By Sarah Viets
Don’t forget, it’s a conspiracy! While our national leaders repeatedly speak of red and orange terrorist alerts, while they warn us of “illegal” invaders, our American leaders inspire fear.
Or do they?
Why am I so jittery? Do I subconsciously mistrust what’s unknowingly familiar? And if so, what am I so uncertain about?
Do we crave fear, or do politicians campaign on behalf of trepidation?
Science fiction and horror movie reels are no longer a past-time fave. They’re here and each show is filled with wide-eyed anxious moviegoers: But why?
Recently a friend of mine urged me to see what the fuss was all about.
My nerves were loose and as we waited for the film to begin, I filled the empty silence with my latest personal dramatic episode. It was my night off. It was time well deserved to escape the inevitable realities of my everyday life. And the evening’s selection was Cloverfield.
The beginning of the film starts off with a bang. Cloverfield intensifies my emotions by shooting the film documentary style for ninety minutes, the entire length of the film. The lens shakes. It quickly jolts back and forth without any precise course. I struggle to follow each scene. It’s as if I’m chasing the lens without any clear direction. (In fact, if you get car sick, I highly recommend waiting for the DVD. I was nauseas the entire time and some people left about thirty minutes into the film. With that said, I’m not completely confident why.)
As the film progresses shots switch from previous footage to present day events. The home video records over a perfect memorable day between two young sweethearts in exchange for an evening covered in death, stress, and terror.
But in the mix of mayhem, tranquil footage flashes between unpredictable events. Family members are lost, smoke, rubble, and fresh blood fill the streets, military tanks explode, and no matter where the lens turns human life clings on the edge of extinction. An unstable chaotic state transpires from the screen. Uncontrollable events morph anxiety with fear. There’s nowhere to turn. The city is under siege and no one is safe.
The enemy is unknown. Or as one of the main actors terrifyingly says, “I don’t know. It’s something awful. It’s a terrible, terrible thing.”
An hour and a half later, my nerves tightened. I felt anxious, intense, a little distorted but clear and purposeful at the same time. But what was my direction? (I looked over at my friend anxiously confused, while he sat and looked at me with his, “I told ya so” gaze.)
I was unsure, but I was confident of a few things: the only people I trusted were my blood and inner circle of friends. I examined anything outside of what was familiar with doubt and uncertainty. Unfamiliar faiths, distant lands, and different shades of skin were subconsciously categorized as unidentifiable cultures, the “unknown,” a perceived difference.
I know there’s an enemy, but who is it? I can feel it in my gut. Something isn’t right. But what is it?
I have two choices:
If I choose to live in fear, if I prefer isolation, I shout, “Shut down the borders! Build a 2000 mile fence. Rip children from their mothers and fathers. Invade Iran, Pakistan, and every other Muslim country for that matter. Cut all ties with “foreign” countries labeled “good and evil.” Liberate myself through hibernation. And take a firm stance against crime.
Or, I choose something different. I choose the “unknown.” Instead of allowing fear to control me, I choose to challenge how I feel and think of something new.
Just because I can’t see a viable solution doesn’t mean a visible alternative doesn’t exist.
Why? Because maybe my gut is wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time. Maybe my anxiety and fear isn’t really here. Or maybe it is, but mistakenly directed.
So who is it? Is it the chicken or the egg? Do national leaders perpetuate fear or is fear enmeshed within our American culture?
Our culture creates our American leaders. At the same, the books we read (or don’t), the films we watch, the sub-cultures we attach ourselves to like hip-hop, punk rock, the indie-rock and country scene, or any other subculture I’ve mistakenly forgotten, and our personal experiences informs and defines who we are. Moreover, they influence how we see the world.
Politicians may come and go, but the ideas that create them seem to stay intact.
Pop-Culture: The Monsters are Coming!
The Real Truth About Obama and Islam
By Eric K. Ward
If smoking as many cigs as I can is the best way to get over my urge to smoke, than those who are convinced to prove that Obama is a “Muslim in disguised” have done one even better. Their massive email drives have single handily assured that I will never, ever, check my Yahoo email account again. Since the middle of March I have received, at last count, over one hundred and sixty-eight emails pleading with me to understand that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and might even be a follower of Islam too!
Granted I’m a survivor of what’s left of the public school system in the United States, but I was always taught that being a Muslim means you are a follower of Islam. Like a good syndicated episode of the X-Files, my Obama is a Secret Muslim Friends (or OSMF as I like to refer to them), don’t let a good conspiracy yarn get in the way of the facts.
From a sampling of these emails you would think that my OSMF had the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution incarcerated in Guantanamo while I was off sampling my 5 PM Gin Martini (dry, stirred and three olives, if you’re curious)? Also, if you’re wondering if all these rumors have any grain of truth to them, stay tuned readers, I have the real answer for you at the end of this blog.
While my unchecked Yahoo account continues to fill up with OSMF (I just received another while writing this) I want to suspend their particular fantasy and insert my own question. Is it the false belief, that Obama is a secret Muslim, that will drive potential voters away from this particular candidate, or does the lie that Obama is a secret Muslim simply provide people the excuse they were looking for not to vote for him? Let’s test it out.
Let’s say that Obama was Muslim. What would be the big deal? We didn’t have a problem when Muslims gave us free labor (it is estimated that nearly 13% - 20% of enslaved Africans in the America’s were followers of Islam). We don’t seem to have a problem with American Revolutionary War Hero Peter Salem being placed on a postage stamp. We didn’t cry conspiracy when that Muslim country, called Morocco, stepped forward to be the first country to officially recognize the young fledging United States. Nor did we raise a big stink when Islam helped to influence America’s very own, The Blues. I guess it’s okay to be a Muslim in America as long as you don’t run for President, seriously?
So after all of this, it still comes down to that one question I promised to answer: “Is Barack Obama Muslim?” Does it really matter?
Our litmus test for who is the best President should revolve around knowing if our vote counts, how we’re going to put food on the table, how much we’re paying for gas at the pump, and keeping our children in schools were the teacher doesn’t have to work two jobs to survive. Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, or Baha’i (or no belief at all), we have more in common with each other than my OSMF. That’s because in our America, it’s not the religious lines that increasingly concerns us, but the economic one.
Employer Sanctions, Border Security is Anti-Civil Rights
By Sarah Viets
Some folks vehemently believe US borders are weak and feeble. They believe porous borders threatens American security, strains American social services, declines US wages, and fosters unemployment. Now, I can either create a counter argument for each claim, or I can change how people debate immigration.
I choose the latter. But, it's also important to address American's hearts and minds. Each of us is frustrated by the direction of our country. And each of us desperately desires an alternative to our current status quo.
But blaming immigrants for old problems confuses me. Inadequate social services, educational resources, low wages, and high unemployment are not new problems. Broken borders aren’t responsible for each specific problem.
The amount of money spent on education, roads, bridges, levees, and health care has been declining for years, a decision made by elected politicians, like mayors, city councilpersons, senators, and house of representatives. They decide what programs to fund and what departments to cut. But that's not the only reason.
When largely unionized industries, like textile and steel mills and automotive industries moved outside American borders, so did high paying jobs with health care and pensions. In it’s place, low paying American service jobs replaced industrial work. Large malls, new hotels, restaurants and large retailers filled American landscape and replaced $2,000 monthly paychecks. In other words, American employers paid minimal wages at American's expense.
In result, real wages (American's income) stayed the same while the cost of living increased. To put it another way, every time light bills, monthly food budgets and gas prices went up, American paychecks stayed the same. If bi-weekly pay stubs increased with the cost of gas, minimal wages would exceed $10.00 an hour. Even more, Americans pay more health care bills and receive shaky pension plans unparalleled to previous decades.
None of these points are new information. In fact, you probably skipped them. (I don't blame you, it's depressing).
So, complaints about new immigrants are actually fights for resources. For instance, a fight for resources argues that there aren’t enough resources to feed the entire globe. Therefore, strict border enforcement and employer sanctions are needed to fight and maintain what little resources there are.
However, while this argument is justified, why should we reserve American resources specifically for Americans? Is it because we're citizens? If so, this argument says Americans deserve jobs and resources over people who aren't American.
These questions strike me as odd. And they're why I label strict border enforcement and employer sanctions as anti-civil rights, and here's way:
Civil rights are "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality..." At the same time, some definitions say rights are only guaranteed to citizens. However, I would argue that "legal, social and economic equality" should apply to all human beings, not just citizens. But if I say only citizens should enjoy "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality..." and not all human beings, regardless of citizenship, then I'm also defining who has a right to life. (Particularly since the majority of immigrants come to our country for jobs.)
Let me put this another way, if a human being doesn't have access to basic human needs, they'll die. For instance, if I give one-person milk, a nice juicy steak or chicken, a house, English and math school books, the ability to call their grandparents and brother or sister for money or a babysitter, and a reason to get up in the morning, or in other words, a J-O-B, while at the same time, limiting or prohibiting someone from working, nagging and fighting with their parents or family siblings (everybody has family drama!), buying their kids clothes and making their favorite meals gives one person more of a right to live than another.
But I don’t have more of a right to live simply because my birth certificate reads, “Born in the U.S.A. I don’t deserve my dad’s burnt hamburgers, writing tons of papers so I can graduate college, or building a family, like my mom and dad did, more than the next guy.
This is why I refuse to support any policy that says I have more of a right live and experience life more than the next person. I refuse to vote for any law that weakens my American identity. I refuse to support any policy that defines who should and who shouldn't aim for the American Dream. Even more, I refuse to blame immigrants for under funded schools and why my friend (who is an American citizen) had to declare bankruptcy because of insane hospital bills.
I have a better idea, instead of targeting immigrants, why not demand higher wages, better health care and education reforms? Why? If we clamp down on immigration, our current problems won't go away. It's not like our resources will suddenly increase if we advocate strict enforcement.
Even more, why delay American prosperity? Immigration reform organizations, like Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), Numbers USA and Americans for Better Immigration, say strict employer sanctions and strict border security will increase wages and employment and improve our education and health care systems. But what they don't tell you is that immigration policies don't guarantee higher wages and employment, and educational and health care improvements. Their idea is a big fat theory with a bunch of holes.
But battles for educational reforms, employment, increased wages, and adequate health care do.
Why make life harder than it is? The clock is ticking, with no room for mistakes.
In Support of Mother Nature
By Jill
A study released on June 16, 2008 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences lends further evidence to the biological origins of homosexuality. It has become generally accepted that homosexuality is a predisposed orientation that cannot be rejected at will; although genetics is increasing being ruled out as a factor in that predisposition. In other words there probably isn't a "gay gene". This new study finds that the areas of the brain that develop according to the levels of hormones a fetus is exposed to during gestation may be the same areas that distinguish sexuality. Basically if a female is exposed to too much testosterone in the womb certain areas of her brain may develop more like a male brain and therefore she will eventually prefer women over men sexually.
The upside of this finding is that mother nature may be the ultimate decider in sexuality, and we no longer have to hear scientists densely debate why the homosexual genetic "mutation" hasn't been corrected by evolution. This also offers the sweetest retort thus far to homophobes who enjoy condemning homosexuality as an unnatural sin; it is in fact quite natural to be gay and mother nature rarely does anything without a good reason.
Here is the downside; we may not be able unlock all of nature's intentions, but we're not above manipulating them. Already scientists are testing other species to see if they can influence sexual preference by controlling hormonal exposure during pregnancy.
It doesn't take a genius to see where this is going. There may come a day when we have the option to control reproduction enough to effectively eradicate gayness. I'm sure many people will choose to exercise this given the choice, having convinced themselves that they are simply sparing their children social rejection. Perhaps all we can ask is that they consider our society's rejection of homosexuality insignificant when compared to nature's timeless acceptance.
Decisions make up each one of us, whether they be biological, parental or cultural, they’re decisions nonetheless that define us, and most of them are out of our control. When I think about the millions of uncontrollable factors that have made me who I am, I wouldn't change one of them, and I hope my friends who are gay wouldn't change their decisions either. I like them just the way they are.
Forgotten Matter
By Nicole Hallengrogg
Mornings I still wake and find I must Talk myself
Back into existence.
That tuft of hair risen
Above me
A reminder of restless sleep.
There were times in my youth
That I could not wait
for morning
and lie awake
Waiting
For the promises of dawn.
These days I lie awake
Anticipating tomorrow
Agonizing today
Left with that hope
That pride
That Sense,
That Nothing,
So frequent
Imagination is hopeless
My father would say
He believes that
His life
Is the one that counted
All male
And hardened
But death and wars
Trophies left standing
On mantles
Like Romans'.
Is that what is real?
Can those symbols
Show us some greater true
Those dead rise from
Unnamed graves
and tell us
What so many
Can't hear.
Left with matter
That shines
When polished
What makes him
Sit so proud?
And me, slumped over
Like some forgotten fruit
Telling myself
at night,
When all the words are
Buried in my forgotten grave
That tomorrow
I will make
Something happen.
SPORTS: Unstoppable Forces of Nature
By Joel Ebert
Here in the United States, many of us idolize the unstoppable athlete. We love our most valuable players, Olympic Gold Medal winners, and first place finishers. But if there is something we love more it is the injured or flawed athlete succeeding while fighting an internal or near impossible battle.
Example 1: Paul Pierce injured his knee (some say it was sprained) in Game 1 of the 2008 NBA Finals, only to come back less than 2 minutes later and rain on the Lakers parade. Pierce got into the locker room with trainer Brian McKeon and after they discovered he could put wait on both legs, they sent him back out on the court. Pierce later said "I had to get back out there to help my ballclub, That was all that was going through my mind, just being a part of it. I just wanted to get back out there."
Example 2: Tiger Woods won this year’s U.S. Open after playing with a torn ligament in his left knee for nearly 10 months and suffering a “double stress fracture” in the same leg two weeks before the tournament. Woods won the tournament in a playoff with Rocco Mediate only to turn around that same week and announce that he needed surgery to repair his knee that would prevent him from playing for the rest of the current season.
Example 3: In Game 4 of the American League Championship Series, Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling pitched 7 effective innings and gave up only one run on four hits. Controversy swarmed around Schilling because of what was known as the bloody sock. Throughout the game Schilling’s right sock was focused on, revealing that there was blood on his ankle, where Schilling had sutures.
Now some people believe these athletes were exaggerating or faking their injuries.
Laker fans complained that Pierce was faking it, citing his instant turnaround by simply going to the locker room. L.A. coach Phil Jackson even said "Paul got carried off and was back on his feet in a minute. I don't know if the angels visited him in that time-out period or what, but he didn't even limp when he came back out on the floor.”
Fellow golfer Retief Goosen said that he believed Woods was exaggerating his injury as well. Goosen went as far as to say “It just seemed that when he hit a bad shot his knee was in pain and on his good shots he wasn’t in pain. You see when he made the putts and he went down on his knees and was shouting, ‘Yeah’, his knee wasn’t sore.”
And since 2004, when Schilling had two bloody sock games (the aforementioned one, and once during the World Series) there have been a host of critics calling the bloody sock a public relations move. Broadcaster Gary Thorne said that he believed the sock was painted, citing a conversation that never seemed to have taken place with Red Sox catcher Doug Mirabelli, who later denied Thorne’s claim.
I am not going to weigh in on those arguments, however. What I am going to weigh in on is the fact that these American athletes and a host of others (Michael Jordan and the famous Flu Game, Eight Belles, the horse that broke it’s legs at the Kentucky Derby, etc) feel the need to play when they are not 100% healthy.
It seems to me that the reason behind them doing this is because they feel the need to either a) prove that they are capable of doing miraculous things despite an injury b) they love the game/sport so much that nothing can stop them from playing or c) their team desperately needs them for support.
Once the task is completed, we (the audience) glorify these people. Maybe this is because we see ourselves in these athletes, at least in small doses. There are numerous occasions when we don’t feel like going to work or school but must tough it out because we don’t have a sick day left or our job is too important to miss.
I am worried that this idolization of the imperfect, yet unstoppable athlete may be part of a bigger problem within our society. What that problem may be I have not yet solved.
Maybe this is reflective in the rampant use of steroids in professional sports today. I am not suggesting that professionals such as Paul Pierce, Curt Schilling, or Tiger Woods are using steroids. But perhaps the fact steroids usage is so prevalent in American sports today is because American athletes want to be that big, bad, unstoppable force of nature (ie the aforementioned athletes) that we all idolize. I get the sense that this is a growing epidemic in American sports - do you?
Is Don Imus Racist?
By Sarah Viets
Tuesday morning, Don Imus, a national radio host for MSNBC, got slammed a racist. (Again)?!
Here’s the gist:
The sports announcer on Imus' radio show, Warner Wolf, rehashed why the Tennessee Titans suspended Adam Jones (also known as Pacman) for the entire 2007 NFL season, and Jones’ recent involvement in a shooting in a Las Vegas nightclub. In response, Imus asked, “What’s color is he? Wolf answered and said, “He’s African American.”
(And here’s where it gets juicy.)
And then Imus said, “Oh, well there you go. Now we know.”
“Now we know?” What the heck is that supposed to mean?
Let’s not forget, last year Imus got slammed for calling young African American women basketball stars “nappy headed hoes.”
But instead of attacking Imus’ behavior, I’d rather talk about his comment. What’s Imus saying?
I think his comment has two different interpretations:
Here’s the 1st:Since African Americans commit more crimes than white folks, its not surprising Adam Jones has been arrested six times.
And now the 2nd:Since Adam Jones is African American, it’s not surprising he’s been arrested six times. Why? Not because African Americans are more likely to commit crimes, but because some folks assume African Americans are criminals because black people are more likely to be dishonest, untrustworthy, and break the law
Now, some of you are probably thinking, “That’s not true, the majority of black folks are dishonest and dangerous because African Americans commit crimes.”
In other words, police officers arrested Adam Jones because he’s black. They arrested Jones because they assumed he’d committed a crime, not because he actually did anything wrong.
But what about white Americans?
If you hear someone say that Black folks commit the majority of crimes - without asking why crime exists or without looking up any facts – they’re indirectly saying Black Americans are more likely to break the law and act dishonestly because they’re black. In other words, someone is using negative personal characteristics to define black skin.
Moreover, if you hear someone say African Americans commit the majority of crimes - which means you’re also saying black folks commit more crime than white folks – the person is also inadvertently categorizing white Americans as trustworthy and “well-behaved.”
So, if hear someone say there are more black criminals than white criminals, they’re also creating a stereotype about black and white Americans. And these stereotypes are popular. They are widely accepted and used to explain personal behavior. Moreover, crime isn’t linked to under funded and overcrowded schools, limited head start programs, lower income levels.
It’s kind of how people cited bible verses to justify slavery. But when that got old, white folks turned to biology. Folks said its okay to buy and sell black people like cattle because they’re not as smart as white folks. They said black folks are biologically inferior to whites . But when folks couldn’t use science to rationalize the “Whites Only” signs posted above water fountains and bathroom stalls, folks turned to culture.
Let me put it another way:
After the 1964 Civil Rights Act, racist ideas didn’t vanish; people didn’t stop categorizing blacks and whites differently. White folks didn’t stop searching for explanations to explain personal behavior. Folks’ arguments just changed. Instead of citing biblical scripture or scientific data, some folks started saying Black culture causes criminal behavior.
So the next time you hear someone say Black culture breeds dangerous, dishonest, and criminal behavior, remember that the person’s argument isn’t any different than before. They’re still using stereotypes.
And since people make culture, the person is still saying it’s easier to trust white people because they’re white, and black people are dangerous because they’re black. The individual just re-framed his/her argument so it’s accepted.
In other words, thank stereotypes for stories of triumphs, not hard work. Black stereotypes help white folks land jobs and promotions, influence whether or not politicians feed money into crime bills or public education and deter police officers from stopping white drivers behind $50,000 cars.
As a young white American woman, I don’t want any stereotypes attached to my white skin. I want to walk into any job interview, classroom, professor’s office, or crowded street without anyone using my skin color to categorize me. I want to earn my keep because of me, not because I’m white.
I can’t think of anything more un-American.
As for Don Imus, I’m not sure what he met, and it’s hard to believe his intentions when you examine how many racial slurs jump out of his mouth.
But I will say one thing:
Don Imus, your cowboy hat and Carhartt jacket makes me think of America’s beautiful countryside, open dirt roads, and spending Sunday mornings farming with my dad.
I just wish your words represented my American memories.
