Trendsetting: The Year In Review

Okay, can I be real with you guys for a minute? I want to be a trendsetter. I don't mean a "trendsetter" in the way that Jennifer Aniston and "the Rachel" were trendsetters in the mid-nineties. I mean I want trendsetting in and of itself to become a viable career option, and I would like to get in on it.

I  have my suspicions that this is already happening in some sort of (figuratively) underground boardroom, and that there is a cabal of random people who just sit down at the beginning of the year and decide what our culture is going to collectively obsess over for the next 365 days (or, in the case of this particular year, 366 days). As absolutely insane as that theory is, I think it's the most likely of all the possibilities. How else can one explain the trends that characterized 2012?

In my quest to become a part of this elite, presumably cracked-out group of visionaries, I would like to prove my worth by recapping the trends of 2012 and then, in my next post (if I remember and/or feel like it), offering my own suggestions for 2013. Feel free to get in on this with me. Together we can build a better future--or at least a more amusingly scattershot one.


1. Cupcakes

Oh, the Cupcakes. This isn't really so much a new development as it is the final stage of a years-long pop culture takeover. The Cupcakes have their own reality shows. The Cupcakes have cutesy storefront bakeries in bourgeois city neighborhoods. The Cupcakes have their own cookbooks. For the love of Jesus, the Cupcakes even have their own Cupcake ATM. (Full disclosure: I visited it and spent $4 on one cupcake.)

The Cupcakes have seamlessly integrated themselves into every dietary lifestyle. Vegan? No problem, here's a 450-calorie cupcake for you! Gluten-free? The Cupcakes LOVE gluten-free! I haven't got any word firsthand on the situation for diabetics, and logic tells me it probably ain't so great, but if you look at the Cupcakes' track record you realize there's no way in hell they're going to miss out on an entire demographic, so there's probably also a diabetes-friendly cupcake bakery out there.

Can't nobody stop the cupcakes. Not even...

2. Doctor Who

Okay, maybe it's just because I started watching Doctor Who this year so it starting showing up on my own personal trends radar, but I'm not entirely sure that's the case. For one thing, it's the first BBC show to air simultaneously in the US and the UK, which is indicative, I think, of the level of fan-obsession over here. Plus there was that Entertainment Weekly cover story (which I made the mistake of reading before I was all caught up--a simple "spoiler alert" might've been nice, EW). And then Matt Smith and Karen Gillan attended the US seventh season premiere in a Delorean, and everyone was like "TIME TRAVEL GEEKERY!" and I was like, "I'm embarrassed for everyone involved in this right now. Also, wrong time travel fandom."

But long story short, Doctor Who. It came, it saw, it conquered, although possibly not in that order. Wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey and all that.

But even Time Lords can't one-up Maggie Smith and...

3. Downton Abbey

Holy crap, Downton Abbey. I am going to give you a list of people with whom I have discussed Downton Abbey in-depth. See if you can guess which one is untrue:

a.) My roommates
b.) My sorority sisters
c.) Girls rushing my sorority
c.) Members of my a cappella group
d.) My (male) thesis advisor
e.) My mother

GOTCHA! It was a trick question, because I have had in-depth conversations about Downton Abbey with all of these people! I have even had legitimate Downton Abbey viewing parties (featuring tea, scones, and cheese straws) with some of these people! And I swear to you that this is not just me. I read an entire New York Times article about Americans holding Downton events where people have sit-down fancy dinners in period dress. (The juxtaposition of wearing Edwardian clothing while watching television, possibly the same set on which one DVR'd Jersey Shore just days before, apparently has done nothing to deter anyone.)

Bookstores reported spikes in the sales of early twentieth-centuiry historical non-fiction and in period fiction, e.g. Jane Austen. (The fact that Jane Austen died almost one hundred years before Downton's action begins has apparently not deterred anyone, either. "It's old! It's British! There are stuffy society types falling in love! SAME DAMN THING!" says everyone in America.) My public library had a Downton Abbey-themed shelf that practically smacked you in the face on the way in the door. In the interest of full disclosure, I did borrow a book from said shelf: Governess: The Life and Times of the Real Jane Eyres, by Ruth Brandon. Again, it was all about a time period fifty years before the Edwardian era, but still! Brits! Class division! History! Apparently, according to America, there are four stages of British history:

1. Stonehenge-builders (prehistory-middle ages)
2. Monty Python-esque villagers wallowing in mud (middle ages-Renaissance)
3. Uppity snobs who like taxing tea, etc. (eighteenth century - post-WWII)
4. THE BEATLES! Also, still sort of uppity. (1960s-present day)

Speaking of the Beatles, let's draw some comparisons to...

4. One Direction

Or, rather, let's not. I know a lot of people were calling this "the second British invasion." Presumably these people didn't realize that the second British invasion already happened in the eighties. Then again, the majority of One Direction's fanbase probably didn't come of age until the next century--nay, the next millenium--so I suppose you really can't blame them. In fact, kudos to them for knowing enough to try to draw the parallel in the first place. (See, I'm not always mean and bitter!)

I won't lie to you, I own Up All Night and have listened to it in its entirety. I know all the words to "What Makes You Beautiful" and "One Thing." I also know every single boy band harmony in both of these songs. They're catchy, I get it. If you think about it, it's basically five Justin Biebers, but with accents, which is why I try not to think about it.

But seriously. They were at the Olympics. Nothing says "Enjoy your place in the zeitgeist" like performing at the Olympics. Speaking of which...

5. Gabby Douglas and the Olympics

I know, it sounds sort of like she started an all-girl pop group, right? It has a way better ring to it than "Gabby Douglas, her hair, and the Olympics," which is what everyone made it out to be. I mean, really, people. Gabby Douglas just won an Olympic gold medal and became the first African-American all-around individual Olympic champion, and we're gonna talk about her hair? Seriously. Two questions, America:

1. What did your hair look like when you were sixteen? I want prom photos.
2. What did you do in your teens that even comes close to winning the freaking Olympics? That's what I thought.

Gabby Douglas, you rock on into 2013. Gabby Douglas's hairstyle, your moment is long over. It should never have been a moment to begin with.

After all that nonsensical hullabaloo, the  Olympic Games themselves were kind of playing second fiddle. Except that everyone enjoyed comparing them unfavorably to the Beijing Olympics. Go easy on the Brits, mmkay, guys? Everyone knows they're uppity and were probably too busy unfairly taxing luxury goods and/or wallowing in mud somewhere to really put in the effort. They built Stonehenge at least. Give them some credit.

No doubt about it, summer belonged to the Olympics. Except, wait, what's this? I think we've found a challenger in...

6. Frozen yogurt

Hey, America! Remember how you all love to bitch about college dining hall food?! Let's take the best part of a college dining hall, slap it into a strip mall, and then charge you even more exorbitantly than a college meal plan would! Sound good?

Seriously, though, I went through the first twenty-two years of my life without it ever occurring to me to go out for frozen yogurt. Ice cream, yes. Frozen yogurt, not so much. And then within a six-month span, no fewer than five frozen yogurt places opened up within a fifteen-minute drive of my house. Let me give you some perspective here by listing things that are not within fifteen minutes of my house:

• A hospital
• A bus station terminal
• An airport
• A taxi stand
• A beach
• An amusement park
• Any government building (that is not a post office)
• A reputable bar/club
• My dentist, my optometrist, and my dermatologist

There is a Starbucks, but only just barely. Marvel at the ubiquity of the Frozen Yogurt Shop. MARVEL, DAMMIT!

7. Painting one nail a different color than the rest
Fun fact: this trend apparently started as a way to identify femme lesbians, but then of course mainstream culture got a hold of it and totally divested it of any sort of meaning beyond "I like hot pink nail polish, but I also like acid green nail polish!"

I've seen maybe one or two people wear it well. Everyone else looks like they forgot midway through their manicures which color they were using. And that, my friends, is all I have to say on that score.

8. Every iteration of "Call Me Maybe"
And with that total lack of segue, let's talk about "Call Me Maybe." I think the lack of segue here is appropriate, personally, seeing as "Call Me Maybe" really did just come out of nowhere. It's not as if America was sitting around in the spring of 2012 going, "You know what the world is missing? A really twee song with some violins and a dance beat. Someone should get on that." Carly Rae Jepsen to the rescue!

What separated "Call Me Maybe" from every other ostensibly-much-reviled-yet-universally-known-and-sort-of-guiltily-enjoyed hit single this year, however, was the fact that it became such a youtube cover sensation. Basically if you were in a group with more than four other people and one of you had some sort of recording device, you were making a video of yourself singing along to this song. And that is the sort of thing that earned "Call Me Maybe" a spot on this list. I bet it was thinking it was all special and unique, too, until...

9. "Gangnam Style"
It has an SNL skit (where the punchline is literally just a recording of the song. There is no other overarching joke. "Gangnam Style" is it. Also, 0:55-0:57 pretty much sums up what happened when I introduced this phenomenon to my mother). It is the most-liked video on youtube. It has med-school parodies. It has a BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY PARODY. You will never escape this song. It will be like the Macarena--at parties twenty years from now, your drunk, nostalgic friends will be shouting "AAYYYYYYYY, SEXY LAAAADYYYYYY" and doing this and just generally looking like they've been possessed.

Speaking of being possessed...

10. Paranormal"reality" shows
Guys. Guys. Guys. No, shut up! Did you hear that? It was like a bang, or maybe a boom, or like, I don't know, footsteps. Naw, dude, seriously! I totally heard it! Since houses never settle, and wild animals never roam around abandoned buildings, and vagrants never sneak in, and the wind never blows things over, and there aren't like three of us wandering around in an unfamiliar setting in total darkness, it MUST BE A GHOST! It's the only explanation that makes any sense! Quick, call in the Long Island medium or those people from Dead Files, because we're only a demonic pig sighting and a movie deal away from the next Amityville Horror!

Ugh. Let's talk about hedgehogs.

11. Hedgehogs
These adorable little bastards took over the internet. I mean, you still have videos and pictures and gifs of cats and dogs doing cute stuff, but hedgehogs just came out of nowhere and were like, "Hey, world, we're pretty cute, too." I mean, they have their own category on Buzzfeed. Hedgehogs! Who knew! I mean, come on, how does this not make you go "awwwwww"?

Hedgehogs might melt your heart, but you know what will eat your brains?

12. Zombies
So in right now. I think they might be stealing the Murderous Supernatural Beings Pop Culture Juggernaut Award from vampires, which, let's face it, have had their day. Had I been writing this last year (or the year before that, or the year before THAT), it would have been all about Twilight, Vampire Diaries, True Blood, etc., etc. This year everyone is crazy for The Walking Dead. Given that there's a zombie rom-com coming out in February, it looks like our collective zombie obsession is going to continue into 2013. Everyone get your battle axes (or whatever it is you use to kill zombies, I'm not really up on my zombie lore) ready. Or you could just visit the CDC's web page on zombie apocalypse preparedness. Your call.

You know what confuses me as much as zombie imposters confuse real zombies?

13. Mustaches
I don't understand this. At all. It used to be that mustaches, when they acknowledged at all, were derided as creepy-looking or tool-y. Now suddenly mustaches are the "in" thing--not necessarily as legitimate facial hair, but as a design motif. In my shopping adventures, I have seen mustaches emblazoned on notebooks, mugs, and t-shirts. The phrase "I mustache you a question" pops unbidden into my head far more frequently than I would like. I thought this trend was so stupid, but it's become so common and ingrained in popular culture that I've started to be like, "Oh, that's a cute mustache t-shirt" instead of "WHY IS THERE A MUSTACHE T-SHIRT?!" Of course, stuff like this might have helped. I suppose there's only one thing to do in a situation like this...

14. "Keep Calm and Carry On"
 Or keep calm and dance on, keep calm and wait for iPhone 5 (ugh, don't even get me started), keep calm and edit copy,  keep calm and add butter, keep calm and talk to Mr. Feeny or, one of my personal favorites, keep calm and carry on, my wayward son. If you want to talk about ubiquity (a word I have used more in this blog post than I did in the entirety of 2012, thank you very much), here you go. "Keep Calm and Carry On" and its various variations (some of which are infinitely more clever than others) are everywhere. On the off-chance that you do not believe me, I will prove it by providing you with a "Keep Calm and Verb-Blankety-Blank" for every single item on this list. (This will also prove how spot-on all my other list items were. Grand finale time!)

I did not make up any of these myself (despite the existence of a "Keep Calm and Carry On" automatic phrase generator). These were all culled from the tangled mess that is Google Image Search. You are welcome, friends.

1. Keep Calm and Have a Cupcake. Or bake them, whatever.
2. Keep Calm, I'm the Doctor (I have this on a magnet. Also, there a million hilarious Doctor Who "Keep Calm"s, my favorite being "Keep Calm and Basically, Run.")
3. Keep Calm and Watch Downtown Abbey
4. Keep Calm and Love One Direction. Guys, there is an entire tumblr for this. I can't even. Just...why.
5. Keep Calm, It's Only the Olympics
6. Keep Calm and Eat Frozen Yogurt
7. Keep Calm and Get a Manicure
8. Keep Calm and Call Me Maybe
9. Keep Calm and Gangnam Style (It's a verb now? Has it always been a verb?)
10. Keep Calm and Hunt Ghosts
11. Keep Calm, Be a Hedgehog
12. Keep Calm and Carry On Run, Zombies Are Coming!
13. Keep Calm and Grow a Mustache
14. Keep Calm and Stop Remaking This F---ing Poster Already

Fare thee well, dear 2012. It's been real.

In defense of Greek Life...and of Dartmouth

Dartmouth has got some problems.

Eight months out of the year, the weather kind of sucks. The new meal plan is all but highway robbery. The administration is often unresponsive to student concerns. The college laid off 76 workers to cut the budget but then proceeded to needlessly redecorate Baker Main Hall (before / after)and install a bazillion flat screen TVs in the newly-renovated dining hall (most of which display only one or two alternating screens...why not just get signs made?!). Most of these issues are only noted by members of the Dartmouth community, but recently one of Dartmouth's bigger problems has made headlines.

I'm talking of course, about hazing.

After Andrew Lohse's article in The Dartmouth was leaked the night before its publication, it was simply everywhere. Jezebel, Gawker, and The Boston Globe have all run stories about it, and an exclusive Rolling Stone article was published today. So it's safe to say that everyone in the world now knows that Dartmouth is hellish hotbed of dehumanizing criminal activity. Down with the frats! Down with the Greek system!

Except wait. I've been in a sorority at Dartmouth for the last three years, and the horrors described in Lohse's article could not be any further removed from what my own Greek experience has been.

Look, I'm not saying that hazing is not a problem. It is. It's a horrible, ugly, pervasive problem and it is one that the Dartmouth community must solve sooner rather than later. Our Greek system is flawed. Our sexual assault rates are far too high. Let's be blunt: our campus has a reputation as an alcohol-saturated breeding ground for privileged dumbasses. And to be sure, I have met people in my time here who do such a good job of confirming that stereotype that they seem more like cartoon characters than real people. But the truth is that the majority of the people I have met at Dartmouth--and, more particularly, through my Greek experience--are kind, conscientious, thoughtful, driven, intelligent, community-oriented, and genuine.

Greek houses on Dartmouth's campus are not just bizarre underworld dens of debauchery and sin. Fraternities, sororities, and co-eds co-sponsor panel discussions and community events; they fund raise for different charities; they put on events for the campus and the community. Yes, some of these houses do have a much darker side once it's a Friday night or a big weekend. That's unfortunate, and I'm not going to pretend that Greek houses are all pure as the driven snow. To do so would be an insult to those who have been adversely affected by hazing or by the other not-so-admirable aspects of the Greek system. The atmosphere surrounding Greek life certainly needs to change. But fraternities and sororities (and co-eds!) are not just one-sided forces of evil.

It seems that Greek organizations only get press when they've done something wrong. I've seen no major news articles picking up stories about AZD's White Rose Benefit, or APhi's Red Dress Gala, or Tri-Kap's holiday parties/carnivals for local kids. When my sorority raised $3,300 for the prevention of child abuse last year (and the governor of New Hampshire issued a proclamation to be read at the event), it didn't make headlines. When we raised almost $3,000 this year for the same cause, I didn't see any bloggers patting us on the back for a job well done.

Last spring, when Dartmouth's eight sororities drafted a resolution that punished fraternities for ignoring assaults that involved either their brothers or their houses, there was no media firestorm. The article was picked up by a few off-campus publications, like Jezebel and the Chronicle of Higher Education, but no national news outlets were offering Panhellenic officers an exclusive interview deal. No one really wants to see houses taking a stand and combating the stereotype of Greeks as irresponsible, shallow partiers. The sensational stories, the ones that make people shake their heads and say "I told you so"--those are the stories that make headlines.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this article is entirely wrong: the discussion about hazing is one that needs to happen. But it is not a problem that plagues only Dartmouth. It's not even one that affects just Greek houses. Hazing is a problem that is pervasive throughout our society, from adults right down to young kids. It goes hand in hand with bullying, sexual assault, hate crimes, and other acts of violence. It is one symptom of a larger problem in our society--indifference. Indifference to the feelings of others, indifference toward the consequences of one's actions, indifference even toward one's own self-worth or self-respect.

And this is perhaps one of the things that upset me the most about this article: the way it portrayed Dartmouth students. I'm not talking about the ones involved in this whole hazing scandal, or even those involved in Greek life. I'm talking about the thousands of undergraduates who weren't exclusively interviewed by Rolling Stone.

True, most of us have never struck a deal with a major media outlet to dish on our Dartmouth experiences. But just because we haven't managed this feat (yet...?) doesn't mean that we don't have anything to say. Because if I could choose one word to describe the Dartmouth student body, "apathetic" would not be it. In my nearly four years at Dartmouth, I have discussed the College's many problems in a variety of contexts: in classes, at dinner, over drinks, and even in sorority meetings. When a violent or demeaning event occurs on campus, student initiatives often spring up even before the administration can respond. This could easily be read as a damning statement on the College's administration (and maybe, in some ways, it is) but it certainly isn't a condemnation of student activism. The people I know here care. They often care even more than I do myself, and let me tell you, no one in my life would describe me as apathetic about social justice.

But the part of the article I found even more ridiculous than the alleged apathy of the student body was the needless attack on freshman trips. Dartmouth's pre-orientation program consists of (completely optional) five-day long trips into the wilderness. The trips all end up at the Moosilauke Ravine Lodge, which is owned by the College, where members of different trip groups all come together and meet each other. Pretty innocent stuff. Not if you're Rolling Stone, though:

This is a Dartmouth tradition, where students hike, kayak, mountain bike or otherwise explore the White Mountains for a few days, winding up at the Dartmouth-owned Moosilauke Ravine Lodge, or the "lodj," where they gather for a communal dinner, followed by song-and-dance routines, and they are even asked to sit on the floor and listen to ghost stories.

Wait. You're kidding me! They're EVEN ASKED TO SIT ON THE FLOOR AND LISTEN TO GHOST STORIES! The nerve! You know what else freshman are EVEN ASKED to do? They're even asked to wake up before 10 am to attend Matriculation! They're even asked to get involved in campus activities! Would you believe it, these kids are even asked to show up to class and turn in work for grades! What kind of a toxic environment is this?!

Look, my freshman trip was fun at the time. It's not the shining memory for me that it is for some people, and I'll even grant that Lohse has a point when he remarks that "[t]here is a very specific message you get on Trips...which is 'We're all your friends, you're part of this awesome new world of Dartmouth, and if you're not having the absolute best time of your life, then there's something really wrong with you.'" Yes, the tagline of Trips could be "OMG, you guys! Isn't this just SO FUN?!" but honestly, I doubt that freshman orientation activities at any other school are really any different. You're trying to get a bunch of eighteen-year-olds to bond with each other. You're going to have to play some of those awkward ice-breaker games that everyone hates, but it's a bit of a stretch to call that hazing. From the perspective of someone who's been through Trips, this unnecessary digression did nothing more than weaken the article's argument and trivialize the ACTUAL hazing issues on campus. Serving freshman a Green Eggs and Ham-themed breakfast is not a crime. Eating a "vomlet" and eating some scrambled eggs dyed with green food coloring are two completely different things. And, in the interest of setting the record straight, I ate green eggs (but no ham) two weeks ago at a Saint Patrick's Day brunch. Quick, alert the presses, I've been hazed and I want to share my exclusive and heartbreaking tale!

That last snarky sentence aside, I don't want to comment on Andrew Lohse personally. I don't know him. I can't tell you anything about him other than what I've heard from news stories or word of mouth. He might be an upstanding crusader for justice; he might be the devil himself. Experience has taught me that he, like most of us, probably falls somewhere between those two extremes. Whatever his life story, I'm not really interested in him. I'm interested in the issues he's raised--both the legitimate and the non-legitimate ones.

At the end of the day, Dartmouth has its problems. So does any other school. When I graduate in a few short months (!!!) I will not be planning my immediate return to Dartmouth. I'll never be the alum at all the football games, hanging around town, partying on Frat Row. (Yes, there are alumni that do that. It's a Dartmouth thing, I guess.) Basically, I'm done with Dartmouth. It has not been the greatest four years of my life. But despite my problems with Dartmouth (and, as you can tell, I do have a few), it would be unfair to pretend that my time here has been miserable and unproductive--quite the opposite is true, actually. The Rolling Stone article is terrible PR for Dartmouth, but what's worse is that many of its accusations and implications are largely unfounded or grossly overexaggerated.

Dartmouth used to be the Ivy no one remembered. Now it's the one that will be remembered for all the wrong reasons. And for a school that, despite its problems, has so much to offer, that's truly a shame.

All I wanted was soup, not the third degree

Ahhhh, election day.


Now let me preface the rest of this entry with the fact that I believe in one's civic duty to schlep out to the polls; my facebook political views are "People should vote," and I complain on a fairly regular basis about people who don't vote but complain about the state of the government. "If you didn't vote," I say (to my patiently-listening friends, not to the actual vote-shirkers), "what are you complaining about? You had your chance to change things and you didn't take it."


Now let me say this: I am not the most politically informed person. Don't ask me who's running for Congress in the state of New Hampshire today, because I don't know. Something that begins with a K. Kushman? Kuster? Who knows? I'm guessing s/he is a Democrat, though, since the majority of the college's "honk if you agree" sign-holders seem to be holding signs with his/her name on them.



Don't get me wrong, if a hot button election issue comes into my realm of knowledge, I'll know which side I stand on. And if I know what different candidates stand for, too, I can come up with a pretty good idea of who I'll support. But the problem is that it's just so HARD in modern American politics to tell what the issues actually are and who stands for what, considering that most political candidates spend most of their time spouting off things like, "My opponent eats babies. I have never eaten and will never eat a baby. Vote for me." And then when you ask them, "What do you stand for, though?" they generally respond with something like, "I'll tell you what I DON'T stand for: BABY-EATING," which is not exactly helpful or enlightening.



What needs to happen is at the beginning of each campaign season, each candidate releases a list of things that they do and do not stand for. Or, you know what, given the flip-flopping nature of politicians, maybe this should be more of a Venn diagram: "Things I Stand For" on one side, "Things I Don't Stand For" on the other, and "Things I'll Change My Mind About Based On What My Opponent Does or Does Not Stand For" taking up the middle.


The point I'm trying (and failing?) to make here is that I am pathetically uninformed about this particular election, and in my mind voting blindly is worse than not voting at all, as I could end up accidentally voting for a baby-eater or something. And I don't believe in just voting along party lines. (I'm an Independent anyway.)


All of this means that I've spent the day divided between feeling guilty at shirking my patriotic duty and pissed at the political activists who are hounding me about it. As I ran to class (late for my quiz), someone with a sign shouted, "Hey! Are you running TO THE POLLS?!" which frankly was not as funny as the other sign-holders seemed to think it was and made me, in my already cranky mood, want to reply, "It's none of your damn business where I'm going."


So when I had to walk into Collis to get lunch later I had to brace myself and brave the activists who had stationed themselves between me and the one thing (a giant bowl of soup) that would keep me from descending into a hunger-induced streak of madness. I'd almost made it to the door without incident, which was somewhat disappointing since I was actually craving some confrontation (like I said, I'm cranky today). But as I was heading up the stairs, a girl yelled to me, "Hey! Have you voted today?"


Politeness (cowardice?) won out, and I answered, "No, not today."


"But today's the only day when it's going to make a difference!" she said.


"I know," I said, but what I really wanted to do was stop, stare at her for a minute in mock disbelief, and then exclaim, "So THAT'S how voting works?!" before heading off on my not-so-merry way.


I want to make this clear, though: I honestly believe people should vote. I'm not planning on making a habit out of not voting. But I also think it's out of line for people, particularly strangers, to question you as to why. It's a personal thing. Maybe I'm not a US Citizen. Maybe I'm not old enough to vote. Maybe I've already voted but I just don't want to have a conversation about it with some rando on the street. Maybe I'm lazy. The reasons don't matter. The bottom line is that this aspect of politics is a personal decision, and my feelings toward people who badger me about it are about on par with people who ask me if I've accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior.


So for the rest of the day, I am going to "be a Canadian." God bless Canadians and the fact that they're virtually indistinguishable from Americans unless they're a.) playing us in a game of hockey or b.) apologizing for something ("soor-y!").


And I am not going to feel guilty about not voting. I am going to put on a happy face and attend all my commitments - class, work, rehearsal - despite the fact that I haven't had an hour to myself for days, I desperately need to catch up on schoolwork, and I don't feel well. And in my one hour (literally) of free time, I am going to eat dinner, take some Advil, and lie down. I am making an executive decision to take care of myself first.


And that's my right as an American. So there.

In which the public, the media, the CPD, and others all gatz out

Normally I don't blog about serious issues - unless you count my Market Basket adventures as serious - but after all the hullabaloo (it's so rare I get a chance to actually use that word...) over the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. in Cambridge, I wanted to chime in.

The story is basically this: Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was returning home from traveling last week. When he arrived at his home, the door was jammed shut, so he was forced to break into his own home. A neighbor saw this and, not realizing that Gates was the homeowner, called the police to report a possible break-in. Sgt. James Crowley responded to the call. Now this is where things become muddled. According to the police report, Sgt. Crowley asked Gates for ID. Gates refused and shouted, "This is what happens to black men in America!" He also apparently told the officer, "You don't know who you're messing with."

There's a gap in the police report as the officer filling out the report left Gates's home to go speak with the person who called about the possible break-in. When the officer returned, Gates and Crowley were on the porch of Gates's home and Gates was still shouting at Crowley and calling him racist. By this time a crowd of about seven had gathered and was watching the incident. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct.

According to Gates, his "disorderly conduct" was to merely demand that Sgt. Crowley give him his name and badge number.

Since then, the charges have been dropped and almost everyone up and down the totem pole - from the Cambridge Police to the Mayor of Cambridge - has apologized to Professor Gates. Arresting officer Sgt. James Crowley has not apologized, however, and says, "There will be no apology."

In his speech last night, President Obama remarked that, while he didn't have all the facts about Gates's arrest, he believe that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" by arresting someone who'd already proven that the house was his own, and commented that, despite the fact the the role of race/racism in the arrest was unclear, the incident served as a sad reminder that minorities, particularly African-Americans and Hispanics, are more often the targets of criminal suspicion and unjust arrests.

Sadly, it is true that minorities are more often the target of suspicion and arrest. I'm not disputing this fact, and I doubt that there are many people who would. Race relations in America are far from perfect - in many places, they're far from acceptable, let alone perfect. But in this particular case, the question is not "Does America have a race problem?" but "Was Sgt. Crowley wrong to arrest Professor Gates?"

As far as I'm concerned, the president himself acted "stupidly" when he commented on an event that a.) was a local - not a national - incident, and b.) he openly admitted he did not have all the facts on. If I were making a speech on national TV, a speech that would be heard by people both in America and around the world, I would want to make damn well sure that I had my facts straight, for the sake of personal and national integrity and for the sake of my own political well-being. I've been inclined to approve of President Obama up until this point - I did vote for the man, after all, and I will admit to celebrating his win with much cheering and hugging and jumping around - but this was a major political faux pas. Scratch that, it wasn't a faux pas - "faux pas" makes it sound too cutesy - it was a major political mistake. Please redeem yourself, President Obama. I don't want to give up on you just yet, but know that I won't forget your horning in on an event that - race-motivated or not - did not and does not officially concern you.

Moving on to the broader issue of the arrest in general: Sgt. Crowley is accused of racism for arresting Professor Gates. Let's lay out the facts of the case: A police officer responds to a report of a possible break-in. When he arrives, the suspect is already inside the house. The officer doesn't pull his gun. He doesn't yell at the suspect to get on the ground. Instead, he asks the suspect to step outside and requests ID to ascertain if the suspect is indeed the homeowner.

According to the police reports of both Sgt. Crowley and the officer accompanying him, Professor Gates initially refused to provide identification. According to a statement released by Gates's lawyer, Gates told the officer he was the homeowner and a Harvard professor and when he was asked to prove it, he walked to the kitchen to get his IDs from his wallet. I obviously don't know which of these stories is correct, not having been there. It's entirely possible that both stories have some degree of the truth in them; it's also entirely possible that stories are way off the mark. It's easy to misinterpret actions or words, and the situation is obviously a stressful one for everyone involved - for a police officer, any call can turn violent in a matter of seconds; for the suspect, one false move or perceived threat can mean arrest or having a gun pointed at you. (That sentence is not meant to imply that police are trigger-happy, merely that they have to worry about their safety when responding to reports of suspicious behavior.)

At any rate, if Professor Gates had merely furnished his ID without a problem (as his lawyer's statement claims), this would all be over and done with. And maybe he did show the ID immediately; again, I don't know, I wasn't there. However, it's what happened afterward that led to his arrest. Because Professor Gates wasn't arrested for breaking and entering; he was arrested for disorderly conduct.

According to his lawyer's statement, Professor Gates followed Sgt. Crowley out onto the porch, calling after him repeatedly to get his badge number and name, which Sgt. Crowley never provided him with. Once Gates stepped out onto his porch, the statement says, he was "astonished" to see several more police officers standing there. He asked the other officers for Sgt. Crowley's name and badge number. (Apparently none complied with his request.) Officer Crowley apparently then said, "Thank you for accommodating my earlier request [for ID]," then arrested Gates.

The abruptness of the last bit sounds fishy to me, especially when Gates's lawyer's account fails to mention the fact that by this time, several witnesses (according to the police report) had gathered outside. If it weren't for the witnesses, I might be more inclined to believe this part of Gates's story - after all, police intimidation and racial bias are nothing new (in general or in Cambridge), and it's entirely possible, theoretically, that some racist dirty cops could gang up on an innocent man and arrest him simply for the color of his skin. It's happened before in America and it will sadly no doubt happen again.

HOWEVER, are we to believe that seven witnesses stood by and watched as a calm man was inexplicably handcuffed on his porch and led from his home for no reason at all? Are we going to contend that ALL these witnesses are so racist that they would allow the CPD to infringe upon some of the most basic rights of American citizenry? I could maybe believe that power-hungry police attempting to play God could arrest a man they were biased against for no real reason. What I have a very hard time believing is that said man's fellow citizens would allow it - knowing, as they do, that if one innocent person is the victim of power-hungry police, anyone could be the next victim.

According to the police report, Professor Gates was yelling at the officers and causing a scene. No witnesses have disputed this (although, in the interest of fairness, none have confirmed it, either. Why isn't the media talking to these witnesses? Why haven't they been made part of the investigation?). Although almost every report of the incident points out that it is not illegal to yell at a police officer, what is the very definition of disorderly conduct? According to FindLaw.com, "Almost every state has a disorderly conduct law that makes it a crime to be drunk in public, to 'disturb the peace', or to loiter in certain areas. Many types of obnoxious or unruly conduct may fit the definition of disorderly conduct, as such statutes are often used as 'catch-all' crimes. Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when a person is behaving in a disruptive manner, but presents no serious public danger."

Everyone has agreed that Professor Gates "present[ed] no serious public danger." If the police report is indeed correct, however, and not biased (as many people have pointed out is possible), Gates was most certainly "behaving in a disruptive manner"; after all, the whole situation drew a crowd of witnesses and prompted Professor Gates's neighbor to snap the now-infamous photo of the arrest. Calmly conversing with officers and complying with requests just doesn't draw attention like that.

The question now becomes, was Professor Gates's outrage warranted? Was he indeed the target of racial discrimination, thus igniting the angry and indignant behavior that led to his arrest? If he were the target of such discrimination, did he really believe that yelling at the police about it was going to make the problem go away? Whether or not other aspects of this situation were racially motivated, the disorderly conduct arrest in and of itself appears to be totally justified. If Professor Gates felt that he was targeted as a result of discrimination, there would have been ample opportunities for him to address the issue in court rather than from his front steps.

The charges against Professor Gates have since been dropped, but Professor Gates is still demanding an apology from Sgt. Crowley, who refuses to acquiesce. If he was indeed the target of racism, I can absolutely understand Professor Gates's demand for an apology; my only question is this: if he truly believes that he was the target of racism AND he believes that his arrest was totally unwarranted, why isn't he pursuing this through litigation rather than in the court of public opinion? I feel like his point about the racism entrenched in the American criminal justice system would be better taken if he could achieve some kind of official decision on the matter, rather than a "Gee, I sure am sorry (but not really)," from the arresting officer.

The biggest problem of all in this case is the media and public whirlwind surrounding the case, which has only made headlines because - let's face it - one of the men at the center of it happens to have his own page on Wikipedia. If Joe Nobody had been arrested on the same charges in the same situation, there would have been a couple angry letters to the editor about the sad state of American race relations and that would have been the end of it. However, because Professor Gates is well-known in academia and is friends with many poiticians, including Massachusetts state governor Deval Patrick and President Obama himself, the entire incident has been whipped up into a media frenzy of finger-pointing and speculation (and here I must apologize for my blogger self's part in all of it). What would be best would be for both parties could just drop the specifics and move on, while the rest of America uses this not as a debate over who was right and who was wrong (again, I'm as guilty of this as the next person, but I'll try and contain myself from here on out) but as an opportunity to take a hard look at race in modern America - as far as we've come, we still have a looooong way to go.