Thesis has been approved, accepted, and uploaded to the ProQuest database at the University of Michigan (an online database for theses & dissertations in the Midwest).
Yay for me.
Now I just need to finish my project for my sucky class (I'm not alone in that observation either, the other 10 students all feel equally annoyed and frustrated), put together my presentation for the Women's & Gender Studies end of year get together where we share research, and I'm done.
I don't know about all of you, but I'm sick of all this Jeremiah Wright bullshit. Jeremiah Wright's words were taken out of context and used to submarine Obama. If guilt by association is the name of the game, then, ladies and gentlemen of the blogosphere, I suggest a google-bomb:
Make a point on your blogs to mention Jeremiah Wright and John McCain least once in each post - and when you do - link to this video about John Hagee - John McCain's spiritual advisor who has said that Katrina was god's punishment against gays, that we deserve terrorism if we allow the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to establish a two-state solution, and has called Catholicism the "great whore" and compared the catholic church to Hitler. These are far, far worse statements than anything Jeremiah Wright said.
It's unfortunate that Hagee's statements are largely unknown, ignored, and even worse - tolerated - and that John McCain is "proud" to have his endorsement.
28 April 2008
22 April 2008
There's something weird goin on in Turkey
According to my Google Analytics, I've had 100 hits from Turkey over the course of the last month. So I look at the keywords:
pandaporno - 93
pandaporno movies - 2
panda-porno - 1
pandaporno movie - 1
pandaporno. - 1
elf pussy - 1
how i became lesbian - 1
I feel sorry for all the Turkish panda beastiophiles who wound up with this from their search.
There MUST be something better to do people... really?
The irony is, of course, now I'll get even MORE hits off pandaporno...
pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno,pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno.... there.
Wouldn't it be funny if pandaporno was a Turkish word for something totally ordinary, like, boot-cut jeans?
pandaporno - 93
pandaporno movies - 2
panda-porno - 1
pandaporno movie - 1
pandaporno. - 1
elf pussy - 1
how i became lesbian - 1
I feel sorry for all the Turkish panda beastiophiles who wound up with this from their search.
There MUST be something better to do people... really?
The irony is, of course, now I'll get even MORE hits off pandaporno...
pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno,pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno, pandaporno.... there.
Wouldn't it be funny if pandaporno was a Turkish word for something totally ordinary, like, boot-cut jeans?
19 April 2008
Awkward questions
How many times in my life will I get to start off a post this way:
So... I got into an argument with an Imam last week.
Yes, that's right. Our Muslim Student Organization organized a forum on women's rights in Islam that was to have two speakers. A female representative (I will call her Sister in lieu of using her real name) of the Chicago CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and an Imam from the Chicago Mosque foundation who I will refer to by his title of Sheikh.
It started out OK, Sister spoke a little about her own personal experiences as a Muslim woman in the US. She was born here and is a citizen, but only recently decided to start wearing the hijab (head scarf) as an expression of her faith - only after which, did she start getting questions like "where are you from?" Because, you know, only them foreigners wear hijab, right? She spoke about her view of women's rights, which are the rights afforded women in the Qur'an (which many of you might be surprised to know are quite liberal by some interepretations). She seemed to hold the classic "Muslim Feminist" view that because men and women were created spiritually equal (both Adam and Eve are to blame for tasting the fruit in the Garden of Eden and were forgiven but sent to do good works on Earth before they could re-enter heaven) but that men and women were created complimentary to one another that each has different duties. Women are revered for motherhood and their duties are to take care of the home and the children while the men are responsible for supporting the family. Pretty much your classic patriarchy. She went on to introduce the Sheikh, which was odd because I thought it was going to be a kind of panel discussion. Once he took over the floor though, she didn't get to say much. She interjected a few things here and there.
When the Sheikh took the floor, rather than getting a discussion on women's rights in Islam, we got a "history" lesson that told us that all the world's great empires eventually collapsed because they let their women run wild. Yep... apparently the world was complete shit before Islam came and got the women under control. Rome, Persia, Greeks - all fell because of loose women and the lack of a traditional family structure. He repeated some of what Sister said, about men and women being spiritually equal and then explained that women aren't allowed to touch unrelated men for their own protection and told a story about how his wife accepted her college degree without shaking the President's hand to protect her honor. Does this sound like women's rights in Islam to you? It didn't to me either.
He then explained why Muslim women can't marry outside the faith: because wives take the religion of their husbands (naturally, of course) and a Muslim woman could never covert to Christianity because Islam is the final perfect truth. There's A LOT of assumptions taken for granted in that statement, wouldn't you say?
So it got to Q&A time and this is when it got fun.
Me: If men and women are spiritual equals why can't women lead prayer?
Him: He showed us how Muslims pray and explained that the sexes have to be separated because a man shouldn't be distracted by a woman's backside during prayer. Women can lead women in prayer, but only men can lead mixed prayer because women's voices can be stimulating to men...
Now, I didn't push the issue on this one... but. Wouldn't the onus then be on a man to focus on his prayers and not be distracted by women's butts (covered in modest clothing so really what can you see?) or be distracted by women's voices? Doesn't that show a weakness of spiritual character on HIS part? Also, why can't women be turned on by men's voices so shouldn't all prayer then be completely segregated and women teach women and men teach men? Or, God forbid, a gay Muslim is turned on by the backside of the man in front of him? Oh, right... there ARE no gay Muslims.
There was a discussion about interfaith marriage, and I brought up the defense of interfaith marriage written by a Muslim scholar to illustrate to the audience (most of whom are just taking his ideas at face value since they've never heard other arguments) that there IS a diversity of opinion on this issue. He said he'd never heard of such a thing so I said I'd send it to him (which I did, I never heard back though). I did not mention that this was penned as a favor to Irshad Manji, however, as I'm sure the mere mention of her name would have made his head explode.
There were some other questions about prayer and some other issues. Then someone else asked about divorce and he said that divorce is a right allowed in the Qur'an (which it is) and that marriage contracts are drawn up to decide how a divorce should occur if it does. But then, the kicker: If a couple gets divorced and has children, his interpretation is that the man gets the children. Hm... so much for that "revered for motherhood" idea, right?
So I ask: If women's God given role is that of mothers and they are revered and respected for it, why would the man get the children? Isn't that a contradiction?
He basically, in a nutshell, said that the mother couldn't be trusted with the children because she could go off and re-marry a drunk and that the man is better able to care for the children after a certain age (later to be clarified as 6 or 7). "They are my children and I have a right to decide how they are brought up" is basically what he said... so I said "but they're HER children too and YOU could go off and marry a woman who's a bad mother to those kids just as much as she could marry a drunk." During this time, Sister was shaking her head and said once or twice that she "wasn't a scholar but respectfully disagrees." We went back and forth on this for a while and then time was up.
When looking up how to spell his name correctly for the email, I did a Google search and found, not surprisingly, that he belongs to the Bridgeview Mosque (a southwest suburb of Chicago). This Mosque was investigated by the FBI for possible links to financial backing of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to the Tribune. According to one story I found, the prayer leader, Sheikh Jamal Said was partially funded by the Saudi government and has referred to Israel as a blight on the land.
In all, it ended up being less a discussion about women's rights in Islam as one man's attempt to prove to an audience of Infidels that Islam is the only right way to think and an attempt to project one, conservative and monolithic image if "Muslim." I did talk to Sister a bit afterwards and since her office is down the street from work, she said she's willing to discuss further her views with me.
In other news. My thesis has been accepted pending a few minor revisions (comma placement mostly - which I was always taught was a matter of style and preference in many of the cases that are highlighted for change - but whatever. I'll just change them and move on with my life). If you're interested in reading it, as some of you have said, email me and I'll get it to you once it's finalized and uploaded to Proquest. I don't want to post it because, well, it has my full name on it and if I post it without my name, and without the Proquest headers, it's not protected by copyright. About 4 weeks to graduation. I think I should get crackin on my final paper for my last class, huh?
On a lighter note:
So... I got into an argument with an Imam last week.
Yes, that's right. Our Muslim Student Organization organized a forum on women's rights in Islam that was to have two speakers. A female representative (I will call her Sister in lieu of using her real name) of the Chicago CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and an Imam from the Chicago Mosque foundation who I will refer to by his title of Sheikh.
It started out OK, Sister spoke a little about her own personal experiences as a Muslim woman in the US. She was born here and is a citizen, but only recently decided to start wearing the hijab (head scarf) as an expression of her faith - only after which, did she start getting questions like "where are you from?" Because, you know, only them foreigners wear hijab, right? She spoke about her view of women's rights, which are the rights afforded women in the Qur'an (which many of you might be surprised to know are quite liberal by some interepretations). She seemed to hold the classic "Muslim Feminist" view that because men and women were created spiritually equal (both Adam and Eve are to blame for tasting the fruit in the Garden of Eden and were forgiven but sent to do good works on Earth before they could re-enter heaven) but that men and women were created complimentary to one another that each has different duties. Women are revered for motherhood and their duties are to take care of the home and the children while the men are responsible for supporting the family. Pretty much your classic patriarchy. She went on to introduce the Sheikh, which was odd because I thought it was going to be a kind of panel discussion. Once he took over the floor though, she didn't get to say much. She interjected a few things here and there.
When the Sheikh took the floor, rather than getting a discussion on women's rights in Islam, we got a "history" lesson that told us that all the world's great empires eventually collapsed because they let their women run wild. Yep... apparently the world was complete shit before Islam came and got the women under control. Rome, Persia, Greeks - all fell because of loose women and the lack of a traditional family structure. He repeated some of what Sister said, about men and women being spiritually equal and then explained that women aren't allowed to touch unrelated men for their own protection and told a story about how his wife accepted her college degree without shaking the President's hand to protect her honor. Does this sound like women's rights in Islam to you? It didn't to me either.
He then explained why Muslim women can't marry outside the faith: because wives take the religion of their husbands (naturally, of course) and a Muslim woman could never covert to Christianity because Islam is the final perfect truth. There's A LOT of assumptions taken for granted in that statement, wouldn't you say?
So it got to Q&A time and this is when it got fun.
Me: If men and women are spiritual equals why can't women lead prayer?
Him: He showed us how Muslims pray and explained that the sexes have to be separated because a man shouldn't be distracted by a woman's backside during prayer. Women can lead women in prayer, but only men can lead mixed prayer because women's voices can be stimulating to men...
Now, I didn't push the issue on this one... but. Wouldn't the onus then be on a man to focus on his prayers and not be distracted by women's butts (covered in modest clothing so really what can you see?) or be distracted by women's voices? Doesn't that show a weakness of spiritual character on HIS part? Also, why can't women be turned on by men's voices so shouldn't all prayer then be completely segregated and women teach women and men teach men? Or, God forbid, a gay Muslim is turned on by the backside of the man in front of him? Oh, right... there ARE no gay Muslims.
There was a discussion about interfaith marriage, and I brought up the defense of interfaith marriage written by a Muslim scholar to illustrate to the audience (most of whom are just taking his ideas at face value since they've never heard other arguments) that there IS a diversity of opinion on this issue. He said he'd never heard of such a thing so I said I'd send it to him (which I did, I never heard back though). I did not mention that this was penned as a favor to Irshad Manji, however, as I'm sure the mere mention of her name would have made his head explode.
There were some other questions about prayer and some other issues. Then someone else asked about divorce and he said that divorce is a right allowed in the Qur'an (which it is) and that marriage contracts are drawn up to decide how a divorce should occur if it does. But then, the kicker: If a couple gets divorced and has children, his interpretation is that the man gets the children. Hm... so much for that "revered for motherhood" idea, right?
So I ask: If women's God given role is that of mothers and they are revered and respected for it, why would the man get the children? Isn't that a contradiction?
He basically, in a nutshell, said that the mother couldn't be trusted with the children because she could go off and re-marry a drunk and that the man is better able to care for the children after a certain age (later to be clarified as 6 or 7). "They are my children and I have a right to decide how they are brought up" is basically what he said... so I said "but they're HER children too and YOU could go off and marry a woman who's a bad mother to those kids just as much as she could marry a drunk." During this time, Sister was shaking her head and said once or twice that she "wasn't a scholar but respectfully disagrees." We went back and forth on this for a while and then time was up.
When looking up how to spell his name correctly for the email, I did a Google search and found, not surprisingly, that he belongs to the Bridgeview Mosque (a southwest suburb of Chicago). This Mosque was investigated by the FBI for possible links to financial backing of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to the Tribune. According to one story I found, the prayer leader, Sheikh Jamal Said was partially funded by the Saudi government and has referred to Israel as a blight on the land.
In all, it ended up being less a discussion about women's rights in Islam as one man's attempt to prove to an audience of Infidels that Islam is the only right way to think and an attempt to project one, conservative and monolithic image if "Muslim." I did talk to Sister a bit afterwards and since her office is down the street from work, she said she's willing to discuss further her views with me.
In other news. My thesis has been accepted pending a few minor revisions (comma placement mostly - which I was always taught was a matter of style and preference in many of the cases that are highlighted for change - but whatever. I'll just change them and move on with my life). If you're interested in reading it, as some of you have said, email me and I'll get it to you once it's finalized and uploaded to Proquest. I don't want to post it because, well, it has my full name on it and if I post it without my name, and without the Proquest headers, it's not protected by copyright. About 4 weeks to graduation. I think I should get crackin on my final paper for my last class, huh?
On a lighter note:
10 April 2008
09 April 2008
Reality mimics art...
I was reading the Tribune online this morning and saw this article:
A Chicago restauranteur has blatantly ripped off Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles in LA:
...So when Rosscoe's House of Chicken and Waffles opened March 15 in Chicago's Bronzeville neighborhood, the name recognition brought droves to the restaurant. There's just one discrepancy: This Roscoe's is spelled Rosscoe's.
That extra "s" prompted Roscoe's in Los Angeles to file a federal lawsuit in Chicago on Tuesday against Rosscoe's in Chicago, alleging trademark infringement. A hearing for a temporary restraining order is scheduled for Wednesday morning.
Beyond the name, there are other similarities:
•Both restaurants' logos feature a cartoon chicken standing in front of a waffle.
•Both include a drink called the "Sun Rise"—orange juice and lemonade. Both have drinks called "Sunset."
•Both feature like-sounding menu items. At Roscoe's: Carol C. Special, Natalie's Special, The Stubby. At Rosscoe's: Carol's Treat, Ed Hale Special, The Saint.
Said Herb Hudson, owner and founder of Roscoe's in Los Angeles: "We'll be suing them to the hilt."
Of course, I was immediately reminded of Coming to America:
Cleo McDowell to Akeem and Semmi: "Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."
Speaking of Roscoe's, I've never been there, though I've always wanted to go. I hate LA, but he's opening a shop in Chicago next year. Every time I hear of Roscoe's, I can't help but think of this:
A Chicago restauranteur has blatantly ripped off Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles in LA:
...So when Rosscoe's House of Chicken and Waffles opened March 15 in Chicago's Bronzeville neighborhood, the name recognition brought droves to the restaurant. There's just one discrepancy: This Roscoe's is spelled Rosscoe's.
That extra "s" prompted Roscoe's in Los Angeles to file a federal lawsuit in Chicago on Tuesday against Rosscoe's in Chicago, alleging trademark infringement. A hearing for a temporary restraining order is scheduled for Wednesday morning.
Beyond the name, there are other similarities:
•Both restaurants' logos feature a cartoon chicken standing in front of a waffle.
•Both include a drink called the "Sun Rise"—orange juice and lemonade. Both have drinks called "Sunset."
•Both feature like-sounding menu items. At Roscoe's: Carol C. Special, Natalie's Special, The Stubby. At Rosscoe's: Carol's Treat, Ed Hale Special, The Saint.
Said Herb Hudson, owner and founder of Roscoe's in Los Angeles: "We'll be suing them to the hilt."
Of course, I was immediately reminded of Coming to America:
Cleo McDowell to Akeem and Semmi: "Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."
Speaking of Roscoe's, I've never been there, though I've always wanted to go. I hate LA, but he's opening a shop in Chicago next year. Every time I hear of Roscoe's, I can't help but think of this:
08 April 2008
Movie Review: The Ruins
Donna came over this past weekend and we all went to see a movie. The Ruins was the only one playing at a time we could go that we could all agree we wanted to see.
I have to agree with most of the reviews I've read - it's decent for what it is, but it could have been a whole lot more. I hadn't read, or even heard of, the book before I saw the movie, but a lot of the other reviews I've read say how the book does a much better job exploring the group dynamics, is much creepier and intense, and ends differently than the movie. Really, it makes me want to read the book. Donna on the other hand, hated it.
The plot synopsis is this (without giving away the punchlines):
A group of four American college students (two couples) are in Mexico for a vacation. They meet a German tourist, Mathais, who is there with his brother. His brother hooked up with an archaeologist excavating an uncharted Mayan temple not far from the resort (cue eerie music) and left a map for Mathais should he choose to meet them there. Feeling bad that they've done nothing to really explore Mexico, the group decides to take Mathais up on his offer to visit the site, along with a Greek tourist named Dimitri. Despite an ominous refusal of a taxi driver to take them to the path to the temple, they go anyway (cue more eerie music).
They encounter creepy Mayan children on the path. I must point out that I am glad the filmmakers did depend on the intelligence of the viewer to determine the people were of Mayan descent rather than explain it in obvious detail. They spoke a different language, looked indigenous, and lived near an uncharted Mayan temple. There's no need to put a sign on their forehead that says "We're Mayan descendants" - though some film makers likely would have done just that in a figurative sense.
They make it to the temple and are looking for Mathais' brother when a group of Mayans ambush them. Now, not understanding what they're saying, the tourists are threatened by the Mayans and run closer to the step pyramid. They don't realize until much later that it was a warning to stay away. Once they've touched the temple, the Mayans, armed with guns and arrows, will not let them leave. They're trapped on the pyramid with no sign of Mathais' brother except abandoned tents and a shaft going down into the pyramid. They realize that the Mayans took Mathais' cell phone when he tried to show them a picture of his brother - and he was the only one who could get a signal.
They hear Mathais' brother's cell phone ringing down in the pit and explore. The rope breaks and Mathais breaks his legs and back in the fall.
The rest of the movie is them atop the pyramid finding ways to lift Mathais' out of the shaft, how to ration out what little food and water they have, and try to find a way off the pyramid and trying to determine when they might expect rescue, while the group of Mayans keeping watch keeps growing. At one point, they discover that there is something alive in the temple that is taunting and stalking them. I won't give it away (if you've read the book, I'm sure you know).
As I said before, they could have done more with the creepiness vibe and the group dynamics. Something akin to the trust issues that made Bodysnatchers and The Thing so good. Thankfully though, it did not turn into a torture porn gorefest like most of the crap that passes for horror these days.
It's decent, if you're into this kind of thing. There were a few points where John, Donna, and I couldn't contain our laughter.
I have to agree with most of the reviews I've read - it's decent for what it is, but it could have been a whole lot more. I hadn't read, or even heard of, the book before I saw the movie, but a lot of the other reviews I've read say how the book does a much better job exploring the group dynamics, is much creepier and intense, and ends differently than the movie. Really, it makes me want to read the book. Donna on the other hand, hated it.
The plot synopsis is this (without giving away the punchlines):
A group of four American college students (two couples) are in Mexico for a vacation. They meet a German tourist, Mathais, who is there with his brother. His brother hooked up with an archaeologist excavating an uncharted Mayan temple not far from the resort (cue eerie music) and left a map for Mathais should he choose to meet them there. Feeling bad that they've done nothing to really explore Mexico, the group decides to take Mathais up on his offer to visit the site, along with a Greek tourist named Dimitri. Despite an ominous refusal of a taxi driver to take them to the path to the temple, they go anyway (cue more eerie music).
They encounter creepy Mayan children on the path. I must point out that I am glad the filmmakers did depend on the intelligence of the viewer to determine the people were of Mayan descent rather than explain it in obvious detail. They spoke a different language, looked indigenous, and lived near an uncharted Mayan temple. There's no need to put a sign on their forehead that says "We're Mayan descendants" - though some film makers likely would have done just that in a figurative sense.
They make it to the temple and are looking for Mathais' brother when a group of Mayans ambush them. Now, not understanding what they're saying, the tourists are threatened by the Mayans and run closer to the step pyramid. They don't realize until much later that it was a warning to stay away. Once they've touched the temple, the Mayans, armed with guns and arrows, will not let them leave. They're trapped on the pyramid with no sign of Mathais' brother except abandoned tents and a shaft going down into the pyramid. They realize that the Mayans took Mathais' cell phone when he tried to show them a picture of his brother - and he was the only one who could get a signal.
They hear Mathais' brother's cell phone ringing down in the pit and explore. The rope breaks and Mathais breaks his legs and back in the fall.
The rest of the movie is them atop the pyramid finding ways to lift Mathais' out of the shaft, how to ration out what little food and water they have, and try to find a way off the pyramid and trying to determine when they might expect rescue, while the group of Mayans keeping watch keeps growing. At one point, they discover that there is something alive in the temple that is taunting and stalking them. I won't give it away (if you've read the book, I'm sure you know).
As I said before, they could have done more with the creepiness vibe and the group dynamics. Something akin to the trust issues that made Bodysnatchers and The Thing so good. Thankfully though, it did not turn into a torture porn gorefest like most of the crap that passes for horror these days.
It's decent, if you're into this kind of thing. There were a few points where John, Donna, and I couldn't contain our laughter.
01 April 2008
Just for fun...
22
How is that possible you ask? I'm kinda short, have no professional fight training, and haven't been in many fights.
Well, I'm not afraid to fight dirty and have no moral qualms about using children as shields and weapons. And that is why I could take 22 5-year olds...
How is that possible you ask? I'm kinda short, have no professional fight training, and haven't been in many fights.
Well, I'm not afraid to fight dirty and have no moral qualms about using children as shields and weapons. And that is why I could take 22 5-year olds...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)