The Interview draws people to the cinema during the most wonderful time of the year

 

Despite the forwardness of the North Korean government, many people refused to be deterred from seeing the controversial film "The Interview" starring Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg whose characters plot to assassinate Korean dictator Kim Jong Un on Christmas Day. The cyber attack and hacking of Sony did in fact prevent some cinemas from premiering the movie since there were also threats of terrorist attacks in movie theaters. In the D.C. area of Virginia, the Manassas 4 Cinema became increasingly more crowded as people there for the first showing left the building showing a great amount of enthusiasm. Bunny Khorana, owner of the movie house, was thrilled by the unexpected turnout and even claimed "It's great that the big boys aren't showing it. I'm going to cash in." He, unlike many others around the country, was not phased by the threats of the North Korean government. Many viewers of the R-rated comedy showed up with defiant attitudes towards the dictatorship across the world. Many acknowledged the freedom of speech and the ability to say what one wants. Others saw the movie purely on the quest for entertainment. People who had not yet witnessed the realities of what is happening in North Korea even learned something about the gruesome truths.

I understand what infuriated the North Korean government. Kim Jong Un was portrayed as a buffoonish character, humiliating in the least. While the movie was created based off of comedy and light heartedness, it was clearly also meant to poke fun. I have yet to see it, but I have heard some impressive views. However, the depictions of starved people in North Korea are all too real. The conflict and struggles people have to face due to the abusive dictatorship should not be portrayed as comical. I can understand how that is a matter of controversy since the fictional movie does depict the entire situation as differentiable from reality. That can be the power of cinema and it can be very negative in some ways.

Controversy Over "Morality" of the Death Penalty

The death penalty is one of the most controversial political topics now a days due to the past inefficiencies of lethal injections. Clayton Lockett's execution went gruesomely wrong when his lethal injection failed to end his life until after almost 45 minutes of him struggling in pain. Joseph Wood's execution lasted nearly two hours before his actual time of death. Eight months later, the concerns about drug protocol are still being evaluated. The use of lethal injection has been questionable when it comes to constitutionality. However, the use of a combined three separate drugs to cause unconsciousness, paralysis, and cardiac arrest was ruled as not violating the 8th Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment. After the first cases of complications during executions, the drug midazolam became the suspect. The drug that caused unconsciousness in a series of medications used in a lethal injection had experienced a cut in production. Therefore, midazolam, a sedation and anti-seizure medication, had replaced it. Lawyers of inmates on death row claimed that the drug is being used on an "experimental basis" since it is not FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) approved. Besides the questionability of the drugs used, courts have also stopped executions due to health issues of inmates on death row that could complicate the process. In Florida, a margin of error in IQ tests has made it harder for the state to execute inmates who are potentially mentally handicapped. Charles Warner, who was convicted of murdering and raping an infant in 1997, was not an exception, however. The Supreme Court has allowed the execution to proceed even with the use of midazolam.

Despite the horrific crimes many convicts have committed, no one deserves to die by the hand of some experimental drug. The fact that the drug has been known to have irregular effects and that it is not even FDA approved makes the government look unprepared and lacking thoroughness. I have never been in favor of the death penalty, this being one of the reasons why. The inhumane deaths of killers does not make up for the inhumane deaths of their victims. All the death penalty does is teach that killing is appropriate in some cases. But is it? Murder is never the right answer. In no way am I saying felons should not be punished. Rotting in prison serves as a better punishment. Morally, what does knowledgeably submitting a person to drugs with unknown effects portray? Very few morals at all in reality.

Battle Over Speaker of the House

Even with a Congress  completely controlled by Republicans, incumbent Speaker of the House John Boehner is not safe from rebellion. Coup attempts against him had occurred before in the year 2013. An anti-Boehner faction has indeed risen up. Hard right conservatives were disappointed in Boehner's lack of dealing with Obama's over use of executive power. In the recent election for speaker of the house, many conservatives challenged Boehner for the position in order to split the votes so no one came out on top after the first round of voting. Dissatisfied republicans hoped to humiliate the long standing speaker. Among these challengers were Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Rep. Ted Yoho of Florida, and Rep. Ted Webster also of Florida. After the votes were tallied, Boehner was once again announced the winner and his opponents once again failed to deny him another term. Reps. Webster and Richard. B Nugent were removed from the House Rules Committee after voting against Boehner.

It does not surprise me how easily dissatisfied the Republicans are. I did not realize their outcry for change would reach as far as deliberate attempts to overthrow a member of their own party, however. The recent events in the House of Representatives just further emphasize the hard right conservatives motives for moving up in the chamber. They have no problem unseating "inadequate" conservatives who do not oppose Obama to the extreme. As speaker of the house Boehner has the power to select members of the Rules Committee. The fact that the two reps. who voted against him were removed makes Boehner appear juvenile. Yes he is attempting to remove the threat of rebellion but I can't help but notice an "in your face" aspect to it all.

The new Congress of 2014 has wasted no time addressing the hard pressed issues regarding immigration within the United States. The Republican run House of Representatives has voted on legislation that puts millions of unauthorized immigrants at risk of deportation. Furthermore, these amendments coincide with the necessary funding of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security is the leverage the Republicans need to pass legislation revoking rights and protection of immigrants in the United States. If President Obama disagreed with the attached amendments regarding immigration, he will appear unconcerned about the nation's security at the same time. Senator Harry Reid claims the Republicans in power are "picking an unnecessarily political fight that risks shutting down the Department of Homeland Security." The Republicans have since then been seen as a manipulative, immoral party throwing their weight around. In 2012 Obama passed executive action permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally to remain in the US. This action was undone when the amendment to reverse his decisions was passed on Wednesday due to 218 votes yes in the House. Many Democrats in Congress disagreed with the splitting families apart and deporting children that came to America as infants. Even some Republicans claimed that the sponsored amendment was a step too far. Others defended the action by saying they did not intend to be malicious, rather address the President's boldness in writing immigration law without receiving Congress's consent. The bill with the attached amendments now heads to the Senate where it will again be evaluated.

This strategy of tacking amendments onto completely necessary bills is far from new and actually quite effective. It clearly puts the president between a rock and a hard place and the Republicans have used that to their advantage. This specific bill funding Homeland Security forces President Obama to choose. The Republicans hope Obama will look at the big picture since the nation's security is the main concern. However, by approving the bill, Obama will have to push aside his values and morals when it comes to immigration. It is not an easy decision to make and he has the entire world watching him under a microscope. Which ever way the bill heads, President Obama will certainly receive heavy criticism from one side or another due to the controversy of it all.

Liam Neeson Bashes Gun Ownership

Famous actor Liam Neeson is well known for starring in thrilling, action flicks such as the "Taken" series in which his teen daughter is kidnapped by human traffickers and the recent film "Non Stop" that depicted him attempting to foil a terrorist attack aboard an airplane. A former government operative in one and a US Air Marshal in the other, Neeson handles firearms as props countless times. There are no lack of gun fights in his movies. However, the 62 year old actor has no problem voicing his dissatisfaction towards gun ownership in the United States. After all the recent school shootings, Neeson came out into the open saying there are "too many f****** guns" in America. Well aware that many of his movies feature firearms, Neeson continued to defend that the violent imagery does not persuade people into purchasing guns, rather that it simply adds to the fantastical thrill of the plot that revolves around revenge. He states that he also watched films including gun violence during his childhood, but was never transformed into a killer because of it. The fact that there are over 300 million privately owned guns in America disgusts the actor who claimed the amount of ownership is a "disgrace."

I have always been a fan of Liam Neeson and this makes me respect him even more despite the irony. Besides his prime acting skills, his favorable opinion towards gun control impresses me. I agree with Neeson, it is shocking how often we see "Yet another few kids have been killed in schools." Perpetrators of these shootings have usually obtained their guns legally. How much longer are we going to allow children to be shot down in elementary schools?  A gun is meant for one thing, to kill or destroy something else. And here they are being distributed throughout the nation with great ease and little restrictions. It did slightly surprise me that Liam Neeson holds such a strong opinion; in fact he doesn't seem like a huge opponent of gun rights due to his career in the action film industry. But that goes to show cinematography does not necessarily dictate your values.

Demographics of Congress

The new Congress of 2014 is one of the most diverse America has ever seen. It is still, however, dominated by white, male, Christians. The percentage of women in both the House and the Senate is pathetically low when compared to males. Almost 80 percent of the House of Representatives is white and in the Senate, 94 percent falls under the same category. However, racial and gender composition trends show a gradual increase in the number of females and non-white members in Congress. The religious composition of the Congress is not too surprising seeing that we live in a mainly Christian society, thus 92 percent of the Congress is religiously affiliated as Christian. Unlike the racial and gender demographics however, diversity among religious affiliation is decreasing. The Congress of 2014 is less Protestant but still more Christian overall.

The lack of diversity in such a vital branch of our government is highly disappointing, but not too surprising at the same time. When looking at the statistics, it appears that one group of people with  similar backgrounds is better suited for positions in Congress since it dominates both houses. The fact that one group of people, white, Christian males, is running the government is alarming, however. Clearly, power in numbers makes it so that major federal decisions are influenced by bias. In the most diverse nation in the world one would think that power could be evenly distributed among race and religion. That way, interests of all sorts of people in the United States can be addressed. Without diversity in government, only one group of people is catered to. Is that what liberty and justice for all means?

Count Dracula Makes a Comeback as a Deer

The Kashmir musk deer sports a very interesting characteristic, two pointed fangs that extend from the upper jaw. The tusks are only found on the males and they serve the purpose of fending off competitors during mating season. Classified as an endangered species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List, this type of deer has been sighted for the first time in Afghanistan's Nuristan province after nearly 60 years of hiding. This strange creature inhabits the Himalayas in northern India, Pakistan's Kashmir region as well as northern Afghanistan. Over the years, poachers have targeted the musk deer for its scent glands, which have become highly demanded on the black market for their pharmaceutical properties. While the deer usually take shelter in the steep cliffs and mountainous forests, deforestation and urbanization has driven them to near extinction. Many wildlife organizations such as the Wildlife Conservation Society's Asia Programs have made it an objective to stop the destruction of the musk deer's habitats and to conserve the ecosystem as a whole. They race against the hunters and human settlers that continue to claim their homes and lives. This is very unfortunate since the "rare species, along with better-known wildlife, such as snow leopards, are the natural heritage of this struggling nation," according to Peter Zahler, deputy director of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Asia Programs. The musk deer's reappearance is a hopeful sign, such wildlife must be preserved in its admirable, natural state for future generations to be in awe. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/11/05/deer-with-vampire-fangs-spotted-for-1st-time-in-decades/


As an animal lover, I have always had a lot of respect for wildlife. This article fascinated me, I had never even heard of the musk deer. When I was little, I loved reading books on different species within the animal kingdom, so apart from the extremely bizarre I could at least recognize most animals. Now, I am a huge advocate for the humane treatment and protection of species. Yes I get criticized, but I see nothing wrong in wanting to protect animals from the detrimental consequences of human actions. This article emphasized the scarcity and rapid disappearance of a species due to humans driven by self interest and personal gain. Poaching is a disgusting and highly reprimandable offense in my opinion. It is one of the major reasons an endangered species list even exists. I find it very sad that people do not achieve satisfaction through admiring nature from a distance. Hopefully, societies all around the world will see how much it is worth before it is too late.