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?