I am sure that the inspiration for these “tribal” pieces did not just come  from a drug-infused dream; it came from the diverse people who roam the streets…from the rhythmic beats that underlie  the music we pump through our MP3 players. What interests me about the “Tribal Print” trend is that while many of us will be heading to H&M to purchase the imitation designer pieces (I really can’t talk…I recently purchased a cotton zebra print dress from H&M), 64% of people support the new Arizona immigration law.

The law, enacted earlier this year, allows police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization.  The bottom line is if you look illegal, and you’re not carrying a U.S. passport or your immigration papers (better have big pockets, immigrants), you can be locked up.

There is nothing right or fair with this law. Yes, it is illegal to be in this country illegally…pause. But when exactly is it “practicable” to believe that someone is in this country illegally? (… further pause…)

Aside from the fact that the law blatantly codifies racial profiling, what troubles me is that while we are so quick and so excited to pilfer the music, the fashion, the foods of other cultures  (how many Asian fusion places are there in NYC?), we are just as quick to dismiss and demean the very people who have brought us that culture.

I think I may have to take a trip to Arizona, draped in my H&M zebra print dress and march in an anti-Arizona immigration law protest rally. All to show-off how much I prefer my culture in people, not just clothes.

Sound like a portion of a screenplay?  The above “scene” describes a typically Saturday morning for me and tons of other New Yorkers. Living in New York City one, at first, is enamored by the lights, the energy, the millions (it seems at least) of people walking the streets at any given time on any given day. But, the longer you live here, the longer one acclimates to a New York lifestyle, one begins to realize how truly alone and empty New York actually is. But, what makes this bustling city seem desolate? I  would argue that, amongst other things, this lack of social contact is due to the age of technology.

The Pew Research Center recently released a study noting that texting has become the preferred channel of basic communication between teens and their friends with one half of teen texters sending 50 or more texts a day. This is the youth of today; the youth of New York, this is the state of our future.

Writers Martin Toro and Alexander Khudokon explore this social disconnection  in their upcoming film: “Strange Thing Happens.”  The film, beginning in black and white and slowly progressing frame by frame into saturated color, starts with a young man walking through a massive building searching for someone. We are not sure who he is searching for or why but, we are brought along for the desperate search. What is interesting about this scavenger hunt is that this male character, seemingly searching for personal and social interaction with someone, simultaneously shuns those that attempt to engage him.  Watching this scene made me think of texting and the other ubiquitous forms of social media.

When we post status messages on our Facebook pages or send out random messages via Twitter, what are we yearning for exactly? What are we expecting? I believe that we are hoping for a comment back, a like button hit, a reply @.  But if it is instant feedback is what we desire when we utilize social media, would it not be more instant if we picked up the phone and called a friend (assuming of course they answer their phone) or meet a friend for coffee (or cocktails for the more city savvy) Our search for instant communication, our quest for constant social interaction forces us to shun the most instant and gratifying form of communication: face to face interaction.

This phenomena or slight obsession with social media and its effects on true social interaction is does not lay solely in my head or in the frames of “Strange Thing Happens.”  The New York Time’s reports that, with the prevalent use of technology as the primary form of social contact, today’s youths may be missing out on experiences that help them develop empathy, understand emotional nuances and read social cues like facial expressions and body language.

Watch this teaser clip of “Strange Thing Happens” and note the atmosphere.  Aside from the perfect mixture of music, movement, and lighting, notice the people in the background. They are not speaking…not even looking at each other. Is it because they have all grown up in the age of Facebook and Twitter and have forgotten what it means to socially interact?  Ask yourselves while watching this teaser…is this strange thing bound to happen…is this strange thing our new New York?

Strange Thing Happens a film dedicated to Firasz from Alexander Khudokon on Vimeo.

They seem to channel the look of a NYC/LA club-hopping diva who is too cool to care that she has runs and holes galore in her tights (I mean come on…she has people to dance with and drinks to consume).  Though many of us probably will not hang our hopes of a fun night on the holes of our leg wear, I have been hanging my hopes of a better America on what seems like thin air.

Initially my hopes for a better America laid in the promises of the “new face of politics:” Barack Obama. He strived for health care reform…a new health care reform bill (although a bit watered down from the Public Option his liberal base hoped for) was just signed into law.  A cause for celebration… right?  A reason for me to maintain my hopes for better days to come to our beloved country…right?  Well…not exactly.

Days after the health care bill passed, many Congressmen have had death threats, gas lines cut in family members’ homes, bricks thrown through windows and so on and so on.  These acts of domestic terrorism (let’s call it what it is) are not solely targeted toward Democrats.  Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives reports that a bullet had been fired through the window of his campaign office.  Pause…let’s not feel complete sympathy for Eric Cantor as he is blaming the Democratic National Committee for inciting these acts of violence…yes, you are right to take a moment to question where Cantor is placing blame….the Democrats are the ones that voted for the bill so exactly what revenge would they need to take against a member of the Republican party…end pause.

I am shocked at these terrorists…though I guess I shouldn’t be given the ruckus that occurred at town hall meetings this summer.  Who would think that a bill who’s only goal is to make the country as a whole healthier, would incite such deep seated hatred (for what or whom…I really have no clue).  Where does the hope for America lie?  Barack? He tried…and look where it got the country…death threats to our elected officials.  The American people?  If we let these terrorists get away with their threats and destruction then of course hope can’t lie here.  So where?  Perhaps somewhere between the holes and runs of my 6126 leg wear :/ (P.S. a right-wing friend of mine claims that MoveOn.org was likely the ones doing the brick throwing to make Republicans look bad….ok whatever.

General story plots (and pretty cool graphics and special effects) aside,  I found myself actively thinking about the social and political connotations that both films (I’m sure unintentionally) evoked.  ’Avatar’ spoke of the true American story. Not the rags to riches or pulling oneself up from their bootstraps story but, rather the story of unadulterated greed. The birth of America was a consequence of the greed of the English; their need to colonize/dominate land no matter the human cost.

Greed: The American Story continues through slavery where the greedy goal was to maximize profit from the land at the least cost…of course disregarding human cost.  Greed: The American Story Parts III, IV, V… continues today. Do I really need to mention Iraq? And what has this greed gotten the majority of us?

’Avatar’ greatly references this greed. The purpose of the avatar, the purpose of entering the foreign land, was not simply to steal for the sake of stealing. The underlying reason for the theft was that Earthlings had depleted her own world’s resources. This world’s greed in ’Avatar’ causes the end of the world as we know it. ‘Avatar’s’ story line leads us to ‘2012.’ Where will America’s storyline lead?

Gun violence has been a continuous problem in the United States for sometime. Yet (for a while at least), the average American’s connection to or knowledge of a gun crime was the occasional armed robbery or drug turf war that they read about in their local newspaper or saw in the most recent blockbuster flick. Sure, there have been massacres involving guns that made national attention: Columbine (April 1999), D.C. sniper (October 2002), Virgina Tech(April 2007)  but, these extreme instances of gun violence were years a part. *note: I’m sure there are others, however, these are the MAJOR ones that come to mind* 

Nowadays everywhere you turn there’s a nationwide story about a tragic shooting: Fort Hood (November 5, 2009), Orlando (November 6, 2009), Oregon (November 9, 2009).  Did you check out the dates…the shootings in 2009 are DAYS a part!

What’s even more frightening is that this country is heading in an even more gun-friendly direction.  In May 2009, Congress voted to allow loaded guns in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges (why do we need loaded guns in national parks…). This gun law, enacted as part of the credit card bill (weird right), passed the House with a vote of  279-147 . Geesh…health care reform was passed 220-215…where are our priorities?  It appears, at least with this voting record, that this country is more eager to kill off the populace rather than heal it.

Wait…this is not the worst of it: the Supreme Court is currently weighing the issue of whether state and local gun laws can be challenged as unconstitutional (McDonald v. Chicago). Right now you are probably reaching in the back of your mind for that little bit of  elementary school Social Studies you remember  about the 2nd amendment granting an individual the right to bear arms/own a weapon. Well, your memory serves you right…sort of.

 The 2nd amendment does say something about rights and bearing and arms(weapons) but there has not been a clear consensus as to whether that right is an individual right or a communal right (eg., the right of an organized militia). Further, as it stands now, the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states. In other words, at present, states can completely ignore the 2nd amendment without fear of any constitutional consequences.  But this can all change with a stroke (well, more than stroke) of the Supreme Court’s collective pen.

If the Supreme Court decides that there is an individual right to bear a weapon and that a state cannot deny a person that right (save the felon and the mentally ill), states with high crime areas may have a hard time enacting or enforcing tough gun laws. Call me crazy but, in my mind more guns = more gun violence. I do not feel safer knowing that everyone may have a weapon. In fact, this poses a much more dangerous situation: instead of wondering if someone has a gun or not…i’ll be left wondering who’s going to shoot first.

If America continues to head down this gun-toting path, I’ll be sure to remain locked and loaded, full stock and barrel, while staying couture in Chanel.

A neutral  wardrobe may not work for everyone but it does work for the Internet. Wait a second, the Internet has a closet of gray and tan outfits? Not exactly. I am speaking of Internet neutrality (aka net neutrality).

Net neutrality is the idea that the Internet should remain accessible to anyone and any content without any restrictions imposed by  Internet Service Providers (ISPs). How could content and the access on the Internet be restricted beyond the “you must be 18yrs or older to enter” disclosure on pornography sites?  Corporations have been asking themselves this same question and have come up with a solution: charge content providers more money for a website with a faster loading time than lesser-paying sites.

Congress has stepped into this debate with Senator John McCain sponsoring the “Internet Freedom  Act”. This is an interesting choice of title seeing as the bill is against a neutral or free Internet and endorses the scheme proposed by corporations against net neutrality. Getting away from the question of should for a moment, I begin by asking can the Internet be regulated and if so, by who?

In general, the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech based on its content. In other words, any regulation regarding speech must be content neutral. This applies in the context of the Internet as well (see ACLU v. Reno).  Here, the  Internet Freedom Act  is a piece of proposed legislation that would not restrict speech per se: the stated goal of the Act is to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from ruling in favor of net neutrality. That being said, the catch, however, is that the inevitable result of the proposed Act would inhibit speech based on its content.

If McCain’s Act were to pass, corporations and those with immense money wells will ultimately determine what is available on the web.  Who wants to wait around for the slow-loading independent blog when one by say Fox news can be loaded almost instantly.  The only content that will be available on the Internet (without lag time) will likely be pro-business and the content that will effectively be restricted will be the critique of business. Is this content neutral? Don’t think so!  Information  will be completely one-sided with no available options for opposing views and/or engaging discourse. It’s almost the equivalent of being forced to wear pricey namebrands with no ability to mix in odd pieces because the vintage and thrift stores are a hundred miles away and surrounded by water.

One’s ability to make a statement on the Internet (or in their wardrobe) should not depend on the amount of money one can spend. It is alright to be neutral… to allow yourself, the Internet, and your wardrobe to be a blank canvas unafraid to go against the status quo…free to mix and match ideas and styles.

Amidst the constant back and forth snaps regarding health care, Senate  Minority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, stated that proponents of health care reform (i.e., the Democrats) need to “ask the American people what they want…” Really Mitch…what poll have you been looking at?  

Well, there was a poll reported by FOX News stating that 33% of Americans are in favor of health care reform and 53% opposing.  MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted on her October 8, 2009 show that before asked their opinions on health care reform, the FOX News respondents were asked: “Do you think President Obama apologizes too much to the rest of the world for past U.S. Policies?” and “Would you rather cut spending now so future generations don‘t have to pay?  Or keep spending at current levels and let future generations pay.”  These  accented questions were posed first in order to percipitate an intial negative view of the President thus fueling a non-favorable response to any legislation proposed by the President (here health care reform). Not exactly the type of poll that Mr. McConnell should be relying on.

Unbeknownst to him (I’m sure) Mr. McConnell has inadvertently entered a new issue into the mix: push polling. Push polling is a technique wherein the polling questions are preceded with innuendo and negative information intended to sway the result of the polls. Think of it as polling with an accented touch. An example comes from Bush’s 2000 Presidential primary campaign: “John McCain calls the campaign finance system corrupt, but as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, he raises money and travels on the private jets of corporations with legislative proposals before his committee. In view of this, are you much more likely to vote for him, somewhat more likely to vote for him, somewhat more likely to vote against him or much more likely to vote against him?”  The accent here cannot be denied.

The concept and even the use of push polls are not necessarily a horrible thing: we accept commercials and advertisements whose purpose is to persuade viewers to purchase one product over another. The problem with push polling arises when people, namely elected officials, cite the results of these polls as evident of some undisputed fact.

Accents have thier place like on my finger or even in a FOX News poll, however, accents do not belong in the arsenal of facts that lawmakers rely on when creating legislation.

In mid- September, Sallie Peake, Wellford’s mayor, issued a memorandum to all Wellford police officers which read in pertinent parts: “As of this date, there are to be no more foot chases when a suspect runs. I do not want anyone chasing after any suspects whatsoever.”  Ms. Peake”s rationale behind this directive is costs (the catch all excuse in this economy); it is costing Wellford approximately $20,000 per year in worker’s compensation for its officers. Crashing cop cars and running into doors and buildings all in the name of getting the bad guy has is downsides.  But should the costs of catching a criminal take priority over ensuring that crimes do not go unpunished?

  Always trying to find something positive, I believe this mandate may have a vaild point or two. For example, the amount of robberies may decrease as running would be the only way to evade police and one can run only so far with a flat screen T.V. in hand…right?

I tried, Mayor Peake, but this directive is extremely dangerous and not thought out. If a police officer views a crime in progress and the suspect starts to run, is the cop supposed to merely stand there and watch?   Peake’s concern rests in financial costs; my concern lies in the cost left to bear by Wellford’s citizens. Murderers, rapists and other criminals could literally get away with a crime by getting away (on foot) from the police. 

 So criminals whether you’re wearing Converse’s 1HUND(RED) or my beloved Louboutin’s Very Galaxy heels, if you’re able to even trot you will likely be able to get away with a crime…well in Wellford at least.

Ok, I admit I do not know how far these designers would actually go on a first date but, these days sometimes the colors you wear can give away such intimate information. That is…if you are playing the game SNAP.

SNAP is a new sexual game played by adolescents across the country where girls wear colored jelly bracelets (circa 1980′s)  that indicate how far they are willing to go and guys try to “snap” off the bracelets. Whichever  bracelet is effectively “snapped” off, that girl must then perform the sexual act denoted by the “snapped” color bracelet. Sounds fun right?

It is not my place to say how celibate or promiscuous teenagers should be, but the sexually creative teenagers that participate in SNAP are causing more problems than simply raising the herpes statistics.   Some schools, for example, are banning  jelly bracelets despite the fact that SNAP is not played at these schools.  Even more drastic (well, from the eyes of a fashion and free speech lover) is that SNAP players are making it impossible for girls to make innocent fashion statements. Wearing a series of black and red bracelets to compliment a grey dress with black flats can inadvertently signal that the young girl is willing to have full on sex (or at the very least perform a lap dance). 

Now just imagine this same girl walking down the street knowing that she looks AMAZING and all of a sudden some random guy “snaps” one of her bracelets. He’s expecting something, she’s confused about what just happened…who knows what happens next.

I am all about people expressing their sexuality but when such expression hinders the ability for others to be free to display their inner fashionista then I have a slight problem.  SNAP players should maybe come up with a different playing piece.  The girl with the black dress and black/red bracelets would be grateful.

The initial uproar began when the President suggested a lesson plan wherein it was recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing what they can do to help the President. The goal of this proposed plan was to encourage students to make (and hopefully achieve) short and long term goals. The President quickly scraped this plan amid criticism (exactly what harm would result from children writing their President…I’m not too sure).

But, it was when Obama first mentioned his plan to speak to school children that many on the right began (yet another) viral opposition to the President. Phrases like “socialist indoctrination of children,” “bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power,” and “press[ing] a partisan political agenda on impressionable young minds” have proudly been strewn about.  Parents and school officials began requiring teachers to provide alternate classrooms for parents that chose to opt their children out of hearing Obama’s speech. 

In regard to the parents that are so concerned about the President indoctrinating their children with some phantom socialist ideology…exactly what are the children learning instead?  That the Office of the President does not deserve respect (or rather it deserves respect only when your political party controls)? That they should close their minds and ears to those that appear different from them?

It is true that parents have a fundamental right to raise and educate their children as they deem fit (e.g., home schooling over public school). But here is not a question of whether to teach children creationism over intelligent design; this is a matter of pure human and moral decency. What type of society emerges when the very young and “impressionable” are taught to ignore rather than take the time to listen? It will be a backwards society! Yes, if this type of “indoctrination” by conservative parents continues, the 21st century and beyond will begin to look like 1865 with time going in reverse. Scary right! 

Fear not a Presidential pep talk; fear those who wear lace ears to “hear.”