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.

I Didn't Know that Romney Could Rap!

Comical Rights

Look at the graphic. Need I say more?

Censorship

Well-known and well-beloved author Ray Bradbury passed away this week at the age of 91. His name has become synonymous with readable, enjoyable, yet thought-provoking literature- a defining voice in SciFi. Who can forget "The Martian Chronicles?"

Or, better yet, who can forget the following:

A book so iconic that it has become standardized literature in many public schools?

I certainly haven't, and it's been a little over 10 years since I read it in my Honors English class... which was in a private Christian school.

For those who haven't read the book, or who need somewhat of a refresher, the synopsis is this:  "Set in the 24th century, Fahrenheit 451 tells the story of the protagonist, Guy Montag. At first, Montag takes pleasure in his profession as a fireman, burning illegally owned books and the homes of their owners. However, Montag soon begins to question the value of his profession and, in turn, his life. Throughout the novel Montag struggles with his existence, eventually fleeing his oppressive, censored society and joining an underground network of intellectuals. With his newfound friends, Montag witnesses the atomic destruction if his former city and dedicates himself to rebuilding a literate and cultural society."

Bradbury tackled on the banning (and burning) of books, the pitfalls of adopting technological advancement in a society in such a way that the mind is no longer stimulated, intellectually-sound, the type becoming numb (perhaps by too many episodes of watching the Kardashians and re-runs of "Teen Mom").  But most importantly, Bradbury took on Censorship.

The Book has since turned into an e-Book, or a Kindle and a Nook. The Book is more accessible on the internet. Major bookstores, such as Border's Books and Music, have become defunct, and Barnes and Noble is losing money. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

In terms of censorship, First Amendment Rights have come under fire in 2012. On January 18, 2012, a series of websites "blacked out" their own words in lieu of SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has gained attention and controversy as well. The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) was signed by President Obama last January, and appeared to be a worsened version of the USA Patriot Act. It appeared to restrict free speech and automatically view any citizen as a terrorist- that is, until a federal judge suspended the NDAA provisions attacking free speech.

Memorizing all these restrictive acronyms can be a pain, but for your reference these links can help:

1) SOPA Explained: What It Is and Why It Matters

2) PIPA is the New SOPA

3) What is ACTA?

4) NDAA

5) Federal Judge Suspends NDAA Detention Provision 

----
In the midst of all this First Amendment-Attacking Chaos, I would like to end with this quote:

"The sun burnt every day. It burnt Time. The world rushed in a circle and turned on its axis and time was busy burning the years and the people anyway, without any help from him. So if he burnt things with the firemen and the sun burnt Time, that meant that everything burnt!"
- Guy Montag, Fahrenheit 451, pg. 141

Information Junkie

I live in an area that is otherwise political... and unsurprisingly, even admitted by The LA Times, there was less voter turn-out this year. Where I live, I don't see any posters or pins or brochures around election time, although I did bump into some rare Ron Paul supporters two months ago.

We live in a time in which people are questioning politics and the "1%" more than ever, and the World Wide Web has made it easier and harder at the same time. Virtually all of us can access revealing information but also be tracked for doing so. We can automatically look up Romney's past (er, flip-flopping) views at the touch of a button. We can easily watch the 2008 Vice Presidential debates so that we can remind ourselves of how Palin is like. We can look at old birth documents to determine for ourselves whether the ad nauseum"Birther" movement is even worth it. And while we can access this information, it isn't something we do in secret.

 

(Photo Courtesy of "Being Liberal" on Facebook)

Where's the "I Voted" Pin?

Today is the 2012 California Primary. Need I say more?

On my vote-by-mail ballot, I still saw names such as Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich on the list. If only they had stayed for this make-it-or-break-it, climactic type of primary- after all, California has always been a major deciding factor, especially in delegates. But save for the 2008 fiasco on Proposition 8, California has always been one of the most progressive states, and attempting to make it backwards in terms of a Bachmann- or Santorum-esque agenda would be nothing more than a laugh.

On a more serious note, there have been rumors of a Romney-Paul ticket... not of former Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Ron Paul, but of Romney and Senator Rand Paul. While this is not confirmed, I don't understand how such a combination could work together. The Libertarian ideal would want significantly smaller government, elimination of the Federal Reserve, encouragement of the free market, the legalization / regulation of drugs, legalization of marijuana, legalized gay marriage, and smaller (if not zero) taxes. How would Romney be able to work with such as ideas, and especially the other way around when he is still a part of the system?

In another world, candidates would be vying for votes by simply doing some dances, or at least having their campaign do a dance. 

The Other Woman

"The Other Woman" is an archetype that has been around, since, well, the beginning of time! She is feared, hated, seen as a seductress, homewrecker, manipulative witch behind the curtain waiting for the opportunity to ruin an "innocent man" and his family. The media loves it, and human nature brings upon that "Love to Hate" characteristic, with the tabloids often attempting to still pitt Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston against each other over 7 years after the fact, assuming that Jolie was truly The Other Woman.

Marilyn Monroe is an icon of many facets, including that of "The Other Woman" although her overall persona and depression appear to give her that image of redemption. JFK was a great leader, inspirational speaker, Pulitzer-prize winning writer and beloved President- yet, no one can dispute his infidelities. I recently went to a bookstore in Los Angeles in which I found a book entitled, "Are You a Jackie or Marilyn?" and while this book was more of a coffee table / gift book full of style and tips, I felt like it was also insulting because it put together The Wife and The Other Woman next to each other, comparing and contrasting in the same realm. Would they have published such a book if Jackie O. was also alive?

I don't think so.

But it cannot be denied that society has a fascination with The Other Woman, especially when she is involved with a powerful figure. Just what is it about her that helped bring down a mini-political kingdom? Ashley Dupree was known for hooking up with Eliot Spitzer as an escort, and yet she was able to start a writing career, be featured in The New York Post, and hob-knob with famous people such as PR trailblazer Kelly Cutrone. Monica Lewinsky, the former intern of President Bill Clinton, was sometimes sympathized with in the public, with her Club Monaco lipstick flying off shelves after her 20/20 interview and Gap dress becoming notorious.

Maybe it does pay to be The Other Woman.

Maybe Rielle Hunter will let you know that.

This week, news broke out that John Edwards was acquitted on one count while the rest was deemed a mistrial; just today, it has been announced that Rielle Hunter's tell-all book will be released on June 26, just in time to keep the case fresh in the public's mind before it reaches the bookshelves in the 99 Cents Store a year or so later.

It might just be the antidote to Jay McInerny's 1980's novel in which he portrays Hunter as an obnoxious young woman in New York City, the type who would exchange physical favors for some free time in the tanning salon. While the main character's name was changed from Lisa Jo Druck (Hunter's original name) to Alison Poole, Hunter was clearly the direct muse for an unstable, annoying, self-absorbed, yet extremely intriguing young woman.

Intriguing or not, in the end, John Edwards confessed his sins, although it seemed very easy to do given that he is literally freed from prison and fines, but not public scrutiny and embarrassment. 

Why does The Other Woman get most of the blame? It takes two to tango.

May Elizabeth Anania Edwards rest in peace.

Rise and Fall

Former Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards received an acquittal on one count, and a mistrial on others. Does this mean that he got away with what he did? At the same time, cheating on one's wife, especially when she is literally dying of terminal illness... is not a judicial crime (of course, the issue here was the illegal usage of campaign funds in order to cover up the affair, etc.).

Edwards is reported as saying, "None of the people who came to court and testified are responsible. Nobody working for the government is responsible...I am responsible, and if I want to find the person who should be held accountable for my sins, honestly, I don't have to go any further than the mirror."

At least he admits it.

But the damage has already been done. 

Memorial Weekend

"Memorial Day" is such a touchy subject for me. 

I am close to some veterans of the U.S. Military, and my maternal Grandfather served as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army; he was a veteran of the Korean War. I never met my Grandfather, for he passed away from complications due to diabetes in 1963. All I have left of him are very few photos taken of him, including that in his uniform, and some stories my late Grandmother told me. Stories I should never forget.

Last week, while walking towards the back gate of my neighborhood, I thought I saw a figure on the ground; it was pitch-black dark, nearly midnight, and I couldn't tell if I was seeing a dead man or not. He didn't make a sound. Turns out he was sleeping in the cold and didn't know where to go. It turns out he was a veteran of the Vietnam War. A gracious young man ended up giving this veteran a pillow, a thick blanket, and some good food that this man could eat. However... this picture shouldn't have to be the case. This shouldn't be common- yet there are too many veterans on the streets. Being someone who also worked in a bank branch, I often assisted veterans who couldn't find a place to sleep- some even lost their homes in the duration that I knew them. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, "Tonight, approximately 67,000 veterans will sleep in alleys, abandoned buildings and under bridges because they have no home. They are this nation’s forgotten heroes – the men and women who once proudly served in a military uniform. Yet this year alone, over 200,000 of them will experience the ravages of homelessness."

Sure, maybe it isn't Veterans Day, and there is that fine distinction between that day and Memorial Day. But in other words, all veterans, living or not living, should be considered and thought about every single day instead of semi-commercialized holidays that commemorates them.

Stay Tuned...

Dear Readers... I haven't forgotten all about you. 

There has been information overload, as usual, in the media- and a lot in my mind. Stay tuned for entries as I explore the Obama + Past Pot Use controversy, as well as "The Other Women" in political lives.

For now, enjoy (or be disgusted at) this comic, whose theme is the center of attention. Credit goes to Facebook Liberals for this. 

The Game Change That We Had

There is another why I lust after HBO... this trailer released March 2012 should reveal it all:

I think many of us remember the 2008 elections like yesterday... and what a time it was! I found it to be a very exciting, almost-unpredictable time in history. There were fresh faces taking over the waves, with the unpopular Bush 43 nearly ending his term (and not without performing some bailouts right before the next Inauguration). Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was the trailblazer, the figure that people were curious about, the beautiful face that took over the screen before her remarks and lack of particular historical knowledge was displayed all over the world, especially in her debates with now-Vice President Biden. Hillary Clinton was not one who would go out without a fight, often reminding us about the 1990's that ended with a surplus left by her husband's administration, only to try to get out of his too-powerful shadow. Senator McCain was the military hero, the maverick that could also appeal to Democrats in the past, only to try too hard to fit into the Conservative game and have his team pick out a woman for the sake of looking like a modern candidate. 

And then there was Senator Barack Obama.

In 2004, the Harvard Law Graduate and former Constitutional Law Professor gave a speech so mind-blowing that it became obvious he was a star.

In 2008, a type of culture began during the elections- this culture was represented by three infamous words: "Yes We Can!". Youth, especially college youth, were known for being the "Obama Generation", looking forward to "Hope" and "Change", looking at then-President George Bush's last two terms as a failure. His last two terms were deemed as a failure not necessarily because of his lack of speech skills (that was just the tip of the iceberg, and for comic relief), but also because of the War in Iraq, the questionable actions that occurred right after 9/11 devastated the nation- 9/11 not only a took blow to the Twin Towers, it also took a sharp stab into our culture and changed its psyche. The psyche was pessimistic, fearful- and the feelings still lingered in pocketed times of prosperity before the 2008 economic collapse. Youth and older generations wanted change, and many found it in the image of Barack Obama. Obama had a cool, calm, articulate demeanor in contrast to his counterparts, especially when it came to his predecessor. He was the One who change the nation, it would bring glory back to it, who would win back respect in the world and make everything better. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't, if he changed the world for the better, he would be dubbed a "Socialist" or "Communist", and if he didn't change the world for the better, he would be seen as a "Fascist".

An explosive wave of excitement happened when Barack Obama won the persidency in November of 2008. The video shown here, taken in Grant Park, couldn't display the excitement in a better fashion.

Excited myself, a pre-law student at Chapman University at the time, I was a member of the "Yes We Can" generation. As a matter of fact, in January 2009, without any tickets, I visited my best friend in New York City; we ended up being in a huge crowd of people in Washington D.C. Yes, I attended Barack Obama's inauguration.

Cut to over 3 years later.

Have we seen Change?

Do we still have Hope?

The movie "Ides of March" comes to mind; and if you can't watch "Game Change", watch this. The movie is about the psychological death of an idealist who once believed in the slogans and uprightness of a Presidential candidate.

The game change that remains the same is that people still fall for slogans and buy the product.

Politics is still a game. In this current election, the faces aren't brand new, unless you count Ron Paul as a unique and refreshing factor. The showdown is between an experienced businessman and governor whose overall intellect and appearance isn't considerably "Presidential", while the other one is a man who is still highly praised by some but now majorly criticized by many former supporters who originally thought that times would have been better. The game isn't as competitive, but the mud-slinging is still as dirty as ever.

 

A Little Bit on the War on Drugs

   According to today's news, the Reagan Foundation is threatening legal action for a sale that reportedly contains a sample of former President Reagan's blood following the assassination attempt of 1981. Sure, maybe from a Capitalistic sense it might be a good idea since it is currently a lot of money; but in a moralistic sense, it doesn't appear ethical at all.  

  If that blood sample undoubtedly contains Reagan's blood, it is not only a sample of someone's DNA, but also a sample of history. Images of a young Jodie Foster and a very trouble John Hinckley Jr. is his beyond-homely appearance comes to mind, even to that of a person who didn't necessarily have a very conscious life in the 1980's. Flash. Flash. Suddenly I think of the 1970's movie "Taxi Driver" as a reference, with Robert DeNiro played a 26-year-old disturbed man who suddenly wants to help society even with his detachment from it. Go back to 2012. I am a 26-year-old woman who didn't exist in 1981 and who spend pre-Kindergarten years in the remaining "Decade of Excess". Which brings me to the question, "Why Was Reagan a Good President?" (Or Was He?)

   I currently live in a part of Southern California that contains many Conservative / Republican communities. I have often heard the discussions about, "Why can't the GOP go back to the days of Reagan?" while putting Reagan on this pedestal as this untouched pedigree that today's GOP couldn't touch. He was a tall, extremely handsome Hollywood actor with a speaking voice that was easy on the ears. He and his wife Nancy represented morality, with a perfect American image that makes me think of red gingham picnic tablecloths, apple pie, and sunshines by the lake (for some reason). Reagan, especially since his 100th birthday wouldn't have been too long ago, is nearly hailed as a demi-god in the realm of politics. It can be argued that his deregulation of Wall Street helped pave the way to Clintonomics, an age in which a country could easily be outraged over a stained blue dress from Gap instead of a noticeably dire unemployment rate and emptying shopping centers, and he did provide amnesty in 1986- but other than that, what would make him so great? There are many factors and facets of his two-term Presidency, but one part I would like to target... that tarnished his own image, was the "Just Say No!" campaign.

  

    The War on Drugs is a very touchy subject that easily correlates to the Reagan Administration. Who can forget those simple, three words as an alleged answer to a deeply complex, layered problem? Even Mexican Congress contender Natalia Ruiz (seen in the blog entry right before this one) talks about legalizing drugs in her own nation, and while her own political issues in Mexico seemingly aren't linked to Reagan, they really are. I remember speaking to an older political activist in Downtown Los Angeles (not an Occupier, by the way) who lived through the 1980's, saying that, "Because of the 'Just Say No' campaign, Ronald Reagan helped build the image of the black 'Welfare Queen', when in reality, it is mostly (statistically) whites who are on Welfare". This same political activist who shared this information also happened to be white. Racial stereotypes were implemented, amplified. If drugs weren't so criminalized, the black market wouldn't be so vast, drug-related violence over the border would cease to exist or at least be lessened, and gangs would quickly diminish. In 2011, "A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy (argued) that the decades-old worldwide war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world." (Reuters) Click here to read that report.

   The legalization of drugs in the United States wouldn't necessarily bring more drug use to its society and culture- as a matter of fact, the opposite is most likely to happen. In 2009, Time Magazine did a feature on Portugal regarding its decriminalization on drugs: "Illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled". In America's case, the same could happen- if only politicians were more open and aggressive about it. Drug addicts are often jailed and sent to prison for mere possession and usage- but if they lived in a society that made treatment more accessible and more effective, than there would be a lot less people in prison. There would be more focus and emphasis, I believe, on drug-related violence and those who inflict harm on other people- and even that would diminish if there was legalization and regulation. There may even be less prisons. Less tax money would be going towards prisons, and that is something that everyone in the Middle Class wouldn't mind having, even if they aren't using drugs whatsoever. That is a concept that Former First Lady Nancy Reagan, respectively, did not have, unless there was another motive altogether. Prohibition failed within the same century- and that should have been taken into account.

  That is not say that the War on Drugs did not exist before Reagan, or that he single-handedly created it, because he did not- but his administration did worsen the situation altogether. The current administration, with its liberal views on some issues, doesn't help with the War on Drugs- who remembers the recent federal raids on marijuana dispensaries?

  And don't get me started on why weed is federally illegal while alcohol is perfectly okay to buy when you're age 21 in the State of California. And why are cigarettes legal if they are known for its many carcinogens, second-hand smoke, cause of lung cancer, etc.? 

  

 

Topless (Political) Woman

  Natalia Juarez teaches Philosophy at a university.

  She also would like to represent her people-

  But not without controversy.

 

The Congressional candidate for the Party of the Democratic Revolution stands in the middle amongst supporters.

According to CNN, " (The) caption above the women on the billboard reads: "I dare you to build a new project for a nation with no prejudices."

Juarez is quoted as saying, "Conservative people are never going to vote for me, never! Even if I dressed as a nun and carried a rosary and said that my party was going to give away Bibles and rosaries, they wouldn't. Conservatives are never going to vote for me."

   

Juarez, no doubt, stands without a t-shirt or without a bra in her billboard. The entire image is not that of a sexual one despite lack of clothes. One wonders if such outrage is over the nudity in this ad, or simply because of Juarez's bold ideas, which she isn't afraid to vocalize: "When it comes to drugs and the violence generated by drug trafficking, we need to start thinking in a radical way. What do I mean by that? Well, we need to start a debate. Let's legalize (drugs), tax them and use the money for other things". In Guadalajara, where Juarez hails from, "(there) has seen a sharp rise in drug-related violence over the past twelve months, including isolated incidents of grenade attacks. In early February 2011, a series of road blockades were set up in various sections of the Guadalajara metropolitan area, including the main highway between Guadalajara and the international airport" (Foreign and Commonwealth Office UK). The United States can be also responsible for such drug-related violence and deaths due to its own restrictive laws, which leads to more transactions in the black market.

Before completely taking on issues from a first-hand occupational standpoint, however, Juarez's image is still causing superficial controversy. But in a land (such as the United States) wear many violent movies are merely Rated R and sometimes PG-13 while movies containing sex and nudity are prone being easily NC-17, maybe we can open our eyes more and see what strong messages she is trying to convey without easily judging a book by its cover... and its billboard.

*Picture of Billboard taken from The Huffington Post.

Photo Collage that Explains Political Issues 2012

 

I made this at Polyvore.

What Ruined Marriage?

    Referring to my last blog, Gay Marriage is still a widely-debated topic- a moral issue turned into a highly political, polarizing one. The most extreme opponents of Gay Marriage, such as Representative Gipson of Mississippi, use religious texts such as the Bible in order to condemn people in the LGBT to severe punishments due to their sexual orientations and nothing else. The most common, cliche argument I have heard about Gay Marriage is that it ruins the "Sanctity of Marriage"- in order words, it just plain ruins Marriage altogether!

  But who are we kidding? 

  As if Marriage was this exclusive, beautiful, wonderful, utopia-type of "thing" with a flawless foundation until the issue of Gay Marriage came along. As if Gay Marriage became a threat to something so allegedly holy. I am sure that former Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich, with his more "traditional" and "normal" sexuality, is the best example of family values in this Christian nation.

   I am 26 years old. I am "Generation Y", a Generation that others see as lost, underemployed, spoiled, the type who eventually communicated with people over a screen instead of spending more precious time talking to people in person. To an extent, it is true. It is also true that in America, it is more accepted and less unusual to be a 30-year-old living at home. I have kept in touch with many contemporaries over the years only to see that many marriages have unraveled. Before age 25, many people I know (even the self-proclaimed church-attending ones)  have already moved onto their second marriages, the newly-changed Facebook profile picture and shift from "Divorced" to "Married" (again) taking over the newsfeed and making people wonder in such a Hollywood tabloid kind of light. As someone who used to work in the financial industry, I have met too many early-twentysomethings with damaged credit and negative cash flow due to their divorces. This also contrasts with the many single women who don't know how to handle a relationship, and who have to use He's Just Not Into You as a their own alternative Bible; and the very young men who need stable jobs and who aren't ready for a lifelong commitment. 

   Generation Y males are practically victims of "extended adolescence" that may extend to age 30, if not past that- and in a Reality TV world and consumeristic society, many Generation Y females, with their slew of Facebook profile pics, may feel a strong sense of material entitlement. Where is the house? Where is the car? As of August 2011, the unemployment rates in California were highest among teenagers and males, even though the unemployment situation was improving more for males than females. In 2005, author Jennifer Kesler wrote, "What once supposedly guaranteed a life of rewarding employment, a gold watch at retirement, and hopefully a reasonably nice family life just doesn’t cut it. Employers would rather deal with cheap hires who don’t know what they’re doing than pay for talent. They punish loyalty because they’re too busy looking at the steady raises and earned retirement benefits they’ll have to pay. And even if a man makes enough to keep a wife and kids in nice style, his family will want more. In fact, they want the same elusive thing he wants: identity."

   Now, don't get me wrong, because I still do know a handful of people who have successful marriages, including some people who married very young and who are still doing well today. But they are rarities in this entire cultural scope I am exploring here. 

   What exactly ruined the concept of today's marriage?

   It certainly wasn't the Gays.  

  

Biblical Marriage

   The Mississippi Representative has just been given the spotlight in the media for his views on Gay Marriage, especially since President Obama declared that he supported it.

   While I could come up with an argument, I would rather show you images that would say more than I ever could. I am also someone who grew up in the Protestant-Christian church and who attended Christian schools all my life, especially the stereotypical K-12 ones that only contained what seemed like only 4 students up to my high school years. But I also grew up in tolerant surroundings despite my still-belief in a Higher Power.

Besides referring to the Bible as the authority proclaiming that gays should be condemned to death, this is what Rep. Gipson stated:

This is what Rep. Gipson should also read before he imposes his Biblical beliefs upon civil liberties (and if you cannot read it, feel free to click on the image for the original, legible size!)

 

*Rep. Gipson quote courtesy of Huffington Post and Biblical Marriage image courtesy of Unicorn Booty at Upworthy.

(Young, Post-Undergrad, Broke) Girls

   It's hard to look up "Girls" on the internet without getting some results that are rather obscene. And sometimes there is this girl wearing a bikini who says she's "ready" for me and changes her "hometown" to whatever zip code I am at the time, the Photoshop obviously not working. 

   But when I look up "Girls" on the internet, there is one type I am looking for- the type that is on HBO, the series that debuted a little more than a month ago. It was created by none other than barely 26-year-old Lena Dunham, the writer/director/genius who gave us "Tiny Furniture", a film about a post-undergrad by the name of "Aura". Aura is twenty-something, not model-pretty, confused about her life, desperate to even nab a job as a restaurant hostess, a target of quirky young men who are confused and immature themselves while all living in New York City- sound familiar? The premise of "Girls" is about the same but expanded, with the storyline focusing on a group while than just the main character of "Hannah" (who is basically Aura to me, but a little smarter, in my opinion). The show is described as being realistic, with the very first scene opening with Hannah's parents announcing that they just cannot financially support her anymore.

   I felt fortunate enough to watch the first episode for free on my iPhone last month. Now when I look for the same episode again on Youtube, all I get are brief clips of episodes instead of an entire show.

 

   Yesterday, I made a call to my cellphone service and cable / internet provider in order to find out how I could make my bill, well, a little more condensed. The numbers were astronomical and I was basically paying over $100 a month for cellphone service alone that only provided 4 GB of data usage (without wi-fi obviously) before charging me an extra $10 per GB. This is without the large cable bill and the wi-fi in my condo. Did I mention that I am unemployed?

   The service provider ended up changing my plans and gave me the best customer service, which I could not complain about, and I expect my bills to be cut in half for next month. 

   This is besides the mortgage and HOA fees, of course.

   Did I mention that I am also a homeowner?

   At age 25, I bought my own place in Southern California (can't deny- with the help of my mother), approximately 30 minutes away from Los Angeles County. I worked in a bank that time, had amazing credit, and a seemingly stable job until just a year ago. 

   I was the type of girl who easily went to the nail salon in order to get $50 pedicures, and before I bought my own two-bedroom place, I lived in my own one bedroom apartment. I felt very independent at the time, although I did bring over my college messiness and lack-of-cooking-skills lifestyle over to that apartment. Even though I did have a few pots and pans, it was so much easier to have microwaveable food that could've come from 7-Eleven. And if I wasn't eating microwaveable food, I was eating at Nordstrom's cafe at the local mall, feeling as if I was having Breakfast at Tiffany's.

   Now I hardly even go to Nordstrom's, I think I went only twice this year instead of, uh, over three times a week in order to peek at the Chanel make-up and try on pairs of Gucci sunglasses, and that was only because I had a leftover gift card from last Christmas. That kind of luxurious lifestyle, or illusion (I was no bank manager either) isn't for me anymore. Instead of Chanel Fire, it's all about Essie from the shelves of K-Mart, or even No Miss cosmetics, for I have also gone for cheap, natural ingredients as of late. I have also become a better cook since then, with people telling me that I cook some amazing vegetarian burgers and soy chorizo burritos- a feat I thought I couldn't really do before (and being in a relationship also encourages this skill).

  But I digress- 

  What is the conclusion of this blog? Well, due to the necessity of having a lower cable bill, I don't subscribe to HBO- and because of that, I can't access "HBO GO" in order to watch episodes online. I have tried to look at other websites but to no avail. I have searched on iTunes and all I find are podcasts on the show. It is still too early for it to release on DVD.

  In other words, I am a broke Girl trying to watch a show about a broke Girl directed by a formerly-broke Girl but can't at this time.

   Where's my political cocktail?

*Images taken from the Lena Dunham Facebook Fan Page and The New York Review of Books. 

  

If Facebook Existed in the '90s...

These are some quotes that might have been said:

1) "The photo they scanned of me is less grainy. It's the bomb!"

2) "It only took 5 hours for my last status to post."
 

3) "You have 52 friends? Wow, you have SO many!"
 

4) "My Netscape crashed again when I tried to load this one photo album."
 

5) "You used an animation GIF for your profile pic? Awesome!"
 

6) "Why did you try to upload a video? It's 3.5 megabytes, and we have to go have the PC repaired again!"
 

7) "Don't worry, honey, it only takes three days for the relationship status to change."
 

8) "AOL keeps thinking my Facebook emails are spam!"
 

9) "Want to talk on IRC (Internet Relay Chat)? We posted too much under my status."
 

10) "Stop sending me requests to play on Oregon Trail."

Being someone who grew up in Silicon Valley for nearly 14 years, this list was fun 

to come up with.

With the Facebook IPO launching earlier this week (watch it live here), and with Mark 

Zuckerberg's "business attire" being debated in the media, it is no question that, back then, 

the world was definitely NOT ready for Facebook.