43 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(08/11/10 8:49pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Proposition 8, which voters had approved in a 2008 referendum.In overturning Prop 8, the presiding judge, Vaughn Walker, marked a historic moment in the struggle for gay rights.Although the case will likely be heard on appeal by higher courts, Judge Walker’s decision is a testament to the importance of equal protection under the law, which is constitutionally guaranteed to all Americans by the 14th Amendment.“Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause,” Judge Walker wrote in his decision. “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”This decision provides a strong legal foundation for striking down discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.So, although gays should of course have the right to marry just as straights do, should they embrace this institution?Given the countless flaws in straight tradition, gays should take a hard look at marriage and consider it a superfluous heteronormative ritual that should be rejected.In the words of “Queer as Folk” character Brian Kinney — the most popular gay TV character of all time — “We’re queer. We don’t need marriage. We don’t need the sanction of dick-less politicians and pederast priests. We fuck who we want to, when we want to.”Kinney’s rejection of marriage, relationships and love as heteronormative rituals has sparked controversy among the gay community, though his popularity is unassailable.Described by another character as the “love child of James Dean and Ayn Rand,” Kinney espouses Objectivist philosophy in all aspects of life.He chooses to satisfy all his desires and impulses, which in turn makes him come off as promiscuous, narcissistic and self-indulgent.Ignoring these trivial ad hominem attacks, Kinney is the most successful character in the show, despite the fact that he never gets married and never even enters a committed, monogamous relationship.He embraces sex as a human, biological imperative and sees traditional, monogamous marriage as a denial of human nature. This view has been supported by many famous philosophers in history.Plato criticized monogamous marriage as an institution that fosters selfishness and feelings of inherent ownership, which fragments community and society.Instead, he recommended communal marriages and group sex, which would satisfy our biological imperative without enforcing self-indulgence.The existential philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir argued that marriage, as the joining of free selves in one heading, denies freedom, which is the complete foundation of the self.Marriage denies freedom, a fundamental human and American value. With this in mind, all people — straight and gay alike — should consider the countless negatives associated with marriage before tying the knot.In addition, because marital traditions vary so greatly by religion and culture, our country should abolish marriage as a legal contract.Instead, we should only endow civil unions, which would leave marriage to be defined by the individuals who want to define themselves as married.Otherwise, following Walker’s logic in his overturning of Prop 8, state governments are also denying polygamists and first cousins their equal right to marry as traditional, straight couples do.This means we should see federal courts decriminalizing cousin marriages in several states where it is illegal to marry a first cousin.Do we really want to see that happen? Instead, let’s just abolish marriage as a legal contract and not have to worry about it.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(08/04/10 10:52pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Muslim community center to be built just blocks from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan cleared its final hurdle on Tuesday and was approved for construction.As a pleasant surprise, New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0, denying historic protection for the building that currently occupies the site where developers plan to build the $100 million center, which will include a mosque.Though this news should hardly be noteworthy, it unfortunately is.Since its incipient stages in July 2009, when a Muslim-run real-estate development company purchased the damaged, vacant building and land where the new center will be built, the project has sparked controversy and debate.Repugnant Republican and conservative leaders and pundits have lashed out against the project, criticizing it as provocative and insensitive to the families of 9/11 victims. How could popular political leaders ever dare to speak out against religious equality in the United States?They can, unfortunately, because they are simply saying what the many Americans are thinking. Polls indicate that 52 percent of New York City voters are opposed to the center and mosque’s construction.Among the prejudiced right-wingers who have spoken out against the building, the most prominent are potential Republican presidential candidates such as 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.Palin said the mosque and Muslim community center would create an “unnecessary provocation,” and went on to tweet: “Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.”Her position is completely ignorable, based on her unintelligible contention — “refudiate” isn’t even a word.Gingrich said he opposed the construction, though “it’s not about religion and is clearly an aggressive act that is offensive,” he said.He went on to posit that since the complex would be dubbed the Cordoba House, its name would be a symbol of Islam triumphing over Christianity, recalling the Moorish conquest of Spain during the eighth century.The thinly veiled prejudice in Gingrich’s attack relies on a deliberate misinterpretation of the name.The Cordoba House recalls Cordoba, Spain, as the capital of the Caliphate of Cordoba during the period of Muslim rule of Spain when the nation prospered and inter-faith diplomacy with Christian kings flourished.The name is a symbol of religious pluralism, not the subjugation of one faith by another.Romney’s opposition is the most worrying and hypocritical. Using his specious logic, Romney has conflated all Muslim terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida, with the Islamic faith itself. His statements and ideas thus smack of intolerance, stereotyping and naked prejudice.In 2005, Romney called for what would have been unprecedented surveillance of certain mosques and other places of worship. These actions come from a former and probably future presidential candidate — and member of a religious minority, the Mormon church — who has trumpeted respect for all faiths in hopes of increasing his chances in future elections.Worse yet, the tattered building that was bought by the Muslim real estate company had been owned by a subsidiary of Bain Capital, a company Romney founded in 1984.So it’s OK if his company can profit off the sale of the land, but he’s ideologically opposed to how Muslims can use it.Other prominent groups, such as the American Center for Law & Justice and the Anti-Defamation League have cited similar arguments in their opposition to the building of the center and mosque.Yet, now that building can begin without any more approval hurdles, all those who opposed its construction will be desperate to clear their names as a part of this vile opposition. No one wants to be remembered as having been against equality, especially religious equality.However, just like 9/11 must never vanish from the minds of Americans, we must never forget this intolerance and prejudice.The GOP, the party of Abraham Lincoln, lost its civil rights appeal when it dragged its heels during the 1960s and the following decades.The opposition to this mosque and community center by GOP leaders confirms that the party is irreparably obsolete and anachronistic.Conservatives should find a new party to be a part of, because as the minority population in the United States multiplies, the GOP will become only a menacing shadow from the past.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(07/28/10 10:02pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The definition of rape has run amok recently.Whether one considers Roman Polanski’s success in evading an American extradition request on child-rape charges or Bill Donahue’s assertion that the Catholic Church’s pedophile dilemma is truly a homosexual crisis, it is clear that rape is in the headlines — and its definition has grown less and less clear.The latest and most vile re-interpretation of rape’s definition comes from Israel, with its conviction of Sabar Kashur for “rape by deception.”Kashur, a Palestinian man, was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison for the “rape by deception” of a Jewish woman, who claimed she would not have had sex with him had she known he was Arab.Their encounter happened two years ago and lasted about 15 minutes.Kashur was shopping for cigarettes in a store in Jerusalem when a 20-something woman, the complainant, struck up a conversation with him, saying Kashur had a nice bike.The two carried on a conversation in fluent Hebrew for a few minutes, exchanging names and small talk. Not long after, they made their way onto a nearby rooftop. They then had sex, which Kashur said the woman initiated.Kashur then got up and left the building without waiting for the woman to get dressed. Somehow, the woman figured out that Kashur was not Jewish and filed a complaint with the police. She was later given a medical examination that showed no signs of force or injury.Having gotten her phone number during their brief exchange, Kashur didn’t remember whose number it was until six weeks later when he was looking through his contacts. He called her, and once he remembered who she was, he asked to see her again.Though she agreed, she neither met him nor responded to any more of his calls or texts.Three days later, the police called him to their station, where he was interrogated before being charged with rape and indecent assault. Having being convicted, he is under house arrest while awaiting appeal.The judges who presided over his case determined that, although this wasn’t “a classical rape by force” and the sex was consensual, the consent itself was obtained through deception and under false pretenses.This was not rape by any stretch of the imagination. The complainant, who is no real victim of sexual assault, merely had a change of heart after having consensual sex with Kashur.Sure, she might not have had sex with him had she known he was Arab, but hindsight is always 20/20.Yet the Israeli judges lent credibility to this petty, discriminatory claim of rape with their conviction.I sincerely doubt charges would have been pursued if Kashur had been the complainant, because he is a male and an Arab.This case not only reflects on the sad state of ethnic relations in Israel but denigrates the severity of real sexual assault and rape as well.Imagine if similarly unfounded charges could be filed as easily in America.Countless scorned lovers could have one another brought up on rape charges because they didn’t know some minute, insignificant background detail about a partner.On college campuses, drunken bros could have women brought up on rape charges for misleading them with push-up bras and makeup. Women could have the bros charged for being too drunk to get it up. It would be pure bedlam.As a serious crime with possible life-long emotional and physical injuries, rape must be charged only when appropriate.Otherwise, its misuse cheapens rape’s harshness and dishonors its survivors, who show tremendous courage in coming forward to face their attackers.Rape is terrible and wrong — and a bad hookup is just a bad, shake-your-head-the-next-morning lay. Let’s keep that in mind and hope that the Israeli court gets its act together and, with its deepest apologies, lets Kashur go.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(07/21/10 9:26pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Karma has finally caught up with Goldman Sachs and bitten it in the ass.On Tuesday, the Wall Street firm, which had once seemed impervious to the free-fall financial crisis, saw its stock tumble after it announced lower-than-expected earnings.The drop in earnings — a full 83 percent from the first quarter — comes as a result of market volatility, reformed trading and a costly Securities and Exchange Commission settlement worth $550 million.This settlement is only a baby step in the right direction, and more needs to be done to seek restitution against Goldman, whose despicable acts defrauded government officials, the American public and its own clients.The SEC, whose reputation was tarnished in the wake of its failure to stop fraudulent operations like Bernard Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme, finally bucked up and did some policing when it filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Goldman in April for misstating and omitting facts about a mortgage-related investment vehicle called Abacus.Goldman Sachs trader Jonathan Egol created Abacus to protect Goldman from potential investment losses if the housing market were to decline. These securities are synthetic collateralized debt obligations, which represent leveraged bets that can potentially have large payouts without requiring actual funds be set aside.Specifically, Abacus consisted of mortgage-related bets, which were strongly marketed and sold to Goldman’s clients.Having sold these toxic securities, Goldman then made bets against the same securities by selling them short. This means Goldman would profit if the securities they sold as solid investments to their clients were to decline. And gosh, did they ever decline.Since these securities directly related to the credit-default-swap market and the housing market, they crashed when the subprime mortgage fiasco threw the world economy into a full-fledged recession in 2008. As such, Goldman made money hand over fist while its clients lost billions upon billions in their investments.Selling short not only made Goldman even richer, but it also pushed the economy further downward by continuing to depress prices and the stock market. These nefarious securities turned Goldman into a casino and its clients into gamblers. And like always, the house won. Goldman issued about $10.9 billion worth of Abacus securities between 2004 and 2008.Goldman’s actions were not only irresponsible in the markets, but dangerous to its own clients as well. As such, the company swallowed its pride and admitted a mistake on its part in the settlement agreement.Using the money swindled from its clients, Goldman paid out dividends and exorbitant bonuses — the average being $500,000 per employee. These financial incentives fostered the duplicitous and greedy mindset that will hopefully be enervated by the SEC lawsuit.Yet more can be done to prevent financial titans like Goldman from defrauding their customers and ruining markets.We need to adopt an employee bonus tax similar to that of the United Kingdom. This would tax employee bonuses significantly, which would hopefully keep employees focused on providing better services and products rather than ways to steal from their clients.Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America paid out more than $1 billion dollars during the second quarter toward the UK employee bonus tax. If we adopt a similar tax, we are looking at billions of dollars going to the federal government rather than expensive yachts or private jets for rich bankers.Hopefully, some of that money could go to the deserving SEC so it can stay on the lookout for more corporate corruption — which seems to be flowing endlessly from Wall Street these days.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(07/14/10 11:04pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Swiss government refused to comply this Monday morning with a U.S. extradition request for filmmaker Roman Polanski on a 33-year-old charge of having sex with a 13-year-old girl.Although the Swiss Justice Ministry cited technical problems with the extradition request, the Swiss officials also said they had taken “national interests” into consideration.The Swiss, having freed Polanski, have confirmed that a good bit of PR and artistic talent can turn the vile rape of a 13-year-old child into a boys-will-be-boys, slap-on-the-wrist offense.And though it was the Swiss who ended up deciding Polanski’s child rape wasn’t a big enough deal to warrant extradition, their attitude reflects on American society’s permissible attitude about rape.First, there is no doubt that Polanski, having pled guilty to a count of unlawful sexual intercourse, is a child rapist.In 1977, the then-43-year-old Hollywood director lured a 13-year-old girl to a house where he was staying.There, Polanski loaded the poor girl with champagne, gave her a strong depressant and began photographing her naked in a hot tub.Then, despite the girl’s pleas, he forced himself on her, raping and sodomizing her.Having been found guilty of this crime, Polanski fled to France in 1978. He has since lived a luxurious life and continued to make films and socialize among the glitterati.With an international warrant out for his arrest, Polanski was finally apprehended at Zurich Airport.In Switzerland, he was briefly jailed before being put under house arrest — in his multi-million dollar chalet, which overlooks a ski resort.Now, in the words of the Swiss justice minister, “He’s a free man.”Although Polanski has just now been officially freed, he has never been guilty of serious crime in the minds of most Westerners.Last year, Academy Award-winning producer Harvey Weinstein circulated a pro-Polanski petition signed by numerous international film icons demanding “the immediate release of Roman Polanski.”Actress Whoopi Goldberg said Polanski didn’t “rape-rape” the girl. Goldberg was right. Polanski did not “rape-rape” her; he raped her, plain and simple.Polanski’s sheepish attitude about the rape played into our society’s look-the-other-way attitude regarding statutory rape.He claimed the sex was consensual, which is impossible because a drunk, sedated, 13-year-old girl is unable to give consent. Yet this preposterous claim has convinced many that it was not a big deal.Most people don’t even bat an eye at the idea of statutory rape. I’ve actually seen people express sympathetic and wistful thoughts when discussing the idea of having sex with a minor.Having sex with a minor below the age of consent is rape — and America needs to be reminded of and should care about this.Polanski once said that “Everybody wants to (have sex with) young girls,” which must be true; otherwise there should have been an appropriate outcry against him.If he had raped a 13-year-old boy in the same manner, I sincerely believe Polanski would be in jail right now, and there wouldn’t be a sympathetic movement for him.Pedophiles who abuse members of their own sex seem to have worse public images than those who keep it heterosexual, though the crime is just as severe.Our society needs to stop endorsing or supporting rape in any form.Yet, currently, our society looks the other way in such situations — and people even espouse dangerous desires when discussing them.Hank Moody, the protagonist of the popular Showtime series “Californication,” is idolized by male and female viewers alike despite the fact that he is the statutory rapist of a 16-year-old girl.When we aspire to be like a rapist, our society needs to take a look at itself and realize that a paradigm shift is in order.To rid ourselves of this dangerous notion that rape is not so bad, we must remember the rape survivor.As one of the most violent and invasive crimes, rape often leaves survivors physically and emotionally injured for life.So the next time you think about watching one of Polanski’s films on television or at the theaters, I ask you to think of the 13-year-old girl Polanski raped.Go ahead and watch the movie if you must, but please stream or download it illegally online, so that a law-skirting rapist and globe-trotter doesn’t make any money from royalties.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(07/07/10 10:37pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The rise of Web 2.0 social media sites such as Facebook, MySpace and YouTube has rendered physical distance insignificant to the way the world communicates.Print newspapers and letters are things of the past, fading quickly and kept alive merely for sentimentality and nostalgia.Instead, the Internet has become the medium of choice for communicating promptly and effectively.With its instant updates and unlimited audience, the Internet is a godsend for the weak, who use social media sites to expose their own hardships. However, the Internet has also become the most far-reaching and unfettered vehicle for hate speech and must be examined, lest it incite violence.Because social media has recently made popular, positive contributions to society and the world, we might be lulled into a false sense of security.In the wake of the catastrophic earthquake that hit Haiti in January, the world came together like never before, using social media sites to aid the shattered country and its injured population.Nearly instantly, concerned users of Twitter and Facebook spread news of the quake and pleas for help.Using mass texts and mobile donations, the American Red Cross was able to raise a record-breaking $7 million within 24 hours of the quake. By all accounts, social media became a humanitarian hero that could be trusted to help the less fortunate.So, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected to another term in a much-criticized election, western social media enthusiasts turned to these same sites for their output.Because of their vast membership, the online social media networks made it easy to gauge how the Iranian people responded to the election. Twitter updates and YouTube videos spread the Iranians’ dissenting reactions with images, descriptions and videos of wide-scale, peaceful protest.Yet, soon after Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, announced that the election had been fair and accurate, videos appeared online of protesters referring to Ahmadinejad as a dictator, calling for Khamenei’s death and invoking the name of Neda, a woman shot during the protests.Although these videos continued to expose the plight of the Iranian citizens who felt swindled by the suspect elections, they also constituted hate speech.The U.S. Supreme Court has found that publications such as magazines and newspapers are not examples of hate speech because they do not incite imminent violence and rioting. However, now that publications have moved online, they meet the definition of hate speech.Because publications are updated virtually instantly online, incitement is imminent. And because distance is irrelevant with the Internet, these publications reach the world — and specifically, their target audience — immediately.Combining the Internet’s speed and worldwide accessibility, hateful publications are now as effective as a face-to-face, fiery speech coaxing an angry, racist mob to attack a nearby minority.Should YouTube and other social media networks be charged for disseminating hate speech? There is no easy answer to this question. As Americans, we must continue to hold onto our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press.Yet we must also figure out a way to stop the propagation of violence and proliferation of hate in this digital age. Currently, the Internet has been the freest form of communication. However, in the face of violence, the Internet must be regulated.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(06/23/10 9:30pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Boobs are wonderful. Coming in all shapes, sizes, textures, tastes and colors, they unequivocally entice children and adults.As a hot-blooded American male college student, I can confirm that their immense power and magnetic qualities have not diminished since my infancy.The power of the boobs extends far into the East and is the key to establishing equality for Saudi Arabian women.The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the most significant countries in the Muslim faith. As the home of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia follows a very strict interpretation of the Quran, Islam’s holy book, to maintain a reverent and respectful atmosphere. As such, Shariah, or Islamic law, is the law of the land.In the United States, it’s easy to notice the stark differences between Shariah and our own secular laws. One of the most widely discussed Saudi laws prohibits women from driving. Critics point out the obvious inequality this discrimination enforces. Yet, this driving ban is just one of a host of gender-specific laws enforced in Saudi Arabia.The Quran prescribes the utmost humility and respect between men and women.As such, women practice purdah, the separation of the sexes. This traditionally takes two forms: Women are physically segregated and must also cover themselves. Since purdah varies significantly among practitioners, the clothing can be as little as a small head covering or as much as a burqa or niqab, which fully envelop the woman’s body and face.This practice of extreme modesty is a physical way of honoring the Quran’s commands regarding the sexes.However, the practice makes common activities extremely inconvenient and impractical.As a part of purdah, women are also not supposed to speak to non-related males. This, combined with the prohibition on driving, creates the need for each Saudi woman to have a driver. Since the driver is usually not a relative, women have been forced to break purdah simply to tell their drivers where they’d like to go.This dilemma might seem impossibly difficult, but then there’s the power of the boobs.A Saudi cleric has issued a fatwa, or religious decree, allowing women to breastfeed their drivers and any other non-related male to whom they speak regularly in order to make their being alone together permissible.Islam, like other religions and traditions, encourages the breastfeeding of children, which is still commonly done by wet nurses.These wet nurses, usually unrelated to the children they breastfeed, are able to do so because, per Islamic teachings, the practice creates a familial bond as strong a blood relationship.Although this fatwa has not yet become law, it should be encouraged. Though this endorsement might seem shocking, even “icky,” to some, this is a simple and practical way to allow Saudi women to attain more rights for themselves using their own traditions and working within their culture.Obviously, since such reverence is held for both of the sexes, the act of breastfeeding would not be sexual in any way.In fact, physical suckling of the nipple is not encouraged. Instead, the unrelated male would simply consume pre-pumped breast milk.As for consuming the breast milk itself, there is an additional benefit highlighted by my fellow columnist Josh Kraus in his Feb. 24 column: “Breast milk has more vitamin E, more iron, more essential fatty acids and less sodium than cow milk. It tastes sweeter, too, and has powerful antibodies that cow milk lacks.”Breastfeeding is a good solution and a step in the right direction. Working within their religious laws, Muslim women will be able to open up the lines of communication, foster familial relations and provide a yummy, nutritious drink.It’s a win-win for everyone involved.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(06/16/10 7:40pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Hi. My name is Yahya, and I’m a TV-aholic — and I recently fell off the wagon. Last Sunday morning, I woke up with a crippling craving for “True Blood” like I’ve never felt before. Though I tried for months to make myself forget, I knew the third season of the best vampire TV show to grace cable would premiere at 9 p.m. on HBO.Thick southern accents, blood-suckers, changelings, Maenads, drug addicts, duplicitous evangelists, homoerotiscim and gratuitous nudity were all I could think about.No other show has been able to sufficiently satiate my thirst for shameless, irreverent fantasy soap operas since the second season ended last year. Sure, “Lost” kept my attention for a bit, but TV shows on basic cable simply can’t display the same sort of graphic violence and explicit sex scenes as premium cable channels can.Feeling this itch, I set out in search of a way to watch “True Blood” that night. Unfortunately, my roommate and I don’t subscribe to HBO. So I set upon my phone with a passionate intensity, sending out mass texts and calls to any other “True Blood” fans. To my immense disappointment, all of my friends were too cheap for HBO.In desperation, a friend and I even contemplated having his out-of-town girlfriend set up a Skype video conference, with her computer’s web camera facing her TV while “True Blood” was premiering, so we’d be able to watch it live. Yet, common sense prevailed, and we realized the grainy video conference would ruin the whole experience.In our failed quest to watch the premiere, we received friendly advice about how to watch it for free, albeit not live.Everyone had planned to stream the show Monday morning for free, only hours after the premiere ended. So, sure enough, I woke up a day later on Monday morning and easily found more than 40 sites where I could watch it.Currently, countless websites blatantly advertise free TV show streaming. Lots of them are scams, though, and simply reroute duped visitors to pop-up ads and Internet surveys. However, with discernment, one can find nearly any TV series, with numerous episodes available. Though some of these websites, such as Hulu, are legal and operated by TV networks, most are not. Thus, the unaffiliated sites are violating copyright laws and killing the networks.Though TV advertising revenue was forecasted to decline only 4 percent this year, the networks have seen a significant dip, losing 12 percent compared to 2009. Online TV piracy and more time spent on the Internet are major factors contributing to this loss in revenue. As such, we will likely see more and more shows being canceled. Consumers must make the difficult decision to stop streaming illegally to save the shows we love. Promising shows such as NBC’s “Heroes” are being canceled left, right and center because of high production costs and declining viewership.In the halycon days of TV in the 1990s, “The X-Files” could average about 17 million viewers in a season. The 2006 debut of “Heroes,” on the other hand, received the highest rating for an NBC drama premiere in five years but only averaged 14.3 million viewers.This downward trend will likely result in a creative abyss, killing off other critically acclaimed shows.As consumers, we must cough up a few extra bucks a month to watch our shows legally. It’s time for us to rehabilitate our TV-watching ways.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(06/09/10 10:52pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In a famous policy speech given to the public in 1947, Muhammad Ali Jinnah — the alcohol-swilling, pork-consuming, secular founder of Pakistan — said, “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” If Jinnah were alive today to walk the summer-sizzling, dust-blown streets of Lahore, he’d surely have nothing but contempt for the Pakistani government, its flawed constitution and its abdication of responsibility for the recent terrorist attacks on the Ahmadi Muslim community.On May 28, terrorists attacked two major Ahmadi mosques in Lahore, killing 93 people and injuring several more.Three days later, four terrorists dressed as police officers entered Jinnah Hospital, where one of the captured terrorists from the mosque attacks was being treated, and began firing wildly, killing 12 people. Some police officials said that the attack might have been meant to kill or secure the release of the captured terrorist.Subsequently, the police and security officials have become suspected of facilitating the terrorist attacks and are being investigated.Who were these terrorists? Officials and news sources now suspect the Punjabi Taliban of carrying out these attacks.Although I personally lost my grandfather, retired Major General Nasir Chaudhry, in these attacks, I don’t blame or bear any ill will toward the piteous, misguided terrorists, who were likely inculcated with hatred from an early age.Instead, the responsibility for these attacks rests wholly on the shoulders of the Pakistani government, whose own laws and practices engender hostility and discrimination toward the Ahmadi Muslim minority population.The Ahmadi Muslim movement was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed to be a reformer of Islam. The community holds controversial beliefs — such as a belief in the status of Ahmad as a reformer and a peaceful interpretation of jihad as a personal, internal struggle. These beliefs have inspired repudiation and condemnation by countless religious leaders, who deny the legitimacy of the community.Pandering to these increasingly powerful mullahs, Pakistani politicians have passed significant legislation against Ahmadi Muslims. In 1974, the Pakistani parliament amended the constitution to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims.Later in 1984, General Zia-Ul-Huq, then the military ruler of Pakistan, promulgated Ordinance No. XX, which prohibits Ahmadi Muslims from identifying themselves or posing as Muslims.As such, Ahmadi Muslims are not allowed call themselves Muslims, identify their places of worship as mosques, proselytize in any way, call for prayers or even recite the Kalma — the Muslim declaration of faith in one God and in Muhammad as his prophet. Violators are punishable with three years in prison.So, if this column were to be published in Pakistan, I could be imprisoned for violating the ordinance by referring to Ahmadis as Muslims and their places of worship as mosques.Pakistani laws not only beleaguer the Ahmadi Muslim community but also sponsor the very terrorism that is ravaging its members and the rest of the country.As Americans, our government has been pouring funds into Pakistan — funds that have been misused by politicians to fill their coffers, bankroll mullahs and finance backward madrases.As such, we are complicit in this strife and violation of basic civil rights.For our moral souls, we must insist that Pakistan treat its citizens civilly and humanely, lest we fund violations of the freedom of religion, one of our nation’s founding principles. Either that, or we turn off the tap completely and let the country slip further back into the dark ages.Although it might be difficult, we must follow in John Winthrop’s steps and act “as a city upon a hill — the eyes of all people are upon us.”E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(05/19/10 11:11pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Contrary to popular belief, Sarah Palin never said she can see Russia from her house; Volvos are no longer the safest cars on the market; and Richard Blumenthal never served in Vietnam.Yet, thanks to brilliant political maneuvering, many Americans believe the aforementioned falsities to be true.Among them, Blumenthal’s fantastic military experience takes the cake.Blumenthal, the Connecticut Attorney General, is currently in the midst of an election campaign for Democrat Chris Dodd’s soon-to-be vacant Senate seat. Regarded as a brilliant legal mind with a precise and persuasive tongue, Blumenthal has limned himself as a veritable Vietnam War veteran. Like our other pansy politicians, such as Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Blumenthal evaded the draft with agile posturing and effective deferrals.As the son of a wealthy businessman, Blumenthal grew up living a comfortable life, meaning it was never likely that he’d be drafted.Instead of humping through the Charlie-infested jungles of Vietnam, Blumenthal enrolled at Harvard in 1963, giving him two student deferments. There, he made invaluable contacts that would provide him with career opportunities and more ways to evade the draft. After college, Blumenthal went to England to study at Cambridge and file stories for the Washington Post. This gave him another educational deferment for graduate studies.Blumenthal then managed to obtain a 2-A occupational deferment, which exempted him from military service because it was in the nation’s best interest that he remain in his civilian job. Does being an assistant to a newspaper’s publisher protect national security? No, not at all.Blumenthal then worked for the Nixon White House and managed to score a spot in the Marine Corps Reserves, which virtually guaranteed him safety until the war ended.Instead of going off to war, Blumenthal taught public school children around D.C. and organized Toys for Tots drives. It sounds like Blumenthal was really roughing it out among the little kids. Yeah, right.Despite having never set foot in Vietnam as a Marine, Blumenthal has claimed to have fought there on several occasions.At many recent military ceremonies, Blumenthal has recounted stories of returning from Vietnam and remembering the verbal and physical abuse he was met with as a veteran. Of course, Blumenthal denies having any recollection of making such assertions and said his “intention has always been to be completely clear and accurate and straightforward, out of respect to the veterans who served in Vietnam.” His actions indicate otherwise. Blumenthal has repeated these falsities and ambiguities so many times that news sources such as Slate and The Connecticut Post have repeated them in glowing profiles of the politician.Having accepted the obvious fact that all politicians lie, I’m not even upset at this deception as a former Connecticut resident.Politicians must use the tools of deceit to fulfill their goals and their constituents’ desires.Blumenthal just happens to do it so well that he’s turned a preposterous lie into published truth. With polls placing Blumenthal in the lead in the upcoming election, he will likely glide into office with a strong mandate.I put my faith in Blumenthal, a man who has proved he won’t let anything, including the truth, get in the way of his success.I only hope he betters the country with the same tenacity.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(04/25/10 11:14pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In line with F. Scott Fitzgerald’s famous quote, there seem to be no second acts in political lives. President Nixon, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. John Edwards never recovered from their falls from grace.Yet, Eliot Spitzer, former governor of New York, can and must return to public office.Throughout his life, Spitzer has shown an independent streak and willingness to crack a couple of skulls to get things done. This is what America needs now.As the son of a wealthy New York real-estate baron, Spitzer could have lived off the coattails of his family’s wealth for his entire life. Instead, he became a public servant and joined the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.As a Democrat, Spitzer ran a successful campaign for attorney general of New York in 1988. From the very get-go, Spitzer established himself as the white knight of Wall Street, no matter how unpopular and unprecedented his actions were.As attorney general, Spitzer flexed his office’s muscles like no one had before. Using the Martin Act, a powerful piece of state legislation that allows the attorney general extraordinary powers and discretion when pursuing financial fraud, he prosecuted notable crimes, such as stock price inflation, predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders and investment fraud.Spitzer even fought AIG before anyone was critical of the company, ousting former chairman and CEO Hank Greenberg on allegations of fraudulent practices by the company.As such, Spitzer won the public’s approval and garnered Wall Street’s contempt and disgust. Spitzer served as a beacon of justice and symbol of hope. Dubbed “the future of the Democratic party,” by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Spitzer’s career rocketed as he overwhelmingly won the 2006 gubernatorial election.Nearly two years later came Spitzer’s hamartia; he was caught with his pants down. Spitzer had been using a prostitution ring, and his hypocrisy was palpable in the Albany air. Upon resigning, the shamed former governor disappeared into obscurity.However, two years later, Spitzer is back to making front-page news. Having charges against him dismissed, he has become a regular columnist for Slate magazineand a popular guest on TV shows such as “The Colbert Report,” “Real Time With Bill Maher” and “Hardball.”Spitzer has also published editorials in the Washington Post and The New Republic, highlighting ways to improve regulation, prosecution and the bailout. He has even made political potshots at New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a possible contender for governor in 2010.Although scandal-fatigued, Spitzer is needed, not only by New York, but by the entire United States. If Spitzer returns to the office of attorney general, we’ll all see results. Spitzer is not afraid to make waves and spar with opponents. He is going to get things done.Although shamed, Spitzer still had the chutzpah to vocally criticize opponents.He once said: “Listen, I’m a fucking steamroller, and I’ll roll over you and anybody else,” to a Republican assemblyman. If Spitzer can bring back this sort of ball-breaking attitude, he can truly be the sheriff of Wall Street that we need him to be in this time of financial uncertainty and insecurity.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(04/19/10 11:24pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If the U.S. completely legalizes marijuana for recreational use and commercial production, the government must implement legal safeguards for consumption.Like most other mind-altering drugs, marijuana impairs coordination, perception and judgment, which can cause dangerous accidents. As such, our laws would have to be tailored to the times and places marijuana could be consumed. Of course, being under the influence of marijuana while driving would be illegal, just as being under the influence of alcohol is now.The idea of driving under the influence also implies a certain age for consumption. Although traditionally smoked as a joint, marijuana should not be legal at the age of 18. Instead, since it alters perception like alcohol, marijuana should be legal for those 21 years and older. (Then, teenagers would have double the reason to look forward to their 21st birthday!)In addition, strict laws must be passed in anticipation of trafficking to minors. Marijuana stunts emotional growth, effectively perpetuating a stage of arrested development. This moratorium might affect young users in their future as well because they will not have learned things at the appropriate age.Because of marijuana’s numerous adverse effects, potential marijuana users should have to be evaluated by a doctor before being approved to consume it. Long-term use of marijuana might cause addiction and increase rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, paranoia and schizophrenia. These are very serious effects that must be taken into account.Because marijuana’s effects on users can vary greatly between individuals, a doctor would be able to identify possible effects. Individuals can vary in their predispositions for mental diseases, and marijuana can exacerbate some diseases. However, if approved by a doctor, the user should be able to freely buy and consume the drug.As is the case with alcohol, pregnant women should be strongly encouraged not to use marijuana because of the negative effects on the fetus. As well as having poor memory and ability to concentrate, children of heavy marijuana users could have higher risks of leukemia, according to one study.However, the legalization and commercialization of marijuana could make consumption safer and easier.Traditionally and most commonly, marijuana is smoked, which increases users’ heart rates by 20 to 100 percent shortly after inhalation. This can last for three hours after consumption, and users have an almost five-fold increased risk of suffering a heart attack in the first hour after smoking. In addition, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. With habitual use, this greatly increases chances of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases associated with smoking tobacco.Legalization would offer better ways to consume marijuana’s active ingredient, THC. Pot brownies and space butter would be a welcome alternative to smoking. Also, an over-the-counter version of Marinol, a pill containing THC, wouldn’t have smoking’s detriments.Like that of Marinol, the sale of marijuana and other THC products should be precisely regulated for the amount of THC so users can know what effects to expect. Overall, legalization will positively increase awareness and knowledge of the drug.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(04/11/10 11:38pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>At IU students are railing against the First Amendment.The Odyssey published an article by Yale Reardon called “Rating Girls” as a piece of humor in its “Laugh Out Loud” section. As you might have guessed from the title, the article limns a numeric system (from one to 10) used to categorize women based on how attractive they are.Throughout the second half of last week, I read and heard tirades and vitriol lambasting Reardon and his article. Angry readers, including non-greek IU students, wrote to Reardon, The Odyssey and other Web sites, complaining that the article was shallow, mean-spirited and offensive. Because of this backlash, The Odyssey pulled Reardon’s article from its Web site.Checking online social media networks, such as Facebook, I could see self-adulating, self-styled feminists congratulating themselves on their victory against Reardon. Literally, these women were proud of restricting the free dissemination of information. The Odyssey serves as the Greek community’s newsletter and therefore appeals to a very specific demographic. This private paper should be allowed to publish whatever its readership wants and appreciates. The First Amendment expressly protects published speech, no matter how offensive, spelling-error filled or sophomoric it may be. At the end of the day, people must voluntarily choose to read The Odyssey. Because Reardon is not guilty of libel or plagiarism in his column, The Odyssey should have kept his article online instead of capitulating to incensed readers. As a humorous piece of opinion, the column should have been given more leeway for its envelope-pushing contentions. And because the piece ran in a private publication, the displeased complainers acted excessively in asking for the removal of Reardon’s work.The pulling of Reardon’s piece is bad for contentious opinion columnists everywhere and the First Amendment in general. Given that I believe Reardon was unfairly attacked and censored, I asked Reardon to speak to me about how he felt about the entire hullabaloo. He responded comprehensively.I asked, “How serious were you when you wrote this column?”Reardon responded, “On a 1-10 scale of seriousness, I was about a 1. If you take that stuff seriously, you really need to re-evaluate your priorities. Obviously, the entire article was all a huge joke, but people acted like it was the end of the world. I’m surprised people can’t tell I’m in character the entire time. Is an article from a greek newspaper at a huge party school really worth all this fuss?”No, not at all. E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(03/28/10 10:13pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Remember the thrill of losing your virginity as a teenager? This sexual awakening is now combining with the Internet to create a medley of unique experiences for the 21st century teen, one of which is, unfortunately, sexting.Sexting, literally the combination of the words, “sex” and “texting,” is “the slang term for the use of a cell phone or other similar electronic device to distribute pictures or video of sexually explicit images.” It can also refer to text messages of a “sexually charged nature,” according to one teen health Web site. Sounds like there’s no harm, right? There usually aren’t any legal ramifications; however, it’s a much more sinister story when one or both of the participants are minors.The creation, possession and distribution of sexts usually violates child pornography laws. If convicted of these felonies, violators can be registered as sex offenders, the effects of which can last for life. These severe repercussions serve as strong deterrents to dissuade sexting and to highlight the extreme harm it can cause.Sexting is a wide-scale problem, with 20 percent of teens having sent nude or semi-nude photographs of themselves electronically and 39 percent of teens having sent sexually explicit text messages, according to Cosmogirl.com. Its effects have caused extreme trauma and harm. Since sexting rests on the fringe of the increasingly blurring line between the public and private sphere, mental health is negatively affected.“12 percent of sexters have considered ending their own lives in the past year compared to 3 percent of people who have not been bullied or have not sexted,” states the 2009 AP-MTV Digital Abuse Study.These mental health tragedies have rocked national news headlines, with 13-year-old Jessie Logan’s case receiving serious scrutiny. Logan took and sent naked pictures of herself to her boyfriend, who sent the pictures to other girls once the couple broke up. Logan was increasingly ridiculed and emotionally tortured by the girls, until she took her own life. Logan’s story serves as a warning and catalyst for legislators and authorities to take action to stop sexting. More and more child pornography charges are being brought against teen violators. However, a blind law, which sees no age or intent, might have a chilling effect on intimate communication. States should follow Vermont, which introduced a bill last year that would allow two people 13 to 18 years old to consensually exchange graphic images. Further distribution of these images would be a crime.This way romance would be allowed to survive and maybe even triumph in the face of the digital age.E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(03/09/10 12:32am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>American satirist and journalist P.J. O’Rourke once said: “Even a band of angels can turn ugly and start looting if enough angels are unemployed and hanging around the Pearly Gates convinced that all the succubi own all the liquor stores in Heaven.”This image of beer-battered angels turning on their heavenly home’s stores of supposedly communion wine seems unimaginable and would likely warrant a one-way ticket to Hell. However, the similar looting of one’s nation’s stores in a time of crisis and desperation is fast becoming an expected part of natural disaster news coverage. Glancing at pictures of a damaged Chile, one is probably just as likely to see a buckled building as police clad in riot gear tear-gassing crowds of looters. Since Hurricane Katrina, we have been privy to this dark and dirty side of humanity, people driven to depravity by natural disasters.Where do we draw the line on reasonable looting, and when do we start condemning looters and doling out deterring punishments? I propose we evaluate looting in terms of psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which contends that different levels of needs must be met before a person can reach self-actualization. Our most basic needs are our physiological compulsions, which include eating, sleeping, breathing, excreting and having sex. Because our most basic level of need contains our physical requirements, we shouldn’t fault anyone for sustenance.For example, readers of Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables” lend their sympathies to Jean Valjean, a man imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread. Just like Valjean, the victims of these horrid natural disasters have endured a storm blowing away their lives as they know them.Chilean President Michelle Bachelet was right to be lax on enforcing the punishment for looting. She asked the toppled nation’s grocers to distribute food and other bare essentials to the public. Her desire to help her people is reflected by the understanding and empathetic conduct of the 14,000 troops she mustered to enforce the law and a curfew.Some of these enforcers chose to look the other way when looters took only basics, and then other troops actually gave out bags of food from dump trucks in poor areas such as Concepción.Finally, the looting and rioting is subsiding, and the response to more lavish quake spoils is appropriate as well. Along with essentials, looters stole and scavenged luxury items such as new televisions and furniture. Obviously, these items do not qualify as physiological needs, in the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.Police have granted amnesty to looters who return these stolen goods. Again, it’s ridiculous to believe a person whose house was destroyed is going to use a new LCD television, so I believe it’s simply indicative of mass hysteria.And given the mitigating circumstances, I think the victims of these natural disasters deserve our sympathies and not harsh moral judgments on their behavior during very trying times. E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(02/22/10 12:25am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Fox show “Family Guy” received attention this week for including a joke about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s 22-month-old son, Trig, who suffers from Down syndrome, a chromosomal disorder that impairs mental development. Although the word “retard” has lately taken on a derogatory connotation, it is still the best way to describe Trig’s status.The word “retard” might or might not offend you, but I can say from personal experience that it has taken on a pejorative meaning. Nearly every time I have used the word retard to describe retards, people have assaulted me with glares and sneers. This is a tragic wrong turn for the English language.Regrettably, the cabal of the “politically correct” has hijacked the word retard and turned it into a dirty and ineffable word. However, retard has neutral beginnings, with no negative undertones.The word retard is a diagnostic catchall phrase that encompasses terms like developmental disability, low IQ, mental retardation, behavior problems, Down syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, Angelman syndrome and phenylketonuria. It is short, easy and objective. Retard is a straightforward two-syllable word that (in its different forms) functions as a noun, adjective and verb. Unlike other diagnostic medical terms, which have ridden the euphemism “treadmill” and become taboo, retard should be preserved because of its elementary perfection. Other neutral expressions like “idiot,” “imbecile” and “moron” began as diagnostic terms but became derogatory as well. Retard is too simple and too perfect to become taboo. It must persevere.The PC Gestapo might be trying to prevent malicious verbal attacks, but its invisible social restrictions inadvertently limit and destroy the English language. According to William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White’s Elements of Style, writers should “prefer the standard to the offbeat.” The PC Gestapo forces casual English users to debase the language by replacing the standard retard with offbeat, cumbersome, polysyllabic compound platitudes. Strunk and White probably roll over in their graves every time someone utters “mentally handicapped” or “developmentally disabled.”Let us preserve the diminishing sanctity of the English language. After all, the politically correct seem to control the language rather than its historic roots. Take racial descriptions for example. The PC Gestapo cycled through the terms “nigger,” “negro,” “colored,” “black” and finally contented themselves with “African-American.”Why fix something that’s not broken? Humans define words’ connotations. We are responsible for any and all negative connotations. One way to eliminate every vestige of hate from language is to use a word as its denotation prescribes. So, let’s use the word retard for retards. What a novel idea.When you say retard, don’t think of it as a cross to bear. Rather, think of it as a joyful Joycean mortification. Take pleasure as people smirk and jeer. You are the custodian and upholder of the English language. You are preserving the language Shakespeare used to write his plays and wax poetic. Would Shakespeare be burdened with heavy words like “mentally handicapped”? Of course not. Have the chutzpah to say it loud and say it proud.And the next time you trip on a bundle of sticks, call them a “faggot.”E-mail: yzchaudh@indiana.edu
(02/07/10 11:11pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As corporate-fueled Singles Awareness Day (also known as Valentine’s Day) looms on the horizon, please don’t try to kill yourself and take solace in the advances in technology.In the past, if you’ve been single on this wretched day, there’s been a routine to cope with all the smiling couples. Wake up, watch some television – which invariably will air some middle-aged women’s cutesy banter about Internet dating successes – stuff your face with chocolate and other comfort food, go to the bars, get wasted and go home with another lonely person. That’s all going to change now.Last month at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas, computer scientist and former Bell Labs engineer Douglas Hines unveiled the holy grail of blowup dolls, a $7000 talking sex robot. Her name is Roxxxy, and she will rock your world.Standing 5 feet 7 inches and weighing in at 120 pounds, she’s a petite girl. Roxxxy is battery powered and literally speaks English. Hines spent three years developing the remarkable artificial intelligence that allows her to converse. She has five different personality settings too, ranging from Frigid Farrah to Wild Wendy. Yet, first and foremost, she is a sex doll and will spread her legs for anyone. Think of Gigolo Joe from Steven Spielberg’s “A.I.” to imagine what her skin looks and feels like. Made of silicone, her skin is soft to the touch. Also, she reacts to stimulation – physical or spoken. Having sensors in her genital area allows her to “feel.” Impressively, she even simulates orgasms by moaning and shuddering.Roxxxy is a godsend for sex-starved singles. Her ability to speak demonstrates men’s sensitivity, flying in the face of the pernicious stereotype that guys hate to talk or spoon after sex. The sheer number of pre-orders, 4,000, proves that guys can be deep and that we think with the head on our shoulders, not the head in our pants. Although the idea of a robotic girlfriend might sound creepy or perverted to some, it simply allows people to satisfy themselves. It deserves no more shame than pornography or K-Y jelly. American psychologist Abraham Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs, which contends that different levels of needs must be met before a person can reach self-actualization. Our most basic needs are our physiological compulsions, which include eating, sleeping, breathing, excreting and having sex. Sex defines our biological imperative. After all, we are all slaves to our bodies; we might as well embrace it. Ideally of course, you would have real, human friends and sex partners simply because no computer or robot can match the magnificence of the human mind, the most important and powerful sex organ. Of course, if you plan on having a child, a human partner would also be necessary.Until then, boys, start pinching those pennies and save up for Roxxxy. Girls, I’m sorry, but Hines has nothing in the workshop for you. You’ll have to make do with a tub of rocky road ice cream.
(01/25/10 12:35am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Having been dominated by the overly-sexualized pop anthems of Lady Gaga and the ballads of Susan Boyle, the Billboard 200 made room this past week for a new No. 1 debut album, Vampire Weekend’s “Contra.”Selling 124,000 copies, “Contra” is the best-selling album in the country. Released by XL, an independent record label, “Contra” is only the 12th independently distributed album to reach the coveted top spot on the Billboard 200 since such data has been recorded. Why is that a big deal, and what does being “indie” mean?Merriam-Webster dictionary defines indie as “one that is independent; especially: an unaffiliated record or motion picture production company.”However, indie has taken on new meaning.Esoteric lyrics about Oxford commas and Nicaraguan rebel groups usually don’t sound like they would have mass appeal, but Vampire Weekend managed to make their sophisticated, high-brow songs infectious and saleable. Because of this, Vampire Weekend exemplifies what indie has come to mean. The album cover exudes the band’s sensibility and culture. On it is an overexposed Polaroid of a presumably bourgeois blond, white girl wearing a preppy Ralph Lauren Polo. The girl’s deadpan expression and the novel medium of a Polaroid are synonymous with the band’s hipster style. As such, indie has become associated with hipsters. Like the genre of punk music, its consumers define and identify themselves with the music they listen to and the behavior of those who create it.As far as indie goes, its artists and listeners are likely to be wearing skinny jeans, deep V-necks (exposing ubiquitous chest hair on men), Chucks and thick-rimmed Buddy Holly glasses. On a Friday night, you can probably see them watching local bands in basement shows, consuming copious amounts of cheap alcohol – Steel Reserve 40s or PBR – and smoking Parliament cigarettes. That, or they’re at the Vid. Sound like any group of people or culture in particular? It should; these are the disaffected hipsters, and as such, indie can now be used interchangeably with the label hipster.As annoying and detestable as hipsters can be, their growing population is helping green-light, little-known talented bands. Indie record labels are the last bastions for pure creativity in the music industry. With Disney- and American Idol-manufactured artists, Vampire Weekend’s success provides a refreshing reprieve from the shallow, corporate stars who usually top the sales charts. Former Union Board Concerts Director and Secretly Canadian intern Caitlyn Kuhs said she prefers indie music and the labels that distribute their content. “Artists on indie labels have a lot more influence on their material, and they have a lot more creative control,” Kuhs said. “They also have a bigger percentage of sales.”Student Jameson Burton summed up why indie music is superior to major label content. Indie means the artists “sound more natural and less money-oriented,” he said. So the next time you see a hipster, instead of being tempted to slap him or her, smile and realize they’re the ones who are green-lighting indie music.
(10/06/09 11:32pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>YC: Have you ever performed in Bloomington, IN before? If so, how was it? What were your expectations for playing here at the Buskirk-Chumley Theater?
NT: This was Cryptacize's first time in Bloomington. I haven't performed in Bloomington since 2007 when I was in Chris's (Cryptacize guitarist) previous band, the Curtains. And before that I played solo opening for Jens Lekman. That was a trillion years ago, in 2005. I didn't have any expectations about the Buskirk-Chumley. When I walked in I was actually a little surprised. It looks like a cross between a convention center and a theater! I think it's the cushy pink seats.
YC: Since your tour with Sufjan Stevens began on Sept. 24, how has performing with him been?
NT: It's been fun- It's always rad to sing with good singers.
YC: Having already toured with notable indie bands, such as Why? and Danielson, how has this tour been different?
NT: We're on Sufjan's tour bus! It's the total 'pimp my ride' version of a Cryptacize tour. We usually tour in a Toyota Corolla or Chris's mom's SUV. So that's been a very unusual treat for us. It's also much easier. You just wake up and you're in front of the venue!
YC: Is there any particular venue that you're excited to play at? Why?
NT: There aren't any venues I'm excited about, but I look forward to
going to certain cities because I have an idea of what the people will
be like, and the food and sights. Like Montreal or New York, for
example. And Bloomington! We had good pizza at Rocket's after the show.
YC: Are you excited about touring with the Fiery Furnaces right after this tour?
NT: YES! I love them, I'm stoked to see them play every night.
YC: With all of these busy tours, does the band have enough free time to brainstorm and create new music?
NT: I think we're going chill out for a while after the Fiery Furnaces tour. Chris and I are anxious to write new songs and I want to record on my four track again. That's my goal for 2010.
YC: Do you have any plans for new releases coming out anytime soon?
NT: Nope! Hopefully we'll write a new record next year.
YC: Why did the band decide to a add bassist, Aaron Olson?
NT: Chris recorded bass on our last record "Mythomania," and then live the songs felt too minimal. So we added Aaron and voila. People tell us "Wow you're a real band now!"
YC: And finally, how do you think your performance went at the Buskirk? Regrets or highlights?
NT: Of course there are always things you want to improve after every show, but listing them would bore you to tears. It was a total pleasure, and the people in Bloomington were super sweet, so thanks for having us!
(09/13/09 8:25pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Turn on, tune in, drop out,” might have been Timothy Leary’s counterculture phrase meant to promote LSD in the ’60s, but it’s very applicable to “Signal Morning.”Released Sept. 8 by Cloud Recording, “Signal Morning,” is Circulatory System’s superlative, psychedelic concept album and follow-up to their 2001 remix album, “Inside Views.”Blessed as a member of the Elephant 6 Collective and featuring former members of The Olivia Tremor Control, the bar was already set very high for this release.Circulatory System beat all expectations, and will have listeners tuning in and dropping out of this world and into the band’s fantasy. William Cullen Hart, lead singer and former lead singer of The Olivia Tremor Control, has perfected the art of creating noisy yet psychedelic pop-indie rock. Devendra Banhart and other acoustic “psyche-rockers” beware; Circulatory System has raised the bar again. Containing a total of 17 tracks, “Signal Morning” feels like an organically formed double-album/concept album. With every song under five minutes, and some under 30 seconds, “Signal Morning,” sounds like an experience rather than a simple pop album. Beginning with “Woodpecker Greeting Worker Ant,” the album starts off with chugging bass lines, which then usher in heavily distorted effects. After nearly two-and-a-half minutes, Hart’s multi-tracked vocals creep in. His soft, whispery, spider-like vocals cast a thin, connecting web throughout the entire album. And by alternating traditional pop songs such as “Overjoyed” and “Rocks and Stones,” with short acoustic clips like “News From The Heavenly Loom,” Hart leads the album without dominating the lush and sometimes harsh instrumentation.In “This Morning (We Remembered Everything)” Hart’s characteristically simple, pop lyrics epitomize the rest of the album’s composition. Chanting “this morning we remembered everything,” Hart creates an anthemic mantra that leaves listeners mesmerized and flying high in his otherworldly imagination. Keeping consistent focus on psychedelic, metaphysical musings, each of “Signal Morning’s” songs sounds like a different diary entry in a stream of consciousness. Hart’s imagination and vocals recall George Harrison’s work in the Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.” To keep with this comparison, “Signal Morning” echoes the Beatles’ magnum opus, but inspired by Harrison’s complexities rather than McCartney’s light, fluffy pop hits. In short, Circulatory System’s “Signal Morning” ranks as the supreme psychedelic concept album of indie rock.