The Iowa City Mockjob?

On April 18, 2011, a student organization at the University of Iowa (UI) sent out a campus-wide email in which they repeatedly used a term more commonly associated with a different group of people.  For some reason, many people within the University (and the greater Iowa City community) responded by getting really, really upset.

Putting things in context
Two-and-a-half weeks ago, the UI College Republicans (UICR) chose to continue a tradition, dating back several years, of marketing a week-long string of recruitment events under the banner: “Conservative Coming Out Week.”  A campus-wide email publicizing said events included the following excerpts:

• “Conservatives in Iowa City it is now time to come out of the closet!”;
• “Friday: Wear RED Day! Come out of the closet and show your true colors!”
• “Should be a great week! Lets come out!” (emphasis mine)

In response, several people in the community — including, most notoriously, UI anthropology/women's studies Professor Ellen Lewin — criticized UICR’s decision to co-opt a phrase (i.e., “coming out”) that is widely considered synonymous with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights movement.

In reply to these criticisms, certain individuals affiliated with UICR have cried foul. For example, according to an Apr 21 article published in The Daily Iowan (DI):

John Twillmann, the chairman of the UI College Republicans, said that argument is faulty, because "coming out" is just a term that isn't copyrighted or owned by anyone.  "It's being open and honest," he said. "You can come out, come clean about many things, and we're coming out about being conservative."

In a guest opinion article published the following day, also in the DI, Natalie Ginty, chairwoman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, echoed Twillman’s basic argument:

Many have complained about the use of "coming out" in the title of the week. There is no patent placed upon the term, and making general assumptions about our beliefs is off base. The goal of "Conservative Coming Out Week" was for Republicans to be honest with their community to who they are: Republicans. I believe we accomplished just that.

Finally, in a third article, published in the Apr 26 issue of the DI, Ginty added:

"We're not insulting the community. It's purely about being honest with your community," she said. "They're [not] insulted by debutantes who use the words 'coming out' when they come out to society. Yet they're insulted by us. We're not trying to pick them out. It's just a clever title that we're going to use."

Embedded below is a video (courtesy of the DI website) that includes interviews with Twillman and Ginty, and addresses some of these issues in greater detail:




( Daily Iowan video feature )

Video in QuickTime format, click here for free player download

In reaction to these statements by Twillman and Ginty, I would say, first off, that they are absolutely correct in at least two respects: (1) the term “coming out” is not copyrighted, owned or patented by the LGBT community (or anyone else), so UICR has every right to use it; and (2) if, hypothetically speaking, it had been a student organization called the “UI College Debutantes” that had issued a campus-wide email featuring repeated usage of the term, “coming out,” then yes, I agree, the community would probably not have been insulted by this.

But my second — and far more salient — reaction to Twillman and Ginty’s statements is that they are completely glossing over the larger context of the situation.

The larger context, in my opinion, is that UICR is a student organization with explicit ties to a national political party that, by and large, campaigns and votes in direct opposition to the LGBT rights movement.  In other words, this is a case of a student group appropriating the language of a minority group that their parent organization generally works to denigrate and oppress.

Or, to put it a third way, whereas self-identifying as a “debutante” links oneself to a group that is completely neutral with respect to LGBT rights, self-identifying as a “College Republican” links oneself to a group that is generally perceived as antagonistic toward LGBT rights — it is this distinction that explains why certain members of the community (esp., those sympathetic to LGBT rights) would object to one group’s use of the term, “coming out,” but not to the other’s.

I have too much respect for the intelligence of these students and their advisers — and I’m not saying this to be cute, but in earnest — to believe for one second that they remain genuinely unaware of the loaded nature of using the phrase “coming out” in this context.  On the contrary, I believe that when the group first decided to organize a “Conservative Coming Out Week” at UI (beginning, I believe, in 2006), they were fully aware that doing so would be controversial and provocative.

A history of drawing heat
A closer examination of “Conservative Coming Out Week” (both past and present) only furthers my impression that at least part of the group’s objective is, to borrow a pro wrestling term, “draw heat” from (i.e., get a rise out of) those on the other side of the political aisle.  For instance, the above-referenced Apr 21 DI article states that:

The UI College Republicans faced some criticism in 2007 for hosting a capture the flag game called "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" as part of its second Conservative Coming Out Week. Two teams — the "illegal immigrants" and the "border patrol" — competed.

The same article references two additional events, both held in 2011, which have also invited controversy.  First, a so-called “Animal Rights BBQ,” held on Apr 21.  According to The DI:

The College Republicans have hosted similar cookouts in the past, which have mocked the advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals by grilling a lot of meat (emphasis mine).

And second, an event held on Apr 20, which invited people to gather at the UI campus’ Pentacrest from 11 to 1 in order to: “Come pick up your Doctors' Notice to miss class for ‘sick of being stressed’, just like the Wisconsin public employees during the union protests.”  Commenting on the latter event, Ginty said:

"We're obviously somewhat mocking the union protesters in Wisconsin and how some of them skipped work to go to the Capitol and protest" (emphasis mine).

It is difficult to reconcile, on on hand, such blatant acts of provocation toward those who support certain “liberal” positions (e.g., amnesty for illegal immigrants, animal rights, and pro-labor/unions) with, on the other hand, statements by Twillman and Ginty implying that appropriating the term “coming out” was somehow not meant to provoke those who support LGBT rights.

Yet that is precisely what they statements are asking me to believe: that the group’s continuing decision to use the term “coming out” — despite all the controversy and offense that doing so consistently generates year after year — is “purely about being honest with [their] community” (emphasis mine). Forgive me if I choose instead to interpret these statements as disingenuous.

In public discourse, as in pro wrestling, context matters
Okay, so brumpelstiltskin must confess that the whole “coming out” controversy directly inspired the previous post about the “Montreal Screwjob” (of pro wrestling fame).  The original campus-wide email circulated by UICR just sort of sounded like something that a pro wrestling scriptwriter could have composed, and surely their appropriation of “coming out” is not a million miles away from Shawn Michael’s appropriation of the Sharpshooter (at least to the curious mind of a recovering WWF fan).  That said, in the aftermath of the Montreal Screwjob, Michaels and Vince McMahon didn’t proceed to gloss over the context or feign bemusement as to why Bret Hart and his fans got so upset with statements like: “There is no patent placed upon use of the Sharpshooter."

But, to be serious, this ridiculous and obscure analogy of mine also breaks down in the sense that — unlike the simplified black-and-white world of pro wrestling story lines, where Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were irreconcilable “opponents” of each other — in the real world, Republicans and the LGBT community are not enemies.  Sure, a majority of GOP leaders tend to vote in opposition to LGBT rights, but this does not mean that all Republicans oppose gay rights (or that all Democrats support them).  Indeed, I would be very surprised if there are not current UICR members who actually support LGBT rights, and were embarrassed by the email (not to mention other students who would have considered joining the group, but were turned off by “Conservative Coming Out Week”).

Which is why I feel “Conservative Coming Out Week” is such a shame.  In my opinion, all it does is perpetuate oversimplified cultural-political stereotypes and discourage bipartisan dialogue on substantive issues.  And yes, I also believe that if the goals of UICR are to recruit more students to their cause, and to feel more accepted in the community, then this particular approach ultimately works against their best interests.

All that said, UICR leaders are of course entitled to continue organizing “Conservative Coming Out Weeks” in the future. But if they do, I hope they won't act surprised if their decision is once again perceived as a deliberate act of mockery.

The Montreal Screwjob

On November 9, 1997, the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) produced a pay-per-view extravaganza featuring a main event in which one of the wrestlers defeated his opponent by using a “finishing maneuver” more commonly associated with a different wrestler.  For some reason, the wrestler who lost the match (and his fans) responded by getting really, really upset.

Putting things in context
Everybody knows that professional wrestling, generally speaking, is fake. Ah, but “generally speaking” is not the same as “always.”

Surely the most notorious instance of pro wrestling “breaking script” transpired during the main event of the 11th annual WWF Survivor Series — better known as the “Montreal Screwjob” — in which then-WWF Champion Bret “The Hit Man” Hart, put his title on the line against arch-rival, Shawn “Heartbreak Kid” Michaels, before a sold-out Molson Centre in Hart’s home country of Canada.

Michaels applies the Sharpshooter

As is typical in pro wrestling, a basic script for how the match would unfold had been agreed upon ahead of time by Hart, Michaels, and WWF owner Vince McMahon. Hart, who had recently signed a contract with the WWF’s principal rival, WCW — set to take effect one month after the Survivor Series — recognized that he would need to “lose” the WWF championship prior to leaving the company, but he and McMahon disagreed on the specifics of how this storyline should be written.

McMahon wanted Hart to "job" (i.e., lose cleanly) to Michaels in Montreal, but Hart refused: partly because he didn't want to lose the title in Canada, where he was considered a sort of national hero; but also because he and Michaels had significant bad blood towards each other — not just "on camera," but in real life.  As a result, Hart, Michaels, and McMahon mutually decided that the match would end in a disqualification — meaning that the title would not change hands — and that Hart would then willingly abdicate the title to McMahon the following evening on Monday Night Raw.

The specifics of the match script hinged on a scenario in which Michaels, late in the match, would lock Hart into the Sharpshooter — The Hit Man’s own signature submission hold — which promised to “draw heat” from the fiercely pro-Hart, Canadian audience. But then, after a few tense moments in this predicament, the agreement was that Hart would escape from the hold; and that, soon thereafter, three of Hart’s allies (his brother, Owen Hart; “The British Bulldog” Davey Boy Smith; and Jim “The Anvil” Neidhart”) and two of Michaels’ allies (Triple H and Chyna) would collectively interfere in the match, eventually resulting in a double disqualification.

This, at least, was the plan.

But in a shocking, real-life twist, McMahon and Michaels (along with other WWF higher-ups) met the day prior to the event and together crafted a secret plot to double-cross The Hit Man. As a result, what actually came to pass was that, when Michaels applied the Sharpshooter, referee Earl Hebner almost immediately waved his hand to declare the match over and Michaels the victor, even though Bret Hart had very clearly not submitted. In the video (embedded below), you can actually hear McMahon — who was standing immediately ringside — order the timekeeper to “ring the bell!” You can also see a genuinely astonished Bret Hart spit directly into McMahon’s face.



After spitting on McMahon, Hart would go on to destroy much of the WWF's ringside broadcast equipment. Hart's supporters were also livid, including many of the other wrestlers, some of whom threatened to leave the company as a direct result of McMahon's betrayal (at least one, "Ravishing" Rick Rude, did leave).  Another high-profile wrestler, Mark Calaway (aka "The Undertaker"), confronted McMahon after the event and demanded that he publicly apologize to Hart. Later that evening, when approached by McMahon backstage, Hart delivered a single punch to McMahon's face, knocking him to the ground and leaving him with a black eye.

Many fans in the audience were equally incensed; some threw garbage at McMahon, and others pushed Michaels, as they retreated to the locker room.  To this day, many wrestling fans around the globe have still not forgiven them.

But despite all the backlash, McMahon's plan had succeeded, and the damage was irreversibly done. As if deceiving Hart into losing his final match to his bitterest rival in front of his own countrymen wasn’t humiliating enough, the cruel and ironic culmination of McMahon and Michael’s scheme — which portrayed Hart as having submitted at the hands of his very own "trademark" maneuver — ensured that the ultimate insult would be added to injury.

---

If you're interested in learning more about the Montreal Screwjob, I'd recommend a documentary called Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows, now available on Netflix Watch Instantly.

Do Re Mi Fa Oh Si Di

It's no secret (one need look no further than here) that there's a certain obsessive pathology running through the veins—and synapsing through the brains—of brumpelstiltskin.  With that in mind, it's finally time for me, MC Gallagher, to unveil the fruit of my most compulsive musical labors.  Here goes...

Several years ago, circa 2005, I devised an algorithm for rating my favorite albums.  The crux of the formula involves rating each song from 1 to 5 stars (1, 2, 3, 3½, 4, 4½ or 5).  This is quite subjective, but I've become reasonably clear on what each rating signifies.  For example, a 3-star song is one that I "like", but am sometimes just not in the mood for (e.g., if I heard it on the radio, I might switch the station).  Five-star ratings, by contrast, are reserved for songs that do what music at its best is meant to do: induce a reaction that is profoundly emotional and/or physiological in nature (e.g., tears of sadness, chills of nostalgia, lulls of tranquility, invigorating bursts of adrenaline, etc). 

But my condition—which psychiatrists on the DSM-V planning committee are referring to as "Do-Re-Mi-Fa-O-C-D"—does not allow me to stop there. Oh no! Rather, after rating each song on a given album, I am then compelled to weigh songs based on length (i.e., a 10-minute song contributes more to the final rating than a 60-second song), and from there compute an overall average score.  Finally, I adjust the average-of-songs score to account for the aesthetic cohesiveness of the album as a whole (e.g., a really cohesive concept album gets bonus points; an album that's uneven, or drags on a bit too long, gets docked a few points).

That's the gist; here's the list

Was it right and salutary to inflict science and statistics upon one of the most intrinsic and qualitative things in my life?  I'm not sure.  But once I started, I just couldn't stop.  And now, after months and months (OK, years) of just thinking and talking about it, I'm finally ready to reveal my magnum opus: "MC Gallagher's 100 Favourite Albums"!

But first, just a few clarifications/disclaimers: (1) I only considered proper studio albums and live albums; thus, "compilations" that otherwise might have made the list (like Hatful of Hollow by The Smiths) were not eligible; (2) I've long been accused of Anglophilia, and the results have certainly borne that out, so brace yourself for a hearty dose of British music—literate and witty, rousing and swaggering, melancholy and brooding British music!; and (3) to merely say that the difference between my top 2 albums (i.e., 21 ten-thousandths of a point) does not reach statistical significance would be a bit of an understatement; in the end, the album that prevailed is the one that’s dearer to my heart, and which I discovered first, when a then-13-year-old still stood at the threshold of his musical awakening, and the band in question still teetered on the precipice of utter ubiquity, about to “supernova” into greatness.

To view the list, click below on the "Continue Reading" link.

Jacquamole!

As someone whose burger-buying decision-making tends be negatively influenced by TV ads perpetuating the stereotype that men don't know how to cook (let alone open a bag of cereal)—not to mention those that objectify women in perhaps the most unsubtle way imaginable—it's probably no surprise that I'm not a big fan of Hardee's commercials.

That said, I must admit to being at least mildly impressed by a recent ad for their French Dip Thickburger. Granted, it's not the ad itself that impresses me, but rather that Hardee's chose to hitch this particular ad campaign to the slogan: "It's better when it's French". To do so a mere six years after a significant percentage of the US population seemed to consider ordering "French Fries" (instead of "Freedom Fries") tantamount to a minor act of treason has to be considered a bit of gamble on Hardee's part, and I can't help but tip my beret to such a display of guts.

It is better when it's French
The inspiration for beginning this article in such a roundabout manner stems from a recent food-related conversation I had with one of brumpelstiltskin's closest aides (alias: Axe), who asked me: "Do you really want to take guacamole lessons from a Frenchman?"

Of course, the Frenchman in question is none other than my culinary hero, Jacques Pépin. To respond to Axe's question, my answer is a simple yet emphatic "Oui!" In other words, you do want to learn the art of guacamole—or, as I like to call it, "Jacquamole"—from Monsieur Pépin. The simple recipe (found in his book "Fast Food My Way") is as follows:

Mix 2 ripe avocados (crushed coarsely with a fork), ½ cup diced tomatoes (including seeds/juice), 1/4 cup finely chopped onions (put in a colander and rinsed under cold water), 1½ teaspoons finely chopped garlic, 3 tablespoons minced scallion (i.e., green onions), 1/4 cup chopped fresh cilantro, 1½ tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil, 1 tablespoon lemon juice, and ¾ teaspoon salt. Finally, if you like a little spice, add 2 tablespoons minced chile pepper and ½ teaspoon Tabasco Green Pepper sauce.

Toss this in a bowl, add some tortilla chips, and enjoy!

A Champagne Supernova of Tears

I know, I know, brumpelstilskin is just incorrigible: to cite an article about Oasis as our all-time least readership-pleasing blog post only to turn around and publish a new article about Oasis a mere five days later—what nerve, what incoherence, what hooliganism!

I read the news today (oh Noel!)
But how could I have foreseen the (inglorious) story that would await me on Saturday morning? That's when a text from a friend (code name: Erik the Red) alerted brumpelstiltskin to the following statement issued Friday night by Oasis’ lead guitarist and chief songwriter, Noel Gallagher:

It's with some sadness and great relief to tell you that I quit Oasis tonight. People will write and say what they like, but I simply could not go on working with Liam a day longer.

By Liam, Noel was of course referring to his younger brother and Oasis' lead singer (pictured above, left, in happier times). Apparently, Britpop's favorite sibling rivals had another of their famous bro-hahas Friday evening (prior to a concert in Paris), only this latest row appears to have been a bit more serious than usual—rumor even has it that Liam smashed Noel's favorite guitar! (In case you’re wondering, the “lads” are aged 42 and 37, respectively.) Granted, Noel’s “left” the band many times before—and I wouldn’t be surprised if the brothers decide to patch things up and reunite—but the fact that he posted his decision to the band’s official website does lend it a certain air of finality that his previous announcements lacked.

It's better to burn out...
If this really is the end, it comes at a pretty good time, I think. For instance, whereas five years ago the band seemed to be descending rapidly along a path of ever-increasing irrelevance, I would argue that their last two records (released in 2005 and 2008) have marked a rather improbable (and relatively triumphant) return to respectability. In fact, their last single—the lyrically despairing but musically pulsating “Falling Down”, released in March–is perhaps my favorite Oasis song in over 10 years.

But another reason why now seems like an okay time to call it quits has already been mentioned; namely, Noel and Liam are 42 and 37, and thus fast approaching Rolling Stones territory. At age 66, Mick Jagger is still singing "Satisfaction"; twenty-five years from now, will Oasis fans really want two 60-year-old Gallagher brothers still up onstage singing "Live Forever" and calling each other wankers?

The World's Best, Litterally

Brumpelstiltskin has a rather deplorable habit of crafting blog posts that only appeal to a small percentage (and in some cases none) of the Mic’s Tape readership. For many readers, today’s article is but the latest example of this heinous trend. But for those of you who are (a) cat owners and (b) not 100% satisfied with your current brand of cat litter, well, this is your lucky day.

With that ridiculous introduction out the way, let me cut to the chase. Back in October I issued a glowing endorsement of a product called World’s Best Cat Litter (WBCL). Ten months later, my satisfaction (and that of my cats, Dickens and Dolly) remains complete. For starters, I continue to marvel at its combination of top-notch "clumpability" and odor control; all-natural corn kernel-based ingredients; and biodegradable, septic-safe composition (which allows it to be flushed rather than taken out with the trash).

But what impresses me most is its cost-effectiveness. For instance, since May 1 of this year, I've spent $37.10 on three 8-lb bags and one 18.7-lb box of WBCL (yes, I've been tracking this with Quicken), which amounts to less than $10 per month over the past four months (note: I have two litter boxes, which I scoop at least once a day). To recycle some statistics from my original post, compare this to the last brand I bought, "Better Valu", which was seemingly cheaper at $2.63 for a 10-lb bag, but utterly reeked (and needed to be thrown away) after just a week—and thus would've amounted to more than $10 per month had I stuck with it.

All that said, my real inspiration for revisiting WCBL is that the company recently launched a new logo (pictured), new packaging and product names, a Facebook page and Twitter feed, and a fully revamped website that features a wealth of information—including several videos. In conjunction with this launch, WBCL has given its blog supporters (like Mic's Tape) the opportunity to share an exclusive coupon with their readers. If you'd like to try WBCL, click here to download a coupon for $4.00 off your next purchase. Please note that the coupon must be downloaded by August 29 (i.e., Saturday), but does not expire until September 30.

Iowa Town Hall Tamer Than in (Kiss My) Massachusetts

I attended a health care "Town Hall" meeting yesterday morning on the University of Iowa campus in Iowa City, led by local US Congressman Dave Loebsack (D-IA). In fact, you may have spotted me afterward holding the door for Mr Loebsack as we exited MacBride Hall (where the event took place) and stepped out into the beautiful Pentacrest section of campus. (Sure, we didn't talk, but it was still the closest I've come to rubbing shoulders with a "major" politician since shaking hands with the now-disgraced John Edwards in 2004.)

While leaving the meeting, I overheard an older gentleman remark that the forum was "more raucous" than he expected. In contrast, I found the atmosphere to be considerably more civil than I anticipated—an impression undoubtedly colored by footage I'd seen from a similar Town Hall held last Tuesday in brumepelstiltskin's home state of Massachusetts (led by US Rep Barney Frank, D-MA). Take a look at the video:


Besides this Daily Show segment (and a similar YouTube clip), I also caught about 30 min of unedited coverage replayed the other night on C-SPAN. (That's right, I was watching C-SPAN for fun. Do you wanna fight about it?) What struck me most about the MA Town Hall were that the audience's questions (at least the ones that I saw) almost invariably revealed skepticism, fear, and/or opposition to health care reform; and also the frequency with which audience members booed or otherwise interrupted Mr Frank while he attempted to respond to said questions.

In comparison, the atmosphere yesterday in Iowa City was less charged, presumably in part because the local community is predominantly sympathetic to health care reform. That said, there were certainly some fireworks in MacBride Hall, mostly in the form of audience members of different persuasions yelling at each other during questions. But while there were plenty of derisive hoots—and at least one rather spirited cry of "Socialism!"—I didn't spot any pictures of Barack (or should I say Adolph?) Obama sporting a Hitler mustache, and Mr Loebsack was for the most part given polite deference when speaking.

In regard to the meeting's actual content, I felt that Mr Loebsack's tone fostered a positive dialogue, and that his responses effectively addressed many of the misleading/false claims circulating about issues like euthanasia (the bill would neither set up "death panels", nor mandate end-of-life counseling sessions for seniors); a "government takeover" of health care (a public option would not replace private insurance); health care "rationing" (he cited an American Medical Association statement that "the bill would not ration care"); and the bill's potential effects on small businesses (an amendment proposed by conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats would exempt companies with payrolls below $500K from paying for government-sponsored health care).

To be critical, there were instances in which Loebsack's responses could have been more transparent, including his reply to the first audience question, which asked whether reform would entail government funding of abortion services. Loebsack's reply (that nothing in the bill would "mandate" coverage for abortion) echoes similar comments by President Obama, but according to the non-partisan website Factcheck.org (article here), Loebsack's and Obama's statements only convey a sort of partial truth:

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president [and Loebsack are] right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them.

Loebsack also lacked detail when replying to concerns about how reform would be paid for (to paraphrase, he basically said that a public option would initially be paid for by taxpayers, but eventually by individual premiums—similar to private health care plans). Out of all the opposition I've heard voiced about reform, it's the concerns about how to pay for it that strike me as by far the most compelling. To help restore lagging public support for reform, the President and Congress would be wise to better target unease about the price tag.

Lastly, dear readers, if you have anything to say about the issue, please share your thoughts!