95 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/28/12 1:55am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Celebrities have it hard these days. Award shows are no longer a chance for stars to revel in their own glamour. Now there appears to be some secret hidden edict saying famous people must make some kind of “artistic” statement on the red carpet.There have always been those one or two eccentric celebrities who feel the need to show up in flat-out nonsensical garb (here’s looking at Björk and the infamous swan dress at the 2001 Oscars), but now there needs to be more. Apparently, there needs to be meaning beyond simply indulging quirkiness.Cue Gaga. The pop music and pop cultural sensation has been the catalyst for many of the statement-making ideas celebrities have embraced for award shows recently. Gaga started her big societal criticisms at the 2010 Video Music Awards with her escort of soldiers directly affected by Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Surprisingly enough, I actually enjoyed this stunt. Due to her continual efforts to repeal DADT, Gaga actually made a resounding statement in an area that readily publicized the effort, showing the public the need for change.But then a horrible display of one-upmanship took hold, and the statements started to become more obscure and less meaningful to the general public. Gaga’s egg-vessel for the 2011 Grammy Awards did not exactly phase, disconcert or inspire anyone. It was supposed to be a creative experience for the artist so she could fully understand her work, but it simply drew attention to Lady Gaga for publicity’s sake alone.This is the trouble we face now. Can you actually make art on the red carpet, or is it all for pictures?There was a lot of controversy leading up to this year’s Oscar awards that many have overlooked. Sacha Baron Cohen is at his shockingly scathing humor again with his new film “The Dictator” and caused uproar for the Academy when he expressed desire to show up to the awards as the film’s main character (a hyperbolic, golden-gun-toting ruler).Drama ensued as rumors were thrown around that Cohen had his tickets revoked. Cohen, dressed as General Admiral Aladeen, then made a video directed to the Academy in which he yells, “Death to the west.” He was later assured that he was allowed to attend the Oscars.What does any of this accomplish? What kind of art is being made here?Cohen frequently loves to satirize our culture and point out its flaws through outrageous humor, but this whole stunt is nothing more than promoting his new film and attempting to get back some of the heated publicity he had during “Borat.”That Cohen actually followed through with his threats for Sunday’s award show proved to be dismal, though when one spills ash on Ryan Seacrest’s presumably expensive tux, it becomes difficult to reprimand.Celebrities become famous for making art, and they should be creative and earn their fame.But there is a distinct line between statement and publicity stunt. We need to return to meaning more than simply being fame whores.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(02/21/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There is a prejudice that has become invisible in our modern society: anti-gay colloquialisms.We have incorporated a great deal of truly offensive phrases into our everyday syntax.The worst part is that homosexual supporters and even gay individuals are often the ones who perpetuate this discrimination the most.The offense that stands out the most is a phrase we encounter nearly every day: “My gay best friend.” Too easily, girls, most of the time, proudly walk down the street, gabbing about how they can’t wait to watch “Sex and the City” and cuddle with their gay bestie.It seems harmless, but this phrase has an extremely marginalizing effect. When this expression is used, the “best friend” is reduced to being defined by his or her sexuality alone. The person is taken away and replaced with a stereotype.Homosexuals are the only people that we see fit to immediately define by their “uniqueness.” Phrases such as “My black best friend” and “My Jewish best friend” do not exist because they sound wrong to the ears.But somewhere along the line, “gay best friend” started to sound right.If someone is truly your best friend, shouldn’t they be just that and that alone? There is no need to complicate anything and perform a disservice to a person you obviously care about.Another colloquialism that recently spiked in popularity is the word “tranny” (a shortened, catchier version of transvestite).This slur seems to cover a broad category of all things negative and is perhaps perpetuated the most by members of the gay community — a shocking and insulting idea itself.Transsexual people have incredible obstacles to confront, starting at a very young age. Their lives are often a series of conflicts within themselves, their community and the world, as they discover what gender they actually associate with.To make a mockery of this struggle is pathetic.Many of us will never know how this actually feels. We will not experience a life that is a constant battle.How can we make fun of that? How can we directly parallel someone’s experiences with inequality using kitschy, poorly chosen words?What’s worse is the fact that members of the gay community throw the word around freely and refuse to acknowledge how insulting it is.How can you expect acceptance and kindness when you liberally spread anti-human rights phrases so easily?Admittedly, I have used the word “tranny” in the past. We are creatures who readily jump on bandwagons and want to impress friends. But saying the word felt wrong, and I was disappointed at how readily it came out of my mouth.This double standard needs to stop, and we all need to be aware of different reactions to certain kinds of seemingly harmless words.We need to stop a prime example of inequality within the gay rights movement and in our general society.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(02/14/12 12:20am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Rick Santorum has taken another giant dive into the pool of bigotry this past week.In response to the recent prospect that women may get to serve closer to the front lines in armed combat, Santorum objected, claiming their “emotions” could stand in the way and essentially dismantle the military. Then, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Santorum listened with a dopey smile on his face to a vehement letter from a service member who was stationed in Afghanistan. The man does not see his folly and very openly finds the reactions that he is getting comical.A day later he went to NBC’s Today Show with a new twist on his statement: He told Ann Curry that it is the intrinsic emotional reaction of men that he is worried about. Apparently the entire American public misconstrued whose emotions he was talking about. He now claims if men were to see women in danger, they would react in irrational ways to protect them. So, Santorum got smart. But is this opinion any better?Regardless of the blatant wrong that he still does not seem to see women equal to men, Santorum should also realize that thinking men will irrationally jump into battle to save a woman because of her gender is still horribly demoralizing on multiple fronts.With this new claim, Santorum essentially said that soldiers only feel a need to save someone or only get emotionally vulnerable when women are involved. He also perpetuates the “damsel in distress” thought process that many have found arcane.Soldiers should treat all of their comrades with equal respect and dignity regardless of sex. A male soldier would jump in to save another male soldier just as he would if that soldier were a female.Not only is the argument difficult in itself, but Santorum has no proof to back any of his claims. He has neither seen women in combat act in the fashion that he describes nor has he presented any substantial data on the issue. The American justice system is based on the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty, and it appears that female soldiers are rather innocent.Santorum’s rationale for discriminating against women is undoubtedly flawed and unwarranted. These are women who voluntarily protect our country — Santorum included — and should keep that right to defend. We have no right to disregard their wishes and desires to fight on our behalf.Regardless of where you lie on the pacifist spectrum, you must still respect, care and support our troops. Santorum is not doing any of these things with his current viewpoint — a bold move for a Republican.Our country prides itself in its freedom. Our troops should be reflective of that.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(02/06/12 11:42pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Trump has put his money on Romney.Last week the copper-colored business mogul declared that he was endorsing Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. While some may say this is God’s blessing placed upon Romney, it may actually have no real effect.A Pew survey last month found that 64 percent of definite and likely GOP voters would not change their vote based on Trump’s choice. Only 13 percent said they would vote for Trump’s candidate. So, 13 percent may seem futile, but it is still disappointing. Looking at all the GOP voters, this is still a hefty sum of people who let their minds be tilled by the creator of “The Apprentice.”In case this is not intrinsically atrocious, let’s take a look at Trump’s track record in this 2012 election process.During spring last year, the man began teasing us all with the thought of actually running for president with his main reason being the fact that America is becoming “the laughing stock of the world.” Eventually Trump’s aspirations for the White House dwindled, but that did not stop him from dipping into the political pool. In April, he expressed great disinterest in Romney to CNN and criticized him for all the jobs he would eliminate. Accepting the fact that he was no longer going to run, Trump then thought he could try a new angle and moderate a GOP debate. While some entertained this circus, others immediately decided they would have no part in it, which ultimately led to the reality show star’s dream being crushed.Trump then turned his eyes toward Gingrich, thinking he might be a viable candidate. But somehow, miraculously, he went back to Romney.Is Donald Trump really a man we should listen to for political guidance? Should he even be allowed to express preference for a candidate after all this indecisive showmanship?Setting out to save America from being “the laughing stock of the world,” Trump has flagrantly abused politics and has easily become a reason why the world could laugh at us.While Trump has proved to be a ridiculous figure, he does serve as a significant and helpful reality check. He has set the bar for celebrity involvement in politics. The general public now, almost hyperbolically, knows the dangerous effects celebrity involvement can have in the political process.Trump has taught us that, while we look up to celebrities in almost all facets of life, we cannot blindly follow all of them. Our modern King Midas has opened our eyes to the fact that celebrities are not often knowledgeable on all fronts.So, to the 13 percent out there, do yourself a favor and reconsider your choice. And for the rest of Americans, remember the extended lecture in idiocy that Trump has delivered for election season in 2016.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(01/31/12 1:15am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>About a week ago, ever-reigning fast food monarch McDonald’s decided to finally stop using what has been so deliciously named “pink slime” in its burgers. Rejoice, fast food aficionados! You no longer have to worry about eating “spare beef trimmings that have been treated with ammonium hydroxide to make them safe and at least semi-palatable,” as the Huffington Post so lovingly put it.While this is a large victory for the overall well-being of the United States, we should still have an element of self-loathing for our fast food habits.The use of ammonia in patty meat started about 12 years ago. We let it continue because many of us took the “ignorance is bliss” approach to what exactly our burgers and nuggets are comprised of. In 2008, however, the documentary film “Food, Inc.” highly criticized pink slime and many other horrifying food practices we may find a-okay.So, for four years the American public has been at least vaguely aware about meat that is essentially only fit for canine consumption going into highly popularized human food.What I find more shocking than the horrifying “food” itself is the fact that we let it continue in our society, and the majority of us take no interest in pushing for any type of betterment.One of the most prominent food prophets of our time is “Food Revolution” and “Naked Chef” star Jamie Oliver. The health-conscious Brit has spent a great deal of time and effort in the U.S. trying to help us realize the errors we perpetuate everyday, but we have chosen to ignore him and even combat him.Oliver’s controversial “Food Revolution” on ABC was replaced last spring by — get this — repeat episodes of “Dancing with the Stars.” The network backed its decision and said Oliver’s show averaged 5 million viewers while a repeat of the foppish dance competition pulls in an average of 13 million. Be ashamed, America.We continue to knowingly ignore a major problem in new and surprising ways.Many have even openly called Oliver a man bent on using scare tactics to pull the public away from safe food.While the U.S. Department of Agriculture may call grinding up chicken carcasses and genetically modified breasts to turn into nuggets “safe,” it is highly doubtful that the concoction has health merit.In fact, USDA microbiologist Geral Zirnstein agreed with Oliver and many others on the pink slime issue and said the ammonium hydroxide agent should, in fact, be banned. Apparently, it is not all scare tactics ballooned from some British man’s lies.What the issue comes down to is whether the American people respect their food and themselves. If we truly had more admiration for our food, we would not allow starlets failing to do some kind of rumba to beat out a much-needed public service program.And we would certainly not continue to eat this pink slime.Nobody should be eating dog food, and everybody needs to work to prevent that from happening.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(01/23/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A video that surfaced this month puts the United States Marine Corps in a less than golden situation.The footage, posted online, is of four U.S. Marines stationed in Afghanistan urinating on dead bodies of Taliban members — a horrendous and rather barbaric display.This is just a group of four individuals and should not be projected onto every person in the Marine Corps — in fact, many Marine officials have openly called this disgusting behavior — but it could be indicative of a larger issue all of our armed forces must confront.Slightly after the release of the urination video, the public learned about a staggering statistic.Sex crimes committed by U.S. soldiers have gone up 97 percent in the past five years. The statistics suggest a U.S. soldier committed a sex crime every six hours and 40 minutes last year — another blatant act of disregard for the human condition.Sex crimes were the worst offense with the greatest increase, but studies also show a significant rise in child abuse and alcohol-related offenses. Again, certain soldiers do not seem to have respect for humanity in any form. Dehumanizing the enemy has been a tactic in armed forces since the beginning of time. At its core, this principle makes sense. There is no way a soldier can kill another and see them as a real person, but this strategy has gone too far and has graver repercussions than we could have imagined. These incidents and statistics prove that many members of the armed forces fail to recognize others as humans anymore. While this might work in the heat of battle, it is clearly detrimental to society outside the battlefield. Seeing people as nothing more than meat has led to horrifying crimes.There is something fundamentally wrong in the training of our armed forces. Had the urination been a solitary incident, this bold claim would have no backing. However, the numbers clearly indicate there is a correlation between teaching people to kill and crimes involving human disrespect.Even if dehumanization is a necessary tactic for survival on the battlefield, by no means should it be taken to the extreme it has been. The armed forces need to put more of an emphasis on taking their members out of this mindset when the war is over, so the battle that ensues at home can end.Help has been asked for in a variety of fashions throughout the years, but the response has always been lackluster. Army and other armed forces representatives have continually claimed there will be significant improvements to the post-war system, but any changes that have been made are obviously not good enough.Our wars and battle tactics perpetually become more gruesome and vague. Thus, we need to see perpetual change in support programs for soldiers to accommodate this.Our soldiers are not enemies and are not fundamentally criminals. They do not need to be trained as such.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(01/17/12 10:44pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last week, Pope Benedict XVI had some pretty choice words, not only for the gay community, but for the world. In an address to diplomats representing almost 180 countries, the leader of the Catholic Church said gay marriage’s massive contribution to the disruption of family life would essentially undermine “the future of humanity itself.” Apparently, if the rapture does happen in 2012, you can blame the gays.While there are many things blatantly sickening about this comment, perhaps the most frightening aspect is the fact that the Pope is truly being a bully.Homosexuality and its relationship to any religion is often a slippery slope of troubled times, but the Catholic Church has always been particularly damaging and confusing in its relations with homosexual members. Claiming homosexual thoughts and tendencies are acceptable but acting on them is not seems like a cruel and taunting mind game to me.The Pope’s new vehemence, however, truly pushes him into tormenter status. He is putting out the notion to gay Catholics that by getting married, a fairly basic human desire, they will actually bring down humanity. And now there is trouble. Gay youth who desire to follow the Catholic faith — and might not have a choice because their parents are followers — are conflicted and see themselves as flawed individuals. They might have a love for the Catholic god, but it seems to not be a reciprocal affair.This lack of acceptance has the potential to go down the path we are unfortunately all too familiar with. While many see a decrease in the severity of the teen suicide epidemic, thanks to all the support groups that have been flourishing recently, the deaths continue. Recently, Eric James Borges, acclaimed filmmaker and “It Gets Better” advocate, fell victim to suicide. Clearly, not everything is fixed yet. The Pope is an example of the fact that many still do not accept gay equality.I see no difference between the Pope and schoolyard bullies who make such a detrimental impact on their impressionable peers. The only variation is that we have tried to crack down on the schoolyard ones.Even if Benedict has an issue with the gay lifestyle, he should still have love and respect for human life at its core.Knowing that his words could potentially lead to unhappiness in gay individuals or contribute to something even more drastic should not sit well with him. The fact that it seems to rest just fine should provoke outrage.The Bible can be interpreted (or misinterpreted) in a variety of ways, but no one can twist the well-known building blocks such as “love your neighbor as yourself” into something they are not.Bullying and putting other people down in an outrageous display is certainly not following what is supposed to be the Bible’s golden rule.Pope Benedict XVI, I hope someday you will realize the folly you have made and return to the love and compassion that your religion should be based on.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(01/09/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Stieg Larsson’s “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” has been chipping away
at world domination since 2005 and has now taken a giant leap toward
that goal.
The American-produced film adaptation of the Swedish tale debuted this
holiday season and has lifted the already popular story into the pop
culture stratosphere.So what’s the big appeal fueling this insatiable appetite for Larsson’s first installment in his “Millennium” trilogy? Well, one highly influential aspect is the trilogy’s ball-busting, revenge-oriented main character: Lisbeth Salander. With
all the stunts she pulls making sure men get their just desserts to the
tune of butt plugs and golf clubs, it can certainly be said that
Salander is a hallmark of modern feminism. So, with this figure dominating the current
cultural scene, you would think this is a good indicator that feminism
is a standard in our society, and that this is a perfect example of
women gaining equality with men. Maybe the fight for feminism is
becoming dated.
But this is a pitfall.Lisbeth Salander is certainly a striking example of equality and upholds themes that deplore violence toward women. This
is an impressive reflection of our society because it takes a fairly
liberal audience for Salander to gain popularity in the first place. But
there is a false sense of security here.
The trouble in this situation is that Salander exists in fringe society, which is part of her appeal.She
goes clubbing and takes ecstasy like a seasoned veteran, has pieced and
eccentric hair and makes love with men and women. She moves from task
to task with precision and inhuman drive.Her gallivanting through underground Swedish culture
makes her out to be some kind of mythical creature. She seems unreal and
unattainable, and when you step back, this makes the story’s feminism
almost feel fake.We are constantly played like this. Our culture sees
strong female figures in movies, literature, and other media, but they
may not be real. Take any Angelina Jolie character and watch her take vengeance against men. It’s great and shows how far women have come.
But what are those roles? Spies, more spies and tomb raiders — all modern mythologies.Thus, we have a sort of veil thrown over us that makes us think we support a feminist culture when it’s not exactly true.Now, these mythological feminists are not bad or hurting the cause at all, but they could be refined.
Equality between men and women would be even more prevalent and enforced
in our culture if we had more realistic female characters in the
entertainment realm, but I realize not every story can be about do-good
mothers.
Authors, directors and producers all need to realize the potential their
female protagonists possess once they are humanized more than they
currently are. Not every character needs to be a hardened modern myth.
(12/09/11 12:21am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Seriously, someone fill me in.In a recent protest in New York’s Theatre District, the protesters have moved even farther from the original plan than before. While many demonstrations are certainly straying from the original goal of upsetting economic injustice, this is a significant shift to a new realm of protest.Occupy Broadway was designed to “reclaim public space through creative resistance” in order to use it for performance. This is a great idea and draws a good deal of attention to the arts. I can’t in my right mind say I don’t support a movement like this. I don’t, however, support its timing or the idea that it essentially hopped right on the bandwagon.The Occupy movement has become convoluted and muddled. Protesters are losing their way, and movements like these don’t exactly help. The term “Occupy” is overused and has led to a broad, all-encompassing “let’s change the world” colloquial perception of the entire demonstration.These days, everything is being occupied, and they are not all one and the same. Occupy Broadway is a glaring example of this. The average American is easily confused. We have a lot of information coming at us from different sources, and it’s not always the truth. With everything from Occupy Atlanta to Occupy Zurich, I am not surprised that I have encountered many people who don’t exactly understand what the protests are asking for. Quite frankly, I’m only slightly confident in my own abilities to answer this question.When no one knows what the protests represent anymore, it presents a danger to society and to the movement in general. Suddenly, people may not even know what they are talking about, but they join the movement anyway. Police may not even know what they’re trying to break up and ignorance leads to violence. Occupiers are facing attacks left and right because of ignorance — as a whole, no one knows what to do, and the forces are upset, so they use pepper-spray as an appropriate solution.These spray-happy officers are acting upon basic human bigotry: They are afraid of what they don’t know. And, unfortunately, they sought to combat that fear with aggression.At one point, I truly believed in the Occupy movement on paper. The idea was a beautiful thing, as it called for social justice that our country and many others need.However, the Occupy movement grew hungry and put too much on its plate. If the movement wants to work with and gain more respect from the American public, it should scale back and decide on a focus.The world won’t change as a result of one movement — sad, but true. Occupiers should hone in on their ideals first before looking outward.If not, people will only become more confused. It’s only a matter of time before people start occupying TGI Friday’s.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(11/30/11 10:42pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>We are in the middle of a miraculous moment in our generation’s pop culture. Currently, we can go about our celebrity obsession and praise without fear. This is big news and bordering on blasphemy to print. The normal trend of society is to mimic our idols as we are simultaneously knocked down by their white-powdered noses and over-inflated chests. We normally have to remind one another how celebrities can’t be praised because of their lewd threats to feminism, race relations and anything else holy in our modern society. But the times are changing. We have celebrities in our current culture who should be praised, followed and emulated.To say that this is the first-ever group of role model celebrities is erroneous, but for our generation, it is almost spot-on. While those of the 1970s and 1980s are more than familiar with Bono’s efforts and all the good Live Aid brought out of celebrities, we grew up watching Anna Nicole Smith party too hard — two pretty different experiences.Hip stars and starlets alike are putting down their shooters and hooters for better, healthier causes. Mariah Carey has been loving motherhood, caring after her twins with Nick Cannon — a route that Beyoncé and Jay-Z will be on in just a few months. Lady Gaga just had a multi-million viewership watch her special on Thanksgiving Day. The icon used the time to be exposed and vulnerable, stopping mid-song to talk about pizelles with her grandparents before continuing. Clearly, we’re on a rather charming track here. Recently, celebrities have been showing a drive that has been lacking in the past. Eager to please fans, the release dates between records, movies and other media has been significantly shorter than the past. Gaga put out three albums in three years; Beyoncé now has seven music videos off her newest album and Rihanna has taken to putting out an album a year. It seems our idols are actually working for their fame — a rather admirable switch from the old where they were paid for tabloid appearances.Besides their intrinsic actions, celebrities are more actively supporting causes and becoming proactive in ones they see as underrepresented. Gaga continues to vehemently condemn bullying and praise gay rights, while Beyoncé made many tykes’ dreams come true as she visited schools earlier in the year to raise awareness about obesity. Heidi Klum supports a variety of organizations from UNICEF to pediatric AIDS foundations.Celebrities are actually becoming good role models — something they should have been all along. The influx of female celebrities being good and doing good is especially refreshing for our culture. Young girls are less concerned with appearing tainted and upsetting their mothers for worshipping cleavage. Our generation and the next is getting the role models we missed out on. If this trend continues, the stereotype of the “drunk slut” female celebrity — the one the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton helped bring to life — will come crumbling down. No one can be upset about that.So feel free to love all of these celebrities shamelessly. Look into their charities and causes, maybe even think of offering up some monetary sacrifice to these modern demigods. Many are trying to better our world.Granted, we still do have the Kim Kardashians of the pop culture world going about their normal celebrity behavior. We can’t blindly follow all celebrities quite yet; we still have to use intelligence when praising. But we’re certainly better off than when we had bald Britney.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(11/11/11 2:54am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>You would think that after Bill Clinton uttered his famous words (“I did not have sexual relations ...”) and stained his public image forever, we would have some sort of handbook by now about handling sexual affairs in politics.Think of all the careers that could have been saved if Clinton had published a pamphlet; Schwarzenegger, Weiner and more could have all been saved, and Cain could be studying up at this very moment. Sadly, no such thing exists. So, today I offer up the one commandment of political sex scandals:If thou finds thyself in an incredulous situation involving adultery or any other sort of sexual misconduct (be it sext, in person or any other form), thou shalt immediately position thyself at either extreme of the guilt spectrum according to the truth.Whether you actually did BBM that nasty phrase to her or not, the trick lies in the response time. The faster the response, the less time you are a feeding frenzy for the media and the faster you can get back to actual politics. The period without response not only leaves you vulnerable to the media, but it also leaves you open to other accusations and issues.To analyze an almost constantly breaking example, Herman Cain did not go far enough or fast enough in his responses. What did he do? Gave the American media a field day. Political commentators, from Wolf Blitzer to the women of “The View”, have all put in their two cents and continue to donate more to the Cain cause. On top of all the trouble this creates, Cain now has four women who said he harassed them. Mob mentality has taken over and Cain now has a woman he “doesn’t remember.” Apparently, if you leave yourself vulnerable too long, anyone can claim you touched them.As for the guilt spectrum, I say you must fully commit to the truth and stick with that positioning. If you are truly innocent, take a lie detector test. The American public is cynical, doubtful and distrustful — sometimes what pleases them best is cold, hard proof. In a press conference on Tuesday, Cain said he would consult a lie detector if need be, “But I’m not going to do that unless I have a good reason to do that.” I say the first accusation is good enough reason. If you have absolutely no guilt, prove it and move on.If you did father an illegitimate child with a housekeeper, then you should also tell the truth. Buy the cover of Newsweek and make the headline: “Yes, we had sex. Why? I lost control. I’m sorry — it was a mistake.” By telling the truth at least you show you have the gall to face the facts. Publicizing the awful truth yourself is better than tabloids doing it for you as you lie behind pearly whites. Everyone makes mistakes. There are plenty of lower folk who partake in affairs everyday. Personally, I would be more willing to accept a politician’s indiscretions and move on with them if they admit to their human self and are truthful. There is a virtue in coming clean.The only one who truly knows at this moment if Cain is guilty or not is the godfather of pizza himself; however, whether he is telling the truth or not, Cain must produce proof other than his vehement language and get back to campaigning. He should be using this time to talk about why he should be president, not why he shouldn’t be trusted around a gaggle of waitresses. Future politicians, keep this commandment in mind. Even if the allegations are true, you can do damage control and save your career from being remembered as one stain on a dress.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(10/27/11 10:49pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Vampires are sucking the life out of American girls.While the mythical creatures might not exist in reality, they certainly have a very real impact on our modern society.The obsession with vampires is not new. There’s been an allure about the bloodsuckers since Bram Stoker created his iconic villain. Since then, countless film adaptations and legends persisted throughout the years until every middle-aged woman’s fantasy finally came true when they got to see Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas show off their fangs as the creatures in the 1994 film version of the novel “Interview With the Vampire.”However, our recent obsession with vampires is a new kind of fascination.We no longer see the horror that once attracted us — the killing machines that sleep in coffins have been replaced by lustrous hunks with six-packs. Our mania revolves around a hyper-sexualized version of the monster.So, what’s the danger in having a little fun and getting our jollies from a different source once in a while? The hazard is the threat to modern feminism.The thrill in vampires comes from the machismo they ooze and use to have women simply fall into their laps. Women have been reduced to lowly beings who gladly throw themselves at the hungry men for masochistic pleasure.Perhaps the most prominent example of our bloody addiction is the “Twilight” series, with the first portion of the last film due out in a few weeks (cue squeals). In the last installment of the trilogy alone, we see rampant antifeminism in the basic plot structure. The female protagonist, Bella, is about to give birth to a vampire child, and the parasitic fetus is killing her from the inside. The general idea of a woman dying for her unborn child already evokes images of frontier days when women were expected to accept the risk of death in order to extend the family lineage.To make matters worse, the only way Bella can be saved is for her glistening vampire husband to rescue her and turn her into a vampire, too. She is completely helpless and guaranteed death — unless a man chooses to rescue the damsel in distress.The misogyny of the “Twilight” series does not begin with the third book. As Leonard Sax of the Washington Post observed, “Bella is regularly threatened with violence in the first three books, and in every instance she is rescued by Edward or Jacob. In the third book she describes herself as ‘helpless and delicious.’”Clearly, we are harming the feminist agenda. So, why can’t we just enjoy the abs, blood and sex and look past pitfalls? Why can’t we just have a little fun?First, modern media is too ridden with the same misshapen ideals to enjoy the sexy monster idea for its intrinsic value. “Twilight” is not the only vampire media out there. “True Blood” continues to have a strong fan base, “The Vampire Diaries” is in its third season and even “Teen Wolf” has turned into a hypersexual television drama.Secondly, the following that gobbles this media is far too young and impressionable to simply brush off the antifeminism. The ideals portrayed will permeate their young skin and forever change them. It seems melodramatic, but children do as they see, especially if their friends do it, too.You may have noticed the younger generation is fond of worshipping the sexy sepulchral. It is a true cultural movement that involves mostly children (especially females) under the age of 14 lapping it up in a group effort. The odds are against feminism.We need to stop undermining the feminist principles that so many have fought hard for and stray away from teaching our culture that women are built for sex, sandwiches and baby-making. If feminism is going to go down, it better not lose to something as dumb as vampires.If you can’t get enough of monsters, at least watch quality programming like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” That’s an example of a strong female in control — that girl could really kick some bloodsucking butt.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(10/13/11 9:17pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Remember gay pride?No, not the week of drunkenness and eye candy in July. The virtue. Instead of a virtue, though, gay pride has become an event in which people don glitter and rainbow tanks and drunkenly dance down the street to any Gaga song they please.Chicago recently announced plans to change next summer’s parade. The city plans to start the event at 10 a.m., as opposed to noon, in an attempt to stop the heavy drinking and partying.Some think this is a vicious attack on the fun and free environment, but I commend the city. While it’s great that so many people, homosexual and heterosexual alike, turn out to show their support for gay pride, are these people really proud? Most of them simply come for a drunken bash, but where is the pride in everyday life? True pride comes in the support of groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the Freedom to Marry organization. These are staffed with people working together to prove that homosexuals are normal, real people.Support for causes like this does not have to be monetary. I will admit to signing up to donate $29 a month for the Human Rights Campaign, feeling great, coming home and realizing that college kids like me are poor, thus diminishing my monthly donation. It’s hard to donate money.However, I believe in the support of these organizations in any form possible. Often, websites of the organizations have petitions that take only one click to support. These go on to local and national legislators and do, in fact, make a difference. Pride is now seen by many as partying with a gay friend in the street or striking a pose with a drag queen outside of a club. True pride is much subtler. Personally, I view a simple display of the Human Rights Campaign’s iconic equals sign as more a testament to pride than some raucous sexual picture in the middle of the street. There needs to be an extension of pride, something to show people are proud of the movement when parties and fun aren’t in the deal. The focus should be on the majority of the year that is not filled with a festival atmosphere, rather than the small bit that is. No one wants to experience discrimination or pain of any kind, and support from loved ones is the easiest way to lessen the sting of hatred. Showing you are proud of a gay acquaintance is by far the best way to show support. Festivals are fun, of course and partying is rampant at most city-sponsored events for the public. So, by all means, take advantage of pride festivals in all forms, but remember what the word truly represents.Bullying with drastic consequences continues, and GOP presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, bigots-at-large, openly express their disgust for homosexuality.Being proud means offering support through the daily grind of such injustices. We need to make a shift from pride to proud.— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(09/29/11 9:41pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The American Dream has been swallowed up by the fame monster.As a cultural whole, we have made a definitive decision to switch from wholesome ideals to chasing dreams of the stage and screen.Americans have gradually been shifting toward the pursuit of fame for years now. Our journey began as the kids from “Fame” charmed us into the idea of living forever. We gained speed as everyday folk made their way to glory by belting out yesterday’s hits on “American Idol.” Now, our journey has reached a dangerous pinnacle.Our perception of the American Dream has undoubtedly changed during the last few years. Killing a bear after driving a wagon train cross-country was replaced by making a life in the bustling city environment, which was again replaced by moving to the suburbs and creating the perfect nuclear family. It’s only natural that our aspirations change as our technology and general culture mature. But this dream is poisonous.The most recent example of this parasitic ideal is the drama surrounding TLC’s “Toddlers and Tiaras,” which is blowing up the blogosphere and magazines nationwide. If the buzz about this show has passed you by, here’s a general overview: little tykes (or stage parents) want to be famous so much that they sacrifice any and all morality to parade around on stage in hopes of climbing the ranks of stardom. The “poison” comes in when three-year-old girls are showing an amount of skin equivalent to that of a call girl.Parents on the show are often guiltier of pursuing this warped dream than the children. The season finale proved just how attune parents are to the cameras hovering over them as one mother hissed to her child: “We are on camera. Don’t you dare tell me ‘no’ one more time. Do you hear me? We are on national TV. Everybody’s going to see this.” Clearly, as we age we become more desperate in our strategies to stand in the spotlight. We desire fame so much that we are willing to shred a child’s psyche with all of this exposure to sex and cattiness. Children have become disposable; we sacrifice them to the fame monster.Individuals of all different certified and uncertified backgrounds have spoken on the issue — there is a new post about “Toddlers and Tiaras” everyday. The series has been called “a cultural car wreck,” among other various harsh truths. We see the disgust in “Toddlers and Tiaras,” and yet the show is in its fourth season. Similarly, “Dance Moms” is a copycat series that was approved to air on Lifetime. If all of this is so disgusting, why is it allowed to continue? Clearly the combination of glitter and lights can be blinding.So how can we save ourselves? Are we too far into the monster’s lair to run out now? The key is to sever the infected section and focus on saving what we can. For many, their eyes are on the prize and there is no swaying them now. They will have to be left behind. Future generations of parents must focus on balancing out their children’s dreams of stardom with grounded desires as well. Dreams don’t have to be killed; they simply have to be put into context. It needs to be stressed that a more traditional career path may save your body and soul more than fame. Start showing children before and after shots of Lindsay Lohan — maybe that will get the point across.We need to reprogram our culture to accept that fame can only be achieved by a low number of people. That’s why it’s special. Andy Warhol said we would all get our fifteen minutes. Why can’t we be happy with that?— sjostrow@indiana.edu
(09/15/11 11:47pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>America’s got a new poet laureate: an angry white man from the poetic city of Detroit.Philip Levine spent most of his life working various industrial jobs (such as the night shift at the Chevrolet Gear and Axle factory) throughout the Detroit area. He spent his off-hours reading and writing poetry.Sound familiar? It’s a near-identical story to that of Marshall Mathers, or as he’s better known today, Eminem. Marshall, an angry white man from Detroit, studied rap in his off-hours until he began to break into the industry. It was this observation that reinforced a point I have considered for years: why isn’t rap held in the same esteem as poetry? When you boil it down, rap is the common man’s poetry. This is the reason Levine has achieved such fame — he writes the everyday woes of factory life in Detroit. He crafts beautiful words for the common man’s battle through daily life. Isn’t this the same thing that ’Ye, Jay and Dre do?Rap tells us the plight of the common man in today’s society through well-crafted verse and has recently developed into more of an art than we recognize. A recent, high-selling example is Kanye West and Jay-Z’s collaboration album, “Watch the Throne.” Throughout all of the tracks we see pain and suffering that many must endure exposed through metaphor, allegory, hyperbole, rhyme (of course) and more.The duo spit rhymes about fatherhood, the idea of power in today’s society, brotherhood and the role of organized religion in our world. What does the common man worry about? Representatives in Congress making laws that hinder the people, being the best man he can for his children, how he can aid his friends without hurting himself and who exactly he should pray to. I would venture to say that Yeezy and Jay rival Levine.While rap achieves the same goal many poets strive for, it achieves it in the same traditional means, as well. In “No Church in the Wild,” Jay-Z has a knack for imagery and symbolism, heard in his first verse: “Tears on the mausoleum floor/ Blood stains the coliseum doors/ Lies on the lips of a priest/ Thanksgiving disguised as a feast.” In multiple tracks, the two make allusions to the slaying of Julius Caesar through figures like Brutus and Cassius Longinus. These are the same poetic devices “real” poets use to make successful works.The track “Made in America” conveys the long process it took for minorities to gain success in America due to the efforts of “Sweet Brother Malcolm,” “Sweet King Martin,” etc., while juxtaposing the lives of many minorities. This is bigger than how many see it. This is poetic.I believe so much in what rappers have to say, and how they say it, that I think poetry classes should be devoted to it. Current and future educators, you’re sitting on an untapped gold mine of verse. Think of the interest in the students. Think about the connection to today’s culture.Rap is more than cheap pop culture. It’s true that a lot of rap about the “bitches in da clubs” is churned out quickly in an effort to get it mainstreamed and reap the benefits, but that doesn’t mean we have to stigmatize the whole genre. We don’t look at Sylvia Plath’s works and say that all poetry is depressing verse stemming from daddy issues, so why do so many do that with rap?— sjostrow@indiana.edu