All-Purpose Flour

Black Swan: Complex Themes at a Thrilling Pace

2011-01-03T12:30:00.000-08:00

The tendency to strive for perfection in art is not uncommon. While most of us accept that the goal to mold creative endeavors into something flawless is unrealistic, we remain enveloped in a world of self-scrutiny that rejects failure at any level. Natalie Portman’s brilliant performance as ballerina extraordinaire Nina in 2010’s Black Swan demonstrates this taste for impeccable performance while stressing the disproportionate pressures on and politicized positions of women at the same time. Darren Aronofsky’s intense portrait of a young woman lost in the heat of competition and confusion delicately unravels a complex tale of illusion, imperfection and insanity.

Black Swan introduces us to Nina as an athlete with emotional baggage. She is well-disciplined in ballet but lacks confidence and independence. Her mother disrobes her at night and tucks her into bed, reminding us that Nina seems trapped in a perpetual state of innocence and supervision. Her inaudible voice and nervous expressions reveal the extent to which Nina is incapable of articulating what her appetites in life call for.

Nina’s fragile conditions are challenged when she is asked to play the Swan Queen at her ballet studio – a time-consuming and backbreaking role that includes portraying both the Black Swan and White Swan, who respectively represent ideas of evil or good, seduction or submission. This stark dichotomy puts a great deal of pressure on Nina – one that could be conflated with gender binaries routinely followed in several Western societies: a female is both sexually empowered and therefore wicked, or remains virginal and morally commendable.

Breaking out of her comfort zone and into the antithetical part of the Black Swan proves to be more difficult than expected, especially after a new recruit at the ballet studio (Mila Kunis) displays her noticeable (and competitive) talent immediately. Nina’s journey is subsequently dictated by several unsuccessful attempts to leverage this pressure. She seeks sexual fulfillment, forgiveness from the woman whom she'll replace on the stage, detachment from her mother's commands. These intertwined experiences only intensify and result in an emotionally gripping finale that captures the climax of her self-demanding lifestyle as immaculately as Nina wants her ballet to appear.

The most fascinating aspect of this entire movie is, again, its ability to implement complicated notions based on feminist discourse remarkably well. Nina’s experiences tend to parallel what critics of patriarchal constructs have been documenting and dissecting for decades: self-mutilation as seen through Nina’s habitual scratching at night; the denial of female pleasure in the form of masturbation and satiable sexual appetites; the politicized role of motherhood in relation to childbirth and careers; the fight for power in a world of male-domination that pins girl against girl.

Nina’s inability to cope with such circumstances while being simultaneously expected to depict the contrast of purity and impurity on stage leads to tragic aftermath. She is victimized by the world around her and although it could be argued that this renders her weak, Nina’s life is the consequence of systematic disempowerment. She isn’t just crazy, as the previews might want us to believe. Sobering and enthralling, Black Swan illustrates the convoluted anxieties within women that stem from impossible standards of an oppressive nature. Nina isn’t the only female character to exhibit these attributes. In fact, the only person who seems self-assured and painfully unaware of what is going on throughout the film is Nina’s male ballet instructor who wields his influence through sexual and emotional exploitation of the women around him.

Black Swan may not need to be interpreted as a recognizable product of gender theory and feminist critique, but I would label it as such without question. Its immersive environment and explicit connections between female characters shows us something deeper than some “insane ballerina piece” or “psychosexual thriller;” it unearths an incredibly complex and important perspective of systemic issues involving the lives of women that the globalized community has yet to fully address.

The Language of Truth

2010-08-16T19:49:00.000-07:00

Whether you’ve tuned in to NPR on your drive home from work or surfed through the wave of corporate media on TV, you’ve probably heard about this whole “Ground Zero Mosque” scandal.

The conflict has polarized Americans in the mist of an already heated midterm election year, galvanizing Tea Party candidates, and even some incumbent Democrats, to denounce the construction of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan. The building, called Park 51, is funded by the Cordoba Initative, a group that aims to bridge relations between the Muslim and Western worlds in an attempt to foster peace, understanding and acceptance.

Ironically, the group’s mission to eradicate stereotypes and promote intercultural growth has generated a wave of unspeakably cruel anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments across the country. U.S. citizens have demanded the center be moved somewhere else to respect those who were killed on 9/11 “in the name of Islam,” a decidedly false claim. The architects of 9/11 planned their attack as an unequivocal response to foreign policy and American hubris. This goes without question given the overwhelming evidence:

Osama bin Laden threatened Americans for years before the 9/11 attacks, criticizing our military presence in the Middle East and perhaps most notably, our unconditional relationship with the state of Israel – a diplomatic stance that many Arabs believe has compromised our ability to facilitate any legitimate peace processes between Israel and Palestine. Of course, none of this very accessible, very well documented history is imprinted in our historical memory, with U.S. citizens still using “al-Qaeda” and “Taliban” interchangeably.

As a result, a huge slice of our country still believes Islam inspired the attacks, rebranding the religion that dates back thousands of years as a modern product of Middle East barbarism – one that threatens the lives of Americans and hates us “for our freedoms,” to quote former Imperialist-in-Chief George W. Bush.

But what angers me the most about this entire debacle is the language used to guide our thinking: Ground Zero Mosque.

The phrase remains unquestioned by most media outlets and pundits, whether they openly support or disavow the center. But nothing about this besmirched structure relates to the name it’s been given.

The building is not a mosque; it’s an Islamic community center. And while areas for worship are certainly included in the blueprints, the building is meant to house and support individuals interested in learning about the Islamic community and how they, as non-Muslim Westerners or otherwise, can find common ground.

Calling it a “mosque” engenders a mass misconception of what is really being fought for, especially considering the presupposed pigeonholing Americans already engage in against Islam. The word mosque is understood as an exclusively Muslim construction – one that is an adjunct to Islam. We don’t see this as a community center whose goals include solidarity for a free and loving nation.

More specifically, the geographic relevance of this building is equally trivialized and manipulated through emotional connotation. By prefixing the already incorrect “mosque” with “ground zero,” we encourage ourselves to displace the building from its actual location (two blocks away from the original WTC); suddenly this so-called "ground zero mosque" is at the same place where 9/11 rescue workers once stood and Americans perished (including many Muslim- and Arab-Americans).

Referencing the site as a construction “on”,” “in,” or “right by” ground zero, none of which are true, compels us to judge the proponents of the center as insensitive attention-grabbers. Why build it at ground zero? There are many other locations, aren't there, we ask? "Come on," was the thoughtful argument of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA).

However, this building is being built a few blocks from ground zero, not on it. And the geography is irrelevant, anyhow. Mosques are being built in rural Tennessee and the west coast, and they have received as much scrutiny and resulted in as much impassioned bigotry as their NYC counterpart. Clearly, there are stronger roots to dig out here, and they aren’t connected to a specific location.

In the end, you’re allowed to decide whether or not this Islamic community center is an acceptable risk. I believe those who are fighting for the building know they have to put themselves in such a dangerous position with sound preparation. The discrimination against Muslims takes place invariably all across the country, and is not inextricably linked to New York.

Therefore, Muslim- and Arab-Americans may realize they require the support of those who understand their right to exercise the first amendment. This challenging goal may have been inconceivable had they kept their “mosque”-building efforts in the Mid-West, where hatred was abundant but extensive support was scarce. I have to give the Cordoba Initiative credit for trying to gain as much help as possible, albeit in order to do so they had to pursue a controversial undertaking that has exacerbated and amplified the irrational hatred and ignorance of many Americans.

Again, you make the call on what you think this construction means or whether it’s fitting. But calling it the “ground zero mosque” is a misappropriation of language. This phrase yields nothing but extremely unsophisticated and uneducated notions of what the group behind it hopes to achieve, and what’s actually being built in the first place. This is not a “ground zero mosque” proposed to disrespect those who were lost in the name of insidiously crafted foreign policy. This is a significant opportunity for Americans to admit their prejudices and collaborate with Muslim- and Arab-Americans on the ways in which they can cultivate a stronger community within the U.S. and around the world.

On Strangers & Stereotypes

2010-07-30T13:50:00.000-07:00

The other day, one of my favorite aunts (an unapologetically sarcastic woman who once told me to “shake my titties” while dancing to Shakira at my sister’s wedding) took me on a pleasant drive to Denver, where she dropped me off at the light rail station before I headed off to my internship.

During our 20-minute-long journey, we managed to cover an array of subjects not uncommon for a dialogue between two members of the Zivalich clan: Grandma Z. and her grumpy yet charming demeanor, the weather of Colorado and its predictable inability to follow any kind of meteorological patterns, and more.

Perhaps the most intriguing topic on which we elaborated, however, was my aunt’s younger nephew who is developmentally disabled and lives on his own in subsidized housing, working for a “go-green” recycling company that pursues sustainable waste initiatives.

My aunt discussed extensively the kind of struggles her nephew went through, including his parents who abandoned most of the challenging responsibilities that came with raising a child with mental disabilities. By the time our short conversation ended, my aunt concluded with deep sympathy for her nephew and his current living situation.

“It’s not his fault,” she admitted. “He didn’t have enough support.” While her nephew is doing well now, my aunt knew that the obstacles he had to face would have been alleviated or eradicated completely in some cases if he had a stronger network of helping hands.

I nodded in agreement and we both acknowledged that at least with the support her nephew has now, he has a future brighter than many other developmentally disabled individuals in this country. My aunt even expressed her discontent with the fact that many people with mental challenges end up homeless in incessant poverty, which interestingly enough signaled the end of our poignant discussion.

Less than ten minutes later, as she prepared to drop me off at the RTD station, we both noticed a homeless man with a sign by the intersection, asking for money to buy food. The sign noted that he was “recently homeless.”

“Yeah right, buddy,” my aunt sneered, “from the looks of it, you’ve been homeless a looong time.”

Although my aunt did not explicitly reference any displeasure with this particular man, her tone came off as condescending and disdainful; she seemed to express an opinion, albeit perhaps subtle, that ignored this man’s unknown personal history. She laughed off his sign as if it were so obviously outrageous.

True, she did not engage in a tireless rant about “personal responsibility” or anything of the sort, but she seemed to disregard the homeless person as a human with legitimate concerns and in need of assistance. This happened despite the fact that we had recently wrapped up a conversation on her nephew and how many individuals with needs akin to his end up poor and often homeless when they are left without a fortified support system.

This incident made me question the way we treat others with respect to outside perspectives. In our personal world of tight relationships and collections of memories, it is easy to disown the stereotypes, disassemble the glaring judgment society may cast down upon the people in our lives, because we know the people with whom we interact well enough to reject such trivializations. When someone touches our lives, they remain with us forever (as cheesy as that sounds), and so, as in the case with my aunt’s nephew, she was able reconcile her previous understandings of how people may end up in poverty-stricken cycles. She knew people like her nephew were out there, and how difficult it was for him to make it to where he was–with the unwavering support of my aunt and uncle.

Yet all of her gradually completed steps to personal enlightenment seemed to fly out the window when it came to this homeless man on a street – a man about whom we knew nothing. Again, she mocked his sign, his physical appearance. He was nothing but another bum.

But how could my aunt criticize this homeless man? She immediately discredited his sign, yet did she ever ask him if he ever had support? Why did he end up on the streets of Denver, recently or ten years ago? How did someone whose life, in some ways, may have been comparable to the harsh reality her nephew survived, become an external afterthought – a person who we could jokingly critique as if we had the authority to evaluate them however we pleased?

My conclusion is a complex one: I wonder why we sacrifice our sympathy, respect and understanding of friends and loved ones when it comes to strangers and unfamiliar community members. As people who collaboratively sew the fabric of this nation’s culture, I think we need to be able to accept that the personal is not only political, but applicable, too. When we break traditionally cemented conceptualizations of what a person’s life might be like because of a trait or circumstance – be it socioeconomic status, race, sexuality, whatever – we never apply that experience to the unfamiliar.

We know that we can never fully understand the life of another person, but how can we render their experiences worthless or irrelevant, when we haven’t met them, haven’t asked them questions? They could be coming from the same page as someone you know, relatively speaking. And whether or not they are, if you didn’t know them personally, does that mean their life is not worth the challenge? Could you muster up the the reconciliation you may have achieved in order to accept a relationship or friendship that confronted preconceived notions or culturally-embedded labels for a complete "stranger?"

You tell me.

GOP: Gender Orientation in the Primaries

2010-07-23T13:42:00.000-07:00

The corporate-sponsored game of political campaigning for mainstream party candidates has always been a rough-and-tumble process. Ad hominem one-liners and manipulated information are coupled with black-and-white imagery to paint an opponent unfavorably while conveniently eclipsing any real critique or understanding of their policies and experiences.

When Colorado Republicans select a candidate for their party’s senatorial ticket on the August 10th primaries, however, the question isn’t your usual “how ugly is the campaigning,” but rather, “how man enough is Ken Buck?”

According to his conservative competitor Jane Norton, the most questionable characteristic worth our scrutiny has nothing to do with politics, leadership or policy: Masculinity is the trait in doubt.

Norton’s now locally infamous campaign admonishes Ken Buck for allowing a “shady” interest group to do his bidding against Norton in campaign advertisements. “You’d think Ken Buck would be man enough to do it himself,” she scoffs.

The claim is a disturbing reinforcement of the cultural notion that men and women must behave in certain ways, and that men more specifically require an ambiguous level of “enough” manly behavior to qualify as “real” or “authentic.”

Not only does this gender association in political campaigns strengthen the division between "acceptable" politics for male or female candidates; it also distracts us from what’s really going on, anyhow.

Like racial bias and culture wars, normalizing particular attributes as “manly” ones aids the effort to blind politically disengaged U.S. citizens from the transparent connection between people like Buck and Norton, whose commitments to capitalist orthodoxy and limited social safety nets more accurately describe their political efforts and how they will be translated in Washington – certainly more than “man enough” endeavors. Let’s be honest, there are important issues in the upcoming election – issues that take precedence over this kind of childish quarreling.

We should, in fact, condemn Norton’s accurate statement that she reduced spending while working for the Health Department – including cuts to Planned Parenthood, effectively curbing the necessary funds for free or inexpensive breast cancer examinations.

Additionally, Coloradoans should ask all politicians in Washington why hardly anybody is advocating for cuts to military spending – the massively over-funded recipient of our government’s discretionary income that comes with a $693 billion dollar price tag to fund and exacerbate three unjustified, inhumane wars in

Iraq

Afghanistan

and

Pakistan

Unfortunately, instead of examining these very real, very important issues, Coloradoans are afforded nothing but petty bullying in the name of “being a man.”

It is this need to polarize and define behaviors and objectives by gender, and then unabashedly hold individuals accountable if their own conduct does not match predetermined molds of gender, that upsets me the most.

Norton does not criticize Buck for certain policies because they are products of corporate control, explicit inattention to social impact, or other reasons to render a decision bad.

Buck has failed in Norton’s eyes because he wasn’t “man enough.”

As a result, the Norton-Buck debate conveys the message that our gender can be inadequate. Men might not meet the standards of masculinity and when that inability shifts to the political realm, we are subjected to yet another form of cultural coercion – one that entices us to judge men on a spectrum of masculinity, rewarding those who make it to the top.

Never mind that this entire debacle on who fulfilled what gender fate disillusions us from the impending conflicts and current devastations in our disastrous economic and political systems. Or that it doesn’t even include women in the equation and consequently assumes male power is the only potent and useful kind in the world of Congressional character.

Please, bring democracy back to the forefront of political debate and inform your fellow citizens that in order to find candidates representative of our ideas, values, ideologies, opinions and political sentiments, we should be focusing our energy on something else – something that isn’t indicative of Ken Buck’s “manhood,” as if the elusive concept is something we can calculate or discredit after watching a few minutes of mudslinging.

Sex and the Muslim City: A Review

2010-06-02T22:33:00.000-07:00

New York’s favorite four women of upper-class privilege and material indulgence have returned for a second helping of licentious adventures in romance, traveling and unforgiving product placement in "Sex and the City 2," the latest movie based off the popular HBO series.

In the sequel to 2008’s blockbuster hit, Samantha (played by the eternally fabulous Kim Catrall) takes her gal pals on an all-expenses paid trip to Abu Dhabi to pursue a job offer in the growing UAE hotel industry. Throughout their trip to what Samantha questionably dubs “The New Middle East,” the ladies of Manhattan embark on a mildly enjoyable romp complete with cultural insensitivities, hints at the superiority of Western-White Feminism and, of course, plenty of puns and sex.

Once the quartet of friends arrives in Abu Dhabi, they are luxuriously spoiled by the nation’s finest hotel. Although this is not necessarily new to a show that's always told one socioeconomic narrative of women's lives, it isn’t much of a plot, either.

Most of the movie simply showcases the girls’ extravagant stay at the opulent and highly exoticized hotel. As guests, they barely attempt to learn about the UAE or its culture (other than Miranda, who seems to only do so to gratify her rigid, type-A personality), and prefer to eat fancy breakfasts and shop to maximize some kind of tourist self-fulfillment. As a result, the stereotypical idea that all Americans (particularly American women) are greedy shopaholics and cultural imperialists whose main ambitions include material comfort and familiarity is only strengthened and reinforced.

Furthermore, when the girls aren’t relaxing at the hotel’s pool or calling for their individually assigned butlers, they are often mocking the Muslim culture for comedic effect. Samantha, while told several times by Miranda to wear less revealing clothing and discuss sexual matters less explicitly, continues to flaunt her understanding of what is appropriate behavior without even considering the cultural barriers she has crossed. She constantly forgets to cover her cleavage, makes out with a man in public, and even stares at a woman eating French fries under her veil as if she has found the most unusual animal at the zoo. In general, she flat out ignores the cultural norms of her current home of hospitality.

The other women of the Empire State don’t seem to fare much better. At one point, while having a discussion about why men are intimated by powerful women in the U.S., Miranda claims American men “want us eating French fries under our clothing, too,” rendering the Muslim culture inferior. None of the film’s stars recognize, at least not legitimately and respectfully, the cultural importance of maintaining a private sexuality in the Muslim world. Even when cautioning Samantha for her inexcusable ignorance, the group seems to collectively assume that Muslim women are, comparatively speaking, less free.

True, later in the film the ladies meet a bunch of Muslim women who reveal their beautiful clothing underneath their religious attire, providing them an opportunity to admire, not condemn, these women of another culture. However, instead of trying to understand why Muslim women wear such clothing and what that might mean for their multiple cultural identities, Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte gawk foolishly and are suddenly able to relate via similar interests for high fashion and Suzanne Sommer’s literature on menopause (the Muslim women seem to really like the same things as them; they just kept them hidden). It’s as if the movie’s conveys a message of the Westerner in all of us – particularly in women – just itching to get out and breathe that “freedom.”

Eventually, in a painful-to-watch performance, this inability to cross-culturally communicate culminates in Samantha throwing a handful of condoms up in the air at an Arab market during the call to prayer when her bag breaks and screaming “I HAVE SEX” at the top of her uneducated lungs.

Unfortunately the worst part about this scene isn’t that Samantha has yet to be punished for her outrageous behavior; she’s subsequently kicked out of the hotel. Samantha seems to have paid for her indelible insensitivity. No, the worst part is that when the film employs such methods of cultural ignorance as tools of humor, the significance of each character’s Americanized and Westernized stupidity is lost almost entirely.

In the end, "Sex and the City 2" is like most sequels out there – much worse than its predecessor. In addition to focusing on glamour and visual eye candy rather than story structure or character development, the movie seems to equate a complete disregard for cultural constructs of femininity, feminism and female sexuality with humorous misunderstandings and silly mistakes.

"Help" for Haiti

2010-02-21T06:55:00.001-08:00

More than a dozen celebrities – musicians of all types, shapes and genres – came together recently to recreate Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie’s famous song “We are the World." The emotionally charged ditty was written several years ago as a collaborative effort among superstars in the music business to funnel money into “Africa.”

Now, the sequel version (same title; different people) has been utilized to inject feelings of hope and goodwill into wealthier nations in the spirit of “helping” Haiti, the small Caribbean nation that was destroyed by a devastating earthquake in January (Translation: apparently we saved “Africa” so let’s move on to our next victim of unquestioned, unconditional charity).

At this point, you may be wondering why I use quotations for words with which we are all familiar and do not often render controversial, such as “Africa” and “to help.”

Firstly, Africa is an entirely separate story on its own, but to summarize quickly, I find it disturbing when we talk about one of the largest, most diverse, culturally pluralistic continents in this world as one homogenized place – a mass of land where we assume one form of lifestyle takes place in a particularly specific fashion and all governments are inherently corrupt as citizens wallow in self-pity and poverty. Trust me, that is a very different, much longer, even more complex narrative – one I’m still trying to figure out myself. So that’s for another time.

Let’s get back to that second, more loaded word: help. What does it mean to help? Does a song that yearns to connect us to the rest of the world truly afford the full perspective we need to understand Haiti’s current situation? Can we even entirely fathom the Haitian experience without the cultural and political tools necessary to access authentic comprehension?

Well, no, we can’t. However, even if we cannot holistically witness the devastation, damage and outright horror Haiti’s inhabitants incurred, we can try to understand – and critique – our own nation’s response to the “natural” disaster.

Historically speaking, we should have learned by now that intrusive invasions, even if supposedly welcomed for “humanitarian” relief, are often capable of exacerbating intact conflicts and do not often operate in the most reasonable manner.

In fact, the whole concept that Haiti needs us (U.S.) to help rebuild and revitalize an area that was mostly economically and culturally marginalized to such an extent because of wealthier nations’ exportation of capitalism and “democracy” is dauntingly overwhelming and hedonistic, to say the least.

Why is that every time a disaster occurs in a country, we find it our duty to lead a helping hand? Is alleged altruism as noble as we often perceive it? What’s morally obligatory about aid dependency and red-tape soaked non-profit groups that promote the title of their organization over efficient assistance?

The answer lies in the way in which we perceive ourselves. While we sing songs of hope and shove three wrinkled $50 bills into an envelope, we relax with a sense of self-imposed happiness. We feel we have made a difference, helped the Other who has had a less fortunate time than we have had. Truthfully, we have experienced sadistic sentiments at their most cleverly subtle stage.

In other, less dramatic words, rather than allowing Haiti to grow internally and proactively, and to take advantage of this undesirable situation as a means to increase national growth and a spirit of local ownership, the United States and America-friendly countries invade with medical supplies and nonperishable food items to maintain some false sense of heroism and eradicate any opportunities for Haitians to self-govern development, change and sustainable management.

Furthermore, do we really think our generous donations are going to supplant the economic framework necessary for survival in the modernized world (albeit it a negative reality, in my opinion)?

Understandably, Haiti needs help. But didn’t it before an earthquake with the magnitude of a giant? News reports from corporate media networks like CNN continue to emphasize that Haiti was one of the poorest countries in the Caribbean.

However, I have two responses to such guilt-trip techniques:

A) The perspective of what constitutes a weak economy is only established and supported by Western economic theories that pervade the globe.

B) Haiti needed the same supplies and items we’re gushing to provide immediately before now, so

What’s the difference?

The difference is we discovered Haiti for a moment. The news graced us with coverage of a nation that we typically wouldn’t otherwise recognize because its economic contributions to the globalized world are minimal, and we temporarily acknowledged it as a salient issue among all fractions of government, culture and human beings themselves.

In truth, you probably don’t really care about Haiti. Your money probably won’t do much of anything under the conditions of economic and global constructions preventing Haiti from the kind of stance you may imagine it has in store for the future. Until economic motivations and applications are re-rooted, Haiti will remain in its current place - absent from the maps in our self-designed geographic perspectives, voiceless in global politics, less useful in an extensive and expanded capitalist society than other nations, and low on our list of priorities.

Today, Haiti is still in ruins of all kinds, and although some of us may feign interest to support our façade of a caring nature, most of us have moved on to Tiger Wood’s licentious addictions, plane crashes in Austin for which the media has refrained from using the word "terrorism" because the perpetrator is white and non-Muslim, and health care summits where the ever-dualistic Democratic and Republican parties can debate an issue they will never resolve with necessary, concrete action.

Thus, my last question (I know, I have many but I've never understood the rhetorical taboo behind a plethora of questions) stems from the end of this song - “We are the World” – the last few lines, which are repeated, include: “Haiti needs us. They need us. They need us.”

Do they?

Terrorable Coverage

2010-01-13T23:17:00.000-08:00

Predictably, the mainstream media continues its characteristic commitment to the two-week-long coverage of one story, rarely offering dynamic and diverse insight or analysis. This time around, the focus seems to be on Umar AbdulMutallab, the young Nigerian man who allegedly attempted to blow up a plane during the Christmas season, and what the Department of Homeland Security has done (or did not do well enough) to protect Americans from similar incidents.

Yes, from the tax-hating, third-rate sarcasam of FOX's staunch conservatives to Rachel Maddow's every witty, ever-liberal stabs at anything anti-Obama, news correspondents and analyzers will not shut up about conterterrorism and what our president has to say on the subject.

But in all honesty, are any of them - or any of us, for that matter - really saying what we need to be saying? How productive do we think we are by expressing the same sentiments, the same dualistic approaches to debate over and over and over again until our mouths quit in exhaustion?

Here's the scoop, as I see it: terrorism, at least, the terrorism we're taught to fear and label here in the United States, is one of the few items in this world still manufactured by Americans.

As I've repeated before, supported by the writings, ideas and arguments of several authors, professors and other individuals who have influenced me, the U.S. can often be held partially responsible for the terrorist attacks it has endured in recent history.

On top of the United States' role in cultivating terrorism, we often react to threats from a well-rehearsed, limited perspective. Every time a potential terrorist threat develops, U.S. citizens, including those covering the news, rely on recycled arguments that typically render tighter security, a greater presence in foreign countries, and the adominshment of either the Republican or Democratic Party (depending on which is the majority in Congress) as appropriate methods toward the reduction and eventual eradication of terrorist attacks.

Of course, it never seems to cross the minds of those who are involved to question the roots of these issues. Rather than trying to figure out why an individual might join al-Qaeda or why an organization such as al-Shabaab emerges and matures in numbers as often and successfully as it does, we adhere to the time-honored falsehood that additional regulation or protection suffices, ignoring what ignites and inspires terrorists in the first place.

And oh yes, aren't we comfortable identifying people as terrorists, albeit their personal circumstances, backgrounds, and motivations may differ profoundly? As Americans seem to see it, terorrists are terrorists, and nothing more - a dangerously pervasive mentality that avoids all other factors and undermines the situation in discussion entirely.

Simultaneously we are inefficient and uncomfortable in discovering the roots of terrorism or how those in charge of the country can begin to replant these roots in foreign policy and international relations. Labeling triumphs learning.

Color-coordinated warnings that indicate levels of potential terrorism, a new person to facilitate security measures, or any other superficial, temprorary modification is not going to convince anyone with strong convictions against America's imperliaistic challenges to turn the other cheek.

It may seem like an idealistic rant, but I wholeheartedly believe what I am writing speaks to some truth. People do not attack the U.S. because our security is not as adept as possible. They attack us for their reasons - reasons to which we do not dedicate enough time and energy into understanding. If we did invest more in the origins of terrorism and anti-Americanism across the globe, our endeavors would likely yield more positive relationships between cultures, countries, and citizens alike.

True, I'm not the most fruitful person myself; I can't change the United States' monstrous behavior with a single blog post. However, I am documenting this not only because it is something for which I am incredibly passionate, but also because I would like to remember how angry, upset, and hurt I am by my country. Perhaps it will serve as a future incentive to galvanize my own politically charged self and do something about this when I have access to the same resources, or at least the valuable help, that many politicians and newsgathering persons do have today and refuse to proactively utilize for the benefit of our national and global communities.

Avatar - Great Film, Controversial Themes on Cross-Cultural Communication

2010-01-06T15:28:00.000-08:00

After posting a criticism on the sexist, undeserving Box Office champion from last November known as New Moon, I realized how much I really missed writing film reviews.

Not only that, but I also never really realized how much more meaningful and personal film reviews can be when I write them in a context beyond the scope of plot or essential filmmaking qualities. New Moon's impeccable parallel to the problems with anti-Feminst rhetoric today helped me understand the film on a deeper level - as something that exists not only as one small piece of a mass media puzzle, but also as an indicator of cultural values and tensions.

Accordingly, I have revisisted the same process with the most recent blockbuster toward which I contributed nine bucks: Avatar, James Cameron's latest indulgence in visual effects and action-packed romance.

Avatar generally emulates the plot structure of films about cultures of "The Other," like Disney's Pocohantus: culture with bad intentions invades Other culture that wasn't doing anyhing to them. Boy from culture with bad intentions meets girl from Other culture. Boy learns from this more exoticized, "spiritual," nature-worshipping culture about life. Boy and girl fall in love. Cultural interactions end in tragedy and death for many, with a fairy tale ending for some.

Quite frankly, Avatar is, as most seem to have agreed, an excellent film. It is well paced, hypnotically alluring (with or without the immersive 3-D atmosphere) and overall, successful in its ability to entertain spectators.

However, in addition to talented editing and astonshing technology, there are bundles of profoundly relevant themes one could take away from Avatar that its well-endowed budget could not provide.

Avatar demonstrates how universally destructive interactions with cultures can be. Although many have argued the film illustrates a redundant and recycled theme with no original interpretation, Avatar manages to refresh us with ideas that are so significant, we cannot ignore them.

No, I'm not referring to any war in a distant country in which our nation has diplomatically, economically, and militarily invested. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do indeed exemplify the types of situations to which Avatar alludes; however, they do not afford the full picture of what Cameron's story truly symbolizes.

The scientists in the film who attempt to mimic a culture through physical avatars is equally representative of the problematic ways in which countries invade other areas of the globe without a conscious effort to preserve, understand, or respect the cultures they are studying.

These scientists, portrayed as protaganists, or at the very least, as foils to the antithetically depicted military personell, are just as guilty as their myopic foes, but seem to go unpunished and act unrealized. Why is the military, with their guns and political inferences, painted with such patently nefarious motivations, when their counterparts in the film - scientists encouraging the trivialization of an entire culture by recreating its members' physical apperances - are reduced to a neutral state at which they are neither the heroes nor villains? Don't the scientists require a moral obligation to review their actions, too? Interactions that operate under assumptions of cultural hubris or the "right to study" do not exist within some heirarchy of ethical standards; an invasion is an invasion, whether it's with test tubes or bullets.

To be fair, I think the movie is worth seeing. Still, I do think it's interesting how Avatar incorporates real global issues into its nearly three-hour-long span while escaping some valuable critiques on human history and international relations. So-called "humanitarians" and "peace-keeping" scientists of exorbitantly wealthy nations that lead experiements and research in foreign lands are sometimes brutually unwelcomed and can dismantle cultures as effectively and efficiently as any military or greedy corporation.

Overall, Avatar is a fantastic film. As I said, it strictly follows guidelines for great filmmaking and does not seem to fail in any explicit way. Nevertheless because the cultural understandings and subtle implications of films' conclusions are often left unnoticed, we cannot hold Cameron or the film itself fully accountable for its failure to develop and criticize discourse on cross-cultural communication. It's a part of an extensively muted dialouge, which is why I am pointing it out to you today.

My First Twilight

2009-11-20T21:55:00.000-08:00

**warning: spoiler**

**p.s. it won't enhance the film if you don't know the ending already**

After months of hearing screaming tweenfans and mothers who live vicariously through their daughters’ lives gab on and on about this Edward Cullen and his “liquid topaz eyes,” I finally bit the cinematic bullet and lost my Twilight virginity the other night.

Rather than reading any of the surprisingly thick novels by Stephanie Meyer or pre-gaming by watching the first book-to-film adaptation , Twilight, I decided to go in full-force without any background knowledge and accompanied a few friends to the midnight premiere of what is sure to be another MTV Movie Award contender, New Moon.

I have to say, I’m not sure if I knew what I was in for. I mean, yes, I knew I wanted to write a review on New Moon beforehand, but that’s simply because I love writing reviews and hadn’t done one in some time.

And I knew it wasn’t going to necessarily be a great movie. Its target audience is mostly composed of boy-crazed schoolgirls who haven’t experienced the realities and pleasures of either a) real romance or b) quality filmmaking.

Accordingly, I’m not here today to write a review about the inevitable failures of New Moon as far as guidelines for great movies are concerned. Let’s face it, New Moon doesn’t have much to offer, cinematically speaking: wooden dialogue, a questionable soundtrack, even more questionable full circle camera rotations, and acting that would make most porn stars realize if there’s always someone better than you in the world, there’s definitely also someone far, far worse.

No, I knew (even though I hate to say that with such snarky confidence) that New Moon would not be a great film. But I had no idea how powerfully dangerous its message to the thousands of girls (and boys) absorbing every piece of lame vampire lust really would be.

What exactly is that message? Oh, it’s quite clear: women need men.

I hate to hoist myself up on another feminist soapbox (see my Lady Gaga analysis, if interested), but then again, I don’t think I’m doing just that. New Moon isn’t bad for women because of some underlying theme involving feminist theory or symbolic castration. New Moon just tells girls it’s okay to be stupid, plain and simple.

Bella (played by Kristen Stewart , whose facial expressions suggest a serious need of some good Laxatives) is dumped by her vampire boyfriend and spends most of the movie moping around, claiming her life is empty without him.

That’s fine and dandy if she were a complex being who would develop throughout stages in life and realize the positive and negative implications of this life-changing situation. But that’s not what Bella does.

She cries. She screams. She cries and screams simultaneously (her only discernable talent). She finds herself chasing dangerous situations to catch a glimpse of her beloved Edward. You know, the usual.

True, she finds a substitute in the form of the tantalizing Jacob (Taylor Lautner ) to help forget about Mr. Cullen for a moment, but as soon as her true love tricks her stupid little mind into an impromptu trip to Europe to save him, she’s all about the blood-sucking boyfriend again. Forget the abs.

Bella isn’t a deep character. She only thinks about the men in her life, mostly referring to Edward. They all claim to be dangerous, but she doesn’t care. She needs them. They save her when in trouble, which is often, since she’s portrayed as one of the dumbest, most pathetic females to ever grace the screen (keep in mind, she’s pretty much the only leading female we and dozens upon dozens of adoring fans still forming an ability to consciously analyze media and art see throughout the unbearable and often laughable two hours of New Moon).

At one point, Bella is almost killed by a dreadlock-sporting vampire who finds her chillin’ in the massive woods of Washington State one afternoon. She seems to accept his impending attack and whispers, “I love you Edward” before what she thinks will be her death (before wolf man saves the day).

Seriously? Her last words were about Edward – her man? Her monotone knight in pale-skinned armor?

Please, someone find me an example of Bella making a self-governed decision, discovering her true self, or functioning in some positive way without one of her two men? You will search for a long time, my friends.

Bella is the epitome of the helpless damsel in distress, except she seems to be accepted by Twilight fans as a heroine, an idol. Despite her idiocy, dependency on men, and overall rejection of self-awareness and introspective capabilities, Bella is the character whose fans across the country (including their big sister and mother) perceive as the main character caught in a very difficult battle for romance, when in fact, she's battling much more than a boyfriend who glitters in the sun (Meyer's "brilliant" contribution to the realm of vampire culture).

What a scary, scary reality.

Don’t watch this movie for its utter lack of any real entertainment value. Avoid and criticize it for its potential ability to impact individuals – particularly women – in such a negative light. Let’s look it at it from a more holistic perspective and realize that movies aren’t always just bad or good, smart or stupid. Sometimes, they’re just an omen for continual pressures and traditional convictions of limited confidence for female individuals across the country.

Perspective: Five Ways in which “Bad Romance” is Good Feminism.

2009-11-10T20:44:00.000-08:00

Lady Gaga is, above all else, an artist. After all, art is interpretive, representative of specific cultural contexts, and idiosyncratically constructed (at least, from my perspective – another aspect of the way in which art operates).

And because Lady Gaga, an enigmatic, fashionably conscious, and considerably intimidating performer of the most sexualized, individualized, and glamorized power known to the world of pop culture, it is no surprise that her recent video for “Bad Romance” (the first single off her widely anticipated album of only eight new songs, The Fame Monster), was dramatically unique.

However, what I found most interesting in Gaga’s video – perhaps a conclusion inspired by my recent studies in the field of socially constructed and influenced genders, sexes, and desires – was the frequent incorporation of feminist-related concepts used to tell a compelling narrative in which females are submissive unless able to destroy the dominance of men.

As an advocate for gender equality and self-declared feminist, I rather enjoyed this potential foundation for her theatrical display of music. Here are the five ways from which I determined Lady Gaga’s own brand of feminist theory:

The differentiation in colors and clothing. Throughout the video, Lady Gaga’s wardrobe – ranging from practically nothing to a full piece body suite that leaves almost everything to the imagination – provides insight to feminine traits. At the beginning, when she is the most submissive toward males (performing for them, blind to the world) she wears white, a symbolic color of weddings, marriages, and the ultimate form of historical female subservience: the adjoining of man and property. When discussing her desires or avoiding such matters, she wears black, red, or sexualized outfits that do not hide her, blind her, or color her married.
The narrative itself. One could argue that women (and men) are often born with this lack of true vision - an ability to see what they are really being set up to achieve (for females, typically male pleasure), as illustrated through the emergence of the blinded, white-covered women in the beginning. Then, Lady Gaga is kidnapped by two females, both of whom are wearing fairly but less so than previously conservative, white clothing, to perform for a group of highly masculinized, often shirtless men. She appears weary at first, but is forced into the performance, for which she submits to male pleasure and attempts to arouse them.
The song is called “Bad Romance.” Lady Gaga repeats her desires, which often contradict on an astronomical level: she needs his ugly and disease, his fire; she needs all that is bad and good from him, yet this contributes the fact that any the relationship is a “bad romance.” This could be interpreted as the pervasive types of relationships infecting mostly heterosexuals today – one in which males dominate and females accept all that is male, or forgivable, accepting a bad romance, without which, they would not be able to survive in the patriarchal society controlling relationships globally.
The death scene. Lady Gaga kills the man with fire that spurts from her breasts – a symbolic representation of femininity and women. Breasts are used to make women attractive in many societies, represent one of the key difference in reproductive capacities that separate women from men, and in general, are the most desired, socially encouraged physical manifestation of chauvinistic lust. It makes sense that this ultimate metaphor for the treatment of women transforms into a weapon against the masculine regime.
“I’m a free bitch, baby” This line, often repeated explicitly and subtly throughout the song, is another way to comprehend feminist-based ideas. Bitch is one of the most common terms for a woman who fails to succumb to “weak” feminine behavior and carries herself in a masculine manner. By saying she’s a free bitch, which is originally muffled in the beginning and directly loud and clear later, allows Lady Gaga to access the language and empower herself. She is free from the world of patriarchy - she is different, eventually resistant to oppressive powers.

In essence, am I overanalyzing and giving Lady Gaga too much credit for which Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Andrea Dworkin would have my head? Possibly. But I see real potential here for a critique on masculinity, patriarchal society, and the absence of a feminist voice. And whether or not you believe I've reached my capacity for over-the-top-and-beyond thoughts, at least remember this:

Songs, no matter how dense, ridiculous, brilliant, or old, should never be taken only at face-value. Music, whether solely an extension of capitalism or locally charged entertainment, is an important element of culture and should always be explored, debated, and interpreted.

Conflict of Interest.

2009-10-23T14:59:00.000-07:00

I came to Ithaca College, essentially, for the Roy H. Park School of Communications - a prestigious institution of higher education that promised an up-to-date, pre-professional education in all forms of journalism.

And unfortunately, that's what I got. However, I never realized what I really wanted or needed as an individual, academically, socially, and personally speaking, before I came to college, so I wasn't aware of this less-than-preferable circumstance of which I am now in the midst.

The Park School caters to modern standards of journalism which, given the current construction of economics and culture, tend to manifest as corporate-supported media - a kind of commercialized way to tell the news that hides behind the mystical concept of objectivity and dictates culture and conversations (at least to a fairly significant extent).

In fact, according to what I have interpreted from my professors, journalism seems to serve as a calculated art of business - a way to obtain, entertain, and maintain readership that goes beyond serving the public with information and analyses.

And honestly, not to rip on my peers since I love so many of them, but often in my journalism classes, most students do not exhibit any real or authentic devotion toward what goes on in the world. I've met many Park students whose dreams for life consist of big-time anchor deals or best-selling blogs (if that even makes any financially feasible sense at all). And when we do discuss news in my class, most students regurgitate headlines from The New York Times, providing no actual insight, interest, or information whatsoever.

After realizing how limited the scope of global experience and humanity seems to be for many journalism majors and processing a very influential quote from my friend, Shaun, who said quite straightforwardly, "Park teaches you how to do and not how to think," I realized how truly unsatisfying my major was.

Additionally, being the greedy student I am, I wanted both - thinking and doing - without question. Yes, Park has provided me an outstanding opportunity to utilize new technology and multimedia in hopes of creating an impressive resume down the road. Park also brings in excellent speakers (they're completely based on Park's own preferences and bias, but hey, Huffington next week!!). In general, it's not a bad school for its all intents and purposes.

But its natural tendency to avoid hard-hitting issues and criticism of what mainstream media really "accomplishes" in this country is alarming.

Luckily, it's not all bad. Today, my friend and News 1 partner, Norah Sweeney and I went to Diaspora - a store that sells African art in the Commons for a story. The owner touched and enlightened us using his own discoveries and experiences surrounding the relationship and tensions between African and Western cultures, evoking unrealized emotions toward a subject Norah and I had both equally unacknowledged, for the most part, before our interactions with Eldred (the owner).

These are the types of stories that I intend to explore as a writer in the future. I do not know the forum through which my writing will exist (blog, magazine, newspaper, research institute, etc.), but all I know is, I am partially satisfied with keeping my journalism major because I recognize the true satisfaction that can come from it, even if most of the journalism courses I take are only exploited for technological skills and excellent resources.

The Park School isn't bad at what it does - not at all; it's quite good, actually. I just realized how I need to use the Park School for my own personal reasons, which do not fit Park's image of an "ideal journalist," that is, someone who yearns for "fair," "objective" pieces on "something interesting."

Journalists should have interests and should write about those individual curiosities. They should explore their passions and inform the world what they've learned about such areas of interest, through facts, through analysis, through acknowledgment of bias, subjectivity - all of the rhetorical ingredients that make something that is not necessarily interesting to read, but is, at the very least, worthwhile, consciously self-critical, and independent of any corporate-funded mentality.

Political Prizes: Peace & Obama

2009-10-11T13:28:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's recently award Nobel Peace Prize has accumulated a multitude of lively debate. Most Americans, liberal or conservative, moderate or apathetic, seem very confused with the unpredictable announcement. Accordingly, most of us have been asking, what has our president done to earn this universally prestigious title?

Well nothing really, quite frankly.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to galvanize fears of Communist health care or homosexual terrorists; talk to Dick Morris or Dick Cheney (or any other dicks) if you want to hear why conservative agenda is more than necessary at this time (despite its fundamental inability to promote equality).

No, the real reason Barack Obama has not earned this award stems from the very fact that he is president of the United States, one of the most aggressive, powerful, and culturally imperialistic economic machines governing "democratic capitalism" across the globe.

Obama has indeed utilized diplomatic whiteout to take care of the last administration's undoubtedly tainted actions and explicit failures in foreign policy. But cleaning up after Bush - one of the most deservedly least popular presidents in modern American history - is not representative of praiseworthy conduct.

Yes, Obama's speech in Cairo to the Muslim world, condemnation of Israel's West Bank settlements, and attempt to close torture camps for terrorists are commendable in one way or another.

But Obama has yet to fully close Guantanamo Bay. He has decided preconditions to Israeli-Palestinian talks are unnecessary and supports a "don't ask don't tell policy" regarding Israel's nuclear weapons (while he continues to ardently criticize Iran's peaceful and unfairly ridiculed attempts at low-uranium enrichment and manages to questionably promise the LGBTQIA community that he will abolish our own DADT). He continues to struggle with the formation of an Afghanistan strategy, probably without the obvious fact that Afghanistan will never be able to develop it its own organic cultural context with the unwelcoming invasion of U.S. troops.

Also, he lost Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. I don't know why that's a criticism but Rush Limbaugh told me it was.

The point is, Obama continues to do what American presidents do best - promote inequalities and ethnocentric policies by assuming global responsibility for everything the mainstream media decides to cover. Obama needs to think back to his real ideological roots (roots of which I believe I have some knowledge after reading his autobiography) in order to achieve the peaceful endeavors this award symbolizes.

Obama should know Israel's military, not just Hamas, needs to be politically admonished. Obama should know Afghanistan is not for our concern and that a public acknowledgement of past wrongdoings in concert with troop removal would probably diminish violence more than any insurgency. Obama should know that peace never arrives with assumptions, arms, ammo, and American hubris.

Obama should not have this award.

However, if he uses it as personal and political call to action, like he noted in his speech, we will hopefully see some sort of improvement.

Nevertheless I will never support any American politician receiving such an award as long as he or she operates under the government we know and criticize today.

6 Very Ignorant, Very Popular Reasons Why Some People Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

2009-09-22T08:26:00.000-07:00

Today I read an article in the Huffington Post in which 92 percent of Iowans polled said their lives hadn't really changed since the midwestern state legalized same-sex marriage this year.

Well...duh. Although it is often very difficult to predict the way in which an entire population will react to certain changes or developments, it's pretty easy to say same-sex marriage won't, shouldn't, and never will directly affect your life in any forcible or federal fashion. Sure, if you're gay or have loved ones who are, you might come into contact with the concept, but that's inevitable with or without the recognition of LGBTQ individuals' Constitutional rights.

In fact, let's briefly dissect and understand the ludicrous arguments made by opponents of same-sex marriage, most of whom seem to have no viable comprehension of history, economics, sexuality, or even religion.

1. "Homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus 18:22"
This is actually one of the easiest disputes to debunk for two reasons: 1 - Separation of church and state. It's as easy as that. Our Constitution guarantees that the government will not interfere with religion nor act as a religious institution. Accordingly, incorporating legislation based on a religious idea or specific religious affiliation, whether or not it's a popular one, is preposterous. 2 - Read your Bible more carefully and analytically. Those who use the Holy Bible in the first place to cite homosexuals' "immorality" do not seem to possess the ability to read literature beyond face-value. When reading the Bible, even if it is understood as sacred text for certain individuals, we must understand each passage as a product of its historical and cultural circumstances. Thus, when people in the Bible call homosexuality an "abomination," we must remember that in its own linguistic condition, "abomination" means 'against tradition,' not 'immoral' or 'innately evil.' That's why Leviticus 11: 10 -11 also state shellfish as an abomination, which doesn't explain why we aren't protesting Red Lobster.

2. "Churches will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages"
As aforementioned, our country enjoys (is supposed to enjoy) the political luxury of church and state separation. This means that religious institutions, acting as private entities, will not be forced to adhere to a federal law. And to be more frank and realistic, most gay couples would probably not want to be wed in a religious building by a reverend, priest, rabbi, or whomever who does not support their legal and romantic commitments.

3. "Same-sex marriage violates traditional marriages and undermines the history of marriage."
The best way anyone can showcase true idiocy is by claiming marriage is founded on religious and traditional values that will not be transferred into the same-sex marriage sphere. Yes, we haven't seen same-sex marriage often in many cultures throughout history, but that is because marriage did not operate the same way it does today throughout most of history. Marriage has always been built on economic concepts - you give me a wife, I'll give you a goat or pig. Same-sex marriage did not need to be conceptualized or legally developed, because, despite numerous accounts and evidence of homosexual love, romance, and acceptance throughout various cultures in our past , marriage did not serve, for the most part, as an institution of monogamous, religious, and romantic commitment; it's a pretty recent idea when compared to the entire timeline of human history. As a result, there may have been no need for a licit recognition of homosexual marriages because marriages were dictated by economics, social status, or the need to procreate.

4. "We cannot change the very basis of marriage; it will change the very core of our culture."
Oh, please. Marriage - like any other social institution - is subject to cultural evolution, which is a very natural and frequent process. Marriage itself has already adapted to substantial modifications in cultural mentality: in many cultures it developed religious connotation, which did NOT always exist before; women received rights to divorce and choose whom they marry in many cultures; interracial marriages were legally implemented only a few decades ago in the United States. The point is, whether it's between two races or two women, marriage develops on a cultural continuum. And because culture changes, we must change our federal recognition of such institutions.

5. "Same-sex marriage invalidates my marriage/harms my children/trivializes my religion."
If you live in the United States, you live in a free country (technically speaking). You have the right to free speech, religion, and thought. Same-sex marriages are not going to invalidate any particular values you might uphold. If they do, you probably lacked a great deal of faith in those values already. You raise your children how you want and decide what makes your marriage a marriage for you. Atheists get married today, as do Jewish people, Muslim people, Christian people of all different denominations, and even people who don't have any religious belief, values, or affiliation whatsoever. Our government should view marriage - a federal system for which you must obtain a license - with a blind eye so ALL Americans can receive their Constitutional rights. It's not going to affect you, just as it doesn't today when different people who you will never meet get married and you never even know it.

6. "I want gay people to have rights, like a civil union, just not a marriage please."
This is by far the most popular notion I have come across in my discussions on the topic, and it is the most condescending, ignorant, and biased opinion of them all. How "nice" of you. You want us to have some rights.

Look, Plessy vs. Ferguson spells it out historically for us: separate but equal institutions are guaranteed to fail based on their flawed logic. If it's different by name, it's different by content. Civil unions DO NOT grant the same rights as marriages, and are also disdainful by principle. They symbolize a form of second-class citizenship that cannot meet the "standards" of heterosexuality. Forget that idea. Trust me, gay people don't just want same-sex marriage so they can infiltrate churches and demonize worshippers of specific religions; they, for the most part, just want to be able to have basic rights every other American possesses.

Let's move forward, America. Same-sex marriage isn't difficult to digest, understand, or accept; it's all a matter of education and tolerance.

Feel free to comment/e-mail me if you have any questions; my e-mail address is czivali1@gmail.com

New Movie, New Moon, Same Crap.

2009-09-15T21:46:00.000-07:00

Ardent supporters of the Twilight series who stereotypically stem from the hyper-teen/infantile mother demographics are counting down the days to the series' latest book-to-film adaptation, The Twilight Saga: New Moon.

Look, I've never seen the original movie nor read any of these so-called "novels,"but here are the notes I jotted down as I watched its notably laughable trailer.

Dakota Fanning should not ever wear that much makeup. She was already annoying; now she's creepy, too!
Vampires DO have laws, Kristen! Who else runs the legality of their blood-sucking society?
Vampire culture and human culture don't mix well!
"This is the last time that you will ever see me" is the worst break-up line ever.
Kristen Stewart = James Dean? "...don't do anything reckless." What's she going to do? Explain her feelings with an awful simile?
Yep. Well at least she isn't crying obnoxiously.
Damn. Well what else could she do? It's not like she'll develop an addiction to Adrenaline rushes in order to regain the imagery of her now-gone, still-ugly vampire boyfriend?
...then again, maybe not.
He'll commit suicide since he thinks she's dead? How Shakespearean.
Her "don't" sounds like Joan Cusak.
The wolfpack might just be the best thing about this seemingly boring piece of cinematic crap.
Opera music works so well for these kinds of movies!
"This may hurt just a little." No, Dakota. It's going to hurt a lot. It already has.

Will I see the movie? Probably not. Will I ever test the waters of mediocre literature in the form of a vampire story with vampires who lack fangs or "bite" (no pun intended)?

No.

Probably not.

Remembering Reality

2009-09-11T13:04:00.000-07:00

9/11

Never in the history of America has a date contained so much emotional and political baggage. On the infamous autumn day eight years ago, thousands of United States citizens were killed in the hijackings and subsequent crashes of four commercial airline jets at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, respectively.

Unsurprisingly, a majority of Americans have spent the day remembering those who lost their lives on that fatal morning. Facebook updates, Tweets from Twitter, and other variations of modern, online social networking sites have served as the most popular mediums through which the American public has communicated its acknowledgment of 9/11 victims.

Despite my unquestionable respect for those who lost loved ones on September 11th, I have to ask quite frankly: is this the best way to remember?

Yes, we must sympathize and support our fellow citizens who mark this day as a friend or family member's final moment on earth, but shouldn't we equally devote as much time to remember why our government - through ineffective policies and a failure to cross-culturally communicate - allowed this to happen and why we, as inhabitants of our nation, decided it wasn't worth our time to pay attention to what was going on in the first place?

After all, "shocking" is not necessarily the most fitting word to describe the 9/11 attacks - not if you've done the research.

CIA officials, members of the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and other significant figures in foreign policy and American politics were all more than aware that al-Qaeda, fed up with Western intervention since the U.S. funded the 1979 war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, dividing and tearing the nation to shreds, culturally, politically, and economically, had been planning and executing attacks on the United States since the '90s. Al-Qaeda bombed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998; they bombed the U.S.S. Cole in 2000; Osama bin Laden threatened us continuously for years.

So, why were the 9/11 attacks not foreseen in our future?

And perhaps more importantly, why did our government fail to prevent them from happening?

And even MORE importantly, why did we as a country remain inattentive to our leaders' actions and fail to hold them accountable for questionable interactions overseas?

The answer lies in the deeply flawed "logic" of America's political ideology, which includes traversing the world unsparingly with an unequivocal promotion of invulnerability and superiority. Sitting on the highest of political and economic horses, the United States seems to think such attacks could never and would never happen to the “richest” “most liberated” and “most developed” land on earth.

Our country has collectively thought - and seems to still think today - that its corporate-based, ethnocentric interventions and reconstructions of other cultures and nations do not do any harm, but rather solely benefit both the world and Capitalist systems driving our now regrettably globalized and Westernized economies.

This pretense is completely misinformed and misguided on every level of ethically sound diplomatic relations one could imagine.

In reality, 9/11 reminds us that the United States is fragile and cannot continue to lead the world as an international bully; we must dramatically alter our approach to foreign policy or will continue to see more widespread attacks in our future.

But let's not get too wrapped up in this convoluted thought: Please, do remember those who we lost on Sept. 11th. I cannot fathom the painful difficulties some Americans must be going through at this very moment, attempting to come to terms with the devastating departure of a close one.

However, I can fathom why such tragedies would occur in the first place. We (meaning both our government AND the citizens who proceeded to look the other way, or not look at all) exacerbated problems in Afghanistan in an effort to eradicate its "Communist regime." We left the place a mess after we funded and trained the Mujahedeen. We let Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda threaten us and ignored it while our economic and cultural hubris expanded exponentially and without caution. And then, we witnessed one of the most horrific attacks on American soil in the history of our relatively young nation.

Friends and fellow citizens, let's be respectful. But let's be angry, too. And inquisitive. And uncertain. And demanding.

Don't remember only what happened on 9/11, but also why it happened.

Let's change how our country exerts itself in the global community, before we are eventually taught again how dramatically inappropriate our impact on other cultures abroad really is.

Peace,

Chris.

Top Five Reasons to See "The Final Destination"

2009-09-06T13:26:00.000-07:00

The Final Destination series has become one of the most fun guessing-games in the history of deliciously bad horror movies. From tanning bed coffins to decapitating elevators, death has never been so violently creative and gruesomely enjoyable.

The latest installment, titled quite firmly The Final Destination, is undoubtedly as entertaining as its older cinematic counterparts.

Here are the top five reasons to see it:

05. Support struggling artists.

The cast of The Final Destination consists of many newbies; they haven't had as much experience as the highly praised and well-awarded elite of Hollywood. Do them a favor by seeing their movie! After all, some stars - such as Renee Zellweger and Johnny Depp - started out by doing cheesy horror movies!

04. Dramatic death scenes.

The Final Destination showcases as many merciless, hilariously ridiculous death scenes as its predecessors. Let's just say a car wash, escalator, movie theatre, and lawn mower are utilized at some point. Violence already permeates American culture; you might as well get used to it, but in a more amusing way.

03. It's in 3-D!

Okay, okay, so almost every movie out this year has been in 3-D. But the only movies that honestly operate well in more than two dimensions are horror flicks in which blood, body parts, guts, and dangerous inanimate objects can be thrown at you rapidly.

02. Bobby Campo.

Death isn't the only scary part about this movie. Perhaps even more frightening is that sexy Mr. Campo himself hasn't been in more movies to tantalize and seduce us all :)

01. It's much deserved fun.

Serious movies are truly my cup of tea, but once in a while, guilty pleasures in the form of explicitly bad dialogue and intellectually lacking themes is just what the doctor ordered. Relax, scream, laugh, and roll your eyes! You deserve it.

Picture Sources:

"Glee"thal affection!

2009-08-24T20:19:00.000-07:00

Glee is FOX's latest addition to the line-up of fall programming and, without question, truly reigns as the best new thing on TV.

Personally, I don't even watch television that often. I've lost hope for decent programming, as most television developers succumb to lazy standards and produce cyclical seasons of talent contests (dancing or singing - take your pick and style) or love-triangle (circle, hexagon or octagon in many cases) "reality" shows in which the most popular, insane, or memorable cast member is provided his or her own show for the next season. It's all a mess!

Glee, however, is not. Its brilliant humor, witty writing, and handsomely fit cast showcase the massive amount of thought and creativity that went into this show.

The program revolves around several high school students and their teacher who staff the glee club - an organization whose members sing popular songs while remaining at the bottom of their high school's social hierarchy system. As Jane Lynch, playing the ardently aggressive cheerleaders' coach, puts it so hilariously, they are in the "sub-basement" of the school.

Collaboratively, this program's dynamic cast vividly dominates the show's energy with their ability to charm and entertain. Each character resonates adolescent reality and provides audiences with a group of fictional friends to root for each new week.

Really, there is nothing more to say. I'm officially at a loss for words at the moment, most of which is a result of my exhaustive week preparing for residents and check-in, but I also cannot elucidate the right way to describe Glee because it just that darn amazing.

*Picture from http://musicmaven.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/glee1.jpg

Heaven is 30,000 feet in the air.

2009-08-12T17:12:00.000-07:00

Often labeled as overly analytical and critical, I am never one to falsely praise our country's transportation systems.

I mean, come on. We drive way too many cars, burning way too many fuels that we just don't have. Towns that rely on fuel-efficient vehicles, bikes, bus systems, and other forms of alternative transportation are typically college towns that serve as liberal havens and do not wholly represent the entire American circumstance.

So, basically, we suck at getting from point A to point B. At least, we suck at doing it sustainably, inexpensively, and - overall - well.

However, I will admit, despite the inefficiencies clogging our transportation systems today, not every component of each individual transpiration system is in bad shape; there's always the exceptions.

This time it's Continental Airlines.

Last Wednesday, on my 7:25 a.m., four-hour-long flight from Denver to Newark, they provided me with not just a complimentary beverage, not just a sack of peanuts, but an ENTIRE breakfast. I'm talking the works: a muffin, cereal (milk was made available), raisins, and another drink by our choice (remember, they already gave us the milk?!).

I have to admit, I was in culinary heaven. Airlines refuse to budge and provide any other form of sustinence than a small glass of pop, but a full breakfast? I couldn't believe my own eyes.

Sure, about five minutes into the glorious feast, we experienced turbulence, spilling my coffee evenly across my entire lap.

But honestly, it was worth it. I am flying Continental as often as possible. That's right - advertising on my blog! I oppose it normally and morally, but in this case, it just fits.

If you're going to choke the earth with toxic fuels and unsustainable choices, why not do it in style and edible comfort?

That's all for now.

RA training has been an exhaustive process, but more on that later, I'm sure.

Karaoke - it's more than just guaranteed humility.

2009-08-08T15:30:00.000-07:00

Sporting a drink in one hand and an overused microphone in the other, the average bar patron who participates in karaoke nights never really embodies what I would call glamour. But as I’ve always believed, the best entertainers are not always the most glamorous (or sober).

Truly, karaoke is a quintessential component of bar culture, and no matter how many notes I sing out of tune, I’ll never grow tired of the one social activity that allows me to reconnect with my favorite teen pop songs from the ‘90s, one color-changing line of lyrics at a time.

I recently familiarized myself with how much I adore karaoke all over again when I went to The Shack this past Friday with a couple of friends from high school, including my former German teacher, Frau.

Frau has always been an important person in my life since I met her my freshman year. The first day of class, she confessed a scandalous history in which she provided the details regarding her ex-husband who ran off with an Italian woman half her age. From that moment on, I knew Frau would be one of my favorite people in the world.

To this day, she has maintained her title and when she invited me to this so-called Shack before I headed back to Ithaca, I couldn’t refuse. After all, I had not been able to attend her retirement party and would be leaving for school in less than a week. It was only fair.

While at the restaurant, I, along with a clan of blonde-haired women and a rather large man whose singing was comparable to that of Sinatra, carried the night away with karaoke favorites like “Rehab,” “Hit Me With Your Best Shot,” and “Landslide.” A few of the other bar inhabitants that night decided to take the more sexually explicit route and charmed us with such memorable hits as “Your Sex is On Fire” and the very straightforward, “Something In Your Mouth.”

All in all, it was a delightful evening, full of appetizer sampler platters, inebriated laughter, and third-rate dancing.

New item for Christmas wish-list: karaoke machine!

A New World, A New Voice

2009-08-08T15:06:00.001-07:00

Greetings, readers!

In a growing world of technological innovations, 24-hour news coverage, and Lady Gaga, who has time to sit down for a few hours and reap the benefits of a good, ol' fashioned conversation?

Not many.

Perhaps our current environment of fast Internet, busy schedules, and any kind of food you can imagine "on the go" is responsible for this lack of genuine human interaction, but the sad truth is, there's really not too much we can do it about now. This is our current culture, our current behavior, and we must adhere to it and get over the fact that traditional social activites are behind us.

And so, with the world of Facebook reigning as the nexus of all friendship developments, I decided a blog would be a harmless addition to my life - a way to confess, condemn, commend, and create.

I'm not necessarily the most reputable or interesting person in the world. I'm 19 years old. I attend Ithaca College in central New York, but hail from Arvada, Colorado. I love learning and living life and hope that I can share with you all that I observe and experience in this short time we have on earth.

So what's there to gain from this blog? Who knows? But it's a way to make up for all those conversations you and I aren't having!

Accordingly, please read on, my friends. I hope you enjoy. As my title most appropriately notes, all things in this blog have a purpose, in one way or another!