policy with pop

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?

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?

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.

Republican: Barack the Magic...

While PolicyWithPop.com was on a two-month hiatus, America elected Barack Obama the next President of the United States. With its electoral losses, the Republican Party is in disarray and looking for new leadership. The Republican National Committee (RNC) is holding elections for a new party chair. There are currently six candidates.

It is really anyone’s game. One RNC chair candidate, Chris Saltsman, not only sent each RNC member a note asking for support but attached a CD that contains a controversial jingle that takes jabs at the president-elect in hopes of appealing to RNC members. It parodies “Puff the Magic Dragon.”

 

Let’s take a moment to remember the kiddie classic.

Now the conservative parody is not really kid-friendly and PC as the inspirational Puff. The song, produced by the Rush Limbaugh Show, is sung by a white political satirist, Paul Shanklin, imitating Rev. Al Sharpton’s voice. You can click here to hear it. The song bases its lyrics on an LA Times opinion piece and is entitled “Barack the Magic Negro.”

 

Magic what!?! Apparently it is a cinematic term, which refers to black characters that mysteriously appear out of nowhere and miraculously save the white protagonists. I’ve never watched it but apparently The Legend of Bagger Vance starring Will Smith and Matt Damon is an example.

The opinion piece mentions that Obama has been criticized for not being “genuine” black. The song takes this argument to another level. With an Al Sharpton-impersonated voice, the song’s lyrics proclaim: Barack is “black but not authentically.”

 

The opinion piece and the song’s lyrics are referencing the fact that Obama is half-white and did not live in “the hood.” They eerily echo Ku Klux Klan’s view. KKK national director Thomas Robb stated, “Obama is only half black. Not only is he only half black – he was not raised in a black environment. He was raised by his single [white] mother.”

 

If you read the LA Times opinion, do you think it crossed a line? Or was it a fair-game assessment of Obama?

 

Is the song racist as some claim? Or is it just political satir? Does it matter that it bases its lyrics on the LA Times opinion?  

 

If the song is acceptable political satire, is it smart for Republicans to bring up Obama’s race in a negative manner even as a joke? Does it open up Republicans to charges of racism? Or are Republicans strategically pushing the envelope to make it easier/more acceptable to criticize the first black President?

The Dark Knight: Vigilante Hero or Future Villain?

The Dark Night. One word: Wow. I saw it on opening night, and the movie was amazingly entertaining and thought-provoking – great material for PolicyWithPop.com. In fact, after it ended, I immediately told one of my friends that I had at least four blog post ideas to write about. Yeah, the unknown girl sitting next to me thought I was way cool…

Anyway, in one of the beginning scenes Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawes, Harvey Dent and Bruce’s date discuss how Batman works outside the law in Gotham. Harvey, who seems to have a man-crush on Batman, defends his vigilante ways in part because Batman has been successful in reducing crime. He compares Batman’s actions to how the Roman Empire, which had a democracy, changed to authoritarian rule to handle threats to the nation and its people. Rachel points out that the ruler was Caesar, inferring how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Harvey concedes, “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

The Dark Knight shows the complexities Batman has as a vigilante. But despite the intricate moral dilemmas Batman faces, we – the audience – know that he is one of the good guys.

But how would you feel if there was a real masked crime-fighter in your city without knowing that person’s character, like we do with Batman? Would he or she be welcomed by the public? And how would/should the media and law enforcement treat and portray vigilantes?

Do you think vigilantism is acceptable when the government cannot protect its people? Or does vigilantism ultimately create more chaos, danger and potentially more villains?

Men in Tights: Mandatory Circumcision?

Trials in Africa indicate that male circumcision can cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 50%. Other reports show that male circumcision may reduce male-to-women HIV infection by 30%.

With these results, should we make circumcisions mandatory to reduce the spread of HIV, especially in areas most afflicted by the disease? Or is that paternalism (dictionary.com definition: the attitude that subordinates should be controlled in a fatherly way for their own good) at its worse… and painful?

Don’t know what a circumcision is? Ask your parents. Or you could watch this PG-13 clip from Robin Hood: Men in Tights for a non-medical explanation:

Yikes! So, umm… yeah…

Clueless about Donating

Clueless is a 90’s classic teen flick starring Alicia Silverstone as Cher, a teenager who goes through the trials and tribulations of being rich, beautiful and popular. Oh, the pain!?! Oh, the comedy! In case you are clueless, here’s the trailer to give you some insight:

After some soul-searching, Cher decides to change her materialistic lifestyle and use her popularity to get the school behind a donation drive for the victims of the Pismo Beach disaster relief effort.

One of the donors is the stereotypical slacker-skater-smoker Travis, who decides to contribute his bong. Cher and Travis are unsure if the bong is an acceptable donation, but they decide to go ahead and put the bong in the box with kitchen appliances.

This scene got me thinking: Can you donate a bong or other legal objects that are used for illegal activities? So I did some online research. Here’s some “useful information” I found out:

Goodwill asks that you don’t “give items that have been recalled, banned, or do not meet current safety standards.” I’m not sure if that prohibits bongs.

Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries has a list of no-no’s but nothing about bongs. The closest thing to a bong-ban includes “camping equipment containing gas, oil or butane,” “hazardous materials including, but not limited to, pain, oil [sic]” and “fish tanks.”

The Salvation Army’s website does not have a list of prohibited items.

Okay so they don’t specifically prohibit bongs as donations and thus leaves it questionable. So you decide what the policy should be.

Do you think questionable items (drug paraphernalia) should be acceptable donations? If non-profit thrift shops sell these items, does it send a wrong message to the public and its younger customers? Or should the non-profit strive to be a non-judgmental, unbiased reseller?

And if you think I am trying to promote illegal drug use with this post, AS IF!