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.

Flamin' Freedom Fighters

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

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

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.