And the Homosexuality Knows No Borders poster is funny. Seems like they're promoting the opposite.
Is it just me or the name of the website is confusing?
[A href="http://www.homophobiaday.org/"][FONT color=#565656]http://www.homophobiaday.org/[/FONT][/A]
That is a very misleading title for sure. Hug a Homo might have been better ? [img style="CURSOR: pointer" onclick=url(this.src); src="http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/n020.gif" border=0] I don't know these things. [/DIV]
ROTFL. I wouldn't mind hugging one... did you see how gorgeous they are? Well.... most of them anyways.
Hahahaa...sensitive area.
That shows you are comfortable and confident in your manhood Michel. (http://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Happy/3.gif) I would have no problem giving a hug either.
I don't understand.... what do you mean by sensitive area? (http://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Teasing/11.gif)
As usual, the Southerners boycotted this event and retaliated with not voting for the better singer at American Idol who happened to be gay.
typical.
American Idol...right in there with all the other important political issues....lol (http://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Happy/3.gif)
You can with American Idol. The South predominately watches the show (for some reason they did a study on who watches American Idol). Then, the South likes to vote for Southerners to 'make them proud' (majority of the winners come from somewhere south of the Missouri Compromise line. In this competition they had a guy who showed 'christian like' values and 'look' versus the flamboyant guy from San Diego (Hollywood versus 'middle America')
Then you had rightist commentators on Fox News for example (Southern staple) talking about the guy from California's chances (he was the favourite, will be a star) because photos leaked of him seen kissing a guy. Of course this becomes dinner table table conversation and water cooler talk for the South. They focus on these issues more than the event.
So once the pictures were out, the guy was done, it didn't matter. Then to make it worse, you had a the 'good ole boy' running against him. So it was rally around one of us en mass.
Season 1- winner Kelly Clarkson from Texas. Runner Up: Justin Guarini from Georgia- 'metro sexual' or "could be gay as he's got the look" (he's not getting married aparently to a woman)
Season 2- winner: Rueben Studdard, black, from Alabama, sings Motown. Runner up Clay Aiken, obviously in the closet gay, this was talked about, he would deny of course, from South Carolina, was percieved to be the better singer. Came out of the closet a couple years ago.
Season 3- winner: Fantasia Barrino, black, teenage mother, poor, not a happy childhood, North Carolina. won by less than 2% of the vote
loser: Diana DeGarmo, white, still in high school at the time, from Georgia, played up the good girl image, white people liked her a lot.
Season 4- winner: Carrie Underwood, Oklahoma. Famous for talking about her christian roots and upbringing while doing the usual southern sexuality, won rather easily, went into country music, will have a career forever.
loser: Bo Bice, from Alabama. Southern rock and Christian music guy born again christian, played up the rebel white image, was married during the show (still is) had a kid (enter young family man demo).
Season 5- winner: Taylor Hicks, from Alabama, has no talent whatsoever, won on his southern charm and southern eccentricism of being a good boy. While he was running away with it, people started studying the southern link to American Idol.
loser: Katharine McPhee, from California, L.A. Had that 'west coast child' appearance aka 'unchristian' used sex appeal. Started dating and married her manager 20yrs her senior while during the show (was 18 or something can't remember).
Season 6- winner: Jordan Sparks, Phoenix, dad was a professional football player, was young still in high school. She played the 'I wear a purity ring' which she wore during the entire show. Deeply Christian Evangelical, before famous would sing at christian evangelical gatherings.
loser: Blake Lewis from Seattle, Washington, jokester personality, beat boxer, punk hair highlighted, played up sexual inneundo (against Sparks 'purity') created alter egos during the show. Screamed liberal west coast kid.
Season 7- winner: David Cook, born in Texas, raised rural Kansas City Missouri. Rocker persona. As the first real actual 'rock 'n roll guy' (played guitars, fan of grunge etc). He had the white mall vote locked.
loser: David Archuleta, 16 years old, mocked for his femin voice, tenor, hispanic, parents from Honduras, grew up in Utah, in the boy scouts. He is a devout Mormon, would pick songs that were only appropriate to his faith. (He wouldn't sing the verse about no religion in Imagine by Lennon for example).
No non-southerner or someone who would not appeal to the southerners has won.
Seasons 1 to 7, winner : Michel. Prize won : precious minutes of his life for not listening to such crappy "cultural" product.
LOL Likewise. (http://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Happy/3.gif)
Ya but....we gots good taste. [img onclick="selecte('rolleyes.gif');" alt=emoticon src="http://www.pushupstairs.com/images/emoticon/blehnet/rolleyes.gif" border=0]
or idol chasers. (http://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Happy/12.gif)
But....he's WORTHY !!!! [img onclick="selecte('inlove.gif');" alt=emoticon src="http://www.pushupstairs.com/images/emoticon/blehnet/inlove.gif" border=0]
Michel wrote:
Seasons 1 to 7, winner : Michel. Prize won : precious minutes of his life for not listening to such crappy "cultural" product.
Seriously, that long enumeration of winners and losers prove nothing except a very poor and eclectic capacity of social analysis.
Retards and fascists are everywhere. No nation nor group have the monopoly of social and political backwardness unless it identified themselves in such a way, a political party for example. Saying so is intellectualized racism and snobism disguised as sociology or anthropology.
---------------
That was hardly an analysis but a quick summary of what the public perception of the people were who won and lost. But with the South it is how they identify with themselves through cultural and television. Beauty pageants show the same pattern, always someone rural in the final, rarely ever an actual urbanite. The South is very much like Quebec, which is why your rebuttal is rather peculiar, I don't know why you couldn't see the parallels. They see themselves as a different culture and even a nation. Southerner first, American second (It's not just Texas).
They despise of any sort of 'Northerner aggression' much like you see here with 'Rest of Canada' or 'Toronto' or 'Central Canada' etc. It manifests in different ways, the splits showed at the Declaration of Independence over slaverly and then to the present day. There was notable events, Shays Rebellion, Civil war, Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, Civil Rights, along with two different economic structures up until the de-industrialization of the North in the 1960s and 1970, which led to job creation in the South. The cries of 'States Rights' or crucial court cases like Engel v. Vitale that gave birth to the evangelical movement. The South saw that court decision as an attack against their 'distinct' culture, much as Quebec sees the Clarity Act.
So in a country that is deeply split regionally, ethnically, and has a well known rural - urban divide. The silly television show brings out all of these to focus. You would see this in Canada in a heart beat if there was a country wide television contest. I would bet my house that there would be an extremely high rate of Quebec voters voting for the Quebec singer against a British Columbian singer etc. The mayor of the small town or big city would proclaim it to be such and such day officially forever, and television commentators would talk about how proud they were of this person for winning in the contest. That is essentially what happens with American Idol.
Michel wrote:
I'm not denying regionalism and chauvinism, neither in Québec, Texas, the South, the West, Latin Europe, Chinese expat, Taiwanese racists, Japanese xenophob, etc., you name them. I'm questioning your association of entire regions or group of people culturally recognizable as reactionary by opposition to other that would be progressive according to the region. I'm saying that people are backward or progressive according to their personal experience, social position they occupy in the social production process and level of critical thinking they are able to manage in society in front of constant media and political brainwashing from the ruling class apparatus. I'm from Québec as you said, and I don't share anything politically with the archetype image you have of that province, which is a bourgeois image by the way, a mix of Québec bashing, Québec and Canadian nationalism and chauvinism, plus the federalist official party line. And I know people from California who appears as idiots as any German university student burning their books in 1933, just like there are revolutionary marxist element in Arkansas that would be as radical as any Russian worker of 1917 being them put in the same social environment and intellectual debate. Your vision of the world is a vision imposed by the various ruling class sections in their regional fight of one against the other.
This is what I call racism in an intellectualized form, presented as sociology or anthropology. You're parroting ruling class crap and lacking critical thinking.
There's an american idol made in Québec, can't remember the name. And that prove nothing except that this group of people is culturally different from the rest of Canada speaking another language.
------------------------------
There is always going to be elements in certain societies that do not go with the overall trend or percieved majority view constructed by the media and 'norms'. If there's a town of 10,000 people and 1,000 of those people have a different life that counters everything the 9,000 people believe, they will be repressed. The high concentration of American Idol viewers come from the South and the South as a whole (not everyone but as a group) tends to place location over talent. "He's a good old boy, he's one of us," etc. I agree with you on people's life experiences shaping their world views, but now the media does the cultural shaping as it is a powerful propoganda tool. To many in the rural parts they still only see a black person on the late local news. I'd may or may not have a different view of the US if I hadn't experienced the rural element along with growing up in St. Louis. To people just a bit older than myself their view of the south is one of lynchings and riots where cities burn. The racial hatred is still there, but the only time I've ever seen a city burn was when a bunch of whites got drunk on Halloween and burned a couple pubs down.
No I was saying if Canada had an actual country wide bi-lingual show, not a different one for each of the two countries within it. You would see the same sort of voting patterns by the majority of people. Then the local or provincial media forces get involved and force you to root for the local kid. People vote for the familiar and a person who most likely represents them and their image of society.
Another or better example that isn't confined to language is sports. Lets say Canada had a country wide hockey tournament based on each province having their own team. BC plays Quebec, Ontario plays Alberta etc (every province has a team made up of players from their respective locations) etc. On a whole who do you think people of BC or Quebec are going to root for? Sure, there will be some elements in Quebec who might root for the BC squad based on actual judgement of talent, but they would keep that to themselves as rooting against the 'home team' might not be the wisest thing to say publicly. But overall Quebec would be feverishly supporting their own, just as BC would. If the series was any good the tensions would escalate. Hooligans would call into 1040 after a loss and start ranting on French people, Quebec radio callers would do the same after getting wind of some attack on somebody in the street with the Quebec sweater etc.
Basically going back to that town scenario the 9,000 people who are of like minds control the image of that town and how it sees itself as a whole. The 1,000 who are opposed to the 9,000 are repressed and never are able to get their voices heard through the tyranny of the majority. But then the city attracts jobs and people who aren't familiar with the old dynamic move in and join the 1,000. Years go by and that side steadily grows to 6,000 while the 9,000 shrinks.
Then the minority gets empowered and creates a social change. The social change is so drastic that it frightens the old guard as they used to have all the power and control. As the upper class lost their power they started to band together and peruse their options, but are just calling it a different name from what it was in the 60s. That is the story of the South. After de-industrialization of the North, Northerners flocked to the South where the jobs were located and distrubed the traditional social structure of the South. The old guard got defensive and fought back as they percieved it as a threat to their social class power or as they would term it 'way of life'. The South has many Hérouxville's on average based on racial and social lines than anywhere else in the country. Now its illegal emigrants who happen to have a strong base in the South threatening that old power structure. The suburban town next to mine is an "anti-illegal" town where anyone who doesn't have American papers can't live, work, go to school in the town and English is the official language.
You're never kind in these arguments, mentors never are or I'd never learn something from you. ;)
Can I watch ? (http://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Happy/12.gif)