One Size Fits 70 Million

Here’s my latest contribution to the Beacon’s opinion page. This piece is similar in subject matter to one I did in August (I think it was August), but I used different arguments and did not use the first person. The following is as I submitted it (slightly longer and more pompous). I’m going to try something new and include the links where I got my information. I haven’t been accused of making shit up, but I don’t wanna be. The links to the respective webpages are at the bottom, after the article. You can find the article as it ran on the Beacon’s website (http://www.berkeleybeacon.com/home/) if you like. This week’s pieces weren’t posted when I went to look for them. Alas, who needs to read opinion at 2:30am anyways? I’ll take the hint. Goodnight.

Chris

On Sunday mornings, the Emerson campus is just about dead. However, a number of students rise early on Sundays, braving the deserted campus to go to church. More than 40% of Americans regularly attend religious services, but among college students the share is significantly smaller. This is especially true at Emerson, a secular school with no religious affiliation.

This is not to say that religion is absent from Emerson College. In fact, at Emerson there is an active dialogue on the validity of religion, and the effect it has on our society. This discussion focuses around Christianity, the largest religion in the United States and the world. In these discussions, Christians—especially evangelical Christians—are often characterized as ignorant, easily-led fools who are exclusively white and live in the South and Midwest.

This is extremely un-post-modern belief to be held by a student body that claims to adhere to the post-modern school of thought. Is it possible to paint an entire population of people with such a broad brush? Haven’t Emersonians agreed that racial stereotypes are sadistic and unfair? Haven’t we debunked such mistruths in our classes and amongst our peers?

An estimated 70 million Americans consider themselves evangelicals—the same amount of people who live in Turkey, the seventeenth largest country in the world. The 2000 Census found that 41 million Latinos and 35 million African-Americans live in America. Are blacks lazy? Are Puerto Ricans dirty? Do all Turk villages have an operating Turkish Twist designated for communal use?

Emerson is not a school that excels in mathematics, but we should realize that if we cannot make generalizations about blacks and Latinos because the size and diversity of their demographic, we cannot possibly generalize about evangelical Christians—a group nearly two times as large.

It is sad to see that we have relapsed so far into the pitfalls of “knowing” through generalization instead of experience and fact. Stereotypes are borne of kernels of truth—but they can’t be extrapolated to make popcorn that conveniently substitutes for first-hand experience.

The prominence of these views of evangelicals raises some questions: have the people espousing these views ever been to a church service at an evangelical church? Have they ever met, talked to, or befriended an evangelical Christian? Or better yet, have they ever known that the people they live and know—coworkers, professors, friends—are evangelical Christians?

Evangelical does not mean fundamentalist or conservative. Evangelical Christians are very much like other Christians, with a few distinctions. Evangelicalism is expressed more overtly than how Christianity was in the past—it has been updated so modern Christians can adapt their practices in the current culture. In medieval monasteries, monks were harshly punished for laughing. Others were forbidden from making music. In Christian circles today, laughter and music are cherished and embraced.

Accusations that evangelicals are hateful and ignorant are in themselves hateful and ignorant. Applying common labels to any racial, religious or cultural group is misguided and wrong.

It cannot be denied that some evangelical Christians are out of their tree, and the portrayal of evangelical Christians in the media does not help. The most provocative, controversial talking heads get the most airtime, and leave the impression that all evangelicals are red-faced bags of hate and hot air. Christianity is a humble religion, but humble voices are too quiet to be heard, so we’re left with the ranting and raving of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Really, evangelicals don’t like these guys much more than anyone else: a poll of white evangelicals showed approval ratings for the two were 44% and 54%, respectively.

There are some evangelicals who are bigoted and hateful, but it has nothing to do with being an evangelical Christian. People are hateful. People are bigoted. It is not an exclusive trait dominated by any one group.

Emerson students must look at the facts. Evangelicals are not solely responsible for the presidency of George W. Bush or for gay marriage bans in effect in twenty-six of our states. In fact, an ABC poll taken last June indicates that 58% of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be illegal. While about one in four Americans are evangelical Christians, the other three are not.

Statistically speaking, no matter where one lives, they are sure to know plenty of evangelical Christians. So go out and talk to them—you can’t not. Break your pre-misconceptions, make some friends, and change the way you look at things. You know, by actually looking at them, not by taking rumor or someone else’s word for fact.

“An estimated 70 million evangelicals”: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/05/60minutes/main598218.shtml

Robertson/Falwell poll:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=1610

“More than 40% of Americans regularly attend religious services”: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

“58% of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be illegal”:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/story?id=2041689&page=1

Fat guy in a little coat...

This is my draft of an opinion piece that ran in this past Thursday’s issue of The Berkeley Beacon—the Emerson’s newspaper. The editors decided to change the point of view from second person singular to first person collective, along with additional, slight changes. I know my editors know a hell of a lot more about newspapering than I do, but I think the title the piece was given, “America: Don’t Blame the Big Mac”, was trite and a misrepresentation of the real focus of the article: personal accountibilty and behavioral change. The piece as it ran is here:

http://media.www.berkeleybeacon.com/media/storage/paper169/news/2007/02/01/Opinion/America.Dont.Blame.The.Big.Mac-2691992.shtml?sourcedomain=www.berkeleybeacon.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

Let me just say that I do not mean to offend. If people think I’m being mean or unfair, I would disagree, but you certainly have the right to voice your objections in comments. This is a subject we do not talk about nearly enough. The national dialogue on the obesity epidemic is severely lacking, and I thought I needed to bust through the door on this one, not knock on it. --Chris

America, you’ve gotten fat. No, you’re not just portly, big-boned, large-framed, husky, solid or rotund. That isn’t winter weight. It’s not baby fat either. America, let’s face it: you have a weight problem.

It doesn’t mean you’re bad people, America, you just need to lose some weight. Obesity is just like any other problem people deal with—a bad temper, personal debt, selfishness—it can be rationalized and explained away, or it can be recognized and attacked at its root. Obesity isn’t the plague; you don’t need to deny it or make excuses, it’s really quite common in our culture. You have plenty of moral support: 63 percent of adult Americans are overweight. The chances are good that someone very close to you is struggling with their weight as well. Dieting and weight loss can be isolating, make sure to do it with a friend. It makes your effort easier and more sustainable. Until we face up to our national weight problem, that percentage—and our waistlines—will keep growing.

And please America, don’t “genetics” or “slow metabolism” me. Be honest with yourself: you need to change. Sure, some people have slower metabolisms, and some people have historically overweight families, but don’t expect your metabolism to speed itself up without exercise, and don’t expect to stay thin while eating more food than you need. Obesity is the result of bad habits and behaviors, and if these bad habits can be replaced with good ones, you can get into shape.

These habits are pretty easy to recognize. In 1970, you consumed 2,200 calories a day. Today, you consume 2,700. America has been called “the land of plenty,” but today it should be called “the land of too much.” Portion sizes have ballooned out of control, making it impossible for you to maintain your weight. The statistics are eye (and pants button) popping. Check this one out: Americans consume more than 23 quarts of ice cream and other frozen products a year.

Yet despite this increase in caloric intake, you lead increasingly sedative lives. Today, 90% of American travel takes place in cars, buses, or trains. Only 15 percent of you exercise vigorously for at least 20 minutes three times a week. Our country spends $33 billion a year on food designed for weight loss, but without exercise, reduced fat Oreos can’t help you lose weight. And this is pretty embarrassing America: you spend more money on fast food than higher education. Many of you go to Big Mac U multiple times each week.

But America, don’t blame McDonald’s, blame yourselves. It doesn’t matter if the nutritional information isn’t posted on the wall, you should know that a large two cheeseburger meal with a Coke is packed with calories (1480 without ketchup), and that you should probably have a salad for your next meal. America, don’t have sympathy for the people who blame McDonalds for making them fat. When the consumer pushes their own money across the counter to buy food they put into their mouths, the corporation is not at fault. Use your head America: fast food is not health food.

That’s what this is all about America: you taking personal responsibility, you not pointing fingers at someone else. Don’t rely on food companies and restaurants to shield you from their most fattening foods. These companies exist to make money, what do you expect? Don’t talk about not having time to go to the gym. If you have enough time to watch Desperate Housewives and Grey’s Anatomy every week, you have enough time to work out. Don’t pass the buck America, seize it. And put it towards the purchase of a Stairmaster.

Chris hates cell phones.

Let me take a moment to enlighten you with my views on cell phones:

Cell phones suck. On the scale of month-old seafood (awful) to freshly slaughtered, almost-still-mooing veal (fucking awesome), cell phones are about on the same level as rancid milk. I can’t say that cell phones don’t cause cancer (well, I can really say anything. booooobs.), but cell phones do suck out your soul through your mouth. It’s sorta like dementors from Harry Potter, but much, much worse. The use of cell phones will turn you into a shadow of a human being, like Paris Hilton, or a stock broker, or even Paris Hilton’s stock broker (condom/sex toy sector diversified through stilettos market).

Working in a grocery store, it’s the worst. All these freaks come out of their holes to come to the grocery store and make phone calls. Like, wtf? First of all, overweight middle-aged polo shirt and blue jeans dude: YOU DO NOT LOOK COOL WITH THAT RETARDED EARPIECE. Wearing some Star Trekish device on your ear (see Figure 1) does not entitle you to cut people in line or pick up elderly persons and hurl them into a display of Sun Chips©. It doesn’t matter how “busy” you look, you are fooling no one, because in reality, you look “retarded.” And I can tell that the conversation you’re having is fake, because you’re talking about the ‘69 Mets, and no one talks about that in a cell phone conversation. Even though the ’69 Mets may be the extent of your philosophical knowledge, shutup. Sure, I mean, Tom Seaver was lights out (25 wins in 36 starts? What a freaking horse!), but just no, dude. Leave that shit in a sports bar.

But the grocery store.

Every day, I see some vapid, mindless human being calling their spouse asking if they want “lite” ice cream or the “reduced fat” one. Shit, people, it doesn’t matter. It’s ice cream, not someone going into labor. Get off the cell phone and make the decision for yourselves. You don’t need to be sending all kinds of rays up into space (the Soviets are listening) to figure out what kind of potato chips you should buy.

And at the checkout, cell phones are OUT OF CONTROL (emphasis added). I think a $1000 surcharge on every customer using a cell phone at checkout would be very progressive. Seriously, who can’t wait the three extra minutes until they’re out of the store to talk on their phones? I mean, Linda is still going to be cheating on Don with the same person after you’ve paid for your groceries (I know, I know. Linda is a wicked whore, but even she can’t move that fast). And somehow, these people manage to turn the tables of guilt onto the employees. I get looks like, “how dare you stand behind the register and ring my groceries while I’m on the phone?” If these people had their way, we would turn our backs and chat quietly amongst ourselves until they have finished their cell phone conversation. Whenever we’re standing “too close” or not averting our eyes enough or something, these people shoot us nasty looks. I wish I could give those looks back, or break a bottle of vinegar over their stupid whore/man idiot heads, but my job requires me to not mortally injure our customers (effing rules and regulations. The Man is keeping me down). But really, it hasn’t occurred to these people that a supermarket is not the optimal place for a private conversation? Puhleese, I guess not. After all, the whole solar system revolves around them (Sorry Galileo, you’re wrong, bitch. The Sun is not the center of the universe, asshole. Stupid whore lady using her cell phone at checkout is).

On her way home from work, my mom calls to tell us she is on her way home (this would make throwing a surprise party for her exceptionally easy, but I digress). The retarded thing is that my mom’s commute lasts all of ten minutes. Maybe if you were coming home from Canada or something, Mom, it would be worth calling. But you’re coming home from one town over. She may as well devise a system of lantern signaling at the bank. We could probably see it from our house. One if by land, two if by sea, three if from Ipswich. Her call is pretty much a cue to get the farm animals off the couch/stop snorting cocaine/change out of women’s clothing. And when she calls, she’s all like “how was your day” and stuff. I’m not going to tell you how my day was when you’re practically pulling into the driveway. Balls, mom. Balls.

Cell phones ruin chances for conversation in perfectly conversational situations. Just take this passage from J. D. Salinger’s masterpiece, The Catcher in the Rye:

“You know those ducks in that lagoon right near Central Park South? That little lake? By any chance, do you happen to know where they go, the ducks, when it gets all frozen over? Do you happen to know, by any chance?” I realized it was only one chance in a million.

He turned around and looked at me like a madman, “What’re ya tryna do, bud?” he said. “I’m on my cell phone with one of my boys, for Chrissake.”

I rest my case.

The Grinch who stole the Holidays: PCness in December

It’s that time of the year: the time from Thanksgiving until new year’s. You know, the Holidays. Oh, uh, (tugs at collar, wipes brow with cocktail napkin) I mean the Christmas season…right.

Is anyone as sick of this as I am? I mean crap people, if we are going to argue about something, can’t it be something of substance? A cure for cancer? A way to end world hunger? Our favorite kind of chewing gum?

Doesn’t this come up again and again every year? And don’t we always move further away from reaching a common consensus? No matter what you call this part of the year, I am sure you agree that you do not want it overshadowed by the bickering of people who are inflexible and absolute that it always be called by one name and never by another.

Both Christmas wishers and Holidarians (to coin an awkward and ridiculous term) are wrong to launch a full-blown media war over this controversy. Petitions, lawsuits, and boycotts should be enacted on things that matter, not petty battles over what Wal-Mart calls their merchandise. Civic action is a finite resource, and it is disheartening to see it wasted on something so incredibly silly.

Whether you call it the Holiday spirit or the Christmas spirit, all this bad blood ruins it. This really does not have to be as complicated and divisive as we have made it to be.

My mom works as a bank teller. She has conversations with hundreds of people every day, and thoroughly loves developing relationships with her customers. Every December, she wishes people a Merry Christmas, and a lot of people wish her this in return. If they wish her Happy Holidays, she reciprocates, and says Happy Holidays to them. If they say Happy Chanukah, she says Happy Chanukah. Seasons Greetings—Seasons Greetings, Happy Kwanza—Happy Kwanza, Ramadan Wishes—Ramadan Wishes.

If someone came into Ipswich Co-op Bank and wished my mother a “good buy-one get- one free Lysol window spray day,” she would, without a doubt, wish one back to them too, and with all the sincerity in the world.

When someone wishes you a merry Christmas, whether you are a Christian makes no difference. In fact, a Muslim customer recently wished my mom a Merry Christmas as a gesture of personal respect and kindness. My mom was very touched. When someone wishes something unto you, they are opening up their heart, not trying to impose their religion.

That’s all “Merry Christmas” and any other greeting means. It doesn’t mean, “accept Jesus as your savior” or “all other religions are bunk.” Wishing someone a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Chanukah, or any other thing is an expression of love and goodwill. It works as a more personal and heartfelt “have a good one.” It is not an attempted conversion, not a display of power, not an evangelistic statement.

Ben Stein, a Jewish man, wrote a great editorial on this subject last December, and said “it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year.”

Over 95% of the United States population celebrates Christmas, and in our culture, Christmas is not a primarily religious holiday (only 80% of Americans are Christians; the math does not add up). When people think of Christmas, they primarily think of presents, friends and family, and Santa, not Jesus. As a Christian, I find this troubling, but I am not dismayed by it. I can still observe my religion when people wish me happy holidays, but I do not want to be told I do not have the option of giving people my blessing how I choose. Later in his editorial, Stein said “I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution, and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.”

All I want is to be able to wish people well and to mark observance of one of the most important days of my year. Is that too much to ask? So when you see me over the next few weeks, let me know what what you celebrate—Christmas, Holidays, Hanukah…or whatever else. I will be glad to wish it to you, provided that you let me do the same.

Read the entirety of Ben Stein’s editorial here: snopes.com/politics/soapbox/benstein2.asp

Read Lou Dobbs’ recent commentary on this subject here:
cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/Dobbs.Dec13/index.html

Soda Silliloquy (-that isn't misspelled. I want it that way.)

I like soda, but I don’t do caffeine and I only drink diet, so, my choices are usually very limited. I’ve found that Fresca is my favorite—especially after sweating profusely—but it isn’t hearty enough for the winter months. When it’s cold outside, I want some girth in my calorieless beverage, thank you very much. Diet A & W and Diet Barq’s Root Beer are very good, and are perfect to warm you up on a frigid winter day. Don’t ask me how, but it just works. I think the best diet soda I’ve had is Coca-Cola Zero. Damn son, they must put cocaine in that shit! Unfortunately, it has caffeine in it, and when I found that out, I had to stop drinking it. I mean, I walk when the sign says “don’t walk” and order steaks medium-rare, but caffeine in my soda? There’s just too much risk. Sprite Zero is good too, and that’s decaf. That one seems to have an extra propensity for producing burpage though, so only drink it if you’re going to be alone or with your wife (ay-oh!).

Diet Sunkist has a surprisingly natural taste, but you have to look pretty hard to find it. It’s usually in the bottom of the soda cooler wall next to the open carton of half-and-half the employees use for their coffee (that open carton is always there, but you chose to ignore it, like you do with all the other problems in your life. Good job, loser.). The thing is, hoboes like to drink Diet Sunkist, too. So if you give a hobo change, they’re probably going to use it to buy the last Diet Sunkist, mix it with Vodka, and then ramble on the street for hours on end about the conspiracy for Lithuanian paraplegics to take over the continent of Europe, “just like Hitler did.” For this specific reason, always think twice before giving away your money to street people. The bums probably deserve it anyways.

I don’t know what happened with diet ginger ale, but ever since I had it at my diabetic grandparents’ house when I was eight, it has been completely repulsive. How can they sell that stuff? It would be sort of like putting cat shit in a box of Chinese take-out and calling it spring rolls (actually, it’s exactly like that). I mean, how can my grandparents buy it? I mean, I know their taste buds are worn away and useless, but balls, this takes it to a whole new level. The fake ginger flavoring in combination with the artificial sweetener makes the drink doubly bitter and unpalatable. Ew guys, just, like—ew. The aftertaste is like blood mixed with Colgate toothpaste mixed with placenta. And yes, I know what that tastes like, so piss off. I don’t know why the FDA is messing around with all these prescription drugs and silicone breast implants and crap. Diet ginger ale is the real threat to the well-being of the American people.

Caffeine Free Diet Coke and Pepsi both taste like Moxie with an infusion of bath water (I’m actually making this one up, I haven’t tasted it, but I imagine that’s one of the uckiest (yes, uckiest, I didn’t want to use “yuckiest,” I think it would have been trite. And I am indeed using a parenthetical inside of a parenthetical. I digressed from my digression, what can I say? I do what I want. You just don’t mess with genius. Watch and learn ladies!)-tasting concoctions I could imagine). Nonetheless, I often end up drinking one of them, as they are carbonated, wet, and widely available.

So why did Chris go off on this wild tangent about soda? Well, Chris wanted to write about Double Big Gulps at 7/11, but he tends to take a while to get the hell around to his point. So anyways, Chris walked into 7/11 the other day, and was feeling rather parched.

Realizing that there were no good 20oz. sodas in the coolers (12oz. is a waste of money, dude, that was so not an option. Paying $1 for something that’s gonna cut his lip and give him a cold sore is like getting raped up the anus. No thanks.), he decided to wander on over to the soda fountain unit. Chris thought, “whoa, what are these paint buckets doing by the soda foun—oh, they’re Big Gulps!” Chris, deciding that the Big Gulp (22oz.) was insufficient, and that the Super Big Gulp (36oz.) was for pussies and the queers, wisely selected the Double Big Gulp (44oz. Hell yes). I mean, the Mega Gulp (64oz.) is just insane, who the hell could drink that much beverage?!? It was 9:12 at night, and Chris didn’t want to be up the whole night, so he wisely (Chris is quite wise) chose Caffeine Free Diet Coke. Upon filling the container and fitting it with the appropriate cover and straw, Chris proceeded to the checkout, whereupon he paid $1.25 for his prize.

$1.25 for this glorious tankard of liquid refreshment? Chris felt pretty sure he was the smartest, most innovative person in the history of the world. Da Vinci, Einstein, and Hawking ain’t got nutin on Chris, son. If he could get value like this out of every business transaction, no one could stand in his way. Not even Donald Trump and his laughable excuse for a hairpiece and a get-rich-quick book. Screw Donald Trump. Chris thinks Donald Trump is probably a retard, but he respects him because he can make good real estate deals. As far as Chris is concerned, that’s all that really matters—real estate deals.

So anyways, Chris was walking around Downtown Crossing, talking to his Mother on the celly, sporting his Double Big Gulp, and feeling quite at ease. Chris has it down: talk, sip, talk talk, sip, talk talk talk sip, talk, sip, talk talk, sip, ect. Surely no one could out-cool Chris “the cool” at this very moment. After a relatively brief interval, Chris finished the drink, and was unfazed by the fact that he had just ingested 44oz. of liquid and that the human stomach is only 32oz. big. Screw science. Chris never lets Science get in his way. Science blows. What has Science ever done for Chris, anyways? Chris called Science, and Science was all like, “oh, I tried to call you back, but I was in a bad cell, my phone dropped the call. Let’s do lunch or something!” Bullshit, Science. Bullshit. Chris knows better, you whore.

So about an hour later, Chris was pretty sure he was going into labor. Wow, I mean, Caffeine Free Diet Coke does some weird black magic crap when it gets all up inside you and stuff. Chris thought, “Whoa man, I’m pretty sure that this weird crap I feel like right now means that that skinny Japanese dude eating all those hot dogs is a real sport. Not like a sport like NASCAR, but like a sport like baseball. Wait, no, it’s like Rugby. Ruggggggggby.”

Chris peed blood every 20 minutes for the next three days and died in a pool of his own vomit. He was 19 years old. 7/11 used Chris’ $1.25 to buy three Diet Sunkists at wholesale price from Cadbury-Schweppes Inc. Damn you, 7/11. Damn you to Big Gulp hell.

Carville's First Corallary

I was lucky enough to have the following piece run in the opinion section of Emerson's school newspaper, The Berkeley Beacon. I hope to write for them something like every three weeks or so. I'll post my pieces here, but they may need a little contexualization. The following piece may not hold true at other institutions of higher learning, but I think that that the criticism is fair. In general, young people do not understand the economy, and make no effort to understand it. A few years ago I was having a survey discussion of all things poltics. Abortion, the war, same-sex marriage, and capital punishment all got their due, but when we came to the economy, this is what one person said: "I'm for the economy, I support it. A good economy is good." And that was it, we moved on to censorship. The entire economy summed up in one, meaningless sentance. Damn we were idiots. The following is my draft, not the edited version that appeared in the Beacon. This one is about 150 words longer. I'm really not that good at that whole brevity thing.

Since I arrived on campus this fall, I have heard the same words being used to describe Emerson College students. “Creative,” “Diverse,” and “Eccentric?” Yes, yes, and yes, I agree completely. “Politically active and aware?” Actually, not really. Although we Emersonians are passionate, the scope of our political knowledge is narrow, and when politics is discussed, we usually harp on the same, tired subjects.

Being politically aware does not mean knowing about and holding strong opinions on two, three, or four issues. It means having a handle on all aspects of current affairs, and being able to apply and discuss the government’s desired role (or desired absence) in every facet of your life.

Our student body tends to be concerned with social issues, especially abortion and same-sex marriage. As Emerson students may soon find out, putting “Legalize Same-Sex Marriage” on the campaign issues of their Facebooks does not count as political awareness.

There is another elephant in the room, and no one is talking about it: the economy. The state of our economy is the most direct determinant of the well-being and mood of the people of our country. Nothing is more crucial in the day-to-day lives of working Americans. Whether or not you have a timecard to punch and money in your pocket reigns supreme all other political issues. Three months worth of unpaid rent and an empty refrigerator sort of makes the debate over gay marriage seem petty.

This is not to say that political activism on the issue of same-sex marriage or other non-economic subjects is not admirable or not a public service. It certainly is. But there are a myriad of other issues that need to be addressed that are vitally important to our entire population, not just a small stratification of it.
Advocates for same-sex marriage argue that because the issue only directly effects same-sex couples, the rest of the population should lay down their arms and let the people whose lives it will impact have what they desperately want. It is frequently said that it is irresponsible and unfair for Congress to put so much time and energy towards efforts to abolish gay marriage. If this is true (and it is), then it is also irresponsible and unfair for intellectually gifted college students to expend the majority of their political energy on this issue and a few others.

To be completely transparent, I am personally opposed to same-sex marriage (but support legal partnership rights). Yet whether one fights for or against these social issues is irrelevant. Both sides of this debate are polarizing, and poison our political climate. We need to put things into perspective. We need to reprioritize. As a country, we have not reached the point where we can endlessly quibble at each other over these relatively inconsequential issues. We have too much left to solve, and too many problems that need solutions.

While they are important to many people in our country, the debates over gay marriage and abortion have grown into all-consuming monsters, and dominate the nation’s political discourse. After debating the issue of same-sex marriage, people are in no mood to talk about anything else. As a result of this, nothing gets done, and the maintenance of our economy has been halted in its tracks.

Anyone want to talk about our trade gap? Outsourcing? Big Oil? The estate tax? The national debt? Social security? The housing gap? CEO pay? Eminent domain? Our porous borders and hapless immigration system? I hope so. These are the exact kind of issues we need to be talking about when we are forming our generation’s vision for the future of America.

There is an economy going on, and we all need to understand it, because within the next four years, we are going to be a part of it, looking for a job. My Dad has always told me (more often in my more liberal days) that “when you grow up, you’ll understand money and you’ll understand politics.” I do not know if Emerson College students truly understand either of these, but understanding of the first leads to understanding of the other.

Emerson is an extremely liberal campus, and that is fine, as long as we look at issues all across the political spectrum, not just the “hot button” issues of the day. As James Carville once said: “It’s the economy, stupid!” I do not wish to insult the intelligence or intentions of Emerson students. It is because of our conviction and our enthusiasm that I know we can do better. So next time when you are complaining about Bush, be comprehensive: bash last year’s overtime law or CAFTA or something. Now if only we can find a way to form a Facebook group to protest corporate corruption, we may be on to something.

Democratic Majority...stop laughing, it happened.

This election was, as Jack Cafferty put it, about “Americans choosing what kind of bad government they want to have: one-party rule that will rubber stamp President Bush’s agenda, or a Congress with Democrats in charge, and nothing but gridlock and frustration for the next two years.”

Well, Americans chose door number two, and it won’t be long before we see if we have won a new car or a croquet set. We must realize that Democrats won back Congress last week in the same way the Tortoise beat the Hare: statistically, but not in their own right. Most of the Democrats’ campaign strategy comprised of shrinking quietly into the corner while Republicans floundered about in a perfect storm of political scandals and corruption. This election was very much like the elections of the Palestinian Authority last January: Fatah was corrupt and ineffective, and Hamas happened to be the only other option, so by default, they won.

I am not thrilled about the idea of a Democratic Congress, it just isn’t very inspiring. As this campaign was mostly a reflection of the implosion of Bush and the Republicans, Democrats did not have to present a cohesive set of policies. That may be a good thing for them, because if asked, they probably couldn’t have done it.

What changes will the Democrats make—what exactly do they stand for? CNN’s election exit polls tells us that the issues on voters’ minds were corruption, terrorism, the economy, and Iraq (in that order), yet the campaign yielded little in the way of Democrats’ solutions to these issues.

Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has laid out a laundry list of to-dos for the first 100 hours of the next Congress, calling it the “New Direction for America.” It is sort of like a new “Contract for America”, except made by Democrats, and heard of by no one.

Pelosi’s “New Direction”, according to HouseDemocrats.gov, includes an overhaul of ethics rules, which would, miraculously, “make this the most honest and open Congress in history.” Also on the list are raising the federal minimum wage, adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, passing a stem-cell bill, cutting interest rates for college loans in half, giving the government power to negotiate for lower drug prices, eliminating tax loopholes that outsource jobs, rescinding subsidies for Big Oil, putting money towards alternative energy sources, and adopting rules for a “pay-as-you-go”

Got all that?

If anybody happened to be wondering, 100 hours ago (if today is Thursday) was Sunday. Apparently, Nancy Pelosi is going to drink seven cups of expresso on Monday morning, lock the doors of the House chamber and not let anyone leave the floor until all this stuff gets done. If she can pull this off in one workweek, we can only imagine how much she will be able to accomplish in two years.

Now, I realize this is mostly political grandstanding. Pelosi is trying to shoot the moon, and if she falls short, so what, she has the rest of her term to work with. In my mind, if she can get two or three of these things accomplished in her first week, it would be a success. But is how she expects things to work? That she can throw some pixie dust in the air and effortlessly pass a bill? I sincerely hope that Pelosi is not as naïve as this list of 100 hours’ work suggests.

Mrs. Pelosi, take note—it’s not as easy as Schoolhouse Rock. Republicans had majorities in the House and Senate and Bush in the White House this past term and got nothing done. The Democrats’ majorities are smaller, and they will have to get through President Bush to pass anything, as they certainly will not be able to override his veto. The Republicans—still a very formidable minority, will make every effort to block the Democrats’ agenda, just as Democrats did to Republicans for the past two years.

It will be interesting to see if the Democrats can garner enough support to apply their agenda, however ambiguous it may be. For six years their job has been to stand in the way to slow down the charge of Bush and Company. Have their offensive muscles atrophied, or can Democrats present a political philosophy that connects with the concerns of the American people?

One thing that troubles me about the New Direction is that there is nothing regarding terrorism or Iraq. No assault rifle ban? No port-security measures? No discussion on what we can do go get out of the snake pit that is Iraq? Republican pundits may be right: the Democrats can take America in whatever direction they want, but if they ignore these key issues, a Democratic Congress might be the best thing for Republicans to run on in 2008.

How are The Sopranos and Jews connected? You'll never guess...

If you're reading a blog, I'm sure you've seen Loose Change.
It is a video that is part of the 9/11 Press for Truth organization, a loose collection of bloggers, forums, public speakers and videos that don't have any stated goals except to "expose the truth." Loose Change's creator and narrator, Dylan Avery, spliced together footage taken mainly from CNN and FOX News, along with additional footage from the Naudet Brothers (who made the documentary 9/11). Loose Change has grown in popularity since its creation, mainly spread by word of mouth and over conspiracy theory websites. In 2006 alone it had over 10 million viewers.

Immensely popular, Loose Change or its creators have made appearances in Vanity Fair, TIME Magazine, Empire Magazine and assorted smaller magazines. It has been aired on television in Pakistan, Portugal and Australia.

Dylan Avery was not a very successful man before Loose Change. He'd grown up in Oneota, New York, and by the age of 19 had applied twice to Purchase College's Film School and been rejected both times. He still holds only a high school diploma. It was his dream to be a famous director.

In May, 2002, Dylan was working construction when he ran into James Gandolfini at an opening party. That's right, the actor who plays Tony in The Sopranos. Dylan Avery apperantly cornered James Gandolfini and talked to him about his troubled film career (Dylan's, not James. James film career is going great, I hear he's getting a million an episode for Sopranos). Dylan paraphrases Gandolfini as saying, "if you want to be a successful director, you have to have something to say to the world." That month Dylan started working on Loose Change.

Originally Loose Change started as a fictional story about a group of friends that discover that their own government was behind the attacks of 9/11. Dylan himself has admitted this in an interview with "Movie Minutiae: Loose Change" :

"It was supposed to be making a fictional story about me and my friends discovering that 9/11 was an inside job, and doing something about it, and basically that happened in real life."

That fictional story was called Loose Change, and while Dylan changed the genre from fiction to fact, the name stayed. That right there is every college kid's dream, becoming famous, making a difference and living in a James Bond-type world all rolled into one. Except that it never happens.

But Dylan Avery was becoming more convinced the more old footage he surveyed. The first edition of Loose Change cost 2,000 dollars to make and is basically an hour and a half long Powerpoint. The first edition was not as well cut as the edition that followed, and Dylan was distributing it on cds that he was selling. When it was put on the internet it was originally funded and set up by one Phil Jayhan. Phil Jayhan runs letsroll911.org, a website that features Loose Change prominently. It also features a conspiracy theory that George Bush and Dick Cheney entertain male hookers (not kidding).

Loose Change is available on Google video, and held the top ranking position of most watched video until mid 2006. A Scripps Howard and Ohio University poll in July 2006, in the height of Loose Change frenzy, came up with these numbers. 16% of the respondents said "it's very likely" or "somewhat likely"..... "that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings." And 12% said that they "suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than an airliner captured by terrorists."

How just is it to promote such theories? The families of those aboard Flight 93 have been regarding their dead loved ones as heroes for years, and now there is a new view, on the most watched online video, that their loved one is alive somewhere, kept in an unused NASA station (this is actually asserted in the video). Is this an appropriate message to be sending to the public? To decide this I took a look at the 9/11 Truth Movement and its intentions.

Phil Jayhan, another member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, runs the website letsroll911.org. There he promotes Loose Change and other conspiracies. He is also known for suggesting that the September 11th attacks were caused by Jews. That's right, letsroll911.org suggests that a cabal of Jewish bankers control the world and orchestrate events like this to steal money and manipulate nations. He is also intensely anti-Israeli, and on his site you will find links to anti-Zionism sites that portray 9/11 as an attempt by Israel to gain more leverage in the Middle East. The words "Zionism" and "Zionist" pop up a lot on sites like letsroll911.org. And that site is considered a prominent member of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

And Loose Change is heavily connected to the 9/11 Truth Movement. In Loose Change there is a part where it states who the film is "Featuring Research" from. One of the four researchers is a blogger whose forum name is Killtown. The following is a quote by Killtown, posted on a holocaust forum.

"I've always had a problem with the claimed number of Jews that allegedly died there [Auschwitz]. I keep hearing "6 million" or "1.5 million" that alone is a HUGE discrepancy. Some say the number was as low as 280,000.
Suspecting what the Israeli/Palestine conflict is really about, the strong evidence Israel was involved with 9/11, and seeing how 9/11 was faked in general, it makes me wonder how much of the Holocaust was true or not."

All through Loose Change the screen zooms in and circles or focuses on one article of text. But almost all of those articles are articles that appeared in The American Free Press. The American Free Press is a political magazine that many have declared to be neo-Nazi, and takes a very strong anti-Israeli stance. It also features articles about a Jewish takeover of the world.

If one looks deep enough into the 9/11 Truth Movement, if one clicks on the links on the side of the many sites, there is usually a shadowy underground of anti-Semitic views, bigotry, and sometimes utter insanity.

A constant criticism of Loose Change has been that it cherry picked facts and photographs. I see little difference (in terms of moral intent) in cherry picking facts and photographs to promote a conspiracy theory or to promote a way in Iraq. This is called a documentary and thus degrades all documentaries. Loose Change makes it so when real independent investigative journalism comes along, the American public is likely to dismiss it.

Dylan Avery now appears constantly on talk shows and in news articles, and is becoming a recognizable face. on the 5th anniversary of 9/11 he was portrayed as a leader of the crowd of people standing outside Ground Zero. But he still has a facebook account. Reading an excerpt from that, it is easy to see the teenager with a high school diploma behind this phenomena.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006.
"its my birthday. again.

yeehaw i'm 23. i can.... be a year older. when i turn 25 i can rent a car, so there's something to look forward to.

thanks for all the well wishes, guys. i read almost every single one. don't be concerned, btw, just because we're driving around los angeles and meeting with charlie sheen doesn't mean we're letting fame get to our heads. it means we're making the necessary moves to get the truth into theaters next fall. that's all.

i'll always be a hippie from upstate new york. :D"

Dylan Avery was a hippie from upstate New York. While working construction because he had been rejected twice by a film school he got advice to shock the American public from Tony of the Sopranos, then he spliced together a fictional film about a group of friends finding out that 9/11 was an inside job, then he became convinced that his fictional film was real and started marketing it online to people like Phil Jayhan, who runs an anti-Semitic website, then he used sources from an anti-Semitic newspaper in his once-fiction-now-fact documentary, and research from a Holocaust-denier, and then it became one of the most watched videos on the web, and four years after he started in May 2002, he is riding around Los Angeles meeting Charlie Sheen.

Dylan Avery is certainly living his dream as a great director, with his own studio company and his own star power. But is it really clear that he's doing this to expose the truth? Or is he just living out a fantasy? And if he is just living out a fantasy, is it right to take the American public along for the ride?

Great Wal of...Kentucky, or something.

I, as many of you know, proudly own and display a collection of eccentric (maybe plain weird is more accurate) t-shirts. The purpose of these shirts ranges from fishing for a laugh to referring to an inside joke to stating my beliefs. This August, lightning struck again.

Upon Googling “Walmart sucks boycott anti tshirt,” I found this: http://www.fatamerican.tv/shirtpage/sweat-shop.htm

While some people will giggle at my shirt, I take it very seriously. Anyone who knows me, even at a superficial level, finds out I do not shop at Wal-Mart, and more than casually protest when other people do.

I do not object to the American consumer buying goods at bargain prices. As Stephen Colbert puts it, he wants to “be able to pay just $1.95 for a twelve pack of tube socks.” Just as water seeks the lowest level, and electricity seeks that ground, consumers seek the lowest prices. And why wouldn’t they?

According to Wal-Mart spokewoman Sarah Clark, a working family could save $2,300 by shopping at Wal-Mart. I’m all for that. That’s great.

But, as Senator Byron Dorgan points out in his well-researched book Take this Job and Ship it, $2,300 “doesn’t go very far if Wal-Mart costs you your job, health benefits, and/or forces your local taxes higher.”

Dorgan is right. Yes, Wal-Mart has the cheapest prices around, but to say that the price of your two-gallon tub of reduced fat mayonnaise is the only factor that should influence your shopping is simplistic and unwise. Commercial purchases are complex, going far beyond the price tag into the ethical and macroeconomic spheres as well. Although Wal-Mart is good for shoppers, it is bad for American workers, and even worse for our country.

In 2005, Wal-Mart tallied $258 billion in sales (or $40 of purchases from every person on the planet). Wal-Mart is the biggest private employer in the USA, providing 1.2 million jobs (1.5 million globally). Americans has 3,000 American stores, and plans to open 1,000 more in the next five years.

This sheer corporate girth has never been seen as a good thing. Standard Oil and the railroad barons of the late 19th century were enemies of the public and the government, despite originally being deemed “convenient,” “money-saving,” and “signs of progress.” History proved that all three of these claims to be false, and it will do so again with Wal-Mart.

Is Wal-Mart a trust? A cornerer of the market? A monopoly in the making? Just about. Forget K-Mart and Target, Wal-Mart’s economic might is greater than 161 countries. Also, Wal-Mart is China’s eighth largest trading partner, just ahead of Russia, Canada, and Australia (the first largest, second largest, and sixth largest countries in the world, respectively). By 2007, it is predicted that Wal-Mart will control 35% of both the grocery and pharmacy industries.

Wal-Mart’s current power is nothing short of hazardous to our economy and the American way of life. How powerful is Wal-Mart? Well, when a store in Québec voted to join a union, instead of negotiating or bargaining with employees, Wal-Mart acted with absolution.

They closed the store.

Maybe the reason that Wal-Mart gives you smiley-face stickers when you go to their store is so you’ll ignore the frowns of entrapment and despair on the faces of their workers.

Some workers even got to have sleep-overs at Wal-Mart! In 2003, in a raid of 60 stores across 21 states, 245 illegal immigrants were found to be working for the company. Many of these workers slept in the backs of their stores (maybe that’s why your Wal-Mart sheets and pillow seemed already broken-in).

According to a UC-Berkeley study, Wal-Mart associates (euphemism for employees, it’s classier this way) earn 31% less than surrounding employers. These surrounding employers however, can do little to resist the retail giant.

For every Wal-Mart Supercenter that opens (1,400 nationwide), statistics show, two grocery stores close. Huffy Bicycles, an all-American brand, moved a factory of 900 workers to China to keep prices below Wal-Mart’s acceptable threshold. Etch-A-Sketch, who was ordered to keep prices under $10, had to move their Ohio factory of 200 to China. These two toys are now Chinese-made, and their employees were left without jobs. But they could skip on down to Wal-Mart and don that sharp blue smock, so all is well.

In total, 70% of Wal-Mart’s products are made in China. American companies cannot compete with sweatshop prices and American workers cannot compete with sweatshop wages. But, as Colbert points out, “If we have a permanent underclass working for sub-poverty wages, we won’t have to send our jobs away to the third world countries to stay competitive, we’ll have a third world country right here.”

The Democratic Staff of the committee on education and the workforce estimates that
a Wal-Mart of 200 employees costs federal taxpayers $420,750 a year in social welfare expenses. This is about $2,103 an employee (remember that number about saving $2,300?). Extrapolate this out over the 3,000 stores and 1.2 million dollar employees, and before you know it…there’s an extra, hidden tax on your tube socks, Stephen.

An internal Wal-Mart memo from 2005 stated that “46% of Associates children are either on Medicare or uninsured.” Wal-Mart’s health care plan requires a 35% employee contribution (more than double most major corporations) and thus, less than half of employees can afford the company plan. So we pay for it. Is this a sign of progress? Convenient? Money-saving? Or is this the same type of crap that we tried to stamp in the 1890s?

You know how I feel. Now suck it up and pay the extra dollar for those tube socks. Do the right thing.