I know, I know....

It's been awhile since I updated. But I figured that the Renegade post was so incredibly awesome that it would quench everybody's thirst for a Sven blog update. And I suppose it sort of did it's job...Ang hasn't bitched at me in awhile. Though, she may just be busy. Anyway, I don't have a specific topic for tonight, so I'll just jump back and forth on some random thoughts that have crossed my mind over the past 10 or so days.

First of all, although I have not viewed my Lady and the Tramp DVD as of yet, (I know, I was so excited about it arriving, and I haven't even bothered to watch it yet. What the hell is wrong with me?) I have been thinking about how well the film lends itself to a Marxist/Cultural Criticism-type analysis. See what happens to those of us who have liberal arts educations? Specifically English or Cultural Studies majors, as Cultural Studies is a discipline heavily grounded in Marxist theory. What I'm trying to say is that after taking Cultural Criticism with Betsy, it's impossible for me to take anything at face value, especially media (and I don't just mean the news. I mean all sorts of visual, written, and audio media). For those of you who have taken a Cultural Studies class, you understand what I'm saying. But just to clear things up for those who haven't, I'm not saying that Walt Disney was a Commie or anything. But, class oppression and hegemonic systems are definite themes in Lady and the Tramp. Think about it for a minute: Just the title implies the dichotomizing of social class. This is a classic "rags-to-riches" story. Tramp...the (mixed race, or "minority" race, lower-class) mutt meets Lady, the (representative of the Caucasian race, upper-class) purebred, and although he faces shit from both sides (the purebreds don't like him because he's a mutt, the mutts think he's a traitor for going after a purebred), he ends up getting the woman and a loving home, and a collar...a true sign that he is now an "upper-class" dog. BAM! And this is what we love to see as an audience, mainly because it makes us believe that if it happened to them, it can happen to us too. We can go from lower-class to upper-class, be accepted, and live happily ever after. There are a lot of other things to think about here, however. For instance, what does it say that Tramp is the male character and Lady is the female character? This places a woman in a position of power that does not follow a traditional system. Hmmmm....hahahaha. I would be willing to make a bet that someone has already written some sort of cultural analysis of Lady and the Tramp, if not on it's own, then included in an article with other Disney features. And I certainly plan to look into this, I just haven't had the chance to go to the library. Needless to say, this is a very brief version of what may very well turn into an entire article on this subject. We'll see how ambitious I'm feeling. I think the fact that I'm still thinking actively about these things even though I'm no longer in school is a sure sign that I will eventually go back to grad school, and probably for something that allows me to do shit like this. But, enough of my Communist propaganda.....let's talk about sex, baby.

Not really sex, but just the overabundance of commercials on television about erectile dysfunction...or as those oh-so-hip commercials call it, ED. More and more brand name, prescription medications keep popping up. Is this really that huge of a problem? They make it seem like it is, but I have trouble believing it. I think it's all a ploy to make men think it's a problem. Sure, some men probably really do have ED or whatever. But the commercials make it seem like middle-aged men should still have the same sex drive that they had when they were 15...that every guy should be a "walking hard-on" (to quote Brodie in Mallrats). To tell you the truth guys, most women would probably prefer that your sex drive slowed down a bit anyway. Now they're using the scare tactic that high-blood pressure and diabetes can cause ED. I suppose that may be true. To get to the point, I don't really think that drug companies should be allowed to advertise their medications on television, because it causes "epidemics" in the American public. I realize that's precisely the reason that they do it, but it has to drive doctors insane. "I think I'm depressed! I saw that Zoloft shit on TV, how about giving me some of that?", "I think I have erectile dysfunction! How about some Viagra?" All I'm saying is that it causes people to self-diagnose and tell their doctor what to do, and imagine symptoms that aren't really there just because they heard them mentioned on TV, when they should be telling the doctor what symptoms they're actually experiencing, and letting the doctor diagnose from there. This is just a little more cultural criticism coming your way. I guess I'm on a cultural criticism kick this week. Not that that's a bad thing. Just an observation. But, I think I've made this long enough already. By the way, if you have any suggestions for fixing my blog so that it's not centered, but off to the right like it's supposed to be, with my little information bar on the left at the top instead of way down at the bottom, please let me know. This thing is driving me crazy. I promise, the next update will be soon!