy if all these networks just gave these awful shows the ax and resort to something that might be of cultural value like stuff they show on PBS. I may be in the vocal minority here but that’s my opinion. Still, I’m not the only one who thinks this way for reality shows seem to top the PPG’s Keep or Cancel Poll every year, but yet these shows are almost never canceled and keep airing year after year. Why? Is it because they’re so popular? Well, they seem to be with Snooki and Kim Kardashian being pop culture icons, oh, brother. Yet, I’ve never been fond of that kind of entertainment nor understood why reality shows have such appeal among the masses. Are people just that intellectually lazy? I don’t know.  However, one thing I can understand is the fact that networks are oh, so willing to air them because they’re cheaper to produce and the fact that cable television doesn’t so much count on ratings since they make money from your subscriptions anyway. So just because reality TV is popular and cheap, does it mean it’s good? I wouldn’t say that.

However, while reality television may be seen as trashy entertainment, we can easily dismiss much of it as the trivial crap it is which isn’t supposed to improve the minds of anyone. Then there are shows that are supposed to pass as educational programming on networks like The History Channel, The Discovery Networks, and Animal Planet as well as others. I mean National Geographic is a name I have a great deal of respect for since I like to read their magazine every time I enter a waiting room, or at least look at the pictures anyway. National Geographic Channel? Not so much for much of it doesn’t seem to veer on the educational side of the brand I know and love. Then there’s The History Channel, which as a history major, I am told to like and appreciate. But do I? Of course not, since The History Channel’s line up doesn’t seem to consist of stuff that pertains to history (and none of my college professors like that channel either). Rather their line up consist of shows that pertains to the paranormal, popular superstitions, conspiracy theories, and other subject matter that have absolutely nothing to do with history. Then there’s The Discovery Channel which was recently mired in controversy about a documentary featuring an extinct shark which they said was still alive! And there was a great uproar on that from viewers who swore the network lied to them. But what do you expect of a network that brought you shows like Amish Mafia? I mean that program doesn’t portray Amish people accurately at all for most Amish aren’t violent and wouldn’t want to be depicted on film. As far as educational programming goes, I think I’ll just stick to PBS at least when they’re not on pledge break anyway.

A third category of trashy TV is a controversial kind which pertain to the 24 hour cable news networks that sort of make a mockery of the kind of journalism America was said to be founded on. Of course, Fox News is a great example of this since they’re perhaps the worst offender more concerned with spewing neoconservative propaganda than reporting the news. And they don’t seem to be shy about bashing Obama or the Democrats or saying hateful things about anyone who disagrees with the conservative agenda. Fox News is a network that has no integrity, no concern for facts, and no scruples about anything. Everyone on the network is mean and nasty as well as utterly clueless and willing to say things like the Pilgrims celebrating Christmas when in fact they would basically put people on the stocks for doing so. And the worst thing about Fox News is that they’re able to attract an audience that is willing to believe them and do whatever the network tells them. Then there’s MSNBC which is said to be the liberal alternative to Fox News yet though they may have their pundits, they also don’t seem to be as mean or careless with facts as their conservative counterparts. Still, they can be pretty tacky and have been known to have prison shows on the weekends if that’s something you might want to know. And CNN once held as a great pioneer in news is now descending into idiocy reporting on news stories that don’t seem to matter but cause a much bigger sensation. Yes, television has descended to this and I’m not happy about it.

So the Miley Cyrus moment is only the tip of the iceberg of all the crap on TV we see today whether they be mindless reality shows, so-called “educational” programming that isn’t, and the all day news networks that don’t seem to report the news at all at least in my opinion. Cable television in recent years is a crap machine with networks caring more about profits than the quality of their programming which I think is a shame because letting the networks air crap doesn’t makes everyone look like idiots even to those people who don’t watch it. And I think as viewers we need to call for better standards of quality programming that doesn’t degrade or exploit in any way. Yet, I understand that money is heavily involved as well which also makes changing the line up highly unlikely. Still, perhaps the best you can do is not be part of the demand and if you don’t like the program that’s on your screen, don’t watch it.