When it comes to blogging, I am not afraid to say that I’ve been around the block a few times. In my time in the blogosphere, I have tried no fewer than four different blogging sites to establish myself. From my first feeble attempts at Xanga to my best and most formal intentions on WordPress, I have explored the major blogging communities in search of what network suits me best. In a story much like Goldilocks and her famed run in with the three bears, my blogosphere explorations have taken me through many extremes to find a home here on Blogger, which is, in my opinion, the most accessible and functional of the major blogging outlets.
My first brush with blogging came in my freshman year of high school. As we were all transitioning from being carefree big kids to self-aware and angsty teenagers, the trend of Xanga came into vogue. Xanga, the predecessor of Facebook and Twitter and all the other social networking sites that high schoolers and even middle schoolers are hooked into, was essentially just an online diary. Amongst my friends, our usernames were mostly Dashboard Confessional or Something Corporate song lyrics and the content of our posts were highly dramatic and personal; this was blogging before we fully understood that the world could see everything we were writing, so we were uninhibited. And in the contest to gain followers and e-props, no personal stories or embarrassing moments were safe from being exposed on Xanga. Many a catfight was had via those comment boxes, long before anti-someone Facebook groups and poking sprees were even a twinkly in Mark Zuckerberg’s eye. Alas, as with many of the trends of early high school, Xanga was simply a flash in the pan. Gone from our lives as quickly as it came, like MySpace I abandoned my Xanga and the self-indulgent, angst-ridden posting that came with it. My Xanga is still floating out in cyberspace somewhere, a relic of my first embarrassing attempt at blogging.
I did not re-enter the blogosphere for another five years. During my sophomore year of college, when I realized that I wanted writing to be a part of my life and hopefully my career, I decided to relaunch my blog persona. Long gone were the days of posting winter formal dramas and cafeteria hijinx—this time I was determined to start a serious, hard-hitting blog that would express my sophisticated views on music, politics, and literature. I wanted a blog format that would reflect this very grown up approach, and after researching the options in front of me I made the educated choice of WordPress. WordPress seemed to be the most refined of the options; it is a no-frills blogging site for adults who want to discuss their high-minded opinions and philosophies in Helvetica. I created my blog one lazy spring afternoon and spent the rest of the evening writing a post entitled “My Rules for Living;” clearly this blog was serious business, and no frivolity like what I had posted on my Xanga half a decade ago (“What a child I was!” I thought to myself) would suffice. Thoroughly satisfied with my beginning, I published the post. However, I had written myself a bit of a manifest that set a very lofty tone for my site. How could I follow up a post that purported to outline my outlook on life? I got too trigger-shy about to what to post next, intimidating myself out of ever posting again. Looking stupid on a WordPress seemed about the most humiliating thing I could do—not because I feared the community of bloggers it attracted, as they all seem like lovely people, but because the seriousness and sophistication of its atmosphere made me too scared to say something idiotic. And so, as I abandoned the Xanga, I left my WordPress blog to wash away into the annals of cyberspace.
Wanting to try again in a more informal setting, at the suggestion of a friend of mine from high school I signed up for a Tumblr. I pared down my Rules for Living, renamed them something much less manifesto sounding, and recycled it as my first post. Then, I started “Tumbling.” Now, the Tumblr community can be a little scary. In a completely different way than WordPress it is highly intimidating; rather than maintaining an air of superiority discourages stupidity and sometimes even posting, Tumblr is a haven for the passionately and illogically obsessed. The community of the “Tumblr famous” is dominated by high school students with an inexplicable amount of time to devote to curating blogs devoted to anything from a literary movement to a single TV show coupling. At any given time my dashboard could be covered with trolls arguing over the latest Glee relationship, the wedding of William and Kate, the religious undertones of Harry Potter, and just about any divisive or cult-inducing topic you could think of. The majority of the posts are reblogged photos, videos, and short quotes rather than thoughtful and original text-driven entries, but when people do create something of their own (a song, a short story, a photo edit) they protect it rabidly and troll after anyone who steals it without credit; in a twisted way that exists amidst torrent links and megaupload files, Tumblr may be the last place that rightful authorship is protected by the masses.
Unlike my Xanga and my WordPress, I still use my Tumblr. As bizarre of a blogging community as it actually is, it offers me the chance to discover beautiful photography, vent my pop culture obsessions, and even discover new music on a constantly self-renewing basis. However, Tumblr was not the proper forum for my true blog. And then I turned to the most popular site, Blogger, and I have never looked back. Blogger is popular for a reason; it offers simple yet highly customizable formatting options, an extensive community of bloggers, and an atmosphere that, because of its site diversity, doesn’t feel stuffy. If Xanga was too emotional, WordPress was too formal, and Tumblr was too crazy, then Blogger is just right.
Hey, can I get some kind of compensation for all my advertising?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
A Necessary Name Change
Now, reflective is not intended to describe the mental activities of the entrants; “most reflective” is not to insinuate that they are the most pensive people who have spent a year pondering the universe and all that has happened in it. Rather, instead of influential, what many of the controversial listees are is reflective of the moment in time that is 2011. They hold up a mirror, flattering or otherwise, to our culture, politics, and beliefs as they are at a specific moment in time and show what matters to us.
Blake Lively, sandwiched in between talk show host Joe Scarborough and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was by far the most baffling person on the list. The 23 year old actress is most notable for her current role as rich free-spirit Serena van der Woodsen on Gossip Girl and her upcoming role as aerospace heiress Carol Ferris in Green Lantern, she does not belong on a list that includes those whose “ideas spark dialogue and dissent and sometimes even revolution;” it is doubtful that her opinion on North African politics inspired any of the rioters in Gadafi’s streets or even the Tweeters flooding them with support. But Blake Lively is highly reflective of what is going on in 2011. As Serena van der Woodsen, she reflects the larger controversy over the decadent, hypersexual, hard-partying depictions of teens in pop culture that are becoming more common as real-life teens are pushing the boundaries of debauchery and self-indulgence. As Carol Ferris, she reflects the resurgence of Golden Age superheroes and their gritty origin stories in 21st century Hollywood and greater pop culture. Blake Lively may not influence anyone to take political action or spark debate over anything more than her ever-changing hair color, but she is most definitely a mirror of our current cultural climate.
Less controversial but still surprising was the inclusion of 20-year-old Chris Colfer, known exclusively for his portrayal of Kurt Hummel on the television show Glee. Colfer won the 2011 Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor in his role on a television show that draws in upwards of 20 million viewers weekly, but that is not why he is reflective or even influential of this moment in time. It is his portrayal of his openly gay character who endures vicious bullying with true-to-life vulnerability, fear, pride, and resilient spirit that makes him almost universally relatable—across age, gender, sexual orientation, whatever—that makes Chris Colfer important. The respect with which Colfer treats the role he has been given, a role that he himself lived, makes him not only a great actor but a great public voice against the epidemics of gay-bashing, cyber-bullying, and teen suicide sweeping his show’s key demographics. He accepts the position of role model as easily as he accepted the role of Kurt Hummel, and he fulfills both duties skillfully. Chris Colfer is a mirror for the slowly opening issues of teen sexuality and violence, issues that were previously brushed under the rug rather than addressed publicly and healthily. He is certainly influential, as many teens have written to him expressing their gratitude that his character inspired them and saved their life, but more than that Chris Colfer is reflective of the world we live in now.
Others on the list who are more reflective than influential are British actor Colin Firth, fashion designer/director Tom Ford, Canadian singer Justin Bieber, Korean singer Rain, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Speaker of the House John Boehner. Whether it is the growing American emphasis on education, the concerning rise of far-right politics, or the globalization of pop culture, they are all representative of the year 2011 as much, if not more so, as they are affective in it. Thus, should TIME continue to select such a varied list of artists, politicians, and media darlings of all kinds, it should adapt the title of its list to show what it really enumerates: mirrors of our time, those who reflect who we are and what we care about it.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
I Applaud Your Lady Balls, Ladies
In front of millions of viewers on The Oprah Winfrey Show last week, celebrated Saturday Night Live cast member broke one of the oldest rules of common courtesy: she spoke ill of the dead. The dead and beloved, to be exact.
In a stinging reflection on the days in which she was best known as “Jane, you ignorant slut” and for ripping open her blouse on Weekend Update, Curtin had this to say about fellow cast member, writer, and her constant foil, John Belushi:
Wonder Woman Tina Fey. Consider this part two of my Feyism manifesto.
Tina Fey is hilarious, and this is a fact. She can work the funny bone from just about any angle, be it political, maternal, physical, nerdy, or Bieber-related, and she does it without being spiteful; her wit has some mysterious warmth that allows even those it pokes fun at to get in on the joke, as evidenced by the appearances of both John McCain and Sarah Palin herself on the 2008 election editions of SNL in which Fey impersonated (or, depending on how you look at it, mocked) the female vice-presidential candidate. But Tina Fey can do all of this because she has an audible voice in comedy, a voice that she and the comediennes before her fought hard for. Women have had a notoriously hard time achieving gender-equal success in comedy—Jane Curtin is certainly not the first to point this out. In Bossypants, Fey herself admits that even her beloved Second City had a hard time accepting that women could be funny by themselves, and she understands the working definition of Hollywood to be, “a woman who keeps talking even after nobody wants to fuck her anymore.” The atmosphere for women in comedy seems to range from lukewarm to hostile, especially as bromances and stoner flicks rule the box office.
Understanding this, it seems like a woman looking to succeed in comedy would have two options: 1) Accept that she will only get jobs writing niche “girl funny” and commit to a life of period jokes, or 2) Accept that the only marketable type of funny is “guy funny” and commit to a life of penis jokes. Tina Fey did neither and, despite the obstacles abound, has achieved undeniable success and is our current Queen/Gender-Blind Master of Comedy. She became the first female head writer of SNL ever in 1999, was part of the first all-female hosting duo of Weekend Update in 2004, and, perhaps most significantly, wrote Mean Girls.
Mean Girls is more than just the last good movie Lindsay Lohan may ever make, it was an experiment in the appeal of female-driven comedy. With a cast led by five young women and Tina Fey herself, the movie explored the perils of teenage girlhood with a hilarious bent. That may not be anything new, but the response to it was; Mean Girls was immediately #1 at the box office and drew in an audience of all gender and age demographics, a feat for a comedy written and starring women. Because of Tina Fey’s inexplicable genius, the movie appealed to a diverse base beyond high school girls and became a lasting part of our cultural zeitgeist even seven years later. No one would argue that the message of the movie was female empowerment, but its success did newly empower women in Hollywood. With Mean Girls, Tina Fey proved that female-driven comedies could be bankable and broad in their appeal, and it is because of this that we get movies like Baby Mama and Bridesmaids in which women are more than just nagging girlfriends or spunky little sisters of comedic leading men. The increasing diversity of the comedy landscape is something we owe to Tina Fey and all the other women writers/actors/directors/stand-ups who were willing to push beyond personal success and toward changing the game itself.
One of these women who deserve special mention is Amy Poehler, Tina Fey’s intellectual and comedic equal. They both started at Second City, made up the all-female Weekend Update anchor team, went on to star in their own female-led quirky sitcoms, and do the best political impersonations SNL has ever seen. I wish I could explain why my natural affinity is more for Tina Fey—perhaps it’s the fact that we both wear glasses and have brown rather than “yellow” hair—but Amy Poehler is just as fantastic and integral in what I call the lady balls of comedy movement. Other members of note, though certainly not the only ones: the late great Gilda Radner, Jane Curtin, Aubrey Plaza, Paula Pell, Kristin Wiig, Rachel Dratch, Jane Lynch, Amy Sedaris, and Chelsea Handler.
To end, a quote from Amy Poehler on what her work means to her. I think that, besides giving women equal opportunity in comedy, this is the main goal of the work all these ballsy women do:
In a stinging reflection on the days in which she was best known as “Jane, you ignorant slut” and for ripping open her blouse on Weekend Update, Curtin had this to say about fellow cast member, writer, and her constant foil, John Belushi:
“They [female writers] were working against John, who said women are just fundamentally not funny. So you'd go to a table read, and if a woman writer had written a piece for John, he would not read it in his full voice. He felt as though it was his duty to sabotage pieces written by women.”What followed the comments was awkward to say the least; Chevy Chase attempted to defend the dearly departed comedian while Curtin held firm in her assertions. But there to save the day from turning into musings on misogyny in the 1970s, as she is there to save many a tragedy with a touch of comedy, was
Tina Fey is hilarious, and this is a fact. She can work the funny bone from just about any angle, be it political, maternal, physical, nerdy, or Bieber-related, and she does it without being spiteful; her wit has some mysterious warmth that allows even those it pokes fun at to get in on the joke, as evidenced by the appearances of both John McCain and Sarah Palin herself on the 2008 election editions of SNL in which Fey impersonated (or, depending on how you look at it, mocked) the female vice-presidential candidate. But Tina Fey can do all of this because she has an audible voice in comedy, a voice that she and the comediennes before her fought hard for. Women have had a notoriously hard time achieving gender-equal success in comedy—Jane Curtin is certainly not the first to point this out. In Bossypants, Fey herself admits that even her beloved Second City had a hard time accepting that women could be funny by themselves, and she understands the working definition of Hollywood to be, “a woman who keeps talking even after nobody wants to fuck her anymore.” The atmosphere for women in comedy seems to range from lukewarm to hostile, especially as bromances and stoner flicks rule the box office.
Understanding this, it seems like a woman looking to succeed in comedy would have two options: 1) Accept that she will only get jobs writing niche “girl funny” and commit to a life of period jokes, or 2) Accept that the only marketable type of funny is “guy funny” and commit to a life of penis jokes. Tina Fey did neither and, despite the obstacles abound, has achieved undeniable success and is our current Queen/Gender-Blind Master of Comedy. She became the first female head writer of SNL ever in 1999, was part of the first all-female hosting duo of Weekend Update in 2004, and, perhaps most significantly, wrote Mean Girls.
Pictured: Victoria Gotti The film that changed the face of comedy
Mean Girls is more than just the last good movie Lindsay Lohan may ever make, it was an experiment in the appeal of female-driven comedy. With a cast led by five young women and Tina Fey herself, the movie explored the perils of teenage girlhood with a hilarious bent. That may not be anything new, but the response to it was; Mean Girls was immediately #1 at the box office and drew in an audience of all gender and age demographics, a feat for a comedy written and starring women. Because of Tina Fey’s inexplicable genius, the movie appealed to a diverse base beyond high school girls and became a lasting part of our cultural zeitgeist even seven years later. No one would argue that the message of the movie was female empowerment, but its success did newly empower women in Hollywood. With Mean Girls, Tina Fey proved that female-driven comedies could be bankable and broad in their appeal, and it is because of this that we get movies like Baby Mama and Bridesmaids in which women are more than just nagging girlfriends or spunky little sisters of comedic leading men. The increasing diversity of the comedy landscape is something we owe to Tina Fey and all the other women writers/actors/directors/stand-ups who were willing to push beyond personal success and toward changing the game itself.
One of these women who deserve special mention is Amy Poehler, Tina Fey’s intellectual and comedic equal. They both started at Second City, made up the all-female Weekend Update anchor team, went on to star in their own female-led quirky sitcoms, and do the best political impersonations SNL has ever seen. I wish I could explain why my natural affinity is more for Tina Fey—perhaps it’s the fact that we both wear glasses and have brown rather than “yellow” hair—but Amy Poehler is just as fantastic and integral in what I call the lady balls of comedy movement. Other members of note, though certainly not the only ones: the late great Gilda Radner, Jane Curtin, Aubrey Plaza, Paula Pell, Kristin Wiig, Rachel Dratch, Jane Lynch, Amy Sedaris, and Chelsea Handler.
To end, a quote from Amy Poehler on what her work means to her. I think that, besides giving women equal opportunity in comedy, this is the main goal of the work all these ballsy women do:
“I get worried for young girls sometimes; I want them to feel that they can be sassy and full and weird and geeky and smart and independent, and not so withered and shriveled.”
Monday, April 18, 2011
I Practice Tina Fey-ism
I mentioned Bossypants in passing in my last post, but it deserves a full one of it's own; I am not the least bit embarrassed to say that I spent 100 days counting down to its release and that it was totally worth it.
Actually, it's not so much the book as the woman behind it that I'm choosing to write about. I am truly in awe of Tina Fey, and am inspired by her in so many ways: her humor, her creativity, her bravery, her diverse talents, her career path. Seeing her brilliance is what convinced me to try my hand at screenwriting, and I owe to her all the fun I'm having while trying and trying again to follow in her footsteps. To sum up how I feel about the woman, if I could handpick a person to be the older sister I always wanted but never had, it would hands-down be Tina Fey.
I'm not the only one who feels this way, either; Donald Glover, now a writer/comedian/actor/rapper in possession of my devotion and his own illustrious career, raps in The Last:
But rather than rambling on about the fabulousness of Fey, I'll share with you some of her brilliance so she can speak for herself. Without further ado, an excerpt from Bossypants by Tina Fey:
The Mother's Prayer for Its Daughter
Now please do yourself the colossal favor of BUYING THIS BOOK. Preferably from a Borders so that I'm not out of a job.
Those have to be Alec Baldwin's arms, right?
I'm not the only one who feels this way, either; Donald Glover, now a writer/comedian/actor/rapper in possession of my devotion and his own illustrious career, raps in The Last:
And this next part sounds like nonsense/But I swear to God Tina Fey gave me confidence/Taught me everything that's good comes from honesty/Everybody's got a voice, you've just gotta follow it/She's a role model, sh*tHis deep admiration of Tina Fey is more justifiable, considering she actually handpicked him to write for 30 Rock while he was still an undergrad at NYU, but it's nice to know that my fanaticism is both shared and grounded in some reality.
But rather than rambling on about the fabulousness of Fey, I'll share with you some of her brilliance so she can speak for herself. Without further ado, an excerpt from Bossypants by Tina Fey:
The Mother's Prayer for Its Daughter
First, Lord: No tattoos. May neither Chinese symbol for truth nor Winnie-the-Pooh holding the FSU logo stain her tender haunches.May she be Beautiful but not Damaged, for it’s the Damage that draws the creepy soccer coach’s eye, not the Beauty.When the Crystal Meth is offered, may she remember the parents who cut her grapes in half And stick with Beer.Guide her, protect her when crossing the street, stepping onto boats, swimming in the ocean, swimming in pools, walking near pools, standing on the subway platform, crossing 86th Street, stepping off of boats, using mall restrooms, getting on and off escalators, driving on country roads while arguing, leaning on large windows, walking in parking lots, riding Ferris wheels, roller-coasters, log flumes, or anything called “Hell Drop,” “Tower of Torture,” or “The Death Spiral Rock ‘N Zero G Roll featuring Aerosmith,” and standing on any kind of balcony ever, anywhere, at any age.Lead her away from Acting but not all the way to Finance. Something where she can make her own hours but still feel intellectually fulfilled and get outside sometimes And not have to wear high heels. What would that be, Lord? Architecture? Midwifery? Golf course design? I’m asking You, because if I knew, I’d be doing it, Youdammit.May she play the Drums to the fiery rhythm of her Own Heart with the sinewy strength of her Own Arms, so she need Not Lie With Drummers.Grant her a Rough Patch from twelve to seventeen.Let her draw horses and be interested in Barbies for much too long, For childhood is short – a Tiger Flower blooming Magenta for one day – And adulthood is long and dry-humping in cars will wait.O Lord, break the Internet forever, that she may be spared the misspelled invective of her peers And the online marketing campaign for Rape Hostel V: Girls Just Wanna Get Stabbed.And when she one day turns on me and calls me a Bitch in front of Hollister, Give me the strength, Lord, to yank her directly into a cab in front of her friends, For I will not have that Shit. I will not have it.And should she choose to be a Mother one day, be my eyes, Lord, that I may see her, lying on a blanket on the floor at 4:50 A.M., all-at-once exhausted, bored, and in love with the little creature whose poop is leaking up its back. “My mother did this for me once,” she will realize as she cleans feces off her baby’s neck. “My mother did this for me.” And the delayed gratitude will wash over her as it does each generation and she will make a Mental Note to call me. And she will forget. But I’ll know, because I peeped it with Your God eyes.Amen.
Online source: http://melodygodfred.com/2011/04/15/a-mothers-prayer-for-its-child-by-tina-fey/
Now please do yourself the colossal favor of BUYING THIS BOOK. Preferably from a Borders so that I'm not out of a job.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Excuse me, HOW many books?
I was flipping through Slate online today--though I suppose "flipping" wouldn't be the correct term, as it's a website, so I better say browsing--and I stumbled upon an interview with author Adam Goodheart. Goodheart wrote 1861, which covers the beginning of the Civil War. As you would expect of a historical writer, the man is very well informed about the war between the states, but the interviewer brought up a very interesting point:
Go ahead and call me a sap for believing in the thirst for knowledge rather than the thirst for author fees, but I'm happy in my idealistic camp. Maybe I'll pick up 1861 after finishing Bossypants. After all, I've already read April 1865; I should try and collect one for every year.
Slate: I recently heard Yale Professor David Blight say that there have been more books published on the Civil War than there have been days since the Civil War ended—more than 70,000 of them. Why does the world need another one?
Goodheart: Another figure is that there have been more Civil War books published than there were soldiers at the battle of Bull Run. But I feel like the Civil War is one of those great stories that can just keep being visited and revisited. It's famously been compared to the Iliad and the Odyssey, in that there's a new way to narrate it in each generation.I should note that the bolding of the text was my addition, because holy cow who would've thunk it? I think some people would call it overkill, which is what the interviewer was clearly insinuating, but I have to agree with Goodheart. It says something about our natural curiosity that we continue to explore such an important event for so long and from so many different angles. I'm sure that each book has something different about it, something that makes it a worthwhile investigation into one of the most devastating periods in our nation's history. The magnitude of the study of the Civil War shows not we want to learn not only about history, but more importantly from history; we are smart enough to try and learn from mistakes--not only our own, but those made by generations before us. We should celebrate the relentless pursuit of understanding, especially when it's of something that ripped people apart and changed the course of (at least American) history.
Go ahead and call me a sap for believing in the thirst for knowledge rather than the thirst for author fees, but I'm happy in my idealistic camp. Maybe I'll pick up 1861 after finishing Bossypants. After all, I've already read April 1865; I should try and collect one for every year.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The French Burqa Ban
Former President George W. Bush suffered a serious loss this week, and no, it wasn’t his excellent golf handicap or his beautiful Crawford ranch. In a humiliating defeat, Bush lost the title of most-perceived Islamophobic Western leader. Adding insult to injury, he lost it to Nicolas Sarkozy.
Last Monday the visages découverts, or open faces, law came into effect in France. If you take the headlines at face value, the law is a means of persecuting Muslim women by banning the burqa and the niqab, face-covering veils worn in accordance with cultural-religious tradition by about 2000 women, in all public places. The French government thought it was sneaky enough not to make this ban explicit and targeted; on paper, visages découverts prohibits anything that obscures the full face from view. So then whom else does it affect? Bank robbers? Beekeepers? Batman? Clearly this law not-so-subtly targets Muslim women who wear a niqab, especially when considering that it includes heavier fines and prison time for anyone who forces someone out in public with an offending face covering—a common accusation tossed at the husbands and other male family members of observing women. Who knew politically correct ambiguity could be so prejudicially clear?
The government claims this is all for security reasons, so that threatening individuals cannot cover their faces in order to gain entrance somewhere they do not belong or to evade pursuing authorities. Every time I hear this, I can’t help but think of Sex and the City 2 when Carrie Bradshaw and Co. borrow burqas from fashionable Muslim women to escape an angry mob in Abu Dhabi—an angry mob chasing them down the streets after Samantha infuriates them by wearing shorts and carrying condoms. Are heavily stereotyped American movies where the French officials are finding their information about the nefarious uses of the burqa? It seems ridiculous to suggest that a bank robber, terrorist, or any other criminal would try to get away with that; many women who choose to wear the burqa say they would willingly reveal their face to an official who asked politely for identification purposes. It shouldn’t take discriminatory legislation for law enforcement to be suspicious of anyone adamantly refusing to show their face in relevant security circumstances.
Popular speculation is that Sarkozy pushed the law into effect to satisfy the far-right (read: anti-immigration and hyper-nationalist) French, particularly those belonging to the National Front Party. By banning all face-covering veils, Sarkozy has found a palatable way to outlaw a visible Islamic tradition and force assimilation. This isn’t the first attempt at homogenization sanctioned by the French government; a 2004 law banned niqabs as well as hijabs in public schools. However, the ban was not limited to forms of Muslim religious expression; it outlawed all religious wardrobe choices, including skullcaps and crosses. At least then it was equal opportunity religious repression in the name of nationalism, and not something as clearly Islamophobic as visages découvertes.
The press has jumped at the chance to criticize the Islamophobia inherent in the law; one op-ed ran with the title “France’s burqa ban: Has Europe forgotten the gas chambers?” However, sensationalism aside, visages découvertes seems to aim more at national identity building than persecution. Sarkozy crossed a line with this one, but it was a misguided effort at creating a unified France rather than a blatant attack on Islam. It probably seemed particularly convenient to target the niqab to placate the vicious far-right, but the motives lie in something less bigamous. Sarkozy didn’t outlaw veils because he thinks every woman in a niqab is a suicide bomber, but that sure is what it looks like. The French president and all of France appear religiously intolerant and oppressive, and appearance means a lot in international relations. The perception that France is anti-Muslim has created a backlash in Turkey and will certainly cause further problems. Beyond the reputation-damaging nature of the legislation, it should go without saying that it is essentially wrong to restrict religious freedom that does no harm to others. The law certainly needs to be repealed, and the French government needs to find some other less offensive and repressive way to unite its citizenry; punishing women for or restricting them from wearing their traditional religious or cultural dress with drive people apart, not bring them together.
But for now, citizens of France, don't plan on rocking a mask for Halloween.
Last Monday the visages découverts, or open faces, law came into effect in France. If you take the headlines at face value, the law is a means of persecuting Muslim women by banning the burqa and the niqab, face-covering veils worn in accordance with cultural-religious tradition by about 2000 women, in all public places. The French government thought it was sneaky enough not to make this ban explicit and targeted; on paper, visages découverts prohibits anything that obscures the full face from view. So then whom else does it affect? Bank robbers? Beekeepers? Batman? Clearly this law not-so-subtly targets Muslim women who wear a niqab, especially when considering that it includes heavier fines and prison time for anyone who forces someone out in public with an offending face covering—a common accusation tossed at the husbands and other male family members of observing women. Who knew politically correct ambiguity could be so prejudicially clear?
Pictured: Kenza Drider, 32, was detained for wearing her niqab in front of the Notre Dame Cathedral.
The government claims this is all for security reasons, so that threatening individuals cannot cover their faces in order to gain entrance somewhere they do not belong or to evade pursuing authorities. Every time I hear this, I can’t help but think of Sex and the City 2 when Carrie Bradshaw and Co. borrow burqas from fashionable Muslim women to escape an angry mob in Abu Dhabi—an angry mob chasing them down the streets after Samantha infuriates them by wearing shorts and carrying condoms. Are heavily stereotyped American movies where the French officials are finding their information about the nefarious uses of the burqa? It seems ridiculous to suggest that a bank robber, terrorist, or any other criminal would try to get away with that; many women who choose to wear the burqa say they would willingly reveal their face to an official who asked politely for identification purposes. It shouldn’t take discriminatory legislation for law enforcement to be suspicious of anyone adamantly refusing to show their face in relevant security circumstances.
Popular speculation is that Sarkozy pushed the law into effect to satisfy the far-right (read: anti-immigration and hyper-nationalist) French, particularly those belonging to the National Front Party. By banning all face-covering veils, Sarkozy has found a palatable way to outlaw a visible Islamic tradition and force assimilation. This isn’t the first attempt at homogenization sanctioned by the French government; a 2004 law banned niqabs as well as hijabs in public schools. However, the ban was not limited to forms of Muslim religious expression; it outlawed all religious wardrobe choices, including skullcaps and crosses. At least then it was equal opportunity religious repression in the name of nationalism, and not something as clearly Islamophobic as visages découvertes.
The press has jumped at the chance to criticize the Islamophobia inherent in the law; one op-ed ran with the title “France’s burqa ban: Has Europe forgotten the gas chambers?” However, sensationalism aside, visages découvertes seems to aim more at national identity building than persecution. Sarkozy crossed a line with this one, but it was a misguided effort at creating a unified France rather than a blatant attack on Islam. It probably seemed particularly convenient to target the niqab to placate the vicious far-right, but the motives lie in something less bigamous. Sarkozy didn’t outlaw veils because he thinks every woman in a niqab is a suicide bomber, but that sure is what it looks like. The French president and all of France appear religiously intolerant and oppressive, and appearance means a lot in international relations. The perception that France is anti-Muslim has created a backlash in Turkey and will certainly cause further problems. Beyond the reputation-damaging nature of the legislation, it should go without saying that it is essentially wrong to restrict religious freedom that does no harm to others. The law certainly needs to be repealed, and the French government needs to find some other less offensive and repressive way to unite its citizenry; punishing women for or restricting them from wearing their traditional religious or cultural dress with drive people apart, not bring them together.
But for now, citizens of France, don't plan on rocking a mask for Halloween.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
A Working Vacation
Japan is bordering on nuclear meltdown, Gadafi is slaughtering his citizens in Libya, and Charlie Sheen has launched a violent torpedo of truth stateside. As the world burns around him, Obama went on Spring Break 2011.
Well, that’s what his critics would like you to think. To them, the President wasted his time relaxing on the Brazilian beaches and drinking Chilean wine during his diplomatic trip to Central and South America when he should have been seated in the Oval Office saving the world. But Obama was right not to cancel his tour of the Southern cone, despite recent world events; to do so would have been a slap in the face to a region that is historically slighted but presently vital.
It's not as if Obama's trip prevented him from doing what was in our national interest during the situations in Asia and North Africa. In regards to Libya, from the moment the President touched down in Brazil he was involved in briefings, meetings, and conference calls with Washington making decisions about US military action. In fact, strategy meetings on Libya were both the first and last things Obama did in South America. People seem to forget that we live in a highly interconnected world, one in which the President could conduct his necessary business from anywhere. Secure connections to DC were established whenever Obama was on the ground in Brazil, Chile, or El Salvador, and while most of us watch re-runs of sitcoms while we sit through cramped plane rides, he has an entire mobile command center at his fingertips midair in Air Force One. Even in the middle of a state dinner in Chile he was receiving updates about the US fighter jet crash in Libya. Obama is famously our most technology addicted President (remember all the articles about giving up his precious Blackberry when he first entered office?), and, like a teenager waiting for gossip during a family dinner, distance was not going to get in the way of doing what needed to be done.
All of the technology Obama has to communicate with is public knowledge, so it seems like those criticizing the trip south are more opposed to the symbolic disappearance of Our President from Washington, DC during a time of international crisis. Yes, it is still a bit disturbing to think that, while our soldiers are prepping for air strikes in Libya and risking nuclear exposure in Japan, Obama was posing for family snapshots under Cristo Redentor; again, not because he was inactive about the global crises, but because it looks as if he bailed when the going got tough. But for those so concerned about perception, consider what it would have looked like if Obama had cancelled the trip.
The journey took Obama first to Brazil, a state that both the US and the rest of the world acknowledge to be important in the very near future. It is the largest economy in South America and still growing, it will host the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janiero, and it has a huge oil reserve that presents an alternative to exorbitant Middle Eastern petrol prices; it's nominal membership in the Big Four/BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries alone announces its global growth and importance in the coming years. To cancel his visits with the newly elected, first female President Dilma Rousseff would have been disrespectful to a nation that we cannot afford to disrespect--especially as, like the rest of Latin America, it forms stronger ties to China.
Obama then travelled to Chile, where a US president met one-on-one with a Chilean president in Chile for the first time in over two decades. The last time was when Bush senior visited in 1990, to visit with the then-newly inaugurated President Lagos--the first elected Chilean head of state since the US-supported coup that put military tyrant and human rights abuser Augusto Pinochet in power for 17 years. In the time since that last visit, the US has become a huge consumer of Chilean exports, particularly agricultural products such as fruit and wine, and Chile has become the most economically competitive state in its region, even joining the OECD. Plus, just over a year ago Chile experienced an 8.8 earthquake (coming in just under the 9.0 in Japan) and has barely skipped a beat during its recovery. As with Brazil, to slight Chile by canceling his meetings with President Piñera would have been a symbolic backhand in the face of a state the holds rising economic power in our immediate vicinity.
The last leg of the trip was somewhat randomly to El Salvador, but again this is a nation that has symbolic if not material gravitas for the US. The small Central American state is important as more workers migrate to the US and illegal drug activity is pushed south of Mexico, but also because it is controlled by a leftist and Marxist-guerilla backed president that wants to build a strong relationship with the US; President Funes felt that Obama's planned visit was validation of his state's importance and his domestically criticized pro-Washington stance. To cancel would have been to turn back on a state that has gone out on an unprecedented limb to warm to the US despite being far-leftist.
Each of the states that Obama visited hold measurable and emblematic importance to US relations, particularly when it comes to economic and political alliance; securing pan-American agendas that include US interests such as oil, free trade, and democracy is rightfully so a priority of this administration. Plus, one of the blessings of our technology addicted world is this: President Obama can save the world from anywhere.
Well, that’s what his critics would like you to think. To them, the President wasted his time relaxing on the Brazilian beaches and drinking Chilean wine during his diplomatic trip to Central and South America when he should have been seated in the Oval Office saving the world. But Obama was right not to cancel his tour of the Southern cone, despite recent world events; to do so would have been a slap in the face to a region that is historically slighted but presently vital.
It's not as if Obama's trip prevented him from doing what was in our national interest during the situations in Asia and North Africa. In regards to Libya, from the moment the President touched down in Brazil he was involved in briefings, meetings, and conference calls with Washington making decisions about US military action. In fact, strategy meetings on Libya were both the first and last things Obama did in South America. People seem to forget that we live in a highly interconnected world, one in which the President could conduct his necessary business from anywhere. Secure connections to DC were established whenever Obama was on the ground in Brazil, Chile, or El Salvador, and while most of us watch re-runs of sitcoms while we sit through cramped plane rides, he has an entire mobile command center at his fingertips midair in Air Force One. Even in the middle of a state dinner in Chile he was receiving updates about the US fighter jet crash in Libya. Obama is famously our most technology addicted President (remember all the articles about giving up his precious Blackberry when he first entered office?), and, like a teenager waiting for gossip during a family dinner, distance was not going to get in the way of doing what needed to be done.
All of the technology Obama has to communicate with is public knowledge, so it seems like those criticizing the trip south are more opposed to the symbolic disappearance of Our President from Washington, DC during a time of international crisis. Yes, it is still a bit disturbing to think that, while our soldiers are prepping for air strikes in Libya and risking nuclear exposure in Japan, Obama was posing for family snapshots under Cristo Redentor; again, not because he was inactive about the global crises, but because it looks as if he bailed when the going got tough. But for those so concerned about perception, consider what it would have looked like if Obama had cancelled the trip.
The journey took Obama first to Brazil, a state that both the US and the rest of the world acknowledge to be important in the very near future. It is the largest economy in South America and still growing, it will host the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janiero, and it has a huge oil reserve that presents an alternative to exorbitant Middle Eastern petrol prices; it's nominal membership in the Big Four/BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries alone announces its global growth and importance in the coming years. To cancel his visits with the newly elected, first female President Dilma Rousseff would have been disrespectful to a nation that we cannot afford to disrespect--especially as, like the rest of Latin America, it forms stronger ties to China.
Obama then travelled to Chile, where a US president met one-on-one with a Chilean president in Chile for the first time in over two decades. The last time was when Bush senior visited in 1990, to visit with the then-newly inaugurated President Lagos--the first elected Chilean head of state since the US-supported coup that put military tyrant and human rights abuser Augusto Pinochet in power for 17 years. In the time since that last visit, the US has become a huge consumer of Chilean exports, particularly agricultural products such as fruit and wine, and Chile has become the most economically competitive state in its region, even joining the OECD. Plus, just over a year ago Chile experienced an 8.8 earthquake (coming in just under the 9.0 in Japan) and has barely skipped a beat during its recovery. As with Brazil, to slight Chile by canceling his meetings with President Piñera would have been a symbolic backhand in the face of a state the holds rising economic power in our immediate vicinity.
The last leg of the trip was somewhat randomly to El Salvador, but again this is a nation that has symbolic if not material gravitas for the US. The small Central American state is important as more workers migrate to the US and illegal drug activity is pushed south of Mexico, but also because it is controlled by a leftist and Marxist-guerilla backed president that wants to build a strong relationship with the US; President Funes felt that Obama's planned visit was validation of his state's importance and his domestically criticized pro-Washington stance. To cancel would have been to turn back on a state that has gone out on an unprecedented limb to warm to the US despite being far-leftist.
Each of the states that Obama visited hold measurable and emblematic importance to US relations, particularly when it comes to economic and political alliance; securing pan-American agendas that include US interests such as oil, free trade, and democracy is rightfully so a priority of this administration. Plus, one of the blessings of our technology addicted world is this: President Obama can save the world from anywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)