Yes? No? Maybe?

The Summer of George!

No, it's not really, unless you count watching endless hours of Seinfeld on Tivo 'cos nothing good is on TV (accidental episodes of Age of Love and America's Got Talent don't count!) as being the Summer of George.

No, it's certainly been a summer of busy-ness.

What with employment, Harry Potter 7, Sarwar's birthday, planning for Hajj, a 10 day/30 hour evening intensive course in Classical Arabic, chores, watching seasons 6 and 7 of the West Wing on DVD (it seems much better on DVD that it did when I watched it on live TV), my upcoming birthday weekend plans, and my in-laws arriving next week for a month - it certainly has turned into a hectic summer.

But still, cannot complain; 'tis better that sitting around and pulling my hair out due to sheer boredom.

Oh, and before I forget, Happy 27th Birthday, Harry and Neville. It's been 10 years since the final battle, hope "all is well" :)

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows

So, it finally came. July 21, 2007. The end of the road.

Harvard Square was packed at the midnight release. Lots of people dressed up in Harry Potter garb, standing in line after the evening's concert in "Hogwarts Square".

It took me three days to finish it but I finally did do it on Monday.

I'm sad that it's over; it's like graduation - after all that time, it's all over. You can't believe there's life after this. And it's anti-climactic.

Yes, I must admit book was a little disappointing. Of course it was great fun in general, and engrossing and exciting, as all Harry Potter books are, but I had hoped JKR would have written it differently.

At least 100 pages could have been shaved off the beginning, the pages and pages of desperate wandering were repetitive. But perhaps that was the point.

There were too many un-original themes in this one: the locket casting evil-ness on the wearer (a la The One Ring), Ron pulling out the sword and breaking the locket (a la Excalibur).. and the radio and Lee's program (did anyone else see the influences of the Alan Johnston hostage crisis and how having a small stereo with the BBC helped him survive?).

I was disappointed in the lack of Snape, the lack of drama with which she described the final fall of Voldemort, and the mushy chapter '19 Years Later'. I'm glad she did an epilogue, but I would have preferred it to be less story-like, and more like the ending titles of a movie.

Speaking of which, I think this is the first book that I think she wrote for the screen rather than for the reader. Too much emphasis on the visuals, and not enough back-story or thinking process. No one will be able to complain that the 7th film isn't true to the book since this one is made to order for Hollywood.

The King's Cross chapter was frustrating for me; not enough answers, too much additional, unnecessary mystery. Though I was glad to see Dumbledore again.

I wish she had made Harry master of the Deathly Hallows and had him use that to conquer Voldemort. It was such a great tale, it would have made an extremely dramatic "see how I crush you" sort of ending.

And finally, my biggest beef - the ending. I re-read the ending three times but I'm still confused about what happened.

When Voldemort hit Harry with the Killing Curse in the Forbidden Forest, he killed off the Horcrux part of himself but not Harry's soul, because Voldemort shared Harry's blood and his mother's protection so while Voldemort lives, Harry must too.

The second time around Voldemort hit Harry with the Killing Curse, Harry disarmed him of the Elder Wand, and because he was the true owner of it, the wand refused to attack him, and the curse rebounded on Voldemort, finally killing him because all the Horcruxes were now destroyed.

This much I get.

But then this raises many questions:

Why did the Elder Wand succeed in attacking Harry the first time around? Yes, it killed the Voldemort part of his soul, but it still did hit him.

Why did the protection of Lily's curse not work in Voldemort's favor when his curse rebounded?

And if the blood connection protected Harry the first time, when Voldemort died why didn't Harry die with him?

Too many holes here.

Also, Harry being a Horcrux was the most ridiculous cop-out ever. Splitting your soul is dark magic, it can't just happen like that without you knowing, without an incantantion. Transference of Parseltongue and a window into Voldemort's mind is one thing, but making him a Horcux? Enough Harry Potter fans debunked this theory months ago.

Of all the people who died, I felt worst for Hedwig - maybe because she was the first casualty - and Dobby, the poor thing. Snape was expected, Mad-Eye didn't hurt so much since we don't really know him so well, Lupin and Tonks were also somewhat inevitable given the narrative power of killing off all 4 Hogwarts best friends and leaving Harry as godfather. And Fred's death was shocking but at least George is still around to make them laugh right?

I'm sad that Sirius actually is dead, I really thought he'd make a comeback.

At least we got the answer to why the Bloody Baron is bloody, although the random inclusion of the Grey Lady seemed like a quick-fix since we've never heard of her before.

All in all, it wasn't the most satisfying ending, and lots of it was predictable and expected (see previous blog posts for questions that were answered!), but I still love this series and am so sad to realize that it's all over.

Farewell, Harry Potter. You will be missed.

Battles with the Devil

Temptation is a tricky thing.

You resist it, rationalize with it - and it abandons you entirely, allowing you to revel in the strength of your will power.

But then suddenly it rears its beautiful head, overwhelms you, and leaves you physically stunned and salivating.

You want, but you cannot have and, frankly, do not need. But you still want. Against your better judgment, against your conscience, your moral compass shattered to pieces.

Why?

Temptation, thy name is ShayTan.

from my heart to yours

ab issi chah mein
ab issi raah mein
zindagi bhar mere tum ho na?
hey shona..
.. hey shona.

Film Review: Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix

Keeping with tradition, I watched the latest Harry Potter film installment last night, on the first day of its release. And, keeping with tradition, I came away somewhat disappointed, with much of the same concerns: too much of the plot was left out, the climax was rushed, and if you hadn't read the book you had no interest in the story (as proven by my husband who fell asleep in the middle).

Basically, as usual, the director chose to keep those parts of the book which would be visually dramatic and entertaining, while sacrificing the few moments it would take to include those parts of the narrative that make the story truly compelling and link one film to the next.

Not only did no one mention the words "12 Grimmauld Place" (except once, when Dumbledore sent the people in some paintings looking for the Order after Arthur Weasley had been attacked), legions of characters and plot-lines were left untouched and unexplored: Tonks, Mundungus, Kreacher, the entire Ron-Hermione snogging drama, the entire Harry-Cho drama, St. Mungo's, Ginny telling Harry that she's the only one who's ever been controlled by Voldemort so he should ask her if he is turning into him... and so much more.

Some stuff was conveniently changed, as usual: Cho was the person who gave up the secret location of the D.A. to Umbridge and the Longbottoms were said to have been killed off by Bellatrix Lestrange to avoid including St. Mungo's in the plot.

Still, what was most shocking is what they did to the climax: there was no Kreacher betrayal of Sirius, no uber-mysterious Department of Mysteries, and after Sirius died, there was some sense of Harry panicking but afterwards, once he got back to Hogwarts, he showed none of the destructive rage or towering guilt and sadness he feels in the book, in order to drive home that Sirius was dead. He's not just gone, he's DEAD and this is BIG. But somehow, the importance of this was lost in the film entirely.

The fighting sequence at the Department of Mysteries was well choreographed, but they made a huge deal out of the 1 minute (in the book) when Voldemort posessess Harry and asks Dumbledore to kill him. It went on for ages, with Dumbledore just sitting there looking dumb and helpless. Pretty pointless, really.

When it's all over, about 10 seconds were spent talking about the prophecy, with no reference to Harry being marked as his equal by Voldemort himself, or how it could have been Neville instead.

It was definitely a disappointing end to a movie that, even if it wasn't entirely comprehensive, at least kept up a better pace than its predecessors, and even worse because #5 was the first book in the series to be really dark and gripping, with a phenomenally emotional ending. The longest book was turned into the shortest movie.

The only redeeming factors were Harry's performance - Daniel Radcliffe has finally learned to act, and he was actually extraordinarily good.. I finally believed that he was Harry Potter; Imelda Staunton as Umbridge - although she was far too pleasant looking for me, she got the syrupy, evil cat-lover role down brilliantly; and the girl who played Luna Lovegood - she was perfectly dotty and serene, just as she should be.

Hermione and Ron, for the 10 minutes that they were on-screen, were pretty awful - someone really needs to teach them diction and how to speak slowly and emphatically, without rolling their eyes all the time.

Dumbledore was alright - I don't like this one, he's too agile and fiery for me. I like my Dumbledore's calm and wise, with a twinkle in their eye, thank you very much.

And finally, I have a beef with the costume people for Harry Potter: the books clearly refer to the students always being in robes and having their hats on.. yet we never see this in the films. Isn't the whole point that we are meant to be brought and immersed into this magical, wizarding world.. not that we change the aesthetics to make it more palatable to the ordinary viewer?

Overall review is same as the others: forget the movie, head straight for the book as I am doing right now!

Observations on The Goblet of Fire

I spent the last few weeks getting through Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire. Considering the mysteries of POA have been dissected so many times in the following books, I didn't uncover anything new there. However, I did notice a few things in GOF this time that seemed more relevant now than before:

-When Voldemort is regenerated using Harry's blood in the graveyard, he is able to touch Harry; but he also says that Lily's protection now runs in his veins. How will this protection manifest itself when he and Harry finally face one another? Will he, too, become untouchable for Harry?

-When Dumbledore explains the phenomenon of Priori Incantatem he says that since both wands share the same core, they are brother wands and "won't work properly against each other". Instead, when spells cross, the Reverse Spell Effect will kick in. So, assuming that Voldemort and Harry are going to be caught in a duel with plenty of fireworks, how can either of them use their wands to kill the other? Can a wand work the Avada Kedavra curse effectively upon the bearer of its brother? It remains to be seen.

-More evidence in favor of Snape's loyalty: when Dumbledore starts handing out assignments to all the members of the Order on the night Cedric dies, he gives the following orders to Snape:

"Severus, you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready... if you are prepared..."
"I am," said Snape. He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangely.
"Then good luck," said Dumbledore, and he watched with a trace of apprehension on his face, as Snape swept wordlessly after Sirius.
It was several minutes before Dumbledore spoke again.

This exchange, along with Dumbledore's testimony to Crouch during Karkaroff's trial, in which he said that Snape had joined Dumbledore's ranks before the fall of Voldemort "at great personal risk", is evidence enough that Snape is only pretending to have gone back to the Dark Side, and is actually playing out some complex plan that Dumbledore clearly crafted in anticipation of Voldemort's return.

I'm going to read the next two books before deciding, but I must say I see myself going over to the "Snape is Innocent" side very very soon.

Alright then - time to get cracking on Order of the Phoenix!

Great News!

I am finally employed!!

I received an offer yesterday from MPG and accepted it today and I start work next Monday! WAHOO!

Icing on the cake is that they're paying me a lot more than I expected.. or maybe my expectations were too low.. but either way, it's a fantastic opportunity and I am relieved and excited and grateful and nervous as all hell.

Funny I should get the offer just when I had resigned myself and gotten kinda used to unemployment. Hmm. Darn, I'll miss the empty afternoons of reading Harry Potter and drinking chai.

Other good news is that we are, inshaAllah, 99% going for Hajj this year. 1% uncertainty remains because we haven't actually booked the package/received the visa/bought the tickets yet. But niyyat has been made, package has pretty much been picked and working out my December-long leave has been put into action.

So much to be thankful for. Oopar vaala deta hai toh chappar phaad ke deta hai :)

Faith

There once was a man that lived by a river. He heard a radio report that the river was going to rush up and flood the town, and that all the residents should evacuate their homes. But the man said, 'I'm religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.'

The waters rose up. A guy in a row boat came along and he shouted, 'Hey, hey you! You in there. The town is flooding. Let me take you to safety.' But the man shouted back, 'I'm religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.'

A helicopter was hovering overhead. And a guy with a megaphone shouted, 'Hey you, you down there. The town is flooding. Let me drop this ladder and I'll take you to safety.' But the man shouted back that he was religious, that he prayed, that God loved him and that God will take him to safety.

Finally, the man drowned. And standing at the gates of St. Peter, he demanded an audience with God. 'Lord,' he said, 'I'm a religious man, I pray. I thought you loved me. Why did this happen?'

God said, 'I sent you a radio report, a helicopter, and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?'

Moral of the Story?

Belief in God alone will rarely augur a divine miracle or intervention to suddenly make things right. For life to get better, one needs to have true Faith:

to believe that God helps those who really wish to help themselves and not those who wallow in self-pity or wait for a savior;

to be wise enough to recognize that He exists in all the blessings one has in one's life and use those blessings to gather the strength to make things better, rather than continue to focus on all the things one doesn't have and bemoan how one has been forsaken;

to have the humility to accept responsibility for one's own mistakes, and the courage to make the difficult changes necessary to achieve happiness.

Once we show true Faith, God knows we are grateful and deserving of His bounty, and then He gives us the answers and makes the obstacles easier to cross.

But the path to Him begins with you.

Big Bigots

I was reading "C" - a California magazine about how great California is - and in particular, a story about how it could really be called a nation state because of the size of it's economy and it's influence around the world.

All was well.. I was enjoying the pix of Arnold with Tony Blair and the snazzy pic of a fake California passport.. until I read this sentence that left me slack-jawed:

"Hollywood's dream factory dictates which films are enjoyed in almost every non-Muslim place from Moscow to Hong Kong."

On behalf of every Muslim I know, I politely offer the following rebuttal: "WTF???"

Where the hell does this magazine get its balls, I ask? It's a fashion, lifestyle magazine catering to people with Household Incomes $200K+. There's not supposed to be a (bigoted) political stance behind a rag that caters to mindless celebrities looking for the next place to drop a $1,000 on a handbag!

The author could just as well as left out non-Muslim and made the exact same point about the influence of Hollywood, only now I'm pissed and will not finish the article and am tempted to never recommend it to a client for their media plan and make sure they never get any business ever again!

Disgusting, I tell you.

Social Networking Reflects Class Divisions?

This is a great blog article about how to interpret the social impact of sites like My Space and Facebook on teens and young Americans in general. It's long but definitely worth a read.

Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace

danah boyd
June 24, 2007
http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html

Over the last six months, I've noticed an increasing number of press articles about how high school teens are leaving MySpace for Facebook. That's only partially true. There is indeed a change taking place, but it's not a shift so much as a fragmentation. Until recently, American teenagers were flocking to MySpace. The picture is now being blurred. Some teens are flocking to MySpace. And some teens are flocking to Facebook. Who goes where gets kinda sticky... probably because it seems to primarily have to do with socio-economic class.

I want to take a moment to make a meta point here. I have been traipsing through the country talking to teens and I've been seeing this transition for the past 6-9 months but I'm having a hard time putting into words. Americans aren't so good at talking about class and I'm definitely feeling that discomfort. It's sticky, it's uncomfortable, and to top it off, we don't have the language for marking class in a meaningful way. So this piece is intentionally descriptive, but in being so, it's also hugely problematic. I don't have the language to get at what I want to say, but I decided it needed to be said anyhow. I wish I could just put numbers in front of it all and be done with it, but instead, I'm going to face the stickiness and see if I can get my thoughts across. Hopefully it works.

For the academics reading this, I want to highlight that this is not an academic article. It is not trying to be. It is based on my observations in the field, but I'm not trying to situate or theorize what is going on. I've chosen terms meant to convey impressions, but I know that they are not precise uses of these terms. Hopefully, one day, I can get the words together to actually write an academic article about this topic, but I felt as though this is too important of an issue to sit on while I find the words. So I wrote it knowing that it would piss many off. The academic side of me feels extremely guilty about this; the activist side of me finds it too critical to go unacknowledged.

Enter the competition

When MySpace launched in 2003, it was primarily used by 20/30-somethings (just like Friendster before it). The bands began populating the site by early 2004 and throughout 2004, the average age slowly declined. It wasn't until late 2004 that teens really started appearing en masse on MySpace and 2005 was the year that MySpace became the "in thing" for teens.

Facebook launched in 2004 as a Harvard-only site. It slowly expanded to welcome people with .edu accounts from a variety of different universities. In mid-2005, Facebook opened its doors to high school students, but it wasn't that easy to get an account because you needed to be invited. As a result, those who were in college tended to invite those high school students that they liked. Facebook was strongly framed as the "cool" thing that college students did. So, if you want to go to college (and particularly a top college), you wanted to get on Facebook badly. Even before high school networks were possible, the moment seniors were accepted to a college, they started hounding the college sysadmins for their .edu account. The message was clear: college was about Facebook.

For all of 2005 and most of 2006, MySpace was the cool thing for high school teens and Facebook was the cool thing for college students. This is not to say that MySpace was solely high school or Facebook solely college, but there was a dominating age division that played out in the cultural sphere.

When Facebook opened to everyone last September, it became relatively easy for any high school student to join (and then they simply had to get permission to join their high school network). This meant that many more high school teens did join, much to the chagrin and horror of college students who had already begun writing about their lack of interest in having HS students on "their" site. Still, even with the rise of high school students, Facebook was framed as being about college. This was what was in the press. This was what college students said. Facebook is what the college kids did. Not surprisingly, college-bound high schoolers desperately wanted in.

In addition to the college framing, the press coverage of MySpace as dangerous and sketchy alienated "good" kids. Facebook seemed to provide an ideal alternative. Parents weren't nearly as terrified of Facebook because it seemed "safe" thanks to the network-driven structure. (Of course, I've seen more half-naked, drink-carrying high school students on Facebook than on MySpace, but we won't go there.)

As this past school year progressed, the division around usage became clearer. In trying to look at it, I realized that it was primarily about class.

Socio-economic divisions

In sociology, Nalini Kotamraju has argued that constructing arguments around "class" is extremely difficult in the United States. Terms like "working class" and "middle class" and "upper class" get all muddled quickly. She argues that class divisions in the United States have more to do with lifestyle and social stratification than with income. In other words, all of my anti-capitalist college friends who work in cafes and read Engels are not working class just because they make $14K a year and have no benefits. Class divisions in the United States have more to do with social networks (the real ones, not FB/MS), social capital, cultural capital, and attitudes than income. Not surprisingly, other demographics typically discussed in class terms are also a part of this lifestyle division. Social networks are strongly connected to geography, race, and religion; these are also huge factors in lifestyle divisions and thus "class."

I'm not doing justice to her arguments but it makes sense. My friends who are making $14K in cafes are not of the same class as the immigrant janitor in Oakland just because the share the same income bracket. Their lives are quite different. Unfortunately, with this framing, there aren't really good labels to demarcate the class divisions that do exist. For this reason, I will attempt to delineate what we see on social network sites in stereotypical, descriptive terms meant to evoke an image.

The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other "good" kids are now going to Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college. They are part of what we'd call hegemonic society. They are primarily white, but not exclusively. They are in honors classes, looking forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school activities.

MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, "burnouts," "alternative kids," "art fags," punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn't play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn't go to college, who are expected to get a job when they finish high school. These are the teens who plan to go into the military immediately after schools. Teens who are really into music or in a band are also on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.

In order to demarcate these two groups, let's call the first group of teens "hegemonic teens" and the second group "subaltern teens." (Yes, I know that these words have academic and political valence. I couldn't find a good set of terms so feel free to suggest alternate labels.) These terms are sloppy at best because the division isn't clear, but it should at least give us terms with which to talk about the two groups.

The division is cleanest in communities where the predator panic hit before MySpace became popular. In much of the midwest, teens heard about Facebook and MySpace at the same time. They were told that MySpace was bad while Facebook was key for college students seeking to make friends at college. I go into schools where the school is split between the Facebook users and the MySpace users. On the coasts and in big cities, things are more murky than elsewhere. MySpace became popular through the bands and fans dynamic before the predator panic kicked in. Its popularity on the coasts and in the cities predated Facebook's launch in high schools. Many hegemonic teens are still using MySpace because of their connections to participants who joined in the early days, yet they too are switching and tend to maintain accounts on both. For the hegemonic teens in the midwest, there wasn't a MySpace to switch from so the "switch" is happening much faster. None of the teens are really switching from Facebook to MySpace, although there are some hegemonic teens who choose to check out MySpace to see what happens there even though their friends are mostly on Facebook.

Most teens who exclusively use Facebook are familiar with and have an opinion about MySpace. These teens are very aware of MySpace and they often have a negative opinion about it. They see it as gaudy, immature, and "so middle school." They prefer the "clean" look of Facebook, noting that it is more mature and that MySpace is "so lame." What hegemonic teens call gaudy can also be labeled as "glitzy" or "bling" or "fly" (or what my generation would call "phat") by subaltern teens. Terms like "bling" come out of hip-hop culture where showy, sparkly, brash visual displays are acceptable and valued. The look and feel of MySpace resonates far better with subaltern communities than it does with the upwardly mobile hegemonic teens. This is even clear in the blogosphere where people talk about how gauche MySpace is while commending Facebook on its aesthetics. I'm sure that a visual analyst would be able to explain how classed aesthetics are, but aesthetics are more than simply the "eye of the beholder" - they are culturally narrated and replicated. That "clean" or "modern" look of Facebook is akin to West Elm or Pottery Barn or any poshy Scandinavian design house (that I admit I'm drawn to) while the more flashy look of MySpace resembles the Las Vegas imagery that attracts millions every year. I suspect that lifestyles have aesthetic values and that these are being reproduced on MySpace and Facebook.

I should note here that aesthetics do divide MySpace users. The look and feel that is acceptable amongst average Latino users is quite different from what you see the subculturally-identified outcasts using. Amongst the emo teens, there's a push for simple black/white/grey backgrounds and simplistic layouts. While I'm using the term "subaltern teens" to lump together non-hegemonic teens, the lifestyle divisions amongst the subalterns are quite visible on MySpace through the aesthetic choices of the backgrounds. The aesthetics issue is also one of the forces that drives some longer-term users away from MySpace.

While teens on Facebook all know about MySpace, not all MySpace users have heard of Facebook. In particular, subaltern teens who go to school exclusively with other subaltern teens are not likely to have heard of it. Subaltern teens who go to more mixed-class schools see Facebook as "what the good kids do" or "what the preps do." They have various labels for these hegemonic teens but they know the division, even if they don't have words for it. Likewise, in these types of schools, the hegemonic teens see MySpace as "where the bad kids go." "Good" and "bad" seem to be the dominant language used to divide hegemonic and subaltern teens in mixed-class environments. At the same time, most schools aren't actually that mixed.

To a certain degree, the lack of familiarity amongst certain subaltern kids is not surprising. Teens from poorer backgrounds who are on MySpace are less likely to know people who go to universities. They are more likely to know people who are older than them, but most of their older friends, cousins, and co-workers are on MySpace. It's the cool working class thing and it's the dominant SNS at community colleges. These teens are more likely to be interested in activities like shows and clubs and they find out about them through MySpace. The subaltern teens who are better identified as "outsiders" in a hegemonic community tend to be very aware of Facebook. Their choice to use MySpace instead of Facebook is a rejection of the hegemonic values (and a lack of desire to hang out with the preps and jocks even online).

Class divisions in military use

A month ago, the military banned MySpace but not Facebook. This was a very interesting move because the division in the military reflects the division in high schools. Soldiers are on MySpace; officers are on Facebook. Facebook is extremely popular in the military, but it's not the SNS of choice for 18-year old soldiers, a group that is primarily from poorer, less educated communities. They are using MySpace. The officers, many of whom have already received college training, are using Facebook. The military ban appears to replicate the class divisions that exist throughout the military. I can't help but wonder if the reason for this goes beyond the purported concerns that those in the military are leaking information or spending too much time online or soaking up too much bandwidth with their MySpace usage.

MySpace is the primary way that young soldiers communicate with their peers. When I first started tracking soldiers' MySpace profiles, I had to take a long deep breath. Many of them were extremely pro-war, pro-guns, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, pro-killing, and xenophobic as hell. Over the last year, I've watched more and more profiles emerge from soldiers who aren't quite sure what they are doing in Iraq. I don't have the data to confirm whether or not a significant shift has occurred but it was one of those observations that just made me think. And then the ban happened. I can't help but wonder if part of the goal is to cut off communication between current soldiers and the group that the military hopes to recruit. Many young soldiers' profiles aren't public so it's not about making a bad public impression. That said, young soldiers tend to have reasonably large networks because they tend to accept friend requests of anyone that they knew back home which means that they're connecting to almost everyone from their high school. Many of these familiar strangers write comments supporting them. But what happens if the soldiers start to question why they're in Iraq? And if this is witnessed by high school students from working class communities who the Army intends to recruit?

Thoughts and meta thoughts

I have been reticent about writing about this dynamic even though I've been tracking it for a good six months now. I don't have the language for what I'm seeing and I'm concerned about how it's going to be interpreted. I can just see the logic: if society's "good" kids are going to Facebook and the "bad" kids are going to MySpace, clearly MySpace is the devil, right? ::shudder:: It's so not that easy. Given a lack of language for talking about this, my choice of "hegemonic" and "subaltern" was intended to at least insinuate a different way of looking at this split.

The division around MySpace and Facebook is just another way in which technology is mirroring societal values. Embedded in that is a challenge to a lot of our assumptions about who does what. The "good" kids are doing more "bad" things than we are willing to acknowledge (because they're the pride and joy of upwardly mobile parents). And, guess what? They're doing those same bad things online and offline. At the same time, the language and style of the "bad" kids offends most upwardly mobile adults. We see this offline as well. I've always been fascinated watching adults walk to the other side of the street when a group of black kids sporting hip-hop style approach. The aesthetics alone offend and most privileged folks project the worst ideas onto any who don that style. When I see a divide like this, I worry because it reproduced the idea that the "good" kids are good and that Facebook participation is good.

Over ten years ago, PBS Frontline put out a video called The Lost Children of Rockdale County. The film certainly has its issues but it does a brilliant job of capturing how, given complete boredom and a desire for validation, many of the "good" kids will engage in some of the most shocking behaviors... and their parents are typically unaware. By and large, I've found that parents try to curtail such activities by restricting youth even more. This doesn't stop the desire for attention and thus the behaviors continue, but they get pushed further underground and parents become less in-touch with their "good" kids.

While I think it's important to acknowledge that some of the "good" kids aren't that good, I don't want to imply that the inverse is true. Many of them are. But many of the subaltern teens that I talk with have their heads on much tighter than the hegemonic teens. The hegemonic teens do know how to put on a show for most adults (making it more fun for me to interview them and try to work through the walls that they initially offer me). As a society, we have strong class divisions and we project these values onto our kids. MySpace and Facebook seem to be showcasing this division quite well. My hope in writing this out is to point out that many of our assumptions are problematic and the internet often reinforces our views instead of challenging them.

People often ask me if I'm worried about teens today. The answer is yes, but it's not because of social network sites. With the hegemonic teens, I'm very worried about the stress that they're under, the lack of mobility and healthy opportunities for play and socialization, and the hyper-scheduling and surveillance. I'm worried about their unrealistic expectations for becoming rich and famous, their lack of work ethic after being pampered for so long, and the lack of opportunities that many of them have to even be economically stable let alone better off than their parents. I'm worried about how locking teens indoors coupled with a fast food/junk food advertising machine has resulted in a decrease in health levels across the board which will just get messy as they are increasingly unable to afford health insurance. When it comes to ostracized teens, I'm worried about the reasons why society has ostracized them and how they will react to ongoing criticism from hegemonic peers. I cringe every time I hear of another Columbine, another Virgina Tech, another site of horror when an outcast teen lashes back at the hegemonic values of society.

I worry about the lack of opportunities available to poor teens from uneducated backgrounds. I'm worried about how Wal-Mart Nation has destroyed many of the opportunities for meaningful working class labor as these youth enter the workforce. I'm worried about what a prolonged war will mean for them. I'm worried about how they've been told that to succeed, they must be a famous musician or sports player. I'm worried about how gangs provide the only meaningful sense of community that many of these teens will ever know.

Given the state of what I see in all sorts of neighborhoods, I'm amazed at how well teens are coping and I think that technology has a lot to do with that. Teens are using social network sites to build community and connect with their peers. They are creating publics for socialization. And through it, they are showcasing all of the good, bad, and ugly of today's teen life. Much of it isn't pretty, but it ain't pretty offline either. Still, it makes my heart warm when I see something creative or engaged or reflective. There is good out there too.

It breaks my heart to watch a class divide play out in the technology. I shouldn't be surprised - when orkut grew popular in India, the caste system was formalized within the system by the users. But there's something so strange about watching a generation splice themselves in two based on class divisions or lifestyles or whatever you want to call these socio-structural divisions.

In the 70s, Paul Willis analyzed British working class youth and he wrote a book called Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. He argued that working class teens will reject hegemonic values because it's the only way to continue to be a part of the community that they live in. In other words, if you don't know that you will succeed if you make a run at jumping class, don't bother - you'll lose all of your friends and community in the process. His analysis has such strong resonance in American society today. I just wish I knew how to fix it.

I clearly don't have the language to comfortably talk about what's going on, but I think that this issue is important and needs to be considered. I feel as though the implications are huge. Marketers have already figured this out - they know who to market to where. Policy creators have figured this out - they know how to control different populations based on where they are networking. Have social workers figured it out? Or educators? What does it mean that our culture of fear has further divided a generation? What does it mean that, in a society where we can't talk about class, we can see it play out online? And what does it mean in a digital world where no one's supposed to know you're a dog, we can guess your class background based on the tools you use?

Anyhow, I don't know where to go with this, but I wanted to get it out there. So here it is. MySpace and Facebook are new representations of the class divide in American youth. Le sigh.

Surprise, surprise

Which HP Kid Are You?

Blast From The Past

Omigod... remember this??

Yes? No? Maybe?

Today I made my bed using only my left hand. (My right was holding the cereal bar I was eating).

Wonders never cease.

Jal jal kar khaak..

Yesterday while making Chicken Dopiaza, I tossed some ginger and garlic into boiling oil to fry, but instead my arm got fried as oil sizzled and leapt up to my arm and left 8 burn marks, and 1 boil/blister that has already torn open before healing due to my long sleeved jacket from this morning's interview. This is not pleasant.

Observations on The Chamber of Secrets

Today, I finished re-reading Book 2. Must say it's so much more enjoyable reading the book than watching the movie. I've happened to watch The Chamber of Secrets at least half a dozen times and because they altered the story so much for the film, I was pleasantly surprised to get the "real" story from the book after so long.

While Book 2 has the most to do with the Horcrux plot-line, I was still unable to find any major surprises or clues since so much was already explained in Book 6. Here are a few of the observations I did make:

-When Floo Powder accidentally delivers Harry to Borgin & Burkes in Knockturn Alley, Harry sees a number of items that come into play later on in the story. He hides in the brother of the Hogwarts Vanishing Cabinet - and a few chapters later we hear Peeves breaking that cabinet to get Filch distracted from giving Harry detention, explaining why it is broken and left in the Room of Requirement in Book 6! Harry also spots the cursed opal necklace that attacks Katie Bell, which Draco sees as well.

-Lucius Malfoy is at Borgin & Burkes to dispose of items he has in his home because he suspects he might be raided. This explains why he has Riddle's diary on hand, which he slips to Ginny at Flourish & Blotts. But it's possible that, unbeknownst to him, Malfoy may have other Horcruxes in his collection that he chooses to dispose of at Borgin & Burkes, so it's conceivable that another Horcux may be found here in the future. Even if Malfoy has no other Horcruxes to dispose of, given the nature of Borgin & Burkes, we can safely assume that other Death Eaters with Horcruxes or suspicious items to hide might bring those objects here. So the store may play a bigger role in the future.

-This Halloween is also the 500th Deathday anniversary of Nearly Headless Nick, yet another person who was killed on Halloween. Hmm, this is becoming a pattern.

-At the Deathday Party, Peeves is the only one adorned in colorful clothing. How can he manage to do this while the rest of the ghosts are "pale and transparent"? Yet again, this begs the question: what, actually, is Peeves?

Observations on The Philosopher's Stone

I have begun the process of re-reading Harry Potter 1-6, so as to refresh my memory on the details, and gather as many clues as possible about the ending, before the release of Book 7.

Today I finished Book 1. Some interesting points I failed to notice before:

-When delivering baby Harry to the Dursleys on the night Voldemort was defeated, McGonagall asked if Dumbledore could do anything about his scar, and he replied, "Even if I could, I wouldn't. Scars can come in handy." So far we haven't seen anything huge come from the scar - just the pain as a warning signal. Perhaps Book 7 unveils a deeper secret behind it.

-Lily and James were killed on Halloween; at Hogwarts, Quirrell (led by Voldemort) let the troll in on Halloween as well, looking to make a move on the Philosopher's Stone. Perhaps Voldemort has an affinity for October 31st, and perhaps the final battle between him and Harry will take place on October 31st - hence Deathly "Hallows"? (Thanks to Paresh for this one!)

-In his note, Dumbledore told Harry that James left his Invisibility Cloak with Dumbledore "before he died". It wasn't confiscated or given as a present, it was given for safe-keeping. Why would James do this at a time of great fear and terror when he could find it pretty useful himself? This also leads me to wonder, though pre-maturely since I haven't gotten to Book5 yet, but did Harry's parents know anything about the prophecy until the night they were killed? What was the purpose of giving away the Invisibility Cloak? We might learn something about this as Harry heads off to Godric's Hollow.

-When the Hogwarts ghosts are introduced, Nearly Headless Nick remarks that Peeves "is not really even a ghost". Well, then what is he? And why is so afraid of the Bloody Baron? And why is the Baron bloody in the first place? I suspect the Baron killed Peeves, though motive and weapon remain unclear, and their ghosts (or whatever Peeves is) linger on at Hogwarts for a reason. Perhaps Peeves is the link to Sirius's impending revival (yes, against popular belief I still maintain Sirius will make a comeback) - if Sirius is too proud to settle for being a ghost, as Nearly Headless Nick suggested in Book 5, maybe he'll come back in the same form of Peeves - though what he is exactly, we do not know.

-The first time Harry sees Snape is at the Head Table in the Great Hall, and when Snape turns to look at him, Harry's scar hurts for the first time at Hogwarts. Now, this could well have been caused by Quirrell looking at him since Quirrell was next to Snape. But when Harry met Quirrell in London before the start of the year, he felt no pain. Although at that time Quirrell did not have his turban and wasn't carrying Voldemort around in his head either. So it could have been caused by Quirrell/Voldemort, but this is never explained and could come in handy for the "Snape is Evil" brigade. I, myself, do not think Snape is evil but I am wary of him and unsure of how he'll exonerate himself of Dumbledore's death in Book 7.

-After Harry is sorted into Gryffindor, he begins to have nightmares in which he's wearing Quirrell's turban and it is trying to convince him to transfer to Slyetherin, while Malfoy and Snape laugh in the background and there are flashes of green light. Was Voldemort able to connect with Harry through his dreams this early in the game? Or was it just really a dream?

-And finally, something for those of us who hope that Dumbledore will make a Gandalf-like return. At the end of the book, Dumbledore remarks to Harry, "After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." Let's hope Dumbledore and Sirius manage to come back and share their post-mortem adventure with us before the end of the series!

Going just a little too far...

Anglicans ask Sony to halt game set in cathedral
By Paul Majendie

LONDON (Reuters) - The Church of England, accusing Sony of "virtual desecration", called on the Japanese entertainment giant on Monday to apologize and withdraw a gun-filled computer game set in a British cathedral.

It also called on Sony to contribute funds to help Manchester Cathedral combat gun crime that has gripped the northern England city.

Anglican church authorities were outraged by the PlayStation game "Resistance: Fall of Man" that depicts a shootout in the cathedral nave.

"The video footage of the cathedral battle on YouTube has shocked and dismayed us beyond words. They can only be described as virtual desecration", Rogers Govender, Dean of Manchester Cathedral, told reporters.

"We are shocked to see a place of worship, prayer, learning and heritage being presented to the youth of today as a location where guns can be fired," he added.

Manchester Cathedral said Sony had not asked permission, but a statement from the multinational said "We believe we have sought and received all permissions necessary for the creation of the game.

"Sony Computer Entertainment Europe is aware of the concerns expressed by the Bishop of Manchester (Nigel McCulloch) and the cathedral authorities ... and we naturally take the concerns very seriously."

It stressed that the game "is a fantasy science fiction game and is not based on reality."

Asked what Sony's next move would be, a spokesman said on Monday: "We are now in contact with the Cathedral authorities and will be dealing with them directly."

Cathedral Dean Govender, clearly dismayed by the game's content, said: "We were sickened to discover that the millions of people who play the game have a choice of weaponry to use within the cathedral."

Govender said it was well known that Manchester had a serious problem with gun crime, noting that three youths had been shot in the past 72 hours alone.

"Every year we invite hundreds of teenagers to come and see the cathedral so they might appreciate an alternative to the violence they experience in their daily lives," he said.

Laying out the cathedral's conditions, he said Sony should apologize unreservedly and withdraw the game.

He said the church authorities would also ask Sony to make a substantial donation to its education department for work in trying to combat Manchester's gun culture.

"For the global manufacturer Sony to recreate the interior of any religious building such as a mosque, a synagogue or in this case a cathedral with photo realistic quality and then encourage people to have gun battles in the building is beyond belief."

Hold on to this..

How Does This Grab You? Handle Ads for Plastic Grocery Bags
June 11, 2007
By Rory J. Thompson
Brandweek.com

NEW YORK -- There's a new way to grab shoppers: branded shopping bag handles. A new product called Grabb-It has been designed not only for customer convenience, but also for full-color glossy paperboard ads.

Created by Altivity, Irvine, Calif., Grabb-It has bagged deals with Nestlé, Six Flags and the Los Angeles Dodgers. Grocery chains including Ralphs (owned by Kroger), Publix and Price Chopper have tested it. "Customers loved it," said Neil Golub, CEO at Price Chopper, Schenectady, N.Y. The product officially launches in these and other supermarkets in July.

Each box of 400 Grabb-Its has several advertisers, so consumers get a number of impressions. Participating chains get a flat fee for each respective group of handles a marketer has per box.

"It's a revenue-generator for the stores," said Larry Weil, CEO at Weil & Associates, San Antonio, the marketing solutions company promoting Grabb-It.

The market for these carry-off ads won't be limited to grocery stores. "[We're] looking at places like Target, OfficeMax, any retailer that uses plastic bags," said Mike Hempstead, Altivity vp-sales and product development.

Carl Truly, Grabb-Its president and COO, said the inspiration for the product came from his mother. "Mom had trouble with all the plastic shopping bags. Not only did she have a problem gripping them, but then they'd fall over in the trunk of the car, and needed to be repacked when she got home."

He began tinkering with designs, and came up with the cardboard handle.

Though not everyone will be a fan (the City of San Francisco banned plastic bags in April and other cities are also considering restrictions), Truly's work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Va., may help counter bad pr. A Grabb-It's test in 2005 listed data on 16 missing kids.

"Out of those 16 kids, three of them—who had been missing for more than two years—were found because of the ads on the Grabb-It handles," said Truly. "We now include a free spot in every dispenser for NCMEC. How do you put a price on that?"