The M-Word

This week has brought upon issues that question the infrastructure of American society. One heavily has to do with the fact that Congresswoman and former Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann accused Secretary of State Aide Huma Abedin of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, strongly insinuating that she was infiltrating the U.S, government as if she was some sort of spy, if not a terrorist. Such an accusation induced so much controversy that Abedin needed police security after a Muslim from New Jersey gave her death threats. Very unnecessary, up to the point where even the infamous Boehner wished she kept her mouth shut- which states a lot.

What does the word "Muslim" mean in America, and why does it automatically produce fear-mongering? Is it wrapped up in a sociopathic, autocratic being like Emmanuel Goldstein in "1984"? It is still strongly linked to the tragic event of 9/11, a corporatism-fueled incident hidden under the guise of a religious crusade?

I am continuing my research on this and am reading an amalgamate of books (including "The Rise and Fall on the Third Reich" to give you pieces that would hopefully get the conversation stirring in a sociological , exploratory way- but not in a way bore you, readers. Even under an administration of an intelligent, brilliantly well-spoken Harvard Law graduate who originally wished to shut down "Gitmo" and withdraw all troops from Iraq, the facade of a religious crusade, a failing sense of Imperialism, and a misunderstanding of international politics with a fear of a complex religion still prevail.

Colorado Monster

My condolences go out to those who have been hurt in the recent Colorado shooting, as well as their family and friends. It is an unexpected, tragic event, and it is also unfortunate that "random" shootings have become more frequent in history. In the history of Colorado, Columbine also comes to mind... a tragedy frozen in time in the case of later Generation X (and beyond).

James Holmes is a monster. He is also a graduate of the University of California-Riverside, which is in the same area as I am in. He is described as being a highly intelligent man, and disgustingly enough, due to his growing fame, numerous people have requested being a "friend" of the wrong James Holmes on Facebook. It quickly reminds me of the 1990's movie "Natural Born Killers" in which the media glamorizes psychopathic, cold-blooded murderers. Our society isn't too far off from that scenario. And to think that the shooting happened in a movie theater in which innocent movie-goers were just trying to watch "The Dark Knight Rises". He had to pick a place where no one could see it coming, where it would be hard to escape.

Aside from the actual incident, Holmes reportedly purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition online. I wonder if such a finding would be distorted in the media, or in society in which gun control is still a fiery topic. It is not guns that kill people; it is those evil people who misuse guns. There are other people out there who are responsible with their weapons, and who would never harm another soul- yet there are a few token individuals out there who ruin it for everyone else, and our culture once again reverts to black-and-white thinking in which the right to bear arms becomes visibly reduced.  However, it also reported that "changes in laws are unlikely, partly because of a lack of support for new measures in Congress and among the public at large". The Trayvon Martin case has also come to mind, with issues going beyond Second Amendment rights and racial lines. Time will tell how tragedy affects everyone else's rights and perspectives as a whole. But regardless of the result, it doesn't make our country any less fearful.

The Return of Batman

Here is the trailer for the next Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises", which is to be released on 7/20:

Contrary to unpopular belief, the villain you see in the main photo of this video is not Mitt Romney.

I was trying to see the part where Obama and Romney battle each other in the world of Gotham City since commentator Rush Limbaugh claims this movie is about those two.  

I wonder if he knows that "Two Face", a.k.a. Harvey Dent, appeared in "The Dark Knight" a few years ago. It would make more sense... kind of.

McCained, Palined, Disdained

Today in the political news realm, McCain has caused outrage and twisted fascination alike on Politico:

 

The headline itself is very self-explanatory.

With a media circus centering him and his Vice Presidential candidate a mere 4 years ago, it is not wise at all that the Senator say such a statement- it is clearly embarrassing, albeit truthful and honest (and foolish). It just proves that it was a very good thing that his campaign lost in the 2008 Presidential elections. Besides some of the countries that are being invaded right now by the current administration (and the one before that), what else would have McCain put on the map? Georgia? And with a huntress in tow, I would hate to think of the neo-Conservativism that would have infiltrated America even more. But I digress...

Due to the fact that McCain said such a statement, he has undoubtedly received unfavorable responses; he was reportedly "irked by blowback over Palin remark" and worsened the situation by trying to explain why he said what he said... it all looks like a mess by the end of this Tuesday.

Regardless of what he said, it reminds me of an HBO film I mentioned in a earlier blog entry: the movie "Game Change". I finally had the chance to watch it- and while the critically-acclaimed book covered both sides of the spectrum, the movie was all about Palin. No one has denied a false sense of events and Nicolle Wallace, a former McCain/Palin adviser, has claimed that the film was very accurate. The film clearly depicts a fast-talking, beautiful politician who underestimates the role of Vice President of the United States. With campaign strategist Steve Schmidt being the protagonist of the whole story, the question is... did he regret having Palin be the candidate or not? 

 Right before the credits roll, with Steve Schmidt being interviewed on television, the question is answered...

American Idol

On July 14, 2012, the Obama Administration came out with this ad: 

(Be warned: Romney is singing) 

 

 As a response, Romney's campaign came out with this not-well-thought-out ad:

Before finally taking the chance to mock Obama's singing chops AFTER releasing not-well-thought-out ad:

 

Which turns out to be an epic fail because, well, love him or hate him, the man can sing...

Besides the fact that the actual messages of the ads are just plain ineffective.  

*Update*: Romney's latest ad was deleted due to copyright violations. Maybe the Al Green introduction was a little too good...

A Way for Illegal Immigrants

According to the LA Times, "Appearing in the Rose Garden at the White House, Obama announced Friday that, effective immediately, young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally before age 16 and spent at least five continuous years here would be allowed to stay and apply for work permits if they had no criminal history and met other criteria, such as graduating from high school or serving honorably in the military."

I grew up in San Jose, a city located one hour away from San Francisco. There are many minorities in San Jose; I have met many illegal immigrants in my life. I also lived near Palm Springs where I met some illegal immigrants from Mexico working very hard to support their families. Oftentimes, it isn't one's fault that he / she goes over to America at, say, the age of 3 and grows up "Americanized" and believes he/she is a U.S. Citizen until the truth comes out... or even without the citizenship, the United States is what he/she knows and wants to do well at school and all that. There are those who don't contribute to society but those are the ones often gaining the national attention. Obama's move clearly doesn't give "amnesty" but it does provide a way for those who shouldn't be unfairly deported. The loss of jobs and crime shouldn't be blamed on one group, and illegal immigrants often get scapegoated. The system needs to be blamed as well, but this program appears to be a win for the current President.

PacMan and Politics

June 9 was a very important day for boxing aficionados everywhere- especially fans of the world-famous Manny Pacquiao and Timothy Bradley. Being of Filipino heritage, it is not shocking to know that many of my relatives threw little parties in which barbecue (and maybe some Coors) was served, excitingly sitting on a plush couch and eagerly watching the game on High Definition television. An array of "WTF?!"s and other expletives flooded my Facebook wall. I myself did not watch the game. However, I did read a couple of articles claiming that "PacMan" should have won the game and that it was an unfair fight.

I admit that in my life, overall, I have only watched two Pacquaio fights. I remember vividly a cool November night in Glendale as he fought Antonio Margarito, the game obviously far too easy for him. I once spotted him in Los Angeles International Airport around 2005 as I landed back from Manila, recognizing his short stature as he was being interviewed by a Filipino news channel. But maybe my sense of "nationalism" or "ethnocentricism" ends there. I admire him as a fighter, a talented boxer... but I always became irritated with others who automatically believed I was some hardcore Pacquiao-lover just because we happen to be of the same race.

Boxing is so much like politics... rough, tough, intense, messy, strategic, often requiring a quick-witted mind (okay, okay, maybe except for Bush 43). Each intellectual slogan and idea always adds a firm punch in the opponent, and many people often want to identify themselves with their favorite fighter.

Pacquiao is undoubtedly an international hero, with power emanating from his buff physique. And yet, at the same time, I believe that he should stick to what he is good at, which is boxing. Yes, he is extremely wealthy, and yes, he did have a few schools built in his name in the Philippines. He is also a Congressman who has switched parties at least twice- and who has openly shown his disapproval of gay marriage, at least in America. He is entitled to his own opinions- but really, must his political beliefs be taken very seriously, taking his intellect into account? I clearly think he has good intentions concerning educating those in the Philippines and spreading his wealth, but even as his title of Congressman... I don't see him as an authority on what I should politically agree with. Should give I a damn that he doesn't support gay marriage?

However, I wouldn't mind attending the next family barbecue for a Pay-Per-View boxing match. And save the roasted zucchini, baked potatoes, and organic green tea for me... agree or disagree with politics, I can appreciate Pacquiao for what he is- a great boxer.