Coffee Ad

Being from LA, it's not uncommon to see acquaintances who are "in the biz" on commercials and stuff, but I did a double take when I thought I saw a high school teacher I knew in a coffee commercial a couple of weeks ago.

Since it was an internet ad, I wasn't able to rewind it. I hadn't paid enough attention to catch the name of the product or get a good look at the star. I even tried to reload the video a bunch of times, but it played other advertisements instead. Oh well, I figured, I'm sure I was just mistaken.

I finally saw the advertisement again, though, and wouldn't you know, it was that woman I used to throw balls with. (That's not a euphemism, she was a sports teammate of mine.) Even the normal-seeming teachers in this town are shilling for companies now!

The best part is that the spot's slogan is "Someone you know loves Keurig." Ironically enough they're right: I do know Catherine. But I have my doubts are her love for the machine since it also identifies her as a "paid endorser of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc."

Beck's Boo

I'm listening to the new Beck album via NPR and the beginning of his song "Don't Let It Go" sounds more than a little familiar.

 

 Sing over his words with "Boy you should know that I've got you on my mind..."

 Like most days, now I'm just jamming to "My Boo" instead:

We Don't Go to Church on Christmas Eve Anymore

For most of my life, I've attended TWO services on Christmas Eve: one protestant and one Catholic to appease both sides of my family. I'm no longer obligated to attend either, though, not because I'm old enough to make my own decisions, but because the churches have forced our hands.

The protestant church stopped being a requirement when the married minister got a teenager in the congregation pregnant. Surprisingly, church-goers found it difficult to stomach hearing the dude preach the good word after that, my family included.

After a prolonged process, the church hired a new pastor. He's easily 350 pounds. I can't help but guess that he was chosen in part because they figured no teenage girl would want to have sex with him. I suppose we could start going to church again because of the new pastor, but the whole thing is tarnished. Christmas especially - all of the celebration over a religious birth from a young, unwed mother still hits a little too close to home after the last guy, if you get my drift.

Right now you may be thinking, "If that's what stops you from going to the protestant church, the Catholic church story must be downright scandalous!"

It's not, though. There are no sexy secrets that I know of at this particular Catholic church, but even supposing that the priest knocked up a teen girl, they'd just call the baby a miracle and put it in the manger for the nativity play. By now, Catholics have just learned to ignore the hypocrisy - the sermon could literally be about the virtues of being a ChiMo and you'd still have one thousand people sitting in the pews because it's Christmas Eve and you can't skip church on Christmas Eve.

I am the exception that gets to skip church on Christmas Eve, however, because the Catholic side of my family is now mostly dead, so there's not much peer pressure. Besides, the sermons are awful. The priest literally just reads Christian-themed email forwards as his sermons like the bogus one about the hero marine punching an atheist professor (fucking liberals!) on God's behalf. One Christmas, the sermon was about a disfigured man who started going to an Australian Catholic church for solace - the priest then hooked the ugly man up with a talented plastic surgeon and made him into a handsome man. That man went on to be… ACTOR MEL GIBSON! First, I don't get what this tale had to do with Christmas, but second, as any idiot who has visited Snopes can tell you, the story is absolutely not true. Then again, if the priest had a problem dressing up falsehoods as fact, he'd be in a different profession altogether.

Even with all of that in mind, the number one reason we don't attend the Catholic service anymore is actually the choir. It is the worst choir you've ever heard. It's a buncha adults bleating out Christmas hymns as if they were goats. They couldn't be more out of tune if they tried. Maybe at rehearsals half of them practice going sharp, while the other half goes flat just to mess the congregation. When I briefly entertained the thought of attending mass this year, I then remembered this one hellbeast's annual solo/slaughtering of "O' Holy Night" and decided that the nicest gift I could give to my ears this holiday is not putting them through that.

So, yeah, no church for me. And I'm pretty okay with that.

Merry Christmas from my family to yours!

My Road to Rocky

Having gone my whole life without seeing any Rocky movies (boxing just seems so primitive), I decided to finally partake in an American cinematic staple by marathoning all of them. I know even many Rocky fans haven't seen more than a few films in, so it was kind of overkill to go all in like that, but I couldn't resist the story of a man who was derided for dating a supposedly (but not really) "retarded" woman while shockingly no one points out that Rocky is clearly the one with a mental disability all along.

I know most people think the franchise gets worse the further it goes, but for my money, it finally gets good at Rocky IV. Rocky was whatever, II and III were all sorts of dull, but 4… 4 gets crazy campy. Before his fight with the Russian heavyweight Ivan Drago, Apollo Creed does a ridiculous patriotic dance routine as James Brown performs "Living in America" that so greatly encapsulates American excess and arrogance…


… and then in the subsequent fight, Apollo dies. At first I was surprised that a Rocky film would be so critical of American culture, but by the end, the movie has turned 100% pro-USA again.

You see, Rocky wants to avenge Apollo's death by fighting Ivan Drago, and the Russians schedule an unsanctioned fight on December 25 (because Commies have no respect for Christmas!) At first, Drago kicks Rocky's ass, but Rocky is scrappy and stages a comeback. By the end, the all-Russian crowd that was booing Rocky begins chanting his name and calling for American dominance.


It already doesn't seem believable, but then Rocky gives a speech that wins over even the Russian government officials AND THE COLD WAR IS OVER!! No kidding, Rocky has finally brought Russia and the United States together by knocking out their most prized fighter. Sometimes you need to kick some ass to promote peace!

Rocky V meanwhile is so ghetto, it's great. Rocky's no longer a boxer, he's a father. All his son wants is a little bit of attention, but Rocky only makes time for another aspiring boxer who wants to be his protege. Once Rocky's mulleted protege becomes successful, however, he ditches Rocky for money, fame, and babes.

Rather than reconnecting with his son, though, Rocky is fixated on the protege who used him, and the tense feelings culminate in the usual BIG FINAL FIGHT that the franchise is known for. Except, for the first time, instead of happening in a boxing ring, it's just a street fight that happens outside of a bar. As usual, Rocky almost loses, but the aged star pulls it together to knock out the kid he's been mentoring.


As far as cinematic street brawls go, it's not quite They Live good, but it's still pretty funny that the writers chose to end the five film story arc not with a championship or an act of heroism, but with a drunken, petty feud that the cops come to break up.

So glad I stuck it out with you 'til the bitter end, Rocky.

How The Onion Made Me a Better Person

I'm not satirizing satire - The Onion really did prompt me to make a positive life decision.

A month ago, I tore a hole into my fitted bed sheet. It's old, so I believe the sheet had just worn thin over time. Since the hole was small, I just ignored it, but the more I slept on it, the wider the hole got from incidental tearing.

I considered sewing it, but then realized I didn't have the skills for that, so instead I fastened it with safety pins. Sleeping on top of safety pins isn't too comfortable, so I started just sleeping on top of the hole as if it weren't there.

Most people would be like "Time to buy a new sheet!" but I wasn't convinced that was necessary for whatever reason. Then I read I read The Onion's article "Nation's Single Men Announce Announce Plan to Change Bedsheets by 2019" and it dawned one me what a schlub I am.

I know I often make myself the punchline, but that's on my own terms, thankyouvermuch. Not wanting to be the butt of the joke in this case, I finally bought a new fitted sheet! Look at me being an adult, world!

Now, before things get too self-congratulatory, I should probably also admit that I still have not replaced this blanket that is also slowly accumulating holes.

I got this sucker over ten years ago in a corporate giveaway and I still sleep with it on my bed. A real adult would probably get rid of it, but, uh, baby steps.

Also, a real adult might know how to put a fitted sheet on his bed. After fifteen minutes of solid effort, the corners kept untucking and popping off, leaving me stewing in frustration. At one point, I even aggressively poked my finger through one of the corners as I tried to stretch it further (and I swear I didn't even cheap out on this sheet!) meaning I technically have a hole in this sheet, too, even though I hadn't even slept on it yet. ARGGGGHH!

The best solution would have been to ask a roommate for help, but I was determined to stretch it on my own and even used Google for potential tips. That's when I found this second Onion article: "Study Reveals Majority of Suicides Occur While Trying to Put Fitted Sheet on Bed."

I was about ready to hang myself with the fitted sheet at that point, and once again, The Onion put things in perspective. I might owe The Onion for not only improving my life, but also saving it.

The Millennial Problem

Ugh, fuck this millennial-hating and the Time Magazine article it rode in on. It’s a smear campaign to preemptively convince people that the problems people under 30 face are their own doing rather than inherited. What.Ever.

“Lazy”?
Lazy because they don’t have jobs… when jobs don’t exist. Never mind that those who do have jobs are probably working harder because they’re now expected to do the job that two people did not too long ago.

“Entitled”?
Yeah, fuck those young people who want “health care” and a “living wage” and “unpolluted air.”

“Narcissistic”?
A legitimate tendency, but also a learned behavior. What does our greedy, capitalist society teach us but to look out for #1 and hoard as much as you can for yourself. The 1% WANTS you to be narcissistic. If more people took the time to see outside of their own worldview, they wouldn’t stand up for the bullshit.

“Living with Their Parents”?
Want a job? Better go to college. Want to go to college? Take out $100,000+ in student loans. Want to move out? Nah, you now have to live with your parents because you are already super in the red and have a non-salaried job (if that). Good luck finding your way out of this system of debt slavery that we tricked you into.

Look, millennials have a lot of shit to work out, but let’s not pretend it has ever been a fair fight. If we’re ignorant, it’s primarily because we were raised in an underfunded, failing school system, a deliberate attempt to prevent an enlightened population from challenging the status quo. If we’re mindless consumers, it is because our supposed superiors have bred us to be just that, to find fulfillment in spending money and owning crap.

I’m mostly cynical, but as I wrote about recently, I have a shred of hope knowing that young Americans are more distrustful of American institutions than ever. Knowing the system is broken is the first step toward overthrowing it. Unfortunately, the enemy is mighty.

First they strip us of our money, homes, jobs, education, power, and autonomy. Then they have the nerve to scapegoat us for it, too? Fuck that noise.

The Bombers Are Going to Get Away with It

Nah, this isn't some conspiracy theory. I'm not even talking about Boston. I'm actually referring to that OTHER explosion that killed a bunch of people and injured hundreds more last week.

Oh right. The news pretty quickly forgot about the West, Texas fertilizer plant explosion. I mean, it was reported initially because there was a chance that it was another "terrorist" attack, but then once everyone realized it was just a case of corporate irresponsibility, the mentality was, "Fuck that, we have some dangerous sorta brown men to catch!"

I'm not about to directly equate a terrorist bombing and an accidental explosion because there is obviously a difference in intentionality. But here is a fertilizer plant with over 1,000 times the legal limit of explosives on site that didn't pony up for sprinklers or fire safety precautions. Not only were they maximizing profits by exceeding the allowed output, but they were cutting corners on minor expenses that would keep their own employees - and the whole town, as it turns out - safe.

And then there's the government's role in the ordeal. No inspections had been performed on the plant in 6 years. In fact, on that last visit, the company was found to not have safety procedures in place. As a result, the plant was fined $2,300. That's a laughable business expense, not a punishment, for a company that rakes in millions.

This is GROSS NEGLIGENCE. Although they weren't purposely trying to blow up a whole town, they knew they were running that risk for a long time and chose to value extra profits over attempting to prevent a catastrophe.

For months to come, however, we're going to hear about what we need to do, who we need to kill, and which Constitutional liberties we need to sacrifice in order to keep us safe. Safe from terrorism, that is. No one is going to try to hold this company accountable or vilify it in the media. No lawmakers are going to cry for sweeping corporate safety reforms in order to protect Americans, even though more people were killed/harmed in West.

So when the state starts justifying racial profiling/immigration reform, adds even more invasive forms of airport and event security, and decides its in the nation's best interest to read your emails without a warrant all in the name of "SAFETY", don't believe that bullshit. It's part of a preexisting agenda. If they actually cared about your safety, they'd, you know, pass gun control (which kills an exponential amount of people compared to terrorism) or enact meaningful safety regulations in the workplace.

For the record, the government's excuse is that we are in a deficit and because of budget cuts, we can't afford to conduct safety inspections. Still, they'll find hundreds of billions to spend on a war against a country to get "revenge" for a terrorist attack it had no part in. (Don't act like it's never happened before.)

Oh, and before I'm done, I also want to say "Fuck a terrorist!" Ugh. Dudes, you got gripes about America? You and me both. But violence is not only reprehensible morally, but also, dare I say, counterproductive. If the intention of the bombing was to somehow undermine the United States, all it did was make its population fall more in love with the state and law enforcement, and that renewed trust and loyalty will ultimately contribute to more corruption.

In that sense, terrorists are as dumb as they are evil. Corporations, meanwhile, are as smart as they are evil… after all, they know they can get away with it.

Sneaky

Ted asked, "How close do you think I can get to that bird?" I figured he couldn't get close at all, so I was surprised when Ted was eventually able to actually sit down beside it on the rock without it flying away.

However, that's not the point of this story. You see, starting from 20 yards away, Ted kept inching closer to the bird without it noticing so he could take photos of it. The bird was oblivious, so he was pretty proud of his stealth photography skills.

But then things got funny when a strange old man came up behind Ted. He began taking photos of Ted taking pictures of the bird, and slowly crept up on both subjects as well. At one point, he was just a few feet behind Ted.

Later, we asked Ted what he thought of the old man behind him. He didn't know anything about the man and didn't seem to believe there was someone behind him until we showed him photos. Ted had no idea he was being photographed: he was so caught up in being sneaky, that he left himself vulnerable to being snuck up on himself. The hunter became the hunted!

Except that I'm obviously the top hunter here because I took photos of all three of them without their knowledge. What a weird cycle.

Why Gay Marriage Is a Threat

I should have expected that by posting a fairly trite (though sincere!) article about gay marriage on the internet that it would attract a lot of crazy commenters, but it hasn't stopped shocking me each time someone angrily responds that eternal damnation, the deterioration of society, and humans marrying dogs will surely follow. Like, that's real? People actually use these arguments still?

Also, I'm not even pro-gay marriage, I'm just pro-marriage equality. If marriage equality were to mean that NO ONE could get married, I'd be just as (if not more) supportive of that. (Attending weddings, ugh.)

Honestly, gay marriage seems nearly as stupid, boring, and heteronormative as straight marriage. Granted, if some people have the right to make that decision than everyone should have the right to make that decision… I'm just not prepared to advocate for that decision. I don't trust the government, so why would I want it defining my personal relationships for me?

For real, gays: it's a trap! When same-sex marriage is legalized (and it's inevitable and almost certainly super soon), the best response is, "Thanks, but no thanks." Just because African Americans are now allowed to join most country clubs doesn't mean black people should go get a membership. 'Cause fuck that nonsense.

Gay marriage IS a threat. Not to family values, but to the queer identity. The radical, political lifestyle that intentionally positions itself outside of the norm, rejecting the traditions and societally pressures. Though sometimes the queer identity is an attempt to model desired change, it is also important as a form of resistance to monoculture. There is no freedom if we're not permitted to deviate.

Homophobia is a political tool. It has been imposed on society to obtain power. How many people have voted against their self interests for candidates who slash the education budget, squash unions, and further wealth disparity just because he or she (most likely he) defined marriage as between one man and one woman? It's an issue intentionally wielded as a distraction from society's real problems. Convince people that gays are destructive and they'll become blind to other more important issues.

Now, public perception has changed and the majority no longer fears homosexuals. As you can see from the unprecedented corporate and political support in my article, those in power know that they can no longer use homophobia to their advantage as effectively. So it's time for a new tactic: bring on the gay marriage. Mainstream homosexuals. Turn them into traditional consumers who become complacent, non-questioning members of society.

I know some gay people have waited their whole lives to feel normal, and if gay marriage helps them to achieve that, I'm happy for them. Just remember that the same establishment that felt it could dictate who you can love was using you before… and with this impending "progress" plans to use you again.

Sexism, Racism, and the Academy Awards

There are two things everyone's talking about the day after the Oscars, the first being Seth MacFarlane's bigoted approach to hosting. I thought it was kind of "genius" (in a warped sense of the word) to play off his jokes in a hypothetical setup. On one level it was like, "Wouldn't it be silly if I did this sophomoric shit at the Oscars?!" But in actuality, he was literally playing off that same material as his main material and actually succeeding. Some of the same people who wouldn't laugh at a topless actress song and dance were fooled enough by the premise to say chuckle "yes, such a thing at the Oscars would be absurd!"

I can't comment on too many specific jokes SINCE MY DRUNK FRIENDS KEPT TALKING DURING THE CEREMONY, but I remember when he intentionally "mixed up" two black actors who look nothing alike. It wasn't a commentary on how ridiculous society is in that respect, "black people look alike" was essentially the punchline. Blegh.

But as my friend Melinda pointed out this morning, let's not single out MacFarlane for an attitude that typifies the Academy on the whole. The Academy itself is predominately white senior citizen men. They represent an industry that is dominated - like most others - by a wealthy patriarchy. In that respect, MacFarlane didn't disgrace the Academy with his racist/sexist humor, he embodied it.

You know what's a sexist joke? Out of 100s of Best Director nominees over the decades, only four have ever been women. Want to know another sexist joke? Picking a hot, blonde 22-year-old who played a nymphomaniac as a Best Actress over the 86-year-old who movingly portrayed a real struggle or the woman who played a brash CIA agent/hero. Okay, one more: Amy Adams got a nomination for a minor, unremarkable role where her big scene involves her giving her husband a hand job while telling him it's okay to cheat on her.

How about a racist joke? There have only been TWO African American Best Director nominees ever. The last two African American actresses to win Oscars did so for playing either an abusive monster or a domestic maid who shits in a pie. Ultimately, even if the Academy started recognizing more actors of colors, it wouldn't change that it's still white patriarchy who get to tell the stories and - more importantly - profit from them.

A lot of us already recognize the farce, but we still engage with it anyway. We see the films, we have Oscar parties, and we pretend to care about the outcomes (I won my party's pool again, BTW, because I'm awesome at predicting other peoples' poor decisions). That's just being a member of this fucked up society. For crying aloud, I watched the ceremony in a room full of self-identified feminists, and there was STILL plenty of nitpicking about actresses' looks and outfits. I tried to spoof that when I saw Quvenzhane Wallis showing off her dress on the red carpet and remarked that she wasn't showing off enough skin.

Which brings me to the other topic everyone's talking about: The Onion's infamously deleted tweet: "Everyone seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhane Wallis is kind of a cunt, right? #Oscars2013"

It's not my favorite joke, but people need to cool their britches and stop appointing themselves satire police. Since when are smart people taking The Onion at face value? If someone had called Wallis a c-word for real, I would have thrown down. I don't generally like child actors, but Wallis gave one of the most amazing performances I've seen in years. In her public appearances, she has done nothing but come across as sweet, humble, and grounded. The joke is only a joke because she's universally adored. Matt Kirshen is saying some smart things on this topic that I would cosign.

Just like the comment I made about how Wallis should show more skin earlier in the evening, it wasn't actually a comment about Wallis. It was meant to poke fun at how Hollywood starlets are all but required to show a lot of cleavage or leg and dress up like sex objects. And how the viewers are socialized to dissect these women's looks and make nasty comments as they prance down a red carpet. Of course you don't start criticizing a nine-year-old's cute, age-appropriate dress for not being sexy enough.

In The Onion's case, I read the cunt joke as commentary on society's tendency to bash women. We so freely toss derogatory terms about females around that we need to be THAT shocked to even register that we do it. How many times have we heard Anne Hathaway called a "bitch" recently because she comes across as too polished? Or that Sally Field is a nightmare? It doesn't take much of anything to get us to turn on once cherished celebrities. In fact, I dare say that The Onion could not have called ANY other person in attendance at the Oscars for the joke to make sense. Once women reach a certain age, a number of people are bound to hate them, often irrationally.

Which is why it's sad that it's only a matter of years before someone will call Wallis the c-word and mean it. If you don't find The Onion's joke funny, or you don't approve of calling a child a name even in jest, then fine… but I'd suggesting saving your rage for the legitimate misogyny in the world and not the humor website with a proven track record that's trying to shed light on the same issues that irk you.

The Queen of Versailles and the American Dream

IMPORTANT NETFLIX INSTANT (or DVD rental) RECOMMENDATION: The Queen of Versailles

The Queen of Versailles is a documentary about the Siegels, the family that is constructing the largest, most expensive (~$100 million) home in America. I like laughing at dumb 1%-ers, so I figured it'd be right up my alley. Indeed, I found those laughs when the protagonist fails to realize that it's demeaning to dress her nanny up in a full Rudolph costume to entertain Christmas party guests, when she gives a tour of her lavish home and says seemingly negligent things like, "This is the staircase I would come up if I was going to visit the children," and when she goes to an average car rental business (think Enterprise) and is surprised to learn the vehicle doesn't come with a chauffeur. In addition to the laughs, though, I was surprised to discover how much depth the film has.

Yup, there's depth to be found even in the shallowest of subjects, namely Jackie Siegel. She survived a childhood of poverty and an abusive first marriage and later became a beauty queen and trophy wife to a time-share tycoon. Jackie's new lifestyle has made her a pretty ridiculous person. You can't help but judge her dress, decor, priorities, and interactions. Jackie's so clueless, however, that she fails to realize anyone would judge her for such things… or feel anything but admiration for her wealth, for that matter.

It all plays out sort of like an episode of Bravo's The Real Housewives, although you need not be a fan of the franchise to enjoy this film. That's because it's not just about superficiality - it's about the American dream. It's a critique of how we idolize wealth and material possessions and assume our lives would be so much better if we could literally have it all. The Siegels have accomplished what most Americans aspire to… and they are no happier for it. If anything, they seem pretty unhappy.

This is evidenced by the Siegels' niece, who the family takes in after learning she's been living in squalor. The way she changes in the transition from filthy poor to filthy rich are mostly discernible through subtext, but she does a decent job of explaining it herself: She was initially appreciative to have a more secure life, but then she "got used to" getting everything she wanted so now she just finds new reasons to be miserable.

The niece is one of nine kids, by the way. The other eight all came out of Jackie's own (well, plastic surgery-enhanced) body. She said she initially only wanted one kid, but when she was able to hire a slew of nannies, there was no incentive to stop reproducing. In that sense, her breeding practices mimic her shopping habits: she just keeps buying anything and everything (even duplicates - how many Operation board games does one family need?) because she doesn't have to take on any responsibility. Meanwhile, the kids are adopting similar tendencies - collecting dozens of pets and killing some due to neglect. 

Partway through the film, the economy crashes and the time-share business takes a major dive. Even (near?-)billionaires like the Siegels are suddenly put under financial constraints and their pricy mansion goes into foreclosure. While selling their dream home would be the best option, as you might expect, the market for $100 million homes is non-existent.

Suddenly, the Siegels are just like us. The movie even helps draw the parallels for you: one of Jackie's childhood friends needs just a few thousand dollars to save her home from foreclosure, but even when she gets the funds, the bank decides to repossess the home anyway. And then there's one of the Siegel's domestic workers whose lifelong dream is to be a homeowner. By her own suggestion, she settles for taking over a cramped kids' playhouse in the backyard and could not be happier to have a place to call her own. 

One thing I appreciate about the documentary is that they don't make Jackie look like an asshole. It'd be easy - probably even tempting - to have done that, but you can still tell that she's well-intentioned even if she's too out-of-touch to be of much help to anyone. She's just a victim of her circumstances. Yeah, I know it's funny to call someone who is insanely wealthy a "victim", but in Jackie's case, I believe it to be true. I also believe her when she says she would be just as happy to scale back and live with her whole family in a one-bedroom apartment. Or well, I believe that she really believes that anyway. Old habits die hard. Understanding that she must now live on a limited budget, Jackie starts shopping at Walmart… yet still drops thousands of dollars on frivolous items.

Even though her ideals are drastically different from my own, I couldn't help but root for Jackie - maybe not to become super rich again, but to figure it out and pursue genuine contentment. I can't say the same about Jackie's husband, David. He does come across as an asshole, but I wouldn't blame the edit for that. It's hard to like a guy who refuses to spend time with his family, sexually harasses the Miss America contestants he invites to his home, tells his wife that he's going to trade her in for two 20 year-olds when she turns 40, and boasts that he illegally rigged the presidential election for George W. Bush.

Though we see less of David, he may be even more fascinating than Jackie. The man is corporate America. Due to his own humble beginnings, David was motivated to succeed later in life, assuming it would bring him the joy he was missing. When that didn't happen, rather than trying to find a different route, he figured he just needed to succeed even more, despite the fact that he already financially accomplished more than 99.99999% of people ever would. Alas, in pushing for even greater profits, David winds up gambling it all away.

Although David feels superior to his loyal wife and openly shows contempt for her, he's really not that much different than Jackie in that he is also entirely about appearances. He builds a gigantic house not to live in, but to impress others. He amasses a big family not to love, but to show off. He expands his business not because it's strategic, but so he can put his name on more buildings. Undoubtedly, David initially invited the film crew into his home because he knew he could convey an enviable life even if he didn't really have one. By the end, however, David is openly miserable, in large part because the narrative has evolved to that of a family that was formerly successful. When a man focuses on establishing a legacy rather than living a life that brings him actual joy, he is bound to become hostile when that legacy is exposed as a mirage. What good is being elite if people realize they wouldn't want to trade places with you after all?

What an accurate representation of the current, misguided American dream. And what a compelling argument for why we need to finally wake up from it. 

Sandy's His Name If You Please

I wonder if a whole song went into naming this hurricane Sandy?

I've never been part of naming a hurricane, but I have been part of naming a hurricane-focused essay. When Heather needed a title for her undergraduate thesis on the gender politics of Hurricane Katrina, I suggested, "Why Don't They Call It a Him-icane?" I don't know whether she went with that title, but let's assume she did, and let's also assume it's the sole reason she was given an honors distinction. You're welcome, Heather.

Watching all of the Hurricane Sandy footage on television, it's easy to forget that I'm not actually hiding inside from a hurricane. Then when I go outside it's like, "Oh, yeah, I'm in sunny Arizona."

I'm here visiting with a couple of people who have business jobs on the east coast, emphasis on the coast. They are NOT happy about how Hurricane Sandy is disrupting their jobs. "They better not close Wall Street, we have important trades that need to happen!" One wanted to make sure his office stayed open anyway, because no flooding would affect the employees on the thirty-somethingth floor anyway. Easy call for you to make on the behalf of other people when you're thousands of miles away from the problem.  It seems to me that - every once in a while - it may be useful to indicate to your employees that you value their safety over additional profits, even if it winds up just being a symbolic gesture.

Whether Hurricane Sandy winds up being as destructive as predicted is yet to be seen. But if the storm is over-hyped, it's at the hands of the corporate bankrolled politicians and corporate owned media. If Wall Street is upset at how it is being impeded for no reason, it only has itself to blame. Sometimes, it's okay for rich people to not make additional money. Sometimes.

Unless you're US Weekly, in which case, by all means, reference a tragedy flippantly, then carry on with business as usual.  

Hey, Obama: What the fuck?

Hey, Obama: What the fuck? No really, WHAT THE FUCK?

At the beginning of the year, you signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which included language that would permit the executive branch to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial. It may have been a small part of the NDAA, but signing that part into law has big consequences, and puts Americans – particularly those who voice their dissent – in grave danger. What freedoms do Americans really have if the President can come and effectively make them disappear as long as they want without needing just cause?

At the time you signed it, President Obama, you made sure the press knew that you were hesitant to do so, saying, “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” I don’t know why you signed it anyway, but fair enough, you didn’t think it was the right thing to do.

But this provision not only has terrifying repercussions, it also is unconstitutional. Accordingly, earlier this year, a group of people sued to contest this part of the NDAA, and the courts appropriately ruled it unconstitutional.

Obama, despite the assurance that you “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” your administration appealed the court’s decision to try to get the NDAA provision legally on the books. You must understand my skepticism when someone who says he has reservations about a bill and would never THINK to use it himself would fight hard to overturn it anyway.

Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled on your appeal and again – correctly – it was found unconstitutional. Since your administration has the discretion on whether to pursue this sort of thing, and since you say you oppose it anyway, end of story, right?

Of course not, Obama, you want to appeal it a second time! Take it all the way to the Supreme Court court where the game is that much more rigged and you’ll get your indefinite detention. For someone who never wants to use this dastardly provision, you’re sure doing all that you can to make it a law.  Even if I’m inclined to believe that (how is the closure of Guantanamo Bay going, by the way?), you’re just enabling the next President without scruples to overstep the criminal justice system… and you’ve seen what kind of dopes can become president.

And so, Obama, I demand to know why. WHY? It’s shady shit like this that leads me to not trust you. How does this battle – which you could drop at any moment – improve our country and its freedoms? I want an explanation of what the heck is going on behind the scenes there on this oen.

And to my friends and readers who will vote Obama this year, I get it. A Romney presidency sounds downright awful. But if you’re going to make Obama your guy, hold him accountable. Don’t just rest on the fact that he’s the better choice of two and don’t just rest on the fact that he respects women (that should be a general requirement, not the selling point). If he’s not going to protect your freedoms, then he shouldn’t be your candidate.

Chalk Walk

I wrote a piece on last night’s ChalkWalk debacle in Los Angeles for Care2. Read it, sign the petition.

I’ve seen on the internet that a lot of people thinking chalking is a pretty trivial topic, but they’re failing to see the bigger picture. Chalk is not Occupy’s #1 cause. This is about showcasing how the elite, with help from the police, are systemically stifling Americans’ supposedly protected rights to protest. 99% of the time, the police are not going to bother citing chalk users with trumped up vandalism charges. They are selectively arresting to intimidate and prevent dissent.

The police’s vast overreaction showed just how necessary this type of action is. If they’re willing to go to those extremes to deprive people of the seemingly inconsequential right to use chalk, imagine what lengths they’ll go to to deprive you of rights you’d assume you already have… until you try to use them.

Other critics have said Occupy is responsible for the violence because they “knew” that using chalk on the street would result in extreme police force. Firstly, how is that somehow worse than the police firing at a crowd of people for using chalk? And secondly, good for them if they did know, because it just highlights what an oppressive police state we live in, as well as who the police are really there to serve.

The Occupiers weren’t even in a fight with the police in this case. Most had left the scene. It was the unaffiliated civilians who took on the cause. They watched people being shoved and arrested for drawing with chalk and were angered – angered at a police department that has not endeared itself to its citizens in the past decades. Still, there was no riot… until police showed up in riot gear. People then interpreted a peaceful, yet agitated scene as a riotous one and acted accordingly.

The police got the riot they were looking for, and hopefully more people will come to see through it. In the meantime, I’ll be trying to help them see the light by chalking out messages of oppression. Fuck the arbitrary laws that police are inventing. One LAPD officer on the scene said that chalk wasn’t considered vandalism and another guy said chalking was illegal “for right now” as if they were just making up the law on the spot to make some arrests, which – yep, pretty much. They know that many of these charges don’t even stick. So chalk on, my friends. Plus, given my aversion to touching and hearing chalk, you know this is a firm commitment to the cause.

So, Are You Guys, Like, Popular?

It was a Labor Day picnic, and I was playing with the other kids my age. They weren't exactly friends, more so friends by association, kids I was made to hang out with semi-regularly because our parents were friends. We probably would have never chosen each other as friends on our own accord. Then again, I'm not sure most of the parents would choose each other as friends again considering that very few of them keep in touch anymore… old people drama!

Given the frequency of our play dates, some of the kids were almost like siblings, particularly in the sense that whether I liked or hated them on a given day was bound to fluctuate, and ultimately it didn't matter because we had to put up with each other anyway. 

However, now we had hit a significant transition period. Elementary school had ended and our parents would no longer be responsible for setting up who we socialized with. In fact, the very next day, we would begin junior high, and several of us who had attended different primary schools would now find ourselves in the same building on a daily basis. I had been wondering what this would mean for our relationships, and it quickly became clear:

"So, are you guys, like, popular?" the pretty, athletic girl asked another girl who went to my same elementary school and me.

I froze. The answer was no. Well, pretty much. In sixth grade (probably the peak of my social life until I hit college, sadly) I was well-liked, well-respected, and considered smart and funny. I was friends with a bunch of the popular kids, even. But in the 12-year-old sense, that's not what makes someone "popular." There's a certain look, attitude, and cliquishness required to be popular, and I didn't fit that mold. 

While I was still unsure of how to explain my popularity status, the other girl, who was slightly more popular than me but hardly high in the pecking order, chimed in. "Oh, we're super popular!" she said, without a hint of sarcasm, while giving me a high-five.

My first thought was, "This girl is delusional! We're not popular!" Even if she was lying on purpose, it's not like the pretty girl wasn't going to figure it out. I could already see the incredulous look on her face as she tried to size up whether we were actually popular. This distinction, I could already tell, was going to determine whether she continued friendships with us in junior high school. 

Well, spoiler: I wasn't actually popular, and so she never once acknowledged me again, acting as if I didn't exist anytime she passed me in the halls. It turned out she wasn't even super popular herself, she just had the privilege of walking three steps behind the popular girls amongst other vaguely popular girls who were indistinguishable from her.

And while the girl who bluffed about our popularity received similar treatment from the pretty girl, we ended up becoming better friends. That was a turning point for us, actually. I mean, how could I not respect someone who refused to take that elitist girl's question seriously? I lost one "friend", but found a better one.

Thinking Critically about Education

Alarming news: Republicans don’t want kids to think critically anymore. That’s not just conjecture - the Texas GOP put that in its official educational platform for 2012. In addition to promoting classroom corporal punishment, wanting to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, saying that abstinence-only sex education is the only valid approach, and deriding a “multicultural curriculum” as “divisive”, the document said this:

“We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenge the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

In other words, don’t teach kids how to think. Teach kids how to memorize, how to regurgitate, and how to follow orders, but when it comes to students having original thoughts that come out of their own brains, they “oppose”. And they can mask it as not wanting to stress the “student’s fixed beliefs” (also known as maturation) or undermining parents (also known as typical teenage behavior), but the bottom line is that they don’t want to give people the tools to think for themselves. People who think independently challenge authority and are less susceptible to propaganda. This is an attempt at passive mind control.

When I was a teacher, helping my students to think critically was my number one goal, not to mention the most challenging. You can’t force kids to engage in higher order thinking (particularly kids who have been discouraged from doing so all of their lives) as it is an internal process, but I did my best to put them in situations and give them assignments where critical thinking would be a natural extension for those who were ready. Specifically, I used literature as my medium. At the end of the day, I didn’t care much if the students couldn’t remember the name of any poets, so long as engaged with the poems on a deeper level.

This published policy of limiting thought substantiates my beliefs toward education. You can call it a conspiracy theory, but I think the reason the public education system is failing is because the powers that be have no use for it anymore. Whereas the elite used to need a reasonably educated working force to staff its factories, technology is replacing the need for jobs. So why fund education (hence the across the board slashing of taxes allocated to schools) when it doesn’t benefit the elite like it used to? In fact, if anything, having an educated, unemployed populace will only cause more trouble as the will have the knowledge to speak out against injustice and fascism.

Furthermore, while I think most teachers are still committed to their professions, their jobs are severely restricted by higher-ups. In most school settings, teachers are told very specifically what they have to teach and how they have to teach it. Regulation does not help education, it impedes it. It dilutes learning to a formula – a purposefully unsuccessful formula, I’d argue.

Another item on the Texas GOP’s platform calls for government to stop funding kindergarten. How many studies need to be done showing how crucial early education is in creating lifelong learners before people believe it? While the GOP argues that parents should decide how to educate their kids in their early years, who else is going to be able to afford to pay for kindergarten? This obstacle, just like massive (and rising) tuition rates, is about making education inaccessible to the masses. The rich will always be able to pay for their kids to be educated (and thus maintain their wealth and status), while the poor will have limited options for self-improvement.

I left teaching because, as much as I loved being an educator, I hated being a babysitter. More than half my job was about disciplining and making sure kids were constantly doing what they were told. It was about teaching directly to standardized tests – not teaching them how to write well, but how to write exactly how the test graders were looking for when they spent no more than thirty seconds skimming each essay. No wonder so many kids reject school.

All of this is to say: be wary of a government that doesn’t want to actually educate you. If the government doesn’t want you to think, it has its own best interests in mind, not yours. Education and critical thinking is one of the few tools humanity has to save itself. We need to reflect honestly (and swiftly) to respond to the rising social, political, and environmental problems that face the world. Don’t let them take away critical thought – those who are having it ripped away don’t even know how badly they need it.