12 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/14/08 3:30am)
Welcome to the most anticipated, dreaded, loved, feared and cherished day of the year. Call it Valentine’s Day, Singles Awareness Day, a “Hallmark Holiday” or simply Feb. 14, but everyone has an opinion about this blessed or cursed day.\nI believe our cultural ambivalence over Valentine’s Day results from our tendency to idealize relationships. We dream of perfect unions that meet all expectations and have no problems. We idealize love into an all-or-nothing affair, then we get frustrated when life doesn’t resemble the models we see in movies, music and Hallmark cards. Here’s how the cycle of love works (win a prize for naming every song and artist):\nIn new relationships, we see “a whole new world” from “a new fantastic point of view” with “no one to tell us ‘no’ or where to go, or say we’re only dreaming.” We celebrate the perfect person who became “my strength when I was weak,” “my voice when I couldn’t speak” and “my eyes when I couldn’t see,” the person who made me “everything I am, because you loved me.”\nIn moments of passion we excitedly suggest, “Let’s talk about sex” or “Voulez vous coucher avec moi ce soir?” Maybe we even get a little kinky: “I’m a slave 4 U.”\nIn moments of bliss, we swear, “I wanna love you forever ... 10,000 lifetimes together.” You’ll “always be my baby.” “This I promise you.”\nThen we fall short of perfection. We get “shot through the heart” and those we love are to blame – “You give love a bad name!” When love falls short of idealized standards (it always does) we quickly ask, “Will someone please call a surgeon who can crack my ribs and repair this broken heart?” “I loved you endlessly,” we lament, but “now it’s time to leave and make it alone ... Baby, bye, bye, bye!”\nWe remind ourselves, “I will survive!” “I’m a survivor. I’m not gonna give up. I’m not gonna stop, I’m gonna work harder.” But soon, we fall into the pits of despair, crying “All by myself! ... Don’t wanna be all by myself anymore!” So we once again wish, “Dreamlover come rescue me ... I need you so desperately.”\nI’ve been all over this cycle in my life. When I played straight in 5th grade, I made a Valentine’s bracelet for a girl who wasn’t my girlfriend. I got payback when my eighth-grade girlfriend got back together with her ex-boyfriend at the Valentine’s dance. More recently, I spent 10 years of Valentine’s Days wishing for a relationship with my now ex-boyfriend to work out. Unfortunately, dreaming of perfection distracted me from the hard work of making a relationship work.\nNow I’m lucky to be in a relationship with a man who graciously deals with my imperfections and baggage. We don’t strive for “perfection.” Instead, we work well together through bumps in life.\nThe perfect-to-tumultuous romance of love songs makes good music. But for me, embracing the imperfections of love makes this an “ideal” Valentine’s Day.
(02/07/08 3:29am)
American democracy is an illusion. Before this country continues to force-feed democracy to the far corners of the earth, we’d do well to evaluate our own sketchy democratic process.\nEspecially troubling is the inclusion of “superdelegates” who vote for the Democratic party’s presidential nominee. Political leaders, totalling 842 in all, including Democratic governors, members of Congress, former presidents Clinton and Carter and Democratic National Committee members get a strongly-weighted vote that could help swing the eventual nomination toward Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In other words, it is possible that the people’s choice could be trumped by those already in power.\nFor example, even though Clinton finished in third place after the first Iowa caucuses, she was still in first place for the nomination with 69 more delegates than Obama, thanks largely to the superdelegates backing her.\nThe Democratic Party created superdelegates in order to ensure some power and control over the nomination process. Democrats wanted to guarantee that the American people would not select a nominee who was too radical, too out of sync with the people already in power. In other words, all this talk of “change” that Clinton and Obama deliver becomes questionable when we know the powerful party elites work to nominate someone who will best maintain the status quo.\nWe’re told that all voices are equal in our political process. But the superdelegates suggest that some are more “equal” than others.\nThis week’s Super Tuesday is also a super farce. For that matter, the primary elections as a whole slap the democratic process in the face. Why do the good folks of Iowa and New Hampshire get to set the tone for the entire race for the presidential nomination? (“Tradition” is not an acceptable answer.) By the time people of Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska and Oregon vote in May, the nominee will likely be determined. In essence, those states don’t get to vote. \nCitizens in only six states had the option to vote for John Edwards. The votes in those six states forced a strong candidate out of the race before the other 44 states got to weigh in. Edwards’ own constituents in North Carolina won’t get to cast a ballot for him.\nA more democratic primary election process would set one day for national primaries so that some states don’t control the nomination process.\nImagine if we elected a president that way? Wait, we do. But instead of discarding the opinion of an entire state, we just ignore the votes of a large percentage of each state. The Electoral College system erases the red votes from the blue states and the blue votes from the red states. No state is 100 percent Democratic or Republican, but our final tallies treat them that way.\n“Go vote!” we say. “It’s your civic duty!” But don’t be upset when we don’t really count your vote.
(01/31/08 4:02am)
President Bush delivered his final State of the Union Address Monday night, only to be met with the sounds of crickets chirping across the country. I got the sense that this final address was a complete non-event. With President Bush’s approval ratings hovering in the low 30s, polls suggest most Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Everyone (including Democrats and Republicans) is so swept away by the future presidential nominees that the annual State of the Union address felt like an afterthought. A senior adviser to former Vice President Al Gore said, “Nothing he says is going to be important for anything that happens in the next 12 months.”\nI’d have felt interest if I thought President Bush would finally inject a dose of reality into the speech, but no such luck. It was just another demonstration of disconnect between him and the country. Nevertheless, in case you missed it, here are a few great moments of detachment from Dubya’s final report.\nHe called for Congress to reauthorize the infamous No Child Left Behind Act, of which he claimed: “Today no one can deny its results.” Of course he failed to clarify how we should define “results.” Would a result be training children how to pass standardized tests rather than think critically? Perhaps another one is cutting funding to schools that need it most – where classrooms are over crowded, resources are scarce, teachers receive poor compensation, and therefore children “fail?” Those are his results?\nPresident Bush also dedicated very little of his 53-minute speech to citizens’ growing concerns about the economy. Instead he referenced Iraq more times than ever. He chose to ignore the principal fears of his constituents and made one last ditch effort to divert attention and drum up support for unpopular, ill-conceived military aggression that in many ways has contributed to the current economic worries.\nAnd in a statement that harkened back to his once-celebrated promise to be a “uniter, not a divider,” he called for Congress and the presidential nominees to “show ,our fellow Americans, that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time.” Unfortunately, after President Bush’s abysmal demonstration of cooperation and unity in the last eight years, such admonitions appear empty. After terrorists attacked the country, Bush squandered the few months of proud, flag-waving national unity. He squandered the goodwill of nations that wanted to sympathize with our tragedy. He rejected bills that didn’t match his one-track vision. His demands for marriage amendments, abortion laws, stem-cell limitations and other socially-divisive politics continued the harmful culture wars that distract us from cooperating over the concerns that could actually strengthen our nation.\nTherefore, I offer my uplifting State of the Union address to you: We are T-minus 354 days and counting before the state of the union finally moves from troubled to hopeful.
(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.
(01/17/08 2:59am)
All the Democratic presidential candidates ever talk about is “change.” Who is the best change agent? Who will change politics? Who will bring positive change to our country? It’s enough to make me change the channel.\nOne thing seems almost certain: the Democrats will present a candidate who will significantly change the tragically limited presidential mold of “white” and “male.” Both Obama and Clinton assert the campaign isn’t about race or gender. But after 42 white men have led our country of “justice” and “equality” for almost 220 years, the candidates are foolish to deny that a long overdue breakthrough isn’t significant.\nDespite the talk of change, when it comes to issues of race and racism it seems Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama play traditional games – diversions, empty generalizations and silence.\nObama and Clinton spent a week sparring over Clinton’s supposed diss of Martin Luther King, Jr. Obama’s people claimed that Clinton downplayed Dr. King’s role in passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Clinton shot back that Obama distorted her remarks and injected unnecessary racial tension into the presidential contest. As if to insure no misunderstandings, Clinton has strongly affirmed her respect and admiration for Dr. King. “Each of us, no matter who we are or where we started from, is a beneficiary of Dr. King,” she said.\nObama has since conceded, “We share the same goals, ... we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights.” He added, “I think [the Clintons] care about the African American community ... and they want to see equal rights and equal justice in this country.”\nClinton offered her own olive branch, saying the racial tit-for-tat “does not reflect what is in our hearts” and that “when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity ... Senator Obama and I are on the same side.”\nAnd so the “racial tension” subsides with generic commitments to equality while the significant issues that continue to plague people of color in this country (not to mention women and all people living in poverty) go unmentioned. We hear about the candidates’ plans for Iraq, for education or health care (generally speaking), but not about the specific realities of racism in everyday life.\nForty-five years ago Dr. King spoke of “manacles of segregation,” “chains of discrimination,” and the “lonely island of poverty” in a “vast ocean of material prosperity.” Today, those conditions haven’t changed; they’re just harder to see. Yet, our political leaders create stirs over trivial misunderstandings rather than nooses in Jena, La., educational and health care disparities, income gaps, housing discrimination, and incarceration statistics that all alarmingly point out that the “bank of justice” Dr. King described still distributes bad checks to people in our country based on race.\nReal change would be candid truth about the continued shortcomings of our great country followed by action. Real change would be for all candidates to address the inequalities because they aren’t black issues or women’s issues, but United States issues – our issues.
(01/10/08 3:22am)
After seeing Disney’s recent live-action, animation blended fairy tale “Enchanted,” I felt anything but.\nDisney’s animated movies don’t always carry the most socially responsible messages for children, particularly for girls. From arguably racist depictions (a gang of hyenas with seemingly over-emphasized black and Hispanic accents in “The Lion King”), to sexist messages (the meek princess who won’t be truly happy until her prince arrives), to representations that reinforce unhealthy body images, Disney’s animated kingdom has plenty to criticize.\nGenerally I can temper the critique enough to enjoy the movie with a critical eye. But with “Enchanted,” I found myself more frustrated by the movie’s heterosexism than captivated by the movie’s magic. I realize our world still won’t accept a movie where Aladdin takes Prince Charming on a magic carpet ride or where Prince William and Prince Michael share true love’s kiss. I’m not holding my breath for Disney to be that progressive. Therefore, I tolerate animated love stories that don’t include gay or lesbian love interests.\nBut the premise behind this Disney film is that an evil queen (no, that doesn’t count as a gay theme) magically transports Princess Giselle from their animated kingdom to a faraway land – the real world of present day New York City. Giselle hopes for her prince to rescue her and take her back home, but she soon falls in love with a New Yorker and lives happily ever after in real life.\nCute idea. But here’s where the movie lost me. While the movie successfully captured much of the richness and diversity of 21st century Manhattan, nowhere did it even hint at the presence of a gay couple. In a movie about love in New York City in 2007, the directors couldn’t slip in a two second shot of a gay or lesbian couple? It’s as if we didn’t even exist.\nThe movie had an excellent opportunity to showcase a broad set of relationships. The movie’s big musical number “That’s How You Know” explains how you let someone know you love them. Princess Giselle sings and dances through Central Park with a chorus of couples including youthful newlyweds to octogenarians, Jewish couples, black couples, Asian couples, interracial couples. But not a single gay or lesbian couple joined the chorus of the love song as they sang and frolicked through the park. A tolerable omission in an animated, enchanted forest, but Central Park in 2007? And no queer folk in sight? Impossible.\nIf nothing else, it’s impossible to produce such a fabulous musical number without a few gays on the creative team. Surely the director could’ve slipped them into a frame. \nMomentary inclusion in a film seems like such a small hope that would have such a large impact. Unfortunately, the omission and erasure of gays and lesbians in movies about blind love renders our love invisible and keeps alive the attitude that our relationships are neither normal nor worthy of recognition.\nIf only this queen could magically transport those attitudes to another world.
(10/10/07 11:21pm)
We all have anniversaries to celebrate. The standards such as birthdays, first dates or weddings; significant events such as deaths; or life changes such as coming out (my 12-year “Gay Day” anniversary is this fall).\nI invite you to help me commemorate my five-year anniversary as a vegetarian during this Vegetarian Awareness Month.\nFive years ago, I bit into a chicken breast sandwich and had a vivid, horrifying flash of the muscle tissue I was tearing apart with my teeth. A bloodied chicken flashed in my mind. I might as well have chomped down right between the wings of a squawking chicken. I set the sandwich down, and I decided I would try two weeks without meat.\nI never thought I’d make it. A Texas boy who grew up on beef and barbeque going meat-free? But two weeks passed, and I wasn’t foaming at the mouth for a lamb chop or side of bacon. Instead, I was surprised how easy it had been.\nThanksgiving was approaching, and I was certain I would cave in the presence of a browned turkey carcass. But when Thanksgiving hit, the pumpkin pies, sweet potatoes, beans and bread were the only foods that appealed to me. Animal flesh no longer made my list of things to be thankful for on the fourth Thursday of November. Particularly when that animal has been defeathered, beheaded, gutted and then had its tastiest organs shoved back into its empty chest cavity for resale. Yum.\nIn the five years since then, I can safely say I have felt healthier and more energetic. I’ve had far fewer illnesses and allergies since cutting out meat. For any of you who question whether you can truly get adequate nutrition as a vegetarian, my response is that I doubt I could have run 12 marathons on a vegetarian diet and stayed healthy through it all without adequate nutrition.\nBut, perhaps more significant than the health benefits are the ethical reasons for keeping flesh off my plate. Muscle tissue loses its appeal when it comes from suffering animals. Most of the animals you eat come from large industrial complexes, not lush green pastures with happy cows and pigs. They exist in confined quarters with little to no room to move and no fresh air, pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics. They are often mutilated through debeaking, tail clipping and the like.\nLinda McCartney said, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian.” \nSo check out www.factoryfarm.org or watch footage from www.slaughterhousecam.com. Does that chicken strip taste as good when it came from a debeaked bird? Does the image of slitting a cow’s throat make your next steak taste as “juicy”?\nIn the end, it’s a personal choice. If blissful ignorance with a side of pork works for you, then grab your fork and spear that meat. But if animal cruelty and killing leaves a bad taste in your mouth, then do some research and try a two-week trial run.\nYou might find a new anniversary to commemorate.
(10/04/07 12:16am)
That criteria will you use to pick the president? Education reform or tax-cut plans? Strategies for Iraq? Or maybe just the way the candidate laughs?\nRecent buzz about Senator Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her policies, initiatives or political plans. She’s under fire because of her laughter, what several reporters have dubbed, \n“The Cackle.”\nAt last week’s Democratic debate, former Senator Mike Gravel criticized her vote on an Iran resolution; she laughed before responding to his attack. On Sept. 23, Clinton appeared on all the major morning talk shows and laughed several times throughout the programs. She laughed at a question on Fox News about being “hyper-partisan,” and she chuckled before responding to a few questions about health care.\nThe reactions to her laughter are, in a word, laughable.\n“The Daily Show with John Stewart” assembled a montage of Clinton’s so-called “cackle” from the talk shows and mocked her seemingly oddly timed chuckles. Some critics call her laughter overly calculated and controlled, a way to dodge hard questions. More conservative critics wage harsher attacks. Dick Morris from Fox News described “The Cackle” as “a loud, inappropriate and mirthless laugh – a scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech.” Morris says her laugh is “often too long and too loud” and she sounds “just like a laughing hyena.” (Another fine example of “fair and balanced” reporting in the Fox “no-spin zone.”) Sean Hannity has questioned whether her laugh is presidential.\nWhat exactly does “presidential” laughter sound like? And more importantly, how do several hours of interviews with Clinton about her policies and goals get reduced to a three-second sound-byte of laughter? And not just laughter but “scary” sounding, “inappropriate and mirthless,” hyena-like laughter.\nLaughter isn’t the only bad joke in the political conversation. Pundits criticize Hillary’s hairstyles and clothing as if those attributes influence her political judgment. Al Gore was attacked for kissing his wife too passionately at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. Howard Dean lost all his political momentum when an excited holler at the end of a passionate, rallying speech became known as the “Dean Scream,” which caused people to question the man’s sanity. And Barack Obama has already been smeared because he smokes, because his last name sounds too much like Osama, because his middle name is Hussein and because he’s not “black enough” (or “too black”).\nThese political diversions add little depth to the public’s knowledge and awareness of the presidential candidates. If we’re going to nitpick and debate, let’s focus on more pressing issues rather than attacking the candidates for their human quirks and behaviors.\nWhat about the 47 million Americans without health insurance (including more than eight million children)? What about more than 36 million Americans living in poverty? What about our immigration concerns? I suppose it doesn’t matter – as long as our president doesn’t “cackle.” \nThe hubbub over Clinton’s laugh is much ado about nothing. We need more ado about the issues that keep many Americans from laughing.
(09/27/07 2:07am)
Today, this gay man’s version of the Holy Virgin Mary returns to primetime television with braces, thick glasses and a poncho from Guadalajara. “Ugly Betty” – alternately known as Queer Betty in my world – is back. It is a show that brings laughter, tears, serious life lessons and, most importantly, stories to which we can ALL relate every single week. Betty’s made me a believer – ugly is the new beautiful.\nIt’s often hard for me to identify with characters in popular entertainment. I can appreciate the broader experiences and sagas about love, friendship, isolation and belonging. But it gets a little tiresome when I only see these human dramas unfold between Rachel and Ross or Dr. Grey and Dr. Shepherd or any of the other millions of heterosexual couples on TV or the movies.\nOn the few occasions when major gay characters appear, they typically are not well-developed or complex. We see the flaming, eccentric funny gay; the evil, eccentric side-kick gay; the asexual, best-friend, be-there-when-your-boyfriend-dumps-you (and still usually a little eccentric) gay.\n“Will and Grace” tried to be progressive and it had a few funny and provocative moments, but for me, it never adequately touched the complexity of queer culture and experience. Like most shows with gay themes, it typically fell back on the quirky/best-friend gay caricatures and it used sexuality primarily as the punch line, something to laugh at or something to make the audience uncomfortable.\nAfter a lifetime of exclusively heterosexual storylines or gay characters to which I couldn’t (and didn’t want to) fully relate, it’s refreshing and encouraging that “Ugly Betty” has crossed so many boundaries in such a short time.\n“Ugly Betty” chronicles the life of an openly-gay administrative assistant who struggles with the process of coming out to his mother; an adorably swishy adolescent who loves musicals, fashion, and all that is fabulous and whose family loves and supports him regardless of the gender roles he fits or breaks; and a transgender (male-to-female) character who fights for family acceptance and regularly confronts deeply-rooted social prejudice and intolerance. And that only scratches the surface of the issues this program explores.\nBut the beauty of “Ugly Betty” is that we see not only the complexity, depth and uniqueness of various queer characters, but also the similarity of their experiences and concerns with those of other characters. It’s a magical balance of honoring and recognizing diverse experiences while building closer relationships through shared emotion. The feelings and reactions of the gayest characters relate to problems we all experience, particularly as each one of us struggles with issues of self-acceptance, being true to ourselves, and living with honesty about, and taking pride in, our many identities.\n“Ugly Betty” invites us to reject the shame that others impose when we don’t fit a mold or a supposed norm and replace it with understanding and acceptance. And she gets you to laugh while doing it.\nWe’re all a little queer. Embrace it and enjoy it.
(09/20/07 3:49am)
Another off-color joke, another raucous outcry. And this time, Jesus was involved.\nWhen comedian Kathy Griffin won an Emmy for her reality TV show “My Life on the D-List,” she delivered the following acceptance speech: “A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.” As she held up her statuette, she proclaimed, “Suck it, Jesus! This award is my God now.” The audience laughed; the chorus of offended critics did not.\nThe Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights condemned her speech as “obscene and blasphemous.” Catholic League President Bill Donohue dubbed her remarks a “vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech.” He compared it to Isaiah Washington’s “faggot,” Don Imus’ “Nappy-headed hos” and Michael Richards’ “nigger”-laced tirade – questionable comparisons in my opinion since these instances involve specific, personal attacks on individuals.\nLauren Green on FOXNews.com became the voice of “millions of Christians” with her criticism of the offensive language. Green went on to demonstrate why, in fact, “Jesus had everything to do with her winning that award.” In short, if Jesus hadn’t died, we wouldn’t have free speech in the United States, so Griffin should thank him. A fine example of fallacious reasoning, but that’s not the point today.\nGriffin was unrepentant: “I hope I offended some people,” she said. “Am I the only Catholic left with a sense of humor?” Don’t worry, Kathy – I thought it was funny social commentary.\nI find it more alarming when prideful people believe their chosen deity pulled strings on their behalves to help them win awards, emerge victorious in football games or bless their countries in war. The implication is that God didn’t smile as fondly on the losers or enemies.\nBut even more troubling is the quick strike to punish those we find “offensive” and to shut down further conversation. After comparing Griffin to recent offenders, Donohue said, “Every time a celebrity offends a segment of the population, he pays a price, in one way or another. The question now is whether Kathy Griffin will pay a similar price for her outburst.”\n“Pay the price?” Why such vengefulness? Personal offense should not mandate harsh punishment and discipline. Censorship and demands for blanket apologies will not get us very far. If we respond to “offensive remarks” with attacks that aim to cover-up and obliterate the original ideas, then we often end up deeply entrenched in narrow, warring factions. We miss learning opportunities that could help us think more deeply about our beliefs, our relationships and our world. We’d do better to stumble through these disagreements together rather than strike back and squash the offensive enemy.\nWe face a complex world with an endless amount of “offensive” material regarding race, spirituality, sexuality and so on. So be offended, but let’s choose positive ways to react and respond.\nAnd to those who go on the offensive when offended: Suck it.
(09/13/07 1:49am)
The MTV Video Music Awards in Las Vegas last weekend delivered a standard menu of the good, the bad and the ugly.\nThe ugly: Britney Spear’s clumsy, stripper-channeling opening performance has kept post-awards commentators buzzing. But I won’t kick a tragic mess when she’s down, so let’s consider Kanye West, who was both the bad and the good.\nWest received the poor loser award – again. At the 2006 MTV Europe Video Music Awards he rushed the stage and unleashed an expletive filled tirade explaining why his video should’ve won an award. Last weekend West was shut out in all five categories for which he was nominated so he threw a tantrum backstage, swore he’d never return to MTV, and shouted, “That’s two years in a row, man ... give a black man a chance. I’m trying hard man, I have the No. 1 record, man.”\n “Give a black man a chance?” As if racist voters banded together to ensure Kanye perceived a “whites only” sign at the VMAs. My knee-jerk reaction is to reject his complaint and highlight the absurdity of the claim. The list of recent VMA winners includes Usher, Outkast, Jay-Z, Ludacris, 50 Cent – even Kanye West as the Best Male Video winner in 2005. Diddy and Chris Rock recently hosted the ceremony. The VMAs have given black men a chance, and black women, too: notably Missy Elliot, Alicia Keys and Beyoncé in recent years.\nBut after my quick dismissal, I thought more critically about Kanye’s outburst. The bad became the good in the form of a serious civic lesson.\nThe specific truth of his complaint isn’t as important as the fact that it’s true for West. Why not consider the reasons Kanye believes race is involved?\nAs a white guy who can choose never to think about my race, I can claim easily, “race has nothing to do with it.” But it’s safe to assume that as a black man in the United States, West has ample experience with racism. For someone whose race is called to his attention virtually every day, presumptions of racial bias are not far-fetched. Who am I to dismiss his feelings and experiences of racism simply because I don’t understand or don’t want to admit that something that seems fair to me appears to be anything but to someone else?\nIt’s likely the quick dismissal only echoes and amplifies his negative racial encounters. Imagine your reaction if day-in and day-out your experiences and feelings were wholly refuted and rejected. You’d be upset, too.\nInstead, if we take seriously Kanye’s perspective, we might look at other events more critically. For example, Kid Rock assaulted Tommy Lee at the VMAs last weekend and the public treated it as an isolated feud between two stupid guys. But if a black rap artist had assaulted another black artist, the public would see further evidence that black men are depraved and menacing. Maybe Kanye West’s frustration isn’t so misguided.\nAnd maybe West’s frankness and honesty about the bad and ugly of racism in America is ultimately good.
(09/04/07 11:48pm)
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.”