Rose is the new Black...or not

I recently came across a question on the Internet that I found very interesting. To paraphrase: Why did Rebecca Black become so much more viral of an Internet phenomenon as a bad singer (supposedly; remember some people do like her) than Jenna Rose (whom I had never heard of until a few days ago), CathyMay15, or Final Placement, any of which are arguably far worse than Rebecca Black?

I suspect it may have to do with a combination of several factors: Rebecca Black is bad, but not quite so abysmally awful that she's unwatchable; the lyrics of "Friday" are really, really stupid; the WTF/LOL reaction to the appearance of the considerably older rapper who appears in Rebecca's video (Jenna had a semi-random rapper in her video, but he was another kid, at least); the fact that Justin Bieber and Katy Perry took notice of Rebecca; and really the most important factor that I think plays a part in the formation of every meme, a random chance snowballing effect of popularity.

That last one is the wild card that makes all the difference, I think. There are no doubt hundreds of bad singers on YouTube, but for one to become a viral sensation, I think they need to not know they are bad, and yet somehow attract viewers that will share the video link effectively.

On top of that, the "meme community" (that is to say, the people on the Internet who are the ones sharing links effectively; not really a cohesive, united community) will usually reject a new meme that's too similar to an existing one, and while Jenna's video was posted to YouTube first, Rebecca's was discovered first, consigning Jenna to be simply "another Rebecca Black". This is why I feel safe to venture a prediction that there will never be a "bad singer" memetically bigger than Rebecca Black, just like every attempt to brand some random video blogging girl on YouTube as "the new Boxxy!" always fails.

Here are some interesting graphs. Rebecca Black's video was posted to YouTube on February 10th, 2011, and started going viral March 11, 2011. Google Trends shows this growth in March for searches on "Rebecca Black":

The Jenna Rose video was uploaded to YouTube on October 1, 2010, but apparently pretty much nobody heard of her until about two days after Rebecca Black started going viral:

Furthermore, although CathyMay15 had videos on YouTube over a year before Rebecca Black came on the scene, her KnowYourMeme.com entry notes, "At least one interesting thread was spotted on 4chan on March 16, 2011, and her YouTube account was taken down the next day on March 17, 2011." So despite CathyMay15 being happy to stagnate in obscurity for over a year, (1) Rebecca Black appears, (2) somebody somewhere says, "You think Rebecca Black is bad? You should see this!" (3) CathyMay15 realizes she's being ridiculed and takes down her videos, but (4) it's too late and her videos are mirrored by others and she rises on the same tidal wave of popularity that's carrying Rebecca Black:

Nonetheless, it's clear these separately-trending singers are only receiving secondary attention as a comparison to Rebecca Black. There may be other bad singers/songs that got a "Rebecca Black bump" in popularity, and for that matter, this may be a phenomenon that happens with other types of memes, but I'm going to save that for another day's research and wrap this up.

When Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme", he did it with some comparison to biological evolutionary principles. I think there are some parallels in this analogy that haven't been explored as much as they could be, and this latter point of mine is one of them. Just as in biological evolution where a species will seek out and dominate a certain ecological niche and drive out competitors, memes similarly live in a sort of informational ecology. Once a particular meme occupies and dominates a certain niche of the Internet, it tends to block the growth of any others that would try to take the same space.

Notice that there may be tons of "Advice Dog spin-offs", but each one needs a specialized personality to survive. "Technologically Impaired Duck" may not be a huge meme, but it's prominent enough that we'll never see a "Technologically Impaired Goldfish" or a "Technologically Impaired Jackrabbit" take hold as a successful meme. And by a quirk of timing, every bad singer (female, at least) on the Internet will probably be referred to as "the next/latest Rebecca Black" for the foreseeable future.

Blasphemous Rumours

I may be a Christian, but actually, I do think that God has a sense of humor, and when I die, I do expect to find Him laughing. (And Depeche Mode is a pretty decent band, too.)

So, I was reading that an interesting trend has exploded on the Internet scene, and I said, "Wow, that's going in the blog for sure!" What is it? Well, in case you missed it, it's the Blasphemy Challenge! The site explains it pretty well, but let me summarize: According to Mark 3:29, there is one sin that God will not forgive, known as the "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit". Inspired by this concept, the folks of The Rational Response Squad (an online atheist group, natch) are encouraging people to post videos on YouTube containing the phrase "I deny the Holy Spirit", and in return, they will send you a copy of a supposedly (not to disparage it, I simply can't vouch for it personally) very good documentary on atheism, or something like that. Jokingly, they suggest that they've set the price at $24.95 or one human soul.

Oooo. Well, the whole concept is pretty funny, and I'm pretty sure they know that. Of course if you're a person who doesn't believe that you have a soul, you're not going to be too upset about "losing" it. If you believe that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, you're not going to be really worried about offending Him. If you'd like a copy of this movie or just want to be part of a trendy new Internet thingie, it's pretty easy to jump on board. (Actually, I was considering making a video myself, just for the free documentary; more later on why I personally would or would not do such a thing.) Actually, as I began writing this entry several days ago (I've been distracted by real-life issues), a search for "Blasphemy Challenge" on YouTube turns up over 800 videos, most of which are probably entries.

I'm not sure what the point is, though. I mean, for the guys that started it, not the responders, who have at least two clear and simple motives, but may have other more complex ones under the surface which may or may not be expressed in their videos. Why start a movement to publicly blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Is the desire to raise the profile of atheism in America? I suppose if that's the point, it's an easy and effective way to do it. But then I'd have to wonder what the point is behind that point. I've never understood the idea of so-called evangelical atheism, but maybe it's just me. If there's nothing to believe in, then who cares what you believe? I suppose it has something to do with affirming truth, but then affirming truth through more or less lying? Denying something that doesn't exist, and call it brave? I defy the power of the Genie of the Lamp! Do you consider me brave for that? It's pretty much nonsensical on some level. Maybe it is just meant to be humorous

Aside from showing personal support of a particular world-view, though, it has nothing to do with supporting reality. If I were to go on YouTube and post a video saying that I affirm the power of the Holy Spirit, does that then counteract the effect of one denial video? Putting the overall societal effect as a phenomenon of popular culture aside, there is absolutely nothing that making one of these videos will show about the Holy Spirit in particular. I mean, despite the fact of the Bible passage stating that there is the possibility of an unforgiveable sin (whether this be it or not), there is no statement that committing this sin or any other will bring God's wrath down on you in any immediate, tangible sense. Are we expecting to see the people in these videos struck by lightning, or inflicted with leprosy or something? Maybe the figuring is that there needs to be some critical mass of blasphemers to see this effect, since God seems more likely to put a good old-fashioned smiting over on a collective group rather than an individual? I don't know what it really proves.

Really, it's more compelling to see a person denying the power of the Holy Spirit if they actually believe in it. There may have been a few. Disgruntled Christians, maybe Satanists? I don't know. I wonder how the folks running this might feel about, say, a Muslim who denied the power of the Holy Spirit while testifying to the supremacy of Allah? Or a Jehovah's Witness who might be able to perform the challenge without contradicting their beliefs? (I'm not sure, that's a tough one.)

Anyway, are these people really committing the "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit"? I don't think so. There are two standard explanations for what this term really means. One of them is taken from the immediate context, and isn't the sort of thing an atheist is likely to find appealing. Jesus makes this statement about BotHS after an accusation is leveled at Him in verse 22: "And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils." Many Bible scholars have therefore taken it to mean that this particular sin is characterized specifically by making the claim that the work of Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit is actually the work of the Devil. I'd like to see a large group of atheists make such a claim; it would be entertaining.

But then I would be condemning them to Hell, right? How can that be entertaining? The other common explanation of this blasphemy is one taken from the overall context of the whole New Testament. In this view, the idea is very simply that to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to deny the redemptive power of Christ. This makes sense in the traditional manner of thinking of Christian salvation: A person is saved by believing in Christ, and accepting His sacrifice on his/her behalf. If you don't believe in the power of Christ, then you've already committed that blasphemy, video or no video! God doesn't forgive that sin, you simply stop it when you accept Christ.

The end result of all this is that even from a Christian point of view, these videos mean nothing. Sure, some people might find them offensive, since it is a form of blasphemy, but I think God is laughing. Ultimately, I think this will bring more publicity for Christianity, and a deeper understanding of some important Christian principles. It will also give more weight to the perceived concept that atheism is not so much a belief in itself as it is a rebellion against Christianity. Whether the atheists behind this think that is so or not, they're promoting it indirectly, and for better or worse, raising the profile of the Bible's challenge.

Red, white, and mostly just blue

I don't know if I've expressed it here in this blog before, but despite the stereotype of evangelical Christians, I am actually a registered Democrat. Not that my official party registration necessarily means much, since I didn't vote for any Democrats in 2000, and the next time I voted Democrat was in the California gubernatorial recall election (is that the proper way to say that?) in which I voted to keep Democratic Governor Davis and, should he be recalled, to put Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bustamante in his place. That was largely on principle, though, as I thought the whole recall process was a bunch of crap. No matter, I'm going too far with this tangent.

As a Democrat, and even someone who has felt a lot more affinity for my official party pretty much since we invaded Iraq, I've got to say once again despite expectations that I'm a little worried about the overwhelming results. On election night, I heard on television that this election was unprecedented. Never before (since the Republican Party formed in the mid-1800's I assume; I hate statistics in a vacuum) has there been a national election in which Republicans did not gain a single seat. While as usual, the majority of the offices up for a vote ended up going to incumbents, six seats in the Senate switched party, around 25 seats in the House switched, and seven state governorships switched, all from Republican to Democrat, not a single one the reverse. After what certainly seems to many like a long period of either a very incapable and/or corrupt Republican rule of this country, we're swinging back Democratic. Given my party affiliation and general disdain for the way the country's been run lately, you'd think this would be positive news.

I worry nonetheless. Part of it has to do with the situation. Because of how badly the GOP has been handling things of late, the strong shift to the left may be far less an indication of nationwide support for liberal policies than a nationwide rejection of conservative policies. The thing is, the two are not tantamount to the same thing, but we live in a country with a political system that has come to so often endorse the concept.

How many of you heard in 2004 that "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!"? Bush and Nader didn't stand for much of any of the same things, if any at all, but the idea is that any vote that went to Nader as a third-party candidate (and yes, I know he was technically independent in 2004) was one vote less that Kerry would get. Perhaps more aptly, but showing up what's so offensive to this idea in my view, a friend of mine said that if your second choice was Kerry, then a vote for Nader was like a vote for Bush, but if your second choice was Bush, then your Nader vote was in that case a vote for Kerry!

You understand the idea, and that is that there is no possible way that a person could get elected in this country unless he or she is a member of one of the two main political parties, despite the fact that we actually have Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Natural Law and Reform candidates that have real plans on how to make this nation great, and they might even be good plans. In 1996, The Simpsons aired their annual Halloween episode with a political bent to it. (YouTube clip) In the story, Clinton and Dole get abducted by aliens who take their places so that no matter the outcome of the election, they will take over the Earth and enslave humanity. On Election Day, Homer finally manages to reveal this plot to his fellow citizens, unmasking the two aliens:

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles!
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens, but what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.
Man in the crowd: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate!
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!

Sure enough, the next day Kang is declared the winner. The disturbing thing about this episode is that every time I see it again in reruns, I think to myself that while I find it unlikely that aliens with superior technology would try to infiltrate our government in such a manner, I can totally believe Americans would vote for an unsavory candidate because they thought they had no choice. Let the Democrats run Stalin for President, and the Republicans run Hitler, and Perot and Nader would still get less than 10% of the vote it seems.

Then again, maybe there is hope. After all, defying everyone's expectations including my own, after Joseph Lieberman refused to drop out of the race after losing the Democratic primary, he managed to win Connecticut as an independent. Also, the Vermont Senate seat up for a vote was kept by independent candidate Bernie Sanders who, I have been told, is pretty much a socialist. (That was, however with no Democrat opposing in that race.) But third party candidates, while an interesting subject, are not the only subject that concerns me here.

Back in 1994, there was a similar upheaval in which the Republicans managed to gain control of both houses of Congress. At that time, some amazing things happened. Thinking that their substantial gains in Congress indicated widespread approval of their conservative issues, they proceeded to go wild and push through legislation at an impressive pace. There seemed to be no stopping them. And then before long, Congress went back to the Democrats. Why? I think political parties these days are often getting high on their own sense of power. We're not a nation of people represented by politicians anymore so much as a nation of political parties. How many people vote for candidates anymore rather than voting for parties? If we see this election as a victory for the Democratic Party rather than as a victory for several politicians many of whom happen to be Democrats, then the country comes to be run not by 500-odd human representatives of their constituencies, but by two grotesque, inhuman creatures battling over who gets to feast on the carcass of representative democracy.

Will the Democrats take this opportunity to make real changes and make this country better, or will they see it as a chance to take their power and gloatingly use it to their own selfish ends? Note that I'm not saying this is characteristic of the Democratic Party, but characteristic of politicians in general. I think to a great extent this happened to the 1994 Republican Congress and to the Bush administration, despite lack of a strong victory in the latter case. As Jon Stewart asked DNC chair Howard Dean the day after the election, "How long...before power corrupts you absolutely?" Dean shrugged it off as a joke, but I tend to think it's a question every politician should ask themself and their party.

Maybe nothing in particular will come of this election. Maybe only real change will occur once a new Presidential administration is in place, whatever political party it may be. I don't know. Sometimes I weep for this country. I don't believe that there is a political party out there that has a better chance than any other to make this nation great. All they need is to stand up for ideals rather than the quest for money and influence. What kind of a Congress will the 110th be? As every year, I look to my government with hope for the best, but little expectation for great things.