Depression and Graduating in a Recession

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

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?

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 as the world on both sides cannot seem to separate the actions of a government from that country's primary religion. Many will tie their actions back to the Jewish community and Judaism; there has been an increase in Jewish hate crimes across the world in the midst of this conflict. Others will scream antisemitism if you call Israel out for their crimes against humanity. Even when it's justified to call them what they are: 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. But if people continue 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...

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

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!"

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

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.