February 1st, 2014
The Pleb Commiserator 
1
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Table of Contents " 5. On Conspicuous Silence (Roland Nadler) " 9. In Consideration of the Survivors of Sexual Assault: A Handbook " 15. Let’s Get Rid of the Senate (Dylan Harper) " 21. A Review of Spike Jonez Her (Cody Pasby) " 25. In Defense of Frozen’s Twist (Dylan Harper) " 29. Failing on the Big Stage (Vineeth Pillai) " 33. The Bandwagon Fan’s Guide to Super Bowl XLVIII (Cosby Pasby) 2
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Editor’s Notes " The overall thesis of the Pleb Commiserator is that every facet of society and life is relevant and worth discussing. The goal of this magazine is to provide a further platform for several thoughtful voices to present their ideas and opinions on a wide range of topics.
"
The individual writers and contributors should not be viewed as endorsing any view other than their own. The editing staff does take full responsibility for all work present and welcomes any response and criticism regarding arguments, concepts, and ideas introduced or endorsed throughout.
"
General Trigger Warning Several articles in this and all future issues may deal with potentially triggering topics such as abortion, sexual assault, and bigotry. While every effort will be made to provide a trigger warning on individual articles, this should serve as a general warning that sensitive topics are likely to be present in every issue, potentially even every article. Those with triggers should proceed with that in mind. 3
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Revenge List: "
#BestTweet
• Ellison Barber
Ellison Barber, of the Washington Free Beacon, is promoting a boycott of Girl Scout Cookies, arguing that their tweet to an article discussing Wendy Davis is an implicate support of abortion.
"
• Phil Griffin
Griffin, President of MSNBC, caved into republican pressure, and apologized for a tweet jokingly implying that the rightwing isn’t ok with interracial marriage. RNC chairman Reince Preibus banned Republican National Committee staff members from appearing on the news network, urging other republicans to do the same. Instead of
"
• The Grammys
Macklemore cleaned up at the annual music awards show, including winning Best Rap Album over Kendrick Lamar’s good kid, m.A.A.d city. It took the Grammys until 1995 to even give out a Best Rap Album award, and since then, one third of those awards have gone to white rappers.
•
Chris Christie
One of the lone moderate voices in mainstream republicanism has basically ended his career after recent revelations from the official directly responsible that Christie knew about bridge closures as political revenge. The New Jersey Gov. was, at one point, considered to be one of the front runners for the 2016 GOP primary, which will now be dominated by radicals such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.
4
Pleb Comm
" " "
February 1st, 2014
On Conspicuous Silence Roland Nadler
Political opponents of abortion access would have the public believe that their
policy preferences are not anti-woman. Without touching off a discussion about their conscious intent (which, considering the number of women who have aligned themselves against reproductive justice, is likely to turn out a mixed bag anyhow), we can nonetheless remain quite certain that their claim does not, and will not, merit serious credence until their policy proposals have changed. If we were dealing with a political movement that could fairly resist the label of "anti-woman," we would see attempts to offset the harm that the movement's policy agenda inflicts on women*; and we see no such thing. The negative impact of restricted abortion access on the well-being of women, and more broadly on their ability to enjoy full and fair participation in society, is well-documented and established. Perhaps some ideological holdouts dispute it, but lending the veneer of legitimacy to their opposing factual viewpoint by rehearsing any such debate here would unduly shift our focus, since all that is necessary for this argument is to accept the proposition that anti-choice policies exact some cost on women; disputes as to the extent of that cost distract from the point. Ordinarily, in a healthy and well-functioning political process, a faction with an agenda — even when that agenda is motivated by the defense of compromise-
5
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
ineligible "protected values" (in the sense articulated by Baron, Spranca, et al.) — will seek to bargain toward some kind of consensus position, or at least toward some imperfect compromise. In exchange for a solution that fully safeguards their protected value, they might concede to an extent on a different but related political issue about which they are willing to yield some ground. A faction may accomplish this most elegantly when the very policy for which they are advocating imposes a cost, and that cost may be offset in a way that does not offend the protected value at which the policy is aimed. This model of compromise depends on some background assumptions about the faction's ability to recognize a policy's costs and at least understand why, in the opposition's eyes, those costs might be worth offsetting. Here, theory and reality part company. Invariably — so routinely that we have all learned never to expect otherwise — the inclination of the anti-choice advocate when it comes to the cost, borne by women, of his latest round of reproductive-rights sabotage, is: what cost? Or, charitably assuming that he does not operate in ignorance, it comes to: let the loss lie where it has fallen. Why do we never see an attempt to reach a compromise position by way of an offer to shift the loss? I pose this question without intending to answer it; again, I have no interest in this forum in divining the motivations of my political opponents, and more to the point, the simple fact that (for whatever reason) no offer is made suffices to vindicate the "anti-woman" label. Nor do I ask in ignorance of political reality. We all know that set of anti-choice partisans overlaps with the set of 6
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
conservatives more generally; we all know that to the conservative mind, a flatfooted rejection of loss-shifting initiatives is itself nearly a protected value; we know that the conservative would sooner eat his own hat than admit to the reality of the structural violence imposed on women by anti-choice policies, and hence to the existence of a compensable harm having accrued to women's full and equal citizenship more generally. These do not suffice to answer my question, because even taking them as true, the anti-choice camp should still a) find itself wracked by internal dissensus as to the importance of some loss-shifting policy compromise, which, unless I am terribly mistaken, it is not, and b) at least be sufficiently motivated to *appear* concerned about the allegation that their cause is antiwoman by manifesting some indication that they understand what is at stake. I also pose this question without any implied endorsement of such a compromise; indeed, the offer would and likely should be rejected. Bodily autonomy is just as much a protected value for pro-choice advocates. It is not for sale. But anti-choice advocates could signal, by offering to bargain for it, that they understand the harm their policies do to women. "We recognize," they could say, "that a law of forced childbirth imposes primary and secondary costs on women, burdens women almost exclusively with either the cost of fastidiously avoiding pregnancy or the financial and opportunity costs of raising children, and thereby (and in various other ways) impedes their ability to participate in civil society and political action on equal footing with men." They could go on to propose any number of policies designed to restore such equal footing — everything from birth control 7
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
coverage to childcare subsidies to gender-based affirmative-action policies. Undoubtedly it would pain anti-choice conservatives to yield political ground on these issues. But surely, the value of forestalling what they appear to sincerely view as the slaughter of innocent persons would make this compromise appear favorable to them? Unless, of course, something about the shifting of loss away from women is equally repugnant to them. The offer, I emphasize, is never even made — never even considered. I urge you to cast the most jaundiced of eyes on abortion opponents' attempts at characterizing their cause as something other than structural sexism incarnate — unless and until they begin making it.
" *More precisely, we would speak of the harm these policies work on any person capable of becoming pregnant, and, as a secondary effect of the diminished societal status this creates, on many female-identified incapable of becoming pregnant. Because this post focuses more on the social categories "man" and "woman" — and the relative societal disadvantage that anti-choice policies inflict on persons within the ambit of that category (sometimes by virtue of their ability to become pregnant, sometimes by female-identified status, more often both), I will use "woman" here with the implicit caveat that reproductive justice is for all humans even as reproductive injustice functions to the particular detriment of women qua social category.
8
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
In Consideration of the Survivors of Sexual Assault: A Handbook "
" " "
Vanessa Bellew
It’s a fairly well-quoted statistic that one in four American girls and one in six American
boys will be sexually assaulted by the time they’re eighteen. For something that is so startlingly common, there is a sickening lack of public discussion and an awful lot -- especially for the girls -- of victim-blaming and slut-shaming. Like with death, people just don’t seem to know what the fuck to say to the traumatized people sexual assault leaves behind. Well, here’s a handy list of things to NEVER say when someone tells you they’ve been groped/raped/harassed/assaulted/catcalled/whatever. If the only things you can think to tell them are things on this list? Just shut up. It’ll be better for everyone involved.
" "
Rule 1: DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER EVER EVER INSINUATE THAT THE VICTIM IS SOMEHOW AT FAULT. NO, SERIOUSLY. NEVER.
"
One would assume with any decent human being that this would go without saying
because obviously this person has been attacked, objectified, made to feel helpless, and been violated. They have had one of the most heinous crimes committed against them. It was not their fault. There was not a single thing they could have done to change the actions of the rapist, groper, or creeper. No amount of ‘How To Avoid Rape’ posters or e-mails with handy lists of ways we can stay safe will ever stop the rape. Because it isn’t the fault of the person who was
9
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
hurt. It’s the fault of the person who did the hurting. They’re the ones who need to have posters on ‘How to Avoid Rape.’ First on the list? DON’T. FUCKING. RAPE. Never tell the abused party that they should have done something differently. Because it’s not their fault. They don’t need to be told that they should have watched their drink or not had a drink or not been out with boys or not made out with that person in that car or not worn that dress or not walked down that dark street alone or that they should have fought or fought harder or screamed or screamed louder or told someone earlier or gone straight to the police or carried pepperspray or a gun. There is no guarantee that any of those things would have prevented what happened. Don’t tell them they have to stand up for themselves unless they ask you how to do so. Don’t lecture them on their response. Don’t say what you would have done because you don’t have a clue what you would have done. Don’t shame them. Don’t judge them. They’re doing that enough to themselves. Don’t even do it as a joke. I was groped on the subway platform recently and a male friend of mine, after checking to see if I was okay, said that I probably ‘forced’ the guy to do it because I’m so attractive. That’s not funny. That makes it worse.
"
And while we’re on the subject…
" Rule 2: THEY PROBABLY DON’T WANT TO HEAR HOW DESIRABLE THEY ARE. " " Really. It’s great that you think they’re pretty or handsome or beautiful or whathaveyou and
probably -- probably -- on any other day talking about any other thing, you respectfully telling them you think they look nice or that they’re attractive would make their day a little better. But 10
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
they have just been made into sexual objects, or at least they just told you about a time that they were made into a sexual object. If you want to compliment them, say something about their intrinsic worth as a human being. Tell them you love how strong they are or their laugh or their wit or their compassion. Don’t compliment the thing that was violated. Regardless of your intentions, it’s probably not going to sound the way you’d like. This is especially true if you are one of those people whose correspondence with the victim tends to be dominantly about you telling them you think they’re sexy or pretty or have a nice rack (or package, I guess). You probably already make them feel uncomfortable enough as it is. But to do it in this situation isn’t just accidentally sexist or creepy -- it’s cruel.
" " Rule 3: DON’T TELL THEM HOW TO FEEL/THINK YOU KNOW WHAT’S BEST. " " The feelings that come with sexual abuse or assault, with being objectified, are
complicated and muddy and shifting constantly. The victims of these crimes have just had their sense of power and control stripped violently from them. This is the worst time to steamroll over their feelings, whatever they may be. And the truth is, whatever they’re feeling is totally valid and normal. Don’t tell them to let it go or move on or get over it. Don’t tell them to see the silver lining. There is no silver lining unless they say there is. It’s their experience. They have to feel it. Let them feel it the way their system needs to feel it or you will hinder their ability to go on with their lives. You will once again take their power away from them. You will hurt them.
" " Rule 4: NEVER MINIMIZE THEIR EXPERIENCE. " 11
Pleb Comm
"
February 1st, 2014
You don’t get to dictate how big of a deal whatever just happened was. You don’t know
that person’s every secret and just as you can’t know what they’re feeling or what they should be feeling, you cannot know how much they’re feeling or how much they should be feeling. Any reaction is an appropriate reaction. They get to minimize it or become agitated or whatever they feel they want/need in that moment. Unless you’re they’re therapist, you don’t. Again, this was their experience and not yours.
" " Rule 5: DON’T MAKE IT ABOUT YOU. " "
I don’t care what your history is, if a victim of sexual assault is coming to you with this,
you don’t get to take over the conversation with your problems or your past or your issues. You just don’t. Get over it. If you happen to have an experience that relates, sharing it may be helpful for them, but don’t tell them for their sympathy and attention; tell them your story to let them know they’re not alone and that you understand and then get back to them.
" " So now maybe you’re thinking, “Well, I don’t have that experience, so what the hell am I supposed to do?” There are plenty of totally loving and compassionate ways to respond to something like this. Here’s a list of DOs!
" Rule 1: LISTEN.
"
12
Pleb Comm
"
February 1st, 2014
This is the single most important thing you can do for the sufferer of sexual assault. Just
listen. To whatever they want to say.
" " Rule 2: ACCEPT/VALIDATE. " "
Part of listening to what you’re being told is accepting it, taking it in, and letting them
know that they’ve been heard and seen and that, most importantly, it’s okay for them to feel whatever they’re feeling. Because it is. Help them see that they are not alone.
" " Rule 3: TELL THEM IT’S NOT THEIR FAULT. " "
Because it isn’t. Ever. No matter what. But they will think it is. Even if they were
children, even if they did everything right, they will probably think that it was somehow their fault. That’s just part of the process. It’s your job to tell them that it’s not their fault. There was nothing they could have done. They didn’t ask for it or want it. It was a horrible thing that was done to them. Tell them it’s okay to feel that way, but that it isn’t true. They have nothing for which to be ashamed. You don’t think less of them. You still love them. They did nothing wrong and there is nothing wrong with them. They are not damaged goods. They are not defective. They’re a human being who was viciously hurt by another human being.
" " Rule 4: ASK THEM WHAT THEY NEED. " " 13
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Check in frequently with how they’re doing. Do they need anything? What specifically do they want from you? If they want to be held, hold them. If they don’t want to be touched, don’t touch them. If they want you to distract them, sit their ass down in front of your XBox and get your Halo on. Make them laugh. If they don’t know what they want, offer suggestions or tell them that you’ll be there when they figure it out. Offer to assist them in finding help. Offer to go with them to that help. Sit with them in silence if they need company but don’t want to talk. Be there. It’s that simple. Be present with them in their pain. It’s fucking hard but it’s the best thing you can do.
" " Rule 5: BE PATIENT. " "
This is probably the second most important thing you can do. Trauma is not healed in one
cathartic Hollywood monologue Good Will Hunting-style. It takes a long time to come back from something like sexual assault in any form and it may be years before this person finds their emotional equilibrium again or relearns how to feel safe. It will probably be frustrating. It will probably be depressing. It will probably be painful. It will probably be exhausting. But be patient. Slowly, ever so slowly, they will piece their world back together, but only when they’re ready. It won’t be steady progress, but it will be progress. And it requires courage beyond imagination.
" " 14
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Let’s Get Rid of the Senate Dylan Harper
" It’s neither fresh nor interesting to criticize the two party system in the United States for creating a warped and plutocratic version of democracy, but it’d still be accurate. A record number of Americans claim they would be open to voting for a third party candidate for president but that’s not really an escape route from the democratic and republican parties. The typical third party candidates are often extreme versions of one of the two key ideologies. Gary Johnson, the libertarian nominee is basically a conservative who lives up to some of those ideals. Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, is what liberals wish President Obama could be. While several people on both sides of the aisle could be taken seriously, the real way out of this two sided death trap is a little more complex, but a lot more fun: get rid of the senate. The problem isn’t that the highest office in the land is bound to one party or another, it’s that the people writing the laws are. The house and the senate, with very few exceptions, are made up of both the major parties, and their approval ratings, as well as their ‘accomplishments’ don’t exactly paint a picture of glowing success. The divisive system in which the United States is trapped is mainly kept in place by a house and senate that can dominate the entire government. Many have blamed the republican members of the house for stalling any sort of bill that might improve the country, and thus make President Obama look good, in order to win back the presidency in 2016. And indeed, this congress has accomplished less and blocked more than any other. But it’s not republicans’ fault as much as it’s the system’s. Why is it possible for one party 15
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
to hold the entire government hostage? The real issue is that there is little motivation for congressional members to act outside of their party. Most personal agendas of representatives are, at least broadly, in tune with their political allies. While the house is a big problem, it’s also necessary. Geographical representation does have an important part to play in representative government. People living in rural or poor communities still need to have a voice. So the senate must go. How will the removal of the senate help America’s increasingly absurd political system? The problem is that the senate is too similar to the house. It was meant to be a cooling pot to ensure the house didn’t get overly legislative, to make sure all the bills were thoroughly considered. But in reality it’s just become the same dysfunctional setting where bills are stalled for no reason to serve a perceived greater good in the name of one political party or the other. The senate is also inexplicably still decided by geography. Wyoming actually has more senators than members of congress, but even though Wyoming’s senators represent far fewer individuals, they still have the same share of political power as a senator from California, Texas, New York, or Florida. Simply removing the senate however would serve only to give the dysfunctional house more power; a cooling pot is still needed. The ideal solution would be to replace the senate with a parliamentary style house. There would still be a hundred members, but instead of being elected within states, based on geographical location, members would be elected on a national stage based on party affiliation. Each percentage of the vote would entitle a party to one member. If the Green Party can muster up three percent of the vote, they would have three members of this new senate. There would also have to be a small change in the way a person votes for senators. A ranked voting system
16
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
would have to be implemented so people could vote for whomever they like without fear that the person they want to vote for is so far on the fringe that their vote won’t count. If you want to vote for a libertarian you can, and if he or she loses you can choose who your vote goes to then, and so on until you eventually wind up voting for a republican. The purpose would be to give individuals representation that can actually closely mirror their own ideologies. Instead of having to settle for whichever member of a big party fits a person best, they could vote someone who mirrors their views (or at least, gets a lot closer). This would take time to have a real effect. At first the major parties would still dominate, but slowly ‘fringe’ parties would chip away. The goal would be that members of the two big parties have to make deals with the members of several little parties ensuring that not only is every view represented, but those on the political outskirts can still wield enough power to improve the quality of life for their constituents. The effects would hopefully spread out to the executive branch, forcing the President to cater to more than just the party that nominated him or her. This plan really should appeal to almost everyone. Anyone who doesn’t feel represented by the two main parties should pretty much be on board automatically, as well as those who feel that the executive branch has too much power, and want to do anything to diminish it, however slightly. In fact, the only people who should be against it are the wealthy benefactors of the republicans and the democrats. The two party system is slowly dying, and it’s taking Americans with it. Drastic changes are needed to prevent the United States from slipping further into to the bicameral hell that is already serving as faux representation. Removing the senate in place of a parliament is a way to ensure that people have the right to vote for people that understand what it’s like to live where
17
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
they live, and believe what they believe. And, let’s face it, it’s probably going to be a lot easier to get done than campaign finance reform.
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 18
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Culture
19
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Stuff to Watch "
"
And Listen to
" " 20
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
“It’s so hipster that hipsters might despise it.”
" A Review of Spike Jonze latest film Her Cody Pasby
" At first glance, Her seems like a SNL spoof of hipster culture, complete with all the trimmings. Directed by the eccentric Spike Jonze, Her is a love story between Joaquin Phoenix, looking like a futuristic version of Allen Ginsberg, and the voice on his phone (or operating system, to be exact), played by Scarlett Johansson. The film features a documentarian (Amy Adams) that films people sleeping, ukuleles, and a soundtrack by Arcade Fire. Oh, and the main character works at a website that writes love letters for people too lazy to write their own. 21
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
It’s so hipster that hipsters might despise it. But that description would do this film a great injustice. Her shouldn’t work, yet Jonze, with the help of a career best Phoenix, has crafted a classic love story disguised as an examination of our obsession with all things electronic. Her is a breath of fresh air after Jonze’s mopey and disappointing adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are. It’s a vibrant and colorful film, set in front of a fantastic vision of future Los Angeles using parts of the L.A. skyline and Shanghai. But it’s the relationship between Phoenix’s Twombley and Johansson’s Samantha that gives the film heart and tenderness not seen in any of Jonze’s previous work, in large part thanks to a spectacular performance from Joaquin Phoenix. Phoenix has always thrived playing menacing characters, often times sociopaths, and especially as of late with his life as art mockumentary I’m Still Here and his “return” to acting in The Master. Despite that reputation, Phoenix brings a warmth and subtlety to his performance that is a pleasant surprise, even for an actor as talented as himself. Actors interacting with characters who aren’t really there is nothing new in modern Hollywood, but falling in love with someone who isn’t there is something that has rarely, if ever, been seen in film. That’s what makes the emotional depths Phoenix reaches as Twombley with Samantha, and the realizations he has about his failed marriage thanks to her, that much more impressive. Johansson is spectacular as the voice of Samantha, bringing a childlike curiosity and charm to the character while never falling into the manic pixie dream girl stereotype that felt inevitable for a character that Twombley’s ex wife, played by Rooney Mara, said you could simply turn on and off at your own convenience. It works because of Johansson’s wonderful performance and the writing of Spike Jonze. Jonze keeps things
22
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
simple, something that was certainly not the case while working in the madcap world of Charlie Kaufman for his first two films. It would have been easy to make the film a critique of new cyber culture or a tragicomedy about a pervert who falls in love with his computer, but Her refuses to take sides. Instead, the film normalizes the idea of human/ artificial intelligence relations while also stressing the importance of our human relationships, both the ones that work and those that fail. Her feels reminiscent to 2004’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, not surprisingly written by frequent Jonze collaborator Kaufman, in that both films deal with nearly every aspect of love gained and love lost while feeling like something wholly original, unique and at the same time familiar. Her is not without it’s shortcomings, some dialogue comes off as a bit trite and the first “sex” scene in the film will result in plenty of awkward laughter in the theater. But during another sex scene in the film’s second half, one where Samantha wants to get the spark back in their relationship by using a surrogate body, the dynamic is drastically different. It’s awkward, it’s emotional, it’s complicated and it’s completely believable. No longer did it feel like a man talking to his computer, but a couple trying to put the pieces back together. There’s a lot to love about this film, but it’s greatest success is in how quickly you are able to accept Theodore and Samantha’s relationship as a commonality, making Her a touching, fascinating, and exciting cinematic experience.
" TL;DR Watch It
23
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Spike Jonze takes a seemingly silly concept and creates a touching, funny and emotional film that ranks as one of 2013’s best.
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 24
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
In Defense of Frozen’s Twist Dylan Harper
" "
The twist in Disney’s Frozen would make even M. Night Shyamalan
throw up his hands in an incredulous rage. For those that haven’t seen the movie and are undeterred by spoilers, the big shocker is that Prince Anna’s new found lover, Hans, is actually only after her hand in marriage to get to the throne. He doesn’t love her at all, and when Anna is clinging to life with only the prospect of true love’s kiss to save her, he shuts her down, and reveals his true motives. The audience isn’t presented with a second of foreshadowing or even a passing hint at Hans’ true character. It’s not that the twist isn’t predictable, as some basic finger math clues everyone in that something’s amiss, it’s that this key and unforeseen plot point doesn’t seem to fit Hans’ character or even some of his basic stated motives. Even its message, not to marry someone you just met, seems very hollow and lacking any real subversion or insight. While there are several reasons to dismiss the twist as nothing more than a core flaw that doesn’t really harm a very enjoyable movie, there
25
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
might be a context in which to place it where it becomes subversive, and downright beneficial for Disney’s key demographic. A common critique of Disney films is the relationships between the princesses and the princes. Some are problematic, some are founded upon deceit, and some are downright abusive. But rarely is the actual problem that the prince and princess didn’t know each other. The idea that someone can seem like a totally genuine person that really understands you, but then turn out to be a jerk, isn’t a bad one for kids to get aquatinted with. The flaw in the twist doesn’t come from its core but from its lack of followthrough. We don’t actually get to see Anna deal with betrayal from someone who she thought was perfect for her. Sure, she gets some punches in, but what could have made the story arc feel real and complete, is letting the audience see Anna’s reaction to it, see her overcome it, instead of jumping the focus to her mad dash for survival. If history is any guide, how Anna’s relationships with men are defined is going to be a major factor in how Frozen is remembered. If the case is to be made that Frozen is a progressive film, and there are valid points for and against, it should be noted that the story arc between Anna and Hans should be viewed as an incomplete attempt at subversion that presents a
26
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
storyline kids should be exposed to, and that its real flaw is a lack of explanation.
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
27
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Sports
28
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Failing on the Big Stage Vineeth Pillai
" People hope to see the best performances on the biggest stages, whether it’s the World Cup, the Super Bowl, the World Series, or the Olympics. We saw that last year in the NBA Finals when Lebron James basically went Super Saiyan and brought the Miami Heat from the brink of elimination in Game 6, to a second NBA title one game later. Michael Phelps did the same during the 2012 Summer Olympics, breaking the record for most medals won by a single olympian. When it comes to feats of athletic performance, we’ve been spoiled the last few years. On the other hand, the off the field performances have been disappointing to say the least. Some athletes and members in the sports community have been negatively vocal about the LGBTQ community. Even more unfortunate is that this view has been voiced at some of biggest sporting events. During last years Super Bowl Media Day, Chris Culliver, a cornerback for the San Francisco 49ers was asked by radio personality Artie Lange if there were any gay players on the 49ers. He replied "No, we don't got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if they do.... Can't be with that sweet stuff. Nah…can't be…in the locker room man. Nah". While he did apologize afterward, to hear that sentiment coming from a player whose team is based in San Francisco and for him to say that during the week leading up to the Super Bowl was disappointing and brings up a larger point about accepting gay athletes in sports. When Jason Collins became the first active NBA player to come out, there was a section of the 29
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
public and media felt inclined to proclaim how this was a ‘non-story’ and how they ‘don’t get care about someone's sexual orientation as long as they can play’. Looking at Chris Culliver’s comments and you can see why Collin’s publicly coming out was a big sports story worth discussing. It’s likely that there are many athletes in professional sports who are gay but haven’t publicly come out due to the prevailing attitude in locker rooms throughout professional sports. When you have athletes like Culliver who say that gay athletes should ‘wait ten years’ after they retire before coming out, it’s pretty understandable why gay athletes are hesitant to come out to their teammates and why Collin’s coming out was a big story. Unfortunately this ignorance hasn’t been limited to athletes. Sepp Blatter, the President of FIFA, came under fire after the selection of Qatar as the site for the 2022 World Cup, the biggest sporting event in the world outside of the Summer Olympics. Besides the fact that the summer months when the World Cup is held will be excruciatingly hot in Qatar (routinely upwards of 105 degrees), Qatar also prohibits homosexual activity between adult males with the punishment being significant jail time to corporal punishment. When asked about the safety of such fans Blatter jokingly said ‘’I’d say they [gay fans] should refrain from sexual activities’. Blatter’s dismissive and joking manner in dealing with this issue was crass and classless and as a white, straight male illustrates his lack of understanding of a very relevant issue. Just because he thinks that there will be no problems for LGBTQ players and fans in Qatar doesn’t mean that there won’t be and so far he has not laid out any plans to make sure players and fans feel welcome and safe in the host city. John Amaechi, a former NBA player who was the first
30
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
retired NBA player to come out publicly put it best when he heard about Blatter’s comments: "You have to understand that this story is big enough, his influence is big enough, to impact young people in school, people in workplaces, anybody who is perceived to be gay or is gay, hears these comments and once again realises that the seat of power, straight white men normally, are very, very clearly uncomfortable with this issue and certainly not interested in taking it seriously." This brings up the most distressing point about Blatter. As Amaechi said, Sepp Blatter is in a position where millions of people listen to what he has to say, and in some cases actually respect his opinion so for him to be so cavalier about this matter is reckless and sets a dangerous precedent for others to follow. Sepp Blatter hasn’t kept his line of thinking limited to the World Cup. When talking about the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, he’s defended the selection of Sochi as a host city and said that like the World Cup, ‘ they have both been misused as a platform for political disputes, and in the case of the Winter Olympics, this dispute is coming to a head with threats to boycott the Games’. Similar to FIFA’s choice of Qatar as the site for the World Cup, the selection of Sochi as the host city for the 2014 Winter Olympics has been met with controversy. Vladimir Putin has decided to take a leaf out of Blatter’s book in addressing the problematic issues that could arise from the country’s stance on human rights, particularly LGBTQ rights. He’s said that he doesn’t foresee any majors problems but has also said that "We are not forbidding anything and nobody is being grabbed off the street, and there is no punishment for such kinds of relations," said Putin. "You can feel relaxed and calm [in Russia], but leave children alone please".
31
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Essentially Putin is saying that he will not discriminate against LGBTQ people and then goes ahead and discriminates against them. Again, this is another example of someone in a position of power in a highly visible moment for LGBTQ rights, completely fumbling the moment. While the content of what these men said was ignorant, the fact that they voiced their opinion during such public moments makes what they said even more damaging. Thankfully this view seems to be steadily changing we’ve seen athletes like Chris Kluwe, Steve Nash and Cristiano Ronaldo be very vocal when it comes to LGBTQ rights. As the views of sports people evolve, hopefully the opinions they voice will be constructive, help dispel stereotypes and make the sports world a far more accepting place.
" " " " " " " " " " " " " 32
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
The Bandwagon Fan’s Guide to Super Bowl XLVIII Cody Pasby
" It’s Sunday, February 2nd. You wake up to the sound of two lovebirds nestled together in a nearby tree, the most delightful alarm clock you have woken up to in sometime. With a hop in your step, you decide to cook up a hearty, healthy breakfast of eggs, veggies, pancakes and sausage, the works. You glance at the clock before you start, only 9:15. Oh, the things you could accomplish today! That report that’s due to your boss on Wednesday? You could knock it out before noon. That would give you enough time to finally pull those weeds in your backyard and finish that novel you put aside a few weeks ago. Yes, this is going to be a day full of…your phone rings. Who could be calling at this hour on a Sunday? You answer:
" “Hello?” “ARE YOU READY?!? SUPER BOWL SUNDAY IS HERE!!! YOU BRINGIN’ THE CHIPS AND DIP BRO? I REMEMBER YOU SAID YOU COULD BRING CHIPS IN DIP! I REALLY LIKE CHEESE AND SOUR CREAM POTATO CHIPS WITH ONION DIP BUT ANY CHIPS AND DIP ARE FINE BRO!! YEAH WE’RE GONNA GET TURNT UP! FOOTBALL! CHIPS AND DIP!!”
33
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
" That’s right, it’s Super Bowl Sunday. And once again, you know nothing about the game. You don’t know where they’re playing, don’t know anything about the teams, hell you don’t even know who the teams are. Seahawks? What’s a Seahawk? Is that even a thing?!? Don’t start panicking; you’ll be all right. The amount of people who watch the Super Bowl is about seven times the population of China, or something like that, so there are plenty of people who will be out of the loop. But if you want to stand out from the crowd, just follow this simple guide and for three to four hours no one will suspect that you don’t know that a field goal in football isn’t the same as a field goal in basketball.
" Do Your Homework
" Last Super Bowl, you found yourself rooting for the Baltimore Ravens, simply because they pulled off purple better than any other sports team you’ve seen. While that may be true, you’re better than that. So this is it. No more picking a Super Bowl winner based on uniforms, which city has better dining or which mascot would survive in a hypothetical fight to the death. See, there’s this little invention called the Internet, which has a wealth of information. In fact, you’re probably on said Internet right now reading this very article. See that little search bar in the left corner/right corner/ somewhere on your screen? Just search “Super Bowl XLVIII” and you’re pretty much set. The Wikipedia article on the game has literally everything you need, including full season recaps for both teams involved in this year’s NFL championship. After your research is complete,
34
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
it’s time to pick your side. Maybe you go Seahawks since Russell Wilson is such a delightful fellow according to everyone on planet Earth, but Richard Sherman’s post game antics might have rubbed you the wrong way. Then Bronco’s it is, but remember, Bronco’s quarterback Peyton Manning is a good friend with Papa John, and that guy is one bleached goatee away from becoming Guy Fieri. Choose your side carefully, because there’s no turning back once kickoff comes around.
" Don’t Be A Jerk
" The party is in full swing, and already you’ve shown off your chops. “Look, Peyton is Peyton” you say, “but he hasn’t had to face a secondary as formidable as the Seahawks, although the Seahawks D hasn’t had to contend with receivers near the talent level of the Broncos. All in all it should be one hell of a game.” Everyone around you seems to agree. “Wow, great point!” someone yells. “You could be, like, the next John Clayton or something” another friend says. You have no idea who John Clayton is, but it must be pretty good. Suddenly the door opens and the room goes silent. It’s Jim from work, and he’s wearing a Seattle jersey, a Seattle Sounders jersey to be precise. “Are you ready for some FUTBOL?” he even made sure to pronounce it differently. He’ll guffaw at how ironic it is to be wearing a soccer jersey on Super Bowl Sunday, and how it’s even more ironic that he doesn’t even like sports. The man is a walking Alanis Morissette song and no matter what party you go to you will encounter someone like Jim. At some point you’ll hear all of the great things you could do other than watch sports or how sports brings out the worst in people. He might even suggest that you switch to the Puppy
35
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Bowl, which would be silly since everyone knows you record the Puppy Bowl to watch when you get home. There is something to be said about sports fans collective behavior at live events or even at home, but there is a time and place for everything. If there is anything worse than a sports fan that makes you feel bad for not watching sports, it’s the non-sports fan that tries to give you a guilt trip during the biggest sporting event of the year. Even you, sports novice, knows that sports is an amazing tool to unite a community and to unite friends, as millions will do on Super Bowl Sunday. You want to say something, but don’t, arguing with people like Jim is only a practice in futility. For now, just be cordial, enjoy the game and enjoy the vegan nacho’s Jim brought, which to your surprise doesn’t taste like arsenic.
" The Halftime Show
" With last years Beyonce extravaganza serving as the exception, the halftime show is usually at best boring and at worst makes you question humanity’s place in the universe. Lucky you, this years halftime will likely ere on the side of boring, giving you ample time to cleanse yourself and excrete fluids. It also means no repeat of last Super Bowl, when you were caught welling up when Destiny’s Child hit the stage for seven whole seconds. Since the halftime show is longer than an actual quarter of the game, even a well-timed bathroom break won’t keep you from watching it. Depending on who is performing, it’s best for your commentary to focus on either how bad today’s music is or how wonderful it is to hear music from your youth. Lucky you, this years performance features Bruno Mars and Red Hot Chili Peppers so you can talk about how much you hate Bruno Mars’
36
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
music and have an excuse to tell the story about that Chili Peppers concert in 1998 where you accidentally tried Quaaludes.
" The Second Half
" Once the 3rd quarter begins, you’re pretty much in the clear. At this point, most of the party guests will be too sloshed or too full to notice anything outside of the game itself. Consider yourself in the clear, you’re coming down the homestretch. And don’t worry if the game goes to overtime, no one actually knows the rules of overtime anymore so your cluelessness won’t seem out of place. The clock winds down in the 4th quarter and your Super Bowl journey is nearly complete. No one ever suspected that you had no clue who Marshawn Lynch was just five hours ago and those chips and dip were a hit, even if it wasn’t sour cream and cheese chips. The game is over, mission accomplished. Your friend is about to turn off the TV when… “Stay tuned for an all new “New Girl”!” “Oh! Don’t turn it off!” You say. Uh oh, everyone is looking at you funny. They know your secret. RUN. Get home as fast as you can…because you’re not going to miss this episode, that show is hilarious.
" "
37
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
Staff Writers Vanessa Bellew - Actress. Displaced Texan. Procrastinator. Full-time nerd. Roland Nadler - A second-year student at Stanford Law School. Cody Pasby - Cody Pasby is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area and a graduate of San Francisco State University, where he majored in broadcast journalism. Cody also reviews films on The Screen Watcher's Guild podcast and writes about baseball on his blog, Off the Beaten Basepath. Vineeth Pillai - Born in India, raised in Sonoma County, Vineeth is a fan of all things Bay Area with the exception of the Los Angeles Lakers (try not to hold it against him). If you really want to piss him off, call him a 'millennial'.
Contributors Clark Feeney: Editor. Bethany Geiger: Artist and designer (a huge thank you to her for coming through with three fantastic pieces for the magazine). Mallory Gold: Editor and social media manager. Breanna Ashton Howell: Creative consultant and font expert. Asharah WolfSong: Editor and future contributing artist.
"
Editor Dylan Harper
38
Pleb Comm
February 1st, 2014
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " All Rights Reserved
39