The issue is probably as old as the Bush Administration’s Neo-Conservatives’ tenure in power, but is this the issue of risqué Halloween kid’s costumes grounded in reality?
By: Vanessa Uy
This particular issue might move to the proverbial backseat this time due to the hotly contested 2008 US Presidential Election – especially with the sale of presidential candidate Halloween masks predicting the winners with bizarre accuracy. But together with the stories of folks who are now fast approaching 60 telling stories about how the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 27, 1962 had them making their own family's ad hoc fallout shelter back in the day. The issue of Halloween costumes that are too sexy seems to manage to stay forever relevant.
Probably it was the FOX News broadcast from last year that shone a light on this thorny subject. Especially that guest who looks like Eddie Munster who testified on how the Genie played by Barbara Eden on the 1967 TV series I Dream of Genie had made him “sexually traumatized”. Given that this particular costume derived from Scheherazade – i.e. the wife of the sultan of India and narrator of the tales in the Arabian Nights’ Entertainments - is one of the most aspirational Halloween costumes for girls aged 10 or below. Probably up there with Wonder Woman or the leotards worn by Degas’ “Tiny Dancer” sculpture. That guy would probably be appearing next on Chris Hansen’s “To Catch a Predator” on Dateline NBC.
Recently, the “arbiters of taste” on CBS Early Edition on their October 22, 2008 broadcast has presented new sets of girl’s Halloween costumes which they deemed “too risqué”. The black suede leather “streetwalker” costume definitely passes muster – to me at least – as too risqué for young girls. But when they brought out a bumblebee ballerina costume similar to that worn by that little girl in a Blind Melon music video titled No Rain back in 1994 as too risqué, I said to myself oh boy here we go again… But seriously though, are these people who point out age-inappropriate Halloween Costumes doing their part in halting the global scourge of child pornography, or are they just desperate for attention? Maybe Penn and Teller can do an exposé on this on their show.
The problem with labeling Halloween Costumes, as too risqué is that 100% of the cases presented on the media only applied to girl’s costumes. What about boy’s costumes? Should we be – together with the Federal Government - start banning little boys from wearing Robin Costumes (Batman’s young sidekick)? Especially in Boston because of the inappropriate effects it might incur on their local parish priests?
Maybe this is just a ploy by TV networks to prop-up their sagging fall season ratings. But the risqué Halloween costumes issue will probably be here to stay. Especially if that Larry Flynt “movie” about Gov. Sarah Palin’s “Drill Here, Drill Now” energy independence program becomes famous and every girl in America aged 10 and below starts to dress like Gov. Sarah Palin – the way Hustler Magazine CEO Larry “Barely Legal” Flynt sees her.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Popular Music Goes to Washington
A concept that used to be inconceivable back in the good old days of “Reaganism”, does the increasing use of copyrighted popular music in US Presidential campaigns mere kitsch, or does it expose the ugliness of American politics?
By: Vanessa Uy
The trend probably first gained widespread media notice during the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign ticket using Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop (you know the lines: “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow…”). But the 2008 US Presidential Race has made the issue of using copyrighted popular music in campaign ads an especially contentious one, especially the Republican McCain-Palin campaign ticket’s practice of “drafting” songs like Van Halen’s Right Now and Heart’s Barracuda instead of nicely seeking permission from the artists themselves. Instead, the GOP ticket drafted these songs like the way they use young Americans in their prime as cannon fodder for Halliburton and KBR. If this isn’t bad enough, Senator John “The Manchurian Candidate” McCain even used Jackson Browne’s Running on Empty on an anti-Obama political campaign ad highlighting Senator Barack Obama’s lack of experience. McCain did this without asking permission from Jackson Browne which is a sure sign of GOP-style hypocrisy given McCain and his ilk's propensity of admonishing musicians inspired by Woody Guthrie’s “socialist” views. A move that’s even worse than McCarthyism.
Maybe the Democratic Party always has a penchant for doing things like this right. Like Senator Barack Obama’s choice of using Stevie Wonder’s 1973 R&B classic Signed, Sealed and Delivered. A song brimming with an eternally optimistic view on life, which surprisingly doesn’t sound corny in comparison to the song’s hackneyed brethren.
So far, the Democrats had managed to avoid the pettiness of their GOP rivals by officially releasing ads criticizing their rival candidates that utilized copyrighted popular music. To me, it would be very interesting if the Democrats ever attempt to pull-off such an undertaking. Especially the Lunachicks’ song Spoilt is ripe for the taking as an almost biographical critique of the 8 years worth of George W. Bush’s miserable failure - which the GOP’s Vice Presidential candidate and Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin affectionately termed as the Bush Doctrine. Or what about Lunachicks’ Fallopian Rhapsody as a critique for Governor Sarah Palin’s anti-feminist Heinrich Himmler inspired Lebensborn pro-life stance. Given the choices, how long can the Democrats resist to be drawn into such political pettiness, or maybe the Democrats are a better bunch of people than I am? Maybe the message is Washington D.C. will never be like your private listening den or I-pod.
By: Vanessa Uy
The trend probably first gained widespread media notice during the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign ticket using Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop (you know the lines: “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow…”). But the 2008 US Presidential Race has made the issue of using copyrighted popular music in campaign ads an especially contentious one, especially the Republican McCain-Palin campaign ticket’s practice of “drafting” songs like Van Halen’s Right Now and Heart’s Barracuda instead of nicely seeking permission from the artists themselves. Instead, the GOP ticket drafted these songs like the way they use young Americans in their prime as cannon fodder for Halliburton and KBR. If this isn’t bad enough, Senator John “The Manchurian Candidate” McCain even used Jackson Browne’s Running on Empty on an anti-Obama political campaign ad highlighting Senator Barack Obama’s lack of experience. McCain did this without asking permission from Jackson Browne which is a sure sign of GOP-style hypocrisy given McCain and his ilk's propensity of admonishing musicians inspired by Woody Guthrie’s “socialist” views. A move that’s even worse than McCarthyism.
Maybe the Democratic Party always has a penchant for doing things like this right. Like Senator Barack Obama’s choice of using Stevie Wonder’s 1973 R&B classic Signed, Sealed and Delivered. A song brimming with an eternally optimistic view on life, which surprisingly doesn’t sound corny in comparison to the song’s hackneyed brethren.
So far, the Democrats had managed to avoid the pettiness of their GOP rivals by officially releasing ads criticizing their rival candidates that utilized copyrighted popular music. To me, it would be very interesting if the Democrats ever attempt to pull-off such an undertaking. Especially the Lunachicks’ song Spoilt is ripe for the taking as an almost biographical critique of the 8 years worth of George W. Bush’s miserable failure - which the GOP’s Vice Presidential candidate and Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin affectionately termed as the Bush Doctrine. Or what about Lunachicks’ Fallopian Rhapsody as a critique for Governor Sarah Palin’s anti-feminist Heinrich Himmler inspired Lebensborn pro-life stance. Given the choices, how long can the Democrats resist to be drawn into such political pettiness, or maybe the Democrats are a better bunch of people than I am? Maybe the message is Washington D.C. will never be like your private listening den or I-pod.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Bridging the “Two Americas”: An Overlooked Foreign Policy Issue?
Ever since the 2004 US vice presidential hopeful John Edwards shed light on the issue of (mostly economic) disparity of the “Two Americas”, no follow-through has been done to alleviate the “alienation”. Does Foreign Policy experience start here?
By: Vanessa Uy
Its been four years since John Edwards first brought the issue of “disparity” between the “Two Americas” into the media spotlight. Of those four years that has passed, almost –if at all – has been done to address this issue. Despite the fact that the disadvantaged part of the “Two Americas”, were largely made up of African-Americans and other cultural minorities in the US.
Ever since the Civil Rights movement began in the turbulent decade of the 1960’s, the divisive politics that engendered a schism of the perfect American Union was finally addressed. From the Native Americans who were virtually made “foreigners” in their own country to the African-American community who never got a fair share of the American Dream ever since Abraham Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation. When it comes to healing the rift between the European Anglo-Saxon majority (hegemony?) and those on the other disadvantaged America – the cultural minorities alienated to the point that they feel as if they are foreigners in their own country. There’s progress for sure – albeit a painfully slow one.
One issue that became de rigeur in the 2008 US Presidential Race is Foreign Policy. No one in his or her right mind wishing for that much-coveted position in the White House will ever make a speech about “Foreign Policy Begins at Home”. It could be tantamount to political suicide. And yet, the ill-conceived policies of the past US Administrations had virtually created an another America. An America that’s not only disadvantaged financially, but also left out of their rights to reap the benefits of all the good things that America’s Founding Fathers had fought for. The divisive politics that lead to this was exemplified by that January 28, 2008 Newsweek cover story about how President George W. Bush and his neo-conservatives destroyed America.
The present Bush Administration not only widened the rift further between the African-American community and White America, but also made all of America’s ethnic minorities – especially Americans of Arab descent – virtually foreigners in their own country. Since the Republican Party / GOP ‘s selection of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as their Vice Presidential candidate. The GOP used the Foreign Policy experience issue to criticize their Democratic rivals. Yet they are oblivious of the Bush Administration’s folly of government mismanagement of creating a “Foreign Policy” crisis right on American home soil – i.e. the schism of the “Two Americas”.
Strangely, the Alaskan governor and Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin has been “discretely quiet” about the Native Americans / First Nations people in Alaska protesting against the wholesale crude oil exploration on their ancestral lands which could lead into widespread environmental degradation. Governor Sarah Palin has been also “discretely quiet” about the “good” things she has done to the Native American / First Nation community in Alaska during her tenure as governor of that state. Alaska may be close to Russia but I wonder if Governor Sarah Palin had ever been close enough to a Russian TU-95 Bear to make her ears ring for three straight days. Where is the Foreign Policy experience there? Yet Sarah Palin tried to single-handedly wipe out the progress made by the Women’s Liberation movement during the past 30 or so years with her overtly misguided NAZI / Ku Klux Klan-leaning “Pro-life” stance.
While the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had worked with inner city youths in his home base of Chicago, Illinois. Especially Chicago’s South Side famed for it’s disadvantaged African-American communities left out of the American dream. Barack Obama had been very busy working on schemes to make these disadvantaged communities a contributing and prosperous part of America. To me, this is Foreign Policy in action on American home soil aimed at alleviating the damage made by the divisive and obstructionist politics of Bush Administration Neo-Conservatives. And yet the real issue is conveniently spin-doctored to fit into the lipstick on a pig / lipstick on a pit bull-soccer mom rhetoric and demagoguery. Wlth this make the 2008 US Presidential Elections even more interesting?
By: Vanessa Uy
Its been four years since John Edwards first brought the issue of “disparity” between the “Two Americas” into the media spotlight. Of those four years that has passed, almost –if at all – has been done to address this issue. Despite the fact that the disadvantaged part of the “Two Americas”, were largely made up of African-Americans and other cultural minorities in the US.
Ever since the Civil Rights movement began in the turbulent decade of the 1960’s, the divisive politics that engendered a schism of the perfect American Union was finally addressed. From the Native Americans who were virtually made “foreigners” in their own country to the African-American community who never got a fair share of the American Dream ever since Abraham Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation. When it comes to healing the rift between the European Anglo-Saxon majority (hegemony?) and those on the other disadvantaged America – the cultural minorities alienated to the point that they feel as if they are foreigners in their own country. There’s progress for sure – albeit a painfully slow one.
One issue that became de rigeur in the 2008 US Presidential Race is Foreign Policy. No one in his or her right mind wishing for that much-coveted position in the White House will ever make a speech about “Foreign Policy Begins at Home”. It could be tantamount to political suicide. And yet, the ill-conceived policies of the past US Administrations had virtually created an another America. An America that’s not only disadvantaged financially, but also left out of their rights to reap the benefits of all the good things that America’s Founding Fathers had fought for. The divisive politics that lead to this was exemplified by that January 28, 2008 Newsweek cover story about how President George W. Bush and his neo-conservatives destroyed America.
The present Bush Administration not only widened the rift further between the African-American community and White America, but also made all of America’s ethnic minorities – especially Americans of Arab descent – virtually foreigners in their own country. Since the Republican Party / GOP ‘s selection of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as their Vice Presidential candidate. The GOP used the Foreign Policy experience issue to criticize their Democratic rivals. Yet they are oblivious of the Bush Administration’s folly of government mismanagement of creating a “Foreign Policy” crisis right on American home soil – i.e. the schism of the “Two Americas”.
Strangely, the Alaskan governor and Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin has been “discretely quiet” about the Native Americans / First Nations people in Alaska protesting against the wholesale crude oil exploration on their ancestral lands which could lead into widespread environmental degradation. Governor Sarah Palin has been also “discretely quiet” about the “good” things she has done to the Native American / First Nation community in Alaska during her tenure as governor of that state. Alaska may be close to Russia but I wonder if Governor Sarah Palin had ever been close enough to a Russian TU-95 Bear to make her ears ring for three straight days. Where is the Foreign Policy experience there? Yet Sarah Palin tried to single-handedly wipe out the progress made by the Women’s Liberation movement during the past 30 or so years with her overtly misguided NAZI / Ku Klux Klan-leaning “Pro-life” stance.
While the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had worked with inner city youths in his home base of Chicago, Illinois. Especially Chicago’s South Side famed for it’s disadvantaged African-American communities left out of the American dream. Barack Obama had been very busy working on schemes to make these disadvantaged communities a contributing and prosperous part of America. To me, this is Foreign Policy in action on American home soil aimed at alleviating the damage made by the divisive and obstructionist politics of Bush Administration Neo-Conservatives. And yet the real issue is conveniently spin-doctored to fit into the lipstick on a pig / lipstick on a pit bull-soccer mom rhetoric and demagoguery. Wlth this make the 2008 US Presidential Elections even more interesting?
Friday, August 29, 2008
2008 Beijing Olympics: The Big Picture
Praised by the current International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge as truly exceptional. But as the Beijing Summer Games closes, will the injustices and Human Rights violations being done to make it possible also end?
By: Vanessa Uy
When China won the much-coveted International Olympic Committee or IOC bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympic Games back in 2001, a small but significant number of people view this as a “Faustian Pact” between the heavy-handed Beijing Government and the IOC. This was unfortunately proven as the years past into the run-up of the Beijing Games. Amnesty International had received findings that China has used the Beijing Olympics not only as a pretext for cracking down on political dissidents, but also of corrupt Government Functionaries unlawfully evicting legally titled residents from their land and homes just to built the Birds Nest Stadium and other Olympic-related facilities. In their desperation to make the air around Beijing pass World Health Organization safety standards. The party officials has even ordered factories around Beijing to suspend their operations and removing 90% of cars from running two weeks before the Games just to pass the WHO clean air standards. Note that the level of pollutants on the air around Beijing is usually five times above the safe limit mandated in the WHO standards, and these are just the normal gripes that we know about.
There’s a long list of issues on why the numerolologically-very-auspicious-by-Feng-Shui-standards 2008 Beijing Olympics got it’s unflattering moniker of “The Genocide Olympics”. The issue of The People’s Republic of China’s unlawful annexation of Tibet back in 1951. The June 4, 1989 incident at Tiananmen Square, and the Beijing Government’s active complicity of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur due to the party officials’ dealings with the present Sudanese government has unfortunately allowed the Beijing Olympics’ Torch Relay to be compared, even to Adolph Hitler’s 1936 Berlin Olympics. The 1936 Berlin Olympics is when the first Torch Relay of the Modern Olympics originated by the way. The dark side of the 2008 Beijing seems to make the Milarepa Fund / Free Tibet movement forever in vogue, and even made Joey Cheek’s Team Darfur probably as famous as the bravado displayed by American swimming star Michael Phelps winning scores of gold medals that are up for grabs.
On the lighter side, the Beijing Government has even ordered gourmet restaurants around Beijing not to serve dog meat dishes as a means of appeasing “Western Sensibilities”. Which is relatively easy to enforce given that the party officials can easily evict long-time residents just to set-up the Olympic facilities.
Given that the modern Olympic Games thrive best in a climate of artificiality, witness the lovely voice of Yang Peiyi singing “Ode to the Motherland” being lip-synced into the perfect “Borg Girl” and Chinese version of a 7-year-old Courtney Cox Lin Miaoke. This issue alone is a 250-page doctoral thesis subject-in-itself, the ultimate of political constructs that those in the know call it as “Dadaism”. Dadaism is all about “If the tail were smarter, it would wag the dog”-type political spin doctoring. About why you’ll only see Sub-Saharan Black African children being used in existing ant-child soldier / anti-child combatant campaign posters, instead of a pubescent Armenian girl who looks like Dakota Fanning carrying a Soviet-made big bore anti-materiel rifle. I just hope that when Yang Peiyi grows up into a Chinese version of “Sarah Plain and Tall”, the Beijing party officials will generously reward her contribution to the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
As the 2008 Beijing Olympics draws to a close, the next Olympic venue - namely London – will be hard pressed to match the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Games. Which by far is seen by many as the best in all the history of the Modern Olympiad. But the London Olympic Games 0f 2012 is still four years away, maybe it's too soon to tell. Given also that IOC assessments conclude that the 2008 Beijing Olympics is the most watched so far of all the Summer Olympics that came before it, the injustices wrought by China’s Foreign Policy adventurism – sadly – will remain unseen by the worlds major news providers. Even Roberta Cohen of the “Little Green Men Chasing” Brookings Institution having indisputable proof of the Beijing Government’s complicity of the on-going systemic ethnic cleansing in the Darfur Region of Sudan is of hardly any consequence when the International Community is reluctant to tackle these issues. If the Bush administration run US Government continues supporting a very wasteful energy policy of borrowing billions from Beijing just to buy crude oil from people who hate America to the core. Then the injustices in Darfur and Tibet will surely go on. A compromised superpower surely can’t save the world.
By: Vanessa Uy
When China won the much-coveted International Olympic Committee or IOC bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympic Games back in 2001, a small but significant number of people view this as a “Faustian Pact” between the heavy-handed Beijing Government and the IOC. This was unfortunately proven as the years past into the run-up of the Beijing Games. Amnesty International had received findings that China has used the Beijing Olympics not only as a pretext for cracking down on political dissidents, but also of corrupt Government Functionaries unlawfully evicting legally titled residents from their land and homes just to built the Birds Nest Stadium and other Olympic-related facilities. In their desperation to make the air around Beijing pass World Health Organization safety standards. The party officials has even ordered factories around Beijing to suspend their operations and removing 90% of cars from running two weeks before the Games just to pass the WHO clean air standards. Note that the level of pollutants on the air around Beijing is usually five times above the safe limit mandated in the WHO standards, and these are just the normal gripes that we know about.
There’s a long list of issues on why the numerolologically-very-auspicious-by-Feng-Shui-standards 2008 Beijing Olympics got it’s unflattering moniker of “The Genocide Olympics”. The issue of The People’s Republic of China’s unlawful annexation of Tibet back in 1951. The June 4, 1989 incident at Tiananmen Square, and the Beijing Government’s active complicity of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur due to the party officials’ dealings with the present Sudanese government has unfortunately allowed the Beijing Olympics’ Torch Relay to be compared, even to Adolph Hitler’s 1936 Berlin Olympics. The 1936 Berlin Olympics is when the first Torch Relay of the Modern Olympics originated by the way. The dark side of the 2008 Beijing seems to make the Milarepa Fund / Free Tibet movement forever in vogue, and even made Joey Cheek’s Team Darfur probably as famous as the bravado displayed by American swimming star Michael Phelps winning scores of gold medals that are up for grabs.
On the lighter side, the Beijing Government has even ordered gourmet restaurants around Beijing not to serve dog meat dishes as a means of appeasing “Western Sensibilities”. Which is relatively easy to enforce given that the party officials can easily evict long-time residents just to set-up the Olympic facilities.
Given that the modern Olympic Games thrive best in a climate of artificiality, witness the lovely voice of Yang Peiyi singing “Ode to the Motherland” being lip-synced into the perfect “Borg Girl” and Chinese version of a 7-year-old Courtney Cox Lin Miaoke. This issue alone is a 250-page doctoral thesis subject-in-itself, the ultimate of political constructs that those in the know call it as “Dadaism”. Dadaism is all about “If the tail were smarter, it would wag the dog”-type political spin doctoring. About why you’ll only see Sub-Saharan Black African children being used in existing ant-child soldier / anti-child combatant campaign posters, instead of a pubescent Armenian girl who looks like Dakota Fanning carrying a Soviet-made big bore anti-materiel rifle. I just hope that when Yang Peiyi grows up into a Chinese version of “Sarah Plain and Tall”, the Beijing party officials will generously reward her contribution to the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
As the 2008 Beijing Olympics draws to a close, the next Olympic venue - namely London – will be hard pressed to match the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Games. Which by far is seen by many as the best in all the history of the Modern Olympiad. But the London Olympic Games 0f 2012 is still four years away, maybe it's too soon to tell. Given also that IOC assessments conclude that the 2008 Beijing Olympics is the most watched so far of all the Summer Olympics that came before it, the injustices wrought by China’s Foreign Policy adventurism – sadly – will remain unseen by the worlds major news providers. Even Roberta Cohen of the “Little Green Men Chasing” Brookings Institution having indisputable proof of the Beijing Government’s complicity of the on-going systemic ethnic cleansing in the Darfur Region of Sudan is of hardly any consequence when the International Community is reluctant to tackle these issues. If the Bush administration run US Government continues supporting a very wasteful energy policy of borrowing billions from Beijing just to buy crude oil from people who hate America to the core. Then the injustices in Darfur and Tibet will surely go on. A compromised superpower surely can’t save the world.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Should Team Sports Be Banned From The Olympics?
The proposal has been around since modern revival of the Games started in 1896 about team sports should be eliminated. The rational being is that it is tantamount to simulated war games. Is this the Olympic Ideal in extremis?
By: Vanessa Uy
The proposed idea of banning team sports from the Olympic Games has perennially manifested in and out of discussion whenever we reexamine if our current Games are “keeping the faith” of the original Olympic Ideal. Compared to the amateurism versus professionalism debates of the past, which inevitably resulted in the creation of the American “Dream Team” wrecking havoc in the 1992 Barcelona Olympic basketball competition, the rational behind banning team sports from the Olympic events is by no means just a mere political demagoguery and anti-war rhetoric. After all, the two World Wars of the previous century have resulted in the cancellation of the continuity of the Modern Olympiad three times, as opposed in ancient Greece where it was on going wars and conflicts – not the Olympic Games – that gets suspended. Plus the recent widespread global criticisms on the Beijing Government’s questionable Foreign Policy decision to sell arms and provide technical support to the incumbent Sudanese government that’s responsible for the on going conflict in Darfur is a case in point. War is indeed seen by all as the worst anathema to the Olympic Ideal.
But if both team spirit and cooperation an (supposed?) integral part of the Olympic Ideal; wouldn’t it be bunkum to criticize on this? After all Mikhail Bakunin – famed anarchist and student of the “Human Condition” – have cited that humanity is very cooperative and creative when it comes to destroying his or her fellow human beings. Not to mention that the Olympic Games might become a tad bit boring if soccer / European football and basketball were removed because these “interesting” sports are for all intents and purposes signify simulated war games.
Has our argument now devolving into some philosophical “crepuscular zone” reminiscent of the former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Potter Stewart’s inability to define obscenity? Will commercial sponsors now be fleeing in droves because the Olympic Games had become boring and people lost interest in it because the probably two main crowd-drawers of the Olympics - namely European football / soccer and basketball are banned just because they "vaguely" resemble simulated war games to the powers-that-be. Thus creating a situation that compromises the Games’ ability to “pay its way”?
The good news is that team sports will still be an integral part of the Olympic Games for the foreseeable future – maybe for thousands of years hence. So for now, those in favor of banning team sports from the Olympic Games may just as well sit back, relax, and enjoy the Games. After all, many of us are still busy formulating “politically correct” ways to show our disdain against the Beijing Government’s stance on Tibet (or is “unlawful annexation of a sovereign territory” even defined as war anymore), His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Darfur without burdening the ordinary working class Chinese. I’m welcome to any suggestions.
By: Vanessa Uy
The proposed idea of banning team sports from the Olympic Games has perennially manifested in and out of discussion whenever we reexamine if our current Games are “keeping the faith” of the original Olympic Ideal. Compared to the amateurism versus professionalism debates of the past, which inevitably resulted in the creation of the American “Dream Team” wrecking havoc in the 1992 Barcelona Olympic basketball competition, the rational behind banning team sports from the Olympic events is by no means just a mere political demagoguery and anti-war rhetoric. After all, the two World Wars of the previous century have resulted in the cancellation of the continuity of the Modern Olympiad three times, as opposed in ancient Greece where it was on going wars and conflicts – not the Olympic Games – that gets suspended. Plus the recent widespread global criticisms on the Beijing Government’s questionable Foreign Policy decision to sell arms and provide technical support to the incumbent Sudanese government that’s responsible for the on going conflict in Darfur is a case in point. War is indeed seen by all as the worst anathema to the Olympic Ideal.
But if both team spirit and cooperation an (supposed?) integral part of the Olympic Ideal; wouldn’t it be bunkum to criticize on this? After all Mikhail Bakunin – famed anarchist and student of the “Human Condition” – have cited that humanity is very cooperative and creative when it comes to destroying his or her fellow human beings. Not to mention that the Olympic Games might become a tad bit boring if soccer / European football and basketball were removed because these “interesting” sports are for all intents and purposes signify simulated war games.
Has our argument now devolving into some philosophical “crepuscular zone” reminiscent of the former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Potter Stewart’s inability to define obscenity? Will commercial sponsors now be fleeing in droves because the Olympic Games had become boring and people lost interest in it because the probably two main crowd-drawers of the Olympics - namely European football / soccer and basketball are banned just because they "vaguely" resemble simulated war games to the powers-that-be. Thus creating a situation that compromises the Games’ ability to “pay its way”?
The good news is that team sports will still be an integral part of the Olympic Games for the foreseeable future – maybe for thousands of years hence. So for now, those in favor of banning team sports from the Olympic Games may just as well sit back, relax, and enjoy the Games. After all, many of us are still busy formulating “politically correct” ways to show our disdain against the Beijing Government’s stance on Tibet (or is “unlawful annexation of a sovereign territory” even defined as war anymore), His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Darfur without burdening the ordinary working class Chinese. I’m welcome to any suggestions.
Should There Be A Permanent Site For The Olympic Games?
With growing global concerns over the Beijing Government’s less-than-stellar Human Rights and Foreign Policy track record, is it high time for the International Olympic Committee to consider a permanent site for the Olympic Games?
By: Vanessa Uy
During the dawn of Western Civilization, the Olympic Games were originally part and parcel of ancient Greece’s theology and belief system. The games were held in honor of Zeus for nearly 12 centuries with almost no intrusion by politics. Back then, the Olympic Games were more than a display showcase of athletic prowess. Contests of dance and choral poetry are held together with the games on the plain of Olympia. The Olympic Celebration was of paramount importance to the ancient Greeks, even wars were interrupted to assure that the quadrennial (every four years) celebrations would take place.
But isn’t it high time for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to consider a permanent site or venue for the Olympic Games – preferably in Olympia, Greece. After all, the Olympics have been cancelled three times since the Games’ modern revival in 1896 because of the two World Wars. Never mind the constant plague of nationalistic political rivalries, plus the newer threats of “commercialism” that had turned the beloved “Hallowed Ground” of the Olympics into just another backdrop for advertising. Plus the constant threat of boycott every time the nation who won the coveted IOC bid still needs a lot of progress. Especially when it comes to Human Rights, the right to habeas corpus, or just the plain basic ethics that we in the “Enlightened Christian West” seems to take for granted on an alarmingly daily basis that this inevitably created “Gitmo” and Abu Ghraib.
Under our current agreement, the IOC chooses sites for the summer and winter Games several years in advance. Once the host countries are selected, it is the responsibility of the governments – and their respective local business entities - of these selected countries to provide all the facilities and the bulk of the financing for the Games. But these requirements have shown a track record of constantly reverting to excessive displays of nationalism by the host countries. Not to mention the construction of extremely expensive facilities which are seldom utilized after the said country’s duration to host the Olympic Games ends.
A permanent site for both summer and winter Olympic Games would be helpful in turning our present Olympics into a much stronger institution. Currently, the Olympics are seen as nothing more than a short-lived spectacle that’s vulnerable to political and commercial exploitation by their temporary host’s country. Given that the proposal for a permanent Greek site has a rational that the region is relatively stable politically both at present and in the foreseeable future. Plus, there could be an added bonus that the Games could acquire an identity of their own just like the celebrations of old.
In addition of a permanent site for the Olympics, it could also be a big help if the duration of the Games were extended from two weeks to, maybe, two to three months. In my opinion, this would allow the Olympic participants / athletes an opportunity to better know one another and also allows them to share experiences that are generally impossible in our current politically-charged competitive setting.
During my research: I’ve found out that thirty years ago the government of Greece had suggested proposals on some ways to proceed in establishing a permanent site for the Olympic Games. Especially when it comes to on how the financial burden shall be born. The Greek proposal suggests the formation of a politically neutral and militarily inviolable “Olympic State” in the area of the original site at Olympia. If this Greek proposal does go underway, the “Olympic State” would fall under IOC jurisdiction, although sovereign territorial rights would remain with Greece. The IOC would install and own the facilities at the site, plus the Olympic Committee would also be permitted to administer the Olympic area and granted powers to govern it. This enables the IOC to determine the terms of and conditions for entry. Greek law would apply within the area, but Greek military forces are forbidden to enter under any circumstances.
For all intents and purposes it was a good proposal. But many IOC member countries failed reaching a consensus especially when it comes to how the financial burden should be borne. And also of on how to equitably appropriate the financial benefits of the games among IOC member nations. Faced with this difficulty, the Greek proposal for a permanent site for the Olympic Games became more or less shelved indefinitely. But given the “perennial” problem of countries with less-than-stellar Human Rights and Foreign Policy records managing to win the much coveted International Olympic Committee bids to host the Olympic Games, isn’t it high time to reconsider the Greek proposal for a permanent site / venue for the Games?
By: Vanessa Uy
During the dawn of Western Civilization, the Olympic Games were originally part and parcel of ancient Greece’s theology and belief system. The games were held in honor of Zeus for nearly 12 centuries with almost no intrusion by politics. Back then, the Olympic Games were more than a display showcase of athletic prowess. Contests of dance and choral poetry are held together with the games on the plain of Olympia. The Olympic Celebration was of paramount importance to the ancient Greeks, even wars were interrupted to assure that the quadrennial (every four years) celebrations would take place.
But isn’t it high time for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to consider a permanent site or venue for the Olympic Games – preferably in Olympia, Greece. After all, the Olympics have been cancelled three times since the Games’ modern revival in 1896 because of the two World Wars. Never mind the constant plague of nationalistic political rivalries, plus the newer threats of “commercialism” that had turned the beloved “Hallowed Ground” of the Olympics into just another backdrop for advertising. Plus the constant threat of boycott every time the nation who won the coveted IOC bid still needs a lot of progress. Especially when it comes to Human Rights, the right to habeas corpus, or just the plain basic ethics that we in the “Enlightened Christian West” seems to take for granted on an alarmingly daily basis that this inevitably created “Gitmo” and Abu Ghraib.
Under our current agreement, the IOC chooses sites for the summer and winter Games several years in advance. Once the host countries are selected, it is the responsibility of the governments – and their respective local business entities - of these selected countries to provide all the facilities and the bulk of the financing for the Games. But these requirements have shown a track record of constantly reverting to excessive displays of nationalism by the host countries. Not to mention the construction of extremely expensive facilities which are seldom utilized after the said country’s duration to host the Olympic Games ends.
A permanent site for both summer and winter Olympic Games would be helpful in turning our present Olympics into a much stronger institution. Currently, the Olympics are seen as nothing more than a short-lived spectacle that’s vulnerable to political and commercial exploitation by their temporary host’s country. Given that the proposal for a permanent Greek site has a rational that the region is relatively stable politically both at present and in the foreseeable future. Plus, there could be an added bonus that the Games could acquire an identity of their own just like the celebrations of old.
In addition of a permanent site for the Olympics, it could also be a big help if the duration of the Games were extended from two weeks to, maybe, two to three months. In my opinion, this would allow the Olympic participants / athletes an opportunity to better know one another and also allows them to share experiences that are generally impossible in our current politically-charged competitive setting.
During my research: I’ve found out that thirty years ago the government of Greece had suggested proposals on some ways to proceed in establishing a permanent site for the Olympic Games. Especially when it comes to on how the financial burden shall be born. The Greek proposal suggests the formation of a politically neutral and militarily inviolable “Olympic State” in the area of the original site at Olympia. If this Greek proposal does go underway, the “Olympic State” would fall under IOC jurisdiction, although sovereign territorial rights would remain with Greece. The IOC would install and own the facilities at the site, plus the Olympic Committee would also be permitted to administer the Olympic area and granted powers to govern it. This enables the IOC to determine the terms of and conditions for entry. Greek law would apply within the area, but Greek military forces are forbidden to enter under any circumstances.
For all intents and purposes it was a good proposal. But many IOC member countries failed reaching a consensus especially when it comes to how the financial burden should be borne. And also of on how to equitably appropriate the financial benefits of the games among IOC member nations. Faced with this difficulty, the Greek proposal for a permanent site for the Olympic Games became more or less shelved indefinitely. But given the “perennial” problem of countries with less-than-stellar Human Rights and Foreign Policy records managing to win the much coveted International Olympic Committee bids to host the Olympic Games, isn’t it high time to reconsider the Greek proposal for a permanent site / venue for the Games?
Child Pornography: Do We Really Know It when We See It?
From Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland author Lewis Carroll’s portrait photography of Victorian children to Annie Leibovitz’s Vanity Fair photos of Miley Cyrus. When it comes to child pornography, do we really know it when we see it?
By: Vanessa Uy
If it’s hard to draw a timeline that shows how often free speech is co-opted by despotic political leaders, let alone made impossible to sort it out from genuine out and out obscenity due to the influence of “Aspirational Paedophilia” posing as free speech / artistic expression. Was this “threat” to Western Civilization started in 1998 when Hustler magazine CEO Larry Flynt started the Barely Legal franchise - thus making paedophilia aspirational – back in 1998? Or was it when the Russian teen Lesbian duo Tatu and accused punk poser Avril Lavigne battled for fame in 2003? Though many anti- Avril Lavigne websites still accuse Avril Lavigne of glamorizing the “Dickensian Dinginess” aspects of child pornography, by citing the way Avril Lavigne’s on-stage butt-crack exposure which became sexist humor fodder on the Joe Rogan Dough Stanhope era “The Man Show” is similar to the way Fiona Apple and Sheryl Crow glamorized the "Heroin Chic” in the late 1990’s. This despite the fact that Avril Lavigne will probably be turning 24 this year, thus proving the 21st Century adage that the blogosphere is indeed a fierce and fickle mistress, especially as an art critic. Add to that the recent row over the Miley Cyrus a.k.a. Hannah Montana “controversial” Vanity Fair portraiture by Anne Leibovitz and the Australian child pornography row over artist Bill Henson’s photo exhibition in a Sydney gallery depicting nude pre-pubescent kids that even “Lord of the Rings” and “Elizabeth” star Cate Blanchett managed herself to get embroiled. But the question remains; do we really know child pornography when we see it? Or is child pornography just a manifestation when the most cherished of our sociological constructs like Human Rights and Civil Liberties get trampled upon every time Halliburton and KBR exercises their “right to be greedy”?
When it comes to defining pornography and / or obscenity, the rational among us – which I hope constitutes the majority – always point out the immortal words of the former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. The famous quote of former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart goes as: “I know it when I see it.” Some say this highlights his failure to define obscenity during the Jacobellis v. Ohio case back in 1964 which later became a landmark US Supreme Court decision. But to some people – including myself – believes that what US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart meant about his famous quote “I know it when I see it” is that cases of pornography and / or obscenity should be examined on a case to case basis. Especially when it comes to Bill Henderson’s controversial photo exhibitions that the current Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has deemed obscene even though thousands of others have deemed it as mere artistic expression.
Sadly the wisdom of this landmark US Supreme Court decision went on unheeded – even viewed as just a mere US Supreme Court docket - when then President Ronald Reagan spent millions of American taxpayers’ money on a dubious pro-conservative biased study on pornography. Reagan asked then Attorney General Edwin Meese III to head this “commission on pornography”. This culminated into the 1,960 page report titled “Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography Final Report” dated July 1986. Unfortunately, the Reagan – Meese definition of “pornography” is next to useless when used as a benchmark to find out whether the “staged” antics of Avril Lavigne, Miley Cyrus and their ilk are guilty of glamorizing child pornography and / or promoting aspirational paedophilia.
The good news is that level headed folks everywhere now see the 1,960 page “Commission on Pornography Final Report” as nothing more than the Reagan Administration’s attempt at co opting every freedom loving American’s Right to Free Speech back in the 1980’s. Which makes the then President Ronald Reagan’s remarks on the signing of the Child Protection Act of 1984 rather somewhat bunkum. Hell, Avril Lavigne could have uttered those same remarks on Saturday Night Live and everybody would think that it’s one of those retro 1980’s stand up comedy routine.
The bad news is that the legacy of the Reagan – Meese pornography commission fiasco means that every “devout” Anglo-Saxon Protestants around the world now harbor an “eternal suspicion” every time they see those beautiful Victorian era Art Nouveau-like child portrait photography of Lewis Carroll – a.k.a. Oxford mathematician Charles Dodgson. And interpret these as “child pornography”. Just like the current fiasco pertaining to Annie Leibovitz’s “Homage to Lewis Carroll” Vanity Fair photos of Miley Cyrus. Although the one where Miley Cyrus’ perky pubescence showing through her diaphanous sports bra might inspire every Vladimir Nabokov wannabes to invent lepidopteral / entomological labels for pubescent teen-age girls.
Despite of the political demagoguery that has become part and parcel on our attempts of defining what constitutes pornography and / or obscenity, to me, we may be misleading ourselves. Let along completely missing the point every time we examine the problem from the very narrow and somewhat limiting perspective of Abrahamic Theology / Judeo-Christian Morality. And everyone can now freely hate me as I say Darwin and Nietzsche could be right on the mark.
After reading the main article of the February 2000 issue of Discover Magazine about how Mother Nature utilized beauty as a survival trait. It began to dawn on me that as a society Western Civilization has yet to sort out what falls under “Slave Morality” and what falls under “Master Morality” in order to accept the true nature of ourselves. Babies, young kids, even pubescent teen-aged girls are genetically designed to be beautiful because it has a better chance of survival every time grown-ups with means (i.e. money, food, power, WMD s etc.) feel obliged to take care of them. We should be thankful to Mother Nature for delaying the manifestation of the "ugly gene” (usually this gets full-blown when one reaches 18) in each and every one of us for as long as humanly possible.
Though some might label my Darwinian embrace of aesthetic beauty as mere demagoguery, well, that’s their loss. Although in a perfect world, scantily clad perky pubescent teens do make great superheroes. Bad guys and everyone’s “Uncle Phil” would be “too distracted” to be evil. Someone should send a memo to Marvel Comics’ Stan Lee about this. But in the end who would you trust as the final arbiter when it comes to what constitute pornography and / or obscenity, yourself or an “organization” who thinks that the decision for one of their founders to burn alive 3,000 Jews is a good thing?
By: Vanessa Uy
If it’s hard to draw a timeline that shows how often free speech is co-opted by despotic political leaders, let alone made impossible to sort it out from genuine out and out obscenity due to the influence of “Aspirational Paedophilia” posing as free speech / artistic expression. Was this “threat” to Western Civilization started in 1998 when Hustler magazine CEO Larry Flynt started the Barely Legal franchise - thus making paedophilia aspirational – back in 1998? Or was it when the Russian teen Lesbian duo Tatu and accused punk poser Avril Lavigne battled for fame in 2003? Though many anti- Avril Lavigne websites still accuse Avril Lavigne of glamorizing the “Dickensian Dinginess” aspects of child pornography, by citing the way Avril Lavigne’s on-stage butt-crack exposure which became sexist humor fodder on the Joe Rogan Dough Stanhope era “The Man Show” is similar to the way Fiona Apple and Sheryl Crow glamorized the "Heroin Chic” in the late 1990’s. This despite the fact that Avril Lavigne will probably be turning 24 this year, thus proving the 21st Century adage that the blogosphere is indeed a fierce and fickle mistress, especially as an art critic. Add to that the recent row over the Miley Cyrus a.k.a. Hannah Montana “controversial” Vanity Fair portraiture by Anne Leibovitz and the Australian child pornography row over artist Bill Henson’s photo exhibition in a Sydney gallery depicting nude pre-pubescent kids that even “Lord of the Rings” and “Elizabeth” star Cate Blanchett managed herself to get embroiled. But the question remains; do we really know child pornography when we see it? Or is child pornography just a manifestation when the most cherished of our sociological constructs like Human Rights and Civil Liberties get trampled upon every time Halliburton and KBR exercises their “right to be greedy”?
When it comes to defining pornography and / or obscenity, the rational among us – which I hope constitutes the majority – always point out the immortal words of the former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. The famous quote of former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart goes as: “I know it when I see it.” Some say this highlights his failure to define obscenity during the Jacobellis v. Ohio case back in 1964 which later became a landmark US Supreme Court decision. But to some people – including myself – believes that what US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart meant about his famous quote “I know it when I see it” is that cases of pornography and / or obscenity should be examined on a case to case basis. Especially when it comes to Bill Henderson’s controversial photo exhibitions that the current Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has deemed obscene even though thousands of others have deemed it as mere artistic expression.
Sadly the wisdom of this landmark US Supreme Court decision went on unheeded – even viewed as just a mere US Supreme Court docket - when then President Ronald Reagan spent millions of American taxpayers’ money on a dubious pro-conservative biased study on pornography. Reagan asked then Attorney General Edwin Meese III to head this “commission on pornography”. This culminated into the 1,960 page report titled “Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography Final Report” dated July 1986. Unfortunately, the Reagan – Meese definition of “pornography” is next to useless when used as a benchmark to find out whether the “staged” antics of Avril Lavigne, Miley Cyrus and their ilk are guilty of glamorizing child pornography and / or promoting aspirational paedophilia.
The good news is that level headed folks everywhere now see the 1,960 page “Commission on Pornography Final Report” as nothing more than the Reagan Administration’s attempt at co opting every freedom loving American’s Right to Free Speech back in the 1980’s. Which makes the then President Ronald Reagan’s remarks on the signing of the Child Protection Act of 1984 rather somewhat bunkum. Hell, Avril Lavigne could have uttered those same remarks on Saturday Night Live and everybody would think that it’s one of those retro 1980’s stand up comedy routine.
The bad news is that the legacy of the Reagan – Meese pornography commission fiasco means that every “devout” Anglo-Saxon Protestants around the world now harbor an “eternal suspicion” every time they see those beautiful Victorian era Art Nouveau-like child portrait photography of Lewis Carroll – a.k.a. Oxford mathematician Charles Dodgson. And interpret these as “child pornography”. Just like the current fiasco pertaining to Annie Leibovitz’s “Homage to Lewis Carroll” Vanity Fair photos of Miley Cyrus. Although the one where Miley Cyrus’ perky pubescence showing through her diaphanous sports bra might inspire every Vladimir Nabokov wannabes to invent lepidopteral / entomological labels for pubescent teen-age girls.
Despite of the political demagoguery that has become part and parcel on our attempts of defining what constitutes pornography and / or obscenity, to me, we may be misleading ourselves. Let along completely missing the point every time we examine the problem from the very narrow and somewhat limiting perspective of Abrahamic Theology / Judeo-Christian Morality. And everyone can now freely hate me as I say Darwin and Nietzsche could be right on the mark.
After reading the main article of the February 2000 issue of Discover Magazine about how Mother Nature utilized beauty as a survival trait. It began to dawn on me that as a society Western Civilization has yet to sort out what falls under “Slave Morality” and what falls under “Master Morality” in order to accept the true nature of ourselves. Babies, young kids, even pubescent teen-aged girls are genetically designed to be beautiful because it has a better chance of survival every time grown-ups with means (i.e. money, food, power, WMD s etc.) feel obliged to take care of them. We should be thankful to Mother Nature for delaying the manifestation of the "ugly gene” (usually this gets full-blown when one reaches 18) in each and every one of us for as long as humanly possible.
Though some might label my Darwinian embrace of aesthetic beauty as mere demagoguery, well, that’s their loss. Although in a perfect world, scantily clad perky pubescent teens do make great superheroes. Bad guys and everyone’s “Uncle Phil” would be “too distracted” to be evil. Someone should send a memo to Marvel Comics’ Stan Lee about this. But in the end who would you trust as the final arbiter when it comes to what constitute pornography and / or obscenity, yourself or an “organization” who thinks that the decision for one of their founders to burn alive 3,000 Jews is a good thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
