I've Moved!

You're looking at the last post that will ever be on Jungle Juiced blogspot. For all recent posts, go to the new Jungle Juiced.

Thanks for sticking around, and sorry I didn't post this sooner! I've also started a blog with only Glee-related posts: Lady Glee

Red Card Homophobia

It is unbelievable and disgusting to me that such a beautiful sport like soccer can still have rampant, unchecked homophobia. Players, coaches, and fans are all guilty of condoning and saying homophobic comments. I can't understand how the game has made it this far into the new millennium without making some sort of rule against homophobic statements and actions taken by managers and players.

Recently, a popular French player was rejected from his team after going on sabbatical. He originally took a break because two of his teammates made public homophobic remarks, and upon his return, the club rejected him instead of punishing the 'phobes. (Source)


This player is even more recognizable in the football world: Michael Ballack. His manager, Michael Becker, reportedly attacked the German national squad, saying that the team was run by a "gay combo": Phillip Lahm and Thomas Müller who are "poor, ugly, untalented, bureaucratic, inhuman and gay." (Source)

These sorts of issues go completely unmentioned by most English-speaking media. You would be extremely hard-pressed to find the Ballack story on any Anglophone news source, and, in fact, I had to translate the cited portions from Spanish. Homophobia and football should never mix so easily, but it does on a daily basis.

Over on LiveJournal, ONTD_Football has started a movement to eradicate homophobia from the stands as well as the pitch. Our new org, Red Card Homophobia, is just starting out and you can help out by tweeting to your favorite players' twitter accounts and using the hashtag #redcardhomophobia.

We also have a brand new WordPress blog dedicated to spreading awareness and encouraging all football fans to kick homophobia out of football. http://redcardhomophobia.wordpress.com

Lady Gaga's Power Jacket

On August 6th, my favorite performer wore a very conspicuous jacket for her appearance in this year's Lollapalooza. Gaga Stigmata suggested a discussion... so here's my contribution.





The first thing that really stands out when I look at this jacket, is the height of the shoulder-pads. Thanks to the 80s, I associate the height of shoulder-pads on women as a sign of their power and self-respect in fashion. Honestly, what I really start thinking about is the movie, Heathers, in which the queen bee appears in a red blazer while at home with her friends:



As you can see here, apart from being in the center of the frame, she also happens to have the highest shoulder pads. Heather Duke always wears the highest shoulder pads and is obviously the most demanding of respect. Her power, both among her friends and throughout her school, is demonstrated through her clothing: her wardrobe consists mainly of these types of blazers and are very similar to business suits for women.

Shoulder pads equate with power through their derivation from menswear; they command respect and demand attention. Broad shoulders indicate strength, and shoulder pads are clearly designed to emulate the physical trait. The strength of body expresses womyn's strength of mind; as womyn enter the workplace they must blend in with the society they are infiltrating. In the words of Pierre Bourdieu: "Social categories disadvantaged by the symbolic order, such as women and the young, cannot but recognize the legitimacy of the dominant classification in the very fact that their only chance of neutralizing those of its effects most contrary to their own interests lies in submitting to them in order to make use of them" (1). In short, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The marginalization of womyn required that they "think male," and in order to think male, looking like them -- to a certain extent -- proved to be necessary in order to achieve some semblance of equality in the workplace and society.

Lady Gaga has proved to be able to 'join 'em' as she has distorted what it means to be female or male through her derision at the rumors of her having a penis. In this Lollapalooza performance, on the other hand, she thinks male through her outrageous shoulder pads. Like Heather Duke, she expresses her strength through her fashions. Both Heather and Gaga control masses of people, and demand respect from fans and haters alike. However, their similarities end there.

What I find most interesting about these statements of power, is that they are farcical and are self deprecating, to a certain extent. While it is true that Lady Gaga takes her art seriously, she does not do the same with her fame and power. She has said that she has "zero perception of [her] celebrity presentation" (2) and that her fans "subconsciously transmit all of their freedom, and their love, and their joy into me; through the show, through [her] communication with them, it's almost like [they] have [their] own little spiritual connection separate from everything else" (3). Through these sentiments about her own inspiration, we can see that her power is not a hierarchical structure, as it has been in the West prior to Lady Gaga's rise to stardom. Her fame and power, as she understands them, exist as a symbiotic relationship in which they feed inspiration and love to one another. Her perception of herself and presentation, therefore, do not mirror the fashion philosophy behind the shoulder pads.

Frequently she is discussed as Mama Monster, and has been portrayed by the media as one of the most powerful and influential people in the world. This understanding of her, which is not necessarily her own, does mirror the fashion philosophy. But since it is not her own, Gaga chooses to satirize it. Yes, she will emulate the strength and power people believe she has, but she will go far beyond people's expectations to the point of spectacle.

________________________________

1. Amalia Sa'ar, "Postcolonial Feminism, the Politics of Identification, and the Liberal Bargain," Gender and Society 19, no. 5 (October 2005): 680-700. http://www.jstor.org/stable/

27640835 (accessed August 18, 2010), 685.

2. Lady Gaga, interview with Alexander Fury, May 2010, Show Studio, 

On-Demand video, http://showstudio.com/project/in_camera/lady_gaga (accessed August 27, 2010).  

3. Ibid. 

On Glee Goes Gaga

First of all: apologies for this being nearly a week after the episode airs.


I have been an avid watcher of Glee since the very beginning, and I have frequently criticized the show for the lazy writing and sporadic moments of character development. But when FOX announced that Madonna would be the focus of a single episode, my hopes were met, even exceeded by what the cast and writers delivered. Then came the advertisements for "Glee goes GAGA." I imagined that the writers would spend boundless efforts on giving the best script for the most popular artist in the world. Madonna inspired Lady Gaga to an unbelievable extent, but there was absolutely no continuing arc from Madonna to Gaga despite the obvious artistic arc in the real world.

The writers did not put any thought into the meaning of Lady Gaga's lyrics at all. "Poker Face," for example, does not fit the scene of Rachel and her estranged birth mother in the slightest. Firstly, due to the well-known and publicized fact that "Poker Face" is a very sensual song, something not befitting a mother and daughter. There was nothing sexual at all between the two in earlier scenes--FOX would never allow it--so why introduce the Oedipal(*) concept in the last few minutes? And the Oedipal element is there: in the looks Rachel gives her mother as they sing, the young girl is seducing her mother. 


I was, however, pleased with the "Bad Romance" number if only because Kurt (Chris Colfer) has an amazing voice. Colfer is absolutely stunning in this series, and especially in this episode. His intense commitment to the role makes for beautiful and moving television--he represents everything that I love about contemporary television. "Bad Romance" brings together all of Lady Gaga's most brilliant costumes--with the exception of Rachel's beanie baby dress instead of just Kermit the Frogs-- in an effort to get the characters comfortable with themselves through theatricality. 


To continue, this arrangement and choreography worked because of the trainwreck seen only a few moments before as the female leads spy on a Vocal Adrenaline rehearsal. Frankly, the fact that Vocal Adrenaline was so lackluster is incredibly out of the show's character: this group has been seen as so over-the-top, so impressive, that this rehearsal is just another example of poor attention to canon development. On its own, the number might not be as successful, despite the wonderful close-ups of Quinn (Dianna Agron), Kurt, and Santana (Naya Rivera). 


An aside: Rivera looked absolutely stunning in her Gaga-wear. Santana is by far one of my favorite characters on the program.


Final aside: This episode was a wonderful showcase of Colfer's talent, if nothing else. 


* I would like to point out the Oedipal element occurring between Rachel and her mother, briefly. Rachel, having been raised with two gay fathers, presents a problem for the typical Elektra/Oedipus complex in that she can identify (in the Freudian sense) with neither parent because she sees no resemblance with her own body, there is no differentiation. As a result she places her adoration on people that she can identify with: female vocalists. Her aspirations for stardom are a parallel to what she would experience had she experienced a typical Oedipus complex. Once her mother turns out to be an extremely talented female vocalist, as she had been wishing for her entire life, her Oedipal identification turns to her biological mother. But more on that in the future.

Too Long; Don't Read

I keep rethinking what I want to do with myself for a career. Since (nearly) infancy, I have been saying that I do not, under any circumstances, want to be a teacher. It is the very reason I did not apply for the Teach for America program with the rest of my ambitious friends. Well, NOW I'm thinking it wouldn't be such a bad gig. Especially if I could be an undergraduate class professor/lecturer and teach basically whatever the hell I want. High school teaching (something I was even more adamantly against) doesn't even sound that bad anymore. I could be that person that would help high school kids love literature again (or, perhaps, for the first time). I remember having an easy time relating it to my other classes, but I also remember seeing people who couldn't make those connections. Maybe that would help them like to read? IDK.

My plan after graduation was always to take a year or two for breathing and possibly traveling, and then applying to law schools on the East Coast and in Canada. But now? Well, now I don't know what the heck I want.... again again again. I am actually very insecure about the level of my analytic writing, even though I consistently do well in all of my classes. I feel like TAs just get so excited to see papers that have actual arguments, that they forget to look at the quality of what I am saying. And I fear that if I were to pursue comparative literature and academia, I would be called out on my lack of talent and insight.

This fear is something that has plagued me since high school when I realized exactly how badly read I was in comparison to one of my archnemeses. No... we weren't really like that. But I did admire her in that resenting sort of way that I would imagine occurs with archnemeses. I feel like I would have to spend this entire year reading nonstop, going to language classes, and practicing my writing in order to be on the level that I want to be. However, I know that I do not have the discipline to do that in this year of breather that I am planning.

And I don't WANT to spend it in academia but not in academia. I want to spend it visiting friends. I want to pay off my credit card debt. I want to go to Electric Daisy Carnival with my friends. I want to visit my family in Chile. I want to experience (relative) freedom: I don't want to plan my life around exams, papers, etc.

Law has always interested me as well, but I know that I would also not really like to be a practicing lawyer. I LIKE theory, international law, and abstract concepts that most likely will never be realized. I think the only way I would practice, is if I went to Israel/Palestine and somehow could defend the detainees. The Israel-Palestine apartheid, international humanitarian law, and maritime law are what got me thinking about law school in the first place. I like a lot of things and I am good at most of what I like! Except photography. I am NOT good at photography. But I digress.

I know that I have posted about this a couple of times in the past, so thank you for putting up with my endless angsting about scary things like the Future, Academia, and the like. But here I am again: completely confused.

I suppose either way I'd be able to stay in academia, now, wouldn't I?

As far as continuing comp lit, I think what I really need is someone with a PhD or an MA to tell me that my analytical skills and my ideas are good enough for grad school. And with law? I just need to know if that's what I want. Why can't I go to both simultaneously? Fff. As if I could afford that. As if my stress levels wouldn't be high enough with just one of the two. The nice thing about comparative lit, however, is that I could analyze my literature through legal scopes. And I suppose that I could even someday maybe win some money after either law or grad school, go back, and do whichever I didn't do.

I had this discussion with my mother a few weeks ago. She tried to cheer me up by telling me that the reason I'm taking time off is to think about things and rest. She reminded me that I hate undergrad, but of course, she couldn't tell me (at all) if grad school was anything like undergrad. So I pose my question to those of you who have gone on to higher higher education: is grad school the same as undergrad which is the same as high school? Was it worth it?

I can't wait until I have to make my decisions.... jeeeeezus. Why can't my mom make all of my decisions for me? Oh right... because then I would have ended up and some semi-private school alongside the beach-- oh wait. Sorry, I'm still bitter about the fact that my parents are too poor to afford NYU (yes, I got in), but too rich to get any financial aid. And I know this one girl who has basically a full ride to UC Irvine, is currently studying abroad in Spain, not because she's super smart, but because she's 'poor.' FF, her mother doesn't even WORK... hell, the woman doesn't even speak English. But, again, I digress.

Vancouver Olympics

I don't believe I've ever felt antipathetic to any incarnation of the Olympic games before. But this time, I am. In this kind of economy, where the city of Vancouver can't afford to help its schools and hospitals, it has the funds to put on the greatest and most expensive sporting competition? That's a whole lot of crap.

In addition to the fat lot of money the IOC is stuffing into their pockets, this sporting event is being held on indigenous lands the government had no right to take in the first place. "Although today the government seeks 'modern-day treaties' with its Indian Act band councils, the fact is in 'BC' the land is clearly occupied by an illegal colonial system. " (No 2010)

What about those people that have lost their jobs and homes? The 2008/9 economic crisis has been crippling, and yet, BC has the audacity to ignore poverty and put on an event that brings revenue to Coca-Cola, Mastercard/Visa, etc!

For a better report on the reasons to protest the Olympic 2010 Games, go to: Democracy Now! Report

War and Napalm

Disclaimer: The text comes from Apocalypse Now (c) 1979
___________________________________________

You smell that?

Do
You
Smell
That?

Napalm,
Son.

Nothing else
In the world
Smells like that.

I love the smell
Of napalm
In the morning.

You know,
One time we
Had a hill
Bombed,
For twelve hours.

When it was all
Over
I walked up.

We didn't find
One of 'em,

Not
One
Stinkin'
Dink
Body.

The smell,
You know
That gasoline smell,
The whole hill.

Smelled like...

Victory.

Someday

This war's gonna

End...

Clueless is Life: A Poetic Encounter with Hollywood Truth

DISCLAIMER: I take no credit for the text. It comes from the movie, Clueless (c) 1995

This is an add-on to the recent post I made about extending aid to Haitians:
_______________________________________________

So like, right now for example.
The Haiti-ans need to come to America.

But some people are all,
"What about the strain on our resources?"

Well it's like when I had this garden party for
my father's birthday, right? I put
R.S.V.P. 'cause it was a sit-down dinner.
But some people came that
like did not R.S.V.P.

I was like totally buggin'.

I had to haul ass to the kitchen,
redistribute the food,
and

squish in extra place settings.

But
by the end of the day it was,
like,

the more the merrier.

And so
if the government could just

get to the kitchen,
rearrange some things,
we could certainly party with the Haiti-ans.

And
in conclusion
may I please remind you
it does not say R.S.V.P. on
the Statue of Liberty.

Thank you very much.

For the Greater Good: Haiti

In the wake of the Haiti earthquake, lovely lovely Americans have been providing so much aid to the Haitian people, but is it enough? Today on CNN, I watched a debate take place regarding the issue of the inevitable influx of Haitian immigration to the US. Can our country support the estimated 200,000 people that may make their way here in need of assistance? Currently, the US has a policy referred to as TPS, or Temporary Protective Services, which allows accepted people to remain in the US for 18 months-- legally. So the debate is: should the US approve more TPS applications from Haitians in need?

I think, yes. As much as I agree with the fact that Americans come first, in this time of need, it is crucial that we accommodate the needs of a small country like Haiti. It is crucial that a large population leaves the country in order for the Haitian government to be able to properly rebuild; the government needs to make sure that citizens are granted a safe haven so that valuable time and resources can rebuild instead of shelter.

However, that doesn't mean that we should take everyone in. In fact, all proximal countries should be willing to open their borders to the influx and grant similar permits to worthy citizens. I say worthy because it is important that each participating government do the best they can to keep their citizens safe from criminals that may attempt to enter the country.

Haiti needs to rebuild so much: hospitals, schools, homes, etc; and they also need to take care of the injured as well as the dead. News reports are showing footage of the dead on sidewalks, which is not only disrespectful to the departed (don't misunderstand, i'm not accusing, merely observing), but very hazardous to the healthy as those bodies begin to decompose. Furthermore, desperation is leading to looting and other acts of violence, things that almost always happens after or just prior to the natural disaster.

Of course, there's always a downside right? That silver lining is weighing the cloud down.

The pressure on taxpayers will be enormous. With unemployment at 10%, it's no wonder that everyone should be wary of the influx. But at the very least, we can place them in homes in the same way that Americans reached out to Katrina disaster survivors. As an incentive, the US government should be willing to deduct expenses from taxes. Placement in homes may be the best way to alleviate the immediate crisis, but Americans living in stable homes can alleviate their own troubles by helping their new boarders find menial jobs-- jobs we know that Americans rarely want to take. It is incredibly unlikely that higher position jobs will be available but corporations like McDonalds always have openings in positions. Work is work. Those wages can help pay a small rent, or pay for community education, clothing, etc. Education is by far the best way to help rebuild Haiti from the outside. While the Haitian government rebuilds the inside by building hospitals, schools, etc, we can prepare refugees from the outside. At this point, I definitely sound like I'm preaching the White Man's Burden, but I think this sort of policy should be adopted by all of those proximal countries who open their borders. Let's not forget that Mexico has an excellent education system, and there are families who are well off enough to be able to support an extra person. It will take cooperation from everyone to be able to fix the current situation.

Ugh. that wasn't nearly as intellectual as I wanted it to be... but it's also not as researched. IT WILL HAVE TO DO.

x-posted to LJ

In which I nerd about Harry Potter- be warned.

I'm pretty much a huge fan of Harry/Draco or Draco/Harry (Harry's a little bitch)... But almost everything I've read so far just doesn't cut it. I mean... I can't really see those two in anything but a hate!sex situation. It's canon. THEY HATE EACH OTHER. Perhaps something in those 19 years between the end of the war and when they see their children off in the epilogue made them go from hate to indifference, but nothing can make them feel love for each other. I'm certain of that... At least the way that I interpret their dynamic in the books... And you can't have indifferent sex...Harry's not the type.

So it bugs me when they're in fluff, or when they're in something resembling a stable relationship, OR even just a "loving" relationship. Harry and Draco just don't like each other. Even when they first met in Madame Malkin's, there was animosity. Draco's a greasy sort, Harry's fucking poor. It's understandable that they wouldn't even get along then. But I do agree that there IS something that made Draco be relatively personable in that store: fear. DUH. He was fucking petrified of starting school sans friends. Can you imagine the ridicule he'd withstand? As a MotherFuckinMalfoy? That would have been a friendship of convenience, just like his "friendships" with Crabbe and Goyle. Those two are idiots who treat him like their lord. Harry would have been the third if he'd gone for that shit.

And I'm fairly certain that deep down, both Harry and Draco know that bit.

Let's flash-forward to the full-on war in Deathly Hallows. Harry saves Draco, like, what, three times? It's most certainly not because they feel something for each other, 'shippers please stop justifying from that moment, but rather because Harry Potter is moronically afraid of becoming like Voldie or stooping to his level. He's not a murderer, and he admits it in that epic argument with Lupin about Stan Shunpike. He's REALLY not a murderer. Killing Voldie --- shit i forgot how that happened REFRESH MY MEMORY PLEASE -- well that was because DUMBLEDORE told him to. Knowing that Dumblydorr had a dark past, I think, shocked Harry (obviously) but also made him realize that his god is mortal. Death, surprisingly, immortalized Dumbledore for Harry and so, Harry really needed that darkness to complete Dumbledore as a person. Naturally, finding out HOW dark of a past inevitably hurts the soul: it's disgustingly hard to find out that your hero was once the opposite of the person you knew.

Indeed Dumbledore spares Draco, having been able to kill him easily. And he proved his point ages ago against his former lover, Grindelwald. By trapping Grindelwald in his own dungeons, he assures Harry that murder isn't an option.

Harry also wouldn't be able to withstand the trauma of committing murder, his psyche is quite frail as he's proven numerous times throughout the Saga. (Can I just add that HP series actually DESERVES the title "saga" ?) As Voldemort proved many times over through the creation of Horcruxes, murder is very damaging to the soul. Being able to rip his soul into numerous pieces shows a certain strength that Potter simply does not have.

So that's why Draco lived. Not to mention that Harry sees quite clearly that Draco also has a soul: Malfoy mourns the loss of his cronies as much as Harry would mourn the deaths of his own friends.

That doesn't beget love. It creates a bond between two individuals that most certainly cannot be broken, but remember: love can break. Perhaps this bond has the potential to become "love," but it is not cause and effect. Draco is most likely conflicted about this connection in the same way that Harry is. Neither one can honestly believe that they have saved each other, and it's extremely difficult for their minds to wrap around. They hate each other, but they're indebted to each other: they owe their very own lives. That's not love either. That's confusion.

I'm certain that that confusion would suffocate them if they were to mistake the bond they share for love.

So far I've seen one good hate!sex and the rest all preach love and happiness between the two. I'll read it for now, because the authors' styles are engaging and entertaining, but I'm slowly getting very sick of seeing it.

I'm alright with people disagreeing, I think. But can you see why I'm iffy about them?

x-posted to LiveJournal