95 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/12/12 7:25pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Lady Killer did something no one really expected. He released a holiday album and a good one at that.Green decks out all the Christmas and wintertime favorites with a poppy, R&B soulfulness missing in the Christmas albums we’re plagued with every November and December.The album starts out with Stevie Wonder favorite “What Christmas Means to Me” that immediately slaps a campy Christmas smile on your face. Green continues with the classic holiday duet “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” featuring Christina Aguilera, and the two give it a sexy sultriness. The Muppets also team up with Green, singing a beat-heavy “All I Need is Love.” It’s definitely weird but impossible to dislike, thanks to the cameos made by everyone from Kermit to Fozzie.Of course, the project is nothing too revolutionary. For a Christmas album, it’s fun and definitely earns a spot in your holiday pop rotation.By Sam Ostrowski
(11/01/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>While the hype about the upcoming election has been fairly rampant these past few weeks, there are still those that are holding out.I’m still walking throughout campus and hearing “Oh yeah, I didn’t watch the debates because they would just make me angry anyway,” “Ugh, I don’t think either candidate is going to change the world so whatever” or “Well, they never stick to their promises anyway.”That’s ridiculous.With all of the celebrity endorsements, movements like Rock the Vote and the heightened stakes in this election, it’s not trendy to not care. People who are lackadaisical and flippant gets us nowhere.You’re not being cool or ironic by pointing out the candidates can’t change the world and won’t stick to their promises. The truth is whoever wins probably won’t be able to stick to all of his promises because a nation of highly discordant people stands in his way.He’ll try his damndest and will most likely end up changing the nation. We have highly devoted candidates on the table that have shown they are willing to fight throughout this whole election process.I know I’m just another voice in the masses telling you to go out and vote, but make an informed decision while you’re at it.It may be difficult for a majority of youths who are voting for the first time to realize the impact this will make, but talk to older voters and you’ll feel the magnitude. Recently a close family friend told me that in her 65 years of life, she believes this to be the most important election she has seen. Take that to heart.We are down to six days. While it’s late in the game, it’s also crunch time. You should at least Google some information. We’re privileged to be able to find out almost any information just by taking a moment to search online. Take advantage of this and do some cramming.In a previous IDS column, I advocated that all of us will be drawn to different aspects of the platforms. Even if you don’t care about foreign policy, the candidates have radically different social policies. You may not care for social policies much, so look into the economic views. Words like “I don’t know,” “Whatever” and “I don’t care” need to be eliminated from the rhetoric because that time has long passed.Choose your future and care.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(10/31/12 11:14pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>T-Swift is back with an indie vibe that no one could have seen coming.The artist’s fourth record is clearly meant to be a step toward maturity based on the album art alone. Swift takes a break from curly-haired whimsy to show off red lips and shadows.Throughout the album, Swift attempts to find the balance between experimentation and the aspects that gained her an impressive fan base. “State of Grace” has a nice alternative feel in its drumming, while “I Knew You Were Trouble” goes a little dubstep.Unfortunately, Swift draws on the past a little too much with tracks like “Starlight” in which she loses her maturity and hunger for creativity. Guest artists Gary Lightbody and Ed Sheeran are a nice gesture, but they end up lost in the overall album and are unnecessary.Overall, the album is a step in the right direction for a maturing Swift. This is an album that will make it onto a few guilty pleasure lists.By Sam Ostrowski
(10/29/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Whenever I ask one of my roommates who she is voting for in the upcoming presidential election, she screams, “Obama. He loves the gays.”Then we all laugh, self aware of this pretty reductive look at the presidential race.I had a related encounter with my parents a couple of weekends ago. We were discussing politics, a little wine drunk, and subjects that don’t necessarily occur too often were beginning to crop up. My father sheepishly added to the conversation that he would vote for Obama for “a very selfish reason,” along with his other feelings.The selfish reason is that he worries about the civil rights that would be granted to his son with a Romney administration.Ever since Obama spoke the words, “It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married” in May, he has become quite a champion of gay rights. Adding the topic to the official Democratic platform, it became clear Obama really does love the gays. Is this a reductive way to look at politics? Definitely. It’s taking one aspect of the platform and putting it above the rest. But we all do our own reducing, anyway.Not a single soul will go to the polls believing and knowing every aspect of the Democratic or Republican platform equally. We all have certain biases and interests that lead us to some aspects of the platform more than others.Even if this thought process may be reductive, Obama’s choice is much more important than it might seem.Supporting same-sex marriage is very telling of Obama’s character. Maybe it’s not so much about the idea, but more about what the man embodies by letting this highly controversial view out into the world with as much confidence as he has.Obama told the world he is standing for what he and a hefty sum of Americans believe to be inherent civil rights. He did so just before entering his peak campaign push. He had the courage to openly display his feelings about this subject knowing quite well that it might cost him votes in a few months.He took a courageous risk concerning something that he thought was right.Isn’t that just as important as his stance on same-sex marriage?Obama’s stance about same-sex marriage is a step in the right direction for the American people and the values that we all keep close. Even those who aren’t directly affected by this legislation can take something away from his position.Maybe it’s not so selfish to want a president that will vehemently stand for the civil rights they believe are fair and just.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(10/17/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>This past weekend I saw “Argo,” the new Ben Affleck movie based on the rescue of six U.S. diplomats from Tehran, Iran, during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. This is the part in which I tell you it’s a brilliant movie dealing with an amazing and poignant story, so everyone should see it.Now is the part in which I tell you how it pissed me off.Throughout the entire beginning of the movie, the only thing I could focus on was my basic knowledge of this event and the U.S.-Iranian tension that led to it. Anything I did know about Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power, I knew because I had taught myself. I guess Model United Nations was good for something beyond the T-shirt.The main question distracting me from the movie was, “why didn’t I learn any of this in school?” I was required to learn U.S. history for almost all of grammar school, most of middle school and a year in high school. We never made it to the issues of America’s past still affecting us today.I could tell you anything you’d like to know about George Washington’s role in the French and Indian War, the mystery of Roanoke and the Boston Massacre. Yet if I didn’t have the curiosity myself, I wouldn’t have been able to tell you a single thing about Operation Desert Storm. In all the years I had to study American history, we probably touched Vietnam once. This seems pretty flawed to me.I recognize that we should know about the birth of our nation, creation of the Constitution and everything else that created the country in which we live, but shouldn’t we also learn about the issues and problems that created the country where we live today?Maybe it’s because we don’t want to show off too many mistakes. We think American youth can handle only McCarthyism as the biggest mistake in American politics, so we don’t dare go past there.Maybe we don’t want to dishearten the future of America by saying, “Look how many people hate you across the sea!” Still, it’s necessary.My apologies to Martin van Buren, but I say it’s time we start skimming more history that is no longer timely.The American Revolution has had its time, but it doesn’t need to stay in the limelight for so long.We should be at a point in which students research the Burr-Hamilton duel, not Clinton’s foreign policy, out of curiosity.American history is going to get only more expansive. It’s time to start a real abridging process.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(10/11/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A new trend is popping up in Georgia. Low-income children struggling in elementary school? Give them drugs.Michael Anderson, whose medical practice mostly consists of low-income families in a county just north of Atlanta, highly advocates giving out Adderall just like Halloween candy.His main rationale in doing so is this: “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.” This might be shocking, but I’m actually not as against this as most rational people are.Don’t get me wrong. This is bad form and is dangerous for the children. I’m at least rational enough to recognize the syntax of “modify the kid” as horrifying and far too reminiscent of Asimov-like dystopian literature.I’m also rational enough to realize that when Quintin, an 11-year-old on Adderall, Risperdal and Clonidine, began having fights with other kids because his medications were making him hallucinate that his peers were making fun of his mother, he should have been taken off the medications.But in a sense, I think it’s heartbreaking and, in a sick sense, commendable that the parents in these situations must resort to their last option.The children’s schools aren’t getting any better. Nothing is swooping in to save these children. So, the residents of Cherokee County turned to their best possible solution.I’m not necessarily against the decision to turn to medicine for a new sense of hope and a truly beneficial anecdote for the children.But that’s where the issue lies. Will there ever be a drug that will be truly beneficial for children, a drug that will not irreparably damage the brain when given to children at a young age?Certainly not at this time.We shouldn’t give the children half-studied medications that result in Quintn beating up his friends because of his Jimi Hendrix-like hallucinations.William Graf, a pediatrician and child neurologist who also works with and studies lower-income families, told The New York Times that “these children are still in the developmental phase, and we still don’t know how these drugs biologically affect the developing brain.”If, at any time, researchers thought that this might not be beneficial for development, and clearly there was a lot of doubt, then the drugs never should have been administered.I say medication seems to have the potential to help in the future. But that future is a long ways away and should never have been brought to Cherokee County.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(10/04/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>California is back in the gay saddle.Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill that “will protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) minors from ‘reparative’ therapies administered by mental health professionals aimed at altering sexual orientation or gender identities and expressions.” Obviously, this is a huge victory for gay activists, the gay community and plain old decent people, too.But because it’s America, people are livid. And because I’m rational, I don’t understand.The bill aims to protect LGBT youth. These are minors who are brought in by their parents who speak for the child, saying they have “unnatural tendencies.”Then, the therapist will ask the child if they feel unnatural. The child will say yes.Conversion therapists claim their practice is completely verified. Because they get consent from the children, they claim it is completely within the bounds of ethics, reason and the law. But of course they’re getting consent from children, because children will give consent to almost anything unless they see an immediate cause for pain or sadness.Parents say their child is “problematically” gay. This child now believes and says they are “problematically” gay. It’s essentially brainwashing.Parents could tell their child it has purple skin, and while the child probably knows it does not have purple skin because of the source and willingness associated with childhood, little Robbie will confidently go tell his friends he has purple skin.Conversion therapy has never been proven to produce positive results. Even champions of the field are coming out and saying nothing’s certain.Robert Spitzer, author of a 2001 study that stated that gay people could be cured of their homosexuality, even admitted the negative effects, saying, “In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques (of my study) are largely correct. The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” Most people who have gone through conversion therapy only admit to having lower self-esteem and suicidal tendencies afterward. In fact, the American Psychiatrist Association has actually directly made the claim that conversion therapy leads to both of the above. If these therapists really do want to continue their work, I say they forget this bill about minors. Maybe they could still have a business with adults.But most questioning people never really look back after they actually experience sexuality.Therapists have no right to be telling children what they do or don’t want. Before a certain point, children can’t really say anything for certain in the first place. They cannot keep preying on LGBT youth.Children aren’t having sexual epiphanies after normal experimentation at age 7.Brown himself said conversion therapy belongs “to the dustbin of quackery,” and I hope any decent mind can agree with this.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(10/03/12 9:52pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Be still my high school heart.The Killers have returned from a two-year hiatus with their fourth studio album.Frontman Brandon Flowers’ strained voice is back, highlighted throughout the album. The rest of the band shines with loud drumming and synth techniques reminiscent of their last album, “Day & Age.”The album is best when it embraces the band’s classic format: quiet verse leading to epic chorus. “Flesh and Bone,” “Runaways” and “Miss Atomic Bomb” will join The Killers’ hall of fame for this.Tracks like “Be Still” and “Here With Me” add depth to the album with some slower alternative-rock heartbreak. Lyrics focus on the clichéd topics of love, change and loss, but the presentation works.Unfortunately, there are some duds. “The Rising Tide” tries too many classic rock techniques and ends up being stodgy for the progressive album.Is the album as good as “Hot Fuss?” No, but will anything ever be as good as “Hot Fuss?”By Sam Ostrowski
(10/03/12 9:18pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Be still my high school heart.The Killers have returned from a two-year hiatus with their fourth studio album.Frontman Brandon Flowers’ strained voice is back, highlighted throughout the album. The rest of the band shines with loud drumming and synth techniques reminiscent of their last album, “Day & Age.”The album is best when it embraces the band’s classic format: quiet verse leading to epic chorus. “Flesh and Bone,” “Runaways” and “Miss Atomic Bomb” will join The Killers’ hall of fame for this.Tracks like “Be Still” and “Here With Me” add depth to the album with some slower alternative-rock heartbreak. Lyrics focus on the clichéd topics of love, change and loss, but the presentation works.Unfortunately, there are some duds. “The Rising Tide” tries too many classic rock techniques and ends up being stodgy for the progressive album. Is the album as good as “Hot Fuss?” No, but will anything ever be as good as “Hot Fuss?”By Sam Ostrowski
(09/13/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The television event of the season happened Sunday — the premiere of TLC’s new show “Breaking Amish.”The show focuses on four Amish young adults and one Mennonite who are fed up with their lives and decide to abandon ship to live in New York City.My roommates and I spent all weekend waiting for 10 p.m. Sunday to gather around and watch a bunch of Amish kids ruin their lives.It’s a pretty weird predicament. The show is great, and I’m hooked, but I have never felt worse for liking a reality show.Maybe it’s that I find the brooding Amish boys oddly attractive as they till their fields to generic rock music, and it feels so wrongly right.Maybe it’s that no other reality show has ever seemed so exploitative.In even the trashiest of reality shows, nothing truly life-altering is guaranteed to occur. Housemates of “The Real World” might get into fights, go lesbian for a night and show their daddy issues to the world, but none of them are ever shunned from their community without any knowledge of how to use an ATM.The premiere of “Breaking Amish” honed in on making the audience feel empathy for the individuals and think, “Yeah, Amish life does suck. Get out of there! Jump the fence! Be free!”But previews for the rest of the season promise drunkenness, sex and crying. A lot of crying. Again, it’s really no different from every single episode of “The Real World,” except that Real World members aren’t perpetually deflowered in almost every aspect of life for the entire world to see.Really, how did this show even get approved to air?We can say we’re interested in Amish culture or we’re rooting for them to make it in the “real world,” but that’s just not the case. All reality television is based on our obsession with watching individuals crash hard and burn harder.I’m watching this to see a bunch of people I normally only see at Cracker Barrel go nuts. It’s borderline sickening.But I’m not saying I’ll stop watching.You shouldn’t, either. If I ended this column saying everyone should give up on this show in protest for basic human decency, I’d be a raging hypocrite.I think I’ll just have to label the show as an ultimate guilty pleasure.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(09/06/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>So I’m doing what I normally do when the inspiration for a column is low and it’s starting to get far too late: scouring Huffington Post and demanding ideas from people around me. Surprisingly enough, it actually worked.My two methods converged as one of my friends asked me if I looked at the Huffington Post Women’s Voices section often. This is actually a valid question due to how much I love any TLC program about wedding dresses.Then it hit both of us. That’s precisely why we don’t go there for any kind of valuable news.Currently, some of the headlines on the page are “6 Ways To Be Realistic About Love,” “Ryan Lochte’s next big project?” and “Why I’ll schlep anywhere to be a wedding guest.” Not exactly interesting reading.I don’t know if it’s shocking and I expect more out of the source because of my general love for Huffington Post or if it’s because I saw Arianna Huffington giving massages at the RNC and my fanboy adoration exponentially grew, but the Internet newspaper is normally on par. All other sections of the website are very conscious of their target audience’s real interets even at the risk of being repetitive. Overall, the source is reliable and always witty. So why does the women’s section suck?Media “for women” is a conundrum. Somewhere along the line, we got lost and decided that women just like their news whittled down to weddings and new sex studies.Some sources try to battle this, but does that actually help the issue?Jezebel, the popular website marketed toward women, often takes a very strong, Miss Independent approach in its topics and general style. The problem is that it often has to shock and anger to gain readers. I know I’ve accidentally been roped into reading about vaginal scents because the headline was saucy and the content abrasively sarcastic.This kind of writing isn’t anything inherently negative, but it’s a pretty cheap trick. And it gets especially dangerous when these sources are marketing themselves for “real women” because not all “real women” are the sassiest girls in town.We need more media that can present real and poignant topics for women in a smart fashion.I’m not saying we need to abolish wedding tips altogether, but I would gladly search harder for those than I would Madeline Albright’s position on women and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(08/31/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Straight men of the world missed a great opportunity last Sunday: Go Topless Day. The event is what you’d think, women participating in topless sunbathing for the day. What you might not think is that it’s to honor and celebrate women’s equality and their right to vote.It’s true the correlation between voting and letting your breasts see the light of day is a little blurry. It’s also true the event is fairly messy as a bunch of topless women lying on a beach would surely inspire gawkers and thus undermine having a day to celebrate equality of the sexes. This column isn’t going there.Going past the obvious flaws, I say it’s great.Personally, I remember my first breast experience watching “Titanic” and having Kate Winslet’s nipples stare back at me, and I thought, “Oh. There they are. That’s it.” And really, shouldn’t that be the response?Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about breasts. Different, I know. During the summer months I realized just how strange it is that women have to cover up at the pool or the beach. Frankly, it’s a debate I don’t think we hear enough of.Apparently other Americans feel the same way. The website Gloss conducted a survey that revealed 80 percent of American women would like to sunbathe topless and only 12 percent were embarrassed or thought it wrong. Personally, I would enjoy any support available if I had to deal with breasts, but clearly the majority thinks differently.The obvious question now is: Why do we let men go topless but not women? What’s the difference between flesh and nipples on one body versus another? True, women and men have different amounts of flesh, but I think we’ve all seen enough heavyset men hitting the beach to say even this distinction isn’t valid anymore.Is it because women use their breasts to feed our children? If that’s the case, it’s pretty rude to make women hide solely because an infant is almost perpetually sucking on their nipples until they bleed and hurt.Breasts are nothing sensational. They are not overtly sexual, We have sexualized them. There’s no real threat in women being topless on the beach, We should let them do it if they so desire. Europe has sunbathed topless for years, and we haven’t seen Europeans explode into mass hedonism.Speaking as someone who has been able to be topless all my life, it’s really nothing thrilling. Sometimes your nipples burn, and it hurts. If women want to go through this, I say they should be welcomed.— sjostrow@umail.iu.edu
(08/15/12 10:26pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>To all freshmen,Congratulations. You’ve made it to college, successfully moved in and are now parent-free. So bring on the booze, hot random hookups and a whole new friend group right?Maybe.But probably not. And I’m here to tell you that’s OK. The first few weeks of college are filled with a lot of pressure. You’ll want to find a party and get your socialite career kicked into high gear right away, but it doesn’t always work like that. Immediately finding awesome friends who invite you to awesome parties with awesome booze is the exception, not the rule.So don’t fret. You will have nights where you listen to “Home” by Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes and secretly cry so your roommate doesn’t see. You will stay in and watch all the seasons of Arrested Development in a week, then move through the complete series of Strangers with Candy in even less time.And you’re still normal.College is a great experience and you’ll love your time here, but you have to ease into things. You might have to make a few less-than-stellar friendships and endure some weird trips to the Indiana Memorial Union’s bowling alley with them, but this will eventually lead to real friends.How do I know all of this?I was the master loner at the start of my freshman year. I’ve gone through all of the above and worse to the tune of four hours on YouTube watching everything from old Britney Spears videos to dancing grandmas. Pretty low.But once you hit bottom, you can only go up.Once you get through the weird stuff, you’ll have great stories to help you bond with the friend group that really matters, and you can all laugh at how heinous Welcome Week actually was.There’s no harm in trying to talk to people during the insane line for CultureFest, but if they don’t respond, you’ll still meet other people. Let’s be real, there are a lot of people on this campus, and some of them will be killjoys.But stick it out and you’ll find like-minded people.The biggest advice I can give you is to shed the fear of judgment you developed in high school. Do whatever you want. Make yourself a new person. If someone cares too much, forget them.Do whatever clubs, sports, groups and jobs you want.It’s time for you to do you.If the kid who has “break dancing grannies” in his YouTube search can be socially active and love college, you can too.—sjostrow@indiana.edu
(04/23/12 10:43pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>First of all, this is another gay article. Sorry, but this one struck too close to home to take lying down.Last week, Jennifer Tyrrell, an Ohio mom and den leader of her son’s Tiger Scout chapter, was asked to resign because she is a lesbian. Tyrell received a letter from the Boy Scouts of America saying that because she is gay, she did “not meet the high standards of membership” that the organization upholds. Really, Boy Scouts?Due to both my advocacy for equal rights and my former Boy Scout rank standing, this incident doubly irked me.The equal rights field is fairly obvious. Personally, I thought that we were beyond this blatant discrimination solely based on sexual preference. I thought that we were at the point in which we can see a person as a devoted mother who is trying to be there for her son and help out with a Tiger Scout troop, not reduce her to only being a lesbian.It’s not even as if Tyrrell was preaching some radical gay agenda to her scouts. She was helping the troop with volunteering at the local soup kitchen, collecting canned goods for church distribution and other noble community deeds. She simply happened to be gay while doing this.Even if Tyrrell were to have been exposing all of the 7-year-olds to extreme gay content, the Boy Scouts could have used it. Speaking from personal experience, the organization is often times stuck in the past. You can earn a merit badge for web design, but you still come out believing that men need to chop wood and that fighting is really cool. Women? They’re never seen. Loosening up these rigid gender roles could really do the organization some good.I remember hikes at various points during my BSA career spent listening to the older boys constantly talk about what they wanted to do to their girlfriends. Taking a “boys will be boys” philosophy, the scoutmasters normally chuckled and thought of their own rampant hormones at that age, but no one ever stepped up to suggest a different approach to the topic of women or sex in general.I never made it to Eagle status. I only had to do my final project, but I couldn’t make it. Mostly because when I grew up, I realized that I was never going to be 100 percent the same as the rest of the boys. I could never fully fit in.If Boy Scouts became a little more aware of the times, all boys and parents could fit in. And the organization could shape truly fine young men.Boy Scouts gave me some of the best memories of my life. It brought me all across the United States, taught me leadership skills and even basic dentistry. But it never taught me to hate.According to the scout law, a scout is friendly, kind, brave and etcetera. I’m sure that Tyrrell will be a better display of these adjectives than most leaders I met in my scouting days.Especially bravery.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(04/16/12 9:38pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Truth in Action Ministries decided to honor the Titanic’s 100th anniversary in a new way: a production of a short film that refers to the “radical homosexual agenda” as the iceberg to America’s Titanic.So the gays are a bunch of cold, hard sea-floaters who are ultimately responsible for young Leo DiCaprio’s death? Not true — actually, more like flat-out blasphemy. Or maybe this is supposed to reference the fact that you only see a small section of the homosexual population because the rest is too trapped underwater to be seen? Possibly, but awful angsty poetry for a group whose main goal is “transforming our culture for Christ.”Normally this kind of film is considered highly offensive and deserves rebuttal, but then I realized the hidden agenda of the bigots. The only explanation for all this hate speech is the right-wing desire to give groups such as the staff of the IDS opinion desk, “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” ample subject material.Did you see how much mileage we got out of Doug Wilson alone? It was writing gold. When Michele Bachmann was still around mucking up politics? Field day. The list goes on.Comments range from “gay men have to wear diapers,” to gay marriage is like 9/11, to gays bring about the rise of paganism in the United States, to gays are responsible for the Nazi party. It all can’t be real. No one could think these gross equations and metaphors make sense. Nobody could possibly think that it makes sense to perpetuate the negative consequences that have already come from all this type of dialogue.But all of the above has been said by American citizens and has also been endorsed by the American public.So the only logical conclusion is the one I’ve deduced.People say these outlandish comments because they’re doing their part to help the job crisis — a subject most right-wing conservatives are obsessed about anyway. They want to make sure the staff at the IDS stays employed and that the columnists can prosper by always writing quality articles about gay bashers.If the haters aren’t people who love to see us write saucy and scathing columns, then I’d say they are the meteor to America’s dinosaurs. But they claim to be nice, caring, god-loving individuals, so this isn’t the case at all.No, the bigots are just a troupe of phenomenal comedians who depend on us to point out the humor. They are secret little fame whores who are always eager for more laughs.So, let’s have a toast for the douche bags. Thanks for giving us something to marvel at and for always letting us show you just how humorous you truly can be. You’ve been stoking the IDS’ “gay agenda” for what seems like forever.Your contributions to the IDS opinion staff and most sane people everywhere will never be forgotten.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(04/09/12 10:19pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Britain’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien, head of the Catholic church of Scotland, has new plans to fight the marginalization of religion in modern society. He has said all Christians must wear some type of cross regalia on their bodies everyday as “a symbol of their beliefs.” O’Brien said he hopes that proposing this idea around the Easter season will remind everyone about “the centrality of the cross in our Christian faith.”But this is an odd request, and there are many issues with this call to adorn.For many, religion is a very personal relationship they like to keep to themselves. This does not mean these people aren’t proud or devoted to their chosen higher being; they simply see no need to go around boasting their beliefs with the hope of influencing others. Forcing these people to show the world that they are Christian is uncomfortable and not entirely necessary.Another major issue with asking Christians to advertise their religion is the fact that this kind of branding focuses on differences more often than it focuses on similarities; we tend to label in order to expose. This would not be an act of solidarity so much as it would be advertising a divide between a highly dominant religion and others.O’Brien claims that Catholicism and Christianity on the whole are being pushed out of the mainstream. A recent Pew survey, however, shows that 23 percent of Americans are Catholic out of the 78 percent who are Christian. If all of these followers were to go around showing off their cross paraphernalia, it would border on totalitarian.While O’Brien might not have this in mind, it certainly comes across as an already publicized and popular religion looking to assert itself further in the Western world. He’s looking to have a new type of modern missionary.O’Brien won’t achieve his goal of de-marginalizing Christianity by making moving billboards out of his followers.The Cardinal does cite a 2006 problem in which Nadia Eweida was suspended by British Airways for breaching the uniform code to justify his plea. This certainly is a violation of human rights, but it is by no means an instance that shows all Christians needing to suddenly break out their religious gear at once.Independently deciding that displaying your beliefs through a pin or crucifix chain can neither be stopped nor discouraged, but all Christian followers will never reach this point.Ultimately, displaying your religion should be a personal choice. One man who seems to desire even more popularization of the Christian faith should not regulate an entire group.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(04/02/12 11:03pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Justin Bieber released a clip from his new music video, “Boyfriend,” and it’s hot.The teaser shows Bieber singing a line from the new hit single while staring into the camera under sexy lighting. Then, from every direction, hands descend upon the teen star and start stroking him until a fadeout. Panty dropping.Beliebers, this is everything you could ever ask for.But is this dangerous? Is this contributing to an uncalled for sexuality in young people? Granted, the star did just turn 18, so legally he can be as sexy as he now desires. However, his following is still largely comprised of tweeny-bopping minors. And they cannot seem to handle their desires rationally.A little more than a year ago, the infamous “Dirty Bieber Secrets” website was created and horrifyingly popularized. The page provided a place for all fans to post their highly detailed sexual plans for the then-underage pop star. Posts ranged from the more innocent to the more deranged, talking about dying happy on top of Justin. Unbeliebable.The site was taken down under the pretence that the star was underage and this kind of talk was highly inappropriate, but the damage was done. Ruins of the page lie scattered about the Internet and still show the voracious sexual appetite the younger generation is developing.Granted, this type of site was not solely started and upheld by the tweens, but there is no doubt that they were reading this and contributing their own fantasies. The proof is in the crowds screaming his name on every website.Exposure to this type of sexuality at such a young age can only bring about negative consequences. Suddenly, 13-year-olds are explaining foot fetishes to their friends and discussing Bieberized versions of S&M. Inherently, this is a problem because of the loss of innocence in our younger generation, but it goes beyond that as well.Now young people are trained to just want sex without even knowing what it truly is. They fantasize and obsess about sexual situations they cannot even comprehend. This has the potential to make sex something that is no big issue among young people. It washes over the real issues of sex and focuses in on it being something that just happens. If teens want to engage in sex, there is no stopping them. Often times they have thought about the negative aspects at least once, but teens have also gone through some semblance of sex education. We are now trending toward sexualizing children who do not even know the basic anatomy of genitalia yet.Bieber might not have meant to make preteens crazed with sexual desire, but there is no denying the swoop and swag weren’t intentional marketing techniques. However, they have gone wrong and are only helping a looming problem grow.Justin, it’s hard to say this, but you might want to cool it down — for your sake and ours.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(03/26/12 8:56pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The acclaimed new documentary “Bully” has had quite an effect in the community, and it hasn’t even premiered. The film focuses on five students and their families as they experience bullying, its aftermath and the backlash from schools and other parents.It was slapped with an R rating for language by the MPAA. This is where chaos ensues.Associating the movie with an R rating limits the potential viewing audience for this film and completely eliminates the possibility of the intended middle school demographic from seeing it in schools.Students who have had personal experience with bullying have created various petitions that have gained momentum and achieved great success. Celebrities such as Meryl Streep, Jonny Depp and Ellen DeGeneres have all signed petitions and have spoken out about the issue, advocating that the film should be brought down to a PG-13 rating for more children to experience the documentary. I think that everyone needs to get behind this movement, especially considering that everyone has had a brush with bullying at some point in life. It cannot be denied that we have all been bullied, seen bullying or bullied others at one point in our lives despite how hard we try to be nonchalant and ignore the cases.We are conditioned to think that bullying is part of the schooling and growing up experience, and we have communally decided to equate bullying with puberty as something that we just simply go through. But this is dangerous and has, as the media have been showing us, clearly horrifying consequences.Bullying is an epidemic that has to be continuously fought. Even though there was a great deal of attention to the issue last year, the spotlight on the topic is fading, and we are reverting to ignoring the problem once again.Media such as “Bully” keep the issue fresh in our minds and allows for us to see things from a new angle. We need movies like this, and we need to make them available to the masses.The MPAA says it does not foresee a change in the rating any time soon, and, with the film set to open March 30, the battle seems lost.However, this does not mean that we should allow the MPAA to bully us. Children should still be given the chance to see this movie.Parents, teachers and administrators, consider revising your rules for what you allow your children to see. Just because the MPAA is giving this a rating does not mean you have to follow it.The strong language used in the film is nothing students have not already heard from peers, other movies or the Internet. Additionally, it is much easier to undo a bad vocabulary than it is to undo the torment of bullying.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(03/18/12 11:21pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>For me, the tipping point in the Stop Kony propaganda frenzy happened during spring break. As I jogged with two friends, we all stopped and noticed amateur chalk art that we assumed was advertisement for a lemonade stand or other suburban staple. However, it read “Stop Kony!” and was encircled by drawings of hearts, flowers and birds.Now the entire Ugandan struggle has been reduced to a catchy phrase that children in a lily-white community can embrace and embellish with cute hearts.This is a problem.The Kony movement is becoming dangerous and is currently only accomplishing a massive push toward Imperialism 2.0.The trouble does not lie in the goals and intents of Invisible Children and other activist organizations. It is safe to say that none of us actually view children being turned into soldiers as a benefit to the world. But the trouble (and subsequent imperialist feel) lies in the format and stylistics of Jason Russell’s viral video and other protests.Throughout Russell’s web-busting video, he takes breaks from informing everyone about Kony and the situation at hand to show off all the good that Invisible Children has done. He consistently includes shots of a crowd of white people “saving” black children and families while proudly listing all the things he has bought the African people.Russell takes time during his message to essentially praise himself and the general white community.Implying that the white powers need to go in and save the black powerless from their war mongrel is a perpetuation of the white man’s burden veiled under activism.What’s worse is that Russell is trying to make this hegemonic view trendy, painstakingly similar to how the first round of imperialism was seen by the West. In the video, hipsters in chic beanies are featured more than actual Ugandans. Russell shows crowds of young activists in cool graphic T-shirts that support the cause, and suddenly it becomes unclear what the people are even supporting.Are all of us changing our profile pictures to Kony propaganda because of the children at the heart of the issue or because it’s fashionable to save cute African kids?Ugandan response enforces this imperialistic feel.Focusing mainly on the reductionist and past-focused nature of the video, many Ugandans are taking to YouTube and asking for more emphasis on the root of the issue. Others support the cause but highly dislike the methods of raising awareness as they say spreading Kony’s image brings back horrifying memories and celebrates suffering. But in true imperialist form, we ignore this response and carry on thinking we are helping these people.Recognizing a good cause is important, but supporting it in a beneficial matter is more important.We cannot simply go about other countries’ issues the white way and perpetuate Rudyard Kipling’s iconic idea.Take time to think about what you are actually calling for, but also why and how you are doing it.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(03/05/12 11:24pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Today, many of us get haughty when we notice a potential offense or flaw in the entertainment and cultural sphere and then we fight against such “injustice.” As an opinion columnist, I would say I am pretty well-versed in this process.We love to (and are taught to) instinctively see a television series promoting an anti-gay agenda or a film portraying the black culture in a highly negative fashion. So, we point this out and feel brave climbing on top of the high horse.Culture and entertainment should be challenged. If we see something wrong, critiquing it is not inherently wrong at all, but there is also a bravery associated with being able to take entertainment for its face value and laughing at things that may be frightening.This is especially true for comedy — one of the most abundant sources of conflict within the entertainment industry.Too often we look at something that is intended to make us laugh as a broad generalization of a group or as possessing some other regressive quality. But comedy has a purpose. It might point out this generalization as a call for change because it is so ridiculous. Other times, it might simply function as a way to honor someone else and to poke fun at his or her traits. Recognizing this, putting it behind you and laughing along with others requires, perhaps, a greater strength than challenging what is being said.To anchor this in the current, Billy Crystal’s Oscar opening has caused quite an uproar around this very topic. His impersonation of Sammy Davis Jr. during the “Midnight in Paris” spoof caused the Twitterverse to explode with outrage in only moments. Viewers were furious at Crystal’s choice to perform in blackface and claimed it was a backward and hateful choice. However, instead of giving in to this interpretation, Tracey Davis (daughter of the former Rat Pack star) has come out saying: “I am 100 percent sure that my father is smiling.” It takes much more bravery to see the comedy in this joke and meet it head-on than it does to criticize its delivery. You must be confident in your abilities and personality to laugh at yourself and your legendary father. In a more personal example, a close friend and I were talking in a gender and the media class about her peer presentations lambasting the creators of “Modern Family” for showing a stereotypical view of the gay family. The content, however, in that series is inherently funny and not intended to promote any marginalization of minority groups.Once again, there is more moral merit in recognizing the stereotypes as something that does not apply to the group as a whole and laughing about it. There needs to be a point where we realize everything does not need to be analyzed.Sometimes it is better to simply laugh at the intended joke.Loosen up, America. It might do you some good.— sjowstow@indiana.edu