Cast Aways: What Societies Do When They Don't Care

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

Homelessness has been an issue that seems to be ignored by the status quo. While most people carry on their daily lives (career, family, etc.), they never seem to get past a snide comment when a homeless person asks them for spare change. Honestly, why would you? They're probably going to buy cigarettes or alcohol with it; maybe even get their little crack fix. Truth is, we are as guilty of stereotyping and perpetuating the cycle of homelessness and rampant poverty as the bureaucrats in power that choose to simply ignore the problem (and it is a problem), in hopes that it will vanish.

The short online documentary "On Skid Row", documents the micro society that is a 50 block area in Los Angeles County, USA. It chronicles the day to day life of the 'residents' of skid row, from those displaced from their homes, those that have been born into it, to those that use it as a means of income from drug sales. The success of this short documentary can be credited to its use of pathos as well as its use of logos in order to get its point across and convince the viewer that action must be taken.

The introduction of this documentary gives a brief history of the sector of LA County called Skid Row. It describes the different types of people that inhabit it with the use of emotionally charged footage shot by security cameras and the director himself. The director states how government officials have discussed solutions for many years, but have either not addressed the problem or are just simply ignoring it for their own agendas. Despite this, he highlights how there are those that are driven and dedicated to making a difference for the people of Skid Row. He follows a youth named Franklin who has been living in Skid Row for most of his life. Franklin has gained attention to this growing problem thanks to several appearances on shows like Tyra and Montel. Franklin is trying to make a difference by becoming an example of success. He is actively trying to further his education and hopes to one day attend college. His case brings to the viewer’s attention a very important question: Why are we allowing children like Franklin to even be a part of Skid Row? Shouldn't our ethics and sense of right and wrong tell us that it isn't right? The director's use of Franklin on this video gave a strong pathos point to the video and establishes a logos point with the introduction of Choc Nitty, an ex-drug dealer.

Choc Nitty sold drugs in Skid Row since he was 12. He has made thousands of dollars thanks to the clientele available. Crack, weed, coke, meth were all a part of his regular sales. They say that every dog has his day, and that day eventually came to Choc: he got busted. After his arrest and conviction, Choc decided to change his life. He abandoned selling drugs and decided to take up music. He now makes a living off of his music sales and performances. The police and government decided that it was time to take action regarding the rampant distribution and use of drugs. They decided to implement the Safer Cities Initiative. This initiative which begun in September of 2006, brought in 50 extra officers into downtown to help reverse the 'culture of lawlessness.' Security cameras were also installed, but this wasn't so effective because the dealers just relocated. The argument regarding this policy is, once it expires, the money is gone and everyone that has been arrested is released, what happens? Does it start all over again?

I think that if anyone is particularly moved by this video, they use it as a catalyst. There are many important issues out there that we choose to ignore because we don't want to confront them due to either laziness or our lack of stomach. It is obvious that we can't leave important issues up to the media, as they are lobbied and choose to cover what they see is important. We live in a country where we can learn about almost anything, be informed of many controversial topics, yet we still don't address them. Maybe it is because of that simple quote at the beginning of this analysis...

Més que un club, More than just a treble...

Few sports have the effect on such a vast amount of people as football does. This is more evident in continents such as South America, Africa, Asia and Europe. While the World Cup happens every four years, a more frequent, almost equally exciting tournament occurs every year: the UEFA Champions League. In this tournament, the best teams in European Football compete against each other outside of domestic league competition in order to obtain the most respected title in world club competition. The tournament spans a period of 10 months, of which include qualifying, group and knockout stages. This year, we see the two most powerful teams in Europe, Manchester United and FC Barcelona in the final. Manchester United has a rich footballing history, having won 11 league titles, 11 domestic cup titles and three Champions League titles. They have been crowned league champions this season, and boast a talented team that plays fast, efficient football and have the 'best' player in the world, 2008 World Player of the Year Cristiano Ronaldo. On the other end, we have FC Barcelona. FC Barcelona is a unique institution in that it is more than just a team of football. Like other teams in Spain, the regional culture is represented through its football team, in this case, Catalunya. It represents a sense of autonomy; something the Catalans have wanted at a political level for a long time, and still argue in favor for, despite historical bloody struggles through the Franco Era. Barcelona is the second most successful club in Spain, having won 19 league titles, 25 domestic league titles and two Champions League titles. Having said this, who will win this Wednesday night when the two clash in Rome? Surely an advantage has to be given to Manchester, having a full squad available (Barcelona's two key defenders will be missing through suspension, while another two are fighting the race to be fit for Wednesday), and having momentum coming into the match. Barcelona are seen as the underdogs because of these absences, though their football has been deemed "orgasmic" by former player Luis Enrique. Barcelona are truly beautiful to watch when they are in form, and also have the runner up to the World Player of the Year Trophy, Lionel Messi. It will be a match surely to leave fans and neutrals breathless by the final whistle. While the fans will be left breathless, the managers will be breathless prior to kickoff. Both have a long history with each club and deep in contrast with each other. Manchester's manager Sir Alex Ferguson, has been manager for over 30 years, and is to thank for most of Manchester's success domestically as well as internationally. 

            In contrast, Josep 'Pep' Guardiola, was born in Barcelona, has played most of his professional football for FCB and has won several league titles, domestic cup titles and the first European Cup (Champion's League), amongst others. One can say that Guardiola has as much experience with Barcelona as Ferguson, despite the difference in job title. Both teams will go in on Wednesday looking to add to their trophy cases, yet Barcelona will be looking to become the first Spanish team to win the coveted 'treble.' This treble has eluded even the most successful European team (and arch rivals) Real Madrid, so it would mean that much more to win on Wednesday in Rome. As a Barcelona fan, my restlessness will begin on Monday, but all I can hope for is a 100% display from both teams and a competent referee.

 

Visca el barça.

Oh blessed art thou amongst...

Yet another interesting turn of events for the Catholic Church. Father Alberto Cutie (really?), has decided to test the traditions of the church by publicly displaying his affection for a woman. Now, as a person that has been raised Catholic and is now Agnostic, this is a rather refreshing turn of events. I am not saying that I'm all for the demolition of established religion... we all need to have faith in something, instead, I think it's time society really open their eyes, and allow this event to serve as a catalyst to question establishment. A question I've always had regarding religions is: how can you condemn someone or forbid them from doing something that is human nature? Why establish such laws or decrees forbidding marriages for clergy? From Pope Siricius' actions in leaving his wife to become pope, to the Council of Trent decreeing that celibacy and virginity are superior to marriage, the Catholic Church has systematically removed the freedom to marry and still be a clergy of the church. But it hasn't always been this way. It was obvious that from the beginning there was to be no such limitation for the clergy, as was evident with Peter, the first Pope. Peter and the majority of Jesus' apostles were married. After this, the Age of Gnosticism stated that possessions and darkness was evil, and that light and spirituality were good. You could not do something mortal (such as marry), and hope to be perfect. Despite this, most priests were still married. Through many centuries of hidden abortions and infanticide to disguise priests' shortcomings, it started to become apparent that this was the way in which the Catholic Church was headed. Papal decrees in the 12th century stating that clerical marriages were invalid and the Council of Trent in the 16th century, stating that celibacy and marriage were superior to marriage, closed the case on clerical marriage.

            But is this really how things are at their best? Reports of child molestation have been at their highest ever, and this situation puts things in perspective. Can the Catholic Church dodge this bullet in the eye of public scrutiny, or will it simply be swept under the carpet and be left unquestioned, as most superpower establishments do?

            I think that it's time the Catholic Church realize that some of their policies are just redundant in nature, denying human beings many liberties and rights. Is father Albert Cutie really doing anything that is harmful to anyone? If the Vatican addresses this situation at all, it will definitely draw fire from both sides; those asking for some form of reformation in policy, and those that believe the church is God's establishment and God's word isn't for anyone to disobey.

If he is, in fact, reprimanded by the church for his actions, what would be his punishment? Surely they will have to make an example of him somehow, but given the previous cases with child molestation, would it be morally acceptable to punish someone who, despite breaking his vow of celibacy, pleases the heterosexual contingency of the church? I think that in the next few weeks, the Vatican may in fact address this issue in a light manner, which will diffuse the situation. Only time will tell what will happen with Father Albert. I leave you with a quote: 

"At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

I Blog, therefore I...

            ...Am? Think? Feel? It's hard to think about such things when you’re blogging, but when you come home from a long day at work, school or whatever it is that you do all day (even vegetating), you can find a small measure of peace venting on a blog. We no longer refer to this as an online journal, but a blog. The perfect analogy for this statement would be the Q-tip. One doesn't say "cotton ear swab," all you have to do is say "Q-tip" and you're handed one. I jumped on the blog bandwagon back in the early college years of my life, only to forget about it and eventually banish the entire notion of ever blogging again due to the mere fact that it was just another thing to do in the already complicated world of online discussions. This was only enforced by the social networks such as MySpace, Facebook and now Twitter. Fast forward a few years later, and i find myself yet again, face to face with the beast that is blogging. Before you come to a conclusion, let it be known that I haven't always been an English major. And as you will find out from reading these blogs, I have a long way to go in the "awesome grammar & spelling" department.

            I never really enjoyed blogging, and I probably won't enjoy it even as I learn to appreciate text and writing. I have always found myself speaking about anything and everything that I feel should be spoken about. As of late, history and politics have become the focus of most conversations. I always appreciate a good conversation or rhetorical exchange, because that really is all that I look forward to: an exchange of Ideas. With this blog, I hope to get some good exchanges going as far as ideas are concerned, because I feel that most things that are discussed can be see in either a historical or political context. With this blog, I hope to put things in a light that you may have not seen things in, or rarely have seen things in before. The sole purpose of this blog (pending time allotted for decent research and argument), is to make the reader think. I feel as though we are fed so much garbage by society, politicians, government, arts that we should not have beliefs; but rather ideas. We should be as open to any and every piece of information that we can process, so that we can discriminate at our own will, and not at the will of others. Having said this, I hope you appreciate this first post. I will leave you with a quote.

 

Rhetoric Graveyard

Discuss anything and everything here. 

Remember: it is always easier to have ideas, rather than beliefs.