To Each Her Own: Ending the Craft Beer Cold War

Another quick read featured on Ladies Of Craft Beer...

http://ladiesocb.com/blog/to-each-her-own-ending-the-craft-beer-cold-war-by-hanna-laney/

Malt Destiny: Jefferson, Beer and Bald Eagles

New post from yours truly on Denver Off The Wagon... Beer + history = fusion of nerdness.

http://www.denveroffthewagon.com/2011/04/01/malt-destiny-jefferson-beer-and-bald-eagles/

Thunderstorm (unrefined haiku)

the air sits. hot/wet.
growing, pregnant with fat drops,
a burst! then it's gone.

Repressing the People the World Needs Most

Bulletin, 2010

This week, as predicted, University President Thayne McCulloh has banned the Vagina Monologues from being performed on campus. After I let out a gale-force sigh, I had to figure out how best to respond personally, socially and in this column. Upon the news of the ban, I overheard a student say something to the effect of “this is just a group of angry, bitter women with nothing better to worry about.” To this person, I send an eye-roll that could throw the Earth off orbit. Forget the misogynistic musings of certain students; the issue is about more than petty name-calling. This issue is about who we are as students in the pursuit of knowledge and who we are as an intellectual and social community. This issue is the intersection of art, entertainment and our identities both individually and as a Gonzaga community.

I think it is most appropriate to begin with a bit of an aside. My following response to the ban on The Vagina Monologues is not meant to be a personal attack on Dr. McCulloh. I understand that as Interim President after the unusually powerful predecessor Father Spitzer would be both daunting and confining. I applaud Dr. McCulloh’s attempt at being as open-minded as possible in an infrastructure bequeathed to him and appreciate his continued efforts to search for the greatest good. Additionally, I take seriously the connection to Catholic teachings that many members of the Gonzaga community feel. I respect and admire faithfulness; I simply think it’s time for some honest discussion.

As a student on a college campus that waxes poetic about “educating the people the world needs most,” I am frequently disappointed with the number of times the university chooses repression over education, silence over honest discussion. Many times on this campus I have encountered young adults uncomfortable with the anatomical names of their body parts and utterly baffled as to their health and function. In our Anatomy and Physiology classes, the entire reproductive system is ignored. In our efforts to “educate,” we often silence information about birth control, reproductive health and anatomical fact.

For some, this stems from religious teachings and conservatism. I understand religious guidance and I respect that as an important facet of many students’ lives. However, I do not see how religious conviction should stand in the way of understanding our bodies. Especially in a church that places such a premium on the conception and rearing of children, it seems antithetical to deny the anatomy that does the work. Accepting our body as part of our holistic self doesn’t stand in the way of our relationship with God, it can strengthen it.

Some arguments against the Monologues focus on what some consider to be glorification of acts they see as immoral, often including frank discussions of heterosexual and homosexual sex. However, these arguments do not take into account the wide array of topics covered in the show. This argument is like saying The Bible is merely about the Creation story. Yes, some of the Monologues focus on sex, but there are many other topics discussed including: sexual violence, objectification, birth, intimacy, and the importance of language in gender equality. Acknowledgment of these topics is important, and indeed vital, in our creation of a Christ-like community of people who truly love each other as Jesus calls us to do.

On a campus under the heavy control of the Catholic Church, I find one of issues to be the ideal of Mary as the Blessed Virgin. One of the largest miracles celebrated in the Catholic tradition is the Virgin Birth. In this way, we create a climate on campus that separates Godly women from their bodies. Women of faith strive for closeness to God and, in the example of Mary, the anatomy and function of the human reproductive system are entirely by-passed. If we are to emulate the Blessed Virgin, we are to strive for alienation from our anatomy. This is not to detract from the miracle of the Virgin Birth, but rather, is merely an observation in what we value as a community and its effects on who we are as men and women of God.

Likely protests from both sides of the argument will continue to build. Likely, the Vagina Monologues will still be held off-campus. Likely, the event will be fraught with tension from fervent supporters and avid opponents. While these events may be the only knowable future for the debate, we must look to use this moment as a means by which we take an honest, rational look at what we really want to be known for as the collective body of the Gonzaga community. What will really matter is how we use this moment as a way to educate ourselves about our bodies, our health and who we are as holistic beings.

Morality, Artifice and Sex Robots, Oh My!

Bulletin, 2010

Every weekend, some women on the Gonzaga campus choose to dress like sex robots. By cramming themselves into skin-tight polyester and miniskirts, these women package their own bodies as a product.

Recently, TrueCompanion, Inc. shocked some by introducing Roxxxy, the first sex robot capable of speaking, retaining information, engaging in conversation and being used for sex. For about $7,000 any person over the age of 18 can purchase and customize their very own sex robot, complete with specialized personality settings, haircut and color, make-up, and nail polish, as well as other certain anatomical specifications.

Similarly, it seems some young women in relationships do not balk at the idea of getting a Brazilian wax to match the women their boyfriends see in porn and the myriad of underwear-less celeb pictures gracing the tabloids, without asking for anything in return. Many of the actions young women have come to see as pedestrian and necessary are products of sex as a commodity.

Critics and fans alike have been vocal in their response to the product since its introduction at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas in early January. Roxxxy has been a topic in a number of on-campus classes including Sex, Gender and Society and Gender, Family and Society, spurring dialogue. In almost every conversation on campus, the response seems to be vehement condemnation, but the conversation is a bit more complex than simple refutation. Upon examination, many of the arguments prove to be more complicated than they appear.

First, many opponents claim that using a sex robot is “just wrong.” Presumably, they are making the claim that it is immoral to use a robot for sexual contact. This argument raises other important questions about artifice in the world of sex; namely, is it immoral to use anything that is not human for sex? Where do we draw the line on products like the Fleshlight? Do those who oppose the sex robot also oppose products like sex toys, synthetic lubrication or Viagra? In a world where technological advance often outpaces societal readiness, it is naïve to not acknowledge a growing gray area when it comes to our relationship with technology.

There is another argument that we can’t ignore; sex robots bridge the gap between fantasy and reality. In a relationship with an actual person, the world of fantasy and the realm of reality have a barrier. However, with a device like Roxxxy, fantasy becomes an immediate reality in which any whim or predilection can be realized. In a world of increasingly accessible and prevalent porn, this becomes problematic.

Some opponents of sex robots (and of porn) make the claim that it hurts women. However, I see the unfortunate effects on both the men who are using sex robots and women at large. When there is no distillation of fantasy, no hesitancy to live out a whim, those who use products like Roxxxy alienate themselves from the organic, natural intimacy that can come from sex between humans. In this way, products like Roxxxy are the embodiment of ultimate human alienation. Roxxxy’s highly customized nature promotes an idea that women should be equally customizable, with each facet of their personality and body attuned to their partner’s wishes.

Another problem I see in the discussion is the level of delusion in the binary, us-versus-them world of people who would use a sex robot and people who would not. People are quick to put themselves in a category of those who would never use a product like Roxxxy (or Rocky, the soon-to-be-released male counterpart). However, every day we partake in activities I see as merely sex robotics re-packaged.

Women aren’t alone in this, though, as some men make it a part of their coming-of-age tradition to skulk into a darkened strip club to watch women gyrate in g-strings to “Pour Some Sugar On Me.” Some of these men would recoil in horror at the thought of using a sex robot. However, watching strippers and using Roxxxy are much the same. With Roxxxy, men pay for programmed, controllable sex. With strippers, men use dollar bills to dictate what women wear, how they dance, how they talk and what they do. To many, Roxxxy represents a completely new and decidedly bad advance in machinery. If we acknowledge the cultural meaning of our own actions, we see Roxxxy as merely the next baby step in a world of entangled sex and technology.

Products like Roxxxy will continue to push the boundaries of sexual technology. More importantly, however, they will force us to examine the activities we see as pedestrian that may be equally as hurtful to others and ourselves. Are we merely Roxxxys or Rockys ourselves? Do we treat others like sex robots that breathe? While a simple acceptance or refutation of these products is perhaps the most common response, I argue that an honest examination of our actions proves that we are perhaps already following a cultural, social and moral trajectory merely accelerated by products like sex robots.

Super Bowl Vs. Puppy Bowl

Bulletin, 2010

Last Sunday I made the epic hajj to the couch to watch the perennial return of the Super Bowl. The day had all the fixings to be great: a three-hour homage to a game predicated on a system of arbitrary and cryptic rules, enough junk food to make me question the power of my digestive system and the sensory overload that is the world of American professional sports. Soon, however, I was torn between hulk-like 300-pound men and adorable puppies. Which would I choose, the Super Bowl or the Puppy Bowl? In true sports fashion, I checked the stats:

The Super Bowl

What It Is: The Super Bowl is the finest display of homoeroticism since the carving of Michelangelo’s David, or, to some, the distillation of seventeen weeks of professional football. The pre-game show, halftime show and after-show cued every washed up celebrity has-been and confetti machine in the greater Miami area. For those who couldn’t care less about football, the ads typically guarantee laughs and, in this year’s case, controversy in the form of Tim Tebow and his mother railing against abortion.

Key Players: This year, fan favorite Peyton Manning and his Indianapolis Colts faced off against the New Orleans Saints and Reggie Bush, who is most famous for his other full-time job as the chief curator of Kim Kardashian’s pronounced gluteus. Additionally, Reggie Bush has remained a popular face of the NFL ever since he emerged from a highly successful college career at USC. Peyton Manning, progeny of football phenom Archie Manning and brother of NFL QB Eli, retains popularity through his dynamic appearances in commercials and his courageous battle against a lifetime of hardship brought on by having a freakishly large forehead.

The Good: The Super Bowl features flair and lots of it. Between the fireworks, the myriad of American flags, the confetti bombs, the celebrity box seats, the upturned Kool-aid coolers and the overwhelming screen graphics, the Super Bowl keeps viewers somewhere between constant entertainment and epileptic seizure. The Super Bowl is an explosion of visual and auditory clutter, just the way we like it.

The Bad: Ever since 2004’s Janet Jackson Nipplegate, the Super Bowl halftime shows have been sterile, boring mash-ups of mid-level country stars, crusty 1970s rockers and unobtrusive Disney music childbots. The halftime show is the dullest part of the multi-hour affair.

Wildcard: The Super Bowl commercials this year featured a motif that never fails to elicit laughs--talking babies. E*Trade, an online stock trading company uses computerized babies to show the ease and profitability of their do-it-yourself brokerage system. While many have heralded the Doritos commercials as the funniest this year, I always find myself laughing awkwardly loudly at a talking baby.

The Puppy Bowl

What It Is: The event follows this equation for success: puppies + puppies + puppies. Animal Planet’s Puppy Bowl consists of different kinds of puppies playing with chew toys, gnawing on each other and doing all of the adorable things puppies do. Viewers typically spend the first half of the game squealing at how cute the puppies are, the second half debating which puppy is cutest and the post-game wishing they could play with a puppy.

Key Players: This is not a Jeffersonian world of puppies. Not all puppies are created equal. While I chose my preferred pet (Garbanzo, an adorable cattle dog mix), my roommates quickly chose their favorites including the hideous Sir Winston, the Cavalier King Charles with lopsided eyes. We found ourselves bitterly divided over which puppies had redeeming qualities of cuteness, playfulness and overall charisma, begging the question in our minds; Manning who? According to the advertisement that ran almost constantly, there was online voting to choose the MVP (Most Valuable Puppy). Jake, the Chihuahua/Pug mix nabbed the title this year.

The Good: The draw to a continual loop of playful puppies seems obvious. However, the game also featured a Kitty Halftime Show where kittens played with an elaborate stage full of swishing cat toys, fake furry mice and swirling feathers. It’s the Puppy Bowl… with kittens.

The Bad: Once the hipster appeal of watching puppies play a fake football game wears off, the Puppy Bowl becomes a bit monotonous. One can only watch the Puppy Bowl in stints of a few minutes before switching back to the real game. Also, the ridiculous “refereeing” done by a random man with a striped shirt and whistle required liberal use of the “mute” button. Puppies are cute enough, calling a foul for “unnecessary ruff-ruff-ruffness” tipped the scale from precious to nauseating.

Wildcard: Two words--Hamster. Blimp. When the Puppy Bowl camera switched to aerial perspective, they used a box full of hamsters crawling over miniature blimp controls. The Hamster Blimp is genius. The Hamster Blimp combined with the bunny cheerleaders, puppy players and kitty halftime show made the event an outburst of adorableness.