Obama killed Osama: Strategy Fail

From an unscientific internet poll on the left-leaning MSN.com:

And coming up next at the #Fail network: "Forward"!


....I knew that sounded awfully familiar. From Wikipedia: 


 Vorwärts (“Forward”) was the central organ of the Social Democratic Party of Germany published daily in Berlin from 1891 to 1933 by decision of the party’s Halle Congress, as the successor of Berliner Volksblatt, founded in 1884. 


 Friedrich Engels and Kurt Tucholsky both wrote for Vorwärts. It backed the Russian Marxist economists and then, after the split in the Party, the Mensheviks. It published articles by Leon Trotsky, but would not publish any by Vladimir Lenin. . . 


 Vorwaerts lives on today as the house organ of Germany’s leftist SPD; you can read all about its illustrious history here (in German). And if you don’t think David Axelrod doesn’t know this, you really ought to think again.


A variation on Mao's "Great Leap Forward", perhaps?

All #Fail, all the time...!

George Takei Is An Idiot

Yeah, I know, how can I be so mean?  Mr. Sulu is funny, witty, a pop-culture internet sensation, and oh-so-delightfully gay!

But like most liberals, he has anger issues, and he displaces most of them upon American conservatives, who have little if nothing to do with him and his myriad of issues.

Takei writes what would be a moving piece about his - and his family's -  imprisonment in Japanese internment camps in Arkansas and California shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  Takei goes on to describe the horrific conditions and the cruel injustice of the camps, and how they tore apart families and communities.

Fine and good.  Takei speaks of the 70th anniversary of those dark days, and he is a good spokesman for the cause.  But what struck me is that within the entire piece, he does not once mention the name of the man who ordered Japanese-Americans to be marched from their homes and into squalid camps: FDR.

He does mention the name of one politician, though:

President Ronald Reagan only reluctantly signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. It expressed regret for the injustice and paid a token redress of $20,000 to those survivors still alive. My father had already passed away in 1979, never to know of the apology or receive the redress money.


"Reluctantly"?  There is no record of Reagan being reluctant to sign this bill.  Takei can only imagine Reagan as most liberals of the time saw him - as a simpleton, a warmonger, and a rabid conservative - and so makes an assumption about his mindset that has no factual or historical basis.

Kyle Smith goes further:

So Reagan’s alleged state of mind is more worthy of note than the name of the man who put Takei and his family in prison. The one political figure Takei singles out for his wrath, the man we should despise for all this is the one president who apologized and made partial amends for the outrage.


Can I make an assumption about Takei's mindset?  He cannot criticize FDR, the lion of the Left whose name is still spoken with reverence, regardless of the hate crimes he committed against Takei and his family.  Frustrated, he lashes out at the one man who said, "I'm sorry", unloading his repressed rage and hostility upon an acceptable (by the Left), if entirely innocent, target.

I'm sorry about what happened to you and your family, George.  I'm sorry your hero treated you so shabbily.  And I understand you must harbor feelings of rage and resentment that I cannot hope to understand.

But when you attack with vengeance the one man who offered you his hand, well....my sympathy dips a bit, I'm sorry to say.  And while I can fairly say that you and your family were mistreated by FDR and his government, I can also say this:

For a grown man, you're a puerile little bitch.  And an idiot to boot...

Yahoo! Tells Us: In 2012, Cool Über Alles!

Forget about soaring gas prices, creeping inflation, real unemployment of close to 15%, a national debt reaching unimaginable numbers, a social safety net in danger of shredding under it underfunded burden, and a world sinking into chaos.

According to Yahoo!, none of this matters. The 2012 election will be decided based upon whose party has the coolest candidate. And you know who that is...

Sigh:

VP contenders help Romney fill cool gap

The reflected glow of Republican stars means buzz for Romney during a lull in the campaign action. The famously square presumptive GOP nominee may just find the right campaign formula in the process...

The veepstakes action comes as something remarkable is happening in the campaign: The Romney campaign appears ready to cede the likability argument to President Obama.


Strange too, how Yahoo! leaves out a key word in a key part of their article.  Screenshot, in case they eventually edit (click to enlarge):

Just can't get that phrase - "don't vote for him" (as in Obama)  - out of your proverbial mouths, can you, Yahoo?

Somewhere, Freud nods his head sagely.  And hear in America, the foundations of the Republic crumble, while its would-be guardians argue over who's "cooler"...



(more of my beefs with Yahoo's slanted news service here,  here,  here and here...)

In Which I Forgot What A Douche Jimmy Fallon Is...

You know, it's not just the fact he lent Barack Obama a campaign appearance on his late night show - one that may, in fact, be in violation of federal election law. Or that his "slow jam" with Obama may be the most undignified moment ever for a sitting American president (at least George H. Bush vomited on the Japanese Emperor or whomever by accident; the Fallon debacle is the equivalent of Obama forcing his finger down his throat).

No, it's not because Fallon made me cringe as he fawned over the president like a star-struck schoolboy, ready to shine his shoes with a toothbrush - lodged between his teeth  - should Obama have asked (is that type of obvious subservience really the new "cool"?)

It was when I was reminded of how Fallon treated a different politician, that I achieved enlightenment, and realized: Holy shit, this Fallon guy is a real Grade A douchebag:

Jimmy Fallon, the host of NBC's "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon," issued an apology Tuesday night to Republican Presidential contender Michele Bachmann after a snippet of a controversial song was performed by the show's band as she took the stage.

As Bachmann strode on to the NBC stage for Fallon's late-night show, the program's band, led by Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson, played a snippet of a 1985 Fishbone song called "Lyin' Ass Bitch."

How big of a prick is Fallon? Bad enough he behaves childishly and boorishly, and mean-spirit, towards a well-intentioned female guest (what? A Democrat mistreating a woman? No!), but what happens when a real "lyin-ass bitch" comes onto his show?

Why, he drops to his knees and sucks him off. Without even really understanding why he's doing it. Who thinks he's rebel-cool, even when on all fours before the wing-tips of power.

What a douche. What a typical Hollywood liberal douche.

Karma, Jimmy, karma.  Mistreating women and licking the balls of the president will get you far among the liberal elite, but not among the population at large, who will effectively determine your career trajectory.

And for some, the embrace of The One has not been a Midas touch, but more of the Kiss of Death.

Just ask Oprah Winfrey.

Separate but Equal

A paradox in the making of the world has shone light on a topic that the world suffers most from, Racism.

Racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. For this blog post, I’m not only talking about Racism in the area of Race, but also in the area of stereotypes.

How can one be called a racist? Well, one must not tolerate the other race. Anyone can be called a racist these days. This is because everyone has ideas about other people. They are all socialized to believe that they are of one race and the others around them are different. Some people teach their children not to socialize with other children from different ethnicities or even races due to the fear of “Identity loss”.

How can one have an identity when one lives in such a diverse world? There are people in the same family that are of different races, let alone your next-door neighbors or your friends. Everyone is different; people need to seriously start realizing that!

My latest project in my major class was about Labor workers in Qatar and how they live their social life. Out reporting for hours on end in this mild spring weather, I realized that there’s a lot that people don’t know about this place.

The workers had one day to socialize and they use that day to do their shopping, play cricket with friends and make the longest phone-call to their home country.

They are seen as single workers who are not allowed in on Fridays to Malls. Well, in this country, Friday is Family Day. They are seen as the workers who people don’t want to associate themselves with all the time, unless they have to.

If we actually think about it, these people are the ones putting their sweat and blood into building our nation and we repay them with what?! Little money! One day off! Living in poor housing, complexes outside the main city. They’re fine with all of that trust me! But then you even take away their privilege of being free to roam in the country they are building? Why?

An anthropologist, Ms. Rico said that it is “Violent” that these workers cannot enjoy the privileges that they are building for us. It really is a sad image to see when a worker builds the mall and when it is finally open, he is not allowed in to see his work complete.

Sociology has played a huge part in making this issue come to reality. The more people are socialized from their birth to be with the people they look like; this would never be a world with no discrimination, racism or hate!

Stereotypes are given to everyone from all races, there are even jokes made about these stereotypes. Humor and movies are used to shine light that not everyone is equal, but not everyone is separate either. I guess that’s what the workers would witness time and time again, they are equal with people, the citizens, but they are also very separate and living separate lives.

The White House Correspondents Dinner: Talk About Whores...

What a distasteful event.  We already know the media has betrayed the Founder's dream of an independent press that would hold the powerful to account, do they really need an annual party celebrating their disloyalty to the American people?

Ilana Mercer:

During the sickening specter, some of the most pretentious, worthless people in the country—in politics, journalism and entertainment—get together to revel in their ability to petition and curry favor with one another, usually to the detriment of the rest of us. The annual pimping of the office is nothing new.

Like nothing else, the annual White House correspondents’ dinner is a mark of corrupt politics. The un-watchful dogs of the media have no business frolicking with the president and his minions. This is co-optation. 

Gawker:

....the most powerful elements of our nation's DC press corps are all "on the same team" as the people they cover (politicians) and the people they idolize (celebrities). This is called the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, and it is the single most revolting annual gathering of pseudojournalistic cocksuckery in all the land.

This is not just any segment of the working press, enjoying a night out. This is the DC press corps, which has arguably the most important job in American journalism: informing the public about the activities of its government, and serving as a strong and omnipresent check on the government's power. Great to know that our fearless watchdogs are busy swilling wine with the people they are supposed to be covering and introducing them to their wives and posing for pictures with Mila Kunis.


And the hosts never fail to deliver the mean-spirited sense of humor that liberals are famous for.  2009 had Wanda Sykes praying for Rush Limbaugh's death; Jimmy Kimmel picked up the theme last night:

Kimmel defended fellow comedian Bill Maher in a bit about Rush Limbaugh.

"Just to clear things this up for the extreme right wingers, here's the difference between Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh," Kimmel explained. "The people who watch Bill Maher know he's an ---hole."

And just to clear things up for the extreme left wingers at last night's "Dinner": You guys are whores, selling your soul to suck political/celebrity dick.  And your johns know it.  Remember what Obama said to you at the same event, again back in 2009?

Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me.

Yeah, it's funny 'cause it's true...

Umpire Jeff Kellogg Now MLB's Leading Tackler...

...as he brought down this unruly fan with a from-behind NFL-style tackle:

Short clip:

One has to figure that Kellogg is a conservative - refusing to stand around waiting for someone else to help, disgusted at watching a lawbreaker sully the field without sanction, he took matters into his own hands, literally.

It's what conservatives do, I suppose.  And what to liberals do?  They write snarky, cheap-shot opinions from the bench, then scurry away.  Lke Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagen, slipping this bit of catcalling into a decision:

...Truth be told, the answer to the general question “What does ‘not an’ mean?” is “It depends”: The meaning of the phrase turns on its context...Not an” sometimes means “not any,” in the way Novo claims. If your spouse tells you he is late because he “did not take a cab,” you will infer that he took no cab at all (but took the bus instead). And if a sports-fan friend bemoans that “the New York Mets do not have a chance of winning the World Series,” you will gather that the team has no chance whatsoever (because they have no hitting).

Cheap shot, your honor.  Next time, take off your robe, head to Citi Field, and boo out loud.  I hear there are still plenty of seats available...

Good vs. Bad

We’ve been talking about Arab stereotypes quite a bit recently and how Hollywood portrays us in several different negative ways: the most prominent being as terrorists. When we see these images, we usually (as expected) criticize the film and the filmmaker for having such prejudiced views against us.

But, when we were watching the film, Amreeka, which was directed by an Arab woman, I realized there were a lot of stereotypes about Arabs in there as well. These stereotypes, however, had a much different effect on me.

For me, a lot of the comedy in this film came from recognizing these stereotypes. My favourite one being the cute, sarcastic grandmother that tends to worry a bit too much.

I started to wonder why these were stereotypes different. Was it because they had nothing to do with portraying Arabs as backwards and violent people? Or did it have more to do with the fact that these were stereotypes I faced on a daily basis and were written by an Arab herself?

I think who the filmmaker or the screenwriter is makes a huge difference. Usually, when Hollywood uses Arab stereotypes, they use it to create an outgroup – they make the Arab the “other.” They use this to socialize the viewers and fill them with fear, hatred, and discrimination, When an Arab filmmaker uses an Arab stereotype, however, they create an ingroup, allowing other Arab viewers to identify with what’s going in the film and better connect with it.

I even caught myself writing a very stereotypical portrayal of a Palestinian mother who only cares about her daughter getting married in one of my scripts. When my friends read it, they found it absolutely hilarious because they could all almost relate the character to their own mothers. When I took a second look at it myself, I criticized myself because I know that there is a lot more to Arab mothers than just being an obsessive and psychotic matchmaker. But for some reason, I was reinforcing that stereotype.

I guess the important thing with all stereotypes, whether they’re “good” (I’m not sure they can be) or bad ones, is to recognize the fact that they are stereotypes and to interrupt the process of socialization. 

The Bin Laden Raid: Obama Once Again Taking Credit For Someone Else's Work?

When it goes right, all credit and praise be upon He, Barack Hussein Obama, the one who has brought us out of the darkness and into the light.

When it goes wrong, it is everyone else's fault...but usually George W. Bush, the Republican Party, or Big Oil is usually to blame.

But so hungry for is The One to develop a Midas-touch mythology, that he's developed a nasty habit of taking credit for successes that don't have the remotely anything to do with him. You'd almost think he invented shale drilling, or passed this 25 year old government program, or is in favor of building pipelines, if you listen to Obama pat himself on the back for these "success stories".

But he may have gone a bit too far with his recent campaign ads congratulating himself for killing Osama Bin Laden, while claiming Mitt Romney would have been too much of a pussy to do the same thing.  For the more information that comes out about the day Bin Laden died, the more it seems that Obama, as with everything else in the presidency, was only peripherally involved, at best.

Investors.com:

As reported by Big Peace, Time magazine has obtained a memo written by Leon Panetta, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now-Secretary of Defense, that says "operational decision-making and control" was really in the hands of William McRaven, a three-star admiral and former Navy SEAL.

"The timing, operational decision-making and control are in Adm. McRaven's hands," the memo says. "The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and, if he is not there, to get out."

In other words, it was McRaven's call to pull the trigger or not on the raid.

Obama watching the raid from a position best described as "on the outside"...

Our brave president had already built in a "blame factor" if the raid went askew:

The Panetta memo, rather than presenting a profile in courage, says "approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president." This left enough wiggle room to blame the operation planners and controllers if the raid had gone as wrong as President Jimmy Carter's famous failure to rescue American hostages held by Iran. This memo left room for the blame for another "Blackhawk Down" snafu to be blamed on anyone and everyone but President Obama.

Luckily, operational control was in McRaven's hands, and the planning, execution and decision-making were virtually flawless...


...and not in Obama's hands, where he would still be in the process of picking a blue-ribbon committee to weigh the options available.

Surprised Time would even run this story, as the MSMS's default position in news reporting is not primarily the need to inform the public, but first and foremost how any one piece of information may affect the re-election fortunes of Barack Obama. But this story is bigger than one man - yes, even you, Mr. President - and the truth will come out sooner rather than later this time.

Might turn out that the Osama raid may just be one more thing Obama will not be able to run on this fall...

Did Elizabeth Warren Exploit Native Americans For Her Own Gain?

Hey - they couldn't have built those teepees without her help!  Well, wait a second...

This story has so many ironies, I don't even know where to begin:

Elizabeth Warren’s avowed Native American heritage — which the candidate rarely if ever discusses on the campaign trail — was once touted by embattled Harvard Law School officials who cited her claim as proof of their faculty’s diversity.

Warren’s claim, which surfaced yesterday after a Herald inquiry, put the candidate in an awkward position as campaign aides last night scrambled but failed to produce documents proving her family lineage. Aides said the tales of Warren’s Cherokee and Delaware tribe ancestors have been passed down through family lore.

Like most Americans, Elizabeth learned of her heritage through conversations with her grandparents, her parents, and her aunts and uncles,” said Warren’s strategist Kyle Sullivan.

Grew up tracking buffalo through the Plains, made her millions in Reservation casinos?

The Ivy League law school prominently touted Warren’s Native American background, however, in an effort to bolster their diversity hiring record in the ’90s as the school came under heavy fire for a faculty that was then predominantly white and male.

Christopher Child, a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogical Society, traced back Warren’s family to her great-grandfather on her mother’s side and couldn’t find any proof of Native American heritage....


 Chris, don't waste your time. So desperate was Warren to deny her whiteness and be a minority, any kind of minority, that she stole herself some native American heritage and claimed it as her own. One doubts she would even have the gratitude to often the poor bastards some colored glass beads and (disease-free) blankets...

Was this a way for our precious little 1%-er to quicken her movement up the faculty ladder at a grateful university, who could claim her as Indian AND female, and thus kill two politically correct birds with one sacred stone?

Or was she so dying to be one of the oppressed - so that she could "legitimately" claim oppression, and claim to speak on behalf of those "oppressed" - that she created a new identity for herself?

Was it a way, perhaps, to secure that sweet interest -free loan that Harvard gave her?

Or did she really just want to be cool?

Somehow, I don't believe that even the people of Taxachusetts are going to fall for this old Indian woman.   I think by speaking with forked tongue, Elizabeth Warren is in heap of big trouble...

Democratic War On Women Continues Unabated

Via Instapundit 

Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate calls the mother of his child a “crazy slut.”

Yeah, respect for moms, and all that...

Ann Althouse:

Meanwhile, Edwards still lives "in a sprawling house on about 100 acres with two of his children, Emma Claire, 13, and Jack, 11." Their mother is dead. Their dad faces 30 years in prison for letting friends help him hide his adulterous affair from the public.

Nobody cares.


See why liberals are so adamant that all women get free birth control?  The other option is winding up like John Edwards - being responsible for people you brought into the world.  You can accept that responsibility, but that's something only dumb Republicans do.  Smart liberals direct their women to the nearest abortion clinic, and should they decide to make another "choice" with their bodies, lash out at them with puerile rage, resentment, and undisguised hostility.

And why does "nobody care"?  Because the men in the mainstream media like to treat women, well, "liberally", so to speak.  And the women in the media, so fearful of ending up alone - like so many of their 40 -something friends on the Upper West Side -  accept this twisted value system as a way to ensure companionship (and to avoid being ostracized by the in-crowd).

And so this second-class treatment of women by the Left is imprinted into the nation's consciousness as "normal" by a media who benefits from it.  And who suffers?

Anyone ever touched, apparently, by John Edwards.  Ask Rieille.  Or ask John's children how their dad's philosophy is working out for them...

"Don't let a few people shape your view on an entire faith."

I just recently watched a film about Muslim Americans and how 9/11 took a toll on their lives. The film, Mooz-Lum, was released in 2010, and was written and directed by Qasim Basir . It is one of the few American films that don’t portray Muslims in the usual light that they are put in, as terrorists. I noticed several things regarding to the storyline of the film and how it was produced. It explores ingroup and outgroup functions, cultural criminology and the culture of fear.

The film fights everyday notions that we see in Hollywood movies. To begin with, we see two groups. Muslims represent the ingroup and non-Muslims represent the outgroup. The outgroup is the group toward which members of an ingroup feel a sense of separateness, opposition, or hatred. We see this grouping when Tariq(Evan Ross)’s classmate makes fun of his Muslim name in class and everyone starts laughing.

The media creates a cultural criminology. Cultural criminology is the study of crime and deviance that places criminality and its control in the context of culture. It injects people’s brains with ideas that certain people what them to believe in. Cultural criminology against Muslims was even more evident in movies after the 9/11 attacks, when Muslims started being seen and represented as terrorists. In one of the scenes, we see Tariq’s own friends trying to attack his sister and her friend because they are both Muslim. Mooz-Lum demonstrates how even Muslims were chocked from the attacks that happened in New York City and it is unjust to punish them for what a group of extremists did.

The media also created a culture of fear, it created exaggerated threats in the public’s mind that some believe are designed to achieve political goals. Politicians create the fear of Muslims in the minds of the public and that can give them the rights to start wars under the name of defending their people.

Externally vs. Internally

In today’s blog post, I will be discussing how the portrayal of reel Arabs in movies affects the image of Arabs and Muslims in Westerner’s minds. Also I will discuss how these portrayals create fear and false expectations in Westerners who visit the Middle East.

Reel Arabs in movies are portrayed in four ways:

1. 1.     Villains and terrorists
2. 2.     Maidens
3. 3.     Sheikhs
4. 4.     Cameos

For example, in Sex and the City we saw Maidens and Sheikhs. In most post 9/11 movies we usually witness the  “villains and terrorists” of reel Arabs. For people who have never been to the Middle East or have no constant interactions with Arabs or Muslims will get the wrong picture painted in their heads of Middle Easterners.

In the final game of the football league, Carnegie Mellon Qatarwas playing against the Community College of Qatar. After the game, the players and the fans socialized over a small reception following the awards ceremony. As I was socializing with the fans, I happened to meet 1196 Carnegie Mellon University graduate who was visiting Qatar on business. He graduated from the main campus in Pittsburgh, and this was his first trip to the Middle East. I decided to engage in the conversation he was having with some of the other students. They asked him what he thought of Doha and if it met his expectations. He responded by saying that he was quite astonished with how developed Qatar was and how back home in the states, people planning on visiting the Middle East had completely different expectations, in the negative sense. He said that back home, people expect the Middle East to be dangerous, filed with bombers. Also, they expect that women do not, under any circumstances socialize with a male Westerner. We all laughed as he said, “man was I surprised.” I looked around to see if people were genuinely laughing, and to my surprise they were –because I wasn’t. I was in fact slightly offended.  However, it was nice to see that no one takes such matters too personally because if they did then there would be so much resentment towards Westerners.

After my encounter with this man, I couldn’t help but wonder, are the Arabs and Westerners that different? We speak different languages, we dress differently, our traditions are different, our cultures are different, and our appearances are different. On a different note, we are also the same. We want to be happy, we want to be safe, we want to obtain a good education, and we want good health for our loved ones and ourselves. Just because externally we are different, it doesn’t mean on the inside we can’t be the same ordinary people, living our day-to-day ordinary lives.

The Sensitive Man

In a sociology class this month, I decided that I would dive into the world of Woody Allen films. I had just watched Annie Hall and felt like my world was changed and then, I only wanted to watch movies with interesting plots and stories.

So I started with Manhattan and Small Time Crooks and I was more than entertained. My mother, who had no idea that I had been spending my time at college watching movies, told me over the phone once about a new movie named Midnight In Paris I soon found out that Woody Allen had directed it.






The beauty of Woody Allen’s movies is that it has not only taught me a lot about the sensitive man but the women in his movies and what they want. In all the relationships that his character enters into, the women are at first attracted to his sensitivity and quirkiness, but then grow bored of how his life is without any excitement.

Considering that I was already on a roll with all of these movies and my picky mother herself said that the movie was “sweet,” I could not wait until I could watch the movie for myself.

I borrowed the DVD and slipped it into the CD player on my laptop the minute I got to my room. I fell in love with the Paris like I never have before. Images one after the other filled the screen.

Owen Wilson is the new Woody Allen. The awkward manner in which he walked and the way he constantly over analyzed things, was true to the character of the now 77 year old. Throughout the movie, Wilson’s character Gil is a man who is in love with the glorious 1920’s American literature age. His emotions and thoughts are at the center of the movie’s agenda the way a chick flick would be for it’s female lead. Because of people like Gil, women have begun to accept and even embrace a new definition of man. It has become alright that men should be emotional and be able to cry at any moment and movies like this have been crucial to this change in society. I don’t know how I feel about this change. Sometimes I wish men would just own their manhood and be more stable than a woman but then, too many times I’ve wished that men could be a little less brick-like. I guess that’s why the hybrid man was invented by society.

Sociology of Nail Polish

Yesterday, I turned 19. I can’t even wear heels properly or paint my nails in a non-outrageous color.

After a lovely evening of dinner with my family, I spent the late hours of yesterday night, painting my nails the wildest shade of purple, and then Instagram-ed the experience.

But, alas, I am 19 today. It’s our final day of Sociology of Cinema. It seems only fitting that I write about my obsession with colored nail polish and how it relates to three things I learned this semester in class. 1. I’ve always had an obsession with outrageous shades of nail polish. I rarely ever painted my nails red. At my cousin’s wedding last year, the entire crowd got a French manicure, all prim and proper. I added a gold lightning bolt and green rhinestones. Nails are a character statement, and they so vividly stand out as an emblem of personality. Yet at the end of the day, this is a societal construct.

Girls are socially conditioned to put paint on nails. All the greats do it, from TV cooking hosts to musicians on stage. 2. I have a gigantic box of nail polish, stowed away in a Mickey Mouse tin lunch box.

I may even over-consume, especially when I find a good sale. When we talked about the traits of girly films, one of the most prevalent themes was the female ability to shop skillfully. Our consumer culture encourages such behavior through films. It’s an image, repeated over and over, until we treat it as natural behavior. 3. I usually do my nails at home, unless I am in Lebanon, in which case, I go to the salon and bring my nail polish with me. Of all cultures obsessed with beauty and image, my experiences in Lebanon take the cake. People visit the hair and nail salon often, and expect visitors (such as myself) to do the same. Its nice to get all dolled up occasionally, but keeping up with the routine is way too labor-intensive for me in the hot summer months. How often do Westerners see this image of beauty-conscious Arabs in the media? Other than Caramel, the film by Lebanese director Nadine Labaki, none come to mind. Quite a few people were shocked to learn that 2010’s Miss America was an Arab American/Muslim American woman. We are a multi-dimensional bloc, just like any other culture or ethnicity. The day that Hollywood respects the complexity of Arab characters will be quite a celebration.

Limantour Beach, Point Reyes CA

A long, narrow spit of sand, bound between Drakes Bay and an estuary, is a bountiful wildlife area. Scores of shorebirds feed in the wetlands and along the beaches during the fall. Ducks abound in winter at old, freshwater stock ponds created during the peninsula's ranching era. Harbor seals are often seen bobbing offshore in the gentle waves or basking in the sun's warmth. Mother gray whales guide their calves along the shoreline during the spring. Dogs are allowed on a 1.8-meter (6-foot) leash on the southeast end of this beach. Dogs are not permitted to the northwest as this area is protected habitat for harbor seals and the endangered snowy plover.

A great beach to visit is Limantour Beach. This is a wide sandy beach with the very soft silky sand - perfect for building sand castles. Unlike some of the beaches that require a long walk from the parking, this one is relatively close. It gets a bit more people for that reason, but because it is so huge, it never gets crowded. Once at Limantour, you can walk for miles on the sand along the coast.

Directions: From Olema, follow signs to Visitor's Center. Do not turn left at Visitor's Center but take next left on Limantour Road. Follow that road to the end

Fear of Camera Phones

While I was reading Scripting An Enemy by Susan Williams and Travis Linnemann I noticed that their conclusion had such a strong message that could be related to every fear we face in our society. No matter who we are, or where we live, media representations of a specific culture can create a resented image that would cause fear in the society perceiving it. “What are the implications of a culture of fear perpetuated and enhanced, perhaps even created, by a celluloid image. We are too often afraid of the wrong things, we focus almost exclusively on a country and a people or our idea of them, when in actuality they pose little threat to our way of life.” (p. 205) I went to my cousin's wedding last week. I've always known that cameras and phones with cameras aren't allowed inside the wedding halls, but I never understood the reason behind this lack of trust amongst women in the society.

I decided to go ahead and see what would happen if I took my camera phone with me. I had to tie the phone to my leg and cover it with a long dress to get pass the security. I was able to get it inside. My next objective was to see people's reactions when I take my phone out. People started looking at me differently, some even came up and asked me if I was related to the bride or groom (closely related). Luckily I was. I would have gotten kicked out if I weren’t. Some might say that close family members are allowed to bring their phones inside the wedding halls. But in that specific wedding, people didn't even seem to trust anyone with a camera phone. Later my aunt asked me to take my phone to the security, or if I wanted to keep it with me I would have to hide it so that other people wouldn't see it because that might cause her a problem.

I asked her why does she think that everyone's untrustworthy, and would try to sabotage the wedding by taking a picture, or a video? Why are we living in a culture of fear that was caused by people carrying camera phones? We are afraid of the wrong things. Instead of getting security in weddings to actually protect us if anything “real” happens, we get them to collect phones. This fear of camera phones began in late ‘90s and is still here for a couple of good decades: the great fear of someone seeing your celluloid image with someone else.

Sociological analysis through pottery

By having a full chapter about Gender and a long discussion about this topic during this week, I decided to talk about Greek Potteries. Because they show within a moment; the huge difference between males and females in that ancient civilization.

            Based on many survived artworks we can see the clear difference between the two genders. The following Greek Potteries show women activities, how they dress and look like.

            A woman sitting on a chair looking at her self through a mirror. That shows the importance of appearance to Greek women.

This Image shows 2 women carrying pieces of clothes and a large bowl in the middle between them.  This scene is about laundry.

This scene is divided into 2 friezes; the first one is for a group of women weaving. And the small one above shows women in a wedding ceremony.

We can see a strong connection between all the images of the women. Almost all of them are about Domestic and indoors activities.  In general, the house and children was the responsibility of the women.

            On the other hand, her are some images of men on Greek potteries. 

             In this Image, we have two men, perhaps athletes, fighting or sparring each other. While someone is just observing what is happening.

An Image of a man carrying a bow for hunting with his hound. As we can see, it is an outdoor scene. 

A scene of a group of warriors marching toward a battlefield. 

The scene on this pottery shows a young man, on the right, listening to an old man, on the left, playing music. Maybe the scene is about a musical lesson. So, we can say that men had more access to education than women.

Greek potteries are a key factor to look at Greek people’s social life. Just from few examples; we can see the big and clear difference between the two genders. Woman are for domestic activities and indoors obligations. Men are all about masculinity, power and outdoor activities. Also, they  have a better chance to get education than women.

From a sociological point of view, ascribed status, sex, determined a lot in the Greek’s life. Females are inferior to males. However, even though they are restricted their role is still very important. Despite how we look at their Gender Polarization right now, they found their own way to divide their social role. Each gender carries a role that supports the society and helps maintaining it.