OCTGON WORLD RUMBLE SEATTLE (COMPLETE DVD FOR FREE!)

Short Posts: Bentley Talent

If you haven't noticed, I've included a new category simply called "Short Posts."  Just things that I want to highlight that don't need a lot of in depth analysis or anything. In the past I've used it to highlight different things. These posts will not replace my longer and more usual posts; they will act as a nice update on the small things in life. Check the labels on the right side to see what posts. Here I want to highlight the art work of a student I met at Bentley University named Mason Forando. Click to read more and see the picture!

 He used a mutlisurfaced paper (white on the bottom and black on top) and used a tool to scratch away at the black layer to bring out the lower white color. That's right folks. That isn't drawn or painted, it is scratched. If you haven't noticed it is a portrait of Lebron James. I should note that it wasn't complete when I snapped the picture.

If you like what you see and want to see more? or just to get in touch with him you can email Forando_maso@bentley.edu

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi. Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Snyder v. Phelps: Supreme Court Decision

For those who have followed me long enough, months ago, I had written a piece titled Snyder v. Phelps: Presenting the Arguments. In it, I detailed the facts of the case as well as the arguments being made. I also stated my opinion in support of the Westboro Baptist Church freedom to protests despite their hateful message. 

As shown in my last post, I'm a strong supporter of the gay community, and in some respects, the Church's main message is anti-gay. God kills U.S. soldiers because of homosexuality, soldiers that die in war are secretly gay, their parents are sinners, etc. Their message is disgusting and if ever in Massachusetts, I would be the first to join and organized counter protests against them. Having said so, I believe that they have the right to preach their message (despite its hate) and the Supreme Court agrees. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the Church had the right to protest at soldier funerals even though the message is painful for the family and/or community (Justice Alito dissented); I must agree.

As I said in a previous post on the topic:

"We may not like what they are saying, but there is no proof that their message has incited violence, and they peacefully protest without disturbing commerce and traffic. I believe that the REAL battle won't be over the First Amendment as hyped up by the media; it will be about different legal issues like intentional infliction of emotional distress, whether the distance regulations set by states are constitutional."

 My assumption of where the case would focus was also correct because the Court made its decision, not on the issue of privacy, but on the infliction of emotional distress. In its decision, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and– as it did here– inflict great pain... On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."

 The NYTimes article on the case reveals a lot about the Robert's Court. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has dealt strongly with issues of the First amendment:

Last year, the court struck down laws limiting speech about politics and making it a crime to distribute depictions of cruelty to animals.... the court seems likely, based on the justices' questioning , to strike down a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

In all cases the SCOTUS has decided that Freedom of Speech takes precedent over many issues such as animal cruelty, political donations, and soon on violent video games.  In his defense of his strong and unwavering outline of Free speech in this country the Cheif Justice writes:

"Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open because speech on public occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."

 Roberts highlighted the two reasons that led the Court to decide in favor of the church, the NYTimes reports:

First, he said, its speech was on matters of public concern. While the messages on the signs carried by its members “may fall short of refined social or political commentary,” he wrote, “the issues they highlight — the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involving the Catholic clergy — are matters of public import.”
Second, the members of the church “had the right to be where they were.” They were picketing on a public street 1,000 feet from the site of the funeral; they complied with the law and with instructions from the police, and they protested quietly and without violence.

 Despite the decision, the court did establish that the regulations around protesting; where 44 states require that protests must take place at least 1000 ft from the funeral , were legitimate and constitutional. If the protesters have peacefully followed the law and its regulation no one should be punished for upsetting or arousing contempt.

Although the language of the decision is "sweeping" its effect is very limited; mostly to protests at or around funerals. More than 23 news organizations wrote to the court in briefs supporting the Church (including the NYTimes). 

Although I'm sad to hear their message, no one can deny the Church their right to protest and voice their opinions. Their protection to protest establishes my own protection to protest as well as yours. Be happy the Court is protecting your rights.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi. Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Whanganui gang patch ban unlawful

The High Court has ruled Whanganui District Council's gang patch ban is unlawful.

The Hells Angels gang sought a judicial review of the ban, arguing the bylaw - banning the wearing of gang insignia in public in Whanganui - was invalid.

Justice Denis Clifford, in a judgment released today, said he had reached the same conclusion.

The bylaw did not specify which public places the ban applied, and was therefore invalid under national law, he said."

BEING FUNKY WITHOUT EVEN TRYING

OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW THAT MICHEAL JACKSON WAS A HUGE INFLUENCE ON DANCERS ALL OVER THE WORLD. BUT TO STREET CATS, IT WAS THE YOUNGER MICHEAL JACKSON OF THE JACKSON 5 WHO MADE US DANCE.

WE WERE EITHER INSPIRED FROM WATCHING HIM DO THE ROBOT ON AMERICAN BANDSTAND AND SOUL TRAIN, OR HIM AND HIS BROTHERS DANCING AROUND IIN THEIR OWN CARTOON. I PREFER THE YOUNGER MICHEAL JACKSON WHO WAS FUNKY BUT STILL SMOOTH AS OPPOSED TO THE OLDER MORE ABRASIVE DANCING OF MICHEAL. IN THIS SPECIFIC CLASSIC FORGOTTEN GEM, MICHEAL DISPLAYS HOW FUNKY HE CAN BE WHILE STILL MAKING IT LOOK LIKE HE AIN'T EVEN TRYING.

Lady Gaga's Mess Up

I don't usually post about pop culture, however this time, I felt it was necessary. Here is some background:

Lady Gaga is one of the biggest singers in the world. Known worldwide, she is famous for her extravagant performances and odd style. Her latest single "Born this Way" which debuted some week ago at the Grammy's is already the best selling song in iTunes history and is expected to break many more records.

As most of my friends already know, I'm a huge fan of her latest song "Born this way." I like it because of its positive social message and I'm glad that these kinds of songs get famous because, more often then not, they don't. No one will disagree with me that most music today is saturated with images of sex, violence, and materialistic wants; today's music is far different than yesterdays. So when I hear a song like this, I can't help but be a fan. 

Although it can be understood for anyone's acceptance the song is mainly targeted toward the LGBT community to breed acceptance in a society that still doesn't. I've taken some of the lyrics that I feel show this the most: 

"There's nothin' wrong with lovin' who you are"
She said, "'Cause He made you perfect, babe"
"So hold your head up, girl and you you'll go far,
Listen to me when I say"

I'm beautiful in my way,
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

Don't hide yourself in regret,
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

 Up until now we can see that this is to help people be more comfortable with themselves and who they are. It isn't a song about having sex, or  having the perfect body. It talks about accepting and loving yourself. She goes on to sing about how in "the religion of the insecure, I must be myself, respect my youth." This clearly targeted toward teenagers and their insecurity as well as the insecurity of those who hate non-hetero males or females. The most direct part of the song comes in here:

Don't be a drag, just be a queen
Whether you're broke or evergreen
You're black, white, beige, chola descent
You're Lebanese, you're orient
Whether life's disabilities
Left you outcast, bullied or teased
Rejoice and love yourself today
'Cause baby, you were born this way

No matter gay, straight or bi
lesbian, transgendered life
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born to survive

 It is pretty apparent that it is directed toward outcast, bullied or teased gay, straight, bi, lesbian or transgendered human beings. The message: Stay strong and love yourself because you are "on the right track."

It is no secret that Lady Gaga is a strong supporter of the gay rights movement (as am I) so it would only be expected that she would make a song like this. So why is this significant? Because it isn't only being heard in the U.S., "Born this Way" is a number 1 single in 21 out of the 25 countries it was first released in. In a single day it racked up more than 3 million Youtube videos from people all over the world, even in countries where homosexuality is punished by death.

You see, there are thousands of songs with positive social messages, but only a few make it this big. We must appreciate the message because it inspires millions of people around the world and replaces over-sexed lyrics of most songs with words of tolerance and acceptance, even if the person signing it doesn't realize what they are doing. 

With all this praise, you must be thinking.. Where is the "Mess up?" If you haven't already seen it, the mess up is in the newly released "Born this Way" video. Here it is, but I should warn that those with weak stomachs should avoid watching: 

The video is pure Lady Gaga, however I strongly think that she should have taken it another way. This was the PERFECT opportunity to communicate her message to the audience visually. We already had the message sent through the lyrics of her song, however, seeing a video properly display that message would have gone a long way. What I was looking for was a video along the lines of other great songs (with positive messages) like Fireworks by Katy Perry:

or an older and even more powerful song by Christina Aguilera called Beautiful:

I would recommend watching both videos and listening to their message. 

I know that I shouldn't expect someone as creative or odd as Lady Gaga to make such traditional videos, however, I feel like they should have went along the same lines, just with a little "Gaga taste" put into them. Showing images of gay couples, transgendered males or females goes a long way in breeding acceptance because a newer generation sees the images in front of them and gets used to it. Ignorance is the biggest enemy of any movements and a video can help change that. 

Instead of this, we have Lady Gaga telling the story of "Mother Monster" (which is herself). Lady Gaga fans identify as "Little Monsters" (hence her name as Mother Monster). We see a video of a woman who creates a race that is all accepting and non judgmental, when the message should be about changing the HUMAN race to breed acceptance. I just think that the video could have been a great opportunity, but now, an opportunity lost. I don't want to see a picture of her giving birth to heads, or to her pulling out a gun out of her vagina (obviously all fake). I prefer her Grammy performance which is a much better representation of the song:

 In it, she comes out of an egg (born this way). Gaga and her egg-yolk designed dancers  send the message home when they (eventually) take off their clothes (wearing skin colored clothing) to emphasize the people should be comfortable in their own skin. THAT is the message people need to hear.

I want to see positive reinforcement of the changing faces of families (gay couples, single moms...etc) to finally get rid of the stigmatizing idea of the "nuclear family." There is nothing wrong with being gay and nothing wrong with who you are. But there is clearly something wrong with Lady Gaga if she would throw away such an opportunity. I'll be waiting to see her first interview about the video.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi. Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

U.S. Changes Foreign Policy

 There was a great piece in the LA Times that you can find here. The story is based on "anonymous" sources in the White House, however, if true, could be a major change in the U.S. approach to the Middle East. 

In the article, we find out that President Obama is making changes in response to the massive protests across the Middle East.

President Obama is challenging his administration to formulate a new Middle East policy that emphasizes political and economic reforms to bolster U.S. allies now threatened by the protest movements sweeping the region.

I have always argued that it is in the best long term interests of the United States to listen to the protesters and their demands for change in each of the countries where the uprisings are occurring. Here is my reasoning:

Dictatorships can last for quite some time, but democracies can last for much longer. In juxtaposition, we can see that dictatorships are much more of a short term solution for stability than a democracy is. If the administration wants to establish long term relationships to protect its interests (mainly oil) than it is better off making moves to help domestically-grown freedom movements succeed (or just not be crushed by the regime). In the end, the movements for reform always win and any regime leader is not ending threats to his leadership (all are men) by attacking protesters, only postponing it.

With this in mind, any move made by the administration to support the uprisings is a good one. The LA Times article continues by detailing the reasons for the change in policy: 

With those allied governments under pressure from their citizens, the U.S. is confronting the likelihood of having diminished influence over whatever political order emerges. But a greater risk is that Washington could be seen as trying to prop up crumbling regimes and could alienate the rising pro-democracy leaders.

Not able to call publicly for reform in all its dictatorial allies, the U.S. has been pushing reform behind the scenes:

They [U.S. diplomats] have told the Saudis they should support efforts by the Sunni royal family in neighboring Bahrain to work out a new power-sharing arrangement with the Shiite Muslims, who make up the majority of the country's population and who have been leading the street protests in the tiny kingdom. [The U.S. has a military base in Bahrain]

[Brackets were added.] Aides to the President have said he recognized the need for change soon after the street protests began in Egypt on Jan 25. He lectured his national security team for 10 mins saying that there would be further upheaval "not just in countries where there are protests, but in countries where there have not yet been protests." He continued:

"The president concluded by telling us... we wouldn't be simply responding to protests in individual countries, but revisiting our entire approach to take into account the changes that are taking place."

 According to the aid, the new policy will have democracy and expansion of political and economic rights "as core interests of ours in the region."

Before this change in policy, the administration has voiced its concern for human rights. In President Obama's September UN speech, he stated his allegiance not to rulers but entire populations: "The idea is a simple- that freedom, justice and peace for the world must begin with freedom, justice and peace in the lives of individual human beings."

In addition, two weeks before protests began in Egypt, Sectary of State Clinton warned leaders of the Arab world in Qatar of potential violence by telling leaders: "The region's foundations are sinking in the sand." and that people are getting tired of "corrupt institutions and a stagnant political order."

Meanwhile, NATO is considering implementing a No-Fly zone over Libya to stop Quaddafi from using his airpower to overwhelm protesters (Al Jazeera has shown maps showing different air craft carriers moving from the Atlantic Ocean to Mediterranean sea). If initiated, the move will limit Quaddafi, but not by much, since the crazed leader has been arming different allied tribes as well as hiring mercenaries from different countries to fight protesting tribes (Quaddafi son was right when he said Libya is not Egypt, here tribes fight each other).

I don't doubt that this change in policy is true, I will be extremely proud of the Obama administration for recognizing what I've been saying for so long!!! (maybe they read this blog!!) If anything, I admire President Obama's foresight (although a reaction to initial protests) on the issue, and although working for the U.S. interests, I believe that when discussing these protests, pro-democracy protester interests are perfectly in line with Washington's.
\
If this is the change, then it is a welcome one.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi. Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!