Perfection, destinations and heirs to the throne

6.1 Shakespeare, perfection, Brittney and Lindsey

Shifting gears I want to focus a bit on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and the character of Marcus Brutus. An honorable man brought into a conspiracy to kill Caesar before he takes the throne of Rome. Brutus speaks on why he took part in the conspiracy, but he fails to take notice of one little detail. He fails to notice that not everyone is as honorable as him. Several times he fails to come to this conclusion and it leads to his downfall at the hands of Caesar's forces, and the ghost of Caesar himself.

And maybe that was Miley's mistake. She expected everyone to be as understanding as she was in certain events, or come to the conclusions she (and others) had. Only to find that they didn't have the same understandings that she did.

So to that end one has to ask...what do they want from Miley? I think the answer is simple. 'Perfection'. As well as an avoidance of the sex, drinking, drugs, and club hopping exploits of Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan.

The 'definition of perfection' that may be demanded has been seen in some performers. Performers like Deborah Gibson, Tiffany Darwich (both of these were teen singers in the 1980's), Hillary Duff, as well as Alyson and Amanda Michalka-who form the singing duo of Aly and A.J. All of these performers had the wholseome good girl image in the past....

....and faded into obscurity some time later.

When they turned 18, no one cared. Deborah Gibson's career went downhill after her third album, as did Tiffany's. An article about Miley pointed out how Hillary Duff's career went down hill after several box office flops, and was lucky to get a guest role on Gossip Girl. Aly and A.J. are hardly heard from anymore as other acts have appeared. Acts like Miley, Selena, Demi, the Jonas Brothers, and more. Despite Brittney staying in the spotlight along with Lindsey.

But for Brittney the party ended with her trip to the hospital and bi polar diagnosis. Lindsey not so much as one still hears about her partying exploits.

And what has Lindsey done lately? Not much apparently. She had come out with an album and done some music. But nothing new since. She did a movie or two that seemed hardly worth mentioning, and says she has another film lined up-yet was fired from another. She also says she has a fashion line coming out, and yet what she seems best known for is clubbing and appearing in tabliod rags.

At least Miley keeps busy writing songs right? The media waited until Brittney and Lindsey were past 18 to go after them. Of course they were past 18 when they got into their club hopping exploits. Why go after Miley so early?

There are those that live their lives by ideals of perfection. Anything that is 'flawed' or 'imperfect' in those eyes is believed to be deserving of the scorn and grief they receive. And they will continue to receive grief until that person conforms to the ideal demanded of them. Or they quit. The apparent logic being "If one is not 'perfect' then one is not 'good'".

People have been known to villify that which they believe has wronged them, or have not fallen in line with their way of thinking. I speak from personal experience, and observation, when I say this. So what do they want? Conformity to the previous ideal she had? Fall in line with what is demanded? Go back to being the wholesome good girl she was and never be 'bad' again? 'Obey! Obey! Obey!'?

I can see that. I've seen environments where the order of the day with kids and people can be summed up in four words: "Do as you're told!" Which is probably the same message they have for Miley. Only they would probably add "We want you wholesome and safe again. Do as you're told!"

Or let's say for the sake of argument that the outraged parents are acting out of a genuine concern for Miley's welfare. That these parents believe they can do something to prevent the next Brittney or Lindsey trainwreck from happening. Should they not do something if they can? Especially since Brittney's and Lindsey's parents seemed to have done such a 'wonderful' job? A job you can read about in supermarket tabloids? And what happened to other teen talents of the past?

And the outraged parents seem to outnumber Miley's parents with a ratio of many to two? Is this a case of, to quote Spock, "The needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few? Or the one?" Or is this a belief that "might makes right?" The outraged are bigger in number than Miley's parents(which is two). So their bigger numbers put them in the right?

Well let me just add that adhering to a 'cookie cutter' ideal of a child actor didn't help Brittney and Lindsey any. Brittney especially. Starting out she seemed 'good', dating someone her own age in Justin Timberlake just as the ideal was supposed to do. Promote a good image, just as she was supposed to do. What happened? She turned 18, just as Lindsey had done. After that...party time. Once that happened they went hog wild and didn't stop until they were in drug busts, DUI's and jail. And they're afraid that if Miley deviates from the wholesome ideals that is expected of them even slightly then she will turn into them.

Fear, create enough of it and you can steal control and reason.

6.2 So what are the mistakes Miley has made?

If you ask the parents it would probably be that she made the mistakes she did at all.

But let's look at things a little differently here. Perhaps Miley believed there was nothing to worry about. After all she was apparently taught to believe in 'artistic expression' from her parents apparently. And, like their rules on love, they seem to set no limits for those. Or they have broad interpretations of those limits.

Some however would probably say 'too broad'. Maybe Miley's mistake was not forseeing the consequences of her 'artistic expressions'. That the audience she provided for was a little more....'narrow' in their interpretations of what is 'art' and what isn't. After all, some consider 'Playboy' art. Yet others consider it nothing more than degrading 'porn'.

Already haters are waiting for Miley to hit an issue of Playboy ASAP. Just so they can call her 'Slutty' some more. Which leads me to my next point.

6.3 The definitions of 'slut' and 'slutty'

There are people that have taken an....interest, some a pleasure, in calling Miley a 'slut', or 'slutty' as it looks to reflect behavior and make fun of her name.

I looked up the definition of 'slut' in Websters. It didn't give a flattering definition. Basically it defined a slut as "A dirty, slovenly woman. A woman that's immoral and destitute. Attributes that usually reflect a prostitute". Essentially the word is taken as an insult to women.

So is that what people think Miley is? A prostitute? And that makes it okay to hate her? Again the hate is 'righteous'?

I then took a look at wikipedia, which is not known for accuracy as it had been edited a few times. The definition in wikipedia also reflected Webster's definition, as well as adding a few terms itself such as 'A sexually promiscuous woman', 'a woman of low or loose character', 'a bold, impudent girl', and 'a person who lacks the ability, or chooses not to, to seek order to their affairs.' The term 'slutty' apparently is intended as a reflection of people seen to have such character, or apparent lack thereof. It is also applied to clothing as well.

However, wikipedia also gave an alternative definition as well. A more positive definition as the word is seen "As having a sense of pride in one's self or envy at the sexual successes of others." And while I don't know where this will end up, porn stars have used the word as a badge of pride for a sex-positive person.

The term has also been applied to gay males as well as bi-sexuals. Comparing them to those "Without merit as people who are promiscuous in that they have, or are reputed to have, many sexual partners, or whose sexuality is voracious, indiscriminate, and shameful." Geoffrey Chaucer even used the term to describe a man in one of his books. I'm assuming it was one of his Canterbury Tales, but I'm not certain.

Wikipedia also makes reference to a book called 'The Ethical Slut' which in this quote, may imply that there are (looking to avoid derogatory implications here) 'slutty' individuals that operate with a sense of order to their affairs:

The ethical Slut, the term has been used as an expression of choice to openly have multiple partners, and revel in that choice: "a slut is a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you."A slut is a person who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious or social pressures or conventions to conform to a straight-laced monogamous lifestyle committed to one partner for life. The term has been "taken back" to express the rejection of the concept that government, society, or religion may judge or control one's personal liberties, and the right to control one's own sexuality.

But ultimately I think this is the definition that could be applied to Miley's case. Not saying that it is, just that it could be.

'To describe a woman dressed provocatively or a woman being overtly flirtatious.'

Does this sound about right?

6.4 Should a teenaged girl be blamed for the actions of others?

If Miley should be held accountable for her mistakes then should the outraged parents, and maybe even the media, be held accountable for theirs as well?

What? The outraged parents made mistakes? The media screwed up? Yes they did. And what was that mistake? Empowering malicious haters with their accusations and looking the other way as they give her grief. Or at least seeming to look the other way. I've heard nothing from the outraged whenever someone called Miley 'Slutty', or some other malicious comment.

So what do those parents think? Are the haters right to make the comments they do? Do they condone the hateful remarks? Are they part of the punishment for not being 'good'? As I said before I've learned over the years to never underestimate people's capacity for cruelty. Or their ability to enjoy it.

People have often said when it comes to being hateful, malicious, or outright bullying...just ignore it. Well I've often found as well over the years that such elements don't want to be ignored. They press on the attack until they get what they want. One's dignity, one's self respect, and feeling nothing but sorry for one's self while the bullies laugh at one's tears. Even if you do ignore them there are others willing to give them the power they want, and when they go on the attack, those others go along too until you're fighting not just one bully, but a slew of them. This can go to the point where the words they spread about someone continue to spread until they automatically become the truth no matter what one might say.

It's not just members of the public that do this. Individuals in power are believed to employ those self same tactics. Whether it be public office or Hollywood executive. Also we are expected to just ignore such 'malicious individuals'. Well here's what I say to that. If those in power expect us to ignore the malicious haters those in power must do the same when it comes to their door. Turn away from it so as not to undermine the public morale their actions provide for. If one should get through and undermine said morale with hateful comments or devaluing rhetoric then they should be punished for their actions. No free pass given. No looking the other way.

In short, don't ignore the malicious. Confront them and show them the error of their actions and consequences of them.

Some will even cite the First Amendment, the right of free speech. Somehow I doubt the founders of our country (I don't say 'founding fathers' because Abigail Adams once said for us to "Remember the ladies" as well) intended for that right to empower bullies or haters that want to fling insults at a teenaged girl. Or to tear down whoever they want because they disagree with something....

....or because it's fun to do.


Yes, I said that. there are people out there that hate someone because it's fun. And whether they realize it or not it's the accusations of those outraged parents and the media that gives those individuals that power.

In short, to quote Nick Fury in issue 1 of Secret Warriors, 'They've been working for the bad guys the whole damn time.'

And what do they do about it? Nothing. They do not even acknowledge them. As far as they are concerned it's Miley's actions that deserve scrutiny. The haters are irrelevant at best, a side effect at worse. Unless there is the belief that the haters are part of the punishment. The logic being "It's not our problem. If you stayed the 'good girl' that we wanted you to be for our kids you wouldn't have this problem would you?" So does this mean the haters are a means to an end for the outraged? Where the fear of the outraged leads to their anger and their anger fuels the haters?

As another character once said "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Wise muppet that Yoda. He also said another favoite quote of mine when it comes to trying. "Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."

Another possibility I had been considering is that the haters could be those of conservative ideals and values. Values and ideals that drew ire from certain individuals like Perez Hilton, Remember how he felt about Carrie Prejean and her stance on gay marraige? A stance that caused her a heap of trouble? And still does?

And before anyone thinks I'm burying Perez let me just add that I'm not sure Carrie Prejean is any better as she made mention of Miley in her book 'Still Standing'. The mention she made however was where she was questioning Miley's morality. In comparison Perez comes off as one of the big Miley haters that has apparently penned the unflattering nickname of 'Slutty' on Miley. A nickname that has been picked up by haters everywhere, and haters have wasted no time calling her that on the net. Which got me wondering this question.

'Could Perez Hilton and the Miley haters be doing the conservatives dirty work?' Their hating Miley being a means of intimidation for her to fall in line with their way of thinking? Is Perez working for his own version of 'the bad guys' himself? Sounds a little too conspiracy theory I know. Yet the irony is quite amazing. Conservative and liberal haters working together to shake down a teenage girl. Sounds like a movie of the week doesn't it? Or an outrageous Hollywood story. Also it seems to me that Carrie and Perez use similar approaches when it comes to Miley. But while Carrie uses honey Perez seems to have no problem reaching for the vinegar.

Which makes me wonder 'Is Carrie any better than Perez?' And remember she did some 'tease' pics herself, so what right does she have to question Miley's morality? Regardless Miley has taken responsibility for her actions, even if they don't happen the way she expects. But her accusers don't seem to want to take responsibility for theirs. They are only worried about their own concerns not caring about the side effects voicing those concerns creates. Namely empowering the haters.

Do they think the hate is deserved for not having iron clad dedication to supposed cookie cutter ideals? If Hollywood is considering itself above the people like Ted Kennedy accused the Bush Administration to be above the law, do the people see themselves to be above common courtesy to a teenage girl? Or do they believe, as the old adage goes, that the ends justify the means? And that Miley will become the next Brittney and/or Lindsey unless they intervene. Do they perhaps see Billy Ray and Tish as unfit parents like they see Michael and Dina Lohan, or Jamie and Lynne Spears?

And if Miley does take the turn of Brittney and Lindsey, and winds up 'rock bottom' I expect the haters to do more kicking like saying "good riddance" or that they were glad the trash was taken out. I've seen comments like this before on news boards. Some of them were on when Miley's bus driver was in a crash and died. I expect the 'outraged' would be all "I told you so. If you just kept her the good girl this wouldn't have happened." With both sides picking up on the other.

It's kind of interesting. Addressing one set of deviant behavior only to cater to a different set? Welcome to Paradox.

6.5 One or two examples from the archives of Hannah

Every now and then I find myself thinking of one particular scene in the first season of Hannah Montana. An episode called 'Money for Nothing. Guilt for free.' It centers around Miley, Lilly and Oliver trying to beat mean girls Amber and Ashley in a contest on who can raise the most money for charity. In the beginning Amber and Ashley put two signs on Miley and Lilly's backs. On Lilly's back was the sign that said 'Dork' and on Miley's back was a sign that said 'Dorkier'. The purpose of the signs was so the students of Seaview Middle School would point and laugh at Miley and Lilly, in effect humiliate and embarrass them.

What irks me the most was that out of all the student body it was only Oliver that pointed out the signs to them. Two hours later. Any one of the student body of that episode could have said "Hey, do you know you have signs that say 'Dork' and 'Dorkier' on your backs?" It could have ended the laughter, and not given the mean girls the what they wanted. Those students chose not to do that. They chose to laugh, and when Miley and Lilly turned around to confront the laughter those students feigned innocence. They decided to let Miley and Lilly figure out the 'joke' for themselves. The joke being that they needed to literally watch their backs. Or let someone else tell them, like Oliver had.

With this decision those students decided that they were going to provide not for their sense of compassion, but Amber and Ashley's sense of cruelty. They turned their backs on their better natures giving Amber and Ashley what they wanted, and the sense of power that apparently followed. Miley and Lilly were left to find their own justice, which they got at episode's end.

I look at this and I wonder, if not think at times, that we are no longer a world ruled by compassion and reason. But instead by fear and cruelty. A world where only the worst of humanity is provided for, and that self same 'worst' needs everyone brought down to their level. And it is at that level where they remain, as long as the worst that bring them down remain king, or queen, of that world.

Why did those students not speak out? Did they actually think it funny? Like in a Castrol oil commercial where they see a person and their car spashed with engine sludge and they laugh at the splashing until it happens to them? Did they fear Amber and Ashley doing what they do to Miley and Lilly being done to them? So to avoid that they give the mean girls the power they want? They're like "We don't want it done to us. So we let it be done to someone else. Besides, if Amber and Ashley say their losers they must be right? RIGHT?!"

And they're scared to ask if the answer is "Wrong!"

I think each of those kids that laughed at the 'Dork' and 'Dorkier' signs would not be laughing if the signs were put on them.

Perhaps had sense of compassion been nurtured by the students of that episode Amber and Ashley would not have had the power they had in Seaview. Had they been like John Sheridan and Delenn in Babylon 5 when they confronted the Shadows and the Vorlons and said "We don't need it anymore. We don't need you." to Amber and Ashley, and others like them things would have been different. But that was not the case, and while things ended well for Miley and Lilly, that 'Dork' and 'Dorkier' scene still serves as a reminder to me how the worst of people can be given a free pass in life, and no one does anything about it. In providing for evil, do people then become evil? Or are they just ignorant?

I also found myself thinking of a scene in a second season episode called 'I want you to want me (to go to Florida)' in which Robbie Ray was injured and Miley says that she can go alone with Roxy. Robbie Ray refuses saying that Miley isn't ready to handle things alone, and refuses to let her go. Even with Miley's bodyguard. Miley and Robbie Ray get into an argument which leads Miley to say that she hates her father and decides to go to Florida anyway. Robbie Ray angrily goes after her, and tries to take her off the flight. Trapped on the plane Miley has to sit with an angry Roxy while Jackson Stewart sits with Robbie Ray saying to blame Miley for everything. Ironically enough Jackson takes his sister's defense asking "Why? You wouldn't let her go."

When Robbie Ray says again that Miley wasn't ready (probably like those parents that say she's not ready to do something so 'artistic' like the Annie Leibovitz pics) Jackson responds with "She wasn't ready? Or you weren't?"

And maybe that's another thing to consider. Perhaps Miley and her parents thought she was ready (I'd say Annie Leibovitz did), but the outraged in the audience were not. Especially with the Brittney and Lindsey tabloid stories floating around. The outraged parents weren't ready, even with all that semi nudity floating around mentioned before. They weren't ready for the 'wholesome' Miley to leave. Essentially they were saying what Billy Ray Cyrus said in his song in that episode. They were looking to tell the 'wholesome' Miley "Get ready, get set, don't go."

That's one possibility. There are others to consider as well. Some probably...not so nice.

6.6 Selena and Demi

At this point in time I want to point out and highlight Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato. Two other Disney Channel stars that could be considered successors to Miley's success, although the media would probably prefer the term 'rivals'.

Both Selena and Demi got their start on the show 'Barney the Dinosaur' and had been friends ever since. Even as they entered Disney together. Demi got her start on the small three minute show 'As the Bell Rings' before moving on to semi stardom in the movies 'Camp Rock' and 'Princess Protection Program' before getting her own series 'Sonny with a Chance'. Currently she's about to appear in the film 'Camp Rock 2:The Final Jam'.

As a kid Demi was bullied. To the point where people might have considered a possible truth in Demi's biggest brush with scandal to this date. In an article in the Star it was rumored that Demi was a 'cutter'. Someone who inflicted bodily harm on themselves as a means to alieviate personal pain. A form of self torture if you will. This story was backed up with a shot of red marks on Demi's wrists. She has apparently also done some provocative dance moves of her own on video, yet no one gets on her case about them. On the back of her album 'Don't Forget' Demi does a similar dance pose (the previously mentioned dip) Miley did except with a mike stand instead of an ice cream pole. It is only the angle of the shot, and use of the stand that keeps parents from 'getting outraged' apparently. And maybe even the outfit. Also, as mentined before, Ashley Tisdale did a similar dip with a mic stand in a video that Miley did with the ice cream pole, and there were no media reports there either.

So Demi is no stranger to scandal, controversey, or having media attention on her. And already the media and paparazzi seem to be trying to generate media buzz by starting some 'lesbian' rumors looking to create a new tabloid story, as I mentioned above.

Selena Gomez also is no stranger to having attention on her, due to her dating Nick Jonas. A story that may have been inflated due to their characters being 'frenemies' (combination of friends and enemies) on Hannah Montana. On the show Selena played a rival pop star named Mikayla who on camera was Hannah's friend. Off camera she hated Hannah and wanted to steal her 'fannahs'. I guess the media decided to make fiction reality thanks to the Jonas dating.

Some tend to blur the lines of fantasy and reality. Don't believe me? Just watch the show 'Legend' with Richard Dean Anderson (MacGyver) and John DeLancie (Q-from Star Trek:The Next Generation) and see how things can get blurry. Miley haters also tend to use Selena's name as a figurative club to beat Miley over the head with, which I think does Selena no good. But why the appeal to her other than the hating of Miley, the 'feud' on Hannah Montana, the dating of a Jonas and whatever else? Perhaps this quote from Teen Vogue might shed some light on things.

"I actually get told I am a very dark person. I like to dream, but I also like to be realistic. Sometimes when something is so nice and sweet I just crush it. I don't mean to, but I don't want to be let down."

As I look at this I think that maybe this is why so many dote on her like malicious bloggers on YouTube as well as the tabloid media as they tear down Miley. They have to promote a so called sense of 'realism' while making anyone that tries to set a positive influence in the world look like a hypocrite. But frankly guys, your kind of help Selena doesn't need.

She already has a hit series in 'Wizards of Waverly Place' in which she plays mischievous wizard Alex Russo, which is in its third season. She has already appeared in a Disney Channel movie of the same name, as well as Princess Protection Program, plus a movie from Warner Bros called 'Another Cinderella Story'. Many of these were seen together in the summer of 2009, which was her 'main event' summer, as Selena seemed to be everywhere.

She has also released her own music CD called 'Kiss and Tell' which she headlines with her band 'The Scene'. To my knowledge Selena is the only teen star that has shared her spotlight with her band, at least until Nick Jonas came along with 'the Administration'. Sure other singers have done it. Billy Vera did it with 'the Beaters'. Huey Lewis shared his spotlight with 'the News'. Gloria Estefan shared her spotlight with 'Miami Sound Machine'. But these listed have been adult stars in music. Selena and Nick are the only known teen stars to share their spotlight with their bands.

For those wondering, no this does not necessarily mean the end of the Jonas Brothers. Members of Genesis have gone their separate ways only to reform later and come out with new material. Phil Collins went solo a few times and came back. Mike Rutherford found solo band success with Mike and the Mechanics. Even Tony Banks had some success outside of Genesis. And when Phil Collins left permanently Genesis continued on with an album called 'Calling all stations'.

So there's no need for Selena to be "The Next Miley Cyrus". She's looking to be "The first Selena Gomez". And she doesn't need hater help to do it. Still with Selena's character of Alex, does Selena make a better role model than Miley?

6.7 Selena in Vanity Fair

As I write this it has come to my attention that Selena has done a shot for Vanity Fair herself. A story reflecting the hottest young stars rising today.

I saw Selena's picture, and it seemed a far cry from Miley's. It basically had Selena in a dress with flowing air and a black and white back ground. A safe and sane approach compared to Annie Leibovitz's shot. Which I guess is what some people want. They probably also didn't want Annie Leibovitz anywhere near these young stars.

Another young star from Disney in this shoot was Vanessa Hudgens from High School Musical fame, who had scrutiny of her own due to some 'nude' shots posted that got leaked. This seemed evident as Leibovitz's name was not listed on any of the shots taken. Also Leibovitz's belief that "nothing is too extreme in the pursuit of the perfect picture" probably comes into play as I think a lot of parents, and perhaps Disney (and perhaps other companies) themselves, don't want their young stars anywhere near Annie Leibovitz. Especially Selena.


No one says 'no' to Annie Leibovitz? I guess there's always a first time.

And while I don't want to put down 'safe and sane', as I sometimes think that's what the world needs quite a few times (if not a lot of the time), I do wonder if Selena isn't being locked into a safe and sane mold. I also wonder if that 'safe and sane' mold is not what some wanted for Miley, at least until she turned 18.

Another question to ask is 'is Selena really being the 'good girl' the media is portraying her to be? The 'good girl' the morality police wanted Miley to be? Or is Selena being an opportunist her character Mikayla was being in hopes of taking Hannah's fans away? In short, is Selena being an opportunist towing a party line in hope of getting the fan support that left Miley's side?

I will admit that until Miley's shot there probably wasn't a reason to say 'no' to Annie Leibovitz. Still I think people wish, and I count myself among them, that Miley and her parents said 'no' to Annie Leibovitz first. It would probably have saved a lot of heartache and grief.

And self righteous haters would have had one less reason to tear her down.

6.8 'Good' and 'bad'

At the end of the day though parents wanted a 'wholesome teenaged girl' as a role model for their kids, and they wanted that in Miley. Did Annie Leibovitz take that away? Did trainreq take that away? Or would some think Miley threw it away like garbage? And if Miley went to the garbage to get the wholesome image back would it still stink like garbage?

Miley and garbage? I know haters will have a field day with that line. Apologies in advance.

I think people feel 'safe' around 'good' images. Parents can show them to kids and say, "This is a 'good' person. This is someone you can be that people will look up to and respect." Parents take that image and feel positive about it as they hope kids embrace it. Especially as they see that the 'worst' of people tend to go to what is considered 'bad'.

But somewhere along the line 'good' became 'bad'. And 'bad' became 'good'. Like being 'bad' was better. And anyone who tried to be 'good' had to be exposed as someone 'bad'. And once exposed they get hated on. So what's 'good' here? Honest 'bad'?

I have read several news articles in the past that seem to applaud Miley for any good actions that she might have done, but yet after the articles are done they have to mention a previous scandal at the end as if saying "She's trying to do good, but remember after what she had done before she's still a terrible person."

I think people would love it if the genie that was the bad Miley, or "Slutty" as some so love to call her, would go back into it's bottle or cave, and never come back out again. More out of the belief that they would still have the 'wholesome and good' Miley left in its place. My uncle once said that "Whenever a horse took a crap that some would try to put the crap back into the horse. They would later find that when someone did that the horse would just get sick and bloated, if not die." So maybe we all have to take our craps.

Still, I bet there are some that wish the scandals never happened. Or that she, her parents, and handlers said 'no' when they were apparently supposed to. Or a policy was passed that they were erased from all public record. Still that will not happen as it would lead to censorship of another kind.

Still, if kids are in trouble it should be the parents' job to discipline kids-not the media, not special interest groups, not self proclaimed morality police, and ESPECIALLY not the haters as they DEFINITELY don't have a kids' best interest at heart.

I think a lot of these groups and individuals should take responsibility for their own actions. The actions they seem to NEVER talk about, until a news article appears on CNN, or another news station, that indicates a child committed suicide as a result of malicious treatment and bullying.

6.9 New contender to the musical throne?

At this point in time the world of music seems to have a new contender to the musical throne. No it is not Selena Gomez or Demi Lovato. Rather it is country music artist Taylor Swift.

Currently she has been the apple of many an eye if her appointment as 'Artist of the Year' in People magazine is any indication. Through her music, as well as some moments that....she could have done without. Among them are then boyfriend Joe Jonas breaking up with her over the phone. And Kanye West interrupting her acceptance speech for video of the year at the VMA's. But what seemingly comes off as her biggest draw is her wholesome image. She comes off as a down home girl that analyzes everything. An image that people probably wish Miley had/or maintained. I'll get more to this quote later, but right now I want to say something about a knee jerk reaction people might be feeling about my last comment.

People may think I'm being rude when I mentioned Miley's wholesome image above. Well perhaps it is. But I'm guessing that there's another reaction that is desired when I mention a comment like that.

Essentially they see Taylor Swift's wholesome reputation and see it as another weapon to use against Miley. I know, "Sci-fi and wrestling wacky writer say what?!"

It can happen. The use of a reputation against another performer or artist they believe is going 'off the rails'. Such use of a reputation can be seen as a means to get the other artist to 'fly right' if you will. To say "If you are like this we'll love you again."

Somehow I don't think Taylor would like her good name used this way. I believe Miley wouldn't.

Celebrity Symbolism and the repercussions

5.1 'Why?'

Through that has happened Miley says "I'm not a parent. I'm not a guardian. I'm not anything." True, she's not a parent or guardian. But what she does come off as is a symbol.

Whether the celebrity elite likes it or not they take on a role of symbolism in society. This is not just limited to Hollywood stars, but royalty, Presidents-and other politicians, buisness tycoons. When people are in the public eye they can become symbols to other people, whether the celebrities like it or not. Symbols of what however is a matter that can be put up for debate. But I think it was hoped that Miley would have become a symbol of what's 'good' in the world so people can believe that there is still good in the world.

Why do they need more symbols of good in the world, or why do people want celebrities to be symbols of 'good'? Apparently because the old symbols of what is good don't work anymore. Or they are considered cheesy, campy, or have had their time. In short, being good is considered 'uncool'. But if there is someone out there with the talent and potential to make being good cool again then maybe kids and people will start behaving and caring for one another again.

No party all the time chaos, order starts to be shown. Order and responsibility. Yes, I said 'order', because for some love may not as important as order. Love they believe can come later, especially as some believe it favors some and ignores others. And to some images of 'perfection' and 'order' may be seen as what is 'good'. So some ask, if not demand, a perfect image be shown-and maintained. Likely up to the point where the image can become real. Some would probably call adhering to that image 'moral reinforcement' as they allow the image to become everything giving someone something to believe in when the 'real' world fails them.

However, as I think of this my mind turns to other thoughts as well. If people conform to the demanded ideal are they still a person, or do they become the symbol to so great an extent they can't be anything else? And if they are a symbol, what are they a symbol of? Also, can we be who we are and want to be, or must we always do and be what society demands? And if we have to be what society demands should we expect any less out of Hollywood stars and the industry. Not to mention our other institutions like government and the financial sector?

Whether Miley likes it or not she has become a symbol. But instead of being a symbol of what is believed to be 'good' some are not sure what she is a symbol of. So they perceive the worst case scenario and tend to villify her, yet allow themselves to believe they are doing it for benign intentions.

Yes, I said benign intentions, for that is what the outraged may believe. They may believe they are looking to achieve a positive result. That they are doing the right thing to 'save her' from becoming the next Brittney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, or other child stars to the point where the outraged-and special interest groups-take on a whole new identity and term. A term some deem none too flattering, even though some that reflect this term believe they do the things they do, and say the things they say for the best of reasons.

That term? The morality police. They may have good intentions but as another old saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Meaning, the outraged may have meant things for the best. But they provided for the worst. That worst? The haters.

5.2 Haters

I look at the world right now and wonder if haters are not given a free pass today. Not just on the net, but the media as well.

I take a look at a lot of media stories that pop up on the net here and there. And quite a few of them can be brutal. And that brutality extends to YouTube postings and message board postings where the maliciousness is taken up several notches. And I wonder why? Why is this sort of behavior allowed to run free?

Some would probably answer 'Because of the first amendment'. The right of freedom of speech.' But is it really freedom of speech to verbally tear down a teenage girl or call her a slut? Or 'Slutty?' Are they really following the first amendment, or are they hiding behind it as they do their tear downs? And in the process violate the spirit of the first amendment?

Again, it has been said that 'Perception is reality', and on the media front I'm wondering if they do not agree with hater views as some articles seem to reflect the perceptions of the outraged and the haters. Do these supposed journalists see these perceptions as the truth? Or are they just looking for attention and magazine sales? I'm not sure I want to know the answer to this.

With the outraged I think they believe they are giving some 'tough love' to Miley that they may believe her parents don't seem to give her. They allow the 'slut' and 'slutty' names, and give her 'bad' role model status. A status they will continue to give her until Miley either quits or goes back to the 'good girl' image and ideal that is requested, expected, if not demanded of her. Then, in effect, renouncing anything that could be considered sexy, sexual, or slutty like one would renounce what could be deemed a pagan religion. Regardless of any questionable methods to attain this goal.

The haters however, those that actually hate Miley. Well, I think they just do it for a sense of fun. And if she cried tomorrow they'd just tear her down more. And if they know it's wrong they may not care. In looking at the haters I just think of a quote Alfred said in the movie The Dark Knight.

"Some just want to see the world burn." Another quote they may live by is "It's better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven".

But I don't think anyone wants the forest burned down do they?

Perhaps if people look at the world through smoke colored glasses instead of rose colored ones we can ask 'How do we lift the smoke?' Even if some don't want the smoke lifted, maybe it needs to be so light can be seen at the end of the tunnel.

As I look at this I think of statements Miley made in her book 'Miles to go' involving some 'mean girls' that bullied her and went out of their way to make her life miserable. Not to mention a parent being in the room that seemed to laugh about what was happening. She called it 'Operation:Make Miley Miserable.'

I'm wondering if the 'Operation' hasn't gone global, and under new management.

5.3 Malicious hate for the greater good?

Like I said the outraged (or morality police if you want to use that term), may believe that their actions are done for the greater good. And they probably do not speak about the haters out of the belief that out of their supposed little evil will come the greater good of Miley being wholesome again. They seem to excuse the apparent little evils of haters, even the malicious bloggers on YouTube along with other places and people, if they believe the supposed greater good of Miley embracing the good girl image she had is served.

The morality police take a look at the Rocker girl Miley wants to be and they most likely see a girl with no morals, no ethics and no moral compass to guide her actions and decisions. They also most likely see a girl with no regard for the consequences of her actions and parties without restraint. As opposed to the wholesome girl who seems to have plenty of morals, plenty of ethics, comes with a moral compass to guide her actions, and has regard-and forsight-into the consequences of her actions. Not to mention shows restraint when partying and wholesome ideals-whether Miley likes it or not.

To some that may be described as a 'cookie cutter image' but to the morality police that is what they may regard as a 'good person.' And Billy Ray and Tish's role? Apparently they are supposed to keep her that way.

There are two problems with that logic. The malicious haters have also gone after Miley's 10 year old sister Noah. Up to the point where they are calling her 'skank'. And another reason, Miley is disgusted with people that are naturally okay with being hateful. Makes me wonder how she feels about people who look the other way in regards to hate. In other words, the 'greater good ' of the morality police, and Miley's 'greater good' may be two different things.

The trick is determining just what that 'greater good' is?

For the morality police it is Miley going back to the 'good girl' image and staying that way. In reponse to Miley's comment of "If you don't like what I do then change the channel" they may respond with "We want to watch wholesome family entertainment, and that's what we want...out of you." They want to watch the 'old Miley'. The 'new' Miley can go to 'new' places. Places they may never go, but that doesn't mean the media won't follow. And if they report on it the outrage and hating starts up again.

But perhaps Miley may see things from a different perspective. She may believe that one may look like a 'good' person, and act like a good person. But does that actually make a good person? Based on that logic she may see the haters, and the morality police excusing it, and wonder if they are really 'good' people. Especially if excusing the haters gets to the point where they are not solving a problem, but becoming part of it. By empowering, and providing material for haters so that the supposed 'good intentions' become nothing more than hater fodder.

Much like the time traveller that seeks to change history, yet doesn't change anything. They only become a part of events. So by Miley's probable logic her conclusion, and message to the morality police, could well be this:

"I only sought the best intentions with my 'art' and entertainment. I didn't cause any scandal and controversey with my actions. You did it yourselves!"

Mind you all this is only a supposed quote. Maybe it's true, and maybe it's not. And maybe Miley would say this, and maybe she wouldn't. But Miley has mentioned how she doesn't like haters. So in forcing her to be something she's not, and looking the other way in regards to haters, have the morality police offended HER sense of morality?

In short, the morality police's 'evil' may be Miley's 'good'. And vice versa.

5.4 Is this how the media operates?

I look at the supposed 'morality police' and the media, and I wonder if they are not turning into 'Big Brother' from 1984. All so they can keep an eye out for 'thoughtcrimes' for reasons of their own. Or maybe they take a look at things from another perspective. A perspective found on 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' and the character of Geordi LaForge.

In one episode Captain Picard is allowed to see what Geordi sees through his VISOR. An image that allows him to see, yet see differently than other people. In some cases 'more', as he can see different frequencies and wavelengths, but at times Geordi finds that 'More isn't better'. When Geordi goes past Commander Riker as he leads an away mission Picard asks 'who that was'. Geordi explains and Picard asks how can he make out who's who and what's what. Geordi gives his answer.

"I get all the information simultaneously. I select what I want and disregard the rest."

It kind of makes me wonder if that's how haters, the outraged, and the media operate. A question only they can answer.


And I think the answer can be based on more than just a two second dip and a ride the rest of the way.

I think I'm at the point here in listing scandals where the quote by Gilda Radner says it best. "It's always something."

And perhaps Miley is at that point too.

The men in Miley's life

4.1 Miley's boy selection

Another thing that caused the media to get some headlines is Miley dating a 20 year old underwear model that her father met while judging the show 'Nashville Star'. The model's name was Justin Gaston, and he was eliminated from first round competition. But apparently Billy Ray thought Justin was good enough to date his daughter for a time....despite accusations of statutory rape that seemed to appear. Or does that just apply if sexual activity is involved?

Maybe that question is best answered another time. But that was not the only headache people had I think. I think the bigger headache was that Miley was deviating from the 'teen romance' ideal she was supposed to portray with former beau Nick Jonas. An ideal that I guess was supposed to reflect a romance story of young love blossoming into adulthood, in the minds of some.

Well that didn't happen. It didn't happen with Brittney or Justin Timberlake either who also had the 'teen romance' ideal going for a time. That also ended badly and ended up with Brittney having kids with Kevin Federline. And I think maybe fans saw Justin Gaston as Miley's Kevin Federline. A bad boy with no talent hanging onto a young woman who....has had more sucess than him. I'll leave it at that.

However, the topic of teens dating over eighteen is not just limited to Miley. Demi Lovato had dated Miley's brother Trace, who was 20 himself to Demi's 16. Taylor Swift, a 19 year old who was dumped by another Jonas Brother-Joe (and by phone no less), is reportedly dating Taylor Lautner of Twilight fame. Currently he's 17. Yet while the media tries to portray Miley dating a 20 year old as something resembling a federal crime they look the other way in regards to Demi and Taylor.

What? Are they not big enough for scrutiny?

I also read about another 'underage' romance in the 'Battlestar Galactica' novels written by Richard Hatch. The first on being 'Armageddon' in which Apollo's son, 24 yahren (year) old Troy (the child formerly known as Boxey), fancied a 17 yahren old warrior named Dalton, who was the daughter of Captain Starbuck. Troy and Dalton had known each other since Dalton was born and she had grown into a strong willed, card playing, fumarello (cigar) smoking teen. And both fancied one another. However since Dalton was underage, and Colonial society frowned on that (much like our society apparently does [or at least it does in Miley's case]), they never act on their feelings. They however enjoy the feelings of their company, and the feeling of being in love.

Maybe that's what Billy Ray intended when he brought Justin home to meet his daughter. The feeling of love without intimacy. Of course that didn't stop Troy and Dalton from consumating their love when Dalton hit her eighteenth novayahren (birthday). So maybe when Miley hits eighteen, be careful.

And in the world of comics one character in DC had a 'young romance' of his/her own. That character is Firestorm.

The previous incarnation of the Firestorm character had a science nerd named Jason Rusch bonded with a seventeen year old girl named Gennifer who was still in High School. Jason was in college and the age barrier was definitely a factor when it came to 'getting close'. The only intimacy they had was when they were bonded as Firestorm, a being that could transmute objects and chemicals into whatever s/he needed them to be.

Yes, Firestorm was two people in one. And this version had a male and a female as part of the bond compared to the previous bonds that had two men joined. One brains and the other being brawn. Currently Firestorm is a reanimated Ronnie Raymond, part of the original Firestorm matrix, back from the dead with the help of a white power ring. Jason Rusch is part of the matrix too, but Gennifer had her heart taken from her and was turned to salt in the storyline 'Blackest Night'. She had died, but Jason admitted that he loved her despite their ages.

Ironically enough in her book 'Miles to Go' Miley said that 'her family set no limits on love'. Even if others apparently do.

4.2 Adam Shankman and the lap dance

As I have continued to draft this work...countless times, it always seems there is more to come from the world of Miley. And in the most glaring of cases it doesn't come out well. And while I am finding myself coming to believe that with Miley the quote from Gilda Radner that states "It's always something." applies. This upcoming incident came off as one big something.

In the recent weeks video was released of Miley doing what was termed as a lap dance in front of director Adam Shankman. A gay man who directed Miley in her film 'The Last Song.' The video was taken months ago when Miley was still sixteen, and was at a cast party celebrating the end of filming for the movie. Apparently someone decided to shoot video footage of the lap dance Miley had done and air it to TMZ months later after her video, and single, 'Can't be tamed' was released.

The usual cries of 'outrage' were given. People saying that 'Miley should have known better. That there were children present, and that she should have set a better example. Her behavior was disgraceful', and so on down the line. The Cyrus parents were not present, but Billy Ray did give his two cents on the matter.

Billy Ray's response was "It's no big deal. Kids her age do stuff like that all the time." And I think some would respond to that with "Not my kid." One who might reflect this way of thinking is CNN's Rick Sanchez, who basically came off as saying "If it was my daughter doing something like that I would be dragging her out of there, even if she was kicking and screaming.", possibly implying that Billy Ray should have done something similar and taken a similar attitude. Sanchez also said that this video could give her the impression of being a negative role model.

I think in the minds of some however, that ship has already sailed.

Coming to her defense was Ashton Kutcher, 32 year old husband to 47 year old actress Demi Moore-who, as I mentioned before, also did a controversial shot with Annie Leibovitz years back when she was pregnant. A shot that led to then husband Bruce Willis doing a parody shot, as well as version of the shot appearing in Marvel Comics' comic Quasar with the quote "Mom said there would be days like this." on the cover (Look for the comic. It's kind of funny). Moore will also be starring with Miley in an upcoming film that is a remake of a French comedy, but I'm digressing.

Ashton responded to Rick Sanchez's comment by saying that Miley was "Just having fun. She wasn't at a club or anything." He also sent to Sanchez an article about the exploitation of children in South America and that if Sanchez wanted to cover a story on child exploitation he should cover that. Her current boyfriend Liam Hemsworth also came to Miley's defence.

In retrospect, this is not the first time something like this has happened on the set of 'The Last Song' with Shankman. Months before Miley was doing another set of provocative pics with Shankman. Some with him in them. Miley didn't think anything of it, and neither did Shankman-who reminded everyone of his sexual orientation. He reminded everyone that he was gay, and the shots were considered 'harmless fun'. He considered the matter a 'Non-troversey' and dismissed the shots.

I guess Miley and Adam Shankman considered the lap dance 'Round 2 of the Non-troversey', even if others apparently didn't. And why wait so long to send the pic to TMZ? If the offended were so offended, why not send it the moment it happened? These are good questions I don't have the answers to.

But Miley didn't have a problem with it, and neither did Adam Shankman. Apparently he gave the okay for it. As has her father, and boyfriend/fiancee'.

4.3 The father and the fiancee'

A lot of times the road of controversey leads back to the Cyrus parents, especially Billy Ray. And several times he had given his consent for Miley's actions, even if he may have had reservations about them. The consent leading to an apparent dismissal of the actions like the 'pole' dance', the 'lap dance', and the pictures as 'harmless fun'. But to some it's not for their own reasons.

I'm sure there are a lot of parents who would love it if Billy Ray took the stance of Rick Sanchez and decided the right answer was to drag her out kicking and screaming. And to place developing Miley's morals and ethics first. But that is not the approach Billy Ray and Tish are taking with their kids. Billy Ray even quoted on a net article "I allow my kids to have the freedom to express themselves creatively and artistically any way they want."

Mr. Cyrus that is all well and good. But I do find myself asking "At what price?" Where do you say "This is the line. Don't cross it." Where does Miley say that?

Is that even said? Or is the philosophy of 'Anything goes' adapted? A philosophy that can be adapted to the point that one could consider themselves above the law, above the audiences Hollywood stars are apparently supposed to be providing for, and maybe even above morality as they decide the rules of the individual are more important than the rules of society. Rules that are meant to promote a sense of order.

And maybe that's what's missing. A sense of order in Miley. Because as far as I've been able to tell Billy Ray has come off more as Miley's 'best friend' rather than being a parent. I've read that Tish has sometimes filled the role of disciplinarian at times, but is it enough?

Where are Miley's values? Does she follow a code of honor? A way of order? Or does she just follow a philosophy of 'Party time' with no regard of the consequences? These are questions I have no answers to. And while Miley has not followed the path of the 'train wreck' just yet, some feel it's only a matter of time. And if the train does crash, will Billy Ray shrug it off again? Just dismiss it?

Or does he just know something we don't?

He mentioned that his family tries to revolve themselves around the concept of love. That they try to love eah other, and help eath other. To provide support when a family member needed it. I'll admit, that sounds like a worthwhile goal, but is it enough? Should there not be a point where love must give way to reason, and a consideration to the audiences the star is supposed to be providing for?

These questions are questions only the Cyrus's can answer, but I think it best to focus on the new man in Miley's life Liam Hemsworth.

Liam made waves starring with Miley in Nicholas Sparks' film 'The Last Song', and the two developed a romance at the time filming was taking place. Liam however didn't come alone to Hollywood, as his brother Chris has also made some appearances in films. He played the father of Captain Kirk in J.J. Abrams' Star Trek film, and will play the Norse god Thor in Marvel Comics's film of the same name-as well as the Avengers' movie where he will play the same character.

But as of yet, not much of Liam is known. Currently he's best known for being Miley's new boyfriend-and marraige may be in the air when she turns 18 (she has mentioned wanting to marry Liam in interviews) and for being the brother of Chris Hemsworth. He's providing support for Miley, but time will tell whether he makes his own name in the Hollywood superstructure. Or will he be like Mark Hamill, who will best be known for being Luke Skywalker and voicing the Joker in the animated Batman? Some waves were made when it was reported somewhere that Liam had been a brawler, and that Liam broke up with a girlfriend he had for years to be with Miley-leaving one to wonder whether or not Miley is a homewrecker as well.

With Nick Jonas I think people saw Justin and Brittney. With Justin Gaston I think people saw Brittney and Kevin Federline. I think however with Liam, this is a relationship where there can be no comparisons to Brittney's previous relationships. This one can be considered all Miley's regardless of the consequences.

He's already playing a role in Miley's support network if the response to the 'lap dance' is any indication. Only time will tell.

4.4 Bret Michaels

I've not really been a fan of hard rock, or glam rock as the case for the band 'Poison' is made. It took me a while to warm up to the harder rockers, mostly because when growing up the music served as a rallying cry for many bullies as they tore down kids they deemed 'nerds'. And yes, I was one of those tormented.

But it seems that Miley has no problem warming up to hard rockers, most notably the former frontman for Poison-Bret Michaels. She admired him, and the feeling was mutual. They collaborated on a song together, with Miley's mother Tish in attendance. Miley sought to add some harmonies to a song, and all who listened to it in studio thought it was a beautiful song.

However one thing that was not checked was the lyrical content, as some suggested that the song reflected underage pedophillia. The implication voiced was that Bret was looking to tell a story about him and Miley going down on one another apparently. Both Bret and Miley denied the accusation saying that they were just singing a song, and telling a story that was not a reflection of themselves. They said that by no means were they singing about themselves in the song. Here are samples of the lyrics in question:

Won't you fall down on me.
So close I can hear you breathe


Yeah we both know better than this.
Still we can't resist (still we can't resist)


Slowly get undressed.

After getting thrown by the lyrics and the outrage shown to them I listened to the song. Yes it has some beautiful harmonies and melodies, and yes they were probably telling a story not about themselves, just singing a song. But like the walls of the artist studio, once the work gets outside the rules of the studio do not always apply. They may have intended one thing, but it became something else.

As I was growing up the image for hard rockers was not a flattering one, and some tended to reinforce that image-even if done in humor. I remember a bit of a MAD Magazine parody that took the Poison song 'Every rose has it's thorn' and changed it to 'Leather clothes must be worn.' which reflected a line that said "Sell your soul to Satan, and you can't go wrong. Leather clothes must be worn." The line in this parody song reflected the image and attitudes hard rockers were believed to have had. Images enforced by performances where Ozzy Osborne ate live animals on stage, Axl Rose of Guns and Roses saying lines where "The bed hasn't been slept in. I'm not saying it hasn't been used it just hasn't been slept in." as he took part in a contest for MTV where he was giving away an apartment. Other ideas could be the songs of Marilyn Manson which have caused their own public outcry.

And yet I can see the storytelling appeal of Bret Michaels and Poison. I revisited a video that I saw years back for the song 'Fallen Angel' that had a girl move to California and fall in with a sleazy producer that seemed to want to make her dreams come true. Dreams of fortune and fame, but they seemed to be going in a direction that she did not expect as she was being steered away from the wholesome family girl she once was to....something that was the complete opposite. When the girl saw the sleazy producer surrounded by a bevvy of beauties, she left him lying clutching his favorite organ in pain and walking away.

The video ended with the girl dressing back to her old clothes and leaving on a Hollywood Taxi. I say 'on' because the 'taxi' was a motorcycle, and was driven by a punk rocker. The girl leaves and in the final shot we see another girl get off the bus with the same wonder in the eyes the previous one had. It seems the story of the video reflected how a girl's dreams became something she didn't recognize, and when the girl woke up and left for parts unknown another girl just came to fill the void the preious one had left. The cycle starting all over again.

Bret Michaels indicates that he is not just a fan of Miley, but he is also a father as well. And it is a role he takes seriously. I believe that if he thought there was something in the song that would worry him he would know it as his own kids, and their welfare, are a concern to him. If someone had addressed the lyrical content to him before hand he would have done something about it, or maybe even Miley's mother Tish as she was present during the recording.

Currently Bret Michaels in enduring a series of health problems stemming from a stroke and a brain hemorrage he had suffered weeks ago. He was also diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes as a kid, and that condition may have contributed to his current health problems. I wish him well. Even if I don't totally agree with the style of his music, I wish him well.

The teen choice awards and the pole

3.1 What happened?

This is a section I plan to keep brief. Mostly because what happened leaves people with the same after effects, and those after effects have already been covered in the previous two sections.

In 2009 at the teen choice awards Miley performed her single 'Party in the U.S.A.'. In it she was doing something she described as a parody of her upbringing. Basically it had an Airstream trailer in the back, she came out in leather biker shorts and boots, and sang her song. In this song she paid tribute to Michael Jackson, who had recently passed on. And at the end of her number she thanked God and her family for allowing her to be on the stage. Her parents, who were in the audience, applauded her.

But none of that mattered. Not the thanks to God. Not the tribute to Michael, none of it. The only thing that mattered was two seconds where she stood on an ice cream cart, did a dip, and rode the rest of the way doing hip shakes she had done before in previous numbers. As she rode the top of the ice cream cart to the next part of her number she used a pole for balance and support as the cart was pushed on. Outraged parents, and the media, compared it to Miley doing a pole dance, doing a stripper move...oh hell they basically said she danced a stripper pole in a risque performance.

And of course the usual accusations flew. "She's a slut. She's a bad role model. The return of 'Slutty' Cyrus." The haters were empowered again.

3.2 Looking at the incident overall

Like I mentioned before everything else about Miley's performance was overlooked and ignored. Only the dip and hip shakes was given any attention. Yes, I said dip and shakes. I did not see any stripper move being performed. Her clothes also remained on. Miley also had more clothes on than other supposed pole dancers. And she didn't twist around the pole or grope it, or anything provocative, although some might consider the dip to be provocative.

But again that is of no relevance. All we see is outraged parents, empowered haters, and a media seeing a figurative fire and pouring gasoline on it instead of reaching for the fire extinguisher. "The return of Slutty Cyrus" quote was actually done by blogger Perez Hilton, and an internet article quoted him on it. And of course the haters get air time. Mostly on YouTube, but some 'journalists' get in their two cents asking about the parents. One outright asked "Why didn't Billy Ray and Tish stop it?" He also asked "Who authorized this performance?" Good questions, and I did think this was the best approach to do this with. Taking the problem up with the parents, not bash the kid.

However there were some that bashed the parents. One blogger on YouTube said Billy Ray and Tish were "robots". Personally I have found YouTube to be a bit of a hater haven at times where the worst seems to be glorified in the comments section. Even a few so called blogs and 'comedy' spots. One most notably tended to make a career out of bashing Miley aliciously before moving on to other celebrities. I won't go into his name.

And what about the outraged parents? Well it seems like they just look the other way on this. Their ideals, or the ones they wanted Miley to have, were not met so let Miley face the consequences. Their logic, seeminbly being, "If she stayed good she wouldn't have these problems." Do they believe that she deserves the hate thrown her direction? Do they believe that "She didn't stay wholesome. She deserves to be hated?" That is a question only the outraged can answer, and I for one hope the answer is 'no'. However it is also possible that if she 'stayed good' she would have a new set of problems.

As for the dip on the ice cream cart, I've seen that dance move done once or twice before. One example was in a low budget B-movie I saw years back called 'Bad Channels'. A movie that had a classic cheesy premise of an alien and its robot looking to come and take human women back to their planet. To do this the alien takes over a radio station, sends music into a woman's mind causing her to dance, then she gets transported to the station where she gets shrunk down and placed in a bottle.

One of the characters, a girl named Bunny (don't ask why they named her that), did a dance that called for a dip, and it was done without a pole for balance. So I don't necessarily compare that to a stripper move. Maybe a little risque, but that's about it. So I do think that the pole could have been there for balance.

I saw the dip done once before on an album cover, another done on a video with a microphone stand. Who else did the dip? Demi Lovato did a dip on the back of her album cover 'Don't Forget' making use of a mike stand. Ashley Tisdale also used the mike stand in a video of hers using the stand for balance much like Miley apparently used the pole for balance at the teen choice awards. I will be discussing more about Demi Lovato in a later section, but for now I think that the bit about using the pole for balance, and the dancing just being dancing, holds a little more weight.

And if you want to see women actually pole dance might I recommend a few minutes at the beginning of the Iron Man movie with Robert Downey Jr. or a few scenes in the Rob Schneider film 'The Hot Chick'. There's some actual pole dancing there.

3.3 Pole and Risque DOES NOT equal 'bad'.

I've seen some instances where being 'sexy' or 'questionable' does not mean that they are a bad person. Of course they mostly are in Sci-Fi. Two stick out the most.

The first that comes to my mind is Cassiopia on the original Battlestar Galactica. She is designated a 'socialator', which is a Colonial term for prostitute. It is considered an honorable profession with the blessings of the elders. However there are those that do not share this belief, as an old woman demands that she be taken away and 'fed to the daggits'. She kept up the insults saying that Cassiopia should be jettisoned with the dead, and that there was no place for refuse.

I think it's safe to say she thought Cassiopia was 'dirty', and she even said so as well. The woman that hated Cassiopia was a member of a sect among her people who believed that 'there should have been no physical contact among genders unless sanctified by a priest during high worship of the sunstorm, which occurs only once every seven years'. Essentially it's Galactica's version of Pon Farr.

However we find that Cassiopia is not a 'bad' or 'immoral' person. We find she does have a code of ethics, especially as she wonders if she's not the 'other woman' in Lt. Starbuck''s life. Starbuck being a womanizer and a rogue. And Cassiopia says that next time she sees him (yes I said him) that it's office rates. Of course the next time she does see him he's helping her escape some Cylons that want them dead, and Ovions that want them for dinner. Literally.

After the escape Cassiopia finds a way to have a new beginning. She becomes a med tech. A nurse, so to speak, that helps out in the Galactica's life station. She may have started out 'questionable' but Cassiopia never lost sight of her caring nature.

There is another example of heroism in the most unlikely of places. In the movie 'Independence Day' Will Smith's girlfriend, an exotic dancer and single mother, takes it upon herself to try to gather as many survivors as she could and lead them to a place of safety. One of those survivors is the President's wife, who is critically injured, yet makes it to say good bye to her family. Not to mention getting the survivors she finds to Area 51 where the final offensive is about to take place. Some may find 'exotic dancing' questionable, as the President's wife thought Will's character's girl friend studied ballet, but when push came to shove she had the strength of spirit to lead those she found to safety. Courage in the face of adversity.

And sometimes the use of a pole does not mean 'sexual'. There are incidences of dancing around a 'may pole' as celebration. I also saw a bit where one was using a pole as an exercise routine that was part of a video. It was just intended as a workout. Nothing 'sexual' was portrayed, or impressions given to give any sexual meaning. Just exercise and movement. Nothing more.

3.4 How do people come to the conclusions they do?

People see the world differently. Something I've come to realize a lot lately. Some may see one thing as innocent, yet be offended by it.

And some may see everything and rely on their own perceptions to see, giving credibility to the expression 'Perception is reality'. And I wonder exactly what they base those perceptions on. Hope? Love? Fear? In the case of the outraged I'd say fear, but fear of what?

The answer?:that the best aspects of us as a people have fallen, and the worst have taken power. The best to the outraged being our morals, ethics, codes of honor, compassion, and perceived decency. The worst being the self serving, malicious, hate filled individuals that use the negative Hollywood imagery to justify their own behavior. Who look at moments Miley and treat them as excuses to validate their own malicious behavior. Hollywood can try to distance themselves from responsibility to an extent, but if someone looks for a justification for bad behavior people can tend to find one. They can also find rationale for such behavior.

And the fear is not just about Hollywood. People also fear that the politicians in government does not care about them, and only go for their own agendas. If someone is laid off from their job and the government doesn't help them as a person gets a job in their field, or desired field, they don't seem to care. If they work at a local McDonalds cooking fries, then fine. As long as they are working, there is no perceivec problem. News outlets also promote stories of political scandals leading one to question about government officials in office, and can we trust them.

The news also promotes buisness scandals, where executives get big fat pay raises while companies go bankrupt. I could go on here but I think the fear is that the Hollywood industry, the political world and the buisness world have a certain attitude towards John Q. Public. Or at least those in certain key places of those institutions and industries have that attitude.

That attitude:We are above you and the morality you preach. You don't matter, nor do your morals.

As of late Miley has been firing back at the accusations of the outraged, to the point where it could be considered going on the defensive. I don't want to think that she is taking the 'You don't matter' stance that people may believe she is taking, but she is not ignoring things either. She said many things in an article for Harper's Bazaar, as well as an article for Parade Magazine, especially in regards to the stripper pole as the interviewer cites a quote made by Mika Brzezinski co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC.

“My impulse is to say, ‘Get off my case, Mika. Get over it.’ But then I think, ‘Well, that makes me just like her. I’m acting just like everyone else who has some kind of chip on their shoulder.’ My job first is to entertain and do what I love, and if you don’t like it, then change the channel. I’m not forcing you to watch me. I’m not forcing you to talk about me. I would do that pole dance a thousand times again, because it was right for the song and that performance. But, dude, if you think dancing on top of an ice-cream cart with a pole is bad, then go check what 90% of the high schoolers are really up to. It’s funny. I don’t know if a lot of parents remember what they were like as kids. But I’m like, ‘Dude, as if you were an angel!’”

Looking at this I'm thinking what their responses would be. Maybe 'they' were angels, and maybe they weren't. It's possible some were, maybe not out of choice, but some were. And they wanted Miley to be one as well. Mostly because in a world of shock value and reality TV they hoped for something 'safe and sane', or something 'good' by their interpretation. And they wanted Miley to be it.

They probably went into the teen choice awards thinking that would be 'safe and sane' entertainment. Did Miley take that away? Or did those who okayed the performance take that away? Regardless, Miley presses on especially with this quote from the Parade interview.

“I’ve learned I can’t live for what people are going to say. People are so judgmental—especially parents. You can say what you want about mine, but I think the world of my mom and dad. They are the best. I am not afraid to tell them anything. Sometimes they’ll say, ‘Miley, we’re not completely stoked about your decisions,’ but at least they’re not worried at 3 in the morning, wondering where I am. It’s all about communication. I don’t care what stories are written about me or what other parents think, because I know how close I am with my parents.”

And if anyone calls her 'slut' or 'Slutty'? Well she has a response for that too.

“People are always looking for you to do something that is non-Christian, But it’s like, ‘Dude, Christians don’t live in the dark.’ I have to participate in life. If I wear something revealing, they go, ‘Well, that’s not Christian.’ And I’m like, ‘Yeah, I’m going to go to hell because I’m wearing a pair of really short white shorts.’ Suddenly I’m a slut. That’s so old-school.”

Well apparently for some 'old-school is cool', yet Miley doesn't seem to worried about that. And for those that call her a 'slut' or 'slutty'? I am reminded of this quote from a character in Marvel's G.I. Joe comic, the mercenary Kwinn who once said: "A man who whips a dog will pull his own sled someday."

And for those wondering if I'm calling Miley a dog, don't. The saying is supposed to mean if you mistreat someone you depend on or love, then they will leave you. And you will have nothing.

3.5 Harpers Bazzar article and pics

Also in her retaliation Miley had appeared in Harper's Bazzar, doing an interview and photoshoot that was a far cry from anything done with Annie Leibovitz. In the article she adresses the ups, downs, and some of the controversies in her life amidst a set of photos that seemed ideal. The pictures in the magazine were reminiscent of a downhome country girl amidst a beautiful setting. It was like the wholesome Miley had returned. The Miley I think the outraged didn't want to see go.

But also amidst that return came feelings. Feelings of regret and sadness. For I found myself looking at the photos in Harper's Bazzar and I found myself imagining what some would say to these pictures. Or rather what questions they would ask. Questions like:

'Why couldn't she have been this?'


'Why didn't Billy Ray and Tish keep her this way?'


'Why don't people see this as beautiful?'


'Why do people think scenery like this is fake?'


'Why can't this be real?'

Good questions I think. I take a look at shots like that and compare it to the shots of before: Annie Leibovitz, the teen choice awards, etc and I wondered how things have gone from one place to the next. With the Harper's Bazzar pics being what was before to the other pics being the 'now'. Well Miley addresses some of the problems in the article.

"People like controversey because that's what sells. My job is to be a role model, and that's what I want to do, but my job isn't to be a parent. My job isn't to tell your kids how to act or how not to act, because I'm still figuring that out for myself. So to take that away from me is a bit selfish. Your kids are going to make mistakes whether I do or not. That's just life."

True, the kids are going to make mistakes whether Miley's there or not. And she seems to have learned the Eric Bischoff motto of doing buisness:"Controversey Creates Cash". Cash for who however that's another story. And while I can get someone trying to find themselves there is an apparent 'higher standard' that Hollywood stars are expected to set, and Miley is one of them. There are people expect those stars to know what that standard is at day one and have an iron clad dedication to it. Especially the young stars.

I find myself thinking of Filmation cartoons and their 'morals of the day' after reading (and writing) this. Do people expect Hollywood to know each and every one of these morals? The rare exception to this 'rule' is that star that decides to go the 'bad route' at their day one. The moment they step out into the spotlight, and the audience seems to react to them. Favorably or not.

So how is this 'higher standard' set? How do those stars attain it? Well first off one needs to put the audience's wishes above their own, or find a way to work those wishes into their own. Something a lot of people in Hollywood can't, won't, or don't want to seem to do.

Next step, get inside their heads. How does one do that? Here are a few recommendations:

1. Watch the news to determine what's 'bad', and why. Then seek to avoid such 'bad' even minimally. For there are those that will take something considered 'minimal' and make it 'maximum scandal', which could lead to irreperable damage to celebrity reputation and audience respect. Essentially, if there's a fire there will be those that seek to pour gasoline on it. So it's best to make sure a fire is prevented, or preventable.

2. Try to maintain iron clad dedication to wholesome, or 'good', ideal if that is what is expected of young star, at least until star comes of age or when the old way of performing doesn't work anymore. If you're a young star then you can change your act as long as any changes made adhere to the expected ideal that has been followed. If that star seeks to change that ideal then they can move at a gradual pace so the audience can follow along. Essentially work the bars of the prison. Don't try to use a truck for a jailbreak. Disney has a history of wholesome, family friendly, entertainment so the ideal is expected more from them than from another company that has a more broad entertainment range. In another company a young star can probably have more leeway to explore boundaries without scrutiny than a Disney star might.

3. If the star comes to a point where they have no choice but to go against the wishes of the audience, appeal to the better nature of the audience and say how change is good for morale. Possible example-"I've come to a point in my career where to preserve my message of hope I've had to take a new direction so the memory of hope remains. And the memory can last forever." Or something like that.

4. Determine the audience's fears, for I believe that is what eyes a lot of people are looking through right now. Determine those fears at day one and see how the performance, and performer, can put those fears to rest instead of cater to them.

5. Above all put the audience first, and check the ego at the door. For if one is not there for the audience what is the performance for? Or who is it for?

There is an old saying 'The customer is always right'. However I have found that there are members of Hollywood that go out of their way to show how the customer is wrong. Some do it for the sake of artistic expression (dependingon one's definition of 'art') while others prefer the customer to be always wrong for the sake of individual egos. I don't think Miley is that person, but there have been some decisions made that have reflected on her badly. Decisions like the Vanity Fair shot. A shot her parents apparently signed off on if this quote is any indication.

"Here, my parents are thinking they're seeing a beautiful picture by a major photographer, and the people of America want to see something dirty in that? It doesn't make sense to us because my family doesn't look for negativity. But people don't want to say 'What a great performance' or 'What a great shot'. No one wants to look at something like that and see the positive because it doesn't sell a magazine."

In response to this statement what came to my mind was "People don't see the positive because in their eyes there isn't anything positive about it. And anyone that thinks there's something positive about the shot....is wrong." That may sound egotistical and condescending....no actually that DOES sound egotistical and condescending. And there are some that take that attitude, but there is one little bit of knowledge I would like to impart that may help avoid matters like this, and the pole, in the future.

'We're not you.'

We're not part of the Hollywood elite where we see shots like the Vanity Fair shot as beautiful. More often than not we're exposed to the ugly side of society as we go through our lives day by day. In some cases afraid of what might happen tomorrow. Anything positive they might see, we don't. Not because we're stupid, but because we aren't exposed to that sort of context.

On the news we are exposed to war news (with some questioning if we should even be in the war or some areas of it), stories about teen pregnancy, drugs, kids saying 'yes' to things they should be saying 'no' to without regards of the consequences, parents that hurt their children in terrible ways, and kids that call children's services and cry 'abuse' when the parent seeks to discipline them for something a kid wants to do. The list can go on and on.

And remember the 21 Jumpstreet episode I mentioned? That is the context where a shot like the Vanity Fair shot is seen, as well as the context the pole is taken in. A context that feeds fears without detatching the sexual references to the moves.

Also our lives are not a big Hollywood dream. For many of us the doors to our dreams closed long ago. We're going through our lives day by day trying to make the best of things. Looking for hope in a world that may have turned its back on hope. There are accusations of corruption in politics, executives giving themselves pay raises, stories of grown adults that touch kids the wrong way, unemployment, DUI's, parental divorce, kids not wanting to learn as they view expulsions like a badge of honor nd an excuse to party, And the big clincher....members of the Hollywood industry that believe they are above the people they are supposed to be providing for. Thinking the audience stupid that they don't think one artist's work is brilliant to the point that the artist looks down on them with unflattering names like 'idiot', 'clueless moron', 'small insignificant minority, 'etc.'

Don't laugh or roll your eyes. There are people in Hollywood that do that. I've seen them. In the Sci Fi genre especially. Fans there are looked down on constantly as they are seen as the 'redheaded stepchild' of the industry, if not the world. Some to the point where they are called 'small, insignificant minorities'. And that in the end they don't matter.' And it wouldn't surprise me if this attitude was reflected by Hollywood types that DON'T work in the Sci-Fi genre.

Ours is a world of fear, not hope. It is where the worst case scenario is all around us. It is where John/Jane Q public is left to fend for his/herself, where the institutions that are supposed to serve and provide for us think of themselves and their own agendas whether they be artistic, political or profit minded. And as a result John/Jane Q Public sees the world, and the people in it, decending to a level of hell with their views deemed irrelevant.

So while the Cyrus's can ask "How can you see this shot as 'dirty'?" from our perspective, and what we have to shape our perceptions we can ask "How can you not see this shot as 'dirty'?"

Entering the minefield of race relations

2.1 The alledged 'racist' picture and what followed

Going into the next controversey on the list I want to say this. I make no reservations that what I am about to write here will be like walking through a minefield, AND IF ANYONE IS OFFENDED I WISH TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. Race relations and racism is a touchy subject. Especially in today's world. And while I will try to be objective about this even though there were some things about this I found....upsetting. I found it upsetting to the point where I will probably not be able to hide my anger at times. So word of warning, I will not go out of my way to hurt anybody here, but I will pull no punches either.

Around February of 2009 a picture with Miley, and other individuals, was leaked onto the net. In it it had most of the adults stretching their eyelids in an apparent slant eyed gesture, while one of Asian descent looked at the camera with a wide eyed gesture. This picture caught the attention of George Wu, chairman of an organization called the OCA, who deemed the photograph 'racially offensive' and demanded Miley apologize for the picture.

No one else in the picture had to apologize, just Miley.

One guy, who happened to be chairman of an organization designed to promote awareness among Asian Americans (an admirable goal). One guy who singled out a sixteen year old girl in a crowd of mature adults....allegedly. With the exception of the one of Asian descent who looked wide eyed, and Justin Gaston Miley's boyfriend at the time, who was singled out by others. One guy who had an office, an organization, perhaps even a community, behind him. One guy who went to the media to state his case. A media that seems hungry for scandal.

But one guy nonetheless.

Now I know what you might be saying here. "But he's a chairman of an organization. An organization that is meant to promote awareness among people about a nationality and ethnicity". True, but there are cases where to maintain the integrity of the office that person holds it is necessary to separate the office of chairman from current occupant of the office at the moment. So if the power of the office is misused,or used in a questionable manner, a new occupant can come in and maintain the integrity of the office if need be.

However there seemed to be people that agreed with the assessment of the occupant apparently. A woman believed him enough to sue Miley for what seemed to be every cent she had. Reports differ on the amount that ranged from $5 million to $1 billion...to $5 billion. Regardless it seemed like a taking to the cleaners. The woman, Lucie Kim, said it was for the members of the Pacific Asian Community who were scarred by Miley's actions. Another believed George Wu to the point where she called Miley a 'disgrace'. A shock comedianne named Margaret Cho.

Suing a teenaged girl? Calling a teenaged girl 'a disgrace? I probably shouldn't say this as it might make me sound preachy and/or sanctimonious, but I will anyway--Doesn't this seem a bit...I don't know...LOW to anyone?

For one thing Miley was under age, and under parental authority still. If anyone had a concern it should have been directed towards her parents Billy Ray and Tish. Until she turned 18, they were responsible for Miley's actions and upbringing. Another thing I want to emphasize is that Lucie Kim was looking to sue Miley under corporate law. It makes me wonder if it helped not to see Miley as a girl growing up, but rather a heartless corporation. Or just a name that meant money.

And Miley did apologize. Twice, and a few times more after that I think, but the first one didn't seem good enough for the media or George Wu. She said she was not making fun of an ethnicity. That all she did was make a funny face and everyone was getting all bent out of shape. She also criticized the media saying that now that Brittney was back on the top of her game that they were looking for someone to be the new 'bad' girl.

I could see her point, but the media couldn't as they labelled her apology 'bratty' and Wu 'questioned her sincerity'. To that end Miley apologized again. The second apology was accepted. I take a look at some so called 'humor' on YouTube, and I can see how she might come to that conclusion as she has been a frequent user posting videos there. Also a lot of that apparent 'humor' from some posters tends to come off as....borderline obnoxious to some. If not mean spirited.

Meanwhile people were taking Wu's 'racially offensive gesture' accusation and used it to accuse Miley of being an actual racist. That she actually hated the Asian American community, and that because of the gesture the Asian American community hated her in return. Add to that the haters already out there on the web that apparently thought they now had a righteous reason for their hate. "Well they say Miley's a racist. That makes hating her okay right?"

But was the picture 'racist?' Was the picture done to make fun of the Asian community (which I doubt it was)? I doubt anyone in that photo would be that....brazen. Whose idea was it to take the picture? What was the actual intent? Obviously I don't think what happened with the media was what was intended.

Before I attempt to give possible answers for those questions I want to point out Lucie Kim's lawsuit. A lawsuit that seemed to be done on behalf of the Pacific Asian Community. To which if Kim won those offended will get $5,000 out of damages. Miley apparently was supposed to pay all of Kim's legal fees as well, which last I checked were approaching $20,000 or so.

I guess the first question to ask is 'Who elected Lucie Kim to represent the Pacific Asian American community'? Did anyone appoint her? Did only a few appoint her to be a 'chosen champion' against the apparent racism of a sixteen year old? Or was the position a self appointment? Did Kim elect herself to represent? And say for sake of argument that Kim won. What if people didn't want Miley's money should she have won? Would it have been forced on people to go along in compliance? Or would Kim have kept it for herself giving her a bigger pay day? It's probably a good thing these questions are left unanswered.

And if her actions, to quote and paraphrase Captain Xantor of the Space:1999 episode 'Earthbound', "were done out of ignorance and not malice why require judicial revenge?" Especially since the haters seemingly have acted completely out of malice yet no one punishes them.

Whoopi Goldberg mentioned in a CNN interview with Campbell Brown that "Even if an actor makes a million dollars that the actor doesn't always see a million dollars. Half would go to taxes, some would go to publicists, some their agents to the point where at the end of the day you are lucky to receive four cents."

I also want to point out another something about 'slant eyes'. Not everyone of Asian descent has them. That is a misconception that is apparently promoted in some areas. But the apparent belief that people of Asian Descent have slanted eyes is as big a misconception that only the guy in the red shirt dies in the classic Star Trek.

2.2 Misconceptions and double standards

In Star Trek there is a fan 'myth' that when someone wearing a red shirt goes down to a planet with Captain Kirk they wind up dead. This myth is designed to promote 'expendability among characters'. But that is not always the case. Sure there are a few crewmen in red shirts that get blasted. But there were others in blue and gold shirts that died too. There were also some women in blue and red skirts that died too. In the Trek episode 'By Any Other Name' a Yeoman was turned into a cube and...forced to 'take a powder'. I know, bad joke.

In retrospect however, the concept of race has more importance than the fictional concept of 'expendability'. Race has been part of our identities as has upbringing. And by no means do I mean to downplay the concerns people have about race. The above comparison was done to only point out a misconception and compare it to another misconception. A misconception that can be taken to the point of believability if promoted enough.

So what other explanations are there for 'slant eyes'? One possibility is that they were demonstrating eyeliner. Showing off their eyeliner applications as one article mentioned Joe Jonas doing when he was caught doing that same gesture. Another possibility, and one that I think is more closer to the bullseye, is that the supposed 'humor' was meant to be 'self depreciating'. They were going about saying "Take a look at us. We're being stupid." Believe it or not, there are people that do that. Let their guard down and just do something dumb in order to let off steam. Unfortunately that was not the conclusion George Wu reached. And that was not the conclusion the media promoted. At least not until Joe Jonas was caught doing the same gesture, and he seemed to be given the benefit of the doubt as well as an alternative meaning.

It was reported that he was possibly doing something with eyeliner.

Sure there was a slight mention of 'racist' overtones. But the coverage seemed more kind to him than it did to Miley. Plus, no groups were on his case, or chairmen of groups were on his case. No one suing him. No shock commediannes calling him 'a disgrace', or others that I knew of. Is this a double standard here? Who do we condone? Who do we condemn?

Recently Taylor Swift got caught in a shot that prompted a similar acusation. She stood next to a fan that had a swastika painted on his shirt, and Swift stood next to him as she wore a 'JH' necklace. Someone took that as meaning 'jew hater' as that was what the story indicated. The fan in question said his shirt just had an 'X' painted on it until someone decided to butcher it.

Not many people ran with Taylor's story, or Joe's for that matter. Everyone seemed to go hog wild when it came to Miley though.

I also want to point out Tyra Banks as she was reported wanting to do something that explored different races on 'America's Next Top Model'. She wanted to do her models with different racial tones and do poses that reflected different ethnicities from across the globe. Someone mentioned if this was not a racist practice. A political cartoon in the New York Times I think showed a gorilla representing President Obama's health care plan and Republicans trying to stop it. The use of a gorilla (to some a symbol of power and strength) was seen as 'racist' and an apology was demanded as well.

It does make me wonder if 'racist' is not the big 'power accusation' of the current time. Like 'witch' was during the Salem Witch Trials. Or 'communists' was during the era of McCarthy.

2.3 Subjective humor

I remember Eddie Murphy's comedy video called 'Delerious'. In it he did some ethnic humor. Or rather he did a take on ethnic humor and the reactions to it. He portrayed an individual of an Oriental nationality and then portrayed another individual that was mocking him. Murphy's bit then featured counter mocks as if to dilute the impression that he was being derogatory to one specific nationality. From my perception, it was a case on discrimination and reverse discrimination. But humor can be a subjective thing. And racial humor can be a powder keg.

In his own joke books Milton Berle wrote several racial jokes however he also made note that racial humor needed to be used sparingly, and sometimes the situation did not always warrant the use of racial humor. Nowadays I'd say there are few, if any, situations that warrant it. Humor is also a very subjective thing. And sometimes the bit meant to dilute the least offensive bits can be overlooked. One example is William Shatner's 'Get a life' speech that he did for Saturday Night Live.

In the skit he performed in he played himself giving a speech at a Star Trek convention that played off of stereotypes of Star Trek fans. That they were people that couldn't face reality, never kissed a girl, and lived in their parents' basement. Stereotypes that aren't true for the most part, but fans took offense to that. The part at the end of the skit, where Shatner was getting into a fight with convention officials and gave an apology at the end, woefully were overlooked. All fans caught onto was Shatner saying "Get a life". and be offended by it. Even when a second Star Trek skit where Shatner's Kirk was in charge of an revolving Enterprise that was turned into a hotel by the Mariott corporation appeared, "Get a life" was still the big focus.

And perhaps the wide eyed gesture by Miley's Asian friend in the 'humorous' photo was meant to dilute any racial offense, to balance the scales so to speak. Sadly, for Miley, it didn't work out that way. And she was the one who wound up paying the price. And all it did was empower malicious haters, apparent opportunists, and save the media from a slow news day. I guess George Wu diluted the diluter. Which can happen.

I should probably also make mention of a comedian named 'Jamie Foxx' and some remarks he made on his show 'The Foxxhole' On his show he made mention of how Miley "Needed to get a sexually transmitted disease from her bicycle seat, have a lesbian relationship, do heroin, make a sex tape and grow up." Remarks that offended Billy Ray, for which Jamie had to apologize. And did, as he realized that sometimes as comedians they tend to go too far.

And the reason why he went to far? Well the seemingly real possibility that there are people in the world that ACTUALLY want those things to happen to her. And some of those individuals may even be members of the media. They want her to get a sexually transmitted disease from her bicycle seat, have a lesbian relationship, do heroin and make a sex tape as part of her 'growing up'. Just so they can say "I told you so" or to save media outlets from a slow news day?

Or do they just hate Miley so much they want to tear her down some more? Is 'malicious humor' just 'malicious' in this case? Another free pass given to bad behavior? Only this time at a sixteen year old girl?

2.4 How one thing can become another

Recently I was reminded of another 'humorous' bit that others didn't find so humorous. A character that was meant to be one thing, but turned out to be something else.

In the WWE there was a man by the name of Ed Ferrera who did an impression of WWE announcer Jim ('Good ol' J.R.) Ross J.R. was considered the best play by play man in the buisness, and is much loved by fans even today. J.R. also suffered from a disease that paralyzed half of his face making it difficult for him to talk or eat. That disease was called Bell's Palsy.

WWE's head writer Vince Russo decided to bring out Ed Ferrera to do an impersonation of J.R. That impersonation had him talking out of the side of his face in a southern accent. It was done only one time on WWE programming, but when Vince Russo went to then Ted Turner owned (it was then bought out by AOL/Time Warner) WCW he took Ed Ferrera with him and used him, and his J.R. impression, to create the character of 'Oklahoma', which was where J.R. was from.

There were people outraged by the character, and the impression. Mostly because people believed the impression mocked not just J.R., but people that had Bell's Palsy as well. Russo's impression had effects he never intended. What was intended to be a characterization (some would probably call a mockery) of one man, turned into a mockery of someone with a serious medical condition. Soon enough the character of 'Oklahoma' was dropped and never seen again. Some time later WCW was bought and it TOO was never seen again.

But I think this example serves as how one thing can be intended, and it can lead to another thing. And that 'other thing' can wind up being not a good thing.

2.5 The benefit of the doubt

Despite my....feelings on how things were handled by George Wu, I think it best at this point to try to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point. For all I know he probably believed he was doing the right thing. Also I want to point out that I have no grievance against the OCA. I just have...grave concerns about how the organizations' chairman handled a certain situation and the effects that followed.

I took a look at the article that quoted Mr. Wu, and what I tried to hold onto was the term he had used. And from what I read by no means did he call Miley a racist. He just said that the slant eyed gesture was "racially offensive". By no means was he using the term 'racist' to describe Miley personally. Others however apparently would.

Somewhere along the line the term "racially offensive gesture" turned into an accusation of racism to being an actual racist. George Wu's words were seemingly being twisted into a whole different meaning. Probably to the point that when the term "racially offensive" reached Miley the term 'racist' immediately followed. And the 'racist' accusation got the lion's share of attention.

'Racially offensive' vs. 'racist'. Which term speaks the loudest and makes the accused want to have a heart attack?

Like Miley I want to believe that Wu saw his words, like Miley saw her "funny face", become twisted into something he never intended. If he became aware of how his words became twisted by haters and the media I'd like to think he'd be offended by that. George Wu may have sought to bring a matter to light and educate Miley and others on the situation she had been in and that would have been the end of it.

But this is not that world anymore. People see one thing and can come to different conclusions. Terms become twisted so they mean something else.

And if someone is knocked down due to a mistake that was made there is no shortage of people looking to do their share of kicking while the person is down. And some even make a profit off of the kicking. Some just enjoy it, and what worries me the most is that the haters, due to Mr. Wu's accusation and how it was portrayed and twisted, come off believing that they now have a righteous reason for their hate. They say "Well she's a racist. That makes our hate just and right, right?"

Not in my book. But then again that's just me.

Mark Twain once said 'A lie can make it's way around the world before the truth can get it's boots on.' That sounds like what happened. Either that or the truth got twisted to serve other agendas and desires.

And there is one thing I wish George Wu would do. Whether he does it or not is up to him. Basically say "We had an issue to bring to Miley's attention, which she apologized for. We do not look for what we/I say to be used as fodder for malicious hate, haters and the actions brought about by hate. And people that have called Miley an actual 'racist', has done no one any favors, and done no one any good."

And personally, I think it hasn't. But whether Mr. Wu does this or not is up to him.

2.6 Stereotypes

It should also be noted that racial stereotypes have been around for years. Not just with Asians or Africans, but with all nationalities. Even whites.

One that comes to mind is the symbol for the Cleveland Indians. A symbol that basically had a grinning indian with a feather in his hair. Some consider that term 'derogatory' even to this day. And the debate continues on as to whether that symbol should be changed. And it probably would be if not for one thing....that symbol has been the traditional symbol for the Cleveland Indians for years, if not decades.

When people go to an Indians game, a lot of them don't see a racially offensive symbol. They see a symbol that their team rallies behind, and that their fans can rally behind as well. To root them on to victory, or to show support if they face defeat. So while some see a racially offensive symbol others see a positive symbol of their favorite team. And to them the positives dilute any negative impact the symbol may have.

Another symbol, or rather two, are the symbols that go with Uncle Ben's rice and Aunt Jemima pancakes. Symbols based on racial stereotyping of African Americans as they were limited to specific roles. However, like the Indians sign, these stereotypes seemed to have surpassed the derogatory meanings that may have been associated with them. To some consumers at the grocery store Uncle Ben's rice and Aunt Jemima pancakes are a quality name brand that is associated with good food and good cooking.

Even other shows have depicted racial stereotypes in looking to establish identities for ethnicities. In Kim Possible there had been use of the 'squint eyed' gesture, but not to depict nationality. Instead the meaning seemed to reflect age and wisdom for elders. Granted the elder in the episode was of Asian descent but there were other Asian characters that did not have the same squint eyes that the elder had. Thus leading to the racial sterotype being disproven. Also squint eyes have been used by other artists to depict characteristics. Characters on the Nintendo Wii, called Mii's, make use of squint eyes for Mii designs.

Whether we like it or not stereotypoes are part of our cultural identity and heritage. But as the debate about them goes on about their offenses they tend to lose their potency over time, and can turn into positive symbols meant to inspire and rally behind. And as I said before, no race is immune to stereotyping. Not even whites.

I remember a bit Eddie Murphy had done for Saturday Night Live when he was a cast member. 'Delerious' was his big breakaway from the show. But while he was on SNL he did a bit called 'Mr. White' where he got into 'white face' and played a 'stereotypical white man' in a humorous exploration of race relations. While not flattering, I did see the point, and humor, behind it. And while it might have offended on some levels it did make one think on others.

Like whether such portrayals are possible? Or whether they could actually be occuring?

As I said before no race immune to racial stereotyping. But how can we determine if stereotypes are wrong if they're everywhere?

Let me focus a minute on a character that was basically founded on racial stereotypes. A character that has become iconic in Science Fiction history.

That character? Ming the Merciless on Flash Gordon.

2.7 Ming and his foundations

In the history of Sci-Fi there was/is a character that was basically founded on racial stereotypes. A character that has become iconic in Science Fiction history. That character? Ming the Merciless on Flash Gordon.

Before I go any further, I want to mention that what I said here came from a college level course. So this I believe would be considered 'college level knowledge'.

In the days of Buster Crabbe (1920's-1930's), which was when Flash Gordon made his debut, the stereotypes revolving around 'Asian' or 'Oriental' characters' revolved around the concepts of 'ornate' and 'sinister'. Slanted eyes and goatees (a beard design done by the British to reflect 'sinister' natures as well) were done to protray an image of an 'evil' character while all the while they were surrounded by riches and art giving a reflection of a being of power as well as intelligence. By giving the name 'Ming' to Flash's arch enemy from the planet Mongo it seemed to only reinforce the image portrayed to those of Asian descent.

Over the years Ming had changed in attempts to distance himself from the stereotypes. In some cartoon versions (Most notably in the series 'Defenders of the Earth) Ming was portrayed as part of a reptillian species in order to enhance a 'cold blooded' ideology. Yet the ornate aspect of the character remained, as well as other stereotypes to keep the 'sinsiter' image he portrayed.

The Sci Fi Channel (now called Sy Fy) made an attempt to develop their own version of Flash Gordon with Eric Johnson as the lead character. They also tried to do a version of Ming that did not reflect the stereotypes that had defined previous versions of Ming. What they wound up coming up with was a blonde, clean shaven politician who believed the evils he was doing was for the 'greater good' of his people. Who had reasons for his actions that weren't necessarily 'sinister'.

Needless to say Sci Fi's version of Ming was considered a flop, and fans even referred to this version as "Biff the Merciless". A reflection of the character Biff Tannen in 'Back to the Future' as this version of Ming seemed to look so much like the bully that tormented the McFlys during the 'Back to the Future' trilogy.

I guess in looking at Sci Fi's Ming and the previous versions of Ming, I'm wondering if what happened to him happened to other stereotypical symbols. They started to lose their stereotypical meanings and took on their own individual identities and meanings. Somewhere along the line Ming started to lose his stereotypical image, and audiences looked past them to see what Ming was supposed to be-the arch villain of Flash Gordon who sought to conquer the universe for his own gain. When the stereotypes were removed, it seemed like so much of what had made Ming....well Ming, became lost as well. Hense giving one reason out of several for the failure of Sci Fi Channel's 'Flash Gordon'. Other reasons were how the show was put together, and how other characters like Flash, Dale, and Zarkov were developed as well-not in the best of ways.

I remember another show from the 1980's called 'Super Dave'. It starred a comedian named Bob Einstein who played a daredevil named 'Super Dave Osborne', who was always doing outrageous stunts, and getting into the most outrageous crashes. Sure the crashes were done by a dummy in shots, and you knew that, but I think it also built on the bigger idea of 'who was the bigger dummy'? The dummy or Super Dave? A joke within a joke I guess.

The show however also had a stereotypical Japanese character named Fuji Hakayito who served as Super Dave's stunt supervisor. A character that could be considered 'racist' by today's standards. or at least stereotypical. He spoke in a funny voice, seemed to make a squiny eyed gesture and was the one responsible behind many of Super Dave's crashes. But then when one watched the show it was revelaed that Super Dave wasn't actually the sharpest knife in the drawer either, as he came off as a bit snobbish and profit minded. Plus he was also the guy in the crashes all the time....which was the REAL funny part of the show.

So cartoonish, and outrageous, were those crashes, that they even carried over to a Saturday Morning cartoon show on FOX. Which lasted for a year or so called 'Super Dave. Daredevil for Hire.' And now appears on Spike TV's Super Dave's Stunt Show Spiketacular where you can see him in even more wrecks.

So while some shows may have played on stereotypes they were not intended to be racist as with racism-must prove malicious, hateful and hurtful intent. While at the same time proclaiming your own races' supposed superiority. Which I guess now has become difficult to do as every race has its own, if not more than, its own share of bozos.

I take a look at the world as it is now and it is a world that is divided by politics, nationalities, ethnicities, ideals, and borders. Divided to the point where we have become labelled by them. And it seems like each 'side' has to prove themselves dominant over the other, with that other being considered 'beneath them' or 'inferior'. A view that can lead to what happened to Loki and Biel on the Star Trek episode 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield' where two races on the planet Charon had become so defined by their own hatreds that their hatreds left behind only a dead world. No one left alive. And instead of finding peace Loki and Biel returned to that dead world only for them to kill each other. Their hatreds consuming them.

Smart man that Gene Roddenberry huh?

2.8 Is Miley a racist?

Looking at Miley's gesture, even if it was believed to be "racially offensive", does that make Miley a 'racist'? Maybe this speech from a Barack Obama comic made by Blue Water Comics that mentioned his white grandmother can shed some light.

"A woman who sacrificed again and again for me. A woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world. But a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me and they are part of America. This country that I love. We have a choice in this country...we can tackle race only as spectacle--as we did in the aftermath of the O.J. trial--or in the wake of tragedy--as we did in the aftermath of Katrina--or as fodder for the nightly news..

...or at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say 'Not this time'

This union may never be perfect. But generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected."

I read this speech, and the passages above. This speech that has said a woman who helped raisd an African American grandson, a grandson who would become the 44th President of the United States, uttered racial and ethnic stereotypes on more than one occation. And who had a fear of men from another race as she walked down the street.

Does this make her a racist?


No!


And I will say why.


I read in a Webster's Dictionary the definition of racism. It defined racism as a three part formula. Ignorance of another race. A belief in your own race's superiority. And then there is the third and final ingredient of racism. The ingredient that makes it the evil that it is.


Hatred.

And Obama's grandmother, nicknamed 'Toot' did NOT hate her grandson. Nor did she hate an African American janitor whom she would call 'Mister Reed', despite the glares she would receive. Just as I believe Miley does not hate members of the Asian American community. Remember, there was a member of Asian descent in that photo. If there was a problem should he have not said something? And would that voice have been heeded, unless something was said that put fears at rest? Fears that as it turned out should NOT have been put at rest?

But what really irks me about this is that some of her on line accusers that called her 'racist' seemed to have embraced the very element that makes racism the evil that it is today....hatred.


And while it is not a racial hatred it is a hatred nonetheless. A hatred directed towards a 15/16 year old girl. With some of this hate being from grown adults


Again I ask--Doesn't this seem low to anybody?

2.9 Where's the honor?

I mention this because I think of something I saw on Star Trek:The Next Generation. Namely, the character of Lt. Worf.

Worf is a character that holds honor very near and dear to him. The way of the warrior is his way of life. And the path of the warrior is the path of honor. One of the things Worf mentions very sternly is that "There is no honor in attacking the weak". He mentions this to his young son Alexander when he refuses to share. And while Alexander says that he would have won Worf responds with "No, you must earn victory."

This is emphasized in the first episode of the fifth season of Star Trek the Next Generation when Worf is faced with the honor of killing the young son of his enemy. Toral, son of Duras. A child left behind by his two aunts Lursa and B'Tor who sought to take over the Klingon Empire and suceed it to the Romulans. The leader of the Empire, Gowron, gives Worf Toral's life to take. By right, Toral's life was Worf's to take as Toral's family had caused great crimes against Worf's.

But Worf does not take Toral's life. He sees no honor in it. For Toral is still a child. His death would have had no honor.

The emphasis of 'no honor in attacking the weak' is reflected on again in Deep Space Nine in the episode 'The House of Quark' where Quark the Ferengi, a profit minded individual, is called upon to fight to the death so honor would be satisfied. Quark however throws down his weapon saying that they only want a battle so that honor would be satisfied. That the fight was nothing more than an execution. To that end Quark gets on his knees and says this line:

"Let it be what it is then. An execution. No honor. And when you tell the tale of how you took Grilka's house from her I hope you include that you killed an unarmed Ferengi, half your size."

Quark's Klingon opponent D'Gor decided to go ahead to grant the killing stroke, but is stopped by Gowron who said that if he could kill Quark as he was helpless then D'Gor had no honor....and no place in the Great Hall. As such D'Gor was excommunicated from the Great Hall. And most likely the Klingon Empire. Quark is also commended for his bravery.

So to that end would attacking Miley for her mistakes also have no honor? As she is still a child herself as of this writing? Perhaps, but who's to say those that attack her have honor? That all that matters is a result, even if the intentions are believed to be good?

As I come to the end of this passage it had come to my attention that the lawsuit was dismissed. That's good news for Miley, however there will still be some that cling to their hatreds and use what happened to their advantage. They will still call her 'racist' even if a court proves she's not. Perhaps even 'slut'. After all if people can still call the Original Battlestar Galactica a 'Star Wars' ripoff' even when a court proves it wasn't, what makes this case any different...except that one was about a TV show and the other revolved around a teenage girl. Regardless the same logic will most likely be followed. The haters will find Miley guilty until proven innocent.....and even then she will be found guilty.

At the end of the day I have one belief when it comes to race relations. "It doesn't matter what race or ethnicity you are. Everyone has an equal chance of being a bozo."

But also at the end of the day I take a look at this story, and if you strip away Miley's celebrity status, I wind up seeing a chairman of an organization, a housewife and a shock comedianne, not to mention the media and haters going after a teenage girl for a mistake. Even when there were enough adults in that shot to point out, and Miley was still under parental authority. But due to her celebrity status Miley was the target.

Celebrity status or no where's the honor? Grown adults going after a kid when other adults seem to have gotten a free pass? I think this could apply to those 'outraged parents' on the Vanity Fair incident as well.

And I'm wondering if there isn't a certain amount of bullying going on on the part of the outraged adults too. A question they may have to answer someday.