The Purdue Live Gabfest

I was informed earlier this semester that Slate Political Gabfest was coming to Purdue in April. However, when they finally came to West Lafayette on April 7, 2011, I was in St. Elizabeth Hospital because of flu and pneumonia. Since I was probably the only student in class who missed out this live podcast, I think I should make my study in Purdue complete by listening to the podcast recorded in University Church when I was in the hospital.

First of all, this is the podcast that really distinguishes itself from other Slate podcasts. It's probably because it's recorded with real audience at the scene and not at the studio where podcasters have to imagine the existence of their audience. The energy of the whole podcast brings the conversation alive. With the laughter of the audience, I felt as if I was there too.

They talked about three topics on April 7, the federal budget issue, the 2012 presidential campaign, and the college admission percentages. Among these three topics, I relate more to the third topic and would like to reflect my thoughts on that.

The question of whether or not college is worth the huge amount of money we pay each semester has been long debating, and it reminded me of my blog post from last year about wether or not the college names matter. Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz asked one another these questions: What do colleges really do? What kind of education do you get from college? And what do people want from college? IS it the right thing for everyone?

I believe everyone has their own answers for those questions, but they brought up an interesting scenario that I've never thought of before: If we pay $50,000 per year for college just to build our connections with people, why can't we just save the money but still live on campus?

My thoughts about what we really get from college education coincide with Emily's. To me, college is not just a place where you make friends and build connection with professors and classmates. It's a place where I learn to cope with different pressure, deal with time limits, make friends, work my way through obstacles, experience semi-professional working life, think critically, work with people even if I don't get along with them outside of the classroom, and most importantly, figure out what I love to do and to prepare myself in becoming the professional I want to be. If I just rented an apartment on campus and not go to class, I would definitely miss out a lot.

As I'm graduating next week, if you ask me whether or not Purdue/college is worth the money I paid throughout the years, I would say absolutely yes!

Slate Podcast: Adonis DNA

Going through the podcast list on Slate.com, I found one catching my eyes: Adonis DNA, a cultural podcast edition that talked about Charlie Sheen's career meltdown, the Oscar and its hosts, and Justin Bieber and the teen star phenomenon. So I thought it's worth listening and to find out what they have to say about those people and events.

For Academy Awards, they did not hold much of a different view than the general public. As everyone already knew, James Franco and Anne Hathaway were the hosts for Oscar this year. Although the trailer seemed kind of interesting, the show and the two stars' hosting skills did not raise too much compliment from the public.

I remembered I was surprised when I saw the Oscar trailer. I'm a fan of Anne Hathaway. I love her movies and also her images. However, this year's Oscar really gave people a lesson that great actors and actresses didn't equal to great hosts. I understand that James Franco and Anne Hathaway hosted Oscar because they meant to bring back the younger generation who do not watch Oscar as much as years ago. But, as an honest fan of Anne Hathaway, the show was not very successful, and it wasn't funny at all.

Moving on to Justin Bieber, I did not find this specific singer too interesting because of my personal preference. If I can listen to songs from professional music artists like John Mayer or Jason Mraz, why would I listen to a teenage boy singing with his yet feminine voice? But after listening to Stephen, Dana, and Julia debating for a long time of whether or not Justin Bieber has talent, I heard something that's worth to put on my blog: What does the teen star phenomenon bring to the younger generation?

I was actually surprised that one of the female podcasters (either Dana or Julia, I couldn't recognize who was talking because they sounded alike) said she did not think the phenomenon would do any harm to her 5-year-old child. "It's just part of growing up," she explained.

I respect her opinion on this issue, but I can't stand in the same line with her if I were a parent. Perhaps I perceive the teen star phenomenon differently because of the culture that I grew up from. I admire those teenage stars' courage to be on stage and show people their talents, but what I'm suspicious of is the way those teenage stars behave and how those behavior might affect the younger generation.

It's mentioned in this Slate podcast that Miley Cyrus dressed very sexually in one of the performance with Justin Beiber. Not only did she appear to be very provocative but also show some very obvious sex-imitating dance movements on the stage. Now, I'm not saying that pop singers shouldn't dress in certain ways, but when it comes to teenage singers, the way they dress and the way they behave deserve a more careful consideration. Think about this, most of their fans are in the similar ages. If those teenagers see the teen-stars dress in this way, they might imitate and dress in the same way. Dressing in similar way may not be that big of a problem, but what about their behaviors? I don't have children right now, but if I did, I'm sure I would frown when I saw my 5-year-old daughter imitating the sexual dance movement of Miley Cyrus.

Children are young only once, why rush into adulthood so early? Right?

Slate Podcast: Where Are Our Manner?

As the semester getting close to its end and students preparing for finals, two major news stories took my attention: the breaking news of the death of Osama Bin Laden, and the royal wedding that many people have been following since the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

Different from the vast majority's celebration and chanting for America either online or on the streets, Slate Podcast took a deeper view into whether or not it's appropriate for us to celebrate the death of the nation's enemy.

When I saw the breaking news alert on my cell phone from CNN, my first thought was that he finally had what he deserved today. It's been almost 10 years. When a lot of people were distracted by other things happening in the world, the death of Osama Bin Laden suddenly took everyone's attention back to the attack and reminded people of that moment when they found out about the attack. After so long, many people may say the justice finally served.

While Americans celebrating at home or out in the public, some people, including those from the Slate Podcast, started questioning wether or not the celebration was appropriate. Yes, he did do horrible things to the nation, and yes, he's the nation's biggest enemy ever since September 11. But the image of Americans celebrating his death might, according to this Slate podcast, bring out a different image of the U.S. in other people's eyes.

They also talked about how people might feel differently if this happened when George W. Bush was the president. It was quite obvious of their political views in this podcast because of the way they talked about it. (If you're interested in that, feel free to go check out the podcast from the hyperlink above.)

In addition to the death of Osama Bin Laden, there's another thing that interested me very much in the podcast: the royal wedding.

One of the most interesting things they talked about was why Americans are so enthusiastic about monarchy and the wedding. Americans believe in the personal effort, not the social status that comes with blood. So why did Americans love the royal stories?

Growing up in a democratic country, I sort of understand what those Americans who follow the royal wedding are thinking about. There's no kings and queens in America, neither does Taiwan. We elect our own presidents and many government officials. But, deep in people's minds, we still want to know about the royal wedding because sometimes people just need something to make them believe fairy tales do exist. The curiosity and interest of monarchy doesn't show up in Prince William's wedding just now. Americans showed great passion in Prince Charles and Lady Diana's wedding in 1981, and according to the Slate Podcast, such enthusiasm showed in hollywood movies as well.

Because I'm personally following the royal wedding myself, I read a lot of articles and photo galleries about the wedding. Many people criticized that the royal family was wasting tax payers' money to promote their image. I'm not a U.K. citizen and I pay no tax to their government, so I won't say they're wrong in criticizing the wedding and the spending. However, even if I did pay the tax and contribute a little to the royal wedding, I wouldn't mind. Why? I'd rather take an easy view on this issue and just see it as paying a little money to remind myself that fairy tales exist. It's like watching Roman Holiday, so why make it a fuss?