Judas vs Jesus

In recent years, Lady Gaga has risen from relative obscurity into superstardom with the help of her unique persona and controversial music. Her latest hit music video, “Judas”, is no exception. Packed with an assortment of religious and cultural references, “Judas” raises questions about acceptance and religiosity. The lyrics contain many biblical references such as the story of Mary and Martha and, in particular, Judas’ betrayal. Using these allusions, Lady Gaga tells a story about love, forgiveness, sin, and virtue.

In the first verse, the narrator expresses that she is ready to forgive Judas despite his lies and betrayals:

When he comes to me, I am ready
I wash his feet with my hair if he needs
Forgive him when his tongue lies through his brain
Even after three times he betrays me

Washing someone’s feet is a sign of extreme love and humility in the Christian world. In the same way, the three times Peter denied Jesus Christ was one of the most heartbreaking betrayals in the bible. Lady Gaga implemented these extreme examples to show that the narrator is ready to love and forgive Judas no matter how hard he falls.

During the second stanza introduces two new ideas to the listener. First, the narrator establishes that she is not alone in forgiving Judas. She then states that love can be either a constructive or destructive force. The verse can be interpreted as a plea for mercy on behalf of Judas and his transgressions. The dichotomy in the narrator’s feelings is fully exposed in the bridge of the song. While admitting that she is a sinner who is “beyond repentance”, the narrator is divided between the virtue of Jesus and sinful Judas:

I wanna love you,
But something's pulling me away from you
Jesus is my Virtue
And Judas is the demon I cling to

There is a strong internal opposition structured into the song which is illustrated by the narrator’s longing for both her inherent sinful nature and a life of virtue. The struggle between integrity and immortality is something that many people wrestle with. While some people find great value in trying to live a virtuous life, their selfish nature often times hinders their progress. This internal conflict destabilizes the definition of “wrong” and the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable in society.

Scholarly Journals and Status Updates

Web 2.0 differs from its predecessor in its collaborative and user-centered design. This is what Professor Michael Wesch is alluding to in his popular video, “The Machine is Us(ing) Us”. He suggests that the content of the World Wide Web is created and used by its own users, whose behavior and ideas teach and enhance the “Machine”. With this new system form and content can now function independently from each other. The resulting simplification of the data import and export process has broadened the accessibility of World Wide Web. Now, just about anyone with a computer and an internet connection can read, write, and publish their ideas through various forms social media. As users of the Web, we have transformed from passive viewers to active producers and consumers in a virtual community.

For some however, the ease and accessibility of user-generated content is also its bane. Because the content is open to the mass public, some question its credibility. While skeptics doubt the authenticity of collaborative information web sites like Wikipedia, others have found them to be an enriching and helpful learning tool. In recent years, it seems as though sites like Wikipedia are gradually shedding their academic stigma. While citing Wikipedia is still forbidden in most classrooms, it now possesses enough credibility for general use. On a similar note, one can now maintain their social life within the confines of his or her own room using different social media networking websites. In the past this scenario would have been an oxymoron, but today it seems to indicate an ongoing shift in how we view human interaction and evaluate credibility.

i can has cheezburger?

The use of web lingo and text speech in the classrooms has been looked down upon by educators for years. Most objections were to their informal nature and blatant disregard for grammatical rules. Teachers argued that with enough use, internet slang would degrade speaking and writing skills. Psychologists like Maryanne Wolf believe that the Net’s emphasis on efficiency and immediacy weakens the interpretive abilities of its users (Carr 99). It seems to make sense that the continual use of acronyms and abbreviated phrases found on the Net would indeed lead one to use shortcuts elsewhere in life. However, several experts are now beginning to believe that with proper management, Net jargon can actually have beneficial effects on students.

In Rachel Abrams article, “Experts Divided over Changes to Language”, linguist David Crystal expresses his beliefs that that the linguistic changes caused by the Internet are purely additive and not altering (Abrams 2). While many people can attest to the Internet’s affect on attention span and language, they cannot deny that most varieties web speech do follow a specific set of rules. For example, the governing guidelines of “lolspeak” or “kitty pidgin” require idiosyncratic phrases combined with poor grammar and spelling. Even the spelling errors, such as the replacement of the letter “s” with the letter “z”, are systematic. Creating a humorous “lolcat” image requires an understanding of a set rules and the ability to apply them successfully. If every subject in school follows this principle of comprehension and application, then one must ask if web languages can have a beneficial effect on learning. Netlingo founder, Erin Jansen, believes that Internet language is a “freedom of expression” which helps students communicate their ideas (Abrams 2). She along with other experts believe that an understanding of its rules and usage are the key factors in utilizing web languages for academic gain and classroom integration.