Dream Girl

So about a week ago, I had this dream that I hooked up with Aishwarya Rai. It was kind of crazy, almost amazing, and then a bit creepy (when she turned out to be my half-second-cousin whose mom (my mother's aunt) followed us around to keep us from hooking up b/c she didn't approve of me "making her daughter gay."

I have to say, I was a bit proud of my dream, despite its incestuous aspects, simply because when does that every happen really? Where a beautiful superstar chooses ME, and I'm not actively day-dreaming the story's progression? Yeah. never. But it also got me to remembering the interview she did with Oprah a few years ago.



I believe Aishwarya was doing a promotional tour in the US for her then-soon-to-be-released Bride and Prejudice, but the film was never even mentioned by Oprah. Nor, for that matter, is most of her other work (except in the introduction).

It's difficult to even know where to begin. There are so many terrible things about this exchange between America's mammy* and India's native informant. The hypersexualization (Kama Sutra) and desexualization (Kissing), the cultural ignorance (Arranged Marriages) and appropriation (Saris), the exotification (um, YEAH) and alienation (singing in movies).

Props to Aishwarya for taking it in stride. I woulda straight laid the smackdown on Oprah. Anyway, just thought I'd share some of this stuff about my dream girl with y'all.

*This is not meant derogatorily. Rather, I'm referencing the way that Oprah is constructed in our media and in our society; the caricature that stands in place of the person.

The Sexualization of our Youth and Abstinence-Only Education

Sex in the media is nothing new but on Monday Vanity Fair published an article with pictures of tween star Miley Cyrus. Cyrus, better known as Hannah Montana was pictured with smoky eye makeup, red lipstick and tousled hair with a blanket seductively wrapped around her chest exposing her bare back. The sultry, sexy look immediately caught the attention of the media and Hannah Montana fans. The photo certainly does not exude the innocence that parents and fans so admire about Cyrus. This certainly isn't the first time that young stars have been seen in provocative poses. Just look at Britney Spears, she was only 16 when she danced around in a sexy school girl outfit for "Baby One More Time."



The media is constantly bombarding us with images of sex and it seems no age is too young to sell it. What shocks me about this particular photo is not the medias exploitation of another young star but the fact that Cyrus' parents were present at the photo shoot and did nothing. They somehow found it acceptable for their daughter to wear next to nothing and as Cyrus said herself "I think it’s really artsy...It wasn’t in a skanky way.… And you can’t say no to Annie [Leibovitz]. She’s so cute. She gets this puppy-dog look and you’re like, O.K."*

Here we have a star whose main audience is girls ages 8-13. Girls that look up to her as a role model and who are now seeing these images that say it's ok to be sexual. As they grow up the images of their age group will only get worse with television shows such as Gossip Girl and One Tree Hill showing high school students having casual sex and losing their virginity in the backseat of a moving car.

And all of this is happening while youth are being taught abstinence-only education in schools. Currently the only type of funding for sex education is for abstinence-only-until-marriage. Three major federal funding streams give money to states and community organizations for abstinence-only-until-marriage education which teaches that marriage is "only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife" and that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects" as stated by the federal 8 point definition of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

The government is telling youth to wait until marriage while the media tells them to go for it. Our youth are hearing two messages that contradict each other. Youth are not being given the tools they need to protect themselves if they do decide to have sex, which 70% do by the time they are 18. We need to stop sending mixed messages to our youth and start teaching them about all aspects of sexuality and how to protect themselves and their partners (of whichever gender they choose) so they will be able to make positive decisions in their lives.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on April 23rd titled “Domestic Abstinence-Only Programs: Assessing the Evidence”. Of those present the majority felt that abstinence-only programs do not work and are harmful to our nations youth. The American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine both testified that abstinence-only programs have not decreased the rate of pregnancies or STD's. Much of the testimony also discussed the need for comprehensive sexuality education programs. The Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act (H.R. 1653, S. 972) would provide funding to states for comprehensive sex education programs. REAL would still teach abstinence as the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD's but it would also teach the benefits of contraception and protection, as well as encourage family discussions.

It is time for us to take a stand on this issue and let the government know that we will not accept abstinence-only programs and demand comprehensive sexuality education programs like the REAL Act.

*"Artsy" is the new word for "classy." "Do I look skanky in this outfit? -No, you look really classy!" "Posing for Playboy was great, really artsy." If you have to say it, it's not classy or artsy.

Zoot Suit Boogie

Over the last six months I worked on a project for César Chávez celebrations on campus. My contribution was writing and editing a discovery guide for the theatrical production of Zoot Suit. The purpose of the guide was to introduce high school audiences to the context of the production—including everything from Immigration waves, Los Angeles history, to cultural language and customs of the time. *

Hailed as the first Chicano production to hit Broadway, Zoot Suit conflates events of the Sleepy Lagoon Murder Trial and the Zoot Suit Riots, which terrorized the Mexican American community in Los Angeles during the 1940s, in order to create a production that both uplifts and ignites social consciousness.

While the project gave me many headaches, as I dug deep to find everything from accurate information to photographs, plus figuring out how to make everything accessible for young minds, the one thing that pushed the project forward was this:


Little is written on the role of pachucas, women who donned the Zoot Suit attire, slang, and behavior of the 1940s. Yes, there are a few scholars who have written several scholarly pieces, who I can count on one hand: Catherine Ramírez, Elizabeth Escobedo, and Rosa-Linda Fregoso, but little attention is given to them in other forms of media. Zoot Suit, itself, was criticized for the masculinist portrayal of zoot suit culture.

The reality is that young women also dressed in full zoot suits, spoke in Caló (a dialogue referred to as pachuco slang--though it wasn’t slang at all, but an entire new language that Mexican American youth created out of their multi-cultural/lingual backgrounds), and hung out on street corners alongside their male counterparts. For the 1940s, this was seen as an extreme violation of social norms. Pachucas, seemed to care little about keeping a socially-accepted “feminine” appearance. Instead, they broke cultural and gender norms, forging an identity of their own.

Most def a source of inspiration.


[*In case you didn’t know, Chávez was a zoot suiter in his young life. This play is performed in honor to his life during an era of turmoil in the United States. Moreover, many of the people who contributed to the production of Zoot Suit, including the playwright, Luís Valdez, composer, Daniel Valdez, and the theatre trope, El Teatro Campesino, grew out of the Farm Workers Movement. Theatre, comedic satire, music, and dance were important tools used to organize people in support of the farm workers movement.]

The Wire isn't real, but I still love it.

All this news about Elliot Spitzer's prostitution bust has got me thinking about The Wire. And I know I'm not the only one. All this talk of federal indictments and wiretap's sounds eerily familiar to the hit HBO series. It got me thinking about who Spitzer didn't pay off to let this story leak.

But on a slightly more obsessive note: I've watched four seasons of The Wire in less than three weeks. Guess I'm as close to white as they come, 'cause I even threw down on two DVD box sets. And shit, I'll admit that I love the show. It's got all the elements of crime, sex and deceit that Law & Order is sorely lacking. I'd been holding out for two reasons: 1) I don't get HBO, and 2) everyone was in love with it. Yet despite how much I love it, I've got to admit that it's fucked up. For one, its portrayls of low and no income Black folks are just shady. Damn near every child in a Baltimore middle school is on the verge of selling crack? Come one, now. The show itself has done nothing for Black folks, really, except justify the Black market economy. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but I've encountered tons of folks who love the The Wire because it's so "real". Probably the only real thing about it is that it's one of the few shows that points the finger at people in power.

Front Page News?

Last week Reverend Lennox Yearwood from the Hip Hop Caucus waited outside the doors of the Petraeus hearing to get in. The policy repeatedly denied him entry while allowing others to enter. Rev. Yearwood began to question the officers about why he was not being allowed into a public hearing. Multiple officers then tackled him to the ground and arrested him. The entire time Rev. Yearwood is not resisting and many people around him are yelling at the police to stop and saying he is a peaceful man. If you do a google search you'll find Democracy Now!, some independent media sources and blogs reporting on the incident. Here is the You Tube video:



On Monday, a University of Florida student attended a speech by John Kerry. The student was given the opportunity to ask a question at the end of the speech. Right before he went up to the podium he gave a camera to his friend to record the question. After a minute of simply talking to Kerry he was asked by a police officer to finish his statement; his time was up. The student then yelled "I'm going to ask my question." and continued to go on and on. Finally, two officers began to escort him out. He then began yelling and resisting. He became so out of control that he was tasered. If you do a google search on this story you will see it in almost every major newspaper and on the front page of many today. Here is the video:




Before you read any further, please watch both of those videos. What do you notice about these two? Any striking differences besides the fact that one is a black man and the other white?

Does it look like the white boy is putting on a show to anyone else? The paper also mentioned that the student "has a history of chronicling his public hijinks". I can't begin to express my anger right now. Not only did a white boy trying to cause trouble make the front page, but a well-respected Reverend who did nothing wrong has his civil liberties violated and it is ignored by all major forms of media. People are talking about the "police brutality" at University of Florida. WTF!!!! I agree that they should not have tasered the U of F student, but who gets coverage is just ridiculous. Jena 6 happened over a year ago and major news sources have only picked up the story in recent months.

This shit is just FUCKED up.

its not as simple as "just not giving a fuck"

People Under 30 Show Little Interest in News
by Randy Shaw‚ Jul. 20‚ 2007

"A recent report, 'Young People and News,' found that Americans under 30 follow the news even less than previously believed, with only 16% of those between 18-30 reading a daily newspaper. Nor is this group getting its news from the Internet. According to findings of the Harvard-based Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, under-30 year olds do not make 'an appointment with news every day' in the way that this age group did in previous generations, and that many above 30 do today. When you consider that the 16% figure includes the huge number of under-30 males who read newspaper sports sections each day, the percentage of those reading the news section is even lower.

"Those looking for a bright side to the findings that America’s young people appear uninterested in reading newspapers, viewing Internet news sites or watching television news can take solace in this fact: voting in the 18-30 category greatly increased in 2006..."

You Can Read More of this article @ Beyond Chron

and the actual report can be found here Young People and The News



Its quite worriesome that young americans are voting en masse without reading the news. The article linked above claims that these new young voters are pro gay rights and heavily democratic, but is that always a good thing? When i think of pro gay rights and democrats, i think of this douche-bag... But thats just me...