Conclusion

9.1 The consequenses of the conflict

As I look at things I do wonder if at the center of everything there isn't an apparent war over Miley's identity. A war where she wants to find out who she is (whoever that may be) versus what some want her to be (the good girl resurrected). A war people probably believe is 'for her own good'.

As I look at this I think of a quote done by the wrestler Owen Hart. A quote his brother Bret had done for his autobiography 'My real life in the cartoon world of wrestling': "You can be a good person, do everything right, and it doesn't guarantee you anything." Maybe Miley knows this. Maybe Billy Ray and Tish do too.

Does anyone else? And maybe the next question to ask is 'What next'?

So far a lot of things that have happened with Miley have apparently been done with Billy Ray and Tish's consent. Much to the dismay of the outraged, leaving them to wonder if Miley even cares about their views. Or does she consider those views to be irrelevant and she looks down on the audience as there are members of the Hollywood elite that seem to do so. Not just in front of the camera, but behind the scenes as well.

Whether Miley likes it or not she's more than just an average girl. She's also become a symbol, much like the character of Li Nollis was seen as one to his people in the second season of Star Trek:Deep Space Nine. A job he didn't want, but he had it anyway. And at times he stepped up to the plate when he needed to, and would only be let off the hook until he had died.

Is that what it would take for Miley to be a regular girl? To die? I'd like to think she can be a regular girl and still live. But right now she's a symbol to people, and especially her fans...and fans' parents. At first she seemed to be a symbol of hope and values. Now with the scandals and bad reporting people probably wonder if she's not a symbol of failure.

I think at the heart of the conflict is identity. On one end it's who Miley wants to be (whoever that may be), and on the other end its what society wants Miley to be (which is the second coming of the 'good girl').

Performers need to ask themselves "What am I doing this for? Am I doing it for me? Then what is the audience for? Are they just there to prop my ego? Am I just there to take their money? Are they everything to me? Or are they nothing to me?" Myself, I always believed that whenever I write something-or go on stage-that I am there for the audience. If I am not there for them-to provide them with the best show I can-then I have no buisness there.

It helps to build up spirits. Build up the public's morale. And when the public's morale is built up the I believe people might be more accepting of unconventional art, at least moreso than if the world is in a funk. However we as a people do not like being looked down on, kicked around, or devalued by the institutions that are supposed to be providing for us. And that's what I believe has happened, which led to what I perceive as a fear based backlash to the Vanity Fair shot, and maybe even the pole, which led to the outrage that followed to the haters being empowered and ending with the suffering afterwards.

Again, wise muppet that Yoda. But perhaps a lot of this could have been avoided if instead of 'Beautiful shot, respected photographer' some one said 'Will my fans get this? Is it worth it?' That didn't happen though. And I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but when it came down to it, for reasons of their own, Billy Ray and Tish were the parents in charge. Billy Ray and Tish had said 'yes' when people would have wanted them to say 'no'. And Miley's paying the price.

In retrospect I found myself thinking of something from Star Trek:Voyager when Captain Janeway was on a mission to destroy a destructive particle. Sounds hokey I know, but this quote doesn't:

"I know now how Einstein felt when he built the Atom Bomb. Or (Carol) Marcus when she developed the Genesis Device. They watched helplessly as Science took a destructive course."

And I guess Miley and her parents watched helplessly as art took a destructive course. As the Vanity Fair photo became Miley's Genesis Device. Equipped with its own failure. And of course there's the matter of the tattoo (which in my high school would have been considered 'gang related'), which her mother had inked on herself it seems. It is a reminder of her grandfather who died of lung cancer and a friend who died of cystic fibrosis.

"It reminds me not to take anything for granted. I mean breathing-that was something none of them could do, the most basic thing. And I put it near my heart, because that's where it always will be."

As for the pain?

"I could never get a meaningless tattoo, but I think that if you're doing something that's important, that's significant in your life, it takes some of the pain away."

At the end of the day I think most of the evidence leads to one conclusion. Much of what Miley has done that has parents in a huff has been with parental consent. So if anyone have problems, take it up with them. Quit giving a teenage girl grief. I think it makes people look like thugs shaking down someone weaker than themselves. Although this one last quote may give some people ideas:

"I'm doing a record right now that's another pop record, and then I want to come out with an album that's really who I am. I don't know who that is yet." Reading this right now I'm thinking the response to that from the morality police would be "Until you know who you are, be who we want."

And what do they want her to be? Well I think the Harper's Bazzar pictures reflect who they want her to be. A good girl that's naturally beautiful. With a strong sense of right and wrong and the courage and conviction to back that sense up, as well as a zero tolerance policy to mistakes and making them. Can that ideal, or some aspects of it, be attained without forcing it on her or intimidating her into it? Don't know, some I think would say "probably not.". Regardless, Miley may have to face a hard decision soon.

So far it seems she has listened to her parents, and the results have not always been....productive. She may come to a point where she may have to go against her parents if she wishes to maintain, or improve, her status as a role model to teens. And whatever parenting book the Cyrus's have been using that said the controversial moments were okay, I'm wondering if it may be best served to throw that book away for the sake of Miley's audience. Either that or she will have to go against them for the sake of that same audience. Only because I have grave doubts that the morality police will throw away their parenting book.

I could be wrong though. Fingers crossed.

Regardless it has to be Miley's decision. And no amount of force or intimidation will change that.

9.2 Living one's gimmick

Getting back into a WWE frame of mind I remember watching RAW one day, and Jerry Lawler was doing a promo interview with Vince McMahon about a wrestler named 'the Undertaker'. A wrestler who had a gimmick of being a creature of dark powers, who used fear to win his matches.

In the interview Lawler presented a phrase called 'living your gimmick' where a wrestler immerses himself/herself in the character that they play. They immerse themselves so deep that they wind up actually becoming that character in their own mind. To the point where the apparent lie becomes an actual truth, despite any 'revisions' the wrestler may have to make to promote believability. If one's gimmick is that of a 'rich snob' they live the gimmick to the fullest to where they become a 'rich snob'. If one sees himself as a 'party animal' they become the party animal.

Maybe that's what people want Miley to do with the 'good girl' image. Treat it like a gimmick, and live it until it becomes the real her.

9.3 Simply Flawless-I don't think so.

Also recently on WWE Smackdown I have been watching two lady wrestlers (I'm reluctant to call them divas due to the characters they portray) named Layla and Michelle (Michelle's full name is Michelle McCool, but I personally don't find anything 'cool' about her right now), who's characters basically torment other lady wrestlers, belittling them for their imperfections as they like to paint themselves as 'Simply Flawless.'

Their biggest target, a wrestler named Mickie James, whom they like to call 'Piggy' James. And do a series of malicious pranks with 'pig' based themes bullying Mickie in order to hurt her, or get her to leave. They two on one her, and another wrestler named Maria. Mocking them, and crucifying them, for their supposed 'flaws' and 'losses' to build up their own egos, vanity, and pleasure all so they can promote themselves as 'flawless' and 'perfect'. All the while Layla and Michelle overlook their own flaws, flaws which their characters would deny of course, due to their vanity and conceit. Which ironically....ARE their flaws.

Layla and Michelle so focus on outer beauty they let their inner selves become ugly. They drift towards tendencies for cruelty and sadism, taking great joy in the pain they cause. They go after who they believe are easy targets, in a two-on-one capacity. If it's ever one-on-one then they run like cowards, which most bullies tend to be. Occasionally they get their comeuppance, only for them to come back later. So ignoring them, doesn't help.

They like attention on them, and they stop at nothing in order to get it. They think others are beneath them carrying on like they are god's gift, tearing down others to build up their own sense of self importance instead of finding it within themselves. Also believing that in some way those that get torn down deserve it. The mentality of the hater, and the bully. An individual that seems to be everywhere these days. In reality, and in fiction.

Miley has had to deal with people like that in her school days. Even her character on Hannah Montana had to deal with Amber and Ashley, who also seem to pattern themselves as 'Simply Flawless.' And now, even moreso, with the paparazzi, media, bloggers and haters. And even if they've been ignored, they haven't gone away.

I find myself thinking of George Peppard's line on a first season episode of the A-team. He, or rather his character of John 'Hannibal' Smith, said, "Every now and then I like to drop the hammer on a piece of dirt." I wouldn't mind seeing that, even in a work of fiction. Because at some point, something may, if not will, have to be done about the problem of haters. In the media, on the net, in our schoolyards, everywhere. Because from what I see, ignoring doesn't work. And there will probably come a point where deriving pleasure from another's pain won't satisfy the hater or bully. And by then it will be too late. They will have alienated anyone that could have ever cared about them, or wind up hurt themselves. Maybe even in a way that's worse than any way they have hurt anybody.

I think it would be safe to say that the wrestling characters of Michelle and Layla, as they are so focused on physical perfection, haven't even given a thought about the concept of moral perfection. Despite what it could mean to different people, and the ways people look to apply it.

And the ways people have applied it throughout history. The Salem Witch trials. The McCarthy era with the HUAC. Just to name one or two.

9.3 Views from a Miley perspective-Lyric and Melody

I take a look at all I have written. All the perspectives that have come to my mind, and I noticed how at odds I was with my views. On one note I agree with Miley looking to explore her artistic endeavors in order to find out who she is. But on another note I understand the viewpoint of the outraged as they wish Miley would go back to being the wholesome good girl and stay that way.

Don't ask me to understand the hater motivation. Probably the best person to ask about that is the Marquis De Sade. Oh wait, he's dead. But then again he did come up with the concept of Sadism didn't he? Which according to wikipedia is "The derivation of pleasure as a result of inflicting pain or watching pain inflicted on others."

But through it all I realized there was one perspective I haven't seen things through-Miley's. So to that end I found myself reading Miley's book 'Miles to go' and I came across a passage that may reflect Miley's way of thinking. A passage based on two fish she had named Lyric and Melody. Fish that swam in their own little bowl. Their own little life in a jar. Miley thought such a life was a miracle, but also a trap. Lyric and Melody would do the same routine over and over again. Never explore the outside world. Never find out who they were. They were stuck in the jar forever and ever.

Looking at this passage I started making connections between what I wrote and what Miley wrote in this chapter of her book. Basically Miley is one of her fish, Lyric and/or Melody. And the jar could well be the wholesome good girl ideal the outraged seem to want her to embrace. In effect trapping Miley in her own little world unable to escape. Unable to grow.

So I guess the main question to ask is 'why?' Why put her in that jar? Doesn't the jar cut Miley off from the outside world as it cut off Lyric and Melody? In one regard yes. But there is a reason as to why they would want Miley in the jar the ideal represents. They believe it is for her's, and her fans', protection. Essentially they want Miley to be kept safe and their kids kept safe as they are exposed to 'safe' ideas. Thus reinforcing the parents' sense of safety as well.

We all know there are monsters in the world. We see them on the news everyday. We see them around us. We wonder if anyplace is safe. That's one of the reasons people turn to Disney as it seems 'safe and sane' to the family viewer. Well I guess 80+ years of family entertainment will give someone that impression. Sure changes have happened over the years, but those changes always seemed so slow and steady. Not fast and radical as the rest of the world seems to go, with no regard for the consequences. So while the rest of the world moves at breakneck pace Disney is the 'island of hope in a sea of turbulence'.

It is the calm in the ocean of the malicious. For a while Miley was part of that calm, and people want her back in that calm again. The fish bowl of safety was knocked over and they want Miley put back inside. Whoever knocked it over isn't important. The important thing in their minds is to get Miley back in the bowl for her sake and the sake of the other fishes that look at her. She can pretend she's in an aquarium and there are other fishes looking on. Also, in this aquarium, she's the star of the show.

I can see how a figurative fishbowl can be seen as a place of safety. Unfortunately I also agree that it is a trap as well. You can't go anywhere else. And the only way out is at the top of the tank which one can't reach. At least, not without difficulty.

But somehow the fish bowl is knocked over, and people scold the fish for getting out. While others watch the fish squirm as it tries to find water and laugh as it fights to survive. Some would also kick the fish away from the water just so they could watch it squirm. Like I said, don't underestimate people's capacity for cruelty or their ability to enjoy it.

Some believe that for the fish's own good that it should never leave it's bowl, or tank...for its own good. At least that's the rationale. To protect the fish from anyone who would knock over the tank, or wants to watch a fish squirm. And if the people that knock over fish tanks, or watch fish squirm are gone, maybe they can explore the world in a different tank, or wherever. Unfortunately there are too many people out there that want to knock over the fish tank. Threatening the sense of safety that we seek to nurture in ourselves and the 'fish' around us. And for many nothing is more important than being 'safe'.

So should Miley go back into her 'fish tank'? Her 'box' that is the wholesome good girl ideal that parents want her to maintain? Even at the cost of her own artistic expression?

A part of me answers 'yes' for the morale of the audience, parents, and fans, but there's also another part of me that knows Miley can't be safe and sane forever. She has to explore the world around her and find out who she is. Staying in one's own little world may be safe, but they never see what all is out there.

So if she does go back to that wholesome good girl box maybe it should just be....for the time being? Knowing full well that someday she WILL have to leave? Something to think about. But at the end of the day it has to be Miley's choice. And no amount of fear and intimidation is going to help her make it, or go the way people want her to go.

And hate will DEFINITELY be of NO help.

9.4 So why Miley? Why her?

There is also the apparent belief that those with god given talent, and I believe Miley is among them, should set themselves to a 'higher moral standard', as compared to those that don't have such talent. There is another apparent ideal that those who don't have what they believe to be 'god given talent' are the ones that are supposed to resort to stunts in order to stay in the spotlight.

So what do people want from Miley? Moral perfection? Ideological purity? That kind of sounds like President Clark from Babylon 5. Or the words of a madman.

But are these words of a 'madman' who is right? If she thinks this way will she be 'better?' What if 'they' are the ones who are wrong? When one takes a look at the word 'scandal' the general definition is applied to that of 'bad' person. And once they are hit with that label they are guilty until proven innocent. And even then they are guilty.

And I think in the eyes of some they have found Miley guilty.

In their eyes Miley was supposed to be the 'white meat babyface'. Or like described in 'Infinite Crisis' a 'good' person. Polite, brave, honest, knew right from wrong. They may have wanted her to look at Leibovitz picture and say 'This is wrong.'. Have a philosophy where there was no room for mistakes. Every 'i' dotted. Every 't' crossed. Every angle covered. Zero tolerance for mistakes, making mistakes and imperfection. With failure not an option.

Maybe they do want her to be a happy female Dr. Zee. Or Wesley Crusher. As Dr. Smith on 'Lost in Space' would say "Oh, the pain. The pain."

Or maybe they just want an ideal Miley instead of a real one. And they want the ideal to be 'real'. And if this happens will they make Miley a better person? WIll they be better people for forcing Miley to conform to this desired ideal? Or will they, and Miley, become the biggest hypocrites since Roy Cohn? For those who don't know Roy Cohn was a fire and brimstone individual who spoke out on the apparent 'evils' of homosexuality. But what they did not realize was that Cohn himself was a closet homosexual himself. And when he came out....the word 'hypocrite' definitely applied.

In this day and age Miley is saying she wants to be real. But to some 'real' is 'bad'. In today's world people can be afraid that in a 'real' world there are no 'good' guys. Just 'bad' guy and 'worse' guy. So according to this list a 'good' role model is apparently nice, good, happy, celibate, and paranoid. Any deviation, and Miley will apparently be labeled as 'bad'.

I think someone would be quoting Lorne Greene from Battlestar Galactica after reading these terms. Perhaps even Miley herself. That quote?

"That is one opinion. It does not happen to be mine."

What is my opinion? Well to start, I think Miley has her own definition of what makes her a good person. No matter who would try to tear her down. She tries to give to charity. She tries to be there for her fans, even if the media tries to promote worse case scenario about that too, and I think she wants to do good in a world where 'honest bad' is the apparent 'praised virtue'.

Sounds like a rebel with a cause doesn't it? Maybe even a noble one. And this quote may be cliche, and the meaning of it has been distorted to serve to reinforce the ego of the bozos of the world, but 'How cool is that?'

Of course they probably also expect the rest of young Hollywood to act like 'mini adults'. Well I've seen some real adults act like bratty kids in my time. Mostly in college.

People are probably also afraid of some individuals in the world. Individuals that carry on like sex is a game and virginity should be dumped like excess baggage. And that 'scoring' with girls makes you a man. And Miley being sexual is promoting sexuality among teens, and telling young girls it's all right to give in to these individuals regardless of the consequences. And even if Miley said 'no' that this was not what she is looking to do. Will the fears be allayed? Or will the outraged not be happy unless she falls in line with their way of thinking and denounce her parents words as 'wrong'?

A teen saying 'mom and dad are wrong?' Sounds like every kids dream. But in this case it's not for the kids. It's for the parents. Maybe both sides are making the same mistake here. That mistake being in not seeing 'the other side of the coin'.

I think looking back at everything what Miley needs is someone who follows Madonna's example in regards to her 'Black Madonna' idea. Someone to ask 'who will get this and who won't'. And then tell her 'You're not doing this' or 'It's not worth it.'

She probably also needs to stay away from artists like Annie Leibovitz and others who seem to embrace the philosophy of 'Anything goes'. For when one goes down that road the next stop on that journey is the philosophy of 'How low can you go?' And there are some bloggers, artists, even journalists who tend to follow this philosophy all in the name of profit, recognition, or even a byline. Or worse...because it's fun.

The outraged that apparently need to force their ideals on Miley I think need to back away. Their words may be heeded on some occasions, but they could just as well get a 'Go to Hell' for their actions. Especially if their actions and words are empowering malicious haters. Even if the intentions of the outraged are good they can backfire drastically with Miley going away from the ideal BECAUSE of the outrage shown to her. Just as Miley's actions have backfired on occasion.

It would probably help Miley to understand the philosophy most of these people are apparently coming from. This seems to be a simple one where "Bad is wrong. Good is right. Mistakes are 'bad'. Perfection is 'good'." And Miley should only do, and be, 'good'. And, to them, good seems to be the 'Wholesome Miley.' not the 'Brittney wannabe Miley' as they see that road leading to nothing but free sex, parties, drugs, shaved heads, bad marraiges, and publicized trips to the hospital for bi-polar disorders, or in Lindsey's case carted away in an ambulance after getting arrested for a DUI. Not that it will, but I believe that is the road they see.

As I think of this I think of Fred Durst, lead singer for Limp Bizkit. A victim of bullying himself. When he found out that his songs were being used to empower bulies he stepped away and re-evaluated where he stood. The morality police could probably learn from Mr. Durst's example and step back. Refuse to allow their words to be abused and misused.

But will they?

And as for the malicious haters who seem to be empowered by the words of the outraged. The philosophy of 'just ignore them maybe the'll go away' never works. Because they can also take it as a sign that what they are doing is right and that it is okay for them to do. And they stay on the attack until they get a reaction. A reaction that could lead to the victim hurting themselves, falling into the same vices the outraged criticize others for, or worse-committing suicide.

And if Miley dies there will be some celebrating it. Some did at Michael Jackson's death. If you don't believe me check out some YouTube or message board posters. I remember when a driver on Miley's bus died one of those reviewers was saying how Miley, Brittney and Lindsey should have been on the bus too. The reason why? 'so the trash could have been taken out.'

Sick words. And it seems like no one cares. Because of the seeming lack of caring the malicious haters do what they do (hurt, humiliate) for a simple reason:personal gain, pleasure, and amusement. And so far they have been given a free pass for their actions. A pass granted by the morality police, and by the media from the looks of it. Read some of the articles that come your way if you doubt what I'm saying.

I believe these malicious individuals that hurt people, whether it be celebrity or not, need to be brought to account for their words and actions. And know that these actions have consequences. Because if people continue to ignore, or look the other way, the malicious will think something is right to do and continue on with their behavior until they get a reaction or someone gets hurt.

To them ignoring just means "We are right to do this. We are right to tear her down for every imperfection. We are right to call her 'Slutty' for the Annie Leibovitz photo and the Brittney emulation. We are right to hate her for her 'funny faces'. We are right to call her a 'disgrace'. We are right to give her grief for not staying 'good and wholesome'. We are right to bash a teenage girl. We are right to hurt someone."


And there is no one saying "No. You are wrong."


'Just ignore them. Maybe they'll go away.' doesn't work anymore. Maybe it never did.

What makes this sad is that I think Miley was supposed to be this 'ray of sunshine' in people's lives in a world where 'gritty realism' is praised. But I have found that in a world of 'gritty realism' the light must be dimmed or never allowed to shine. And any that try to shine a light, apparently must be exposed as someone as dark as they are....or a hypocrite.

Now that light has been dimmed. Or has it?

There are those that can't stand light and seek to bring others into their own dark little worlds where they are king, or queen. It's been known that misery loves company, and if there is another 'ray of sunshine' that comes through in the world (Demi Lovato seems to be the likely candidate) will anyone care for it? Or will they fear it becomes dimmed again as we are lost in the eternal darkness of gritty realism that not everyone wants?

With different takes and views, as well as attitudes maybe Cardinal Borusa was right in the Doctor Who episode 'The Deadly Assassin'.

"Only in mathematics will we find truth."

Or maybe there's another message that is said here. One that is a little more 'down to Earth'. A message that goes something like this:

'I am a good person and I can continue to be a good people. Just not on your terms.'

And for those who think I'm overanalyzing. Well, see how you like it.

I think looking back at this people need to realize 'making mistakes doesn't make you 'bad''. It's how you handle them that makes you 'bad'. And just because Miley doesn't have YOUR morality and ethics doesn't mean she doesn't have SOME kind of morality and ethics.


And Miley, if you ever read this there's one last thing I want to say. If you come to another situation where they want you to be 'artistic' or 'funny' remember your audience. Think of them and ask yourself this one question.


'Is it worth it?'

And after you have your answer ask yourself why it's worth it, then be aware that ot everyone will have the same answer as you. For you yourself have mentioned that there are people who see you as a hero, little girls especially. And as Clark Kent said in a ninth season episode of Smallville "Heroes don't always get second chances. And there is NO room for mistakes. Not while the world is watching."

And as I look at this work I can already imagine people thinking 'This guy must be an idiot, or a kook, or maybe he's just nuts'. Well, consider this. There are people out there in the world who decided that it was perfectly acceptable to exploit and tear down a teenage girl for their own gains and their own amusements. And some of them, were grown adults. Or at least were supposed to be.


So I have to ask, who's crazier?

9.5 Is old school really cool?

I mentioned before a quote that indicated "Old school is cool." But is it really?

I found myself reading an old Esquire magazine which featured Megan Fox, and what I noticed were a few comparisons to Miley. In retrospect Miley could be considered more on par with Megan Fox rather than Lindsey Lohan. Incidently, Fox did work with Lohan in the film 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen'. I don't think she liked the experience.

Both Fox and Miley are from Tennessee. Fox has also dealt with 'outraged' individuals and the apparent 'morality police' when she was in school. In the article she mentions that her school experience consisted of 'sex before marraige is bad' individuals that were expecting a certain attitude from her. An attitude Fox came to resent. Fox has also gotten several artistic tattoos on her body, as compared to Miley's one (so far?). And Fox has also expressed distain for people trying to force her into what she considers a 'purity ring, Taylor Swift-like, Disney princess mold', or something along those lines.

So even though Miley may takes some musical cues from Brittney Spears, her attitude and artistic cues may come from Megan Fox more than Lindsey Lohan. Looking as how the 'morality police' use Lohan, and Brittney, as their symbols of what would happen if you don't take the 'purity ring, Taylor Swift-like, Disney princess mold' approach a lot of young Hollywood stars may want to thank Brittney and Lindsey like the Bundy's thank their father for his blunders in episodes of 'Married with Children'. Watch a few episodes of the earlier seasons to find out what I mean.

It's possible Miley's attitudes to art and life are similar to Megan Fox's. However that does not allieviate the fears the outraged and morality police may have.

I think when Miley first started out Hollywood was on this reality and dysfunction kick. Pretty much all one saw on the tube was reality TV with people screwing one another, talking smack, ruthless competitions, soap opera drama, etc. it was like the worst of people was being brought out and praised-to the point where people wondered if the best of people was being knocked down and treated like an old relative that people couldn't wait to shove off to a nursing home. Let them collect their benefits...they've had their day.

It was getting to the point where Hollywood, and people, were operating without any moral restraint. They operated on the ideas of 'Anything goes', and in some cases 'How low can you go?' Then Miley came along.

A girl that could sing, act, came from a family of performers, came from a Christian background, wanted to be a role model to young girls, worked for a family friendly company. I think a lot of people looked at her as 'the second coming of wholesome goodness', or at the very least 'one of us', whoever 'us' was. Then the scandals happened, and in their minds they saw someone who was 'one of us' become 'one of them'.

And as a result people hated on Miley and villified her. Some for fun, some because she didn't stay 'wholesome', and others believe they are trying to save her as they show 'tough love'. They looked to provide for a supposed greater good that kept Miley to the 'good girl' image she started out with. But as I take a look at all that has been said and written, I think people are more afraid than they are angry.

I believe that in the minds of the outraged Miley was supposed to be a symbol of the return of 'wholesome family values', and say 'no' to the sex sells ideals promoted by Hollywood. Something I think Miley and the Cyrus' weren't expecting her to be. But in a world where sex and dysfunction were being promoted instead of honor, compassion and family unity people believed a new symbol was needed. People may have thought the old symbols lost their meaning, were torn down, or just deemed not important anymore.

And if there were no symbols of what was good anymore what's left? A world of bad guy and worse guy? Where people operate with little to no moral restraint? Where compassion is a weakness? Where it is every one for themselves and the problems of others are no one's concern?


Well maybe this has happened. And that....THAT is people's worst fear. Because all they want is for people to stand for what is good in the world again, and care for one another. Not just say it, but mean it.

And for that to happen people believe Miley needs to follow some code of honor. Some way of order. And maybe the rest of Hollywood needs to do this too. Perhaps that is what the 'higher standard' is supposed to be. A code of honor to follow as compared to the 'Anything goes' approach, the 'How low you can go' approach, or the 'Do whatever you want, just don't get caught' approach which mostly is only used to stand for one's own petty interests.

Old school may be cool to some, but the way it can be enforced may not be. Regardless....life can't be an endless party. The party has to end, and one has to contribute to the betterment of the world somehow...and sometime. And the problems of others HAS to be a concern.

9.7 Higher Standards and the Prime Directive

In today's world celebrities and leaders are held to a higher standard. And when one goes against that higher standard it seems like there is no shortage of people ready to jump out and say "Gotcha!" or kick dirt in the face of the person-figuratively and literally if they think they can get away with it. But what exactly is the 'higher standard?'

Is it a set of rules celebrities must live by? Is it a way of life that is expected of public figures? Or is it like how Captain Picard once described the Prime Directive on a first season episode of Star Trek:The Next Generation? And for those not familiar with Trek, the Prime Directive is a directive that forbids the intervention in the affairs of other civilizations, and their cultures. Unless a request is submitted for aid the Federation does not intervene no matter how much it might want to.

This is due to the help being given might solve the immediate problem, but lead to a worse problem down the road. A problem that could lead to disaster for an entire civilization.

"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules. It's a philosophy. A philosophy that dictates that no matter how well intentioned our wish to interfere in a culture might be, the results could prove disastrous."

Of course sometimes Kirk and Picard had wound up....broadly interpreting the Prime Directive for the safety of members of his crew. And sometimes those results had been favorable. Yet there have been others where interference in civilizations was not a good thing. And yet the 'Higher Standard' could be seen in a similar light. Where it's not just a set of rules, but a philosophy. A philosophy that dictates that no matter how we wish to live, or what we wish to do with our lives, the results could prove disastrous. Not just for ourselves, but the people we are looking to serve. In this case, our audiences.

And like Starfleet with the Prime Directive, there are people in the world that take the 'Higher Standard' very seriously. To the point where they expect Hollywood stars to take it with a similar amount of seriousness....if not more so. Whether it's thought to be fair or not.

9.8 Final thoughts

Thought this would never end didn't you? Well things have to end sometime. And remember that if you had a hard time reading this I had an even harder time writing this. Especially as it took me several drafts, and read throughs, to do.

But I wanted to make sure I got this right. Everything that has happened to Miley really got me thinking...a lot, as my writing dictates. And I have to ask to sum everything up 'What is it that the morality police and the haters want?'

For the morality police I'd say they want the 'good' Miley back and for her to stay that way. They probably want her to stay that way until the day she dies. For the haters they either want her as a bi-polar sobbing wreck or her gone from Hollywood altogether. Usually it's for pleasure but sometimes it could be so their favorite performer has an easier time making it to the top.

And if they get what they want, then what? Well the morality police can give themselves props that they 'saved' her from 'going bad' or 'turning into Brittney or Lindsey' which to them is probably the same thing. The haters will likely move onto their next target, emboldened by their actions as they worship their choice like their entertainment preference is God. I kid you not. This could happen.

What is sad about this is that the haters tend to act without any concepts of remorse, compassion or conscience. They tend to believe that the world is a mud pit and everyone should wallow in it like pigs, as long as they are the pig that's king. The logic of the outraged I believe is that they think they are doing a good thing. However in their belief they tend to look the other way in regards to haters, or most likely take an attitude of 'That's your problem. Not ours.'

What unifies them? This is an answer I think no one is going to like.

Somewhere in the back of these individuals minds the outraged and haters believe that Miley deserves the grief she gets. Whether the slight is real or imagined. They take solace in this belief as they take the actions they do for reasons of their own. Whether it be the return of the good girl or her gone altogether.

"To err may be human, and to forgive may be divine". But I'm wondering if some people are thinking that condemning is a lot more fun. I think the haters would tend to think more towards the 'fun' part. But looking back at everything what all has Miley done that's in any comparison to Brittney and Lindsey?

Has Miley partied at clubs like Brittney and Lindsey? Not that I've seen.

Has Miley had brushes with the law like Brittney and Lindsey? No. No DUI's. No jail time.

Has Miley done drugs like Brittney and Lindsey? No.

Has Miley had a lesbian relationship or kiss? No. And I'm sure some will say 'Not yet.'

Has Miley posed nude on the internet? No. She's not Vanessa Hudgens. Miley had her underwear on the whole time. She may change her mind in the future though as she mentioned she may do nude if it's 'classy'.

So right now I'd say that the only thing Miley is guilty of right now is....questionable humor, how questionable I'll leave to others to determine, and broad art tastes. Art tastes that her parents have signed off on. Remember that.

I just picked up the latest issue of Action Comics, which is Action Comics 885, in it was a line that General Sam Lane had said. A line that can reflect how one person can see something and another can see something else entirely.

"People in Metropolis. They say 'Look up in the sky!' And if they saw a cape, they'd call it a symbol of hope. They'd cheer. They never understood. It's a symbol, all right. But not of hope. You know what I think when I look up in the skies?


I think 'INCOMING!'"

Lane is a military man that is blinded by his own hatred of Superman. A hatred that spread to the survivors of the Kryptonian race that survived the destruction of their home planet. As such he's was willing to adjust the truth so that the world sees what he sees in the Kryptonians-a threat that must be destroyed. He takes this to the point of engineering assassinations, employing a body double of Supergirl at a scene of a disaster leaving Metropolis without water, and employing media moguls like Morgan Edge to give media propaganda against the Kryptonians.

General Lane essentially lies to promote his version of the truth. Seeing things through his own hate filled perceptions, and his own ideals.

I don't think Miley wants to look at the world through hate. It seems like too many people do today. They also have their reasons for it, again real or imagined. Still...looking back I find myself torn. I've always believed that the audiences came first. They are who the performances are for. But I can't think the haters, outraged and special interest groups are right either. Especially as they went after Miley, and not her parents.

I also think the outraged looks at Miley's "growing up" from a different perspective, much like General Lane looked at the Kryptonians through a different perspective. In their eyes they don't see Miley 'growing up.' They see her as 'going bad'. And that perspective leads people to think their outrage and actions are for 'good' reasons.

Also, bear in mind this upcoming November Miley will turn 18, and will no longer be under parental authority. So at this point Miley will be deciding her own career path, and and scrutiny she receives will be her own. No parental protection, not that I think she had any. The media always seemed to bypass them to get to her.

So with that I leave with this quote from Superman #694. A speech Ma Kent gave Mon-El of Daxam:

"Clark does so much good. But sometimes evil gets the upper hand with him too. You think with all that (Lex) Luthor got away with...that it didn't bother Clark? He'd come here to talk of an evening sometimes...and this is what Jonathan would tell him.


'Yes sometimes the good guys get played and conned. But you keep on. You begin again. Never give up being the best you can be. Never give up on good ideals, and in the end, victory...the BIG victory, will always go to you'".

And this was from Superman's mother, Martha Kent, reciting the words of her husband. Words I hope Miley knows.

9.9 What about me?

That's what I have to ask myself. Why am I doing this? Why am I writing this that may come off as jibberish to some that only a select group may understand? Or wish to understand?

Am I looking for fame by proxy? Writing this seems like a good way to do that. But if that was all I did then what I said would have no meaning. I wanted what I wrote to be from the heart even if only 25% of the world got it. Probably less. Despite probable ridicule I decided...this was worth it.

I sympathize, and empathize, with Miley. I can't think what the morality police and the media are doing to her is right, especially as all it does is empower haters. But that doesn't mean I can't see where they are coming from either. I do have concerns about the direction Miley is going. I too would like to see Miley 'good' again, but that's got to be her choice. Despite my own feelings I can't agree with the methods being used to apparently deliver this message. Methods that leads to nothing but fear, anger and suffering. Forcing her to be a 'good girl' will not do her any good, and it's probable that such forcing is pushing her away from that ideal.

I also take a look at the world around me and I see sex, war, scandal, drama, all plastered everywhere. It seems like anyone that wants to do good in the world has got to be torn down to make ready for a world no of 'good guy and bad guy' but one of 'bad guy and worse guy', with neither one knowing which is which. I can see Miley's point of view on things, yet I can also see the morality police's point of view as well. And as I think of these things I find myself thinking of a quote I heard somewhere. "There are no good guys in the world. We've killed them all."

I used another quote I wrote in a previous 'long article' about another....matter. A quote that reflected a....piece of entertainment. A quote that reflected what I thought of how that entertainment was handled, and how members of its audience were treated. That quote was "With few exceptions this show was made by assholes for assholes." And if they said they weren't an asshole I'd ask "I don't know. Are you?"

Nowadays I think the world provides for assholes and good people have to be punished. One has to look real hard to find anything good in the world, and they want to hold onto it before it gets corrupted. Perhaps that is the motivation Superman of Earth-2 had, as well as Alex Luthor and others. But while Superman 2 had a change of heart, Alex Luthor and Superboy Prime continued on their dark fall.

There was some unintended good that came out of Superman-2, Superboy Prime, and Alex Luthor's actions. The JSA was reformed with it's mandate revolving around one central statement.

"The world needs BETTER good guys."

And I find myself agreeing with this. I don't think we need to 'keep it real' any longer. Especially if all 'keeping it real' means that only the haters benefit from that.

As I quoted before: 'Perception is reality'. Maybe it's time to change perceptions.

I guess to finally end this I'm going to borrow a page out of Miley's book and do my own list of 7 things I'd like to see done, or would like to do.

7. Miley to work with David Tennant on a stage production, TV show or movie. I think he's fun to work with (even though I've never met him).


6. Miley to listen to the songs 'The Touch' and 'Dare' by Stan Bush. Rocking songs that are very uplifting, and have a positive message.


5. My car to stop breaking down every month.


4. Rebuild my finances, which I can't do due to my car breaking down every month.


3. Get my trailer restored so I can finally start my life. I'm running out of youth.


2. I want the good guys back. No more 'being real disguised as 'bad guy/worse guy' but compassionate heroes that stand for causes greater than themselves. Care about others and stand up for what they believe it.

I thought about making this number one, but as I wrote this down I found I wanted something else for Miley...and maybe for me as well as others. So here's number one, and the END of this puppy.

1. To have a good life.

And yet there is also one more thing I would like Miley to do. Next time she goes to Annie Leibovitz or some photographer that takes part in 'sexy' pictures, or risque. Or does anything 'risque' look out to the audience, or think of them. Look out at what she's looking to do, think of her fans, and ask one question.

"Is it worth it?"

And no matter what happens.

Please put the fans, and the audience, first. Or work with us to find a middle ground. Because despite what others would say....I believe we DO matter.

And if anyone sees anything 'sexual' about her performances ask yourselves this 'Do you see mayonaise and a rake anywhere?'

Comic Book Comparisons

8.1 Marvel

And now we have fully arrived at the world of comics, Sci-Fi and adventure. Where people take what's in the world and think outside the box. If not...beyond it. Starting out I guess I should start with the Avengers and Hank Pym. Which if you take a look at it could also have some comparisons to another high profile media case-Chris Brown and Rhianna.

In one of the issues of Avengers, which was reprinted for the Secret Invasion event as a requiem for the Janet Van Dyne/Wasp character, it had Henry Pym-then known as Yellowjacket on trial for attacking an enemy from behind. Captain America was serving as the prosecutor in the case. A job he did not want, but took anyway out of a sense of duty.

What sticks out to me the most here though is a speech Captain America gave at Hank Pym's hearing. It went something like this:

"It was a mistake. A misjudgement made on the spur of a tense, pressured moment. It could have triggered disaster. But it didn't. We were lucky. So the temptation is to forget it. Write it off. We tend to feel that way because each of us thinks that it'll happen to us someday.


WRONG! We can't let it happen! We're the Avengers. Not the Brooklyn Dodgers. One 'error' by one of us can cost thousands of lives. We don't dare allow ourselves to think it's EVER all right to make a mistake!


Our responsibility is overwhelming! We've got to judge ourselves harshly! I recommend for Yellowjacket, as I would for myself, the severest possible penalty."

What I find ironic about this is that Cap makes this speech knowing that he himself is capable of making similar mistakes. Maybe not to the level of Hank Pym, but similar. And I also have to ask, if there are those that recommend a similar penalty for Miley would they recommend it for themselves as well?

In the issue Cap remembers a story in which he was in World War II and instinctively threw his shield at a supposed target, only to find it was a little girl who ducked to collect some war trash for money. The shield missed, but Cap wondered what would have happened if the shield hit. Would he have been in any better a situation than Pym had been? It was only through dumb luck that Cap's shield did not hit.

However Hank Pym's troubles did not just stem from trouble on the battlefield. He was having a nervous breakdown which led to him hitting his wife Janet. In the hearing room Janet took off glasses she was wearing to reveal a black eye Pym had given her. Pym had become a wife beater, and even if it was only one time Pym would admit that it was one time too many. And his actions would haunt him for all his days.

Hank Pym took responsibility for his actions. He blamed nobody but himself. Just as Miley had done for her supposed 'mistakes' and just as Chris Brown did his for his actions against Rhianna. Neither Pym nor Brown decided to say that it was someone else's fault. Brown realizes the crosses he bears and carries them as best he can so he can be a better person. Just like Miley does. And on Larry King, it looks as if Chris Brown does the same.

But sometimes taking responsibility doesn't mean anything. Sometimes, even with a supposed mistake, people believe they deserve every bit of villification thrown at someone. Just as J. Jonah Jameson does with Spider Man.

8.2 Spider Man

If you've ever read Spider Man you know of the gruff and loud J. Jonah Jameson who splashes headlines of 'Spider Man:Menace' on the front page or editorial page of the Daily Bugle. In earlier issues of Spider Man Jonah had reporters appealing to senses of vanity by promising to get quotes from people into the paper. And he did, to get the desired result he wanted:the truth as HE saw it.

And as the power of the press grew so did Spidey's troubles with the law. As there is a belief among the people that if something is printed in a newspaper then it must be true. A belief that I think is common among today's media. I also remember an episode of Quantum Leap that had a girl being raped, and the media crucified the victim and seemed to side with the rapist as his family were respected members of the community. The rapist's family also donated a new pipe organ to a church, which seemed to increase their influence.

Looking at these examples I wonder if some in the media are actually printing the truth, or are they printing the truth through one's perceptions? And are those perceptions good for the individual and/or the public at large?

In his comic Spidey is written as a hero. He wants to do good in the world, mostly to make up for failing to stop the robber that murdered his Uncle Ben. But Jonah doesn't see it that way. He sees a masked thrill seeker that is a menace, and he goes out of his way to prove that image true. Perhaps to the point of....'adjusting' the truth as it fits with his vision. Adjustments that appeal to some of people's worst aspects:fear, vanity, hate, etc.

I thnik in this regard Miley is much like Spider Man. In that no matter how much good she tries to do there will always be someone who thinks the same way Jonah does with Spider Man. And as the power of a man like Jonah grows, and his vision of the truth becomes the vision others see, it hampers the good Miley and Spidey can do. Which leads to hatred from the people they are trying to protect/serve and, in Miley's case, entertain.

8.3 Civil War

This media perception can be seen in other avenues as well. Like in the Marvel mega event 'Civil War'. And yes it was a 'mega event'. You had to buy so many issues to keep up with one story. But I digress.

In the first issue the New Warriors, a super team of kids that had a reality show, were staked out of a home in Stamford that had super villains holed up in it. One of them being a human bomb by the name of Nitro that was dosed up on a drug called Mutant Growth Hormone. The Warriors consider calling in the Avengers, but Speedball says "Think of the ratings if we bust these guys." Needless to say the Warriors were spotted and a battle busts out. In the battle Nitro explodes. Not far away from a playground with kids playing. The kids, and people of Stamford die. Some of the New Warriors even die. Speedball is the lone surivivor. And Nitro, who can reassemble himself after an explosion, escapes.

But does the media blame Nitro for the explosion? No. The Warriors are to blame. And focus turns to the Superhuman Registration Act which calls for people with super powers to register their identities with the U.S. Government. If they don't they would be placed under arrest and sent to a prison in the Negative Zone until they registered. No one thinks to blame Nitro. No one thinks to look for him, as it was his power that caused the explosion. The media in this story is so hot to put the blame on the Warriors and other heroes, not to mention the Registration Act that Nitro-more or less-gets a free pass as no one from the media goes after him. The only ones to go after Nitro are Wolverine of the X-Men and Avengers and Namor, as his cousin Namorita was one of the New Warriors who died in Nitro's explosion.

The trail then leads to Walter Declun who headed a Super Hero clean up operation called Damage Control. He sold Nitro the MGH that caused the big explosion figuring that such damage would be big for Damage Control's profit margin. Lives lost in the name of profit, and the attention is off of him. Until Wolverine showed up and showed why he is...the best he is at what he does.

8.4 Comparisons with reality

What does any of this have to do with Miley? Well again it's a matter of comparisons.

Just as everyone went after Miley for her scandals, no one in the media went after Annie Leibovitz for her role. She only received a few side mentions, Miley was the main target. In the alledged 'racist' pic the media singled out Miley, exclusively. With the possible exception of her then boyfriend Justin Gaston, and another of Asian descent looking wide eyed, no one else was singled out. The attention here was focused on a teenaged girl and something that could be considered, at best, a questionable action.

A questionable action that led to a first apology being called 'bratty', to haters becoming empowered to call her an actual "racist", and one shock jock commediane calling her "a disgrace". No one reported on what the intent was of the picture...if there was any at all. Whose idea it was, and what led to people thinking that this picture was a good idea.

But from what I've seen in the media, and from George Wu of the OCA, no one apparently thinks to ask that. They come off as 'Blame Miley. Ignore the cause.'. Just as they come off as 'Ignore Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair. Ignore Trainreq for hacking Miley's computer, and ignore the other people in the picture. They are of no importance as they don't provide a good enough story as 'good girl goes bad'. Just as the media came off as 'Blame the Warriors' in Civil War. Ignore Nitro. And ignore Walter Declun'. The Registration Act was what was considered 'newsworthy' as well as the bloodbath that happens with friends dying, beliefs challenged....

....and a legend in Captain America surrendering, being locked away like a common criminal, and then shot in the back. Assassinated on the court house steps as he sought to speak out on the Registration Act by agents of the Red Skull. A similar assassination, with a similar theme, took place in the DC Comics mini series event Infinite Crisis where the assassin Deathstroke shot Uncle Sam (the living embodiment of America) in the back and left him to die in a pool of oil.

The shooting of these characters, which are meant to represent the country and its ideals, really sent waves through me as I read them. And perhaps other readers too. For Captain America was being locked away before he was shot. And it got me wondering, and maybe others, if our ideals weren't being locked away as well. Then the shooting happened, and I think people wonder if that hasn't happened to our ideals as well. With Uncle Sam, he was immediately shot, and left to die in a pool of oil. Originally it was supposed to be blood. But writer Geoff Johns was asked to turn the liquid to oil, and soon a new meaning took effect. A meaning that leaves people most likely wondering if this actually happened. Ideals shot in the back for oil.

Some would say yes. Some would say no. But I think people on both sides may wonder what happened to the spirit of our country. Was it shot in the back for special interests? Like the Registration Act was for Marvel?

And as we get back into the Marvel swing of things for now, readers find that as the Registration Act takes effect the world takes on a darker turn with Norman Osborn taking over as security for the country. Even though Tony Stark/Iron Man leads the victory over Cap in Civil War in the mega story 'Secret Invasion', which was about a Skrull Invasion of Earth that had Super Skrulls hiding among the super hero community, Tony loses his position as head of security for the country.

And for those who read comics, yes Norman Osborn is the Green Goblin. The tormentor of Spider-Man, the murderer of Gwen Stacy, the 'father of the year' to Harry Osborn (I say with an eyeroll). However this is all glossed over by the media in the comics. The rationale is 'He's here to keep the country safe. We let him do his job.'

Even though he sees the job as more of a benefit for his own 'personal gain'. But hey, he got the kill shot against the Skrull Queen while Tony Stark let the Skrull Invaders land. Let the villain be the 'hero' and let the 'old hero' be villified.

8.5 Civil War with the Amazing Spider Man

As I write this I found myself thinking of J.Michael Straczynski's issues of 'Amazing Spider Man', part of his contribution to the Civil War storyline. Issues 533 to 537 to be precise. In these issues Peter Parker learns about Tony Stark's Negative Zone prison where those that do not sign the Superhuman Registration Act are held indefinitely. An act that while considered morally wrong by the opposing side is considered legal by the government. As the story continues Peter asks Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four, the only supporter of the Registration Act during the Civil War, one question. 'Why?' Reed Richards gives his answer as he thinks back to a story of his favorite uncle, his Uncle Ted.

"Uncle Ted was funny, accepting, and he used to take me up the street twice a week for ice cream and talks about the world. Unlike the rest of the family he wasn't a scientist. He was a writer. He found everyone interesting. He'd talk to strangers, wear the wrong colored socks, ate at strange little restaurants. My Uncle Ted was an eccentric. He was funny and colorful and I loved him. But he was also stubborn, and didn't care for rules. And if you pushed him he pushed back just as hard.

Unfortunately, this was a time when Joe McCarthy and the House of Un-American Activities committee was in full bloom. Looking for communists among the military, the government...and the arts. If you stood out. If you didn't conform, you had a better than even chance of being called before the committee. And my Uncle Ted was all of those things, so he was subpoenaed to appear before the HUAC and explain himself. To testify. To tell them he wasn't a communist, and to name the names of those he thought might be communists.

I've never read the actual transcripts of what he told the committee, but my mother used to say she was surprised the stenography machines didn't burst into flames. But he summed it up really well in his concluding sentence.


'Go to Hell', he told them.

They held him on contempt of congress for six months. And when he got out his career was over. Nobody would hire him, buy his stories, or answer his phone calls. Even my father refused to let him come around. He lost his life savings, his home, and in the end--


--in the end. It killed him."

You would think that one would come to the conclusion that Ted Richards stood up for what he believed in against individuals that were using the policies of fear to enforce an ideal, despite the legality of the actions. But that was not the conclusion Reed Richards had come to. He decided that his Uncle Ted was wrong. Reed thought Uncle Ted picked a fight he could not win. Reed Richards decided that whether the HUAC was right or wrong in their actions or not was not the issue. He decided their actions were the law, and until the law is changed in an orderly way the law is obeyed.

But what Richards didn't ask was 'What if those in charge didn't want the law to be changed? What if they were fine with it as it was? And the fear of the law would make it an effective deterrent?' And while the actions of these outraged parents, groups, media and haters are not government sanctioned they come off still playing to the same policies of fear and intimidation that McCarthy and the HUAC played. And it's rationalized by saying that it's for a greater good. But what happens when we go against that greater good and become the monsters we accuse others of being?

Peter answers this question in the following issue.

"We all want to be safe. We all want to know we can go to bed at night and have a good chance of waking up without somebody in a costume blowing up a building."

Or something else.

"But there's a point where the end doesn't justify the means. If the means require us to give up not just our identities, but who we are as a country."

Or as people.

"The question isn't what does a country stand for when things are easy. The question is what does a country stand for when standing is the hardest? When does the country we're living in stop being the country we're born in? Some people say the most important thing in the world is that we should be safe. But I was brought up to believe there are some things worth dying for. If the cost of silence is the soul of the country...if the cost of tacit support is that we lose the very things that make this nation the greatest in human history--


--then the price is too high."

And this quote above is why I cannot think these individuals that think going after a teenage girl for her mistakes is the right thing to do. We can't bring about the best of people if we go against what makes the best of people just that-the best of people.

Compassion and understanding are what's called for with Miley I believe. And any grievances the parents have take them up with Billy Ray and Tish. They are the ones raising Miley. Sadly there are people that haven't done that. They went for the kid, and bypassed the parents. The worst case scenario promoted. Who's right? Who's wrong?

Maybe these next quotes will answer that. The first series are from Mark Twain, which appeared in ASM 538.

"In a republic, who is 'the country?'


Is it the government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the government is merely a temporary servant: It cannot be its perogative to determine what is right and what is wrong. And decide who is a patriot and who isn't. It's function is to obey orders, not originate them.


Who, then is 'the country'? Is it the newspaper? Is it the pulpit? Why these are mere parts of the country, not the whole of it. They have not command, they have only their little share in the command,


In a monarchy, the king and his family are the country. In a republic, it is the common voice of the people. Each of you, for himself, by himself, and on his own responsibility, must speak.


It is a solumn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catchphrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man."

Or young woman as the case may be.

"To decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcuseable traitor. Both to yourself and to your country. Let men label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and your country. Hold up your head. You have nothing to be ashamed of."

And maybe this is what Miley and the Cyrus' are doing. They are deciding for themselves what is 'right' and what isn't. They seek not to hurt anyone, but they will not be pressured to be something they are not either. Especially not Miley. And I think this last quote from Captain America reflects Miley's position. If it doesn't she can say I'm wrong.

"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else:the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences.


When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move. our job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world--


--'No, YOU move.'"

And I think that's what Miley did in her recent articles in Harper's Bazzar, Parade, and others.

8.6 Definition of 'Art' in comics

I also want to cover the definition of 'art' as even in comics the definition can be considered 'broad'. Case in point:Phillip Masters. Aka the 'Puppet Master'. A villain mostly seen in the pages of 'Fantastic Four'.

In three issues of Ms. Marvel Phillip Masters decided he was going to go into an 'art trade'. Interactive art. He was going to use his atomic clay to carve statues of living people to sell to prospective buyers. Clay sculptures that allowed the 'buyer' to control the subject it was made to resemble. If the sculpture was made to resemble a beautiful woman then it would control said woman.

Masters had many women in his 'showroom'. He did have some male stock as not to sound sexist, but he found it moved slower and was best used for menial labor. But once the buyer had his 'art' then it could be used to sate their every.....desire. However questionable it may have been. Masters was also not limited by age in the pursuit of his 'art'. He even had 15 year old Cassie Lang-the Young Avenger known as Stature-in his showroom. He even acquired young Arana to be sold.

After reading those issues it made me wonder what definition people have towards 'art'.

8.7 From Marvel to DC:Tora and Mary

Shifting gears from Marvel I want to get a look at DC Comics. Most notably two characters in particular. Tora 'Ice' Olafstodder and Mary 'Mary Marvel' Batson.

Both of these characters were considered 'wholesome good girls'. Nice, polite, wanted to save the world. But in their respective comics both get corrupted by dark powers and it costs them. For Ice it costs her her life in the JLI Comic (until her 'resurrection' in Birds of Prey). For Mary, it costs her her soul in Countdown, and then in Final Crisis, until finally she has no more chances as the power of Shazam is taken from her and her brother Billy, who is corrupted by Mary and her first corruptor Black Adam.

I think when people see these 'wholesome good' characters people seem to be sickened by them. They seem to believe 'No one is that nice. How 'fake' are they?' They tend to believe that in order to be 'real' you have to have something 'bad' happen to you. Well in both their cases it did. For Mary, it was multiple times.

At heart Mary Marvel was a good character, who wanted to do good. But she fell under the temptation of Black Adam first who gave her a dark power that corrupted her soul. A part of her realized the dark path she had taken and turned away. She was given another chance with a new set of powers, but fell under the path of Darkseid when she realized how 'strong' the darkness made her. A strength that led to Darkseid taking over the world and saping all the free will from it leaving them all as mindless slaves to him in Final Crisis.

And then the third time in JSA which had the wizard Shazam return from the grave and find her unworthy because she couldn't say 'no' to the dark power. No longer can she be Mary Marvel. She has been corrupted. She is considered unworthy. She apparently cannot say 'no' to darkness. She is no longer 'wholesome' and 'good'.

You know, I find myself reading these words, and I think about the concepts of 'wholesome' and 'good'. And I think the problem here is that Mary didn't expect the ideals she was supposed to represent to be challenged. She may have thought being 'wholesome' and 'good' would get her a free pass because that was the heroic standard people were supposed to set. Apparently that was not the case as Black Adam and Darkseid wanted to corrupt Mary and bring them to a darker level.

They saw a light she represented and wanted to dim, if not extinguish, it. Of course it was probably made easier when others don't find the light 'cool' anymore. That being 'dark' and 'gritty' is much cooler. Yet they do not consider the price of such darkness.

Mary had been given two other chances not to give into temptation, and she gave in both times. Each time she lost herself and got corrupted by the darkness until she was left with nothing but her brother, who was also corrupted by dark power. All for the feeling of 'strength' it provided.

How long it will take for Mary to realize her mistake remains to be seen. As for Ice, her journey is still ongoing.

8.8 Infinite Crisis

I also find myself thinking of Infinite Crisis as I think of DC. In that Superman of Earth-2, Lois Lane of Earth-2, Superboy-Prime, and Alexander Luthor watch the world and see it all going 'bad'. That the heroes are becoming worse than the villains. To that end they seek to eliminate all that is 'bad' and replace it with a 'good' Earth. A 'perfect' Earth.

Some could take a look at Infinite Crisis, and the events leading up to it as 'real':The Justice League lobotomizing Arthur Light because he raped someone and threatened to go after the League's families, Zatanna lobotomizing Batman which he saw as a violation leading him to create Brother Eye-leading to Maxwell Lord taking it and creating the OMAC Project, and Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord because he had Superman under control and threatened to use him to kill anything in his way. They believed they had no choice, but when the time came to set themselves to a higher standard they could not, or would not, do it. Which led to the decision to 'erase' Earth and replace it.

Superman of Earth-2 actually did confront Wonder Woman and Superman for their sins. And Superman of Earth-2 said that Superman "Could have stopped this from happening. You should have. You should have led them to a better tomorrow. And when this world needed it's greatest heroes they refused to stand together. You had the chance to make this world the perfect place it had the potential to be and you wasted it."

I think a similar argument could be made from the 'outraged parents' to Miley's parents. Those parents believing that the Cyrus's could have stopped her from doing the things she had done, and should have. That they should have kept her on the straight and narrow and showed other kids how to be a 'better person'. And anything 'bad' they should have kept her from at all costs.

If members of the morality police read Infinite Crisis what they would have to say would probably come out like this paraphrased version of Superman's argument:

"The truth is you allowed your daughter to be exploited. You allowed her to go in directions without regard for the audience of young people she is supposed to provide for. You didn't inform her how some gestures can be offensive. And you, you could have stopped all of this! You should have! You should have kept her on the straight and narrow and promote the better ideals! And when people told her what she needed to do she refused to listen to them saying that she couldn't go back! You had the chance to make her the perfect role model she had the potential to be and you wasted it! So that's why we're getting involved, to do what you failed to do!"

Bear in mind this is a speculative paraphrasing not an actual accusation. I'm sure the Cyrus's would have their own paraphrased response if they read this and choose to respond. But in the actual comic Superman responded to his counterpart's argument with "If this is your world it can't be perfect. Because a perfect world doesn't need a Superman."

Perhaps Billy Ray and Tish's response would be "If this is your ideal it can't be perfect. Because a perfect ideal doesn't allow any room for growth or to be anything else." Miley can also say that she's being 'real'. But I'm wondering if the attitudes of those parents are like those of Superman of Earth 2 and Alexander Luthor. That all 'real' is is different levels of 'bad'. Nothing more. Nothing less. And all being 'real' does is create a world full of villains.

But in the process Superboy Prime and Alexander Luthor become 'real', as Superboy Prime seeks to convince others about how 'good' he is by letting his fists do the talking. Which leads to him killing, or dismembering, some Teen Titans, beating up Wonder Girl while saying they are going to have, "'Good' heroes again", and seeking to erase the universe so it can start anew. The definition of 'good' being those heroes that are "polite, brave and honest."

Alexander Luthor also believes that he knows what is best, and that others views have become corrupted by darkness leading him to think he has the divine right to do whatever he wants to ensure that the world becomes 'perfect' or 'good' as he believes it to be. No matter who has to be sacrificed. And yet Alexander Luthor also swerved events to go an even darker tone with giving Max Lord the Brother Eye, starting a war between Rann and Thanagar, and unifying a super society of villains.

So they believe that in order to enforce those 'good' views it is necessary to compromise them. The ends justify the means, as long as the greater good is being served. This way of thinking led to Superboy Prime getting imprisoned multiple times and Alexander Luthor getting shot in a Gotham alley by Lex Luthor and the Joker. Perhaps somewhere along the line what they were doing stopped being about the 'greater good' and started to be about themselves.

And the world was not completely dark, as Batman pointed out. He asked Superman of Earth-2 if Dick Grayson/Robin 1/Nightwing was a better version on Earth-2. Superman-2 could not answer that as he saw that Dick Grayson was one that was not corruptedby darkness. Even when he had reason to be. His parents killed, a city full of darkness, surrounding himself with the worst of humanity. But Dick Grayson still tried to remain optimistic. Even with the super hero trinity of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman Dick Grayson was considered the heart of the DCU by those that worked on Infinite Crisis. Perhaps by even more.

Through it all Dick Grayson holds on to what it means to be a hero, even under the darkest of circumstances. And Wonder Woman reminds Superman of Earth-2 that if he, Alex Luthor and Superboy Prime replace their world they throw out the 'good' with the 'bad'.

The 'good' is also evident in Connor Kent/Superboy, who sacrifices his life to save the Earth from Alex Luthor and Superboy Prime.

8.9 Supergirl and Cat Grant

I guess there is another DC Comics example I can use to describe Miley and the media. The relationship between Supergirl and Cat Grant of the Daily Planet.

In the event 'Amazons Attack' the Amazons of Themyscaria attack Washington DC as retribution for the OMAC attack directed by Maxwell Lord. Supergirl decides to go with the Amazons as her friend Wonder Girl gets her powers from the Greek Gods, which the Amazons worship. In one skirmish Air Force One is brought down by Supergirl and Wonder Girl. An accident, but irrelevant. Supergirl is seen as an enemy combatant as a result of her mistake and things go worse from there. Even after the Amazon Invasion, thanks to Cat Grant.

Cat Grant looks at bad mouthing Supergirl for her mistakes as a means to get to the top. Any piece of damaging information, whether it be true or not, she'll use and print. Recently she blamed Supergirl and her friends Nightwing and Flamebird for a terrorist action that left Metropolis without water. In actuality it was a witch Mirabai and two villains named Metallo and Reactron, on orders from General Sam Lane. However since it was Supergirl seen, Cat Grant sees an opportunity to continue her expose, the 'fall of Supergirl'.

When you take a look at Cat Grant, and read about her, she comes off as 'fake'. She looks like she's had plastic surgery, is trying to hide wrinkles, and Lois Lane even mentions when wanting to punch Cat's teeth out that she's get fake teeth to go with her fake....well you get the picture. The mata hari haircut doesn't help either. Yes she has one.

In retrospect, Cat Grant tries to maintain an image of perfection. An image that seems to be maintained by plastic surgery, and the belittlement of others for their supposed 'mistakes'. Especially Supergirl, who is constantly crucified by the maliciousness of Cat Grant. Maliciousness that seems to spread to others as one takes a look at message boards, commentaries, and blogs-hate seems to spread. And if push comes to shove, Cat makes sure she wears her shirts buttoned low so people can see her supposedly fake boobs.

Years ago, when there wasn't any internet, hate mail was sent through the post office. Mail that was reportedly filtered out so as the celebrity was not hurt by any negative, or nasty words. But nowadays celebrities, and other famous people, have no such protection. If someone wants to tear someone down maliciously without regards for consequence, they can. Whether the words are true, right, or not. And you don't have to be part of the press to do it either. Just start up a YouTube blog and bad mouth to your heart's content I guess.

I look at this and I find myself wondering if a new form of bullying has not been born. Taking some back to the school days they would rather not relive. Where the bully was in charge and made life hell for the good kids in school. Supergirl may have the powers of Superman, and want to do as much good as him. But she's not seen in the same light as he is. She's crucified for her mistakes, much like Miley is. She's not seen as a teenaged girl, which she is. But she's seen as wearing the symbol of her cousin, and disgracing it.

I look at Cat Grant and I see her as someone who is not seeing the truth, but rather an opportunity to advance her career. She sees things from, at best, a skewed perspective. For her it's all about spectacle and headlines to advance herself and her career. Sounds a little like Margaret Cho, but Ms. Cho doesn't seem as plastic as Cat Grant. Ms. Cho may sound as mean as Cat Grant, but not as plastic.

Is the rest of the media like Cat, fake and goes for sensationalism for their own gain? Or are there still some Lois Lane's out there that go for the truth? Good question.

But also we must ask ourselves 'Who do we hold accountable?'

8.10 Supergirl, Star Wars, and the hero's journey

Recently in Supergirl #50 Helen Slater (the Supergirl from the Supergirl movie) wrote a story that had a discussion on Supergirl. Cat Grant was on the opposing side trying to paint her as 'bad' while Ron Troupe was doing what he could to sound impartial. Cat Grant tore into Supergirl saying how she "Causes more problems than she fixes. She doesn't even think about the costs of her actions." citing fights with Major Lucy 'Superwoman' Lane and Reactron-the killer of Supergirl's father, and promising to cure a kid's cancer, and failing. Cat also compared her more to "a teen starlet who's known more for going to rehab than doing what she's supposed to do.'" Also that "She shouldn't even try to be a 'hero' until she grows up."

I guess is people want to punish Supergirl for her mistakes Cat Grant would be happy to hold the Kryptonite paddle I guess. But Cat wasn't the only voice here. In this story there was a character named Dr. Joseph Cartwright who was referring to Supergirl's story as 'the hero's journey'. A theory based on Joseph Campbell's theory of the monomyth. A literary term used in mythological stories. An approach that carried over to George Lucas's 'Star Wars.'

Both Anakin Skywalker, and his son Luke, set off on 'Hero's Journies.' Yet each taking different paths and arriving at different destinations. In fact Luke was part of Anakin's 'Hero's Journey' The part that stems from 'Rescue from Without'. As Luke is being blasted by the Emperor's lightning in Return of the Jedi. Anakin, who was tempted to become Darth Vader, turns away from the darkness and sacrifices himself to save his son. Bringing an end to Anakin's quest-to bring balance to the Force.

Before I go any further with this analysis I want to explore the theory of 'the call to adventure. Campbell breaks down the theory into seventeen steps. But some don't use all seventeen. Some narrow the steps down to eight. Wikipedia however listed the seventeen, divided into three subsections, and I will list them below.Also I will see how these steps could apply to Miley.

Departure

1. The call to adventure-the auditions for Hannah Montana. Or perhaps when she did work for Billy Ray's series 'Doc'.

2. Refusal of the call-I think it's safe to say that this didn't happen. Her life of normality had been one of being bullied with cheerleading being an outlet. I think it's safe to say that with the 'call to adventure' Miley would not have refused it.

3. Supernatural aid-Where a guide, or magic helper, appears. So far the only known one has been Billy Ray, who accompanied Miley on her journey as she took the role of Hannah.

4. The crossing of the first threshold-Where she leaves Tennessee behind and enters the world of Hollywood. 'An unknown and dangerous realm where the rules and limits are not known.' Ha ha!

5. Belly of the whale-The final separation from the hero's known world and self. The hero undergoes a metamorphosis. Miley goes from girl to superstar.

Initiation

6. The road of trials-Series of tests, tasks and ordeals, to begin the transformation. Often the person fails one or more of these tests. Which often occur in threes. Some would say that the audition process is the road of trials, but lets look at this from a different way.

What if Miley's scandals are the road of trials? What is the Annie Leibovitz picture, the 'racially offensive' picture, and 'the pole' among others, are her road of trials. According to some they would believe she failed those trials. But yet she's still here right? Something to consider.

7. The meeting with the goddess-Where a person finds love that is all powerful, and all consuming. Some would say this is Nick Jonas, as she was his first love. Some might disagree and say it's Liam Hemsworth-her new boyfriend right now.

8. Woman as temptress-Not necessarily limited to women, as man can fulfill this role as well. The Emperor did with Anakin in Star Wars, and tried with Luke. This more or less represents the physical, or material, temptations, of life that lead the hero to abandon or stray from his or her quest.

In Miley's case, some might say this person is Annie Leibovitz, and others that convinced Miley her more 'controversial moments' were good ideas. But does this mean that Billy Ray and Tish fall into this category as well? For that question I have no answer.

9. Atonement with the father-The hero must confront the individual that holds life and death power, or the ultimate power in the hero's life. And be initiated by them. All steps move to this place. All others move out from it.

It does not necesarily have to be a 'father figure' that does this. Just a being of power. In a twisted sense of irony I wonder if the paparazzi, haters, outraged, maybe even Perez Hilton and Margaret Cho even are the ones who fill this role. Even though they are regarded as part of the problem at best...maybe this is the role they fill. Just as the Emperor Palpatine initiated Anakin into the Sith and becoming Darth Vader.

Their maliciousness and hate serve as Miley's initiation process. What will happen next to her stems from these moments. Moments that may or may not be finished. Sadly this bit may lead to haters thinking they have some sort of significance in things. I apologize in advance if anyone comes to this conclusion and causes anyone grief. But also take comfort that there are others of relevance as well. Their moment will come as the theory is explained.

As a matter of fact, their part is number 14. But read on before you get to there please.

10. Apotheosis-Dying the physical, or spiritual, death to move on to the next plane. Attaining the state of knowledge, love, compassion and bliss. This is usually a grace period before the hero begins their return.

11. The ultimate boon-The prize they sought. The goal of the quest. Has Miley achieved her goal?

Return

12. Refusal of the return-Where the hero chooses not to return to his home to bestow their boon to his/her people for reasons of their own. Has Miley achieved her goal? If she has does she seek to return? The actions in the 'Atonement of the father' stage may indicate reasons to return. Or maybe the actions in the 'Atonement' stage are reasons for her to stay? To show them that she has not been vanquished by their 'initiations'?

13. The magic flight-Where the hero must escape with the boon. Beginning a journey that can be as hazardous as the initial journey itself. So far, I don't think this has happened yet.

14. Rescue from without-This is the role Miley's fans fill. The guides and rescuers that bring the hero back to every day life. Especially if the hero is wounded and weakened by the experience, with the 'initiation being among them. These are the people that help Miley back together. Just as her friends and family do as well.

15. The crossing of the return threshold-To retain the wisdom of the quest, and share it with the rest of the world. It is regarded as difficult, especially if the wisdom Miley sees may not be the wisdom others see. Or want to see.

16. Master of two worlds.-Achieving a balance between the material and spiritual. The hero is comfortable and competent in both the inner and outer worlds.

17. Freedom to live.-Freedom from the fear of death, or rather freedom to live. Living in the moment, never anticipating the future, nor regretting the past. Even if Miley's journey is not yet over, could she have attained this step already?

But getting back to the Supergirl analysis, like Miley, Luke Skywalker, Anakin Skywalker, and maybe many of us, Supergirl heeds the 'call to adventure'. And the character of Dr. Joseph Cartwright says this in his analysis.

"I would say she is perhaps too young to be so exposed to the scrutiny of society. Clearly she has the 'call to adventure'. And from the 'Hero's Journey' perspective,now may be the time for a teacher. Someone who can provide discipline, guidance, and training." Ron Troupe asks if that person should be Superman. And maybe some even ask if that should be Billy Ray and Tish for Miley. Here's Dr. Cartwright's answer.

"It's possible. However, many times the people who light our path are not the ones we are related to. Just because she wears his costume, that doesn't automatically make him her guide."

Of course Cat Grant rolls her eyes at this. After some 'Man on the street' quotes that paint Supergirl positive Ron Troupe gives his own views.

"She is, after all, an inexperienced and perhaps undisciplined Kryptonian girl. But she has great value to Metropolis and to the world. Supergirl is a hero and a role model. Above all, she is a girl trying to find her way in the world. She makes mistakes, but she is growing and developing positively."

Based on reading this, maybe Miley really is 'Supergirl' like in her Hannah Montana song 'Supergirl', only without the powers.

Inspiration and ideals

7.1 MY role models growing up

When I was growing up, I had my share of role models. They were individuals and characters I believed I could look up to and draw inspiration from when the real world offered no such inspirations for various reasons. When it came to heroes and positive influences in life I found I had to, at times, look elsewhere growing up. I found a few in T.V., books and stories. One of those role models was Tom Baker, best known for his tenure on the show 'Doctor Who'.

Like so many Americans Tom Baker was my first exposure to the show 'Doctor Who' that came from Britain and aired on PBS stations across the country. When he came on the scene as the Doctor he came off as a very smart, but unusual, man. He had a very keen intellect, but he also had a manic smile that was very infectious. This may come off as weird, but I resented a lot of smiles as I saw them. It always gave me the impression that the people in the picture had not suffered a day in their lives while I, and others, had done nothing but suffer.

With Baker I got no such impression. When he smiled, he made others feel like smiling. As if "Smile, be happy" was something he could back up saying, and that others could actually do. Of course his wit on the show made it very easy for people to smile at pretty much everything he did on screen. Over the years however I found that while the character of the Doctor was a good role model for me: his message of 'Smile, be happy', and that it was okay to march to a different drummer (him wearing a scarf on TV that touched the ground was VERY different), Tom Baker the man may not have been 'role model' material.

There were reports that he was not a good man to be around when shooting seasons was happening. I heard a fan who attended a convention one of Baker's co-stars was at say that Baker sometimes threw scripts out the window telling the script person to "Fix it!" if he didn't like it. He also had been a heavy smoker and drinker, tributes that carried over for years to the point where when it was reported that Tom Baker had died one year (It was an American actor with the same name) Baker would later joke "I didn't know that. I was drunk at the time."

So even if Tom Baker wasn't much of a role model, his character of the Doctor was. And there were other character role models I looked to for inspiration. Another on my list....Stringfellow Hawke from the show Airwolf.

Hawke was something of a loner. Lived in his cabin as he seranaded an eagle that flew by while haunted by his tragedies and losses. He served his country in Vietnam fighting for what he believed in only to lose his brother St. John, who became M.I.A. After the war he worked for a friend of the family named Dominic Santini as well as doing intelligence work for a splinter C.I.A. group called 'The Firm' with a deputy director named 'Archangel' who wore a white suit, and was surrounded by a plethora of beautiful women whom he referred to as his 'angels'. All of them wore white too incidently.

The use of white on Archangel and his angels was a take on the 'guys in the white hats' philosophy. The executive producer of Airwolf, Donald Bellisario, wanted to see that even if the guys before you wore white hats, they didn't necessarily carry on like guys in 'white hats'. And those who wore black weren't necessarily 'the bad guys' either. Out of all these characters it was Hawke, who wore a grey flight suit while flying the super chopper Airwolf, who showed that sometimes it was the one who wore grey was the one who wore the white hat better....even if the hat may not have fit.

Hawke and Santini embraced what the 'white hat' was supposed to represent. Of course it was easier to back up those convictions when one had a super chopper with 14 weapons on it, was invisible to radar and could go MACH 1 that he kept until the government found his brother St. John. Incidentally St. John was M.I.A. for two years until another branch of the C.I.A. used him for deep cover work. Apparently the Firm didn't get the memo.

But while Hawke may have been the better 'guy in the white hat' his portrayer Jan Michael Vincent was something of a mess. He started doing drugs and drinking throughout much of his Hollywood tenure. There were even charges of domestic violence thrown around as well as an acident that damaged his voice and broke his neck leaving him a shell of what he once was. Another example of the character being different than the actor that played him.

Perhaps that's something parents can do. Separate the 'Hannah' character from the actual Miley. Or remember her like she was, like the Doctor remembered the Time Lords of Gallifrey before they went to war. But there were other role models too. One in particular was the Autobot leader Optimus Prime of the Transformers. An issue of Marvel Comics spelled out everything Prime was about after one of his 'deaths'.

Prime was a great warrior. Quick with his fists and quick with his blaster. Prime was also wise. He knew not only how to fight but how not to. He was compassionate and kind. He cared about everyone and was willing to ensure they were all protected. Heck in a coloring book Prime even gave a bunny a carrot. He was courageous in the face of his enemies. Charismatic in the ability to rally people behind him. And he was also strong physically.

He also realized, and again I quote "Sometimes even the wisest of men and machines can be in error."

He represented the best of humanity. Even if he wasn't human himself. And while some might have thought compassion to be a weakness, Prime did not. And while he might have been a more effective leader if he was more ruthless that would have taken away what made Optimus Prime....well Optimus Prime. That and he also had a face guard over his mouth so no one could see a smile that people could hate. His deeds and actions spoke for himself. It's too bad he's another work of fiction.

And there is another fictional character that was a role model for me-Jean Luc Picard from Star Trek:The Next Generation.

Picard to me inspired me to be a thinker. He was a scholar of history and literature. He always tried to find a peaceful solution before he went for the phasers and torpedoes. Only fighting if he had no choice. Putting his crew and those he is pledged to protect above his own needs. When he makes mistakes, and he has (remember the fight with the Nausicans that impaled his heart?), or when he has endured grievous wounds (like his assimilation by the Borg) he picks himself up and continues to press on. Being the explorer he has always dreamed of being.

He also gave a lecture that shapes some of my beliefs when it comes to the industries of the country. It was when he was repremanding Worf when he killed Duras after Duras killed Worf's girlfriend.

"The Federation is made up of hundreds of different worlds with different beliefs and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Starfleet. If they cannot put their service to Starfleet before their own beliefs they should resign."

And this is what I believe should be of the industries of the country. Even the entertainment one, as they provide for the people the most. There are hundreds of different beliefs and interpretations and they should all be respected. But the industry, and artists, should serve the audience and its needs. If they can't serve those needs first above their own they should resign.


And even if they have to go against the audience for some reason, they should still put the audience first. Just make sure you have a good reason for going against them.

Ironically it is here that inspiration comes from not only the character, but the actor that portrayed him as well. For it was Captain Picard's portrayal that got me interested in Shakespeare. To the point where I had some minor roles in summer stock. And hopefully lead to more roles in the future. So yeah, my role models did not always come from fiction. I've had some real people too. There were also members of my family that were role models to me. Relatives always seemed to make me laugh when I needed one most. Some who also helped me with homework at times. And some who taught me how important it is to put people back together when others seek to tear them down. Or when they are torn down. Right now I won't name names for reasons of my own. Besides, they know who they are.

And there were other entertainment role models for me. Dana Carvey from Saturday Night Live fame, with all his funny voices and characters. On top of the list was the character of Enid the Church Lady. I loved doing impersonations like him. But then again, didn't everybody? There was also another role model for me that came from SNL, none other than one of the first cast members-John Belushi.

"Wait, John Belushi was a role model to you?" I can hear you all asking. Yes, yes he was. For those wondering let me reflect on my choice of John Belushi as a role model to me. Am I aware of his history? Yes I am. Am I aware of his tragic end? Yes I am. So why would I pick Belushi and put him in a list of personal role models? Because his history is not all there was to the man. He also left behind a legacy of comedy. From Saturday Night Live skits, to National Lampoon's Animal House, to the movies 1941, Neighbors, Continental Divide, and the character I loved most of all (and even had a movie made of) Joliet Jake Blues of the Blues Brothers.

He also had this 'one of the guys' appeal to his performances. He wasn't sculpted out of granite and made to be the next Adonis of entertainment. With most entertainers they are painted in a portrait of perfection that makes one think 'I could never do that. No matter how hard I try'. Belushi came off to me as someone who said 'Yes you can. I do it all the time.'

From his skits to his music Belushi did not seem like some 'super artist' the common man could never be. He was a 'common man'. His comedy came from humble beginnings (his Cheeseburger sketch was from a moment of his life) the songs he sang were someone else's. He wasn't a songwriter, just someone that sang songs from time to time. And in a genre he loved to sing them in.

In a world where so many would say "No you can't." Belushi's came off as someone who could say "Yes you can. I do it all the time." But also like I said before I am not a stranger to Belushi's history, and the consequences of emulating it. Case in point-Chris Farley.

Chris Farley was a 'heavy set' comedian who followed a similar path to Belushi. Came out of Second City in Chicago, performed on Saturday Night Live, may not have done a 'Blues Brothers' routine but he had a good following. What Farley also did was make use of cocaine. A use that let to his overdose and death, much like that of John Belushi.

And if Miley is considering Brittney as a role model to her does she see Brittney like I see Belushi? Or does she follow Brittney's history like Farley followed Belushi's? Both led to similar ends, which leads to the media scrutiny.

Does Miley deserve this scrutiny, and in some cases hatred? To them the answer may just be 'yes'. Next question to ask is 'why'? Is it to do what Billy Ray and Leticia Cyrus won't? Invoke some heavy handed discipline? Be a b*tchslapper when they won't be? Or is it because Miley is not representing the wholesome ideals they want her to represent, so she must be punished for it?

Which leads to others that don't practice those wholesome ideals 'punishing' her with derogatory insults, and those outraged to look the other way thinking she deserves it. 'For not being wholesome and good Miley deserves hatred' is the path of logic I see here.

And in recent years another role model has come into play. John Cena from the WWE.

Cena is a wrestler who's motto is 'Hustle, Loyalty, Respect.' And he maintains this motto even when there are fans that want to boo him out of the building. For he carries on like a soldier with a message even if he has to go through hostile territory to do it. For him the mission is more important than opinion polls or face/heel turns. He also acknowleges that people can screw up no matter how prepared one might be. His promo the following night on RAW after the Celtic Warrior Sheamas became WWE Champion was a reflection of that.

He also acknowledged his haters in another promo saying, and this is from memory so please forgive me if it doesn't come out like some remember "There are those that hate me, and there are those that will ride with me. Those that like me, welcome. Those that don't, well they can all just kiss my ass."

Brings a smile to my face.

7.2 The ideals of a role model (or the supposed ones at least)

When the media joins in with the outraged and the haters things then go to a whole new level. Especially in regards to Miley as they give....scathing coverage of her at times. And she's got the battle scars to prove it.

Is the media looking for an ideal to promote? Of what a role model should be? If that's the case (as I mentioned before) they may not be part of the solution, but part of the problem. And it would not be the first time either. One example that rings out is the portrayal they gave of Vietnam War veterans. One of them being my own father.

I heard stories of the 'welcome' the veterans got. 'Welcomes' that consisted of closed doors at best, to spits in the face and being called "baby killers" at worst. These reports were considered to be not totally accurate. But these were what the people had to go by, and this led to the treatment the veterans had received. They would not get the welcome home and apology they deserved until the mid 80's. A memorial stands in Washington D.C. now with the names of those lost and missing during the conflict. Families of those lost have gone to touch the name of their lost loved one in hopes of feeling a connection.

Or maybe the ideal they are seeking to promote is like that of the 1950's Captain America. Also known as 'the Commie Smasher'.

During the 1950's there was an event called 'the Red Scare'. It was spearheaded by a senator named Joseph 'Tailgunner Joe' McCarthy, who started spreading fear about communists undermining America. An organization called the HUAC (House of UnAmerican Activities Committee) was formed to weed out communists and get them to confess as so the 'fabric of America' was not undermined.

The parameters however, of what was 'American' and what wasn't, were seemingly narrow. So much that the slightest deviation of the American ideal as seen by McCarthy and/or the HUAC was enough to get you labelled as a 'Communist' and blackballed by society. Even the accusation of being a 'Communist' was enough to get people to look at someone the wrong way. Essentially the McCarthyist policies were policies based on fear.

Even the media had to promote the Anti-Communist message out of probable fear of them being labelled 'Communist' themselves. Most notably in the issues of Captain America, where he was also titled 'the Commie Smasher' where he and a new Bucky looked to weed out communism everywhere they found it. When the original Captain America was revived in the sixties a later story line revealled what happened to the 'Commie Smasher' Cap and Bucky. Basically they were put into suspended animation for being too unstable. They were starting to see Communists everywhere, thus making everyone a target. The only safeguards being that one fell in line with the limited way of thinking that was presented to those facing the Smasher and Bucky.

As I wrote this I'm wondering if history is not repeating itself here in our own society. Food for thought later I guess. At any rate when J.Michael Straczynski created 'the Ministry of Peace' and 'Nightwatch' for Babylon 5 they were based on the principles of McCarthyism. Principals based on 'ideological purity' and 'the peace of the gun'. In one scene Garibaldi put the whole philosophy of the Nightwatch into one quote when he was asked 'Are you with us or against us?'. His answer, after throwing aroung a table, is this:

"Who's this 'us'? Huh? I thought 'us' was what we had right here. Now all of a sudden 'us' is anyone who says the right things or wears a rag around their arm. Everyone else is the bad guy right? Says who? A bunch of clowns back home who don't give a damn about anything but their own political agendas?"

There are 'special interest' groups out there where I wonder if they don't follow the lines of the Clark Reigime and the Nightwatch-enforcers of policy and agenda. Where 'us' is anyone who 'says the right thing, thinks the right way or thinks the world is a cesspool and we should all wade in it. Everyone else is the 'bad guy'. Ironically both sides would most likely consider the other 'bad guys' in their own eyes. One group that comes to mind is the PTC.

The PTC stands for 'Parents Television Council'. It was founded by L. Brent Bozell, whose father was said to be a speechwriter for McCarthy. They made headlines by targetting the WWE and its advertisers in an effort to get them to "Clean up TV now". They drew up a list of advertisers and threatened to boycott their products unless they pulled support for the WWE until such time as they went for a more 'acceptable' format.

As Chloe Sullivan on Smallville once said "Right idea. Wrong execution." Vince McMahon took the actions of the PTC as a threat, and used it to make them part of the show forming a stable of wrestlers called the RTC (Right to Censor), which I mentioned above, that followed the same line of thought. Preaching morality, yet not exactly practicing it themselves, and allowing no deviations from that line of thought unless it was for personal gain, or ideological one.

Again, the ends justify the means.

In Mick Foley's book 'Foley is Good:And the Real World is Faker than Wrestling' Mick asks if the PTC used the McCarthyist approach in their dealings with the WWE and advertisers. The difference here however is that they were looking to attain a social agenda rather than a political one. Or maybe it was political as I heard that politics has been described as "The art of getting what you want".

7.3 Miley and Shawn Michaels

As I think of the WWE and Miley I find myself thinking of a wrestler that has had a...similar history when it comes to controversey. That wrestler? The Heartbreak kid Shawn Michaels.

Like Miley, Shawn was a kid with a dream and sought to live it. Also like Miley, Shawn was found to be controversial. Both never sought controversey but they always seemed to find themselves in the eye of its storm. In the WWE Shawn had a reputation of faking injuries, politicing backstage, refusing to lose to wrestlers and rubbing a lot of his fellow wrestlers the wrong way. He also did some controversial dance moves on the ring that seemed to reflect a Chippendale's dancer.

And as for controversial pictures....does a photo spread in Playgirl count? A magazine that he later found out as his friend Paul Levesque (Triple H) said "Hey Shawn you know that's a gay men's magazine right?" Well there was egg on his face huh? To this day he says of it "I was young. I was stupid!"

Through it all Shawn tried to believe he was a good person, even as he battled an addiction to painkillers. But there was one night where he was everything his fellow wrestlers said. That night was in 1997. The Survivor Series in Montreal where he, under the direction of Vince McMahon, swerved then WWE Champion Bret Hart out of his title. An incident called 'the Montreal Screwjob'.

Another story for another time.

But Shawn's life continued to go down hill. Especially when he suffered a back injury that looked to end his career. He sucessfully dropped the title to Stone Cold Steve Austin despite the injury at WrestleMania 14 then went into an exile and depression afterwards. Even after he underwent a back fusion procedure to repair the crushed vertebrae in in back. His life then turned around when he met his wife Rebecca, formerly of WCW's Nitro Girls, and started a family with her. He also became a born again Christian and then made a slow and sure return to the ring. Today he's now one of the most respected wrestlers in the locker room today. And while his past remains a shadow to him he no longer seems haunted by it.

Perhaps the day will come when Miley will not be haunted by hers, if she even is. She'll do a Shawn Michelas jump up and deliver a dose of Sweet Chin Music (Shawn's finishing move) to all those negative feelings and come out of it a champion in her own right.

One can hope right?

7.4 Pink tights and 'wholesome' images.

As I mention Shawn Michaels, I find myself thinking of Shawn's biggest rival at the time. Bret 'the Hitman' Hart. A wrestler from Calgary Alberta, Canada. Part of a wrestling dynasty founded by Stu Hart, that continues into a new generation today with a tag team called 'The Hart Dynasty'. His tag line was that he was "The best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be." In his autobiography, Bret mentions how a fan of his growing up used the line to build up her own confidence in a world that continually tried to tear her down.

Bret emphasized pushing forward. Not giving up, even when so much was against you. To continue telling yourself that you were 'the best' no matter what anyone else said. Press on, even when the world is against you. Eventually he found his way to two WWE tag title reigns, two Intercontinental Championship reigns, and five WWE Championship reigns. When he left the WWE it was due to the incident called the 'Montreal Screwjob' which left Bret....deeply affected. His career then ended with a series of concussions that led to him to suffer a stroke that left him half paralyzed for a time. He still continues to press on however, like the champion that he was (and is) in many people's hearts.

But before Bret became WWE Champion, and a hero to many of his fans, he was a tag team wrestler partnered with Jim 'the Anvil' Neidhart to form a team called 'The Hart Foundation'. In their early years they wore black and blue wrestling tights, and seemed to barely get noticed. Then one day their gear designer said she got some new material in "A lovely shade of pink." With reluctance they took the pink material as they didn't have anything else to go with.

One day they walked past Vince McMahon and he saw Hart and Neidhart. He was stunned by the sight of them saying "Pink, you're wearing pink." Then he went and said "That's your color from now on. Don't wear anything else. That color is you." I look at this and I wonder if the 'wholesome' image Miley had isn't her own pair of pink tights. Parents saw so much 'real' around that when they saw a 'wholesome' girl with great talent they said "Wholesome. This girl is wholesome. That's your image from now on. Don't be anything else. That image is you."

But unlike Bret, who continued to wear pink throughout his career, even when he allowed some black into his wardrobe. Has Miley discarded her own 'pink' which was her 'wholesome' image? And instead reached for the black and blue that seemed to be so...colorless?

That's a question Miley needs to answer. But then again maybe she has answered it like Bret answered his.

As time went on Bret and Jim began to incorporate more black into their tights. The pink still provided color but the black gave the Hart Foundation more of an edge. This mix gave them the nickname 'the Pink and Black attack'. As time went on the black began to dominate more in the color scheme, but the pink was never far away.

Maybe we don't see much of the 'wholesomeness' in Miley, which would be the 'pink' in her case. And people are afraid the 'black' might dominate, which is the darker aspects of her personality that could lead to a lot of her scandals. But is Miley's 'pink' really gone?

7.5 The 'ideal' Miley

So what is a 'good' Miley? What is the 'ideal' Miley? Well let me give my....speculation.

Basically she is expected to have an iron clad dedication to the ideal of 'wholesome goodness'. She is expected to maintain a positive image at all costs. She apparently has to have the sex attitudes of a stereotypical nun that you see on TV (sex is bad and advertising it only leads to temptation and deeper sin-if not diseases or pregnancy). Maybe even go one step further, anything regarded as 'sexual' should be seen as nothing more than porno. Not art, just porno. At least until marraige, then she can consider it sex. And she has to stay married forever. No divorce.

No obnoxiousness, or obnoxious You Tube videos (And people would probably want to make sure a restraining order is placed against her friend Mandy Jiroux as she may seek to lead Miley away from her 'wholesome goodness'-Maybe even go one step further, bar her from all contact with Miley). No funny faces as you don't know if they'll be taken as racist or not.

She dates her own age, no Justin. In fact I think some of her young fans would like it if she dated, and married Nick Jonas-of course after college. No drinking or drugs. Thinks flowers and puppy dogs all the time. And for security purposes adopts the attitude of DTA-Don't Trust Anybody. Maybe not even her parents, unless they make sure the ideals of 'wholesome goodness' are enforced-by any means necessary. Which would probably mean that Billy Ray and Tish would have to drop the 'best friend' aspect and start serving as enforcers of the ideal I guess. Either that or get a Spider Sense letting her know of anything 'bad'.

Looking at this I'm wondering, "Okay would you like to have Imperial Stormtroopers serving as enforcers to go with that too?"

They probably want her to abandon the 'learn as you go and make mistakes' philosophy to one of 'know right and wrong from day one and follow it without question'. Miley and her parents would probably respond with "Making mistakes is how we grow."

And how would they respond? Well I'm thinking something like this....

"Growth is irrelevant. Once perfection is attained there is no need for growth. Only to maintain perfection and to bring others to the state of perfection that has been obtained."

Sounds like the Borg doesn't it? I don't know. Does this sound like an 'ideal' Miley? Is there really any way to get this 'ideal' Miley? And what if she doesn't follow that ideal? What does that make her? Will some call her a 'coward' for not putting what is believed to be 'the good of the people' above all else? A 'good of the people' dictated by a select few with other views dismissed as 'irrelevant' and 'wrong'?

Maybe that is the heart of the conflict:Realism vs. Idealism.

The Outraged are upset that she aparently did not have an iron clad dedication to the ideals expected of her, or apparently reflected in her Hannah Montana character. They want her to say "I'll never be bad again. I'll never make mistakes again. I will adhere to the 'wholesome good girl' ideal with responsibility, pride and honor. Never make mistakes ever! I'll be good! I'll be good!"

And failure to adhere to this is apparently not an option.

Sounds like a warrior's oath doesn't it?

And if she doesn't adhere to that 'oath' or 'ideal' what will they do next? What nasty names or views will they come up with next? How low will they go? Will they go the point where they will decide to add a new name to the list? Where they will decide that not only is she a 'slut' but a 'coward' as well due to her not having the 'courage', or 'conviction' to be the good girl the world apparently so desperately needs, to put the needs of the audience above her own? That does seem like the next 'depth' to go with the name calling, unfortunately.

Looking at this it kind of sounds like emotional blackmail doesn't it? 'Wholesome goodness' at figurative gunpoint?

And as for whether it's all right to make mistakes. well the answer to that question is....no.

And if anyone thinks it's all right to make mistakes because that's how we learn. Well then....they are wrong.

So the next question to ask is....why? Why are they 'wrong'? And 'because they are' is not a good enough answer.

7.6 Why are the mistake makers wrong?

Good question. Why are they wrong? Or can be considered 'wrong'?

Maybe it is because they base their answers on misconceptions and personal beliefs. They believe 'perfect' people are people of character. They are the successes. They are what everyone wants to be. They are the ideal to strive for. They represent the best of us, what we could be. Also where everything is calculated. Everything comes out 'right'. And when you are 'right' that is what leads to success.

And the 'imperfect' are what is believed to be the worst of people. People of lax values. Stand for nothing but their own interests. Wish to contribute nothing to make a better world, but rather towards the worst of people wallowing it the dirt like pigs and thinking the rest of the world should do the same, as long as those that wanted the wallowing in the first place are the kings of the dirt. Knocking others down along the way. Where making mistakes are signs of failure. And if you failed at something once then you must be a failure for life. For the 'good' and the 'just' never fail. As they have courage, strength and conviction where the mistake makers (aka the failures and the bad) wallow in depravity, cowardice and self importance.

Basically 'perfection 'good' imperfection 'bad''. And if they're knocked down or found to be imperfect, be sure to do a lot of kicking.

And these misconceptions lead to the fear that the worst of people are taking over. And the 'good' is dying out. But are the outraged really the good guys here?

I think, as I said before, in the minds of these individuals Miley was supposed to be 'the second coming of the wholesome good girl'. She was a girl of faith, starred in a show that was run by a company that promoted family entertainment, and she had the talent to back up her role-which is a compliment to her. She did not need to go down the path of Brittney and Madonna. A path that the outraged seem to consider a 'bad' path. A path that ironically may be considered 'the norm' for Hollywood now. As it seems other performers may be following the provocative, risque style: Lady Gaga, Christina Agulaira, etc. So maybe Miley isn't someone different. Maybe we're seeing from her (to quote a popular campaign slogan)....more of the same.

But in a nutshell I think they want Miley to point to the Leibovitz photo and say "This is wrong."

I think they want Miley to point to 'Sex and the City' and say "For young girls this is wrong."

I think they want Miley to point to Brittney and say "This is wrong." Also I think they want her to have an attitude of "Keep that trainwreck away from me."

I think they want her to point to the Miley and Mandy show and say "This is wrong."

I think they want her to look at Justin and think, as well as say, "This is wrong."

I think they want her to look at the ice cream pole and say "This is wrong."

I think they want her to look at funny faces and say, "These are wrong."

I think they want her to look at the tattoo, and no matter the positive meaning for it, say "This is wrong."

I think they want her to take a look at the Adam Shankman pics and lap dance and say "This is wrong."

I think they want her to point to good, wholesome button cute pictures and say "These are right! And we must always do, and be, what is right! Whether we like it or not. For there is too much 'wrong' in the world."

Well I'll agree there is a lot of 'wrong' in the world but....does this seem a little bit out there? And what about the haters and malicious articles? Are they 'wrong' too? Or are they just the ends justifying the means? Therefore they get a free pass?

I think the Billy Ray and Leticia Cyrus would look at this, and despite any objections from those that believe in the 'rightness' of their views, would look at how what they have said has affected their daughter and who it has empowered (namely haters and those of the mindset of Arthur Light), and I think they would say this, and they are welcome to correct me if they think my conclusion is unfounded.

"No, what you're doing to our daughter...That is wrong!"

Whatever happened to the old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right?"

I think about this other quote I read in a Doctor Who novel called 'The Eight Doctors'. In it the Doctor describes the arrogance of his people, and I'm wondering if the outraged and malicious have the same attitude towards Miley. That attitude being "Nothing must endanger us. Nothing must stand in our way. And if the well being and emotional development of a teenage girl needs to be sacrificed, so be it."

And some would probably add to that "It's not like it's of any importance, and she probably deserves the grief she is getting." What? Do they want to make sure Miley punishes herself as well? I heard someone once say "Mistakes are temporary. Regret is forever." Does the media and outraged want her to regret hers forever? Because she didn't keep iron clad dedication to being a 'good girl' she must continue to pay for it?

I want to take a minute here and make a picture comparison. If there is someone reading this then take two pictures and set them side by side. One is that of the 'wholesome' Miley, and the other is more of the 'sexy, provocative' Miley.

Ask yourself 'What do you see?'

Well let me give a speculation on that.

When one takes a look at the 'wholesome Miley' I think people see the best in people. They see integrity, self respect, dignity and honor. The ideals that people believe are supposed to be represented. And they hoped Miley would represent them after the apparent 'failure' of Brittney Spears.

But when one looks at a 'sexy' picture, like the Leibovitz phote or the ice cream pole from the Teen Choice awards, and the 'Just breathe' tattoo that just surfaced (apparently her mother applied it if the article in Harper's Bazzar is any indication) they don't see any of that. They see someone promoting sexuality as if giving the okay to say 'yes' to being 'sexy' in a world where teen pregnancy is on the rise and girls are saying 'yes' to boys looking to just dump their virginity like trash on garbage day. They see no integrity as they believe they see someone willing to sell out their beliefs for a headline. No dignity as they see Miley flash her body around seductively looking to bring arousal out in individuals. No self respect as she seems to sell herself. And apparently no honor as she doesn't seem to support any causes other than her own career, even though there have been stories that had her support charities-most notably for animals.

Hense the 'slut' title. There is an apparent belief she's selling herself when she's supposed to be taking what is supposed to be considered the high moral road and selling that instead. Also the wholesome image is 'safe', and for some that's what matters.

And as for her vow to remain celebate until marraige? Well....if there's already question of her integrity and honor how committed is she to that vow? Especially as she was once quoted as saying that she wasn't romantically involved with one of her co-stars on the movie 'The Last Song' only to find out in the media that she was in an intense lip lock with him at the airport.

I want to think the best of Miley. But sometimes....it can be made difficult. But is it Miley's fault? Or is it the fault of those making the accusations that lead people to unflattering conclusions.

Unflattering....and unfounded?

I also want to add in this other comparison that comes to mind.

When one is in the public eye the apparent expectation is that the person's sense of right and wrong be fully developed and ready to go, unless they are a criminal. Usually it is celebrities that fall into this expectation, and they are in the public eye more times than not. So the expectation is higher. They do not have the luxury of their sense of 'right' and 'wrong' being a 'work in progress' as one out of the public eye does. Once you're in the public eye the celebrity's sense of right and wrong is expected to be a 'finished product.' No matter how old or young the star is.


And when a 'wrong' move is detected, or perceived. That is when the paparrazzi and haters tend to pounce. 'Wrong' being what is outside the social, and personal expectations of the general public.

Is it fair? No. Is it right? I think some would say 'no'.

Does it matter? I think the reader needs to answer this one, but it looks like the answer is 'no' to me.

7.7 The 'right' way. How do we prove it?

I'm left wondering about Hollywood's treatment of her. Namely the ones handling her career. And her career aspirations.

To paraphrase Ambassador Delenn of Babylon 5. Are those in Hollywood, especially those handling Miley's career, like the Grey Council of season 3? Do they "Stand for nothing but their own petty interests? Where the problems of others are not their concern?" And also, could those that question Miley's actions be following the same train of thought? Whether those interests be of an 'artistic' or 'social' nature?

At times I found Delenn's approach to have a certain honesty about it. Delenn also said her peace on a B-5 episode when two parents objected to an operation brought about by Dr. Franklin to save their son. An operation that went against their religious beliefs. They said to Delenn that they believed they were saving their son. Delenn responded with "That is also what Dr. Franklin believes he's doing. Which theory is correct? And how do we prove it?"

Perhaps that's what the parents groups believe they are doing with Miley. On some level they believe they are trying to 'save' her from becoming another Brittney. And while Miley may see the comparison to her as a compliment, the parents do not. They see the shaved head, the partying, how it affected her performances especially during the 'Blackout' phase, the sex, the bad marraiges-not to mention the apparent poor choices in men, and the end result leading to her being taken away in an ambulance diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder.

To that end they might believe that Miley must submit to the will of the parent for their own protection. And if those parents are deemed, or feared to be, unfit. Or they believe they do not have Miley's, or society's best interests at heart then that child must submit to the will of one who does. That child must (as I roughly remember from an episode of Babylon 5 called 'Intersections in Real Time) "Co-operate with the state for the good of the state and its loyal citizens. Disobedience will be punished. Co-operation will be rewarded."

But the question that stands here is 'Is it for the good of the state and its citizens' as the quote indicated? Or rather is it more for the beliefs and egos of the select few? Those that believe their views are the 'right' ones, and that everyone should share those beliefs as well.

In the battle of confronting one extreme behavior, it's easy to fall prey to another. Like if one is fighting the malicious, hurtful and self serving elements of society those that believe they know what is best for society (and that everyone should agree with them) can rise to power in the name of 'public good'.

I read this quote in Doctor Who magazine number 407, and I find it to be very appropriate here. "History has demonstrated that, even with the best of intentions, human beings can lose sight of those essential qualities of mercy and compassion with frightening ease." And I think that has happened, especially as bullies and the obnoxious blogger have been greatly empowered by the words of the morality police. Ironically enough bullies don't have any 'noble goal' of their own. In my own experience bullies usually believe that evil is fun. Bullies point out flaws in people, and laugh at those flaws while they hide behind image of flawlessness, success, and perfection. Belittling the imperfect in the process, calling them 'screw up', 'failure', 'loser' and other non flattering names. And 'slut' could be on that list too.

So does this mean if America becomes a police state tomorrow do we thank the haters for making it happen? Or do we instead blame Miley for bringing these elements to power because she wouldn't comply with those bringing about the police state? Which also goes to show how far one will go to suppress those darker elements. This was evident in a Marvel Limited Series called 'Nomad:Girl Without a World' where the heroine Rikki Barnes, aka Nomad, was investigating a school election that was a plot of a group called the Secret Empire. A plot that looked to elect a student as class President so a riot could be started with students going into a rage saying that they would not be silenced.

This riot was stopped by Nomad and the student as they pointed out that what was happening was not what they wanted to happen. And if they continued down the path they were going the voice the young people wanted so much to have would be taken away, as it will seem that the right of freedom of speech that has been so cherished becomes abused. And from that abuse will come stricter regulations and less of a voice.

Plus a possible loss of freedom for all because haters became greedy with their hate.

Hey, stranger things have happened. And if someone says 'No way' ask them "Are you sure about that?"

For in this day and age who knows what will happen next?

7.8 Who do we condone? Who do we condemn?

In the 'Doctor Who' season 4 DVD set Russel T. Davies gave this comment about actors, and I also think it applies to musicians as well. And Miley is both, so this, I think, applies to her.

'Actors are the front line, They are the face on the screen. They're the voice of the words. To all intents and purposes they are the show. Most of the world doesn't care about the writer, the director, the producer-except for Sci Fi fans, and hooray for them! But everyone else just passes judgement on that man or woman standing there saying things. And if the script's rotten, if the idea's baloney, if the production's a mess, then tough-the actor's still got to stand there and do their best stuff, as best they can. Usually in the rain.'

One thing Miley is not above is common courtesy. She apologized when others couldn't have bothered. And I've seen instances where there have been those that couldn't bother. And resorted to 'bashing' people in order to prove their point. I could give a few here, but this has already gone on longer than I intended so I'll just say my next line then move on.

If one wants to rub noses in people's flaws be better than them. Bashing people doesn't make the bashers 'better'. Just 'worse'.

As all the attention gets focused on Miley, as well as the scorn and punishment, I wonder who gets the free pass for allowing these events to happen, or their part in the scandals happening? Has Annie Leibovitz gotten a 'free pass'? Has Vanity Fair? What about the idea for the shot? Are we more focused on the effect and not the causes of the scandals? Not what happens behind the scenes where, as Londo Mollari of Babylon 5 said, "The reward is nearly as great and the risk far, far less?"

Annie Leibovitz only recently made headlines when she filed for bankruptcy of some kind, and resolved the matter later. As far as I can tell that was the only time the spotlight was on her exclusively. Maybe Miley's picture caused certain individuals to keep a better eye on Ms Leibovitz?

I saw the movie Angels and Demons, which had apparently shown examples of how the Catholic faith persecuted those that deviated from their teachings. Galileo most notably. Another example shown was statues that had fig leaves covering their privates because they believed nudity promoted lust.

I think it's safe to say Leibovitz is no Galileo. And while the art subject is persecuted it seems like the artist just gets a slap on the wrist.

And it's not uncommon for someone to get something for one reason and then find someone else get offended for a whole other reason. Years back I bought a bumper sticker that said 'Ivanova is God', which if you know your Babylon 5 was a famous quote of Susan Ivanova's when she was disciplining a pilot. It was bought out of a sense of fun yet it caused outrage with members of my family, believing it took the Lord's name in vain. No offense was intended, and if you watched the episode where Ivanova made the quote she even apologized to God not wanting to cause offense. Yet offense happened and they wanted me to remove the bumper sticker from my car. I did so, and as I look back on it I think it was just a matter of my family and me being on different playing fields. I knew something about a quote they didn't, and yet when I expected understanding it didn't happen. That's a possibility of what happened with Miley and the Vanity Fair picture. They saw something others didn't,and vice versa.

But what 'they' saw' was based on the criteria of fear and worse case scenario as they thought the photo consisted a promotion of teenage sexuality. Something that is of grave concern to people, and I believe rightly so. But I'm wondering if it's not getting to the point where the outraged believe the attitude our young are supposed to have with sex is something along the lines of: "Yuck! I don't want cooties!" And if the young person does not have this attitude then what will happen is that they will get knocked up, pregnant, and have a child out of wedlock like Bristol Palin.

Sorry Governor Palin, but regrettably Bristol has become the poster child for matters like this. And she's also over 18, which makes her legally an adult, and subject to intense scruitiny the paparazzi can get away with. Despite concerns if it's unethical or not.

7.9 Outside of Sci Fi

To her credit Miley seems to take the grief all in stride. She kind of reminds me of a character on another show, not Sci-Fi yet funny. That character is Hawkeye Pearce of M*A*S*H. Mostly due to his laid back demeanor when facing a blustery general, or facing a court marshall board brought about by charges incited by Pearce's co-worker-Frank Burns. Someone I'm wondering if Miley's accusers (at least some of them) are not like.

Burns was on M*A*S*H until 1976, and he came off as a sanctimoneous, self righteous individual. A person who preached morality, but did not follow it himself. His biggest blunder being preaching the sanctity of marraige yet having an affair with head nurse Major Margaret 'Hot Lips' Hoolihan. Someone who follows the lines of propaganda to the letter and while talks about wanting to go on the front lines to show what he's made of acts like a fraidy cat when two of the enemy he's so gung ho to go after force him out of their jeep leaving him to walk back to the base camp.

So while Miley's accusers may preach about Miley's so called 'amoral' behavior they should probably ask themselves "Are you completely 'moral' yourself?" If they are then that's great. But does that still give them the right to preach to a teenager that is not under their parental authority? Preaching that has empowered the malicious hater and brought forth malicious humor?

I also became aware of the concept of 'reverse discrimination' on an episode of M*A*S*H, where a male nurse is discriminated for following a profession that was considered 'woman's work'. The ideal being that men become 'doctors' and women become 'nurses'. As such the soldier never ranks up with the officers his female collegues enjoy. He is stuck in the enlisted ranks not enjoying the officer's perks as punishment for not adhereing to the ideals demanded by him by the society, or certain menbers of it.

7.10 Miley and Majel

At times even Miley can be a bozo. But she's not as bad a bozo as others who seek to tear her down. As I think about this some more I think of a quote given by Majel Rodenberry, wife of Star Trek Creator Gene Rodenberry, who guest starred as Lady Adira on an episode of Babylon 5 called 'Point of No Return'. I think it to be a great reflection on Miley....and others.

"Greatness is not appreciated in youth. It is considered pride in old age and is dismissed in death. Because we cannot tolerate greatness in our midst we do all we can to destroy it."

It's ironic that I mention Majel Rodenberry here as her husband Gene Rodenberry had a controversial moment or two when he worked on Star Trek. But unlike the implications controversey is given today, which seem self serving or to give someone a 'bad' label, Rodenberry tried to bring awareness to the human condition. Not to mention break down racial and sexual barriers. Not that some weren't still in place, but others were being brought down. Especially in terms of race.

It was in Star Trek that the first interracial kiss was aired between Nichelle Nichols and William Shatner. Controversial then, yes, but it also had a positive effect in breaking down racial barriers. The episode 'Let that be your last battlefield' explored the consequences of racial hatred and what the end result would lead to. In Deep Space Nine Rodenberry's legacy continued when the first same sex kiss was brought on between actress Terry Farrell and Susanna Thompson.

Star Trek had it's controversial moments true. But those moments I think were supposed to reflect the human condition and help us learn to be better people. To where we can attain that positive future Rodenberry dreamed of. I think a lot of Sci Fi does that.

A lot...but not all.

7.11 Ideals in conflict

At the end of the day I do not believe Miley is this malicious evil person she's made out to be. Even if the media promotes that image to sell headlines at her expense. It beats alternative they seem to promote in order to save them from a slow newsday. Are they 'adjusting the truth?' Or am I?

Right now I see Miley getting grief from bullies and PC.... extremists? Can't think of a better word right now. The concept of 'political correctness' originally was intended to understand other views. Now it seems to be a rallier for kings and queens of their own little worlds, as they think their world is the right one.

And in their belief in proving themselves 'right' they may be willing to adopt the policy of "The ends justify the means". Perhaps instead of focusing on the star they should focus on the aggressor or mastermind, bring light behind the scenes so to speak. To bring back Russel T. Davies comment on actors being the front line: maybe they should also focus on what's taking place in the rear areas as well.

I also want to take a look at the perspectives that reflect people's way of thinking. Do people see the world as bright and so full of potential or a dark world where everything is just different layers of 'bad'? And anyone not 'bad' has to be exposed as a hypocrite or 'worse' as imperfections in the morality of the aggressor they won't advertise, or let be advertised. Are parents upset because Miley is deviating from what could be considered a 'cookie cuter card board cut out' ideal of what a teen pop star should be, or hoped she would be? Do they want her to be like the RTC angle on WWE. One way, one vision, no deviation?

And if they do not meet that ideal, are they cause for discrimination, and deserving of it? Or in this case 'reverse discrimination' as I mentioned in the M*A*S*H section?

Is it all down to a matter of ideals and what they want those ideals to promote? Are the parents wanting 'Brady Bunch' kids and 'Judge Dredd' parents? Basically hyper happy kids that know right from wrong with totalitarian parents in the background boasting how they are 'the law?' Do they want Miley to be like Dr. Zee from Galactica 1980? A super smart kid with divine origins who never seemed to make a mistake to the point where adults are stupid? Sounds like that could be compared to a John Hughes film doesn't it? I hope Dr. Zee wasn't his inspiration.

Is it not the parents' job to scrutinize their kids and discipline them? Who does the media and certain individuals think they are criticizing and talking down to a sixteen year old? She's still a minor. Do they thing Billy Ray and Tish don't know how to raise and discipline a daughter but the accusers do? And does it involve bitchslapping?

In trying to be 'real' is this another instance where 'real' is 'bad' and we are turning our backs on being 'good'?


And this is no idle question I ask either. I think this question is very relevant. Especially if I'm wondering if the answer is not 'yes'.

I take a look at the world and I see good names being torn down. Kids given free passes for bad behavior by individuals because they don't have the authority to discipline them. And if a parent tries to discipline them then all it takes is a cry of child abuse and Children's services are on the case. Perhaps even the police. Some of these cases could well be true, while some are just kids making a power grab. And if they're suspended from school, great. They didn't want to go anyway.

We see games out there that involve people shooting each other in drive by shootings. Granted some do this because they don't want to actually do it, yet there are some that still do. There are those that take drugs not to allieviate any pain, but because it's fun to do. And while one person that may actually have pain falls into the throes of addiction then they are lumped into the casual user that just shoots up for fun, or wants to flaunt authority.

And the authority itself? Well that's villified. In fact it seems like anyone that wants to do 'good' in the world has to be villified. Even those that don't use the radical means that others would use. Means of forcing a belief onto someone for....their own good. And while others try to use reason or compassion in their approach they too are lumped in the category of villain.

All for the sake of being 'real'. A 'real' world that stops being about 'good' and 'bad', but 'bad' and 'worse'. And you're no longer sure which is which.

Maybe the definition of 'real' needs to be redefined.

I envy Miley and her parents for allowing her to find her own way, even at an apparent great cost. A lot of us don't have that luxury as there are people that are expected to conform to a set of ideals that can be passed down by family, society, and individuals all for the sake of the 'greater good'. For this 'greater good' we come off losing who we are or who we could become.

Idealism at the cost of identity, with the problem being how those ideals are enforced.

And there are some individuals that are out for themselves and their own individual fortunes or personal power. No matter who has to pay the price for it.

In the first Transformers miniseries published by Dreamwave comics Megatron decided to punish all of humanity for its transgressions against his race. An arms dealer took the Transformers and decided to sell them as weapons. Megatron killed the arms dealer and sought to destroy the Earth citing to his rival Optimus Prime all the evil that they had done saying "This is who they are. They will never change. They are deserving of destruction."

Optimus refuses to believe Megatron's argument and says that he is not blind to the evil decisions humanity has made. However he has also seen much nobility, and much good. He had seen them care for one another, stand up for a cause they believe in, and dream of better lives for themselves. And it was for that good that Optimus continued to fight on for against Megatron's evil.

Could Hollywood be generating negative press about Miley to generate sympathy for her? Ohhhhh the evil media we must stand with her. Get back at 'cruel establishment'. Prolong her career? If so, do some enjoy their job a little too much? To where they can believe the poison they are spewing?

Parents want role models to back up their parental positions. Some need role models outside their current personal surroundings:people and environment. Is Hollywood either unable or unwilling to provide that? Both? Neither? In today's world, and maybe even in the past, kids want to rebel against parents as they find their own way regardless of cost. So parents try to point themselves in the direction of someone 'cool'.

People have grievances against Hollywood, including me. Especially with the attitudes some individuals in the industry take. Namely the "small, insignificant minorities" argument they seem so fond of. But is Miley the right target to take those grievances on? Is this a world where compassion is weakness and hate is strength? Where the positive role model gets nothing but scorn and the 'dark and gritty' get a free pass? Look at reviews if you don't believe me.

Miley is not physically perfect, but do people want 'moral perfection' out of her? And what does such 'moral perfection' entail? Is it what Dr. Soran from Star Trek Generations would paraphrase? That moral perfection is what everyone else is, and what Miley is not?

I remember an ad in a comic book that had a girl with band aids over eyes, ears and one about to go over mouth. The girl is crying as a voice says "Good girl now one more and you'll be safe"-Is this what parents want? Essentially it is an ad against censorship. Is that what they want? To be the ones with sight in the Kingdom of the Blind?

So at the end of the day who do we blame for these problems? A teenage girl trying to find her way? An indusrty that seems to believe it is above the audiences they are supposed to provide for, and tears down anyone that disagrees? Which makes me wonder what purpose does the audience serve to Hollywood. Are they there to provide for the audience? Or is the audience just props for the artist?

Which leads me back to the topic of 'who do we blame?' And next on the list, do we blame a photographer who believes "Nothing is too extreme in the pursuit of the perfect picture?" Do we blame PC groups that believe an ideal should be promoted, even if it means looking the other way in regards to the individuals that seem to represent their fears? And in effect empowering them?

Do we blame the parents of said girl who may not be heavy handed enough in enforcing the ideals some believe should be enforced? Enforced to the point that the ideal becomes the new 'real'. Miley's family seems to be of the belief that 'at first you don't succeed try try again'. A very forgiving philosophy compared to those that feel more empowered with the philosophy of 'one strike and you're out'.

Basically if one make a mistake, in the minds of some (especially in the public eye), then you are a screw up, a failure, a loser, or in Miley's case a 'bad girl'. And they will be nothing else, again applying the same 'logic' of 'make mistakes and you become defined by them'. In Miley's case she's already had her one strike by not saying 'no' to Annie Leibovitz. And has had several more since with the Jonas underwear pics, the supposed racist pics, and the 'pole dance' pic-which was little more than a dip and ride. In their minds one wonders why she was even allowed back up to bat again if all she does is strike out.

And apparently, based on speculation, a 'good' person apparently is someone who considers the saturday morning moral of the day as law.

I remember reading something in an issue of Justice League of America, issue # 40 to be exact, part of the Blackest Night story that's being penned by Geoff Johns (shameless plug). In this story it had the heroine named Dr. Light take on a reanimated zombie version of the evil Dr. Light(Arthur Light). A man that was a rapist and a sadist.

Basically he loved to rape women and cause pain on others for his own pleasure. And he was facing a heroine the name was supposed to go to.

As the female Dr. Light (Kimiyo Hoshi) fought the zombie light he compared Kimoyo to a Geisha and said some.....not too flattering things about her people. I'm reluctant to mention them here, but I feel it is necessary as I'm wondering if these comparisons aren't what's expected of Miley.

So to hopefully remove any offense I will be removing any racial identities here. Instead I will be looking to emphasize the ideal that was apparently expected of Kimiyo Hoshi, an ideal that I believe transcends racial boundaries-not to mention what people do to enforce those ideals. And bear in mind this quote is from a sadistic villain that wants to take the hero's heart. As such he pulls out all the stops. I only use this quote as a comparison of what seems to be expected of Miley, and Arthur Light reminded me of the haters that bag on her-haters not limited to one nationality or ethnic group. As I said I wish to focus on the ideal.

Now on to the quote:

"Still the good little girl. All perfect. I'd say sweet too, but I'd be lying. You've always been a real *@%#@, truth told. Still, like a good little girl you say and do the right thing always. Drones wanting sanitized perfection in everything. ALL of it so perfect that it lacks the flaws that are human. Hell, in that regard you're more dead than I am."

As I said before I use this quote as a reflection of an ideal that's not limited to race. Whether we like it or not there are those in all races that demand an ideal of perfection be attained. And there are those berate people that don't attain it. Much like Arthur Light did to Kimiyo Hoshi when she seemed to be all but beaten.

"Your kids both think you're a &@%$! Your teammates think you're a &@%$ too! No one likes you Kimmi. People will hang their heads, sure. But a week or two beyond that you'll be like Triumph, or Negative Woman, or one of the Bloodpack. Those same people will have to think hard to recall you were here at all.


"You failed. Terrible too, for you. I know how you hate to fail.


"You failed as a daughter. As a mother. As a wife. A woman. And you failed as Dr. Light. Don't worry about your kids though, after I'm done with you I'll come up with some FUN games to entertain them."

After Arthur Light said this last line Kimiyo then made a massive comeback with a surge of power and this one line:

"DON'T YOU TOUCH MY KIDS!"

Good job Kimiyo. I take a look at this and I can see how people can come down on Miley like this. Say how they want her perfect and berate her when they believe she has failed. But not everyone is out to hurt her.

As I said before they may actually believe they are pursuing a benign purpose, a 'greater good' if you will. The 'greater good' being that they are trying to prevent another Brittney or Lindsey....in part. But there's no guarantee that it will work. In fact it may lead to the creation of another Madonna where they are facilitating what they are trying to prevent. Remember, in Madonna's history her most risque shots were done from a place in her heart where she was rejecting her father's strict upbringing. Upbringing that caused Madonna to rebel against such treatment.

Who's to say the outraged parents won't be causing Miley to rebel against them? Maybe she already is, and in trying to solve the problem the outraged are making it worse?

Going back to that interview Whoopi Goldberg did on CNN with Campbell Brown Whoopi talks about the pitfalls of fame and made a comment I took great interest in. I don't remember the exact wording but it came off something like this.

"When you become famous you come off a certain way. And if you are not that certain way all the time they will tear you down."

What really irks me is that some in the media condone this behavior, if not take part in it. All the haters that become empowered by the scandal accusations members of the media seem to join their ranks. And some don't even agree with the accuser's point. They just tear her down because Miley seemed to do something 'bad'.

By that logic the conclusion seems to be that, if Miley did something 'bad' then she is 'bad'. And like Superboy Prime and Alexander Luthor in 'Infinite Crisis' there are those that want to get rid of everything 'bad' so the world doesn't become a world full of villains. You'll be hearing more from these two in the next section. If you enjoyed the sci fi and comic book comparisons before, the next section will have plenty more.

I think at the core of much of the 'outrage' is that Miley was supposed to be 'the second coming of the wholesome good girl'. She was to be the return to an America that embodied 'Mom and Apple Pie'. A breath of fresh air from the America that embodied 'Paris Hilton, high cholesterol and scheming your way to the top'. Incidently I got these quotes from the Frontline Mini series for Civil War produced by Marvel Comics.

She had a natural talent, singing ability, and parents that worked in the industry. She also came from Tennessee, a state known for its beauty. So why shouldn't she have been the good girl that was wanted (and maybe even needed)?....whether she liked it or not?