But regardless of whether drugs ultimately played a role in Haim's tragic death, they certainly played a damaging role in his life. In a 2004 interview with the British tabloid The Sun, Haim talked about the intersection of Hollywood and drugs.

"I was working on Lost Boys when I smoked my first joint," he said. Marijuana, it seems, only whetted his appetite for harder stuff, which in turn initiated a downward spiral that would dog Haim the rest of his life. "I did cocaine for about a year and a half, then it led to crack," he said. Unnamed depressants or tranquilizers came next: "I started on the downers which were a h‑‑‑ of a lot better than the uppers because I was a nervous wreck," he confessed. "But one led to two, two led to four, four led to eight, until at the end it was about 85 a day."

In a 2007 interview with ABC, Haim said, "I feel like with myself I ruined myself to the point where I wasn't functional enough to work for anybody, even myself. I wasn't working."

As late as 2008, longtime friend and fellow Lost Boy alum Corey Feldman said that drugs had hampered their relationship during two seasons of filming the A&E reality series The Two Coreys.

Any way you want to parse this story, it's tragic. But a couple of things seem clear. As has been the case in the lives of many child and teen actors, fame and fortune at a young age often prove to be a combustible, destructive mix.

But there's another connection I want to make here. Reading Corey's account of his addictions, I can't help but wonder if marijuana was the catalyst that launched his downward spiral. That first high wasn't high enough, it seems, and others soon followed in quick succession.

As many voices in our culture continue to proclaim that marijuana is harmless, no big deal, we would do well to remember that for some people, it may very well open a gateway to soul-sapping, life-ruining addiction.

"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems," John told interviewer Dotson Rader. "On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East—you're as good as dead."

Jesus, gay? Pretty shocking, right? But here's what's interesting about this quote. It wasn't that long ago—maybe 10 years or so—that such speculation about Jesus' sexual identity would have seemed even more scandalous and provocative. But when Plugged In's staff talked about Elton John's perspective on Jesus, it didn't seem culturally scandalous so much as it seemed like another example of a celebrity remaking Jesus in his own image.

Celebrities (and many others) have a narcissistic penchant for latching on to some aspect of Jesus' teaching or identity and reshaping it to fit their own perspective on the world—never mind if their assertions are counter what we see in Scripture. It's a common enough phenomena, in fact, that the Washington Post's "Under God" blog recently ran a poll featuring nine such comments about Jesus from people such as Jane Fonda, Madonna, Marilyn Manson, Elvis, John Lennon, Heidi Montag, Bob Hope and Archie Bunker.

The more our Plugged In staff talked about John's quote, the more we felt that the real story here is not so much his comments about Jesus' sexual preference—unscriptural and unsupportable as they are. No, the real story is that in our postmodern, spiritually syncretistic culture, celebrities' outlandish statements about Jesus are so common they hardly seem newsworthy at all.

That said, opinions like Elton John's do matter in a culture that invests celebrity with so much authority. But we would do well to remember that those opinions generally say more about the person voicing them—in this case, a high-profile singer who's been out of the closet a long time—than they do about who Jesus actually is.

Why, you ask?

Well, I like records. They're interesting. And baseball has lots o' records.

So does TV. And one of the biggies, a record that's withstood everything television programmers could hurl at it for 27 years, fell on Sunday night.

According to preliminary ratings estimates by Nielsen, Super Bowl XLIV was the most watched television program ever in the United States. About 106.5 million folks tuned in to see the New Orleans Saints battle the Indianapolis Colts—about half a million more than watched the M*A*S*H finale in 1983 (105.97 million).

What should we make of such interest in a game between two teams that hardly hailed from major markets?

Some have speculated that the massive snowstorm on the East Coast may have contributed to the spike in viewership. But I think the numbers are interesting for a couple other, more significant reasons.

In a media world that is increasingly divided into a myriad of niche options for consumers, the Super Bowl seems to be the last man standing. It's a cultural event that transcends race and gender and socioeconomics and politics. It's something that just over a third of our nation watched. And we're still talking about the commercials, if not the game itself. In short, it's a unifying event that's taken on the feel of a national holiday—if not a national religious experience for more ardent fans.

But if the Super Bowl unifies, everything else under the television sun is fragmented—and fragmenting further given the profusion of cable TV offerings, on-demand capability and Internet options. And that makes it very unlikely we'll ever see a network television show serve as a the catalyst for a shared cultural experience like the M*A*S*H finale.

That fact is illustrated by how the nation's biggest sitcoms bowed out, ratings-wise, post M*A*S*H. In 1993, the Cheers finale drew 80.4 million viewers. Fast-forward five years to Seinfeld's final show (about nothing), and 76. 3 million fans tuned in. And Friends? The show's 2004 sign off netted 52.5 million viewers—less than half of M*A*S*H's record.

Now, fewer people watching popular sitcoms isn't anything to cry about. In fact, it might well be worth celebrating, given the content of current comedies such as Two and a Half Men and How I Met Your Mother. But it does illustrate the fact that our cultural common ground when it comes to broadcast entertainment is a far cry from what it once was.

At least, with everything except the Super Bowl.

If you surf any given news site on any given day, you're likely to find some university or scientist that's published the latest research on this, that or the other.

Not all of them are pertinent to what we do here at Plugged In, and not all of them are good. But The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation's recent study on how much youth use media was one of the most significant I've seen in a long time.

The exhaustive study, titled "Generation M²: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds," is the second such study that Kaiser has commissioned. Back in 2005, Kaiser's researchers found that the average person in this age range consumed 6 hours and 21 minutes of media a day. And when they added in multitasking—watching TV while surfing the Net, for example—that figure rose to 8 hours and 33 minutes. That's a lot of time.

So where are things five years later? The introduction to Kaiser's findings puts it this way: "[In 2005], it seemed that young people's lives were filled to the bursting point with media. Today, however, those levels of use have been shattered."

Specifically, the average 8- to 18-year-old now spends 7 hours and 38 minutes a day engaged in media (defined as TV, music, computer/Internet usage, video games, books/magazines/newspapers and movies). Add in multitasking, and the figure rises to a whopping 10 hours and 45 minutes.

How much time per week is that, you ask? Try about 77 hours and 15 minutes. Remarkably, that number does not include talking on cell phones or texting. But Kaiser tabulated those numbers, too, so add another 33 minutes for daily cell phone conversations and another 1 hour and 35 minutes for texting. Where does that put our cumulative media-use total? Would you believe about 90 hours a week?!

Any way you slice it, kids' exposure to media today is incredibly high, and it's only getting higher as mobile and wireless technology increasingly make it possible to watch or listen to anything, anywhere. And though Kaiser's study focuses on youth, other research suggests that media-usage trends among adults are on the uptick as well.

So how much time would you say you spend engaged with these media? How about your kids (if you have them)? On the flip side, what strategies do you employ to discipline your own usage or limit your family's exposure? We'd love to hear from you.

It’s a funny thing how watching movies can give you ideas you might not have had otherwise. Even if, perhaps, you’re old enough to know better.

Take the case of 67-year-old Michael Crane. In November, Crane purchased a remote control airplane from Coastal Hobbies in Rockport, Maine. It was a combined birthday and Christmas present for his grandson, he said.

The plane apparently did not work. And when the doting grandpa took it back to exchange it, he was told that the plane would need to be repaired. The wait time? Indefinite, Crane reports.

When Crane asked if he could get his money back or exchange the plane for another that worked, he was told that those things were against the store’s exchange policies, which were clearly posted throughout the establishment.

Crane left, angry. He went home, in fact, and popped in Clint Eastwood’s 1965 Italian Spaghetti Western A Fistful of Dollars. And that, he claims, inspired what happened next.

Crane returned to the store with an Eastwood-style ultimatum: Give me my money back, give me a new plane … or I’m just going to take one. Punk. (OK, he probably didn’t add that last part). Store owner Kent Woodward was unwilling to comply with options A or B, so Crane made good on option C.

He’s now facing theft charges.

Now, admittedly, this cause-and-effect story is a bit different from the kinds we normally see—stories that generally involve young people imitating risky behavior they’ve seen in a movie, on TV or on YouTube.

But it does illustrate how media can give us ideas that might not have occurred to us—even if the idea comes from a 44-year-old film watched by a 67-year-old grandfather.

So how about you? Have you ever been inspired—for good or ill—to implement some idea or scheme you saw in a movie? What happened and what did you learn (if anything)?

For example, is it normal for three college students—two girls, one guy—to have a simultaneous sexual encounter?

That’s exactly what happened on this week’s episode of CW’s boundary-pushing series Gossip Girl. And some, including the Parents Television Council, believe that depictions of once aberrant behaviors such as these normalizes and mainstreams them—so much so that impressionable viewers, especially teens, might believe that a ménage à trois is simply one acceptable sexual choice among many.

Many in Hollywood would say that anyone watching such a show should automatically know that it’s just a "harmless," campy fantasy. And admittedly, Gossip Girl is campy. But I don’t think I’d ever call it harmless in the way it depicts beautiful, privileged teens and young adults consistently making morally bankrupt choices with few consequences.

For my part, then, I’m pretty sure that shows like these do influence and shape what we consider normal and acceptable.

What do you think?

"I grew up thinking Roe v. Wade was gospel and that a woman’s right to privacy was inviolate. But after hearing that woman on the stand talk about her baby dying in her arms, I don’t know. I don’t know where privacy ends and another person’s dignity begins."

"In its day, Roe v. Wade conformed to what we knew about human life and science. Contraception was limited. Most birth defects were untreatable. Thirty-five years later, birth defects can be corrected. Disabled children are protected by a bill of rights. Contraception of every kind is available. [But] cats and dogs have more rights than the unborn. Roe v. Wade wasn’t written in stone. It could stand another look."

So, are these quotes from: a.) A pro-life pamphlet?

b.) A cable talk show?

c.) An upcoming Christian movie called Hidden Life?

d.) Prosecutors on last week’s episode of NBC’s Law & Order?

Surprise! It’s "d."

Law & Order has a long history of creating fictional storylines (which the producer take pains to point out in a disclaimer before the show) that mirror the headlines of the day. Earlier this year, a late-term abortion provider in Kansas was shot and killed in his church in Wichita. Fast-forward a couple of months, and the scribes behind this popular, long-running legal procedural have crafted a very similar storyline.

Despite the disclaimer, the episode ("Dignity") begins exactly the same way the real-life story did, with a man shooting and killing a late-term abortion provider in church. In the course of bringing him to justice, the episode explores the subject of abortion with surprising sensitivity to the different stances on this issue.

Advocates of the pro-life position often get reduced to fanatical, one-dimensional stereotypes in many portrayals on TV and the big screen. The opposite tends to be true as well: The pro-choice stance is assumed to be the "correct" one. This episode of Law & Order doesn’t do that. It represents the pro-life arguments and convictions with nuance and respect.

"What’s up?" asked pro-life activist Jill Stanek in an article on the pro/con abortion website opposingviews.com. "In a town bent on stirring controversy, does Hollywood now think the pro-life view is in, hot—the new gay? Or perhaps NBC is trying to recoup lost mainstream viewers? Or most likely, since L&O’s previous 2 episodes dealing with abortion slanted way left, this was its attempt at balance? Whatever, I’ll take it."

Me too.

What do you think?

Earlier this week, Oscar-winning actress Nicole Kidman weighed in on whether violence against women on the big screen contributes to violence in the real world.

Quick spoiler: She thinks it does.

Kidman was testifying before a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Development Fund for Women. The subject at hand: violence against women internationally. The actress described such crimes as "perhaps the most systematic, widespread human rights violation in the world."

When asked by a House representative whether she thought the movie industry had "played a bad role" in perpetuating violence against women and whether it treated them as weak "sex objects," Kidman replied, "Probably," and added that she tries to turn down roles that contribute to the problem.

"I get offered roles that often show violence," she said. "I can’t be responsible for all of Hollywood, but I can certainly be responsible for my own career."

Kidman’s admission that movies may contribute to real-world violence is refreshing, especially since many in the film industry disavow any potential connection between onscreen and real-world violence.

In April 2007, for example, Hostel director Eli Roth said, "I’d love to see us get to a point where you can go to theaters and see movies unrated and that people know it’s not real violence. It’s all pretend. It’s all fake. It’s just acting. It’s just magic tricks. Hopefully we’ll get to a point where people realize movies don’t cause violence."

But others in the industry hew closer to Kidman’s point of view. In the wake of the massacre by Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech in 2007, screenwriter Mike White (School of Rock) asked, "Can we really in good conscience conclude that the violence saturating our popular culture has no impact? … Before cashing those big checks, shouldn’t we at least pause to consider what we are saying with our movies about the value of life and the pleasures of mayhem?"

Those questions are especially relevant this time of year, with one graphically violent horror flick after another queuing up for their premieres at your local multiplex in the days leading up to Halloween.

So what think you? Do you think movies contribute to real-world violence? Do they desensitize us in any way when we watch them? Or is it all just gory make-believe that doesn’t have much to do with real life?

Let us know what you think.