6 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/24/08 1:37am)
Green is the new blue and red.\nI did a double take when I saw a commercial featuring Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Pat Robertson relaxing together on a couch on a beach. Recently, I paused for a similar commercial featuring Nancy Pelosi, the current Democratic Speaker of the House, and former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, smiling together on a couch in front of Capitol Hill.\nThese political and religious figures are often seen as polarized representatives of extreme left-wing liberals and extreme right-wing conservatives. What are they doing enjoying a peaceful conversation on a love seat?\nSharpton and Robertson acknowledge that they “strongly disagree” on many issues, but they both recognize the need to care for the Earth. Similarly, Pelosi and Gingrich claim they do not always see eye-to-eye, but they “agree our country must take action to address climate change.” \nThe Alliance for Climate Protection and the We campaign produced this remarkable ad campaign called “Unlikely Alliances” to address the fact that “climate change is still largely seen through partisan filters, and advocates of action too often must fight entrenched ideology and cultural stereotypes.” Their aim is to break through “partisan gridlock” and invite “Americans of all political stripes” to recognize climate change as a “moral imperative instead of a political issue.” \nTo this end, the campaign includes print advertisements that stress climate change is “going to take all of us, working together.” A second print ad represents a green map of the earth where the continents are constructed out of word clusters such as “Blue and White Collar Workers;” “Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus;” “Farmers, Ranchers, City Slickers;” and “Red States, Blue States.” Accompanying this visual depiction of far-reaching alliances and political bridges is the tagline: “You can’t solve the climate crisis alone. But if we all work together, we can.” \nThe Unlikely Alliances campaign is particularly powerful in the context of an election year. Our political discussions frequently feature political pundits, bloggers, reporters and candidates constructing messages that drive divisive wedges between us rather than building alliances.\nMany of our current debates center on “moral imperatives” that have morphed into ugly political divides – quality education, for example, or health care for all citizens. This environmental advocacy effort offers an excellent counter-model for political action and a strong reminder for all citizens to engage in serious alliance work rather than uncritically accepting divisive messages from political poles, polls and pols.\nWe’re all part of one tremendous “unlikely alliance,” connected by shared communities with a common future and common fate. We certainly have a moral imperative to ensure our shared planet is healthy.\nBut let’s also recognize this campaign as a model for other social and political decision-making. It asks us to avoid self-centered decisions based on personal interest and to consider instead everyone in our unlikely alliances of shared communities.\nWith commitment and practice, it might actually be easy being green – and less politically divisive – or at least easier than we often admit.
(01/24/08 1:44pm)
The golf world has landed in a sand trap of racial controversy.\nKelly Tilghman, a broadcaster on the Golf Channel, jokingly suggested that young golfers could only challenge Tiger Woods’ dominance if they “lynch him in a back alley.” Her light-hearted lynching reference invoked an ugly history of racist murder in this country that has angered many and inspired protests.\nThe Golf Channel issued a statement saying there was “no place ... for offensive language like this;” Tilghman’s words were certainly “grossly inappropriate.” The network suspended her for two weeks, and Tilghman apologized for her “poorly chosen words.” Tiger Woods forgave his friend Tilghman, saying he believes she meant no ill intent. On the other hand, protestors threaten to picket the Golf Channel until it fires Tilghman.\n“Fore!” — the drama gets bigger.\nA week later, Golfweek magazine featured an empty noose on its cover with the caption “Caught in a noose: Tilghman slips up and Golf Channel can’t wiggle free.” The magazine hoped the “provocative graphic” would “convey the controversial issue,” but after extreme negative reaction and criticism, Golfweek quickly fired its editor and became “deeply apologetic.”\nThe decision to publish the noose image was questionable at best. But Dave Seanor, Golfweek’s ousted editor, had good intentions to promote “intelligent dialogue” about “the lack of diversity in golf.” Not only is there a lack of black customers at golf expos, Seanor claimed, “[but] look at the executive suites at the PGA Tour, or the USGA, or the PGA of America. There are very, very few people of color there.” Seanor wanted “more dialogue” about race even though “people don’t want to hear it” and often “brush it under the rug.” Seanor thinks this instance proves “when you bring race and golf into the same sentence, everyone recoils.”\nI’d take it one step further: When you bring race into almost ANY sentence, everyone recoils.\nU.S. culture proves once again it can’t talk intelligently about race because many people have a limited understanding of (nor a desire to learn about) race.\nTilghman made a juvenile, foolish comment for which she accepted responsibility and will be held accountable. However, her apology demonstrated absolutely no learning or understanding. Rather than her standard apology to “viewers who may have been offended,” a healthy apology might be: “I’m sorry. I fully understand how even a joking reference to ‘lynching’ a black man could stir up painful emotions about the ugly history of our country where blacks were regularly murdered that way.”\nSeanor made a bad judgment call, but he honestly tried to start an intelligent conversation on complex racial issues. Unfortunately he was silenced and punished and we reinforced the popular lesson: “Talk about race at your own risk and prepare for the terrible consequences.” In golf, a “mulligan” is a second chance, a re-do after a bad shot. If we offered more “mulligans” in our social world, we might learn more and hit a few more hole-in-ones in our currently abysmal conversation on race.
(09/05/07 10:28pm)
By now, new students probably feel like they’ve been on campus for months instead of two weeks. Sophomores and juniors are finally shaking off mental cobwebs of summer. Some seniors might be looking ahead to job applications or graduate school exams. Whatever your current place on your journey through IU, it’s not too late to revisit some useful advice.\nYou’ve heard it before, probably countless times the longer you’ve been here: “Go see your professors during office hours!” At the risk of sounding redundant, allow me to add to that wise chorus.\nI know there are many reasons not to heed this mantra that parents, professors, advisers and RAs keep repeating. It’s intimidating. It doesn’t win cool points to strike up enlightening conversations with experts in a field. Students might think, “How can this person who’s infinitely older possibly relate to me?” And certainly those 30 minutes could be better spent putting on make-up and fixing your hair to go flirt – excuse me, “work out” – at the SRSC.\nAs an undergrad, I concocted plenty of excuses to avoid actively the resources at my fingertips. But now that I’m on the other side of the fence, I can’t stress enough to the students in my classes: “Use me! I’m here for you!” Or as a great colleague and mentor told his students on the first day of class: “YOU are my job! You’ve paid good money for me to sit in my office and reserve time just to talk to YOU and answer any of your questions.”\nThe same message applies to all the services on this campus. From Writing Tutorial Services to culture centers to Counseling and Psychological Services, IU’s resources will help students through any and all academic, social or personal obstacles that might prevent full development and success. In my opinion, it’s foolish and detrimental to ignore them.\nYet, supportive environments demand efforts on both sides. Faculty and staff must believe firmly that students are their job – moreover, they must act like it. Simply mentioning office hours on the first day of class won’t cut it. We need to convince students we truly want to serve them rather than put on performances that make students feel they’re an inconvenience or impediment to other important work. I’ve experienced downright chilly receptions in student support offices, where staff members have acted severely put out that I’m asking for help and guidance. Students aren’t likely to benefit from all the services that could give them a competitive advantage if people begrudgingly provide such support.\nSo the next time you have a question, concern, obstacle or need, don’t forge ahead alone. Find the people on this campus eager to help you succeed. Think of the lyrics from the great singer-songwriter Bill Withers, who I believe best speaks for IU and all its resources:\n“I wanna spread the news that if it feels this good getting used / Oh you just keep on using me until you use me up.”
(05/22/06 2:43pm)
This weekend "The Da Vinci Code" opened in theaters amidst a cloud of controversy. The portrait of Jesus that the story presents is a topic of debate and angst. (Stop reading if you've somehow missed the great "secret" around which the story revolves.) Dan Brown's captivating mystery/thriller is fueled by the hypothesis that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, they had children and descendents of Jesus are scattered around the world today.\nSome Christians are outraged by this "blasphemous" suggestion. Francis Arinze, a Catholic Cardinal, demanded that Christians stop at nothing to destroy this notion and recommended a lawsuit against the author. Other leaders have urged boycotts of the film (and book) said to be full of "anti-Christian lies."\nShouldn't these folks be happy about the message? The same conservative religious voices loudly preach about the "sanctity of marriage" and protect heterosexual marriage from the "evil" gays and lesbians. If Jesus had been married with children in a "holy" heterosexual relationship, it would be a gold mine for supporting their argument about marriage. These leaders should count their blessings and be happy that no one thinks Jesus was gay ...\n... Too late. A theater production titled "Corpus Christi" already hints at that possibility, along with speculation regarding Jesus' relationship with some of the disciples. Of course this fabulous plot twist in the life and times of Jesus comes under even heavier attack than "The Da Vinci Code."\nWhile we fight about whether Jesus was single or married, celibate or sexually active, gay or straight or pansexual or asexual, at least we can all agree that Jesus was a good ol' "white bread" Caucasian with fair, flowing, blondish-brown hair, right?\nNot exactly ... logic tells us that Jesus looked nothing like the WASPy images most Christians hold dear -- the man came from the Middle East and the odds of him being fair skinned with long hair blowing in the wind are slim at best. \nYet, we certainly don't see the powers that be rushing to change the pictures of Jesus over the altar. If Christians want accuracy in their movies, why didn't we hear mass criticism when Mel Gibson cast a western European, white Jesus in "Passion of the Christ?"\nIt seems that a hundred pages of Biblical text don't offer a concrete, infallible image of the namesake of a religion. And considering that there is almost no mention of the middle 20 years or so of Jesus' life, it's safe to say the particular details about this man are woolly at best.\nThe point to be made here is not whether an ancient man we call Jesus was definitively this or that. I certainly wasn't around to see and neither were any of the other staunch defenders of a specific and narrow image of Jesus. \nBrown writes in his novel "the Church should not be allowed to tell us what notions we can and can't entertain." \nOnce we get stuck defending a rigid, symbolic ideal that we claim to be FACT, it seems to undermine the whole notion of FAITH.
(05/14/06 11:14pm)
The first time I saw the preview for "United 93," I became emotional and bothered. I knew that a debate was circling about whether it was "too soon" for this movie or whether Hollywood was "exploiting" the tragedy -- but it wasn't those concerns that troubled me. Instead, I had vivid flashbacks of my days as an American Airlines flight attendant and the many days I have silently contemplated the morbid yet realistic thoughts of "What would I have done if I were working on that plane?"\nThat morning I was minutes away from leaving for a flight from Chicago's O'Hare Airport when my roommate's mother called to ensure we were both safe at home. We were both flight attendants, and the first plane had just hit the World Trade Center tower. After her concerned mother's call, we rushed to the television and sat in stunned silence, watching the events unfold. With flights grounded for almost 10 days we could only sit and reflect on the tragedy, while others tried to heed calls to "go back to work" and "return to normalcy."\nRecently I decided to subject myself to the experience of "United 93." I was sure I wouldn't make it through the film, but it wasn't what I expected.\nWatching the passengers leave loving voicemails for their families for the last time was heart-wrenching. Witnessing the determined and heroic fight for control of the plane was gut-wrenching. Most supporters of "United 93" intently emphasize this bravery and heroism in the face of certain death -- and this aspect should not be downplayed.\nBut for me, the most important message in the film was a critique of the disturbing lack of coordination and responsiveness at every level -- the FAA, the military, the administration. The reaction of air traffic controllers who practically dismissed the first signs of a possible hijacking -- "We haven't had one of those in 20 years!" -- the delayed launch of fighter jets, which were deployed in the wrong direction and couldn't acquire necessary air space authorization; the President's authorization for the military to "engage" civilian aircraft, which came only after flight 93 had already crashed.\nIt's tempting to dismiss this disorganization saying, "No one could have predicted this." But the 9-11 Commission's report revealed that there were plenty of unheeded warnings that might have prevented the tragedy. It's also tempting to believe our "post-9-11 mindset" has corrected such grievous miscommunications. But look no further than last year's Katrina disaster to see that communication among the administration and the agencies designed to "protect" us remains weak at best.\nRemembering American heroism is fine, but not if it leads us on a sentimental journey away from difficult questions. I encourage everyone to see the film and to remember the tragic losses and then think about where we still fall short of ensuring that such devastating events never happen again.
(05/11/06 12:12am)
Who says that fruits and vegetables aren't "manly?" My regular trips to the produce section reveal plenty of phallic veggies that are more "man" than I've ever encountered. But apparently my decision not to eat meat makes me a girly-man -- at least if you believe some recent commercials.\nAn ad for some quadruple-Texas-barbeque-burger-with-extra-bacon features extremely manly men singing in bass voices, "I'm a man! And I eat meat!" Burly, caricaturized men gruffly romp through the city streets and give one another hearty slaps on the back in their quest for grilled masculinity on a bun. (No doubt you can order that burger with extra machismo sauce or request additional testosterone on the side.)\nAnother commercial features four men who raise their forks one-by-one and, with the most Neanderthal-ish grunts, declare the contents of their tough guy meals: "RIBS ... BEEF ... PORK" until the fourth guy raises a broccoli floret: "VEGETABLE MEDLEY." The table freezes and disapproving eyes turn to the freak who doesn't eat meat. Veggie-boy quickly corrects himself grunting, "SAUSAGE" -- order is restored at the table.\nThese commercials tap into a ridiculous cultural belief that links meat with hyper-masculinity. I guess it goes back to the whole pre-civilization "hunter / gatherer" role for men. But today, what's so manly about ordering a chunk of meat at the nearest fast food joint that came from some mass-produced, hormone-injected animal that probably spent its entire life confined to a tiny cell with no natural light? Does picking up a slab of beef from the butcher (that neither person had any hand in slaughtering) really make a guy more masculine?\nThis unhealthy ideal of hyper-masculinity linked to eating meat is a completely illogical connection implanted in our cultural consciousness. These commercials provide faulty, questionable instructions on how "real" men behave, which complement all the other stupid rules we learn: "real men" play sports, drink beer, don't cry, (insert a thousand other appropriate "man" behaviors). And the unstated, obvious implications that men who do not eat meat are somehow more feminine, should be looked down upon and will never measure up also feed into the rigid rules of gender (and sexuality) that so many people refuse to question. Unfortunately, these rules start from day one. My sister is pregnant with my future nephew and has lamented that it is impossible to find little boy clothes that aren't blue with footballs, trucks or trains.\nSo where do I fit into the "rules" -- a vegetarian, gay man who loves sports (especially football and basketball), cries at movies (but not in public) and refuses to ask directions? \nCorrect answer: Who cares? \nRather than accepting the "rules" and pegging people into the proper side of the masculine/feminine binary, we ought to question the rules and let people define their own behaviors and identities. The unattainable myths of "real" men and women create strife and discrimination. Real PEOPLE don't establish and accept narrow rules of behavior that confine and regulate one another and limit who we might become.