31 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/18/10 11:37pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve always thought of myself as a wannabe exhibitionist; a Lady Godiva without a horse. I step out of the shower, towel still hanging limply on the rack and feel the urge to keep going — to exit the bathroom, to walk out of the house, to parade my naked and glistening body before a hopefully appreciative public.But until now, I haven’t found the appropriate circumstance to publicly display my attributes. The ivory torso tucked under my Champion Double Dry Fleece has remained in storage. So many unlucky souls have gone their whole lives without studying my scenic sub-continent.Fortunately, the Transportation Security Administration has graciously provided a solution. Although body scanners were introduced to United States’s airports in 2007, the procedure has recently seen an uptick in press coverage and controversy. Those opposing the procedure, which takes naked pictures of passengers to prevent the smuggling of weapons, cite a variety of reasons why it should be banned, such as invasion of privacy and the machine’s potentially harmful radiation technology.But I don’t see this security measure as a threat. I see it as an opportunity to lawfully flaunt your gallery of goodies. What a thrill it would be to knowingly step under a colossal death machine and have a black and white, fluoroscopic image of your unclothed cadaver transmitted to some reclusive TSA agent.For me, the timing of this media-perpetuated controversy couldn’t be more perfect. In a few days, I fly to the Czech Republic for the purpose of starting a “Lord of the Rings” themed tea parlor. If you’re interested, some of my patented tea blends will include “Uruk-Chai,” “Legoleaf” and “Teabeard.” But before I begin my new life-long business venture, I will be carted through a body scanner as I make my way through the airport’s security gauntlet. Of course, I also have the option to opt out of the scan and put myself in the eager hands of a professionally trained groper. Truthfully, I wish I could do both. Start by digitally flashing myself and finish with a TSA official groping me.But if I had to make a Sophie’s Choice, I’d choose the scanner. I’m aware that my only audience member will be a lone TSA official. But there is a possibility my pic might be leaked online, as was witnessed in the recent smorgasbord of body scanned images posted on Gizmodo. After years of sleeping through skinny dipping expeditions I will finally be able to present my unadulterated essence to an observing stranger. I can get on the plane knowing I’ve fulfilled at least one person’s secret desire to see a 21-year-old cottage cheese addict in peak physical condition. While my fellow passengers are scowling at the pervasive injustices they are about to endure, I will be all smiles, excited for a chance to broadcast my cave of wonders.E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(11/11/10 10:15pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A person’s ethnic culture, as depicted on reality television, has been diluted to a throw-away adjective. The shallow simpletons hogging up the air space have turned their nationalistic signifiers into meaningless descriptors.For instance, the recent megahit “Jersey Shore” presented a group of self-identified “guidos” who surpassed conventional superficiality. To them, identifying as Italian seemed just as important as being tan, fit and promiscuous.But while “Jersey Shore” popularized this ethnically empty genre, a new Canadian reality show is taking the concept to the next logical extreme.Similar to “Jersey Shore,” “The Real World” and other reality precursors, “Lake Shore,” which takes place in Toronto, drops a group of eight feisty young people into a house to cohabitate. Here’s the catch: each cast member is purposefully identified by their ethnicity.Some of the cast members include “Sibel — The Turk,” “Tommy Hollywood — The Czech” and “Robyn — The Jew.” These titles are written exactly as they appear on the show, just in case you were wondering. The other ethnicities represented are Italian, Polish, Armenian, Lebanese and Vietnamese.Part of me wants to believe that this program is really a brilliant social commentary on cultural conflict. Perhaps the show’s producers are likening these vapid instigators and their arbitrary nationalism to real national struggle. Palestinians vs. Jews; Turks vs. Armenians; Tutsi vs. Hutu.But of course this isn’t the intention. “Lake Shore” is meant to one-up “Jersey Shore” and garner as many ratings and as much profit as possible. Placing ethnicity at the forefront is a garish tactic to stir controversy and attract viewers. Unsurprisingly, the tragic figures of “Lake Shore” embody reality television’s typical trash aesthetic. They are caricatures of caricatures: quick to quarrel, laughably self-involved and frighteningly unaware of their own stupidity.Yes, there is an extraordinary amount of emphasis put on ethnic labels, but from what I’ve gleaned from the show so far, their “Turkish” pride or “Armenian” honor is just a thrifty epithet. It’s a nametag meant to classify them with some sort of significant identity, yet they still manage to resemble every predictable reality show archetype that has come before.Sibel declares that her “mission in life is to show the world what us Turks are all about.” She immediately follows that remark with “I’m bossy. I’m sexy. If you screw me, your ass is going to get burned.”Robyn brags that she is Jewish before claiming she loves to party, loves to have fun and is “enthusiastic,” “eccentric” and “loud.”The characters are wedging their cultural heritage in between other vacant identifiers such as “enthusiastic” and “sexy.” Anni Mei, the Vietnamese, says she is “self-motivated” and “self-driven.” Salem, the Lebanese, is “blunt” and “forward.” There is no meaningful discourse here, just a cheap exploitation of ethnic heritage. This is multiculturalism gutted of meaning and significance. “Lake Shore” is if the members of the United Nations convened at a beach house, chugged 40s and discussed the benefits of fist-pumping. It continues the tradition of glorifying egotistical morons, only now these morons can add their ethnicity to the list of worthless personality descriptors. E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(11/04/10 9:41pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There are few moments that can incite an audience to spontaneously cheer without a flashing applause sign.One of these moments is the mere mention of marijuana. A talk show host’s utterance of “pot” initiates a Pavlovian response of enthusiasm. An interviewee’s admission of “smoking a bowl” is a social cue demanding an automated response of vocal support. Why is this?If Jon Stewart discussed snorting cocaine at a Christmas party, the audience might laugh, but would they erupt in hearty ovation?Somehow, cannabis has become a cultural rallying cry. Not coke or meth, and not another audacious pastime, such as drag racing or sidewalk graffiti.Pot has become our country’s second American Dream. It is a beloved symbol signifying an idealized cultural ethos. The first American Dream promised “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This second, manifested in marijuana, promises an escape from societal constraints and a passage to a kosher anarchy. It is an emblem of middle-class rebellion, social dissatisfaction and individualism. I think this is because of the substance’s historical context. Although this nutty bud has been used for thousands of years, its social prominence skyrocketed in the late 1960s, a tumultuous and transformative time period. Cannabis soon became associated with countercultural aesthetics such as rebellion, nonconformity, mind expansion and personal emancipation. It pitted the middle class, who might not have normally engaged in such taboo activity, against the establishment. Our enthusiasm for marijuana is our enthusiasm for that vestige of cultural revolution. Currently, our country is severely divided. It is right against left, crazy against sane. The government is either doing too much or too little. The fight for gay civil rights is being likened to the fight for African-American civil rights. Perhaps hipsters are the new hippies. I’m not saying our present social climate directly mirrors the one of the ’60s, but similar to the advocates of the counterculture, many of us are still surrounded by antiquated modes of thought and stagnant ideology. We live in a country where outdated viewpoints of homosexuality and gender roles not only exist, but are ubiquitous. The repressive religious choke hold on America has not weakened.We haven’t really evolved at all.And so we desperately cling to this symbol of upheaval — a reminder of our once-heralded potential to conquer stilted and repressive tradition. We have fetishized marijuana, infusing it with our own meanings meant to arouse a waning sentiment of anti-hegemonic rebellion.Smoking marijuana is a more or less acceptable mode of sticking it to the proverbial man. A bratty teen might be hitting a bong in the basement while his parents are rolling a spliff on the porch. It doesn’t just get you high; it provides a twinge of titillating lawlessness. It is a form of political and social dissent.So when an audience responds to Zach Galifianakis smoking a joint on national television with wild applause and approving whistles, it is because we regard the act as a nostalgic representation of our desire to rebel, and our capacity for cultural subversion. E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(10/28/10 9:13pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Can something private and lecherous become something public and empowering? This is a loaded question, and I am not sure of the answer, but a recent news story has brought this issue to light. A sexual act, usually reserved for pornographic films and locker-room talk, has ascended from the dungeons of our discourse to the sunlit sidewalks of our community. I want to explore how the recontextualisation of this act might have changed its meaning altogether. An artist named Leah Piepgras has recently released a piece of jewelry titled “Pearl Necklace,” which consists of a sterling silver pendent shaped like a splotch of semen. The necklace is a physical rendering of the eponymous sexual act and is sold for $420.For those who are unaware of the slang term “pearl necklace,” I will provide a description. For the prudish readers, please skip the next sentence.The term refers to a sexual act where a man ejaculates onto a women’s upper chest and neckline. The jewelry is described as “a visual marker of chaos turned perfection through an act of beauty and lust,” and “a physical reminder of a fleeting moment of pleasure.” Although I admire the intended meaning of this piece, what really fascinates me is the medium that Piepgras chose to utilize: jewelry. She could have turned the sexual act into a sculpture or a painting, but instead she co-opted this prurient deed and commodified it. This isn’t a painting that will hang immobile on a wall. She has turned it into a portable fashion accessory that can proudly be displayed in a private bedroom or a public library.You purchase a painting or a sculpture to decorate your home, but you buy a piece of jewelry to decorate yourself. Paintings hide indoors, jewelry is flaunted in public.In taking a wanton exploit out of the bedroom and into the community, Piepgras has begun to change what a “pearl necklace,” and all of its connotations, means. Low-art is high-art, debauchery is beauty.The “pearl necklace,” or the “money shot” (if you don’t know what that one means then Wikipedia it) is a contentious topic among scholars. Writer Padraig McGrath argues that the money shot in pornography suggests the woman likes “whatever the man wants her to like because she has no inner life of her own.” He also believes the central theme of pornography is power and “violent ... eroticized hatred.” Feminist author Susan Faludi offers a counterargument to these critiques, saying these scenes are actually objectifying the male performer, whose entire body, except for his penis, is off-screen .Writer Richard J. Newman claims the way money shots are depicted is a “more or less absolute yoking in heterosexual pornography of male sexual pleasure to a woman’s presence.” To me, the meaning of this necklace cooperates with Newman’s theory, and for those who choose to wear it, I suppose it can be seen as empowering. By bringing the act into the public sphere, the wearers of the necklace are reclaiming an act some would call degrading and presenting it as dangling reminder of the power women have over men. It is a shimmering token that says, “Look what I can make you do.” But I doubt many will look at the necklace in that way. The hurdle between pornography and meaningful art is a tall one for most people, so I can only imagine the difficulty in accepting pornography as jewelry.E-mail: joskraus@umail.iu.edu
(10/14/10 10:57pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Earlier this week, I was lucky enough to see the Belle & Sebastian play at The Chicago Theatre. Despite an excellent performance, I witnessed what I so often do at concerts: quiet, tender musical moments shattered by unwelcome whistles and importunate shouts.These disruptions were particularly noticeable when the band stopped playing, and lead singer Stuart Murdoch was left to command the stage alone.Interruptions such as these, however enthusiastic they might be, are a sign of disrespect, and a product of the audience’s discomfort with unexpected intimacy. I’d guess the majority of bands you go to see consist of at least a drummer and a guitarist. Clapping, singing along and vocalizations of praise are fine for these types of performances. But the lone singer-songwriter requires a different kind of audience participation. There is no band for the musician to feed off of or fall back on. For the most part, this is not when you dance or clap the quarter notes.This performance’s beauty is in its fragility. Each note hovers for only an instant before vanishing. Every moment is essential to the experience.But when an audience member loudly requests a different song, voices their love for the artist, or simply “woos,” it pollutes a tranquil and profound atmosphere. Listening to albums such as Neil Young’s “Live at Massey Hall” or one of Bob Dylan’s Bootleg Series, I wonder if these artists could survive today’s younger audience. Recorded in the 1960s and early 1970s, these live albums showcase one man and his guitar. Except for applause and the occasional cough, the audience keeps silent. Young’s quivering howl is allowed to bleed into every sonic space. Dylan’s poetic lamentations go undisturbed.These audiences understand they’re part of a conversation. The musician is in a vulnerable position, but willing to share their secrets with you. It’s your job to listen.During a concert on his Sunken Treasure tour, Wilco’s Jeff Tweedy faced constant interruption from audience members, and was inspired to say this: “It’s really cool if everybody was quiet for just one second. You feel yourself being in a room full of people with all their hearts beating and all of their thoughts and feelings, and you’re a part of it. ...You don’t set yourself apart from everybody.” Creating noise in this setting is a selfish act. It calls attention to yourself, and takes it away from the performer. Although the culprit might claim they are only extolling the musician, these interruptions most likely stem from an uncontrollable impulse to break the silence.Can we not handle raw emotion, especially in the company of others? Or is this discomfort due to a reversal of expectations? Perhaps spectators at the Belle & Sebastian show assumed the full band would play the entire concert, and each song would be multi-layered and musically enveloping. But when these expectations of sensory overload were defied, people were shocked out of complacency and reacted out of instinct. They made noise to fill in spaces they had prepared themselves to hear.We can’t expect all concerts to make us move, make us cheer or make us scream. Sometimes we have to be humble and let the sounds whisper to us. Silences can be beautiful, softness can be magical. Let’s keep that in mind for the next show.E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(10/07/10 10:42pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In Swaziland, one in four adults are living with HIV, and since 2007, 10,000 people have died from the disease. As this problem fails to dissipate, suggested solutions have become more drastic. In 2009, parliamentary official Timothy Myeni proposed that country-wide HIV tests be made mandatory, and that those who test positive be permanently branded on the buttocks with a warning symbol. The measure would aim to prevent further spread of the HIV virus by making it almost unavoidable to sleep with an HIV positive person unknowingly. “Before having sex with anyone, people will have to check their partners’ buttocks before proceeding,” Myeni said.Disease carriers would be marked with a warning label similar to cigarette packages.Initial thoughts? Sounds similar to a cross between The Scarlet Letter and that scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Some might argue that, although the proposal appears draconian, it is the next necessary step in an increasingly futile fight against an epidemic disease. But I believe that resorting to this procedure shows a waning sense of humanity in the face of terror, where many innocent people would be marginalized for the perceived greater good. I also don’t think the idea would be all that effective.Although the proposal is designed to curb the spread of HIV, it will unavoidably turn the carriers into villains. How could a government-sponsored branding of HIV carriers be misconstrued as anything but punishment? HIV and AIDS are already heavily stigmatized in Africa, and this measure would only add fuel to the fire. Furthermore, there could certainly be cases where an individual, after recognizing the symbol on a branded partner, might choose to abstain from engaging in consensual sexual activity. But not all sex is consensual. In March of this year, 121 rape incidents had already been reported in Swaziland. Of those, 80 were children. In South Africa, Swaziland’s neighbor, most of the child-bearing age population is now infected with HIV-AIDS because of the rape epidemic. Brand or no brand, a rapist will rape. Is it worth stigmatizing this entire group of people if the ones who rape will be unaffected?I realize that such an insurmountable crisis can inspire radical solutions, but the Swazi government cannot fall into that trap. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an order that allowed the military to intern Japanese-Americans in designated camps. This was done to prevent espionage. I suppose the reasoning was that if all potential enemies are being guarded and quarantined, then they cannot do any harm. But with no evidence of any wrongdoing (or due process for that matter), this measure was inhumane and the government has since apologized for it.The HIV branding in Swaziland is comparable, because it uses similar logic to justify its inhumane tactics. The government has no way of knowing which HIV carriers will mislead a sexual partner and infect them with the disease. They’re nuking a city in order to destroy a couple of houses. This measure should not be enacted because it oversimplifies the problem. It further stigmatizes an already damaged group of people and it aims to help some by hurting most.E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(10/01/10 12:36am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Like all novice time travelers, Christine O’Donnell is still acclimating to her new environment. Likely hailing from the early 17th century, she has now inexplicably found herself in a world that has left her behind. Dazed from such a radical dislodgment in time, O’Donnell can’t seem to comprehend that cultural attitudes and practices have changed with the years and that thinking and reasoning have significantly evolved. She wanders through our glinting metropolises and gazes at our fume-belching automobiles, desperately trying to insert the ideas she knows into this new life — the ideas she can understand. But the world has no room for these relics of the past. O’Donnell is trying to install an old carburetor in a new car, and the parts just won’t cooperate. O’Donnell’s beliefs are obscenely antiquated and potentially harmful. In particular, her position on masturbation represents her at her most ignorant and most hypocritical. Back in the mid-1990s, O’Donnell’s evangelical Christian group, The Saviors Alliance For Lifting the Truth, was featured in an MTV spot. In the promo, she explains why masturbation, especially during marriage, is a sin:“The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can’t masturbate without lust. ... you’re going to be pleasing each other, and if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?”There are two significant errors in her argument. First, O’Donnell assumes that if a man can masturbate, then he would have no interest in having sex with his spouse. The idea that the ability to masturbate renders intercourse obsolete is so sadly naive I almost feel bad for her. For those of us who have participated in both activities, I don’t think I need to waste another word describing the different experiences each act offers.Perhaps O’Donnell equates the two because she imagines the orgasm as the only benefit attained from sexual activity. Unfortunately, she is ignoring the thrills of the journey and the intimate connection two people can reach amidst the throes of passion. Hangela can’t really do that for you.Second, O’Donnell states if the man can please himself, “then why am I in the picture?” She is effectively saying that a woman’s primary importance in a marriage is to please her partner, and if he can accomplish this feat without her, she becomes useless. Her argument against masturbation emphatically espouses the significance and sanctity of marriage while simultaneously debasing the woman’s role in said marriage to a subservient concubine. Furthermore, the man’s only requirement of the relationship seems to be sex. Things like love and companionship are inconsequential.The marriage O’Donnell reveres, the marriage bestowed to us by God, merely depends on the woman’s ability to sexually satisfy her man. Is this the holy coupling she believes God has intended? If so, then stop reading here. But if not, then this belief contradicts the moral puritanism she is so eager to proclaim.But as much as I berate O’Donnell and her beliefs, I know she is not to blame. Whatever curious wind carried her here is already nuzzling the leaves of some future tree. She is stuck in our world for the moment, unaware of how incompatible she and we really are.E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(09/24/10 12:02am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In a dotcom world where any YouTube video with enough views has the chance to be featured on the nightly news, it is more important than ever for our federal government to mandate a basic intelligence requirement that potential political candidates must meet.The Internet has allowed the weeds to blossom in our political garden. A person can gain national recognition despite having no ability, no merit and no clue.Basil Marceaux is a beneficiary of the Internet’s star-making potential. While running for Governor of Tennessee, he promised to “immune you [sic]” from all state crimes for the rest of your life if you voted for him. He also wants to make it mandatory for every citizen to carry a gun. His website is riddled with so many spelling and grammatical errors that a spell check would explode before it finished the first paragraph. The man isn’t just extremely bizarre, he is extremely stupid.But Basil is not alone. Other Internet sensations such as Alvin Greene and Glenn Moon, and more successful political candidates such as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, have also risen to prominence, although I don’t think any of them could pass a grade-school Constitution test. The nonsensical arguments and absurd behavior of these political hopefuls might entertain us, but their notoriety threatens to denigrate our political office, and the attention they are receiving only validates their pursuits. For instance, on the “Jimmy Kimmel Show,” when Marceaux was asked “If it doesn’t work out in Tennessee, would you consider moving to California to become our governor?” He was met with rowdy applause and shouts of approval. And when Greene, in the midst of an indictment on felony sex charges, howled and moaned when confronted by reporters, the news anchors said, “He is certainly a different type of politician.” In Greene’s case, the anchors were treating him as a genuine political figure who just happened to be a little “different.” But Greene isn’t just a “different type of politician.” He is socially defective, devoid of any legitimate political views, and from what I’ve observed from his interviews, mentally imbalanced.And I’m willing to bet the applause Marceaux received was fuelled by ironic appreciation, not earnest support. His particular success resembles Carrie’s nomination for prom queen in Stephen King’s novel or the story of Eliza Doolittle in George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion . The poor man thinks people believe in him when in reality, they’re laughing at him. Yet he received more than 3,000 votes in the Tennessee primary, probably due to his extensive media coverage . Before you snicker at the number’s size, please realize that 3,000 people voted for a man who said “I’d like to put plant grass or vegetation across the state where any vacant lot and sell it for gas so we can use it for our expenses.” Um, what?I am not arguing intelligence can indicate someone’s ability to be an effective leader, but I don’t believe that we can have a well-functioning society if people as obviously brainless as Basil Marceaux hold any type of public office. Instead of giggling at Greene’s zombified mannerisms, or laughing at O’Donnell’s unsubstantiated belief that American scientific companies are creating mice with human brains, we should be scheduling them psychiatric appointments. E-mail: joskraus@umail.iu.edu
(09/16/10 11:15pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I think I figured out what it means to be an adult. It has nothing to do with physical development or financial independence.It is not about age or the acquisition of knowledge. It is the total acceptance of one’s circumstances and the complete understanding that the world owes you nothing. There are 78-year-olds who are not yet adults, and 17-year-olds who are. The hopeless might be, and the hopeful might not. I am not an adult yet, but I’m getting there.I think what has kept me from reaching adulthood is a story. I’ve seen and read so much that I have become confused. My motivations are misguided and my desires are cinematic.A story can paint the truth a pretty color. If a subject is written about, its significance is already heightened because whatever the subject of that story is, it was worth writing about in the first place. The subject’s value is further legitimized by an audience’s acceptance of the story, and eventually, its seamless inclusion into popular culture.Death becomes part of a narrative and thus becomes special. Tragedy can be revered. Drama is applauded. If the boy does not get the girl, well then that’s the way it’s supposed to be, and if the hero ends up where he began, he’s still a hero.I know my life is not part of a story. There is no fade in on a kid in the big city. No grand reuniting. No kisses in the rain. Stories are a part of my life, not the other way around. But still I exist, yearning for something that will not come. There are certain things I want in life, or maybe I expect them; perhaps I can’t even tell the difference. I have been loved, but I want it to last. I have been lonely, but I want that loneliness to mean something. Heartache is fine if you write songs about it. Recklessness is alright if it helps regain what you lost.Sometimes I’ll walk to class and hope my starry eyed bashfulness and oversized sweater will attract the attention of a pretty girl. Maybe she will see something different and beautiful in me. Perhaps I will discover the same in her. Sometimes I’ll imagine that by renouncing all hope and taking a drunken sabbatical, I’ll find what I was looking for. But these are fanciful ambitions. I’m not relying on my own volition, but that of some mythical, cinephilic narrator. I am not an adult yet because I still fantasize. I still want to believe that because I’m a good person, and life might just work out as I wish it would. But this isn’t healthy. If I have any potential, I am letting it stagnate. My eyes wander when they should be fixed. I look at myself as a character, not an individual. I’ll still read books and watch films, and maybe I’ll never change. They should make a movie about that. E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(09/10/10 1:38am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Scottish Episcopal Church has decided the Christian God is no longer male and is instead “beyond human gender .” They have removed words such as “Lord,” “He,” “His,” “Him” and “mankind” from services in order to promote this idea. Some ministers have even changed the final blessing, which includes the phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” to “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier .”In this new form of worship, the one true ruler of the universe is no longer a male. The qualities of masculinity are no longer at the top of the food chain. He has been demoted.Critics of these new practices accuse the Church of succumbing to political correctness , and perhaps they’re right. Maybe the brains behind this initiative wanted to make the biblical terrain a little more equal for women. It certainly is a nice thought. By classifying God as a man, while also illustrating God as superior to every life-form, man is elevated. But by eliminating the association between man and God, women can more easily be viewed on equal terms as men. But as virtuous as that sounds, the Church may have started something they cannot finish, for to rid the bible of masculine bias, one would have to give it a lobotomy.The bible is extremely misogynistic. Its views towards women represent a time period which had more in common with a hunter-gatherer society than one which had lived through the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.The Old and New Testament were written by people who lived in a rigidly patriarchal social structure. How else can you explain quotes such as “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you ,” from Genesis 3:16. Or how about this: “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness,” from Timothy 2:11.And let us not forget Exodus 21:7-11, which advocates the selling of daughters into slavery .Women in the bible are treated as servile playthings who are lucky to even be allowed in the presence of a male. Their task is to obey their man and keep their mouths shut. If someone wrote a book with this kind of sexism in it, Rush Limbaugh would probably call for the author’s assassination. If this new approach to worship was even a small attempt by The Scottish Episcopal Church to rectify the status of women in the bible, sadly it is too little and much too late. You would not only have to rewrite most of the text, you would need to change history. E-mail: joskraus@umail.iu.edu
(04/28/10 3:34am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The censoring of last Wednesday’s “South Park” episode has generated widespread debate concerning issues of fear-mongering, freedom of speech and Islamic radicalism.I have even participated in this growing dialogue, discussing the topic with friends and co-workers.While the majority of the people I’ve spoken with oppose Comedy Central’s decision to rid the episode of all things “Mohammed,” I found myself in serious disagreement with others regarding a different area of contention.Some people I’ve spoken with believe satire is only appropriate when the subject being satirized has been fairly and accurately depicted by the mainstream media.They argue that the religion of Islam has not been given enough impartial and comprehensive treatment in popular culture, and consequently, any critique will be biased and incite further bigotry and hatred. Furthermore, they argue that extremist groups such as Revolution Muslim would be less likely to exist in a society that fully understands the many nuances of Islam, instead of one that tends to stereotype it.I agree that Islam has not been wholly examined and explained in the most visible bureaus of pop culture.A news report on a suicide bombing is not generally followed by a lecture detailing the Five Pillars, and a story about Al-Qaida probably isn’t going to provide background on the Prophet Muhammad’s adolescent years.But the purpose of satire is not to wait for everyone to have their food before starting to eat. Its objective, as the Roman poet Quintus Horatius Flaccus puts it, is to “laugh men out of their follies.” Whether the gradations of the subject being satirized are known by the audience is irrelevant.What’s important is that satire be allowed in a free society as a form of protest against whatever the satirist feels is wrong, deceptive or dangerous.Satire is, and should always be, allowed to attack hegemonic beliefs and practices, humiliate public figures and comment on taboo subjects.To suggest satire should only be allowed to exist in a utopian, nonbiased world is nonsensical. A “satire-appropriate” world would require media outlets to restructure themselves as pedagogical PA systems, objectively educating the public about every potentially controversial issue. It’s an optimistic idea but not a realistic one.Furthermore, satire is inherently biased because it uses exaggeration to make its point.This is routinely seen in “South Park,” where an antagonist’s viewpoint or the irrationality of an issue is exaggerated to a ridiculous degree, thus making the flaws in the opposition’s argument blatant to the viewer. It’s like using a microscope to magnify an area of a painting in order to spot a forgery.It is not the satirist’s job to make sure his or her audience has been educated about the topic being satirized, and it isn’t likely that the media will adopt the role of a high school history teacher.It is our job to realize not everything we see or hear is gospel and to try to make well-rounded decisions based on carefully evaluated information.After all, if the media was objective and society was fully educated about almost everything, there would be little need for satire.E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(04/21/10 9:40pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last December, I wrote an article detailing where to find the best bathrooms on campus. To my great pleasure, much of that column was devoted to discussing the act of “pooping.” Now, four months later, I will again indulge my inner-fecal appreciator and review the subject once more. Unlike my previous article, which merely discussed the nuances of pooping in public places, I’d now like to examine the life-changing abilities of this vile bile. Although poop is a topic that fosters puerility and disgust, under its brown and nutty surface resides enormous potential.This summer, the town of Didcot, Oxfordshire, will take a giant, triumphant dump on anti-environmentalists and coprophobics everywhere by converting human fecal matter into energy. In a bold move, British Gas, Thames Water and Scotia Gas Networks have decided to siphon biomethane from the city’s sewage into the houses of 130 customers as natural gas. Here’s how the process works:You’ve just flushed a sizable fudge nugget down the toilet, and now our chocolaty hero, we’ll call him Pooey Louie, is traversing the gooey innards of the sewage system. Soon Louie shawshanks his way out of the sewer and arrives at one of the town’s many settlement tanks. From there, he’s diverted to an anaerobic digester, where he is beset by microorganisms that convert him to methane. The feculent caterpillar is now a gaseous butterfly, and he flutters over to a Biogas plant where he’s turned into clean gas. From there, it’s off to the National Grid, the U.K.’s electricity and gas company, where Louie is pumped into someone’s home.Now the brand-new Louie can power your oven and help you cook a nice slab of meatloaf — meatloaf that will soon become a weighty piece of excrement, thus repeating the cycle ad infinitum.I applaud this measure, as I think it shows a real commitment to conservationism. Poop is the ultimate renewable energy source and will continue to be so as long as humans feel the need to eat Steak ’n Shake and drink prune juice.Furthermore, the 130 people who agreed to have their refuse pumped back into their homes are certainly a fearless bunch. Can you imagine stepping into a shower with the knowledge that those steaming jets of water were mostly powered by your own poo? And just think of the fun you could have while trying to sell your house.“Welcome to our home! Here you can see our poo-powered dishwasher, and right over there is our poo-powered TV. Oh, and here’s our poo-powered vinyl-record player.”For the same reason that fart jokes never cease to amuse, the power of poop will always endure. We might have whispered of its graces in empty rooms. We might have pondered its abilities in some forgotten bathroom stall. But now my friends, I urge you to be open about your fecal experiences and your guano daydreams and push for poo-powered cities and poo-powered countries. Perhaps, even, a poo-powered world. E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(04/14/10 9:02pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>KFC’s rabidly anticipated Double Down sandwich is the “Snakes on a Plane” of the fast food world. Garnering massive hype prior to its release, this contentious little treat is pissing off health nuts and arousing greasy-fingered gluttons. But is the Double Down worth getting this hot and bothered about?At first glance, the sandwich may seem prurient in its excessiveness. It boasts two chicken fillets, either fried or grilled, two pieces of bacon, two slices of Monterey Jack and pepper jack cheese and, of course, the Colonel’s Sauce.It’s the chicken’s coup d’etat over the bread causing the stir. We look at a sandwich and expect to see the chicken comfortably nestled between a sesame seed bun or a French baguette, not arrogantly playing both the part of the filling and its floury reinforcement. And thus, we assume that because there seems to be a surplus of chicken, the sandwich must be an artery-clogging abomination.The reality is that the Double Down is similar to many other chicken sandwiches you might find at fast food establishments, except it has no bread. With Original Recipe chicken, the sandwich has 540 calories and 1360 milligrams of sodium, and with grilled chicken, it has 460 calories and 1430 milligrams of sodium. Compare that to something like a Burger King Tendercrisp Chicken Sandwich, which has 800 calories and 1640 milligrams of sodium, and you can see the Double Down is hardly radical.I am not arguing that the Double Down isn’t unhealthy, but it certainly isn’t the unholy monstrosity some claim it to be. Columnist Mark Morford accuses the Double Down of being a “truly disgusting creation” with “the mutated, chemically injected flesh/byproducts” of three “different distended, liquefied, industrially tortured creatures.”Calm down, Mark. Sure, the treatment of the animals that wind up in your to-go bag is most likely appalling, but it isn’t as if there is a designated “Double Down slaughter house,” which implements torturous slayings absent from all other animal slaughterhouses. I’m sure the poor pigs used in McDonald’s Bacon Cheeseburger aren’t loaded with morphine and then read their Last Rites by a priest before they die.If you have a problem with the mistreated animals in your Double Down, you also need to have a problem with the mistreated animals present in every other fast food item out there. And all this “disgusting creation” is is a double-stacked chicken sandwich plus bacon and minus bread. And before you complain about KFC’s food, try going to Taco Bell. Actually, don’t try it. I couldn’t live with myself.In fact, I’m a bit disappointed in KFC. For all the publicity the company is gathering because of its new prized product, I expected something much more extravagant. Give us three mondo burger patties topped with mozzarella sticks and doused in ketchup, mayonnaise, Thousand Island dressing and a pound of aged Wisconsin cheddar — then throw that mess onto a supreme pizza, roll it up into a burrito and bake it into a meat pie. Call it the “Apocalypse Cow” and sell it for $3.99. Now that might be something worthy of attention — and applause.E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(04/07/10 9:47pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Nearly every day, I read about a religiously motivated act of hate or violence.Honor killings in Palestine, a murderous militia in Michigan, a canceled prom due to discrimination against gay people in Mississippi.But perhaps the most recurrent stories I read concern the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church.With a Web site titled www.godhatesfags.com, the WBC is what every delirious bigot should aspire to become.Its notorious harassment of soldiers’ funerals, its sickening displays of homophobia and anti-Semitism, and its general animosity toward anything that postdates the Age of Enlightenment makes it something out of a hate-filled fairy tale.But despite the group’s almost campy absurdity, I still grow woozy with anger when I read about its exploits.“If only someone could just point out the hypocrisies of their beliefs or the flaws in their reasoning,” I’ll think, “then perhaps they would change.”But these revelations don’t happen. Noam Chomsky could give them a week-long lecture dismantling every one of their nonsensical beliefs and still the WBC would leave the room planning what color paint to use in their next “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” sign.So how do you combat something that will never die and never evolve?I recently learned of a new tactic that can make every public WBC appearance counterproductive to its cause.During one of the group’s protests in Chicago, University of Illinois Chicago student Jason Connell decided to use the WBC’s presence to raise money for the International AIDS Foundation, the Human Rights Campaign and Jerusalem Open House. These are all organizations the WBC rails against.Connell managed to turn the malevolent protests of the WBC into something positive. He calls it a “lemons to lemonade” situation.In addition to the money he raised, Jason also arranged for community thank-you cards to be sent from the organizations to WBC’s leader, Fred Phelps.There are other groups that have the same goals in mind as Connell. Phelps-A-Thon is a pro-civil rights organization that focuses on “channeling passion against Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church into donations to make positive change for all people affected by the hateful message being spread by WBC.” They are in the process of becoming a tax-exempt nonprofit association.Similarly, Pennies in Protest works through the Internet service ChipIn to collect money for groups targeted by the WBC.So, wouldn’t it be lovely if the next time someone such as Brother Jed popped up outside Woodburn Hall we didn’t just stand there and revel in his adorable racism?I think it would be more productive if we tried to raise money for local human rights groups, which would simultaneously help worthwhile organizations and show the guitar-playing preacher how his hate-speech is actually benefiting the people he hates.Fortunately, this movement seems to be growing, and with these strategies being applied more and more, the WBC’s mere presence will only hurt its own cause.Hopefully things will reach a point where, if the WBC makes an appearance, we’ll know they must really love gays and Jews.E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(03/31/10 8:45pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Likening health care reform to the systematic and state-sponsored murder of more than 11 million people is not only completely unfounded, but it also threatens to dilute the Holocaust’s massive historical significance.In a country that permits freedom of speech and protest, the use of Holocaust comparisons to counter a particular political movement is nothing new.But with the recent move toward health care reform, these vacuous accusations have reached a deranged zenith.Now, scribbling a toothbrush mustache on a picture of the president and slapping it onto a poster board has become the replacement for rational and intelligent debate.It is now the routine for politicians and pundits to equate the Obama administration’s health care plan to Nazi eugenics and mass genocide.Health care protesters carry signs bearing swastikas and Hitler imagery. I’ve even seen a poster of the carcasses of Holocaust victims piled on top of each other, with the headline: “National Socialist Healthcare — Dachau, Germany 1945.”These comparisons are harmful because they commit a logical fallacy called “the fallacy of the undistributed middle.” This fallacy reads: if all X’s are Y’s, and Z is a Y, then Z must be an X.The Holocaust comparisons operate under the belief that because all Nazis were socialists and the supporters of the health care bill are viewed as socialists, then the health care bill supporters are Nazis.This argument is inherently flawed and lacks any shred of credibility. A more appropriate instance for this comparison might be the Rwandan genocide, but by invoking the atrocities of the Holocaust to attack something as comparatively benign as health care, the real lessons of the Holocaust are being pushed aside.Both the people who are participating in this rhetoric and those who are exposed to it are being desensitized to the true evils of the Holocaust.When we remember the Holocaust, we must remember the forces that allowed it to exist.We must remember how the Third Reich’s use of propaganda dehumanized Jews by reducing them to inferior creatures such as rats, which made it easier for the public to support their demise.We must remember the social conditions that allowed a diffusion of responsibility, enabling people to remain unfazed as millions were slaughtered. We must remember the abominable evils of which humanity is capable.These comparisons also do a disservice to those who were actually affected by the Holocaust. I don’t think a Holocaust survivor would be pleased that his experience is being used as a symbol for anti-health care talking points, and I can’t imagine a worse fate for the memories of concentration camp victims than to be used by some misguided protestor to bash health care reform.This trivializes everything they endured.There is a widely held belief that “we must never forget the Holocaust,” but is it not just as deplorable to only remember it in terms of its absurd associations with the political movement of the day?Yes, we must never forget the Holocaust, but we need to remember it in the right context.E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(03/29/10 10:58pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Inspired by MTV’s smash hit “Boiling Points,” “Old Yellers” is a hidden-camera game show that tests how long random bystanders can endure the company of Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, and Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., before completely giving up on the Republican Party. We follow these two angry curmudgeons across the country as they shout “baby killer!” and “you lie!” at unsuspecting contestants who must continue to have faith in the GOP for at least five minutes. Winners receive a Valium and a $25 gift certificate to Kohl’s. Throughout the show, you’ll get to witness Joe and Randy heckle nuns and auto mechanics, Taco Bell patrons and children in wheelchairs. No one is safe from their unprovoked accusations.And don’t forget to have your cell phones ready because at the end of every episode, you get to choose where they’ll go next. Want the duo to crash little Tommy Feigenbaum’s bar mitzvah? How about an abortion clinic run by a Swedish bumper car salesman? All you have to do is text your vote.On tonight’s season premiere, Joe and Randy will be set loose in Cranky Pines nursing home, where they will unleash their insults on our adorably senile grandparents. Will the residents retaliate by throwing their catheters, or will Joe and Randy fit right in? Find out tonight at 8:30 p.m.E-mail: joskraus@umail.iu.edu
(03/24/10 9:16pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>While watching CNN’s coverage of the health care circus late Sunday night, I spotted a curious morsel of info crawling along the channel’s news ticker: “Argentina province OKs chemical castration for rapists.”The strange pairing of televised legalities and Super Bowl-like enthusiasm quickly became insignificant to me. Now I was thinking about a different sort of government-mandated health care — one that requires the weekly administration of Depo Provera — a sex drive suppressing drug — to freed male sex offenders.At least, these are the chemical castration procedures taken in the eight states of our country that authorize it. That’s right, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin all sanction the practice.I decided I needed to form an opinion on whether this form of crime prevention was right or wrong. Yet after researching its pros and cons, I simply could not make up my mind. Opinion pieces should choose a side, should they not? At least, this is what I have always strived for in my writing. But this issue has made it extremely difficult for me to come to a consensus.On one hand, an average sentence of 11 years for child abusers is appalling in its brevity, and the 75 percent recidivism rate among child molesters seems unreal. Therefore, an extra precaution to help ensure public safety seems reasonable. On the other hand, the act of continued punishment after time served seems cruel and even unfair to that tiny sliver of ex-convicts who might have reformed.There is much more to both of these arguments, of course. For starters, critics of Depo Provera point out that unless the injections are continuously monitored, the castration will be reversed. For example, convicted child molester Joseph Frank Smith seemed to be cured of his sexual desires thanks to chemical castration and even advocated for its use. However, after discontinuing the treatment in 1989, he returned to prison 10 years later for molesting a 5-year-old girl.There are also arguments that chemically castrating a pedophile or rapist would be similar to successfully detoxing a heroin addict. Some sex offenders sincerely claim they want to be freed of their sexual urges, and this drug would help.But the most important issue in all of this is safety. Sexual abuse destroys lives, and its prevention and prosecution are all too important. So if there is a procedure that might assist in deterring this sort of crime, should we support it?Sexual abuse is the antithesis of humanity’s progress and achievement. It is the act of stooping far lower than even what our most basic instincts can beseech. Yet despite these views, my anger has not swayed me.By writing this column I had hoped to finally make up my mind and choose a side, but obviously I still have not. Maybe an opinion column doesn’t have to rally to one argument or the other. Maybe an opinion could be confused rather than resolute. Or maybe my inconclusiveness is inexcusable. Either way, hopefully this will provoke some worthy discussion.E-mail: joskraus@umail.iu.edu
(03/10/10 9:52pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The word “sex” perpetually clogs our senses. It is pixilated, spray-painted, broadcasted and tattooed. It’s heard in flickers of audio transmissions, lurid whispers and drunken cat calls. But a new study from the Kinsey Institute finds that the definition of “sex” remains largely ambiguous. In the study, 204 men and 282 women ages 18 to 96 were asked to explain what constitutes “having sex.” The results were surprisingly varied. An overwhelming 95 percent of participants believed penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) was sex, but only 89 percent said it was sex if there was no ejaculation. Only 19 percent did not consider penile-anal intercourse as having sex, and about 30 percent did not believe oral contact with a partner’s genitalia was “having sex.” What’s even more interesting is that 23 percent of men 65 and older did not think PVI was “having sex.”These statistics invite numerous questions. Can our disagreements about the definition of sex lead to miscommunication? And what implications do sexual activities not mentioned in this study have? These data make it clear that no one should assume their definition of sex is shared by others because this can quickly become problematic.For example, when a patient is experiencing symptoms of an STI, the doctor may ask that person how many sexual partners he or she has or has had. If each individual’s definition of sex is different, then the answers to this question cannot be fully relied upon. A patient might say he or she has never had any sexual partners because he or she believes that only PVI constitutes sex. Yet, that same patient may have had oral or anal sex with multiple people. Thus, the determining factors for the patient’s risk of an STI have been compromised.Here’s a question: Can there be a sex act that involves one person “having sex” and one person not? For instance, would you consider one partner penetrating the other with a strap-on as “having sex?” To me, the giving partner is simulating PVI, while the receiving partner is physically experiencing PVI. Thus, the receiving partner is experiencing sex, while the giving partner is not. And for the participants who thought PVI was only sex if it contained ejaculation, why doesn’t the female orgasm come into play? I believe this demonstrates a gender bias, where the man’s sexual needs are held above the female’s. If sex must include ejaculation, then to be fair, it must also include the female orgasm. There will never be an agreement as to what “sex” is, but the Kinsey Institute’s study can help further discussion concerning sexual health, sexual behavior and gender concerns. The study also demonstrates how an attempt to define “sex” can ignore a whole host of societal, cultural and behavioral differences, which illustrates a much more complex view of the issue. The definition of the word may be contentious, but it is the issues and practices surrounding the word that are really up for debate. E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(03/04/10 12:05am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Like many universities, IU places athletics above higher education.The current construction of the $20 million Cook Hall basketball development center exemplifies this mismatching of priorities, which has never been more evident in our school.The economic recession has forced IU to absorb a $60 million budget cut. To cope with this blow, President Michael McRobbie and IU administrators have leveled a multi-year salary freeze on faculty members, cut many departments’ budgets, made numerous layoffs and are increasing health care costs. Yet amid this turmoil, a $20 million basketball facility is being built adjacent to Assembly Hall. The building owes its creation to the Cook Group, which has contributed $15 million to the For The Glory of Old IU capital campaign. The campaign’s purpose is to “raise $80 million for much-needed student-athlete facility projects and renovations, endowment and on-going annual support of student-athlete scholarships.”Associate Athletic Director Scott Dolson said Cook Hall will provide extra practice space for basketball players when the courts in Assembly Hall are in use. Additionally, the men’s and women’s basketball teams will now have equal facilities.“It’s going to be a great sense of pride for our department and the whole University,” Dolson said.I am not condemning the Cook Group for their donation. I am instead disgusted by our University’s financial priorities, where the emphasis on raising money for athletics outweighs the need for financial assistance in struggling academic departments.“Why can’t we also see the same amount of effort and enthusiasm to raise money and protect jobs?” IU support staff member Bryce Smedley said. “How does building new sports complexes help the primary goal of IU?”The administration’s decision to treat the athletic department like the school’s star quarterback leaves the remaining departments suffering. The school’s support staff, professional staff and service maintenance have sustained the heaviest job losses, and there has been virtually no hiring of support staff since the layoffs. This not only hurts those who were fired, but it unfairly overworks faculty members.“Budget cuts forced a two-for-one staffing situation,” support staff member Peter Kaczmarczyk said. “Departments were told that every time a position opened up, the funding line would be cut in half.” Those who disagree with my argument may claim siphoning money into athletics will generate revenue that can then be used to help depleted departments. But just look at the athletic department’s recent spending history. In the past seven years, millions of dollars have been spent on a new roof for Assembly Hall, the new North End Zone Facility and press box and locker room renovations. How much more do we need to build before the money goes to the right places?The goal of the campaign is to raise $80 million, and they’ve already spent $55 million on new facilities. Yet I doubt any money generated by these facilities will be generously given to other struggling departments. And I don’t buy the excuse that because these funds are being used to fix and improve athletic buildings, it is a righteous endeavor. Before the University fixes athletic buildings, it needs to fix the job losses, the salary freezes, the budget cuts and the unpaid furloughs. Don’t help the richest departments and ignore the poorest. E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
(02/24/10 11:23pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Men treat breasts with an unshakable reverence. We grovel and beam at their sight; we vibrate with eagerness at the thought of taste and touch. The swell of a bosom will breathe life into you. It will comfort you in the dark. To be enveloped by its embrace is to know nirvana.But has our lusty fascination with the breast allowed us to forget what other elixir this fleshy wonder holds? It is milk, ladies and gentlemen, the breast’s true purpose. Yes, we feed it to our newborns, but we should really be feeding it to everyone! Its nutritional advantages are numerous. Its environmental benefits are necessary. It is a crop waiting to be harvested.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. And what’s more, we don’t need to build entire infrastructures dedicated to raising and maintaining another species in order to generate it. We have the power within ourselves. Just look below a woman’s chin.If our country found a way to safely and efficiently produce breast milk in place of cow milk, the decrease in dairy farms could save massive amounts of energy and drastically reduce pollution. According to The Journal of Animal Science, “Within the dairy industry ... the majority (80-95 percent) of global warming, eutrophication and acidification potentials occur during the on-farm production phase.”In 2007, 84.2 billion kgs (185.24 billion pounds) of milk were produced, generating 26,800,000 kgs (58,960,000 pounds) of methane and 1.35 billion kgs (2.97 billion pounds) of carbon dioxide.Holy cow — that’s a lot of greenhouse gas.But just think of the amount of greenhouse gas we could reduce and the energy we could save. Jobs would certainly be created, and financial opportunities would flourish.Need a quick 50 bucks and don’t want to donate plasma? Breast milk! Are you with child, but your only qualifications are an English degree and a B-cup? Breast milk! Of course, new types of cereal would need to be marketed. Frosted Mini-Teats. Banana Chest-Nuts.Naturally, this is all hypothetical. To industrialize breast milk production would be a mammoth undertaking, reserved for a far more capable individual than myself. And because actual human beings would be required to generate the product, I’m predicting an onslaught of health hazards, supply issues and civil rights concerns. Also, the employment opportunities would only be for women.But we cannot let these impedances prevent our advancement as a species. It’s time we focused on utilizing the resources found inside us, not outside. Could our ear wax be a natural lip balm? Perhaps a dose of liquefied dandruff rivals the strongest opiate in terms of muscle relaxation. I could be wrong, but are you going to eat it and prove me otherwise?E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu
