90 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/29/04 4:56am)
Lately, I've been bombarded with commercial after commercial concerning the extraordinary pros and cons of both major presidential candidates.\nOrdinarily, I wouldn't involve myself in these bi-partisan slappy fights, but to be honest I really, really don't like Bush, and as good as Ralph Nader is, I don't see him getting elected. Will John Kerry be the greatest president we've ever had? Probably not. But all surprises aside, I'm sure he will be a way-better president than Bush.\nNow before all you Young Republicans get all gung-ho and e-mail me about how Kerry has done such-and-such and plans to spend blah blah on whatever, let me tell you I don't much buy into statistics about candidates that come from people towing the party line. When it comes to political issues, I find many members of both sides somehow manage to find statistics to factually back up their yelling. \nFor most Americans, Bush's legacy will ultimately lie in his war, and it is that action which, for me, reflects his worst trait: lack of trustworthiness.\nWould Al Gore have gone to war? I don't know, though he probably would have taken some kind of military action. But the way Bush and Co. carried everything out -- misleading Congress and the public about Iraq, Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction -- was just shady. We're only two and a half years removed from Sept. 11, and it's already public opinion that Bush's initial reaction to go after Saddam Hussein was wrong.\nAs for the pro-Kerry side, I like most of his policies and ideas a lot more than Bush's, but mostly I like his legitimate shot at getting elected. I probably dig more of Ralph Nader's ideas, but Nader's nerve to run again bothers me. Yes, democracy would be better with three legit candidates instead of two, but our current system doesn't give much hope to that, and with the election less than seven months away, we have to work within that system.\nIf Nader really wants to give people a choice, he could spend his time working to develop a new election process. I am all for fighting for something you believe in, even if it has little chance of success, but this is not the year to "make a statement." Not for a candidate and not for voters. If you want to vote for Nader, I respect that, but I want Bush out of office as soon as possible, and I'd imagine you agree. After all, as a Nader supporter, you probably dislike him even more than I do.\nNader is going to make his own decision about whether or not he wants to run, and if you want Bush out of office then you will have to make your own decision about whether or not the social good of voting for Nader is worth it. I don't think it is, and with this in mind I will vote for Kerry because definitely getting a better president than Bush is more important to me than wasting my vote on Ralph Nader.\n Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps Bush has been a terrific president. After all, he still has many supporters. But I don't see it. I see his opposition to gay marriage, his unwillingness to fully fund his own education program, his unwillingness to punish corporate criminals and his decision to quickly and thoughtlessly take us into a war.\nBush has had his chance to lead this country, and many people are unhappy with where he's taken us. It's time to give somebody else a chance.
(04/01/04 5:00am)
Perhaps better than any other filmmakers, the Coen Brothers are adept at creating unique comedic worlds which operate with their own brilliant yet skewered logic. Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, The Big Lebowski and O Brother, Where Art Thou? are all films with bizarre characters and situations -- which are believable within the worlds the Coens create. Even their more serious ventures like Blood Simple, Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There are films which derive humor out of their peculiar but self-contained worlds. Unfortunately, the crazy characters of The Ladykillers -- a remake of the 1955 comedy -- are set in a more realistic movie. Rather than seeing their eccentricities as part of a hilariously odd world, they make these characters seem out of place.\nTake Tom Hanks' lead character, Professor Goldthwait Higginson Dorr. The previews show Dorr with an odd laugh, which seemed humorous, but within the context of the movie it's not nearly as funny as it is distracting. Hanks does a terrific job in the role, on par with Nicolas Cage in Arizona and John Turturro in Fink. But those movies embraced their characters, while this one wants to stand outside of them; the film detracts from the quality of Hanks' work, and I got more laughs from him in Catch Me If You Can than in this.\nThe story revolves around Dorr, a con man who moves into an old woman's house in order to tunnel from her cellar to a riverboat casino vault. He presents himself and his four partners in crime as a classical music group of the Lord who need a quiet place to practice, and the five men play a loud CD of classical music while tunneling. Like Hanks, the four actors playing the group are eccentric cartoon characters each defined by very specific character traits. They are funny but not real. In a movie about a robbery which depends on lying to an old woman and then possibly killing her, we never get a sense of what kind of people these are morally, particularly Dorr, because the last twenty minutes prohibit that.\nThis is not to say that The Ladykillers is a bad movie. I was rarely bored and the laughs were consistent, though they were never the kinds of gut-busting laughs which dominate Arizona and Lebowski. While the movie's conclusion seems like a cop-out, it was funny and fair. The movie has enough laughs to sustain its 104 minutes, and is certainly better than most comedies which come out these days. But it is not a great movie, and certainly not indicative of the kind of work the Coen Brothers usually put out. If you're looking for a comedy, it's fine. If you're looking for a good comedy, it'll do. But if you're looking for a good Coen Brother comedy, rent something listed above.
(04/01/04 4:49am)
Hey Hey! Holy Cow! It's Baseball Time!\nTo give you an idea of how incredibly pumped I am for this 2004 baseball season, let me say I hate exclamation points. I think they're overused. My previous 24 columns contained a total of four exclamation points, and two of those were in the one I wrote about the Cubs during last year's playoffs. For those of you scoring at home, that's seven Cub-related exclamation points out of nine.\nMonday is Opening Day, marking the end of an agonizing 182 day wait since Game seven of the National League Championship Series. For five and-a-half long months, my fellow Cub fans and I have waited for this season, tortured by thoughts of what-ifs and endless replays of the disaster that was Game six. But that will all be over soon. It's springtime, and it's a new season.\nI know what some of you "Cub fans" are thinking. "Wait a second? They play baseball in April? Are you sure? 'Cause, uh, I didn't buy my Cub hat until September." Yes, there's baseball in April. Amazing, but true. \nAll ribbing aside, this column represents a terrific opportunity for those of you who jumped on the bandwagon late last year, because I am inviting all you "Cub fans" to experience an entire season of Chicago Cubs baseball absolutely free. After just a few short months, you'll be so thrilled with the joy of following the Cubs I guarantee you'll want to stick around for the rest of this season and many seasons to come.\nBeing a Cub fan is not easy, though it may sometimes look like it is. A common misconception about Cub fans is that we don't care how the team does as long as we have fun. Certainly there are people who go to Wrigley just to have a good time. I will not deny that. But true Cub fans -- and there are many of us -- care deeply about the Cubbies. We are Chicago fans, and Chicago fans are among the most loyal and die-hard of all fans.\nTo see us having fun at Wrigley and assume we don't care about the game is absurd. We were all devastated by the ends of Games six and seven. Drinking couldn't even cheer me up after that series. I just went home and went to bed.\nRemember, we have not been to a World Series in 59 years. That's too much pain for any fan to bear. If we wore our feelings on our sleeves, there would be no real Cub fans left. We would've all died years ago from self-inflicted head bashings into walls.\nI have a great deal of respect for true fans of any club, because I know what true fandom is about. What makes the Cubs special is not that we embrace losing, but that we embrace life. We get through the painful years by enjoying what we do have -- a team we love, a team that loves us, a great ballpark and the knowledge that when the Cubs finally do win another World Series, it will be sweeter than anything we've ever imagined. Being a true Cub fan is about learning to appreciate what you have rather than dwelling on what you don't.\n So to my fellow Cub fans and all of you coming aboard today -- and it had better be today and not September, since you've been warned -- I say to you, go Cubbies, and I'll see you in the World Series. That's right I said it, because you know what? Curses are for losers.
(04/01/04 3:48am)
Perhaps better than any other filmmakers, the Coen Brothers are adept at creating unique comedic worlds which operate with their own brilliant yet skewered logic. Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, The Big Lebowski and O Brother, Where Art Thou? are all films with bizarre characters and situations -- which are believable within the worlds the Coens create. Even their more serious ventures like Blood Simple, Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There are films which derive humor out of their peculiar but self-contained worlds. Unfortunately, the crazy characters of The Ladykillers -- a remake of the 1955 comedy -- are set in a more realistic movie. Rather than seeing their eccentricities as part of a hilariously odd world, they make these characters seem out of place.\nTake Tom Hanks' lead character, Professor Goldthwait Higginson Dorr. The previews show Dorr with an odd laugh, which seemed humorous, but within the context of the movie it's not nearly as funny as it is distracting. Hanks does a terrific job in the role, on par with Nicolas Cage in Arizona and John Turturro in Fink. But those movies embraced their characters, while this one wants to stand outside of them; the film detracts from the quality of Hanks' work, and I got more laughs from him in Catch Me If You Can than in this.\nThe story revolves around Dorr, a con man who moves into an old woman's house in order to tunnel from her cellar to a riverboat casino vault. He presents himself and his four partners in crime as a classical music group of the Lord who need a quiet place to practice, and the five men play a loud CD of classical music while tunneling. Like Hanks, the four actors playing the group are eccentric cartoon characters each defined by very specific character traits. They are funny but not real. In a movie about a robbery which depends on lying to an old woman and then possibly killing her, we never get a sense of what kind of people these are morally, particularly Dorr, because the last twenty minutes prohibit that.\nThis is not to say that The Ladykillers is a bad movie. I was rarely bored and the laughs were consistent, though they were never the kinds of gut-busting laughs which dominate Arizona and Lebowski. While the movie's conclusion seems like a cop-out, it was funny and fair. The movie has enough laughs to sustain its 104 minutes, and is certainly better than most comedies which come out these days. But it is not a great movie, and certainly not indicative of the kind of work the Coen Brothers usually put out. If you're looking for a comedy, it's fine. If you're looking for a good comedy, it'll do. But if you're looking for a good Coen Brother comedy, rent something listed above.
(03/11/04 4:18am)
Warning: the following contains broad generalizations\nWhen trying to discern the various mental and emotional differences between men and women, one needn't look much further than each gender's preferred avenue of relationship storytelling -- programming that whittles away any extraneous aspects of dating, leaving only what each gender finds absolutely vital. I am speaking, of course, about soap operas and soft porn.\nWhile soaps reduce relationships to gossipy, middle-schoolish dating and soft porn cuts relationships down to mindlessly-rabid sex, they are basically the same. Both genres feature very specific and unique styles of acting, music and lighting, and both can be quickly identified upon first glimpse by experienced viewers. Consider the following piece of dialogue that could easily be inserted into either medium:\nMan: "What's your name?" Woman: "Virginia." Man (looking unnaturally serious): "Who" *pause* "are you?" Woman (nervous) "I … I don't know." Man: "You must have amnesia." Woman (closeup, glossy eyes): "Maybe. What's amnesia?" Man (slowly approaching her): "Loss of memory. Did you lose your memory?" Woman: "I don't remember." (sad, but oddly hopeful) "I can't remember anything." Man: "Do you remember… this?" (man kisses woman).\nSoap? Porn? It's impossible to tell. The only difference between the two is, in the first, the above dialogue would lead to a complex relationship in which the man tries to help the woman piece together her pre-amnesiac life, while in the second, the dialogue would lead to lots and lots of dispassionate sex.\nSo why does one genre appeal to women while the other appeals to men? While men and women both dig sex equally, men think about it more obsessively than women do because it's harder for us to get. Men going out in cologne and collared shirts are proof that women hold all the cards.\nWomen are anatomically equipped to distract men with their sexuality. Of all the sexual body parts on either men or women, breasts are the only ones near eye level, strategically placed to confuse and debilitate men. I mean, why else would they be right there? It was a devilish and brilliant plan, and it worked.\nLadies, get mad at us for staring if you want, but imagine if penises grew on chests instead of in crotches, leaving our manhood plainly visible. You can see the predicament we're in.\nThat's why we sometimes panic after sex. We assume girls don't like it since we usually have to work so hard to get it, so when it finally happens, we think we've gotten away with something. That sudden guilt is enough to freak anyone out. We just have to remember that women like sex too, and that by gawking, we play right into their hands.\nWith all of the miscommunication and misunderstandings between men and women causing so many relationship problems, one has to wonder if these gender gaps exist in gay relationships. If not, that's awesome. I'm sure gay couples get into fights, but it must make dating so much easier when you have a basic understanding of the other person's psyche and perhaps a bigger overlap of mutual interests. After all, many men dream of being able to have great sex and then start talking baseball. Why else would we love sexy to moderately-good looking female sportscasters?\nAh, sexy female sportscasters … But that's for another day. I think there's porn on.\nAdvice from the john: For anyone willing to try, bring back the flat top. I would if I could. They were awesome.
(03/04/04 5:00am)
A year or so ago, my friends and I were in the video store trying to decide what to rent. Somebody suggested "Super Troopers," and since I wasn't paying, I agreed. The previews looked more dumb than funny, so I wasn't expecting much when we turned it on. Needless to say, it quickly became one of my favorite comedies, both to watch and quote.\nSo now here comes "Club Dread," Broken Lizard's follow-up to their 2002 cult hit. Is the movie funny? Well, like all comedies, it depends on who you ask. For me, everything I liked about "Super Troopers" seemed missing from "Club Dread" -- namely laughs. \nThe movie takes place at a resort called Pleasure Island, which is basically an overnight camp for college kids. The film begins with a guest and two employees having sex in the jungle only to be killed by a masked, machete-wielding maniac. The plot revolves around the killer wiping out the help one by one, as surviving staffers try to figure out who the killer is. All five members of Broken Lizard are on staff at the island, and like their state troopers in the first flick, responsibility is not their number one priority. There's Dave (Foster in "Super Troopers"), a dope-dealing DJ; Putman (Thorny), a dreadlocked-Brit who teaches tennis; Lars (Farva), a masseuse with an orgasmic touch; Juan (Mac), the resident cute Latin-lover; and then Sam (Rabbit), the most non-descript character of the five. (That I've remembered all their names is not to say they were at all memorable, but rather I was paying very close attention since I knew I would have to recall them for this review.)\nIt's not that screwball comedies require deep, complex characters, but one of the most underrated aspects of "Super Troopers" was the characters' likeability. Even Farva, the schmuck of the group, is likeable in an odd way much in the same way D'Annunzio of "Caddyshack" is likeable. The comedy in "Super Troopers" grows out of the characters whereas the characters in "Club Dread" are designed in an effort to produce comedy.\nConsider the way "Super Troopers" develops. For the most part, it is a slice-of-life movie about how state troopers in crime-depraved Vermont deal with their abundance of spare time. "Club Dread" is about its machete-killer plot, leaving its characters as an afterthought. \nThere are some inspired comedic moments -- such as a live action "Ms. Pac-Man game with guests acting as Ms. Pac-Man" and the ghosts, and staff members acting as the fruit -- but most of the movie is slow and unfunny. I doubt anyone will delight in quoting "Club Dread" a year from meow the way many people enjoy quoting "Super Troopers." I suppose it's worth a gander, as other people in the theater seemed to be laughing, but it's certainly not worth $7.50.
(03/04/04 3:27am)
A year or so ago, my friends and I were in the video store trying to decide what to rent. Somebody suggested "Super Troopers," and since I wasn't paying, I agreed. The previews looked more dumb than funny, so I wasn't expecting much when we turned it on. Needless to say, it quickly became one of my favorite comedies, both to watch and quote.\nSo now here comes "Club Dread," Broken Lizard's follow-up to their 2002 cult hit. Is the movie funny? Well, like all comedies, it depends on who you ask. For me, everything I liked about "Super Troopers" seemed missing from "Club Dread" -- namely laughs. \nThe movie takes place at a resort called Pleasure Island, which is basically an overnight camp for college kids. The film begins with a guest and two employees having sex in the jungle only to be killed by a masked, machete-wielding maniac. The plot revolves around the killer wiping out the help one by one, as surviving staffers try to figure out who the killer is. All five members of Broken Lizard are on staff at the island, and like their state troopers in the first flick, responsibility is not their number one priority. There's Dave (Foster in "Super Troopers"), a dope-dealing DJ; Putman (Thorny), a dreadlocked-Brit who teaches tennis; Lars (Farva), a masseuse with an orgasmic touch; Juan (Mac), the resident cute Latin-lover; and then Sam (Rabbit), the most non-descript character of the five. (That I've remembered all their names is not to say they were at all memorable, but rather I was paying very close attention since I knew I would have to recall them for this review.)\nIt's not that screwball comedies require deep, complex characters, but one of the most underrated aspects of "Super Troopers" was the characters' likeability. Even Farva, the schmuck of the group, is likeable in an odd way much in the same way D'Annunzio of "Caddyshack" is likeable. The comedy in "Super Troopers" grows out of the characters whereas the characters in "Club Dread" are designed in an effort to produce comedy.\nConsider the way "Super Troopers" develops. For the most part, it is a slice-of-life movie about how state troopers in crime-depraved Vermont deal with their abundance of spare time. "Club Dread" is about its machete-killer plot, leaving its characters as an afterthought. \nThere are some inspired comedic moments -- such as a live action "Ms. Pac-Man game with guests acting as Ms. Pac-Man" and the ghosts, and staff members acting as the fruit -- but most of the movie is slow and unfunny. I doubt anyone will delight in quoting "Club Dread" a year from meow the way many people enjoy quoting "Super Troopers." I suppose it's worth a gander, as other people in the theater seemed to be laughing, but it's certainly not worth $7.50.
(02/12/04 5:34am)
This is the third in a three-part series\now can we take the next step toward true equality?\nThe next step begins with honesty. People have to feel comfortable expressing their racial and social feelings, because without honesty it is nearly impossible to change either the prejudice or the power, be it for individuals or institutions. \nAs we saw during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, a mass shift in individuals' beliefs, backed up by an honest vocalization of those beliefs, can shift a country's popular collective belief. Thus, influencing the power of the major institutions. To take the next step, we, the individuals with little institutional power, have to push the individuals with lots of institutional power to believe what we believe. The upcoming presidential election is a good place to start. Find a candidate who reflects your views on racial and social equality, and vote for him.\nWhile individual and political honesty is a step toward racial and social equality, it will not do it alone. The person I met who was not afraid to say he dislikes gay people was being honest, and that is commendable. But even in his honesty, he is still a person who does not like gay people simply because they are gay.\nWell, one might ask, what's wrong with that? A lot of people are homophobic, and who am I to tell them they are wrong? After all, prejudices are beliefs, and it is ignorant for me to think my view of a belief as "wrong" is enough justification to change another man's view of that belief as "right." As someone who believes in racial, sexual and social equality, am I just as indoctrinated as those I disagree with? Despite my absolute conviction that no group is inherently evil, how could I prove it to those who whole-heartedly believe otherwise?\nLet's go back to the original equation: prejudice plus power equals racism. People say while anyone can be prejudiced, only people with power within the system can benefit from those prejudices. If people never used their power to oppress those whom they were prejudiced against, then we would not have a racism problem in America. We would have a disliking problem.\nThus, the key to solving racism is getting all Americans to uphold the American belief and ideal that all people are created equal and all people have the same basic human rights to happiness and opportunity.\nAsk yourself: "Do I really believe every human deserves the same basic human rights?" \nHopefully, the answer is "yes." Wanting to reverse social inequalities does not mean every white guy has to have a black friend or every heterosexual has to have a gay friend. Sure, it'd be nice if people were interested in each other, but this is America--you don't have to like anyone you don't want to like. Blatant disregard for people's human rights, though, is one thing that cannot be tolerated. \nAffirmative action, empowerment through education and the adjustment of media images are good solutions, but they will never be entirely effective until we've honestly answered the above question. It would be like arguing how to build a house without all agreeing on whether or not we want to build the house. That's where the trouble lies. \nOnce we decide on what we want to accomplish, the rest is all about making a plan and following it. Prioritizing the nation's budget with good education systems, eliminating poverty and strengthening the job market -- these are just a few of the ways we can attack racism once we decide to change it.\nAfter we make a decision, everything is easy. \nThe hard part is up to us.
(02/05/04 4:57am)
This is the second in a three part series.\nHow do you change a person's prejudices?\nAs we have seen, people's prejudices and beliefs are difficult to change. And yet, people's beliefs do change. How does this happen?\nIn order for a person's beliefs to change, they have to be challenged. If a person believes gay people are evil, his belief may be changed if it is challenged by a positive experience he has with a gay person, or by a new popular belief of society. In time, he may begin to change his beliefs. Beliefs and prejudices change over time as they are challenged by other beliefs.\nThe other part of the racism equation is power -- the systems and institutions that control large parts of society. These institutions include schools, government, media, laws, language and America's popular collective beliefs. They are less accessible than individuals, and so they are tougher to change.\nFor instance, many individuals change their beliefs about God and religion during their lifetime, but seldom does a popular collective religious belief change. \nYet in the 384 years since Europeans landed on Plymouth Rock, White America's popular collective racial belief has evolved from legal slavery to freed slaves with nearly no rights to free people living in segregation to free people living with "equal rights." This huge ideological shift over a relatively short period of time -- compared to the evolution of religious ideologies -- suggests there is not as much weight in racial beliefs as there is in religious beliefs.\nThat kind of rapid change does not surprise me when you consider two enormous racial movements in American history -- the freeing of the slaves and the civil rights movement. The latter was so powerful it reversed America's popular collective racial beliefs. Being a racist is now looked down upon. The institution of racism has changed because many people changed their minds about race and made demands on the government to change laws they did not like.\nThe beliefs of the individual influenced the institutions that control them, and in turn the institutions reciprocated those values back on society.\nHowever, like many good things in America, the new popular collective racial belief has gone too far. Political correctness has people scared to speak because they might be discovered as ignorant, racist or both.\nI met a kid the other day who said flat out he would prefer for gay people to stay away from him. But as much as I disagree with this person, you've got to appreciate that kind of honesty nowadays.\nDuring the Brown and Black Presidential Forum, Al Sharpton asked Howard Dean why he did not have a black or brown person in his cabinet. Dean squirmed, trying to figure out a way he could answer this question without offending anyone. Dean is a smart man. He knows what a cabinet is. He may even know what a black or brown person is. Yet until Sharpton made him answer, Dean danced around the question, saying first he had Blacks in state government, then saying they were a part of his staff and finally admitting there were none in his cabinet.\nSomething is wrong when a seemingly progressive presidential candidate does not feel comfortable honestly answering a racially-charged question.\nAmerica's racial and social situation is much better now than it was in 1620, 1865, and even 1968, but it is still not as good as it could be.\nHow can we take the next step towards true equality?
(01/29/04 5:00am)
Some people who have seen what Charlize Theron looks like in her new film Monster -- either from the film or in publicity photos -- have said that she looks "fat and ugly." There is a perfectly good reason for people to have this reaction: they are morons. Anyone who sees this film and complains about Theron's looks should probably stick to The Cider House Rules or 2 Days in the Valley or something, because to come away from a performance of this magnitude and complain that Theron isn't hot is like getting a free tour of heaven and complaining about the altitude. Theron's transformation into serial killer Aileen Wuornos is so complete and perfect that it will be impossible to discuss the all-time greatest acting jobs in the future without mentioning this one. She's that good.\nThe film is based on the true story of Wuornos, a lifelong hooker who killed seven of her patrons in the late '80s. Like any good story, Monster lives in its details. In less caring hands, this movie would have been nothing more than an exploitative shocker. The pieces are there: a lesbian relationship, a hooker, and serial killings. But the actors and filmmakers have made a truthful film about real people, and that is what most viewers will come away with. \nBasic Instinct was another movie about a lesbian murderer, and that film took a lot of hits for presenting lesbians as evil, manipulative killers. This film will not have that same kind of backlash because it is not a film about lesbians as killers; it is a film about a woman who is driven to kill, and happens to be a lesbian.\nWhile Theron has gotten all the press, Ricci is also very impressive as Wuornos' young lover. While I am not surprised to see Ricci in this kind of a movie -- she has always been an actress who takes chances -- I was surprised to see her performance. She is not her usual sardonic, cynical self; her Selby is more innocent and naïve than the character she played in Casper.\nMonster is a frightening movie, but it is also filled with intensely dark moments of comedy as Wuornos struggles to relate to people like a normal human being. She is so inept in social conventions that when a man tells her to "call him daddy," she asks him if it's because he likes to sleep with his children. Wuornos is not like any serial killer I've seen before; aside from killing them, she did not horribly violate or mutilate her victims like Bundy or Dahmer, and she was not an intellectual like Hannibal Lecter. Perhaps more interesting and more telling than the fact that she was the first female serial killer is that she was the first serial killer to simply use a gun.\nMonster does not excuse the actions of Wuornos, nor does it present her as some kind of super-villain. It simply presents her story honestly and unflinchingly. Theron took a chance by bulking up for this role, and it paid off. This is a terrifically powerful movie.
(01/29/04 4:13am)
This is the first of a three-part series.\nHow do we end racism?\nA popular definition of racism used among those who study it is prejudice plus power. This means only white people can be racist because their prejudices carry power within our white-dominated social structure. \nWhile this definition tends to upset a lot of white people, it is a useful tool as it is always easier to fix something that has parts than something that does not. \nThe first part of the equation, prejudice, presents some interesting problems. It is the more accessible of the two parts, because prejudices stem from individuals, whereas power stems from a system. Of course, people influence the system, and vice-versa, but individual people are easier to change than exclusive systems.\nSo how do you change a person's prejudices? Or more to the point, how can you teach people there is no inherent evil in any particular ethnic or racial group? After all, prejudices are rooted in a person's belief that an entire group of people is inferior in some way, whether due to skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, dialect, political affiliation or any other characteristic. \nThis is where the difficulty comes into play. Prejudices are hard to get rid of because they are not fact-based. If they were, then we could make a counter-factual argument to a prejudiced person and sway them to think another way. A person who thinks George W. Bush is a good president could be persuaded to think otherwise if he were presented a list of factual arguments concerning the president's track record while in office. This argument would have to contradict the person's current opinion in a way that would make him no longer like Bush, so if the person is opposed to gay marriage and is told "Bush is a bad president because he is opposed to gay marriage," this would not be evidence enough. But if the person was anti-war and was then told how Bush feels about war, this may be enough to sway him.\nUnfortunately, prejudices are not that easy to dispose of. A prejudice is not an opinion; it is a belief. And we do not get our beliefs from facts, but rather from our world view. Beliefs cannot be logically challenged.\nTake God, for example.\nI was raised in a family that believes in God, and as a child, I also believed in God. I had no reason to believe any differently. As I grew older and had more life experience, I began to challenge the beliefs that had been given to me. I stopped practicing Judaism and reconsidered my own idea of God -- particularly the human characterization of "God" as a white-haired, bearded man who lives in heaven. While I have rejected some of my family's religious beliefs, I still believe in a higher power that connects everyone on Earth. This is my idea of God, and it is as real as any other belief because it is based on how I feel and how I have interpreted the world throughout my life.\nBut despite the strength of my conviction, nothing I could say about my own beliefs and experiences could ever convince a true atheist that God exists, because he has formed his belief about the lack of God in the same way I have formed my belief in God. Neither one of us is using facts to form opinions -- we are using feelings and personal experiences to form beliefs.\nAnd while I once thought education alone could eradicate racism, that's garbage, because it does not explain the existence of smart, educated racists -- of which there are many.\nSo, we're back near the starting line.\nHow do you change a person's prejudices?
(01/28/04 10:28pm)
Some people who have seen what Charlize Theron looks like in her new film Monster -- either from the film or in publicity photos -- have said that she looks "fat and ugly." There is a perfectly good reason for people to have this reaction: they are morons. Anyone who sees this film and complains about Theron's looks should probably stick to The Cider House Rules or 2 Days in the Valley or something, because to come away from a performance of this magnitude and complain that Theron isn't hot is like getting a free tour of heaven and complaining about the altitude. Theron's transformation into serial killer Aileen Wuornos is so complete and perfect that it will be impossible to discuss the all-time greatest acting jobs in the future without mentioning this one. She's that good.\nThe film is based on the true story of Wuornos, a lifelong hooker who killed seven of her patrons in the late '80s. Like any good story, Monster lives in its details. In less caring hands, this movie would have been nothing more than an exploitative shocker. The pieces are there: a lesbian relationship, a hooker, and serial killings. But the actors and filmmakers have made a truthful film about real people, and that is what most viewers will come away with. \nBasic Instinct was another movie about a lesbian murderer, and that film took a lot of hits for presenting lesbians as evil, manipulative killers. This film will not have that same kind of backlash because it is not a film about lesbians as killers; it is a film about a woman who is driven to kill, and happens to be a lesbian.\nWhile Theron has gotten all the press, Ricci is also very impressive as Wuornos' young lover. While I am not surprised to see Ricci in this kind of a movie -- she has always been an actress who takes chances -- I was surprised to see her performance. She is not her usual sardonic, cynical self; her Selby is more innocent and naïve than the character she played in Casper.\nMonster is a frightening movie, but it is also filled with intensely dark moments of comedy as Wuornos struggles to relate to people like a normal human being. She is so inept in social conventions that when a man tells her to "call him daddy," she asks him if it's because he likes to sleep with his children. Wuornos is not like any serial killer I've seen before; aside from killing them, she did not horribly violate or mutilate her victims like Bundy or Dahmer, and she was not an intellectual like Hannibal Lecter. Perhaps more interesting and more telling than the fact that she was the first female serial killer is that she was the first serial killer to simply use a gun.\nMonster does not excuse the actions of Wuornos, nor does it present her as some kind of super-villain. It simply presents her story honestly and unflinchingly. Theron took a chance by bulking up for this role, and it paid off. This is a terrifically powerful movie.
(12/05/03 5:27am)
Iheard that you were feeling ill: headache, fever and a chill. I came to help restore your pluck, 'cause I'm the nurse who likes to..."\nAbove is a quote from the film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." In the scene, a sexy nurse comes to the door and shares her poem with Ferris's sister, but is cut off when the sister slams the door in her face. This edit is made for comedic purposes, because the filmmakers know that the scene will be funnier if the assumed last word is thought by the audience rather than spoken by the nurse. \nEven though the word is never heard, the very fact that the scene leads viewers to think the word causes networks to end the scene after the poem's first line.\nWhy do people still give a sh*t about swearing?\nThe week before Thanksgiving, Comedy Central ran adds announcing they would be showing the movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" in all of its unedited glory. The movie would air Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night at 1 a.m.\nNeedless to say I was a tad skeptical, as I'd heard such promises before.\nA few years ago, USA advertised that they'd be airing the unedited version of the Howard Stern movie "Private Parts." Instead, they ran a PG-13 version of the film with most of the cursing removed and clips of Howard telling us to rent the video.\nUnlike those jerks at USA, Comedy Central kept its word and aired every one of the South Park movie's 399 profane words -- including 133 F-words as well as the film's 128 offensive gestures and its 221 acts of violence (www.imdb.com).\nAfter a half hour or so, the novelty of hearing swears on regular TV wore off, and I was able to simply enjoy the film.\nIt was among the most thrilling moments of my television viewing career, along with the time VH1 started running late night "Ren and Stimpy" reruns a year ago, when Whoopi Goldberg was being interviewed on TV in 1992 and the network bleeped out the word "damn."\nAt the time, I thought it was pretty ballsy of Whoopi to say "damn" on television, and while many words worse than "damn" can be heard on a daily basis on TV, I continue to see films "cleaned up" on network television.\nMy dad always says that people cuss because they don't have a vocabulary to properly express themselves. Sure, that's true, but does that make curse words inherently evil?\nThe absurdity of editing movies and TV shows for language content is that the words become even more appealing. Do television censors really think that a bleep, overdub or silent cut is going to was being said? That's bullshnit.\nLike the South Park movie, the recently released "Bad Santa" has created some controversy over its use of curse words around children. That film is about a filthy man (both in word and smell) who takes jobs as a mall Santa Claus in order to rob the vault. In doing so, he has to interact with kids and does so in the most vulgar (and hilarious) ways possible. \nSome people may find this kind of language around children upsetting, but rather than censor the film, the advertisers have done the sensible thing: they've marketed it as an "Adults Only" comedy. \nLike anything in life, being honest with people and giving them a choice to make their own informed decision is always better than forcing a decision on them. One day, I'll be able to watch movies on television that aren't filled with voiceovers and bleeps, and when that day comes, I'll be the happiest kcufing guy in town.
(11/21/03 5:23am)
In 10 days, it will be one year since I was arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana, and, lemme tell you, that ain't no kind of fun. \nLet's say you're like me and everything ends relatively well -- meaning you don't crash the car and you don't kill or injure yourself, your buddies or any other people. There are still some pretty annoying consequences.\nFirst, there's the time. There are court dates, of which I had two. There are the hour-long monitoring sessions at the courthouse, of which I had five. There are the 10 hours of drug counseling and 12 hours of drug education -- a total of nine classes. And there's the time spent in the police station being questioned and a possible night in jail, depending on the situation. \nThen there's the money.\nFor all five of my monitoring sessions, I had to get a copy of my driving record from the DMV. Each one costs $12. Each monitoring session costs $25. So that's five driving records and five monitoring sessions for a total of $185. \nMy 22 hours of education and counseling cost $425, and that was as a "moderate level risk" because the amount of pot in my bloodstream was very low. (Many of the people in my classes were significant risks, which added about 15 more hours and $200 dollars more.) After I was through with all that, I still had to pay $580 in various court fees. \nSo that's $1190, and that doesn't even include whatever the lawyer fees were, which my parents were kind enough to cover. Regardless, I didn't really have an extra $1200 lying about, but perhaps I'm the only one.\nObviously, driving high was one of the dumbest things I've ever done, but let's be honest -- I'd probably still be doing it if I hadn't gotten caught. While I recognize the physical dangers of driving under the influence, I've been more motivated by the added penalties from a second DUI arrest, which can include jail time, a suspended license, more drug/alcohol education, probation and community service. \nAmazingly enough, many of the people in my classes were not concerned with those consequences, as quite a few of them had multiple DUI's. I found this surprising at first, but even more surprising was how common these people were. Eighty-five percent of all people who get a first DUI will get a second one some time in their lives.\nLogically, everyone knows that driving drunk or stoned is unsafe and can result in injury or death. I knew that. But when it comes time to make the right decision, it can be hard to pass your keys to a buddy, because that is an acceptance of your own mortality. Most people do not want to see themselves as someone with the capacity to end another's life. Saying, "I'm too messed up to drive," is an admission to that.\nAnd like anything else, deciding to drive under the influence is easier once you've done it. For those of us who have gotten caught once, there is an urge to say, "Well, if I just fix whatever it was that got me pulled over, I'll be fine" -- as if the problem wasn't that you were driving stoned, but rather that you were driving at three in the morning with your brights on. \nWe see ourselves as the unlucky ones because we got caught, when of course it's the opposite: that I got caught and was allowed to see my faults without someone getting killed makes me the lucky one.\nNow when I drive, I always come back alive and not in handcuffs.\nLuck has nothing to do with it.
(11/14/03 4:00pm)
When my friends and I are trying to figure out what to do on a Friday night, we have a rule that a person is not allowed to shoot down an idea without having one of their own. So for all you cookie-peddling, anti-affirmative actioners out there, here's the question:\nWhat's your solution?\nWhile I was unable to attend last week's affirmative action bake sale, all accounts suggest that the three numbskulls on the Committee for Freedom knew about as much about affirmative action as did the chocolate chip cookies they were selling. Initially, I was prepared to write this off and focus on the real issue: the pros and cons of affirmative action. But what does it say about White America when three boneheads have a desire to hold a demonstration to protest a controversial subject such as affirmative action despite the fact that the three of them don't seem to have clue one about the subject they are protesting?\nWhite people who find affirmative action unfair do so because they feel like they are being stripped of something that they deserve, something that is rightfully theirs. "I've got better grades than that black guy, but he got into the school that I wanted to go to ahead of me because he's black and I'm white. That's not fair."\nYeah, so? \nPeople who get a job or get into school with help from affirmative action are not moochers or unqualified parasites feeding off the system. These are hardworking people who just want the same opportunities as everyone else. Affirmative action gives these people a boost in an attempt to level the playing field. Do they not deserve a chance to succeed in the same way that white men do?\nI would imagine that a good number of whites who oppose affirmative action would not oppose a hypothetical arrangement in which Americans who have been discriminated against for many years be given a "leg up" in order to help them achieve their goals. The reason they oppose affirmative action is usually not because it is attempting to help the less privileged, but rather because it is "hurting" them.\nYou can't have it both ways. If you are truly interested in helping people who need a little help, then you have to be willing to sacrifice something of your own. Have you ever tried to give a homeless person a dollar out of your pocket without losing that dollar? Of course not. That would be absurd. To give a dollar, you must be willing to lose that dollar in an effort to better the whole. If ending institutionalized racism were as easy as passing a bill or a law that granted every minority a great education, a great job and lots of money, white people wouldn't have a problem with it. But the reality is, in order to truly help people, you must be willing to make a sacrifice.\nMany people who oppose affirmative action, including the Committee for Freedom, say that it is wrong to make decisions based on race. But that would suggest that this country has not been making decisions based on race for years. To suggest a solution while ignoring the past is as ignorant as it is irresponsible.\nSure, affirmative action is not the final answer. It will not end racism, sexism, classism or any other injustices in America today. But it is an honest attempt to right a situation that desperately needs righting. It asks us to be flexible in order to help large groups of people who have been discriminated against for years.\nSo all you anti-affirmative actioners, what is your solution?
(11/07/03 4:07pm)
Women often ask me, "Jack, what is it about two women making out that men find so damn appealing?" \nWell, when a woman hooks up with another woman, we naturally assume for some reason that if she's willing to hook up with a woman then she'll be willing to hook up with a woman and me at the same time. That's our thought process. We've somehow come to assume that all lesbians are actually bisexuals waiting to happen, and the only thing more exciting to a straight male than the prospect of great sex with one woman is great sex with two women.\nOf course this is foolish because Lord knows most of us have enough trouble pleasing one woman, much less two. But maybe that's part of the appeal: If I ever hook up with two women at once, it will be comforting to know that no matter how badly I might perform, both women will enjoy themselves, and I will only have to do half the work I normally do. \nThis is not the same for women because most women I know find two men kissing nearly as unappealing as straight men find it. I personally don't know many straight people who admit to enjoying gay porn. And by gay I mean man-on-man porn, because woman-on-woman porn has become a staple of soft core Skinemax that many straight people will openly admit to enjoying. \nI was told once that while a woman's body is a work of art, a man's body is ugly and functions strictly as a mode of transportation. That seems true enough, and would certainly explain why women kissing simply for sexual purposes is sexy, while many people think men kissing simply for sexual purposes is not. Michelangelo's "David" is the only piece of art I can think of that tries to make the male body beautiful, and while we marvel at the precision of the sculpting and acknowledge that "David" is a perfect specimen of a man, nobody I've ever met has been turned on by it. As popular as the sculpture is, even more popular is the refrigerator magnet of "David" that allows people to admire him in blue jeans, khaki shorts or anything that doesn't leave his pieces blowing in the wind.\nSo it could be that there is no beauty in men kissing for purely sexual purposes, or it could be that because we live in a male-dominated society, women have been conditioned to find man-on-man sex a turnoff. Whatever it is, it has affected us so deeply that women are allowed to experiment in ways men aren't. Sure, I thought it was hot when Madonna and Britney Spears kissed on MTV for all of the reasons listed above, and while people talked about the controversy, the sexiness and the outlandishness of the act, they never talked about what it was: a lesbian encounter. Is Britney Spears lesbian or bisexual? Probably not. She's probably just a sexy, straight woman experimenting with another woman. But what if it had been David Bowie and Justin Timberlake? The public's reaction would be totally different. \nTwo straight women kiss on national television and we think it's sexy. Meanwhile, multiple tabloids print news about which men might be gay: Mike Piazza, Tom Cruise, Keanu Reeves …\nI may think that Madonna and Britney kissing is hot, but what if they really were lesbians? What interest would they have in me? None. The fun ends when the fantasy ends, and the reality is that true lesbian women have as much sexual interest in a man as that man has for two gay men.
(10/31/03 5:23am)
I'm giving up.\nWhile shopping for groceries for the first time this school year, I found myself in a familiar, yet troubling, place: the cereal aisle. Every attempt I've made to be a responsible adult in any facet of my life has manifested itself in the decisions I make in this aisle. \nAs a younger kid food shopping with my parents, this was the only aisle where there was ever any real disagreement. Fruits and vegetables are healthy, and cookies and candy are not, and my parents were cool about always leaving the supermarket with some foods from both groups. But cereal was always different. \nBoth child and parent know that cereal is going to be purchased; breakfast is nearly impossible without it. And so there is always mystery when entering the cereal aisle, because unlike healthy-untasty foods and tasty-unhealthy foods, cereal has the potential to be either healthy or unhealthy, tasty or untasty. Being that my parents were much older than I was at the time, they ate cereals with flakes and bran and raisins and oats, the cereal-equivalent to the neighbor who hands out apples on Halloween. When sleeping over at my grandparents' house, my brother and I were introduced to the more favorable cereals, ones that consisted of moons and clovers and puffs of cocoa and fruit-like substances. So the battle in the cereal aisle usually yielded Honey Nut Cheerios, which we all agreed was tasty and healthy enough to please everyone.\nSo there I was, back in the most challenging aisle of all, but this time around there was no one to stop me. I could buy all of the sugar cereal I wanted. And best of all, I could do it with my parents' money, and they would never have to know. But I overcame that urge, and acting as a responsible adult, I didn't buy Lucky Charms, Trix or even Honey Nut Cheerios. I bought Raisin Bran, and left the store feeling quite proud of myself.\nUnfortunately, that feeling hasn't lasted. Raisin Bran is good and all, but it turns breakfast into such a matter-of-fact, business-like meal. I've come up with a compromise for myself, by buying both Lucky Charms and Honey Nut Cheerios and alternating bowls.\nIn all of this cereal eating, I always come back to the same question: do people shape their cereals, or do cereals shape the people? Sure, adults are concerned with health while kids are concerned with taste, and thus they choose cereals that mesh with those concerns. But I think there's more to it. Raisin Bran -- the adult cereal -- is grounded in the unexciting, mundane bran flake, which provides nourishment and stability. To spice things up, the flake is teamed with the lightly sugared raisin, which seems like quite a treat when compared to the flake, but is still just a fruit. Likewise, parents of growing children are always busy, taking care of every detail of their children's lives. They must find pleasure in the little things, like afternoon naps and the news.\nOn the other hand, Lucky Charms is grounded in the marshmallow, which is never boring and comes in many shapes and colors. Like a young child's life, cereal can't be all fun and games, and so balancing out the marshmallow are the hard, less-fun cereal pieces. These pieces of cereal are often discarded once we have searched through the milk and found every last marshmallow, and they are looked upon as "annoying" and "useless." Then one day, when we've grown older, we'll realize that compared to the bran flake of adulthood, we really had it great.
(10/24/03 5:07am)
During my freshmen year at IU, my synagogue sent out care packages to all of its new college freshmen. In that package was a guide book that was supposed to help us retain our Jewish identities while at school. I don't remember much from the book, but I do remember a section that was entitled, "Top Five Reasons You Should Marry a Jewish Person." One of the reasons was, "Because you know it's the right thing to do."\nFrom Jesus fish to WWJD to worried backlashes such as the one in my Jewish handbook, it seems that organized religion has moved closer and closer to the surface and further and further away from spirituality and good living. Not that those things are no longer stressed. They are. But as far as I can tell, the biggest lesson that organized religion teaches many people is that their particular organized religion is the only true organized religion in town.\nWhat's more important: the message or the messenger? Are kindness, good will, community, brotherhood and forgiveness only important because religion says they are, or is there something intrinsic in them?\nI understand Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins, and those of us who don't take him as our personal savior will burn in hell. If I burn in hell for eternity because I never accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, this will be my problem. Christians need to accept that there are many people who, for whatever reason, haven't accepted Jesus as savior and never will.\nChristians aren't the only people who can't get over the proverbial Jesus hump. I was once chastised by a Jewish friend of mine because I no longer practiced Judaism. We began talking about religions, and she was somehow opposed to my saying that people of all faiths could learn from Jesus the man, in the same way that we learn from Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King and other people who strived for peace. Even if I don't think that Jesus was the son of God, can I at least think he was a really good guy who helped his fellow man?\nWhat bothers me most is how some people who follow an organized religion think they have some ownership of God. Even if I haven't settled on one religion, don't I have a right to God? Some people find the need to "speak" for God to reassert their own beliefs and, presumably, to make people with different beliefs feel bad. One of the most offensive billboards I've ever seen was one that said, "I don't question your existence." And at the bottom, the quote was attributed to "God." There was another similar billboard, only this time the quote said, "Don't make me come down there." Who are these people who think they can talk to God for the rest of us? If I were to erect a billboard that read, "As long as you're nice to each other, I don't give a rat's ass which religion you are," and I attributed that to God, religious people would probably be offended. Even if I cleaned up the language, people would be upset that I -- a non-religious, non-practicing Jew -- was talking for God.\nNot everyone is going to agree on the same religion. That's why there's more than one. While each religion has different traditions and scriptures, most are the same at the core: finding peace with yourself and with others and living a good life. If you need religion to tell you that murder, violence, betrayal and adultery are wrong, then I feel sorry for you.
(10/24/03 5:00am)
During my freshmen year at IU, my synagogue sent out care packages to all of its new college freshmen. In that package was a guide book that was supposed to help us retain our Jewish identities while at school. I don't remember much from the book, but I do remember a section that was entitled, "Top Five Reasons You Should Marry a Jewish Person." One of the reasons was, "Because you know it's the right thing to do."\nFrom Jesus fish to WWJD to worried backlashes such as the one in my Jewish handbook, it seems that organized religion has moved closer and closer to the surface and further and further away from spirituality and good living. Not that those things are no longer stressed. They are. But as far as I can tell, the biggest lesson that organized religion teaches many people is that their particular organized religion is the only true organized religion in town.\nWhat's more important: the message or the messenger? Are kindness, good will, community, brotherhood and forgiveness only important because religion says they are, or is there something intrinsic in them?\nI understand Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins, and those of us who don't take him as our personal savior will burn in hell. If I burn in hell for eternity because I never accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, this will be my problem. Christians need to accept that there are many people who, for whatever reason, haven't accepted Jesus as savior and never will.\nChristians aren't the only people who can't get over the proverbial Jesus hump. I was once chastised by a Jewish friend of mine because I no longer practiced Judaism. We began talking about religions, and she was somehow opposed to my saying that people of all faiths could learn from Jesus the man, in the same way that we learn from Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King and other people who strived for peace. Even if I don't think that Jesus was the son of God, can I at least think he was a really good guy who helped his fellow man?\nWhat bothers me most is how some people who follow an organized religion think they have some ownership of God. Even if I haven't settled on one religion, don't I have a right to God? Some people find the need to "speak" for God to reassert their own beliefs and, presumably, to make people with different beliefs feel bad. One of the most offensive billboards I've ever seen was one that said, "I don't question your existence." And at the bottom, the quote was attributed to "God." There was another similar billboard, only this time the quote said, "Don't make me come down there." Who are these people who think they can talk to God for the rest of us? If I were to erect a billboard that read, "As long as you're nice to each other, I don't give a rat's ass which religion you are," and I attributed that to God, religious people would probably be offended. Even if I cleaned up the language, people would be upset that I -- a non-religious, non-practicing Jew -- was talking for God.\nNot everyone is going to agree on the same religion. That's why there's more than one. While each religion has different traditions and scriptures, most are the same at the core: finding peace with yourself and with others and living a good life. If you need religion to tell you that murder, violence, betrayal and adultery are wrong, then I feel sorry for you.
(10/17/03 4:25am)
I couldn't sleep Tuesday night, having just watched one of the most depressing games in Chicago Cub history. So to soothe my depression I decided to watch some late night TV. As I flipped around in my normal channel rotation, I came to Comedy Central, which was running continuous ads for the latest "Girls Gone Wild" videos. Now, you can only spend so much time watching censored video of chicks taking their tops off, and so I sat there for 15 minutes or so as girl after girl "celebrated" spring break by flashing the camera while drunkenly making out with other girls. Now, don't get me wrong, I like seeing topless women as much as the next guy, but am I missing something? What's in it for these girls?\nIf someone has a sexy body, and they know it, there's no reason to be ashamed of it. But at what point does "flaunting your goods" make it no more than just that: goods? That's why I wonder what the "Girls Gone Wild" girls are thinking. Do they think we will respect them more if they show us their tits? Certainly, these girls are not all curves and flesh, and I'd imagine many of them have dreams and aspirations and work hard in school and what not. But if the first and only thing we know about you is that you enjoy getting drunk and then undressing in public -- on camera -- then all we can assume is that you are just a slut. And for men, (and presumably for women, because there are male sluts as well), hooking up with a slut is like masturbating with a person instead of your hand. In the long run, we know that we want a more emotionally fulfilling relationship, but in the meantime, this is close by, available and easy. The only difference is that afterward, you're not expected to lie in bed with your hand and talk.\nSometimes it seems like girls think that guys won't notice them -- and consequently won't speak to them -- if they do not go out on the weekends, dressed in tight pants and a low-cut shirt revealing their cleavage on the top, their belly button in the front and whatever little tattoo they decided to get right above their butt crack.\nThat's completely ridiculous. Men check out all women, every one we meet, attractive and less-attractive. And women do the same. We're all checking each other out, and everybody knows that, so the only reason to dress with everything all hanging out is to get a little extra attention. But what baffles me is when girls go out like that and then get upset when guys are all over them. It's a similar thought to one I had as a kid, watching "Tom and Jerry." Sluttily-dressed girls complaining about guys drooling over them would be like Jerry wedging himself between the ham and cheese in Tom's sandwich, salting and peppering himself, and then being shocked when Tom tries to eat him. He's a cat, for crying out loud. He's not going to take pity and help Jerry out of the sandwich; he's going to put his napkin in his collar, sharpen his knife and fork and lick his lips.\nIn the end, this all comes down to responsibility. Dress however you want, act however you want and do whatever you want, but make sure you can handle yourself and make sure you know how other people are interpreting your actions. And if there's anything you would be embarrassed about doing, don't do it on camera.