Another Drop in the Ocean

Bullying: Bruised and Battered

2012-01-11T04:30:00.000-08:00

Hey guys, Happy New Year! We're starting off 2012 celebrating four years of Another Drop in the Ocean (which was really three if you consider the year-long hiatus I took)! Thanks to my readers, however few and far in between, for staying with me and reading my rants and raves about various issues. Admittedly this post is a few days late of my anniversary, but I struggled with topics and you just can't force this stuff out. So here's my latest, inspired by the movie "Cyberbully".

Bullying has been an age-old pastime for children, teens, and even adults. But times have changed, the ante has been upped. The bullying of past decades starkly pales in comparison to the bullying of today. Older generations can recall schoolyard scuffles with a laugh and a shake of the head. Younger generations recall them with pain, trauma, and at times, lifelong impacts on their self-worth. Perhaps this is why so many people don’t take it seriously. Far removed from the reality and severity of the case, many parents, school administrations, and even law-makers tsk tsk the wounded and sweep the problem under the rug. And that is when it becomes deadly.

Back in the day, playground banter was better described as superficial childish name-calling. The classics are ones we’ve all heard: if you wore glasses, you were named four-eyes, if you were fat, they called you various derivatives of tubby, fatty, piggy, etc. If you wore braces you were metal mouth, acne: pizza face, and so on. These were names that would sometimes send kids home crying, only to face their antagonists again the next day. Now I won’t pretend that such names weren’t hurtful or somehow damaging to a child’s confidence, but most usually overcame the experiences and moved on to successful lives.

Nowadays, bullying has reached new levels of brutality that blaze through the barriers of harassment and teeter on the edges of assault. What was once simple teasing, usually on the basis of appearance has escalated to deeply damaging slurs, character defamation and public humiliation. In the golden days, bullying was usually an unfortunate chance encounter by the monkey bars or crossing the wrong street when walking home from school. Now they’ve turned into hunts, with bullies banking on growing intimidation; they scout the school grounds like packs of wolves for weaker prey, and the slaughter is horrific to watch.

My own experiences with bullying were extensive, to say the least. Resigned to wear glasses, in elementary school, I endured the superficial name calling, nothing that left a very deep impact. It wasn’t until I reached Jr. High that the bullying started. I was always heavy but gained much weight as I got older, and my peers took notice. Names like lardo, Free Willy, and fat ass were not in short supply from my classmates, but I was usually able to brush it off.

High school was where it became unbearable. I was heavier than ever, wore glasses, and hardly put any effort or thought into my appearance; I never wore make-up or styled my hair and my clothes were a fashion disaster. Bullying me was like shooting fish in a barrel, and it attracted new patrons all the time. Accustomed to my typical bullies who were in my classes, I was suddenly being attacked by people I’d never met, which caught me off guard. People I didn’t know would trip me in the hallways, one spit gum in my hair as I was walking by, and one day, for no reason at all, while walking down the hallway, a boy passed me and slammed me into the concrete wall before walking on, laughing with his friends. The people I knew were much worse. I endured name-calling and trash talking in class, usually as other students sat by and laughed as my tormentor rattled off painful insults. One episode sent me running out of the class crying. Another pushed me to the brink, and I rose from my desk, approached the student and slapped him across the face. He took a pen and attempted to stab me in the throat, but couldn’t break the skin.

But this was just one level of bullying. Many students began to go out of their way to make my life hell. Students who took issue with me, though for what reason I never knew, started a regimen of harassment. Figuring out my schedule, some would get hall passes, walk by my class, stand in the hallway out of the teacher’s view, and mouth insults and threats to me. At times, during passing periods they followed me to my next class, tormenting me for the three minute trip. Once I reached my room, they would stand outside the door, talk trash, and peek into the class to watch my reactions and laugh at me. I wasn’t safe after school either. There were times when I had to walk home, which left me wide open for attack. One day, two girls made it a point to follow me home to bully me. Never mind the fact that they lived in the opposite direction, they stayed five steps behind me for the twenty minute walk, calling me names like whore, fat ass, slut, bitch, dyke, and fag. When I reached my street, two cars pulled up and multiple students filed out. At first confused by their presence, I realized somehow word had spread that I was being harassed and some anticipated that a fight would ensue. They wanted front row seats. I entered my house and stole glances outside my bedroom window. The girls stood at the foot of my driveway, yelling obscenities and slurs at my house, threatening me before finally disappearing. Even the faculty had their moments. During one class, I tripped and fell back on the floor. The teacher, standing on the far side of the room, blurted out “wow, I felt that all the way over here!” and the class erupted in laughter. Another teacher who also had her assumptions about my sexuality overheard a piece of a conversation about me chasing down a girl and she remarked in front of my classmates “so you’re chasing girls?” with a smirk.

I asked my mother to allow me to be home-schooled in order to get away from the daily torture, but given that I was in the midst of my depression and was becoming increasingly isolated from society, my mother was concerned that if I were home-schooled, I would never leave the house. She refused, and the hell continued, though it ultimately contributed to lasting damage to my self-esteem, and to my suicide attempt my sophomore year.

Today, risks of suicide have increased, creating a new trend called Bullycide, breeding electronically. The internet brings with it not only a new tool for bullies, but the anonymity of false names, faceless interaction, and little to no personal responsibility for your words. Text messages, stalking, degradation, insulting web pages, embarrassing photos, and impersonation are all new ways that bullies have begun to attack their victims. The harassment has reached a new level, where bullies and their minions go above and beyond name-calling and taunting and have actually told their victims that they should kill themselves; the victims obliged. Ryan Halligan told a “friend” he was going to kill himself, and the friend responded “it’s about time”. Another bully told Phoebe Prince she should hang herself. So she did. Ashlynn Conner was only ten years old when she hanged herself in her closet due to excessive bullying.

Sadly, bullying doesn’t stop after high school, as it seems more and more people are failing to grow up. The perpetrators continue on into adulthood intimidating, insulting, lying, back-stabbing, creating drama, and laughing at the pain of their victims, as if someone were filming a sequel to Mean Girls starring the Plastics: All Grown Up. Sitting in my Master’s Program class, I couldn’t believe the insulting and degrading comments I would hear from my cohort about other peers, bullies who were twenty years older than me, but acting like they were sixteen.

Now I’m not going to sit here with my pipe-cleaner halo and pretend I’ve been the innocent by-stander all these years. I have fought fire with fire; I’ve bullied those who bullied me. I remember in high school I was in the girls’ room with my friends and a rival came in. She called me fat ass. Noting her up-turned nose that from the proper angle resembled that of a pig’s snout, I retorted “who are you calling fat, Miss Piggy?” My friends and I laughed and began pressing our noses up with our fingers, snorting at her. A look of pain flashed across her face and she quickly exited the bathroom. My heart sank when I realized I’d lowered myself to her level and hurt her. But even today, I’ve made my comments about people and joined in on the laughter when comments were made by others, even when I knew I shouldn’t have been laughing. It’s a work in progress and I’m always trying to improve myself by taking the high road. Sometimes I fail, but try again the next day.

I hate to sound cliché and regurgitate the heavily spewed dicta regarding the breeding of bullies, but it all rings true. Most bullies suffer from an inferiority complex, they are insecure with low self-esteem, so they put others down not to raise themselves up, but simply to bring their victims down to their level; “if I feel lousy, why should you be so happy?” Misery loves company, yes? Other times they don’t even know they make people feel bad. Again, though I wouldn’t consider myself a bully, there have been times when I’ve unintentionally made people feel dumb while trying to showcase my own intelligence. Now I’m no Einstein, but I’m certainly no Gomer Pyle either. Thanks to all the bullying I endured, I draw most of my self-esteem from the one thing that I succeeded in: academics. But in trying to prove my worth, at times I’ve embarrassed others, moments I still look back on and cringe: “why must I always be right?” And yes, many bullies become such because they’ve been bullied themselves. My usual tormentors came from seemingly perfect families, but I later found their mothers were alcoholics, or their fathers were abusive. People like that just need empathy, love, and forgiveness. Chances are they don’t have many friends anyways; chances are they’ve been hurt by many more bullies. So don’t add insult to injury by becoming another one in their lives. Take the high road, you’ll feel better in the end.

If you're being bullied or see that someone else is, speak up! Visit:
http://www.stopbullying.gov/

Frankenfood and Famine

2011-12-06T22:29:00.000-08:00

The fight over genetically modified foods is a battle that has carried on for years on many different fronts. What opponents have called playing God, those in favor of the scientific advances being made in agriculture see a solution to a worldwide problem. Once again, the mediator in this debate is good old fashioned propaganda, and, like so many other situations the media sticks its nose in, the results can be and have been deadly for decades.

The genetic modification of foods started as nothing more than the interbreeding of different species in a laboratory. Experimenting with such began as purely that, experimentation: out of simple curiosity, researchers wanted to know what would happen if the genetics of one species were manipulated with the genetics of another. Becoming an expedited process of unnatural selection, the results of these trials produce strings of both unremarkable and fascinating organisms which grow and develop in ways never before thought possible. With the exchange of some proteins, individual chromosomes, and full DNA strands, plant species were created that could grow larger and in different climates.

Of course, once you mention that a lab experiment encompassing what is abstractly the slicing and dicing two beings and pasting them into one, a Frankenfood of sorts, the crazed pitchfork wielding mob screaming “monster!” is not far behind. This mob, littered with various personalities like environmentalists and theological zealots, is mostly headed by Greenpeace. And once they nabbed the media’s ear, common sense gave way to ignorant fear.

The media was thrown into its usual disarray as when any group has an aversive agenda, shoving misinformation down the general public’s throat and frightening them into submission. Erroneous claims were splashed across newspapers and websites such as animal and plant genes being mixed and sold, upsetting the natural course of life by playing God with a Petri dish, untested, unregulated sales of produce that would ultimately replace all produce in American stores, and worst of all, fighting the technology that could end world hunger. I recall in my undergraduate program in an ecology class, we were given various environmental issues and had to give a presentation on the pros and cons of each. While most projects had differing arguments and points to make, the group presenting on GM foods presented and debated facts that mirrored each other, as if one side stood in Bizarro world and the other in our own. “Foods are unregulated” “Foods are regulated by the government.” “They mix animal genes with plant genes”. “No they don’t”. “They’ll sell nothing but GM!” “No they won’t.” If soon to be college graduates couldn’t extract from their in depth research more compelling arguments than this, how can the average American by simply watching TV?

As mentioned before, science is driven by curiosity, and all the advances that come with it are the result of experimentation, simple trial and error. We would not be where we are medically, environmentally, or socially if someone somewhere hadn’t asked themselves “what if?” These lab explorations began with switching the genes of plant species with one another, and gradually migrated towards playing with animal genes. However, in spite of the outrageous claims, these animal-plant experiments are simply that-experiments. The Greenpeacers insist that labs are taking fish genes and putting them in lettuce and taking rat genes and putting them in tomatoes and stocking the shelves with them, therefore vegetarian and vegan practices are undoubtedly in danger! Once GM foods infiltrate and overrun the produce market of America, vegans and vegetarians will be unable to find animal friendly vegetation and they will starve and vie. I mean die. Unfortunately for the anarchists, universities and agricultural researchers alike assure us that though they are observing what such changes in an organism these manipulations create for the purpose of science, these specimens were never meant to be used as a food crop, and will never be sold in any store to the general public. Even if they wanted to, the government would never allow it.

One statement that has been a widely used favorite of the GM opponents is that these crops are completely and totally untested and unregulated by the U.S. government. This produce is created in labs, grown in crops, cut and sold in stores, without the government even bothering to glance over their shoulders at, let alone examine the process. Right. The Federalians are good, but they are not that good; they would never get away with that. As a matter of fact, GM foods are more carefully tested than any other produce sold in stores and it took millions of dollars and years of testing to be approved for human consumption. They are also heavily regulated by the U.S.D.A to determine the effects on the surrounding environment where they’re grown, the F.D.A for food safety, and the E.P.A if a pesticide is involved in the crop growing. To be perfectly clear, it’s probably safer to eat GM produce than organic or even plain old pesticide riddled regular vegetables. But, thanks to the American way of business, never fear! You will always have a choice on what types of produce you want to buy. If you don’t want the Frankenfood, you can pay extra for that crazy organic crap, which, mind you, you spend more time washing off bugs, slugs, and caterpillars (yup, found ‘em all in my lettuce). If you don’t like the added protein from the insecta class, and don’t trust the GM stuff, you will always be able to buy the regular veggies. To monopolize the market with one type of food is not just frustrating, it’s communism. But hey, even if we had one choice, and one choice only, who are we to bitch if we are lucky enough to have food?

Many have also argued that by manipulating the natural order of these species DNA strands and creating hybrids is like playing God, and therefore is an abomination. I believe that letting people all around the world starve to death is an abomination. Now I’m not a Bible Thumper myself, but I believe that God is as much like a parental figure as anyone else. No parent who wants their child to grow and become successful believes that doing every little task for them will help them achieve this. No decent parent comes running the minute their child cries out, ready to pull them out of the mess instead of letting them learn to find their own way. Like any good parent, they provide the tools and sit back to see what their child can accomplish with them. God has provided us the tools. He has provided us the brains that developed the technology to resolve our own problems. And not only do we keep crying for help, straddled by religion-induced self-helplessness, but we actually fight the people who might just have the answer.

The various hybrids created by these experiments have been engineered to not only grow larger and feed more people, but they can actually sustain life in harsher climates with fewer necessities. Many people in third world countries starve, not because they’re lazy, not because they don’t want to help themselves, but because in most countries, the summers are too hot, the winters, too cold; the region too dry or far too wet, the soil, useless. They cannot grow their own crops because no crops survive. Many of these GM foods can last in dry heats with minimal water or in flooding rains. They can survive permafrost; they can survive with few nutrients most other crops require in rich soil. They would thrive in nations in Africa or Southern Europe. And people would live. Norman Borlaug knows this story well. Using similar technology, he helped engineer various strains of grains (wheat and rice) and introduced these specimens to Mexico, India, and Pakistan, doubling their food production in less than 5 years. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1970 and has been credited for saving over one billion (yes, BILLION) people from starvation. Way to kick ass, Mr. Borlaug.

So taking this into consideration, some Americans are still not happy with GM foods being sold in America. Fine, but this technology is not just for you. We are fat. We are gluttons. We really don’t need it. But others do. So let’s send the food and technology over to the other countries and let them enjoy it, right? Wrong, said Greenpeace. Damn it, those little tree-hugging hippies are at it again! And this time, it wasn’t just propaganda through interpretive dance that we could all ignore. At the 2002 Environmental Summit in Africa, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth crammed their misinformation down the throats of several African presidents, convincing them GM foods were poisonous and harmful. Therefore, many countries turned down tons of GM foods that had been donated by the U.S., leaving their people to continue starving. One fact Greenpeace forgot to mention? In the last 50 years, not one person has ever become ill or died as a result of consuming a GM food product.

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who are fighting the biotechnology that could feed the world are always the ones who have enough food in their refrigerators. Even if there were risks, could you look at your starving child and deny them food that may make them sick in 30 years, even though without it, they will die in 30 days? As one Greenpeace hippie dude said about GMs, “yeah we could save the world but, like, uh your kid might grow four eyeballs!” Watch out world, we’re in the presence of a mental giant here. Norman, we miss you.

Minhaj Gedi Farah, starving baby weighed just over 7 pounds at 7 months old. Weeks later, after receiving nutrients through an IV, he's almost at a normal weight for his age. Come on Greenpeace, you're doing this to everyone.

Violence in Occupation

2011-11-24T02:33:00.000-08:00

The occupy protests have taken the spotlight in news as of late, but not for the reasons they should. Across the nation protesters are gathering to begin a peaceful revolution in the corrupt system that has been misguiding our country and our economy, steering us into this crippling recession. Unfortunately, that’s all old news. The headlines today are covering the police brutality that’s taking place against the usually harmless people who are sitting in on the demonstrations, and the country is split between horror and justification.

In most locations where protests are taking place, the local law enforcement has asked for the crowds to disperse for a wide array of reasons: sometimes it’s a traffic matter if they’re blocking roads or sidewalks, sometimes it’s a safety matter (some protesters have been killed and raped at the camps), and sometimes it’s simply a way for law enforcement to rid themselves of the nuisance the people have become, an attempt to silence the rising voice of the 99%. Most protestors believe it to be the latter, and all have refused to dissipate, bringing the tension between police officers and demonstrators to a head.

Many demonstrations have simmered into a boil as police encroach upon the gathered civilians and civilians respond by banding together and refusing to move. Some confrontations have become face to face showdowns, where police and civilians stand nose to nose waiting for the other to blink. Frustrations mount as a war of words flies between the two adversaries, and then someone makes the first move: a shove from a civilian or a baton to the stomach by an officer, and all hell breaks loose. Civilians are beaten as officers throw punches, jab their batons, and pepper spray the living daylights out of the crowds.

Given the excitement, the massive numbers of the crowds and officers, and the muddle of the two meshed together in extremely close proximity, 20 years ago it would have been difficult to know who started what, which side was justified, and who was the innocent party. But in this day and age, thanks to the incredible advancements in technology (and let’s face it, even with the simplest of inventions like cameras) one does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize in most cases, the police are using excessive force in trying to “regain control” of the crowds, some of which weren’t out of control to begin with, for example a group of students at Northern California’s UC Davis. Protestors sat on the ground, arms interlocked, refusing to move as police officers circled and marched along the line like power drunk dictators. Suddenly, completely unprovoked, officers began shooting pepper spray over the heads and in the faces of the peaceful individuals. Many ducked, most had their heads covered with their jacket hoods, but if you’ve ever been around a fresh cloud of pepper spray, you don’t need it to be shot directly in your face, you don’t even need to be present when it is sprayed for it to have an effect on you, stinging your eyes and burning your throat as you breathe in the residual vapor that lingers in the air.

Other protests have resulted in harmless non-violent civilians being pepper sprayed as well, including 84 year old Dorli Rainy, and a priest. Elizabeth Nichols (pictured above) said a police officer actually began the dispute by jabbing her in the ribs with a baton then pressing it against her throat. When she reacted verbally by shouting at the officer that she was being mistreated, she was met with a steady stream of pepper spray at approximately a range of no more than two feet.

Driving out to dinner tonight with my dad, he had the car radio tuned to his favorite talk show, and they were discussing the typical debate of whether the force was necessary. Some on the show agreed that police are justified to react to any violence portrayed by the demonstrators. “What are you going to do when you have people standing right up in your face, shouting, spitting, and shoving you? Are you going to stand there and let them shove you and spit in your face? You do what you have to do,” said one. And I sat, thinking, "you couldn’t be more wrong."

I’ve frequently and very recently discussed my experiences working in group homes with troubled teens and the violence we were usually faced with when intervening in their crises or simply being in the way when they were having a bad day. The rules were clear: do not ever put your hands on a client, do not ever use physical force unless they are a clear and immediate danger to themselves or others. Such work is a high stress job and it takes a very patient and dedicated individual to do it and do it well. Usually, employees like this were in short supply, thus the several reports that speckled the news headlines when teens were dying in restraints in various facilities; employees who lost their cool and patience and used too much force. But at our facilities, the preceding policy usually meant if you had a client in your face screaming and shouting, if you had a client spit at you, or if you had a client shove you with minimal-moderate force (if they didn’t shove you hard enough to make you fall down), you were expected to take it, walk away, or call group therapy. Sometimes, even more violent behavior was tolerated, simply because you managed to keep your cool or because restraints require a minimum of two attending staff members and you were alone. Whatever the case, there were several times I was threatened and injured without resigning to physical force: being pushed down the stairs, being cut with a small piece of glass, being slammed into a wall, being hit with a metal folding chair and other various pieces of furniture, the list goes on.

Of course it’s easier to maintain one’s self-control when starting at 0, but what happens when you’re rushing towards 60? Many cases of police brutality occur after a high intensity event, such as car chases, or during riots or stand offs, when the adrenaline is rushing and some claim it's hard to maintain control. Well, sorry boys, but that’s usually bullshit too. There were plenty of moments where we were forced to engage in restraints at our facility, those moments where they were a danger to themselves or others; at one time in our facility when we housed a few more colorful characters, we were engaging in, on average, 15 restraints a week, sometimes as many as four restraints on four different clients in one day. Of course company policy also stated if it was determined to be required, place them in a restraint that would immobilize them, NOT harm them, making sure to never use more force than necessary. This meant stop them, get them to the ground or wall, and hold their arms and legs still until they calmed down, making sure they could breathe and their circulation was adequate at all times. Now at times, restraints did not go smoothly. Sometimes the clients were difficult to get on the ground. Sometimes there was a chase or a great struggle before they could be effectively immobilized. Sometimes their struggles and attempts to break free resulted in their own injuries. Our adrenaline was usually pumping by the time we hit the floor, and with a kick to the face or chest, a bite on the hand, or a sudden grasp of hair that is quickly ripped from your scalp, the test of maintaining your calm becomes almost impossible.

But we were trained to handle those moments, to avoid reaching what our training supervisor called the level of “pisstivity”. Now everyone’s human, everyone makes mistakes. I recall the moment when I finally reached my level of pisstivity with a client. She had attempted to strangle me with a lanyard draped around my neck. After trying to evade her until I was backed into a corner, I finally went into a wall restraint with her and another staff member. She was too strong for us to hold against the wall so we transferred her to the floor, where she proceeded to struggle for the next 30 minutes, biting me on the hand twice. After she claimed she was calm, we allowed her up. She slowly rose to her feet, straightened her clothing, then turned to me and snapped “Bitch! You can’t hold me down!” and shoved me with brute force. I flew back and slammed into a steel pole, my head flying back and cracking against the metal. We immediately resumed a wall restraint and at one point, as we struggled with her, I became fed up and forced her to the wall a bit harder than I needed to. It went unnoticed by the belligerent teen, but I still felt guilty when all had passed.

It’s reasonable to assume that at some point, even a police officer is going to be pushed to the brink; they are, after all, human. But if anyone should be better trained in maintaining their cool in high-stress situations, and using appropriate force at appropriate times, it’s those who have to face these types of behaviors on a regular basis. If people who are given guns, batons, and pepper spray can’t be trusted to use it effectively, why the hell are we giving them these things? Why are we entrusting our safety to people who have no knowledge of how to provide and maintain it? They are given weapons and limitless power, practically free of consequence and responsibility. But someone needs to remind them that having power doesn’t make you powerful. Having the power to control yourself is true strength.

Troubled Teens and Jaded Juveniles: Failing Our Kids Part 2

2011-11-14T20:07:00.001-08:00

The ominous situation most juvenile delinquents find themselves in is that no better than the punishments typically reserved for adults. Though some may think that Juvenile Hall is a playground for the young offenders of today, the nature of the environment is unfortunately exact to the nature of prison. There is an element of survival, a hierarchy one must navigate through in the social construct of federal and state reprimand. To prove oneself, through acts of structural defiance, acts of loyalty, and further criminal behaviors, is to guarantee one’s protection. Other times watching and learning the inner workings of the placement assists the convict in manipulating the system to best meet their needs. And such behaviors are hardly limited to imprisonment.

As an alternative, in order to provide juvenile offenders with a better opportunity for self-improvement and successful reintegration into society, many convicted delinquents are sent to behavioral treatment facilities, high level group homes, and work camps. Through tightly structured days, afforded slightly more intervention and support than that found at the Hall, these facilities were ideal compared to the juvenile prison. But it was far from perfect, and here, the kids are expected to grow and fall on the right path. But what really are the odds?

One event I noticed on occasion both in my work with the teen girls at the BT facility and working with the male juvenile delinquents at their facility was that at times, teens are misplaced for one reason or another, a decision that compromises their future. With the boys, I found one young man placed in the facility for a very minimal offense (stealing a bike and truancy from school), though the rap sheet of his peers typically included robbery, grand theft, drug dealing, assault with a deadly weapon, and in one case, manslaughter. Though we were a level 12 facility for the girls with specific behavioral criteria for admission, some girls were merely placed with us because extraneous circumstances left them with no better placement. They had mild behavioral issues, usually depression, but significant medical issues such as diabetes or epilepsy, conditions far too risky for a level 10 or 8 home. Therefore they were placed with us, though we were no medical center either.

When it came to the young man, achieving protected status in the dormitory of 24 other delinquents became his priority. A typical 13 year old, he was well-mannered, polite, seeming to be of middle-class status, and terrified of his new surroundings. When a fight began to ensue between his roommates, he did what he believed to be the right thing, alerted the staff member on duty. Unfortunately for him, in this society, he was now labeled a snitch, and became a target. After one beat-down, he quickly began what Jane Goodall would refer to as displaying in the chimp community, proving his worth by showing off his machismo. He began to break rules, disrespect staff, and fight with other clients to climb the social ladder. After proving himself, he was accepted into the protective circle of the thug society and was deemed a pain in the ass by staff throughout the facility. After a confrontation between him and other peers took place, fearful that he would be moved to the Hall, he ran away from the facility in the dead of night and I never heard of him again.

With the girls, while there were several instances of behavior changes to graft a niche into the group home society, one behavior I typically observed was the modification to get one’s needs met. This is where the key element of the Social Learning Theory, first presented by Albert Bandura, comes into play in these environments. Individuals observe behaviors others engage in, note the pay off of the behavior (are they punished or do they receive some kind of reward) and in turn imitate the behavior themselves.

When girls were placed in our facility who really didn’t belong there, they were typically the better behaved kids who followed the rules, went to school, completed chores, and offered to help around the facility whenever possible. While staff attempted to provide as much praise and rewards as possible for their efforts, it becomes difficult to give the individualized attention these teens so desperately needed when 17 or 18 other girls in the house were acting out. The girls who were more problematic were constantly requiring attention, redirection, and crisis intervention, and it didn’t take long for the better behaved girls to become frustrated, as they should have been. “I’m doing everything I’m supposed to be doing, and yet I’m invisible.” I imagine they concluded. Eventually, they made themselves heard. Resorting to similar behaviors, we had several girls display about the house, sheepishly throwing objects at windows that never broke, spraying fire extinguishers, and threatening to kill themselves by jumping off the second story balcony, after which they would march to the balcony and hesitate, glancing over their shoulders to see if we were following. Naturally, whether or not we knew they weren’t serious, we were obligated by company policy to follow, and reinforced their attention-seeking behaviors. Once, however, when we became distracted with another girl threatening to kill herself, the one who had dashed off to the balcony realized we were not coming to rescue her, and returned, loudly displaying in the hallway, stomping her feet and cursing. Eventually behaviors escalated in severity, and the girls rarely returned to their sweet dispositions.

Though social problems in the group homes and treatment facilities largely contribute to exacerbating the issues these teens are faced with, it seems they are set up for failure right from the start by being placed in these facilities to begin with. It was mentioned in part one of this blog that compliance with the teen girls was difficult to come by. With the boys, it was not quite so hard. Given that these boys were placed in this facility as an alternative to the Hall, they understood that whatever problems they faced here, they were much worse there. With the threat of being replaced in the Hall looming, they were more motivated to try. As previously mentioned, the structure was tighter, interventions and support was more readily available in order to help these kids. In other words, they were placed in a laboratory.

Every moment of their day was planned out for them, from getting up in the morning to breakfast, school, group therapy, activity, showers, homework, dinner, more group, and sleep. Their roommates were carefully selected, they had emotional support and guidance from staff, and limited temptation from outside sources. They were removed from the environment that created so many of their issues to begin with: friends who were bad influences, families who were dysfunctional and damaging, freedom and free time to make bad decisions. What else could they do but succeed in such an intricately designed program? Many still struggled as they found other ways to get in trouble: fighting, gambling, refusing to attend school, being disrespectful to staff. But when you take into consideration the things they were placed there for, these offenses pale in comparison. They thrived in a strictly controlled environment.

After their time is served, however, they are returned to the defunct natural environments that bred them. They go back to their broken homes, back to their crime-riddled neighborhoods, back to the friends whose opinions mean so much and who always have access to drugs and booze, back to unlimited free will with little motivation to make the right choices in everyday life, and left without much aftercare. No one bothers to come out and check on them, no one bothers to take time out of their day to keep them in line. If they don’t go to school, no one really cares. If they don’t do their homework, they rarely have anyone to answer to; no one holds them accountable anymore. How long do you believe it takes them to revert to their previous lifestyle?

Such is the problem for adult convicts as well, and is a distinct answer to the question of rampant recidivism in prisons and juvenile halls. You cannot take an unruly chimp, teach him how to behave in a cage, then release him to the world and expect the same results you achieved in lockdown.

A better alternative, argued Richard Mendel in his report Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime… was instead of removing the teens from their homes, to provide care within the natural environment. Offering therapeutic treatments in the home with the entire family, assigning a mentor to keep close tabs on the teen, and facilitating a collaborative effort between the multiple facets in their lives, such as family, teachers, and outreach programs, Mendel believed that the individual had a higher chance at success. The program’s therapeutic approaches, titled Multi-Systematic Therapy and Family Functional Therapy, addressed the issues at the root of the presenting problems, and guided the teen to make better independent choices in the current environment, instead of within a superficial one where the possibility to make their own choices was significantly reduced, thereby teaching them nothing. After longitudinal studies were conducted, not only did these programs prove to be more effective than treatment facilities and group homes, they were also significantly cheaper, costing anywhere between $2,000-5,000, whereas facilities and homes cost approximately $50,000 annually.

Granted, placement in this program is not appropriate for everyone, higher risk offenders that have been convicted on charges of violence, for instance, need alternative placement, but many of the offenders for drug use, minor theft, and behavioral issues such as truancy would benefit from it, rather than being placed in “criminal college”, where they will learn to be better convicts from more seasoned offenders, where their behaviors only get worse, and where emotionally, they’re as lost as they ever were.

So the question now is: when are we going to save them from themselves?

Troubled Teens & Jaded Juveniles: Failing Our Kids Part 1

2011-10-26T23:08:00.000-07:00

As I begin that perilous feat of pounding the pavement again in an unstable economy, I find myself reverting to positions where I hold the most experience: severely emotionally disturbed teens in foster care. Spending over two years working and volunteering with this troubled population, most of which were delinquents by one measure or another, I found the time to be often unpleasant, but invaluable. I was exposed to the dark world of child abuse and neglect, the typical underlying causes of behavioral problems and psychological disorders. I was frequently abused myself, be it verbally or physically, a punching bag for children who had no one else to lash out at. But, even in most difficult times, I found myself fighting to be the stability these children so desperately craved, the mother figure who disciplined and loved unconditionally, the parental figure who applauded good math grades and held numerous correctional meetings with principals and teachers, the mentor to guide them down the most beneficial path available to them, most of which were in short supply. Unfortunately, time and time again, experience proved there was little if any hope for lasting improvement in their lives, be it the group home, the treatment methods, or the environments they would inevitably be thrust back into once their time was served. This was a reality that threw me into a depression and I find myself asking if this is really where I need to go again.

Given the shortage of viable foster families, most mildly troubled teens are placed in group homes. These homes are evenly numbered in terms of severity of behavioral issues, going from 6 to 14, above which you find juvenile hall or psychiatric placement. Children are removed from biological families for various reasons: child abuse, neglect, criminal behaviors, or even voluntary placement when the parents have determined their behaviors are far too unmanageable for them.

Unfortunately, most group homes are in short supply as well, therefore more severe children are placed in lower levels that are not necessarily capable of providing the children the supervision or interventions required. Once I worked in a level 12 facility, typically reserved for teen girls suffering from depression, self-mutilation, anger management issues, or in recovery from drug abuse; however given the lack of adequate facilities, we were accepting intake patients suffering from suicidality (one girl was brought to us after attempting to hang herself in her basement with an electrical cord), bipolar disorder, aggression and assaultive behaviors (one client had recently been released from Juvenile Hall for stabbing a peer with a screwdriver), continuing drug use (a social worker dropped a client off at our facility still high after a three day bender on crystal meth), schizophrenia, mental retardation, and even autism. For the most part, we didn't know how to handle our clients; we were not properly trained and found ourselves struggling to do our jobs the best we could. It was frustrating, to say the least.

The behavioral interventions in place to manage these kids were largely ineffective. A hierarchical grading system providing four levels of achievement or failure, finding the rewards lackluster and the punishments unenforceable, the kids ignored our feeble attempts to discipline them. Level A, the highest level, promised rewards of larger weekly allowance ($20), more phone time, a later bed time, and the opportunity to take part in an outing reserved for high levels, usually a cheesy weekly trip to the mall or movies, once in a great while a reward of a night at the theater or an expensive theme park. Level B was largely the same, though slightly less allowance ($15). Level C was lower status, less allowance still ($10), restricted phone time, earlier bed time than higher levels, and participation in a weekend activity that was also usually quite pathetic, a trip to a skating rink, perhaps a few hours at the local arcade they frequent every month. Level D/C (Daily Contract), has a minimal allowance ($7), restricted phone time, earliest bed time, and losing the chance of any activity on the weekend, instead participating in group therapy taking responsibility for whatever action landed them on D/C status. Levels were determined collectively in group therapy sessions, whereby the individual's progress for the week was reviewed and their status voted upon by their peers.

While it seems fool-proof, the system is heavily laden with problems and flaws. First being the horrible reward system in place for high levels, most didn't care enough to work for activities they hated, there was no point in staying up late because the TV was broken, and though larger amounts of allowance were given, they were only permitted to have no more than $20 in their possession at any given time, therefore any more money was locked up out of reach. Lower statuses hardly cared for the punishments. Having hardly any privileges at all, there was little they could lose. Understanding limitations of our power, the girls realized we could not physically force them to bed, so most stayed up as late as they wanted, playing in their rooms with their friends, while staff stood in the doorway, doing the only thing they could: redirect them to bed until we grew tired enough to leave them alone. Finding that legally we could not restrict them from using the phone to call family, they typically requested to talk to "relatives", most of whom were probably friends and boyfriends. The state of California requires that children in foster care are given a minimum of $7 weekly for allowance. For those on D/C, usually for running away or not following the rules, $7 was more than enough for bus fare to any friend's house for the weekend, doing drugs, drinking, eating whatever they wanted, watching TV whenever they chose, only to return to the facility, remain on D/C level, and continue the tirade next weekend. Daily Contract also allowed the girls to complete a series of chores for access to any one privilege for the day: cleaning the house could mean time on the computer, going on an outing, or any one of the privileges afforded to high statuses. This usually meant momentary good behavior, which immediately returned to typical delinquent behaviors once the reward was given.

Additionally, there were a few aspects of the program that continually interfered with our interventions, one being day treatment classes. Every Tuesday and Thursday, the girls engaged in day treatment, which meant an off-site activity, usually to the mall or movies during the winter, to the local pool or beach during the summer. Though it was said to encourage appropriate behaviors within the outer community, not only was it ineffective (we were frequently banned from various venues for disruptive behaviors), but knowing that they would have the opportunity to engage in bi-weekly activities, motivation for additional activities was minuscule. Why work hard for a trip to a tar pit museum on the weekends when you know you're going to a nail salon to get a manicure for day treatment? Especially since Day Treatment was considered an integral part in their program, we were not permitted to pull the girls from it; it was a guaranteed activity, no matter how poor their behaviors might have been.

Likewise, state laws and restrictions interfered. California state law prohibits staff from taking clients' property from them without their permission. We soon found that this meant we could not confiscate desirable recreational items such as portable DVD players, radios, iPods, laptops, skateboards, etc. when a client was misbehaving. Though we frequently removed radios as they were a source of high motivation and clients would do damn near anything to retrieve them, we were instructed to replace them all. What parent could be successful in child-rearing if unable to take anything away from their child?

Given the problems that continuously presented themselves, we soon found the program was an expensive facade, and most of the administration was consumed with making money, not helping these teens. In the time I spent at one agency, a 43-bed facility, probably more than 150 girls rotated through the houses. Only one was successfully rehabilitated and reunited with her mother. One. The numbers don't lie, and yet hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars are thrown into this black hole every year. The future for these girls is bleak and hazy, emotionally unstable and alone in the world, they are ticking time bombs waiting to self-destruct. And the plight for juvenile delinquents and society as a whole is no brighter...

Syringes and Halos: The Battle of Capital Punishment

2011-09-22T20:56:00.001-07:00

Throughout the years I've struggled with my position on various issues. As new information becomes available, as I become more educated on these matters, as I learn to decipher propaganda from truth, my belief system is altered. Such is the case when it comes to the very controversial issue of the death penalty. With evidence and emotion thrust on the balance, which becomes more weighty? Which guides our minds or stays our hands, especially when we hold in them another's life?

I must admit that my stance on the death penalty changes depending on which side of my brain is engaged at the moment you ask for my opinion. If the left brain is tapped into, the analytical side of the mind, I can say whole-heartedly that I am against this ghastly act. Almost every point brought to the debate can be logically argued into opposition of the practice. From a moral standpoint, the hypocrisy of the "eye for an eye" mentality is painfully obvious: to kill someone for killing someone doesn't resolve the matter and only leaves the justice system as guilty as the convicted. From a sociological perspective, some may argue that such an extreme consequence as capital punishment will dissuade potential convicts from committing crimes. Unfortunately, several studies have demonstrated that the death penalty does not deter tomorrow's criminals from becoming exactly that. Crime is no higher or lower in states without or with the death penalty, respectively. From an economic perspective, some believe that it would cost tax payers less money to execute someone than to pay for them to remain in prison without the possibility of parole. This is also untrue. Given the legal costs of the numerous appeals processes made available to convicted killers, the manpower invested in reviewing appeals cases, granting or denying retrials, appealing to higher courts, etc., the cost of living on death row for the sometimes decades-long movement, and the actual cost of the execution, sustaining a death row convict is far more strenuous on our wallets. The total amount? Roughly $3.5 million. The cost of housing and feeding an inmate for life? Approximately $700,000-900,000.

There are few logical arguments proposing capital punishment left to stand on, but the most compelling opponent is the ever-looming concern that we may just kill an innocent person. With the development of advancing technologies that can quickly exonerate a wrongfully convicted criminal, such as DNA-testing, many death row inmates have been set free just shy of a devastating fate. Who knows how many more never quite made it to the appeals court and never will. One recent story is that of Troy Davis. Convicted of shooting and killing an off-duty police officer in 1989, Davis was sentenced to be executed. In spite of a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of seven eye witnesses who later recanted, claiming the police department pressured them to finger Davis, it seemed nothing could save him. Following the typical harrowing path of appeals and denials, little hope was left. After the Supreme Court refused to stay his execution, Davis was killed on September 21 at 11:08 EST, while crowds of supporters stood outside the prison and cried.

Now, engaging the right side of the brain, the emotional realm, we come to a different story. When looking at the broader perspective of things, it's easy to analyze and rationalize why murderers should be allowed to walk this earth, even if it's in a 10X8 foot cell. But when the focus zooms in on individual cases, emotions take hold of the reigns and it's a wonder we don't expel them. Hearing the specifics of any heinous crime against humanity, premeditated, cold-blooded, remorseless, heartless murder is enough to elicit the strained painstaking scream for justice. When I read of the murder of Samantha Runnion, I couldn't ask for anything less. A five year old girl playing with a friend in her yard, just feet away from her front door, snatched up and stuffed into the backseat of a car. She was taken to a barren field, raped and then strangled to death. The murderer, not quite finished, posed her body in posthumous seductive poses for child pornography photos, then dumped her naked body on the side of a highway. Recently acquitted of child sexual abuse charges, Alejandro Avila kidnapped Runnion just months after his release. With her DNA in his car and his DNA under her fingernails, Avila was convicted and sentenced to die. He still sits on death row.

Also executed the same night as Davis was Lawrence Brewer, a white supremacist who was convicted of murdering a black man in what could be called one of the most horrific hate crimes in the history of Texas. James Byrd was walking home one night and crossed paths with Brewer and two of his friends. Though details as to what happened next become hazy, hours later, the sheriff's department was deployed to find a mass on the road that was initially mistaken for animal road kill. A decapitated body missing a fair amount of appendages and flesh lay bloodied on the pavement. Byrd had been tied to the back of Brewer's pickup truck with logging chains and dragged behind the car for more than three miles on rough asphalt. Brewer and his friends were found and arrested that same day with Byrd's blood still on them.

There are many more cases where one could argue that execution was justified: Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, Saddam Hussein, all criminals with little chance of remorse or rehabilitation. There are many more cases best left to guess as to whether they are truly guilty and truly deserving of losing their lives. Entangled in my corpus callosum, I've yet to find a happy medium in between the two. So for the time being, I leave it at this: when it comes to logic, be it finances, morals, society and the wrongfully convicted, I say let them be, but when it comes to pure convictions with absolutely no doubt of guilt and horrific murders on their blood spattered hands, emotionally I scream light the bastards up.

Pure Hearts in Lost Souls

2011-08-28T01:41:00.000-07:00

Throughout the years, I have struggled with my relationship with a higher being and the following that has convened in the name of that entity. I have battled with the corruption of the very foundation of religions as the roots of belief systems have been torn from the ground and implanted in a pot of carefully manipulated lumps of soil, nourished with tainted holy water.

I cannot, with a clear conscience, completely banish the idea of God from my mind. Perhaps it’s the fear of the unknown, the possibility of some dark retribution awaiting me in the flickering shadows of a fiery afterlife. Perhaps it’s simply the wiping away of an ideology that has been deeply ingrained into my mind since I was a small child that I find impossible. Or, perhaps it’s the simple comfort He provides, an omniscient guardian to keep us safe.

A host of questions arise, with answers upon which one can only postulate. What would become of a society that has no basis for moral values or beliefs? Who would we become without the looming threat of eternal damnation, or the glorious promise of paradise after death? Would people still be generally good without being morally accountable to anyone but themselves? Such inquires send the mind hurdling back to the ultimate question of human nature: are humans inherently good or evil? Without the social influence of theology, would we grow to become saints or swine? Or would we simply exist, driven by biological forces of survival rather than of greed or just rewards?

Having a host of friends who are active atheists, I have many times had this discussion with them, debating the existence of God and the purpose and benefits of believing on pure blind faith alone. Being a lover of science and the knowledge it has provided me, I’ve struggled with the notion of blind faith and am usually left questioning, always questioning, with no answer given. I remember as a small child in Sunday school our teacher was arguing against the Big Bang Theory, stating “someone had to create the Earth, you can’t say that it was ‘just there’”. I raised my hand, in innocent curiosity, and asked “Well if God created the Earth, who created God?” My teacher fumbled briefly for an answer before sputtering out, “well…he was just there”. And as I sat back in my chair, I knew the answer was not satisfactory, but my religious education continued on. We moved to a new church and for a moment, the experience was fulfilling. I became a diehard Christian, bumping Christian rock music, joining the Christians on Campus club, doodling crosses and crucified hands on my notebook, preaching and recruiting to anyone who would listen. I loved my faith and my church, before we merged with an upscale church from the hills where snobbery and presumption was not in short supply. The hypocrisy of Sunday do-gooders drove me mad; you know the types, those Christians who do God’s thing on Sunday and do their own thing every other day of the week. Jaded by superficiality and morning preaching of religious superiority, coupled with a deepening crippling depression, issues with my sexuality, and dwindling faith, I finally threw in the towel and left the church before my 14^th birthday.

Though I had given up on believing that God actually gave a damn about me, I could never quite bring myself to believe he wasn’t there at all, and in spite of walking away from the church, I never walked away from aspiring to be the best human being I could be. As a 13 year old, I used my miniscule allowance to support a starving child in South America. Throughout my high school years, I donated to various causes and participated in charities, rejecting the extra credit my fellow students needed to be motivated with to take part. During my college years, I worked with foster children and emotionally disturbed teens, I volunteered at an after school program, and I started a cancer fund raising over $2,300 for cancer research. Post graduation, I became an advocate of tolerance, specifically for the Muslim community after 9/11, and I became a therapist, working at a non-profit organization for autistic children.

Now, am I providing this repertoire of activity in some vain attempt to secure my status as a pompous ass? Not so much as to demonstrate that one doesn’t have to be perched on a pew, singing some poorly adapted verse, keeling over a man-written document in search of a purpose and an explanation to be a good human being. Having an understanding of our shared humanity, being an active global citizen, taking care of one another and trying to have the most positive impact on the world around us that we’re capable of makes us good human beings. In fact, getting away from the church and out into the world is probably more beneficial to anyone’s spiritual journey. Where God fits into this, and how much, is dependent upon the practicing individual. For me, he’s there, and I’m here, and we acknowledge each other’s presence. I do what I feel I need to do to sleep at night, hoping I’ve done the best I could, and if it’s in agreement with him, great, if not, maybe next time. I do believe we can be an ethical and moral community without accountability to a higher being. Likewise, I don’t believe the immediate presence of that being automatically makes one ethical, moral, or accountable.

The hypocrisy I’ve previously mentioned is rampant in all organized religion. Many people, especially as of late, pick and choose which parts of the Bible they wish to enforce and which they wish to sweep beneath the rug. They utilize their religions as a vehicle to further personal agendas and cite their holy books as justification for discrimination and hatred. In the process of writing this blog, I was compelled to track down my old youth pastor, and found a site pushing religious superiority and a video of a panel he participated in arguing against homosexuality and equal rights. Many just don't practice even the most basic of principles that they preach. Last week I was set in a Christian school awaiting a lecture from my boss, and found myself in the throes of a mini-sermon, discussing Bible passages of delighting in the Lord and praying before my boss took center stage. I made a conscience effort to keep an open mind before a slight cutting comment towards Jews was made, then I shut down. But the tone of the room was one of devotion, love, and kindness, a tone which quickly changed once my boss, there to lecture on teaching techniques and brain functionality, began her speech. Met with criticism, snide remarks, and constant argument, a level of unexpected, unexplained hostility slowly rose through the three and a half hour presentation. It ended with a verbal battle between entities, one I did not witness because I left out of frustration and anxiety. The tension in the room was overwhelming and the difficulty of seeing a colleague and a mentor being attacked was too much to handle with quiet grace and decorum. While it would be unfair to overgeneralize this experience to all Christians, I think it’s fair to say, given this situation and numerous others, that the presence of God in one’s life does not guarantee that individual to be moral, ethical, accountable, or even to have an ounce of integrity.

I still struggle from time to time with my relationship with this God, but I figure at this point, I will continue to do my best and hope it’s enough. If God’s there in Heaven, I’m sure he’s watching, and if he’s not, well I’ve still done my duty as a human being and helped someone here on Earth to have a slightly easier existence than before. And in the end, that’s what makes it worthwhile.

Hiroshima: Lessons Unlearned

2011-08-06T17:39:00.001-07:00

Einstein envisioned it. Oppenheimer created it. Truman deployed it. Little Boy, the first ever weapon of mass destruction, was nestled snugly in the belly of a B-29 fighter jet and sent sailing over the town of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The explosion left the world both horrified and awestruck, and left a large bloody stain in U.S. history books. It also began the race and opened the flood gates for the development of more powerful artillery. And in the continuing wake of international turmoil, throughout the years our awareness of this clear and present danger has bred a very real fear into daily life.

With the second World War hinging on its fourth year for the U.S. and Japan still clinging by a thread, common sense and humanity gave way to frustration and impatience. Just a few years earlier, Albert Einstein had written a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt noting that a bomb of mass destruction must be built in order to definitively end the war. A top secret assembly of scientists and engineers gathered under what would be called the Manhattan Project with J. Robert Oppenheimer at the helm. Soon, the atomic bomb was born.

Though it seemed that Roosevelt had no intention of utilizing the bomb, as Europe seemed to be losing power and Japan was slipping along with them, after his untimely death in April 1945, Vice President Truman took over. Once victory was achieved in Europe, Japan had little to lean on and ran dangerously low on artillery, planes, and manpower. Despite the fact that the Japanese seemed to be on the verge of raising the white flag, Truman saw an opportunity for the gross demonstration of power the U.S. had suddenly come to wield with this bomb, and ordered it be dropped.

On August 6, 1945, at 8:15AM, Little Boy was released over Hiroshima. Nearly 2,000 feet in the air, the bomb detonated, and a radiant white flash lit the morning sky. Waves of heat exceeding 7,000 degrees raced through the town. Everything within a one mile radius of the explosion was incinerated; within 5 miles, the city was completely destroyed and everyone killed; within 10 miles, a severe risk of exposure to radiation that injured and killed thousands more weeks, months, and even years after, but not before putting them through the agonizing pain of radiation poisoning, burns, and cancers. The casualties topped 150,000. Three days later, in Nagasaki, we dropped a second bomb that killed another 80,000.

While a few narrow-minded people regarded these attacks as sufficient reciprocity for the Pearl Harbor tragedy, bear in mind that while devastating and terrible, Pearl Harbor was an attack on armed forces preparing for war, which resulted in the deaths of 2,300 soldiers. The atomic bombs were attacks on civilian towns (Little Boy missed his target by 800 ft and exploded over a hospital), and resulted in the deaths of 230,000+ innocents who had no say in the matter of Pearl Harbor or whether they desired any part in the war at all. It goes without saying that these two matters are a dark mark on our records (but you wouldn't think some people had gotten the memo, given the petty responses that littered Facebook following the Japanese defeat of the US women's soccer team at this year's World Cup).

Nowadays, we have moved on to more deadly substances: nuclear power, and the looming threat of such power falling into the wrong hands is ever-present. The Nuclear Club, an unofficial title for the states that acknowledge they possess such warheads, consists of eight countries: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel is suspected of having nukes, but it has yet to be confirmed. The first five of the preceding list are nuclear-possessing members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an agreement which in short states that it will prevent any countries who do not have nukes from obtaining them, will allow for the use of nuclear energy without the threat of abuse, and more importantly, binds the participating countries of the treaty to gradually move towards a total disarmament and abolition of nuclear warheads. The latter pillar seems a little more difficult, given that the language of the agreement is hazy, lacking a timeline or any real obligation to succeed, and suspicions of one another leave the states acting like five criminals in a room, holding one another at gunpoint, and no one trusts the others enough to lower their firearm first.

Throughout the past 5 decades, the fear of a nuclear apocalypse rose and fell with the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis, a narrow standoff between U.S. forces and Russian-backed Cuba which left John F. Kennedy sweating and the world on the verge of a miocardial infarction, brought paranoia knocking on the average American's door. Bomb shelters were built, bomb warnings were developed, bomb drills were exercised at schools and offices, and talk of the Red Menace littered daily conversations. Though the CMC ended at the last moment with Cuba turning away, the reality of a nuclear war came dangerously close. Another incident occurred much later, when the U.S. had scheduled an exercise to test a rocket model. Notifying Russian authorities that the test would take place to avoid suspicion, the message went astray. When a supposedly unannounced rocket showed up on their radar, Russian President Khrushchev was given less than a minute to respond, his finger twitching on the button that would send a nuclear warhead hurtling toward the U.S. With seconds to spare, Khrushchev decided against the move, and after clarifications were given, the near-mistake left everyone with sense of dreadful relief. Today, the daily threat of hostile countries and terrorist organizations obtaining nuclear bombs lingers at the backs of people's minds, but who do we have to blame but ourselves? The fire we started has roared out of control, beyond our power to contain it, and it may prove to be our own self-inflicted demise.

While there is always the growing threat of hostile forces gaining access to nuclear arsenals, we have made progress in international disarmament. In the time from the Cold War to the present, nuclear warheads have been reduced from 70,000 to roughly 20,350. South Africa, once a country that had developed 6 nuclear warheads, acted in good faith and dissembled all before signing the NPT. But if you're thinking that 20,000 warheads and 8 countries are still too many, you're right. All it takes is one bomb to obliterate a nation, one explosion to set off a series of explosions as state retaliations take flight. Without total disarmament and the careful watch of all nuclear sources, we as a global community will never be safe.

"Every man, woman, and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness." -John F. Kennedy

IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF HIROSHIMA

For more information on the movement to total disarmament, watch Lucy Walker's Countdown to Zero

Leaving 'Em in the Dust

2011-08-06T12:44:00.000-07:00

As we encroach upon a new school year, districts, schools, and teachers are gearing up to dive back into the remaining debris of our disintegrating educational system, namely the No Child Left Behind policy, George W. Bush's brain child. Copies of workbook pages and practice tests are running hot off the presses, Number 2 pencils are being freshly sharpened, and teachers take another swig off the flask before entering the prison their classrooms have become, devoid of independent thought, creative teaching styles, and fun. A backwards policy that has left students burned out, teachers exhausted, and both dreading going to school every day, No Child Left Behind practically guarantees the failure of our children, and the rippling effects of standardized test obsession are destroying any hope our future may have.

Standardized tests are, at their core, an assessment of performance to determine the level of achievement each grade, school, and district can obtain, and the effectiveness of current teaching practices as they are. When I was in school, these tests were exactly that. The school year went on as it always did, we engaged in fun activities, we had projects and experiments, and we had the leisure of additional subjects such as music and art. Preparation for the annual standardized tests took all of two weeks out of the year, mostly with the focus placed on attendance for the tests. We completed the tests, usually in a week or two, then went on with our regularly scheduled curriculum.

Today, standardized tests have become less of an assessment tool and more of a formal exam that needs to be practiced for, studied for, and requiring extensive preparation with more time and efforts dedicated to these than most students probably dedicate to their SATs. In the stead of the fun, creative, active learning environments teachers had hoped to build, monotonous endless work pages are replacing most class time, boring students and reducing any chances of academic retention. But why is the drive to do well on these tests so high?

It's a given that the school, district, and state who have the best test scores gain national recognition for being just that, the best. The accolades one can obtain from having such high performance marks can be motivating enough, but let's be real here, it's all about the money. Those who receive the highest scores get the most money from the federal government, which filters down through the aforementioned branches into the schools, utilizing money as a motivational factor, a policy that ends up being more ironic than intelligent.

Most people think if one waves money in the face of superintendents, principals, and teachers, they will work harder and produce better scores; however what they fail to see is that low test scores are the result of a multitude of factors, most of which stem from a lack of money in the system. Classroom sizes are too large, school supplies such as desks, updated text books, and advancing educational technologies are missing in action, and lower socio-economic area schools pay less which brings in lower qualified teachers. So why does it make more sense to give money to schools who do better when one of the main reasons they do better is because they have more money to provide the learning environment children need to do well on the tests to begin with? Schools with lower scores should be carefully examined and it should be determined whether or not lack of funding was a direct cause of low scores, then money should be distributed as necessity dictates.

As the various facets of these systems become more and more obsessed with the green, the heat is turned up and flares down the line like a burning fuse with the teachers holding the dynamite. Ultimately, if scores are not up to par, principals and superintendents have decided, it is a direct reflection of the performance of the teacher, which can lead to a pink slip and a nice field trip to the unemployment office. Now, in spite of the glaring examples already provided regarding lack of funds and an overly-structured classroom environment that allows for little actual teaching, additional fault can and should be shouldered by the demographic of the classroom. The best example I can provide is a friend of my mother's, a first grade teacher who had 20 students: 7 of whom were recommended to repeat kindergarten but whose parents pushed them through, 5 of whom could not fluently speak English. Twelve students who really had no business being in this particular class held the fate of this teacher's career in their hands. And, faced with such a harsh reality, teachers became desperate.

In early July, it was revealed that Atlanta public schools had engaged in a city-wide scandal producing fraudulent test scores during the 2009 test period in order to receive the public notoriety and money higher scores would bring. Eighty-two educators admitted to various forms of cheating, including altering their students' test answers. Another 178 educators pleaded the Fifth Amendment, and additionally, 38 principals were charged with involvement. While many will tsk and shake their heads at the city, as we all should, we have to take into account the ridiculousness of this, the level of desperation these people must be feeling to take part not only in cheating on exams, but at such an incredibly large scale. Some driven by greed, others driven by the greedy and the desire to keep their jobs in this crumbling economy, all robbing their students and setting a poor example, to say the least.

So, with limited money where it needs to be, teachers facing undeserved punishments, and moderated teaching methodology that actually hinders learning and productivity, these standardized tests are ruining our education system. The long term effects are already being felt as high school graduates are barely passing exit exams, and the standard of education is lowered so students can move on, whether or not they're ready. This in turn will lower the standard for college entrance and then work standards of quality as well. So in short, we're crashing and burning. While the Obama Administration is set to revise the policy, change is slow, how many more failed academic years will it take before someone has the cajones to repeal this destructive policy? And how many more children will have to suffer in the meantime?

The Dance of Love

2011-07-17T14:41:00.001-07:00

Can you imagine my horror when, after pondering my next blog topic, I realized that I had not written a gay-themed blog this year? And haven't even mentioned gays in a blog post since last November? I'm such a bad gay! So in hopes of redeeming myself, here's a blog of glittery gay goodness...

We are caught in a dance my friends, one of progress and regression, diversions and delays. The Human Rights Movement has, in the past months, splintered, moving forward, backward, and every whichway, leaving us confused as to whether we should be celebrating or protesting and where we should go from here.

We achieved monumental success in New York last month when the state voted to legalize gay marriage, after years of debate and failed attempts (the senate voted on it back in 2009 as well, and fell short, despite impassioned and infallible arguments such as this). Every state we win is a milestone victory, bringing us just a tad closer to feeling equal, and what is infinitely more important, normal. The country had held its breath as we waited for the chorus of ayes in the tiny room that would decide the fate of millions of New Yorkers, and messages of congratulations arose all over the internet in united support of the new law. One step forward.

In almost immediate response to the passage of the new law, the House of Representatives ordered the Pentagon to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibits the Pentagon from granting same sex benefits to gay couples. In spite of the fact that the Obama administration has previously announced that they will no longer utilize DOMA, the government is still running rampant to retain any anti-gay power they once wielded. Likewise, they are dragging their feet on fully repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the grounds that more studies need to be conducted to ensure no negative long term effects will befall the armed forces. One step back, but we had a comeback on the way.

Just a few days ago Governor Jerry Brown of California signed the Gay History Law, requiring that "all contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books" specifically the homosexuals. Now when I first read of this news, I have to admit I was a little apprehensive, given that this was a keynote argument of the proponents of Prop 8, that if gays were granted the rights to marry, children would be taught about homosexuality in school. However, after careful thought and consideration, it becomes clear that this is not about homosexuality, this is about things people accomplished who simply happened to be gay. Children will not be taught about gay culture: glitter and rainbows, U-Hauling and scissoring, it will simply be "John made this, Sara did that and by the way, they were gay". Arguments are already flying as opponents of the bill gear up for a fight, concerned their children will be taught to accept homosexuality. Yeah, they probably will, so fight as hard as you can, because God forbid a public school system teach your children the horrors of open-mindedness, tolerance, and respect for their peers. God forbid as a direct result, school bullying and GLBT harassment and suicides might go down. A flying leap across the stage, but with a shaky landing.

As the GLBT movement/argument takes the forefront and extremists come out in opposition of equality, our children are being exposed to hate that is reminiscent of the Civil Rights Movement: discrimination of a group of individuals who are different, therefore viewed to be inferior and treated violently. A recent report published by the LA Times has found that anti-gay homicides have risen 13% since 2009, a number which is more than likely grossly underestimated given that not all homicides are automatically classified as hate crimes, as many states have no inclusion of hate crimes for gays in their law books. Even in California, where a transgender man was killed in a university bathroom and had the word "It" carved on his chest, it took a fair amount of advocacy to declare the crime as motivated by hate. And the harassment and violence that don't result in death isn't even considered in this report. Protests, hate speech, and abuse is undoubtedly on the rise as well. Even I was the subject of an attack not too long ago; though I haven't been exposed to much harassment since high school, mostly because I actively hid my sexuality from most people until about 2 years ago, it knocked on my front door (or rather, my Facebook wall) when a friend's account had been hacked and a post was left on my wall calling me a faggot and lamenting that I should die, among other things. Others were hacked as well, but whether or not this was a generalized hacker post or dedicated directly toward me, it stung a bit. Spin and fall.

The tension surrounding gays since the Prop 8 aftermath has widened divisions across the country, and as we disjointedly progress toward equality, the score will climax and hostilities will surge in a final encore before the show is over and the curtain falls. There will be jumps, skips, stumbles, and falls, but we must take the wins, however small, when they come in order to strengthen ourselves for the fights and losses we will inevitably face before we reach our goal. Amid the frustration and anger, sadness and tears, I just keep telling myself, we will get there someday, we just have to keep fighting. What other option do we have?

The Anomalies of Normalcy

2011-07-02T13:22:00.000-07:00

Normal. The word makes one cringe when they hear it. A word that should have every positive association attached to it carries a hoard of negative connotations when you realize it is a term that doesn't apply to you. A social definition of what is deemed acceptable behaviors and appearance in one's host culture, what is normal is rarely black and white; the boundaries are blurred and surrounded by a sea of gray. Its idea changes from person to person, family to family, to neighborhoods to states and so on; it is hard to know where you stand in the scheme of things and your placement is always determined by someone else, and is always changing.

There is often a movement somewhere in the world that sets out to magnify our differences. Highlighting how unique we are from one another, they call attention to wonderful qualities and talents that help us stand out, so we don't feel that dreaded monotonous sameness the Nazis once dreamed of. What these programs don't warn against is the risk of being too different. "Express yourself!" (but not too much), "Follow your dreams!" (except those dreams), "Love whomever you want!" (but not that person), "Be yourself!" (wait-not that self). And the people who dare to step out of the bounds of acceptable uniqueness are the individuals who are, in essence, excommunicated from society. Met with stares, frowns, abusive remarks, and even pure avoidance, those who go against the grain become isolated, save the small circle of friends with similar quirks who accept them without judgment.

In being a therapist, our business is Normalcy. Leave the people who are normal alone, make those who are abnormal become normal, with the help of societal standards and our handy dandy DSM IV TR (another socially determined collection of defined categories of normal). When a patient comes to my office, I am essentially charged with a Caesarian rule: thumbs up or thumbs down, sane or crazy, normal or abnormal. But how does one truly know what is normal? In one psychology class we were asked to develop a clear cut definition of normal, and few if any could compose an accurate representation of such. So who are we, above anyone else, to wield the power of labeling people who might just be different?

Working predominantly with a severely autistic population, I am exposed to the rare black and white that most of us can't see when it comes to determining "normal". Normal becomes survival in society, the ability to talk, the ability to communicate with others one's own thoughts, feelings, and needs without bursting into tantrums of frustrated screams and physical aggression, and most importantly, the ability to develop and maintain relationships with others, because we are, at our cores, a social specie. But once we gravitate to higher functioning autism, and even Aspergers, one is met with opposition to such labels of anomalies. Thought of as socially deficient, these individuals have found peace with their diagnoses and have learned to function in society without seeking or desiring a cure. They may struggle with interpersonal awkwardness, as we all do at times, but they are content in living their lives as they may, with or without judgment from others, and wish to be left with their oddities and idiosyncrasies.

As one who could easily be described as socially inept, I sympathize with this population, one which parallels much of my own symptomology. Plagued with an at times debilitating social anxiety disorder, I also struggle with interpersonal exchanges: making appropriate facial expressions at appropriate times, making and maintaining eye contact, reading social cues, taking comments too literally, expressing my thoughts clearly, and properly adjusting my prosody (tone of voice). For the most part, I have coached myself well enough to engage in conversation without much difficulty, I mentally develop scripts to various scenarios and can usually respond to others effectively. However, in times of heightened anxiety, I become a bumbling flustered idiot with a flat affect who stares at the floor or out windows and fidgets with any object of comfort that can be found nearby.

Now, for the most part, people have come to take me as I am. There is an understanding that I am slightly odd, that certain facial expressions are not to be taken offensively, that eye contact is not a necessity for listening, and that silence does not always manifest lack of comprehension. For others, they struggle with the nature of our exchanges and, confounded by such, require alterations. What this becomes is not so much a fault on my part, but a need of theirs that is not being met. They need to know I'm listening by making eye contact, they need to know I'm friendly by having me smile when I don't particularly feel reason to, and they need me to respond to feel as though I'm understanding them. So, content in my own ways, how much should I change myself to make others happy? To make them comfortable?

The problem is, we all at one point or another want that normalcy. We want to fit in, we want to be like everyone else, we want to belong. In these times of desperation, we are given to sacrificing ourselves for that comfort of having a niche. But our uniqueness is what sets us apart, even if those idiosyncrasies are not always shining beacons for model citizens. Sometimes our idiosyncrasies are abnormal, and downright crazy, sometimes they annoy the hell out of the others around us, but what would the world be without them? Without van Gogh's inability to fit in, we would not know the pain-driven beauty of his creations. Without Emily Dickinsons' need to isolate herself from the world, we would not have her devastatingly breathtaking poetry.

While I can hardly compare my blogging and sporadic poetry to art, writing is my creation and my best way of communicating with the outside world when my mouth and my face can't say what I long to. I may be odd, but oddities create art, create beauty, and create change. Those who are different are the ones who make history, those who conform are the ones we forget. And yet, when they are living, the world is confounded by them, they challenge the balance of things and are usually scorned. Embrace them. The strange child of today can grow to be the quirky genius of tomorrow.

We Have Seen The Enemy and He is Us

2011-05-03T01:23:00.000-07:00

On May 1^st, 2011, the streets of America were filled with jubilant celebrations as cheers and chants floated on the night breeze, and painful memories healed somewhat upon hearing the news that our number one fugitive, Osama bin Laden, had been killed. A ghostly image that has been seared into our retina over the past nine years, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the tragic 9/11 attacks lay dead after being shot by special US armed forces.

I must admit I hardly celebrated in a similar manner as my fellow countrymen. Taken partly by surprise, then dull relief, the nine years of chasing down the ever-elusive mountain dweller has taken its toll. What was once believed possible faded into disappointed resignation, then slipped into the shadows of a mission forgotten. And then, out of the blue, his death was splashed across TV screens, computer monitors, and cell phone displays and the deaths of 3,000 American civilians had been avenged. But being the pessimist my mind has condemned me to be through this existence, all I could think of the manhunt that has ensued for nearly the past decade, when the costs were assessed, was that it was utterly pointless.

The attacks of 9/11 were a horrific tragedy, one of insurmountable hatred no one could wrap their minds around; one of heart-breaking pain time will never heal. The video of the plane bursting through the concrete of the second tower, the images of debris showering down over Manhattan, the dark dust cloud that loomed over New York City like Death lingering above a battlefield will never be forgotten. In no way do I wish to belittle these events, but as I’ve written before, our government’s response, backed by our nation, was one of swift, emotionally-fueled retribution without much consideration for consequences or by-product results. Hunting down bin Laden became, in our minds, the ultimate conclusion to this nightmare, the final goal. In our illusion, his death would not only bring justice, but closure, an end to all we’ve suffered. But, in the midst of our tireless efforts, we became reckless, and, paired with our power, we became dangerous. Throughout the years, a transformation occurred: while hunting the terrorists, we became them.

In the past ten years, it is estimated that the west’s war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq has resulted in the deaths of well over 500,000 innocent civilians, in spite of our government’s efforts to “minimize civilian casualties”. Excuses of misguided missiles and cases of mistaken identification did little to ease the daily fear and anxiety Iraqis and Afghanis suffered at the hands of our armed forces as helicopters soared over their homes and tanks rolled through their roads. Gruesome attacks of delusional and/or power-drunk soldiers rarely made headlines here in the states in order to avoid exposing the reality of this war and risk losing popular support, but some tales broke through: the wedding party that was shot up by soldiers on edge reacting to what sounded like gunfire (both the bride and groom were killed). The infamous video of the 2007 helicopter attacks on innocent reporters toting phones and cameras. The rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl and the murder of her and her family. The slaughter of innocent civilians and the desecration of their bodies where soldiers took “keepsakes” for themselves. And the brutal murder of nine Afghani children, mistaken for insurgents, who were just out gathering firewood for their families.

Whether psychologically imbalanced from the strains of war or simply cold-blooded murderers, our government knowingly sent these individuals back into battle, terrorizing the people of these countries we viciously encroached upon without invitation or welcome. And they feared us. Will the soldiers come again? Will they shoot? Will they drop bombs? Will they destroy our homes? Will we die tonight? Our government has, in short, become the largest most powerful terrorist network in the world.

In addition to the overwhelming impact we’ve had on these poor people’s lives, we have sacrificed and lost so much more. Financially this war has become a sinkhole, exacerbating an already strained economy by spending what has become a trillion dollar expense. Our war-mongering antics have soured relations with many other powerful countries and our allies have slowly retreated. Our nation was immersed in a cloud of fear, apprehension, and distrust of the world around us, a distrust of ethnic and religious differences that turned into suspicion then anger and abuse. We have, in short, become a hateful, vengeful, hated, broke ass country that is still responsible for 166 times more civilian deaths after 9/11 than those the terrorists managed to obliterate on that fateful day. And this isn’t even our first time terrorizing other nations in retaliation. Many examples could be given, but the best I could provide to you is our response to the last attack on American soil, Pearl Harbor. A Japanese military attack that killed nearly 2,300 American soldiers, a country scorned and angry, and a bomb named Little Boy resulted in the deaths of 130,000 innocent Japanese civilians when the first atomic bomb was dropped in Hiroshima over an elementary school, killing women and children. Not quite satisfied with our finale, an encore was sent to Nagasaki three days later, killing 70,000 more civilians. Two hundred thousand innocent civilians who played no part in the decision to attack Pearl Harbor lost their lives so justice could be done. Likewise, the 500,000+ civilians of the Middle East played no part in 9/11, and it cost them just as much.

The wars we’ve fought beneath the guise of some higher cause, be it peace of mind, justice, or stopping the “evil-doers”, have gone above and beyond an eye for an eye as we engage in childish one-up-manship, leaving in our wake more destruction than has ever been dealt to us. And in spite of everything it’s cost us, we feel no safer; terrorism is not over, someone will take bin Laden’s place tomorrow and this war will continue as it has, but terrorism is not a bearded face with a turban. It’s not a particular religion in a particular region of the world. It’s an act anyone can commit. And we have. Was it worth it to become our enemy in order to kill him?

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce,especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear or submission produced by terrorism.

Children Who Kill, and Those Who Don't

2011-04-19T21:41:00.000-07:00

Twelve years ago today, a small town in Colorado became temporarily notorious. Mention it's name out of context and many won't be able to place where Littleton is, let alone why it is infamous to begin with. But, on April 20th, 1999, no one could think of anywhere else after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold glided onto the Columbine campus armed with semi-automatic guns and several home-made bombs that were strategically placed in the building. After just a few short hours, with both boys dead from self-inflicted wounds, they had succeeded in killing thirteen innocent people, and injuring twenty one others.

After this tragic incident, accusations were flying everywhere, everyone searching for something or someone to blame, and most people getting it wrong. From the goth culture to heavy metal music, from video games to psychotropic meds, the media hit each and every viable possibility and shoved it down the general public's throat, simultaneously demonizing the shooters and society as a whole. The one point of focus that probably carried the most merit faded into the background: school bullying. Social outcasts who were ridiculed every day, humiliated and hassled, labeled with homophobic slurs, they eventually reached their breaking points, as many in their positions do.

In reading the book Children Who Kill by Carol Anne Davis, I've come across many similar stories of seemingly sadistic cold-blooded murderers who, in a moment of rage or in simple remorseless apathy have killed innocent people. Some stories are unnerving, others, stomach-churning, but they all had similarities too prominent to ignore: child abuse, neglect, instability, social ostracization, and psychological illness. And much like the Columbine shooters, the media turned to other factors such as games, TV shows, movies, and just hanging with bad crowds as probable causes of the violence. In nearly every story, a blind eye was turned to the long term ill-effects that come with years of pain, suffering, and devastation these children experienced, typically inflicted by the very people who were meant to protect them.

Now over the past months of blogging, my own personal history has gradually been revealed as my blogs have taken a more intimate tone, and many of you are aware of several instances of abuse, various types from various perpetrators, school bullying, and my own resulting mood disorders. What has tapped into my being and struck a chord with me while reading about these kids is how easily I could have become one of them. With very similar backgrounds and long repertoires of emotionally and psychologically altering circumstances, what is that defining factor that sets one apart? What makes some of us killers and others productive members of society?

In Viktor Frankl's autobiography, Man's Search for Meaning, he discusses his own experiences with the continuing battle between Saints and Swine while serving time in a concentration camp during WW2. A prominent point Frankl made repeatedly in his book was the issue of freedom of choice. He argued that although events take place in our lives and we cannot always control what happens to us, what is in our control is how we respond to these events: we become saints, or we become swine. In his example, saints were defined as individuals who cared for fellow prisoners and looked out for one another, and the swine were individuals who adopted a more "every man for himself" approach to surviving the camps. In our lives, this can be more or less the individuals who go on to lead generally successful lives, have families and meaningful relationships, maintain employment and housing, and individuals who fall into more self-destructive and criminal behaviors and end up harming themselves or others.

I frequently utilized Frankl's theory in working with severely emotionally disturbed teens. Sadly, like the kids in Davis' book, most of them had seen the worst of life in the few years they had lived. Many survived neglect at the hands of their drug-abusing mothers, many suffered beneath the iron fist of alcoholic fathers who used them as punching bags. Some had been forced into early sexual awareness by perverted family members. All of these matters were events in their lives they couldn't control, so in a misguided effort to regain that control, they began engaging in their own destructive behaviors: truancy, theft, drug use, promiscuity, self-mutilation, even suicide attempts. In trying to redirect that sense of control into more productive actions, many of such teens can be molded into functioning healthy individuals, in spite of their dark pasts.

Unfortunately, for many of these kids who went on to commit these heinous crimes, intervention was too little too late, if it came at all. For some, any intervention may have proved useless, as the damage had been done and psychopathology had set in, rendering them sociopaths. However, for the most part, it seems that rehabilitation is more than possible, if we can find the missing link that sets us on the right path. Granted, many of the child killers were male and in the midst or on the brink of puberty. With the increased level of testosterone and the effect it has on aggression, it could be argued that hormones play a part. Other factors could be time and type of interventions, variations in abuse and abusers, genetics, etc. In short, I have no idea what makes some people killers and what makes some successful survivors. I don't know why I took the path I did and narrowly avoided becoming a statistic. I had the background, I had the resulting depression, I was a self-mutilator, I had deep-seated anger, a seething hatred for the people who hurt me and resentment and distrust of people in general. My intervention was therapy and medication, and eventually the depression, anger, and hate dissipated and I became a therapist to help others. Some are just not as lucky, I suppose.

Eric and Dylan were two of the unfortunates. Though not much has been written on their home life, I would imagine they were not stable situations with overly concerned and involved parents, as anyone could have seen this train wreck coming had they only paid attention. After Columbine, they were destroyed by the media as crazed psychotic killers who master-minded elaborate plans of attacks, plans which, if read with an impartial eye, come off more as the childish, nonsensical grandiose ideas of manic kids than highly intellectual criminals. Few even addressed what was probably a dark, lonely adolescence for two severely depressed young men. The same happened to Seung-Hu Cho of Virginia Tech, a long-disturbed child also destroyed by the media when "violent" short stories he had written were sensationalized as red flags. In reality, they were poorly written blips about angry high school students cursing their principal.

Criminals are not born, they're made. While some of us can be saved, many many more fall through the cracks, and soon make headlines. So before we allow the media to strip these poor kids of their humanity, let us not forget that at one point, these "cold-hearted murderers" were once someone's baby, and more than likely, that baby was not given much love.

The Ways of the World and Women

2011-03-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

For several decades the feminist movement has worked towards balancing the scales, bestowing equal rights to women such as voting, education, and in the work force, and protecting them from discrimination, neglect, and abuse. Typically our antagonists have been the Y-chromosome toting counterparts of our species, men and their obsession with power and dominance, working hard to keep the product of their broken rib beneath their thumbs. Thanks to many a blue-stockinged suffragette, we've managed to push forth and claim our place atop the mountain, even if it's just a small corner of it. But what do we do when our biggest nemesis is not men, but other women who have been manipulated by cultural standards and brain-washed into believing that the way things are is they way they should be? How can we save women from themselves?

Though the outside world is constantly changing and evolving, usually for the better in terms of the feminist movement, our first exposure to societal norms is from our families and more importantly, our mothers. And given that, at times, change is so gradual within the family system and values transcend so many generations, some of us are still living in the 50s. My mother still refuses to leave the house without make-up on, my father still believes tattoos warrant public scorn and make me look like a shameless street walker. I shunned make-up and am already looking at a third tattoo possibility, but it is rare that an outside influence can have such an impact on individuals that their values grow to be so drastically different from their families. With small alterations here and there, many of us follow suit and adopt the standards our family has presented to us, and it's not easy to rise above that, socially or psychologically .

As these values are being planted and sown in our heads, we are heavily laden with a sense of obligation to our families and their expectations. Many a movie and book have been created chronicling the free-spirited child who goes against the grain by rejecting their family's ideas, ignoring their wishes, and following their own heart to some fantastic happy ending. Unfortunately, life isn't always as perfectly drafted as a movie and it's harder to step off the beaten path than we'd like to believe. After all, they are our family, and while famed psychologist Salvador Minuchin argues that boundaries between ourselves and our families have to be distinct, there has to be a healthy balance of connection to our families as well; a total emotional cutoff could also be detrimental, which makes completely turning our backs on them virtually impossible. And though we hate to admit it, sometimes it's easier to sacrifice our own happiness to avoid that look of disappointment on our parents' faces.

There is a balance that can be found between social and familial expectations and personal fulfillment. What is considerably more difficult to combat is the psychological manipulation in the family that breeds women to believe that these expectations are the norm, and they're actually doing the righteous thing by meeting them. In high school I had a Mormon friend who was intelligent and capable of achieving great things. Unfortunately, being raised in a family where women were expected to stay home, spawn several children, and manage the household while the husband brought home the bacon limited her future. Her mother, aunts, grandmothers, great-grandmothers had all done the same, and she would be no different. She took a few classes at the community college while openly admitting she was biding her time until "she can find someone and get married". Convinced this was a fully independent choice she was making, she took pride in her decision to be a stay-at-home mother, but when you've been exposed to nothing more than stay-at-home moms, when you've been raised to believe that this is what good Mormon girls do, how independent is this choice, truly? Likewise, many Muslim girls have been exposed to nothing more than women who wear the Hijab or Niqab and told that this is the morally proper thing to do. They argue it's their choice to cover their heads and fight for the right to do so, but are they truly making the choice to wear one, or is it the extreme cultural influence that veils them every morning?

Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against stay-at-home moms or women who choose to cover themselves. I have seen children of career women become domestic goddesses and soccer moms, I've seen Muslim girls who chose to cover themselves even though their mothers never did and their friends won't. I simply question their ability to freely make such decisions when pressured by family and culture. Only when a woman has not only been given the equivocal option but true encouragement to explore any and all opportunities before making such a choice can you truly argue that they decided for themselves. When the system simply says "do what makes you happy" rather than do this or that, that's freedom. To stay at home or pursue an education and career, to cover or not, it's your choice, but ensure it's YOUR choice, not someone else's.

Such issues are factors that impede the growth and progress of the feminist movement, but the seriousness of these cognitions extend far beyond domestic situations and head garments. In Africa, Female Genital Mutilation continues to be a tragic practice that effects anywhere from 100-140 million females worldwide. FGM involves, to varying degrees, the cutting of the vagina, be it the ciltoris, the labia minora, or sewing the vaginal opening partially shut to avoid intercourse until marriage. The method has sparked outrage from human rights groups all over the globe, demanding legal action be taken, but the problem lies not in the judicial system of these countries, but the cultural mentality of the villagers who continue to cut their daughters, most of whom are consenting mothers. Again, a cultural practice has transcended the generations, convincing women that this is not only expected, but acceptable and revered, and they stand by, sometimes even holding their own daughters down as they struggle through excruciating pain to make them honorable women. How do you break that mentality? How can you change decades of thought and practice in one generation to save young girls from the continuing oppression of their own mothers?

Some try to use the argument that cultural norms are different and we have to respect the various practices of others. They view our opposition as ethnocentrism, a blind opinion from the egotistical west who tries to control the world, alter other ways of life, and deject our fellow citizens of the world. While an appreciation for methods and beliefs that are different from our own is always crucial, there is a line to be drawn when it oppresses a group of people and when it causes psychological, emotional, or physical harm, whether or not the women experiencing it and the women perpetuating it can see it. So now we have a war to fight on two fronts: we need to work together to protect ourselves from oppressive men, and even more so to protect others from our own, but success can't be found with one when we have weak links in our own ranks. The most we can hope for is to continue the education as Waris Dirie has and remove the blinders of yesterday's ideation so we can see the ways of the world for ourselves today, moving forward and becoming free-thinking independent women.

The Good, the Bad, the Gray

2011-03-22T19:34:00.000-07:00

As we grow and navigate the murky waters of this sea that is the development of our personal morality, we frequently take short cuts, divert our journey, and just plain get lost. Who we grow up to be, what causes we support, what values we stand for, and how we conduct ourselves as human beings is determined by a wide array of factors. From the beginning we are flooded by the influence of our parents, then religion, school, friends, and the media, all of which usually pull us in various directions as conflicts arise and dissonance sets in. It's all we can do to keep our heads above the surface, let alone swim through the crashing waves of the expectations of others. Everyone has an idea of who we should be, others try to control it, but where and when do we find that for ourselves?

Sometimes we look to others for guidance: mentors or role models. Some of us are fortunate to find these people in our everyday lives. Some of us end up looking to public figures for such support and rely on superficial personas filtered through magazines and television to help us find the right path. Unfortunately, instead of gracing worthy figures like Mother Teresa or Archbishop Desmond Tutu with our quiet reverie, sometimes we mistakenly bestow our admiration upon the likes of ill-fated Disney Channel starlets and foul-mouthed shock-seeking rappers. In our young and impressionable ages, we follow whatever example they've set and find ourselves wandering aimlessly once we've matured enough to realize the folly of our ways. Then it's time to set out on our own journey.

With any luck, one might sit down and sift through the grit and bullshit we're fed and critically evaluate the options presented for multiple issues of life and the world at large. Through careful analysis and self-reflection, we can determine what's truly important to us, what really doesn't matter so much and why, and then set out to take a stance on either side of the argument. Comparative research may be conducted, or we might fall into the clutches of some fear mongering propaganda machine and make a knee-jerk decision with more emotion than rationale. Wherever we may land initially, it's a stepping stone in the right direction once we decide to follow our own minds and begin to develop our own moral dichotomy of what's right and wrong.

The most frequent pitfall I've seen of morality development, however, is intense conviction stemming from emotional decisions fueled by propaganda. This is how extremists are born. Individuals find a cause, attach themselves to it like leeches, and rarely waiver in the face of adversity or just plain common sense. They fall victim to their own confirmation bias, shutting out any facts that contradict their viewpoint and embracing whatever information supports it, no matter how illogical it may be. In open debate, they argue in circles, pull out baseless statistics, and eventually resort to ad hominem attacks when they have nothing left to give. These are the people we need to worry about the most, because people who swallow and follow are falling victim to the same process that created religious extremism and the Nazi Party. Having a sense of morals and values is critical, but so is the process of how one builds those ideas.

While it's important to have a strong sense of who you are and what you believe in, it's also important to note that our systems need to remain permeable. Ideas, thoughts, beliefs could change over time as information changes and emerges. Centuries ago, someone said the Earth was flat. Had we resigned to that explanation without question, without exploration, we would still believe this today (some people still do). We always need to be questioning and debating and our positions evolving. Nothing should be set in stone. Some beliefs may never change, others may find you swaying to the polar opposite opinion, but the person who makes up their mind and closes the case is usually the draconian bastard that rots the collective intelligence of humanity.

I've found as I've gotten older, gained a better sense of how the world operates and how it relates to me as an individual, that my once extremist views on various issues have relaxed and fallen to the happy medium. Rather than once imposing my beliefs on others, as my church would have had me do years ago, I've slipped into a comfortable "live and let live" approach to people in the world. Rather than falling victim to propaganda, I find myself researching more and weighing the facts with critical analysis. Rather than allowing others to determine who I should be, I've taken their advice and the examples they've set and I've incorporated what I find valuable into my own system. And more recently, I've learned that things are not black and white. Finding myself in what I will aptly refer to as a Robin Hood Dilemma, I found myself violating some ethics and compromising my personal integrity (which I hold dear) in order to benefit a larger cause and help people who would otherwise be lost without it. Okay, so I'm still struggling to rationalize the last one to myself, but a minor lesson altered my viewpoints on life; exceptions must be made, lines must be blurred, and there is always a gray area that is never easy to land in or get out of.

A friend once asked "would you rather die young knowing your convictions or live to be 80 but always questioning who you are and what you believe in?" As an individual who has shed and rebuilt several convictions as epiphanies, information, and common sense arose, I can guarantee that being stripped of everything you once held dear and then trying to develop a new belief system and a sense of morality can be a dark and confusing time that leaves you blind and unsure of yourself. It's a hell no one should be condemned to, especially not for a lifetime. However, in this day and age when it seems society is polarizing to either lack of values or intense convictions, it seems to be a rare gift to have a comfortable, sound belief system, especially for young people. But morals and values, even on an individually subjective basis, is the backbone of society and the cornerstone for one's personal integrity. So get cooking, find what you stand for with a sprinkle of influence, a dash of common sense, a computer for research, and some bullshit repellent.

If Ignorance was Truly Bliss

2011-01-16T17:31:00.000-08:00

There is not a day that goes by that we don't log onto the world wide web and stumble across a news story of some ill-fated characters who are being mistreated, terrorized, and even killed in today's society. Click onto Huffington Post's or any news site and you will be thrust into a whirlwind of horrific and heart-breaking stories: home foreclosures and unemployed America, pedophile priests and abusive parents, dying soldiers and civilians in war torn countries and freak mass shootings by 'extremists'. The perverse focus of modern day media on negativity has left many of us tainted with cynicism and a misanthropic outlook on the world and the many people in it. Is it any wonder we're losing heart in what seems to be a world destined for ruin? How can we shut out the dramatized reality every computer, TV, and newspaper spews out? Perhaps we could just chuck the media sources out the window, return to a simpler life; perhaps we should become Amish.

Years ago a study found that the Amish communities, in their simplistic and isolated society, were statistically significantly happier than the rest of us. Several psychologists and sociologists offered up their reasoning and rationales for the cause of this marked increase of bliss; a lack of conspicuous consumerism or possibly the ease of a less complicated and hurried lifestyle. But the most compelling evidence I had heard was that of absence of social media outlets. Having little to no access to the circus that is the nightly news, many of the more traditional Amish have successfully disconnected themselves from the outside world. Without stories of neighborhood shootings and robberies to strike fear into their hearts, without images of natural disasters and wars worlds away and all the victims that go hand in hand with such tragedies, without all the weight of the violence and hatred in the world bearing down on their shoulders, why shouldn't they be happier? They are, in essence, the ostrich with their heads in the sand.

There was a time when I, in seething protest of the foul manipulation of events and biased reporting, refused to watch the news. Refusing to partake in the brewing storm of scare tactics, refusing to allow two pixelated representations of emotionally disconnected human beings into my living room, I invested my attention elsewhere (usually in reruns of The Golden Girls, and who can be sad when the room is aglow with four saucy female senior citizens?). On the internet, I avoided the home pages of various servers who had the habit of posting headlines and streaming ticker tapes. And I found myself slightly more at peace in this brief hiatus. Without terrifying stories of muggings and rapes, I no longer tiptoed apprehensively through the shadows of my front yard at night. Without the disproportionate coverage of minority crimes, I no longer double-checked the minorities walking by on the sidewalk (yeah, being Mexican I was still checking the Mexicans). Without the countless tears of families and friends crying on camera over a fallen loved one, I was no longer feeling the bog of someone else’s devastation on my heart. Unfortunately, this peace was nothing more than a selfish escape from the real world, and while the Amish are happier, they and people like them are failing our society.

Too often we simply concern ourselves with our immediate environment, the people in our everyday lives, our family, our friends, and rarely give consideration to the others beyond our own little bubbles. The news media is our only window connecting us to the events and tragedies that befall our states, countries, continents, and our globe. Without these outlets, we would have never known of the Haiti earthquake or the Pakistani flooding. We would have never known of the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict or that horrific crime against humanity, the Flotilla raid. We would have never known of the tragic shooting that took place in Arizona last week. And without this information, we never could have sent the millions of dollars in aid to natural disaster victims. We never could have lashed out in anger at the Israelis, consequently forcing them to ease off their blockade restrictions and allow the Palestinians some food. We never could have been inspired by the handful of heroic stories as good Samaritans rushed to the scene of the shooting to help whomever they could, in spite of being shot when trying to stop the gunman.

Despite the pain, frustration, and sadness that washes over us when these haunting images flash across the screen, it is human nature to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. It is our obligation to care for one another and help in any way we can. To reach beyond our boundaries, to force open our eyes to conquer our self-induced ignorance is our responsibility as global citizens. Excuse the forthcoming sap that will no doubt cue a Michael Jackson song somewhere, but we are one world, there can’t be divisions and isolation. People need help, and for those of us who are in countries far better off than the majority of the earth, where our worst days could be a utopia for a starving child in a third world nation, we must provide whatever assistance possible. But how can we know who needs help without the media? We cannot allow their blighted stories to destroy our well-being and our sense of security, but neither can we shut them off when the events they’re sharing can be made no more tragic than if we were standing there ourselves.

In my absence from the news media, I still continued to do my part the best I could. I ran a cancer fund for a few years, I donated my time to underprivileged children and juvenile delinquents, and even donated my money to endangered chimps in Tanzania (yeah they need money too, bananas don’t grow on trees, ya know…wait, they do? Crap…well played Miss Goodall, well played). But it wasn’t until I joined the ranks of that queen woman on YouTube that I felt I was a part of an initiative with a global impact, and being a part of that movement required me to dip back into the ongoing world events such as war, terrorism, and human suffering. Then, and only then, could we begin to fight it.

Turning your back on the world and averting your eyes from the pain of others may give you a sense of peace and happiness the rest of us are not afforded, but in the end, it is our consciences that will be cleared when we reach for our wallets, sacrifice some time from our schedules, or simply send out prayers and love to those across the state lines, across the oceans. So enjoy your bliss, Amish dudes, go till your soil and drive your wagons and try to forget us, but don’t forget, when tragedy struck you, we were there.

Separating Fat from Fiction

2011-01-07T18:00:00.001-08:00

It is almost inevitable in any new year to walk down the street, turn on the TV, or gather around the water cooler and hear a stranger, an actor, or a coworker talking about the holiday pounds and whatever scheme they've cooked up to obliterate them. And let's face it, our hips and thighs are rarely safe in the last few months of every year with the endless parade of sweets, snacks, and, ahem, cocktails that marches through our offices and kitchens. Sadly though, I can't help but look at the people around me and think "what the hell are you complaining about?" While a few pesky pounds may have nestled comfortably on their abdomens, they are hardly noticeable, let alone worthy of a crash diet of tiny calories and psychotic carb-counting. Most fail to see that once returning to their previous lifestyle after the barrage of food, those little pounds will eventually fall off on their own. Most fail to see that there's nothing wrong with them in the first place.

The obsession of weight and beauty in pop culture today is not a novel one, but is growing ever more concerning as society begins to polarize, values are shifted, and the power of influence is won. Battles between activist groups and the media have ensued and results are sketchy to say the least. Italy banned too-thin models from their runways, hoping to reset the mode on the incredible shrinking shrews on the catwalks, but most models who couldn't find work there moved to France and New York, where such bans have yet to be placed. While there was marked outrage over an America's Next Top Model contestant whose waist was so small a judge could cup his hands around it, an incident which forced the show's creator Tyra Banks to issue a public apology, the model went on to take home the prize in the show. Celebrities speak out about being comfortable in their skin when the pounds are packed on, but immediately lose the weight in the face of criticism, (i.e. the martyr Jennifer Love Hewitt who viciously attacked the media for their comments on her cellulite before quickly slimming to a size 2). Magazines that even brag about healthy living and self-acceptance are slaves to the machine with ads and falsified photos. We are constantly pummeled with images of stick thin models and actresses, most of which are not even accurate images given the technology of retouching, but they nevertheless set the bar impossibly high and create societal standards of beauty no one could meet. But, we try, God help us we try, and with every failed attempt a piece of self-esteem withers and every mirror becomes our mortal enemy. The socially determined rules of beauty are a poison in our world, and it's trickling down to our children.

While our country is ranked as the second fattest in the world (we're down one from last year, thanks to our chubby friends south of the border, ole!), cases of eating disorders such as anorexia, bulimia, and other dangerous dieting habits are on the rise. Girls are dieting at younger ages, not under the careful supervision of a pediatrician or a nutritionist, but partaking in fad diets and pills that wreak havoc on their still-developing bodies. Believing that what they see in magazines, on TV, and in movies is what is expected of them, their minds are already warped before they're old enough to count the calories they're cutting. Not long ago my heart broke when I paid a compliment to my five year old cousin on a new pair of jeans and her response was "yeah they're nice but they're skinny jeans and I'm not skinny". Where does a five year old even hear the concept of being skinny or not? Though we usually blame the media, we forget the power of our own influence on our children: a conversation overheard from mom, aunts, cousins who constantly complain about their own weight are indirectly teaching their children that there are guidelines of personal image to adhere to, that they are not good enough on their own.

A child of such a situation, I've struggled greatly with my weight throughout my life. Though I was active in soccer, gymnastics, and dance as a child, genetics were not on my side. My mother was more mindful of our foods. We were not allowed the popular sugar drinks and snacks that my friends were fortunate enough to have in their lunches, but comments were made such as "do you really need another helping?" and my esteem slowly sank. I began my own line of fad diets when I was just nine, the first being Slim Fast, followed by a week long stint of pure vegetable soup and protein shakes, and eventually just starving myself. As I got older, my problem became poor eating and a sedentary lifestyle, and I got heavier. Comments evolved into "you would be so pretty if you lose that weight", or "you'll never get a boyfriend looking like that". Though I've dropped a good 40 pounds since high school, (yes I was that big), I'm still overweight and struggle with my self-esteem, avoiding most pictures for fear of a sneaky double chin sticking out or a bad angle of a flabby arm that spreads like a damn wing when you allow it to rest at your side. It's a work in progress, and I've had to work to shut out the world and their rules in order to begin to accept myself as I am, gingerbread, muffin top, and cottage cheese thighs altogether.

The media, in its own way, has tried to make amends. To the overwhelming joy of the general public, Glamour magazine published a photo of a nude plus-sized model (above) who seemed to be perfectly happy with the state of her body and was by all accounts quite beautiful; though I have to admit even with her little roll on her tummy she does not qualify as plus-sized in my book. RuPaul has a television show that encourages self-acceptance and self-love rather than changing to find that love. And model Isabelle Caro, who struggled with severe anorexia, used her influence for good and posed in several photo shoots and on billboards in a global anti-anorexia campaign. Regrettably, she passed away in November from complications of her illness, but even in death her life can be used as a resounding example of the dangers our obsession with weight can drive us into. Unfortunately, in spite of its best (non, mediocre) efforts, for every liberating photo and show, and every warning on a single billboard, the media spews out millions of contradicting images right alongside them in the magazines, on television, and on the dozens of other billboards that follow on the highway.

We know it, we hear it every day, and we see it on the internet, thanks to the paparazzi and tech-hounds who uncover unflattering negatives of photo shoots before our beloved celebrities and models are fixed up. This perverse ideation is a perpetual fantasy, a disastrous dream that corrodes our very well-being. So why can't our eyes see what our minds already know? Why can't we throw up that lovely middle finger to the press and go on about our lives happy, loving who we are, cherishing the beauty we have, and enjoying our cuisine and wine? I'm not saying we should throw healthy eating and exercise to the wayside, it's important to get your ass off the couch and move, and for God's sake, eat an apple once in awhile. But, don't starve yourself, don't hate yourself in that moment of weakness when you give in to temptation (or a boss that throws awesome paninis in your face), and don't obsess over those holiday pounds. Skeletons are out. Enjoy your extra fluff, believe me, it actually looks pretty damn hot on you.

To the Sound of Trumpets

2010-12-26T15:05:00.000-08:00

Nine years. For nine years we have been fighting this supposed war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. For nine years we have been losing our soldiers, losing our money, losing face to the rest of the world. For nine years we have been terrorizing the innocent people of these countries trying to find a multitude of rats in bunkers, mountains, and deserts. And after nine years of killing what is estimated to be hundreds of thousands of civilians, sometimes mistakenly, sometimes intentionally, the army is finally realizing that our soldiers are not well.

Today, Peter Chiarelli, a top army official, argued that soldiers need more time at home in between deployments in order to recuperate before being shipped back to the front lines. They usually get a year off for a year's deployment, with a minor break in between lasting about two weeks, almost like a typical job we have here at home. Of course, we don't spend the year killing and trying not to be killed. And if a year off hardly seems sufficient to piece together their shattered nerves, it's not, which is being proven time and time again.

The toll of this war is turning our weather-beaten soldiers into cold-hearted psychotic killing machines, as first evidenced by a 2007 video leaked by Wikileaks showing trigger happy soldiers celebrating the accidental killings of four civilians. Carrying cellphones and cameras that were somehow mistaken for AK-47s and grenades (yeah, I don't get it either), the soldiers opened fire amidst cheers and trash talking like they were playing a Wii game on their living room couches. They laughed as one body was mangled by a tank that ran over it, and opened fire on another group of civilians trying to rescue a survivor, riddling their van with bullets and hitting two small girls inside. The sudden realization of the children's presence yielded the icy response, "that's what happens when you bring kids into a warzone". Another incident is a highly publicized criminal proceeding where a number of soldiers killed innocent civilians and kept body parts as souvenirs, and a more recent trial has come to light after a soldier admitted to raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl and killing her and her family because he "didn't think of Iraqis as humans".

The outrage that these attacks have elicited from the world and from me is almost immeasurable, and it's so easy to point fingers, to curse and spit and damn them to Hell, but are we pointing the fingers at the right people? Thrust into an establishment that has only recently encouraged soldiers to seek mental health services (despite existing threats of dishonorable discharges and labels of weakness), fighting for a government that worries more about how many soldiers are killing others than about soldiers who kill themselves when they return home, and having the Us versus Them mentality hammered into their heads every waking moment of every day, it's amazing these men and women last as long as they do.

In Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book, On Killing, he discusses the multiple psychological casualties of war which, from the civil war to the present, haven't changed much despite developing technologies and the abandonment of guerrilla and trench warfare. Fighting fatigue, many soldiers fall into confusional states of dissociation where they depersonalize from their environment and can suffer from manic-depressive episodes. A prominent syndrome of the state is that of Ganzer, where the soldier will become silly and make jokes, trying to ward off the horrors of war, but in a delusional state that is overwhelmingly morbid. One such soldier fighting in the Korean war had retrieved the severed arm of a North Korean soldier, using it as a puppetry prop. He carried it around waving it in other soldiers' faces, calling it Herbert, and even pretending to pick his nose with one of the fingers. Sadly, this psychotic behavior did not land him safely in a mental ward, but on a double shift of guard duty, and today, only when this behavior becomes deadly such as in killing civilians and keeping "souvenirs" does it warrant attention. The dissociative properties of the confusional state also account for the dehumanization of victims that makes it easier for soldiers to kill, whether it be their targeted enemy, or innocent camera toting civilians and adolescents.

Given the prolonged time periods of service, multiple deployments, watching strangers die, watching friends die, and a war that has actually gotten worse, it's no wonder these people are losing their minds. Many war vets throughout history have come home to PTSD, drug and alcohol abuse, destroyed personal lives and obliterated mental health. Nowadays, they develop these issues before leaving their barracks. Swank and Marchand (1946) found that after 60 days of continuous combat, 98% of soldiers became psychiatric casualties. The other 2% escaped the fate only because they were found to already be unstable with "aggressive psychopathic personalities" (did I really just do an APA citation in my freakin' blog? What have you done to me grad school?!). So with our soldiers serving upwards of 90 days of continuous combat and no sign of our government slowing this fight, we will no doubt have many more horror stories of murder, torture, and mind-numbing stomach-churning morbidity to come.

But it is important to keep in mind, however, that these soldiers were not sick to begin with. These are not deranged antisocial personalities who come into the army with the perverse desire to kill. Romanced by promises of honor and the idea of serving their country and saving another, the harsh reality of war hits hard, and, disillusioned, their better judgment and morals dissipate in favor of basic survival needs and paranoid delusions about who their enemies are and how to deal with them. War makes people crazy, then we give them a small vacation and ask them to come back and do it again. And again. Then possibly once more. So no, Mr. Chiarelli, they don't need more time off, they need this war to be over. They need to come home. They need aftercare, they need therapy.

Voltaire once wrote "it is forbidden to kill, and therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets". Likewise it seems appropriate to write that all psychotics are locked away to protect society, unless they're zipped into fatigues, then they're given guns and asked to serve their country.

Side note: I can't write a blog about the army without at least mentioning our small triumph of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, but in spite of the success, I can only say to you now, dear gaybugs, stay home, not every right we're afforded needs to be exercised.

Moments Fleeting, Time Lost, Chances Missed

2010-12-13T19:50:00.001-08:00

So we're smack-dab in the middle of the holiday season, amidst bustling Christmas shoppers, tree farms, and co-workers who bring in a hoard of sweets under the guise of being friendly when in fact they're snickering behind your back because they know that cheesecake is going on your thighs, not theirs (seriously guys, enough is enough). But as we hurry from point A to point B and zip through the weeks, sweeping aside various everyday tasks that seem menial in comparison to our ever-growing to-do list, how often do we really stop and think about the things we're missing? More specifically, the people in our lives?

Now I know that over the years this resounding message seems more like beating a dead horse than an inspirational note moving us to pick up the phone or write a letter, but stay with me on this. Tonight, in my last official class of my Master's Program, my professor shared with us a personal devastating story. Her neighbor, a war vet with PTSD who had a history of suicidal depression and alcoholism had taken his own life last week. Now my professor had gone the extra mile over the years, providing emotional support, checking in on him, sending him birthday and holiday baskets, food for Thanksgiving, whatever he needed, whatever she could give. However, last week, she wasn't well, in bed with a long-term migraine, feeling physically ill, and she took a moment for herself. It wasn't until she got out of bed one morning, head still aching, that she heard the ominous hum of an idling engine outside her house. Peeking through the kitchen curtain, she found a fire engine and four police squad cars lining her street, and her heart stopped. She knew, without having to ask, what had happened. Her mind flipped back through the past week or so, every moment that she thought to stop by and every time she said, "I'm just too busy to talk to him today." And that guilt, by my own observation, is taking it's toll on her.

First let me clarify, I do not slight this woman in the least. She has extended and over-extended herself for this individual and really had tried to save this broken soul by giving all the love and care she had. Life happens, we get busy sometimes, and unfortunately things get passed up. However, far too many times the rest of us brush people aside without having the track record this woman brought to the table. How many times have we said "tomorrow", or "maybe next week", or "I really need to call/write/email him", and never got around to it? How many times have we thought "I simply don't have the time"?

I have to own it, as my life has gotten more hectic with school, work, internship, and all the time I've invested in just going nuts, I have neglected some people: a cousin I used to speak with almost every week, my dad whom I really only speak to once a month or so, my grandparents whom I keep saying I'll take out to lunch, but have yet to get around to it, and friends that have faded into the background as my once idle and uneventful life takes wing. But it's no excuse, because everywhere we look, we see people, read articles, hear stories of sudden and unexpected loss and pass up the lessons unlearned until it happens to us. Moments that should've been are gone, hopes for memories that were never made have dissipated, and all we have is the "should have, could have, would have if only I had the time" that won't bring our loved ones back.

And, in these trying times when we can all use a shoulder to cry on, a sympathetic ear, or just a hug, we need to take time for one another; to prevent more tragedies, to stop someone from picking up a gun and turning it on themselves, or worse yet, turning it on everyone else, to heal some wounds or at the very least, alleviate some pain. Most importantly, to let people know that they are loved, that they're on your mind, and in your heart.

So get cracking. Make your To-Call list, and hit up some people who haven't heard from you in awhile, or call up some people you may have spoken to yesterday, but this time just to say hi rather than ask for a favor. Write a letter, write an email, hell, write a text message! Despite arguments of technology making social exchanges more superficial and impersonal, let's face it, a text message says so much more than a phone that doesn't ring or a letter that never comes. And while you're at it, give a friendly smile to a stranger at the mall, start a little conversation when you're waiting in those long lines at the cashier, connect to someone new. It might just change their whole day, and you'll feel better for it.

Standing Up for the Little Guy

2010-11-24T23:01:00.000-08:00

Time and time again the majority has always ruled, and unfortunately, they've not always erred on the side of common sense. Whether it be stifling the human rights movement of numerous minorities throughout the years, voting in favor of multiple wars we had no business fighting, or collectively alienating a particular religious or cultural group for whatever ridiculous reasons, the hindsight afforded to us of past faults and folly is rarely applied to present day conundrums. However, despite reflections of public opinions in polls, on ballots, and in the media, it seems the tides are changing, and, if for a moment, the majority has found it's place: standing behind the little guy.

Yes, times for the gays have not been great these past two years or so. With the passing of gay marriage in California, then the removal with Prop 8, and a following rebuttal lawsuit, we now hang in limbo for the US Supreme Court to hear the case. And it's anyone's fight at this point. However, with the voting to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of the US Army, and a guaranteed failed appeal, the majority is starting to tentatively lean in our favor. Following the tragic suicides of five GLBT college and grade school students who were ruthlessly bullied into taking their own lives, a massive outpouring of support has flooded the internet with the It Gets Better project. Hundreds of people, from everyday gays and friends of gays and big name celebrities to high profile politicians like Senator Clinton and President Obama have historically lent their voices to an anti-hate campaign that has fostered the creation of over 5,300 videos on YouTube. Even that queen chick I'm always bugging on had a few words to say about the bullying (the broader term of simple "bullying" was used, 'cause Lord knows an Arab queen could never publicly defend the gays without getting her ass handed to her by her more traditional countrymen, but we all knew what they were talking about).

And the movement of the majority doesn't stop there. As previously mentioned in an earlier blog, there was a massive movement in defense of the Muslim holy book, the Quran, when some crazy old dude tried to stage a book burning. The movement not only led to public outcry to protect the Quran, but protests, petitions, denouncements from more political figureheads (Clinton again...she rocks, doesn't she?), and a particularly memorable stand-in where people of all religions laid their hands over a barbecue grill so a Christian fundamentalist group couldn't light the coals to burn the revered pages and covers. Turmoil still stirs against Muslims as emotions rise over the recent debate over the placement of a Muslim-funded community center near the Ground Zero site. However, the power behind either side of the debate has balanced as an equal amount of people have come face to face with the opposition to support the decision. While there is still some bad blood over the attacks on 9/11, it seems the majority of America has finally developed the brains to discern between Muslim extremists and true Muslims of Islam.

Unfortunately, we didn't have the mental capacity for such 9 years ago when the war in Afghanistan began. A nation broken, hurt, and angered, made the emotionally fueled decision to support George W. Bush in his bid to go after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in the middle eastern region. Now, many years later, after wising up to the shady dealings that underlined this so-called war on terrorism, many people have denounced the U.S.'s presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and have spoken out against the continuing failings of the government. But such frustrations have not spread to our soldiers, some of whom were beguiled into enlisting, thinking they were going to kill terrorists, some of whom were misled into believing they were going to liberate a nation oppressed by a horrific dictator. Many did not choose to serve under the truth of the matter, nor did they wish to continue once they found themselves in the very real circumstances of a fictional war. And we as a nation have not turned our backs on them. Well, the majority of us haven't.

Protesters were making headlines for some time, showing up to the funerals of soldiers KIA, shouting hate-filled chants, claiming the deaths of the soldiers was God's wrath being unfurled upon a nation that supported homosexuality. Bringing with them a black cloud to hang over an already darkened day for the soldier's family, they made their unwelcome presence known and tainted what should have been honorable memorials for soldiers who gave their lives doing our government's dirty work. But, a small town in Missouri was not about to let this happen for Corporal Jacob Carver. Upon hearing via word of mouth and Facebook that such a group planned to adorn his burial, not hundreds, but thousands of people from miles away arrived as early as before sunrise to secure their positions near the funeral site. Arriving in buses and caravans, nearly 3,000 people lined the roads with American flags waving to keep the protesters at bay. Most people had never met the young corporal who lost his life, many didn't know his family, but they gathered together to push out a tiny group of radical hate-mongers to protect his memory and his family in their time of need. The protesters were forced to set up nearly a third of a mile away from the funeral and despite attempts to shout across the town, their opponents out-shouted them and drowned out their message, forcing them to pack up and move out.

America was formed by the little guy, the ones whom, tired of being pushed around by a haughty king in a far-off land, sailed across the sea to escape the autocracy. But somewhere along the way we got too big, too strong, and slipped into the position of the oppressor, quickly forgetting what it felt like to fall beneath the ruling thumb of The Man. Laws that were created to protect us suddenly worked against us, and the power of the majority at times brought historic shame to our name. Granted, there were times when our government stepped up for the little guy amidst angered cries of the majority: a black girl may never have set foot in a white public school if a judge hadn't ignored the racist cries of a southern majority decades ago; blacks and whites would not have had the right to marry if the California Supreme Court hadn't ignored the cries of 92% of Californians who felt the races should not mix. And despite the efforts of 52% of Californians two years ago, a judge still had the cajones to stand up for the little guy and declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional. A group of a people with no personal affiliations to a religion risked burning themselves to protect it's holy book. A state of citizens with no personal connection to a soldier came from miles around to stand up for his right to have a peaceful burial.

They say never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Well, you better watch out for the power of large groups with balls and even bigger hearts. We will prevail...we must if there's any hope for this land and what we should stand for.

Happy Thanksgiving to my American peeps...stand up for the little guy...DAMN THE MAN! (sorry, I had to say it)

Sometimes You Gotta Lose Till You Win

2010-11-05T23:56:00.000-07:00

Hello to those who may have missed me! Though you can't see, my head is hanging in shame over my month long absence, as I was priding myself on a steady production of monthly blogs. However, recently life for me has been a speeding freight train carrying me away to some glorious horizon I never imagined I'd be chasing. In exchange, it has brought my expressive process to a screeching halt. I am an emotional writer, words flow through tears or flaring anger; happiness is my kryptonite, but I've been feeling the bog of creative constipation and racking my brain for some inspiration. Upon reviewing my previous posts, I've noted the repetitive theme of negativity, whether it be trashing misguided and delusional celebrities, misgivings of world issues, or wagging a scolding finger at royalty. I found this to be reflective not only of my point of view in this world but of my overall personal mood and frustrations, and since things have seemingly fallen into place for me, it appears it's time for a more cheery topic. Though I'm typically not given to outright self-disclosure on this blog, following my preceding post, it seems to be the trend of the moment, and I'm going with it.

Driving home the other day, I had some awesome tunes on the radio, my window down, the sun shining on my face (in case you hadn't noticed, it's blazing in Cali this November), and yes, I'll admit it, I was doing the hand windsurfer thing out of the car when the speed was right. Calmed, joyful from a good moment at work, and relaxed, a wave of peace washed over me and it was at this moment I realized, "I'm going to be okay."

Life for me has been unsure up until this point. The victim of child abuse (emotional, physical, and sexual), the survivor of rape at a very young age, the broken product of a destructive divorce and torn home, and a frequent target for bullying as I grew, I found myself in the clutches of a crippling depression that nearly killed me, twice. The darkness that enveloped me blinded me to any fragment of hope one might find in an eternal night, and I went to bed praying for death in my sleep. In the morning I woke, dismayed to find my wish unfulfilled, but pined for the coming night that would bring a new opportunity to try again. I dragged myself through each day, never expecting much from life, never anticipating surviving this long, just an empty shell wandering aimlessly through, trying to get to the end of this journey as quickly and quietly as possible.

Diagnosed when I was nine, the following ten years of depression yielded fruitless series of anti-depressant cocktails, unwanted therapy sessions (forced upon me by my parents), and frequent run-ins with razor blades and broken glass. After one early suicide attempt and a later meet and greet with the remnant pills in my medicine cabinet, I found myself wringing my hands on a psychiatrist's couch rattling off my symptoms and failed prescriptions. One more. One final slip of paper, written upon it some fancy names shielding the countless chemicals beneath them: Zoloft and Wellbutrin, and a recommendation to see a psychologist. Frequent headaches, dizziness, and nausea pushed me to take myself off the pills after just nine months, but coupled with therapy, it was just enough, and after a year and a half, I was finally balanced.

The road back was shaky and unsure, after spending nearly 12 years wanting to die, how could I learn how to live? Learn to smile, laugh, and love? It may be strange, dear reader, to try and understand how a smile could be a novel concept, but the first time I noticed myself doing it without obvious cause, it truly startled me. To laugh everyday was unknown, to plan for a future, unthinkable. But I went to college and took my first steps on whatever path I fell on. Is it any wonder my spinning wheel of fortune landed on Psychology? However, despite personal experience, I wasn't convinced this was my role. Plagued with doubts, I wondered what if I invested so much time and graduated to find I was a terrible psychologist? After graduation I found myself working with severely emotionally disturbed foster kids. A difficult job that had it's gratifying moments, but it more or less left me exhausted and on a downward spiral back to depression.

I returned to school to get my Master's Degree in Marriage and Family Therapy. With this newfound pursuit came new concerns: what if I'm not happy treating couples and families? What if I don't find a job in this tanking economy after graduation? How will I pay my student loans? What if I have to take some crappy cashier's job after all my hard work? Where am I going and will I get there? Depression and hopelessness began to set in again and it was all I could do to claw my way up from the bottom of that familiar pit.

Nearing the end of my program, I began my search for a Practicum site, a pre-graduation internship. Carrying my own personal preferences for specific populations, in my heart I knew I'd be lucky to get any site, given California's non-existent budget and non-profits closing left and right. But, following the helpful tip of a classmate, I landed in a place ironically called Hope. The population? Autistic children. Feeling apprehensive because I had never worked with autism before, I was welcomed with open arms by the staff, and almost immediately hit with wave after wave of positive feedback and praise. "A natural," they said. I'd never been a natural at anything. Loving my work, loving the kids, loving my co-workers, being good at what I do, and feeling a pull to continue working with autism. What more could I ask for? Oh yeah, I was offered a part-time job as an aide, and there's talk of a full-time job as a therapist after I finish school this March (Update: I am now employed as a therapist).

What truly was 17 years of despair, frustration, anxiety, and apprehension seemed completely resolved after a month and a half of discovering Hope. Now still bearing some of that residual pessimism, I've not deluded myself into believing this momentary perfection is forever. Things happen, life happens, and my plans may be derailed. But for the time being, I will bask in the glory of it, because I really do think this is my time to shine, in spite of the current state of the outside world. This is my little sliver of sunshine that finally found it's way to my heart. And I deserve it, don't I? It's my turn for happiness.

The day after my happy drive, I serendipitously stumbled across this fantastic song by Sugarland. Now I don't normally plug anything, products or celebs or their work (except my Renee), but what I love about Sugarland is that in the midst of their bubbly kick ass rock out songs, they plant these little seeds of heart-wrenching truths that apply to us all. Little Miss is that song of their album, The Incredible Machine: "Little Miss you'll go far/Little Miss hide your scars/Little Miss who you are is so much more than you like to talk about". The chorus is hymned with repeating I'm Okay's and It'll be alright again's, soothing us into lullabies of reassurance. The song closes with the optimistic "Little Miss brand new start/Little Miss do your part/Little Miss big ole heart beats wide open, she's ready now for love". Yes, yes she is.

*Photograph above was provided by my friend Helen M., though I never actually asked her permission, I'm sure she won't mind :)

Hate: If You Give a Gay a Gun...

2010-09-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

Signing online this morning, I was hit with not one but two blows on the GLBT front. Yesterday I read the story of a gay college student who was secretly filmed by his roommate while having a sexual encounter, then the roommate broadcast the video online. The roommate and an accomplice were charged with invasion of privacy for filming without consent and broadcasting the content. Today it was confirmed that as a result of this incident, the student, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide. As shocking and as horrifying as this story is, I was dismayed, but not thrown into despair. However, the second blow came when I signed onto Huffington Post and found that a 13 year old, Seth Walsh, had died nine days after hanging himself from a tree in what soon became a successful suicide attempt. He too killed himself due to being excessively taunted for his homosexuality. This was the moment the tears blurred my vision.

The pain of taunting and fears of being rejected is nothing new to me, and high school was one of the most difficult times of my life. I achieved a vague understanding of my sexuality when I was 14, but still believed I was attracted to men to some extent, either because I truly didn't know or because I was clinging to some semblance of normalcy. I even forced myself to hang posters of the latest teen heartthrobs on my walls because I knew it was the normal thing to do, whether I liked them or not. To this day I still don't see why JTT was so cute to everyone else.

In a house where homosexuality was not accepted, because "God hates gays" and I was "going to Hell", I thought I could be myself a little more at school. Though I wasn't a total dyke, I had pictures of attractive women on folders and maybe a few in bikinis inside, and those few classmates who were more intuitive figured it out, proceeding to make my life hell. A girl who came to the conclusion that I liked her constantly whispered and pointed me out to friends every time our paths crossed, an encounter always followed by disgusted looks and cruel laughter. A classmate once leaned across the aisle and whispered homophobic insults into my ear, forcing me to jump up from my desk and leave the classroom, running to a favorite teacher's room and I broke down crying on her desk. I even had a teacher who, having seen a bikini photo in my binder, informed my mother on Parent Teacher Conference night that I had inappropriate pictures of women in my folder that needed to be removed; a curve ball I had never seen coming, a complaint that was never brought to my attention beforehand. The evening concluded with an angry and embarrassed rant from my mother, driving me to tears, and souring our already bitter relationship even more.

My issues with my sexuality were just a few of many stemming from my childhood and current situation, but I know it was one of the issues in the front of my mind when I swallowed a bottle of sleeping pills one night at the age of 15. The despair of never feeling normal, never feeling right, and never being accepted tore through me. When so many other things set me apart from my peers, why did I have to be gay too? Luckily, I became ill and vomited most of the pills up, the rest just made me sleepy as I stumbled back into Hell the next morning for classes. But the taunting didn't stop, and it didn't stop at me.

I witnessed one of my friends, still very much in denial but obvious to everyone else, being repeatedly gay-bashed, beaten with hockey sticks in PE and called names. My heart broke when he was humiliated in front of the class as the same teacher who outed me to my mother on conference night told him to "stop dancing like a stupid little gay man" during one of his more cheerful moments. Others were smarter, more discreet. It wasn't until after high school, thanks to Facebook and MySpace, when you found out who was truly gay, because everyone else knew coming out in that environment could drive you to your death.

My senior year, I began the tentative process of coming out to friends and a few family members that I thought would be supportive. The reactions were mixed. Writing letters because I was fearful of facing the rejection head on, some were surprisingly supportive, even getting angry at my assumption that my sexuality would change anything between us. Others were hostile and refused to speak to me again. Many said they would pray for me, as though I had some horrible disease only divine intervention could resolve. Being that I was so close to leaving high school, I wasn't so concerned about losing some friends, but still hurt by the ones who left, wondering if I should have said anything at all, if I should have waited a few more years for maturity to set in (two weeks ago, I ran into the girl who had mocked me to her friends; she hugged me and chatted me up like an old friend).

But there's nothing that says coming out after high school is coming out safely. Obviously, as demonstrated by Tyler, college isn't safe either, nor is anything after that. Many I've known have lost jobs, lost friends, been asked to leave their churches, been asked to leave their personal lives out of the office, and worst of all, lost family over their sexuality. I still don't come out to people until I gauge their viewpoints on homosexuality (the Prop 8 issue makes this a lot easier). I still haven't come out to many family members for fear of rejection (though I'm aware of the risk of writing this online, I kind of want to just get it over with). And, in working at a therapeutic treatment facility with predominantly Christian people who don't hide their devotion to their faith, I live with the fear of being found out, not knowing what their reactions would be or if I would be asked to leave (this anxiety has especially increased since I accidentally sent a link of this blog to one of my co-workers, praying she didn't see it).

The anti-gay plague affecting today's youth is growing stronger. Despite my earlier blog that today's generation is more open-minded, there are still many who are tainted by their parents, tainted by their religions, who are raised to be hateful, teachings that they can't rise above, as evidenced by the four** GLBT suicides this month. Even in death, anti-gay comments have been left on Tyler's memorial pages. And our government is not helping issues. While some states have taken the positive steps to validate the existence of the GLBT community in legalizing marriage and gay adoption, many other states are fighting marriage, Congress can't agree on DADT and continue to fail with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. What are we showing our kids? As my favorite lesbian blogger, Ms. Snarker tweeted, "when a government says it's OK to discriminate, youth thinks it's OK to hate".

These tragedies need to stop. This hate needs to stop. There's no reason for 13 yr olds to be hanging themselves, no reason for people to have to choose between living in fear or living a lie. To those hurting now, I can say from experience, it gets better. It's not perfect, but you can choose to live the life you're given and find the light through the darkness, or you can bury yourself in it. I was given a second chance and I'm grateful for it every single day. I still face rejection, I still face loss, but I still have enough love in my life to get me through. I hope you can find it too.

Much love and thanks to the family and friends who never left.

If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality, there is hope. Visit: It Gets Better on YouTube, or call 1-866-4-U-Trevor for a suicide hotline at The Trevor Project.

**UPDATE: The day after the publication of this blog, a fifth GLBT college student, Raymond Chase committed suicide...condolences, thoughts, prayers, love to the families of all the victims.

When Morons Play with Matches

2010-09-14T01:15:00.000-07:00

This past week, as we remembered the tragedy of 9/11, there was much more animosity toward the Islamic faith than in anniversaries past. Deep-seated emotions tied into the terrorist attacks of the World Trade Centers, Pentagon, and Flight 93 meshed with newfound apprehension and anger as the controversy of building an Islamic Community Center has taken center stage in recent news (no it is not a mosque, no it is not solely for Muslims, and no it is not directly on Ground Zero). However, despite the ongoing battle of that war, we won a small battle of our own last week when a Florida pastor of a small, insignificant Christian community declared that he would burn a collection of Qu'rans on the nine-year mark of the terrorist attacks on the US.

Pastor Terry Jones had planned a protest that involved the fiery desecration of the holy book of Islam, arguing that he was upset about the building of the "mosque" so close to the former site of the Twin Towers (about the same time last year he sported an "Islam is of the Devil" shirt long before such plans were revealed. Methinks I see a pattern). Despite the fact that his small church had no more than 35 regular parishioners, this tiny congregation garnered worldwide attention in what would later be called an "epic fail" on the media's part as he received the acknowledgment he so desperately sought. As news of his plans spread across the globe, protests ensued where demonstrations of pastoral effigies, pleas for Obama's death, and US flag burning flooded the streets of various Muslim countries.

Initially when I read of Jones' plans, I was appalled and angered. But, being the proponent for free speech that I am through the good and the bad, and truly believing this act could not be stopped, all I could do was implore my Muslim friends to ignore it so to not give this fool what he wanted: a reaction. However, seeing the protests and the fury he managed to elicit from the world, I realized simply ignoring him was not going to be an adequate solution. I watched as attitudes toward the US soured even more, and was deeply offended by the burning of my nation's banner. However, the one thing that disturbed me the most was a quote a young man from Kabul made during their protests, stating, "we know this is not just the decision of a church. It is the decision of the president and the entire United States."

Now hold on there, Scooter. Much like Muslims don't like to be overgeneralized with terrorists, Americans don't take kindly to being lopped in with hateful, bigoted Christian extremists either. Ironically, it took the threat of burning a holy book for us to prove it.

Many non-Muslims took a stand against this "Burn a Qu'ran Day", some of public persuasion (that nice Jolie woman), some of considerable power on their own (Sen. Clinton), and many of considerable power combined (the rest of us). Petitions were signed, Facebook pages were created and liked, and anti-burning protests took place all over the globe. Gradually, as dissent grew, one of two reasons pushed Jones to cancel the burning: either he realized how foolish he'd been and gathered together with the local mosque to hold hands and sing Kumbaya (it could happen, with faith and love...or some LSD and that damn Barney song), or after pressure from the government due to the possibility of endangering Americans abroad, he backed down. Whatever the reason, it was over, and he desperately tried to save face by claiming that he accomplished his goal by showing the radical side of Islam, but actually only demonstrated that thanks to today's media principles, any idiot can get on TV.

Naturally, as with any failed attempt to be a jackass, there are many more who leap at the opportunity to fulfill the prophecy. Another mock demonstration in Texas ended abruptly when a young skateboarder snatched a doomed copy of the Qu'ran, already soaked in lighter fluid, from a Christian fundamentalist group who had planned to burn it on a barbecue in a park. Protesters of all backgrounds, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists gathered for a protest organized by a Unitarian church and even laid their hands over the grill of the barbecue to prevent the fundamentalist group from lighting it. The book was not retrieved and the burning was cancelled.

I've come to believe that there is nothing more powerful for a cause than having people who won't directly benefit from its success or suffer from its failure add their voices to it. When you fall into the median of any great dispute, it is your responsibility to facilitate a mutual understanding, a compromise, a peace treaty, or just simple tolerance of one another. We are the ones who must bridge the gap between those polarizing to either ends of the argument. I believe this was well demonstrated here and hopefully showed the world's Muslims that they were not the only ones hurt and angered, and they were not the only ones fighting the burning of this book.

Now I've spoken before on my feelings of holy items and the importance that religions place on inanimate objects, but for those who don't remember or didn't read it, I hardly care for it. I don't believe these physical possessions bring us closer to God, no matter what sentiment has been tied to them. I believe that our connection to God comes only from the strength of our souls and our hearts. Yes, these books act as guiding lights for those who follow them (I'm spiritual, not religious, and choose not to have a book), however it is not the book itself that is important, but the message that you find inside. The pages, the covers, the binding, are not God's, and so long as you carry that message in your heart, no one can ever truly burn it. As one person wrote: "the living Qu'ran, who are all those with pure hearts, is untouched". Because I believe that more people will try to mimick this event and accomplish it, I caution you all to keep this in mind, to rise above the madness and turn away from the ignorance. Then you will be untouchable.

Despite the anger, disbelief, and frustration this entire ordeal stirred up, I do believe that some good came from it, and will go so far as to say that this was necessary for us to find our mutually shared humanity. In what could be our flickering light of hope, when this evil ignorance reared its ugly head, suddenly we came crawling from beneath our rocks and gathered together to fight it, rather than sitting at home on the couch, watching the news and sadly shaking our heads. It called us to action and ultimately, good prevailed. Perhaps we humans have a chance after all.

Damn That Pretty Face

2010-09-08T22:26:00.000-07:00

Since I composed my last blog, I’ve had a great deal of reflecting, rethinking, and reframing to do, which has driven me to write another post on the matter and readdress some issues with my newfound perspectives. The initial post on Queen Rania not only embodied my own emotional disruption, but elicited a strong response from many readers on various points of the spectrum, from defending her, to expressing anger and frustration about the state of their country, to blatant accusations of shady business deals and laying blame for maltreatment of children in far off countries to which she has no ties.

Rania vs. Queen Rania
Such is the problem for public personas and those of us who follow them, deciphering between the reality and the fantasy of who these people are, who they present themselves to be, and who others claim them to be. Accused of being the epitome of pretention, despite Rania’s claims that she uses the internet to allow people to get closer to her “real self”, it could very easily be argued that the “self” Rania portrays online is no more realistic than the self she portrays in every other public domain of her life. Some people even argue it’s not really her posting. However, in light of Occam’s razor, perhaps she really is just being herself and trying her hardest to prove it to a world of naysayers. So how do we know who’s who? God help me for alluding to Eminem but will the real Queen Rania please stand up?

Publicity vs. Philanthropy
Sadly, with all the doubt and suspicions, no one will ever truly know who the real Rania is. I don’t know her and I do not foresee myself bumping into her down at 7-11 while I’m snatching a Big Gulp to sustain a crippling Diet Coke addiction (I said Diet Coke…the soda…put away the 800 numbers). However, there can be no fantasy without some basis of reality, and Rania cannot portray herself to be a philanthropist without actually accomplishing some good. Whether it’s a nothing more than a photo op or a woman just doing her job with a photographer on her tail, there are always beneficiaries of her work. As one person told me, does it matter what her motives are so long as someone’s being helped? Ultimately, no. People don’t care if they’re being used for a front page spread to gain public favor when they’re starving or freezing, as long as they get the food they need and the clothing to keep them warm. And while it’s not the stuff role models are made of, if Rania is truly self-serving and self-indulgent in her work, so long as people are being taken care of, that will be an issue she will have to contend with when she meets whomever she answers to morally. In other words, not our problem.

Role Models vs. Models Playing Roles
A few people were surprised of the investment I’ve made in this woman in terms of admiration and expectation. As I briefly alluded to in the postscript of my previous blog, role models have always been in short supply in my world and I often needed to look to public figures for guidance. Some came and went, because let’s face it; 13 year olds are not great judges of character when it comes to picking personal influences. But even today, I feel I still need the positive influence and the guidance to help direct me down the right path in life, a set example to aspire towards, and though some may find it childish that a 26 year old looks to public figures for such, I don’t believe our need for that crucial example ever dies no matter how old we get, and what’s wrong with admiring someone who seems to embody the values you wish to have?

Now herein lies the problems with role models, especially the public kind we never get to meet. From a safe distance and filtered through TV screens and magazine pages, it becomes all too easy to forget that these people are, in fact, nothing more than human beings, regular people behind superfluous titles who are given to every day imperfections that make us human. Hence, we build these individuals up in our minds and are greatly disappointed when we find they are not who we hoped (who could forget that gut-wrenching moment when Julia Child called Julie’s blog “stupid”?), and Rania is no different. Of course if she ever calls my blog stupid there will be swift retribution of epic proportions…in other words I will grab a small bottle of tequila and spend the evening flipping off my computer screen…but I will do so swiftly! But I will be the first to say (actually I’m like the third after a few friends gave me a verbal knock upside the head) that I set impossible expectations of this woman and in turn set myself up for failure.

I was greatly disappointed when I learned of all the suffering that still goes on in Jordan, how many people are still hungry, still freezing through the winters, still struggling to survive. But then, as I was browsing the discussion board of Rania’s Facebook page, I began to see what could only be described as a digital wailing wall. With topics entitled “I Need Help”, “Only You Can Help This Woman!”, and “Why?”, posts range from begging for help with education, organizations for the disabled, calling for advocacy of Human Rights issues, even requests to help some find a wife, a job, or low airfare to Jordan. And I realized, how can this woman do so much? How is she supposed to solve every single problem for every single person in her country, and then some? No doubt she prioritizes and tackles the most pressing matters first. But the people of Jordan have every right to be upset, having to sit back and watch as her charity is bestowed upon someone else, just waiting and wondering “when will it be my turn? When will my suffering be enough to get someone’s attention?” And when you’re in pain, all you see is the one person who seems to have the power to help, and the fact that she doesn’t. They can’t see the burden of a country, the sack of troubles and worries she seems to carry on her back. And fake persona or not, no one can listen to those voices pleading for help and go home to a restful sleep at night. It will never be enough, she will never be enough. And I’m beginning to pity her plight right alongside the other Jordanians.

Dollars and Sense
Now I don’t want this to sound like I’m back-tracking my way up to oblivion again. While I’ve changed my perspective on Rania the person, Rania the queen still has some work to do. I still can’t defend the spending of the royal family, because excessive spending is not something I’m familiar with. I am a self-proclaimed anti-materialist and anti-conspicuous consumer, I shop for clothes at Wal-Mart and Target, I pass on accessories and the latest gadget, and I prefer to spend my birthdays in a quiet low-priced restaurant enjoying a turkey sandwich, topped off with a cupcake my mother buys for me (thanks Ma). It’s not because I’m broke, it’s not because I am technologically challenged, and it’s not because I’m the biggest bore in SoCal (course you won’t find me dancing on the pool tables at The Colorado either -ahem- Miss M). I just know there are better things I can be spending my money on. There’s no need to have the shiniest, fanciest car just so you can drive around and show off the fact that you can afford it. There’s no need to pay $80 for a shirt that cost a company $4 to make just because it has a well-known name sewn on the tag, a tag no one will see. And while 40 is a big birthday, I don’t know if I would celebrate it on a luxury yacht in France. Not when there are people in the world who don't even have safe drinking water. Now I’m not asking for a vow of poverty, but do people really need 20 pairs of Jimmy Choo shoes? In the scheme of things, the people who truly matter don’t give a damn about what’s on your feet anyways. I stand by my previous comments on the matter, something in Jordan has to change, and it can start by selling a Prada bag and feeding a few hundred families.

Internet Checks and Balances
Likewise, I won’t change my beef with the internet censorship. I had a vague recollection of an interview Rania gave bragging about free internet in Jordan and meant to post it in the last blog, but couldn’t locate it until now. Attending Le Web in Paris during December of last year, Rania denounced internet restrictions, claiming that such a system of censorship is “not sustainable, and will never last” and goes so far as to call it a violation of human rights. Remarkably, she echoes the comments I made (or rather I unintentionally echoed her) that efforts should be made to resolve situations creating criticism rather than in trying to silence that criticism. So what gives? Ironically, the bill was passed just a few weeks after Rania returned from France. Either Rania was bullshitting us, or there’s some serious discrepancies between the viewpoints of the queen and the Jordanian government, but either way, someone’s looking bad.**

Now there is hope at the end of this tale. In what could be called coincidental, or maybe the woman actually read this blog, in response to the birthday wishes she received on Twitter, Rania wrote “When ur [sic] in ur 20s u think these old 40yr olds must have it figured out…not true! Ur still a little confused! Questioning, exploring and seeking ways to make urself and everything around u better.” So she has acknowledged that she is not one of those omniscient leaders I was complaining about two blogs ago and that she, like all of us, is still learning and still growing, and sure enough, imperfect. And God help her, for one reason or another, she's trying. Whether or not this persona is the real Rania, until we meet at the soda fountain of a local convenience store, I can only take her at face value and hope that she is who she claims to be. If she is putting on a façade, that’s on her head, if I wrongfully accuse her, then it’s on mine. Is it worse to believe a liar or condemn an honest person?

Author's Note: If all else fails, she's still pretty freakin' hot.

**UPDATE: It was brought to my attention by one of my readers that an article was published on the Canadian Reuters site 2 days prior to the composition of this blog addressing the Jordanian internet censorship. After heavy criticism from the public sector of Jordan and concerns of the image that would portray to the western world, the incredibly vague bill restricting freedom of speech on the internet was amended to include only criminal issues such as pornography and e-fraud. Yay for you Jordan! Guess Rania was right, it won't last.

Propaganda with a Pretty Face

2010-08-21T22:13:00.000-07:00

Feeling like a disillusioned child who suddenly found out there's no Santa Claus (kids if you're reading this, I'm only kidding, there is a Santa), I'm starting to come to terms with the fact that my queen is not the angel she appears to be. Queen Rania of Jordan, the most recent object of my admiration and respect (contending only with my one true love, Renee Zellweger), has suddenly fallen from her pedestal; 'suddenly' only to me as I've refused to see the truth until now. And I have to admit, for me, it stings, though she probably never felt the fall, and was never aware of the precipice to begin with.

Queen Rania of Jordan has always been presented to the western people as nothing short of the Arab Princess Diana. She has spearheaded such initiatives in her country as creating socio-economic opportunities for women with the Jordan River Foundation, and she annually adopts schools in her country to drastically improve the buildings and provide much needed school supplies with her Madrasati movement. She not only grappled with culturally taboo topics such as female equality, child abuse, and honor killings in her region, but she also treks the world promoting causes such as education for all children, including girls, bridging the cultural gap between easterners and westerners, and calls attention to various issues women around the world are facing.

However, many have come to argue that, in spite of her work, the queen is more interested in publicity and awards than the well-being of her own country. The royal family enjoys a lucrative lifestyle, with private chefs, numerous staff and nannies, and plenty of vacations around the world to Italy, London, and the US. While the king travels in style on various models of the Airbus private planes (one he purchased in 2007 cost anywhere from $250-300 million, and he just received two more earlier this year), the queen makes various appearances at events around the world strutting about in designer outfits with matching pumps and purses (though she has previously claimed much of her wardrobe is donated).

Now many claim that such is the lifestyle for royalty and politicians and they live no higher on the hog (no pun intended for you anti-pork people) than any other royal family. However, Jordan is a poor country that is heavily dependent on foreign aid, especially from the US, who recently donated $150 million for Jordan's struggling budget, in addition to the $660 million we've already given this year. But, in spite of the $1.3 billion they've received in total, the majority of the people still live in poverty, struggling to feed their families, acquire safe drinking water, and survive the harsh winters. Many are angered by the monarchy in Jordan for various reasons, be it political or personal, but most notably complaining about overspending that could be put to better use for the people in the kingdom.

Unfortunately, complaints are rarely heard by the royals. Despite King Abdullah's bid to modernize Jordan and help it progress to a democracy, in the remaining autocracy it is still a crime to criticize the king or the government, punishable by 3 years in prison and hard labor. But that hasn't stopped some people, as the Washington Post reported yesterday. Rights activists were recently fired for demanding more pay for government workers, and 15 teachers were fired for organizing a peaceful protest regarding their low wages. And as the public dissent increases, the restrictions keep building. The Post announced that the monarchy intends to restrict freedom of speech on the internet, publicly claiming it's due to excessive pornography, privately allowing that they want "professional journalism" in place of the slander that continues to grow. But what is slander? The law doesn't seem to specify between spreading personal rumors such as marital discord between Rania and Abdullah or calling the king out on his poor choices that affect the entire nation.

But you would never know there is unrest or such extreme poverty in Jordan, partially due to the tight restrictions, and partially due to a fantastic PR team. The Royal Press Office releases several official photos and news stories to the public glorifying charity work and political progress. Television specials always show citizens shouting love and appreciation, but neglected the incident where a woman approached Rania and pulled her hair in frustrated betrayal. Interviews and magazines from abroad always manage to paint a pretty picture of the queen and life in Jordan. When appearing on the Oprah Winfrey Show in 2006, a segment was shown depicting a day in the life of three Jordanian women. It showed clips of working mothers, women who chose or did not choose to wear the veil, women going to exercise classes and even women who ordered Domino's Pizza. However, after this show aired, many who lived in Jordan or were familiar with the typical Jordanian lifestyle were outraged, claiming the show only provided a view into the lives of the higher social classes, the wealthier who can afford to live in Amman. One poster in a forum commented "they showed people who order out for pizza while the majority of Jordan can't even afford a loaf of bread to feed their children". It was as if someone had filmed life in Beverly Hills as an example of standard life in the US, despite the fact that the majority of us are closer to the Pomona lifestyle. And the propaganda continues on promotional tours. Interviews are scripted, questions are pre-approved; the 2010 Oprah appearance bore a striking resemblance to the previous, save a different outfit. An appearance on The View gave us a look into the show if it had been run by a fascist as the panel sat nervously and sputtered out superficial questions that seemed to be pre-assigned and numbered (Sherri Shepherd nearly soiled herself when she realized she accidentally interrupted the queen and Whoopi Goldberg practically begged the queen to answer a question, as if she wasn't there for that to begin with). And ironically, the conversation always steers directly into Rania's internet usage.

Rania first burst onto the internet scene when she created a YouTube Channel to address the increasing stereotypes against Muslims that had developed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Engaging both people from east and west, videos were made, discussions took place, and bonds were built during the 4-month long initiative. But the channel was not without its drama, and many posters from both sides came to mindlessly argue, to stir up emotions, or to just insult the queen, usually quite brutally, though most comments went unmoderated. The channel garnered worldwide attention for Rania not only for the topic itself but her willingness to use technology to accomplish an agenda. She also frequently stated that she used the internet to get closer to people and hear their true opinions and thoughts above and beyond the quiet, fearful reverie that comes with face to face exchanges with a queen. However, once the initiative was over, Rania moved on to greener pastures (Twitter), and despite promises of returning to "check in" at YouTube, hasn't looked back after leaving her devoted followers in the dust. She still banks on the success of the channel in interviews as recent as April, but hasn't addressed the group that worked so hard to make the channel a success in over two years, leaving us feeling abandoned and somewhat used.

So, in spite of using the free internet to accomplish various goals, be they activism or publicity, and requesting honest, open exchanges of opinions in a place "where titles mean little and everyone is free to say what they please", Rania's husband has taken a step away from freedom and democracy and edged closer to Iranian policies of internet blackouts when discourse arises. A Jordanian citizen posting under careful anonymity on a message board stated that since the publication of the Washington Post article, at least two Jordanian blogospheres have been shut down and access to several sites have been denied, though the government claims it's due to pornography issues. However, as a result of the publication, many people with internet access, much like the aforementioned poster, are finding ways to made their voices heard on the world wide web. The Post has ignited a small firestorm in which accusations, insults, and frustrated cries for help have flown freely as people contend with past and present behaviors of the royal family. In trying to regain control of a country fed up, how far will the king go before the rest of the world catches on?

My (three) readers know how I feel about freedom of speech rights, and while it's never fun to have lies about your personal life in the papers, it's part of the territory when being in the public eye. And while you may not like being told you're doing a terrible job, it is within the rights of the affected to call you out on it. Where would we be if we weren't able to call our former president a gump-faced blown up baboon ass bastard when he significantly contributed to the failure of our economy by giving billions of tax payers' money to millionaire bankers? Well, we'd still be in a recession but then we wouldn't be able to bitch about it. Rulers and politicians that legally restrict criticism are doing so because they already know they're not doing their job. If you were working purely with your country's best interest at heart, you wouldn't need to worry about people talking trash. And if they still did, you would at least know it's because they're bastards, not because of you.

Now where Rania fits into all this, I'm not even sure myself. She has obviously contributed to the propaganda that curtains the true state of her country, and her spending (since it can't all be donated) no doubt exacerbates the financial struggles of her subjects. However, the recent restrictions of the internet are more or less the fine work of her husband, and I would like to believe she has little power in this and other major political issues of her government. But if such is the case, then Rania needs to find the voice she tries so hard to give to other women and speak up for her people. Much of the criticism that does reach Rania is brushed aside as other people's insecurities and distrust; male insecurities of seeing a modern Muslim woman in power, citizens' distrust of a non-native Palestinian queen. To a certain extent, I can't argue with this, but only a very small portion of recent frustrations can be chalked up to such excuses. All is not well in Jordan, and whether the queen is blind to the suffering or completely aware and apathetic, she needs to stay home and start addressing the issues that plague the people she is immediately responsible for. Princess Diana didn't leave a legacy by leaving her country behind.

Author's Note: As many of you know, I have been a devoted follower of Queen Rania for over four years. I've admired much of her work, her accomplishments, and mostly, her heart. Since the publication of the Washington Post article and the resulting outcry of complaints about the reality of Jordan's situation, I have been painfully disenchanted, and I struggled greatly with the composition of this post. I fought the urge to defend her, and felt compelled to simply turn away, but couldn't. As I find it so difficult to discover people I can truly look up to, I grow weary of these wolves in sheep's clothing who continue to fool me. However, I will say that whatever the queen may be, the persona she has presented to me these past four years inspired me to be a better person and to make a difference in this world, so it wasn't all for naught.

With great apprehension, I will be sending a link of this blog to Rania through her Twitter account. Though I believe she never reads my writings, if perchance she discovers this one, I would like to encourage her to provide a response, one way or another, if anything, to help me understand.

Today's Youth: Fighting for a Voice to Save Tomorrow

2010-08-19T21:10:00.000-07:00

Yes, as they say, children are the future. And as the younger generation slowly marches toward adulthood, the tides and traditions of the world are being reinvented. Attitudes and values are changing, and not always for the worse, as the Leave it to Beaver generation would have you believe. Yes, today's youth seem to be a little more disrespectful, a little more hedonistic, and seem to walk about with an air of entitlement. However, today's youth also seem to be less discriminatory, less judgmental, and less ignorant than our archaic predecessors. And, in those fleeting moments when they set down their cell phones and iPods, they have in their hands the fate of our world. It may prove to be a promising fate, but do they have the time to fulfill it?

We've all been there, shaking our heads in those frustrating daily moments when you've run into some hormone-driven youngster who's done something annoying or atrocious, attesting to what we believe is the downward spiral of society as we know it. They may shoot out in front of your car on their skateboards, or curse loudly in the store next to the elderly and young children, or you may see a girl too young to wear make-up with an 8-month old belly protruding from beneath her shirt. Whatever it is, we find ourselves wondering what the world will be like when they're old enough to vote, old enough to know better but perhaps never growing old enough to care.

But on the other hand, with the unprecedented exposure to information, opinions, and the outside world in general thanks to the internet, tomorrow's leaders have been groomed to be less capricious in their world views. Kids today seem to be more anti-extremism, whether it be political or religious. They shy away from far right or left wingers, they care not for the religions of last century that breed hatred or demand unquestioning unwaivering devotion. They seem wiser about war, and the reasons (or lack, thereof) for pursuing it and are more invested in the suffering of those in places far removed from themselves. They seem to be less hateful and more open-minded about their peers and people in general who are different.

The generational gap is expanding and people are polarizing. As the older generation seems to hold tighter to the wisdom of past generations and deeply rooted old-fashioned values, the younger generation seems to be rebelling by taking a more relaxed approach to significant issues today. While the older generation is burning holy books and protesting soldiers' funerals, the younger generation is joining in conversations about diversity and tolerance. While the older generation is still trying to justify this war, the younger generation knew it was a ruse all along. And while the older generation is trying to speak over them, the younger generation is finding their voices. But who's listening?

Despite the heavily utilized cliche of children being the future, far too many people ultimately ignore, brush aside, or shush the younger generation, rebuffing their opinions and thoughts as the nonsensical rantings of emotional naive children. Now granted I'm 26 years old, and depending on your personal opinion, caught in between the two groups; too old to be considered a "youth", too young to be considered wise enough to matter. However, in a recent heated debate with an "oldie", I was informed that I was young, inexperienced, and ignorant of the world and therefore my opinion was of virtually no consequence. So, I think it only fair that I categorize myself with the younger generation. And I can only imagine how many like me have had similar experiences.

But as we're being swatted aside like some gnat who's made a nuisance of itself, the oldies, self-proclaimed omniscient leaders of today are driving our world to ruin. Greedy, wayward politicians and fat cats have single-handedly sunk the world's economy. Hypocritical religious leaders incite moral contention upon so-called sinners and opposing faiths while protecting their own ravenous wolves. War mongers driven by anger, power, and blighted eyes kill innocent people without remorse. We see it all for what it is, we see the sorrowful state of things, and yet we are gagged by ageism and our hands are bound as we stand on the sidelines and watch our future go down in a fiery inferno.

The oldies refuse to listen. They refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming simplicity of our proposed solutions just because they're ours. And yet, they will, as people do, die one day, and all the decisions they made, the disjointed paths they followed will leave the world in such disarray, and we will inherit it. Like a sack of manure thrust into our hands, the mess will be ours, but we were never given the chance to prevent it. Why are we good enough to clean it up, but not good enough to stop it before it worsens?

So, though our generation and the ones after us have their faults, we have some fantastic strengths as well, and it seems promising that the gifts in our hearts will surpass the bad habits we've collected along the way. And just in case you were wondering, here's our answer: Enough is enough. You have enough money, you have enough land. You've had enough anger, you've had enough hatred. We need more compassion, we need more altruism, we need more understanding and more love. And above all, nothing, absolutely nothing, be it religion, emotions, values, or aspirations should supersede your sense of humanity. If this solution seems too simple, it's only because you are making the problem too complicated.

Are you listening yet?

Online Friendships: Real Connections or Digital Farce?

2010-07-31T18:05:00.000-07:00

For well over a decade now, the internet has provided many services. Starting as the largest database of every possible topic of inquiry imagined, the internet helped students research papers and professionals find answers to various questions. Now, the internet has evolved to completing daily tasks like shopping and paying bills, viewing and downloading media, and catching up on news all over the world. Nowadays, however, its purpose has superseded what may have been its original vision as the information super highway. It has become the largest source of interpersonal exchanges between friends, families, co-workers, business prospects, romantic prospects, and other random meetings throughout our daily internet activities. Surpassing the telephone and what is popularly coined now as Snail Mail, email, social networking sites, and messengers help to keep us connected.

Now for one who admittedly rarely gets out, a perpetual homebody, the internet has become my extension to much of the outside world. As local, real-life friendships from school and old jobs run dry, despite promises of gatherings and phone calls, I find myself making more friends online, friends who, oddly, seem more reliable than those I see face to face. Which brings me to this question: Can real friendships and relationships be forged through the electrical fog of the internet?

However, to answer this question, one must define friendship. Unfortunately such a term is subjective to each and every one of us. To some, friendship is the person who knows everything about you, the one you can tell anything to, someone you see nearly every day and keep in constant contact with. To others, friendship is simply knowing that the parties of the relationship are there when you need them, despite limited exchanges and minimal contact. They may not know everything about you and you may only speak a few times a year, but you know that when you need to talk, they'll pick up the phone. And for some, like my nephew, friendship simply means any individual who is not an enemy: 'if you're not cruel and give me no reason to dislike you, then we're friends'.

For me, to varying degrees all of these apply, and all of them are manifested in my internet connections, save one important detail: most of us have never met face to face. I have friends I've met on message boards of mutual interests, friends I've met through QR's YouTube project, and friends I've met through social networking sites. Some I've known for nearly 8 years, some I would call my best friends, without hesitation, one even flew from Spain and stayed at my house with me while on vacation. But when I tell people my friends are on the internet, most scoff or give a politely awkward "oh, that's cool". The common sentiment of the internet is that it's not real, and most people treat it as such.

It's duly noted that people do not act on the internet as they do in real life. Some are ruder, more outspoken, more flirtatious, more of whatever they're not in their daily lives. Some people create an entirely new persona online, believing there are no actual consequences, like the internet is some far-removed fantasy land where you can be whatever you want and at the end of the day, shut it down and delete any trace of your existence if you wish to. In maintaining such a mentality, more people feel less connected to the individuals on the other side of the wire, forgetting there are real people sitting in front of the other computer, and social niceties are no longer required. People make superficial friendships and following the smallest infarction, at the click of the mouse can remove that individual from their lives. And, given a few days to refresh, will re-add that friend back into their lives until the next minor faux pas.

Had we a button to delete every annoying individual from our real daily lives, I imagine hardly any effort would be made at all to construct relationships or friendships, to learn tolerance and patience with one another, to learn to coexist as we must on this rock. So why do we engage in the simplicity of deleting real individuals in a virtual world like we're killing off one of our Sims characters? Perhaps this attitude of the internet is why some people refuse to emotionally invest in online friendships and relationships with each other. Perhaps they're concerned about making connections with a fantasy land of characters where no one is what they seem, or in a land where nothing seems tangible because these "friends" live half a world away where you'll never see them face to face.

I invest. I care about the people I connect with online, albeit sometimes too easily, sometimes the relationships mean more to me than to the other person, and they walk away without much consideration for anything else, but isn't that life? I mean granted I do believe most people give up on internet relations a lot faster than real-life ones because as I said, all it takes is turning off your computer, rather than shutting out a neighbor or a co-worker you face every day. However, there are people in our real lives who never return phone calls, who never reply to letters, who make plans and break them, or give hollowed promises and let them collapse. So why can't we care and connect from behind our keyboards?

I can't vouch for every negative experience anyone else has had with one idiotic ruse or another, I can only vouch for the valuable friends I've made, in spite of the callous cowardly posters that pop up everywhere else. I can vouch for the friends who send me gifts and cards, or the friends that saw me through the hardest time of my life; the friends that listen to me bitch and complain about whatever drama is going down, the friends that support and encourage me in whatever I'm doing; the friends who never judged me for what I am, or what I've been. I vouch for the friend who was willing to send me money when times were tough, even though she hadn't enough for herself, and I vouch for the friends that I know will continue to be there for me, even though none of us, save one, have ever met, and even though most of us never will. Some of us talk every day, even if they're small messages on Facebook or message boards. Some of us only talk once a month or less. But we're still friends. From Kentucky to Florida, from New England to the old one, from Ireland to Spain, from Morocco to Jordan, I'm quite fortunate in my international bounty of friends.

Thanks guys.

The Ultimate Solution?

2010-07-17T04:03:00.000-07:00

So I think I've found the answer to part, if not all of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Lying in bed awake far later than I ever imagined I could be at this stage, the one fail-safe solution dropped on my head like an anvil. Now for my more religious friends, this could be a less than favorable end so I caution you about the upcoming offense. To end the fight, one must simply remove the problem: blow up the holy land. Now, not being much of a religion buff, I am vaguely aware of the significance of this land to either side of the argument, and somewhat understand why some, in reading my suggestion, might be angered. I do know it holds great importance to both the Jews and the Muslims, as well as the Christians. However, much like a frustrated mother who rips a toy from her bickering children, one must remove the problem in order to restore peace, if only for the sake of the mother's aching head.

But, while I was tossing these thoughts and revelations around in my head, it occurred to me just why this land is so crucial to the parties involved. It is not simply about the religiously historic events that took place there, but what that land represents to people. For years religions have claimed this place, that item, this book as holy, as revered, as the word of God and a map for a better life. These relics offer the physical, tangible evidence that one needs in order to provide to them a deeper connection to their roots, to solidify the origins of their religions, and to reinforce their faith in their beliefs. Few people if any can go on pure blind faith alone, they need something to see, something to touch, something to tell them that what their hearts feel actually exists, that what their minds tell them actually happened.

Now, whether or not such events occurred, the ultimate question is are these land masses worth dying for? Are they worth killing for? Is one's need for that concrete evidence so dire that it is justifiable to wipe out an entire nation of people to have unmitigated access to your holy site? Is it worth giving your own life in a suicide bombing attack to prove just how dedicated you are to obtaining rights over that site? I would imagine that God, not only weary of being called down on both sides of the argument, is greatly pained by the death and destruction that has followed what may have been to him insignificant events. A child was born, as we all are, a man ascended to heaven, as I believe most of us will, and suddenly a decades-long war of devastating proportions ensued with no foreseeable end in sight. Ironic, what some have regarded as holy have blatantly disregarded religious teachings of peace and have spilled innocent blood and soiled whatever reverie the land once held. Given the opportunity, God might reach down and simply smear the land off the face of the earth, if only to end this madness and save us from ourselves.

Religion is a belief in a higher being, a higher power, something left unexplained by any other means. It provides people more resilience in dark times, it increases the healing capabilities of the ill, it offers peace of mind to those fearing the afterlife and it motivates one to strive for goodness. It fosters a connection to something greater than oneself, through devotion, through prayer, through faith. However, that connection is not achieved through inanimate objects like metal, wood, veils, water, fossils, or papers. It's not achieved through geography; countries, buildings, sites. It's achieved through the strength of your own soul and your devotion to whatever belief system you follow. It doesn't matter where you pray, or what places you visit. It doesn't matter if you're in a church, a mosque, or in the middle of a swamp. It doesn't matter if you're where Jesus was born and where Mohammad ascended to Heaven or if you're standing in the middle of a Metallica concert. If you need God, he is there. If you need to talk to him, he'll listen no matter where you are, if you want to prove your loyalty, you prove it in everyday life with people who need you, not on an expensive and time-consuming trip to Jerusalem just to say, "Look Lord, here I am".

Places hijacked by a people so desperate to be closer to God, so incapable of reaching him on their own have poisoned humanity against each other. They have laid unprecedented importance on a chunk of dirt, they have killed for it, they have died for it, and all the while, I imagine, God looks down, saying "that is not what I meant at all, that is not it, at all".

Depression and Graduating in a Recession

2010-07-17T01:34:00.001-07:00

The state of the economy is a forlorn one, and it's only expected to sink lower before we manage to kick hard enough to breach the surface of this pounding flood. We're falling and, being the very heart of the international circulatory system, we're pulling the rest of the world down with us. Businesses are closing, Space For Lease signs and empty lots in shopping centers have become as commonplace as food courts and directory maps. Houses are foreclosing, people are moving back in with their parents, parents are moving in with their kids. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment is at an average of 9.5%, but they don't figure in the people that are no longer receiving unemployment benefits, and job openings that would have received tens of applicants 3 years ago are now getting several hundred, in some cases over 1,000. In the midst of this crisis, rates of depression and suicidality have significantly increased, and with obviously good reason.

In addition to the sea of people out of work, a steady stream of job seekers are flowing in and the levees can barely hold. This is my generation, most fresh out of college, with expectations set impossibly high and promises burned into our minds that never allowed for a recession. Many of us recall those echoing voices of parents and mentors lamenting the benefits of college degrees: the doors that will open, the opportunities laid out before you, and "oh the places you'll go" as Dr. Seuss so eloquently wrote. But such is not our reality. We left the gates of our educational institutions and met a great brick wall. Only a select few make it through, over, or around.

I graduated in 2008 and found a job almost immediately. It wasn't a great paying job, but it was what I was groomed to expect with a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology, so I hadn't been aware of the sinking economy. By the time I left my job in early 2009, I began to feel the crunch. Sensing my opportunity, as many have by now, I decided to continue my education and obtain my Master's Degree. A few classes from graduating, I hear nothing but stories of people who can't find jobs once that nifty little piece of paper is in their hands, and I wonder where I will be. It's almost as if we are walking off our commencement stage and into a ravine. With student loans building up and no guarantee of a job or economic improvement looming in the future, I am petrified of what will come, and depressed by the options left.

Though employment is slim, there are jobs out there to be had, if one strikes HR the right way. But what has become a painful reality for the recently graduated is that ultimately, we are expected to take jobs below our education, our abilities, and more importantly, our desires. A far stretch from our parents' generation of taking "any job that pays the bills" and heavily-laden with a sense of entitlement, we long for mental stimulation worthy of that required in a university classroom, we want for that instant gratification of the hard work we invested at school, and we seek a job that makes us feel happy, useful, fulfilled. Nothing quite knocks you down to reality like not only applying for but fighting and praying to get a job that pays minimum wage with a Master's Degree nestled in your filing cabinet back home.

Does this make us spoiled? A bit, of course. Sometimes, you just have to do what you have to do, the bills need to be paid, the kids need to be fed, whatever your obligations may be. Sometimes you have to suck it up and play whatever crappy hand you're dealt. But are we necessarily to blame for our expectations? For a generation that was pounded with nothing but mind-numbing aphorisms attesting to the benefits of higher education and for children constantly prodded to follow their hearts and dreams, what did our predecessors think we would become when we were suddenly told "your degree is worthless", and "sorry, you dreamed too big". Spoiled, they call us. Though we were raised to want for more, a spoiled child sits back and expects the world to be handed to them, whereas a college student knows well enough their degree comes with blood, sweat, and many tears, so much that less than half the people who enter college finish. After four years of poring over books and ripping your hair out over exams, is it unrealistic to want for the luxury of a comfortable pleasant job?

What now seems like wasted time and wasted efforts throws one's ego down the pipes. It's a difficult blow, especially when the guy at Starbucks with little more than a GED is pulling in $15 an hour, and you were pulling in $11, and only because you went to college (otherwise it was $9). What we're now faced with is a lowly reality that can quickly pull you down, and you only fall farther because you were set up so high to begin with. After four hard years you thought you'd found the golden ticket, only to realize it was just a piece of stained foil. And it hurts. And it's terrifying.

However, perhaps the benefit that lies here in this recession, if we survive it, is that we will come out stronger on the other end. We will know what it is like to toil and struggle in the work force, to beat ourselves senseless with double shifts and multiple jobs. We will quickly learn the importance of a strong work ethic so to not lose that precious job, and we will find relentless determination in our long bouts of pavement pounding. We will learn patience, and we will learn personal strength. Granted, we have not yet reached the devastation of the epic Great Depression, but for a generation that had so much handed to it, this recession is still a tragic blow to the routine of the easy lives we once knew. We may find ourselves struggling with depression, with senses of failure, with letdowns and delayed dreams. But all we can hope for is that someday our investments will pay off sometime in the future, that the little slip of university paper will gain some value, and that we may not have sunk so low that we cannot be revived. Until then, it may be back to retail, fast food, babysitting, name tags and pimple faced supervisors, but manage a smile with the knowledge that you're working.

Private Policies with Public Benefits

2010-06-28T12:34:00.000-07:00

In honor of San Francisco's 40th Gay Pride celebration that took place this past weekend, we've been awarded a fabulous gift: extra-curricular college club equality and a reality check for Christian organizations throughout the US. Happy Pride!

It all started when University of California Hastings Law School refused to provide state funding for a Christian college club, the Christian Legal Society, who openly discriminated against gays by disallowing homosexuals to hold officer positions. Though they claimed homosexuals were allowed to attend their meetings, they maintained that their lifestyle is misaligned with Christian beliefs and sinful, and required members of the organization to sign a Statement of Faith, acknowledging and upholding that belief. Hastings argued that it was against university policy to recognize and support organizations that discriminated against any group of minorities and they were not legally obligated to fund the religious club. The CLS fought the decision, taking it to the Supreme Court and arguing that their First Amendment Rights had been trampled. Now, many chapters of the group have fought similar battles with colleges and won, however, the US Supreme Court was about to throw a curve ball. In a narrow 5-4 ruling revealed today, they decided that the University was not required to financially support the group or acknowledge its existence on campus.

Many have lashed out at the decision, even one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito, who wrote that the finding was a "serious setback for the freedom of expression in this country". However, as the ruling ripples through the US, no doubt the details will blur and fade, and this will become a misunderstood decision of religion on campus. So let's set the record straight here. No one is arguing that Christians cannot convene on campus. No one is banning the formation of Christian organizations at college universities, and no one is telling these organizations that they cannot be anti-gay. This decision, at it's base, simply states that an anti-gay Christian organization cannot receive financing from a state-funded educational institution. As another Justice wrote, "while the Constitution protects CLS's discriminatory practices off-campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them".

It's not only policy on a state level, but a federal level, that any organization that engages in discrimination or exclusion of members cannot receive tax-payer money for funding. However, despite this landmark court decision, it is not glitter and rainbows for equal rights advocates all over the country. Just last week a federal jury determined that a chapter of the Boy Scouts of America in Philadelphia could remain rent-free in a city owned building after the city demanded payment on the basis of their anti-gay practices. The city of Philadelphia had allowed the Boy Scouts to use this building without charge based on a 1928 city agreement that declared nonprofit organizations can use public property for free. However, they recently argued that due to the discriminatory policies of BSA, they felt it inappropriate for the group to remain in the building for nothing. They argued the organization should have to pay an annual rent or be evicted. The jury sided with the BSA, claiming the city cannot infringe upon their First Amendment Rights as a private organization to disallow any group of people they choose and the city can neither charge nor evict them for the reason given.

For you regular readers (the few and far in between), you know my policies on First Amendment Rights. While I do not agree with these ignorant, idiotic, hate-filled religious nut-jobs and their un-American principles, private organizations have the right to single out whomever they choose, to hate whomever they want, and exclude people they don't like from their special clubs (and I don't mean special as in "unique"). However, when the private sector crosses over into publicly funded buildings and institutions or when they receive public financing, they cannot operate as a private organization. In some places, the BSA pays only $1 a month (yes that's one dollar, un dolar, one hundred pennies) for public buildings to hold their meetings. And, much to the disdain of the Christian Legal Society, the BSA also holds many meetings at public elementary and high school buildings as well. Perhaps they should have aimed for the local high school instead. In addition, the BSA receives close to 30% of their funding from the US government, and holds their Boy Scout Jamborees every four years on the federal property of a Virginia military base, at the expense of tax-payers. How much do they pay to rent a military base for a week and a half? Yep, one dollar. Four whole shiny quarters. How much does it cost the government? Five million. Over the nearly 30 years they've been holding these events, that's a total of $37.5 million. And guess what kids? They have another jamboree coming up in July. Feel Uncle Sam sifting around in your wallet? That's you supporting anti-gay organizations without any say in the matter whatsoever.

While few significant lawsuits have popped up over the matters of discrimination, one involving a gay Boy Scouts Leader being banned, another because an Atheist child was not allowed to join (yeah, they don't like those people either), no one has won because the US courts refuse to acknowledge that the Boy Scouts of America are a publicly funded organization. They are registered as a private club, so whatever other funds they receive are irrelevant to court justices. However, based on recent exposes, they are steadily losing funding and support from private donors and public advocates of the group.

I could go on, god knows I would love to tear the BSA up for their ridiculous policies of traditional families, extreme interjected religious beliefs, and attempts to avoid those rampant pedo-gays (which obviously didn't work since they just lost a massive suit for child sex abuse in the organization, perpetuated by non-gay Scout Masters). I would love to check these God Fearing, Hate Mongering Bible Thumpers who are slowly losing ground in the Human Rights Movement across the nation, but I'll refrain, since this blog is purely about private organizations that need to remain such in every sense of the word. You want to exclude, you want to hate, you want to be narrow-minded bastardly cowards hiding behind "morals and values", you go right ahead. This is America. But, you pay for it, you support it, you keep it away from the rest of us. We're sure as hell not going to shell out any more money in the name of hate and have no desire to join your shady clubs.

Side Note: As a former Girl Scout and an advocate for youth activity programs, I would like to say the Girl Scouts are in no way tied to the Boy Scout organization and do not maintain any discriminatory policies against gays, atheists, or any other group. For the boys, send 'em to Indian Guides! They teach the same values of team work, respect, and self-reliance along with father-son bonding and a deep-seated respect for the Native Americans of this country. Plus, they're funded by the YMCA, so you know it's gay-safe...all together now! "Y-M-C-A! It's fun to stay at the...."

Israel: Bringing Antisemitism Back?

2010-06-07T19:54:00.000-07:00

So unless you're living under a rock right now, you've probably heard of the recent Israeli attack and seizure of the Flotilla ship which resulted in 9 deaths. And if you're like the majority of the world, you were as outraged and offended as the rest of us. An aid ship carrying humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza attempted to cross a sea-blockade instated by Israel to deliver these goods. Before they even reached the blockade, the IDF met the ship in international waters and overthrew the vessel. However, they did not succeed without a struggle ensuing, and many activists fought the unlawful takeover, attacking soldiers with knives and lead pipes, resulting in the mortalities. Now Israel is wiping their tears with blood-soaked handkerchiefs claiming to be the everlasting victim in the decades-long dispute with Palestine that has turned most of the world and the UN against them. Amidst claims of justification, cries of antisemitism, and concern for their own safety, Israel has gone from the Golden Child everyone sympathized with to the Red-Headed Stepchild no one likes.

The dispute began over Israel being recognized as a state and land divisions the Palestinians didn't agree upon, including some very holy grounds deeply significant to both religions. Backed by the US, Israel steadily gained strength and political power, as the state of Palestine faded into oblivion, not even recognized as an independent country today (but for the purposes of this blog, we will consider it rightfully as such). Bombings and militant attacks from both sides intensified hostility, but the Palestinians were fighting a losing battle. Israel, in an attempt to weaken and ultimately purge the region of Palestinians, has constructed an illegal apartheid wall, dividing the region and separating families from one another, children from schools, adults from jobs, people from medical facilities, etc. The Israeli Defense Forces also continue to surge into restricted territories, illegally seizing Arab and Muslim settlements, bullying, terrorizing, arresting, and even killing individuals who stand in their way, people who are only fighting for their right to exist on the small part of earth they have left. Would it be inappropriate of me to draw parallels between modern day Israel and past Germany, with a concrete divider not unlike the Berlin Wall and a militant movement of ethnic cleansing not unlike the Nazi Party? It would? Okay, we won't do that then. But just in case the thought had crossed your mind, it crossed ours too.

Now, on top of bombings, the great regional divide, and irate IDFs running about, Israel's newly instated Gaza Blockade (created just three years ago) has been devised to limit, if not fully stop crucial supplies from getting to the Palestinians, on the grounds of security, and concerns that weapons will reach the hostile region. A list of the banned products includes carpentry tools such as iron, steel, or cement, livestock such as horses, goats, and donkeys, food items such as fruits, vegetables, chocolates, nuts, jam, and coffee, and even frivolous items such as A4 paper, laptops, and musical instruments. While some strange concoction of iron, steel, and cement could create some crude weaponry, if Palestinians are versed in constructing catapults or Trojan Bunnies (Run Away!), and I could see how they might try to drive the IDF back with a poor rendition of Pachelbel's Canon in D major, but what is the point of keeping out foods and livestock? These are livelihoods, animals help with transportation, with farming, they're a source of food, these foods obviously provide nourishment to a country that is currently starving and poor. And what better way to destroy a people than to take their sustenance? There is no other value of this extreme deprivation, no other purpose, there is no real threat to Israel in chocolates and apples.

The UN stepped in long ago, demanding the surge into illegal territories stop and the apartheid wall be destroyed, but Israel has long since ignored their restrictions and has continued it's draconian rule of the land without reprimand. Though a recent announcement declaring Israel's intention to remain in and move forward into illegal settlements has forced the US to question it's relationship with the Jewish state, the US government has not taken an official stance against them following the Flotilla raid, and it's unknown if we ever will.

After a significantly delayed response to WWII which resulted in the slaughter of 6 million Jews, the US, acting in what I believe to be a guilty conscience, practically granted Israel a free pass to do what they like. In order to compensate them for the heinous crimes of the Holocaust, we have supported them without fail and without question. But the Jews of Israel are not the Jews of Europe. One cannot be compensated for bloodshed with more bloodshed, and Israel is not making anymore friends with their despicable tactics.

Many have openly criticized Israel for the blockade, to which they responded that the world is simply reviving antisemitism and discriminating against them. While the disdain flowing their way is not motivated purely by religious purposes, can it morph into such? Can antisemitism make a comeback? Sadly, the actions of Israel are leading towards what could be the resurgence of antisemitism, only this time it would be almost justifiable. A war mongering state feeding on the helpless, starving them out, keeping them in what Queen Rania called an "open air prison". And, sadly still, they are dragging other Jews with them. Many Jews across the globe are speaking out against Israel's actions upon Palestine, citing the misalignment between Israeli policy and the Jewish religion. If people begin to connect the actions of Israel with the Jewish faith, as many have done with terrorists and the Islamic faith, antisemitism will run rampant again across the world, and a reborn hate will thrive.

Not helping the Israeli cause is a satirical video that was not only created by Jews as a mockery of the Flotilla Raid, but circulated by the Israeli Government itself. The video shows Israeli individuals who parodied American and Middle Eastern activists on the boat singing a re-written rendition of Michael Jackson's famous "We Are the World", renamed "We Con the World". A poor comedic attempt at best, given the timing and the events that inspired the video, it is nothing more than a sickening display of disregard and disrespect to the individuals who were killed and captured on that day, and the Gazans who suffered from the loss of supplies. The Israeli Government apologized for releasing the video, but an official stated the video reflected what most Israelis felt about the incident. If this is all the compassion they have to offer, they're going to be royally screwed in the long run. Follow the link below to watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg&feature=player_embedded

So a Prophet, a Bear, and a Dog Walk Into a Free Speech Lecture...

2010-05-12T00:58:00.000-07:00

While browsing through my usual internet hot spots today, I came across a video on Huffingtonpost.com showing a violent display of a public protest in Sweden. Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist, was giving a lecture on free speech at a local university after being widely attacked for composing a drawing of Islam's Prophet Muhammad head on the body of a dog. Many Muslim protesters attended the lecture and things quickly turned sour when an unidentified individual jumped up and possibly head-butted Vilks (it was unknown if the attacker actually made contact or if Vilks collided with a security officer during the scuffle). He was rushed from the room as protesters, many wearing keffiyahs were chanting and becoming more disgruntled in the seminar room. It took several minutes for the police to settle the crowd. Watch below.

The battle of cartoons and Muhammad began years ago when a British cartoonist drew a picture of the prophet with a bomb sitting atop his turban. Death threats ensued, violence commenced, and there was scandal rocking the Middle East and Muslims everywhere. More recently, the shock-thriving cartoonists at South Park were censored for attempting to create a cartoon teddy bear named Muhammad, poking fun at a situation in the Middle East where a teacher lost her job for allowing children to nickname a classroom stuffed animal after the prophet. They too received death threats for the fiasco.

As an individual who is torn between multicultural and religious respect and the rights to freedom of speech and expression, it is difficult for me to pick sides here. I do not agree with the blatant disrespect shown to Muslim belief and what you might call one of their "commandments" to never compose drawings or images of Allah or the Prophet. However, a fan of the first amendment, it is very difficult to draw the line in terms of what should be allowed and what should be restricted, without falling into the clutches of a slippery slope. If we can't draw a religious cartoon now, tomorrow we can't write a sign protesting a detrimental religious cult.

I do, however, hold a strong position on violence. Especially when it comes to sucker-punching (or rather, sucker-head butting) a random person during a peaceful seminar expressing not only his opinion, but his legally protected right, no matter how offensive his action. Likewise, I am not particularly thrilled at getting what I consider to be a spit in the face by individuals in the Muslim community.

Many of you know, some may not, that I was an active advocate on Queen Rania of Jordan's Youtube channel. The channel was created to bridge the gap between the east and west and shatter falsely held stereotypes of Muslims and Islam. I created videos in support of Islam, carried on discussions and debates in the chat section of the channel, got into heated arguments with family members, and even sounded off angry emails to anti-Muslim friends and acquaintances who sent propaganda to my inbox. It's safe to say it wasn't always welcomed, I took a lot of flack for my efforts, being called names, verbally abused and hassled on the net, and souring a few relationships. Unfortunately it's also safe to say that a good chunk of the west is still utterly convinced that Muslims are angry, violent individuals fueled by a hostile religion. Now imagine the slap in the face I feel when I click on the net and find Muslims, groups of individuals I consider mutually exclusive from hate-mongering terrorists, acting out in anger and violence, attacking people, affirming stereotypes, and reinforcing the walls we've been working so hard to break down for nearly two years.

The reaction to the cartoonist was not only detrimental to the individuals who were consequently arrested for the attack, or the man the attack was aimed at, but detrimental to the cause as a whole. Now I am not defending this man's cartoon or his disregard for other people's religious values, however, as Viktor Frankl once stated, we cannot avoid the actions of others, but only we can control our reaction, and that's what defines us as swine or saints. It's hard to find any successful social movement that thrived from violence and anger. The Civil Rights Movement, albeit slow, came to succession after decades of discrimination upon the advice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to avoid violent displays. The Nazi Party fell to ruins when using violence and anger to further their hateful agenda. As frustrating at this situation can be, and I do understand the emotions it's eliciting from Muslims, I hardly think it's beneficial to anyone to start assaulting people.

What needs to occur here, as QR would suggest, is open discussion, starting a conversation. Perhaps using calm, collected letters, emails, phone calls to individuals who create offensive pieces of artwork explaining why they are viewed as such, describing the importance of the religious practice to leave images of revered individuals undrawn, rather than death threats, cries for violence, and foul language. Hostility is the antidote for constructive communication, it spreads the animosity from the outraged victim to the haughty suspect, and fuels the disdain that drives their destructive behaviors. Now, granted letters and gentle requests for respect don't always work. One requires a psychological predisposition for reason, understanding, and just plain common courtesy in order for rational discussions to penetrate that encapsulating bone about their brains, which, sadly, is a dying quality in people. However, if you don't get the response you're hoping for, reverting to violence is still not allowed. Peaceful demonstrations, legal action, calls for boycotts are all viable means of fighting.

It seems important to point out that many people supporting the various aforementioned cartoonists are not anti-Muslim in nature. The majority of people I've spoken to are more concerned with their freedom of speech rights than insulting any particular religion or mocking holy figures. To see the point, one only has to review the offensive material we westerners have churned out on our own Jesus Christ: cartoons of Jesus smoking and drinking, making light of his crucifixion, even comic suggestions that Jesus was gay. And no one's made a death threat yet. Muslims, don't shoot yourselves in the foot, we're working hard to get where you need to be, and some of you are just pulling everyone down with you.

Theater Queens and Ignorant Kings

2010-05-11T17:39:00.000-07:00

After a disheartening publication that forced the gay community to recheck the calendar year (it is 2010 after all), Newsweek is facing a potential boycott and several angry celebrities after printing an article written by Ramin Setoodeh, mocking homosexual actors in straight-character roles. Referring to celebrities by name, he used the term "theater queen" and remarked how shocked he was to see certain homosexuals play straight, which elicited a heated response from Broadway favorite, Kristin Chenoweth.

It has long been disputed that audiences will not find openly gay actors believable in straight character roles. I'm not so sure I can disagree with this. Like many, I find it difficult to dissociate the actor from the character when I see a film or TV show. How many of us have seen a Mel Gibson film, only to recall that unfortunate drunken rampage? How many of us have watched a Russell Crowe film without remembering that bastardly telephone incident? To this day, I cannot sit through a Hugh Grant film without thinking, "really? You cheated on Elizabeth Hurley with THAT?" And yet, we are expected to walk into a theater, sit down, and watch a flamboyantly gay individual try to slip into a well-fitted suit, master the grip of a manly handshake, and seduce some poor unsuspecting woman (recall Nathan Lane doing his best John Wayne in The Birdcage), and lose ourselves in Hollywood's magical spell?

The truth is, we cannot dissociate and it is not truly believable. However, shouldn't they have the right to try, as anyone else does? Directors still hire Russell Crowe in hopes you'll forget his multiple past mishaps of assholery, and they stick a bow and arrow in his hand rather than a rotary phone. They still use Hugh Grant in roles that require a sliver of integrity. Hell they still hire Jennifer Aniston for romantic comedies as if we'll forget the forlorn state of her own sad love life. So why not let the gays contend with everything other actors struggle with anyways? Why not give them a shot to bomb a movie (with the $10m for the role tucked safely in their bank accounts)? It's not like they have a lot of other options.

The gay community is believed to have made great strides in the entertainment industry, more so in theater than in Hollywood, but Hollywood seemed to be making room for the emerging population that hid behind the curtains for so many years. They nominated the blockbuster film Brokeback Mountain for several Oscars, which drew attention to the gay movement and empathy for a once taboo subject. Milk, a biopic about famous homosexual and activist Harvey Milk garnered a few Oscars, including Best Actor for Sean Penn. But what's missing from these gay films? The queens, of course. While there was, no doubt, homosexuals behind the scenes making these films into magic (who could forget the tearful acceptance speech of the young gay Milk writer in 2009?), Hollywood couldn't help but hire purely straight actors to play the scenes.

This is a practice that has been disputed in several contexts for years. There was an uproar from disabled actors when non-disabled actors were thrown into wheelchairs for minor roles. There was even marked frustration when overweight actresses were cheated out of those rare opportunities for leading roles as the parts were handed to skin and bone actresses who packed on the pounds (apologies to my fake wife, Renee Zellweger, but it's true), along with Charlize Theron, and Toni Collette. Because let's be real, no one wants to see the "ugly fat" actresses, no one wants to feel bad for the truly disabled unless the film is brimming with an inspirational story about overcoming the odds. So we extend the fantasy of Hollywood even further by keeping the gays out too. It's almost reminiscent of those white actors who used to paint their faces black back in the days before blacks were allowed on screen, which is completely unacceptable today (unless you're Robert Downey Jr., in which case you get an Oscar nod).

Now many argue that straight actors such as Heath Ledger and Penn are given these roles because of their insurmountable talents. They are, inarguably, the best of the best, and no one could create the roles quite like they did. I agree to a certain extent. Ledger was a magical actor who handled his role and the press of a gay character with unwavering decorum. Penn, despite his delinquent persona brought a soft vulnerability to Harvey Milk that made audiences everywhere rally behind this film. However, I believe that predominantly the purpose of using heterosexuals to play gays is the same as that which bans gays from playing heterosexuals. Dissociation. As we established, audiences cannot dissociate actors from their characters, and given such, individuals who find themselves a little unsettled watching a gay character in romantic scenes still draw some comfort from knowing that this is not real, that this actor is not gay. It's all pretend, after all, and they will pull up their pants, walk off the set, and return home to their wife and kids. Ledger even found heterosexual love in former girlfriend Michelle Williams on the set in between his sadistic kissing scenes with Jake Gyllenhaal. As far as we'd like to believe we've come in our movement towards acceptance, people are simply not ready for the heavy kissing and bedroom scenes that are no different from heterosexual scenes, aside from the equipment flailing around beneath the sheets.

So they can't play gay, they can't play straight, where exactly are these actors supposed to go? Back to the sidelines, hoping against hope that a part for a hairstylist or a fashionista pops up? Forced into stereotypical roles which, mind you, are not safe from those heterosexual thieving actors either (cut to Kevin Bacon a la Beauty Shop or Stanley Tucci in The Devil Wears Prada). The march to acceptance and the movement that requires us to face our own discomfort in other people's lives is a slow one and many of us are growing impatient. But rather than make a few accommodations for those still stuck in the dark ages, isn't it time we simply continue on, in spite of them? To hire gay actors, film gay love scenes, allow a gay man to kiss a woman if he wants to, whether people will buy tickets or not? C'mon America, give a gay a chance.

"Hay Jae, Te Dije Que Aprendieras Español!"

2010-04-18T16:04:00.000-07:00

A longstanding discussion/debate/argument that has plagued America, and specifically California, for decades found it's way to the forefront of my Diversity class last week, and I couldn't help but feel the heat of the matter as tension rose in the room. The issue is immigration and acculturation, namely with Hispanics, Latinos, Mestizos, Chicanos, whatever they wish to be called (ironically enough the argument was between a black and a white woman). These people are making their way across the border and scrambling to find their place in the scheme of America, but many struggle with their identity vs. their new environment.

A little about me, since self-disclosure is rarely an explored topic on this blog. I am biracial, born to a third generation Irish mother and stand as a first generation American to my Mexican immigrant father. Now my father came to America as a young child in the 50s, during a time when immigration from the south was even less accepted than it is now. There was no such thing as holding to one's roots, if you came to America, you were American, and that was the end of it; forget all past residencies. He was forced to learn English almost immediately and encouraged to avoid Spanish at all costs with the exception of his parents, who struggled with the language. Amidst discrimination and racism, my father decided, as most immigrants do, that the best thing for his children would be to become pure red-blooded Americans: "conform and life will be grand". He married a white woman and we ate predominantly Euro-cuisine and we spoke only English and such was life. But life wasn't grand.

My grandmother never learned English, aside from a few phrases here and there, and my grandfather, although well-versed, still struggled sometimes with communication with us. The 6 short years I knew my grandmother before she passed away, we hardly spoke, though in the last few years I spent nearly every day at their house. In the 9 years I knew my grandfather, though we survived with his English and love was never lost in translation, we never had a real conversation before he passed away. Last week, we had family visiting from Mexico. Though I hadn't seen some of them in as long as 20 years, we had nothing to say to each other, because I couldn't speak their language. And the lasting effects of my father's assimilation didn't end there. I couldn't stomach Mexican food until about three years ago, and in class, while we were discussing Latin Americans, the three "obvious" Latinas in the room were constantly asked referential questions in regards to Mexican culture, while I was overlooked repeatedly despite the fact that my last name is obviously Mexican and I was sitting up front with the rest of the Latinas. I just simply don't look the part.

Many Americans believe this is the way it should be. As if we should install ethnic-cleansing showers at the southern border with a sign that reads: "America! We Take Only the Best Potatoes!" But the immigrants are refusing to bend to the slightest degree.

What was pure assimilation in the 50s has today turned to pure separation, as John Berry would describe it, or the total rejection of one's host culture. Mexicans are less likely than ever to adapt to the language or to integrate with Euro-Americans if they don't have to. Scared of losing their roots and a sense of themselves, they hold tight to whatever fragments of their motherland they managed to salvage from home, almost as if they're refugees who can never return. They find their niches in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods and stay safe and secure in a cultural bubble far away from the American influence. While some have called America the great melting pot of the world, a more accurate description would be that of tiny blobs of oil in a pot of water, just floating about, bouncing up against other encapsulated blobs of oil; components never mixing, membranes never breaking.

Unfortunately, this method has its downfalls too, not only for the culture they immigrate to, but for them as well. Refusing to acculturate at all and remaining within their bubbles isolates the immigrants from the outside world. They rarely set foot outside their neighborhoods or away from their families and friends, and if they do, they are usually accompanied by a chaperon, a tourist with a cultural guide navigating through some vast unexplored jungle.

Meanwhile, the people of the host culture are taking offense, and this segregation fosters an Us vs. Them mentality. It bears the questions: "why don't they want to be part of us?" "do they think they're better than us?" Like having someone move into your home but refuse to be a part of your family. In addition, more anger and frustration comes from the government's handling of immigration, whereby we have gone above and beyond our means to accommodate our neighbors in their transition and they give little in return. The vast amount of money spent in the last decade printing everything from advertisements to government documents, exams, even labels on products in Spanish could probably finance the state of California through its bankruptcy for the next few years. Likewise, many of us versed only in our native tongue are losing jobs to bilingual applicants because we didn't bother to master the language of another country to get a job in our own. It's like losing a job in Wisconsin because you don't speak French. But, despite offering free adult education classes that teach English, they refuse to learn the language because they don't want to be "Us", they want to be themselves, they want to be Mexico in America, refusing to adapt, expecting us to adapt to them. And people are becoming intolerant.

What has proven to be psychologically and sociologically healthy for both parties involved is what Berry called "Bi-culturation". It allows immigrants to retain their own culture while familiarizing themselves with the host as well. In other words, a compromise, a balance of both worlds. Keep your culture and your rich ethnic background. Speak your language with family and friends, teach it to your children. But, learn the language of the culture outside your door. Learn to live in the new world you've chosen to come to, rather than barricading yourself away from it. But until we both reach an understanding, neither side will reach a compromise.

Assimilation costs people their identity, their origin, and important relationships within their families and friends. Separation causes people distress, isolation, and fosters segregation and discrimination in a society. In order for cultural harmony, immigrants need to be more readily adaptive when moving to a new country; likewise, that country needs to exercise a healthy amount of accommodation, without completely catering to our newer tenants.

I'll never be able to regain the countless conversations I should've had with my grandparents, and I've committed myself to learning Spanish this summer so I can talk to my family before they're gone too, but I have to admit I grow wary of what may soon be an English-second language country looming on the horizon.

Servants of God, Predators of Children

2010-04-13T16:54:00.000-07:00

Another sex abuse scandal has rocked the Vatican again as accusations against the Catholic priesthood have surged in recent weeks, blazing across an entire continent as victims from Austria and Germany have broken their silence and several more European countries are rallying around them, protesting the church and this time, they're calling for the resignation of the Pope.

The revelation of abusive priests is no new concept, and neither is the corruption of the Vatican when it comes to handling these delinquents. However, this case has taken on new significance due not only to the sheer size and depth of it, but evidence showing the Pope himself may have engaged in cover-ups that permitted abuse to continue. Pope Benedict XVI served as the archbishop in Munich during a time when priests who were quietly accused or suspected of abuse were transferred or just ignored rather than excommunicated from the church. Some were physically transferred to other congregations or countries, others were professionally transferred, one specifically from priesthood to pastoral work where he continued to work with children while he was being treated for pedophilia. At one time, a deputy for the future pope even instructed bishops in Wisconsin to cease a church trial for a priest accused of abusing 200 deaf boys. Many of these victims have recently stepped forward, claiming their complaints to other priests and bishops were ignored when they reported the abuse. Another Munich archbishop had been accused of abuse in 1995, and while he resigned his position, he was not asked to leave his remaining religious duties for another three years.

Amidst calls for resignation and even firing the holy one, many have come to defend the Pope, stating that he "above all else in Rome is tackling this thing head on" and that he "wouldn't and shouldn't quit". On the other hand, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two prominent atheists, are even calling for criminal prosecution of the Pope, demanding that he be arrested for his alleged role in the cover-ups and crimes against humanity. They are already consulting with British lawyers to determine if the Pope can be prosecuted. Unfortunately, this is where it gets hazy, as it always has, and we begin to lose faith in governments and legal systems. The Vatican claims itself to be an independent state, citing the Pope as the Head of State, and argues that he is immune from criminal charges (Dawkins and Hitchens maintain that the Vatican is not a state, is not represented at the United Nations, and therefore cannot claim immunity from anything).

The world has always maintained a quiet understanding with the Catholic church that legal matters concerning anyone in the priesthood or higher would be dealt with by "church law". Very rarely, if at all, did federal law step in to override the Vatican's authority, especially in the U.S., where separation of church and state seemed to hold a double meaning that provided priests a shield from federal prosecution for sex abuse. However, given the church's self-proclaimed sovereignty, there were no checks or balances in place to ensure church law was being upheld. In simplest terms, it was a state within several other countries, breaking their laws, then retreating to the safety of its own boundaries claiming "Sanctuary!" with no danger of retribution. It's about time someone reminded the Vatican that while blessed as they believe themselves to be, they are not above man's law. While Switzerland intends to create a sex offender registry of priests, no other country has discussed any future provisions in protecting their children from these predators in clerics.

Have these current events shaken the Catholic community and their faith? I would imagine not, since previous scandals hadn't wavered many of their followers, but what does that say when people so dutifully follow such a corrupt doctrine? Are we so deeply entrenched in the path we've taken that there's no room to turn around or climb out? What is one's fate when their Shepherds have led them astray, lied to them, and worst of all, harmed their children and protected their comrades in favor of their flock?

The worst of this despicable situation is that while some priests and cardinals have spoken up blaming the widely enforced requirement of celibacy, the Vatican has used the scandal as an opportunity to facilitate hate and deflect blame to others. Namely, homosexuals. Tarcisio Bertone, the second in command in the Vatican, lashed out against the celibacy claim, announcing that the pedophilia is due to rampant homosexuality in the church, not celibacy. He alleged that several psychological studies supported his claim, though none do. It's a long-standing lie that pedophilia and homosexuality are intrinsically linked somehow, however in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV TR of Psychiatry recognizes only pedophilia as a paraphilia, distinctly differentiated from homosexuality, which hasn't been considered a sexual deviation since 1977. Wake up morons, a forced relationship between an adult and child is not synonymous with a consensual relationship between adult individuals of the same gender.

The church also tries to draw on sympathy, claiming that the negative press they've been receiving in regards to this scandal is being headed by Zionist groups and a Jew-led hate campaign. Who needs the Jews' to tell us you screwed up? Not only did you molest children who trusted you and took advantage of people who looked to you for spiritual and moral guidance, but you covered it up from the public, then failed to stop it when you knew it was happening. Let's face it, you fucked up (I really did try to get through this blog without cursing, couldn't be done).

Is there no hope for reform? I've lost faith in any religious establishment, and have lost all but a fragment of faith in federal governments, but this is not the end. This matter is not over, and a flicker of hope has been kindled. Today, a U.S. court of law found the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints responsible for failing to protect children from known pedophiles in the Boy Scouts of America in the 80's (the church funds and runs approximately 60% of the organization today). One victim was rewarded over a million dollars and the court has announced the possibility of more fines to be settled later for more victims. Now granted the Mormons don't have Vatican power or protection, but nonetheless, it's a few bricks off the wall that has surrounded that once sacred compound of religion. Sooner or later we will break through and none will be immune, no matter cassock, crucifix, or conspiring clergy (there's those damn letter repetitions again).

Dear Heretics, know this: You will to answer to God when you die, but we can kick your perverted asses while you still walk this earth.

Flamin' Freedom Fighters

2010-03-28T00:31:00.000-07:00

Blogger Note: Yes I am aware this is the second blog in a row with such an ostentatious triple-F title, but as the terms brought a smile, I simply couldn't pass it up, so bear with me.

We all know I am never short on words, especially when the discussion takes a turn into equal rights and discriminating laws. Recently the fight to repeal the long-standing Don't Ask Don't Tell law in military service has revved up, and everyone is coming out of the woodworks to voice their opinion, from high ranking officials to dishonorably discharged soldiers, and arguments range from ridiculously twisted to inescapably infallible.

Now it wasn't long ago that DADT was considered "progress" for gays in the military. Previously being completely banned from serving, in 1993, homosexuals were then legally allowed to serve so long as they remained in that dusty closet cloaked in shame. However, had they been found out, the U.S. military was well within their right to discharge the so-called sexual deviants. Now, attempting to make good on his promise, President Obama is strong-arming law-makers to repeal the draconian standard and allow gays to serve openly. Naturally, he is not battling without opposition.

Several senators and military leaders are fervently speaking out against this motion. Former senator Rick Santorum claimed that those in the military supporting the change are simply bound by political correctness and, (pun intended?) "cannot see straight". He believes that somehow allowing gays to openly serve will diminish the effectiveness and readiness of the armed forces. Though such a concept seems clouded by flawed and bigoted rationale, General John Sheehan reiterated the thought when he testified in front of the committee at the DADT hearings last week. He alleged that when the Dutch allowed openly gay soldiers to serve in the military, it weakened the infrastructure of their forces and opened the door for the Srebrenica massacre of 1995, where the Dutch were overwhelmed by Bosnian serbs and 8,000 muslims were killed during an ethnic-cleansing genocide. (The Dutch government is vehemently denying the allegations).

Another statement came from MC-General James Conway, who announced that he would not force his soldiers to bunk with other gay servicemen. Currently soldiers' living quarters consist of double-bunks, though Conway insists that men should either be permitted to refuse a gay roommate or the government will have to provide single bunks for soldiers from now on. While I can appreciate the discomfort of living in close quarters, sleeping with, and essentially having to undress in front of an individual who may find you attractive (this is why women and men do not share bunks), the notion that gays will have to be segregated from heterosexuals simply because we assume they cannot control themselves is preposterous. Overly concerned with the personal comfort of their soldiers, what these people do not seem to understand is that the trend of homophobia is no different from discrimination against any other minority group. Some servicemen may come from the deep south where racism is disturbingly rampant and claim that they are not "comfortable" sharing quarters with an African American. However, undoubtedly, such a complaint would not only be overlooked, it would probably be reprimanded.

On the other hand, those protesting for the repeal are not in short supply either. After years of holding the policy in place, Colin Powell has finally lent his voice of support, claiming perspectives have changed and, contrary to Gen. Sheehan, he believes that other countries' open policies have shown that openly gay servicemen and women will not harm the armed forces. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently passed a modification of the policy stating that hearsay, anonymous tips, confidence of military doctors and confessions to clergy cannot be used to initiate proceedings to discharge GLBT soldiers. Such factors have previously contributed to the 1,300 discharges conducted since the 1993 policy was enacted. Most importantly, it seems obvious Congress is falling into step behind Obama, and the repeal is not only promising, but practically guaranteed.

My own issue with this matter is not only the blatant denial of allowing men and women to serve, protect, and die for their country, in a time of war where enlistment is diminishing. My biggest beef is that these individuals are not fighting for their own freedoms. They have few compared to the general population of America. They can't marry in 45 states. Slightly fewer states ban gay adoption. In most, they can be fired from their jobs if found out, and the federal government has done nothing to provide equal rights or even anti-discrimination laws (gays are not specifically protected from hate crimes in federal laws). And yet, they still wish to fight for us, while we sleep under the security they have afforded us, while we sit at home and vote away their rights, and while we publicly scorn them with dishonorable discharges when their harmless secret slips out.

One can only hope that DADT will soon be a thing of the past, but don't be so sure we won't hear it again...Bibi Netanyahu of Israel is hijacking the phrase in what has been referred to as a paralleled shame, Israel's illegal occupation and continuing construction in Jerusalem. While the U.S. has demanded Israel cease all construction, Netanyahu has asked America to adopt yet another version of DADT, in other words, they won't stop building, but it will be a secret, and we will just look the other way until the rest of the world kicks us in the shin for hiding behind the guise of ignorance, yet again.

Personally I don't think gays should even serve in the military, my viewpoint is the heteros started the wars, let 'em finish them. I can't say with full conviction that I would die for a country that denied me my basic freedoms. But if they want to serve, who are we to question those who have the guts to do what so many of us won't? All I can say is God Bless those Flamin' Freedom Fighters.

Farewell Founding Father

2010-03-14T22:00:00.000-07:00

America. Land of the free, home of the brave. The world's melting pot. One of the wealthiest countries in the world. We came, we conquered, we thrived through the years, but not always without violence and rarely without blood. Our country has risen up through slavery, discrimination, and the fight for equal rights. Granted our rap sheet isn't a blank page, but people have been working tirelessly to wash it clean and rewrite a more favorable tale in its place. But how hard are they scrubbing and why?

For years in the U.S., while liberals have been fighting for the future in the White House and Congress, right wing conservatives have been fighting to clean up the past, namely in our children's classrooms. Several popular books have been banned due to what has been deemed inappropriate, though historically correct references, language, and actions. Classics such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Color Purple, and To Kill a Mocking Bird have been banned because they contain the word "nigger". Other books were banned for various offenses: The Scarlet Letter, banned for depicting an affair out of wedlock and an illegitimate pregnancy; and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, banned because Dr. Maya Angelou's description of her rape as a young child was deemed sexually explicit.

While I can appreciate the seriousness of these subjects and the concern of exposing young children to such topics too soon, these books are accurate depictions of historic moments and events that cannot be erased simply because one removes the books that tell their stories. The use of the word "nigger", while crude and inappropriate, is an unfortunate term of the time, describing a group of individuals that were once viewed inferior and enslaved by the white ancestors of this nation. Is it not a backhanded slap to the face of African Americans everywhere to cleanse their history by refusing to acknowledge the foul use of the name? Its as if we're saying, "sorry for that whole slave thing, but let's just pretend it never happened, okay?" Likewise, sex out of wedlock and child sexual abuse has been going on for centuries, who are we to turn a blind eye to it and wipe it away?

Unfortunately, conservatives have generally won these wars, many of these optional reading titles can no longer be found in school libraries, and now they've turned their eyes to new horizons: textbooks. Recently, Texas right wingers have managed to pass a measure that could be the biggest massacre of American history to date. White-washing our past by eliminating what they deemed irrelevant or inconsistent with their viewpoints of our country, they have hand-selected the topics, events, and people they wish to be taught. The changes?

Remember that guy that wrote our country's Declaration of Independence? One of the Founding Fathers? The third President of the United States? Soon, many children won't. Thomas Jefferson has been removed from the required curriculum, namely because they want to eliminate the Enlightenment period of which he was so avidly a part. The Age of Enlightenment focused on science, philosophy, and culture, which at times questioned religious values. It may be speculative, but Jefferson was also a deist and adulterer who had an illicit affair with a slave, producing a handful of illegitimate offspring, which, for Texas, makes for a less than prominent role model, despite his numerous contributions to the nation.

Separation of church and state? Not even a theory, according to Texas. Though I truly believe the separation of church and state is theoretical and very few laws are passed without religious influence, Texas has decided they won't even discuss the idea of such segregation. They will focus only on the influence of Judeo-Christian influences upon the founding of this country. They also refuse to teach the Constitutional amendment of religious equality or that the U.S. government is forbidden from promoting one religion over another.

Other changes include: teaching Republican President Ronald Reagan while leaving out Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy and the first Hispanic of the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor; omitting details of Hispanic heroes dying at the infamous Battle of the Alamo in Texas; refusing to acknowledge Hip Hop as a cultural movement; teaching the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, (with undoubtedly a definite bias of favor toward the Israelis); celebrating the resurgence of conservatism with prominent organizations such as the National Rifle Association; and changing the name of our country's system of government from "Democracy" to "Conservative Republic".

While the teachings in a single state can be a cause for concern, the biggest issue is how far will the conservative influence reach? Texas is a major buyer of textbooks, and it is unknown if textbook publishers will cater to the large Southern state's specifications and print all their books as such or tailor books solely for Texas' use.

Now who's responsible for this uproar? One would think such critical decisions regarding an entire state's educational curriculum would be based on the experience and knowledge of history, government, and sociology specialists, or might at least include their advice. However, the fate of children's understanding of this country's foundation rested in the hands of elected lawyers, a dentist, and a writer for a local newspaper. Granted the right-wingers are pulling the strings of a spectacular puppet show, but its a sad day when common sense has flown so far out the window that one finds it appropriate to toss out a Founding Father with the crystal clear bathwater of Enlightenment. Maybe these gun-toting, bible-thumping, George W. Bush electing, racist rednecks should have read up a bit on that age before taking it upon themselves to cleanse our country of those ethnic and liberal demons that have come to represent what this great land is all about.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it...those who try to rewrite it are just plain doomed.

Oscars: Winner vs Worthy

2010-03-07T15:46:00.000-08:00

So past Oscar nights have definitely had their ups and downs, their tight races, those wondrous dark horse runners, and those obvious wins and upsets. And it's no secret that politics and current events play a role on the academy's votes. But what about those slightly obscure points that factor into the voter's bids? The actor's overall likability, tallying up the past nominations, and even pity for losses that should have been wins?

Now, the Oscars are annual awards that focus on the previous year in film-making, and they recognize and reward spectacular achievements in that year's films alone. In other words, these awards are not meant to mark lifetime achievements, overall career successes, or impressive resumes that have been built up over decades. It doesn't matter how great you were in a film made 5 years ago, or that you were great in the last 20 movies you've made. You can still lose. It doesn't even matter that it may be the first film you've ever made, or that your career up until then was blown to bits by box office bombs. If you have one moment in one picture where you were undeniably fantastic, you are eligible to be nominated and even win. At least, that's the way it should be.

No one can fully eliminate the human margin of error in voting. Many of us even make the awards' season mistake of casting our own personal votes for actors we favor, either because we loved all their other films or just because they seem nice. We've also thrown out votes for those actors who irritated us once in that film they made 20 years ago or because they've simply gotten in trouble in their personal lives and have lost our respect. Sometimes we think people should win simply because they've been nominated so many times in the past, we scream "will someone PLEASE just give them one??" We rarely can watch a film objectively and freely hand out accolades for those who truly deserve it. So can we, in all seriousness, expect the academy to be able to vote with 100% objectivity, every year?

The discussion circulating the WWW this year was whether or not Sandra Bullock deserved to win, despite her being the front-runner fave. Now I haven't seen the Blind Side personally, but I will say I've been rooting for Sandra simply because I do love her, she's got that awesome personality that makes you feel like you could be BFFs if you only had the chance to hang out. She's made some great films in the past, and made some flops, for which she won a Razzie and showed up in person to humbly accept her award; which by the way, makes us love her more. But is her performance Oscar-worthy? Meryl is her main competition, whom, having actually seen Julie and Julia, I feel she is, as usual, O-W. Not to mention the fabulous underdog, Gabby from Precious who has virtually been buried and forgotten this year as Sandra and Meryl ping-pong award honors back and forth betwixt themselves. So with the Oscars literally just moments away as I write this, will the favorite or the worthy take home the golden naked man this time?

Favorites who don't necessarily deserve to win take it home all the time. The 2002 Oscars began a minor-chain reaction when Halle Berry won for best actress for Monster's Ball over Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge. Despite the obvious favor of drama over musical, at the risk of sounding racist, it was no coincidence that Berry won as the first African American woman alongside Denzel Washington for best actor, during an evening which included an honorary Oscar for Sidney Poitier. However, though many felt Kidman was snubbed, no one was willing to badmouth the first best actress award for a black woman, or mention that Whoopi Goldberg should have been the vessel for that moment years ago in The Color Purple. Since Kidman lost, she got what I like to call the Pity Oscar for her role in The Hours the following year (Goldberg received her Pity Oscar for Ghost). Don't get me wrong, Kidman was fantastic in the film, but Oscar worthy? Technically she didn't even qualify for Best Actress, given she had less on-screen time than her co-stars Streep and Julianne Moore, who were both shoved into the Supporting Actress category. Of course, Kidman's pity win pushed Renee Zellweger out of her deserving win for Chicago. So naturally Renee received her Pity Oscar the following year for Cold Mountain. Again she was fantastic in the film, I love Renee and I loved the movie, but some thought Shohreh Aghdashloo should've won for The House of Sand and Fog. Unfortunately she didn't have a high profile film the following year to receive her Pity Oscar and thus lopped off the chain of Oscar compensation.

Others have obviously won due to those lovely politics or agendas: An Inconvenient Truth thanks to global warming crises, Sean Penn in Milk, thanks to the recent Gay Human Rights Movement, pretty much any movie involving the Holocaust (yes Kate Winslet won partly because it was a Holocaust movie, partly because she has been nominated 6 times in the past, and partly because she was awesome).

Will we ever get to a point where we can vote for those sole performances, despite politics, current events, personal feelings, and providing compensation for screwing actors out of rightful awards because of these issues? I'll be rooting for Sandra tonight, but I will own the fact that I am totally biased, and part of me wants her to lose so I can simply be proven wrong that Oscar is in fact, just and fair. Time will tell.

Out With the Old, In With the New: Disregarding Daily Disasters

2010-01-17T01:13:00.000-08:00

Haiti: Another natural disaster, another massive tragedy that strikes the world. More than 50,000 are estimated to be dead thus far, several more survivors are slowly dying in the rubble without food and water, and 300,000 more are left without homes. It brings to mind haunting images of past disasters like Hurricane Katrina, the deadliest U.S. hurricane since 1928, and the tsunami of 2004, the deadliest tsunami of all time. Empathy, compassion, and support are pouring out all over the world as millions of dollars are being shelled out along with medical supplies, doctors, and food and water.

But one question lingers in my mind, as I know it has with others. Why do such tragedies take the forefront and elicit such an emphatic response from the world when similar tragedies are taking place every day, and have been for years without solution? In Darfur, a war has taken the lives of an estimated 300,000 civilians, leaving 2.7m people displaced in refugee camps while the majority of the world has stood by silently. Last year, the U.S. supported an Israeli attack on Gaza that left up to 1,400 dead in less than a month, and we continue to support them as thousands of civilians die in the conflict every year. We sit and watch with mournful eyes as 4,000 people die every hour from starvation even though several studies have shown we have plenty of food to feed the world, right now.

What is it about sudden, fresh tragedies that force us to care as those we've tired of are pushed back into the recesses of our minds? Why is new death so much more compelling? It's almost as if human nature only allows a short attention span to suffering. We need something new and, excuse the term, "exciting" to make us care. $11 million was raised in a matter of days through simple cellphone texting, and millions more has been committed by businesses, politicians, and organizations all over the world, even amidst a massive world-wide recession. So why are people who have been starving for decades still starving? Why are Palestinian children still becoming orphans?

While some are ignorantly blaming this recent disaster on some fabled unholy union with the devil, I believe the moments of utter devastation that follow such events are God's helpless attempts to remind us to care, since we've become so apathetic to the general state of the world. Nothing unites hearts like tragedy, nothing can make us feel closer to our fellow man. But, while most are inspired by the outpouring of love and support, I feel somewhat sickened by the disregard of the every day human suffering we have allowed ourselves to become blinded to. Perhaps its a lack of media coverage that makes problems half a world away so easy to forget, while the massive attention paid to this disaster burns the images into our retina, weighing heavily on our consciences. Perhaps those media outlets that still cover such ongoing problems like the Middle East and world hunger have run those stories so much that we've become desensitized to it, and we just sit back and shake our heads, wondering if such a disaster can ever be resolved, and believing it can't.

Seeing the trend as it occurs over and over again, I predict it will only be a matter of time before Haiti has faded to the back of our minds as well, much like New Orleans has, while people are still without homes and Brad Pitt struggles to get people to give a damn, donating most of his own money to rebuild the community. The question is simply when?

Millions of people have donated to the Haiti cause. I haven't yet. Will I? Probably. But I am unemployed at the moment and I spent a good chunk of my money on buying foods and necessities for shelters during the holidays, and toys for the Toys for Tots drive. Do I feel bad that I haven't donated? Yeah. Should I, knowing my money went to another cause to help one of those daily problems of human suffering? Probably not. Some are donating mere pocket change to help, as every little bit makes a difference. The few dollars I could have contributed went to a homeless man for his dinner last night. Is that shameful? No. I haven't forgotten about him. Why has the rest of the world?

Christmas in the Classroom?

2009-12-13T14:15:00.000-08:00

It's that time again, where we're decking the halls and donning our gay apparel, the time of the year where Christians celebrate the birth of Christ and Jews celebrate their festival of lights. It's also probably the busiest time of year for the ACLU, or the American Civil Liberties Union. The more nativity scenes on display and the more school Christmas programs dusting off their Away in a Manger sheet music, the more atheists and holiday-hijackers are up in arms filing complaints. And now it seems they have a doozy on their hands.

The Tea Party movement has been spreading like a wildfire and they have been popping up everywhere. Self-proclaimed protectors of the Constitution, they're organizing protests nationwide fighting big government, Obama, the stimulus package, and health care reform. Now, one of the tea party patriots is ironically pushing big government into our faces and ignoring separation of church and state as declared in the Constitution they claim to protect. Merry Hyatt, a substitute teacher in California is pushing a bill that will make singing religiously based-Christmas carols mandatory in public schools.

Now I respect everyone's rights to practice religion how, when, and where they choose. However, I also respect everyone's rights to not have someone else's religion crammed down their throats, especially in a public school system where no singular religious group foots the bill, but where everyone pays taxes to keep such facilities running. Will I stop a Christian child from reading the bible at school? No. Will I tell a Muslim they can't do a few of their five daily prayers on school grounds? Hell no. Will I tell a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Buddhist, or atheist child they have to sing the holiday praises to the Christian God and his son? Absolutely not.

As previously mentioned, in the US, we have a theoretical standard of separation between religion and state. Theoretical because it's rarely true but standard because it's in the Constitution. This is generally in place to keep major religions (Judaism and Christianity) from overpowering the minority (everyone else). And Christians are not happy about it. They stand firm on their beliefs that this country was founded on Christian roots and that above all else this is a Christian country, everyone else is just along for the ride. Christian activists in Cobb County, GA were able to strong arm their school district into teaching the Christian belief of creationism alongside the scientifically-driven theory of evolution. Many activists have been pushing for specified prayer times in classrooms for years. Now we're pushing for Christian hymns to be sung in school, simply because they embody the holiday of the season.

I am in no way against religion in public schools specifically, but my beef lies in the fact that when we say "allow prayer in school" or "allow holiday songs in school", we are not talking about the mosaic of religions that comprise the US and its public school systems. We are not talking about prayer times for every religion, nor are we talking about holiday programs for every religious holiday of every student. We are simply talking Christianity. Christian prayer, Christian songs. Their recommendation for everyone else? "During prayer time, if your child isn't Christian, they can put their heads down on their desks until we're done praying". Why should their time, time specified for education, be wasted while waiting for others to practice their religions? As for Christmas programs, non-Christians "can leave the classroom while the Christian students rehearse, and stay at home the night of the big show". As if kids needed one more reason to feel different, excluded, separate from their peers. For the majority of Christian parents, this is not a problem to them, because it's their religion being observed. But what if your child's education was placed on hold two or three times a day while Muslim children prayed? Or if holiday and birthday parties were suspended altogether because there's more Jehovah's Witnesses in your child's class than Christians?

Now one could argue that allowances could be made for every religion. Prayer time for all, holiday celebrations for all, teachings of all religious perspectives, etc. Some countries have mastered the art of religious compromise. Jordan's Queen Rania recently posted a photo of her son's Christmas concert via Twitter (above), presumably taking place at school. The royal family of Jordan is a devout Islamic family, but exceptions are made to observe the main holiday of the mere 6% of Christians in the country. However, here in America, this would infringe upon the rights of atheistic children in this country. And school schedules are so tight these days, teachers barely have time to teach the basics, let alone have parties for every holiday or cut time out of the busy day for various prayers.

The only solution? Keep it out altogether. School is for learning, church is for praying and singing religious songs. If you want to mix the two, send your child to a religious school or home-school them. But it's time we stop smearing the line between church and state, because no matter what is done, someone's civil liberties are going to be trampled.

Pulling that Damn Gay Card

2009-11-24T12:19:00.000-08:00

So most of us have either caught the Adam Lambert American Music Awards performance or have seen snippets of it plastered on the net. Overflowing with explicit homosexuality, the performance included Lambert groping dancers, kissing one male band member on the lips, and grinding another male dancer's face into his crotch at point-blank range. None of these acts were approved by the show and Lambert claimed they were "spur of the moment" moves. It was over the top, crude, and tasteless. In other words, a pathetic attempt to score a "shock" moment and to gain some undeserved publicity.

Now, he had to have known that such a shockfest would elicit some unpleasant responses from more conservative groups and people. ABC reported they received over 1,500 complaints regarding the incident, which, due to a live broadcast on the east coast, was not censored. Lambert claimed homophobia when ABC opted to censor the AMA performance for the west coast airing, as if he hadn't expected the backlash. We're not stupid here, Glambert. As my psych professor proclaims: Every behavior has a purpose and meets a need. Your purpose was to piss people off, and your need was to get some attention. Why so upset now that your expectations have been met?

However, the event has also garnered some unexpected responses, such as ABC's sudden cancellation of his scheduled Good Morning America concert. Many have jumped to his defense and have quickly pulled that gay card, citing homophobic motives for the television station's decision. A Glambert movement on Twitter has evoked claims of "bigotry" and "double standards" along with calls to "end homophobia", but has homophobia really taken place here?

I have to admit, sometimes I tire of people pulling the race card for whatever reasons, "everything happens because I'm this or because you're that", and its all I can do to bite my tongue when people start pulling the gay card...so instead I blog. Now, I am not in any way a prude, but I do have my limitations, and simulating oral sex on an award show, whether it's male on male or female on male, is far beyond appropriate. Never mind the fact that this is a prime time show, that young children are still up watching, and this is airing on an extremely family friendly network; few situations on live television are appropriate for sexual subtleties, much less in-your-face borderline softcore pornography.

Likewise, in a time where gays are struggling for equal rights all over the country, I've found that those on the fence of the HRM and those just slightly to one side of it don't respond well to such extreme showings of crude homosexuality. It perpetuates the impression of homosexuals being disgusting and immoral and just looks bad for everyone involved. This inevitably hurts the cause as a whole, but those screaming homophobia seem to think if you force the world to sit down and watch a gay porno they'll let you marry. Sorry, Adam, this was not artistic, you are not Heath Ledger, and this is not Brokeback Mountain.

I also find it ironic that ABC, which is owned by Disney Productions, is being labeled as homophobic. Disney is one of the largest gay-friendly corporations in the world, allowing "gay days" at their parks where the facilities are opened exclusively to homosexuals and their families, producing many television shows that supported the gay movement ("Ellen") and even being one of the first companies to provide same-sex benefits to their employees and their partners. One Christian group even accuses Disney of being "too gay friendly"...so how did we make the jump from too gay friendly to homophobic? Anyone else wanting to shove that gay card back into its envelope?

Despite his "take me as I am" attitude, this flaming gay persona Lambert's taken on is a far cry from once refusing to admit he's gay and refusing to take part in a homosexual magazine publication if they made him look "too gay" (I guess he didn't want his obscenely gay CD cover to be outdone). So chill Adam, put out the flame and be a normal gaybug like everyone else.

When Rape Crimes Expire

2009-09-30T00:25:00.000-07:00

Oh my Lord Hollywood, what is wrong with you?! Apparently every day American citizens aren't the only ones who want to forgive their favorite celebrities, celebrities are doing it too! And in the worst case scenario possible.

Just a few days ago, Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland after being on the run from the American justice system for over 30 years. Why was he evading? Because he was convicted of intoxicating, sedating, and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. Though Polanski served 42 days in a mental institution while awaiting trial, he claims he was led to believe his sentence would be reduced to time served, and he would be released. When he heard that he might actually spend a few years in jail, he fled to France.

It is unknown why US prosecutors have decided to finally track Polanski down and detain him for the 1978 crime. Perhaps someone down at the Los Angeles DA office blew some dust off an old file, perhaps it was because they had a guaranteed location to intercept him, a film festival where he would be honored. Whatever the reason, the sudden vehemence to finally pin a sentence on the convicted rapist elicited demands from all over Hollywood for his immediate release.

Celebrities such as Harrison Ford, Debra Winger, Martin Scorsese, producer Harvey Weinstein, and Woody Allen [insert pedophile joke here] all signed petitions and are leading the march in getting Polanski freed. Weinstein argues that he has contacted "everyone he knows and is not afraid to go to the Governor of California himself to fight for Polanski". Even some tabloids are taking it easy on the old bastard. Senior Editor of In Touch magazine couldn't believe the DA would pursue charges after such a long time, arguing that they had trouble "letting it go" after all these years. Let it go? What the hell? Like it was a fight over the last slice of pizza? And really, what would happen to our country, our criminal system, and justice as a whole if we simply let everyone run away because they thought they were getting an unfair sentence? However, thankfully, the Los Angeles DA has made it very clear that the Hollywood heavyweights hold no influence over their proceedings and intend to close this case once and for all.

While celebrities simply seem to be coming to their friend's defense for no other reason than blind loyalty, some people are arguing for the victim, who has publicly forgiven her rapist and asked that the charges be dropped. Though she claims that she is "over" the incident, in letters and interviews she gave years ago, she seemed to be more adverse to the media attention that the matter will bring to her door rather than a proper sentencing. Granted it's not easy to be in the public eye for such a tragedy, and no one wants to make the victim suffer more than she already has, but why should a rapist be excused from his actions? Why should he be exempt from a horrible crime simply to avoid embarrassment for the victim? What if all victims excused criminals to save themselves the trouble? Someone has to have the courage to face their perpetrators, if only to keep them off the streets for everyone else's sake.

Let us not forget: crimes do not have expiration dates. Nearly three weeks ago, a man was arrested in LA on charges of rape and murder 34 years after the crime was committed. Another man in Arizona was recently arrested for the same crime 32 years later. No one is kicking up dust over these two. Perhaps because they involved murder? Well rape has no expiration date either, and the loss of innocence, security, self-esteem, and overall well-being has no definite end for the victim. No matter how many years have passed, you are still responsible for your crime, you still have to serve your time. No matter what your stupid ass celebrity friends have to say.

Currently, Polanski is detained in Switzerland, awaiting extradition orders, but is attempting to fight the order on the grounds that he is concerned he will "be imprisoned upon return". Yeah...that's kinda what we're going for here.

American Media: Feeding the Fear

2009-09-17T17:01:00.000-07:00

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from 9/11, nothing quite sells like fear. The fear that this horrible tragedy generated led us into a fabricated war with Iraq, the sacrifice of our personal rights and freedoms with the Patriot Act, the isolating hatred of an otherwise peaceful religious group, and consumption; buying useless products we didn’t need, we bought our way into a false sense of security.

And how does one spread fear the fastest? Through the media, of course! With lightning quick precision and the invention of the internet and internet-access cell phones, we can receive up to the minute news stories at home, work, and even on the toilet for you potty-texters and chatters. The media has been the best device any politician or corporation with an agenda could possibly ask for.

It’s obvious what agendas corporations push: making money, selling products, achieving some self-serving means. And, nothing sells quite like fear. When the world was on the brink of Y2K, people flew into an all-encompassing panic, rushing to the local stores, buying in gross, preparing for Armageddon. After 9/11, the sales of guns, security systems, even pepper spray increased significantly, and products like biohazard suits, gas masks, gloves and boots were flying off the shelves. Even today, we have been frightened and guilted into consumption for a “greener” world. Horrific images of global warming have been burned into our retinas: melting ice caps, surging oceans, dead polar bears, a future of fire and brimstone. These images have pushed Americans into an entirely new expensive market of hybrid cars, biodegradable products, organic clothing, and efficient (albeit poisonous) lighting.

Never mind the fact that technical companies had the Y2K bug under control, or that we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on security products and anti-terrorism gadgets to defend ourselves against terrorists with simple box cutters. Never mind the fact that, despite popular beliefs, only roughly 50% of scientists believe there’s a link between pollution and global warming (all the planets in the solar system are increasing in temperature, and I didn’t see ET up there with a Hummer). Don’t get me wrong, pollution is a serious matter, but is it fair to sell these outrageously priced products on environmental hysteria? Remember, if there’s something to be scared of, there’s money to be made.

Likewise, political groups have their agendas, and nothing could illustrate this better than the last eight years of Bush’s administration. With Americans still aching, devastated and angry over the 9/11 attacks, we were vulnerable and emotional. Rational thinking had flown out the window and Bush took full advantage. Throughout the day of 9/11, the news media aired repeated showings of middle easterners and Muslims celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Centers: dancing in the streets, throwing candies to children, firing guns in celebration. But it was only one video, of one town. This was not the world-wide reaction Muslims had to our tragedy. Unfortunately we never saw the Muslims who held memorials, lit candles, and cried for the victims of our country. Of course we wouldn’t. When America is about to go to war with religious extremists, we certainly wouldn’t want to see anyone from that religion showing compassion or kindness, or any signs of peace.

Supported by the building hatred toward Muslims, false reports of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq riled Americans enough to fully support a full-scale attack on the harmless country, a country Bush had truly planned to invade before he took office. When support of the war began to wane, scare tactics such as new threats of attack, new weaponry, and a lovely color-coded chart were introduced. Playing the American people like a fiddle, once we started to settle down and feel a bit safer in our homes and country, the color code rose to yellow or orange, though intelligence never supported the claims of risk. An official who worked for the Homeland Security Department recently admitted he was pressured to raise the color code when no risks were being reported. Fear of terrorists equaled support for the war. Focus on the war allowed Bush to work on gaining control of oil and natural gas lines without much notice.

Sensationalism, misinformation, and complete fabrications have overtaken our media sources, from television, newspapers, and computer screens, it’s hard to find a report that hasn’t been exaggerated or made up. The problem with this is the obvious abuse of power and trust the media is exercising. With limited sources of information and most if not all controlled by some force (conservatism, liberalism, corporate America), the American people have no choice in what they’re shown, and most media outlets have little choice in what they show. Under the Bush administration, the freedom of the press gave way to government restrictions on war coverage, with news sources falsely reporting successes and a nationwide ban on images of dead soldiers returning home. Likewise, the American people have placed an immeasurable amount of trust in news outlets, expecting the cold hard truth, nothing more, nothing less. Many blindly take information presented to them as pure fact, and why shouldn’t they? It’s the news, not reality television! Their job is to present information, not provide entertainment! It’s not about ratings…right?

While we would like to think news shows are independently run and just there as a source of information, these shows run on ratings and compete with one another. Studies have shown that the more dramatic stories seem, the more people watch. And let’s be real here, we like drama. We like excitement; we’re more likely to watch a story on a shoot-out than a local church fundraiser. Unfortunately, the more drama we like to see, the more fearful we become. Even though we want to see that shoot-out, we suddenly have the image of lurking evil embedded in our minds. Because we’re too bored to see that church fundraiser story, we’re more likely to forget there are still a lot of good people helping one another in this world.

Why can’t the media act more responsibly toward the public that relies on them so much for truth? Like any other business they are slaves to money, ratings, and the need to survive as a corporation. Since we can’t rely on the news and can’t expect an independent news source with a conscience to surface any time soon, it is our responsibility to receive the news responsibly. It is our job to question: What are they trying to make me afraid of? Why? And who will gain what if I allow myself to be manipulated with fear?

Recognizing that sensationalism and lies are an automatic part of the media and being more objective with the stories they present, we will be able to regain control of our perceptions of this world and our own existence within it. Feelings of fear and insecurity will not completely disappear, but why should we let politicians and corporations decide for us when to be afraid?

Just to Add...

2009-09-15T13:55:00.000-07:00

Nothing is bigger in Hollywood scandals right now than Kanye West's behavior at the MTV Video Music Awards when starlet Taylor Swift won her moon man. Kanye, who jumped on the stage at the beginning of Taylor's acceptance speech, declared Beyonce's video the best of the year, thereby not only stealing Taylor's moment but virtually slapping her in the face by stating, in essence, that she did not deserve her first MTV award. Taylor stood by shocked, MTV hurried to move on to the next clip, and Taylor was escorted off the stage to cry on her mother's shoulder while the audience attempted to mend the moment with a standing ovation.

Now in fashion with my previous post of America forgiving too easily, this is not Kanye's first public embarrassment. From People.com:

2004: West also stole the spotlight from country singer Gretchen Wilson at the 2004 American Music Awards when she won Best New Artist of the Year by storming out of the auditorium with his entourage during her acceptance speech. He claimed he was robbed and deserved the award, but he later apologized to Wilson.

2006: He crashed the stage at the MTV Europe Music Awards when he lost Best Video to a foreign band. He stole the mic, cursed and declared himself the rightful winner because his video cost one million dollars to make and had Pamela Anderson in it.

2007: At these MTV VMAs he lost five nominations and threw a tantrum backstage, shouting and cursing because the award show wouldn't "give a black man a chance". He vowed never to return to an MTV show...good thing he held to that.

After a massive backlash from the music world and fans alike (Pink attempted a physical confrontation with him the night of the incident before being escorted away by security, and other celebs tweeted with various obscenities toward him), Kanye is feeling the heat to apologize. While some chalk it up to the large bottle of Hennessey he brought to the show and was seen chugging, others know its just Kanye with his usual fashion of martyrdom and superiority complex. He spewed out a quick apology via his blog shortly after, but in a manner of written Tourette's, in the middle of the apology blurted out the declaration of Beyonce's video still being the best. Then he offered up a more emotional apology on Leno, somewhat alluding that his behavior is related to his pain of losing his mother. Loss of mother does not equal being an asshole two years later to a 19-year old girl. Taylor announced on The View this morning that he had not called to personally apologize to her, and magically, shortly after the show, the call came. She claimed his apology was genuine and she accepted it.

Now let's review: Biggest blunder of the year: embarrassed a young aspiring singer and moved her to tears, everyone, EVERYONE in the music industry pissed at him, MTV, the main supporter of his videos, forced him to leave the show, and his nominations, which he all lost, were booed by the crowd as his name was read. Oh yeah, I'd say its time to squeeze out some tears and make an apology. Is he sorry? Of course not. Kanye, who once compared himself to Jesus Christ, cannot handle anyone outdoing him, and apparently, his friends either. He's done this time and time again, and it's a wonder people keep loving him. No more, Kanye, you've made your bed, now lay in it. I have no doubt he will move on and continue to be successful no matter how much of a bastard he is, and this is what makes me sick about America and their unfailing love for their celebrity heroes.

P.S.: Don't think we forgot about you, Serena, and your spotlight stealing tantrums and delayed half-assed apologies...they were so in sync, I wonder if she and Kanye planned this weekend.

We're Not Ready to Make Nice

2009-09-12T19:42:00.000-07:00

OK so granted the fact that Chris Brown battered his girlfriend Rihanna is not exactly breaking news at this point, so why bring it up? Well, besides the fact that its not "new" news, its on-going news with constant new developments. One being his sentencing (Brown received 5 year probation, 1400 hours of community service, and a 50 yard restraining order, which is reduced to 10 yrds if they need to attend the Grammys at the same time). The other being Chris' carefully planned road back to his success. With a new album release just on the horizon, Chris has already issued a public apology (more than 5 months after the incident), has shown his pathetic "I'm so sorry" face in court, and has even posted images of himself in a youthful fantasy room painted up in a comic book decor with a child's skateboard and bike (all that was missing was the training wheels before we puked at this failed attempt to capture his childlike innocence).

Now, our concern is that he might actually succeed in burying this tragic incident and go on to make millions of dollars on this new album and continue living his life as if nothing had happened. Personally, I don't quite feel he's ready for a comeback, I think he needs to spend a little time crawling on his belly before he gets back on his feet, to know and understand true shame. However, I lack faith in the American people, or more specifically, his unfailing fan base, which consists of mainly ignorant teenage girls whose mothers haven't taught them better, countless young men who don't care which woman he hit because he's still rich and they still want to be him, and the numerous celebrities who came to his defense when he bludgeoned his girlfriend in his car.

America yearns to forgive its celebrities. After all, they seem like good people, right? What with all those charities they write checks to, and that one song or film they made that really spoke to you. We forgave Bill Clinton for getting that lecherous trouser-friendly kiss from intern Monica Lewinsky, we apparently forgave Mel Gibson after his infamous "blame the jews" drunken rant (we must've, the man made over $300 million on Apocalypto, which came out shortly thereafter), and we'll forgive this woman beating bastard too. Many forgave him before we knew what happened. Most celebrities pulled out the "he's young" excuse, insinuating that the 19 year old singer didn't know any better. My 5 year old nephew knows better, how old do you have to be to grasp the concept of "no hitting"? Others tried the "he made a mistake" route, rapper T.I. explaining that we're "all human, all make mistakes, so what right do we have to judge?" Granted we are in fact, human, and make mistakes, but when was the last time any of us made the mistake of beating our girlfriends to hell? I'm sure Charles Manson simply "made a mistake" in ordering his followers to slaughter 6 innocent people. He's human too!

Fact: domestic abusers don't simply make sudden mistakes, and you can bet your ass this wasn't the first "mistake" Brown made, it was simply the first time he got caught. Court documents cited an incident a few months prior to the beating where he got into an argument with Rihanna and threw her into a wall. Domestic abusers do not suddenly explode without warning or any signs. They cannot become successful abusers this way. Abusers must build their way up to beat downs, this is how they slowly break their partners down in order to keep and control them in the relationship. They begin with smaller, manipulative psychological blows. Perhaps they're a little controlling, or possessive, maybe they get jealous easily. Slowly they begin to isolate their partners from their friends and family. Then there might be short bursts of anger, and then small physical incidents; perhaps a light push or a grabbing of the arm. The next stage is probably light blows, harder pushes, a slap across the face, and then finally a graduation to straight up beat downs. By then the abused partner has been so worn down mentally they've come to believe they don't deserve anything better and will never get it anyways, so they stay right where they are.

Unfortunately, such was the case for Rihanna. Shortly after the incident, she was reported to be secretly meeting up with Brown again in various locations, one being P. Diddy's house. He claimed he was "doing the couple a favor" by opening his home to them where they can rejoin and possibly reconcile (Brown was photographed jet-skiing at the Miami mansion, above, appropriately flexing his muscles for the paparazzi). Diddy added he was "being a friend" to the pair. What a great friend, reuniting a woman beater and his girl for a hopeful future of more bruises and perhaps broken bones. As their reunification became more public, Rihanna withdrew from the singer, and consequently, after the restraining order was placed, she claimed she "never asked for" the order. Thank God the courts are in place to protect this woman from herself. Such willingness to continue this horrific charade and return to her abuser without hesitation only indicates exactly how long this abuse has gone on and how much time Brown really had to convince her to stay, no matter what.

Chris continues his campaign, claiming he's ready for counseling, prepared to take responsibility by cleaning up trash on the highway, and even enlisting his mother to speak out for him. Mama Brown, who ironically was also a victim of domestic abuse by Chris' father (transgenerational cycles at best?) claimed her son had never shown any signs of violence before, that he was her "little angel". She obviously didn't know about the incident three weeks before the famed dispute when her little angel got into an argument with Rihanna in a rented car, stepped out of the car, and smashed the windows with his fist.

We need to ensure that, for once in America, the bad guys don't finish first. There is no reason for this "child"'s career to continue at this point and time, and what with all those hard labor community service hours, I sincerely doubt he'll have the time to promote or tour for the album anyways. Domestic violence is no joke, and forgiveness doesn't come after a far too late apology and a little graffiti washing. You need to learn, my little friend, and methinks the best way to learn this lesson is to lose everything, if only temporarily. America, don't support domestic violence and don't support the bastards who commit it. When you walk by Brown's new album in the store, keep walking. When you spot his video or an interview on TV, change the channel. No matter the circumstances, no matter the excuses, he beat a woman, and beat her badly.

Besides, he's "so sorry" for what he's done, he spent time reflecting on his mistakes at the local club the night of his sentencing. Yeah, he's remorseful.

The Kids Aren't Alright

2009-09-10T23:11:00.000-07:00

So little Tallulah Willis is growing up a little too fast, and whose to blame? Why, Perez Hilton of course! Yet again, one (sorry, two) celebrities are lashing out at the gossip glutton, this time for posting photos of Demi Moore's 15 year old daughter wearing too less of something that shows too much, and Demi (along with her partner in crime, Kirstie Alley) are hopping mad.

Little 15 year old Tallulah (yes, she's only 15, as Demi will let no one forget) was photographed at a night club wearing a very revealing top that showed an extreme amount of cleavage, but nothing else. Hilton posted the photo on his site, prompting Demi to throw slanders at him via Twitter, calling him a pedophile and accusing him of violating child pornography laws. Kirstie quickly followed suit threatening to have him "followed" and calling him a child molester.

Now, I really, really can't stand Perez and I am beyond annoyed that Demi has placed me in a position to defend this monstrous media whore, but here we go. Asking all the obvious questions that many seem to be doing lately, #1) Why is 15 year old Tallulah in ANY night club? #2) Where were you, Demi, when your 15 year old was walking out of the house wearing that shirt that showed too much? #3) Why is Demi so quick to blame Hilton for her child's and inevitably her mistakes?

Though this is not a new trend, parents in today's society seem less and less likely to accept blame for their children's mistakes. Perhaps this is the backlash of a time when mothers were blamed for everything (whether or not they were indeed, responsible). However, much like a swinging pendulum, we never quite find the healthy median we need, we simply sway from one extreme to the next, and we are currently in "Its not my fault" mode. Children have seemed to develop from lumps of clay molded by their immediate caregivers to mindless drones influenced purely by outside forces designed to victimize our children and make them do dumb, irresponsible, terrible things.

Case in point: recently a 13 year old boy and a group of friends saw a video on YouTube of a man setting himself on fire for a stunt. Finding this entertaining, the boys decided to mimic it. If you believe the victim's tale, he was an innocent bystander who made a stupid mistake. If you believe your gut, he and his friends concocted a moronic stunt a la Jackass and didn't think it through. All in all, this boy ended up with second and third degree burns. Who was to blame? You bet! YouTube! While the boy's mother chalked it up to lack of parental supervision at a friend's house, some pointed the finger at the popular video hosting site for publishing videos that influential young minds may imitate without comprehending the consequences. I blame idiotic parents who spawn dumb teenagers that can't seem to figure out gasoline and a lighter don't go together. But you can bet, in television interviews and news articles, never was the finger pointed at the victim or his mother. Why would anyone pass up a golden opportunity to blame the media and push for harsher censorship?

Now I'm not going to argue that kids are not influenced by pop culture or the media, but to a certain extent, all it takes is a little parental intervention and a dash of common sense for children to understand that what they see on TV and in movies is not real, and what they see on Jackass and YouTube is not safe. I would love more than anything for real consequences to be shown in these contexts, that children see the broken bones and blood and even death, but since its not bound to happen any time soon, it would be my job to sit down as a parent and explain to my child the reality of these things.

Likewise, when your 15 year old daughter is hanging out at a night club for any reason, it is your job to ensure she is properly dressed. If you don't want her breasts shown off all over the internet, you need to buy her clothes that cover them. If she buys it on her own, you need to be there before she leaves the house to send her skanky ass back upstairs to change, as our mothers have all done to us. If she shows up at the club wearing what she chooses, and gets photographed in it, you need to sit her down and talk to her before you start the mudslinging tweets blaming everyone else for essentially "outing" your slutty daughter. Take responsibility for your own child and your lacking parenting skills. Remember Demi: she put the image out there, someone else just captured it on film.

And I would like to add, I, as many of us do, take pedophile and child pornography claims very seriously, and to extraneously accuse someone of such crimes is horrific, scarring, and downright irresponsible, even if it is Perez Hilton. I hope Demi and Kirstie get their asses sued off for libel.

The Art of Selling Out

2009-08-15T12:09:00.000-07:00

So selling out is not exactly a new development, celebrities have been whoring out their faces and names for years advertising products they don't use for money they don't need so they can keep playing that game called fame. But when does it become too much?

Advertising companies are good at their jobs and we can't blame them for this. They utilize the Appeal to Authority to the fullest and benefit greatly. It was discovered long ago that if products were presented by figures the public could relate to, respect, and even trust, products would sell. Unfortunately these days having products sold by professionals like doctors (real docs, not those 'I'm a doctor and I approve this diet pill' docs), scientists, and experts don't appeal to the public as much as your favorite celebs. We trust Jamie Lee Curtis to sell us poop yogurt more than we trust a proctologist! Which speaks volumes for the value system of our society, but that's another blog.

Lately, I have grown tired of seeing the greed of Hollywood embodied in the picturesque stars flooding my magazines and television commercials. These celebrities get paid millions of dollars to pimp these products and their faces out all over the advert world. Do they need the money? Hell no! Only popular celebrities sell, and popular celebs are making plenty of money in their own industry! Note Forbes' top ten paid actresses of 2009: of the 10, only 2, count them, TWO have not sold their faces to any product nor their souls to any company. Oddly, of the top ten actors, only two have. I don't know if this represents a gender difference in terms of values (men don't sell out)*yeah right*, or just appeal (women sell better) *Mmhmm*. The point being, these people are not on the brink of financial ruin selling their names to feed their children. And none of them are pimping for altruism or any worthy cause other than their genuine concern for your yellow teeth and grotesque pasty make-up-less mug.

And selling out isn't happening just in Hollywood. Imagine my devastation as a Sugarland fan when an Applebee's commercial came on and their music was narrating the flurry of artery-clogging, just-a-step-above-McDonald's quality burgers. But don't worry, they're still smiling bright and white with Listerine White Strips. My final breaking point came when I stumbled upon the biggest travesty of musical sell-out, Mariah Carey. Once a diehard fan of the siren who once claimed "it was all only about the music", my heart has slowly been torn into confetti in the years since her much publicized breakdown and comeback, which, in the hands of musical connoisseur LA Reid, has been littered with Pepsi and Intel Processor ads. Now LA's latest brain child? A magazine-style CD booklet for her new album that will come with editorials and photos of the singer, and of course, advertisements. LA contacted big perfume, make-up, and clothing companies to advertise in Mariah's "CD-Mag", and they will be making cash hand over fist on this latest scheme that some predict will spread like a wildfire in the money-hungry music industry.

In stepping back and examining the larger picture, those of us without money can easily see the temptation of getting paid millions to put on some Covergirl lipstick and smile. But what about contractual obligations and the restrictions that apply? A few years ago, Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron were reminded of the shackles fastened to their wrists by their companies. Theron, who had signed on to advertise one brand of watch was photographed wearing a competitor's brand and was sued by the company she advertised for $100 million for breaking contract. Kidman nearly became the subject of a heated lawsuit with Chanel when a tabloid falsely reported she was seen buying a competitor's perfume at a store. My question: is it worth it? When you're making $20+ million a film, is that extra couple of million worth it when you can't enter a store and pick up any bottle of perfume you want without being sued? Is it worth it when you have to sift through your jewelry box and set aside the accessories you can't wear because you want to avoid a lawsuit? These celebrities have effectively sold their souls and very basic freedoms to these companies for a little more cash and face time on TV and paper.

What happened to the art? What happened to doing what you're doing because you love it and not worrying about the fame game or the money? What happened to integrity and working for personal fulfillment? Would Da Vinci have given Mona Lisa fuller lips and a bigger smile if she could have advertised long-lasting color stay lipstick? Would Shakespeare have allowed the Goodyear blimp to fly around The Globe during his productions? Imagine Mozart presented by Nokia.

I mentioned earlier, two of the top ten actresses have never sold out to any company. You may have wondered who they are? The fantastically delectable Meryl Streep, always a slave to her art and nothing more, and my love of loves, the fabulous Renee Zellweger. Now Renee has actually advertised for companies twice, once for Ford cars, and once for a combination of Mercedes Benz, Saks 5th Avenue, and Juicy Couture. However, both were in fact, pimping for altruism as both ads were in connection with Breast Cancer Research and Awareness, and as far as I know, Renee accepted no money for these campaigns. If you gotta pimp, pimp for good, not for you.

I love Renee

Twitter Tweakers

2009-05-09T20:24:00.000-07:00

OK so I must admit I never much liked the idea of Twitter...why? Mainly because it was popular and I labor under the fantasy that I am a non-conformist (and yes, I'm aware I'm on MySpace and Facebook and I have a worthless blog, this is why it's a fantasy). But, at least MySpace and Facebook have other applications...I can add music on MySpace, post photos, videos, blog, keep in touch with friends on these networking sites. What is the point of Twitter? So I can obsessively follow every footstep of my favorite celebs? So I can stay abreast of each mundane task of my friends' daily lives? Do I care if you're going to the doctor for something that looks infected? Am I really interested in the fact that John Mayer's penis fell asleep when he crossed his legs for too long?

Twitter feeds into many negative aspects of the internet. Number one being the ever-growing celebrity obsession. It's not enough that we have, at times, moment by moment paparazzi photos of these people, that we have TMZ lurking on every corner waiting for that crucial moment when the celebs exit a fancy restaurant so we can, in a sense, tie off and get a celeb-fix. And what's worse, these celebs are actually posting on themselves (don't complain about wanting your privacy anymore, Hollywood, you sold it out to Twitter).

Number two is that Twitter feeds into our self-serving narcissism. Do we really think we are that important that there are enough people out there who care to read about our every move? I have no delusions about the popularity of my blog, I know my words fall on deaf ears (or in this case, averted eyes), I know my place in this digital abyss. No one cares. Twitter maintains that it's a new way to keep in touch with friends and family...I have a phone. Anything worth knowing is worth calling you for. Twitter is an excuse to share those annoying details that we're frankly too embarrassed to call our friends and family members about because they'll just hang up. So someone created a website for those tedious facts. Great.

Number three could be the antithesis of number two in that perhaps you're not narcissistic at all but longing for a sense of importance. You tweet and send your 140 characters flittering through binary space hoping someone, anyone, cares enough to read. And nothing quite boosts your digital ego like gaining a follower, even if they're Twitter whores adding anyone and everyone to boost their own numbers. The internet is no place to seek out personal affirmation.

Of course, as some of you may know, I am a huge fan of Queen Rania of Jordan. I came across her during an intercultural study and am fascinated (and admittedly a little turned on) by this woman. If you haven't seen her, Google her...I'll wait, go on...........OMG ISN'T SHE HOT?! OK so anyways, this woman, going against the grain has broken away from traditional royals and busted head first into the digital world. She pulled me into YT, forcing me to create my own channel and videos, and now she's dragging me kicking and screaming onto Twitter. Now I am human and a little hypocritical, so I'm going to call myself out and admit I'm suffering from numbers 1 and 3 of the preceding points. I joined to read her posts and now I have regrettably tweeted twice. I feel so dirty. I posted on my lack-luster activities and loudly pronounced my disgust for the site (while in turn conforming and supporting the site...it's a plague!). I will do my best to avoid it or at least tweet about significant moments (i.e. QR posted, "met the pope"...oh yeah, much better than John's sleepy little john).

If you must conform, stalk, self-indulge, or self-destruct, please keep in mind...tweet responsibly.

Why is discrimination OK when it's against gays?

2009-04-21T13:05:00.000-07:00

OK so I'm back for what has apparently become my annual post...I'm sure all the readers I don't have missed me.

The topic of discussion for the past year has been gay rights since gay marriage was legalized in the state of California, over 18,000 couples married, then the right to marry was almost immediately revoked due to the fabulous Prop 8, which is now undergoing careful examination at the state supreme court to determine it's validity.

However, what brings this ongoing topic to the forefront today is a glamorized puffed up painted on bleach bottle blonde bimbo (yay tongue twisters!) who represented the state of Cali in the ultimate reminder that looks are in fact, everything, the Miss USA pageant. Asked by famed celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, an openly gay web icon (whom no one knows how he became an icon in the first place), if she felt gay marriage should be legalized, she replied "In my country, and in my family, I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman." She lost the crown. Ha! But later came to her own defense by claiming "...I see the audience would have wanted me to be more politically correct, but I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs or opinions for anything."

Does she have a point in her last statement? Yes. No one should compromise themselves to succeed, it taints whatever success may come as a result and you sold yourself out. However, I truly believe that if you are in fact, a bigot, you might want to invest some time in changing those beliefs and opinions for something a little more 21st century. And I hope those gays who do your hair and make-up don't find your "opinions" so offensive that they burn off your extensions while they're still attached to your scalp.

My question is, why is it OK to discriminate when its against gays? In a country that's so politically correct that a teen pop star can't pull her eyelids down in a personal photo without getting sued for billions, why is it OK to openly state that gays are not equal and don't deserve equal rights? And why is family, religion, and way of life a legitimate excuse for that hatred? "It's just the way I was raised". Would that excuse have flown when Mel Gibson accused Jews of everything? Does that excuse fly for the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood? So why does it fly for anti-gays and homphobes? Why is it, when Halle Berry makes a jewish nose joke, or Rosie O'Donnell says 'ching-chong' on The View, the jews and asians are up in arms demanding public apologies and even financial restitutions, but people who are true bigots and anti-gays are not only getting away with it, but being celebrated for standing up for their own beliefs? Granted, this is America, we have freedom of speech, but there are limitations to what is decent and acceptable. And even though you have the right to say what you want, if you say the wrong thing, you're going to get your ass kicked. If a white man walked down the street with a bullhorn claiming "all blacks should be hanging from the nearest tree", he's going to get shot. If a blonde bimbo stands up and says gays are inferior human beings, half the country agrees with her and applauds her.

I often say that gay is the new black. Granted we are not enslaved and picking cotton, but drawn to scale, in the progress that we've made in this country since slavery (hey, there's a black guy in the white house) the process of discrimination has only become more civilized. "You still don't get equal rights but we promise not to tie you up and whip you", (which still happens to gays in some states). In all but two states we don't have the right to marry. In the majority of states, we don't have the right to adopt. In many states, you can lose your job if your employer finds out you're gay (but they'll find another reason to fire you so you can't sue).

When will discrimination be wrong for everyone? Sorry Miss California, you missed the point of America, and you cannot be Miss USA. You refused to compromise your beliefs and you gave up your dream for your own hatred.

Tom Cruise the Scientology Dumb-Shit

2008-01-15T15:56:00.000-08:00

OK, I really did not want my blog to take a turn into the celebrity world, especially on my first actual post, but I am not a fan of Tom Cruise, his psychotic Scientologist ways, or his anti-psychology bullshit, so I need to comment on the viral video that is now circulating the web. A few exerpts from his rant and rave...courtesy of Us Weekly...

"We are the authorities on getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind, we are the authorities on improving conditions... we can rehabilitate criminals."...then why haven't you done it? Why is it that Scientologists seem to think they're the only ones who can help these people? Psychologists and therapists and sponsors and mentors help these people, and I would like to know, exactly how many of these people are Scientologists?

"Being a Scientologist, when you drive past an accident... you know you have to do something about it because you know you’re the only one that can really help."...again, the paramedics do nothing? The police? Other passers-by who may have CPR and First Aid training can't help?

"So it’s our responsibility to educate, create the new reality. We have that responsibility to say, 'Hey, this is the way it should be done because we do it this way and people are actually getting better."....and the other methods aren't working?

"...We can bring peace and unite cultures..."...we're still waiting for that pesky Middle East Crisis to be averted but sorry, Tom is busy lapping up the attention for Katie's Mad Money....guess the Gaza Strip will just have to wait.

My main issue with all of these statements is Tom's air of superiority. "Scientology is the one true religion! Tom is the way, the truth, and the light, and no ones comes to the spaceship except through him." Why is it, if Scientology is so successful and proven to be such, are problems still on-going in the world? Why are there criminals? Why are children dying of hunger every day? Why is AIDS still a problem?

Nevermind the fact that these problems which Tom claims they can cure still exist, but why is this the only possible solution? How does Tom justify disregarding thousands of years of established organized religion and global assistance groups such as UNICEF and the Red Cross? Hundreds of thousands of people are out in the world actively making a difference, the majority of whom I am sure are NOT Scientologists, while Tom is at the latest Mad Money premiere sucking up his wife's attention. Never have I seen Tom in Louisianna with Brad Pitt rebuilding homes, never have I seen him wearing the UN armband out in the middle of Africa with people like Angelina Jolie and Orlando Bloom, or helping with AIDS epidemics in Africa like Bono and Charlize Theron. Certainly haven't seen him out there walking with Renee Zellweger and Julianne Moore for Breast Cancer. I have no doubt Tom is charitable in his own special way, but it's not hard to sign a check, the big difference is going out and getting your pretty little manicured hands dirty.

It is one thing to rejoice in your own beliefs and to promote them, it is an entirely different thing to attack the beliefs of others, insinuating that they are inferior, ineffective, and useless. For thousands of years, belief in God, Allah, Buddha, various Bhagavans, Jehovah, etc, has brought strong senses of spirituality, responsibility to mankind and the earth, kindness, love, and a genuine need to help others. Now, all of a sudden, they aren't enough. Granted they have not resolved all problems in the world and some problems have resulted because of such Holy Wars. But, at the core of the problems, the very reason nothing has been resolved, are these ideations that "I have the answer" and "only I can solve these issues", and no one is willing to compromise amidst their differences to find a common ground and come together to help one another. So, adversely, Tom's claim that only Scientology can fix the world is the one thing perpetuating most of the world's problems and ensuring they continue. And, despite how helpful Scientology claims to be and how dedicated they are to helping others, Scientology is the only religion that charges their followers to do so. While some religions appreciate donations, Scientology requires a fee to learn their teachings because they are so concerned with making you a better person....cult, anyone?

Tom this isn't War of the Worlds and no, Steven Spielberg cannot write you out a happy ending, no one man can save the world, but let's face it, you aren't even trying.

First Post

2008-01-07T20:09:00.000-08:00

Hey, my name is Jae and I'm new to the blogging world. Basically what this is is my device to sound off on all the shit going on in the world, whether it be political, religious, racial, or even with the scaggy celebrities. I know so many people have blogs and so many people have important things to say, so my words are really just another drop in the ocean, hence the title of my blog, but maybe someone will read this, and if not, at least I've gotten it off my chest.

Enjoy...