Tag Archives: Controversy

Welcome To The Republic of Cheap Controversy

We, as Lebanese, sure know how to breed controversies. We love it. We adore it. We feed our need for gossip off of it. And it happens so often without it becoming redundant.

We have a need for it.

The latest:

Yes, you guessed it: Mashrou3 Leila’s decision not to open for RHCP.

The discussion regarding Mashrou3 Leila nuclear bombing themselves by giving up their opening gig for the RHCP took a turn that I didn’t foresee. It became less and less about how they got to their decision and more about whether their decision was correct or not.

Of course, the debate isn’t about supporting the Palestinians or not. It’s not about hating Israel or not.

Were they bullied? Or did they reach their decision out of conviction? And it is here that I believe is the issue’s main question.

Mashrou3 Leila signed to be the RHCP’s opening act a long time ago. They knew RHCP had a concert in Israel and yet they still signed the contract. To say they didn’t know about the Israeli concert would infer they are massively ignorant, which they are not. So for all matters and purposes, they didn’t care about the next stops on RHCP’s tour.

And they canceled their gig. Were they bullied into it? Well, speaking from experience, the anti-Israel crowd have a knack for making anyone who doesn’t play for them feel as if he’s an accomplice to killing all the Palestinian children.

You’re not with us? Then you’re a traitor and I hope you can sleep at night knowing the blood of Palestinians is on your hands and knowing that you are also stealing their land. 

It is the same Bush-era logic that they love to hate: you are either with us or against us. You can’t be in between.

Select Lebanese bloggers know how it is when you don’t write in agreement with them. They will bash you. They will threaten you. They will call you names. They will make you feel as if you’ve done something wrong which you perfectly know you didn’t. And if you’re tough enough, you won’t budge.

Mashrou3 Leila budged. And the ripple that they caused was deafening. For instance, BeirutSpring, a renowned Lebanese blogger who doesn’t address all issues that happen in Lebanon and when he does, he addresses the issue with one short and straight to the point post, wrote not once (click here) but twice (click here) about Leila. That second post has a ton of comments, some of which are proclaiming exactly what I alluded to before. Treason and then treason and then treason some more.

The BDS people should be proud. Commenting from their awesome new Macbook.

Another controversy:

We might also be the only country in the world where enforcing a smoking ban is met with a wave of anger and disgrace and people throwing around brilliant logic to justify opposing the ban. You want a taste of that logic? Click here.

Has any other country in the world caused so much controversy by simply applying a law straight out of the 1980s in 2012? Definitely not.

But in Lebanon it did. A smoking ban became an issue of national debate even though it shouldn’t. Smoking somehow morphed into a basic human right, which it isn’t. Some restaurants are even opting not to follow the law – and they’re proud of it (click here).

Some people have said: “the smoking ban supporters preach. The restaurant owners speak facts. The former need to rest their case – they’re not making sense.” Our need for controversy transcends our ability for logical reasoning. So we go with the flow of beautiful rhetoric that pleases our brain cortices and tickles our enthusiasm. Scientific studies? The hell with that. For reference, this is a British case study that shows a positive economic impact for smoking bans (click here).

Previous controversies:

The Lebanese Olympic squad and its Israel-related incident may or may not have happened. But it sure has caused a frenzy. I even asked this simple question: wouldn’t it be a greater victory if we play and win? Wouldn’t it be greater if we debate them and put them where they belong?

All hell broke loose. Because expressing your opinion is frowned upon – unless your opinion is mainstream. Getting called a traitor? It’s become my favorite pastime lately.

The Republic of Cheap Controversy:

When you realize that two of those controversies happened within a week and the third one happened within a month of the other two, you get three national “debates” that have led nowhere except have people go at each other’s throats in such a short timeframe. That’s also without taking into consideration Michel Samaha, the Mekdads or Myriam Klink or anything else that happened in the past couple of months. The republic of cheap controversy unfolds in front of you.

It’s not a republic of shame as LBC wants you to believe. It’s not the republic of anarchy as I’ve told you before (here). It’s another face of Lebanon, one that we don’t notice because it has become so deeply engrained in the fabrics of our society that we don’t notice it anymore – we don’t even notice how often we do it.

Our controversies address deep issues sometimes but more often than not they simply scrap the surface of far deeper problems without diving in. We live off of that – discussions that give us something to talk about while steering clear from more “pressing” issues (the election law comes to mind). Sometimes the discussion is cheap and shallow. Other times, the “discussion” takes a dangerous turn when the allegiance of others and their moral values come into play.

And people are interested in reading and talking about it because it gives them a sense of participating. And we write about it because it makes us feel important – that we are heard and some people want to know what we have to say. I’ve done it. You’ve done it. We’ve all done it.

When will the next controversy take place? I would say it’s a 50-50 chance for next week. Do we love it? Maybe not. Welcome to the Republic of Cheap Controversy.

 

A Comment on Carrie Underwood Endorsing Gay Marriage & the Backlash

The following is a guest post by an American reader who wishes to remain anonymous.

Country superstar Carrie Underwood has gone 180 degrees against the Country current by endorsing gay marriage. In an interview with The Independent UK, she had the following to say on the matter:

“As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love, and want to marry,” she said. “I can’t imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love.”

“Our church is gay friendly. Above all, God wanted us to love others. It’s not about setting rules, or [saying] ‘everyone has to be like me’. No. We’re all different. That’s what makes us special. We have to love each other and get on with each other. It’s not up to me to judge anybody.”

I am not pro-gay marriage. Not for religious reasons but for reasons I will talk about later on.

The responses her endorsment has been getting are mixed between those who approve based on liberal ideologies and those who disapprove based on a twisted understanding of the bible.

The infamous verse that is quoted nowadays is Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Bible-nazis are taking this sentence and flaunting it around. If you don’t follow it, then you are not a proper Christian.

Well, I’ve got a few words for them. And what better words than from the Bible itself.

Exodus 21:7:  “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.” Would those Bible-loving men and women sell their daughters as servants? I don’t think so. That’s one thing of the Bible they wouldn’t abide with.

Leviticus 25:44: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.” According to another Leviticus passage, I’m allowed to have slaves provided they are from neighboring countries. Does that mean illegal Mexican immigrants are our slaves now? The Bible says so. It must be. No?

Leviticus 11:10: “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.” The Bible forbids me from eating things coming out of the Sea. But I’m a seafood lover. Do you eat seafood? If you do, then you must stop. Immediately. The Bible demands it.

Leviticus 19:27: “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” This states that men are not allowed to cut their hair nor shave. Do you cut your hair?

Leviticus 19:19: “Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.” To the awesome Americans of the Bible-belt, many of you have farms, right? Do you have different types of animals in your farms? Do you grow different crops? Because if you do, then you are committing blasphemy, in which case Leviticus would also demand that the entirety of your town comes forward to stone you.

The thing about Leviticus, my fellow Christians, is that it is part of the old testament and it is what Jesus Christ came to Earth to change. The thing about Leviticus, my fellow Christians, is that the only part of it that you know is the part pertaining to homosexuality.

When it comes to my Christianity, it’s about the message Jesus wanted to bring forward: a message of love.

Jesus Christ forgave those that were killing Him before he died on the Cross. Leviticus would call upon those people to be stoned and burned. Jesus Christ called on those without a sin to cast the first stone. Jesus knew that none of us is without sin. Jesus knew that when it comes to life, compassion is the most important emotion to get us by. Compassion makes everything else seem so small.

So next time you want to quote the Bible to prove a point, make sure you quote the part that makes you a Christian today: the New Testament, whose pages are all about the redemptive power of love.

When it comes to me, I’m not pro-gay marriage but that doesn’t mean I’m against those who are homosexual. How’s that? As I look around, I see families crumbling around me. The concept of a family sticking together like my grandparents did, for more than fifty years, is becoming more and more nonexistent. My parents got divorced when I was ten. My cousins’ parents divorced when she was twelve.

Out of my high school friends, at least half of them came from houses where they were raised by a single parent – and not because “death did them part.”

With crumbling family values and surging divorce rates, I don’t approve of adding another portion of society to the whole mess of marriage because, like it or not, homosexuals feel the way we do and they change their mind. And because the notion of marital love fades away after the initial infatuation and many are left wondering: Is this really what I signed up for?

Moreover, you don’t want the kids gay couples will adopt to be more disoriented than those of heterosexuals couples as well in case of a divorce.

And as a cherry on top, I think there are way more important issues that are worth the discussion today than this. Just a quick question to illustrate this point: how would any married couple, regardless of what that couple is, have an optimal marriage in the horrid economy we live in?

When it comes to Carrie Underwood’s comment, I am neutral. I like what she said because it doesn’t seem forced. She’s not telling people what to believe like many other celebrities do. She’s stating her belief. On the other hand, in a time when much more serious things are happening around the world than accepting gay marriage or not, I think other stances precede this in importance. And for an artist who had publicized her refusal to comment on anything of a political nature, regardless of how she spins it, I wonder what changed her mind.

There will be backlash. It has already started. It won’t be pretty. But kudos for Carrie for saying what she believes in, despite it coming out of the blue.

To conclude, here’s a quote for you all:

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mahatma Ghandi.

You have your Christianity and I have mine.

Benetton’s New Ad Campaign “Unhate” – Ridiculous or Ingenious?

Upon checking my Facebook home feed yesterday, I was struck by pictures of men kissing. No, I’m not homophobic but yes, I was taken aback by them.

Upon closer inspection, I saw that those pictures are of world leaders kissing. The caption on the bottom right was Benetton’s logo. And then I understood: this is a marketing ploy aimed at something. But what is that “something”?

It seems Benetton is supporting the “Unhate” foundation, which according to their page, “seeks to contribute to the creation of a new culture of tolerance.”

While I am fully supportive of the cause, our world definitely needs more tolerance, is it really Benetton’s place to put up these ads, start the foundation and work for it?

First, I find the ads borderline offensive and somewhat ridiculous. First, the concept of “unhate” does not involve world leaders kissing each other on the lips. I see the controversy in the idea but an ad campaign revolving around activism should at least have a firm ground from which those exposed can start from. I cannot even imagine Obama hugging Chavez. Then how about them kissing?

Second, Benetton is a clothing company that does fashion. The days when my parents used to drag me there to get clothes are long over but I still remember their clothes having good quality. I mean, the raincoat my parents got me when I was five got passed down to my brothers and still exists somewhere as a memorabilia. But no matter. When a company does “fashion,” is it also in its spectrum of business to go the activism route? I hardly think so. I am not the most knowing when it comes to fashion (nor advertising) but, in my head, it makes more sense for an ad by a fashion company to make a fashion statement than for it to call for activism. The ads Benetton unleashed do not serve the former but serve the latter. However, do they even serve the latter properly?

This leads us to:

Third, no they do not because the ads are borderline irrelevant. The only traction these ads will get is via the condemning of the Vatican and the people who are shocked by these ads. Will the message be assimilated by those expose? Will they start “unhating” and “kiss” their enemies? I hardly think so. At most, those who love the ads will rave about how ingenious they are for a few days. Those offended will throw a fit and then forget about it sooner or later, simply because our attention span is really shorter than that of a fish. For a marketing campaign to remain relevant, it needs to have continuity and longevity. I do not see the Benetton campaign having either of those.

Maybe a kiss on the cheek would have been, ironically, less traitorous than a kiss on the mouth. I don’t understand how the concept of “unhate” can happen when you’re ridiculing the beliefs of two of the world’s biggest belief systems by having the Pope kiss the Sheikh of Al-Azhar. Or it could possibly be old-fashioned yours truly who believes that tolerance starts with respecting the different other. I don’t see much respect into getting a photoshopped Obama french-kissing a photoshopped Hu Jintao. But what’s worse is that many people won’t know these pictures are indeed photoshopped and will assume that the Pope in fact kissed Sheikh Al Azhar or that Angela Merkel is now having an affair with Nicolas Sarkozi. People will assume the pictures are “real” and once the ball gets rolling with “reality” there’s no stopping it.

These are the controversial ad pictures:

North Korean and South Korean presidents

Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao

Obama and Chavez

Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy

The Pope and Sheikh Al Azhar

 

And to make things even more absurd, the ads are not even original:

The Rihanna “Man Down” Controversy

Prior to this weekend, I was about as knowledgeable about a song and video for Rihanna titled Man Down as I am about quantum physics.

Which basically means: I have no clue.

But soon enough, I get many of my followers on Twitter retweeting Rihanna’s charged tweets:

“I’m a 23 year old rockstar with NO KIDS! What’s up with everybody wantin me to be a parent? I’m just a girl, I can only be your/our voice! Cuz we all know how difficult/embarrassing it is to communicate touchy subject matters to anyone especially our parents! And this is why! Cuz we turn the other cheek! U can’t hide your kids from society, or they’ll never learn how to adapt! This is the REAL WORLD!”

Those leading the campaign against the Man Down video are the Parent’s Television Council for the video’s portrayal of murder and rape. And honestly, this is overly melodramatic.

1) There are many TV shows with full length episodes about murder and rape. Did they call out to get them banned?

2) The song is about shooting a man down. What would the video be about? Rihanna dancing in a field of corns?

3) As Rihanna said, she is only 23, and as a person who has already been the victim of domestic abuse, she is allowed to speak up more than anyone else, especially that she hasn’t tackled the issue, at least to my knowledge, in depth.

4) If parents are worried their children would act out on the video, then maybe they’re not doing a good enough job of raising them? If a child or teenager thinks they need to imitate every single pop music video out there, then we’re in serious trouble. Have you seen what goes on in some of those videos? Why haven’t that council spoken about the near orgies going on in pop music nowadays?

5) Again with controversies, the only thing they do is shed light on something that most people would be unaware of. I would have gladly resumed my life without “Man Down” and would have remained clueless about the song hadn’t it been for the Parent’s Television Council. And for that matter, blowing this way out of proportion is definitely not the way to handle it.

Check out the Man Down video here:

Lady Gaga’s Judas. This Is Getting Ridiculous

Unless you’re living under a rock, which is actually good for you at this point, you definitely know that Lady Gaga is releasing a new album this May.

Her first single, Born This Way, has already gone to become her biggest hit and she’s now prepping her second release off the album, a song titled “Judas”.

Set to be released on April 19th, during Holy Week, the song is about the betrayal of a loved one. Lady Gaga has released the cover art for the single and here it is:

Continue reading →