Science fiction and fantasy literature have much to offer the reader: escapism, high adventure without
personal consequence, conscious reflection on society past, present and future, and so on. The projection of a reality outside or expanded upon our own is enticing; it offers us an outlet to enjoy all the fantasies in which we want to believe. A major theme throughout the realms created by science fiction and fantasy is the existence of other species and races, an idea that excites those of us who hold any depth of conviction that we humans are not alone, that other sentient life exists out there somewhere among the stars. In this sense, science fiction/fantasy consistently feeds these believers a concept that stimulates our hope: We are allowed to make contact.

However, upon further examination, these representations are limited in their characterization of species
and race. The sentient beings created within science fiction and fantasy often are made distinct from
each other not solely by appearance and culture but through simplistic generalizations of collective personality, tendencies and/or character. For example, in the Star Wars galaxy, Han Solo’s homeworld is
Corellia; therefore, it is not surprising that the fierce independence, stubbornness and fighting spirit characteristic of Corellians surfaces in all of Han’s actions, reactions and dialogue. Bothans are a furry species hailing from the planet Bothawui, a planet notable for its Bothan Intelligence Agency, the best and most extensive spy network in the galaxy. Bothans are consistently portrayed as deceptive, politically shrewd and untrustworthy throughout the Star Wars novels; even characters that are frequently featured as intrinsic to the plot of a novel adhere to the typical Bothan profile. Conversely, Han is a human, and he is portrayed as having a more versatile and individually specific range of emotional and mental traits; in this sense, he is given much more agency to determine his personality,
his alignments and his impression upon the reader than the Bothan non-human characters are given.

This difference between fully fleshed-out human characters and static, stereotyped characters of other
species or races is pervasive throughout science fiction and fantasy literature. Terry Brooks’ Shannara
series provides a stark example. In the Four Lands, the human race has branched off into multiple Races. Gnomes are fickle, weak-minded and easily corruptible, constantly being manipulated into service by various powerful dark forces; Dwarves are strong of character and physically hardy, have excellent survival skills, are stoic and fiercely loyal; Elves, the only Race that is said not to have descended from a common human race, are wise and their culture is steeped in magic, and they are the bearers of great tradition (perhaps of civilization itself.) Men, while portrayed as susceptible to corruption and greed, have the most room for variation of any Race in the Four Lands: as characters, they can be good or evil, strong or weak, honest or tricky, leaders or deserters. The Druids, the keepers of the ancient magics and the seers who dictate the courses of the characters, are all Men.

This observation makes sense on a superficial level. As humans, science fiction and fantasy authors have
more personal material to transfer to their human characters; it is easier, as a rule, to write what one
knows than to write what one observes or imagines. As readers (and potential writers), however, we need to question this theme; does this not unconsciously reflect our society’s concept of Self and Other? The complex variety of human characters is in sharp contrast with the static sameness of non-human characters. The alienating effect created by this contrast parallels many culturally constructed divides in
American society today; indeed, we as Americans are obsessed with the identification of identity. People are categorized by their race, class, gender identity, sexuality, physical ability, intelligence, level of education, ethnic background, relationship status, political affiliation, religion, weight, height, neighborhood, state, region, and on and on and on. The American government has entire departments devoted to notating these specifics on each citizen, gathering them up into separatepiles, and publishing them in tidy statistics, which are available to the public. On a more personal level, these categories allow Americans to delineate themselves, to know where they stop and others begin. This gives individuals the illusion of separating themselves from the masses when, in reality, we are just drawing a line between our groups and other groups with which we do not identify. Individuality is, like meritocracy, a Great American Myth. The categories in which we place ourselves are socially constructed phenomena that have no deep or intrinsic meaning outside of the importance we have learned to place on them. The inaccessability of non-human characters within science fiction/fantasy mirrors the inability of individuals to extend the boundaries of our thought to encompass the possibility of a deep and complex Other who is intrinsically not unlike ourselves.

Another part of this problem of characterization in science fiction/fantasy literature lies with the prevalence of limiting dualisms within the genre. In a 2001 interview with Orbit, the late fantasy writer Robert Jordan said, “Fantasy allows the writer to exploregood and evil, right and wrong, honour and duty without having to bow to the mainstream belief that all of these things are merely two sides of a coin.” The science fiction/fantasy genre may provide its writers with an opportunity to operate outside of the traditional good-versus-evil dichotomy, but many of these writers either cannot or choose not to develop their characters and universes beyond it. In his Lord of the Rings trilogy, J.R.R. Tolkien presents Middle Earth as a sunshine-filled land populated by well-intentioned, good-hearted people that is slowly being sickened by the spread of a dark and formidable evil, an evil that is actually physically represented in the form of darkness. Frodo Baggins, the Hobbit (really just a smaller Man) who is chosen as the bearer of the One Ring to its fiery fate, and his companions (a Dwarf, an Elf, two Men, a Man wizard and three other Hobbits) are intrinsically good; they may stumble occasionally under the powerful weight of the evil bearing down upon them, but they manage to recover. The evil Lord Sauron, seeking to expand his dark kingdom of Mordor into the other kingdoms of Middle Earth, does not conscript Middle Earth folk into his dark army; rather, he creates his own Orc army, saturated with evil and willing to obey his every command. While the good/evil dichotomy is not completely mutually exclusive in Lord of the Rings, there is very little crossover between the two sides that isn’t either reversed or explained by some serious character flaw. Terry Brooks’ Shannara series contains sharp dualisms of good and evil, light magic and dark magic, right and wrong, and destiny and free will. The most famous Star Wars conflict is between the valiant Rebel Alliance and the sinister Empire, but the eternal, essential conflict in the Star Wars series is between the light and dark sides of the Force, and therefore between their wielders, the Jedi and the Sith.

The polarization of characters to two extremes of a spectrum of light/dark or good/evil makes for great
heroes and monstrous villains, but it eliminates the opportunity for discourse surrounding interaction
and conflict between people who experience a full range of emotions, thoughts and urges. The absence
of this discourse strengthens the divide between Protagonist and Antagonist in the book, and equivalently strengthens the reader’s divide between Self and Other. The opening for expanded social reflection is lost and instead, readers have their comfortable social boundaries reinforced.

It is easy for eager readers to suspend their reality in order to lose themselves in the chimerical plots,
worlds and characters of well-written science fiction because we are willing to accept the author’s projection of fantasy as plausible. It is challenging to change the way we as individuals position ourselves in relation to Others because it involves our acceptance of the fantasy of our individuality. Science fiction and fantasy writers have a unique opportunity to create a new genre of thought and commentary on the concept of race and the cultural split between Self and Other in an era where Americans are looking for change. It is the duty of these writers to shoulder the responsibility of contemporary social discourse and make a deeper impact on the readers of their work.

To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75 percent of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced – jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.

–President Barack Obama, January 8, 2009

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the infamous “stimulus plan,” proposes immediate action to improve the United States’ struggling economy. An integral part of the plan, proposed by President Barack Obama, is the creation of new jobs in both the public and private sector. But Obama wishes to correct many of the nation’s woes in one fatal swoop. Thus, he advises creating jobs in a field where America has long lagged behind the rest of the developed world; he wants America to become part of the “green revolution.”

If the plan is approved, the jobs created will encourage environmental protection in a variety of ways including energy independence, new recycling technologies and environmental restoration. Americans across the board could have access to these new jobs, from scientists to blue-collar workers.
The plan proposes $90 billion in infrastructure investments for things such as clean water and restoration, in addition to rebuilding roads and highways. It also calls for $58 billion to be spent on energy in three areas: a new electric smart grid, renewable energy tax cuts and weatherizing homes.
What does this mean for university students? It means that, if we act quickly, we could become a part of this revolution. It means that many jobs we have never even heard of will become commonplace. It means that we are entering a new industrial revolution, but this time the revolution will help the environment as well as the economy. Below are only a few possible fields in which we can participate:

Environmental Education
If you have a Ph.D., getting a job in ecological restoration would be fairly simple; you could be a biologist, a postdoctoral fellow, a civil engineer, you name it. For those of us who don’t have a doctorate, however, and who are not quite sure what this whole ecological restoration thing is about, working with an ecological educational program could be a good start. On the website for the Society for Ecological Restoration International, there are six job postings for camp counselors and/or teachers for educational programs. Many of these jobs only require knowledge of the field and a high school diploma or Bachelor’s Degree. So, if you are outdoors-y and want to spread environmental awareness, this might be the field for you!

Environmental Protection Organizations
In large environmental organizations like The Sierra Club and The World Wildlife Fund you can work in almost any capacity and still be helping the environment. They need biologists, secretaries, lawyers and journalists. Whatever your skill-set and background, you can probably find a job that matches. The great thing about these organizations is that they are located nationally and internationally. Whether you want to catch salmon in Alaska or clean up the beaches in Florida, you can find your ideal location.

Government Jobs
If you would prefer to work the public sector, not the private sector, you should consider looking for a position with the Department of Natural Resources or the Environmental Protection Agency. Both of these organizations have federal and state branches. The new stimulus plan, however, calls for the creation of more jobs in the private sector than the public; so, these organizations may not be hiring for a while.

Green Industry
On top of these organizational and government jobs, the “greening” of America will call for a change in industry—both in how things are produced and what is being produced. Bright minds will be needed to help industry transition to more environmentally friendly practices. New products mean that new processes will need to be developed and improved upon over time.

The Science Classroom Building (or SciCB) has long been referred to as a “public eyesore” and “Cold War relic”—some have even gone as far as to call it the “ugliest building in the English-speaking world” (if not the entire universe)—but it also happened to be one of my favorite buildings on campus. Here was a structure that was built to great fanfare in 1964 and now, 44 years after the fact, is being torn down to even greater applause from students and university administrators to our local and state governments alike. What began in earnest so many decades ago as a “phase I of II” construction project never saw completion and quickly came to be viewed as a “temporary building” in the hearts and minds of university stakeholders from all different walks of life.

What you may not know is that this particular parcel of land was once home to the University of Minnesota’s School of Mineralogy and Mines, comprised of three other “temporary buildings”—all built in the year 1947, and surviving until work on SciCB had begun in 1963. In fact, there were once 16 such temporary buildings in use on the Minneapolis campus. 222 Pleasant St. SE—the Classroom Building’s physical address—was also the proposed location for the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, according to a 1977 Minnesota Daily article (compliments of the University Archives). But an idea that would have involved a complicated “stacking” of the institute atop the six completed, below-ground floors of the Science Classroom Building—the top-floor boardwalk, bathroom and vending area were really considered to be more of an afterthought (a bridge between phases I and II, if you will)­—was ultimately scrapped in favor of using the more pristine and unadulterated West Bank location. Though it was highly visible, very little was ever done to this buildings unforgiving façade in all 44 years of its existence: the rebar was bent up in select areas and, it appears, the last of the construction workers absented the job site on that very same day.

Flash-forward to the year 1994 and enter Professor of Geology and Geophysics Kent C. Kirkby. While he didn’t lecture there right away, Kirkby has taught about 20 sessions in the Science Classroom Building. His stories are numerous,and I couldn’t possibly relate all of them here, but I will tell you some of the most remarkable. As a former Geology 1001 student under Kirkby’s instruction—in the Science Classroom Building, no less—it is almost my duty to do so.

We are very lucky, I have learned, to have had the lecture chairs in that building arranged in as pleasing a fashion as they were—for it was not always that way. Kirkby tells me that when he started, there were no aisles to speak of, save for the ones naturally created between wall and row at both ends of the room, with very little clearance given between the rows of chairs themselves. An old SciCB classroom seating chart would therefore have resembled a very predictable pattern: when students arrived late, as they invariably did, there would be a run on the edge seats, where the punctual and the overly-punctual had already set up their camps, leaving the centers of rows completely empty and hordes of people standing in the fringes all during lecture. To fix this problem, an instructor literally had to master the ability of telling his or her students to “squeeze to the center,” several minutes after the official start time of class—an obvious annoyance, and a real distraction from the processes of learning and its forerunner, concentration. Thankfully, the Office of Space Management (OSM) saw this as a real concern as well, and remodeled the lecture halls to the way they were just before demolition—I’m even told they used substantially more comfortable chairs, with greater aisle spaces, to further remove any obstacles to learning.

I couldn’t resist asking Kirkby’s opinion on the quote, generally attributed to University President Bob Bruininks, saying that the Science Classroom Building was “…the ugliest building in the English-speaking world.” He felt SciCB had “a lot of competition for being the ugliest,” but suggested that perhaps it was in the running for being one of the most poorly designed buildings in the world. I wonder how this makes the late head SciCB architect John Rauma feel, or if he understood the madness when he designed the thing.

Kirkby assures me that the Science Classroom Building was “not designed to be handicap-accessible in the slightest,” as there was but one suitable elevator and—as those of us who have taken classes in that building will note—a maze of doors and half-flights of stairs, all for getting in and out of four different lecture halls scattered about the complex. In fact, there is a very interesting story about how, one day, early in his teaching career, Kent Kirkby wanted to bring sodas for his entire class (located, naturally, in the sub-sub-sub-basement portion of the building), and, having never planned his route with an elevator before, was forced to crawl underneath a stairwell with a dolly of sodas because the hallway/janitors’ closet that served as the entrance to “175” for persons with disabilities had been locked by mistake!

When asked if he would miss the building, not surprisingly, Kirkby’s reply was more along the lines of “[I] won’t say I’m sad to see it go.” Though they have quite a history together, Professor Kirkby has always thought of SciCB as somewhat of a “problem child.” He added to this, saying: “After a while you just learned to put up with its idiosyncrasies”—a novel concept in a society whose bromide too often tends to be “if it don’t work, rebuild it.”

Neither Kirkby nor I have put up much of an effort to “Save SciCB,” for we are both pretty much in agreement that it’s time for it to go. While the Professor wants to see new classrooms (with windows this time!) that are mindful of prevailing trends in “classroom seating economics,” I am happy to imagine a better, faster and stronger, amalgamated student services station. Our Science Teaching and Student Services (ST+SS) building—the newest tenant of 222 Pleasant St SE—should finally put an end to the turbulent history of temporary fixtures on this piece of property, and, at an estimated price tag of $72.5 million (including demolition costs), it is permanency we are paying for. In the meantime, the absence of a Science Classroom Building has afforded those of us who frequent the East Bank at night a rare, unobstructed view of the I-35W Bridge (which glows a brilliant cyan at night). So it’s not all bad; it’s not even half bad. The most important lesson to take out of this is that something considered temporary can far surpass its estimated lifespan, and, it is only when something begins to exceed its useful life that we should ever begin to talk of its replacement. I will miss SciCB, there’s no question about that, but I am just now starting to get excited about the future—wherever and whatever it brings us.

Out with the old, in with the new, or so is the idea. The new millennium saw the beginning of a new age for the arts and entertainment scene in the Twin Cities. In the spirit of looking toward the unprecedented future, entertainment outlets across the city desired space for repair and expansion. Fights over land have resulted in a number of institutions being stuffed in different locations around the city. Though much of a debate topic, space is not what’s on everyone’s mind when these proposals come to attention. Rather, it is the idea, or belief, that these establishments will do something for the community.

Being a hot spot on the global map has always been a concern for those who launch these propositions. A place on any top-ten list gives a boost to the ego and a possible starting point for tourism campaigns. Whichever initial spark flies, the gathered consensus of the Minneapolis/St. Paul art community seems to have always been about enriching the collections and providing education for the younger generations. This wish is always on the people’s lips, albeit along with money woes.

Renovations are not cheap. Constricting an entirely new building is even more expensive. For buildings that boast state of the art facilities and cutting-edge technology such as the Guthrie Theater and the Target Gallery at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, average Minnesotans wonder how much of their paychecks is put towards these projects. The answers vary.

Take, for instance, the new Guthrie Theater. On the banks of the Mississippi River, the Guthrie sits on prime real estate. The land, fought over by those wanting to build a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins, is just one part. The entire idea of a new Guthrie had been brought up and beaten down several times before government funding was ever approved, and government funding means money paid out of your pocket. Planning for the new theater goes back to before 2000. The Guthrie first asked the Minnesota Legislature for funding in 1999. Three million dollars for planning was approved and then vetoed by then-Governor Ventura, which was in turn overrode by Legislature. Two years later, the Legislature approved $24 million for a new Guthrie, which was again opposed by Ventura.

Polls in the spring of 2000 showed the public basically split down the middle on the issue. Forty-three percent of those polled were strongly against giving $23 million for a theater, questioning the need.
Some said that the money would be better spent on sports stadiums, which would draw more revenue, and many said that money should go toward economic development zones in Minneapolis and easing the state deficit. Not until Governor Tim Pawlenty came to office did the fight for the Guthrie come to an end. From then on it was just a question of when the construction would begin. It is a given that a struggle of opinions will break out when government funding is needed for any project.

There are routes that involve no money. Side-stepping a common battle for money, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts began the arduous task of raising money for a new gallery several years before the millennium passed. Unlike the Guthrie Theater, MIA sought donations and sponsorship outside the Minnesota government. Housed in a wing off-set from the main building, the new Target Gallery was built totally from contributions from private patrons and various companies and foundations.

The “Bring Art to Life” campaign had an initial goal to raise $100 million to fund the addition. After 15 years of fundraising and a large starting donation of over $10 million dollars from the Target Corporation, the MIA has its new gallery.

Despite any debate on the use of state funding, support for the arts in the Twin Cities has never been doubted. Republican or Democrat, no matter the skin color or religion, Minneapolis and St. Paul residents recognize the arts. Many developments may not be on as large a scale as the Guthrie or MIA, but people are always pushing for new developments. Oftentimes citizens have the option of voting yes or no to a proposed project, as was the case for the Minneapolis Central Library in downtown. Voters approved the $140 million project to improve library services in November 2000; renovations began soon after.

This eagerness for enrichment has not gone unnoticed. In November 2008, the Wallace Foundation honored Minneapolis and St. Paul with $6.9 million to create a four-year plan, which involves helping the art community grow and increasing audience numbers. The Wallace Foundation is an independent national foundation that seeks to improve education through art and strengthening that community. Being chosen for this award gives a glimpse into the attention Minneapolis and St. Paul are garnering.

With every new development in the Twin Cities, be it a theater or a culture festival, there is the ever-present voice yearning to be heard in the national arena. Push for the projects like the Guthrie Theater and the Target Gallery at MIA were given drive by the idea that instituting such structures would bring national and even worldwide attention to Minneapolis and St. Paul. According to Mayor Chris Coleman, St. Paul is continually voted one of the most livable cities in America because of the opportunities for art and cultural exploration. This pride in one’s community extends beyond the high-rolling politicians. Many small patches of people express a continuing desire for the cultivation of art in the Twin Cities.

In the past few years, the largest support comes from the younger generation, those in college or recently graduated. Whether or not they attend galleries and plays regularly, many young adults believe that promotion of the arts is beneficial to Minnesota. There is the stance that the arts provide a better and more educational outlet than television, which is never short of sex and violence. In giving art to these young people, they will in turn provide an even larger opportunity for growth in the same sector.

The current economic crisis had plenty of airtime in recent news cycles, but a shockingly small portion has been substantive. Measures of our economic voodoo god—consumer spending—have been abysmal, and companies with direct consumer interaction are visibly suffering. The supply-side economists in the media extrapolate this onto the population itself. Our new Federal Administration, contrary to the language of the election, seems to constitute the same kind of supply-side thinking that has dominated the past 30 years of public life. Here in Minnesota, we are faced with an enormous state budget deficit and plagued by job losses from prominent companies such as Target and Best Buy. If the unemployment rate today had escaped the last 80 years of academic gerrymandering, the unemployment rate would stand at 17.5 percent by some estimates. Things are bad, and people are unclear, at this point, what progress will look like. Thus, public discourse on the economy tends to fall in the range of “is the economy good yet?” to illogical predictive discourse using the Great Depression as an exclusive model. 

It seems that we’re looking in the wrong places for answers. The stated mission of the Obama Administration, according to Nancy Pelosi, is, “Science, science, science, and science.” If it isn’t clear to anyone that the new leadership wishes to harness science as a national panacea, this would be a bittersweet turn of events after eight years of obstructionist decay and under-funding. Science bloggers and academics breathed sighs of relief when Obama’s relevant appointments hailed from academia and not from the president’s personal corral of acquaintances and drinking buddies. Our new Energy Department Chief, for example, is Nobel Prize-winning physicist and prominent alternative energy advocate Dr. Steven Chu, who formerly headed the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory conducting research in this field. Obama’s other appointments have shown no less panache, and each deserves a spotlight in his or her own right. However, the musings of science policy seem almost alien when so many state governments are running out of money for projects as basic as food stamps, and Minnesotans may be forgiven for turning a deaf ear to the grandiose science proclamations of our incoming government. What can they do for us, after all?

Cue Alliant Techsystems. This Eden Prairie-based company is an oddity in Minnesota’s high-tech industry and serves as an indicator for industries that otherwise barely touch our state. The company spun off from Honeywell almost 20 years ago and employs over 17,000 people in 21 states. The company’s Web site boasts that it is the premier manufacturer of rocket engines worldwide and rattles off a fairly diverse product line with Defense, Consumer, and Aerospace applications. Every time you see an Air Force, NASA, or private rocket take flight, it’s likely that Alliant has taken part in the supply chain. Unlike regional mega-employers Target and Best Buy, it is not dependent on cascading consumer spending, and unlike United Health Group and Medtronic, it does not exist as a function of popular health care access. Any stimulus from our federal government is almost sure to manifest with Alliant before nearly anyone else in our market. In a time when the newly unemployed line up around the block for free breakfasts at Denny’s restaurants, and “bring a basket – pick your own” farm co-op events draw 40,000 people, it’s almost insulting to think that the federal government would spend taxpayer money on anything as superfluous as aerospace, right? Even if your only exposure to historical economic hardship is the 1930s, it becomes very clear that federal spending on such extraneous industry can yield technological windfalls in the future.

Alliant Techsystems, unlike other local employers who have been hemorrhaging jobs, has cut a comparatively small portion of its workforce – downsizing from 1050 to 900 workers at its Anoka ammunition plant. This plant, unlike other manufacturing operations nationwide, added hundreds of positions in recent years and may only be back to mid-2000s’ levels of employment. A cursory glance at Alliant’s operations suggest that its sustainability is primarily driven by federal spending – which is often allocated against the grain of what is profitable in the short run. It seems fairly obvious that industry moves in the shadow of government incentives, and, although Alliant and other tech firms have been reaping the benefits of the military spending boom, it will be one of the first to receive contracts under new science initiatives. In a Machiavellian way, the state should embrace a doorway into this seemingly recession-proof chimera of military and consumer applications and look to Alliant as an indicator of things to come. Recent years have shown that defense spending is the one thing that maintains or increases its budget at all costs in spite of widespread deficit spending. Alliant is a good local indicator because of the diverse product line it offers up for government contracts. President Obama has bandied about the idea of a more extensive, renewed mission for NASA and America’s stumbling space industry. Alliant would stand to benefit from this and virtually every other heavy engineering enterprise. Its performance should be monitored, as a successful industry anchor could create and attract new enterprises.

On the other side of the coin is academia, which will be flush with new scientific research grant money. Current iterations of the rapidly-evolving bill peg $2.5 billion dollars for peer-reviewed research, $250 million for unspecified “climate research missions,” and a number of provisions that are decidedly more tangential to the advancement of sustainable infrastructure. By all measures, Minnesota has taken impressive steps thus far in creating a basis for the “green collar” jobs that dominated part of the electoral cycle. Our university represents a great boon to our state economically. Many of the stimulus bill’s items that are not explicitly classified as “science” may ultimately benefit the larger cause of sustainability. The University of Minnesota is one of the largest landholders in the state, and there will be new research grants that must be spent within three months. A whole series of new projects may soon be underway that will solidify Minnesota’s environmental and scientific standing. Any new graduates who are discouraged about job prospects on the outside may find refuge with the University’s commitment to the new legislation. Specific appropriations themselves are too tenuous to discuss with any great accuracy, but the federal government seems intent on being a benefactor for institutions such as the U.

Dude, Fixies Suck

Fixed gear bicycles are all the rage these days. One can’t travel more than half a mile on a warm day without encountering at least one biker riding a brakeless fixie and sporting a Chrome bag and one of those flippy hats. They started with bike messengers and have now filtered down through the bike hipster contingent to anyone who fancies themselves a badass.

For those who have been living under a rock, a fixed-gear is a bicycle which does not allow freewheeling, or coasting. The rider must constantly pedal as the pedals are in motion whenever the bike is. Fixed gears allow the rider to build up a great deal of momentum, which translates into greater speed but dramatically reduced stopping ability. Some riders even do away with brakes entirely, instead relying on a trick called skid-stopping, in which the rider uses his own (fallible) physical strength to stop the pedals and the wheel. If you think this sounds stupid, that’s because it is.

Riding a fixed gear puts pressures on the body that are unnatural. The constant motion can wear out knees and allow acids to build up in leg muscles. If you think you’re going to ride fixed your whole life, I’ve got news for you: your knees are going to wear out after a few years of riding.

But even if personal health isn’t a factor, there are a myriad of others reasons why you shouldn’t choose a fixed gear. Fixed gear bicycles have inherent mechanical properties that make them unsuitable and unsafe for riding in a city. The fact that it is more inconvenient and challenging to stop means that sometimes fixed riders just don’t; it encourages the rider to ignore traffic signals such as street lights and stop signs. I can’t count the times I’ve seen a fixed gear blow through a busy intersection on a red light or run a stop sign right in front of a line of cars.

Additionally, there is an issue of stopping control. Whether on a busy campus or in rush-hour traffic, the ability to stop your movement at a split-second’s notice is pivotal. Relying on fancy tricks to stop when you have less than a second to both perceive and respond to danger is ridiculous. Even for fixed gears with brakes, the sudden application of a brake to a fixed riding system is jarring and has the potential to hurl the rider straight over the handlebars. Imagine if cars weren’t able to stop on a dime; bikers love to bitch about asshole drivers, but it’s possible to be a jerk on a bike too. If bikers want to be able to use roadways, they need to have brakes and they need to be able to stop. Period. If you want to make choices that have negative consequences for you, like not wearing a helmet, fine. But being unable to stop endangers everyone on the road.

Then there is the issue of the constant battle for bike legitimacy. While I would certainly rather someone ride a bike than drive a car and I am happy that people my age are finally seeing a bike as a great way to get around, I think that riding fixed is actually destructive to the bike rights movement. In order for bikes to be considered a legitimate form of transportation by city governments, town planners, and the general populace, the myth that biking is dangerous needs to be overcome. Riding a bike that can’t stop is simply not the way to do this. Again, I honestly have no problem with people making decisions I disagree with if it effects only their reputation, but bad feelings with motorists affects all bikers. For every fixie fool that cuts a car at a stop sign because he doesn’t want to slow down, bike rights is pushed one step back.

Granted, there are a few very narrow situations in which a fixed gear bike may be defensible. During the depths of Minnesota winters, it can get so cold that the pawls that allow a freewheel to coast may become stuck and render the bike useless. Fixed gear cogs have no pawls, so they’re not prone to this particular problem. They also keep constant force on the rear wheel, which is pivotal if you begin to slide on ice.

Fixed gears are a dangerous hip fad that has grown to an epidemic of irresponsibility. I’ll celebrate the day the city makes these illegal.
So, pile on the hate mail.

Re: Dude, Fixies Suck (NOT)

As an avid fixed gear rider I can safely say that the appeal of a fixed gear bike is almost impossible to understand unless you have experienced it first hand. The closest parallel to riding a fixed gear is like walking, but with more grace and much more speed. Fixed riders are in complete control of their speed at all times; if the rider wants to slow down they slow their feet down, as opposed to using a rudimentary tool to apply pressure to the wheel. It is a machine that one can find greater physical and psychological harmony with.

Admittedly, riding a bicycle of this nature has its dangers. But these dangers are only an issue if the rider is inexperienced. I have been riding my fixed gear bike for 6 months now without any brakes. When I first started riding this bike 2 years ago I never would have thought that I would take the brake off. But after riding every day for those 2 years I was confident enough in my riding ability to safely take the brake off. Since that time I have not had any accidents aside from falling on my butt going no more than 2 miles an hour over ice.

The appeal is much more than the thrill of not having an apparatus called a “brake”. My bike frame essentially has nothing more than two wheels, a chain, some pedals, and two cogs. Maintenance is minimal. The most I will ever have to do in any given month is refill my tires, lube the chain and change an occasional flat. On freewheel bikes and especially geared bikes one has to worry about many more things.

As far as stopping power goes, I can stop on a dime. Skid stopping is a tricky maneuver that takes practice and does not come easily. But once you do learn how to do it, it is just as effective if not more so than a brake is. The direct connection between the rider’s feet and the wheel creates a direct connection between the rider and the street. I am aware of many things while I am riding. Because the bike always travels the same distance for every rotation I know exactly what position my feet will be in when I come to an intersection, a pothole or any other obstacle. This allows me to negotiate these obstacles and know when and how I will stop. Because of this awareness it is true that I will often not stop at red lights or blow through stop signs.

Although I cannot speak for all fixed gear riders I know that I am very polite in my disobedience of traffic signals. At stoplights I come to complete stops always and make sure there are no cars coming before I proceed. To say that all cyclists disobeying traffic signals are fixed gear riders is prejudiced and a lie. There have been many times when I am waiting at a traffic light and I will see someone riding a non-fixed gear bike go through the intersection against a red.

I love riding my bike as it is: fixed and brakeless. But there are dangers that come with this that only experienced riders can anticipate and deal with. Again these things are something that may not be readily understood by any way other than first hand experience, but once they are experienced, they are life changing.

As University of Minnesota students, we experience many things on our path to graduation; most of which have nothing to do with our academic ambitions. During your freshman year of college, you learn a lot of things that no one really warns you about–or if they do–you don’t really take their advice to heart. Everyone jokes about the “freshman 15” and how transitioning from being a high school student and living at home to being a college student and living independently can sometimes cause a more-than-subtle gain in body mass. Although this might be a common symptom of what can happen when you are no longer under the dietary confines that your parent(s) imposed, it is only one of many ways that college students deal with stress and their newly found independence.

For most, new found independence is a relief and can be very empowering. However, I don’t think it would be a stretch for me to assume that everyone has had their lonely or lost days. Especially at the U of M, you can lose yourself in the crowd. While our beloved research institution stimulates our brains, offers a plethora of dining hubs, and “big” city entertainment just a walk or a bus ride away, there is an element of isolation and a lack of community support that quietly endures on campus. Many U of M students experience feelings of depression and anxiety their first year away from home because there is no decent community atmosphere; save for a few sororities, fraternities, or a lucky mix of people in the dorms. Point is, the way that many U of M students live is not a healthy one for their minds, bodies, or spirits. People need support from a community that surrounds them. I’m not talking about parents, boyfriends or girlfriends, or even friends (although these may provide reassurance in times of need). I’m talking about a revolution called: Community Earth Councils.

I found out about Community Earth Councils after my mother coerced me to attend a symposium at the Great Hall; which I initially thought was going to be about sustainability. This event was not what I had expected at all. There was a large group of people there; at least 100, if not more. I quickly found out that although sustainability was the primary goal of what these groups aimed to accomplish, they were acutely tuned in to their social awareness. This is something that I had not previously been exposed to. During the event, everyone was asked to leave their seats and form a large crowd in the middle of the room. Next, we were instructed to walk around quickly within the group and catch glances of people whom we passed. Then, we were supposed to stop at someone who we visually connected with and hold their hand. For me, all of this was a bit too “touchy feely,” but I made an honest effort to stay at ease. What this taught me was that when you are not used to connecting with perfect strangers, releasing your prejudgments, and simply looking into their being, it can catch you off guard and confuse you.

As the night went on, I learned what Community Earth Councils were: a group of 6-10 people in your neighborhood community that come together to support each other mentally and emotionally while at the same time focus on some sort of issue that matters greatly to all in the group. The group is comprised of “elders” and “youngers.” The reason for this is because “youngers” can bring energy, ambition, and new ideas to a council while “elders” can bring the knowledge, experience, and rationality that ideally balances out a group of people. Each of these groups can learn from one another, and if they do that successfully, they will truly achieve great things. The most common issue that Community Earth Councils nationwide have been working towards is environmental sustainability.

I spoke with the founder of Community Earth Councils, Eric Utne, to find out more about this new idea, what it has the potential to do, and how students can get involved. We sat down at French Meadow Bakery in Uptown (an establishment that serves local and organic foods) to discuss his social and environmental enterprise. Apparently, the idea for CECs stemmed from a revelation that he experienced during the “Move On” Live Earth Concert in 2007. Utne had hosted a viewing party at his home in hopes that this concert would bring forth revolutionary ideas for making a difference. He was quite disappointed when he found out that the only real messages the concert emanated were: eat local, change your light bulbs, ride your bike to work, etc. He was surprised that nothing was said about “what we can do with our neighbors.”

Later that month, Nelson Mandela announced “the formation of The Elders.” The idea behind having global village elders spawned from Richard Branson and Peter Gabriel. Apparently Branson stated that, “since the world is now a global village, we need global village elders.” These “elders” included people such as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson and Muhammad Yunus. As a result, Eric Utne got to work to create village communities of his own at the local, and eventually at the national level.

What Utne describes as his “shining example” of what he would like to see all Community Earth Councils become is a group of nine people in Linden Hills. They call themselves the “Linden Hills Power and Light.” The connotation of “power and light” is not political power and sunshine, but instead “empowerment” and “enlightenment.” This group of people (including Felicity Britton and Tom Braun with whom I spoke) has already completed some impressive projects to help Mother Earth. It all started with a living room discussion about what could be done to reduce our carbon footprints. They started by instigating a ride-your-bike-to-school day, in which 200 or so kids took part. After this project, they launched an idea about organizing compost bins that the city would collect and disposing of the waste through anaerobic digestion. Since obtaining several grants and making friends with members of their city council, the pollution control agency, and others, they successfully achieved their mission. In the Linden Hills neighborhood, there are green compost dumpsters that residents can put out on the street like any other garbage can. The city collects the organic waste and takes it to a commercial compost facility. Eventually, LHP+L hopes to dispose of the organic waste through local anaerobic digestion.

At this point, you may be thinking, “Wow! I wonder how I can get involved in this movement.” Luckily for U of M students, there are several ways. Eric Utne and John Miller have partnered up with the University’s Center for Spirituality and Healing to create what Utne hopes will eventually be a “Social and Environmental Healing” minor composed of 3-4 courses. Right now at the CSH, you can take a class called “Self, Society, and the Environment.” This class covers an integral systems approach to personal well-being and engagement. The aim of the course seems to reflect what Utne views as crucial in our society: understanding the importance of mind-body health, relating it to our natural environment, and to our social relationships and community.

If you prefer a less academic way to become involved; you can join or start a Community Earth Council yourself! Carmen Price, a recent U of M graduate is one of the lead “youngers” in the Greater Dinkytown NE Community Earth Council. They are a newly formed group of students and some retired professors that meet approximately once a month in the Como neighborhood. Carmen says that they have just begun to really get to know each other so that they can determine where their group’s interests lie. The group members entrust their problems and questions to each other, which creates the community support that CECs are founded upon. The gatherings are very informal, and anyone can join. However, the purpose of these councils is to really get to know a small number of people. Once a group gets too large, the personal support and the vision are lost. What Price suggests is to form your own CEC with your friends, neighbors, and/or professors. You can find all the information online where a “Council Keeper’s Companion” guide will take you through all the steps of creating your group and finding your vision. Besides, as Carmen says, “each community is different than the next,” and in order to connect with people around you and find personal and communal purpose, founding your own group will be the most beneficial.

For more information about CECs, visit: http://www.earthcouncils.org
To learn more about the Greater Dinkytown NE CEC, contact Carmen Price at pric0187@umn.edu

The crowd gathered inside Coffman Memorial Theater, silent and somber. As the Hmong community and their leaders slowly filled the auditorium, tension and energy built among the assembled. These people sought vindication, healing and answers as they came up and sat down at the spot lit table on the stage. One by one, they sat and waited as a translator read their testimonies. One by one, they faced the crowd and the United Nations Special Rapporteur, answering questions. One by one, they asked why the people of Thailand desecrated the graves of their loved ones half a world away.

The hearing on December 10 was the culmination of three years of anguish among the Hmong community in Minnesota. Billed as “Consultation with United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples Professor James Anaya on the Desecration of Hmong Graves,” it was a town hall meeting for the Hmong to seek help. The Hmong believed the souls of their relatives were in peril and there was little anyone could do about it.

The Hmong have been persecuted for hundreds of years. Thought to have originated from China, they migrated across Asia to countries like Laos, Vietnam and eventually Thailand. The Han dynasty in China deemed them barbarians and began their persecution over 2,000 years ago simply because they refused to assimilate into Han culture at the time. Their troubles in the 20th century began when a large number of Hmong decided to fight for the United States against communist forces in Laos. When the communist party took over the Laotian government, the Hmong faced immediate persecution as their villages were razed and their people slaughtered. Many thousands sought shelter in the United States and Thai refugee camps, among other places. Yet in Thailand, there are many whispered stories of corrupt officials mistreating refugees.

Wat Tham Krabok is located in Saraburi province inside Thailand. It is a Buddhist temple where at one time over 20,000 Hmong refugees stayed during the 1990s. They were afraid to return to Laos, yet couldn’t find sanctuary within the U.S. Although the temple grounds weren’t originally classified as a refugee camp, the temple’s abbot, Chamroon Parnchard, allowed them to stay on the land. Due to poor living conditions, about 2,000 people died at the temple between the early 1990s and the present. When the first person died, the temple monks wanted to cremate the remains. Horrified, the Hmong camp leaders protested.

The Hmong believe in the concept of animism, or ancestral worship. One of the basic tenets of their religion is the burial of their dead. They believe each person has three souls. When someone dies, one of those souls goes to live in a sort of Heaven, to join their ancestors all the way back to Xiong Shee Yee, the first healer of the Hmong. Another soul seeks reincarnation. The third spirit stays with the dead body, sealed in a coffin and buried with rituals and spiritual protection. Cremating the body would not allow their souls proper rest, leaving them to wander the earth plaguing their living relatives.

Abbot Chamroon understood the refugees needs, they later testified. He allowed the Hmong to bury their dead on temple land or the land around the temple they could purchase . Whenever a family had to bury their own, the abbot would give them a 100-kilogram bag of rice and let them have free electricity for the week. Sometimes the abbot and his monks would attend the funeral as well. Chamroon died in 1998. His younger brother, Chareun Parnchant, became the next abbot of Wat Tham Krabok. From then on, the Hmong didn’t receive bags of rice when their relatives died, although they were still allowed to bury their dead.

The Hmong lived in peace with the temple and with the towns nearby for several years after Chamroon’s death. In 2003, the U.S. declared that the Hmong at Wat Tham Krabok could resettle in America if they so chose. Most of the refugees have immigrated stateside, with only a few hundred refugees left of the 20,000 or so that once sought shelter at the Wat.

The peace was shattered on Oct. 26, 2005. That day, according to testimony, a caravan of cars came to the Wat, emptying Thai workers onto the temple grounds. They scrambled about, directed by temple monks to dig up the land. The Hmong refugees watched, helpless, as Thai workers dug up the coffins of their relatives, dead for years, months, weeks, even days. They smashed open coffins, ripping the wood away. The workers removed bodies from the ground, one after another. They cut the flesh away from the bones of the dead Hmong, leaving it to rot under the sun in the newly formed pits the workers dug. They took the bones away with them for unknown reasons.

From October 26 to November 18 of 2005, the Thai workers dug up almost 500 graves. The Hmong refugees stood by while the Thai workers took out the bodies of their loved ones, afraid to speak out. Some refugees told Anaya, the U.N. Rapporteur, that Thai soldiers were also present, carrying guns and knives. The Hmong were afraid that if they said something they would be denied entry into the U.S. or jailed. So they did the next best thing: while the workers took the bodies, several Hmong took video footage and sent it to their relatives in America. When a second group of workers picked up 211 bodies between November 26 and December 6, they took video again. They hoped their relatives in America could put a stop to the ruination of their relatives’ souls.

It worked, to an extent. One of the videotapes found its way to Minnesota State Senator Mee Moua, who told the U.N Rapporteur she had to shut off the tape before it ended.

“If I was emotionally distressed by the images I saw, I could only imagine the pain and hurt, the outrage and anger the surviving families must be experiencing,” Moua told Anaya.

Within ten days of the last exhumation, congressional representatives from Minnesota and Wisconsin sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking her to look into the grave desecrations committed at Wat Tham Krabok. At the end of January 2006, U.S. Rep. Martin Sabo received a letter from the Department of State. Thai officials had told the State Department that the graves were being exhumed because of water sanitation concerns. The Hmong were outraged. At no point was there ever a water sanitation concern in removing the graves, they argued. Thus far, no one has found evidence the graves were exhumed for that purpose.

By the end of March 2006, the University of Minnesota’s Human Rights Program became involved, helping the Hmong community in Minnesota write letters to the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Religious Intolerance and Contemporary Forms of Racism. Created in 2001, the Special Rapporteurs to the United Nations give annual reports to the Human Rights Council, along with other councils, on any human rights concerns found around the world. In April 2006, then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan visited St. Paul to attend the opening of a new center at his alma mater, Macalester College. St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman spoke with Annan about the Hmong grave desecrations, receiving a promise from Annan to look into the issue. On April 24, 2006, the Minnesota State Senate passed a resolution in support of the Hmong community in what was known as the Minnesotans Against Grave Desecration Day in Minneapolis.

At the end of 2006, the Hmong community accomplished several important goals with the help of state and national legislative representatives, the Human Rights Project and the Special Rapporteurs on Religious Tolerance and Indigenous Issues. The Thai government had promised to stop further exhumations of Hmong graves at the Wat. They also promised to cooperate in returning the 211 bodies dug up in the second period. Yet the Thai government argued the Hmong weren’t legally refugees at the Wat and that they weren’t given permission to bury their dead on the temple ground. The Hmong were appalled at this accusation. They had lived in harmony with the monks for years without trouble. The abbot used to give them bags of rice whenever one of their own died, didn’t he?

With little response from the Thai government, the National Hmong Grave Desecration Committee decided to send its own delegation of investigators in September of 2007. The delegation met with Ralph Boyce, the U.S. Ambassador to Thailand when they arrived. They toured Wat Tham Krabok, meeting with Abbot Chareun. Although Chareun told them no further exhumations would take place unless there were environmental concerns, the abbot refused to allow the 211 Hmong bodies still intact to be reburied.

The delegation found further evidence of the abbot’s resistance. They met with the Phothi Paowana Songkhroh Foundation, the Buddhist religious group responsible for the first round of exhumations. They told the delegation they had been commanded by their own god earlier in 2005 to exhume the graves of unknown people across Thailand. They were hired by the abbot of Wat Tham Krabok, who saw an ad for their services in a newspaper. The abbot had told them to remove the graves of the unknown people on the temple ground. Because Hmong graves are marked with sticks or a few stones, if marked at all, they were interpreted as unknown graves. They had no idea what suffering they had caused to the Hmong They had taken the bones to cremate them in an elaborate ceremony, burying what was left in their tomb of the unclaimed. The Bhudda Dharma 31 Nakhon Ratchasima Foundation, responsible for the second round of exhumations, told the delegation they had placed the 211 bodies they had dug up inside cement caskets in a field near Hulin cemetery, also in Sawaburi province.

All of these events led to the hearing on Dec. 10, 2008, coincidentally the 60th anniversary of the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Soua Dao Thao, who immigrated to the U.S. in 2007, testified that during the first round of exhumations, Thai workers dug up the bodies of his 3-year-old son and his 80-year-old mother, both of whom had died several years earlier. He watched as the workers stripped his son’s body down to the bones. He listened as the workers told him 1 kilogram of bones was worth 2 or 3 kilograms of gold. He despaired as the workers pulled his mother’s body out of her coffin, already petrified despite being dead for only three years.

“I don’t have the words to describe the pain watching my son and mother’s body treated this way,” Thao
said through a translator.

Because his mother was petrified, the workers told him they were going to put the corpse in a glass case at their main temple in Bangkok, where they would charge visitors to see her. They said she was going to make them prosperous for at least three generations, according to testimony. The only keepsakes Thao has left from the event are a snatch of his mother’s hair and a piece of the ceremonial cloth used to cover her mouth. He found both of them on the ground as the workers carried her away, burning incense and wads of currency in worship of her.

Thao barely stammered an answer when Anaya asked him a question before breaking down in tears. He couldn’t respond for at least a minute before he regained his composure. He wasn’t the only person to sob during Anaya’s questioning. Lia Thao, who found out five of her relatives had been exhumed, needed several minutes to answer Anaya’s questions, thinking of the husband she left behind whose grave had been desecrated, whose body was supposedly buried as part of the 211 corpses at Hulin cemetery. She, like almost every person who testified during the hearing, had described the terrible dreams that plague her, her children and other relatives. In the dreams, the dead haunt the living, asking why the living relatives do not love them, why their houses have been disturbed, why they could not find peace. Lia Thao demanded justice for her husband and healing for his soul.

“Since the grave diggers dug up the graves and have mixed up all the bodies, we are no longer sure whose body belongs to whom,” Lia Thao said. “I want my husband’s body returned to me and I want to know that the body I am receiving is my husband’s through DNA testing…I want them to do all of this for me because I cannot rebury my husband and they are the ones at fault so they must take this responsibility.”

There is little luck her request will be granted. Although Anaya took their testimony, he will have to investigate further, gathering information from the Thai government before he submits his findings as part of his annual report next September. Even then, the U.N. Human Rights Council may or may not decide to take action. If the testimony and evidence given at the hearing are any indicator, the Thai government could be almost blameless in this situation. Even though it was discovered that a high-ranking government official with ties to the Thai monarchy attended the mass cremation ceremony by the Phothi Paowana Songkhroh Foundation, it certainly does not prove the Thai government was responsible for the grave desecrations.

The Hmong feel otherwise. At times sounding raving mad, each testimony given to Anaya ended with a condemnation of the Thai government, accusing them of allowing or even taking part in the desecration. There may be nothing the U.N. can say to console them. In their minds, the Hmong have already judged the Thai government, based on similar grave desecrations at Camp Nongkhai, a Thai refugee camp, the suffering they felt when their graves were desecrated in Xiangkhouang Province inside Laos and further persecution stretching back into the darkest periods of time. Their shamans and healers say it is almost impossible to heal the spiritual rift caused by these latest desecrations.

“I don’t see anything possible of fixing something of this magnitude,” Nhia Yer Yang, a shaman of Hmong healing ceremonies said through State Representative Cy Thao. “I’ve never performed any ritual of this magnitude, but I could find ways to help this.”

Although the admission of guilt they seek from the Thai government may never come, it may have been enough to address Anaya at the meeting, according to Rep. Thao. Simply shooting for a solution here may be enough to absolve the spiritual demons haunting the Hmong community. It may console Pa Ze Xiong, whose father fought the communists in Laos and whose mother’s, father’s and son’s graves have all been desecrated. Xiong couldn’t stop wiping the tears from his face, couldn’t stop the sobs wracking his heavy frame and couldn’t stop the quiver in his voice as he asked for the United Nations to protect the rights of people everywhere. It might even console Lee Yang, who testified that the spirit of his older brother, whose grave was desecrated during the first round of exhumations, tortured Yang’s niece with illness and visions, causing her to poison herself. Yang was unable to attend her funeral, as she died in Thailand.

While the experience of telling the world their problems might help, it might not make a difference at all.

“Because Hmong cultural and funeral rites are so respected, complex and have a long tradition, the desecration of Hmong graves is the most fundamental and deeply painful violation of all violations against the Hmong,” Shong Ger Thao, a Hmong funeral rights expert, testified. “No shaman can adequately heal the wounds of this kind of violation.”

Do you remember Bitburg? Well, technically, I don’t either – I wasn’t born yet – but that’s why god gave us that internet. In May 1985, then-president Ronald Reagan accepted an invitation to commemorate the 40th anniversary of V-E Day by visiting a military cemetery near Bitburg, Germany. The problem was that there happened to be a bunch of SS soldiers interred there, Nazi war decorations and all. Although the decorations were removed for the visit, and Reagan took the opportunity to spew some generic “never again” rhetoric, critics still saw it as a bitterly ironic slight; a commemoration of fascism by a man whose career was supposedly dedicated to fighting an oppressive dictatorship.

Musings on Bitburg might not seem relevant in America 2009 – the country that voted “against racism” and “for change” in wall-sized quotation marks – but President Obama’s policy towards Israel is reminiscent of Reagan’s tasteless field trip. That is, it’s just one giant ideological contradiction wrapped up in rosy rhetoric for the folks at home.

On June 4 2008, Obama gave a speech to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. In it, he recited the standard politician boilerplate on the Israel-Palestine conflict: Israel needs security, Israel has a right to defense, let’s fight Iran, etc. Right up front, though, he made an interesting remark that, to me, highlights the hypocrisy inherent in these rabidly pro-Israel remarks. Courtesy of npr.org: “I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea — that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.”

Uh huh. Again: “I deeply understood the Zionist idea — that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.”

Now, I don’t mean to condescend, but I have to ask: does he know what that means? Does he know what kind of actions have been inspired by “the Zionist idea” around the world? History has not been kind to those who have decided to simply move into another (already occupied) land and pretend like the indigenous people simply don’t exist.

Take Liberia, for example. In 1822, an organization called the American Colonization Society began sending African-American slaves to Liberia under the auspices of giving them a homeland. The ACS counted both abolitionists and slave owners among its ranks and it shows. Many of the Society’s actions were supported by southern whites who feared post-abolition riots and unrest. The subtext of the establishment of Liberia was, “get them out of here before they mess up my mansion.” And, subsequently, the Americans who arrived in Liberia proceeded to treat the indigenous Liberians like trash. They were hostile, discriminatory and exclusive. They made no effort to integrate into the culture of their new “homeland.” The result, predictably, was years of strife and civil unrest.

If you’re not seeing the parallels between Liberia and Israel, I’ll make it simple: it is impossible to simply take one group’s land and it give it to another group as a bizarre form of apology from an unrelated party. One group always feels superior; the other, slighted.

Of course, if you want an example that’s closer to home, look no further than the ideology of manifest destiny that our very own United States of American was founded on. The belief in white superiority and the existence of a homeland meant for a particular group of settlers engendered hundreds of years of genocide and imprisonment. It ultimately led to the murder of Native Americans and enslavement of Africans and the exclusion and belittlement of group after group of immigrants. The founding rhetoric of this country set the tone and made possible atrocity after atrocity.

And now, as everyone is ready to claim victory against the forces of oppression and racism, the man who served as the catalyst for this new wave of optimism endorses an even more extreme version of these very same forces. Israel has killed thousands of men, women and children under the auspices of fighting terrorism and preserving its security. They have destroyed countless homes and communities in Palestine while illegally expanding their borders and frequently attempting to seize land from surrounding countries. The latest rumblings in Gaza serve as a reminder to Americans of what daily life is like for Palestinians: a mélange of terror, death, oppression and inhuman living conditions largely paid for by the American government and its approximately $84 billion annual grant to Israel. That’s one-third of our total foreign aid payout, according to the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs.

Doesn’t it strike anyone as ironic? Is it just me or is it galling to watch Obama talk about the new age we’re entering as we shrug off the yoke of racism while reaffirming our commitment to funding the oppression of the Palestinians? How can he support the Zionist ideal and also celebrate American progress? How can the first black president of this country so zealously support an ideology that always has, and always will bring about racism and oppression?

In his inaugural address, Obama remarked that it was amazing to be sworn in as president so near to a restaurant that his father wouldn’t have been able to dine at in the not-so-distant past. As he’s signing off on that $84 billion, I would ask him – and all Americans – to consider this: for many Palestinians it would be amazing to not live in fear of military invasion, to be able to have a land of their own that they could roam freely, to not have to fear the destruction of their lives, family and property by an insatiably expansionistic government. I would ask him – and all Americans – to consider that he has a part in this process and that he could do something about it.

If that happens, maybe I’ll buy into all the hope and change rhetoric that’s being thrown around like so much cheap confetti at some distant relative’s wedding. Until then, it will be just that: cheap.

It has been just over four years now since I wrote my last album review. Initially I was afraid that I would be rusty or, even worse, that my writing would have grown ‘unhip’. To combat these fears, I read a multitude of reviews of this album in preparation. I have to admit, what I found was quite surprising.

I use as example this quote from Pitchfork Media, written by a Mr. Mark Richardson. Richardson describes certain songs on the album as having, “the ego-pulverizing bliss of shoegaze,” or perhaps even better is his simple description of the song Brother Sport as “Afro-Brazilian-flavored.” What this research revealed to me was that, 1) there is no way I can compete with these online reviews in terms of coolness; and 2) that I can freely create words and sentence structures to fill my purposes in album reviews. So, in light of this revelation, I will give the following sentence as a short, and concise, review of the album.

“Beyond its originality and promorgasmic songs, Animal Collective has really reached the pinnacle of their work, recreating their past successes, and once again adding something pantsholller to their repertoire in the form of their incandescent beats and holfactic electronic noise; music good.”

Perhaps now with my coolness in full swing and my English in sorry disarray, I can properly review the album.  To me, this album represents one of the best musical creations of the last year, if not multiple years. I have yet to hear an album by Animal Collective that sounds anything like any of their many other albums and this one is no different. With Meriwether Post Pavilion the band has found the perfect balance between their noise filled electronic beginnings and their more recent pop infused albums.  From songs like Summertime Clothes, with its heavily layered instruments and mesmerizing background vocals, to Daily Routine with its electric organ and tribal rhythm, the album ranges over the entire musical spectrum. Furthermore, the songs move in an almost perfect progression, melding from one to the next. The entire album plays like a single continuous work without anything slowing it down or getting in the way.

The main idea or symbol of the album seems to be the simple act of living. Almost every song deals with human interaction in one form or another, giving the album a highly personal and human feel that has not previously existed in their older, and weirder, works. With lines like “will it be just like I’m dreaming,” and “Am I really all the things that are outside of me,” the album speaks about an everyday investigation into personal life. None of the songs focus on a singular aspect, and the wide variety of ideas mirrors the wide range that the music explores.

The hype surrounding this album is already colossal and will only continue to grow as the word gets out.  If you have never heard the band before, this album is a perfect introduction, and will interest anyone with a musical taste that might be considered outside of the ordinary. I strongly encourage anyone interested to get their hands on it.