Justin Raphael Roykovich - 表現の力

5 Links for Japan:

2011-03-18T23:16:00.001-04:00

The following are 5 links to phenomenal and/or thought provoking reporting on the Japan Earthquake in Sendai:

"Why I'm Not Fleeing Japan." By Paul Bluestein, The Washington Post.

"Japan Earthquake 2011: Survivors Share 'Miracle' Stories." The Huffington Post.

"A Harrowing Tsunami Survival Story from Japan," via The Rachel Maddow Show.

"'Fukishima 50' Risk Their Lives To Prevent Nuclear Meltdown," via The Huffington Post.

"Why is there no looting in Japan?" By Ed West, The Telegraph.

At least 5 reasons to be hopeful.

Do you have another? Feel free to comment.

Update: March 20, 2011:

"2 Survivors are Found 9 Days After Distaster in Japan," via The New York Times.

Aug. 8th - 14th: Serendipitous Moments of Media

2010-08-13T21:10:00.003-04:00

"The Great Atomic Film Cover-up"

"Is this Finally the Economic Collapse?"

"Iran set to execute 18-year-old on false charge of sodomy."

"Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, heath and society"

States that allow marriage to first cousins vs. States that allow gay marriage.

Thousands of dead fish wash ashore in the North East for the second time in a week.

"Minnesota Under Attack from Sharia Law"

"50 Ways to Build Your Optomism"

"Hiding in Plain Sight"

"Cleared, and Pondering the Value of 27 Years."

"A Mosque at Ground Zero?"

Eat, Pray, Love.

http://justinraphaelroykovich.blogspot.com/

Work of (f)Art: The Next Great "Art Pussy."

2010-07-15T14:02:00.000-04:00

Ok, let me be very clear: I am totally against Bravo's art miscreation Work Of Art: The Next Great Artist. However, while I boycott the show, reading the recap blogs are one of my favorite things to do on Thursdays. If you've missed them, check out ARTINFO's , where they say: "Finally (China) Chow claims, 'the only rule in art is what works, and your piece didn’t.' Stop trying to steal Tim Gunn’s slogan and then messing it up!'" And then Jerry Saltz's blog at New York Magazine, where he says Erik's "art pussy" comment "will haunt him in the art world. Maybe he should make like Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment and publicly confess. Go to MoMA; shout into the Yoko Ono microphone now in the atrium, 'I am an art pussy.' Maybe he should have Nao and Judith spelling the words 'PROUD PUSSY' backward in brown liquid. Jamie-Lynn could sweetly dance, and Trong could tell people who Tom Freidman is. John and Amanda could turn it all into an abstract book cover." By far these are the best things to come out of this show.

You know what . . .

2010-07-14T23:16:00.001-04:00

. . . hey, I am all about fashion. I'm gay, it's in my genes, I can't help it. However, when your coat looks like it was designed by Lord Voldemort on a meth binge at a rave, I draw the line.

Image via Details Magazine, August 2010 Issue.

* * *

On a side note, yes I know- long time no update. Hopefully that will change. Although I do have 30 other blogs. Have you checked those out? Hmmm?

2010-04-27T14:33:00.001-04:00

I would now like to direct you to the green portion of my blog:

http://moving-forward-together.blogspot.com

Racism! Misogyny! Welcome to America!

2010-04-26T17:07:00.000-04:00

Send Me "Back to the Kitchen"?

and

Refried Bean Swastikas Smeared On Arizona Capitol

America vs. The World

2010-04-19T17:55:00.001-04:00

World's Opinion Of U.S. Has 'Improved Sharply' Under Obama, Says BBC Poll

Trust In Government? Poll Finds Nearly 80% Of Americans Don't

Hmmm . . .

Welcome Lady Gaga, the mistress of death to the Postmodern.

2010-03-13T15:16:00.005-05:00

Unless you are totally immune to pop culture references, you must know that the music video for Lady Gaga's song "Telephone" came out this week. I ranted on a friends Facebook page that Gaga, if credited with anything in her career, should be known for the death of Postmodernism. And not necessarily because she was in enough control of her career to knowingly usher in the end, but because of through her own naivety to that which she claims to be mistress over, namely art and pop culture together, that she caused the catastrophic explosion that was Postmodernity's end - which I imagine to be like the The Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man's demise at the end of Ghostbusters, only with glitter instead of marshmallow goo. (Yes I realize I am dating myself on that and that most of Gaga's fans will have absolutely no idea who that is).

But clearly, Gaga's whole schtick is Postmodernism on steroids and her whole career is Exhibit A of why the Postmodern needs to die and why we need to move on. The "Telephone" video was an example of everything that is wrong in Postmodernity: all glam, no content - with something to say but not really articulating it well, while trying to shove in everything and anything that could be used as a reference or a shout out to things that have been done over and over and over again. Hey Gaga, Warhol was like, 40 years ago where it was new and he did it a hell of a lot better. It's time to move on. As in my previous post, I'm not sure if the Altermodern is the best way to go in a Post-Postmodern world, but at least it's moving forward.

But back to Gaga, her "Telephone" video made me think of the article in AdBusters that I referenced last time, so I thought I would include it in a post, since it seems totally appropriate:

"It’s hard to pinpoint exactly where and when it [Postmodernism] died, but I’d venture a guess that it choked on its own vomit somewhere between Kanye West’s gradual descent and Lady Gaga’s meteoric rise. Mr. West and his Murakami-grubbing, Jetson-worshipping, DaftPunking, Auto-Tuningbarf parade brought postmodernism to its absurd conclusion, and now Gaga is nailing the coffin shut with her hypnotic transmedia brand of nihilistic marketing gimmicks.

Gaga refers to her music as “soulless electronic pop” and says things like “we’ve already killed everything” and “the apocalypse has already happened.” Her sensational aesthetic has a divisive effect and tends to generate one of two reactions: She is either the most awful, most infuriating cretin ever to crawl out of corporate entertainment, or she’s an ingenious Warholian synthesis of David Bowie and Madonna with admirable Jay-Z-style business savvy.

Both positions overlook why the Gaga “fame monster” is a significant development in pop culture: Her persona is so infectious because it is the most accurate reflection we have of capitalism’s mutagenic effects on the human form and psyche. Her music is just a pretense, a rationale for her celebrity. She is the bizarro Paris Hilton. The manipulation of capital is her true art, and the “Haus of Gaga” is not a fashion/performance collective but a new breed of PR firm.

Even more crucial is the cultlike passion that she inspires in her followers. It demonstrates how, even long after its death, postmodernism’s specter will continue to beckon us toward the apocalyptic future that the “fame monster” so wantonly desires."

For the full article, go here.

Just on a side note, I will still dance my ass off to "Telephone" at the club. But I will have to train myself not to imagine Gaga looking like an American Gladiator reject while doing so.

Post-Postmodern = Altermodern?

2010-02-13T22:56:00.004-05:00

I picked up the newest copy of Adbusters today - a publication that I can't decide equals brilliance or neo-hipster arrogance - and I read a very interesting piece by a Douglas Haddow. Well, the first half of it was interesting anyway. The later half goes on and on on a droll anti-capitalistic tirade, which may have been interesting if it had said anything new or offered any new ideas on how to fix it instead of just lamenting about how awful it is. But the first half is all about the newly crowned Altermodern, taken from The Tate's Triennial of the same name, of 2009. It heralds that the Postmodern is finally dead, and the Altermodern has slayed the Warholian beast and taken the crown! Hooray!

Haddow makes very good commentary on Lady Gaga and Kanye West which I might go into later, but all his critique of Altermodern, thought up by French theorist/curator Nicolas Bourriaud, was so scathing I had to check it out. I must admit I hadn't heard that Postmodernism was dead yet, being that it is splashed all over every piece of media on the entire planet, and I was eager to see what had taken its' place.

So I headed over to the Altermodern Manifesto and as I read it, I swear I had multiple intellectual orgasms . . . Artists looking at multiculturalism and identity? Yes! Globalised perception? Oh yes! A stripping of a western centered ideal and moving toward polygamous, multi-national ideal on how to view the world?! YES, YES DON'T STOP!

Then, out of nowhere, it went soft. Why? Because I looked at the work in the show. I had thoughts and feeling streaming back to me as when I saw 2008's Whitney Biennial. The whole show, (with admittedly a few gems spread around within), was for the most part, a pure mess of sheepish artists with clearly no leader all, wandering about, taking up grass, chewing it up into cud for a bit and then spitting it out and calling it art.

The Tate's Triennial evokes the same response.

Not to be crass, but seriously, what the fuck man? Mr. Bourriard puts together this fabulous manifesto about global perspective and multinational artistic leadership, and this is it? If it is, then my friends, Postmodern is not dead at all. All it has done is pulled a Madonna and reinvented itself into something that encompasses new ideals but is really the same old mess deep down. And no offense to Madonna for comparing her to this.

Granted, I have not seen the show in person. And perhaps if I somehow do see it somewhere in its' entirety, I will eat every last one of words right down to the serifs. And in some ways, I actually do hope I'm wrong. Because if this is what the next wave of art is going to look like - not only does it not encompass anything the Altermodern Manifesto says - I think all of us other artists who are producing work that actually follows more of the manifesto will have our work cut out for us . . . no pun intended.

I will say that I agree with Haddow about one thing. If Altermoderism fails, it will be because it is an extension of Modernism in the first place. It fails to get at the root. And if it's anything the closing of the last decade taught humanity, it's that society needs a good uprooting not just a good weed-whacking.

Oh, and might I just add that the anti-capitalist Adbusters has an article praising Avatar . . . I'm just saying.

2010-01-20T19:52:00.004-05:00

Perhaps I'm more relevant than I thought . . .

So tonight I accidentally misspelled my blog URL and put this into my toolbar:

http://justinrapaelroykovich.blogpsot.com

And instead of my blog, it gave me this.

So, this means one of three things:

One, that the rapture is coming and this is a divine intervention telling me so.

Two, that these people buy bulk blogspot addresses and just spam there way onto as many misspelled sights as possible.

Or three, my favorite, that someone actually saw my blog and decided I was enough of a heathen to then purposely redirect those who mistype my blog address to a website devoted to the rapture.

I'm sticking to reason three. It makes me feel that someone thinks I'm relevant enough to go out and try to direct people away from what I'm saying.

Obama-rama and The New World Order, Part 2

2010-01-16T22:24:00.005-05:00

So speaking of those obsessed with The X-Files, I had on my Netflix cue a film called America: From Freedom to Facism, directed and produced by Aaron Russo. I love all this conspiracy theory crap, if for no other reason I feel like whether or not it's true, it makes one think about the things that should matter. Despite the fact that some claims are totally out there, there is always an element of truth in them that should be looked at. However, back in the day, Russo was a music producer working with many influential artists including Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin, Led Zepplin, etc. and he later directed Bette Midlar in The Rose. This film is about 5 years old, made during the height of the Bush insanity, but the gist is about the Federal Reserve and it's shadow elite that really truly run the government. Also included is how we are not constitutionally liable to pay income tax. Sweet! Given the recent economic situation, it's a timely revisit.

Also, somewhat ironically, I got a letter in the mail today from the State of Virginia saying that I owe them a couple bucks and that if I don't pay it by a certain date, that they are going to go into my bank account and forcefully take the money. I, perhaps somewhat naively, didn't think that was legal. Lo and behold, it is. Granted, it takes a court order, but if you fuck with the fed, I can't imagine it would be that hard to get one. Makes me wonder, if that is constitutional? I don't know, but it was what I was thinking going into watching this movie.

I have to admit that I was terrified by the film, as all good propaganda is meant to do. I won't get into the lot of it, but Russo does a good job defending his points, and those points are actually kinda good. Points like, you know, that bankers should not be more powerful than the government, issues about The Federal Reserve being an independent banking institution separate from the actual government, that the main usage of people's income tax is used to pay off interest on the national debt not on national resources like roads, education, etc.

But here's always the thing with films like this: they take you for the ride, and then you come to find out all the back story behind it. Turns out Russo was good friends with Alex Jones, a right wing radio host/media entrepreneur whose latest film is on the Fall of the Republic, and . . . (drumroll please) Obama and The New World Order. Another serendipitous occurrence. You should check out the movie site, it's full of theories on the Anti-Christ. Just so you're prepared for the second coming and all.

Then, after a little googling, I come to find out on a blog that Russo himself owed almost $2 Million in back taxes. Really? Is that not somewhat a conflict of interest? I'm sure you will say, "well that's because he was choosing not to pay!" Well, $2 mil is a lot of money for an out of work movie director. I'm just saying. Then there are the issues of the tax organizations he interviews. For example, www.tax-honesty.org says that if you watch ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN that you are grossly misinformed. Hmm, guess which major news channel is left out. Then we come to find out that almost all of the people interviewed for this film are major supporters of Texas Republican Representative Ron Paul. *sigh*

And this isn't to say that Russo doesn't make some good points. For starters, his interview with former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen is horrendous. Horrendous in the way Mr. Cohen responds to Russo's questions, and I find it difficult to believe that it could have been edited to paint Mr. Cohen in a certain light. I mean, the man basically says that the IRS is above the law. That's alarming.

At the end of the film, he also goes into the implanting of microchips into masses of people and how scary that can be. What that has to do with income tax I'm not sure, but it's still interesting. But then we find out that he's crazy and it makes all the stuff he says just seem like rubbish, which is disappointing. I kinda felt the same way when I first read Naomi Wolf's book The End of America, but at least Wolf is a semi-respected author who doesn't jump on all the conspiracy bandwagon nonsense. The difference is credibility. While Wolf goes out on a limb, at least she has the credentials to back her up. After researching the film, Russo's integrity takes a hit, which is a shame, because if he had done more research, this film could have been powerful.

And here's the thing: yes, these things should be investigated. I'm all for transparent government. Yes, The Patriot Act is detrimental to our democracy. Yes, the normal citizen should be more aware of their rights and do more proactivity to ensure them. But why aren't normal people saying these things? People who don't have to bring up the anti-christ when Obama's name is mentioned. Or Bush's for that matter. (Please, if that man was the anti-christ, I think we'd all make it to heaven.) And when normal people do say these things, why don't more normal people pay attention?

And here's my main thing with all of the conspiracy stuff: do I believe that things go on behind closed doors that the public doesn't know about? Of course. But I think the main problem in all of these theories of The New World Order and so on is that, like always, the notion of the human capacity is totally not even brought into the equation. Like 6 billion people are just going to go along and be like, "ok yes, please do all these horrible and nasty things." I mean, hello, does the French Revolution ring a bell? For every Louis XVI there is a Rousseau, for every George III there is a Thomas Jefferson, for every Bush Jr. there is a movement of Hope, for every Nazi Axis, there are the Allies (hopefully minus the 6 million murdered in genocide, but that is a different conspiracy theory all together), hell, for every Voldemort there is a Harry Potter. I mean, this is history repeating itself here. So what if a group of shadow elite global financiers do exist, they're going to take over 6 billion people? You all say it's happening now and yet our financial systems are failing and there is a global shift happening in the way that human beings not only view themselves, but their consciousness. So what if they do take over? It will only be a matter of time before another revolution, for that is human history. Not even those who own all the money on the planet can stop human nature from prevailing. And not all human nature is detrimental. Just ask Mr. Potter on the forms of old magic.

My very long and convoluted point in all of this is that the more I see all these movies about death, destruction, power manipulation, the rapture, the anti-christ, 2012, the end of the world and so on, the more I realize just how ingrained fear is in our society. It's like we're afraid of everything, even to the point where we get afraid to live. Do I believe in the shadow elite and the secret government plots and the plans of The New World Order? Does it matter? What I believe in is the human capacity for what is good. Sappy I know. Now that isn't to say that people need to get off their asses and actually partake in this democracy before it is swept out from under them, because they do. But that isn't living in fear. By doing that, we are living in hope, which from what I understand, is what Mr. Obama has been asking of us all along.

However I don't think I'm going to get out of paying my money to the good ol state of VA.

One thing I did learn from America: Freedom to Facism? That we had a supreme court justice named Felix Frankfurter. Man, the playground must have been hell for him . . .

I will also say that Russo died in 2007 of bladder cancer, with conspiracy theorists screaming murder. Cue X-Files theme music . . . now.

One last point: to Russo's credit, in some ways he's right. Our freedoms are no where near how the founding fathers saw them. Granted, we are in a totally different time and place then 250 years ago, and Jefferson said himself, that as things change with time, so much the laws of the country. But the things in the film that ring alarm bells: such as the woman in Florida getting tasered, the interview with Mr. Cohen, the willy-nilly printing of money by the Federal Reserve, the absolute power that people with money have across the globe, the actions of the WTO and the IMF, the micro-chip implanting thing combined with the government tracing of money by technology - these are all things that should be of concern. I am well aware of the fact that America is not as free as we would like to believe. But we're also not Iran. In fact, what this country needs are people as passionate about their freedom as the people in Tehran are. For if we are passionate about freedom in a time of peace from within, we will not have to be engaged with war from within in the future.

*****

On another note, in reference to something else I said in my previous entry, I always feel kind of awkward talking about race, kind of like I really shouldn't be saying anything, but because no one else does that I then kind of have to. I was reading this story on, once again Huffington Post, where critics of Avatar are saying that the movie is racist; you know, that the white guy has to go and pretend to be one of the heathens to then save them, because, well, the heathens obviously can't save themselves, so the caucasians come to the rescue once again. Only the interesting thing was that it was the caucasians who were saying that the movie was racist, while a black film professor was kinda "eh" on the subject and praised it as a stunning work. This makes me think that all this pontificating on white people's part, myself included, is just another form of repression. Instead of letting people of other races talk for themselves, the whites once again have to do it for them. Is this a fair argument? I don't know. I'll let the academics spend their time hashing it out. I don't want to steer people away from calling out prejudice. But I also don't want to force words into people's mouths, especially when whites already have a history of silencing.

Update, January 17, 2010: In the New York Times today, Frank Rich writes an interesting Op-Ed about Harry Reid and his current debacle with race. For the most part, exempting Michael Steele, most blacks are ho-hum about Reid and his comments, while for the most part it is the white conservatives calling for his resignation. Why are white people always more astounded by racism when it's them who are perpetrating it? Or, is it that minorities are just used to the abuse?

Obama-rama and The New World Order

2010-01-07T17:19:00.003-05:00

As some may know - assuming you are like me and watched way too many episodes of The X-Files while in high school - there is a thought among conspiracy theorists that we as a society are moving toward a New World Order. That is, one unified global government that oversees all 6 billion of us as one big country. Or think of it like a corporation, kind of like how our government is run now, only on a global scale. Seriously, YouTube it. It'll come in great when you want to procrastinate on something.

Whether I believe these crazies, (who are the left wing version of "birthers") - with the spliced videos of speeches, the calls to raise arms against the NWO army or the compelling thought that the NWO are really reptilian aliens who have returned to their planet to re-colonize us (hello, Tom Cruise? Don't you scientologists have the reptilian alien thing trademarked or something?) - isn't really the issue. According to an article in the Huffington Post today, these people may be onto something.

No, it isn't about reptilian aliens gosh darn it, but it is about the "shadow elite." Author Janine R. Wedel has just written a book appropriately titled Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government and Free Markets. It's basically all about how people with money and power basically get whatever they want. Headline news, I know. I mean, we've seen this all along with the GOP and evangelicals, the whole congress and the health industry, the masses of white population throughout history . . . I mean, this goes back through time to imperialism, colonialism and so on. Wedel's point is that it's destroying our country, and she's right. I mean, Naomi Wolf has been writing about this since Bush Jr. and Naomi Klein wrote about our economics based on Milton Friedman were failing way before the recession. So what Wedel is writing about isn't big news to me, it's just a state of our affairs.

However this where The Big O comes in. And I will get this out of the way now: yes, I am a neo-hippie, tree hugging liberal, I make no qualms about that. And I will also say that while I make no judgements on Bush Jr. as a human being, I will say that he was the worst person possible to be president for 8 years, as we can now see. I will also say that while I have issues with The Big O, the thought of McCain and Caribou Barbie in office is, to understate it, horrifying. So Obama may have his problems, but the alternative was too scary to even consider.

However. Reading this article in Huff Post, (which I realizes tags me as neo-hippie, tree hugging liberal), and actually for a while now, I can't help but feel somewhat betrayed by the whole "Change" and "Hope" campaign. I mean, most of the country - even those who aren't Democrats - watched as The Big O got elected and we had tears in our eyes as he spoke that night in Chicago, along with most of America. There was partying in the streets. In my almost 30 years, I had NEVER seen a presidential election enthrall my generation like it did. The fact that young people, and minority young people, actually cared about an election was victory within itself.

I will also say, that no matter what Obama does in office - even if his presidency is a complete failure - what his election has done for race in in this country is worth every day he is president. I've had this argument with many a white person who tells me that it really didn't do that much and that to elect a president based on race is not only not patriotic, but but not democratic, etc. And while they have some points - mostly that Obama got 90% of the black vote, even over Hillary - his campaign singlehandedly paved new roads for minority leadership. What academics spend decades theorizing on and wishing into fruition, he did within the course of a couple years. And if you whities out there don't believe me, go have a conversation with a minority, specifically an African American about this issue. It would do you good.

Again though: However. My biggest hope with Obama taking office was that the days of the Bush monarchy would be long gone; that the US would be going back to a Democratic (and dare I say liberal) ideology for the country. And when I say "democratic" I don't mean party, I mean that the people would once again have say in the way that their country is run. This is turning out not to be true. The biggest thing that Bush ever did was to turn the nation into one of fear and hate while stripping away civil liberties. Through the indefinite "War on Terror" to the Patriot Act, we as a nation became afraid to do much of anything except elect officials to act on our behalf in bombing the Arabs. With the Obama campaign, it turned that fear into "Hope" and into "Change" - both of which we have yet to see fully.

We've come close: the almost closing of Guantanamo, Obama speaking at the HRC, Health reform, education stimulus, etc. But for each one of those, Obama did just the opposite of his campaign promises. For every Elizabeth Warren, we got a Timothy Geithner. For every across the aisle gesture in Bob Gates, we got an inside report on how Goldman Sachs, the main contributor to the Obama campaign, got a pass on Wall Street reform. And while I realize that some consideration must be paid to the way politics is played, my concern lies far beyond politics.

If Obama can't get his shit together, he is going to ruin a whole generation who were willing to participate in the way their country is run. And if we learned anything from the Shadow Elite, that's just what they want. That's part of the reason why this country is in the shape it is in now. Through fear, instilling apathy and under or mis-education, the government and those who run it have whipped the American public into submission. They have scared the masses into thinking that everything is out to get them and that there is no vision beyond what one sees right in front of their face. And while this has gone on way before Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc, Obama is perpetuating it. Instead of going against The Patriot Act, he is enforcing it. Instead of speaking out, he is being muted, sometimes from within his own party. Instead of being the change he promised, he is becoming part of the problem not the solution. He is slowly being beaten down into the pegs of how Washington works, and he is accepting it.

My questions is where is the fire of hope and change now? Yes, he's only been in office a year and perhaps I'm not giving him enough credit for what he has tried to change. But he's become very soft spoken as of late. Sure, he could be worried about his re-election - he might not want to ruffle too many feathers before his next term. But if he doesn't start doing something soon, I'm not so sure he will get a next term. Then it will be back to the cycle of Washington puppets we've had all along. And signs of this are already happening. Everyone was so psyched when the Dems got full control over congress. Now what has happened now? Like always, the Dems go and fuck it up and the 2010 elections might once again shift everything. And this isn't to say that I'm against change or balance of power. But change should be for all not just for some. No pressure or anything, but if Obama can't fix this, it will never get fixed.

Actually scratch that - If Obama can't fix this, it won't get fixed until we as Americans become so afraid of the power our government has and we fix it ourselves. And I'm not talking tea parties and protests here, I'm talking about really separating church and state, limiting lobbyist influence in Washington, allowing ourselves to chose how our health care is run, not allowing corporations to run our elected officials, choosing to have affordable higher education so that we can compete globally, really knowing what it is that we are putting into our bodies from commercial food suppliers, treating all living things with respect and not just for consumption, etc etc etc. All things we should have the right to, not have to fight for. Why are we having to fight our government (via the corporation) to lead healthy lives?

For the most part, every time speak to most people about politics, they really don't give a shit. And this is cross-generational. I think the last time I spoke to a common person who actually knew what was going on in our government was from the WW2 era. Why? Most likely because they had to know what was going on. It amazes me when people tell me that politics "doesn't effect them." What the fuck?! Politics doesn't effect you? Really? It's twice as bad when it's a minority: racial, sexual or gender. It does effect you, everyday. It effects you in ways you never think about because some, perhaps the "shadow elite", like it that way. They don't want you to think about it because they don't want you to think about the power that you actually have, that you are given with citizenship to the US. This country was built on it's people. But now it's built on money. Yet that can change. There is hope. It's in us. And hopefully it's in a very charismatic man we elected president.

With the recent uprisings in Iran coming to a boil yet again, I can't help but long for a change in complacency from with the American public. Even the freakin' tea parties were some relief, albeit misguided. What this all boils down to is not whether the "shadow elite" are controlling us or whether we are being enslaved by alien reptiles, or even about how our constant morally skewed government is running things. It's about us. It's about us taking change and making the change. So after school special I know. But if The Big O doesn't get his shit together, then it's up to us to help him. We are just as much to blame as he is. The hope and change campaign hasn't ended, so why are we now sitting down expecting it just fall in our laps? I mean really, how American is that? "Oh, well I hoped and I prayed to lose weight, so I'm just going to sit here and munch this cookie dough and wait for it to happen!" Yeah no. Go out and take it. And make Obama help us get it back.

That's me and my soapbox for right now. I will say this though: no matter how bad things get, whenever I see Michelle Obama and her guns in the White House, I thank Jesus that it's her there and not Cindy McCain. The gay in me loves seeing a strong and fashionable woman back in the WH. See, there is always hope.

***Update, January 9th, 2010***

I was reading ArtForum's end of the year wrap up, and I saw Okwui Enwezor's top 10 list. In reference to my comment above about Obama and race, I thought the following piece from him was interesting. Although it does put more pressure onto Obama: not only does he need to live up to the standards of the American people, but Enwezor puts forth the call to live up to the international expectation as well. God speed, Mr. President.

"A year ago, my contribution to Artforum's annual rite of taking stock of the immediate past ended with a wish to see the transformation of candidate Obama to President Obama. In that wish lay my hope for what Giorgio Agamben might call the coming American community - or, to use the terms favored by the candidate himself, for a more perfect and equal nation. No event of this entire year, and perhaps no event for years to come, could rival the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as America's first postcolonial commander in chief. It was a wondrous scene to witness: Americans, with the eyes of the world on them, both watching and taking part in an epoch-making event - the son of a Kenyan foreign exchange student becoming the country's forty-fourth president."

Okwui Enwezor in ArtForm, December 2009, page 172.

Explosions in one's pants.

2010-01-03T17:15:00.004-05:00

Really, we are going to start forcing people of certain nationalities into mandatory pat-downs and searches? Why don't we just make them wear a patch on their jackets so we can identify the jihadists from the rest of civilized society? Then we could just farm them into camps where we can educate them on all the best ways to be westernized and believe in Jesus and teach them our more enlightened ways! It is our burden after all. Because anyone with a burka, a Qur'an and a passport from Pakistan must be a terrorist. Just like anyone from the US or EU must be an imperialistic, racist capitalist.

Not to mention the fact that we are really worried about people blowing up our planes with underwear bombs? Really? I mean, I've heard about explosions in one's pants before, especially ones that most conservatives get all up in arms about, but this is ridiculous. If the highest terrorist threat I have to worry about on a plane is someone trying to light a bomb in their underwear, while people are looking on, I think I'll take my chances without having to indict 14 other nations on assumed terrorism. It's amazing to me that we always want such understanding from those nations on why we are such decent peoples, and yet we do nothing but invade their countries and treat them like heathens.

Above all of this, the fact remains that when we all need to stop living in fear. Do threats exist?, of course. But our constant privileged paranoia is not making us any safer, it's only making us bigger targets due to our ignorance.

Bolded emphasis below is mine.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F5BC265E-18FE-70B2-A86A363EFDB4A591

U.S. tightens international air security

By: Mike Allen
January 3, 2010 02:50 PM EST

All travelers flying into the U.S. from foreign countries will receive tightened random screening, and 100 percent of passengers from 14 terrorism-prone countries will be patted down and have their carry-ons searched, the Obama administration was notifying airlines on Sunday.

The more stringent Transportation Security Administration rules, to take effect at midnight, follow the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner headed into Detroit from Amsterdam.

“These are changes that weren’t widely in place for all carriers or countries on 12/24,” a senior administration official told POLITICO. “These are sustainable measures that are a significant enhancement of our security posture. TSA will continuously review these measures with our global aviation partners to ensure the highest levels of security."

All passengers from countries on the State Department’s “State Sponsors of Terrorism” list – plus all passengers from other "countries of interest" such as Nigeria, Pakistan and Yemen — will receive “full body pat-down and physical inspection of property,” the official said.

The countries on the State Department list are Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Other countries covered by the TSA directive include Afghanistan, Libya and Somalia. A complete list was not released.

A much higher percentage of all travelers from all foreign countries will receive such screening than is currently the case, the official said. "The screening “could also include explosive detection technology or advanced imaging technology where it’s available,” the official said.

Kristin Lee of the TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, announced: "Today the Transportation Security Administration issued new security directives to all United States and international air carriers with inbound flights to the U.S. effective January 4, 2010. The new directive includes long-term, sustainable security measures developed in consultation with law enforcement officials and our domestic and international partners.”

In other words, there will be a new normal for international travel into the U.S. The “enhanced security measures” apply to “all international flights to U.S. locations, including both U.S. and international carriers,” the official said.

“All international passengers will be screened and the majority of passengers will be screened using threat-based or random measures, the official said. “ These are designed to be sustainable measures that are a significant increase in our security posture.

The measures apply to all “passengers with passports from or itineraries through State Sponsors of Terrorism and ‘countries of interest.’”

“This goes beyond simply looking at passports and now looks at itineraries from and through countries of interest,” the official said. “This is a significant step forward.”

Lee said in her statement: “Because effective aviation security must begin beyond our borders, and as a result of extraordinary cooperation from our global aviation partners, TSA is mandating that every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are State sponsors of terrorism or countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening. The directive also increases the use of enhanced screening technologies and mandates threat-based and random screening for passengers on U.S. bound international flights."

Death to Hipsters: a)! or b)?

2010-01-02T22:03:00.004-05:00

OK. I'll give you that this article is a bit cynical - which I think is a hypocrisy within itself when compared to the huge cynicism that hipsters carry around with them. However. Though I can't determine if the use of hypocrisy is a style used to unite two ideologies or if the author just doens't recognize their own cynicism, the piont about the use of counter-culture to then further divide people is so true and so damaging. True revolutionary ideas do not involve bitching about corporate music while sipping lattes, it involves true acceptance and understanding of why the things that we are against exist while having compassion for those who follow them - while we try to make a change. The bolding below is my added emphasis.

Why the hipster must die

http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/features/4840/why-the-hipster-must-die

A modest proposal to save New York cool

By Christian Lorentzen

Has the hipster killed cool in New York? Did it die the day Wes Anderson proved too precious for his own good, or was it when Chloë Sevigny fellated Vincent Gallo onscreen? Did it vanish along with Kokie’s, International Bar and Tonic? Or when McSweeney’s moved shop to San Francisco and Bright Eyes signed a lease on the Lower East Side? Was it possible to be a hipster once a band that played Northsix one night was heard the next day on NPR’s Weekend Edition? Did it hurt to have American Apparel marketing soft-porn style to young bankers? Was something lost the day Ecstasy made the cover of the Times Magazine? Or was it the day Bloomberg banned smoking in bars? And how many times an hour could one check e-mail and still have an honest, or even ironic, claim on being cool?

Yes, the assassins of cool still walk our streets: Any night of the week finds the East Village, the Lower East Side and Williamsburg teeming with youth—a pageant of the bohemian undead. These hipster zombies—now more likely to be brokers or lawyers than art-school dropouts—are the idols of the style pages, the darlings of viral marketers and the marks of predatory real-estate agents. And they must be buried for cool to be reborn.

It was in the real-estate section of one of the city’s lesser dailies, under the headline luxury seems to be set for the lower east side, that I found an astonishing remark attributed to Michael Desjadon, the director of sales at Massey Knakal: “The profile of the typical renter in the area is changing from the ‘counterculture hipster’ to the ‘more mainstream’ hipster and young professional.”

“I wish I’d thought of this phrase, but we call the Lower East Side ‘the last real neighborhood in New York,’” Desjadon, an amiable fellow and a patron of LES bars, told me when I called him up. “The mainstream hipster,” he explained, “is not an artist or a musician. He has an office job, and wears one hat to work and another at night.” Presumably, the latter is a trucker—or a porkpie—hat.

The mouth of a real-estate agent is rarely the source of truth, but Mr. Desjadon knows his territory (and is no doubt cashing in on this knowledge). He has unwittingly explicated the transformation of the hipster into the “indie yuppie,” an avatar we might imagine as the fusion of Kurt Cobain and Adam Gopnik. The indie yuppie is (literally) the child of the bobo, and just as his father the baby boomer did, he has learned to simulate rebellion while procuring and furnishing a comfortable two-bedroom. His haircut may be asymmetrical, but his dog never misses a walk. And around the corner, sleeping on couches, neophyte slackers dream until they wake up late for their temp jobs. The savvy among them soon grasp that they’ve arrived at the party too late.

Under the guise of “irony,” hipsterism fetishizes the authentic and regurgitates it with a winking inauthenticity. Those 18-to-34-year-olds called hipsters have defanged, skinned and consumed the fringe movements of the postwar era—Beat, hippie, punk, even grunge. Hungry for more, and sick with the anxiety of influence, they feed as well from the trough of the uncool, turning white trash chic, and gouging the husks of long-expired subcultures—vaudeville, burlesque, cowboys and pirates.

Of course, hipsterism being originally, and still mostly, the province of whites (the pastiest of whites), its acolytes raid the cultural stores of every unmelted ethnicity in the pot. Similarly, they devour gay style: Witness the cultural burp known as metrosexuality. As the hipster ambles from the thrift store to a $100 haircut at Freemans Sporting Club, these aesthetics are assimilated—cannibalized—into a repertoire of meaninglessness, from which the hipster can construct an identity in the manner of a collage, or a shuffled playlist on an iPod.

All isms seek dominance of human affairs, and in this, hipsterism in New York City has proved more virulent than any of its forebears. (Punk, after all, never really broke—except in the form of hipsterism.) At last there was nothing left for hipsters to do but to convert the squares, take them to the bar and let them pick up the tab. Secrets were shared. The hipster hooked up with the common consumer; he woke up a zombie.

How can this be undone? I propose that the only hope for a reanimated bohemia, if not a dezombified hipsterdom, is civil war.

Hipsters in their present undead incarnation are essentially people who think of themselves as being cooler than America. But they are afflicted by that other ism sociologists made an industry of decrying in the 20th century: narcissism. The late prophet of our current moment, George W. S. Trow, posited that television had obliterated the context of American life. The only refuges remaining were TV, God and the self. Young people who live in cities notoriously shun God and television to cultivate themselves. Now, as the age of MySpace comes due for a backlash and the former teen idols of our crypto-ironic fascination start to show their age, the time has come for the hipsters in the garden of Union Pool to open their eyes, realize that they are surrounded by jackasses and milquetoasts, and stage their own dive-bar putsch.

The fault lines are clear enough already. We know that there are Sweet hipsters, who practice the sort of irony you can take home to meet the parents, and there are those Vicious hipsters, who practice the form of not-quite-passive aggression called snark.

On the Sweet end of the spectrum, The Believer lavishes its literary and pop-culture idols with a uniform layer of affection that renders it near impossible to distinguish the great from the mediocre. This aesthetic of relativism grants everybody an A for effort and allows anyone projecting the image of an artist to conceive of himself as such. It proliferates as a social plague among hipsters who invite their entire address book to readings, shows and art openings. The e-mails arrive, and though it is known in advance that the art will be nothing much,the trek is made. The avant-garde illusion ultimately sustains itself on free beer.

As the war claims its casualties, the Sweet may discover that behind their aesthetic relativism is an impulse more political than cultural: They are rightfully activists. Their cause has emerged in the form of global warming, and I would not be surprised if the color of cool in their future is green. Along the way they might rediscover a concept hipsters have lately had little use for: love.

Meanwhile, among those who adopt the Vicious pose, a lighthearted scorn perfected by Gawkeris roundly applied to the objects of pop celebrity, both talented and (mostly) otherwise. The effect is akin to dipping sushi in wasabi sauce: The flavor is a little less bland, but it’s still mostly rice. The hipster who keeps up with the antics of Hilton, Lohan and Spears does so sneeringly, and her knowingness introduces one degree of difference between herself and the Midwestern housewife who buysUs Weekly at the Wal-Mart checkout line.

When I asked Gawker managing editor Choire Sicha whether it was possible to ignore talentless celebrities, he responded with the remorse of a custodian of cultural decline: “Everyone can, and should, be ignored. We were warned about this situation we find ourselves in by philosophers, and well before it happened. It’s just too bad we weren’t warned by celebrities, or we would have listened to them.”

So the Sweet will turn on the Vicious, and the Vicious will shun the Sweet. The sniping in the blogosphere will escalate, and turf wars will ensue. Power will be consolidated in the frontiers of the outer boroughs as the Vicious tighten their grip on Bushwick and the Sweet flee south to Kensington and Windsor Terrace, or give up and move to Queens (better yet, to their rightful home: the West Coast).

If they can vanquish the Sweet, the path for the Vicious is less obvious. A good first step might entail purging the lawyers and bankers lurking in their company. But on the other hand, those guys are good at footing the bill. Another tactic would require the conversion of snark to self-criticism, and that would necessarily involve ignoring no-talent celebrities, and mean an end to playing it safe. The safest game in town—in fashion and music especially—is retro, and if there is no Ezra Pound in corduroys out there to say, “Make it new,” let me be the one to say, “Stop making it old.”

What distinguishes the zombie hipsters at large today from the “white Negroes” Norman Mailer described in the 1950s is a lack of menace. The original hipster—Mailer had in mind James Dean and the Neal Cassady who inspired On the Road—was a “philosophical psychopath” who might steal your car and drive it to Mexico. The myth of menace survives in the pages of Vice,but the magazine’s signature feature—the “Do’s and Don’t’s”—suggests a safe path to transgression, a notion as oxymoronic as the “mainstream hipster.” Mailer, who traced hipster psychosis to the Holocaust and the atom bomb, would likely point to September 11 as the event that left hordes of twentysomethings whispering, “We would be safe,” to quote the Sweet hipster novelist Jonathan Safran Foer. Menace is now lost on anyone older than 20. It is left to those born after 1990 to move to town, frighten the zombies away, destabilize the real-estate market and restore something unsavory to what used to be called hip.

***Be Sure to check out the link to the actual article for some more interesting discussion and other links to rebuttals. Also, check out Ad Busters recent essay on the same topic, "Hipster: The Dead End of Western CIvilization." -JRR

My presidential qualifications

2009-12-08T01:40:00.004-05:00

Q: "Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?"

A: "I believe that I am because I have common sense and I have I believe the values that I think are reflective of so many other American values, and I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the uhm, the ah, a kind of spineless, spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite, Ivy league education and, and a fat resume that is based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans are could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership, I'm not saying that that has to be me."

Damn those elitist educated people! Although perhaps an elitist education would teach me how to string together a sentence . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgWqz95JDcU

Details Magazine: "douchefag"?

2009-12-03T23:47:00.004-05:00

Yo Details-

Next time you want to hit the gays over the head with all they do wrong (i.e. "Rise of the Douchefag", Dec. 2009, pgs. 78-80), you may want to make sure that in the previous month's issue, you didn't have a gay dude make out with a straight girl. You know, kinda revokes your credibility a bit. (See Adam Lambert).

Despite the fact that what you were getting at was kinda true, unless you're gonna have the balls to call out every other minority on all their shit, I would appreciate it if you left the judgement of all us "fags" to other publications that wholly identify with us rather than just display fashion and then ridicule it's readers. I mean really, how many straight men do you honestly think read Details?

Last I checked, you "straight" guys had plenty of your own issues to wrestle with, why don't you concentrate on those for a bit longer.

Thanks in advance,

Out Magazine strikes again . . .

2009-11-14T17:48:00.004-05:00

Dear Out,

Can you please stop copying my ideas? (Or at least pay me oodles of money to use them?) K, thanx!

Note to self: Apparently I need to be more specific when asking the universe to broadcast my ideas . . . to, you know, at least make sure that I'm the one doing the broadcasting. Damn you common consciousness!

Click here (or scroll down) for MY letter to Mr. Lambert, written Oct. 22, 2009.

A Letter to Adam Lambert

2009-10-22T12:41:00.014-04:00

Dear Adam,

Hi! How are you? I hope you've been well. I know that things must be crazy for you now, you know, after the whole American Idol insanity. Honestly, though I think that your voice is an acquired taste to a certain extent, I was very happy to see someone make it so far in Idol who was so obviously a homosexual. I mean, sure, we've had our suspicions about a few in the past (hello Mr. Aiken - need you really take, like, 5 years to come out?), but once the gay rumors started, you didn't deny them. Sure, you also didn't kick down your closet door, strap on some rollar blades and ass-less chaps and start cruising South Beach, but still. All in time, my good man.

Actually, it is because of your semi-recent acceptance of your sexuality in the public light that I am writing to you. As I briefly stated before, I think it is a great thing you are doing, by just saying you are gay. (although I did hear at one point you were "bi"? Bi now gay later? Oh you crazy kids and your denial . . .) I think that in this celebrity obsessed culture of ours, when those of us who are out can use our gay powers and hunt down others like us (mostly we just follow the smell of poppers), and we can look at movies, television and rap music and pick out those of us whom feel up women's asses in public but we just know that when they go home at night they are on Manhunt more than they are on top of said ladies (in much contradiction to what they would have us believe), this obviously leaves a huge gap for finding identity and familiarity within today's gay youth. Granted, the fact that we find our identity through celebrity culture is a problem within itself. However, we as a community strive to find role models, whether they want to be labeled as so or not. Because we have had to deal with such erasure from within our own community, it makes those who are determined to be themselves even more admirable.

Which gets me (again) to why I am writing you. And let me say right off the bat that I am down for all sorts of sexual exploration. We should be living in a time (despite the past 8 years) where we should be allowed to explore who we are without being told that certain things or certain acts demonize us, when for the most part, they are simple explorations that humans (and most higher intelligence organisms) do on their way to maturity. If we want to be poly-sexual, then have at it. Forget the puritans, forget the conservatives- go do what makes you happy.

However.

There is a big difference between going out and doing what makes you happy and then putting that in a magazine, and THEN going even further to having a photo shoot in which a certain slightly gender-ambiguous pop star is photographed having his way with a naked woman in a "straight" men's magazine. Yes, I realize that the jury is still out on how many straight men actually read Details, but the magazine is still regarded as such. I say this mostly because they have articles about how to bed women and they then talk about homosexuals like we should be those distant friends with whom you associate with out of obligation to the advancement of society rather than because one really wants to. You know, the whole masculinity issue and all. And that isn't a rant on straight guys. I know plenty of straight guys who have very dear gay friends. And while I won't make the same stereotype that persists among gay men who are very close, I will say that stereotypes exist for a reason.

However, I digress. So- finally, the LGBT community has an icon that we can look up to- who isn't a singing-straight-female, who isn't an ally, but who is young and hip, and frankly, quite beautiful, handsome and sexy. Then we have him make out with a chick in a men's fashion magazine. I mean, and it would be totally (well maybe not TOTALLY) different, if it was in, say, Out or The Advocate or some gritty porn magazine or whatever. Because then, it would be more of a comment on sexuality as a whole then it would be a comment on the fact that it looks like your publicist told you not to act too gay anymore.

And Adam, I must say, this is slightly disappointing. I give you much kudos for being yourself and trying not to hide who you are. But whether you like it or not, since you are in the spotlight, you owe us as a community. I mean please, how many horny 14 year old boys called up Idol while wearing their mother's eyeliner to vote for the boy who looked and talked like them? How many goth kids did the same? We voted you into Details. At the very least, you could give us some more eye candy and get it on with a naked dude instead of some model. I mean, how revolutionary would that be?! The most you could do? Be true to yourself and to your community, and continue to leave a legacy in which you will be remembered for not allowing your image to be manipulated by the same media that has tried to sweep our image under the rug for so long.

I expect good things from you Mr. Lambert. Please, no more disappointments.

Much love and respect,

Justin

Click here for the rest of the pictures from the Details photo shoot.

"The Newest New Media"

2009-10-06T18:02:00.005-04:00

As I have been going through old(er) issues of art magazines that I seem to hoard like a hamster with too many grapes in its' cheeks, it is interesting to view articles, even from only the past couple years, and see how perspectives have changed. Change, of course, is inevitable. The factors of everyday life weigh down upon the "Art World" whether they like it or not, and the greatest factor in recent days has been the recession. As per one of my classes this semester, I went through some old issues and found an issue of Art News from February 2008, the title piece shouting "The Newest New Media" over an avatar from artists Eva and Franco Mattes. Being a new media artist myself, I am often in an awkward position with the medium. On one hand I find it to be incredibly freeing - there are possibilities with New Media that older artists simply couldn't fathom. However, I also often feel like some New Media artists are sometimes quick to disregard Art History - there is somewhat of a disconnect I see between a "canonical" view of art making versus a "low art" view - that somehow because artists are free from the constraints of the physicality of traditional art-making, that this then allows them to be free from the Art World in general. In my view, this does not always make for good art, regardless of a high or low view upon it.

For example, the Art News article starts with Eva and Franco Mattes's pieces entitled Synthetic Performances, in which the duo create avatars of themselves and re-perform (in)famous art performances from throughout the past few decades, in the online world of Second Life. The main question I have with this is why? It's all been done before? Granted, yes, performing the pieces within this "synthetic" environment is new, but I am very hesitant to give an environment like Second Life any validity. It is also unclear as to whether or not the artists want to do the same.

I will also be the first to admit that my main problem with this piece stems from the fact that I do not view Second Life as any kind of life at all. There has to be lines drawn between what is real and what is not, regardless as to how much that aesthetic plays into how one wants their life to be. Going further, it is because of this disconnect that some have with actual reality that leads what is the "real world" into many of the problems we have today - it is because of the fact that people cannot relate to each other that we have conflict; it is because of the fact that people cannot, to put it bluntly and tritely, deal with the happenings of this real world that they then try to seek solace in one in which they create themselves. But my question is what makes this world immune from the same diseases that plague the one we are in? What happens then, we create Third Life? Where is the line drawn?

Besides the fact that creating other realms of reality is some serious psychological shit. If one did that in "real" life and chose to live in it, one would question one's mental health. Does that mean we need to redefine "reality" according to what one person thinks it should be? But I digress . . .

However, adding on to this illusion of what is real and what is not is the simple look of Eva and Frano's avatars. The artists themselves are quite normal looking, especially for artists. They are both somewhat skinny, no real big distinguishing characteristics.

Their avatars on the other hand are a different story. I encourage you to google their avatars. Eva is a fairly busty, tall woman with long blonde hair. Frano is a dark-haired muscle boy, complete with six-pack. This, I find, is the real reason why most people go online. It's not to really create a new circumstance, it's to escape from the one they are currently in. It is the same thing with online dating personals. The internet is the only place where one can exist as different personalities within the same body and not be labeled as schizophrenic.

My other main problem with this piece is that it is very hard to believe that Eva and Franco had to go through the same emotional or physical barriers that the previous artists had to go through for their pieces. Not to mention the fact that the Mattes's didn't have to conceptualize it either. Neither one of them had to stand naked in a door way like Marina Abramovic and Ulay. Neither one of them had to be shot like Chris Burden. Franco didn't actually have to masturbate under the floor of gallery goers like Vito Acconci. Because of the veil that separates the physical world from the cyber, the artists didn't have to endure the physicality that much of the original work was meant to portray. And being that I don't buy Second Life as a viable reality in which to exist, it totally undermines the purpose of the original pieces.

Now it could also be that the artists are doing these pieces to prove just that. However, that wasn't the gist that I was getting from the article. In fact Franco goes on to say that "The very act of calling it a virtual world is wrong. It's synthetic, but it's an actual world that is no less real than the phone conversation we're having right now." He goes on to say that he has known people who have married and divorced because of happenings in Second Life. Really? It would seem to me that if they worked on their marriage in First Life they might not have these problems in Second Life.

Besides the fact that I can't help but associate a religious undertone to all of it.

However, The Mattes's have gotten support from other artists, including Marina Abramovic herself. She says in the article, "It's very interesting, all this separation between our body and mind. It's another world, but sometimes it's more real than the real one." I wrote in the margins of the article "No! No! No!" Yes, the separation between our bodies and minds is highly interesting, but our mind does not exist on a server somewhere to solely engage in cyber-encounters. And at the risk of sounding like one of those people who wants to do away with anything technological and return to a state of feral play in the forests, there has to be some distinction between what is mechanical and what is mental. Yes, I realize that this now bridges over into a whole other realm within this debate. Yet I am very hesitant to allow any state of which makes us uniquely human to exist within a realm that does not require human initiative to operate it.

For the online version of this article: http://www.artnewsonline.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2443

Edmund White and Terrence Koh

2009-09-26T17:40:00.003-04:00

I find it somewhat disparaging that in a recent issue of Out, they call contemporary artist Terrence Koh the "defining voice of the gay art world" and yet Koh had to Google Stonewall. Granted, the man is Chinese, yet he's been in the states since before 2003. Has the erasure of the origins of gay identity already reached those who are leading us into the future?

The article, which is a conversation between Koh and Edmund White, has many instances where I felt somewhat let down by the gay art world's poster boy and his glib remarks. The most interesting passage came from White, when speaking of the influence of Stonewall: (in reference to the AIDS movement) "So you get this thing where everybody now wants to get married and adopt children - it's sort of dreary. The early gay movement was all about the right to have sex, because it was very hard to find anyone to have sex with in the old days. Stonewall, in a way, was about saying, 'We have a right to have bars; we have a right to get together; we have a right to be visible.'"

Reading this, I can't help but think that 30+ years after Stonewall, yes things are better, at least for us in the US. Yet homosexuals are still being hung in Iran. I mean, the yes I believe everyone should have the right to get married if they wish. But as far as the gay movement goes, I can't help but think marriage is just a big band-aid for the fact that after all these years, we are still fighting for a right to be visible all around the world.

"Edmund White Vs. Terence Koh" in Out, June/July 2009, pages 117-120.

8/29/09 Bitch 2.0 w/ Jade and Shannel Set List

2009-08-30T03:24:00.009-04:00

Thanks to everyone who came out to this past episode of Bitch 2.o featuring Jade and Shannel from Rupaul's drag race! I apologize for the minor technical difficulties I had during the night, but I appreciate all of those who stayed to dance until the wee hours of the night and up until the last song! Here is the set list from tonight:

Everything but the Girl - 5 Fathoms

Kylie Minogue - Boombox (L.A. Riots Remix)

The Sounds - Beatbox

Little Boots - New In Town

Elton John - The Bitch is Back

Kylie Minogue - Like A Drug (X Tour Studio Mix)

David McCullen - B*tch (Radio Edit)

Boogie Pimps - Somebody to Love (Main Club Mix)

Gossip - Heavy Cross (Fred Falke Remix)

Freemasons featuring Sophie Ellis Bextor - Heartbreak Make Me A Dancer (Full Length Club Mix)

Madonna - Open Your Heart (Unreleased Original Mix)

Stevie Nicks - Edge of Seventeen (Crash Overdrive Remix)

Junkie XL featuring Lauren Rocket - More

Lily Allen - Not Fair (Shahaf Moran Remix)

Kylie Minogue - Sexual Gold (The Slips Remix)

Janet Jackson - Throb

Peaches - Boys Wanna Be Her (Tommie Sunshine Remix)

Pseudo Echo - Funky Town

Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Heads Will Roll (Little Vampire Remix)

Madonna - Spanish Lesson

Shakira - Loba (Daddy Yankee Remix)

Nelly Furtado - No Hay Igual

Kat De Luna - Whine It Up (Johnny Vicious Spanish Remix)

A. R. Rahman & The Pussycat Dolls - Jai Ho (You Are My Destiny) featuring Nicole Scherzinger

Timbaland featuring Amar & Jim Beanz - Bombay

Black Eyed Peas - Boom Boom Pow (Gasper Remix)

Paradiso Girls - Patron Tequila (This/Is Remix)

Nicola Fasano Vs. Pat Rich - 75, Brazil Street (Radio Vocal Mix)

Pitbull - I Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho) [More English Extended Mix]

L'Nee - Up (Full Version)

Ida Corr vs. Fedde Le Grand - Let Me Think About It

Madonna - She's Not Me (Code Remix)

Daft Punk - Technologic

Ida Corr - Ride My Tempo (Grazehopp Club Mix)

Ciara featuring Missy Elliot - Work

Janet Jackson - So Much Betta

Monifa - Touch It

M.I.A. - U.R.A.Q.T.

Amanda Blank - Something Bigger, Something Better

RuPaul - Ladyboy

Goldfrapp - Oh La La

Lady Gaga - Pokerface

Kylie Minogue - Slow (Chemical Brothers Remix)

Hilary Duff - With Love (Richard Vission vs Dave Aude Club Mix)

Lady Gaga featuring Marilyn Manson- Love Game (Chew Fu Ghettohouse Mix)

Britney Spears - If You Seek Amy

Kid Cudi - Day N' Night (Crookers Remix)

Madonna - I Love New York (Thin White Duke Remix)

Janet Jackson - Rock With You (Princess Ann Sleazy Electro Mix)

Michael Jackson - Rock With You

Britney Spears featuring Lil Kim - Kimme More

Beyonce - Single Ladies

Kylie Minogue - Wow (Death Metal Disco Scene Mix)

Rihanna - Breakin Dishes (Soul Seekerz Remix)

Madonna - Vogue (Strike A Pose Dub Mix)

Madonna - Vouge (Sticky and Sweet Studio Mix)

Franz Ferdinand - No You Girls (Foamo Remix)

Franz Ferdinand - Call Me (Blondie Cover Live)

Ida Maria - I Like You So Much Better When You're Naked

Never Trust A Ho.

2009-08-09T15:46:00.007-04:00

From Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/09/gingrich-defends-palins-o_n_254926.html

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich defended the bizarre claim by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin that the president's health care plan would result in a "death panel" that could kill her Down Syndrome son.

"You are asking us to trust the government," Gingrich declared on ABC's "This Week." "You are asking us to decide to believe the government should be trusted."

"Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept," he added.

Reminded by host George Stephanopoulos that there was no such thing as communal standards in any health care bill -- just language that would allow for optional Medicare consultations on end of life decisions -- Gingrich grew a bit flummoxed.

"The bill is a thousand pages of setting up mechanisms," he said. "You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards."

On Friday, Palin posted a message on her Facebook account warning that "death panels" would be set up to encourage euthanasia -- a wild and baseless complaint that has grown popular in conservative circles.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care," Palin wrote. "Such a system is downright evil."

-------------------------------

Points to consider:

1. Sarah Palin is crazy.

2. Newt Gingrich is crazy. And scary.

3. So excuse me if I'm wrong here, but Mr. Gingrich is telling us not to trust our government. I mean, after 8 years of Bush I don't really think anyone in America trusts their government anymore, but aren't we all, like, programmed to trust our government from 2nd grade? I mean, I did the Pledge of Allegiance every day until middle school. We held our own presidential elections with the students picking who they wanted to win. We had our own Gulf War hero, who pen pal-ed with us in Iraq and came to our school. We are taught all throughout, up until high school, that the US has this infallible and undisputed place in the world, and there are no faults taught, at least in my US History, not even in Vietnam. And that we are goddamned Americans and proud of it! I didn't even know that the US might had a questionable past until I took a current events class in my senior year. Granted, my education in the country might have not been the top in the nation, but still. And the education that I received is probably comparable to most suburbs that don't have tons of money pouring into them and have to question their arts programs with every budget revisal. My point being that, it should be alarming to most Americans that a politician, that has been elected into a position of government at least at some point in his career is blatantly telling the American public not to trust him. I mean, is he going to run for an office again where we can quote him and tell him that we should not trust our government? So there is no hope whatsoever, and even electing him would be like shooting ourselves in the foot from the get go? I really hope that someone brings up this quote during the midterm elections, and the republicans are scrambling and probably fighting an even dirtier campaign that the 08 election, and we have Mr. Gingrich telling us not to trust our government. I'm sure that will do wonders for one of the GOP's "unofficial leaders."

4. The thing is though that we shouldn't trust our government at all, but Americans are too stupid and lazy and ignorant to how the system works, which every politician like Mr. Gingrich benefits from. The founders set up the government so that the American people could take steps to check the government in place to ensure it wasn't corrupt. It's not really surprising to see that as Americans got less-educated and took less time to be informed, it wasn't that long before the corporations in a capitalist society yanked the reigns away from the people and took it themselves. And now, Americans are too stupid, lazy and committed to comfort to realize that as consumers they STILL hold all the power I take this time to point your attention to an essay by Bill Mahr who calls us all stupid with much more skill than I can hope to achieve. Yes we are stupid, and we can get indignant and insulted all we want, but the fact remains true.

5. Alas, that brings us away from the initial point. And that was that Sarah Palin is crazy. And most definitely stupid, just like the rest of us.

Michael Jackson, The Greatest Show On Earth

2009-07-08T11:40:00.002-04:00

Let's get a few things out of the way first: Yes, Michael Jackson was one of the greatest performers ever. Yes, Michael Jackson broke through the blatant racism in this country and against all odds became perhaps the most influential entertainer ever, and a minority at that. Yes, Michael Jackson gave a tremendous amount of money to charity and his humanitarian efforts were noble and sincere.

And yes, even during the monstrosity of a memorial service that took place yesterday, it was clear that the man had a tremendous heart for everyone and anyone whom he came across, especially those impoverished and wrecked by disease in countries that could not give them proper aid.

But all throughout his final performance, i.e. his memorial service, one thing struck me the most. When Al Sharpton, said to Michael's children, "Your daddy was not strange, it was strange what he had to deal with," and he received a standing ovation for the remark, it was one of the few moments throughout the service in which I could not believe what I was hearing.

Excuse me? The man was not strange? He slept in an oxygen tank. He had a pet chimp named Bubbles for Christ's sake. He had not one, but two child molestation charges brought against him. Reports coming out now are saying that he was completely bald and that his skin was whiter than a piece of paper. He had more plastic surgery than Joan Rivers. His children, whom are most likely to be not genetically related to him whatsoever, bear a strange and creepy resemblance to him kinda like The Adam's Family, and then he made them wear masks and veils in public. He wore pajamas to court hearings. He was friends with Liza Minelli. I think to say that the man was not strange is not only a lie coming from a supposed godly man, but the word "strange" does not even begin to describe Michael Jackson.

Yes, the racial climate that the Jackson's had to overcome was staggering, I am not denying that. But the thing that gets me is that the defenders of celebrity's weird and, honestly, "strange" actions then want to blame those actions on the fact that they are a celebrity - that their fans and their notoriety drove them to some kind of deluded way of life. That they are somehow martyrs for their contributions to pop culture and that we, as the celebrity obsessed American public, are to blame for their idiosyncrasies and their behavior. That we stick the needles of diprivan in their veins, and they died for our obsessions and they saved us all and brought us together through songs like "Bad" and "Billie Jean."

And yes, Michael Jackson was indeed portrayed as the second coming yesterday. More blasphemy from such religious people.

The conundrum in all of this is that there has to be a place, within the celebrity status and all the "hardships" that come along with it, that one has to be a human being within a normal mental state. Just because you have lots of money and have demands placed on you, does not give you a wild card to go out and act like a freak. If most people around the globe, two weeks ago, were asked if Michael Jackson had a normal mental state, the answer would be much different than what it would be right now during MJ induced post traumatic stress syndrome.

Despite it's connotations delivered by Rev. Sharpton, "strange" is definitely a word that I would apply for the spectacle that took place yesterday at The Staples Center. While I wondered whether I was at a memorial or a sermon that blasted me for how much I took Michael Jackson for granted, while I wondered why there was not a separation of church and state in Congresswoman Jackson Lee's contribution to both the service and to the house floor, while I wondered why Mariah Carey had chosen not to rehearse her song bit, I wondered most of all, why was the whole thing so fake?

Even at the most moving moments, from Brooke Shields' eulogy to Jermaine Jackson's "Smile," at one point the camera shot out to a sea of plastic (literally) faces wearing black and in that instance, that shot summarized the entire memorial service. It was just so shiny. And clean. With choreographed emotion and tears cued to the second. Not one of the members of the family was shown crying throughout the service. And yet, this Oscar calibre stage show, which was somehow pulled together in a week, is being hailed as having so many "moving moments" with fans calling it the most touching eulogy ever put together, and I am left wondering if we watched the same program.

It was so void of genuine feeling that it made me wonder just what this man meant to these people. Sure, you can scream out Michael Jackson's name however many times you wish as the coffin is rolled it's spotlight, but how is this going to change you? You say that "Man In The Mirror" is a calling to everyone right now to change and to better ourselves - what are you going to do different? Come, show me how Jackson made you a different person, show me how you truly want to be better because of him. Because all I see right now is crying and gnashing of teeth with all empty emotion. You lost a celebrity, whom most of you would have talked shit about not even two weeks ago.

And yet, the most harrowing moment of the entire show, having Jackson's daughter abruptly take the mic, was both haunting and horrifying. Here was the daughter that Jackson tried so hard to shield from the public and to have out of the tabloids, who in his death was being pushed out into the public for the first time. It was like seeing some kind of family secret being laid out in the open after a decade of hiding worthy of a Desperate Housewives episode, in public. I was both taken aback by the lack of care by his family, for what Jackson tried so hard and long to keep sacred and by the fact that this little girl, on a platform being viewed by millions of people, was outing herself to the world as fodder for newspapers, just ten feet in front of the casket of her father. Who was probably rolling over in it.

And, not for nothing, but can someone tell Prince Michael II it's not polite to chew gum like Britney Spears in front of a global audience, at your father's memorial service.

Yes, I might seem like an asshole who is devoid of any public emotion bearing this, so I tried to put it in terms to which I could relate. Despite the fact that I might sound like the gayest gay man ever, while I was watching the service, trying not to be overly critical, I kept on asking myself how I would be feeling if someone like Madonna died abruptly. Surely in comparison, there are few people who could contend with Michael Jackson as far as fame and influence, but Madonna would be one of them. And while the "Queen of Pop" would surely be missed, and while Madonna is my girl, she has her faults too. If Madonna died, does she become the next Virgin Mary to MJ's Jesus? Do we get to stand up in front of millions and proclaim that she stripped down naked for most of the 90's because of us, and that she did it for us, and that we are the reason why Lourdes and Rocco couldn't have normal lives? That we, her fans, hounded her and broke up her marriages and ridiculed her for her vision? That the patron saint of everything gay died as a martyr for her contributions to Vogueing and coincidentally made hundreds of millions of dollars because of it? No, because the fact is that while the woman did tremendous things, she is still, in fact, a woman. Just a woman. Like all the other women out there who struggle to make a difference, if not on a global scale, than within their own household. Did Madonna do much for those women in breaking down barriers to be expressive? Absolutely. But she isn't the Virgin Mary. Nor does she claim to be.

Michael Jackson isn't Christ, nor did he claim to be either. He just claimed to be Peter Pan. More strangeness. He was a man with great influence who died suddenly. He was a very strange man, who did things that were ridiculed and scorned in the same society that wants to now deify him. I'm sure he was a great friend to those to whom he was close, and I'm sure he tried to be the best father that he was capable of to his children, just like every other father out there. But he was strange. And for all the hooting and hollering that went on, his final goodbye was just as much of a production as his life was. It was staged so well that some people actually believed that there was something staggering about what went on inside The Staple Center.

What is staggering is that so many people had faith in this strange and imperfect man. They put more faith into him than into religion, than into politics, than into things that really can change people's lives. Being an artist, I know how art can change people. But I also know empty attempts. You say that Michael Jackson called you higher. There are millions of you out there. You really want to "make a change" like the song says? You can. Like MJ said, you can "raise together in one voice." But if the sentiment behind that change is like the one I saw yesterday, I can't say I'm going to sit here and hold my breath.

Perhaps I'm a little cynical about the whole thing. But in all actuality, I'm hoping that y'all will prove me wrong.

2009-06-24T12:03:00.001-04:00

We can all say what we want about the socialization of assets in this country and about how Obama and Hitler reportedly have much in common in the way they run their governments. We can say what we want about dangerous liberals and phoney artists, who dabble in both Hollywood and Washington, but who really don't know much about either entertaining or politics. We can say what we want about the foreign way of doing things, about customs blatantly not American, so they therefore the must be confused, unsophisticated, backwards and wrong. However, for this 27 year old American, watching the liberal mud-slinger Michael Moore and his documentary about health care, it's fairly disconcerting for me to see a young man roughly my same age break his ankle in the U.K. and not have to pay a dime, while I do the same, while still in school and working multiple jobs to only now have to pay off the $26,000 in debt that I owe from an accident at the beach.

Bitch 2.0 Play List - 5/30/09

2009-05-31T11:48:00.003-04:00

Another big thanks to everyone who came out last night to another successful installment of a Kylie-riffic Bitch 2.0! Below is the play list from last night. Y'all can catch me over at EFN Lounge for happy hours most days of the week, from 5-9 as well as for Atomik Thursday nights. Check out the Atomik Facebook page for last week's set list and get prepared for TNG to take over Atomik this coming Thursday, June 4th!

Kylie Minogue - Like A Drug (2008 X Tour Video)

Kylie Minogue - Slow (2008 X Tour Video)

Alanis Morissette - You Oughta Know

Elton John - The Bitch Is Back

Garbage - Temptation Waits

Fleetwood Mac - Gold Dust Woman (1997 The Dance Tour Video)

Poe - Control

Janet Jackson vs. A Perfect Circle - Control (Arrigo1 Remix)

Madonna - Candy Perfume Girl (2001 Drowned World Tour Video)

Estelle - Free (Girl's Remix)

Amerie - Take Control Of Me

Lily Allen - Womanizer

No Doubt - Hella Good (2002 Rock Steady Live Video)

No Doubt/Beyonce - Love To Love You/Naughty Girl

Robyn - Dream On

Kylie Minogue vs. Britney Spears - Speakerphone/Heaven On Earth

Madonna - Candyshop/4 Minutes/Vogue (Strike-A-Pose Dub)

Madonna - Ladies Redux (Steve Segal Video Mix)

Madonna - Vogue (Sticky & Sweet Video Bootleg)

Basement Jaxx - Good Luck

Gwen Stefani - Yummy

Kylie Minogue - Nu-Di-Ty

Billie Holiday - Spreadin' Rhythm Around (Lady Bug vs. Lady Day RR Remix)

The Andrews Sisters - Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy

Christina Aguilera - Candy Man

Lily Allen - Not Fair

BoA - Dress Off

Kylie Minogue - Can't Get You Out Of My Head

Kylie Minogue vs. Black Eyed Peas - Can't Get You to Shut Up (DJ DUBZ Mix)

Rihanna - Breakin' Dishes (Soul Seekerz Remix)

Paula Abdul - Cold Hearted Snake

Kylie Minogue - Like A Drug

Nu Shooz - I Can't Wait

Lady Gaga - The Fame

Madonna - Material Girl

Madonna vs. Fergie - Glamourous Material (DJ Mei-Lwun Remix)

Kylie Minogue - Boombox (LA Riots Remix)

Ida Corr - Ride My Tempo (Grazehopp Club Mix)

Kylie Minogue - Wow (Disco Scene Mix)

Cazwell featuring Johnny Makeup vs. Beyonce - I Seen Beyonce/Get Me Bodied

Beyonce - Single Ladies (Mick Boogie Remix)

Kylie Minogue - Slow (Chemical Brothers Remix)

Hilary Duff - With Love (Richard Vission vs Dave Aude Club Mix)

Sugababes - Hole in the Head (Brian Higgins Mix - Gravitas Dirty)

Katy Perry - Hot N Cold (Yelle Remix)

Goldfrapp - Ooh La La

Lady Gaga - Pokerface

Kylie Minogue - Come Into My World (Fischerspooner Remix)

Madonna - Hung Up

M.I.A. - Jimmy

Madonna vs Abba - Gimme Gimme Hung Up (AP MetalMix)

Kylie Minogue - Giving You Up

Roisin Murphy - Ramalama (Bang Bang)

Rene Zellweger/Kylie Minogue - Nowadays/The One (Freemasons Vocal Club Mix)

Garbage - Stupid Girl (Remix)

Janet Jackson vs. The Freestylers - Pleasure Principle (Arrigo1 Remix)

Kylie Minogue - Sweet Music

Britney Spears - Toxic

Madison Avenue - Who the Hell Are You (John Course & Andy Van Remix)

Pink vs Aretha Franklin - Respect

M.I.A. featuring Timbaland - Come Around

Madonna - Beat Goes On

Kylie Minogue - Love at First Sight (Kid Creme Vocal Dub)

Kylie Minogue - Love at First Sight

Britney Spears - If You Seek Amy

Garbage - Cherry Lips

Rupaul - Ladyboy

Brandy - What About Us?

Kylie Minogue - 2 Hearts

Stacey Q - Two of Hearts

Kylie Minogue - I Believe in You

Madonna - Open Your Heart

And to a certain hater who said I played Madonna more than Kylie, the final tally is: Madonna = 8, Kylie = 19. I'm just sayin.

Pre-Matt Bailor Set List! (5/22/09)

2009-05-24T16:54:00.004-04:00

I just wanted to say thanks to all those who show up for happy hours over at EFN Lounge. As most know, I am one the resident DJ's there, and I spin for most of the happy hours during the work week. I always appreciate those who come out and have a good time with good people over good drinks and good music. If you haven't stopped by yet, please do, we'd love to have you. You can catch me there from 5-9 on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and then for Atomik with A-Ron on Thursday nights and also for Bitch 2.0, which is coming up again this Saturday! Just a quick plug: "Bitch" is going to be fantastic this time around - it's going to be Kylie-centric, culminating in the giving away of two tix to one of her NYC shows. They are sold out, and even yours truly hasn't scored one yet, so they are hott!

Check out the Facebook page for more details.

Thank you again to everyone for all of their support! You all are awesome, and I hope to see you there for a good time! Below are some examples of what you'll hear when you stop in.

5/22/09 Set List:

Madonna - Easy Ride

Garbage - Milk

Pink featuring Peaches - Oh My God

JC Chasez - Come To Me (vs)

Cory Hart - Sunglasses at Night (vs)

Miley Cyrus - See You Again

Roisin Murphy - Ramalama

Kylie Minogue - Sweet Music (vs)

INXS - New Sensation

Rihanna - Disturbia

Stevie Nicks - Stand Back (Tracy Take You Home Radio Edit)

Everything But The Girl - Five Fathoms

Basement Jaxx - Make Me Sweat

Peggy Lee - Fever (vs)

Madonna - Fever (Miami Murk Boys Mix)

U2 - Elevation (Tomb Raider Mix)

N.E.R.D. - She Wants To Move

Gorillaz - Dare

Aaliyah - Are You That Somebody?

M.I.A. - U.R.A.Q.T.

Black Eyed Peas - Imma Be

LL Cool J - Control Myself

Mark Ronson featuring Amy Winehouse - Valerie

Robyn - Bum Like You

Angie Stone - Wish I Didn't Miss You

Pretenders - My City Was Gone

Norah Jones vs Janet Jackson - Thinking About When I Think Of You

Brandy - Full Moon

Erykah Badu - Bag Lady

Tom Tom Club - Genious of Love

Mariah Carey - Fantasy

Lily Allen - The Fear

Britney Spears vs Madonna - Breathe On Me/Erotica (Guyom's Remix)

Kylie Minogue - Come Into My World

The Bravery - An Honest Mistake

Kaskade & Deadmaus - Move For Me (Santiago & Bushido Dub)

Ida Corr - Let Me Think About It (Mikey Slim Mix)

Britney Spears - Gimme More (Junkie XL Mix)

Junkie XL featuring Lauren Rocket - More

Garbage - Wicked Ways

Cage the Elephant - Ain't No Love for the Wicked

Peaches - 2 Guys 4 Every Girl

Black Eyed Peas - Boom Boom Pow

White Town - Your Woman

Chris Cornell - You Know My Name

Depeche Mode - Enjoy the Silence

Rage Against the Machine - Renegades of Funk

Janet Jackson - Rhythm Nation

Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Date with the Night

Pitbull - You Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho)

Queens of the Stoneage - Go with the Flow

Pink - Humble Neighborhoods

Missy Elliot - Pass that Dutch

Basement Jaxx - Supersonic

First Atomik Playlist!

2009-05-22T21:53:00.002-04:00

So here is the playlist for my set from 11ish to around 1:30ish. I am still waiting on A-Ron's list, but when I have it, I'll combine the two.

Kylie Minogue - Boombox (L.A. Riots Mix)

MIA - Jimmy (mashed up with . . .)

Madonna - Hung Up

Green Day - Know Your Enemy

Garbage - Sex is not the Enemy

Black Eyed Peas - Don't Phunk with my Heart

Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Honey Bear

Goldfrap - Ooh La La (mashed up with . . .)

Lada Gaga - Pokerface (acoustic and album version)

Madonna - Burning Up (Re-Invention Studio Mix)

Franz Ferdinand - This Fire

Missy Elliot - I'm Really Hot

Kylie Minogue - Like A Drug

Gwen Stefani - Yummy

Janet Jackson - Miss You Much

Nine Inch Nails - Only

Kid Cudi - Day and Night (Crookers Remix)

Madonna - I Love New York

Rihanna - Breaking Dishes (Soul Seekerz Remix)

The Dead 60's - Riot Radio

Robyn - Dream On

Heart - Barracuda

Heart vs Gwen Stefani - Hollaback Barracuda

Linkin Park - Bleed It Out

MIA - XR2

Michael Jackson - Don't Stop til you get Enough

Britney Spears - Slave 4 U

Lady Gaga - The Fame

Madonna - Material Girl

Franz Ferdinand - No You Girls

Paula Abdul - Cold Hearted Snake

Blondie - Atomic

Thanks again to all who came out last night. Next week will be another awesome party and we look forward to seeing those who came and those who are yet to come.

A Letter to Madonna

2009-05-05T22:54:00.006-04:00

Dear Madonna,

I know you must get this all the time, but I am a big BIG fan. Like any other self-respecting gay (who openly admits it) I love you and your music. I first really fell for you when I saw you live on the Re-Invention Tour. I left that concert in awe, knowing that I had just seen one of the best performers of our generation. I have defended you in the past against other haters who say you're old and washed up. Contrary to that, I think over time you have evolved into an artist rather than just an entertainer, and that is so small feat.

However, I am beginning to worry about you. It started off slow. First it was the whole Malawi business and the accusations that you were stealing children. Granted, avoiding the national rules demanding adopters to live in the country before taking children kind of was fodder for the tabloids, but whatever. But then you did it again, then only to throw a hissy fit when the rule wasn't bended for you again. I understand your desire to help children. But sometimes we can't always get what we want when we want it. That's something you're not too keen on hearing, I know. But as a spiritual leader, you must know that what is meant to be will be. Have faith in that.

Then I saw you on the Sticky and Sweet Tour. Yes, you rocked Madison Square Garden and you put on a fantastic show as always. But the costumes? What happened to the simple elegance of The Confessions Tour? It was almost alright until you wore that football player outfit with the really bad asymmetrical wig. It kinda made you look scary. And not in a good way. Scary like, Courtney Love scary. Courtney Love on steroids with bad hair scary. And we all know that you don't want that.

And I don't know if it's the divorce from Guy or what, but you've been acting out a lot lately and it all culminated in your Costume Gala outfit. I mean, really? You have gazillions of dollars and you chose to wear a giant scrunchie on your head? (see above) It didn't even look like you washed your hair. And then you wore the dress. And then the hooker boots. Girl, we all know that you are a sex-pot (because you tell us over and over and over again - stop listening to Janet Jackson who insists that the whole wide world know everything about her sex life. You like sex. We get it).

But really. You're at the most fashionable event of the year. Could we not have some glam?

And here's the thing. Sweetie, we all know you are 50. We all know you are in great shape. Hell, if I met you in a dark alley I would not want to fuck with you. So I don't really understand why you can't let a few wrinkles show. What happened to the Madonna who showed up at the Gucci fundraiser looking flawlessly classic? Yes, you were a little botoxed out, but still. But the thing that made you classic was that even though it's obvious you've had a snip here and there, you didn't look like an alien from the planet of "I-mysteriously-stop-aging-and-everyone-pretends-not-to-know-how-that-happened."

But alas. There was not a wrinkle in sight at the Met gala. And now it seems that your breasts are the latest victims to your age-defying strategy. *sigh* I mean, please. We've all seen them! What is there to hide at this point?

This all reminds me of that episode of Sex and the City where Samantha says that "no man wants to fuck grandma's pussy." But she still got it on without all the craziness, so why can't you? AND you have a man younger than Smith, who is well aware of your age. And Latino, your favorite. What is there to hide? To quote Ms. Bradshaw, "he knows you're older." I mean the kid is 22 for christ's sake. You have songs older than him. And yet he's still with you.

I have heard you say that you want to be like Marlene Dietrich, and for all intents and purposes you are the Marlene Dietrich of this era. But the bitch got older, and so are you. I was hoping that when you did get older, you wouldn't get crazy i.e. Lauren Hutton or Shirely Maclaine or Liza Minnelli. Or that you wouldn't look like Cher when you are 70. But it seems you are down that road. I mean, why can't you age gracefully, like Sophia Loren or Ellen Burstyn or . . . Marlene Dietrich in fact.

So my dear Madonna, I hope you will recant (as you Catholics love to do) and change your image. Would it not set a fantastic example for your daughter on how a woman can age AND still be gorgeous without all the extra hoo-ha? You're body is amazing for a woman of any age, shouldn't that just be enough? And as far as publicity goes, you are still a genious - I mean everyone is talking about the Costume Gala "incident." However they are talking about it negatively. And I'm not saying whatsoever that you need to die or disappear or stop recording or performing or stop being on the cutting edge of what is hot and popular. I mean, you are 50 for god's sake and probably one of the few celebrities out there who is still making an impact after 3 decades. But my fear you, my sweet Madgeypoo (may I call you that?), is that I will wake up one day in the next couple years and mistake you for Elizabeth Taylor. And I desperately don't want that to happen. I want you to be fabulous. I want you to be naturally gorgeous and radiant. I want you to be continue to be relevant and current- just not in the area of who is the latest one to get bitten by the bug that makes old stars go senile.

Much Love and Kisses,

2009-04-29T14:18:00.001-04:00

I just got a tweet from Sen. John McCain (yes i follow him) saying that we need to be prepared to close the border with Mexico to prevent further swine flu outbreaks. WTF? Seriously? Did we stop flying to Asia or prevent Asian flights from coming in during SARS? There is an interesting blog on the Huffington Post saying that this whole swine flu thing is slowly turning itself into a racist ploy to rally against illegal immigrants in this country. They relate it to how the Nazis first talked about the filth of the Jews prior to WW2, which may be a little extreme, but still. I think the point is that when humans first deal with fear, the first reaction is to start dividing rather than unifying to come up with solutions.

Regardless, to the closing the border I say a) the swine flu supposedly/allegedly originated in Mexico and was brought to the US initially by students on spring break, not by illegals, b) this thing is now global. Why would closing the borders with Mexico even matter at this point? We would have to totally isolate ourselves from everyone and quarentine those who already have it, and c) for all the bitching that goes on about "illegal immigrants" I don't see any rich white folk willing to slump away in a restauant kitchen until 2am for minimum wage. When I see John McCain wearing an apron and making salsa at his local Chilis in Pheonix for $7.25 an hour, then I'll be willing to take him a little more seriously on closing the border.

Obama-rama, Part 3

2009-04-21T12:49:00.005-04:00

***NOTE: This piece is still being revised as I spend more time with it. Any comments or suggestions are welcome.***

Don't get me wrong. I like Obama as much as the next person. I gave into all of the Obama hype leading up to his election, thinking he was going to be the messiah to our then current pharisee-ridden administration. Minus the whole crucifixion thing of course.

Also, don't get me wrong. I am still much happier with an Obama-Biden administration than a McCain-Palin. For one, Ms. Palin would have just been a disaster from the get go, even though an article this weekend came out saying that she was "more than qualified" to be Vice President of the United States.

See the following:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Apr16/0,4670,PolarizingPalin,00.html

Really? The woman doesn't believe in evolution. She shoots caribou from a helicopter. She supports abstinence only safe sex programs that don't even work for her own daughter. All of her politics aside, this was a woman who we wanted to represent the United States? Another article this weekend, describing the current plight of the republican party to stay relevant, touches on the reasons why Palin was such a bad choice in the first place. When you can't divide your politics from your religious affiliations, there is a problem. When we elect people who have an obvious religious agenda in a country that has a constitutional ban on merging church and state, we have a problem. When we are in a war with people whose image of us (U.S.) is a bunch of gun wielding, gum smacking christian hypocrites, and then we elect that personification into a level of authority, we have a problem. Despite my obvious objections to McCain himself due to fundamental ideological differences, I'm beginning to think that if he had picked his daughter for his VP, I would have been much more willing to listen. At least she seems a little more braced in reality.

However, Naomi Klein's Huffington Post article this weekend on the Obama hangover is something I also have been beginning to feel, despite my attempts to stay hydrated on hope. Yes, perhaps Ms. Klein is a bit premature in her accusations: I myself have to keep on thinking that the man has been in office for less than 6 months - tremendous pressure was put on him to lead the country out of its current situation into the holy land. I mean, if you think about it, it took the Jews at least 40 years to reach it and it took Jesus 33 to save all of humanity from its sins, so maybe we should cut the guy some slack, especially after inheriting what he did. However, as Ms. Klein suggests, there are little warning signs that keep on going off in my head every now and then about the administration and the way it chooses to handle things. It almost appears to me now that what we have in office is Obama-lite, like the iPhone apps that have a free version and a version that costs 10 bucks. Somehow, instead of getting the one that actually cost something, we somehow got stuck with the one that doesn't really have any cost at all. Sometimes, all it is is glimpse into what could be if we shell out a little more.

And I would like to reiterate that I am not a politician. And for as much bitching as I do about politics, (because hey, as many people try to deny it, politics is still personal and I'll get to more of this in a minute), I don't have any better solutions. But someone just recently said to me that just because you may not have a solution to a problem doesn't mean you can't recognize that a problem exists and call it out. And there are problems that continue to persist.

I, for one, miss the Obama that had a zeal and a fire - I miss watching him and getting goose bumps by the things he said and by the conviction he had in his voice. I miss him taking a stand. The Huffington Post (yes, the very self acknowledging liberal and conservative bashing publication) had a coverage of the ridiculous TEA parties that happened through out the country on Wednesday, that appeared to be a reunion of white middle classers who were more concerned with their continued dwindling of privilege than of actually being taxed. As the Huffington Post reports, the TEA parties became rallies for anti-gay, pro-NRA, pro-republican, pro-conservatism, pro-Christianity, pro-white middle class than for anything else. It was like a bunch of white people needed to band together and talk about why they were still relevant in a country and a global community where the focus is shifting off of the Caucasian and FINALLY onto who the the global population really is: EVERYONE.

Yet in this, Obama was silent. I heard nothing from the commander about how ridiculous this whole facade of patriotism was, nor did I hear anything about the blatant racist and homophobic notions that was the underlining to all of it. I mean the American Family Association sponsored some of the parties for Christ's sake, how much more does one need? And this brings me to another realization: that the old saying of the feminist movement in the 1970's of "the political is personal" is in no way dead. Instead it needs to be revived. Because for those of us who elected a president thinking that he was going to bring about the change we desired in one fell swoop of his hand, we were deluded. One of the main things that Ms. Klein points out is that our fight is not over: the change has to again start with each of us, it isn't going to happen only because we elected someone into office who promised it. And perhaps that is the main thing that is wrong with American society: that we expect everyone else to do the dirty work for us. It's like after 8 years of complaining about rights being taken away from the American public left and right, and for 8 years fighting to hold onto whatever rights we had left, we thought that the fighting was over. It isn't. When Krystof Wodizcko, the famous artist, was speaking at Mason a few weeks ago he said that the struggle to maintain a democracy is what makes a democracy so. Without the struggle, without the fighting, without the constant determination to ensure one's rights, the form of government you may have, either good or bad, is surely not one that is free. Just because we elected someone who was the right choice at the right time does not mean that we are to give up and put the responsibility on him. We, as American citizens, still have the responsibility to fight to make sure we are free.

And with that notion, I take Ms. Klein's article to heart, because it is becoming very apparent that the fight for freedom is not over. The fight for equal rights, both nationally and globally is not over. And the silence I hear from the white house sometimes is deafening. One example is the U.N. Anti-Racism conference, which the US didn't even attend over objection that crazy uncle Mahmoud was speaking. I don't mean to belittle Mahmoud or his presence in the global community, because I realize that he does have power and sway. But come on. The guy is crazy. However, he's not that kind of crazy in which you just sit back and shake your head and laugh it off as him just being stupid. He's crazy in the kind of way that is extremely dangerous. He's Kim Jong Il crazy. He's Heath Ledger's Joker crazy. He's the kind of crazy that you just can't ignore. And for that reason, we should not only be listening to him, but engaging him, because despite the fact that he's a fanatical lunatic, the guy is right about a few things. Even his rants on homosexuality last year that caused him great scrutiny in the Western World, are actually kind of true. Homosexuality doesn't exist in Iran. Why? Because crazy uncle Mahmoud says it shouldn't. And he'll kill you if he thinks you are doing it. That's scary. And it's scary enough to try to engage him, because the more we ignore it and the more we hope it will just magically go away, the more deep it will get. We tried to ignore crazy uncle Adolf and look what happened there.

And this goes back to ignorance, one that I feel Obama has a love/hate relationship with. I mean, on one hand, he's at the Americas Conference this week, where he and Aunt Hillary were talking to and engaging crazy uncle Hugo, but there is a line drawn with Mahmoud? Why, because Venezuela is rich in oil? And Iran has the whole Israel stickiness? Then, we shut down Guantanamo Bay only to allow Blackwater to still operate in Iraq, only now under the name of "Xe", pronounced "Zee" . . . What is this, the artist formally known as Blackwater? Are y'all going to change your name to a symbol next, in order to "distance" yourselves from a "negative image?" Well, let's think about how y'all got a negative image in the first place. Yeah. I feel like in many ways it's just two steps forward and three steps back.

Now, just today there is the talk of Obama "leaving the door open" for possible prosecutions in the Bush administration for war crimes in the war against terror. And while I have a bag of mixed emotions based on this for other reasons, the main concern is that again, Obama was not the initiator in this, but instead it was left up to the American public to push for change. And perhaps this is what this administration should be, and what all presidential administrations should be: having the public that they represent be the force behind the decisions that they make. However, when a man runs on a platform of change and is elected into public office based on that promise, the questions remains for those who voted him in: when does change start in the government and when does change start with the people? Why do we, as a society, look for other to initiate the change when in a democracy, we are supposedly the ones with the power? Why are we always willing to cast the blame of stagnancy onto someone else other than ourselves? When do we stop blaming others and take our own responsibility?

Stimulate This! Pt 2

2009-04-14T23:41:00.002-04:00

According to details magazine, the obvious source for everything relevant in American life, the National Gaurd used $125,000,000 of taxpayer money to play an ad featuring Kid Rock in 3,117 movie theaters before films in 2008.

I think I remember seeing this - it had Kid Rock, looking more like white trash than usual, screaming about how he was like a gaurdiann or something a la Toby Keith, coming to protect us. My first thoughts were: 1. "really, Kid Rock is coming? He stopped getting high and fucking Pamela Anderson long enough to become patriotic?" 2. That this is blatant propaganda disguised as a NASCAR commercial and now my thought is that this ad was not only 3 minutes of my life that I can never get back, but it's also a quarter of a billion dollars that I'm sure I could have found a better use for. Like my college education. Or no on prop 8. Or helping those I know who are in the throws of financial meltdowns because of useless spending on stupid shit like this.

And we then wonder how the Obama administration inherited the deficit.

Thanks GQ!

2009-04-09T23:10:00.004-04:00

Reflecting on the things I learn on a monthly basis by reading GQ Magazine . . .

(April 2009 Edition)

1. (cover) The guy who played the vampire guy on Twilight is the SAME guy who played Cedric Diggery in Harry Potter?!? No way! Hmmm . . . somehow Cedric Diggery just got a little bit hotter . . .

2. (page 44) "Because after all, it's a man's world." Really? And then you wonder why your girlfriends beat y'all over the head with feminist theory.

*see image*

3. (page 60) Apparently galoshes are back. With a vengeance. In bright traffic cone orange.

4. (page 79) I have to say it warms my heart a little when I see that a primarily "straight" man's magazine (although that can be debated . . . as I subscribe to it and I am sure I am not the only gay to do so) takes one for the team on tasteless gay humor. The blurb about Andy Samberg's Gay Humor is both funny and thoughtful and most importantly, accurate.

5. (page 90) Lenny Dykstra is a pompous asshole. He doesn't really do much for the current image of rich people in the bailout/AIG/wallstreet-induced-recession era.

Then just when I think that I've had all I can take as far as witty takes on exercising male privilege, GQ always manages to end their issues with well written and touching articles. Here are examples:

6. (pgs 99-101) Examples of men being (woefully sterotypical) men.

*interrupted by pgs 116-121 where I must ask myself yet again whether or not Neil Patrick Harris actually is cute or not. The jury is still out.

7. The article starting on page 126 by John Rico on John Walker Lindh is very interesting. On one hand, I don't really buy totally that he was just over in Afghanistan chillin' with the Taliban not really sure about what he had gotten himself into. The man made a video condemning America for Christ's sake. I mean, c'mon. However, on the other hand, the McBushyism witch hunt that followed 9/11, where anyone and everyone with any kind of unpatriotic zeal was deemed a traitor to the US, it isn't really that hard to believe that the Bush Administration both wanted to make an example out of him and feed him to the angry lions that was the American Public at the time. Do I think that he is totally innocent? Obviously not. I mean c'mon, it says on US passports that if you decide to engage in foreign military that you are forgoing your American rights and citizenship. This is a guy who was in pursuit of extensive education - he wasn't dumb. Yet at the same time, some of the comments printed in the article about how him and his family should be "butt fucked by the severed dick of a dead Muslim before being hanged and tossed into a sewer" doesn't really say much about the rational American public, both then and now.

Nor does it say much about racism and homophobia. But that, my friends, is an entirely different story.

All in all, it again just makes on think about the great PR machine that is the American Government and both the truths and the lies that get told to sell an image.

8. The other interesting (and heart breaking) story starts on page 154 by Wil S. Hylton entitled "The Unspeakable Choice." It follows the choice of a mother who must relinquish her mentally ill pre-teen son during the Nebraska Safe Haven outbreak because she has no other choices to turn to. Hers is just one example of injustice and inequality in a system that can forget about those who are unfortunate. And before you think I am being too soft on a mother who abandoned her child, I will leave you with the last paragraph of the essay:

"To save Skyler, she tried something new. To save him, she gave up more than custody; she gave up the most fundamental thing of all: her pride. Her pride as a mother, as a provider; her joy in those precious moments, however scarce, when the family was one, and it worked. Gone now, gone forever. And the irony is, if you wanted one signal of a parent's intentions, one clue of a mother whose commitment was total, it would be her willingness to sacrifice everything for her child - not only the child, but the essence of herself. It would be the mother willing to die for her children, to die inside. And Lavennia Coover is dying." (page 162)

From GQ Magazine, April 2009

Why I'm Against Gay Marriage

2009-04-08T17:04:00.001-04:00

Yes, I said it. I am against it. And I am against it to the point in which I think you should be too. It’s bad. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the recent rulings in Iowa, Vermont and even here in DC are all good things as far as finally recognizing individual rights, and rights for those who are in a minority. Yet at the same time, we as a gay community are walking the balance of a very thin line when it comes to all of this.

Here’s the thing I want to get out of the way right off the bat: I am not saying that there should not be equal rights for gay couples. I think there should be. I think gay couples should demand and be entitled to the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. However, within the term “heterosexual” lies the problem with gay marriage. Not only is marriage itself a religious institution that is legally recognized in a country that has both freedom of religion and separation of church and state, but marriage is also a heteronormative institution in which the gay community is assimilating itself into in order to fit standards that people have fought and died for so that the community does not, in fact, have to conform to those standards. Yes that’s a long sentence, but bear with me.

Perhaps my problem is not necessarily with gay marriage per se, but marriage itself. Why? Why do we need this? More importantly, why does the gay community need it? We fought for years, and are still currently fighting, for the opportunity to remain outside of the sexual “norm,” to be able to allow ourselves to spill over the levees of the binary so that what, we can then conform to it? So that we can allow our rights to be dictated to us by those very people who have done the oppressing for so long? So that we can appear to be a little bit more “normal” in the eyes of those who would rather not allow themselves to come down to our level of culture, so that instead we have to “raise” ourselves up to theirs? So that conservatives can have a little bit more reason to be more comfortable around us? So that now we really can’t go to hell if even some form of god views our union as holy? I mean really, what is the reason?

The problem with all of this is that we are making ourselves more relatable to them. And perhaps this is the little angry teenager inside me saying this, but why do we have to? The problem with majorities in general is that they are rarely forced to experience anything other than what they consider acceptable, so instead of embracing new ideas they expect everyone else who is not in the said majority to conform to theirs. And here are us gays, pride flags and all, sashaying our way right into heteronormative culture, calling it “groundbreaking.” It’s not groundbreaking, it’s assimilation.

Also, let me be very clear: I am not at all opposed to being in a long term relationship with one person. If that’s what makes you happy, you should be allowed to do so and to celebrate that commitment with those you hold most dear to you. But what about those people who don’t want that? What about those people who are in committed relationships, but who have extra partners, both when their significant others know about it and not? What about those who operate outside traditional relationship standards? Should their commitments on whatever level not be recognized also? Are their relationships not also valid? Just because they might not be dressed in white and throwing rice doesn’t mean that the commitment to their “other” isn’t just as strong as the one dressed up in fluff and flowers. And for those who are in non-traditional relationships, y’all need to speak up and stop being afraid to be seen. Part of the stigma that is associated with the idea of non-traditional relationships is because those in them still feel the internal social shame that comes along with it. I mean, if y’all are gay, you are already dealing with a lot of internal social shame, so you might as well just get it all out on the table.

Ok, but so then what? What happens when gay marriage is totally accepted across the country? What do we have left to fight for? We as a community have pushed all of our effort into having our relationships be able to be seen just like everyone else. Is that really the end of discrimination for the gays? Teens are still committing suicide, people are still being killed for sucking cock in a bathroom in Nebraska, trannies are still denied employment in most of the country, I don’t really see how gay marriage is Mr. Clean’s Magic Eraser to all of this. The only thing it solves is the gay communities’ ability to differentiate themselves from the standard, when in fact it is the standard itself that needs to be taken into question. It is the standard of heteronormativity that needs to be broken. It is the standard of the gender binary that needs to be broken. It is the standard of “male” and “female” roles that needs to be broken. It is the standard of what is viewed as “right” and “wrong” from a morally religious and puritanical background that needs to be broken. We in the gay community pride (no pun intended) ourselves on being diverse and accepting to those who are misfits and outlaws in the normative society. Yet we strive to be apart of that. Perhaps it is the plight of any minority to want what the majority has, but when what the majority does have does not fit our standards of what we stand for, the majority has to be rejected and something new has to take its place. It is our job as the minority to be ambassadors to our own cause, to not allow the dictatorship of rule overcome who and what we stand for, but through diplomacy (and perhaps sometimes a little civil disobedience) to extend ourselves to those who don’t understand to make them see that the way we chose to live is not wrong, it is just different. And that they need to accept that.

Hey, if you want to get married that is by all means your individual choice, and I personally have no problem with that. If you need your relationship to be validated by those whom you elect to represent you, or if you need a celebration with the people whom you love or if you even just want an excuse to get trashed with the person you’ve chosen to spend a significant part of your life with, I really do totally understand (especially the last part). And I might even be persuaded to believe that if you should so chose that for yourself, that you should have that right to do so. But let’s just say that when that very institution that we so long to be apart of decides to ban us from participating, what do we do? Instead of fighting for recognition of individual rights we instead fight for the right to be part of that institution. We as a community lose the very rights we have fought so long to attain: to be sexually free from that institution. Instead it is the institution’s constraints that we are now striving to be apart of.

Lady Gaga's Life, White Men Acting Asian, And More!

2009-04-02T20:47:00.006-04:00

Things occupying my mind as of right now:

1. Lady Gaga's cancelled DC shows.

How much uproar have I heard about this? Or rather the question should be, how much do I really need to hear. Yes, the Christ of glam/indie/electro god seekers cancelled her sold out DC shows to be on American Idol. Since the canceling, people have been going into Gaga hysterics, calling for a boycotting of Lady Gaga and all her music.

My, aren't we fickle lovers.

The gays are especially bad. An email from a popular "indie" gay party (i.e. those who claim not to serve Satan and her minions aka Britney Spears (et al) . . . even though they still probably really like "Slave 4 U" and have it hidden in the corners of their iPods even though Mac products are "douchey") called her act of American Commercialism blasphemous in the eyes of all that is "cool" i.e. non-main stream. They grabbed their pitch forks and torches and stormed up to 18th street to root out all the evil that is Gaga from D.C. and search for a new lightning bolt clad goddess. And to them I say god speed.

And I also say get over it. Lady Gaga has a life outside you and of DC. Yes, it is disappointing. Yes, American Idol is not exactly the standard when it comes to producing pop sensations or even talented artists. Yes, it is all about money. But then again that is the whole Recording Industry. If Lady Gaga was truly a maverick in that area she wouldn't have signed with a major record label and she wouldn't be producing glitzy videos and she wouldn't be doing . . . well . . . anything except sitting outside of Penn Station in spandex holding out an upside down wig begging for some change.

But hey, we all gotta make a living.

And yes, I heard "Just Dance" last summer, almost a year before it became mainstream, mostly because I was in San Francisco, where everything cool materializes as if it was being beamed down from Planet Out. However, I don't really see how "grassroots" played any part in her success. I see it mostly as how most artists get famous: some people like them, who turn them onto other people who like them, who turn them onto other people who like them and so on. I didn't see a Lady Gaga non-profit spring up or a Lady Gaga petition being handed out so that she can serve her fans with disco-clad music. No, I only saw a talented young woman trying to make it big. And make it big she has. So for those who were giving her the big "f*ck you," I hope you made one big gesture. I'm sure I'll see you at the concert when she reschedules it and sing along at the top of my lungs by your side.

2. White Men Playing Asians

Yes, I hear the cries of the blacks saying they are both under and misrepresented in movies. But hey, when you think y'all have got it bad, just think of the Asians. I mean, y'all haven't had white guys pretend to be black in movies for at least, what, a good 50 years? Maybe more? And yet today, as I watched the Dragon Ball Z trailer (hey, I was bored) I see some white kid being cast in the main role of a JAPANESE anime turned live action movie. Really? Are we short on Asians recently? Because last I checked, in the JAPANESE anime, Goku was, well . . . JAPANESE.

Yes I know that I know his name, you don't have to remind me.

And then the only Asians in the entire movie were the old "kung fu mentors" who spoke in accents or the fetishized "hot asian female who can kick your ass." The other main female character in the movie was white also.

Now, even if this was your run of the mill Hollywood movie who cast all white people, I would say "hey, you know what? I know Hollywood is racist. I know the race relations in this country. I know that people in Nebraska and Oklahoma are much more comfortable seeing someone in a movie named Jim or Bobby than Zhang Wei or Jamil Okunyka."

But this is a movie, based on Anime from an Asian country, where the majority of the people are Asian. Is it too much to ask that they at least be represented by their own racial identity?

And just when I thought I hated Clint Eastwood movies, at least he had the balls to make Letters From Iwo Jima with actual Japanese actors.

3. Upcoming Movie Season

And speaking of movies, aside from Dragon Ball Z or excuse me, Dragon Ball Evolution, I was perusing the Apple (douchey) movie trailers (instead of doing the massive amounts of work I have to do) and there are a lot of movies coming out the next few months that look really really good. A lot of indie and foreign films are now getting the chance to be seen thanks to that of Slumdog Millionaire et al and I think the world will be a better place for it. You know, learning about other people's cultures and ideas is always a good thing, despite what Rush Limbaugh might tell you.

April Blog Extravaganza and UN Human Rights.

2009-04-01T15:16:00.003-04:00

So, in an effort to expand ideas, knowledge and discourse (as well as in conjunction with a class) I have decided that I am dedicating myself to my blog this month as a form of apology for neglecting it recently. For the month of April, I am dedicating myself to writing at least one post per day.

Let it hereby be know that April is official blog month, at least according to my own purposes.

So in my first official act in the blogging extravaganza, I read today that the US has finally jumped on board for a seat in the UN's global Human Rights Council. They have this quote by Hil Clinton saying that Human Rights is back on board as a quality of US foreign policy.

All I have to say is: Really? Did it really take an entire 8 year administration for the American government to again become a supporter of global human rights?

It's also interesting to note that not everyone is on board because of "anti-Israel" connotations that the UN's HRC has. Now, the debacle in the middle east is obviously far greater than anything I can say in a few sentences here, but while I am in support for all people to have a space to call home, to say that "God" has appointed Israel is kind of insane. I mean, let's not forget the W. told the world that "God" told him to invade Iraq and free it's people. And how is that any different than saying that "Allah" is holding that land for the Muslims? It's not. The only main difference is that the Palestinians were there first. I'm not saying that they are right. But neither are the Jews. And the bottom line is all of this is that people need to stop being afraid to talk about the real issues of displacement so that we can start talking about resolutions.

Yes, I'm sure the UN HRC is highly politicized. Why? Because it's politics. Since when is the American public afraid to take on anything that is highly political?

Punjab in lipstick.

2009-02-24T10:15:00.002-05:00

Hearing that Bobby Jindal, the GOP's new poster boy for change, ("He's young! He's not white!"), was going to make the Republican "rebuttal" to Obama's State of the Union, signifying Jindal's GOP "coming out," makes my stomach hurt in the same kind of way as when I heard that John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his V.P. once Hillary was out of the race. Only Jindal can name a newspaper he reads. Which makes my stomach hurt more.

Stimulate This!

2009-02-17T10:28:00.005-05:00

I am so sick of hearing about the stimulus package. Really, after resounding debt from the Iraq war, we as a nation choose now to be financially conservative? For all their hootin' and hollerin', the GOP was more than willing to sell the lower class's left kidney in order to find those ever elusive WMD's in the name of patriotism, but now that a democratic administration has chosen to spend that money on our own soil instead of abroad, there is all this turmoil? And really, enough with the flogging of Obama for his lack of "bi-partisainship." It's a little alarming that out of how many house republicans, NOT ONE was in favor. Really? Not one of y'all thought his might be a good idea, even though your GOP governers are foaming at the mouth for potential stimulus money? I find it hard to believe that not one had an orignial thought and wanted to support a democratic legislation, but instead were too busy being afraid of backlash from their own party to do so. Obama tried to get all y'all involved, but you wanted nothing to do with it, so stop bitching. Maybe if y'all could stop pouting for 5 minutes and play nice for once, you'd have more of your ideas heard.

And this isn't to say that house democrats are the saints in this. Jack Cafferty on CNN.com has a scathing commentary on Pelosi and Reid, part of which sounds all too much like them not to be true. However, even though (as I posted before) the meager $50 million for the arts was thrown out quicker than a Planned Parenthood brochere in the Palin household (how goes those wedding plans, Bristol?) as I was reading where the money was actually going, my first thought was, "gee, we as a nation should already be doing all these things as a part of being united under the same borders, why is it taking an economic meltdown to get it done?" Things like, oh, repairing roads and bridges. Or renewable energy. Or modernizing schools. You know, basic stuff that for the past 8 years has been neglected due to shoveling money to the middle east rather than to our own children. Obama is absolutely right to essentially say to all the GOP that y'all got us into this mess, and now you're acting like 5 year olds on how to get out? Yeah sorry, no sympathy.

Then it occurred to me that maybe after 8 years of Wall Street greed, military spending, environmental rape, civil rights abolishing, etc, that the actual cost to try to go back to a semi-normal state can be totalled to roughly 787 billion dollars.

What recession? As long as we've got Rummy, it's all good.

2009-02-13T11:38:00.002-05:00

I wonder if the $46,790 that the Department of Defense just spent on their one of a kind Donald Rumsfeld portrait is covered in the stimulus package. But hey, you know what, even though the $50 million allocatted for the arts was the first thing to go once negotiations started (thank you Mr. Coburn, Ms. Feinstein et al) out of a (then) almost 1 trillion dollar package, it's nice to know that the U.S. Government still has some money left to spend on the arts. Here's to eternally watching over things, Mr. Rumsfeld. Now that you're immortalized for the great job you've done, let's hope you won't have to stand more than 8 hours any longer.

Obama-rama, con't:

2009-02-10T02:11:00.004-05:00

Two excepts from magazines that comment on Obama and the present day state of mind:

From GQ magazine, February 2009
"Why I'm Hopeful" by Patton Oswalt

"I think a lot of problems we've been experiencing come from the fact that no one embraces the miracle and amazement of the present. So many people - steampunks, fundamentalists, hippies, neocons, anti-immigration advocates - feel like there was a better time to live in. They think the present is degraded, faded and drab. That our world has lost some sort of 'spark' or 'basic value system' that, if you so much as skim history, you'll find was never there. Even during the time of the Greeks, there were masses of people lamenting the passing of some sort of 'golden age.' But I'd never go back and live in any other time than teetering on tomorrow; this is the greatest time to be alive. In the face of even more fear than we faced in 2004 - our banks are collapsing, Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself, the weather's getting scarier and more random by the day - we chose the smart guy. The fall of 2008 was perfect for the 'scare the shit out of 'em' playbook, but we ignored it and strode forward like gunfighters, armed with smarts, engagement, and optimism. It's not that I'm hopeful about any one thing. What makes me hopeful is that soil we walk on has, for the first time in a long time, been beneficial to hope itself."

From Rolling Stone, Editor's Note, December 25 2008 - January 8, 2009, by Will Dana, Managing Editor

" . . . one of the surprises . . . was discovering an interview we'd conducted in late 2004 and had pretty much forgotten about - a short conversation with a newly elected senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, whom we were naming as one of our People of the Year; that summer he had electrified the nation with his speech at the Democratic National Convention.

In the wake of Bush's victory over John Kerry, Obama talked with the candor, confidence and looseness of a man who was ready to lead and wasn't about to trade his soul for power . . . He described himself as a jailed jock who turned to politics when he realized he'd never make it to the NBA, as a reformed smoker who couldn't resist bumming the occasional cigarette and as a one-time wild man who'd gotten serious: 'I did drugs and drank and partied,' he told us. 'But I got my ya-ya's out.' Talking about Bush's re-election, Obama put his party's loss in a perspective that was tough minded, but comforting. 'Losing an election is not a tragedy,' he said. 'Tragedies are my mom getting cancer at 53 and dying in six months.'

Not to discount the historical importance of electing the first African-American to the White House, but what may be more significant in the long run is that we've put our trust in a man who's not afraid to talk like a real person. As 2008 draws to a close, we indeed have much to worry about. But we also feel a genuine hope. Electing Barack Obama was not simply about repudiating the misrule of George W. Bush - the greed, the incompetence, the contempt for the syntax of both the English language and the U.S. Constitution. It was about something deeper and more elemental - a reminder, that when we most need it, that we, as a people, are still capable of making a choice that is risky and heartfelt, that honors both the idealism of our past and the challenges of our future."

Toy Story

2009-01-26T00:44:00.001-05:00

"Four mid-aged fathers gathered in a bar, talking about the success that their sons have achieved.

Mr. A: 'My son is now CEO of a listed automobile company after making great efforts over the years. I'm so glad that he can make a big bucket of it, and he gave a new model sports car to his friend for his birthday!'

Mr. B: 'My son became a pilot after graduating in a renowned US university. He set up his own company now which has a close business relationship with the major airlines. He just gave a privet jet to his friend for a birthday recently!'

Mr. C: 'That sounds great! My son is an architect. His company keeps growing big and will be listed soon! He gave a 30,000 square foot apartment to his friend for his birthday! It's unbelievable!'

Slowly putting down his glass of wine, Mr D said, 'My son is not as lucky as yours. He drinks like a fish and takes drugs all the time, and now is a gigolo in a gay bar. But I'm still very proud of him!' The other three men were so shocked without a word, and Mr. D continued, 'because he got a sports car, a private jet and a 30,000 square foot apartment from all his boyfriends for his birthday!'"

-From WE:MEN (WestEast Men's Magazine) Issue 09, Summer 2008

Essay - "Madonna: The Material Girl and her '"Performance(s)'"

2009-01-11T22:54:00.000-05:00

Justin Raphael Roykovich
© December 8, 2008

Madonna: The Material Girl and her “Performance(s)”

You wouldn’t let me say the words I longed to say
You didn’t want to see life through my eyes
(express yourself, don’t repress yourself)You tried to shove me back inside your narrow room
And silence me with bitterness and lies
(express yourself, don’t repress yourself)Did I say something wrong?
Oops, I didn’t know I couldn’t talk about sex
(I must’ve been crazy)
Did I stay too long?
Oops, I didn’t know I couldn’t speak my mind
(what was I thinking?)
And I’m not sorryIt’s human nature
And I’m not sorry
I’m not your bitch, don’t hang your shit on me.(1)

Madonna, one of the authors of the lyrics above, is a very complicated character to me. I say “character” because as with most celebrity, the line between what one “performs” and who one really is can often be blurred. The roles that one takes as a “performer” and the roles that one takes while out of the public eye can be two very different things. Gender theorist Judith Butler argues in her essay “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” that “performing” is something that each of us does every day both intentionally and subconsciously, both in and out of public, due to societal structures that are placed upon all of us(2). Therefore, to some degree, each of us are performing what we are, day in and day out, because it is how we have been taught to perform through a cycle of what is expected, whether that be male or female binary gender roles, or even expanding along the lines of class and ethnicity. Yet there is Madonna, who is notorious for playing with the lines of any confine, who has not had a widely critically acclaimed album in years, who is not on the MTV hits playlists, and whose songs are not on repeat on mainstream radio anymore, but who has managed to hold onto a fan base that stretches beyond all these categories and labels(3) of people, or maybe rather the performances that they project. It would appear that she has one foot in with almost every demographic and that she has the ability to relate to them on some level and fluidly move in and out of those demographics with ease. This notion is made stronger by the fact that although her music may not necessarily be a top seller currently, her concerts and performances, in contrast, are sold out in minutes(4). To see her “perform” is a coveted experience, made apparent by people paying up to $400 a ticket for prime seating. Is that a case of inflated celebrity? Perhaps, but it might also be the fact that the woman can put on quite a show, as well as do so with the underlying subtext that speaks far more about popular culture than what one might dismiss as simply being her on stage, singing lyrics to a pop song.

For Madonna, it is that culture that she critiques, both blatantly and softly, that is another medium for her to sculpt out her performances. Yet those “performances” go beyond just her being on stage singing: they go subtly into the context of what makes up her identity as an artist, as a celebrity and not only as a woman, but as a woman who embodies what could be considered masculine qualities not just only in her stage presence, but also in what has been attributed to her shrewd business skills. It is in this aspect, within the great gender binary, that she is then both able to escape from and remain in that exact pull between the sexes, perhaps creating more of a fluid blend rather than fitting into just a “woman’s” role. It is that she is also able to hold onto and release both the freeing and limiting qualities of the female gender, along with being able to use her experiences in breaking confines to reach out to those still being bound as well break those still holding her within that gender as well. I will get to examples of these in a second.

However, with Madonna there are a few underlying things that must be stated if talking about equality and the quest for it. For one, there is an obvious and sometimes disputed status reserved for her within the LGBTQi community, and in using the lyrics above as example, she is capable of relating well to those who do not “perform” well in the accepted societal parameters. Yet there are also more negative connotations as well, such as pulling from the gay experience with vogueing, and the fame she acquired because of its success. But can her struggle be downplayed because of apparent “compulsory heterosexuality,”(5) that even when “performing” to be something else, Madonna still fits the binary regardless because of her racial and sexual status? It could be said that even her “performance” as a supposed lesbian is based on an imitation by lesbians who base their imitations on heterosexual standards, regardless of the fact that it is mostly dismissed as Madonna just doing what Madonna does best: manipulating the media for her own gain. Is Madonna helping or harming those standards, which harm and prohibit the rights of many of her fan base, by in fact having been married, having children and living a traditionally expected life to some degree? Where does the struggle for freedom of expression end and become the line of wanting normalcy, even if that freedom is to be traditionally normal?

Along with a relation to struggle, through her own journey of becoming the infamous “queen of pop” she has, again, manipulated the media as though it were a medium itself: bending and shaping it to her will, even in the times in which the image portrayed by them about her has been demonizing, giving some voice to others who can also be demonized by the same media outlets. I also realize that there is whole great subtext to Madonna that cannot be ignored: her status as being wealthy, her status as being white, her status as being a celebrity as well as the privilege that comes along with all of that. It is perhaps that privilege that allows her to say that things that she wants to say as well as attain an audience that she wants to attain and maintain. The argument of whether Madonna harms or helps the ones that she makes music for and tries to give a voice to is multifaceted.

Yet that audience that she does have remains one of broad diversity and one that comes together in vigorous uniformity at her concerts. My own personal experience when I first saw her perform live was one of awe, and not necessarily relating to what she did on stage. It was the fact that I was sitting in a crowd full of some 20,000 people and there was an energy, a synergy and an excitement floating among all of us at the spectacle that was taking place. Sitting amongst me were people of all genders (both within the binary and not), sexualities, races and ages who were engaged with this woman on stage singing, of all things, pop music. Granted that is boiled down a lot, and to Madonna’s credit, it is the way she uses her songs in concert as a visual tool that makes her performances so engrossing. It is the combination of the visual and the auditory. And yet it is also the experience of witnessing the performance that was just as important to the actual performance itself. It was the fact that Madonna could fluidly relate to all of these people on some level and get them to care about the fact that she is who she is. She is able to attain through performance what is at the essence of coalition building: a unification among those whose backgrounds are so diverse, using art to convey a message through ordinary pop music to help that unification along its way.

Madonna’s recent tour, The Sticky and Sweet Tour, was no exception to that experience. On October 11, 2008 masses of people stormed Madison Square Garden in New York City to see her convey this ideal of a pop standard that has made her famous. Though she did numerous songs dating from all aspects and time periods of her twenty-some-odd year career, there were three aspects in particular that stood out in resonance at this idea of fluidity within Madonna’s performance not only as an artist, but also in taking on identities of being a woman and moving within categories of gender and sexuality placed upon her. She in no way, at least to an extent that I am aware of, has ever publically denied being labeled as a gender based woman(6), and yet she, whether she consciously is aware of it or not, is an example of how one can be seen to able to take on qualities of a male based gender in order to further themselves in a patriarichally structured society. It is these imitations/limitations of performing as a woman, both on stage and off and also performing with masculine qualities, both on stage and off, that has given her the respect and the credibility of those who watch her perform any of those roles, and gives even a more potent relevance to the way Judith Butler talks about fluidity throughout all labels and categories.

The first notion of this “fluidity” comes through the way she actually performs, by herself, on stage with no others. During the first act of her show, she performs her song “Human Nature,” whose lyrics are printed at the beginning of this essay. Madonna herself is a sight to be seen: the woman is 50 years old, and assumptions based on her cosmetic appearance aside, for lack of better terminology, she is built like a tank. She stands in a black two-piece leotard, fishnet stockings, knee high heeled boots and a silver top hat, the first of many originally masculine possessions. However the woman is physically strong. Her muscles flex and contract with every stroke she makes on her guitar, and the muscles in her thighs ripple with every step that she takes around her stationary microphone stand. Biologically speaking, she gives the notion that men are naturally physically stronger a run for its money. However, beyond the physically masculine characteristics, she “performs” as a woman. She wears make up, her hair is long, she makes no effort (in any capacity at all) to hide her breasts. She is obviously of the female sex. Yet one can argue that she commands her crowd like a man. She barks out orders, “sing louder” or “clap harder motherfuckers.” She holds her presence, on her own, with a respect and an authority that rivals that of any stereotypically masculine identity, giving challenge to the patriarchy that she critiques through her work, and that would have held her down if she had tried to come out a few decades before the 1980’s(7).

She then sings about just that: “Human Nature” is a song that was written about how she has been blamed for blatant sexuality and exploring the erotic both of the self and of others within her work, assumedly getting more flack for it because she is a woman. She embraces the typically misogynist term of “bitch” to remind the audience that she is, in fact, not anyone’s and that she is guilty of nothing but expressing herself. Yet the struggle to express oneself, even though this may sound somewhat trite, is what makes it easy for her to be relatable especially to minority groups. It is the anger and the frustration within the song itself that gives her a power and a voice that carries over to those hoards of people screaming back the words at her while she sings them.

Through this specific performance, she gives reference to another pop celebrity in that of Britney Spears, who appears on the video screens behind her while she plays. Britney is taped in an elevator, appearing to be trapped and attempting to break out of her confines inside the metal box. Through out the entire song, Britney’s voice can be heard integrating lyrics as Madonna sings, giving another reference to a star who has had a tumultuous time in the media. Yet it is the confines that both these women long to be free of, and it is one that Madonna plays with, albeit not necessarily totally breaking out of.

After “Human Nature,” Madonna goes directly into “Vogue,” one of the main songs and subsequent performances and imagery associated with it, that throughout her career that has made Madonna a “gay icon.” She took an underground dance, mainly found in inner cities among those of racial and sexual minority and made it into a hit song. Aside from the relevance pertaining to the fact that essentially a white woman took a black and gay performance (on many levels) based dance and turned it into a huge money making success, she also took a facet of unrecognized society that was “closeted” and turned it into something that was instantly recognizable, even if perhaps it did lose some of its meaning among the way. It is similar to when both Butler and another theorist, Eve Kofosky Sedgwick, refer to “the closet” and the coming out experience as not necessarily a positive thing. While Butler and Sedgwick argue that once one leaves the closet, there is in fact a continual and very real danger due to the subjective and relative attitudes to those around once one is “out into a . . . new unbound spatiality,(8)” at least “Vogue” had a relatively successful coming out story, especially monetarily. Yet while the pros and cons of that action is a topic for a whole other study(9), the fact remains that regardless of impact, this move has made Madonna an automatic reference to the subsequent gay culture it references. It is also interesting to note that despite the reference to an underground, African American, homosexual dance scene, the crowd went absolutely wild during the performance(10).

However, for this incarnation of “Vogue,” Madonna has an updated feel to the song, integrating the actual music from her most current popular song, “4 Minutes.” She is now joined by her dancers, who are costumed in a cabaret style: the women wear nude colored leotards with anatomically strategically placed black accentuations with short black bobs, while the men are shirtless in black pants with criss-crossing suspenders and black masks and gloves. While the women’s dress has an obvious sexual undertone, the men’s also do as well, but on a somewhat contradicting level. For example, the inclusion of masks can be a reference to s&m practices, or on a more dangerous level it can be associated with crime. The idea of a black mask is a classic reference to male thieves, often preying upon “helpless” women in old time movies. Yet the men wearing the masks here are “vogueing” and performing an unabashedly gay-originated dance. So the question begs, then what are these men guilty of, if anything(11)? For it appears, at least in this instance, that the women are the ones who hold the power and Madonna is the clear ringleader.

It even gave the impression that while both the sexes were being exploited, the men were being more so in some ways because of their lack of clothing in comparison to the women, as well as a subtext of subordination in coming out after the women and not having an equally strong presence that is continuing that power struggle of performance, a clear departure from the standards of yesteryear. Yet while the supporting cast lend to the overall ambiance of the performance, the “performance” by Madonna herself is what makes this particular segment so powerful: it is her full control over those around her, both on stage and in the audience that makes this as potent as it is. It is her performance, exuding those male qualities while there is an underlying subtext of domination over the male dancers all while dancing an underground gay dance, video screens of pretty lacey things in the back. It is a gender smorgasbord(12).

This continuation of power shifting and “gender bending”(13) between the sexes continues throughout the entire concert, with the exception being Madonna, who as a female, never loses control over any of those under her rule, women or men or anyone inbetween. There are countless other gay, gender and race related references: from using animations of prominent 1980’s gay artist Keith Haring during her performance of “Into the Groove” to rocking out like a past hair metal band member on songs like “Hung Up” or “Ray of Light,” to different ethic references of Latino and Romanian heritages and the merging of cultures in “La Isla Bonita” and “Spanish Lesson,” to a surprisingly very moving and empowering video montage using a remix of her song “Beat Goes On” to inspire political involvement for change and helping other people around the globe. However, one aspect of her concert and performance that I found to be most striking might be considered by some to be insignificant, for was only a tiny part that stuck out in my mind as being the most shocking for me, even for Madonna.

She's not me 
She doesn't have my name 
She'll never have what I have 
It won't be the same 
She is licking her lips 
And she's batting her eyes 
She's not me 
She's got legs up to there 
And such beautiful hair 
She's not me 
Oh, devoted for life 
Make a beautiful wife 
She's not me 
If you spend some more time 
I guarantee you will find 
She's not me  
I know I can do it better(14)

The segment came in the middle of her performing a new song, one of relative obscurity, off her current album Hard Candy entitled “She’s Not Me.” The song on face value is just about another woman taking over Madonna’s identity to steal her lover. However towards the middle of the performance of the song, at the end of the catwalk, in the middle of the audience, there rises out of the pulpits of the stage four of Madonna’s female dancers, each dressed as the singer at a different point in her career. One is dressed in a white wedding dress from the music video of “Like a Virgin,” another is dressed from the video from “Open Your Heart,” another from “Material Girl” and the last from the video of “Express Yourself.” Through the end half of the song, Madonna goes to each of the four women dressed as older incarnations of her, and in escalating violence beings to disrobe and dismantle them. She never shows nudity or even goes beyond simply removing accessories, but it is the temperamental throwing of a shoe here, or the taking off of a glove there that is a subtle yet effective act in portraying the stripping of possession. The women posed as her are all stationary, like life sized Barbie dolls, until Madonna goes up to each of them and jerks their limbs around while taking off the various articles. There is a slight narcissistic/sexual exertion to it as well, from Madonna running her hands down the thighs of herself from “Open Your Heart” to the fondling of a breast inside the infamous “cone bra” in “Express Yourself.” Madonna then goes to all of the women, and enacts poses that each of the women follow as she sings about imitation, identity stealing and the fact that Madonna knows that she “can do it better,” apparently even better than her old selves.

Towards the end of the song, on the last bit of chorus before it gets remixed and manipulated, Madonna goes up to the “Material Girl” version of herself and forces her standing arm down to the incarnation’s side and looks her in the eyes and sings “she doesn’t have my name.” She then goes over the incarnation from “Open Your Heart,” and sings “she’ll never have what I have,” as she then throws off the incarnations short blonde wig, straddles her and sings “it won’t be the same” as she leans in closer just prior to a full faux make out session. A vocal remixing of the song then takes over, at which point Madonna stops singing live, and goes over to the last two incarnations. Madonna’s voice sounds over the speakers, repeating “I’ll never let you forget” over and over again, as she goes over to the “Like a Virgin” version and pushes her upper body down to which the incarnation buoyantly pops back up and she forces her down again. Then as the phrase “She’s not me and she never will be” plays over and over, Madonna picks up a wedding veil that she previously ripped off the “Like a Virgin” incarnation and goes over to the “Express Yourself” incarnation, rips off her blonde wig and begins to tie the veil around the version’s neck in an effort of strangulation just before, again, imposing violent kissing on the incarnation. The incarnation resists her shoving and pushing and pops up and down, but Madonna then storms away to begin to violently dance and remove her own costume as “never will be” is played over and over again through the speakers.

While there is an obvious reference to the identities that Madonna has had through out her career and the projection of them to onto her current self, when juxtaposed with Butler, it makes for a highly interesting critique of both outer and inner imitations that people push against other people and also that we push against ourselves. Butler talks about the fact that she feels that “drag” and the act of dressing up outside of one’s gender or label is not one that is solely confined to the “performances” of drag queens and kings. For Butler, it is the performance of how one is taught to be the outer projection of that specific role, in the case of drag queens, sometimes that of a woman, but more so in Butler’s utopia as that of no gender whatsoever. However Butler’s argument is that that very notion of “pretending” and imitation can be applied to our own everyday lives as participants in society and the way we each portray ourselves and our chosen genders and labels to those around us(15).

There is also the use of drag as an underlying metaphor that Butler uses to describe her theory of gender imitation(16), and here with Madonna, there is a use of it that is highly introspective, because she is performing that theory on herself, which from my view of interpretation, is a very brave thing to do. For while Madonna is performing the drag that she does on an everyday basis according to Butler, but Madonna is also critiquing the performances of her gender that she has done in the past, and is obviously not happy with them, resulting in strangulation and shoe throwing. While Madonna may not be critiquing the exact reason why gender is imitated or impersonated according to Butler, she is in some ways critiquing her role in making that gender an ideal for others to imitate. It is that notion of failing -that Butler says is the “process of imitating and approximating its own phantasmatic idealization of itself – and failing”(17) - in which Madonna realizes that her attempts in the past to be something that was not in fact her, and that those incarnations failed. Those incarnations of her were not her, she now realizes, and while they exist in her past, she is rejecting them out of her future. There is a hope in that realization.

The fact that Madonna, in this specific example, is dismantling the judgments made upon her from her past in a very embodied way struck me as very powerful, and what slightly shocking to me because it is a very real and primal reaction to having those judgments held above one’s head for so long. There is a very real and “human” quality to wanting to rip away what holds one back, whether they be chains of stereotypes, limitations on the way one can lead their lives in binary gender dynamics or, in Madonna’s case, all of the above combined with the frustration at not being allowed to be seen in any other way besides that of what made her popular twenty years ago. It was also the violence in which Madonna did it: it was the using a wedding veil, a prop usually used to bring two people together, to strangle her former self, while using the lyrics in the background as a subtext to her actions. It was the act of using a prop usually used for joining instead being used to divorce meaning. The repetition is one that we hear over and over and over again which is strongly related to things that one hears over and over and over again in the capacities in which they are minoritized or reminded of their inequality(18). There is a stripping away that is both hopeful and necessary, even if it has to be violently done so.

Judith Butler makes a comparison to Aretha Franklin singing how someone makes her feel “like a natural woman.” Butler goes on to critique this statement, explaining, in essence, that there really is no such thing as a natural woman, if in fact Aretha’s statement is true, then what is like to feel like an unnatural woman(19)? She then asks the question, “what if Aretha were singing to me . . . or to a drag queen” (as Butler presumably, according to her own theories, does not identify as a woman). It is for this reason that Madonna draws the crowds that she does. While she is a master at combing art with stage spectacle, it is that the ability to transcend those performances that we all consciously and subconsciously perform, as well as herself perform to those individuals who are tired of stationary rules. While Madonna herself performs the roles that we all perform, we all do so within a limited space for movement. Should those spaces be expanded? Of course they should. However, until that happens, and until those working for that very expansion can reach their goals, these are the limitations in which we all operate. It is necessary to critique it as such, but given what she’s got, Madonna is able to transcend the limitations placed on her and create a space where “it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white, if you’re a boy or a girl.” Corny and cliché? Perhaps a little. However it’s obvious that the crowd loves and appreciates her for creating that space as they scream back at her those same words.

1. Madonna. “Human Nature.” Bedtime Stories. Maverick, Warner Bros. 1994. CD
2. Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Judith Butler Reader. Blackwell, 2003.
3. I use “categories” and “labels” knowing full well that Butler would fully disagree with assigning people either.
4. “Madonna’s Sticky and Sweet Tour tickets to set ‘tour record.’” NME: First for Music News. December 1, 2008. Web. December 7, 2008. http://www.nme.com/news/madonna/41374
5. Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Judith Butler Reader. Blackwell, 2003. 312.
6. Although I can imagine her saying something along the lines of this Butler quote, that “the prospect of being anything, even for pay, has always produced in me a certain anxiety . . .” Butler, 307.
7. Although one could question if she upholds the positive qualities of a male gender through these examples.
8. Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Judith Butler Reader. Blackwell, 2003. 308.
9. As I’ve also realized in editing this, that this paper can be a lot more longer than 12 pages.
10. Having this concert be just prior to the election, it is also interesting to note the outcome of Proposition 8. However, something also tells me that those who voted against Prop 8 probably were not vogueing with Madonna at her concert.
11. Which in my mind can range from exerting male priviledge to just being damn good dancers.
12. On a side note, it is also refreshing that with Butler’s acknowledgement at the “violence of public erasure” of LGBT related things, that at least in some capacity something as seemingly simple as vogueing was indeed still ingrained in mainstream culture almost twenty years after the song came out.
13. Unfortunately, there is no real example of total gender binary breaking, smashing or destroying.
14. Madonna. “She’s Not Me.” Hard Candy. Warner Bros. 2008. CD.
15. Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Judith Butler Reader. Blackwell, 2003. 313.
16. Ibid
17. Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Judith Butler Reader. Blackwell, 2003. 313.
18. Or even as Butler says performance is repeated over and over again, Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Judith Butler Reader. Blackwell, 2003. 313.
19. Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Judith Butler Reader. Blackwell, 2003. 317.

Justin Raphael Roykovich
© December 8, 2008
J.M. Kass

Capturing a Day

2008-12-16T10:39:00.001-05:00

For me, everything is intertwined. I just found this to be interesting, all of the headlines seem to be coinciding with one another, even if on an unconscious level. Everything is related.

On a side note, I also think that it's interesting that I have been becoming more and more enveloped with the work of On Kawara.

2008-11-24T23:47:00.001-05:00

I am totally intrigued by this picture, and not really because of anything that has to do with the actual installation, which is a work by Jun Nguyen Hatsushiba and can be found at www.mizuma-one.com.

It is really interesting to me the way that the surrounding objects all look like satellites orbiting the earth, and that they are all objects of various ambiguity, at least through the picture. It is interesting to apply a juxtaposition of say, celebrity (having the satellites be cameras) or people watching, or maybe taking it further to surveilliance or control. Also, if thinking about satellites, they are man made objects to watch us, and in turn, what are they watching? Do we have control over what they see and who can see it? I don't know, not to sound trite, but it also remind me of that scene in Wall-E where the entire Earth has been covered in this mechanical cloud of satellites from BnL. It's like, how much technology do we need before it's just clutter?

Interests

2008-11-21T17:15:00.001-05:00

Thoughts

2008-09-23T00:07:00.001-04:00

I began to wonder today if I color my body in a subconscious attempt to erase my whiteness.

"How the Art World Became the Last Party in Town"

2008-09-17T01:14:00.000-04:00

From Details Magazine, October 2008.
by Simon Dumenco

In light of Damien Hirst's latest auction, as well as others selling work, waiting for the art bubble to pop, this article is very interesting in terms of wondering how and when it will end. I don't know, part of me can't help but think about taking Jeff Koon's balloon animals and putting a "Ty" beanie baby tag on them, or using Takashi Murikami sculptures and making Pokemon cards of them. All in all, meaning that this too will have an end and I am wondering what all of this will be worth when it does end. Will the art be in fact worth millions, even as a signifier for the time that we all lived in, or will it just gradually decline like all other fads.

In any case, the last paragraph of the article is very interesting:

"Not far from where Murikami is standing, an auction assistant whose hob it is to call attention to subtle bidders points vigorously at an aging blue blood. Given that the potential buyer is white and her appointed auction helper is not only dark-skinned but wearing white gloves, there is something vaguely colonial about the tableau. But it's not entirely clear who's serving whom-or who's using whom. The artist, of course, can't survive without the collector, the collector has nothing without the artist, and both are in thrall to a market that may or may not be delusional. Meanwhile, the drone of the auctioneer ticking off bid increments would be almost soporific were it not for the fact that tens of millions of dollars are being spent every few minutes."

I also want to add to this that I can't decide if Terrance Koh is brilliant, or just another art world fraud who is unoriginally playing on past themes, theories and ideas to capitalize on being a celebrity, even if it just is in the art world.

What Olympic gold says about diversity in America

2008-09-03T01:21:00.001-04:00

Commentary: What Olympic gold says about diversity in America
Originally on cnn.com

With the 2008 Olympics in Beijing coming to an end this weekend, it's as good a time as any to think about what it means to be an American.

And to help us do that, let's turn to a pair of recent and seemingly unrelated stories that fit together, as Latinos say, como anillo al dedo (like a ring on a finger).

First there was the disappointing news that Hillary Clinton's former chief strategist, Mark Penn, urged Clinton to attack Barack Obama for not being "fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values" because -- according to Penn -- his "roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited."

How about that. Before Republicans were accused of playing the race card, it was a Democrat who proposed playing "the American card."

Fortunately, Clinton rejected the advice. Some of her other advisers feared it could backfire.

So what have we learned? Apparently, Penn -- a white male -- isn't enamored of multiculturalism and the view that America is less a melting pot than a salad bowl whose ingredients preserve their uniqueness. In fact, Penn insisted, Obama's background could be used against him in the court of public perception.

"All these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural, and putting that in a new light," Penn wrote, according to an article by Joshua Green in Atlantic magazine. "Save it for 2050."

Save it for 2050? Why Mark, whatever do you mean?

Probably this -- last week, the Census Bureau reported last week what demographers, political consultants, and marketing strategists have known for years: Minorities will be the majority in America by -- wait for it -- 2050. The whole notion of what it means to be an American is about to change. Again.

Right now, non-whites make up about a third of the U.S. population. But, by 2050, 54 percent of the population will be minorities. The Hispanic population is expected to triple between now and 2050, going from 46.7 million to 132.8 million. And by 2050, more than one in four Americans is expected to be Hispanic.

The Asian-American population is projected to increase from 15.5 million to 40.6 million making almost 10 percent of the population of Asian background by 2050.

One reason is birthrates. They are higher for minority groups than for whites. According to other Census figures released this week, white women in the United States now have an average of 1.8 children. Hispanics and African-Americans have an average of 2.3 and 2.0 kids, respectively.

That is the reality creeping around the corner. Immigration restrictionists know it. Inflammatory radio and cable personalities know it.

Barack Obama knows it. He was ahead of the curve last month when he told supporters: "You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." And, judging from the panic-stricken reaction, it wouldn't hurt to also teach a little tolerance to adults -- especially the culturally insecure.

And of course Mark Penn knows it. He seems to have figured out that many Americans are anxious about changing demographics and worried about having to adapt to new surroundings. No wonder he was ready to rail against multi-culturalism -- and a multi-cultural opponent.

The year 2050 will be here before you know it, and all too soon for some people.

Those folks need to calm down. America's face is constantly changing. But its heart and soul are rock solid. And so is its spirit.

Just ask 21-year-old wrestler and Olympic gold medalist Henry Cejudo. The U.S.-born son of illegal immigrants, Cejudo was raised in humble surroundings by a single mother who worked two and sometimes three jobs to provide for her children. His father died when he was a child. A longshot to win any medal since he had so little world-level experience, Cejudo credits his mom with teaching him how to become a champion.

"I never played the victim," he told reporters. "My mom taught us to suck it up. Whatever you want to do, you can do, and that's what I did."

And those skittish uni-culturalists needn't worry about this one.

"I'm proud of my Mexican heritage," Cejudo said. "But I'm an American. It's the best country in the world. They call it the land of opportunity, and it is."

The kid figured it out. Many will object to how Henry Cejudo's parents came to the United States. Some might say that as the child of illegal immigrants, he doesn't deserve U.S. citizenship and shouldn't be allowed to stay here. But I can't think of a better place for him. Just listen to his words. There is no doubt that he is -- to borrow a phrase -- "fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values."

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

If it weren't for his cock, he'd be a hobo riding the trains around the country.

2008-08-15T02:30:00.001-04:00

From Details Magazine, March 2008
"Is being well hung the key to happiness?"
by Ian Daly

"If it weren't for his cock, he'd be a hobo riding the trains around the country. It's opened doors for him. Rich women put him up at their apartments."
pg. 164

"Welcome to the age of self-promotion: Forget hard work. The only way to get ahead now is to toot your own horn."
by Mike Albo
pg. 172

From Details Magazine, April 2008

2008-08-15T01:53:00.001-04:00

Articles of interest:
"Would you REALLY be ok with a gay kid?"
by David Hochman
pgs. 112-114

"2008 Mavericks"
"Mavericks are incorrigible. They habitually ruffle feathers. They cut through the bullshit."
pg. 149
(except maybe inclusion of Ryan Seacrest . . . although who knows)

"Are you in a bromance (or is it just a man crush?)"
by Simon Dumenco
pg. 218
Selected Quotes:

"Homosexuality, of course, used to be known as the love that dare not speak its name - until, thanks to the gayification of pop culture, it became the love that wouldn't shut the hell up."

"The fact that some guys now not only admit to same-sex infatuation without suffering a paralyzing identity crisis but ANNOUNCE thm amounts to a seismic cultural shift."
JRR: I agree with this . . .

"'The word homosexual didn't even exist until the late 1880s or 1890s' says (Geoffrey Greif, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Social Work). He (also) adds that once upon a time, expressing same-sex admiration was the norm among red-blooded frontiersmen who didn't have the conceptual framework to fear that they might be labeled homos. 'A lot of the founding fathers of our nation would write letters to their male friends saying 'I can't wait to see you again. I love you; I can't wait to get together with you,' (Greif) says. 'Somewhere over the last 125 years, it became no longer okay for a man to present himself that way.'"
pg. 220

JRR: But I also feel like this is severely limited in terms of geographic location and demographic. I also do think that something has happened to masculinity over the past century to make the societal constructs of what "being a man" should really consist of, I don't think that homosexuality is now "the love that (won't) shut the hell up." If anything, it's still the love that is ridiculed and mocked, hence the 80 thousand Brokeback Mountain jokes that are still being tossed around.

Grad School Possibilities

2008-08-13T11:02:00.000-04:00

According to 2009 News and World Report:

Top 5 Grad schools for Multimedia/Visual Communication:
1. Carnegie Melon University
2. California Institute of the Arts
3. RISD
3. Art Institute of Chicago
4. UCLA
5. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.

Printmaking:
1. University of Wisconsin - Madison
2. RISD
2. University of Iowa
3. University of Tennessee - Knoxville
4. Indiana University - Bloomington
5. Rutgers University - New Brunswick

Top MFA Schools of interest:
1. RISD
2. Yale
3. Art Institute of Chicago
5. MICA
6. VCU
7. California Institute of the Arts
8. Carnegie Melon
9. UCLA
11. Art Center College of Design (CA)
12. California College of Arts
13. Columbia University
16. Pratt
17. SVA
18. UCSD
21. CUNY - Hunter College
22. Parsons
24. Otis College of Art and Design
33. NYU
34. Rutgers
36. San Francisco Art Institute
37. UC Berkeley

Thoughts

2008-07-30T02:38:00.001-04:00

Collections of thoughts for work I am thinking about:
(thoughts for thinking. Eloquent I know.)

--I am being drawn to the daily habits of gay men, mostly the sexual habits. Looking at craigslist, gay.com, and whatever have you, there are countless posts and connections trying to be made each day for either sex, love or both. Yet most go unfufilled. Why? What is being sought after that isn't being gotten? What is the drive? Is it purely just sex, or is it deeper? Is this healthy? Is it what we actually want? What happens when we get it? Are we satisfied? Why do we keep going back? \

--Celebrity. Putting people on pedestals. In reference to Cary Xin - Mythology in Art Asia Pacific, No. 58 May/June 08

--Art to me is nothing without the societal implications. Does all art say this regardless of aesthetic? Is art ever really just for art's sake, or does it speak about society whether it directly addresses it or not? Why am I drawn to the societal aspect? What does it mean? How do I take that interest and have it make a difference in my own society and in my demographic? Is that want selfish? Is it a result of being a racial majority? Does it boil down to white privledge? If so, how do I do what I do and not play into stereotypes? Is that possible?

--Gay male body image. Celebrity. Juxtaposing the classic adonis of male beauty, what male beauty is supposed to be and yet unattainable, against what? Bible? News? What can oppose the male body image? Repetition of half naked men everywhere I look in relating to gay culture. I desire but I loathe. Is that self hating? Yet I strive to attain it. Is that ingrained? Is that learned? Is it habitual? Is it innate?

--Alexander Herin's Homosexual family portraits

--Ads. Health. Product. Designer. Almost always featuring white models. "I want to be white." "I want to be Asian." What do we want? What do we buy? "The perfect push up." What we want = what we buy. True?

--New work: Zhang Huan, Xu Bing.

Bibliography and Video Links

2008-01-21T01:55:00.001-05:00

The Bibliography and video links for the music videos used in the installaton "You Can't be a People Unless You Have a History"

Text
Califia, Patrick, “Manliness” in The Transgender Studies Reader, Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle eds, Routledge, 2006

Dolan, Maria Helena, “You Can’t Be a People Without a History,” http://www.thebody.com/content/art32194.html

Fredrickson, George, “White Images of Black Slaves (Is What We See in Others Sometimes a Reflection of What We Find in Ourselves?)” in Critical White Studies, Looking Behind the Mirror, RIchard Delgado and Jean Stefancic eds, Temple University Press, 1997

Fung, Richard, “Looking for My Penis: The Eroticized Asian in Gay Video Porn,” in The Columbia Reader on Lesbian and Gay Men in Media, Society and Politics, Larry Cross and James D. Woods eds, Columbia University Press, 1999

William's, Walter, “The Abominable Sin: The Spanish Campaign Against ‘Sodomy’ and Its Results in Modern Latin America” in The Columbia Reader on Lesbian and Gay Men in Media, Society and Politics, Larry Cross and James D. Woods eds, Columbia University Press, 1999

Music
Fiona Apple , “Not About Love”
Beyonce, “Get Me Bodied”
Mariah Carey, “Dream Lover”
Sheryl Crow, “I Know Why”
Nelly Furtado, “Say It Right”
Everything But The Girl, “Five Fathoms”
Garbage, “Bad Boyfriend”
Goldfrapp, “Twist”
Hole, “Violet”
Norah Jones, “Thinking About You”
Janet Jackson, “Nasty”
Madonna, “The Beast Within”
Kylie Minogue, “Come Into My World”
Anna Nalick, “2 a.m. (Breath)”
No Doubt, “Just a Girl”
Poe, “Hey Pretty”
Britney Spears, “Gimme More”
Donna Summer, “I Feel Love”
Timbaland, “The Way I Are”

Music Videos
Madonna, “American Life,” directed by Jonas Akerlund, 2003

Madonna, “Vogue,” directed by David Fincher, 1990

Kylie Minogue, “Slow,” directed by Baille Walsh, 2003

Britney Spears, “Slave 4 U,” directed by Francis Lawerence, 2001

Websites
All pornography movies were taken from the site www.lustypuppy.com.
http://bfcollection.furiousgalleries.com/kyler-jaden-bb-1/0001/
http://pornlesson.net/gaypass/buttobsessions2/fur.html
http://hispanichomos.furiousgalleries.com/ricardo_ernesto_ronaldo/0015/
http://www.exclusivegayvids.com/Jul/192/21.htm
http://boysthatgag.furiousgalleries.com/troy_n_daemon/0022/
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=16277974&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=gay-murder-victim--beaten-beyond-recognition--name_page.html
http://galleries.aebn.net/beta3/index.cfm/fa/gallery/genre/gayasian/clip/0084/refid/AEBN-014293/tid/32056/layout/mgp_layout2.cfm
http://galleries.aebn.net/beta3/index.cfm/fa/gallery/genre/gayasian/clip/0082/refid/AEBN-014293/tid/32056/layout/mgp_layout2.cfm
http://zentz1.skidstache.com/galleries/streetbait/3f74ec7d21c51590/main.html
http://www.twinks-cash.com/gaytwinks/freegalleries171/lustypuppy.html
http://www.barebackmyass.com/tours/01/index.html
http://galleries.aebn.net/beta3/index.cfm/fa/gallery/genre/gayasian/clip/0017/refid/AEBN-014293/tid/32056/layout/mgp_layout2.cfm
http://www.twinks-cash.com/gaytwinks/freegalleries233/lustypuppy.html
http://freempegs.aebn.net/gayasian_0017_3.mpg

Northern Virginia Aids Ministry - www.novam.org
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=16277974&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=gay-murder-victim--beaten-beyond-recognition--name_page.html

"You Can't be a People Unless You Have a History"

2008-01-18T12:51:00.001-05:00

My artist’s statement for this project was essentially an ode to Postmodernism, some of it tongue in cheek, some of it very serious. The older I have gotten, and the more consumed with reinventing the old society has gotten, the more tired I have become in trying to say new things or to get my voice heard before someone louder than me says what I want to say first. Yet in some ways, art is not even about saying anything directly, but more about taking what already exists in one’s everyday life and recontextualizing it when juxtaposed with the other things from one’s everyday life; the emphasis is on the experience, not necessarily on the creation.

For this project, I first became interested in the history of the LGBT individual, rather than community, through reading a copy of Maria Helena Dolan’s speech titled “You Can’t Be a People Unless You Have a History.” This speech was incredibly inspiring to me, especially in the capacity of becoming more educated myself, about myself and about my past, as a gay man. These things had never been evident to me, and their realization was the shifting of a paradigm within me, and while Dolan’s speech as a whole is very moving, it was simply her title that got me thinking about certain things.

Despite my own history, much of what I know in my past and in my own present is sex. People in America have a problem with gay men, first and foremost because of gay sex. Not only is sodomy outlawed still in most places in the country, but there is a connotation that goes along with gay sex, especially when a man bottoms. Being the one who gets sodomized, especially in American culture, is undoubtedly the lowest and most immasculating thing a man can do, maybe aside from being a “cocksucker.” Why? Because the man is a. taking on a woman’s role, b. is allowing another man to seemingly have power over him, and c. because he enjoys both of those things, he is a danger to all things masculine. Combined the fact that the sex is not in fact missionary in a culture that still refutes sexual exploration and enjoyment in most places between the vastness of New York and California, gay sex is still taboo, even to some gay men.

There is shame not only in sex, but also in pornography, right off the bat for obvious reasons. However, gay porn is interesting when compared to lesbian porn or straight porn. It is one of the few forms of pornography where there focus is primarily on the men, and the functions of and dealing with the penis. So in gay porn, not only are all of these masculinity issues coming into play, with what it means to be the person receiving versus the person giving, in both anal and oral sex, there is also the anonymity of the present day of having it be online, where as back in yesteryear, one would actually have to get up, get dressed and go get some porn. Now, we can just tuck ourselves in a dark corner and get off, no muss no fuss.

However, along with that comes a whole new slew of issues that can brood and fester because of the fact that personal connection or interaction is no longer required; people’s fetishes and fantasies, both healthy and unhealthy, are allowed to roam cyberspace with no leashes, viewable to anyone who wishes to be a voyeur. It is extremely liberating and extremely dangerous all at once. The issues of the real world follow us into the cyber one, and the same issues that we deal with walking down the street are now in front of our face as we look for an orgasm. Racism, violence, misogyny, rape, all of these things are focuses on what people look at online to bring them to climax. These issues are not going away in our culture, and not are they not only not going away, they are becoming so ingrained in us, that we now use them to bring us sexual pleasure.

I began to explore these issues in my own work as an artist when I first realized that I indeed had something to say about them. I have begun to think about the issues that arise out of porn that say much more about us as a culture than the actual sexual act itself, although to some that is shocking enough alone and I will get to that in a second. These ideas of race and violence and these ideas about what it means to be a man have become increasingly more important to all of us as a society, more important to myself, and as consequence have popped up in places where we least expect it.

I began to compile mental notes of things that I saw in porn. First off, there is an outward implication to those outside of my community that I even know this exists, and putting it in an art form, on display, is already sending out messages about who I am not only as an artist, but as a person. The obvious implication is that I know this exists because this is what I in fact enjoy, which is not necessarily the case. The race and masculinity issues are in fact a part of our history as gay men, and yet sometimes to some, it seems to be the only history we have. If it is, then we all should have no problem seeing it up close over and over again. It is after all, on face value, what we all enjoy.

***
So when I decided to put gay porn on twenty some odd computer monitors in a computer lab at George Mason University, some people were shocked. One professor, whom I had previously gone to for support and guidance immediately questioned its value as art, and was visibly upset by what they had seen. And I realize that to some, especially outside the gay community, gay sex at all is shocking. I had a student come up to me and say that she had never seen gay sex before, ever. This is a continuation of erasure of gay history to some extent, that we as a people are not even valid enough for those outside our community to know what brings us pleasure.
I put up at least eight different signs warning people about the sexual content inside the room, and I felt that was needed because while the images were shocking to some, my intent was not for shock value. I wanted my viewer to be aware of, not to be scared of what was going on inside. As the viewer walked into the room, they were faced with over twenty computer monitors, most of which displayed a short Quicktime movie of gay porn that was looped. I mostly chose gay porn videos that dealt with racism and violence, yet given the fact that apparently some were not even aware of gay sex, it was important that I sent out the message not that sex is bad, but that what we are looking to for sex needs to be questioned, as well as the identity that goes on behind it.

On the very first computer screen there was the website that Maria Helena Dolan’s article was displayed. I borrowed so much from her inspiration, that I very much wanted it to be apart of the display. Along with this, the computers were set up in rows, in an obvious classroom style, and the very first row was visible to passers by from the hallway. Because of consent issues, I did not want any of the porn to be visible to those just walking by, so on the other two monitors that were viewable from the hallway I decided to put news articles about gay men who had been murdered for being gay, which I also interspersed in the next row which dealt with violence.

In the violence row, all of the movies had obvious dominance issues: one was of a “daddy” figure pulling a younger male toward him and spanking him, another was of one man bending over the side of the bed and another from behind pulling his hair and forcefully penetrating him. The most disturbing one to most people seemed to one from a “twinks for cash” site in which two older men were trying to persuade another younger man to perform oral sex, and visibly forcing one of the men’s penis’s into his mouth, when he was clearly uncomfortable. Also in this row I displayed the homepage of a website called “Bareback My Ass” in which the main draw to the site is in fact unprotected sex. This is another important aspect of gay history erasure when the current generation is blatently ignoring the past, especially when it is crucial to their survival. A few monitors down from that site, I displayed the site for the Northern Virginia Aids Ministry.

Over these computer screens I used an over head projector to display text that I felt juxtaposed and correlated to the images being shown. For this particular section of images, I selected a selection from transgendered writer Patrick Califia entitled Manliness in which he talks about male body image, as well as what it in fact means to him to be a man, when he lived half of his life as a woman. This idea of male self respect is so important to this issue, especially when compared to what was being seen on the computer screens. Califia then talks about what it means to be male and spur antigay remarks and how in turn it is really anti-male, regardless of sexual identity. His call to his readers, especially the male ones, is to respect our bodies and one another and not use them to perpetuate an image that society has placed on us.

The next row videos that were playing were most of Asian-White porn. This idea of the Asian American Gay Male has always interested me, partly because of the influence of Asian ideas and customs in my life, as well as the continued invisibility of Asian Americans when compared to African Americans and even Hispanics, and the impact of people in my life of this group of people. In the hyper-masculinized society that is America, there is a de-masculinization that happens with Asian males, especially gay Asian males. They are stereotyped through out the gay community as being effeminate and taking the “woman’s” role during sex and in life, and are stripped of sexual identity through the process of prejudice both in and out of the gay community. Richard Fung wrote about this, especially in the realm of pornography, where Asians are often fetishized and/or somewhat anonymous participants in the acts. Fung argues that most of the time, the Asians faces are not shown, and more often than not they are always in the receiving position of gay sex. Very rarely, if at all, are they shown in the dominant role. If they are, it is almost never showing dominance over whites, only over other Asians. I put Fung’s text over videos of current gay Asian/White porn, to capitalize that this not only still exists, but also that it is more alive than ever.

The next row of video used were of ones showing an African American dominance over whites. Again, along the same idea of fetishizing race, there seems to be this new idea of having “black power” fantasies in which whites fantasize about being dominated by blacks, particularly stereotypical blacks. Juxtaposing this was an article by George Fredrickson titled “White Images of Black Slaves (Is What We See in Others Sometimes a Reflection of What We FInd in Ourselves?).” Besides the obvious connotation in the title alone, the text goes on to explore the role of the African American slave and how White people saw them, and how that image was in a sexual way, which is juxtaposed to the pornography of now.

The final projection of text I used was that of Walter William's’ essay, “The Abominable Sin: The Spanish Campaign Against ‘Sodomy’ and Its Results in Modern Latin America.” This text I chose because William's goes into great detail about how Latino males view gay sex, and being that this country is populated with so many Latinos, it is relevant here as well. This body of text that I chose dealt with the role of the man giving the sex, giving the penis to the other man, with very much correlates to much of what I was talking about before in the realm of masculinity. William's takes this evidence further by documenting how in hispanic communities, as long as one does not “receive” anal sex or be the one performing oral sex, ones masculinity would not be questioned. It would only be one would receive anal sex or perform oral sex than one would then be classified as a maricón.

The other aspect that I included was that of music, and particularly two music videos, two by Madonna. One was of her music video for “Vogue,” which has obvious relation to the underground gay dance of the same name that she made mainstream with this song. The other correlation that this video provided was the aspect of a very “traditional” gay dance, in a piece of film that was beautifully shot, and the movements of the bodies of the dancers in the video with the movement of the bodies of the people in the pornography. There is a relationship with beauty going on that is both obvious and subtle that is very important to way the pornography is received, both actual and perceived.

The other Madonna video I had was for that of “American Life,” and that was smaller and on the the opposite side of the room, further from the entrance mostly because it was a more abstract and personal correlation to what was going on, but it also dealt with much of the other music. This music video happens to be the only music video that Madonna has ever censored herself, giving no more than a reason out of “respect of American troops” and never speaking more about it. The video is controversial, turning the War in Iraq into a fashion catwalk, and having the whole video be very tongue in cheek, using elements of hip hop and iconography in order to create this brilliant piece of film that she then pulled. In a climate of censorship growing bigger and bigger, it is interesting to think about governmental influence in other artists and writers, such as the whole 1989 NEA debacle, or Naomi Wolf, when they are too outspoken, especially in a country that celebrates as many freedoms as we currently believe we have. The idea of censorship, when compared to the other porn videos, and compared to the other video of “Vogue,” which caused a controversy because of Madonna’s exposed breasts, is interesting when this video that features violence is pulled from the artist and her more sexual one is shown fine, when usually in America it is the other way around.

The other aspect of the “American Life” video is the fact that one of the main questions asked by Madonna is “Do I have to change my name?”, presumably in order to say what she is saying without getting in trouble. These little snippets of lyric are very important to me, and I included other music that have a similar effect. I used a pseudonym for this project, which was the first unveiling of another identity that I had been toying with for a while. There was something about this project that I wanted to seem anonymous, and there is a definite distinction within myself to keep my work separate from my personal life, which is ironic on many levels because the two are so intertwined. However, in this case, the idea of what I was trying to do in the context of geographic and educational landscapes was somewhat frightening to me, and there was a comfort behind taking a fake name that I needed in order to complete the project. Whether that be cowardly or simply a necessary step can be debated, but the fact remains that I needed it. So the question of “do I have to change my name,” do I have to be someone different, do I have to have this separation of who I am, in this case, yes, I did. I did need to change, and because I felt that need, I wanted to ask the questions of what does that then say about the society and my comfortability in that society.

Above the “American Life” video I projected a simple line of text that I have used in other projects that said “I am the American Dream,” along with other text in Spanish and Japanese about wanting to live in America. If indeed this is our history that I share with the modern gay male, is this what we want? Why are people still wanting to come here and live in this country and participate in a dialog that includes this violent and sexually immoral and more importantly, unfufilling, nature? And yet, this is the history that we as gay men have for ourselves, while our more historical perspectives are continually washed away because some of us are more entwined in all of this other stuff to be educated about it.

As I said, I also used music that I felt correlated to the videos. The very first computer display that had the Dolan article played “The Beast Within” again by Madonna, who simply read biblical passages from the book of Revelation set to a lebanese artist chanting in the background. It is eerie and ephemeral, yet juxtaposed with other music, such as Hole’s “Violet” (Courtney Love screaming over violent sex “go on take everything, take everything I want you to”) or Anna Nalick’s “2 a.m. (Breath)” (“2 a.m. and she calls me ‘cause I’m still awake, can you help me unravel my latest mistake, I don’t love him, winter just wasn’t my season”), there this story telling that then happens with the songs playing, as well as a connotation that is given. These videos, if taken out of context of sexual frankness, each tell a story of a situation, and if the participants in the videos are in fact mere representations of the viewers who watch them, what are their stories, what has lead them to be the way that they are, what voices do they have?
Also, all of the music in the piece is by women, adding a feminine touch to very much testosterone filled images. Yet the women also tell a story themselves, and about their role in this, especially in realms of the “fag hag” and the women that gay men turn to for friendship when they cannot find it within their community. All of these pieces of music are an outside voice, continuing the story of struggle from a different perspective and yet adding their own spin on the issues of racism, dominance and a history through sex.

***

The struggle always for me in my work is not to repel people, but to include them in my world and the world’s that I feel have the possibility to benefit them. It is akin to what Sarah Schulman talks about in her essay “Why I am Not a Revolutionary.” It is the personal relationships and connections that are made with people that change them, not the shock value. However, some things in life are shocking. So what is the way to get them to be led on a journey that they do not want to go on? I cannot say that as of yet I have the answer. However, the things that I do have are a zeal and a passion for common understanding among people. Life is shocking, especially when we realize that there is so much about people that we don’t understand. It is bridging that misunderstanding between all of us that is the goal.

The Other F-word

2007-12-10T19:30:00.001-05:00

Age: Forever Young

If you take a look back, it appears that 2007 was the year of the F-Word - but not the one you're thinking of. America's rent-a-quote harridan of hatred, Ann Coulter, used the word to slag presidential candidate John Edwards. Presidential candidate Bill Richardson used the Spanish version (maricón) to slam a guy on the Don Imus radio show. Controversy exploded after Isiah Washington allegedly dropped the F-bomb on a fellow cast member of "Grey's Anatomy." It's a word that anyone who ever spent time in an American school yard is familiar with: faggot. But some bullies grow up, get famous, and keep on using it. "I hate gay people," blurted former basket ball star Tim Hardaway. Tucker Carlson bragged about having given a dude who tried to tap toes with him in a men's room a taste of his bow-tied brutality ("I . . . hit him against the stall with his head, actually"). Hmmm. The word "faggot," it seems, is on the tips of a lot of men's tongues. They can't stop thinking about it. Without it they'd be lost, and that makes you wonder who really has the power.

From Details Magazine, December 2007

2007-11-28T15:44:00.001-05:00

This is only a test.

Justin Raphael Roykovich - 表現の力

5 Links for Japan:

Aug. 8th - 14th: Serendipitous Moments of Media

Work of (f)Art: The Next Great "Art Pussy."

You know what . . .

Racism! Misogyny! Welcome to America!

Send Me "Back to the Kitchen"?

Refried Bean Swastikas Smeared On Arizona Capitol

America vs. The World

World's Opinion Of U.S. Has 'Improved Sharply' Under Obama, Says BBC Poll

Trust In Government? Poll Finds Nearly 80% Of Americans Don't

Welcome Lady Gaga, the mistress of death to the Postmodern.

Post-Postmodern = Altermodern?

Obama-rama and The New World Order, Part 2

Obama-rama and The New World Order

Explosions in one's pants.

Death to Hipsters: a)! or b)?

Why the hipster must die

A modest proposal to save New York cool

My presidential qualifications

Details Magazine: "douchefag"?

Out Magazine strikes again . . .

A Letter to Adam Lambert

"The Newest New Media"

Edmund White and Terrence Koh

8/29/09 Bitch 2.0 w/ Jade and Shannel Set List

Never Trust A Ho.

Michael Jackson, The Greatest Show On Earth

Bitch 2.0 Play List - 5/30/09

Pre-Matt Bailor Set List! (5/22/09)

First Atomik Playlist!

A Letter to Madonna

Obama-rama, Part 3

Stimulate This! Pt 2

Thanks GQ!

Why I'm Against Gay Marriage

Lady Gaga's Life, White Men Acting Asian, And More!

April Blog Extravaganza and UN Human Rights.

Punjab in lipstick.

Stimulate This!

What recession? As long as we've got Rummy, it's all good.

Obama-rama, con't:

Toy Story

Essay - "Madonna: The Material Girl and her '"Performance(s)'"

Capturing a Day

Interests

Thoughts

"How the Art World Became the Last Party in Town"

What Olympic gold says about diversity in America

If it weren't for his cock, he'd be a hobo riding the trains around the country.

From Details Magazine, April 2008

Grad School Possibilities

More thoughts and post its

Thoughts

Bibliography and Video Links

"You Can't be a People Unless You Have a History"

The Other F-word