Rutger's spy case Sentence: Perhaps Fair Enough

The Rutgers webcam spy case has come to an end. The attention surrounding the case stormed national headlines and became a symbol of cyber-bullying. Tyler Clementi, a young college freshman, committed suicide in September 2010, likely over his roommates plot to publicly expose a sexual encounter he had with another man in their dorm room.

When the trial ended two months ago, the defendant Dharun Ravi, was found guilty on all fifteen charges. Today he was sentenced to 30-days jail time, three years probation and 300 hours of community service.

The announcement of his sentence though, has angered some who have closely followed the trial. As many know, despite Ravi not being charged for Clementi's death, a few gay rights-activists feel that he was should have been given a harsher sentence. Ravi was expected at most, to receive a 10-year prison sentence.

What I feel a few people are failing to understand about the outcome of this case, is that Ravi was not being tried for Tyler Clementi's death. Asking for a longer sentence because of Clementi's suicide, would be excessive. He was tried for what he was guilty for; invasion of privacy among one of them. It seems to me that Ravi's sentence was fit for his crimes.

Neither of the charges brought against Ravi were for Clementi's death. Suicide is a tricky slope, and it would be very risky to jail someone for that. When it comes to suicide, even if the evidence and blame points directly to another person, it's hard to just disregard the truth. With cases like these, it is common that people will act on their emotions, and not always the facts.

Penalizing someone for a crime that unfortunately points directly to the victim, would be unjust. There is much evidence that showed that the end result of Ravi's webcam spying definitely impacted, and ultimately cost the life of Clementi. It will also most definitely impact the life and future of Ravi. Whether he spends 30 days, or 10 years in prison will never make a difference. He will spend the rest of his life with the shadow of the case presiding over him and that to me, is the ultimate punishment.

I Support Obama on Gay Marriage

President Obama made headlines this week when he announced in an exclusive ABC interview with Robin Roberts, that "same-sex couples should be allowed to marry." Naturally, there's no way a sitting President's comments about gays, especially in the age of evolving social media, would go by undetected. Especially since gay marriage is a hot topic on political forums.

Obama's remarks has made him the first President in the history of the U.S., to clarify a stance on gay marriage. I was not quite shocked to hear of his approval. I feel that the new generations of Americans have become more progressive in their thinking and are not just tolerant, but accepting.

I support Obama's comments because it will take the country in the right direction. The direction of what this country stands for—land of the free. The old traditional values that several Americans want to return to or enforce, will disrupt the rhythm of moving forward. I do not believe there's something wrong with not believing in or supporting homosexuality, but what exactly are gays and lesbians doing to their non-supporters that makes them unable to see how their sexual preference doesn't affect them? I used to think it was an issue for me too, but it's not and never will be!

How society responded to homosexuality fifty years ago, is a vast difference from how many view it today. But even still, gay slurs are common insults, hate crimes towards homosexuals are not often prosecuted as hate crimes, and the revelation of 'coming out' is still an issue (when it shouldn't be).

I'm glad that my home state approved gay marriage last year. I would love to see everyone receive equal rights regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, or sexuality. Any President that is vocal about these issues, is one that will take the country in the right direction.

Hypersomnia: Admitting the Problem (Part 1)

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Hypersomnia. Perhaps this word sounds somewhat familiar. Indeed, it is the opposite of the more popularly known sleeping disorder, insomnia


Getting too much sleep has as many detrimental effects, as does not getting enough sleep. Hypersomnia is a disorder in which sleep or tiredness is excessive. At one point, I thought I had insomnia because I have a habit of sleeping late, and not being able to sleep unless my television is on.


I continued to think this way because my sleeping habits got worse, especially after New Years 2008. That New Years, I went to bed close to 4 am in the morning despite planning to go to bed early. Before that day, I had never slept that late unless I slept a lot earlier in the day. This sleeping habit has remained that way for me since. Sleeping before midnight is a rarity, and at times, I don't go to bed till 6 or 7am.


As my graduation approaches and I begin to start a new life, I have to begin the change.


Attempting to fix my problem, I had to figure out the problem.


I now know why I sleep late. Since I preferred to go to school (as well as taking night & weekend classes) rather working at the same time, I ended up not having much to do when I wasn't in school; besides babysitting, exercising, or hanging with friends.


You've heard of people not getting enough sleep -- well I get too much sleep. This past Sunday, I slept late and woke up late. I didn't do anything other than text several friends throughout the day, and read news. Then, I went to my room, laid down and in an hour I was sleeping (this is the reason I don't stay in my room unless it's time to go to bed).


I babysit my nephew during the week (my primary job). However, he's growing up now. After helping him with his homework, reading a book and giving him something to eat, he's in his room watching TV or playing video games. And my days work is pretty much done. Now that summers coming, I'm planning an earlier wake-up schedule. Part 2 coming soon.

'Girls' stirs talks of race and TV

Main cast of Girls

HBO's new series 'Girls', not even a month since its season premiere, has created lots of racial discussions in the last few weeks. The New York Times ran several opinion pieces discussing race and the show, which is about four young White women living in New York City.

The conversation has been very interesting. While several thought-provoking viewpoints have been made, the controversy surrounding this show does not divert my interest one bit.

Despite some complaints many have made about the lack of color on the show (which I noticed), no one has mentioned socialization of human nature. Clearly in an era where diversity is becoming more embraced and encouraged, not everyone has the colors of the rainbow represented in their social group. One of the shows writers may have put her foot in her mouth, but why is no one talking about how common it is for people to socialize and date people of the same race?

New York City is a large, diverse city with people of many backgrounds and cultures. Whites are a minority in many areas, especially in Brooklyn where the show is centered. You'd have to really go out of your way to avoid social and everyday interactions with someone of a different race or ethnic background. But when it comes to personal friendships, many people can still say that they mostly hang out with people who look more like them? Does that make someone racist? Obviously not. In the same way it doesn't makes you less of a racist, if you have a friends of different races other than yours. Who hasn't heard the "but I have a (insert race) friend..." line said as an afterthought to making an offensive comment?

So I beg to disagree. Speaking from my own personal experience as a young Black woman, most of my friends (actual friends) are other Black women in my age group. I have made friends with people of all races, however my lasting friendships are with women who just so happen to be Black. And guess what? If I were to write a show about my life, majority of the characters would be Black and Hispanic.

The racial talks about what's on TV, are even beginning to change the definitions. What does diversity in television mean today? Another token Black character? Or what about a Hispanic? Native American? and what about Asians? They are always left out. How many non-Whites have to be on a show for it to be considered diverse?

The studios can be blamed, but society needs to be held accountable as well. Another factor to take into account is consumerism; the type of consumerism that may expose personal preferences, which in turn may lead to another racial discussion. If you want to see something on TV, you have to show it in your viewership. Television shows with minorities probably aren't produced because they're not garnering enough viewers. Viewership equals ratings ($), and ratings drives production. If no one is watching, then the show will get the axe. The ugly truth could be that television shows with minorities just aren't bringing enough viewers for studios to keep producing, and that's simply because most of society (White) isn't watching. This is where it ends.

The same way many minorities want to see themselves represented when they turn on their TV's, is the same reason some Whites (the majority) want to see the same as well.

However that doesn't dismiss the topic that minorities just aren't on TV, as much as they watch. Because Girls is not like the other shows about privileged White girls, the expectations were seemingly high. The show provides a different view of young women today. And for a show like Girls to display these progressive, relatable attitudes in one of the most progressive cities in the world, it is clear why it left some disappointed. White women are not the only definition of funny, quirky and spoiled.

In all, if the show is reflecting the writer's experience and life, it shouldn't be criticized for portraying factual events. While characters can be attributed to any race, especially ones about spoiled, college girls (yours truly), if they imagined their characters to be White, no one should be angry at that. What if that's not part of her experience?

If a Black, Asian or Hispanic girl were added to the cast, would the writers' accurately portray them in the way viewers of that group would want? It's highly possible that there may have been complaints about the portrayals of said characters. For all one knows, the writers' lack of experience with non-White girls may have added the to the long line of stereotypes of minorities in television. And who would want that, when minorities are constantly fighting stereotypes that have been created by television? Examples like the thick-accented feisty Latina, the loud, sassy Black chick or the socially awkward timid Asian girl.

Television does need to change, but it doesn't start with Girls. It is not the first and won't be the last.

22 Years ago Today

Image: healingdream

Twenty-years have passed, but the damaged hasn't quite been erased.

On April 20, 1990, thousands of Haitian-Americans in New York City walked across the Brooklyn Bridge into Manhattan to protest the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) shameful policy, ruling that Haitian's living in United States should be discouraged from donating blood because they were a 'high-risk' group for AIDS. What did this mean? It was an ongoing discussion among American health agencies. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) was the first organization to designate Haitians as a high-risk group for AIDS and HIV, placing Haitians in the discriminatory '4H' list. The 4H list comprised of four alleged high-risk groups. Haitians were one of the four; the other groups were hemophiliacs, heroin users, and homosexuals.

Under this jurisdiction, the FDA joined the bandwagon in 1984, barring Haitians from donating blood. Being that most Haitian-Americans are Black, many activist groups felt that the policy was racist and unfair. The categorization of Haitians as carriers of HIV/AIDS during a period of heightened fear and misinformation of the disease itself, led many to believe that it was a typical shift of blame. During this period, many Haitians began to feel the toll and damage the policies caused. Haitians were wholly stereotyped and discriminated against, already dealing with the challenges of adjusting to life as immigrants in a foreign land.

And this was not the first time Haitians were blamed for diseases that ravished Americans. During the yellow fever epidemic of 1793, several Philadelphian's pointed to newly arrived Haitian immigrants as the source of the disease.

To further add to this history of blame (especially on immigrants), Haitians were not the only nationalistic group used as a scapegoat for disease. The Anglo-American, or WASP's, had a history of blaming anyone who wasn't WASP for any disease that affected them. This is despite their own ethnic-borne cooties, that are infamous for being capable of killing off a large portion of an entire racial group (Native Americans).

The Irish were blamed for cholera. The Chinese were blamed for the bubonic plague and smallpox. The Italians were blamed for polio, and Jews from East Europe were blamed for a various sickness, including Tuberculosis.

It did not end there, and into the 21st century the blame game continued. Haitians may have been the last ethnic group to become victims to the prejudice of the American health industry, however the culture of prejudice in health could still be rationally argued in references to racial statistics that are released by various American healthy agencies. Many may argue that the release of this information is a safety warning, while others may see it as a form of bias and a continuation of latent racial superiority. Given that minority groups tend to rank high in statistical data on poor health, many have this belief and the distrust between those of the medical profession and minorities will seemingly widen.

Singling out an entire nationality is too cautious today and would draw an angry reaction. Which is why in December of 2010, a New York City radio host received negative backlash for mentioning Haitian women in a discussion about AIDS. The story brought back many memories to Haitians living in United States, many who were deeply affected by the ban FDA placed on Haitian blood in the '80's. Many reactions were a protest, criticism from rival stations, and calls for termination from Haitian leaders and supporters.

Nowadays it seems easier to just point out a racial group and let people form their own assumptions. Because whatever certain studies want to achieve, there also needs to be some responsibility on their part with the misinformation, classification and stereotyping that is birthed from them.

I speak from experience. As a young Haitian, it's not uncommon to still hear people associate Haitians with AIDS/HIV. It was over two decades ago and the attitude still prevails.

Health Talk: Habitual changes becoming Permanent

Image: Sura Nualpradid

I haven't fully immersed myself into a true healthy lifestyle diet, but I've come to notice that in the past year the new habits I took on, are now becoming permanent. Finally.

A few years ago, you couldn't get me to drink water all day or even drink water after every meal. I would prefer to drink soda, juice or any other type of sugary drink filled with empty carbs. I was not aware of what I was putting in my body.

Fast forward to today, I am fully aware and borderline paranoid of what I allow near my mouth.

In June of 2011, I decided that I needed to drop about 20 pounds for health's sake and then I would venture on into physical strength training, purely for aesthetics. I lost 14 lbs. Not quite, but close. In the process of losing weight and exercising everyday, my gross habits became clear to me.

I started out by logging everything I put in my body. I drunk as much water as I could, I worked out for 60+ minutes a day, and unless I was busy working or viewing something important, I stayed away from the computer and television. I was on my feet all the time.

A shocking discovery was made.

It never occurred to me how out of shape and unhealthy I was. Just simply logging for a week with my regular everyday routine, I saw that I was consuming somewhere between 2200-2700 calories a day, no activities included. My sugar intake was off the charts (quadruple the FDA recommended maximum average), my sodium level screamed 'high-risk', my cholesterol was fair-game but risky, and my fat intake was deplorable.

My first healthy meal on one June day was a cinnamon bagel with fat-free cream cheese, a cup of green grapes, and a tall cup of water. This meal would become my standard, go-to easy breakfast choice.

Although I still have some more pounds to shed, I look forward to seeing more changes.

Considerably when I eat now, I'm drinking water, water, and water. If I must drink juice, I prefer orange juice. I noticed that in my diary, I was not getting enough of my daily potassium requirement. Orange juice is pretty much how I can get at least 30% of my needed potassium, as well as vitamin C. Maybe once in a while I'll choose apple juice, which also contains potassium. However, apple juice interferes with my digestive system and unless it's available to me I'm not going out of my way to drink it. Besides that, I drink water most of the time.

If I go an hour without drinking water, my brain is already asking me: "When are you going to drink water today? Don't let the day go by without drinking at least a cup!"

Whenever I have the option between water and a drink, I find myself debating which choice would be more beneficial to me. How about that? That would've never happened less than a year ago. Now when I have the choice to choose between juice and soda or water, I think of all the unnecessary sugar I don't want in my body. While there are times I cave in, water always wins. I can confidently say, I love water and it no longer tastes nasty to me. Mission complete!

Next step: reducing meat intake.

I definitely see the meaning now, when fitness advocates preach that the power to be healthy, begins with you and your mind.

Watchlist: Part 2

In Watchlist: Part 1, I mentioned two new series that I would watch and a film.

ABC's new primetime show Scandal, led by Kerry Washington. Washington's character Olivia Pope is loosely based on Judy Smith, a former White House employee. Scandal is said to be first show to have a Black woman lead in 30 years. That's sad, but cool the trend was broken.

HBO's new series Girls. The show is about four young White women (spoiled and privileged) exploring life in New York City. As a native New Yorker, I wasn't thrilled with the casting choices, however knowing that New York City is not the racial harmony some people crack it out to be, I can deal with lack of color....for now. I just hope there are no stereotypes about the non-existant minorities on the show.