policy with pop

Can You Live Without Facebook? Does It Matter?

As you know, I get my news from Facebook (kind of). But, more recently, Facebook has been in the news.

So Facebook changed its privacy settings to share more of its users’ personal information to third parties. And, it did so without really announcing the change or explaining the need. Users became livid.

What are disgruntled Facebook users to do? Boycott! Now Facebook users have threatened a boycott in the past. Remember when Facebook changed its design and people were like, “Bring back the OLD Facebook or we’ll quit.” Yeah… There are currently 400 million Facebook users.

But perhaps this boycott will be different. First, this was not just an aesthetical change. Some might say it’s a violation of trust. Second, this is a one-day boycott… oh… so it’s not a mass exodus, but for Facebook addicts, I guess this will be a tough sacrifice...

I wonder what life would be post-Facebook (if it ever comes to that)… Luckily, I don’t have to ponder this scenario too deeply because the cool kids from UC Davis School of Law made a movie about it for their annual talent show! Well, actually, it was a subplot in their movie.

Below is the part relevant to this discussion. To view the movie from the beginning, click here.

Rough stuff. And, ummm, what is a Witkins? No, no. I gotta get back to our discussion.

Facebook’s founder has responded by apologizing for the confusion but he’s not sorry for the changes. “If you’re not comfortable sharing, don’t,” he says. Doesn’t sound like he’s scare of any boycott…

What do you think? Are there legit privacy concerns? If so, does it warrant a boycott? Would a one-day boycott be successful?

Fight for This Love Today

Why does love always feel like a battlefield?

As you may recall, my love for British pop star Cheryl Cole was on the rocks after she axed X-Factor contestant Ethan Boroian from the competition. However, through her endearing mentorship of eventual winner Joe McElderry, Cheryl has won me over once more.

 
It is fitting that I promote Cheryl Cole’s solo debut single “Fight for This Love” on Valentine’s Day.

This catchy lil ditty is appropriate for all on this day. Whether you’re in a relationship or searching for one, it’s just a feel good song that encourages you to “keep going.” And, the video is not bad to look at either.

But today is not only the holiday of Hallmark. Today also happens to be the Lunar New Year. Many Asian cultures celebrate the New Year based on the lunar calendar. Many believe that what happens on the Lunar New Year reflects on the rest of the year (at least that’s what my mom tells me). So here’s hoping you have an awesome day and year!

In honor of this most auspicious day as well as the Olympics, I’d also like to highlight Asian American figure skater Mirai Nagasu. With an endearing spirit, she has the artistic and athletic potential to be America’s next figure skating star. She’ll be representing the United States at the Olympics. Here’s hoping she medals!

With so much going on, I wish you and your loved ones good health, prosperity and happiness!

Tim Tebow: From the Football Field to the Political Arena

Tim Tebow seems a likeable guy. When Oklahoma cornerback Dominique Franks belittled the Heisman winner, he responded in a classy and humble way, earning my respect. Since then, he’s won another national championship, cried, and recently won the Sugar Bowl. But, the quarterback may be making a controversial play by participating in a Focus on the Family ad promoting a pro-life chance.

Liberal organizations, especially pro-choice groups, are criticizing CBS and Tim Tebow for the upcoming Super Bowl ad. The ad will reportedly feature Tim’s mother describing her decision to give birth to him. Obviously, that decision resulted in producing the Heisman-winning quarterback, which implies that every pregnant woman should not choose abortion.

CBS had previously rejected other political ads, stating that its policy was to reframe from such ads. Some feel like CBS has backtracked on this policy by allowing this ad, produced by right-wing religious group Focus on the Family. The group describes itself as a global Christian ministry. Focus on the Family has been described by some liberals as a hateful, anti-gay and anti-women group. Obviously, Focus on the Family is a controversial group.

Women’s organizations are not the only ones hoping to pass interfere with the ad. Some football enthusiasts say a political/religious ad is inappropriate for a day to tailgate, drink, and watch football.

Tim Tebow, like any high profile football player, is either loved or hated by football fans, depending on which college football team they are rooting for. However, Tim has always made his faith known to the public. Besides stories about his missionary trip and his vow to remain a virgin until marriage, he also puts Bible verses on his eye markings. But, I don’t recall him using his public microphone to preach advocate his political positions. This ad would be his first.

Defending himself from criticism over the Super Bowl ad, he argues that he’s just standing up for what he believes in. Sarah Palin also blocked the quarterback’s scramble, by criticizing women’s groups for their criticism of Tim and pro-lifers.

Does the ad’s affiliation with a ultra-conservative group matter?

Is the Tebow ad an attack on pro-choice group and laws?

Is it wise or noble for the quarterback to run into the political thicket of the abortion debate? Or should he concentrate on improving his football techniques?

Should CBS play the political ad? Or is it sacrilegious for the network to mix football with a political/religious debate? 

Never Back Down from a Fight?

Given the title and the trailer, one would think Never Back Down is just an MMA (mixed martial arts) movie. But, there’s a little more to it.

Never Back Down takes The Next Karate Kid’s plot, mixes it with The O.C.’s teenage angst, and adds the over glorified scenery of The Fast & the Furious to make a predictable but action-packed film.

Now I actually enjoyed Never Back Down. I’m not saying it is Oscar worthy, but it was entertaining. While the movie is predictable, the fight scenes were pretty cool and realistic-looking. More impressive though is that lead Sean Faris showcased major acting chops alongside two-time Academy Award nominee Dijmon Hounsou. However, I’m sure movie watchers will focus more on the pretty people and the punches, kicks, grapples and chokeholds.

While it was an action flick, Never Back Down also tries to impart an important message – fight for a good reason. Now the message may be a little skewed because of all the fighting going on and the title Never Back Down seems to suggest otherwise, but the message is there (I think).

The movie actually discourages petty fighting. At first, Faris’ character, Jake Tyler, seemed to fight anyone who insulted him and his past. However, training with Mr. Miyagi Jean Roqua (Hounsou) eased that anger and gave him discipline. In fact, Roqua instituted a rule that Jake could not fight outside the dojo or he’d be kicked out.  

Moreover, when school bully Ryan McCarthy (played by Cam Gigandet) takes actions to provoke a physical response from Jake, Jake’s love interest points out, “Walking away and giving up are not the same thing.”

But, ultimately, Jake concludes that everyone’s got a fight. Fighting in self-defense and for the protection of others appears to be ok in his book movie.

Do you think fighting is acceptable if it is justified? What qualifies as a justified reason? Self-defense? Defense of others? Defending one’s honor? Promoting one’s reputation?

Or is non-violence always the answer?

The Best Political Speech of the Past Decade

With many reflecting on the top of so and so in the past decade (congrats to ‘Nsync for having the best selling album with No Strings Attached and to Mariah Carey for earning the top song with We Belong Together), I thought I’d put my two cents on the top political speech of 2000-09.

When thinking about the best political speakers of the past decade two men instantly pop out. And while both these men can lay claim to holding the highest office in the land, it is a woman who won the honors of being the Best Political Speech of the Past Decade according to PolicyWithPop.com (aka me).

If Hillary Clinton had spoken like this during the primaries, she might be President today. Like her historic bid for the White House, Clinton’s 2008 Democratic National Convention speech was epic. 

On that night, she had the awkward task of making the case for Barack Obama when a few weeks ago she was making the case against him in a heated primary. On top of that, she had to respond to criticism that she dragged out the primary because she refused to quit. Oh, and she was obligated to take jabs at the Republican nominee, John McCain. No other speaker had so much on his or her plate. And, Hillary rose to the occasion.

Known more for having a wonky speaking-style, Hillary employed passion, humor, and inspiration in this speech.

To make the case for Obama and call for unity in the Democratic Party, she connected the issues she ran on to Obama. By doing so, Hillary argued that Democrats should vote Obama for substantive reasons, while highlighting and associating her groundbreaking campaign with those causes.

With this speech, Hillary was able to reframe her campaign from the barrage of criticism that she had stayed in the primary for too long. “To my supporters, my champions – my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits - from the bottom of my heart: Thank you. You never gave in. You never gave up. And together we made history,” said the future Secretary of State. She utilized her image as a fighter that never quits and emphasized the historic nature of her campaign.

Hillary also had some memorable zingers against her friend, John McCain. “No way. No how. No McCain” was probably the best condensed line of attack on the Republican nominee at the convention. And, of course, Hillary used the Bush card. After listing positions McCain and President George W. Bush shared, she humorously added, “With an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they’re awfully hard to tell apart.”

But perhaps the highlight of her speech was when she quoted Harriet Tubman, a black female New Yorker who helped lead slaves to freedom. The symbolism of Harriet Tubman and her “keep going” message resonated on so many levels. It was a brilliant move.

Considering everything this speech had to do, it was well-crafted and executed excellently. Thus, Hillary Rodham Clinton earns PolicyWithPop.com's Best Political Speech of the Past Decade. Congrats, Madam Secretary!

Obviously, this is just one blogger’s pick for the best speech of the past decade. Is there another performance that I am missing? Who deserves the top honors in your ears?

Twilight’s Edward Cullen: Romantic or Creeper?

What if Edward Cullen is not the hero? What if he’s the bad guy?

My eleven year old sister received the movie Twilight as a Christmas present. She was overjoyed and wanted me to watch with her, knowing that I have never seen the movie before. I obliged.

On its face, Twilight should jive with my tastes. I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But, Twilight was different.

The movie lacked character development. To be fair, Buffy is a TV show, which has more time to allow for more character growth over episodes and seasons.

Besides the lack of depth, I found Edward Cullen to be majorly creepy. The dude awkwardly stares at Bella Swan (not sure if that’s in the script or if that Robert Pattinson’s “artistic interpretation”). But what takes the cake for giving me the wiggins is that Edward admitted to secretly breaking and entering into Bella’s room each night for two months to watch her sleep.

After I watched Twilight, my sister asked me my thoughts. Being the honest brother that I am, I told her, “Edward is a creeper.” Man, did I say the wrong thing to the Twilight fan. She protested the whole night.

My sister defended Edward’s action. She argued that because Bella liked his stalker-ish behavior, it was acceptable.

Now I could have simply dismissed her passionate defense as some teeny-bopper reaction but I also know quite a few friends in their mid-twenties who would bite my head off for criticizing Twilight/Edward/Pattinson.

But am I right to characterize Edward as a creeper? Should society be promoting this type of behavior? Or am I missing the romantic nature of a vampire that glows in the sunlight?

Illusions of The Hills and New Year’s Eve Grandeur

When one thinks of New Year’s Eve, the images of spectacular parties, champagne, and the magical kiss come to mind. In the first season of The Hills, Lauren Conrad tried to have it all on New Year’s Eve. Watch here:

The Hills (Season 1) - MTV Shows

Now we all know that The Hills is a staged show, even Lauren-substitute Kristin Cavallari admitted to this. But, I have to say that the first season seemed a little more… authentic (these are the pre-Spencer days). But, even this episode seems scripted… at least with the editing. The Lauren-Jason fight seems real, but that midnight kiss… Do you really think that Jason made it back in time for a 12:00am kiss? Or do you think his drunk *ss was late and MTV fabricated the times?

The Hills supposedly shows you a lifestyle - the partying, the fashion, the drama, and the fairytale-endings. And this episode had it all.

But is it realistic to expect so much on New Year’s Eve? Or does the grandeur of New Year’s Eve give people high expectations that set up some/many for disappointment?

Is the New Year’s Eve hype even worth it? The festivities of New Year’s Eve certainly spur economic activity and give many a reason to party. But, does the social pressure of having a memorable night as well as obnoxious drunkards wandering around negate the New Year’s Eve celebrations? You tell me.

With all this said, I had a wonderful New Year’s Eve. Nothing film-worthy but nonetheless fun. I hope you had an enjoyable New Year’s Eve. Oh and happy New Year!

And, I want to thank Bryan Dobrow for generously making a new (FREE!) banner for PolicyWithPop.com to celebrate the new decade! It looks awesome.

A "Precious" Sight: Poverty & Pain

I won two advance screening tickets to an episode of Glee in LA last minute (I’ll blog about the episode in another post)! With a day and half to plan my unexpected trip from Nor Cal to So Cal, I decided to take a train. What I saw before attending the Glee screening was eye-opening and heartbreaking.

The train is a great way to travel. You get to sightsee without the hassle that comes with driving. The steady speed of the train also allows passengers (or at least me) to read, study or even write a blog post without getting a headache!

Anyway, my trip started at 6:40am at the train station. As my train was going through Sacramento, I unexpectedly saw several tents scattered in undeveloped lands. At first I thought it was a little odd to set up camp in Sacramento. But, then it hit me. I remembered reading about the prevalence of people living in tents because they could no longer afford living in a home during the recession. I never saw it in person before.

Sacramento was not the only area with families living in tents. As my train went down the Golden State, I continued to see tents. In distressed towns like Merced and Fresno, I saw rows of tents under bridges.

It definitely made me sad to see so many tents throughout California. I realized how blessed I am to have what I have. But, I also wondered what could be done to help those families. I thought about that during my trip.

When I arrived in LA a day before the Glee screening, I decided that I was going to see Precious: A Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire. Now I’ve wanted to see the movie for months, but after unexpectedly seeing families living in tents, I thought watching this film was timely. Here is the trailer for the movie:

Without giving away all the details, Precious is about the struggles of a poor, obese, illiterate, black teen-mom, who is raped by her father and abused by her mother. Intense. Not only do viewers see the startling assault Precious faces at home, but it exposes the cracks in our inadequate education and welfare system. Now this movie is set in the 1987 but the problems highlighted in Precious still seem to like issues today.

One fear that some have about a movie like Precious is that it is “poverty porn.” That type of movie is one in which the rich and middle class go see to watch a story about poverty/struggle and feel good about themselves for seeing such a movie. In the end, the poor person’s story is exploited and those who enjoyed the film ultimately leave without doing anything about the problems they are exposed to.

After watching Precious, I wondered what can be done to help those like Precious. It’s been two days since, and I’m riding the train back home, passing by those living in tents. Thinking up solutions about addressing the problems of poverty and abuse is a challenge. That’s why I’m hoping to figure it out with you.

As I return to Sacramento, California’s capital, I wonder what the government can do to assist those who have slipped through the cracks. What do you think the government can do? What should it do?

And, what can an individual do to help the poor or the abused? Should we all feel an obligation to help those in need? Or is it every man for himself?

In any case, not to get all Oprah on you, but you have to see Precious.

BCS: Bowl Congressional Series?

College football is one of the most thrilling sports to watch. Take a look at one of the most exciting games of this year:

Heading into the game, Norte Dame was predicted to win against the Michigan Wolverines. But, the Victors prevailed despite the chatter.

With that in mind, in recent years the University of Southern California football team is annually hyped as the contender for the national title. Yet, nearly every year USC kills its chances to play in the national championship game by losing to a lower tier PAC-10 school. Then USC fans decry the unfairness of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system, claiming that USC is best team in the country. Remember when USC convinced coaches to award it a #1 ranking in the AP/Coach’s Poll and then proclaimed itself to be the national champions? Take that, BCS!

The BCS system selects two teams to play for the national championship based on rankings, determined by… the AP Poll, Coaches’ Poll and computer average? Does anyone really know how the BCS works? Anyway, proponents of this system argue that this system reduces the amount of the physically-intensive games student-athletes go through while properly selecting bowl match-ups.  BCS supporters believe that a play-off system would prolong an already long season and take an unnecessary toll on the college kids.

USC fans are not the only BCS-haters, Members of Congress are getting into the mix and in a bi-partisan way too! Busy congressmen found time in between debating healthcare reform and troop levels in Afghanistan to create a political, fundraising group, the “Play-off PAC.” The money raised from this PAC will go to politicians who support getting rid of the BCS system and replace it with… a play-off system, which they argue would be fairer and generate millions of dollars by adding extra games.

Who is part of this group? Money will go to such politicians like Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who saw his Utah Utes  go undefeated last season yet be shut out of the national game, and Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie, who co-sponsored the Championship Fairness Act of 2009. This is an important issue to these lawmakers. Rep. Abercrombie slammed the BCS system as an exclusive country club… that apparently excludes USC…

Do you think college football should get rid of the BCS system in favor of play-offs? Or are USC and certain congressmen just bitter? Is there another system?

And what is your reaction to the congressional intervention of college football? Is it necessary or just a ploy to raise money?

Fraternity Life: Exclusive or Inclusive?

So I have a few ideas for a proper policy with POP posting. But I’ve been in a retrospective mood lately so I will use a past incident in my life as the impetus of this post. Hopefully, you’ll read and give me your take.

When I was a college freshman, I joined a fraternity. Anyone who knows me knows I do not fit the typical frat guy mold. In fact, many people are surprised to learn I was even in a fraternity. I’m still shocked myself.

Anyway, when I was pledging, my pledge class had to throw a party at a club. As with any social event, we had to publicize it. Besides personally inviting our friends and making announcements at sorority houses, we also passed out flyers on campus to random students.

When it came to flyering for our party, my fellow pledges and I had different philosophies. They only targeted members of the student body who were hot or looked cool. I too gave out flyers to these Abercrombie & Fitch types. But, I also had a “invite everyone” approach.

In fact, I made it a point to give party flyers to those who did not fit the stereotype of who was deserving of a fraternity party invitation. The Star Wars t-shirt wearing engineer. Here ya’ go! The non-conformist, Goth girl . Welcome! The socially awkward econ-kid. Sure, you too!

Now there were grumblings from my fellow pledge bros. They questioned my flyering strategy. But, they didn’t stop me. So I continued to pass out flyers merrily to student from all walks of campus.

Then one of the more confrontational pledges called me out. He loudly complained, “Rich is giving out fliers to these rejects because he feels like he wouldn’t have been given an invite in the past.”

Truth.  And, I admitted it to him and the other pledges. I was a scrawny, politically-minded dork. In high school, I wasn’t eating lunch alone but I was never really part of the “in-crowd.” But here I was, in a position to invite people to a frat party, and I wanted to make those that are often overlooked feel welcomed. That was my idealistic motivation. Practically, I knew that we had an abundance of fliers we needed to get rid of and I was pretty sure none of these random kids would come. So I thought: No harm, no foul.

Confrontational pledge was mildly appeased but he was still concerned that my actions would hurt the fraternity’s reputation and make the party seem less cool.

I’m not sure if it did or it didn’t. But, I can tell you the party was a success. Plus, no one came wearing a Star Wars t-shirt!

What do you think? Were my efforts to welcome all people, especially those who are considered social “rejects,” cool? Or was my frat party an inappropriate venue to advance my personal agenda of breaking down the harsh social hierarchy of college? Did I put my fraternity’s reputation at risk? What would you have done?