63 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/15/03 4:32am)
During the summer before my freshman year at IU, I went out to buy a new hat. Now, for some people, this may not be a huge purchase. But for me, hats are like temporary tattoos that last five years. On the drive to the store, I was considering either an IU hat or a Northwestern hat, but when I got there, I remembered that I hadn't worn a Bears hat since the 7th grade. Decision, done.\nComing to a new state, I wanted a hat that connected with Chicago. While I love the Cubs, there's very little personal connection with Cubs hats. When I see another person wearing Bears gear, there's an instant bond. But when I see people wearing Cubs hats (particularly in Bloomington) I'm never sure how dedicated they are. I'm sure everyone noticed the abundance of Cub fans that materialized in September, and have since become scarce … but the Bears are different, and the choice was easy.\nThe Bears hat I bought that day has been with me for the past four years, through thick (the brim was crapped on by a seagull two years ago), and thin (it's a fitted hat, and I've always had trouble with the size because I bought it when I had huge hair). It's even with me here on this page. Look closely at my picture, and you'll see it peaking out over the top of my Jew-fro.\nWhen it comes to hat guys, there are two kinds: the wearers and the hangers. The wearers are guys who buy one hat and wear it as long as possible. Take a look at one of these guys, and you'll see his hat's colors are faded, the ridge of the brim is peeling and there are stains that never came out. I am a wearer. My streaks include an NU hat in 6th grade that I wore for a year and six days. That streak was ended by a Bears hat I got on my bar mitzvah, which I wore for a year and twelve days (I also had a year-plus streak going with a red, Nike hat. That streak ended tragically when I dropped some super-greasy fried chicken on it at a restaurant).\nThe other hat guys are the hangers. These people are just the opposite of the wearers. Hangers buy and wear many hats over the years and keep them nicely displayed on hooks. In these hats hold the life story of the guy who owns them. Hangers are just as intense and specific about their hat policies as wearers -- and I have an equal amount of respect for both. Like anything in life, these categories aren't set in stone, and there are some people -- like my buddy Luke -- who accumulate four or five favorite hats, and wear them accordingly.\nLike baseball pants, it is a sin to wash hats. Over the years, my hats have had various rehab stints, some successful, and some not. When my Bears hat was duked on by the seagull, my buddy Ari splashed the hat in Lake Superior before everything hardened, dusted it off with some sand, and then chased all of the seagulls out of Duluth. The fried chicken hat, on the other hand, was never salvaged, (though not due to lack of effort) and sits coldly in my parents garage, presumably for all time.\nMy hats have brought me great joy throughout my life. They are both a symbol of childhood and of child like adulthood. They are rites of passage and temporal markers in family albums.\nSo salute a hat guy next time you see him. Let us know how much you care.
(12/12/03 5:12am)
In a particularly wise moment of his, my friend Eric Sirota once said to me, "Jack, life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get. Unless they're all vanilla. Then you know." \nAll these years later, he's still right. If they're all vanilla, then they're all vanilla, and that's when life is easiest and least stressful because there's no arguing over who gets what. It's also when life is most boring, because every damn day, no matter what, you're resigned to knowing that today's dessert is gonna be vanilla.\nI've written a lot of columns about racism for this newspaper over the past three years, and I've gotten a lot of intense letters from readers agreeing or disagreeing with me. If there's one thing I've learned about our race situation, it's that it's not all vanilla. \nHave you ever just sat still and thought about racism for an extended period of time? It's dizzying. It's damn near exhausting. So many conflicting theories, so much at stake, so much history. White guilt, black power, white power, reverse-racism, preferential treatment, prejudice … it's enough to make anyone's mind melt.\nPersonally, I think the Political Correctness movement of the 90s was an enormous step backward because it made people -- particularly white people -- afraid to be honest. If you say something bad about a black person or a group of black people, are you a racist. Or are you just an honest person pointing out something you've seen or something you feel? \nThere's also the issue of authenticity. Is a black person more entitled to talking about race than a white person, simply because blacks have faced more racial oppression as a group than whites? If so, where does that leave American Indians?\nEarlier this week I received an e-mail from someone who'd read my affirmative action column. In his e-mail and subsequent e-mails, he gave me a bunch of stock reasons why affirmative action is wrong. One of his e-mails was simply an essay about a man named Dr. Thomas Sowell who is opposed to affirmative action. Sowell has written many books on the "liberal myths and lies" about race. According to this e-mailer, Sowell thinks that blacks should spend more time looking at their own actions, and less time blaming societal injustices.\nEven more interesting to me than Dr. Sowell's ideas was the way the e-mailer was eager to point out to me that Dr. Sowell is a black man. So what? Does that make his ideas more legitimate than mine? To further complicate all of this, I looked Dr. Sowell up on the internet, and I found a good amount of his work someplace peculiar: JewishWorldReview.com.\nSo now, to go along with miles and miles of arguments and counter-arguments about race in America that are swirling in my head, I now had a white man quoting a black man who writes anti-affirmative action columns in a Jewish newspaper. Maybe I'm looking too far into this whole thing, but that's confusing as hell.\n And maybe it should be. Regardless of your stance on racism or other races, there's no denying the fact that America has a problem. Some people blame institutional racism. Other people blame lazy minorities. Some people think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, that both societal circumstances and individual decisions have to be considered. \nBut in the end, it all comes back to that damn cookie. If we're ever going to solve the race problem in America, we're going to have to speak honestly. And when we do, we're going to realize that along with my friend Eric, the people at Chips Ahoy were also right: no matter how hard you try not to, betcha bite a chip.
(12/05/03 5:27am)
Iheard that you were feeling ill: headache, fever and a chill. I came to help restore your pluck, 'cause I'm the nurse who likes to..."\nAbove is a quote from the film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." In the scene, a sexy nurse comes to the door and shares her poem with Ferris's sister, but is cut off when the sister slams the door in her face. This edit is made for comedic purposes, because the filmmakers know that the scene will be funnier if the assumed last word is thought by the audience rather than spoken by the nurse. \nEven though the word is never heard, the very fact that the scene leads viewers to think the word causes networks to end the scene after the poem's first line.\nWhy do people still give a sh*t about swearing?\nThe week before Thanksgiving, Comedy Central ran adds announcing they would be showing the movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" in all of its unedited glory. The movie would air Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night at 1 a.m.\nNeedless to say I was a tad skeptical, as I'd heard such promises before.\nA few years ago, USA advertised that they'd be airing the unedited version of the Howard Stern movie "Private Parts." Instead, they ran a PG-13 version of the film with most of the cursing removed and clips of Howard telling us to rent the video.\nUnlike those jerks at USA, Comedy Central kept its word and aired every one of the South Park movie's 399 profane words -- including 133 F-words as well as the film's 128 offensive gestures and its 221 acts of violence (www.imdb.com).\nAfter a half hour or so, the novelty of hearing swears on regular TV wore off, and I was able to simply enjoy the film.\nIt was among the most thrilling moments of my television viewing career, along with the time VH1 started running late night "Ren and Stimpy" reruns a year ago, when Whoopi Goldberg was being interviewed on TV in 1992 and the network bleeped out the word "damn."\nAt the time, I thought it was pretty ballsy of Whoopi to say "damn" on television, and while many words worse than "damn" can be heard on a daily basis on TV, I continue to see films "cleaned up" on network television.\nMy dad always says that people cuss because they don't have a vocabulary to properly express themselves. Sure, that's true, but does that make curse words inherently evil?\nThe absurdity of editing movies and TV shows for language content is that the words become even more appealing. Do television censors really think that a bleep, overdub or silent cut is going to was being said? That's bullshnit.\nLike the South Park movie, the recently released "Bad Santa" has created some controversy over its use of curse words around children. That film is about a filthy man (both in word and smell) who takes jobs as a mall Santa Claus in order to rob the vault. In doing so, he has to interact with kids and does so in the most vulgar (and hilarious) ways possible. \nSome people may find this kind of language around children upsetting, but rather than censor the film, the advertisers have done the sensible thing: they've marketed it as an "Adults Only" comedy. \nLike anything in life, being honest with people and giving them a choice to make their own informed decision is always better than forcing a decision on them. One day, I'll be able to watch movies on television that aren't filled with voiceovers and bleeps, and when that day comes, I'll be the happiest kcufing guy in town.
(11/21/03 5:23am)
In 10 days, it will be one year since I was arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana, and, lemme tell you, that ain't no kind of fun. \nLet's say you're like me and everything ends relatively well -- meaning you don't crash the car and you don't kill or injure yourself, your buddies or any other people. There are still some pretty annoying consequences.\nFirst, there's the time. There are court dates, of which I had two. There are the hour-long monitoring sessions at the courthouse, of which I had five. There are the 10 hours of drug counseling and 12 hours of drug education -- a total of nine classes. And there's the time spent in the police station being questioned and a possible night in jail, depending on the situation. \nThen there's the money.\nFor all five of my monitoring sessions, I had to get a copy of my driving record from the DMV. Each one costs $12. Each monitoring session costs $25. So that's five driving records and five monitoring sessions for a total of $185. \nMy 22 hours of education and counseling cost $425, and that was as a "moderate level risk" because the amount of pot in my bloodstream was very low. (Many of the people in my classes were significant risks, which added about 15 more hours and $200 dollars more.) After I was through with all that, I still had to pay $580 in various court fees. \nSo that's $1190, and that doesn't even include whatever the lawyer fees were, which my parents were kind enough to cover. Regardless, I didn't really have an extra $1200 lying about, but perhaps I'm the only one.\nObviously, driving high was one of the dumbest things I've ever done, but let's be honest -- I'd probably still be doing it if I hadn't gotten caught. While I recognize the physical dangers of driving under the influence, I've been more motivated by the added penalties from a second DUI arrest, which can include jail time, a suspended license, more drug/alcohol education, probation and community service. \nAmazingly enough, many of the people in my classes were not concerned with those consequences, as quite a few of them had multiple DUI's. I found this surprising at first, but even more surprising was how common these people were. Eighty-five percent of all people who get a first DUI will get a second one some time in their lives.\nLogically, everyone knows that driving drunk or stoned is unsafe and can result in injury or death. I knew that. But when it comes time to make the right decision, it can be hard to pass your keys to a buddy, because that is an acceptance of your own mortality. Most people do not want to see themselves as someone with the capacity to end another's life. Saying, "I'm too messed up to drive," is an admission to that.\nAnd like anything else, deciding to drive under the influence is easier once you've done it. For those of us who have gotten caught once, there is an urge to say, "Well, if I just fix whatever it was that got me pulled over, I'll be fine" -- as if the problem wasn't that you were driving stoned, but rather that you were driving at three in the morning with your brights on. \nWe see ourselves as the unlucky ones because we got caught, when of course it's the opposite: that I got caught and was allowed to see my faults without someone getting killed makes me the lucky one.\nNow when I drive, I always come back alive and not in handcuffs.\nLuck has nothing to do with it.
(11/14/03 4:00pm)
When my friends and I are trying to figure out what to do on a Friday night, we have a rule that a person is not allowed to shoot down an idea without having one of their own. So for all you cookie-peddling, anti-affirmative actioners out there, here's the question:\nWhat's your solution?\nWhile I was unable to attend last week's affirmative action bake sale, all accounts suggest that the three numbskulls on the Committee for Freedom knew about as much about affirmative action as did the chocolate chip cookies they were selling. Initially, I was prepared to write this off and focus on the real issue: the pros and cons of affirmative action. But what does it say about White America when three boneheads have a desire to hold a demonstration to protest a controversial subject such as affirmative action despite the fact that the three of them don't seem to have clue one about the subject they are protesting?\nWhite people who find affirmative action unfair do so because they feel like they are being stripped of something that they deserve, something that is rightfully theirs. "I've got better grades than that black guy, but he got into the school that I wanted to go to ahead of me because he's black and I'm white. That's not fair."\nYeah, so? \nPeople who get a job or get into school with help from affirmative action are not moochers or unqualified parasites feeding off the system. These are hardworking people who just want the same opportunities as everyone else. Affirmative action gives these people a boost in an attempt to level the playing field. Do they not deserve a chance to succeed in the same way that white men do?\nI would imagine that a good number of whites who oppose affirmative action would not oppose a hypothetical arrangement in which Americans who have been discriminated against for many years be given a "leg up" in order to help them achieve their goals. The reason they oppose affirmative action is usually not because it is attempting to help the less privileged, but rather because it is "hurting" them.\nYou can't have it both ways. If you are truly interested in helping people who need a little help, then you have to be willing to sacrifice something of your own. Have you ever tried to give a homeless person a dollar out of your pocket without losing that dollar? Of course not. That would be absurd. To give a dollar, you must be willing to lose that dollar in an effort to better the whole. If ending institutionalized racism were as easy as passing a bill or a law that granted every minority a great education, a great job and lots of money, white people wouldn't have a problem with it. But the reality is, in order to truly help people, you must be willing to make a sacrifice.\nMany people who oppose affirmative action, including the Committee for Freedom, say that it is wrong to make decisions based on race. But that would suggest that this country has not been making decisions based on race for years. To suggest a solution while ignoring the past is as ignorant as it is irresponsible.\nSure, affirmative action is not the final answer. It will not end racism, sexism, classism or any other injustices in America today. But it is an honest attempt to right a situation that desperately needs righting. It asks us to be flexible in order to help large groups of people who have been discriminated against for years.\nSo all you anti-affirmative actioners, what is your solution?
(11/07/03 4:07pm)
Women often ask me, "Jack, what is it about two women making out that men find so damn appealing?" \nWell, when a woman hooks up with another woman, we naturally assume for some reason that if she's willing to hook up with a woman then she'll be willing to hook up with a woman and me at the same time. That's our thought process. We've somehow come to assume that all lesbians are actually bisexuals waiting to happen, and the only thing more exciting to a straight male than the prospect of great sex with one woman is great sex with two women.\nOf course this is foolish because Lord knows most of us have enough trouble pleasing one woman, much less two. But maybe that's part of the appeal: If I ever hook up with two women at once, it will be comforting to know that no matter how badly I might perform, both women will enjoy themselves, and I will only have to do half the work I normally do. \nThis is not the same for women because most women I know find two men kissing nearly as unappealing as straight men find it. I personally don't know many straight people who admit to enjoying gay porn. And by gay I mean man-on-man porn, because woman-on-woman porn has become a staple of soft core Skinemax that many straight people will openly admit to enjoying. \nI was told once that while a woman's body is a work of art, a man's body is ugly and functions strictly as a mode of transportation. That seems true enough, and would certainly explain why women kissing simply for sexual purposes is sexy, while many people think men kissing simply for sexual purposes is not. Michelangelo's "David" is the only piece of art I can think of that tries to make the male body beautiful, and while we marvel at the precision of the sculpting and acknowledge that "David" is a perfect specimen of a man, nobody I've ever met has been turned on by it. As popular as the sculpture is, even more popular is the refrigerator magnet of "David" that allows people to admire him in blue jeans, khaki shorts or anything that doesn't leave his pieces blowing in the wind.\nSo it could be that there is no beauty in men kissing for purely sexual purposes, or it could be that because we live in a male-dominated society, women have been conditioned to find man-on-man sex a turnoff. Whatever it is, it has affected us so deeply that women are allowed to experiment in ways men aren't. Sure, I thought it was hot when Madonna and Britney Spears kissed on MTV for all of the reasons listed above, and while people talked about the controversy, the sexiness and the outlandishness of the act, they never talked about what it was: a lesbian encounter. Is Britney Spears lesbian or bisexual? Probably not. She's probably just a sexy, straight woman experimenting with another woman. But what if it had been David Bowie and Justin Timberlake? The public's reaction would be totally different. \nTwo straight women kiss on national television and we think it's sexy. Meanwhile, multiple tabloids print news about which men might be gay: Mike Piazza, Tom Cruise, Keanu Reeves …\nI may think that Madonna and Britney kissing is hot, but what if they really were lesbians? What interest would they have in me? None. The fun ends when the fantasy ends, and the reality is that true lesbian women have as much sexual interest in a man as that man has for two gay men.
(10/31/03 5:23am)
I'm giving up.\nWhile shopping for groceries for the first time this school year, I found myself in a familiar, yet troubling, place: the cereal aisle. Every attempt I've made to be a responsible adult in any facet of my life has manifested itself in the decisions I make in this aisle. \nAs a younger kid food shopping with my parents, this was the only aisle where there was ever any real disagreement. Fruits and vegetables are healthy, and cookies and candy are not, and my parents were cool about always leaving the supermarket with some foods from both groups. But cereal was always different. \nBoth child and parent know that cereal is going to be purchased; breakfast is nearly impossible without it. And so there is always mystery when entering the cereal aisle, because unlike healthy-untasty foods and tasty-unhealthy foods, cereal has the potential to be either healthy or unhealthy, tasty or untasty. Being that my parents were much older than I was at the time, they ate cereals with flakes and bran and raisins and oats, the cereal-equivalent to the neighbor who hands out apples on Halloween. When sleeping over at my grandparents' house, my brother and I were introduced to the more favorable cereals, ones that consisted of moons and clovers and puffs of cocoa and fruit-like substances. So the battle in the cereal aisle usually yielded Honey Nut Cheerios, which we all agreed was tasty and healthy enough to please everyone.\nSo there I was, back in the most challenging aisle of all, but this time around there was no one to stop me. I could buy all of the sugar cereal I wanted. And best of all, I could do it with my parents' money, and they would never have to know. But I overcame that urge, and acting as a responsible adult, I didn't buy Lucky Charms, Trix or even Honey Nut Cheerios. I bought Raisin Bran, and left the store feeling quite proud of myself.\nUnfortunately, that feeling hasn't lasted. Raisin Bran is good and all, but it turns breakfast into such a matter-of-fact, business-like meal. I've come up with a compromise for myself, by buying both Lucky Charms and Honey Nut Cheerios and alternating bowls.\nIn all of this cereal eating, I always come back to the same question: do people shape their cereals, or do cereals shape the people? Sure, adults are concerned with health while kids are concerned with taste, and thus they choose cereals that mesh with those concerns. But I think there's more to it. Raisin Bran -- the adult cereal -- is grounded in the unexciting, mundane bran flake, which provides nourishment and stability. To spice things up, the flake is teamed with the lightly sugared raisin, which seems like quite a treat when compared to the flake, but is still just a fruit. Likewise, parents of growing children are always busy, taking care of every detail of their children's lives. They must find pleasure in the little things, like afternoon naps and the news.\nOn the other hand, Lucky Charms is grounded in the marshmallow, which is never boring and comes in many shapes and colors. Like a young child's life, cereal can't be all fun and games, and so balancing out the marshmallow are the hard, less-fun cereal pieces. These pieces of cereal are often discarded once we have searched through the milk and found every last marshmallow, and they are looked upon as "annoying" and "useless." Then one day, when we've grown older, we'll realize that compared to the bran flake of adulthood, we really had it great.
(10/24/03 5:07am)
During my freshmen year at IU, my synagogue sent out care packages to all of its new college freshmen. In that package was a guide book that was supposed to help us retain our Jewish identities while at school. I don't remember much from the book, but I do remember a section that was entitled, "Top Five Reasons You Should Marry a Jewish Person." One of the reasons was, "Because you know it's the right thing to do."\nFrom Jesus fish to WWJD to worried backlashes such as the one in my Jewish handbook, it seems that organized religion has moved closer and closer to the surface and further and further away from spirituality and good living. Not that those things are no longer stressed. They are. But as far as I can tell, the biggest lesson that organized religion teaches many people is that their particular organized religion is the only true organized religion in town.\nWhat's more important: the message or the messenger? Are kindness, good will, community, brotherhood and forgiveness only important because religion says they are, or is there something intrinsic in them?\nI understand Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins, and those of us who don't take him as our personal savior will burn in hell. If I burn in hell for eternity because I never accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, this will be my problem. Christians need to accept that there are many people who, for whatever reason, haven't accepted Jesus as savior and never will.\nChristians aren't the only people who can't get over the proverbial Jesus hump. I was once chastised by a Jewish friend of mine because I no longer practiced Judaism. We began talking about religions, and she was somehow opposed to my saying that people of all faiths could learn from Jesus the man, in the same way that we learn from Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King and other people who strived for peace. Even if I don't think that Jesus was the son of God, can I at least think he was a really good guy who helped his fellow man?\nWhat bothers me most is how some people who follow an organized religion think they have some ownership of God. Even if I haven't settled on one religion, don't I have a right to God? Some people find the need to "speak" for God to reassert their own beliefs and, presumably, to make people with different beliefs feel bad. One of the most offensive billboards I've ever seen was one that said, "I don't question your existence." And at the bottom, the quote was attributed to "God." There was another similar billboard, only this time the quote said, "Don't make me come down there." Who are these people who think they can talk to God for the rest of us? If I were to erect a billboard that read, "As long as you're nice to each other, I don't give a rat's ass which religion you are," and I attributed that to God, religious people would probably be offended. Even if I cleaned up the language, people would be upset that I -- a non-religious, non-practicing Jew -- was talking for God.\nNot everyone is going to agree on the same religion. That's why there's more than one. While each religion has different traditions and scriptures, most are the same at the core: finding peace with yourself and with others and living a good life. If you need religion to tell you that murder, violence, betrayal and adultery are wrong, then I feel sorry for you.
(10/24/03 5:00am)
During my freshmen year at IU, my synagogue sent out care packages to all of its new college freshmen. In that package was a guide book that was supposed to help us retain our Jewish identities while at school. I don't remember much from the book, but I do remember a section that was entitled, "Top Five Reasons You Should Marry a Jewish Person." One of the reasons was, "Because you know it's the right thing to do."\nFrom Jesus fish to WWJD to worried backlashes such as the one in my Jewish handbook, it seems that organized religion has moved closer and closer to the surface and further and further away from spirituality and good living. Not that those things are no longer stressed. They are. But as far as I can tell, the biggest lesson that organized religion teaches many people is that their particular organized religion is the only true organized religion in town.\nWhat's more important: the message or the messenger? Are kindness, good will, community, brotherhood and forgiveness only important because religion says they are, or is there something intrinsic in them?\nI understand Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins, and those of us who don't take him as our personal savior will burn in hell. If I burn in hell for eternity because I never accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, this will be my problem. Christians need to accept that there are many people who, for whatever reason, haven't accepted Jesus as savior and never will.\nChristians aren't the only people who can't get over the proverbial Jesus hump. I was once chastised by a Jewish friend of mine because I no longer practiced Judaism. We began talking about religions, and she was somehow opposed to my saying that people of all faiths could learn from Jesus the man, in the same way that we learn from Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King and other people who strived for peace. Even if I don't think that Jesus was the son of God, can I at least think he was a really good guy who helped his fellow man?\nWhat bothers me most is how some people who follow an organized religion think they have some ownership of God. Even if I haven't settled on one religion, don't I have a right to God? Some people find the need to "speak" for God to reassert their own beliefs and, presumably, to make people with different beliefs feel bad. One of the most offensive billboards I've ever seen was one that said, "I don't question your existence." And at the bottom, the quote was attributed to "God." There was another similar billboard, only this time the quote said, "Don't make me come down there." Who are these people who think they can talk to God for the rest of us? If I were to erect a billboard that read, "As long as you're nice to each other, I don't give a rat's ass which religion you are," and I attributed that to God, religious people would probably be offended. Even if I cleaned up the language, people would be upset that I -- a non-religious, non-practicing Jew -- was talking for God.\nNot everyone is going to agree on the same religion. That's why there's more than one. While each religion has different traditions and scriptures, most are the same at the core: finding peace with yourself and with others and living a good life. If you need religion to tell you that murder, violence, betrayal and adultery are wrong, then I feel sorry for you.
(10/17/03 4:25am)
I couldn't sleep Tuesday night, having just watched one of the most depressing games in Chicago Cub history. So to soothe my depression I decided to watch some late night TV. As I flipped around in my normal channel rotation, I came to Comedy Central, which was running continuous ads for the latest "Girls Gone Wild" videos. Now, you can only spend so much time watching censored video of chicks taking their tops off, and so I sat there for 15 minutes or so as girl after girl "celebrated" spring break by flashing the camera while drunkenly making out with other girls. Now, don't get me wrong, I like seeing topless women as much as the next guy, but am I missing something? What's in it for these girls?\nIf someone has a sexy body, and they know it, there's no reason to be ashamed of it. But at what point does "flaunting your goods" make it no more than just that: goods? That's why I wonder what the "Girls Gone Wild" girls are thinking. Do they think we will respect them more if they show us their tits? Certainly, these girls are not all curves and flesh, and I'd imagine many of them have dreams and aspirations and work hard in school and what not. But if the first and only thing we know about you is that you enjoy getting drunk and then undressing in public -- on camera -- then all we can assume is that you are just a slut. And for men, (and presumably for women, because there are male sluts as well), hooking up with a slut is like masturbating with a person instead of your hand. In the long run, we know that we want a more emotionally fulfilling relationship, but in the meantime, this is close by, available and easy. The only difference is that afterward, you're not expected to lie in bed with your hand and talk.\nSometimes it seems like girls think that guys won't notice them -- and consequently won't speak to them -- if they do not go out on the weekends, dressed in tight pants and a low-cut shirt revealing their cleavage on the top, their belly button in the front and whatever little tattoo they decided to get right above their butt crack.\nThat's completely ridiculous. Men check out all women, every one we meet, attractive and less-attractive. And women do the same. We're all checking each other out, and everybody knows that, so the only reason to dress with everything all hanging out is to get a little extra attention. But what baffles me is when girls go out like that and then get upset when guys are all over them. It's a similar thought to one I had as a kid, watching "Tom and Jerry." Sluttily-dressed girls complaining about guys drooling over them would be like Jerry wedging himself between the ham and cheese in Tom's sandwich, salting and peppering himself, and then being shocked when Tom tries to eat him. He's a cat, for crying out loud. He's not going to take pity and help Jerry out of the sandwich; he's going to put his napkin in his collar, sharpen his knife and fork and lick his lips.\nIn the end, this all comes down to responsibility. Dress however you want, act however you want and do whatever you want, but make sure you can handle yourself and make sure you know how other people are interpreting your actions. And if there's anything you would be embarrassed about doing, don't do it on camera.
(10/14/03 6:50am)
Holy Cow! Despite a setback in Game 5, the Cubbies have a chance to grab the National League Pennant tonight at Wrigley Field, the way it should be. With every twirl of Dusty Baker's toothpick I get more and more excited about this season, and the distinct possibility that in four days Kerry Wood could be pitching Game 1 of the World Series. My giddiness has started to override my paranoid superstitions and has gotten to the point where I lay in bed for hours thinking about Sammy and Kerry and Harry and ivy, and the other night it got so bad (or good) that in order to quench my Cubbie thirst I had to pop in my tape of the 1998 one-game playoff against the Giants. Yes, despite the South Siders late-season collapse, baseball is alive and well in the Windy City, particularly at 1060 W. Addison, where the Cubbies have their 95-year-old fans thanking God for yet another chance to see a World Series champ at Wrigley.\n"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the friendly confines of Wrigley Field, home of your World Champion Chicago Cubs!"\nDoes that sound right? Until Joe Borowski struck out Andruw Jones to send the Cubs to the NLCS, I never actually believed the Cubs could win the World Series. And I don't mean never this year. I mean never. Not in '89. Not in '98. Not after we clinched the NL Central. But after that final out in Game 5, I mapped out the probable pitching matchups for the NLCS, and that was the first time in my life that I'd ever seriously considered the idea of the Cubs playing in the World Series.\nMy world view hasn't been the same since.\nFor years, I could always imagine the Cubs in the Series, but I never actually believed it. And now that it's more than a dream, it's frightening. I've crossed into a new level of being. I'd imagine that it's similar to dying. Logically, everyone knows that at some point they will die, but most people don't live their lives thinking it will happen. And then one day, you've got a disease or you're really old or you're about to crash into an oncoming Mack truck, and you realize that death can happen. You begin to deal with that sensation realistically, and your world is never the same. This is how I feel about the Cubs playing in the World Series. If it does happen, my entire perception of what it means to be a sports fan in Chicago will be altered.\nTo make things crazier, the equally cursed Red Sox are trying to win the American League, to set up a Cubs-Red Sox series. A lot of fans are hoping for this "dream series," but let me tell you something: Cubs-Red Sox is bad news. Both teams are trying to break curses, and if the Cubs beat the Yankees or the Red Sox beat the Marlins, then the curses will be defeated. But if the Cubs play the Red Sox, one of those teams has to win. Neither team has a chance to beat the curse, but instead one team will be mathematically forced into victory. That freaks me out.\nBut let's not get ahead of ourselves. This is still the Cubs, after all, and if the curse really does exist, then there's still time for something terrible to happen. At this point, I have to believe in the curse, because if I don't, it means the Cubs have been fielding a crappy, uncursed team for 95 years. I think we'll win tonight, but beyond that, I refuse to guess. Writing this column was bad enough karma, so I'm going to stop before I jinx us any further.
(10/03/03 5:29am)
For the past three weeks, many discussions have surfaced concerning race relations at IU and in America. Exchanges like these between whites and non-whites are important because honest discussion between people of different racial backgrounds is the first step toward solving America's racial problem. Oftentimes, whites do not feel comfortable talking about race because they do not want to be labeled "racists." The honest arguments by white people are commendable, because by joining the discussion they will discover more about themselves and those they discuss. But in order to communicate clearly, we must first define all terms that are being used.\nOne of the biggest misunderstandings in discussions of race-relations is due to the ambiguity of the term "racism." Many white people get frustrated with the concept that people of color cannot be racist. To say that black people cannot be prejudiced toward white people or other races is foolish. No one is saying that black people cannot be bigots. They can. But when people talk about power and use the term "racism," they are using a very specific definition: prejudice plus power equals racism. \nIn other words, due to the power structure in America, white people have power behind their words and actions that minorities do not have. \nLook at the power of racial slurs. Most racial slurs directed toward white people are for small, defined groups. "Rednecks," "white trash" and "trailer trash," define only poor whites. "Kike," "polack" and "wop" are among the words that break white people into smaller ethnic groups and thus cannot be applied to all white people. The only words I can think of that apply to all white people are "honkey" and "cracker," and those are more humorous than insulting. \nBut think of the power of the word "nigger."\nThat word carries a great deal of power because of the oppressive actions of white people toward black people in America. Most Americans would agree that the terms "honkey," "cracker" and "nigger" are not equal in their hatefulness. When was the last time you heard a white person upset because a person of color used the "h-word" around him? Words only have meaning because people give them meaning, and the power structure in America, along with the history of white oppressiveness, can make one word more powerful than the other. \nIt does not mean that every white person who utters a racial slur wants to kill or enslave black people. In the same way, every person who uses the word "faggot" or "fag" may not actually hate gay people. But those words carry meanings whether people like it or not, and that must be recognized.\nIf we are ever going to solve the race problem in America, white people have to accept the fact that white people owned slaves and that the repercussions of slavery are still felt today. It is not impossible to make dead slave owners face the consequences of their actions, yet the consequences must be faced by someone. \nWho does that leave?\nThis has all been rather harsh and probably insulting to the white people who I have indirectly linked to severe incidents of racism. Based on their arguments, I do not think they are hateful individuals. They are just among the large majority of white America and they do not understand or acknowledge the advantages they have as white people. Like Chris Rock once said, "No white person would ever trade places with me, and I'm rich"
(09/19/03 5:23am)
Watching a film like "Bowling for Columbine" is easy.\nI watched it for the first time recently, and it was exhilarating to observe a film that asked all of the questions I wanted to ask three years ago.\nIt was also incredibly frustrating. Not because Moore is unable to settle upon one ultimate answer to a challenging question about gun deaths in America, but rather because when it is all over and I have considered everything the film has to offer, I'm just a slug sitting on a couch, being entertained. That sounds like an overly pessimistic and simplistic assessment, which it may be. After all, documentaries are still movies, and movies must first be entertaining on some level if they are to be watched at all. And obviously if one is watching a two-hour film, it would be silly to stand throughout, and being that couches are quite comfortable, they seem like good places to sit. \nStill, what frustrates me is that after all of the ideas and emotions Moore has stirred in me, I'd rather just sit back down on my couch and watch the film again.\nThat is why watching a film like "Bowling for Columbine" is easy. Not because it is an "easy" film, one that asks easy questions and never bothers probing the taboo areas of a controversial issue. That it does. But it is easy because it does not require its viewer to do anything. It just asks viewers to watch it. This is in no way the fault of Michael Moore or the film; it is simply the nature of art and entertainment.\nWhat is it that prevents me from taking action and making some kind of a difference?\nWhile "Bowling for Columbine" never settles on one answer to its question about gun violence, it does point strongly to the idea that the government and the media use fear to keep citizens from questioning issues in the country. After all, if there was nothing to fear, we wouldn't need government, because we could govern ourselves without the fear of being denied what we want, or of not being able to provide ourselves with our own basic, unalienable rights. Am I afraid to go out and make change? I hope not, and I don't think I am. \nBut there is something that Michael Moore left out of his film, and that is this: as citizens of America, we have an unspoken agreement with our government that if our own personal comforts are met, we will be passive citizens. That is the definition of good citizenry as far as many politicians are concerned: be happy with what you have and shut the hell up. "Bowling for Columbine" makes me think about the problems that Moore is fighting to fix, and so I feel that I am a part of that fight, despite the fact that I have done no fighting. I am paralyzed between the right response and the easy response.\nInstead, I merely think about Moore's film and focus my energies on important distractions of greater personal immediacy than gun control, namely my education and my financial responsibilities. I try to make a difference on a person-to-person basis because these differences are tangible and easy. \nThat is not to say that the differences are bad. It is hard to tirelessly fight every day, to stand up for what you believe in when no one is asking you to stand. I want to do good, but I find myself struggling between the hardships of being a good American citizen and the appealing ease of being "A Good American Citizen." Like John Goodman said in The Big Lebowski when life got too hard to handle: \n"Fuck it, Dude. Let's go bowling"
(09/12/03 5:08am)
Christianity: America's No. 1 enemy. Pretty offensive, huh? I'd say. Certainly there have been Christians in American history who have inflicted terror upon other Americans by corrupting their religion's words and beliefs to meet their own, most notably the Ku Klux Klan. But this is only a small population of a much larger group, and I would venture to say that when most Americans think of Christianity, we do not first think of the KKK. \nEarlier this week, Pastor Marc Monte of the Faith Baptist Church in Avon, Ind., posted this sign in front of his church: "ISLAM: AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE ENEMY." It was the topic of his sermon on Sunday, where Monte had said that he hoped to "…stir interest, not alarm," later saying "Islam is a false religion, dangerous, and hate-promoting." (Indianapolis Star, Saturday). It is probably not coincidental that Monte's sermon came just four days before the two year anniversary of Sept. 11. While those responsible for the attacks did so in the name of Allah, these men, like the Klan, twisted their religion to fit their own beliefs and to give them an excuse to kill.\nTo say that Islam is "America's No. 1 Enemy" due to a small group of terrorists is to say that all Christians are white robe-wearing murderers who will lynch every black person they see. I have many Christian friends, and to imagine them committing such horrible acts is as unbearable as it is untrue. The same can be said for a friend of mine who recently became a Muslim: he has found love and understanding through his religion, and I'm sure that crashing planes into tall buildings is the last thing he wants to do. \nUnlike the majority of Muslims, my friend is white, so unless his clothes reveal his religion, one would never know that he is a follower of Islam without speaking to him. That is another problem with Monte's sign: because many Americans incorrectly assume that all Middle Easterners are Muslims, this indirectly singles out an entire race of people. \nWith all of the fear that is rampant in this country, many of us now look at Middle Easterners -- particularly the men -- with a careful eye, as if at any moment they will plant a car bomb or crash a plane. I admit that, without trying, I find myself at times cautiously making judgments. While in no way do I actually feel threatened or believe that all Muslims are terrorists, my reactions have been built by a barrage of negative images and ideas about Muslims and the religion of Islam, in the same way that America has long produced prejudices through images and untruths about many minorities. \nSunday, the same day that Pastor Marc Monte was telling his congregation about the terrors of Islam, Muhammad Ali met with the Dalai Lama to dedicate an interfaith temple right here in Bloomington. Here is Muhammad Ali, a man whose Islamic religious beliefs were so strong that he would not go to Vietnam. One man a Muslim, the other a Tibetan leader, coming together to dedicate a temple to be used by all people. Ali's beliefs have brought him peace as he has dealt with a violent and prejudiced world. If he feels anger toward those who have discriminated against him and other Muslims, I could not blame him. But like all those who truly follow a religion, Ali is filled with more love than hate. \n"Rivers, ponds, lakes, and streams all have different names," Ali said Sunday. " ... But they all contain water. So, too, different religions all contain truth." \nHis words were ones we could all learn from, even Marc Monte.
(05/01/03 4:00am)
In a movie about how people con other people out of their money, "Confidence"'s biggest con is pulled off at the expense of the viewing public who was conned into thinking that this movie is some kind of brilliant cross between "Pulp Fiction" and "The Sting." It is really more of an overly complex and less entertaining episode of "Scooby-Doo." Narrated by Edward Burns, at the behest of the man standing behind him with a gun, "Confidence" feels like it was written by a second-grader using the "Hamburger" paragraph technique. Burns alludes to what will soon be seen, and we see it while Burns explains what is happening, and then Burns gives a wrap-up. \nThe film's tagline is the best I've seen for any film: "It's not about the money. It's about the money." That is exactly how Burns and his crew talk to each other, by using ambiguous buzzwords that have no meaning. The dialogue is a brilliant mesh of con movie clichés, and dialogue that was fleeced from other films, con and otherwise. \nMovies like this have to be carried by at least one of two elements: An ensemble cast full of memorable characters and slick dialogue, or a brilliant plot that brings the viewer into the world of conning. Do these characters say anything interesting, or look like they're having any fun at all? Of course not. This is one of those "Talk Slick" movies, where every character thinks that he is super-hip, not because he necessarily is, but because he thinks he is. \nThe only character who is not following some kind of herd mentality is The King (Dustin Hoffman), who is a funny, witty, short-tempered, dangerous and sexually ambiguous crime boss. Besides the sexy stripper sisters who lick each other while dancing, The King is the only character I will still remember by June.\nDustin Hoffman is always fun, so I suppose for that reason alone, "Confidence" is watchable, but he's only on screen for about a half hour. Fortunately, in those 30 minutes, Hoffman speaks the film's biggest truth, as he gives Burns advice about how to deal with being rich: "Sometimes style can kill you." Director James Foley should have heeded his film's advice, and given it a good script.
(04/10/03 4:00am)
Originally set for release in fall 2001, "The Quiet American" was one of many films delayed in fear of a Sept. 11 backlash. While the film does carry an anti-American sentiment concerning our war and foreign policies, the message is conveyed so subtly and brilliantly that one hardly even realizes the implications of its meaning. Like the quiet American character played by Brendan Fraser, "The Quiet American" is a film that hides its true identity initially, slowly revealing it as the film progresses.\nMichael Caine, in an Oscar-nominated performance, plays Thomas Fowler, an old British reporter stationed in Saigon in 1952. He has been in Saigon for some time, living with a Vietnamese woman whom he would marry if he could get his London wife to grant him a divorce. He makes the point early in the film that he is a reporter, not a correspondent. He reports what he sees, takes no action and has no opinion, even though innocent people are dying around him. Of course, by pushing this film back eighteen months, Fowler's attitude toward war carries much more weight. Caine has once again delivered a masterful performance to the point where it doesn't even seem like he's acting. Fraser is excellent as well as American Alden Pyle who is hiding more than he'll say, and who falls in love with Caine's girlfriend, Phuong. Like in 1998's "Gods and Monsters," Fraser has broken from his normal diet of cartoonish comedies to take on a role of more substance and depth, showing he is a terrific actor when he wants to be.\nFrom 1978 to 1987 there were a plethora of Vietnam films, all against it that focused primarily on the American soldier's experience during combat. This film is decidedly anti-American, but I don't imagine it offending many people. It is slow-paced and honest. By the time it reveals its true meaning, we are much too far along in the story and involved with the characters to feel anything but true understanding.
(03/13/03 5:00am)
It's unfortunate that such a vast group of colorful characters found themselves trapped within the confines of an obvious plot, otherwise audiences may have greatly enjoyed the time they've spent with them. "Nicholas Nickleby," a movie about the coming of age of the title character, is a film with wonderful characters, actors, costumes and spirit -- all of which are bogged down by a predictable storyline.\nNicholas (Hunnam) is a good-hearted 19-year-old. When his father dies, he takes his mother and younger sister to his rich uncle Ralph (Plummer), who gets Nicholas a job at an orphanage. The headmaster and his wife are a wicked pair who keep the boys malnourished and beat them whenever they deem it necessary. For one young crippled boy named Smike, they deem it necessary more often than not, until Nicholas steps in, stands up for the boy, and gives the headmaster a beating of his own. Good Smike was unreasonably punished by the Evil Headmaster, so Good Nicholas does the good deed and saves him. A good story in real life, but too predictable when put on screen. \nThroughout the movie, evil forces conspire against Nicholas and his loved ones, while better forces help Nicholas combat them. The headmaster kidnaps Smike, and a village man helps Nicholas rescue him. Nicholas falls in love and evil Uncle Ralph gets her father, who owes Ralph a debt, to marry the girl off to another man. The debt is called off, all of the evil men are happy, and Nicholas must figure a way to get her back. And wouldn't you know it: he gets her back.\nThese kinds of stories with overtly good and evil characters require some plot twists, music, comedy or action to keep them interesting, and indeed the film's best scenes are the comedic ones. Nathan Lane is wonderful as the head of a traveling theatre, who gives Nicholas the part of Romeo, Smike the part of the Apothecary, and tells a hilarious anecdote about an alcoholic pony. But Lane is only in the film for twenty-five minutes, and then it is back to Nicholas fending off the bad deeds of bad men. The film tries to right itself in the final ten minutes with a sudden "twist" where one character discovers a connection with another character, but by that point, who cares? Perhaps hardcore Charles Dickens fans will be swept away by the spirited mix of characters, but for my money, I'll take "Oliver"
(01/16/03 5:00am)
Warren Schmidt, played by Jack Nicholson, is a good American. At 62, he's just retired as vice president of a major life-insurance company. He's a conservative Republican, listening to Limbaugh on his way to the Dairy Queen for a Reeses Pieces Blizzard. His daughter is soon to be married. Schmidt is the simple man of American legacy and life is good. Or so he'd have the audience believe. \nAfter retirement and the sudden death of his wife, Warren is left questioning just what his legacy is and if it makes any real difference to the rest of the world. The answers leave much to be desired, according to Warren, and so he sets out on a road-trip in his 35-foot RV and thus, we -- along with Warren -- begin to learn about Schmidt.\n"Schmidt" is director Alexander Payne's third film, his last film being the critically acclaimed dark comedy "Election." This time Payne tackles a more personal agenda of what a man does when he realizes that he's never truly accomplished anything in his life. Based on the novel by Louis Begley, this story could easily fall into a cliché. Two things save "Schmidt" from veering into this more blasé condition: an excellent script from Payne and Jim Taylor that contains some of the most candid and realistic dialogue ever written, and most notably, a brilliantly understated performance from the man of over-the-top expression himself, Nicholson.\nNicholson plays Schmidt to Oscar-worthy perfection, not once flashing that trademark wolfish grin, the corners of his mouth pulled back in something of a bitter grimace instead. Nicholson moves fluidly between world-weary and childlike wonder as he journeys across the midwest. In one particular scene that had cliché tattooed all over it, Warren looks up to the night sky and asks his late wife if she can forgive him for not being the man he should have been. Cue the shooting star. But Nicholson manages to give this scene the star-struck amazement it deserves and cliché becomes a quickly forgotten word. Garnering many awards and nominations, including four Golden Globe nominations, "About Schmidt" is a worthy investment.
(09/12/02 4:00am)
The members of the rock band Extra Blue Kind stand in a cramped basement. All four musicians are in their own worlds. They have been practicing for about ten minutes, riffing a little bit and playing two songs that they know well. While taking a short break between songs, the band members check the amps, adjust the microphone and shoot the breeze with each other. Drummer Randee Eimer looks over at lead singer David Handy and gets his attention.\n\"You want to try the new one?\" Eimer asks.\n\"Sure.\"\nHearing this, Handy starts playing the opening to their newest song, \"Walk Slowly.\" Eimer and guitarist David Barajas watch, get their rhythm and chime in. Squirt, the bassist, grooves with the music, bopping his head and plucking his bass line. Handy begins to sing. They stand in a small circle facing each other, feeding off of a vibe that grows with each note played. Eimer and Squirt have been playing drums and bass together for nearly ten years. Handy met them in Bloomington about three years ago, and Barajas joined the group a year and a half ago.\nWhile Eimer, Handy, Barajas, and Squirt are all friends, they are not just four friends who stumbled upon some instruments and threw together a garage band. Putting a successful band together takes hard work and a great deal of skill. Their dedication is paying off. They recently beat out 300 other bands in a contest put on by the Indianapolis radio station X103 to perform at X-Fest, a rock festival that will feature Stone Temple Pilots, Kid Rock and others. \nAlthough the four of them have not been together for that long, there is already a strong and noticeable chemistry between them while playing. During each song, traces of their numerous musical influences are visible, but they are quick to point out that Extra Blue Kind does not follow any pop formula.\n\"I think that we try to keep it fresh and unique,\" Barajas says. \"I don\'t know how it is for [Dave] when he writes, but I know for me I\'m not really thinking too much about another band-trying to make it sound like another band. I\'m trying to stay as far away from that as possible.\"\n\"We\'ve never sat down and discussed what sound we wanted to have, or what band we wanted to emulate,\" Handy adds.\nAt times their sound resembles Nirvana, a band that all four have cited as an influence. Squirt\'s funky bass brings 311 to mind, another one of their influences. Their sound goes up and down the board as they play song after song, adding hints of hip hop and ska to a foundation of hard rock. Handy\'s voice is gritty and emotional, and unlike many young rock band lead singers he prides himself on not sounding like a Kurt Cobain-Eddie Vedder composite. He and Barajas switch off playing lead, although normally it is Barajas who does the honors, immersing himself in the music. Eimer\'s drumming is tough and consistent, and he acts as the group\'s non-verbal leader while playing.\nThe foursome made its live debut at Dunn Meadow in April of 2001. The equipment was shoddy, the audience sparse, but worst of all the band was not yet used to performing together. Playing show after show has changed all of that, improving their chemistry and changing their mindset.\n\"It used to be more about trying to play the songs well instead of putting on a really good live stage performance,\" Eimer says. \"Now it\'s more about trying to entertain, put on a good show and play the songs really well.\"\nFor smaller bands like Extra Blue Kind, good songs and good shows are huge keys to building up a strong fan base. A contributing factor to their decision to steadily build is the story of the band Transmatic, an Indy group that signed a six-album deal a year and a half ago and have since broken up due to financial and creative problems. They are content taking a slow road, and have chosen to trade a good payoff now for a great payoff later.\n\"I think this is something we all four really believe in and all want to do in the long run,\" Squirt says. \"That\'s pretty much our goal, to still be doing this in ten years."
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Baseball's postseason began this week, and although the Seattle Mariners tied a Major League Baseball record with 116 wins, the team everyone is gunning for is the three-time defending champion New York Yankees. The Yanks are the epitome of a sports dynasty: they've won 26 World Series and the players that have worn their jerseys are the who's who of the Hall of Fame. New York is the bully who asks the kids if he can play, and then steals the ball. I am quite sure that had Sept. 11 been just another day, no one outside of the Bronx would be pulling for the Yankees to win for the fourth year in a row.\nIn sports, a team like the Yankees is called a dynasty, and other teams have to wait for that team to run its course. But in business, we have rules and laws set up to prevent such dynasties. We as Americans believe in "making your fortune" but when a corporation becomes a monopoly, we try to break it down. \nAOL/Time Warner, AT&T and Microsoft are all businesses whose power frightens many of us.\nThis kind of backlash to a superpower comes from one of the turning points in American history: the Revolutionary War. After all, who would have thought that 13 colonies would be able to defeat the massive force of a world power like Great Britain? This country was the biggest underdog of them all, but since 1776, we have grown into not just a world power, but the world power.\nLike many American ideals, there is hypocrisy with this love for the underdog. We are the dominant sports franchise. We are the giant corporation. People talk about Roman times. Well, we are living in American times, and it's time to recognize what that means to those who are not American. \nThe Gulf War ended when we forced Saddam Hussein into a cease-fire and got him out of Kuwait, but he is still in power. Why did we fight that war? Because his interests interfered with ours when our right to Kuwaiti oil was threatened. \nWe are now at war, and Osama bin Laden is our enemy only because of what he has done to us. As the president of the United States, George W. Bush has more power than any other man in the world. That means he has the most responsibility of any other man in the world. We share this world with many people, and when they have a problem, we have one, too.\n On Oct. 1, Time magazine put bin Laden on its cover. The headline read "TARGET: BIN LADEN." The media has made him the enemy, because he is the man accused of being responsible for some 6,000 deaths. He is someone we can point to and say "There is the enemy. There is the man who has caused us so much pain." \n But what if we kill bin Laden and all of his present followers tomorrow? Killing Hitler didn't end anti-Semitism, but it did make him an inspirational martyr for every skinhead and neo-Nazi. Bin Laden is not the root of this problem, just someone who sprouted from it. There is an expression that talks about winning the battle but losing the war. This war we are fighting is just the battle. How long it will take before we identify the war?