THE MASTHEAD
Editor-in-Chief: James H. Wang
Publisher: Amy Gu
Executive Editor: Paul Lintilhac
Managing Editor: Amanda R. McNally

A journey into hell. International aid agencies find a devastated country in chaos on the tiny island. The earthquake destroyed most of the capital city, Port-au-Prince, and have left countless wounded and thousands dead. Photograph by Globovision.

The rush to relieve the devastated people of Haiti is encouraging. It is reassuring to see that people care about Haiti in its most conspicuous time of need in recent memory. The global relief effort, although troubled by logistical, political, and ideological issues, seem genuine. Dartmouth has responded with exceptional vigor and even the self-congratulatory story on the front page of Wednesday’s The D (“Dartmouth’s Haiti response tops other Colleges’”) can’t sully the authentic motivation behind our efforts to help the earthquake victims.

But Haiti was a desperate country before the earthquake, and it will be after we, in our unimaginable comfort, forget about the images of crumbled buildings, grieving Haitians, and starving children.

Even after the immediate effects of the quake pass and the relief effort subsides, Haiti will still be crippled by poverty and the suffering caused by poverty.

In all likelihood, there will still be crumbled buildings, grieving Haitians, and starving children, but we wont see them on TV and Internet news sites.

This past Tuesday, Students for Haitian Relief sent out an article (along with great information about how to help) called “A Long Road to Hell” that was meant to explain how “Haiti’s history has only compounded the current tragedy.”

The article tells at best a half-truth about the history of the poorest nation in our hemisphere. What is predictably absent is also the reason why we should care (in an “I’m willing to do something about it” way) about the fate of Haiti and its people even after the natural disaster relief effort ends. The article leaves out the ways that our countries policies have made it more difficult for Haiti to survive and prosper as an independent nation.

Direct U.S. interference and meddling in Haitian politics for the past two centuries has had a crippling effect on Haitian prosperity. As the article mentions, Haiti ousted its French oppressors and declared its independence in 1804, becoming the first slave colony to do so. As punishment, France demanded an exorbitant fee and the Haitian people were saddled with reparations until 1947.

What the article doesn’t say is that France could not have extracted those unjust reparations without support from America—a country that should have been able to relate to wars of independence against colonial oppressors.

The U.S. later invaded and occupied Haiti in 1915 and disbanded the Haitian parliament so it could force through unpopular pro U.S. corporation legislation.

And if that is too far in the past to resonate, the U.S. has sponsored two coups within the past 20 years against Haiti’s first democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who remains in exile in South Africa. The coups intensified political unrest and precipitated some of Haiti’s worst years both politically and economically. Aristide, however flawed as a president, was popular among Haitian people, but unfriendly to neoliberal U.S economic policies.

The earthquake was a natural disaster, and no country is to blame for the ensuing devastation. But the poverty and lack of infrastructure that leaves a country of almost nine million with only a couple fire stations made the natural disaster far more tragic for humans. If Haiti has been walking “a long road to hell,” it hasn’t been walking alone.

“Will we fight?” cries out the AFL-CIO New Hampshire President, as he throws his arm towards the audience. The crowd composed of DDS, ORL, FO&M, S&S, and other familiar campus faces cheers in assent. “Let’s hear it again!” yells the organizer, raising his arms.

“Yeah!” Although this meeting on the 13th was in 105 Dartmouth Hall, it was an unfamiliar scene. According to Earl Sweet, President of the local branch of the Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU), this is the worst “situation” that he has seen in the over twenty years he has been at Dartmouth.

The reason behind this “situation” is partly fiscal circumstance. But the other part is the new administration. “I could just pick up the phone and call Jim Wright,” Earl said, “If the lawyers were being too aggressive, Jim would tell them that they can’t do that.” With Jim Kim, it’s all changed. President Kim has said that “Everything is on the table.” From the perspective of the union, this means jobs are at risk—lots and lots of jobs. And given what has been happening, it seems President Kim’s table is nearly full.

A few days earlier, President Kim spoke before the local Chamber of Commerce, apologizing for what he was about to do to the Upper Valley economy. Significant cuts at Dartmouth would resonate throughout the entire community as we are the largest employer in the local area. What President Kim has not done, which rails many SEIU members, is speak to them.

According to SEIU, this has been a general trend throughout the entire budgetary process. Although there will be a formal bargaining process, especially since the contract covering the workers is expiring this June, the current decision-making process excludes SEIU. They will get their say, but not before most of the details have already been ironed out internally within the administration and before the trustees.

Whereas faculty, undergraduates, graduate students, and obviously administrators have representatives on the task forces and committees submitting recommendations and proposing budgetary changes, SEIU asserts that they have no one. As for the time of publication, we could not get a response from College officials, or find out what other framework is in place to solicit staff opinions, but various student sources close to the process have confirmed that this is the case.

For these members of the “Dartmouth family,” this is unfamiliar territory. For their meeting on the 13th, the local chapter brought in AFL-CIO NH’s president Mark McKinsey, along with Wayne Langley, Higher Education Director for SEIU. Each brought fiery rhetoric and rage stoked by years of battle with administrations. Wayne Langley, after first acknowledging President Kim’s other accomplishments, was quick to equate the “new Dartmouth” with a heartless “corporate model,” and unambiguously called out the College President’s promise to “cut to the bone.” Why, various speakers asked, did the College still need to cut all of these jobs after the recent campaign had just raised $1.3 billion? Mark McKinsey drew parallels of the workers’ fight with that of Martin Luther King Jr., whose birthday was coming up soon. Both national representatives compared the situation with what happened on Wall Street.

While this turmoil was no doubt expected and standard for various other locales that these national speakers visited, this was not a part of SEIU Local 560’s experience. At the beginning of these passionate and angry speeches, there was visible hesitation from much of the crowd. Much of the crowd withheld their applause about the virtues of “fighting” and looked uncomfortable with such strong assertions. As the meeting went on and more stories about what was happening to their fellow workers came out, the room started coming around.

Due to the seniority system, the younger workers—those who can least afford it—were the ones laid off. Hostesses in the Hanover Inn were informed about an unpaid “hiatus” through an impersonal letter. The uses of “furloughs” or “hiatuses” to essentially lay off staff without triggering an inconvenient clause within the work contract that specifies that in the event of a layoff, the College is not allowed to bring in subcontractors to take over the jobs of the laid-off staff—basically outsourcing the labor force beyond Hanover town lines.

Without a doubt, the staff is scared. It’s their jobs and their livelihoods. And as a fair number of speakers from the crowd pointed out, it’s about how they support their families. But, especially if the tension between the union and administration builds, we students should remember who the people are within SEIU. They are DDS workers that we see every day. They are the ORL custodians that clean up our messes. They are the people who help make our “Dartmouth Experience” as we know it possible. But they are far from unreasonable or uncompromising.

Even in the midst of their concern about their own jobs and family, the staffers showed a remarkable amount of concern about us, the students. One of the loudest cheers from the crowd during the entire meeting came from Earl Sweet’s passionate declaration that he saw it as his job to serve the students, not the administration.

During last Friday’s picketing outside of President Kim’s budget forum in the Hop, workers mentioned their concern about what would happen with the students. “If you bring in these other people, these subcontractors, the buildings deteriorate, and the students suffer. Students came here for this prestigious experience, and Dartmouth has lost touch with what that is,” said Paul Labarre, one of the picketers.

The union has tried to mirror the administration’s position with everything on the table, and has also put a strike on the table, but with visible reluctance. When the topic was brought up during the SEIU meeting, there were audible murmurs about what would happen to students. Let’s be honest—if a similar circumstance was put before us, how many of us would think so deeply about the welfare of the staff, confronted with such grave circumstances for us?

Susan Russell, treasurer for the local SEIU accounted for me the situation for the Hanover Inn, where four people were put on indefinite “hiatuses” with no pay and no benefits. In another case, the hours of the hostess previously cited, now the only one left out of four, were suddenly reduced from 37.5 hours a week to 25 hours.

The reality is that Dartmouth, like many other institutions, was hit hard by the financial crisis. Cuts will be difficult and, ultimately, painful—no matter how much the administration tries to mitigate the damage. At the same time, these people have served Dartmouth loyally, oftentimes for many, many years. There is a line between professionalism and basic decency in treating the staff that work, mostly unacknowledged, unappreciated, and invisibly, to make our Dartmouth experiences what they are. Given their own feelings towards us, many staff members understandably expected during the meeting that the students would be there for them too. They’re starting to realize, as I heard from last Friday’s picket line, that this is not the case—at least, not without more awareness of what they do, and what is really going on hidden from student eyes.

The union has emphasized their willingness to negotiate and work with whatever terms they need to keep as many jobs as they can. Even so, perhaps in the end, many staff members will be left without a job.

However, no matter what, after all that they have given to the College they deserve at least less uncertainty of their standing and more honest treatment.

It isn’t illegal to suddenly drop the number of hours a hostess has to work. It isn’t illegal to send people off on extended “unpaid vacations.” In fact, it probably isn’t even illegal to send staff on “hiatus” while bringing in cheaper subcontractors, if that is indeed what the College intends to do. It is, however, deeply disrespectful and skirts the edge of ethical treatment of the staff.

Dartmouth has been a “family” of students, faculty, and staff for a long time. And to be honest, it was easy mainly because times were good. The true test of Dartmouth’s character comes now when times are no longer so good.

Even if the administration can’t preserve every job, it can at least treat those they are letting go with as much decency and kindness as they have given to the College through their time here.

Rhiannon Giddens (above) is one of the three members of Carolina Chocolate Drops, which performed at the Hop on Jan. 16. Photos by Kenficara.

Under the gaze of a projected moon, the sparse twang of a banjo resonates through Spaulding Auditorium interlaced with the sounds of the fiddle, jug, and snare. A distinctive Appalachian air graced the Hop, one that seemed out of place in Northern New England.

It was nothing short of revelatory.

The Carolina Chocolate Drops are an old-time string band consisting of Phoenix, Arizona-native Dom Flemons and Piedmont, North Carolina-natives Justin Robinson and Rhiannon Giddens.

Besides the group’s ostensible technical skill, versatility and range in instruments, the trio is undeniably unique as one of the few remaining African-American string bands.

Old-time music has its roots in the traditional music of Great Britain. But with the migration of immigrants to the United States that sound mingled with others in the proverbial American “melting pot”. In this case, this British music merged with traditional African music to create an entirely unique, distinctively North American, sound.

Despite its roots in African-American music, old-time music has generally been characterized as white. For instance, The New Lost City Ramblers is an old-time string band formed in 1958 consisting of Mike Seeger (Pete’s brother), John Cohen, and Tom Paley, all of whom are white. There’s also the contemporary Old Crow Medicine Show—again, all white.

But aside from merely their race, what made Carolina Chocolate Drops so exhilarating was the enthusiastic audience participation in the music. Giddens and Flemons encouraged the audience to sing along, clap and dance.

Giddens was particularly engaging; she flirted shamelessly with the audience, imploring members to holler when they knew a particular artist or song they were about to play. Her vocals carried many of the songs performed; far beyond soulful, Giddens’ voice is gravelly and powerful—perfectly suited to the songs, many of which were originally performed in the 1920s and 1930s.

One particular standout was “Old Black Annie”, an extraordinarily fast-paced banjo tune; Giddens’ vocals were ideal for its frantic pace. Another great song was the powerful “Arkansas,” performed by Flemons, featuring no instrumentals. The silence that accompanied Flemons’ voice only enhanced the melancholy of the song. Its starkness stood out among the more involved and frenzied stylings of other songs.

The show culminated in the Carolina Chocolate Drops’ rendition of “Genuine Negro Jig.” Gidden elaborated on the purported origins of the jig, which is attributed to Dan Emmett, but may in fact have been written by an African-American family living in Emmett’s Ohio town. Nevertheless, the song, which features Giddens on the fiddle, is haunting. Like “Arkansas,” the song is melodic and somewhat mournful, with long lamenting fiddle strokes.

The trio ended the show with a rendition of 2001’s “Hit ‘em Up Style (Oops!)” by Blu Cantrell, perhaps an improbable anachronism, given the group’s focus on 70- and 80-year-old music. However, the ending seemed rather appropriate—it highlighted the importance and relevance of old-time string music in the modern age.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has opened up, in the past several weeks, that longstanding debate on political realism, racism, and the intersection of both. Reid sparked the controversy following the release of Game Change, a book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in which it is reported that “[Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama—a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’” The book, which some see as a sludge report of 2008 campaign gossip, was vindicated when Reid admitted to spouting the scurrilous remark.

But does Harry Reid’s comment make people uncomfortable because it’s racist or because it’s true?

The statement is both racist and true. Yet just because it is true does not make it right, and just because it is true does not validate the attitude behind it. Even the most liberal-minded people still buy into, either consciously or otherwise, the prejudices associated with black people— they are violent, overly-sexual, unintelligent, and unintelligible. Today, it is still not uncommon to hear “He’s black and so polite!” or “What a beautiful black model!,” implying that blackness and certain positive attributes are normally incompatible.

Truth can also be found in Reid’s statement. No one primarily speaking a “Negro dialect” or any stereotypical “dialect,” whether Asian, “white trash,” gay, or female, would find him or herself in high office. This is simply a point of political realism, not racism. People want their elected officials to fit their ideals and speak proper English. And when the office in question happens to be the Presidency, people want their candidate’s background, speech patterns and overall demeanor to not be representative (supposedly) of a single community, but of all of America. Some voters may appreciate a certain dialect, but any particular one likely alienates more than it endears.

Dr. Boyce Watkins, in his blog “The Gri,” believes this is indicative of something broader and perhaps more sinister; “What is saddest about Reid’s commentary, however, is that it reminds many African-Americans across the country that if our speech patterns or appearance are “too black” (whatever that means) or too different from what some consider acceptable, we are going to be deemed inferior. It seems that looking, sounding and behaving like a white man is the only way I might be considered to be as good as a white man. That is White Supremacy 101.”

Reid’s commentary is politically realistic, but it is also racist.

Speaking a certain way is an action, and an individual can choose (wisely or unwisely) to act in such a way at certain times and in certain places. Wise and unwise choices can be indicative of character, but skin color cannot.

Whether the non-black people of the United States chose President Obama based on the darkness of his skin is a reflection not on him but on the people and the degree to which they still make important judgments of character based on skin color and its socially constructed connotations.

How do black people (or any people) respond to these realistic but racist “compliments?” There are five typical responses.

At the extreme is passivity or a rebuke. For some, it is easier to stay silent and accept propositions like “I actually have a smart black friend” as problematic but genuine compliments that reflect an unfortunate status quo. Then there is the immediate rebuke, which points out that such statements are inherently racist. A rebuke, though, which leaves no question as to how one feels about the remark, may do more harm than good by discouraging well-meaning, non-black people who straddle a line between tolerance and acceptance.
The third response is humor, which offers no active explanation for or condemnation of the remark it responds to, but relaxes tensions and allows the offensive party to reflect. This is perhaps the most moderate kind of response to these remarks, which is then paired with either a thoughtful response or with passivity and forgiveness. A rebuke with a well-tempered explanation points out racism carefully and kindly, yet actively helps a person understand what was racist about a given remark. Passivity with forgiveness is usually employed towards one who knows better or should know better. There is no condemnation—on the contrary, there is usually unconditional forgiveness when an offensive party realizes his or her error on their own.

Choosing between such options is ultimately left to the discretion of a victimized party, who decides according to the strength of his or her personal connection with the offensive party. This introduces a social, and therefore necessarily political, relativism into the manner with which we react to racist comments.

President Obama chose to passively forgive Reid, saying recently “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.” He didn’t need to condemn Reid. Reid was aware of what he did and had already apologized. The Republicans, on the other hand, were in an uproar. When RNC Chairman Michael Steele was asked if Reid should resign on Fox News Sunday, he responded saying “I think he should.”

There is a standard where Democrats think they can say these things and apologize when it comes from the mouth of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it’s racism. It’s either racist or it’s not. And it’s inappropriate, absolutely. Steele compared Reid to Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott, who in 2002, at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday celebration, told Thurmond that if he had won his presidential bid in 1948, on a platform that supported segregation, the nation would have been a better place today. Consequently, Senator Lott was forced to step down.

Political relativism has justifiably helped Reid keep his job because his statement is much different than Trent Lott’s endorsement. First of all, it’s doubtful that President Obama would pardon just any Democrat who uttered a racially insensitive remark. Reid is not like other Democrats in the fact that he has sacrificed his career for President Obama’s health care initiative. Before this incident, Reid was already trailing in the polls behind the Republicans in Nevada’s upcoming Senate race due to his support of healthcare reform. The President will not alienate someone who risked so much for him.

Secondly, unlike Lott, Reid isn’t a racist. Though what he said may be, Reid’s actions are not. When Reid’s office called civil rights leaders to apologize, the Reverend Al Sharpton said “While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people.”

Democratic Committee Chairman Timothy Kaine responded to Steele by saying that, while Lott’s comments seem to imply segregation of blacks is a good thing, Reid was simply politically incorrect while praising then-candidate Obama. Dr. Watkins (author of the “Gri”) argues that “he wasn’t necessarily giving his own opinion. Rather, he was giving his assessment of the preferences of the American public,” albeit in a “racist white male dialect” using outdated words like “negro.”

Even if this was Reid’s opinion, Watkins explains that, “You don’t have to be a racist to embrace white supremacist thinking. You don’t even have to be white, since many African-Americans also believe that whites are superior… Harry Reid’s words are painfully connected to the day-to-day challenges that black people face all across America.”

Others have made comments equally, if not far more, egregious than Reid’s. During the 2008 campaign, former President Clinton tried to convince Senator Edward Kennedy to endorse his wife’s presidential bid. The late senator refused when Clinton said, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Outside the campaign in 2007, Joe Biden called Obama, “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” President Obama maintains relations with both of them.

A statement can be racist and politically realist or true and it can make people uncomfortable because of its dual nature. The nature of such statements, or “compliments,” makes responding to them more complex than responding to explicitly racist statements. This doesn’t make such statements right, but the reaction can make all the difference in diffusing or complicating the issue.

The statement itself is indicative of an attitude that may be bigger than the statement and the reaction themselves. Given that it’s nearing Dr. Martin Luther King Day, Dr. Watkins says “Fulfilling the dream of Dr. King is going to take hard work, not another string of benefit dinners and superficial Black History Month celebrations. It is going to take a commitment to policies that seek to eliminate systemic inequality, and a commitment to the dialogue necessary for all Americans to understand each other. This problem is far deeper than Harry Reid.”

Players must try to stay alive as they navigate a Sudanese refugee camp. Screenshot from darfurisdying.com

As I peered through the desiccated brush—hoping to make a mad dash to the water pump to bring back desperately needed nourishment to my family—I caught sight of yet another dreaded Janjaweed patrol. Damn, not again!

For the past week, my family had sent me into the desert along to forage for water, seemingly neglecting the fact that I, as their oldest son, would certainly be left for dead if the militia caught up with me. Nonetheless, fetching water, if slightly less desirable than burger flipping, was my duty; without water, we would surely perish. I continued about my duty, ever vigilant, ever watchful.

Finally, I stumbled back into the refugee camp, my home for the past week. The buildings were in shambles, the crops were sickly, and the spirits of the inhabitants were crushed like a flower under a boot. I went to water our sickly potatoes, and then…

My browser quits.

You see, I’m not actually a poor, starving refugee from Darfur at all. Instead, I’ve been playing MTV’s “Darfur is Dying” game, discovering from the comfort of my desk in Berry 3 exactly what it’s like to be poor, starving, and desperate. I’ve survived dozens of paramilitary attacks, cried with emaciated widows, and pleaded for help with the international community without even leaving my seat.

‘Darfur is Dying” certainly has a noble aim at heart, trying as it does to educate people about the disaster unfolding in Chad and Sudan using a comfortable, familiar medium.

However, it effectively dehumanizes the conflict as being, yes, no more than a game. There were some heartbreaking notes to be found in the game, but at the end I was more concerned about making it onto the leaderboard than I was about the welfare of Darfur’s refugees.

Another problematic issue with “Darfur” is that only people who are already interested in the Darfur conflict will play. It’s preaching to the choir. The only way to increase international awareness of the genocide is to make more people aware of the genocide. If MTV’s game isn’t reaching out to a new audience, then what is it accomplishing?

To solve the Darfur conflict, the world needs a way to publicize the crisis accurately, and more importantly, it needs to publicize it without being despairing or tacky. Does the Darfur game fit this framework? I’m not sure it does, but for now, it certainly can’t hurt.

Lady Gaga at one of her sexified concerts. Sexy costume included. Photograph by Stephan Carlile.

Thanks to Lady Gaga, quality pop music is still alive in the 3rd millennium. If you are an anti-radio purist who claims that pop perished sometime in the 90s, there’s now a way to redeem yourself—for Lady Gaga has resurrected pop in the form of the macabre and the uncanny, the oversexed and yet threateningly asexual.

And while she may not be restoring life to popular music, Lady Gaga is instead drawing on our fear of its demise by taking what is passé and reanimating it as the culturally undead.

If you were to ask me what I mean by “uncanny,” I would ask you to hit up YouTube and watch Lady Gaga’s “Bad Romance.” That shit is FREAKY. If you want a definition of the “undead” in Gaga’s work, just watch the video of her sanguinary performance at the VMA’s, in which she looks like Sissy Spasek in Carrie and eventually hangs herself from the ceiling.

Just as she writes and produces all of her own music, Lady Gaga herself choreographed this figurative murder and rebirth of Pop. She later commented to shocked reporters that to the performance was a way of “say[ing] something honest and real.”

Amidst Lady Gaga’s cryptic responses to news reporters—she told one that the only thing she looks for in a man is “a big dick”—and rumors of her being a hermaphrodite, you can’t help but wonder if she is hiding something.

When an MTV reporter commented on her heavily stylized persona and asked her if he was speaking with “Lady Gaga the person or Lady Gaga the character,” she passionately responded, “For the last 10-15 years there has been an absence of theater in Showbiz.

There is an assumption that unless I am showing you myself with no makeup and a t-shirt on, doing no dance moves and strumming on a guitar … that I am artificial, and I’m not. I am simply a performance artist … and my life is my art.”

As for her being a hermaphrodite, the sources of those rumors have all been proven unsubstantial, though Lady Gaga has not commented on the issue. All publicity is good publicity, as they say.

Yet if Lady Gaga’s untamed art is her life, then we should also assume that her life is her art. But what is the life of Lady Gaga like?

Well, a starting point may be what Lady Gaga claims as her deepest conviction and primary inspiration: the gay community. According to Gaga, the single most important moment of her career was when she spoke in Washington D.C. for the National Gay Rights Rally. As usual, though she has refrained from any comment on her sexual orientation.

Then there is Gaga’s method of work. The so-called “Haus of Gaga” is the nexus of all production and collection of props, sets, and clothing Lady Gaga uses in performance, and everything is manufactured there, in-house, by Gaga and a team of close friends. In a warehouse reminiscent of Andy Warhol’s “Factory” (admittedly, Warhol is one of Lady Gaga’s main influences), Gaga evades the limelight in order to focus on her creative endeavors. The Haus of Gaga, given its self-referential and self-aware concentration of creativity, is likely one of the keys to Gaga’s success in a world of otherwise impersonal collaboration.

Considering even this romantic image of Lady Gaga as a rogue, anti-social burlesque-dancer-gone-celebrity, there are still many who believe she is undeserving of both critical and mainstream attention. She possesses neither the sex appeal of Britney Spears nor the vocal chords of Celine Dion, so what is it she has—beyond pop-art savvy and a derivative, self-conscious public image—that no one else has?

The answer is this: Lady Gaga is a mistress of covert suggestion. Take a closer glance at her music videos and lyrics (which, I am ashamed to admit, I have done obsessively), and you will notice a slew of hidden linguistic, visual, and formal meaning. I am no psychologist, and certainly don’t find Lady Gaga to be all that attractive, but perhaps that detachment is exactly why the red flags go up so easily for me.

To highlight what is going on beneath the surface of Lady Gaga’s work, let me point out a few things that require no embarrassing Lady Gaga YouTube sessions. Some background: the two events that first catapulted Lady Gaga into stardom were her hit singles “Poker face” and “Just Dance.” The pronunciation of this former song’s title is essential; if you listen to phrasing of “p-p-p-poker face, p-p-poker face” when sung, it sounds exactly like “fuck her face” the second time.

During the bridge of the song “Just Dance,” the lyrics “half psychotic, sick, hypnotic, got my blueprint, it’s psychotic” sound exactly like the words “have sex” repeated over and over when she says them. During this sequence in the music video there is also a clip of Lady Gaga humping a whale and a flash of the word “join” for no apparent reason.

To be fair, Lady Gaga does not necessarily hide the smoke and mirrors, and she may consider subconscious influence a part of her art—something half-concealed that lends entertainment value and intrigue. In an another interview with MTV, a reporter suggested that the death of Princess Diana was a direct result of her fame (“the fame” was the name of Gaga’s first album) and that fame may place Gaga in a similar position of undoing. Gaga calmly responded, “You know, it’s actually interesting you say that, because I speak that way too.”

If Gaga is so keen to recognize and critique an attempt at unconscious emotional persuasion, we can imagine the role it might play in her work.

Sometimes Lady Gaga’s attempts at leading her audience into a trance take the form of explicit, self-conscious comedy. In the music video for the song “Paparazzi,” one scene has Lady Gaga falling into a whirling black-and-white spiral while a voice in the background says the word “beautiful” repeatedly.

Maybe it’s just me, but Lady Gaga’s absurdist and deliberately derelict style reminds me of Mugatu from Zoolander, only instead of getting you to relax, she just wants to turn you on.

Any critique of Lady Gaga’s powers of suggestion begs the question of whether she is really something unique, or if she is just a more “manipulative” version of countless other musicians in the past.

After all, there will always be verbal ambiguity when words are spoken instead of written—we have all gotten song lyrics wrong before. And doesn’t music, by pairing sound with the written word, inherently imbue words with extra-lingual meaning?

At its end, music is about making the listener feel a certain way. How, exactly, that feeling comes about isn’t always relevant to the person experiencing it.

So, if you are a born-again conservative, Lady Gaga is probably what you would call (as many bloggers have) the “antichrist.” However, if you are an intelligent person who is willing to look deeper into the inspiration and methods of her work, you will notice that she is, quite likely, a genius with an overactive sex drive.

Go Lady Gaga!

Full body scans of a man and woman. Given the current security situation, the federal government is considering measures such as these types of invasive scans to detect terror plots like that used by the underwear bomber. Unfortunately, these techniques still cannot detect explosives and other contraband hidden in bodily orifices. Photograph courtesy of Wired.

Imagine being the host of one of the most successful American morning shows on television. People love you. They love your personality, your charm, your wit. People look to you for advice, but they also look to you for some early-morning fun.

Now imagine that one day, on camera, you make an incredibly stupid remark poking fun at people different from you. The viewers don’t seem to notice, though. Maybe the remark was said too quickly. Or maybe they thought the joke was funny. Regardless, you go on with your show, the show ends, and you go on with your day.

One person remembers though. Me. Unfortunately, you made one deeply offensive, ignorant comment that deeply resonated with me.
The FOX & Friends morning show can certainly be entertaining. In fact, I know many people who watch this show every day. Anchors Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade make an engaging trio. Their appealing personalities make their show one of the most watched morning shows on television.

The anchors seem to make ridiculous remarks quite frequently, but this particular comment left me so dumbfounded that I stared at the television with a face that resembled the genie from Disney’s Aladdin.

Kilmeade discussed President Barack Obama’s response to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed bomb attack when he referred to Abdulmutallab as the “would-be crotch bomber.” Doocy then shifted the discussion to a lighter tone, in which he lauded Kilmeade’s apparently original nickname. After a few laughs Carlson decided to make this stupid comment: “It’s impossible to say his last name anyway.”

Now this might just be a joke, but no one should be made fun of or judged based on his or her name. A name is someone’s identity, and it says nothing of a person’s personality or character.

These sorts of inconsiderate jokes tell viewers that it is acceptable to criticize someone based on his or her name.
What Abdulmutallab did was inexcusable and deservevs punishment—but the condemnation should rest solely on his actions rather than how complicated his last name is.

One of the reasons why this issue strikes me so much is that I don’t have the most ‘conventional’ name either.

People have unintentionally butchered my name many times, and many people still do. It’s not very hard; the name is pronounced exactly the way it is spelled. But if people accidentally pronounce my name incorrectly, I would not hold any grudge against them. Instead, I would respect the fact they tried to respect the name my parents gave me. But people too lazy to even try to pronounce my name correctly instantly lose my respect. It especially annoys me when this sort of laziness translates into third-rate jokes attacking minorities in our post-9/11 world.

Carlson never seems to be far from controversy. She once referred to the late Senator Ted Kennedy as a “hostile enemy… on the home front” for disagreeing with the Bush administration on congressional approval for troop surges in Iraq. On the issue of free speech, she has stated, “I am tolerant. I’m all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th.” Apparently, Carlson is a big fan of the United States Constitution, just not on Christmas Day.

I don’t mean to infringe upon Carlson’s free speech rights. I believe that everyone deserves the right to freedom of speech everyday. Carlson should be allowed to say what she wants, whenever she wants.

However, she must be aware of people who don’t agree with her views. Such criticisms can come in various forms, whether as an article or increased voter-turnout against conservative candidates.

I find it funny how many right-wing political analysts have discussions on why minorities tend to not vote for the more conservative candidates. None of the analysts realize that one of the reasons is that conservative political commentators, such as Carlson, straight-up attack minorities for no reason.

Why should I, a racial minority, vote for a candidate who does not even respect the vast diversity that makes this country unique?

Though I tend to agree with the social and economic viewpoints of more liberal candidates anyways, I know quite a few minorities who refuse to vote for Republican candidates. It is not because the voters do not agree with the conservative platform, but because the people representing the conservative platform are intolerant to people who are different from them.

Neither Carlson nor conservative analysts should be surprised.

No one should be judged based on his or her external features or what other people label him or her.

Though people have the right to make politically incorrect jokes, TV shows should use better judgment when addressing a national audience that includes minorities of all races, religions, and ethnicities.

Ralph Lauren faced a scandal when it printed a heavily photoshopped ad in which the model’s waist is inhumanely small. Photo from http://www.flickr.com/photos/bohemiancoast/3989301705/

Advertisements are meant to attract consumers. They have no purpose for existence other than to achieve that singular goal.

Unfortunately, reaching that goal sometimes means employing means that are less-than-ethical.

One example comes from the longstanding practice of using the ideal of female perfection as a marketing tool. At some point, in the arms race to fabricate the most “perfect” woman, technology has been recruited to take over where nature left off.

In today’s advertisements, the use of Photoshop has become standard practice—no matter how far from reality the products of this digital manipulation may be. Or, on that note, how much harm these unrealistic portrayals of women may cause to young girls already bombarded with ads and expectations about make-up, diets, and what they “should be.”

There have been attempts to curb the potentially dangerous effects of these retouched images. Valérie Boyer, a member of the French parliament, has proposed a law against digitally retouched photographs featuring models. She argues that in order to combat eating disorders and negative body images, advertisers should place a warning label onto retouched photographs. In a world where some people will do just about anything to be perfect, Boyer wants to bring light to the old ugly truth that the ideal is ultimately unattainable.

Jo Swinson, a British member of Parliament, also supports the idea of a warning label and has suggested a similar proposal be enacted in Britain. In an interview with the New York Times, she argues that the highly doctored images convince people, especially young women, “to believe in realities that very often do not exist.” With the rising popularity of pro-anorexia websites, some believe that these warning labels may help people with self-acceptance and help individuals understand that this airbrushed perfection does not exist no matter your size. Swinson’s law proposes that violators who do not use a warning label face fines of up to $55,000 or about 50% of the advertisement’s cost.

The last two decades have ushered in a generation of models that have progressively gotten thinner—sometimes past any sort of reasonable limit.

Robin Derrick, creator director of British Vogue, told the New York Times, “I spent the first ten years of my career making girls look thinner. I’ve spent the last ten making them look larger.” It’s difficult to change this dangerous mentality when there are major fashion industry figures that vocally support having very thin bodies. Karl Lagerfeld, head designer and creative director of Chanel, recently said, “No one wants to see curvy women.”

Last summer, I worked at New York Fashion Week, mostly to get a taste of a world I knew nothing about. When the first model sauntered down the runway next to me, I felt like an obese midget gorilla. Within five minutes, I was surrounded by twenty girls with legs that went on for miles and had pencil-thin bodies that I thought were supposed to be one-in-a-million. The countless models packed in Bryant Park were all the same—rail thin and with the clichéd cigarettes in their hands. But up close, I saw that their hollowed faces were quite different from the poreless images so realistically illustrated in magazines.

Models, too, were well versed in the languages of wrinkles, blemishes, back fat, cellulite, and other imperfections. Of course, they were far from what “normal” people look like, but they were still human. Admittedly, even after that experience, I still sometimes view advertisements and editorials with a naïve eye, thinking that what I’m seeing is real—but at least now I’m a little bit more aware of the reality hidden behind layers and hours of retouching. However, most of the rest of the world is not, which is why Boyer and Swinson believe this law should be enacted.

However, even if put into effect, such a law would still be limited in its ability to effect a change in public perception. Sticking a warning label next to a photo can clarify that the image is not natural, but its power remains. People may realize that images have been altered but fail to appreciate how distant this digital perfection is from reality—leading them to believe this airbrushed perfection is still somehow possible.

Tall and skinny models are the norm in fashion. Photo by http://www.flickr.com/photos/kk/1460697324/.

Sephora now sells a real-life airbrushing tool called “Temptu,” marketed as “the brains behind most of the A-list work you see—the picture-perfect faces on the silver screen, the immaculate high-fashion shots.” Why airbrush? “You don’t have to be a model or celebrity to achieve that light-reflecting, flawless look you see on the big screen or in glossy magazines…see why this Airbrushing sensation is your Mr. Right…”

Why wouldn’t you want to look flawless and find the man (or woman) of your dreams? All for a couple hundred dollars! Many, including myself, have been lured at one time or another by the prospect of becoming the aesthetically perfect person, ignoring—or perhaps accepting—the notion that our true self just isn’t good enough.

As terrible as it may be to delude young minds of a seemingly attainable beauty, self-perception is an internal matter outside the controls of warning labels. The concept of beauty has always been idealized—from Raphael to today’s Photoshop—and many long for that elusive prize of aesthetic perfection.

V Magazine recently did a feature on a typical thin model and a “plus-sized” model wearing the same clothes in similar poses. For the most part, neither looked more remarkable than the other, but that was probably because those photos were visibly retouched to make both models look slim and flattering. Sure, the plus-sized model was a bit plumper but with the retouching, she didn’t look that much different from the thinner model.

In 2009, Ralph Lauren ran a campaign featuring a model whose body was clearly retouched—her waist was just about as wide as her head—and received scathing public criticism for the obvious distortion. They later apologized for the photograph but ended up firing the model, on the basis that she was unable to “meet the obligations under her contract with [Ralph Lauren].” The model, Filippa Hamilton, claims that she was fired because she was too fat for the company’s image.

It’s a bit disturbing when an obviously thin woman isn’t thin enough to meet a major label’s standards. The unsurprising result of this industry pressure is that models, already supernaturally slender, must try even harder to lose weight in order to match some sort of fantasy ideal.

Warning labels may bring light to the problem of anorexia and poor self-image, but ultimately it’s an issue that lies with society’s willingness, or unwillingness, to accept what is natural as what is beautiful—or at least decent. Although it would be interesting to see what kind of effects these labels have on consumers, it seems that these labels would be mere band-aids to a bigger problem that is far more difficult to solve.

After all, what good are labels when it is society itself that demand a standard of perfection that is beyond what can be real? Labels can only tell young girls that the images aren’t real. It doesn’t stop them from seeing the images as what they should become.

I have always believed in the free markets. And after the recent financial crisis, I still do. But I’ve never believed that free markets could work in lieu of government.

Recent events have strengthened this view. We should finally accept the fact that the financial system is by necessity “socialist.” At this point, the question is not so much, “can the free markets work without government regulation?” It is more, “We know the financial system cannot work independent of government. How can we ensure market regulation serves the interests of the American people?”

One can look back at the history of the financial system—Wall Street has never functioned independent of government. The reason is not that government has always sought to meddle in an otherwise stable system. Rather, Wall Street has proven incapable of surviving independent of government. And every time Wall Street collapsed, it was the financiers who demanded the government intervene to save them. This should be common knowledge taught in history class, but it is often not.

The first extreme case of government involvement in the financial markets came in 1913. The Wilson Administration created the American Central Bank, also known as the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, funded by tax dollars, was instituted at the request of bankers in order to offset the then recent, near catastrophic runs on banks.

The most commonly known example, however, is the so-called, “New Deal” legislation. The “New Deal” was enacted under Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. In addition to public work programs designed to provide employment, the New Deal legislation included provisions to check speculation on Wall Street.

The New Deal included another blanket form of protection to the banking sector—the Federal Government would provide insurance for a certain fixed amount of money held in private banks. Even if a bank were to collapse, Americans would not be left penniless. Before the recent near-catastrophe, this sum was $100,000. The figure has now been increased to $200,000, providing additional security. Most of the economy functions well without the government. Indeed, the central management of economies has proven disastrous, as illustrated by the Soviet Union. But, the failure to regulate the financial sector in particular has reaped virtually the same ruinous results. Every time Wall Street has attempted to deregulate, the house of cards collapsed.

The TARP bailout is a recent example of government intervention to save the financial sector. The bailout gave $700 billion in emergency loans to banks teetering on the verge of ruin. As has traditionally been the case, it was the bankers who asked for this money. In the free markets it is sink or swim, eat or be eaten, just like a nature documentary. The banks did not want to sink. In this instance, the banks were so large they could not be allowed to sink. As Americans’ private savings are either held in banks or invested in the stock market, the collapse of the financial system is unthinkable.

Conservative ideology stresses the independence of the free markets. One may reason that capitalism obstructed by government is not true capitalism. Non-capitalist economies do not work, and so we must avoid government at all costs. Of course, if this logic holds, there is no advanced capitalist economy in the world. All those wealthy, government-heavy nations in Europe have actually failed. They just haven’t told anyone. By the same logic, the American financial sector is socialist. For the last hundred years, there has been a central, quasi government-run bank with federal regulations and mandates. Some might argue that the financial system would actually work better without government intervention, but this logic has never survived the test of reality. There has never been a wealthy, prosperous nation without substantial government regulation and involvement in the economy. Ever. Perhaps there is some way to create a purely capitalist, rationally self-regulating financial sector.

This, however, remains a purely hypothetical undertaking. In all likelihood it is a pipe dream. No reasonable economist accepts the ideology of the “free market lovers” on the right. From Paul Krugman to Alan Greenspan, there is a consensus that the financial sector needs the government.

Now that we know the financial sector is socialist, it is important that we get socialism right. Socialism should serve the interests of the people who pay for it. American tax dollars paid for the bailout. The banks have become a product, just like a car an American family might purchase. In both cases, the consumer expects a useful, workable product. With Wall Street, this means regulations designed to protect consumers—bans on predatory loaning practices, limits on derivative trading, mortgage rate limits, and the like.

The market is complex, but there are ways to make it work for a more common interest. President Obama should understand this.

There is increasing populist rage directed at him from both sides of the political spectrum. The right is angry that the bank bailouts happened in the first place (despite the fact that they happened under a Republican president). They don’t understand that without the bailouts; the country would now be experiencing the second Great Depression.

Most “liberals” do get that the bailout was needed, but are frustrated at the lack of the promised post bailout reforms that could prevent another, or a worsening of this current, economic crisis.

Let’s learn our lesson for once. Let’s not return to the laissez faire, “leave the markets alone and everything will magically work out” attitude. But let’s also not bail out the finance sector unconditionally. Let’s not create a situation where banks can do whatever they want, until they fail, at which point they know the government will save them.

Without substantial market reform, this whole sorry state of affairs will continue, abuses will be unceasing, and it will happen all over again.