95 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/10/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>March has always been a confusing time for me. The only March madness I’ve ever participated in was a couple weeks ago when I celebrated my 21st birthday.Other than that, I’ve never really understood the appeal.But then again, I’ve never understood the general obsession our culture has with sports. I think they’re fun, sometimes lead to nice bonding moments and usually make some pretty decent Hollywood screenplays.But I’ve never understood why we’re so engrossed that we can have a whole month where the entire nation goes mad for college kids playing basketball.I’ve never understood our bro-centric cultural fixation.After Kevin Ware’s unfortunate and vomit-inducing leg injury, all of my social media connections were suddenly posting “Pray for Kevin” statuses and tweeting “Get well soon, Kevin” tweets. While that’s a nice moment for humanity, it a) does nothing to actually help Kevin and b) was just plain disconcerting.Right now there’s a lot going on: one of the most influential politicians we’ve ever seen has just died, gun control debates are still going strong and North Korea isn’t getting any happier.No offense to Kevin, but his leg is the least of our concerns.As a theatre and English student, I really have no business meddling in sports for the entertainment value. It’s great an entertainment source can be so far-reaching and uniting for a nation.But the extreme fandom and general mania we’ve developed is unhealthy.Probably the oldest and most obvious argument involves the salaries. In 2012, Phil Mickelson made $60,763,488 including endorsements and winnings. The man hits a tiny white ball with a club and tries to get it in a hole. Sure, it’s fascinating, but should he be making that much to do it?In a list compiled by Sports Illustrated, all 50 of the top-grossing American athletes made more than $15,000,000 in 2012 alone.The 2011-12 national average starting teacher salary was $35,672.Medscape, a division of WebMD, found that in 2012 the average salary for a radiologist was $315,000. This was the highest-paying job in the medical field that year.Now honestly look at those numbers and tell me this is fair.I know commenters are getting ready to bring up something along the lines that movie stars and Hollywood heroes get paid ridiculous amounts too.I’m not condoning that, I think we’ve generally screwed up as a society in the wealth distribution area, but you have to admit, at least those people are making you think. At least Hollywood produces work that can actually affect people and lead to cultural shifts and changes.Sports are nice. It leads to a lot of attractive people on television, but can we just stop being so obsessed?Can’t we enjoy them here and there, but ultimately focus on something a little more important?— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(04/03/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The chalkings are all pretty striking. I’m sure you’ve seen them. Most of them read something along the lines of “Abortion: choice or MURDER?” with the “murder” part in all capital letters and red chalk as opposed to the white chalk used for the rest of the message.This is all part of a publicity campaign by Clearnote Campus Fellowship, or better known by some as their website name JesusAtIU.com, for their upcoming event titled “Abortion: America’s Holocaust” Friday.What might even be better than all the chalking is the poster for the event that can be seen around campus and on the group’s website. It features a quote from Hitler underneath some scary-looking barbed wire, truly something grand.This column isn’t going to be about abortion. I’m not dumb — people know my address here, and I don’t want a brick through my window. What I do want to focus on is the backward fear mongering that so many religious organizations seem to have to exhibit in order to sensationally gain an audience.All the fear-based propaganda is publicity that works. Clearly I’m talking about it right now and giving the group more publicity. But how fair, and how earned is said attention? Clearnote is a campus Christian organization, a bunch of college-educated Bible-followers gathered around, and the group decided to consciously put undeniably one of the most evil people in history in comparison with our nation’s still developing abortion debate.The website states: “Today, we feel superior to the Nazis because of our racial tolerance, but we are no better. Instead of calling Jews inhuman, we sentence our own children to death by declaring them to be disposable.” The comparison is loose, messy and unnecessary. There’s something fundamentally wrong here.More liberal-minded organizations on campus don’t portray Jesus as Stalin, although the facial hair can be confusing, so why do the conservative-minded ones see the need to so outlandishly slander liberal-driven ideals?Highly religious media and more conservative-geared messages on this campus tend to jump toward the extreme and slanderous end of the spectrum. I’m nervous to bring it up, but this is highlighted with the recent #WhiteGenocide messages we’ve been seeing around campus. Again, a conservative organization has jumped to a highly loaded and quite frankly unfair word like “genocide” in order to cause fear and panic on campus.Clearnote is no virgin to the obscene chalkings, either. Last year’s Doug Wilson lecture was publicized by anti-LGBT messages littering the campus.While all the shock value ends up getting the message across, is it really better than playing fair?It’s disappointing that the only way Clearnote can accomplish their Christian goal is by sin-shaming our campus.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(03/27/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last week I had the privilege to participate in the IU interdisciplinary graduate conference, “Consent: Terms of Agreement.” I was part of an undergraduate panel along with two other English students, and we all presented papers loosely related to one another.After we had finished and were taking questions, one of the graduate students listening dropped a bomb.She looked at all of us, and in a more long-winded, academic fashion, asked what we think “being human” means. It was cliché, it was scary, it was one of the worst questions I’ve ever been asked.My answer was less than hopeful.I told her that “being human” doesn’t hold much weight these days. We don’t care about our own inherent humanity, much less that of others.In the middle of our tech and media fetishism where pop stars, actresses and housewives are splayed coked out in front of us so often, there’s just no way that we think of the word “human” anymore.Human isn’t a label we assign to others or even ourselves. Instead, we’re too wrapped up in any other label that we can think of before turning to the one that we all share. I’m a Midwestern college student much more than I’m a human.And this leads to a progression of bullying and other problems — not because it’s right or natural, but because we force ourselves to differentiate ourselves from others. There’s no way that we’d rather be a different label than our own, because even a disenfranchised label gives you some feeling of righteousness.We can say Madonna looks like Freddie Krueger without makeup on dozens of online forums because she’s not a “human.”But the incidents go much further than celebrity culture.Recently the Indiana Daily Student has seen an influx of rape coverage. Gun control debates due to mass killings aren’t in the distant past.As I’m writing this and simultaneously looking at Twitter, a headline from the Huffington Post popped up saying “Man shot in the head over double-parking spat.”There’s a pretty clear and present detrimental effect of not thinking about humanity anymore.Violence is easier when it’s not a human double-parking a car.While pointing fingers rarely helps, I’m willing to say that this is brought on because of the Internet. Rarely can we separate the online and face-to-face world. We stare at people’s Facebook profiles so often that the person becomes dehumanized — we solely know them as a conglomeration of photos and likes.I’m not saying the Internet is tearing us apart, but I do think our integration of it into society has become highly misguided and destructive.We should return to a point where the equalizing term “human” actually meant something.So take a chance and label yourself as a human. People will look at you strangely and think you’re some kind of over-baked hippie leftover a lot of times, but stick with it and maybe you can make things a bit less awful.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(03/21/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Emperor” is not your typical World War II film. You don’t see a bunch of Americans shootin’ up the East — in fact, the most onscreen violence is seen when some Japanese children throw rocks at an American.But what the film lacks in violence, it makes up for in devastation. Focusing on the aftermath of World War II in Japan, “Emperor” shows us a side of the conflict we rarely get in war films. We get an inside view of the politics and complications involved in rebuilding a devastated nation while attempting to bring justice to war criminals.General Bonner Fellers (Matthew Fox) is tasked with finding a way to either prove Emperor Hirohito innocent or hang him as a war criminal. While General Douglas MacArthur (Tommy Lee Jones) pushes for the popular American sentiment to hang Hirohito, Fellers searches for the truth in an apocalyptic Japan.But all of this goes up in a mushroom cloud when a clichéd love story is introduced.Apparently Fellers’ desire to make the right decision stems from his love for Aya, the Japanese girl he fell in love with at a college in the United States. Once this story is introduced, Feller’s hopeless search for Aya continuously interrupts the fascinating political plot.And when he’s not searching for her, he’s chasing flashbacks that are supposed to show a fascinating American-Japanese dynamic being played out, but really it’s just every forbidden love story we’ve ever seen.Jones’ General MacArthur is good, but it’s no great feat for the actor. Essentially, the man plays every part we’ve ever seen him play, and while the performance is fitting, it’s nothing to write home about.Perhaps the best actors in the film are those playing the Japanese adversaries who get little more than one or two scenes. They are the ones who manage to display an intense rage and anger against their American counterparts while keeping a traditional civility and honor about them.Compared to the Americans who just burst on the scene and angrily scare their Japanese cohorts, actors such as Kaori Momoi should really be given the credit for many scenes of this film.Overall, the political story is a fascinating one worth telling and is done quite wonderfully. However, the focus on the love plot makes the film cheap, common and cliché.By Sam Ostrowski
(03/21/13 3:59am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Next DayDavid BowieOne of the demigods of rock and pop culture is back after a 10-year hiatus from music-making, and he’s trying a lot of new things. Which may not be a good thing.The album’s title track sets the tone for the discordance that the album adheres to. Guitars riff aimlessly around while bells jingle amidst Bowie’s seemingly-drunken shouts. I think we can all agree we never loved Bowie for his vocals, but it’s like he’s not trying at all on a good deal of this record. Some sort of strange disharmony bogs down almost every track, and this disharmony prevents the tracks from ever truly climaxing. You’ll listen to a whole song and wonder why it ended, because it never got anywhere.Tracks like “How Does the Grass Grow?” are confusing, and when taken out of context (this was the first track from the album I experienced on the radio), they might cause people to be afraid of the album and steer clear of it. Eventually the track gets to a Bowie we are fond of, but it’s hidden behind crazed group chanting.The album shines most when Bowie stops trying so hard to be new and different and sticks to the style he knows. Ballads like “Where Are We Now?” take a break from the musical chaos and are reminiscent of the Bowie we once knew. These are a good addition to the album and they momentarily pull the work from the depths.It’s admirable that Bowie is attempting to put out something that’s revolutionary for his work as a whole. It’s also admirable that the 66-year-old artist is still putting out music.At least the project gave us a phenomenal music video for “The Stars (Are Out Tonight).” David Bowie and Tilda Swinton — always and forever.Overall, the album will make it in the world because of its classic Bowie tracks like “I’d Rather Be High” and “Dancing Out In Space.” But the artist should have been content with the style we’re guaranteed to praise. The discordance makes it hard for the album to be one coherent work. There’s not enough blend or balance between Bowie’s retrospective tracks and his modern angst ones.Buy it if you want to see a master at work, but prepare yourself to feel conflicted.By Sam Ostrowski
(03/20/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>We’ve all got at least one: the well-intentioned but maybe not so well-spoken relative who ends up saying something borderline racist, thus killing any conversation that was happening.They’re the only people who can make you go from talking about the new cast of “Dancing With the Stars” to a deep existential inner monologue about race and post-9/11 America in two seconds flat.This is a constant struggle I go through with my grandpa every time I see him, and over the years, I’ve near-perfected the art of near-racist deflection.The most recent event happened while I was at home for a portion of my spring break. The family was gathered around for breakfast discussing a Chicago Tribune article about high-grossing celebrities and their salaries — Gabby Douglas appeared on the list.In my grandpa’s opinion, Douglas only has all the money and fame now because of her nationality.To which I responded, “Well her nationality is American, so you mean something else, right?”And then he had to say it — he had to admit he meant because she’s black.This is the first step: making maybe-racists realize and own up to what they are saying.The fact of the matter is that many maybe-racist relatives simply grew up in a different time. They weren’t conditioned to be accepting like most of the subsequent generations. Race was simply different then. While it’s hard to imagine our liberal-minded modern youth not quite understanding something in the future, we’ll get there. Eventually we’ll not understand some sort of societal change, and our grandkids will laugh and say we’re inappropriate. It’s important to keep this in mind.This generational gap and lack of awareness doesn’t mean that the maybe-racist needs to be scolded, nor does it mean that he/she should be let off scot-free.The maybe-racists just need to realize what they are saying and why it could be problematic.After my grandpa said the words “It’s because she’s black,” we all respectfully and semi-chaotically jumped on him, explaining how this wasn’t OK. My mother mostly spun it by saying that in public, people might think him racist, and she didn’t want that.He held his ground for a bit, but eventually he folded.This is step two: making sure maybe-racists know that this is coming from a place of affection and the simple wish that they don’t get beat up when speaking in public.The maybe-racists won’t change if you just get angry at them and say they are raging bigots, case closed.What seems to work instead is passive-aggressively letting them know that society might think of them as racist, and because you love them, you don’t want to see that happen. You have to personalize with sugarcoated affection. Then they might understand.Changing maybe-racists isn’t a one-and-done process. It’ll take quite a few conversations where you make them realize “those Japs” doesn’t quite fly anymore.But if you hold steady, it’ll happen.Just keep your cool and remember that someday this will probably happen to you.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(03/06/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When I heard about the proposed merger among the Department of Telecommunications, the Department of Communication and Culture and the School of Journalism, I was completely onboard. I know every journalism student reading this is now busy studying my mug shot in order to beat me in an alley later, but hear me out.I was attracted to the proposed merger because the combined school was consistently referred to as the School of Communication, Media and Journalism within the official proposal.“Our proposal calls for reorganizing and expanding the three existing units into a School of Communication, Media and Journalism that comprises five departments, reinvents undergraduate education, and co-locates the units in an innovative space specially designed to facilitate true collaboration in communication and media by students as well as faculty.”The proposal consistently uses language about the “new school” and creates the idea that an actual new school within the University would be created.It’s no surprise they emphasized this considering the school’s freestanding nature for years.The plan was to give them a dean and an official-sounding school acronym (SCMJ).But this is not the merger outlined in the proposal. Provost and Executive Vice President Lauren Robel said the communication school would lie in Franklin Hall and belong to the College of Arts and Sciences.This is where they lost me.Adding another dish to the already overflowing smorgasbord that is the College is irresponsible and clearly demonstrates this University’s willingness to throw anything and everything into one school.The College boasts 70 degree-granting departments and programs and 9,000 undergraduate majors, but maybe this isn’t something to flaunt about.The College’s website claims that “from day one, the liberal arts were always the University’s central focus” in a history lesson about IU — but by making the school so large and far-reaching, the liberal arts are the most out-of-focus aspect of this campus.What is in focus on campus? Based on the newest and greatest buildings going up around IU, it seems like all eyes are on Jacobs School of Music and Kelley School of Business.Kelley’s newly renamed Hodge Hall is getting a facelift because it’s 50 years old.Ballantine Hall, the lynchpin of the College and the biggest academic structure on IU’s campus, was built in 1959.Granted, all of these state-of-the-art facilities can be built because of private donors. But hasn’t the University realized it’s hard to give the College a proper donation when it’s so incredibly far-reaching? You can easily give to each department via its website, but this isn’t as effective as donating to the School, as evidenced by Ballantine’s sad peasanthood next to Queen Kelley.And maybe IU’s telecommunications department hasn’t had a rich enough graduate to start funding a whole new school, but that certainly doesn’t mean Robel needs to continue adding departments to the pile that makes up the College.Although there are many departments in the College that effectively manage their fields, it’s distressing to see so many departments lumped into one school when the Jacobs School and Kelley School are allowed to prance about campus focusing on one field.The fact of the matter is we could all be more state-of-the-art if we let go of the behemoth that is the College and organized it in a smarter way.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(02/27/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Surprisingly enough, the most outrageous part of the 85th Academy Awards broadcast wasn’t Sally Field losing to Anne Hathaway or even Tony Kushner being completely snubbed.The most horrifying piece of the whole event was a commercial for ABC’s next reality show, “Splash.” On March 19, we can all gather round our televisions to watch C-list celebrities compete in a diving competition.I’m not lying.ABC’s website boasts, “Splash marks the first time 10 celebrities will train and compete in regulation platform and springboard diving at dizzying heights in front of a weekly poolside audience. “Each week the celebrities will look fear in the face as they leap off the 10-meter high dive, pair off to complete synchronized stunts, and flip, twist and spin into the depths of the pool below.” Even taking into account my years of consuming Kardashian culture and everything Andy Cohen ever spat out, I have never heard anything more asinine.The show is not only dumb, but it’s offensive. ABC’s celebrities include Kendra Wilkinson (presumably chosen because this is nip slip heaven), Louie Anderson (because fat people belly-flopping is TV gold) and Chuy Bravo (because he’s small and Latino, both good things to exploit). The list goes on, but you’d need to do some deep Google searching to know the significance of the rest of the cast. To go on saying it’s sad that American primetime television has come to this would be beating the already-bludgeoned remains of what was once kind of a dead horse. We all know we suck because of the track our television tastes are on.But a show like “Splash” is especially offensive, because there’s actually nothing redeemable about it.At least with singing competitions, we can see everyday people from bumble-bramble America make it to the big leagues. With cooking competitions, I get falsely convinced of my ability to prepare haute cuisine.With “Splash,” we get nothing.It’s not that we need to end our consumption of reality television — it’s too embedded in our culture now to rage some kind of genocide against it. But we do need to stop taking such pleasure in exploiting people who should never be famous so we can hopefully see them in pain.It’s the sadistic version of reality TV that we should be afraid of.Stupidity is sad, but the people on “Jersey Shore” aren’t doing all that much harm. However, the contestants on “Splash” will go through a lot of pain — and that’s what will make the show a success.We still have episodes of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” because we just can’t get enough blunt objects hitting testicles. It’s common knowledge a bowling ball hitting a groin will hurt, but they still put new shots of it on TV every week. This same mentality drives the hype and creation of “Splash.”We can hold ourselves to some higher standards — we should be able to have entertainment without sadism.Please, ABC, “Wipeout” was enough. Let’s keep it classy from here on out.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(02/20/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>So, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is out, and all the straight men, bisexuals and lesbians out there have new coffee table décor for at least a solid three months.I’ve never really understood the rage over the issue. If you want to look at soft-core porn, you can use the Internet, as it’s free and you don’t have to wait a year for it. Also, there’s something pretty disconcerting about the fact that one of the nation’s most reputable sources for sports information sends a jolly-getter to your mailbox once every year. My grandpa subscribes to Sports Illustrated — I don’t need that thought in my life.Regardless, this issue is confusing for different reasons.This year’s theme is “All Seven Continents,” and they let us know they did all seven continents by throwing a topless Kate Upton on the cover donning a white parka to cover her nipples. It makes no sense, but at least they got the pun “Polar Bare” out of it. The seven continents theme goes from odd to awful once the issue starts getting into other locations. Anne V is photographed in China wearing a bikini bottom and (similar to Upton) covering her nipples only in a “Chinese-looking” silk robe. Adaora gets fun and flirty on a safari jeep in her photos taken in Namibia. So we’ve got the basic, “let’s reduce a whole continent to one stereotype” thing going on. But wait. It’s worse.Sports Illustrated went so far as to have their models pose with the natives. In Anne V’s photo shoot, a Chinese man in stale grey garb with few teeth rafts the colorful model across a placid body of water while she stares desirously at the camera. In Emily DiDonato’s shoot, she’s lucky enough to pose in the African desert with a half-naked, tribal-looking man. Both she and the man are wearing loincloths and carrying spears. Normally, I’m a person who tends to call for people to be a little more tolerant about white people being devils. I think we should all take less offense and laugh more.I own a bunch of “native print” clothing, and I’m not ashamed to wear it. But I’m also not wearing it with a headdress next to a Native American with a dead buffalo next to him.That’s essentially what Sports Illustrated has done.Most of the outrage from the images comes from the fact that real people are being used as mere props in this fashion shoot. David Leonard, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, hit the nail on the head when he told Yahoo, “these photos depict people of color as exotic backdrops.” It’s not the fact that the magazine sought out an exotic location to use as the backdrop for the shoot. It’s that a white pouty model is juxtaposed with a nearly toothless Chinese man all in the name of boobs and butt.I’m all for lightening up and having a great-looking photo in the name of fashion, but we don’t need this.Sports Illustrated has gone too far.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(02/13/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Union Board is facing yet another funding cut at the moment.According to the most recent proposal by the Committee for Fee Review, Union Board will lose four cents per semester per student — more than $3,000 per year — beginning in fall 2013. However, this number isn’t as grand as years past.In 2011, Union Board lost 70 cents per student per semester — more than $50,000 of the annual budget.While the Board seems to be unfazed by these cuts, they indicate a larger issue at play. Union Board is a good organization on campus, but the funding restrictions demonstrate the larger disconnect between student groups and actual students on campus.I whole-heartedly support the work Union Board sets out to do. Its general efforts have provided the campus with many cultural experiences and has provided my peers and friends with great opportunities in projects like the annual musical at the Buskirk-Chumley and the creative arts magazine Canvas.With recent pitfalls in programming, it’s no wonder that students aren’t demanding Union Board retain its funding.We all remember the Sublime massacre of 2012 — the event where every middle-aged druggie of Bloomington crawled out of his or her hookah den to take over the IU Auditorium. The Auditorium only hosted the concert because ticket sales didn’t garner the original plan of using Assembly Hall.The only plus side of that fiasco was I got secondhand high working the concert.And while John Legend was a good effort, it didn’t quite sell as the Board had hoped it might. Legend performed for a rather “not full” auditorium, as the Indiana Daily Student and Union Board stated.Even great opportunities I already mentioned are starting to fade away.Last year’s Union Board sponsored musical had to be renamed “An Evening of Kander and Ebb,” or, as many involved in the project liked to call it, “Shmishago.” This came about because the hit musical “Chicago” was being produced until about a week before production, when the production team realized they didn’t have the rights for the show.Union Board is a great organization on campus that we can all benefit from, but there is a sense of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” With recent problems and flops, it’s hard for students to get angry about Union Board’s funding cuts.Union Board can only provide better opportunities with better funding. So this is a bit of a catch-22.At least Union Board has a much more active role on campus than other student organizations. We essentially see what Union Board is doing at all times, and we see members taking an active role to provide good opportunities for students year-round. This can’t be said for all. So we’ll see who can break the awkward disconnect standoff first.Maybe they should just bring Beyonce for Little 5 and win the hearts of us all.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(02/06/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In order to shield some children from the possibility of a vicious school shooting, some schools have exposed their children to the possibility of a vicious school shooting.Due to the recent tragedies across the nation involving violence in schools, many schools have implemented drills so that students know what to do should a violent intruder enter the building.This is great and something that I fully support. I’m of the school of thought that you can never be too prepared, so I think drills of every kind should be held across the nation. But some schools’ methods have me jumping off the bandwagon.Recently, an intruder drill at Cary-Grove High School in Illinois featured a blank fired from a starter pistol.But they don’t stop there. Howe Hall Arts-Infused Magnet School in South Carolina featured an intruder who only verbally shouted “bang, bang” but still left teachers and school staff limp on the floor with bloody, fake wounds.Staff claim this is only to help prepare students for what would really happen, not to scare them.But I’m going to go ahead and say it’s scaring the children as well.I’ve survived 20 years of my life playing some violent video games and shooting guns on camping trips, but if a teacher were to play dead next to me with a fake, oozing gunshot, I’d probably sob.A 2007 study in the School Psychology Review examined the effects of crisis drills on students. The researchers ultimately concluded that fourth-, fifth- and sixth-graders had an increased knowledge of what to do, with standard levels of anxiety and perceptions of safety.None of the cases in this study used extreme realism.Co-author of the study Amanda Nickerson only said the following about extreme realism: “I don’t think that’s necessary, and I would think it could raise people’s anxiety unnecessarily.” Kenneth Trump, president of the National School Safety and Security Services, has similar feelings as Nickerson.When asked about the subject, he said, “We don’t need to teach kids to attack armed intruders by throwing pencils and books at a gunman or to have a SWAT team at the kindergarten doors, but it’s not unreasonable for school leaders to make sure that students, teachers and support staff know what to do in an emergency.”Clearly, many officials are skeptical about the use of extreme realism in intruder drills.What’s worse is that the use of fake gunshots and wounds could also lead to desensitizing children to the violence. Eventually you stop being scared of the fake blood. What’s so different when real blood happens?I will always back schools practicing intruder drills, but they don’t need all the razzle-dazzle.I distinctly remember the administration having us practice a “code red” drill in high school. For me, it was essentially a bunch of choir kids just hanging out in the dark, but the memory still sticks. I didn’t need fake blood for that to happen.We’ve survived fires for centuries without drills that include smoke and principals shooting flamethrowers down the halls. It’s the same case for intruder drills.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(01/29/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With Bloomington’s 10th annual PRIDE Film Festival right around the corner, my biannual struggle with pride festivals is rearing its ugly head again.Last year I wrote a column that I thought was the word of God on all pride festivals. It essentially looked at many of them as just providing fodder for anti-gay movements across the country.Naturally, now that I’ve been to more pride festivals since I wrote that article, I’m conflicted once more. How can I so overtly say no to confetti, street food and a lot of near-nudity? That’s just against my inner instincts.But I still believe in an overarching sense of class and respect — hence where my instincts and philosophies begin to collide.I like having fun and being in a sexually charged environment with drag queens as much as the next guy, but outside of the festival atmosphere, I worry about the ultimate affect and image the festivals might convey. President Barack Obama’s recent inaugural speech really hit home how important it is to honor the gay rights movement and events like Stonewall with a certain solemnity.So, I was having a lot of feelings seeing all the advertisements go up for PRIDE Film Festival.But after looking at the film selections this year, I can say that I’m proud of Bloomington’s PRIDE.It’s easy for LGBTQ films to fall into a pit of camp and underwear. I’ve seen many of those advertisements. And while that’s good for jollies, we could do better in terms of artistry and real thematic elements.The gay rights movement has basically done all the shocking and spectacle it can do. At one time, assless chaps made a statement by forcing the country to recognize homosexuals. But overt sexuality isn’t necessarily the way to explore the movement anymore.A bunch of gays watching soft-core porn in a dark room doesn’t exactly push the envelope like it once did.This year’s PRIDE is full of films that focus on the modern family, gay racial implications and a homosexual challenging of the heteronormative romantic comedy. These are issues that we should be focusing on and discovering. They are the respect that the movement deserves.We rarely actually hear about the racial issues tied to the LGBTQ experience. We don’t get to see many transsexual stories outside of reruns of MTV’s “True Life.” Obviously these are major issues we should address within the modern gay rights movement, but they often get overlooked in a general parade atmosphere.We’re very focused on celebrating and challenging heteronormative society, but we’re not so interested in challenging ourselves and our often narrow-minded idea of gay rights.I’ll probably be at the big ol’ gay dance party, but I am proud to know that’s just one aspect of a weekend of very real LGBTQ issues explored with respect on the big screen. It’s nice to know that I can have my typical pride experience, but learn as well.The fight for equality is developing on a daily basis. Pride festivals should be developing too.Luckily, PRIDE Film Festival seems to be a leading member of the change.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(01/23/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Newark Public Library in New Jersey isn’t usually a source of much excitement. That is, unless you count heated arguments about artistic censorship.In December, the library decided to hang a piece of artwork by Kara Walker — a renowned black artist who focuses on elements of race, gender and sexuality. This particular piece focuses on the tribulations of Reconstruction-era racism and 20th-century Jim Crowism.The piece is titled “The moral arc of history ideally bends towards justice but just as soon as not curves back around toward barbarism, sadism, and unrestrained chaos” and is just as depressing as it sounds.The sketch caused controversy because people noticed there is a white man forcing a black woman to perform fellatio on him in the right-hand corner of the work.Sounds pretty awful, but let’s clarify that we see no genitals — just an angry face and an exposed back.Apparently we ignored the fact that it also shows a plethora of Klansmen, a burning cross and a lot of general anguish. Implied oral sex is much worse.The library decided to cover the work with a giant zebra-print cloth (which is not only tacky but also seems a little racist based on what it’s covering) last month to quell some of the controversy and the unease its staff was beginning to feel.Luckily, just a few days ago, Newark Library decided to take the covering down and let the oral sex out for the world to see.This might seem like a trivial thing to write about. Who cares about a library all the way over in New Jersey? But this is bigger than that.Newark Public Library’s decision is not only a victory for Walker, but for the nation.So much of our nation’s art and culture is viewed and spit up instantly. The general public usually views pieces as just kind of “nice” or shock art for no reason. We are rarely challenged by art.The people in Newark were shocked. Although, they had a moment of weakness, prevailed for the sake of art and the basic desire to create. I readily admit that sounds dramatic, but it’s true.One of the arguments attached to the work was that it should be hung in a museum as opposed to a library. Because in museums you can expect to go appreciate art. However, the library’s ultimate decision to keep the work also speaks to this issue.In its choice, Newark Library showed us that we don’t just have to keep challenging, moving art in a museum where you have to pay too much or wait for the next field trip to go see it.Newark made art for the people and helped to take away a stigma of stuffiness or air of overly hipster that’s often associated with viewing challenging and controversial works.Thanks to Newark, we have an example of real art hanging for real people to see.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(01/16/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I was getting coffee with a friend and fellow columnist so I could hear all about his wonderful adventures studying abroad in London.We were gabbing right along when something struck me. He said that in London they only focus on the Western canon. In fact, they’re so dedicated to the Western canon that University College London, where he was studying, doesn’t even have any type of creative writing program.And this pretty much baffled me.At IU, we’re used to being able to study almost anything we want, whether it was created a week ago or hundreds of years ago. This university’s dedication to the new and popular culture as well as the older parts of the canon is exactly what a university should do in my eyes.Personally I don’t see why we need to keep beating Shakespeare’s work into a messy, scholarly pulp.The fact of the matter is, the world sees hundreds of articles published each year based on old, dead, white men’s work. If you do write anything about Shakespeare, all you get to do is recycle other arguments from previous scholars.Where’s the fun in that? And more importantly: where’s the growth in that?I do think it’s important to study the canon and get familiar with the works that have shaped almost every piece of Western thought that has come subsequently.It’s important that we see the birth of the novel, the start of literary and artistic criticism and other noble firsts. Critiquing the older works in the canon also helps to learn a different style of writing and argument, one based on unraveling and recreating previous schools of thought.But it’s also important to expand the canon and learn the world we live in now.To stick with the Shakespeare bashing I’ve got going, we need to remember that he was never an established artist in his period. His plays were today’s “Real Housewives” — pure entertainment.We need to stop discounting and devaluing modern works like “Star Wars” just because George Lucas’ flesh isn’t decaying yet (even though his film career is).The world’s scholars should be devoting more of their time to pop culture trends and interests. That’s what tells us what a society values. We can even apply the old to the new — we just can’t bury our heads in old men.This university’s strength comes from the professors I’ve had who know how to analyze Victorian literature and write pop music reviews at the same time, as well as those who can support a student exposing how Shakespeare set the basic plot line for almost every Amanda Bynes movie out there.Chaucer’s great, but he hasn’t put out anything good for a long time. We don’t need to exclusively study him.So here’s to you, IU: the school where I can read Jane Austen’s “Emma” one semester and write a critical theories paper on the online dating documentary “Catfish” the next.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(01/15/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>One of the arguments against the merger that’s mulling around in the minds of professors and administrators is a fear that the new school would require a sacrifice of specialization.Many are afraid that with such an expansive school and group of students, no one could possibly receive proper education to declare “specialization” status.I beg to differ.As an English major, I’m part of one of the largest and broadest programs on this campus. The major offers coursework in Chaucer, creative nonfiction writing and the Coen brothers — that’s a lot in one basket.But in my pursuit of a public and professional writing concentration, I’ve always found classes that whole-heartedly work to make me feel completely knowledgeable about all aspects of my chosen specialization. I’ve encountered smaller classes taught by passionate professors while still getting the broader education from the English department.I see no reason why this wouldn’t be the same case in the new School of Communication, Media and Journalism.The proposal for the new school states students would need to choose a concentration and may choose a specialization if they’d like. The lists of options for both are impressive, interesting and cutting-edge.Professors would still be able to teach smaller classes for specialization purposes, but students would benefit from different aspects and viewpoints of their concentration.Now, students will actually receive “specialization” status because they can view their visual communication concentration from classes taught by telecommunications-geared professors one semester while taking a class taught by a more general communications and culture-geared professor the next.Students will receive a more comprehensive education that covers all aspects of the field they actually find interesting.The proposal for the School of Communication, Media and Journalism also focuses on getting students out into other schools, too. It gives some examples, such as “the Media Psychology specialization could include courses from the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, and the Political Communication specialization could include courses from political science and Political and Civic Engagement.” Clearly any argument that specializations could be lost has been thought about and dealt with properly. So, while some resist the changes that will ensue with this merger, I welcome it with open arms.I almost wish I could change my major to something within the new school.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(01/07/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Here at IU, we’re known for a lot of fantastic schooling opportunities and educational endeavors.Our School of Education is not in that bundle.I came to IU thinking I was going to be a secondary English teacher.I was still enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences, but I decided I would finagle a way to get my B.A. in English and get certified via our School of Education.However, after taking some classes and interacting with others at IU Wright Education Building, I decided I just couldn’t be enrolled in those classes for four years.In my School of Education experience, I met teachers who were burned out, lackadaisical and lacking control over a classroom and experienced students who were uninspired, uneducated and worthless in classroom discussion.So many students were there because they had no idea what else they wanted to do.And many of them got away with it and thought they were in the right spot because discussions focused on what they liked or didn’t like in high school.I grant that lazy students will exist across the board at any level of education, but I’m irked the School of Education is fostering and allowing such sluggishness because one of them might come in direct contact with my child some day.I don’t really give a rat’s ass about the burned-out English major who sits next to me in class. He’ll never do anything that could royally screw up society.But a bad teacher has a profound impact.Teaching used to be respectable, not a career you would flop to if you had nothing else going for you.Now, I do have some friends that have stuck it out and are succeeding in their education endeavors, but it’s only because they have amazing drive.They are able to find out how to make their plans for the classroom work when their advisers cannot.The school also produces some amazing alumnus as it’s a large school, and probability says someone will end up being successful.We need these students to stay and stop the bad ones from poisoning an entire classroom or an entire school.We need to hold the School of Education to a higher standard.With hidden staff gems all around the school, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be up at the top of national lists.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(12/06/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>But not in the way that we’d like to see it go.Recently the Associated Press announced the word “homophobia” has got to go, along with “Islamaphobia.” The online AP Stylebook has officially added language stating writers and editors should not use “phobia” words such as “homophobia” and “Islamophobia” in “political or social contexts.” The grounds?Editors think the inclusion of “phobia” relates to mental illness. Thus “homophobia” is “just off the mark,” as AP deputy standards editor Dave Minthorn told Politico. The AP always strives to report in a neutral fashion, but is that reasoning enough to back this change?The AP’s rationale might be alright for Merriam-Webster and friends, but the fact is “homophobia” has entered the public sphere and been adopted by our general culture as “someone who fears and/or doesn’t like homosexuals.”Etymology and intense dissection of the word doesn’t matter because we have already created a cultural meaning. We understand the word and need it for argument’s sake.What might be even more detrimental to the argument is that George Weinberg, the man who coined the word in 1972, was a psychologist. He felt comfortable saying, and had research backing the idea, that there is a legitimate fear of homosexuals.Extreme cases of “anti-gayness,” which is what the AP is going to start encouraging, such as members of Westboro Baptist Church can only be described as homophobia. They would never let a gay person touch them. They carry around signs to distance themselves from any part of homosexual culture and named their website “godhatesfags.com.”That’s fear.Being anti-gay does not begin to cover Westboro.Essentially the AP is helping the world go soft on bigots, which might be “without bias,” but that doesn’t make it right.In fact, eliminating the word creates a masking effect and gets us further into a whirlwind of political correctness. It’ll cause us to be less direct and less accurate about what’s actually happening in the push for equality.“Homophobia” is a word that has been used throughout the struggle for equality. In a sense, the AP is undoing progress in a field where any loss of progress is a highly slippery slope.The AP may only be one source making the change, but it’s a highly influential one that may lead to quite the snowball effect.I know I’ll continue to use “homophobia.” And thank God I’m an opinion columnist so I can say whatever I goddamn please.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(11/29/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Fox News has done it again.Suzanne Venker recently published a cheeky column on the Fox News website to promote her novel “How to Choose a Husband (And Make Peace with Marriage).” It’s reductive, rude and going viral. Venker wants the world to know she is a woman who is not a feminist. That’s like being a gay Republican: just confused. Her point is based in research that says in the past 15 years, there has been a 9 percent increase in women ages 18-34 that say a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives. But men don’t share the love. There is a 6 percent drop for men with desire to marry.Why is this a problem?Because Venker said she thinks women suck. According to the column, the battle of the sexes rages on, but it’s all women’s fault. The column’s title, “The war on men,” basically sums this up for us. Women are apparently angry and defensive, turning men away from them and leading to a lack of marriages.Venker goes on to explain how the idea of womanhood has changed, and she doesn’t like it. She said “women aren’t women anymore.” This isn’t true because women are still women. Women aren’t pie factories and baby farms anymore. That’s what makes her angry.Gender has become more of a societal projection than ever. Women are being women according to 21st century standards. If Venker really believes women aren’t women, then she should be mad at everyone. Most men aren’t being men because they’re not off killing wolves to keep their family safe on the prairie. I’ve never built a log cabin, and I never intend to.She’s angry at the changes that have been made in the past 50 years, from women as secondary to women as competition. Venker said she believes men don’t want competition, but they want wives, and we should all go back to the days of Stepford.I’m pretty sure it goes without saying, but don’t turn back time. You might get to marry sooner if you actually “surrender to your femininity,” but you’ll probably be marrying a bad person.Husbands don’t own wives anymore. It’s simple, and this has been established for a good 30 years. But we still haven’t seen much real change. Venker said she thinks going back on feminism will make marriageable men “come out of the woodwork,” but it will really just make the gross, lazy ones pounce on you.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(11/15/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Trojan has once again ruffled some feathers at the home of Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex.This year’s Trojan Sexual Health Report Card ranked IU 42nd in sexual health. Of course, this is better than last year’s 63rd ranking but still lower than 2010’s No. 39 spot. Offended, IU officials attacked the survey, declaring it inaccurate. Kathryn Brown, certified sex educator with the IU Health Center, and Cathlene Hansen, director of health and wellness education at IU, both said our school is better than Trojan says.But is it? I mean, surely the beacon of liberalness in Indiana is going to inform students about sexual health, right?Not necessarily.Hansen said the health center hands out at least 10,000 condoms each semester, a pretty impressive figure. But that’s at the health center and I’ve never had a good experience there. I don’t know a single peer who necessarily seeks out going to said location.I’ve been handed a condom once on campus. Not saying that I necessarily want more of the cheap, flavored, purple-colored kind that they tend to give out, but with three years on this campus, I feel like I should have been given more.If we really wanted to boast about giving out condoms, we should be giving them to passersby at the Sample Gates or some other location that actually would create knowledge about sexual health.The truth is we’re not a sexually healthy campus, but we don’t want to face it.The majority of students feel no need to actually go get tested. When they do go get tested, they feel weird about it.This may not be what Hansen and Brown see, but it’s what I notice every day in my peer group.Sexploration Week was a great and progressive little week for IU, but it was only one week that will mostly be remembered for people going to the speed-dating event with fake disguises and Chaz Bono’s event at the IU Auditorium.Did we actually learn about the importance and normalcy of getting tested? Not at all.All sexual health organizations should be focusing on a yearlong awareness campaign, not just a week.It really is no surprise that we are ranked so low. I’m not proud, IU isn’t proud, but don’t be so offended when we don’t try to be a truly open and safe campus.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(11/13/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Now that Hurricane Sandy has subsided, it’s time for the relief circuit.Sandy, just like every other disaster these days, sparked NBC’s “Hurricane Sandy: Coming Together” telethon — an all-star benefit that raised $23 million for Red Cross relief efforts. Everyone was pretty humble, and the Red Cross really thanked everyone who contributed to the efforts. Overall, it was a pretty classy affair. But this is not the only all-star benefit to hit televisions this fall.On Thursday, MTV will air “Restore the Shore,” a benefit hosted by the cast of “Jersey Shore.” The network is boasting that viewers will be able to interact with the live event by donating online and via mobile phone. The benefit will collect money for the nonprofit Architecture for Humanity organization, which will use the donated money to rebuild Seaside Heights, the town where the first season of the show was filmed.So, go hurricane relief, but “Jersey Shore?”At what point do we get to say “no” to benefits?It’s really one of the biggest catch-22s out there. The money is going to a good cause, but are we allowed to use indecent people who “earned” their fame by getting drunk and naked for the world to see to procure it?The sad thing is, everyone can see this particular benefit isn’t just for the good of the shore. It’s also a conveniently placed publicity stunt for the failing show.Now in its final season, “Jersey Shore” doesn’t have anywhere to go, but the show has already rubbed its orange hue off on pop culture.Almost everyone recognizes the name Snooki or the infamous acronym GTL. MTV can’t afford to give up its hold on pop culture’s neck, but the plug has been pulled. How do they keep making publicity? By exploiting Sandy’s devastation.I’m not saying I’m against raising money to help people, but there’s no denying that MTV has other motives.It’s a huge, established corporation. If the executives wanted to, they could definitely throw some kind of truly high-grossing Katy Perry power hour together with ease. Instead, they thought a group of self-proclaimed guidos was a better idea.Celebrity benefits can only go so far until they start to sound less like help and more like harm.— sjostrow@indiana.edu