Didn't Your Momma Teach You Anything?

Or, Spend My Money More Wisely, TAMU.

Dear Texas A&M,

I understand you're in the middle of a budget crisis. The Texas Legislature is telling you to cut almost 15% of your budget. That's A LOT. It sucks. I get it. I've been there; my parent's have cut me off before, too. It's a little scary, isn't it?

When my parents cut me off for a little while, I had to make decisions, cut out excess. I didn't decide not to pay rent or electric, and spend that money on coffee and clothes, did I? I bought sandwich meat instead of steak. I think we can both agree that that would have been a rather silly decision to do otherwise. Like, get your priorities in line, right?

You're a university. You are, by default, an institution theoretically filled with intelligent people. So we would expect you to deal with this budget crisis smartly; you'd do some things you're already doing. Things like: getting rid of obsolete landlines in an age when everyone has cells; not raising pay; letting TAMU basically become a billboard for Pepsi Co.. We'd think you'd do little things that add up to a lot, like turn off lights in your offices at night, use more energy efficient lightbulbs, stop keeping Harrington so damn cold all the time, etc.

So, why is it that I hear you're doing some less than brilliant things? Firing our professors, A&M? Come on, now. They're literally the lifeblood of the university. I get that their salaries are a huge chunk of our budget, but they are necessary. I would maybe understand if the incoming freshman class was small, so you didn't need as many profs teaching the same basic level subjects. If the student body was shrinking, it'd make sense. But each incoming class increases in size. And it's not like our lecture halls can hold more people per class. And honestly, it makes TAMU look bad when our teacher:student ratio changes negatively. With an increasingly larger student body and diversifying education, we need those professors.

Also, what about all this construction on campus, TAMU? I can think of five recent projects off the top of my head, ranging from kind of useful to a terrible investment, especially in the middle of a budget crisis, i.e. the glorified sidewalk running parallel to another perfectly good sidewalk in Academic Plaza. How much did that cost? About one prof's yearly salary? No one even sits on those benches, guys. It was a waste of money.

You know what else is a huge investment? Your salaries. The administration's. I don't see any of y'all getting fired. The bureaucracy at this school continues to grow, getting less and less streamlined (i.e. more and more frustrating for students and profs), wasting more and more money, and the necessary features of a school are what are being removed? What are you going to take away next, TAMU? Our desks? Just so you don't have to admit that maybe our administration has gotten too big? I understand that it's hard to stand up and say "My job is useless. I quit on the condition that you do away with my position entirely." But you probably should. Combine duties. Make it so any one person's job includes doing more than one task. You'll streamline the school and keep what we actually need -- teachers in the classrooms.

Universities exist for the education of their students, not for the glory of their administrators. Think about it.

Earth Day, Dr. Seuss Style

As many of you know, I'm reading a list of 50 books that have been banned for political, religious, or ridiculous reasons over time. Books like Forever, by Judy Blume (my review) because they detailed a girl's decision about whether or not to become sexually active, or The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, which is about a battle between God and Satan through two men (my review).

Well, I just recently read The Lorax by Dr. Seuss, which was banned because it's an allegory for poor treatment of Earth and loggers in California didn't like that so much. It's a story about the greedy Onceler who comes to the Lorax's territory and begins cutting down truffula trees, using the tops to make "thneeds" out of them, something *everyone* needs. He goes out of control, cutting down all the trees, polluting the air, and destroying the habitats of various types of fantastical creatures. The Lorax tries to warn him that he's hurting everyone numerous times, but the Onceler goes right on with his industry. Finally, the truffula trees are gone and everyone leaves, and all he's left with is a pile of rocks that say "Unless..."

Unless we do something. Yeah, this is an Earth Day post. I'm not a hippie-tree-hugger by any means, guys. I'm not going to move into a tree once I get to UC Berkeley. But I think that even when this book was published in 1971, Dr. Seuss brought up a good point. If we're not careful, we'll ruin this Earth for future generations. So, let's do our part. I'm not asking you to bomb a manufacturing plant (in fact, please don't do that), but let's use ceramic mugs instead of plastic cups for our coffee in the morning and carpool to work/school/the movies. I'm not saying that we should ban cars or wear only hemp or whatever. I don't know how much I believe in global warming (I'm not a scientist, I can't look at those figures for myself and draw my own conclusions), but I know for sure that the coral reefs off the coast of Australia are dying, and I know for sure that we're deforesting the Amazon at an alarming rate, and those are beautiful creatures, God's creatures, that need a place to live too.

Think about that today. When our kids are born, and their kids, I want the world to be just as beautiful as it is today, if not more so. I don't want it to look dark and sad like it does where the Onceler lives.

Getting In On The Controversy

I didn’t participate in Day of Silence this year, though I wanted to. My mother is coming into town to visit me and while she is very supportive of gay rights, she is not so supportive of me not speaking to her. Also, I had my big law discussion class and it was inconveniently scheduled that today would be a “speaking” quiz in which we all had to put forth an opinion to get a grade, and while I do believe that equal rights are more important than whether or not I get an A, it was kind of just an icing-on-the-cake reason not to.

Despite all that though, this is a little story/quote thing I wanted to share in support of this day. I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but in case you haven’t, take a read. It’s short.

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They’re laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won’t be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be submissive to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that ‘pertains to a man’ (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they’re committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).

So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn’t think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or – at best – unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes. ~Deb Price, And Say Hi To Joyce

I’m a Christian. But I support gay rights.

See, we have this concept in the US of separation of Church and State. It’s why we’ve only had one Catholic president — we don’t want the Pope, or anyone or anything else — trying to dictate our lives. So, why should we let a book, a book that only 76% of Americans believe as truth, dictate the laws governing what 100% of Americans are allowed to do? I’m not a math major, but that must mean that 24% of Americans are not Christians. As of July of 2009, the US population stood at 307,006,550, meaning that Christians who try to force everyone else to live by the Bible are forcing 73,681,572 people to live by a standard they don’t believe in. Because, yes, homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, whateversexuals are people too.

Maybe I’m naïve, with my whole idea of fair and allowing everyone to enjoy the same freedoms they’re supposed to be guaranteed by this nation, but it seems really fucked up to me that we (yes, I’m including myself here because I am a Christian) think we get to tell other people what the “right” kind of love is and discredit their’s.

And before you say this nation was founded by conservative Christians and should be run by conservative Christians: No, no it wasn’t. It was founded by liberal-extremist DEISTS who were basically agnostic and believed that there might be a God maybe, but Christ was not His son. Just saying.

img cred.

Day Without Shoes

There's this company, called TOMS Shoes, that does a really awesome awesome thing. For every one pair of shoes you buy from them, they donate another pair to someone in the world who doesn't own shoes.

And on April 8th, aka THURSDAY, they're sponsoring a world-wide event called One Day Without Shoes.

It's exactly like it sounds. On April 8th, we're all going to go barefoot for the day to raise awareness for people around the world that go without shoes every day. It'll be good for us -- we'll get a glimpse of what it's like -- and good for them because people WILL ask why you're going barefoot.

Well, here's why I'M doing it:

• In some developing nations, children must walk for miles to school, clean water, and to seek medical help.
• Cuts and sores on feet can lead to serious infection.
• Often, children cannot attend school barefoot.
• In Ethiopia, approximately one million people are suffering from Podoconiosis, a debilitating and disfiguring disease caused by walking barefoot in volcanic soil.
  
• Podoconiosis is 100% preventable with basic foot hygiene and simply wearing shoes.

Will you join us? RSVP here.

The One Where I Tell You About That Marine I Dated

Surprised, huh? I've only mentioned this Marine once before, and only in passing.

Well, we were never boyfriend-girlfriend. Which makes me wonder what to call him, because That-One-Ex-Marine-I-Dated is long and annoying to type out.

The-Cutey-From-My-US-History-Class-I-Made-Out-With?

That-Military-Guy-That-Changed-My-Perspective-On-US-Armed-Forces?

That-Boy-That-Got-Me-Hooked-On-Whiskey&Dr.Pepper-And-Old-Western-Flicks?

The-Guy-Who-Convinced-Me-That-"Cowboy Churches"-Are-Cooler-And-That-I-Should-Move-To-Montana?

Yeah, because all of those are so much shorter, Valorie. Good job. What a winner.

Anyways. I'm thinking about Marine right now because I had Wendy's earlier. The only time before now that I'd been to that particular Wendy's was when I once went with Marine and we he played a prank on the girl at the window, ordering 2 chicken burgers and then insisting that he'd actually ordered like 12 and was mad she messed up his order. ...It was funny at the time, I promise.

Eh-hem. Right. So, every time I pass that Wendy's, I crave a whiskey/dr.pepper and a night in watching old western movies. Then I wonder about what Marine is doing now -- not because I miss him that way; he transferred schools and we've lost touch. Then, I think about Marines in general. And then I think about all our boys overseas, and I wonder what they're doing now. And I get kind of worried about them. And while Marine always talked about his previous tours like he mostly enjoyed them, there was clearly something not-as-enjoyable that he was holding back, and that scares me. I mean, I know those men (and women, let's not forget them) are brave, they signed up for this, they knew what they were getting into... but still.

I used to not do that. I don't want to say I was un-supportive of our military exactly, but I definitely wasn't behind them. I was pretty neutral. Switzerland. Their reality didn't seem real to me. After dating Marine, it's real to me now.

I don't know how much I support the war we're involved in. I don't know whether or not I think it's "right" that we're there. I just don't know. I feel like there's a lot of details and complex subtleties about this whole situation that I'll never understand.

But I support the Marines that are there. I support all the men and women that are over there, fighting for what they believe in, defending our country. So, thank you, Marine for that. By sharing your story, even what little of it I actually got a chance to hear, my view of the military has changed dramatically.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you're an American reading this in English, thank a soldier.

Happy Ooey-Gooey Mushy Day

Honestly, I was considering not even acknowledging this poor excuse for a holiday on my blog. I'm of the hating-Valentine's-camp, for what I (and many others, I'm sure) think is a good reason. I just... Don't understand why we dedicate only ONE day of the whole YEAR to telling our significant other that we care about them. We should do that every day! You know? I'm sure that's not the first time you've heard that argument, and it definitely won't be the last, but... I don't know, I feel pretty strongly about it.

Of course, Mr. Man knows all this, so he put aside his hopeless romantic tendencies and we had a very chill holiday -- in fact, I didn't even leave my apartment until I walked him out to his car when he left to drive home. He was here all weekend, so we slept in late (NOON! I never sleep that late!), relaxed and grazed (my term for "snacking") all day. I made him my AWESOME chocolate chip pancakes for lunch and we watched a four hour marathon of I Shouldn't Be Alive on the Discovery Channel, followed by dinner and Sweet Home Alabama. :) We shared some chocolates and said "Happy Valentine's, sweetie," and that was that.

Granted, we did go out dancing last night, but that was more a big group thing and Mr. Man really only went because I told him I was going with or without him and that he didn't actually have to dance, he just had to go. (He didn't dance, but he had fun and he's going to learn to country-western dance now.) We're very blunt/honest with each other, as you can tell. :) I think it makes for a healthy relationship. Better than sugar-coating and lying, right? Let's hope.

Happy Valentine's Day, blog-loves. Did y'all celebrate?

(img cred.)

UDHR

In my International Politics and Law class, we've been studying international treaties/declarations a lot, including why they get created and why they are (or aren't) complied with, and this one really caught my attention. It's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signed by all members of the UN in the General Assembly, it calls for basic human rights that most of us (especially Americans and Western Europeans) enjoy daily and rarely have to question. Rights like the right to marriage (though, Americans do have to question how far that extends), or to vote, or to not be tortured or held in slavery, the right to be equal before the law and be treated as a human being no matter what. Again, things that we typically don't have to question, because at the top of society, we enjoy these rights every day.

And yet, there are billions of people that don't enjoy those rights -- they live in constant fear of being forced into slavery, of being "silenced" for their political/religious/sexual/whatever beliefs. The UN says that those actions are illegal and cannot be carried out by anyone, implying that especially their member countries should be abiding by this. And yet member countries like China and Iran, many African countries like Guinea, Burundi, Yemen, Sudan, and Rwanda, still make the news with mass genocides and rapes, and general human rights violations, even though they've agreed to this contract that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood" (Article 1, UDHR), and that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (Article 3, UDHR), among 28 other explicitly listed rights.

So what the hell was the point of the declaration? If you go read it, it has absolutely no enforcement policy. The UN has basically said that yeah, everyone's equal, but we're just going to twiddle our thumbs about it and blah blah blah, "condemn" people who participate in violations, but basically not punish them at all. So things like this happen:

Bloody Monday: The September 28 Massacre and Rapes by Security Forces in Guinea. Yeah, you read that right -- Security Forces. As in Guinea's Elite Presidential Guard carried out the abuse of hundreds of people in a stadium.

Burundi refusing asylum to Rwandan refugees as they attempt to escape violence and oppression in their own country.

Skin on the Cable: Cambodia sending drug users to "rehabilitation camps" that seem a lot more like detention camps. The Human Rights Watch report talks about detainees being "beaten, raped, forced to donate blood, and subjected to painful physical punishments such as 'rolling like a barrel' and being chained while standing in the sun."

I know I've mentioned China before, but let's talk about them: Like Cambodia, they're also jailing drug users, censoring Google (which I'm sure we've all heard about), and keeping mum on the disappearances of 43 Uighur men after they were detained by Chinese security forces.

So, seriously, why did the UN bother to create this declaration? The countries that already lived by it still do and the countries that didn't live by it then still don't. If it wasn't going to get enforced, why bother? It just makes the UN look bad. Don't you agree? It doesn't look good for the UN that organizations like Human Rights Watch and International Justice Missions (not to mention the media in general) have to call them out to live by their own standards.

Thank God the UN is finally taking a step in the right direction and attempting to end rape in war, but a lot more needs to be done before they can say that they have truly universally declared and agreed to human rights.

Here's a good article defining exactly what human rights and their violations consist of.

(Thanks go to Human Rights Watch for all the articles I mentioned/linked up to. That organization rocks. Definitely check them out -- there are thousands more articles that I didn't get to mention.)

Writer's Workshop: 2010

Mama Kat does a wonderfully fun writer's workshop every week and in celebration of the first Thursday of 2010, this was one of the prompts: 3.) What do you predict will happen this decade? (You can be funny or serious if you like).

I predict that the world will not end in December 2012. The Mayans were right about a lot of things, but they were also wrong about a lot of things.

I predict that my mother will be begging me to get married before 2020 rolls around (she's already said that 24 is the optimum age... that's 2014 for me!). I predict her to be planning my wedding all the time and to hear the oft-repeated phrase, "Valorie, if you don't use your baby maker soon, it'll stop working." Not so subtle, Mom.

I predict that I will eventually graduate from college. Maybe. Hopefully. 2012 for undergrad, 2014 or 2015 for grad? Maybe I'll get married and graduate all at once! (Not.)

I predict that Britney Spears will commit another scandal for the media to popularize; the recently married Jonas brother will get divorced; and another celebrity that was "the best" in their field will pass away.

I predict that marijuana will be legalized in at least most of the US. I also predict that by then we'll have invented a new drug to "fight war" against.

I predict that there will be some kind of reform in the education system. Hopefully, it will include ending this abstinence-only method of teaching sex ed. Helloooo, clearly it doesn't work.

I predict that President Obama (if he isn't assassinated or dies in a freak accident) will be re-elected in 2012, then that we'll have a Republican president (or just not Democratic, since I think the Republican party may be slipping down a slope it can't recover from) in 2016.

I predict that the Twilight fandom/cult will fade (hopefully quickly), that Harry Potter #7 Parts 1 & 2 won't be as good as the book, and that something else will come to fill those voids. I also predict (at the very least) talk of another Star Wars remake by 2020.

I predict the global warming obsession to fade (since the global cooling obsession in the 70's and 80's did); I predict Al Gore won't get off his soap box though -- he'll just say he was given bad information then find something else to preach about.

I predict that something bad will happen in North Korea, and that things will not be fixed in the Middle East.

I predict that I will have been to China at least twice, and will have risked my life going to church there more times than my parents will ever be comfortable with.

What are your predictions for the decade? :)

Even in London

As I write this, I'm sitting in a coffee shop where I've been for about 10 hours now while studying for finals. I should still be studying, but @TheA21Campaign tweeted a link to this news story, and I couldn't not share it with y'all.

People always think slavery is over. Even if they're aware that slavery is still prevalent in the world (more prevalent now than at the height of the Atlantic slave trade, even), they think it only happens in Third World countries. It's that whole 'It couldn't happen to me' thing that we all like to buy into. But it happens everywhere, even London, and people walk by without even noticing.

We all just need to open our eyes a little bit. Read the story. Learn something.

A Thought While Researching

I'm reading a lot of John Stuart Mill and Henry David Thoreau tonight in an attempt to do some quick research for a paper I have to write and somewhere between the lines of passive resistance and utilitarianism (the harm principle), I had a thought:

In worrying about who we will be tomorrow, we lose sight of who we are today.

I've been so freaking guilty of that recently. Damn.

Almost Officially Unemployed

As you guys may or may not know (regular readers, hmmm?) I'm a Mary Kay consultant. Or, I am for now because I'm quitting tomorrow after I finish my economics test.

See, I kind of feel like I'm doing a bad thing there. I've always been this huge proponent of the idea that women shouldn't feel like they need make up to feel beautiful... hell, that we shouldn't feel a need to be beautiful. A desire for beauty shouldn't be such a driving force in our lives. We shouldn't value ourselves based on how beautiful society thinks we are or aren't.

We're so much more important than that.

We should place our value in our intellect, in our caring nature, in our skills as leaders or listeners, in our wisdom or our compassion or our zest for life. In the fact that we get to be mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives. In who we are not what we look like.

And yet, here I am, selling make up to women, telling them they need it to cover up that blemish that doesn't exist or that they're not pretty if they have wrinkles or that such-and-such product will help them lose an inch off of their thighs or reduce those fine lines on their hands and elbows and by their eyes. That they need to use our products as a way to stay young forever because youth and beauty equal happiness.

The MK company motto is even, "Enriching Women's Lives." How pretentious is that? As if you won't have a rich, happy, wonderful, beautiful life without their products to keep you young and thin and pretty.

Eff. That.

I refuse to be a part of it anymore. I refuse to be a part of something that would try to tell this woman that she isn't beautiful because she has wrinkles and doesn't wear any make up. I refuse to be a part of something that claims that it's improving the lives of women when all it's really doing is saying, "oh hey, you're not pretty enough, let's fix that." When it's making them doubt the beauty and personality God gave them.

You're beautiful. Really. I promise.

Writer's Workshop: Passion

I want a tattoo. Actually, I want many, but only one really has to do with Mama Kat's prompt this week.

It's not that I'm passionate about tattoos, or that they make me live my life with passion, or anything. Tattoos don't change me, they don't inspire me. But I really want a little heart tattoo with the word "Shalom" in Hebrew inside of it on my left foot to remind myself to walk in love, peace, and passion. Because I truly am an incredibly passionate person, but my shy nature often allows me to forget that.

I'm passionate about today. You know, carpe diem quam minimum credula postero; seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow. (That's another tattoo I want.) I live every day of my life passionately with the hope that if I die tonight or tomorrow it will all have been worth something, anything, to someone.

I'm passionate about human trafficking. Perhaps I should say I'm passionately against human trafficking. The fact that right now someone, somewhere is being forced into some sort slavery -- whether it be into Joseph Kony's child army, prostitution, or any type of involuntary servitude -- literally makes me sick. It makes me shake, makes me see red, makes me nauseous. That passion is why I'm devoting my life to an organization like The A21 Campaign or International Justice Missions or Human Rights Watch once I finally graduate.

I'm passionate about peace, hence the word "shalom" inside the heart. No, I'm not one of those people that has peace signs all over anything but doesn't really seek it. I honestly crave it; it's like an eternal hunger that gnaws at my heart. In Psalm 34:14 our God, the Prince of Peace instructs us to "Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it," and I intend to do just that every day.

Loving people makes me passionate. I love, love, love people in general. It entirely conflicts with how shy I am, which irritates me to the ends of the earth, but it's true. The biggest joys of my day are seeing other people smile. Sure, I also really enjoy getting an A on a test and watching Grey's Anatomy (it's Thursday!), but those are temporal, and while happiness is temporal as well, it's so much more effectual and in many ways so much more eternal.

The Craziest Man in America?

This post started as a stream of consciousness Saturday thing that I saw someone do... though now I honestly can't remember who. Sorry!

But, anyways, in the midst of my stream-of-consciousness writing, I was also on Facebook (one can only think about ice cream and puppies for so long before it gets boring to readers) and I came across this article.

Yes, it IS called "The Rape Tunnel."

See, there's this guy named Richard Whitehurst in Columbus, Ohio who is generating a lot of media attention, not to mention protests, because of an "art project" he's working on. The project? A rape tunnel. [The article itself is an interview and I think you should read it in it's entirety to really understand it, but I'll put some key quotes here.]

He describes it as a "22 ft tunnel [made] out of plywood that leads into the project room. There is no way in or out of the project room except for this tunnel. As you travel through the tunnel, it gets smaller and smaller, making it so that you have to crawl and put yourself in a submissive position in order to reach the tunnel’s destination. At the end of the tunnel the subject will find me waiting in the project room and I’ll try to the best of my ability to overpower and rape the person who crawls through."

He concedes that there will be a sign on the door to it, warning people what it is and what will happen to them if they enter, which may or may not make it consensual, but that's not really that point. When asked Why rape? he said it was because "as an artistic gesture" it was the "most impactful" he could think of. He originally did something he called "The Punch-You-In-The-Face Tunnel," which is obviously less awful but ended up ruining a model's career. To this day, the matter still isn't settled, and he takes joy in that, saying, "this took place two years ago, and I’m still having an impact on this young lady’s life, something not many other artists could claim about their work." He goes on to say that "rape seemed like the next logical step."

Seriously? You're deranged.

Let's take morality out of this for a second -- how does punching progress to rape? I would think the next logical step was breaking an arm or stabbing or shooting them in a non-fatal way. Rape might come after that, followed by murder. Now, let's put those morals back in: Uhm. Hi. Rape? ILLEGAL. It's mentally and emotionally damaging to men and women alike. Some people that are raped tend to commit suicide and/or start raping other people and/or start killing people. Is that SERIOUSLY the effect you want on society? You want to be thrown in association with famous serial rapists such as Ted Bundy and Robert Leroy Anderson? Seriously!?

The interviewer even asked, "Is your intention to ruin people's lives?" His response: "Possibly. I’m not necessarily concerned with the positive or negative effects of this project so long as there is some effect on people’s lives. I’ve merely set up a situation where there is potential to impact people in meaningful ways." [I added in the italics.] Yet, this same man later says that he thinks rape is "morally reprehensible," and mentions it should "generally not be allowed in society." Generally? Does that mean there's a time when it's a good idea?

His goal in all of this? " I’m trying to totally reconfigure art’s importance in the world and make it meaningful."

I'm pretty sure there are other ways of going about that. Try doing it without ruining lives.



[img cred: artlurker]

Read my follow up story here!

Freedom of the Press?

Tomorrow marks the beginning of the World Media Summit. It's basically an opportunity for people working in media to get together to discuss "ways of survival and development for the global media industry." (Li Congjun, President of Xinhua News Agency in Beijing.) The theme of the summit is "Cooperation, Action, Win-Win & Development."

It should probably be titled something more along the lines of "Someone Other Than Me Note the Irony in China Hosting a Global Media Summit to Further Media Influence and Power When They Barely Allow Foreign Reporters in Their Own Country Any Rights At All. I Feel Like I'm Taking Crazy Pills!"

I realize that's a long title. So I'm willing to settle with simply "Hypocrisy!" Hoo-ah!

Luckily, someone else agrees with me. See, there's this little group called Human Rights Watch (maybe you've heard of them?) and they've noted the irony in this too. As they say in that article, important people such as News Corporation Chairman & CEO Rupert Murdoch, AP President & CEO Thomas Curley, Reuters News Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger and BBC Director-General Mark Thompson will all be in attendance. They think (and I agree) that these powerful men should probably use this opportunity to encourage China to stop it's media censorship and abuse of journalists and actually live by not only their April 2009 National Human Rights Action Plan that says they'd cease this behavior, but also their constitution, of which Article 35 says that freedom of the press is guaranteed.

Yet, foreign journalists have been pretty much kept out of Tibet since March of '08. This past May, Guangdong provincial government asked the press to limit negative coverage in "national interest." In August, security guards in Guangdong "attacked Guangzhou Daily reporter Liu Manyuan when he attempted to take photos at the scene," beating him for roughly ten minutes. Three Hong Kong journalists were covering ethnic violence in Urumqi when they were teargassed and beaten by anti-riot police just last month. Five other reporters were arrested the same day and the AP news crews equipment was confiscated. (Read more about specific incidents of ill-treatment of journalists in China here.)

Is hoping they'd hold to their own word really asking too much? I don't think so. I mean, they said did they'd do it first. But, as so many people often do, they've gone back on their word and someone needs to hold them to it. And who better than people who are gathering to further media power? And yet, here is their list of objectives for the summit, directly from their website:

• Media challenges & solutions in digital & multimedia age
• Traditional media via new emerging media
• Financial crisis & media response
• How traditional media to meet challenges of digital and internet technologies
• Global media merging
• Challenges & opportunities in digital & multi-media age
• Hi-tech's impact upon media development
• Shaping the future of news rooms & journalists

Some are somewhat rough translations from Chinese to English (again, from website), but I was hesitant to correct them in case it was considered "misquoting" or whatever. But, even through rough translations, they're obviously not planning on discussing China's oppression of it's journalists. I suppose it could be part of 'media challenges,' but I get the feeling that's not really what they have in mind.

I just hope it comes up somehow. These men can't be so ignorant to not notice the irony of this whole situation. It's their duty to stand up for their own who are suffering for simply doing their job.

Pet Peeves

We all have pet peeves right? My biggest one used to be people that use their turn signal in the turn-only lane -- no DUH you're turning. Thanks and gig'em.

I've realized lately though that my biggest pet peeve, the only that really eats away at me and rips up my soul a little, has changed to something slightly more rational.

Commit: verb -- to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance; to entrust, esp. for safekeeping; to do; perform.

When people commit to something and say "Yes, I'll do that," or "Yes, I'll be there," I think it's pretty natural for people to assume that they will in fact do that thing or be at that place. Maybe I'm misguided here, but that's what I always thought.

So, when people commit to things then back out of them, it annoys me slightly. But if they have a good reason, I tend to understand.

But, when we start getting to people who commit to something, anything, and then blow you off without warning or at least an apology, that's when I get really annoyed. It's like helloooo, I said 1:00 because I had other things to do. I sort of planned things around our committed time. I really didn't want to sit around for an hour, doing nothing wondering if you were going to show up.

That's my pet peeve. I start getting mad when this is a frequent occurrence; when I can't count on your commitment. When I wonder why the hell you committed to anything in the first place.

What's your biggest pet peeve?


[img cred: http://www.heitmuller.com/blogimages/hairpull.jpg]

Hello, my name is Summer Finn

Someone told me they think the writers of (500) Days of Summer stalked me and based Summer Finn off of me.

[For those of you that haven't seen the movie, this post will make no sense to you. So, go see (500) Days, then come back and read this. Also, it will contain spoilers and I don't want to ruin the greatest movie of all time for you.]

See, there's a scene in the movie where McKenzie (Geoffery Arend), Summer (Zooey Deschanel), and Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are in a bar, and McKenzie asks Summer if she has a boyfriend. She says no, she doesn't want one. A humorous moment passes as McKenzie asks if she's a lesbian until Summer explains herself -- "I like being on my own. Relationships are messy, people's feelings get hurt. We're young, we live in one of the most beautiful cities in the world, why don't we just have fun and save the serious stuff for later?" (I may have misquoted that -- it's been over a week since I saw the movie.)

Now, College Station may not be one of the most beautiful cities in the world by most standards (though I love it), but I can see where my friend was going. That first sentence, I like being on my own, was part of why Kevin and I broke up -- I'm independent and don't like committing my time to anyone or anything. I like being able to do spur-of-the-moment things without owing anyone something, and that wasn't fair to him. And the people's feelings get hurt part? Yeah, too true, and more times than not it wasn't worth it. I've been in my share of relationships, but life always got in the way. For instance, I'm going to China soon, and I'll be there a long time -- now isn't exactly a great time for me to be getting too attached to anyone. That's just how life is these days.

So maybe I am like Summer Finn. I think I'm okay with that though. For now I'm willing to just be friends and have fun, and maybe someday I can wake up and realize what I've never been sure of up until now.

I'll leave you with one last quote from Summer and Tom:

Tom: So what happened, why didn't things work out?
Summer: What always happens; life.

Am I or Am I Not?

Tonight, I'm irritated. And kind of offended. And kind of ready to punch people in the face.

See, here was my plan for tonight: one of my good friends from high school is in town. I got some people together, we were all going out dancing after the football game, it was going to be a good time. Then, if we weren't exhausted by two or three, maybe everyone would go home so she and I could hang or we'd all hang out and watch movies together.

Instead, no one showed up at the time agreed upon, which was a good two hours after the game ended. They asked us to wait for them, so while we did, I cooked for roomate and high school friend because we were all hungry. They didn't even have to ask, it was just done. Then, when we did go out, the place we went was totally dead, so we left before midnight, went to the apartment, and watched a movie. They all asked me to cook for them, so I did. Room mate asked me to do the dishes, so I did. They then ate all the food I made without leaving any for me.

I did all this instead of hanging out with the friend from high school, partially because she was saving her stupid drunk room from arrest (which I know was totally out of anyone's control, except maybe stupid drunk room mate), and partially because even when she got back, I was still in the kitchen.

I didn't complain about any of this. I was obviously (to myself) extremely angry, but I didn't say anything except to my friend Kassie, and not even until she was leaving and we were alone outside because, oh, by the way, I had to take the trash out too because my room mate
wouldn't. This was after she had been insinuating (aka: saying directly) all night that I never clean the apartment or do anything, which is total bullshit. I clean just as much, if not more, than she does, mostly because I KNOW mess bothers her -- I'm a naturally messy person, but out of respect for her, I keep it clean. Also: Who stayed home from the football game and cleaned the whole apartment for aforementioned high school friend? Oh right, me. The only reasons the dishes weren't done was because our water was shut off for maintenance for a while, which she knew. Who cooked before going out? Oh, me. Who didn't get to hang out with her friend that lives four hours away? Oh, me.

Who asks all our friends to do the dishes all the time? Oh, her. Who sent someone out to get her jacket from the car instead of doing it herself? Oh, her. Who was texting all her guy friends asking them to come bring her food, even though she hadn't invited them to hang out earlier? Oh, her. Who made me cook instead of just doing it for herself when they wouldn't bring her food? Oh, her. Who then neither thanked me nor left me any food after I cooked it? Oh, her.

And yet, somehow I, the one basically waiting on them all night, was getting called high maintenance and demanding. Yes, this makes perfect sense. Obviously.

Valorie
Sent from my iPhone

On Breaking Up, Part 2

Remember about two months ago when I posted something about break ups, wondering why they have to be so cruel? I've now gone through another break up since then and wanted to follow up on my previous thoughts.

Quick synopsis in case you're too lazy to go read the full post: I was saying that I didn't understand why breakups have to be mean, why people feel a need to hurt each other in them. "I mean, if two people were together, there was a reason. There was something about each other that they liked and the fact is that that part of them doesn’t go away or change just because they go their separate ways."

The entire reason I'm posting this is not because Kevin and I ended badly. Quite the opposite, in fact. Our break up, which was mutual and entirely peaceful, entirely reaffirmed my belief that people can be friends after a breakup, even when they're older. I realized after On Breaking Up, Part 1, that my main example of a close friend after a break up was my best friend Travis -- but we dated in high school, when relationships are less serious, and it made me wonder if age had some factor in it. As in, is it harder to move on if you (whether or not you consciously realized it) were taking this relationship more seriously, thinking that now that you're in college (or beyond), this could be the person you're going to marry? And if so, does that make it more okay to be mean to one another?

Kevin and I weren't considering getting married, let's get that straight now, but we still could have been rude, we could have been cruel, we could have gotten angry and done really mean things to each other through it. But we didn't, and we didn't see the point in doing it. We knew we had been together for a reason, and that reason didn't change -- our proximity to each other did. (It was the distance that did us in. Sad days, huh?) On my last post on this subject, Judi said "I'm of the opinion that there's really nothing wrong with getting angry. Anger provides us information and sometimes direction. It can help us transition through change to get where we need to go. That being said, what we DO with anger can be a major problem, of course." I don't think I could have said it better (which is why I quoted her).

I've asked this once before, but I'll ask it again: What is it about break ups do you think makes people treat each other like crap? Are there any significant factors in why some people stay friends and some people can't do that?

You guys know this, but I should say it anyways: That photo is not mine, it's from the poster for the movie The Break Up, which if you haven't seen that you NEED to. :]

Inglourious Basterds

I give this movie two thumbs down. For those of you that follow me on Twitter, you probably saw my opinions of this movie at about 1 am CT this morning when it finally ended and I tried not to rip my eyes out and/or find Quinten Tarantino and punch him in the face. For those of you that don't know the plot, it's basically about a group of Jewish-American soldiers in Nazi-occupied France during WWII. They're sent over to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by brutally killing (and by their own accord, scalping) Nazis. There's also a story that eventually intertwines with theirs about a Jewish woman who escaped being massacred with her family and ends up owning a cinema that is forced to host a Nazi movie premiere (oh, sweet irony). It sounds like a decent enough plot, but having seen it, I'm finding myself asking (not for the first time) why Tarantino's so revered as a great movie-maker.

• It's not funny. At all. One of the "funnier" characters, Col. Hans Landa (played by Christoph Waltz), is simply annoying. He doesn't make any sense as a character, one moment appearing slightly homosexual, the next a womanizer, the next a ruthless murder, the next a nice man that loves good French cuisine, and the next a babbling idiot. There's no continuity to his character and his lines that are supposed to be funny simply aren't.
  
• Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) really grated on me the most, I think. He's supposed to be this American Hero from Tennessee, killing Nazis (or as he'd say nat-si's) and disturbing the order of the Third Reich. However, he comes across as a dumbass who's only interest in life is senseless killing. I understand that death is a necessary by-product of war, blah blah blah, but that doesn't mean that soldiers are bloodthirsty. Pitt's character certainly is violent and bloodthirsty, though, and it's to a point of being slightly disgusting. I mean, I can handle blood (I wanted to be a surgeon for a while) but parts of this movie that made me gag. On top of that, I was actually kind of insulted at the portrayal of American military men as all being bloodthirsty, not very intelligent, cruel, and so ethnocentric that they refuse to learn another language. His treatment of Diane Kruger's character was also less than wonderful, bordering on torturing her for something she couldn't have controlled. The only redeeming quality of this character had nothing to do with the movie -- instead, it proved once again that Brad Pitt is a great actor. If I didn't hope for better, I would be tempted to think that this movie was made entirely to show off Pitt's acting skills, and not to actually be worthwhile entertainment.
  
• Also, I'm slightly disappointed in Diane Kruger's role in this movie. She seemed an utterly pointless character, serving only as a pretty face to differentiate from the endless supply of annoying men and a big name to draw more viewers in the US. If they wanted her for that that, they could have had her play Melanie Laurent's part (though Laurent is pretty enough to play Kruger's) and had her kill two (or three) birds with one stone -- being pretty, drawing viewers, and actually moving the plot along.
• That reminds me -- this movie is painfully long. Length wouldn't be bad if it were like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which has an endless supply of explosions and running to keep you entertained for the 150 minutes it's playing. Inglourious Basterds though, even at a mere three minutes longer, felt hours longer because it's mostly people sitting around chatting. There's a lot of planning in this movie, which while it would have happened in real life (if this movie were remotely true to history), is incredibly boring to watch.

All this is to say -- please don't waste your money seeing it. Because I'm a student, I luckily only wasted $4, but I still wish I hadn't;I could have spent that $4 on a grande iced white chocolate mocha with soy from starbucks and read a good book for three hours (Freakonomics, Atlas Shrugged, This Child Will Be Great...), which would have been an infinitely better way to spend my time.

Joseph Kony

I realized recently most of my entries in this blog have been falling more into the "Life" and "Happiness" categories than "Liberty," which is bad because when I started this I intended it to be a balance between the three, since liberty and freedom (or the lack thereof) around the world is really important to me. So that being said, here's a long over due post on a man named Joseph Kony and the horrific things he's putting the youth of Uganda through.

When you Google "Joseph Kony," a lot comes up. Wikipedia comes up first of course, informing you that he was born in Uganda circa 1962-5, and is head of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). At first glance, this seems okay. I mean, take the name "Lord's Resistance Army." Okay, that doesn't sound too bad; kind of sounds reminiscint of the Crusades or something, right? Like he's trying to be some ultra-good Chrisitan guy spreading the Word right?

Yeah, not so much. The LRA is a guerilla group that is responsible for one of African's longest running conflicts; it began it's violent rebellion in Uganda back in 1987. Since then, the LRA has commited horrific crimes against humanity (International Criminal Court's phrasing, not mine, though it's valid) including violent attacks on the people of Northern Uganda and abducting some 30,000 children and forcing them to fight in his army. It's been reported that he tells these children that he abducts that if the draw crosses on their chests made of oil, they will be protected from bullets when they fight. The kids are forced to abduct, rape, and kill anyone and everyone, sometimes their own friends and families. Despite the fact that Kony allegedly stopped attending church at the age of 15, he does think he's doing the good Christian thing -- in letters regarding peace talks, he mentions that he needs to consult the Holy Spirit before making decisions. The LRA also claims to be guided by the Ten Commandments and Scripture and during peace talks, Kony would be preceeded into the room by men in robes sprinkling holy water. “Yes, we are fighting for Ten Commandments,” “Is it bad? It is not against human rights. And that commandment was not given by Joseph. It was not given by LRA. No, that commandment was given by God.”

I'm not even going to try to conceal my disgust at that comment -- that doesn't sound like the God I know. I don't think there's a mainstream religion that has God saying "hey, go massacre hundreds, kidnap kids, abuse them, then force them to do the same thing to other kids, potentially kids they know." As for fighting for the Ten Commandments? I'm pretty sure (though, please, correct me if I'm wrong) the Ten Commandments don't command people to form armies and rape/massacre thousands. In fact, I'm pretty sure they say something along these lines:

• Exodus 20:13: You shall not murder. Hmm, justify that one for me, Kony.
• Exodus 20:15: You shall not steal. I'm pretty sure other people's children fall into that category.
  

In October of 2005, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced arrest warrants for five members of the LRA -- Kony, his deputy Vincent Otti, and three generals of the army. Kony's indictment included three 33 charges: "12 counts are crimes against humanity, which include murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement and rape. There are another 21 counts of war crimes which include murder, cruel treatment of civilians, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population, pillaging, inducing rape, and forced enlisting of children into the rebel ranks." ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Ocampo was quoted saying that "Kony was abducting girls to offer them as rewards to his commanders." The US declared Kony a terrorist after 9/11/01, and in 2008 put him on a list of "specially designated global terrorists," which carries some financial penalties. December 24, '08: The UN reported that members of the LRA massacred 189 people and abducted 20 children from a celebration sponsored by a Catholic Church (ironic much?).

So far, he's eluded arrest. But now, a group called The Rescue, part of Invisible Children, is lobbying to get Kony arrested and the thousands of children he has enslaved freed. If you have a Twitter, and have for more than six months, you probably remember the trending topic, #therescue. That's the group I'm talking about -- they did a symbolic "rescue" of cities across the US in April then lobbied in D.C. back in June and were noticed. I'm honestly not sure what they're doing now, if anything, since D.C. was titled "How It Ends" but the fight definitely isn't over -- Kony is still out there, still abducting and killing children. For more on it, go watch the video that started The Rescue and see the kids for yourself.