Pop Culture is Dangerous

“In voiceover, Jake talks about how Polaris, the North Star, allows anyone lost in the Northern Hemisphere to get oriented. But we get lost in other ways: In choices, in overwhelming events, even within our own minds. What beacon can we turn to then? The lives that touch our own. Because, unlike Polaris, the light they bring will never fade.


At JFK airport, businesswoman Lanny Cheong meets commercial real estate executive Will Davies. He’s on standby for her flight: 975.


Will tells Lanny he just closed a huge deal on a historic Queens building where all his favorite jazz artists went. Now it will be torn down. It’s making him wonder what his purpose is. A luggage snafu delays Lanny, so Will gets her seat. He writes “IOU” on his card and gives it to her.


Will wakes up in his seat from flight 975 – in a field of airplane wreckage. Seemingly unharmed, he walks away dazed.

Lanny’s partner, Serena, is trying to get pregnant with donor sperm, but it’s not working. Lanny becomes defensive at the suggestion that she doesn’t really want a baby. She does . . . just not now.

Will goes to work, still in shock. His boss congratulates him. In a couple hours, that building will go kaboom!


Will rambles to his puzzled boss that he won’t let them tear down that building. He has to do something that matters – today. He leaves, trailing blood drops behind him.


Clea and Martin find her old apartment building, the same one Will wants to save. Will runs up and tells the demolition crew that if they’re gonna blow this place, they’ll have to kill him too! Martin and Clea slip inside and find Andy’s cap . . . and Clea’s mom brandishing a knife. Clea gets through to her mother, who lost Andy at a nearby park. Martin takes off. The crew subdues Will as Clea and her mom emerge. Will collapses, now bleeding heavily. Clea spots his boarding pass: flight 975. Will dies.


After hearing about flight 975, Lanny decides her career can wait. She’ll undergo the procedure herself. Serena picks a donor from the clinic’s notebook: Will. Lanny looks thoughtfully at his IOU.

– from the FOX TV show Touch; the episode called “Lost and Found”

Dear “Acculturated” Blog,

So I’ve been reading your series of blog posts about conservatives and pop culture and while I think most of your contributors have had interesting and worthwhile thoughts on the subject matter (perhaps with the exception of Professor Reyonds, who was a bit too trumphilist for my taste), I think you missed one important point in the discussion. As I said in the title of this blog post, one big problem with pop culture right now is not that liberals are better than conservatives at creating pop culture but that they use the culture insidiously to advance dangerous left-wing ideas. Take this seemingly innocent FOX show Touch about a father trying to connect with his austistic (?) son, who actually turns out to have some sort of supernatural power with respect to numbers/patterns and an understanding of how people are connected to one another around the world. A show like this could be good family fare and enjoyable for everyone who might be interested in these themes. But what do the writers do? They write a random episode that includes a storyline with a same-sex couple trying to have a kid!!!

My own children, who unfortunately watched this episode, thankfully asked me in confusion about the scene with the two women. “Dad, we don’t understand — are they sisters? Why are they talking about having a baby?” In a way it was a sobering moment because it both reinforced the eternal truth that some laws are written on the heart (as Saint Paul would put it) and even kids understand these basics; and at the same time I have to be aware that the surrounding liberal pop culture is undermining these eternal truths with lies (i.e. it’s a normal and healthy for two women to get together and have a baby). If conservatives do nothing else when thinking about pop culture, we need to think long and hard about this (which is why old-fashioned censorship makes so much sense and since that’s not in the cards anytime soon, protecting our kids from a lot of pop culture needs to be part of the answer).


About Fake Herzog

See the about page on the blog.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Pop Culture is Dangerous

  1. aretae says:

    Funny…when I told my 6yo that my sister was going to marry her long-time girlfriend…he asked if that meant she wasn’t going to have babies because only boys and girls could have babies. I said that science has made it so a girl can have a baby without being with a boy. He said ok and went on with his day. It’s all pretty simple. And it’s rare enough that it does need explained just like white kids need to learn that black people aren’t just dirty people (real question asked by my friend’s 3yo son living in white-ville about my wife).

    You can say you disapprove. You can say you think that it’s healthier for a baby to have a male and a female parent. You can say that you have a holy book that says shellfish, pork, polyester and gay fornication are all bad…in the same chapter…and you choose to ignore only 3 of those. You can’t say it can’t be done…or that there aren’t a lot of people who would like to do it, because that’s who they love…and because if you believe in a God, that God made them in such a way so they would be sexually attracted to people of their own gender.

    But it really ain’t hard to explain.

    • Fake Herzog says:

      Your comment reinforces my point — children understand basic moral truths (and can also be confused about the natural world) but can be corrupted by the culture and by adults who don’t give them moral guidance. The question is not whether it is easy or hard to explain the latest moral perversion (“you see little Johnny, some people enjoy trying to make babies with their doggies, because it gives them lots of excitement and pleasure, just like Mommy and Daddy get lots of excitement and pleasure when we make your brothers and sisters” — “O.K., Dad, now let’s get back to our baseball lesson.”); the question is whether or not it is good and right. I seem to be some sort of moral relativist, but I reject that ethical position and know that it is heathier for a baby to be raised by a mother and father.

      P.S. You are very confused about traditional Christian sexual morality. I tell everyone who is serious about learning from someone who knows what they’re talking about when it comes to Christian sexuality to take the time and poke around Robert Gagnon’s website.

      • aretae says:


        Children understand basic NATURAL truths. Takes 2 genders to make a baby? Got it. Most humans prefer the sexual company of the opposite gender? Got it. You’re trying to conflate the obviousness of these types of truths with an additional, entirely taught, ethical framework.

        Sorry…You don’t want me referencing Old Testament Leviticus, you want me referencing New Testament 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in terms of bibical prohibitions?

  2. Master Po says:

    Aretae, if Christian prohibitions on homosex stem from Leviticus, then where do all the heathen and pagan prohibitions come from? You don’t suppose it could possibly be maladaptive?

    • aretae says:

      Master Po,

      We have a consistent 1-5% homosexual population. If it were maladaptive, it would have been bred out. Clearly something is driving its continued existence over the last 2500 years of recorded history, else it would have died out. However, I have yet to see a convincing explanation as to which evolutionary advantage is conferred by having homosexuals in a population.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s