Archives for July 2009

         You know when you arrive home, whether it be after school or work, planning to rest your tired feet on your favorite ottoman, order in the extra cheese pizza you’d been psyching yourself up to eat all day and watch reruns of “Law & Order: SVU” as your parents or roommates work overtime, thankfully leaving you alone? And as you reach the front step of your house, already tasting the perfectly melted cheese and the slightly crunchy crust, you realize you locked your keys inside and there’s only one way in: the back door.

    This is similar to what happened to noted Harvard scholar, Henry Louis Gates Jr., last week. After returning home from vacation, Gates arrived at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts unable to open his front door. Figuring his best option would be to go through the back, he did just that, only to be arrested minutes later by an officer who thought he was breaking into his own home. Yet, what’s more perplexing than the possible racial profiling of the arrest is the person who made the phone call to have Gates arrested: his neighbor. 

    In a society where we often have these picture-perfect, ideal neighbor relationships–where your neighbor is supposed to be the person who’ll tell you if someone has been snooping around your house, tampering with it, or breaking into it–how is a person supposed to deal when their own neighbor doesn’t recognize them?  

    Maybe Gates’ case is the perfect indication that our society needs to gain back some hospitality. From now on, we all have to bake pies and jello molds and have dinner parties with our neighbors, just to make sure they get familiar with us. Then, we have to offer to walk their dogs, watch their kids after school, and maybe fetch some groceries when their backs hurts, just to gain some respect. And hopefully then, and only then, will they not accuse you–an owner of the house–of breaking in to your own home. I mean, if your neighbors turn on you, and your ID proving you own the house isn’t enough to convince the police you live there, then please, tell me what is.

    â€œThe Beaches of Agnes” (Les Plages d’Agnès), directed by the legendary French filmmaker Agnes Varda, is currently showing at the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas and Quad Cinemas in Manhattan. Agnès Varda is known as the grandmother of French New Wave cinema, though others argue that she was really a member of the Left Bank filmmaking movement.  Her style is unique.  Varda is not an invisible director, often appearing in front of the camera to explain something or direct her actors.  

    As a young woman, she studied photography in Paris.  When she decided to make her first film, “La Pointe-Courte,” she simply pulled together a crew and started filming independently.  Her other celebrated movies include “Cleo From Five to Seven,” “Happiness,” “One Sings, the Other Doesn’t,” “Vagabond,” and “The Gleaners and I.” 

    Varda’s autobiographical film, “The Beaches of Agnes,” opens on a windswept beach in Belgium.  We see Agnes Varda directing her assistants to prop up a variety of mirrors in the sand.  Varda tells the audience that every person has an inner landscape.  Her personal inner landscape is a beach.The mirrors are situated at contrasting angles and reflect bits of the sand, the sea and the sky.  The result is a beautifully fragmented image of the shoreline.  In the next 109 minutes, Varda will present a cine essay on her life and art, structured around the seaside places of the world where she has had her most significant experiences.  She weaves together pieces of her most celebrated films, interviews with friends and colleagues, reenactments of her life, footage of her installation art and even bits of animation to tell her unique and fascinating story. 

     Varda’s method of story telling is innovative and engaging.  Though at times moving and sad, the film has a playful quality that characterizes many of her movies.  Varda’s lightheartedness is refreshing, funny and revolutionary.  Her humor never approaches levity, and is intermixed with compassion.  

    In the past few years, dark and violent movies have flooded the Oscars.  Films that combine both tragedy and happiness are more enjoyable and true to life. When discussing her husband, and fellow director, Jacques Demy’s death from AIDS, grief is plainly written on her face. Yet in mourning Demy, she never forgets the glorious years of their marriage.  One thing that makes Varda’s work so poignant is her ability to express both the fleeting quality of happiness and the preciousness and fragility of life.

            Not even recognized as ‘genocide’ by the United Nations, reports about the situation in Darfur, Sudan have made headlines throughout the years. What people don’t seem to know is the importance of this present-day genocide that started merely six years ago on February 2, 2003. More than 400,000 civilians have been murdered and more than 2.5 million people displaced from their homes. 

            The phrase ‘Genocide in Darfur’ has struck most, if not all, our minds sometime within these past years. But, be honest, how many of you know what is actually going on in Darfur? It seems that there has been a mass slaughter of a targeted group when in actuality, the term ‘civil war’ is what could be used to correctly categorize this problem in Darfur.

            What is now known as the most notorious ‘genocide’ of the twenty-first century has stirred mixed emotions in people all around the world. Some background for those who are unsure about what ‘Genocide in Darfur’ is actually about: due to various cases of human casualties by the government, two rebel groups were formed in response. One group, the Arabs–consisting of the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, a Sudanese militia group recruited mostly from the Afro-Arab Abbala tribes of the northern Rizeigat region of Sudan–is mainly nomadic. The other group, the non-Arabs–composed of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army and Justice and Equality movement–are deemed to be the peasants of Darfur. The neglect of the government’s role in Sudan left its people poor and voiceless. Finally, in February of 2003, the two Darfurian rebel groups launched an uprising against the Khartoum government provoked by the frustrations of poverty and neglect. The government responded to their uproar with a scorched-earth campaign, enlisting the help of a militia of nomadic Arab tribes in the region against the innocent civilians of Darfur. And since then, the Sudanese government in Khartoum and the government-sponsored Janjaweed militia has been guilty of rape, displacement, organized starvation, threats against aid workers and mass murder. Thousands of innocent Darfurians were killed due to extreme violence, disease and displacement every month. 

            As Americans, we have a particularly important role to assume in supporting peace in Darfur. Our government has been proactive in speaking out in support of the people of Darfur, but there’s still so much we could have done. Six years later, the US and international governments have yet to take the actions needed to end this genocide. 

            Although many activists are working to resolve this issue of civil war between two Darfurian rebellion groups, the groups seem to be refusing, responding with a violent outrage in their local towns. This is an especially frightening aspect, as genocides are documented throughout history. Adolf Hitler launched the Final Solution during the Holocaust, ensuring the mass murder of Jews and others they deemed as ‘sub-humans,’ Joseph Stalin took over Ukraine for their farms and arable land which started the Ukrainian Genocide and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge launched a genocide in Cambodia, leaving many suffering from extreme war tactics that forever wounded them both mentally and physically.

            Genocides are often referred to as the world’s bad past. However, if that is true, then why do many continue to suffer in a present-day genocide in Darfur? Unlike other genocides that took place in Europe, a well-developed region of the world, Africa is considered third world to us–but does that mean we should give up and not provide aide? Of course not. As a developed nation, we should all try to do what we can to ensure that those who can be rescued are able to reach refugee camps, hopefully providing the best chance for protection from the center of violence. 

            Many activists are also giving their time and have started local organizations that raise awareness and organize fund raisers and networking for donations. But many teenagers still seem to lack awareness of the situation in Darfur. Speaking from personal experience, I was not aware of the Darfurian genocide until learning of it in my Global History class in school. A unit focused primarily on the genocides that occurred during World War II, covering Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. But until then, I had no idea that genocide is a present-day problem. It is difficult to comprehend how genocides come to be, especially now that we have the aide of many developed nations, including ourselves. 

            My question is: why have developed nations failed to prevent another genocide, despite promises to never let it happen again? I know nobody wants to relive this world’s horrible past, but it’s true: history does repeat itself. So, what are the ways we can effectively prevent genocide? One thing for sure—raising awareness. 

            No matter how young or even how old, no matter how uneducated or how well-educated you are, there is lots to learn about genocides; and just by learning more and more each day, you raise awareness in yourself that can ultimately reflect onto other people, whether you realize it or not.

            At this time of turmoil, sometimes an informed mind is what’s best and we need to work to ensure that the world fulfills its responsibility to protect the civilians of Darfur. 

    The New York Times is currently running a series of articles titled, “Driven to Distraction.” This series deals with the issue of drivers being distracted by cell phones and other electronic devices. The Times even started an online debate that has seen several expert contributions and over 270 readers’ comments.

    What I don’t understand: why is this even being discussed? Why has something that seems so obvious provoked such a fiery conversation?

    There has been such extensive research done that supports the common assumption that drivers are indeed more distracted when they use cell phones. Therefore, they are more accident prone.

    However, there is no national standard for cell phone usage while driving. Only five states and the District of Columbia mandate that you use a hands-free set while you are behind the wheel. This is astonishing.

    Many comments on the New York Times Web site in response to the first article in the series, “Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks,” were left by Europeans who seem to all express shock that using a cell phone while driving is so commonplace in America. They expressed their outrage that no nation-wide law dictates severe punishment. Such laws are widespread in European countries.

    If a person who causes a crash while he is intoxicated is found at fault and must face consequences, then a driver distracted by a phone, must face the same consequences.

    In 2008, over 37,000 Americans died in car crashes. You would think that this would be enough to ensure that certain laws are passed. Driving is an activity that necessitates your complete attention.

    Many critics of passing a nation-wide ban on phones while driving cite things like their well-deserved “personal rights.” This is not an issue of freedoms. It is a fatally dangerous activity that has a high chance of affecting others on the road.

    Incidents where people die or get injured because of a stupid decision should not be labeled a “car accident.” This denotes that the event is without fault. If a driver is distracted by a cell phone, or anything else, there is definite, identifiable fault.

    Sure, I am no saint. Looking back, I find that rarely do I loudly voice my objection when the driver of a car I am in is using a cell phone. But I think that we can all take the initiative to make sure that little steps like just speaking up can be taken.

    Don’t use your phone while you drive. If it is urgent, pull over.This is such a ridiculously small and simple thing that everyone can commit themselves to. It would save countless lives.

    Recently in Hollywood we have been seeing older women with younger men and older men with younger women.  But how young is too young?  

    Sixteen-year-old “Camp Rock” star Demi Lovato has broken up with her 20-year-old boyfriend Trace Cyrus.  Trace is the brother of 16-year-old Hannah Montana star, Miley Cyrus.  

    Miley has also broken up with her 20-year-old boyfriend Justin Gasto.  In normal circumstances relationships like these would be looked at as morally wrong, but does hollywood make it okay for older men or women to date people that are not even out of high school?  

    Personally I think that it is wrong for a guy to be dating someone who is the same age as his sister.  I don’t see how hard it is to find someone your own age.  But then again, it’s just my opinion on the situtation.  Obviously Demi’s and Miley’s parents have no problem with them dating someone older than them.  Hollywood tends to glamorize relationships like these into making it seem like it’s the norm and accepted.

http://www.usmagazine.com/news/source-miley-cyrus-justin-gaston-split-200996

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1616649/20090721/lovato__demi.jhtml

    They stood at the entrance of Madison Square Park, searching the crowd of lunch goers, hoping to convert the next Jew with a questioning look on their face. The Jews for Jesus mascots approached me, pamphlets ready, anticipating my new found interest in Jesus Christ.

    â€œHello, who do you think Jesus is?” The question was so raw and so eager for an optimistic response. “I’m Jewish,” I clarified, “And Jesus is a mythical and realistic character.” My confusing answer puzzled the two college students, who hoped that my answer would hint that I’m a lost and wandering Jew, waiting for Jesus to save me. They sighed and corrected me by describing that Jesus is very real indeed. They continued the practiced speech that preaches that as a Jew, I should accept Jesus and live under his way of life for the rest of mine.

    At first, I was more transfixed by the twisted argument than appalled. How could any Jew wake up one morning and suddenly believe that Jesus is the true messiah? Rather, how could any religous person be persuaded to practice something that completely counteracts their prior beliefs? 

    As a Jew,  I have been confronted by many other Jews, either convincing me to become more faithful, or to love Jesus. And after every awkward exchange, I can’t help but wonder why so many people in religious groups dedicate their lives to recruiting others to join. 

    After the Jews for Jesus members left me with pamphlets and contact information, a man leaned over my shoulder and asked if I thought they were invasive. “Not invasive, but desperate,” I responded. Religious groups (sometimes) make people inclined to search for justification in their beliefs, and I find their ways of projecting views on others exhausting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/world/africa/20circumcision.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=aids%20in%20south%20africa&st=cse

    The article I talked about in class was very interesting to me about AIDS in South Africa, and the lack of help from the government to encourage or pay for circumcision, which apparently decreases the chances of getting the deadly virus by over 50 percent.      

    I, as well as many people in my class, had never known this before, and I’m sure some sexually active adults in America would consider the surgery knowing this, even though it is not as much of a problem here as in Africa.  A chart from the article showed that the countries with a higher percentage of people infected with AIDS have a much lower percentage of people who have gotten circumcised.  This may be partly because there are not enough hospitals in certain areas for a lot of people to get the procedure done in a short period of time.  But the article also shows that not enough people are being encouraged to get the operation, and the government of South Africa could be doing a lot more, but they seem quiet on this issue.  

    In some countries in Africa, people are being motivated by talks of increased sexual performance once getting the operation done.  The article quotes a man saying he got the operation because his girlfriend  encouraged him to for sexual purposes.  Maybe spreading word about better sex would help more people go and get circumcised, although a far less chance of getting AIDS seems like it should be enough motivation.

    You’ve all heard about the incident with Chris Brown domestically abusing his ex-girlfriend, R&B singer, Rihanna. On Tuesday, July 20, he released a public apology about the incident. 

    I, for one, cannot say that this apology was sincere or released in a timely fashion. I believe it was insincere because he was noticeably reading from a teleprompter; he didn’t even have the decency to try to convince people that he meant it. And it was released too late after the incident… five months late. People were just beginning to forget about the incident as a whole (or at least I was).  

    However,the public apology was definitely a smart move on Chris Brown’s part. My guess is that Chris Brown is about to release a new single or album and so, his management team figured it would be the “right” thing to do to make an apology if he wanted to continue having a successful career–especially since the majority of his fanbase is female tweens and teens. 

    Instead of ignoring the abuse with no apology or anything, he would apologize and let it be known that he was indeed regretful for the damage he has done and saddened that he has disappointed everyone that looked up to him, wanted to meet him, etc.

Smart move, but bad timing (and acting), Mr. Brown.

    I just read the article, “Ricky Williams is Hoping to Heal Others, and His Image” and what struck my attention was Williams’s determination and persistence to change after labeled by others as a pothead during his years as a football player in N.F.L. 

    After going through years of mental agitation, constant torture and embarrassment for his reputation as a smoker, he called for change. By reaching out to the spiritual world, Williams was able to redeem himself through his work as a massage therapist, in hopes of spreading his touch of peace, tranquility and a new beginning to others.  If everyone was to emulate Williams’s decisions to improve himself, we can all live in a safe and peaceful world. 

    I believe that one who can transform from a criminal to a contributing citizen to society deserves as much respect and attention as those of doctors and lawyers. Williams paved an outlet for those who are stuck in their criminal acts by proving that faults and wrongdoings can turn into sincere acts. His willingness to struggle and battle with his worst enemy, marijuana, demonstrates his faith in his soul to change even when he was nothing more than a pile of dirt. 

    I admire his perseverance to change his life and ultimately his fate. He acknowledged his past, took actions in the present and used acuity to perceive his future and beyond.  Change requires mental strength that requires one to reach their inner souls. And that is hard to accomplish. It sounds more difficult than it is, but in reality, one only needs to hold confidence in themselves. Just a bit. Confidence guides us to becoming more active, healthier and better members of society. It can steer our gears toward a road engulfing positive goals and satisfying outcomes. However, there are those who believe they’ve reached a dead end and that nothing can be done to save them from their pitfall. That is not true. If one has the mindset and the hope to achieve great things, then great things it is.

    Jersey City has been in the news spotlight because of crimes that have been happening around the area all within a week of each other. Last Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 5 a.m., five police officers were shot by a man and a women who were going to commit a crime. The second crime was this morning when the New Jersey Police shot a women, who had not been taking her medication, because she was attacking her husband and wasn’t able to be controlled by the police.  

    I came across this comment made on a Web site that said that Jersey City is the Bronx of New Jersey. That’s really offensive to people that live in the Bronx because there has not been recent violent crimes in the Bronx area. I’m not saying there has never been a time when crimes used to happen everyday–and maybe they do happen often. But it is disturbing that the Bronx is seen as this county that’s problematic and that because of its past is still being judged. I don’t think the person who made the comment should have referred to it that way. Everyone has a past and a present and should be recognized for change–even boroughs. At least in the Bronx, crimes happen but they don’t make the news everyday.http://http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-jersey/72018-good-areas-jersey-city.html