Learning Experience

In exactly one month I'll be headed home from South Africa.

Now before I came here a month seemed like a pretty long time. Since I've been here, however, I've realized (or, 'realised' as it's spelled here) that it really isn't. As a result, I've been thinking a lot about the past eight weeks and everything that's happened to me over the course of them. I've learned so much about so many things completely unrelated to school, which is interesting considering I'm supposed to be here for school. But I guess the most important learning you do doesn't take place in a classroom anyway:

--I couldn't learn how incredibly fortunate I am just to live in a house with both a refrigerator and a bathroom in a classroom. It's hard to really grasp that until you drive by people without both of those things on your way to work every day.
--I couldn't learn how patient I am (or can be when necessary) with communication in a classroom. Working in an office where a majority of the people prefer to speak a language completely different from your own can be, among other things, exhausting and frustrating. You learn pretty quickly to let it go.
--I couldn't learn how thankful I am for the first-class education I received for the past 15 years of schooling in a classroom. Seeing high schools (some of which don't even have proper sanitation) in some of the poorest townships and villages in both the Western Cape and the Eastern Cape has made me appreciate absolutely everything about my high school especially. Even the terrible drinking water.
--I couldn't learn how much I absolutely love, like really love, my hometown/state/country in a classroom. The US may have a lot of progress that still needs to be made in terms of acceptance and social cohesion, but at least 'American' is the what we label each other before anything else.
--And I definitely couldn't learn what it feels like to climb a mountain in a classroom. That one was really cool, and really exhausting.

I wonder what I'll learn in the last month of my adventure?

The Other "A-word"

Throughout my preparation for my internship in Cape Town, South Africa I encountered numerous bits of information concerning racial tensions and problems of inequality still in place from the infamous apartheid era. Therefore I embarked with the expectation that once I had arrived in South Africa, it was possible, even probable that I would witness those tangible problems firsthand. What I did not expect, however, was that I would witness the divisive power of racism firsthand before I even got off the plane.

            For the plane ride from New York JFK to Johannesburg Oliver Tambo International Airport I was seated in a row of four white Americans (3 others and myself). Across the aisle to our left were a white South African woman and a black South African man. At a couple points during the plane ride I had seen them exchange annoyed glances and even heard her speak to the man in a harsh tone (I later learned that the man had been drinking for most of the flight and was being very rude and obnoxious toward her). I didn’t think much of these exchanges, however, until the plane was pulling up to the gate and people were beginning to collect their belongings. It was at this point when I realized how deep the tensions left over from apartheid really were for some people.

            I wasn’t paying much attention to what was going on around me since I was busy gathering all of my things in my backpack but all of a sudden I heard the white American man who had been sitting next to me tell the black South African man across the aisle to “get your hands out of my face.” I, as well as everyone within earshot, looked over at what was happening to find the two exchanging harsh words and telling each other to “back off” repeatedly. This continued to escalate until the black South African man used the “f-word” in telling the white American man to get away from him. At this point a white South African man interjected and told the black South African man to watch his mouth because there were ladies around (like me, who was, again, sitting two feet away from all of this) and because he was giving South Africans a bad reputation. His response has been stuck in my head ever since: “No man, you’re not South African. I’m South African; you’re apartheid!” At these words there was a combination of uncomfortable silence from all nearby foreigners, like me, and a collective eye-roll from all nearby South Africans. A couple other people intervened to get the two men away from each other, we were finally able to exit the plane, and that was the end of their altercation. Needless to say, I was pretty happy to get off the plane at this point. 

            Although the man’s words cast a bit of a dark cloud over my first day in South Africa, I am happy and very relieved to say that was the first and, so far, last time I’ve heard any talk of African vs. Afrikaaner, apartheid, or anything of the sort in a confrontational manner. I’ve seen countless friendly exchanges between black and white South Africans and heard only minimal talk of anything suggestive of apartheid’s divisive legacy. While it’s undeniable that the apartheid era left a blemish on this country, what’s quite clear is that it is fading with every passing day and South Africa is moving forward and leaving that period where it belongs: in the past.

Posted up at the Tip of Africa

Hello from Cape Town!

First off let me just say that this city is absolutely GORGEOUS! No matter where you are you always have breathtaking views of the mountains; and the ocean isn’t far away either. The scenery alone is unbelievable.

Okay so now that I’ve gotten that off my chest I’ll recap a little bit. The plane ride from NYC to Johannesburg wasn’t bad, considering its length that is. I slept for most of it (probably with my mouth wide open looking so attractive), watched movies, and witnessed an uncomfortable, to say the least, altercation between a white American, a black South African, and a white South African. That last little bit is worth its own entry so I’ll write more about that later. After that I hopped on my flight to Cape Town, was picked up at the airport with two other girls from MSU and taken to our hostel, where we stayed for most of the rest of yesterday (Tuesday).

The hostel is where I fought my first of what I’m sure will be many battles with the sub-par internet service provider used all over the place in SA. (That being said, if any employees of Skyrove Telecommunications are reading this per chance, YOU SUCK. YOUR INTERNET IS THE ABSOLUTE WORST ATROCITY TO BEFALL MANKIND. MY MAC SAYS I HAVE FULL SERVICE AND I DON’T AND IT MAKES ME VERY MAD.) The first few days were pretty crazy though; we were tired, groggy, hungry, and tired for most of it but we still made time for fun. On Thursday we moved into our amazing apartments and got settled in before a trip to the Pick n Pay (aka Meijer, but much smaller and more crowded. It’s a headache in the form of a store).

Friday I had my first day at work at Equal Education and it went really well. The people were all so nice and very accommodating, even though I had to have everyone repeat their name at least twice before I could understand. I’ll be interning in the Youth Department for the summer/winter so I’ll have more on what that will entail when I know. Friday night a bunch of us grilled out at the braai (barbeque) on the roof under the stars and Saturday morning we left bright and early for Robertson Valley for the Wacky Wine Festival.

Overall the first week has been exhausting and amazing and so surreal. I love this city/country so far and everyone I’ve met has been so friendly, too! I’m definitely having the time of my life here.

So I’ll conclude this with a little list of things that are different here in South Africa:

1.    -Everything is so literal here. What’s ‘butter’ in the US is ‘fat spread’ here (and it is AMAZING.).

2.     -Everything, well almost, is smaller here. The Pick n Pay is nowhere near as big as any grocery stores back home and they don’t sell anything in bulk, except maybe wine.

3.     -Speaking of wine, there is tons and tons of wine here. There’s a whole section in the grocery store dedicated to it and it has all been delicious.

4.     -65-degree weather is cold in Cape Town. Everyone is bundled up like it’s the middle of winter in Michigan while we’re walking around in jeans and maybe sweatshirts. That might be how everyone knows we’re foreigners right away.

5.     -On that note, the last thing I’ve noticed that still catches me off guard a lot is the fact that I’m an outsider in South Africa. It’s so strange to be somewhere where you’re different from everyone else. At times it’s frustrating, but it’s always pretty grounding.

Okay that’s all for now. I have tons of other stuff about which I want to write, but I’ll have to get to it later.

African Marketing

So since I'm leaving for Cape Town, South Africa for roughly three months in a few days, I thought writing something about Africa seemed pretty appropriate. The tough part though, is deciding exactly what to write. Once again, as it seems to always happen, inspiration came from a highly random source: a t-shirt, or rather, a tag on a t-shirt.

This one requires a backstory: A couple weeks ago when I was visiting my cousin in Chicago I was walking around downtown in a sundress and cardigan when, in typical Midwest fashion, the weather completely turned on us and it was freezing outside. I had already bought a pair of khaki capris so we went into Nordstrom and I bought a t-shirt to wear so I could put on my new pants and be warmer (unfortunately it continued to get colder and it didn't make much of a difference anyway). I found a plain white v-neck t-shirt on sale, bought it, and went in the dressing room to change when I noticed the logo on the tag. The shirt was made by a company called "Threads for Thought" and their tags boast sustainable production practices, organic cotton, and an outline of Africa, implying subtly that their name combined with a picture of Africa will help sell the shirts.

After I noticed this I looked into Threads for Thought and was disappointed, but not really surprised at what I found. It turns out that their connection to the continent they rely upon for marketing is, go figure, a charitable one. I hoped that their products were perhaps produced somewhere in Africa or at least made from materials of African origin. Nope. My shirt was made from US materials and assembled in Mexico. So instead of partnering with cotton farmers or textile producers in Africa to make clothes, Threads for Thought treats the continent like a charity case. In the company's blog, they even refer to Africa as "one of the three most critical challenges we face on our planet," with the environment and conflict being the other two.

Don't get me wrong, it is absolutely praiseworthy that their products are made of organic cotton and other sustainable materials; and the charities to which they donate (The International Rescue Committee and The National Resources Defense Council) do very important, laudable work. Their use of Africa as purely a marketing tool to attract well-intentioned consumers, however, is definitely not okay. This is especially disappointing since business organizations like Threads for Thought are exactly the ones that should stray away from the perpetuation of Africa as a tragic, sad place that we all need to help by participating in capitalism and buying things. In other words, I'd have a lot more respect for T4T if they treated Africa and Africans as partners in development rather than recipients of Western handouts and a "critical challenge" we have to address. (What exactly does that mean, anyway? In my mind, challenge implies something that must be overcome, so we have to 'overcome' Africa? Seriously?)

Because as it stands now, I'd only buy another t-shirt from them if I was even more desperate than I was in Chicago.

But that's just what I think.

PS-To my four loyal readers who aren't my family and thus feel obligated to read these posts, my entries for the next few months will be all about my time in Cape Town. Probably lots of anecdotes and observations, but I'll try and shake it up a bit to keep things interesting. Enjoy :)

Just for Clarification

As a symptom of being back in my small, mostly conservative hometown for a few weeks, I've often found myself driving behind cars decorated with all sorts of political bumper stickers. Today I encountered the same sticker twice on two separate cars and the blatant misrepresentation of a sensitive issue irritated me just enough to write about it.

I suppose I should specify exactly what the sticker said: ""I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."-Ronald Reagan."

Okay, I'm going to use all-caps here because I want this to be as clear as possible: NO ONE IS FOR ABORTION. No one thinks abortion is a great asset to our society; no one loves the idea of purposely ending the life of an unborn baby; and no one would ever encourage more abortions. The pro-choice movement doesn't support abortion, it supports a woman's right to make a very personal, private, life-altering decision without the intervention of a detached, dispassionate state.

Abortion is an extremely sensitive issue, one that requires education, civil discussion, and holistic solutions aimed at reducing the number of abortions by providing support for less affluent pregnant women and their families. Making abortion illegal is not the answer. I mean, people didn't stop downloading songs on file-sharing websites because it's illegal, they instead started using riskier programs with the potential to damage their computers, just as people won't stop having abortions. It will just become a highly risky, dangerous practice if made illegal.

So before this hyperbolic, inflammatory diction penetrates our civil discourse any further, let's remember that we all have the same ends-reducing abortion practices. Where we differ is our means. And this discourse of intentional misperception and unwillingness to address the problem without partisan rhetoric only drives the wedge further between us.

But that's just what I think.

America's Royalty

As anyone that saw me in the past few days especially knows, I am a little enamored with the British Monarchy. While it's hard not to be given the extraordinary pomp and circumstance surrounding the Royal Wedding, I've always had a high level of admiration for the House of Windsor and all they represent-tradition, yet modernity, continuity, stability, poise, and class.

Obviously Americans don't have such an esteemed monarchy to revere, but that's not to say we don't have royalty. We have plenty of royalty in our country, from all facets of culture and society, that many of us almost unconditionally admire. So who is this famed royalty in the U.S. of A.?

Well the kings and queens, and you'd have a hard time convincing me otherwise, are professional athletes. For the most part they live extremely lavish and decadent lifestyles, drive expensive cars, own huge, grandiose houses, and, often, wear ridiculously extravagant jewelry. Plus they play sports, so most people automatically adore them. In a culture that tends to value consumption, wealth, and exuberant displays of masculinity via athletic prowess, these guys (emphasis on guys, as it is a male-dominated field) reign supreme. I'd argue even to the extent that they can get away with anything.

Just under the highest tier lies the cultural figures that are famous simply because they're famous. You know who I'm talking about-the Kardashians, Lauren Conrad, Snookie and the Situation, and Charlie Sheen. People love them, but why exactly? What have they done to earn our unyielding admiration? Well, nothing really. They were involved in a scandal of sorts, starred in a reality TV show, nicknamed their abdominal muscles, paraded around drunk on television, perhaps had a film career of sorts, or a combination of these attributes. Now they live extravagant lifestyles similar to those of the aforementioned athletes that continually capture the American public's affection.

Finally we have Hollywood (film stars and musicians are included here). And it goes without saying that we'll always find something we love about the glamour of Tinsel Town, even if they do come after the above strangely-famous "cultural" icons.

The problem with this facade of American royalty I think is that we tend to grossly  undervalue people that deserve all the reverence befitting a monarchy. We don't appreciate people like teachers, social workers, diplomats, intellectuals, scientists, etc. who are truly instrumental to our country's progress and future. And we have considerably less adulation for those of us that transcend cultural, political, and social constraints to make the world a better place for everyone. Think about it, Charlie Sheen can parade around on stage talking about nothing to sold-out crowds across the country, but lectures and presentations by prestigious intellectuals have a hard time filling seats even on a college campus.

So what I'm really saying is that we should reconsider who we admire. Our idols are a reflection of us as a nation, and right now, I'm not sure it's a flattering image.

But that's just what I think.

Tolerance

In Economics, a public good is defined as a "good or service exhibiting nonrival consumption and nonexcludability" (I took the definition from my EC 310 textbook; if you really want the specific page number and such just ask). What I want to delve into is the idea of 'nonrival consumption,' which essentially states that one person or group's use of the good does not impede another's use. A common example is with roads-just because I drive on a certain road doesn't mean someone else can't (although my boyfriend might contest that given his feelings about my driving).

So after learning about this idea of nonrival consumption as it relates to public goods, I wondered why this idea isn't more widely held, particularly when it comes to religion? Why does one religious group's faith practices have to impede those of another? Why can't we treat religion more like a public good? And the only reason I can think of is tolerance, or, intolerance in this case.

I was raised Catholic and spent 13 years being educated in the Catholic school system in my hometown, yet I will never insist that my religion supersedes any others. I will never tell a believer of any other faith that they should change their ways and convert to Catholicism if they wish to be saved, or that their faith and customs are inferior to mine. My practicing of Catholicism should not hinder someone else's practicing of Islam, Judaism, or any other religion, period. Unfortunately this attitude is not as widespread as it ought to be, hence a disturbing anecdote I was told about certain religious instruction methods in my home town, as well as some of my own experiences with religion classes.

But imagine what it'd be like if more people felt this way and just let others worship as they please. Imagine how many people would avoid persecution and even death in the name of religion. Imagine how much more peaceful and harmonic the world would be without conflict of this nature.

That brings us to the question of why aren't people more tolerant? The answer is pretty simple, but not something people are willing to admit: fear borne out of wavering faith. Think about it, if you really believe in your religious ideology, then why do you have to censure all others, and often all followers of other religions? Why do you have to judge, persecute, or even kill followers of other faiths to proclaim yours? It seems to me that if people firmly believed in the teachings of their faith then they wouldn't have to put other religions down, as they so often do.


I mean a lot of religions ultimately lead to the same truth and many of the differences between them are hardly more than cultural. So when you criticize the practices of another religion, it says a lot more about you and your faith than anything else.


But that's just what I think.

Fear the Fox

“We Report, You Decide.”

Give me a break. Although I’m certainly not the first person to criticize Fox News for its reporting style, my main problem with Fox is not as much about their blatant right wing pandering as it is the commentators’ carefully chosen, hyper-inflated diction.

For example, September 11 exposed the vulnerability of what was once thought of as an infallible nation. In the aftermath of that perilous day came the controversial Patriot Act, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the present hostile discourse toward Islam. While some caution is completely warranted by the attacks on America by a few radical Muslims, the perpetuation of this distrust and aggression by Fox News is completely immoral and flat out wrong. We’re coming up on the ten year anniversary of 9/11, yet instead of moving in a more accepting and understanding direction towards people who practice a very peaceful religion, events like the controversy over the “Ground Zero Mosque” strongly indicate the opposite.

Furthermore rather than seeking to educate their viewers on Islam, Fox commentators continuously choose to exploit their unwarranted fears to keep them watching. Ignorance only encourages fear, whose only cure is education.  (I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record here, but get used to it. Education is always the moral of the story).

Unfortunately, Islam hasn’t been Fox’s first target and it certainly won’t be the “news” corporation’s last. Their present coverage on everything from the budget deficit to the President’s military intervention in Libya is just textbook replication of this organization’s hyperbolic style. And how have they been rewarded? With unprecedented high ratings, which only encourages the same reporting methods that produced the gratuitous fear and completely reinforces the vicious, ignorant cycle.

So in the interest of breaking the cycle, I am issuing a challenge to anyone reading this: take ten minutes of your day to watch Fox’s news coverage. Then actually inform yourself on what they were reporting via the Internet (without the use of another news station website either. They’re all biased; Fox is just the worst). The truth might actually surprise you.

Try Wikipedia. They’re much more trustworthy than Fox.

But that’s just what I think.

Activists or Trendsetters?

Yesterday I was taking my garbage out when I noticed a water bottle on the ground underneath the steps that lead up to my room, which is outside the rest of the house. The water bottle had the logo of an US-based NGO working for an end to the genocide in Darfur, and somehow wound up just lying under my steps. I’m assuming someone at the party my neighbors held just before Spring Break left it out there after using it to discretely transport alcohol.

Is it me, or does something seem wrong with this picture?

Though well-intentioned, followers of this kind of activism have essentially transformed the tumultuous and delicate situation in Darfur into a simplified slogan that fits neatly on t-shirts, tote bags, wristbands, and, of course, water bottles. This simplification eliminates the need for subscribers to truly educate themselves beyond the notion that a region of a country far away needs ‘saving.’ This is a problem. Without education, independent of the views and biases of the activist group itself, followers become little more than a headless heart; and this widespread trend will never produce sustainable solutions to any problem.

Not to mention the fact that those methods produce exactly that: a trend. That is definitely not okay. One peoples’ unimaginable suffering should never become another’s trend. Now I know the intent is to raise ‘awareness’ of the crisis in the region, but the point is that what ends up happening is the creation of a culture of awareness, without knowledge.

So if you really want to make a difference in the world then I have two words for you: EDUCATE YOURSELF. I cannot stress enough the importance of being properly educated on all sides of any fragile situation before taking a stance and subsequent action. That doesn’t mean just reading from the activist group’s website either, as that information is indisputably biased. Learn the history, the politics, the religion(s), the people, the geography, the culture. Learn anything and everything. Then go tell people. Tell people who wouldn’t learn it otherwise and definitely tell people wearing the proverbial t-shirt. They’re the ones that, chances are, really need to know.

Activism is a pretty tough topic to write about without upsetting people, but it’s also something that should never be viewed as infallible, and as such must always be interrogated.

But that’s just what I think

Better Attitudes

Today is the 100^th annual International Women’s Day so I figured writing about women’s progress seemed appropriate. While we’ve made great strides in breaking into the voting booth, the classroom, the boardroom, and (almost) the White House, one area we’ve still got to work on is breaking out of archaic stereotypes. You know the one I’m talking about: the submissive woman tied down by her domestic responsibilities. Nowhere else is this better depicted than in ads for cleaning and cooking supplies.

Seriously, watch HGTV, TLC, the Style Network, or any other channel geared primarily toward women, you’ll see tons of commercials for Swiffers, Windex, Pledge, different brands of spices, seasonings, and salad dresses, all with women happily utilizing these wonderful products. The average commercial features a woman home alone (her husband and kids are at work and school, presumably) either cooking or cleaning in casual clothes, while the announcer talks about how this great new multi-surface cleaner or salad seasoning has changed her life all to the tune of soothing, yet upbeat background music.

Ugh, please.

Why do advertisers continually market primarily household cleaning and food preparation products towards women despite our undeniable advances in education, entrepreneurship, and professional development outside the home? Unfortunately the answer is pretty obvious: even though the data doesn’t support this outdated image of the 1950’s housewife (there are plenty of stay-at-home dads now, too and women make up the majority of tons of college campuses!), the attitude is still around. Think about it, the thought of a commercial featuring a man gleefully cleaning his family home with a Swiffer Sweeper or using Reynolds Wrap non-stick foil to make the perfect roast beef dinner for his loving wife and kids seems ridiculous doesn’t it? And that’s exactly the problem.

My point here is that as the emerging generation of enlightened (soon-to-be) college grads to which I proudly belong has got to be better than this. As a society, let’s challenge these ideas that hold women down and put undue pressure on men. We’re better than the “go make me a sandwich" jokes and the “I just raped my exam” remarks. We’re above the assumptions that a woman my age just needs a job to meet a husband that can provide for her. And we’re sure as hell a lot better than trashy rap music that objectify women as little more than ‘bitches’ and ‘shawties.’ So let's start acting like it.

After all, creating a culture of equality is the first step toward a reality of equality.

But that’s just what I think.

The Toxicity of the Westboro Baptist Church

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled with an 8-1 majority that the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to protest military funerals, despite their blatantly repulsive rhetoric. In a cowardice, but constitutional ruling, the highest court in the most powerful country in the world decided yesterday to protect bigotry, hatred, and pure evil by hiding behind a roughly 220 year-old document. What exactly does this say about ‘the greatest country on Earth?’

An optimist would insist that we’re protecting the important right of all Americans to free speech, but the vile combination of words pouring out of those protestor’s mouths is not speech; it is pure venom with the potential to poison an increasingly accepting nation. And that shouldn’t be protected by any sort of constitution. The one dissenting voter, Justice Alito, shares this view as quoted by the New York Times: “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.” I wholeheartedly commend Justice Alito for having the courage to think outside his mandate as a Supreme Court Justice and rule in the interests of a society that fosters compassion and acceptance of all walks of life.

While it might seem obvious (at least I hope) that the preachings of the Westboro Baptist Church are irrefutably absurd, let’s not forget that ideas can be very powerful. All it takes is one person to say something like “God hates fags” and one person to listen for that obviously ridiculous notion (the God in which I believe loves everyone, no exceptions) to spread. So this post is a call to be the person who speaks out against that kind of hatred; and it doesn’t have to be that extreme to solicit an opposing response.  Yes people deserve the right to free speech, but that is accompanied by the responsibility to respect their fellow man. If we are to ever become the holistically accepting and compassionate nation that am confident we have the potential to be, then that’s what needs to happen.

So, seriously, speak up next time you hear anything that smacks of intolerance. You really never know the difference it can make.

And to any member of the Westboro Baptist ‘Church’ who just so happens to be reading this (as I hope you someday are): your messages of intolerance and hatred are clear indications of your dangerously low level of humanity. Not only is every word you speak dripping of ignorance, but also the fact that you possess the audacity to express the immense evil you preach in the presence of your fellow man’s unimaginable grief displays an indisputable lack of any scrap of compassion or sympathy in your miserable consciousness. The WBC’s discourse of intolerance has absolutely no place in a country that prides itself on its diversity and your calls for bigotry will continue to fall on the deaf ears of a public that is ready to progress beyond the fanaticism you preach.

But that’s just what I think.

Lady GaGa > Ke$ha

What's really the difference between Lady GaGa and Ke$ha? Both have numerous songs that describe endless, wild parties, both dress pretty crazy (who could forget GaGa's meat suit or Ke$ha's 'tribal' neon paint job?), and both have massive, largely youth followings. Ostensibly, both just seem like your typical, run of the mill, party girl pop stars, with not a whole lot distinguishing one from the other.

Obviously, I disagree with that. While Ke$ha is definitely just another wild child starlet, Lady GaGa is  a lot more than just party music and crazy clothes. Lady GaGa is one of very few stars who effectively uses her celebrity for the greater good. Among the issues she's tackled are homelessness, HIV/AIDS, and the earthquake aftermath in Haiti. In fact, by some measures, she was 2010's most charitable celebrity.

But it's not just about her charitable donations; pretty much every celebrity donates to charity if for nothing else than PR brownie points. The thing that really sets Lady GaGa apart not only from Ke$ha, but from pretty much all celebrities, though, is her ability to spur new, refreshing conversations about important issues. She wears bizarre clothes and makes bizarre statements, but to create dialogue about the issue surrounding what she's saying, not her world tour or who designed her outfit. Unlike Ke$ha who uses her eccentric nature to draw attention to herself, GaGa's outlandish ways are her tools to foster social change and equality for the otherwise ignored. GaGa gives agency to those the present social agenda glosses over when they're not exactly in vogue. I mean, really, when is homelessness ever considered a pressing issue in the celebrity activist world, especially since it's far more glamorous to take pictures with babies in Africa?

GaGa's also unique in her use of her music to challenge pop culture to be more inclusive and kind to everyone. Now that's not just to say that her music is widely accessible, because that's nothing unusual. What's different about GaGa is the way her lyrics actually mean something to both the cheerleader and the band kid, the homecoming queen and the outcast (please excuse the petty high school stereotypes, they were just to make a point). A shining example of this is her new single "Born This Way," which preaches, in a nutshell, that you're perfect exactly the way you are. And though that's a pretty common message, no one proclaims it better than the one-and-only GaGa.

So let's recap. Ke$ha and Lady GaGa both dress, act, and sing pretty crazily, but that's where the similarities end. GaGa gives a damn about a lot more than partying and fitting into some stereotypical, rebellious pop star mold; she speaks up about social issues with creative means (ARE YOU LIIISTENING?) and her lyrics seek to include everybody, while handily avoiding being generic. Seriously, what really distinguishes Ke$ha from Britney's "Slave 4 U" romp or Christina's "Dirrty" phase?

Ke$ha is bound to last as long as she can get away with brushing her "teeth with a bottle of Jack," so to speak, but GaGa's movement (it's naïve to say it's anything less than that now) is far more than just drinking and partying; and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

But that's just what I think.

OBieberCare

I'm not quite sure why I chose the title for this post since it's a play on words for a term so often used to the detriment of a historic bill that I vehemently support. Plus it's not even that clever. So please excuse the pun, I thought of it and kind of got stuck on it so here it is.

Anyway, last week the most adorable guy on the planet gave an interview in Rolling Stone. This courageous little cutie tackled social and political issues that most politicians won't even briefly comment on. One of these issues was the flawed American healthcare system. When asked if he'd ever become an American citizen Bieber said:

""You guys are evil," he jokes. "Canada's the best country in the world." He adds, "We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home.""


While I loved his take on such a heated issue, it was not so well-received across the board. Last Friday on CNN, radio host Pete Dominick said that "he shouldn't be commenting on politics...he's 16, what does he know about the world?" Basically, these issues are much to complicated for JB to tackle given his less-advanced knowledge on them (again, because he's 16); and I couldn't disagree more.


The problem is actually pretty simple: people, like Biebs' bodyguard, go broke through no fault of their own because they can't pay for healthcare. In a country that put a man on the moon before anyone else could (and during a tumultuous time in our history, too!), that just doesn't seem right. In my mind, people should be able to go to the doctor if they're sick, get treated, and move on with their lives-without having to stress over medical bills.


It doesn't really matter if it's socialism (it's not, by the way) or the government infringing upon your freedoms (it isn't that either, you can choose your healthcare provider according to HR 3200). What matters is that people need affordable healthcare, and that's not going to happen without some serious government help. So the GOP can continue to claim the unconstitutionality of the bill all they want because people like me, Biebs, and my other level-minded comrades will defend it to the last blog post, editorial, town hall, petition, and election. And ya know, it's easy to defend the status quo when it works for you, it's not quite as easy to consider the well-being of others.


But that's just what I think.

MTV's Mixed Messages

It’s no surprise that Teen Mom 2 is giving MTV some pretty big ratings and has definitely opened up dialogue on an increasingly important issue. Teen pregnancy is a pretty big problem in this country so it’s certainly something on which people need to be educated; and the show provides a unique, up-close and personal perspective on said problem.

But at what cost?

A huge viewer demographic, intentional or not, is bound to be teenage girls (with a title like Teen Mom how could it not appeal to teenage girls?), and it’s common knowledge that teenage girls are highly impressionable. So while MTV might intend for the stories of its stars to be cautionary tales, that’s not necessarily how its young, impressionable audience might take them. As a matter of fact, I know that’s not how they always interpret the show. My cousin told me about a 13 year-old girl (13 years-old!) who, after watching the show, said she wanted to have a baby and name it Bentley after Maci’s, a character from the first season, son. Odds are that this girl isn’t alone in having these kinds of ideas.

And if MTV really wanted to send a clear message that teen pregnancy is not a good situation, then why would they glorify the behavior that often ends in pregnancy by advertising their new series Skins during the show’s commercial breaks? Ads for Skins appeared on nearly every commercial break before the show’s debut on January 17 and still appear frequently during Teen Mom 2. What kind of message does this send? “Look at how hard these young girls’ lives are with children for 7 or 8 minutes, then see how fun drinking, partying, and hooking up with boys can be in this commercial!”

I applaud MTV for shedding light on a tough issue that’s so often overlooked as just a ‘parenting problem’ rather than a sociocultural (now there’s a CCP word) problem. At the same time, however, they have to acknowledge the influence their shows have over their young, vulnerable audiences and absolutely have to be responsible about it. I watched MTV (TRL specifically) almost every day after school growing up, starting when I was as young as 10 or 11; and I clung to every word they said about being a ‘cool’ teenager (thankfully I have long since grown out of that, hence the nerdy title of this blog). It’s hard to imagine that girls today are much different.

So please MTV, be careful with your power of influence over young girls. Send a clear message that teen pregnancy is not a good thing.

But that’s just what I think.

Black and White, with Shades of Gray...

Abortion. Perhaps the most controversial and provocative word presently in the English language. The current discourse would have you think it’s a black and white issue: you’re either for it or against it. Left or right, right or wrong.

Unfortunately this is exactly the type of dialogue that has led to the ideological stalemate in which we currently find ourselves. Until now it was easy for someone who considers themselves to be a shade of gray in this debate to ignore the static and focus on more pressing issues. It is no longer static, however, since House Republicans introduced a bill this week in order to limit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions for rape victims that essentially re-defines rape. According to these refreshingly sensitive experts we call Congressmen “rape is only rape if it involves force.”

Now wait a minute. Rape is characterized by lack of consent, meaning one person says “no” to another person’s sexual advances; or is not in a mental state that enables them to give consent; or is not of the consenting age. Therefore, ALL rape involves force, regardless of whether or not broken bones and/or bruises are present in the aftermath.

While the intent of the bill, as stated, is to further limit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions to exclude cases of rape without “force,” its implications are potentially far greater. Rape is already one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute, but what if a federal law is enacted that, in effect, creates two very hazy definitions of rape? (Congressmen Chris Smith-R-N.J., who introduced the bill, and his other 172 mostly Republican co-sponsors have offered no clear definition of “forcible rape”) How exactly is a judge supposed to punish a perpetrator of this heinous crime when there exists a federal law that further complicates precisely what it is that constitutes rape? If a rape victim can’t use federal funds to pay for an abortion if the rape wasn’t ‘forcible,’ then is that rape less traumatizing, and thus warrants less jail time for the offender? Is this really the way we want to treat victims of an extremely painful, harrowing crime-telling them their rape wasn’t ‘forcible?’

And let’s not forget-these women are victims. Having thankfully not been a victim of rape myself, I cannot even begin to imagine what they are going through. As a result, I would never try and tell an impregnated rape victim what she should do with her precarious situation. It’s easy for me to say that I could never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong-I’ve never been faced with such horrible circumstances. I doubt it’s as easy for a rape victim to say the same thing. So like I said, I would never try to tell them what is best for their healing, nor would I support a law that limits their ability to decide for themselves.

A rape victim’s decision is between her and her god, not me, and sure as hell not Congress.

Besides, doesn’t Christianity teach that only God can judge His people? I’m not condoning abortion here, all I’m saying is that in these situations people should think really carefully before they judge a really sensitive issue.

But that’s just what I think.




*This entry was written on 2/2/11 and the next morning the "forcible rape" language was removed from the bill. I decided to still post it, however, because I think the overall issues I raise in this post are still relevant (and are likely to be for awhile).