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?

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.

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?

Looks + Talent = X Factor for Ethan Boroian? Not According to Cheryl Cole

X Factor is the British version of American Idol but with a twist (the judges act as the contestants’ managers). Cheryl Cole was my favourite judge. She’s fit, flirtatious, cheeky but sweet, and is part of the over-the-top British pop group Girls Aloud. And, with this scene and this scene, who wouldn’t love Cheryl as a judge?

But, my love for Cheryl is on the rocks after she (along with Will Young) unfairly critiqued American contestant Ethan Boroian. Watch:

What were Cheryl and William smoking? I’m not sure what they heard. But, their ability to evaluate talent is questionable.  Ethan’s performance was charming, soulful and had “good vocals.” Is he the best vocalist in the world? No. But was Ethan’s performance was arguably better than the others who advanced with Cheryl’s blessing in the boy’s category.  And he’s definitely a stronger singer than Cheryl Cole. That’s for sure. The American was wronged.

Honestly, I was not really a big fan of Ethan Boroian when the initial hype around him was abuzz. I thought his first audition, singing Kings of Leon’s "Use Somebody," was good but not as great as people made it out to be. Maybe my expectations were higher because of the hype. I kind of assumed he got the initial praise he got more because of his looks than singing.

But then I started watching the other contestants sing, and it was clear Ethan was talented. However, Cheryl, an initial Ethan fan, accused him of being “one of them people that thinks his looks will carry ‘em thru” during this round. Burn! Not only was her statement hypocritical but it revealed how Ethan’s hunky appeal ultimately led to his demise on X Factor. Oh, the pain of being beautiful…

There seemed to be a dynamic in how looks skew evaluation of talent. And this skew happens in the real (working) world too. Good looking people on average earn more 5% and get special treatment than their average looking peers. But conversely, attractive people have the double edge sword of proving that their talent and abilities, not their hotness, merited their success. Oh the burden!?!

So what do you think about appearance and its role on how we evaluate others? Do good looks ultimately hurt or hinder a person’s professional career?

And, what’s your opinion of Cheryl Cole’s judging skills? Am I being too harsh on my former favorite X Factor judge? What do you think of Ethan Boroian and his time on the show?

Aubrey O’Day Bares All

Aubrey O’Day…  I knew the girl during college. We had two classes together. In fact, I studied with tutored her.

Then Ms. O’Day became a controversial reality star on MTV’s Making the Band and a member of the defunct girl-group, Danity Kane. With her crazy antics and all the rumors swirling around about her, Aubrey has her fans but also incites the haters.

While I have my own opinions of Aubrey from personal interactions, I’ll keep them private and won’t weigh in on the fray. But I will share one positive incident that made a lasting impression on me.

One night Aubrey picked me up for one of our study tutoring sessions. One of her sorority sisters was also in her car. Aubrey had just come from an interview for a waitress gig at Hooters. She then playfully declares that she had to wear her PUSH-UP, push-up bra for the interview. She goes on to say that she needed it because she wasn’t as busty as her sorority sister and needed all the help she could get for the Hooters interview.

Even in college, Aubrey always dressed… provocatively. We all knew she was confident in flaunting her body. But this incident showed me that Aubrey was truly comfortable with her body.

That was 2003. Since then Aubrey’s breasts have expanded exponentially… Now I’m not saying the girl got implants, as some say. I haven’t seen or talked with her since 2005. For all I know, Aubrey had a natural growth spurt… that only occurred in the chest area.

The very vocal Aubrey O’Day is not letting these plastic surgery rumors go unaddressed. In her new song “Never Fallin,” she sings that she is all real when it comes to her chest. Apparently, you can ask Hugh Hefner.

Back when I knew her, Aubrey seemed secure with her body. And, I respected her confidence in her body image, even if I did not always understand her choice in clothing (or lack thereof). But, if she did get breast implants, did she sell out?

Even though she is famous, Aubrey is not the only person who comes under scrutiny for how she looks. We all deal with body issues. Should we learn to accept our bodies and avoid plastic surgeries? Or is cosmetic surgery a perfectly acceptable means to achieve the body we want?
 

How Should Mariah Carey Respond to Eminem’s Insults?

Remind me not to get on Mimi’s bad side…

Mariah Carey hits Eminem with a bus of a song in “Obsessed.”

The feud between the megastars started in 2002.  Eminem publically claimed that he had been sexin’ the diva. In the released single “Superman,” Em raps, “Buy you ice / B*tch if you died wouldn’t buy you life / What you trying to be my new wife? What you Mariah? / Fly through twice>”

Mariah did have a rebuttal. “Clown,” off her Charmbracelet album, is reportedly about Eminem and takes the rapper to task, but it was never released. While Mariah made some subtle jabs while responding to reporters’ questions, she never publically launched a counter-offensive. She took the higher ground so to speak.

I thought the 2002 feud had died. It’s 2009 for goodness sake.

But with his return to the spotlight, the rapper brought back his old insults. He raps about Mariah in “Bagpipes from Baghdad,” a song off of his Relapse album, calling her a c*nt, a wh*re, and a b*tch. He also clowns Mr. Mariah Carey, Nick Cannon, too.

Nick defended his wifey and launched a blog attack at Em, claiming Slim Shady (a white male) was sexist and racist for insulting the bi-racial diva.

But, Mariah can speak… sing for herself.  She recorded and released “Obsessed.” Now the diva’s camp claims that the song and video is not about the Detroit rapper (apparently she’s vegetarian and doesn’t beef). Right… Because referencing sex rumors and drug problems in your song has no relation to the reignited feud and Eminem. And, dressing up like an Em is only a coincidence.

Anyway, what do you make of Eminem's attacks against Mariah? Insults from a jilted ex? Or put-downs from a sexist and racist (like Nick claims)?

How should one respond to insults? For years, Mariah did the supposedly classy thing and only refuted any accusations. And the insults kept coming. Apparently girl got tired of the attacks and fired back. Which approach is best?

And who are you supporting in this war of lyrics?

Kings, No Queens: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Thanks to Hulu.com I have found a new show to watch – Kings. I’ve only seen the first episode of the NBC drama so far, but its strong storytelling makes it a compelling watch.

Set in a fictional world, Kings follows the inner turmoil of the absolute monarchy in the country of Gilboa. The first episode starts with the country at war. Modest farm-boy turned soldier David Shepherd emerges as a national hero after rescuing captured soldiers, including Prince Jack Benjamin, from enemy lines. 

As David is celebrated as Gilboa’s golden boy by both the country and King Silas, Jack is jealous and feels resentment towards his father. The playboy prince confronts Silas, wanting to know why his father does not give him the respect he deserves as a soldier and as his son. Startling revelations are revealed in their heated conversation. Watch:

This scene immediately made me think about the national debate on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, in which gay military personnel are discharged if their sexual orientation is revealed.

Originally enacted during the 1990’s, President Clinton hoped to find a compromised solution that would allow the LGBT community to serve in the military. Before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military did not allow any gay people to join the military. Once enacted, the law allows gay people to serve if they hide their orientation. If not, they’re kicked out.

Proponents of the policy argue that openly accepting gay military members hurts military morale and cohesion. Some argue that many recruits have conservative beliefs and would not feel comfortable being around openly gay people. They argue that this tension would hinder military performance. So just like Silas, they essentially argue that LGBT servicemen should “wrestle it to the ground.”

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is criticized by opponents as a policy that is degrading, unfair and hurts military power. They argue the notion that heterosexuals can’t serve with openly homosexual soldiers insults the professionalism of our straight men and women in uniform. Other countries allow for LGBT people to serve openly without a decrease in cohesiveness or morale. Moreover, opponents say that the policy is degrading as it forces gay people to hide who they are. And, finally, they argue that discharging needed military men and women, especially in time of war, is dangerous. Arabic translators are in high demand in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; however, more than 50 Arabic translators have been discharged because of “Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask” since the policy’s inception.

A number of people have called for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” including President Clinton’s wife (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) and a number of military higher-ups. President Obama has also stated he would like to see the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” His actions on this issue, however, have been… well… minimal at best. And congressional leaders, at least in the Senate, seem hesitant to put this issue up to a vote.

As politicians struggle with the future of this policy, what do you think? Should we take a King Silas approach and ask our gay men and women to hide who they are? Or would that mentality underestimate the professionalism of our straight servicemen and be an insult to the LGBT community? And what do you think is the best strategic military option?

The Torkelsons: Dress Matters

One of the most endearing shows in history is The Torkelsons. You’ve probably never heard of the show as it only lasted one season. The Torkelsons follows an Oklahoma family that has little money but a lot of heart and quirkiness. The most relatable character on the show is Dorothy Jane.

Dorothy Jane is a dreamer’s dreamer. She’s the smart, responsible girl, who’s an outsider. She wishes to be part of the in-crowd. She dreams of escaping her small town life for one of metropolitan sophistication and romance. She pines for the older, boy-next-door Riley Roberts. Essentially Dorothy Jane wants what she cannot have (don’t we all?), and it’s really touching and funny. 

The second episode, The Cotillion, is one of my favorites. Dorothy Jane has a school dance to attend. With no money for a new dress and with hopes of going with Riley, will she have the dance of her dreams? Or will it be a hilarious disaster? Watch:

When Riley steps in and tells Dreama that no one would look better in Dreama’s donated dress than Dorothy Jane, CLASSIC. And when Dorthy Jane declares it her “reincarnated” fall cotillion gown, that was… too cheesy.

This episode made me think of a high school incident I had. But my incident has nothing to do with a dance or any crush. In fact, by recounting this (ancient) story, I will be confirming that I am a bit of a… nerd (shock!), but here goes.

One of my best high school friends – let’s call her “Allie” – loved to shop and dress in trendy clothes. I believe she shopped at Macy’s and Forever 21. One day I wondered if she would be willing to wear clothes from a thrift store or from K-Mart or Sears. So I asked her.

Allie immediately responded, “Hellz no!”  I tried to sweeten the deal. I told her I would pay for an outfit from K-Mart, if she would wear it to school. The answer was still “no.” I then told her I would buy her whatever outfit she wanted from K-Mart and she could tell our schoolmates it was from Macy’s. Yeah… that didn’t work either. She refused to be associated in any way with any thrift store, K-Mart or Sears clothes (apparently she hadn’t seen the softer side of Sears).

This incident and The Torkelsons episode got me thinking. By wearing “cheap” clothes, do we signal to others that we are “poor?” Does it matter?

Apparently it mattered to Dorothy Jane and my friend, Allie, who were both high school girls and came from working class families. Would it be different if they were older? Younger? Male? Richer? Out of school? Working?

Do clothes make a statement about the person wearing them? Should it? Is it superficial to judge people by their clothes? Or is it an important method to analyze people?