Category Archives: imho is just a polite way to say I know you don’t give a hoot what I think but I’m going to say it anyway

Really!?! I will show you how inscrutable I am in plain English…

12 Replies

Warning: This post should be filed under “Psychotic Ranting and Anonymous Foaming”, a category available from NaBloPoMo, (Thank you to whoever was wise enough to create this category…) in which I whine about stereotypes that caught me by surprise.  Please feel free to ignore me when I am behaving like a rabid dog.  Come back when I am normal, or normal by my standard.

The thing about reading a fiction is that a good book sucks you in, lures you to identify with the protagonist, even more so if it is from the first person point of view.  Most fictions have an underlying universal theme: family, betrayal, love, hate, loss, reunion, found happiness, redemption,  self-discovery, at least the successful ones do.

I went into the library in search of a good book to read. I do this by browsing the book shelves and see what strikes my fancy. Like many things I do in life, I trust it to chance. Serendipity. I love the sound of it, more so since I learned how to spell it correctly.

I came across a book by one Jonanthan Tropper, This Is Where I Leave You.  The front flap promises a “riotously funny, emotionally raw novel about love, marriage, divorce, family, and the ties that bind — whether we like it or not.”  Wonderful! Besides, this book apparently was being adapted into a feature film from Warner Brothers Studios. Even better! This way I can just read the book and skip the movie: since we all know, as a rule, the original books are infinitely better than the adapted films, right? (Except Marvel heroes movies of course. IMO.)

So imagine me, a universal reader, Everyman (Or, Everyperson if you want to be all PC about it…), following along the storyline. Everyperson, moi, going merrily down the road with the narrator who just lost his father and whose family is not mourning/coping properly, (Ok, so not so merrily after all. Sorry, my bad), I thought, “Dysfunctional family,” yup, we all have one of those.  But wait.  Hmm. The author could have lightened up on some of the cliché phrases and expressions, but that is not a good reason to put down a book once you started it. Or… is it?

Then on Page 11, BOOM! it came. Out of nowhere.  The Chinese showed up.

My landlords are the Lees, an inscrutable, middle-aged Chinese couple who live in a state of perpetual silence.  I have never heard them speak.  He performs acupuncture in the living room; she sweeps the sidewalk thrice daily with a handmade straw broom that looks like a theater prop. I wake up and fall asleep to the whisper of her frantic bristles on the pavement. Beyond that, they don’t seem to exist, and I often wonder why they bothered immigrating. Surely there were plenty of pinched nerves and dust in China.

.

Really!?!

<I am going to take a breath. In the mean time, please watch “Really with Seth and Amy” on SNL>

.

.

I am back. Here are the thoughts that went (are going) through my mushroom-cloud head:

  1. Maybe this book was written in the 1960s before the Civil Rights Movement.  Or maybe it was published in the late 20th century since you know, we were oh so unenlightened back then.  (Nope. It was published August 2009…)
  2. Maybe the narrator is what they call an “unreliable narrator”,  like John Dowell in The Good Soldier, Frederick Clegg in The Collector, and even Humbert Humbert in Lolita.
  3. I can’t really “demand” authors to start censoring themselves on the basis of Political Correctness.
  4. I guess all that “identifying with the narrator” was for naught. I am the “inscrutable” Chinese. Wow. Imagine that!

Anna May Wong in "Daughter of the Dragon"

Well, Mr. Tropper, this is where you left me befuddled and where I leave YOU! On Page 11…

Sax Rohmer published the Fu Manchu novels in 1913. Wasn’t that like, hmm, almost a century ago?

And, really? Just because someone does not talk to you, all of a sudden, they are inscrutable?  Maybe they just don’t like you because you are living in THEIR basement.

Is it because of our eyes?  So small, you can’t see “into our souls”?

Manga Eyes Real Life

Oh, and news flash: The whole inscrutable Chinese thing? MEGA TROPE! Done to death since the 1870’s.

Until you also think the French with their obsession with wine and cheese, the Italian with their obsession with impeccable fashion style even when they are just sitting inside their own house, and the Germans with their inherent love for logics and orders, and all the FOREIGN languages they speak with, are also inscrutable, don’t call ME inscrutable.

And if you are keeping the landlords in the movie, I dare you to make them inscrutable. No, seriously. More jobs for Asian (Asian American) actors.  I support my kind.  I can’t wait to see it.

Got Pigtail? Ugh. Halloween Costume Conundrum

12 Replies

Every Halloween, we saw news reports and editorial comments on offensive costumes du jour.  What I call Halloween Costume Conundrum. HCC.

This year, the HCC award went to Illegal Alien:

illegal alien

It was such a brouhaha partly because, in my opinion, it was sold through Target’s website.  Target, the one mega store that does not seem to garner public ires, not yet.  In fact, Target has been the trendy, cheap chic, darling for just about every social spectrum in the U.S.  (It is amazing if you think about it.  Kudos to their PR and marketing teams.)  Protests against this costume started garnering support when immigrant activists cried foul, loudly.  Several news programs commented on the costume as “distasteful” and “disgusting”, or even racist.

Now, I am as overtly sensitive as the next person of color, and probably have one of the largest chips on my shoulder.  But my first reaction to this costume was:

That is clever!

You see: here the costume plays on the double meaning of “alien” and twists it around.  The costume does not indicate the race/ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation of the wearer.  It reminds us, or me at least, that there ARE illegal aliens from all over the world.  (And as hinted by this costume, beyond this world even…)  AND, the “alien” is holding a GREEN CARD, therefore technically, the being is NOT illegal.

Subversive, no?

Furthermore, it could also be saying: Underneath the appearances, we are all PEOPLE.  Our common enemy should be the sons-of-bitches in the galaxy far far away that are scheming to invade Earth and enslave our minds and bodies.  We are the world.  Indeed. Nicely done.

Why would people look at this and immediately label it as “racist”?  Doesn’t the automatic association of  “illegal aliens = Latinos” expose the person’s own prejudice?

Why would the immigrant activists make the quick assumptions that the illegal aliens in the Extraterrestrial form are meant to target the Latino community?  Although I agree that most people, whether they admit it or not, do make the equation readily, I wish the immigrant activists would have seized the opportunity to dis-stabilize the stereotype that has been haunting the Latino communities.

“Look at this costume.  ‘Illegal aliens’ may not be illegal after all.  And underneath that label / mask, that could be ANYBODY.”

NOW, the more progressive (and yes, the “annoying” ones, the “hyper sensitive” ones, the buzz killers, the trouble makers, etc.) bunch amongst of us wince at any costume that aims to convey a different race/ethnicity when it is donned.  I still feel conflicted towards how I should react:

What if the wearer is a person of color?  What if a Chinese person wants to dress up as a Geisha?  What if an African American person wants to dress up as a Native American warrior or a Native American Princess?  (Yes. I am channeling my puzzlement towards the Tyra Bank’s “Hapa disaster” on America’s Next Top Model…)

How about dressing up as  a Bavarian with a beer mug in hand?   Yodel-a-hee-hoo, Yodel-a-hee-hoo!  Is that offensive to a person of Bavarian descent?

I do have a semi-answer to the above: A person of Bavarian descent would most likely be treated just as a “regular” person.  White.  Un-marked.  Even if they do speak with an accented English, as long as they don’t speak, when they walk down the street, they are “Just like everybody else.”  Whereas a person of color will always carry the visible indicator with them.  We are marked.  There are always assumptions, unconsciously, made about us.

“So, you are Chinese.  You must like rice.”

Yes, I do.  But when I look at a white person, I don’t go,

“So, you are white.  You must like cheese.”   Or, if you are a hip white person, “Sushi“.

Because I overthink things, especially things that matters to nobody else, I was at a loss when I saw this, at a costume shop, right in the middle of the PC, Liberal center of the U.S. – Cambridge, MA:

Pig Tail anyone

“What are you?” OMG, a form I could fill out wihout having to choose!

2 Replies

My children are, in the common lingo, “mixed”.  Or, if they want to be hip when they grow up and get into identity politics, they can call themselves Hapa, or, indeed, whatever the hack they want.  If they want to call themselves a mutt, the way Prez. Obama did, fine with me too.

But despite my wish to chant along with “We are all the same deep down inside” and “We are the world”, reality always sets in when I fill out forms for the kids, especially when I register my kids for school.

Ethnicity:

White.

Black.

American Indian.

Asian.

Hispanic/Latino.

“Other” is not an option provided. Even if it were, I probably wouldn’t have chosen it anyway: There is no way I would self-identify my children as “Other”. The school district needs to recognize them for who they are. They are not OTHER, thank you very much.  (Edward Said would be very proud indeed…)

For 7 years, I checked TWO boxes, and inadvertently, there was only one check left when the form was returned back to me to “check for accuracy”.   The funny thing is, sometimes “White” was selected, and sometimes “Asian” was selected: the school system can’t seem to make up its mind.  I guess it depends on what my children looked like on that particular day… I would stubbornly check BOTH boxes again and send it back.

That’s why I was so excited when I was filling out this form below: Has got to be the most PC form I’ve ever seen.

Drawing1

I do wonder though: Now that “Multi-racial” is a choice, under what kind of circumstances would one select “Other”?

Afraid to ask: What is the point of HCR without a public option?

5 Replies

I don’t set a lot of rules in the house for my boys.  The Golden Rule, of course.  The “Be true to yourself”, remnants from reading Hermann Hesse in my youth.  And then there is my very own:

Whatever you do, don’t do a half-ass job.

(I know. I am all brevity…)

So here I am, 2:17 am 2:58 am 3:14 am on the Thursday morning after the POTUS’ address to a joint session of Congress, the one where he laid out the general principles of the Health Care Reform plan that both sides have been fighting on for months, wishing I were a better writer, because I am about to explode, wordlessly.

This headline sums up what everyone, on either side, has figured out, probably has even anticipated, at least subconsciously,

Obama avoids the details on divisive issues to keep his healthcare goals on track

The point of contention is the so-called “Public Plan”.

With all due respect to the freedom of speech, blah blah blah, I sincerely don’t see how anyone who opposes the option of a government-backed insurance plan for ALL can look at themselves in the eyes, be 100% honest, and say, “I oppose this because I don’t feel like paying more taxes for people who do not earn it.  If they cannot afford health insurance now, it is their own damn fault.  I work hard, and I pay taxes ONLY because I have to.  It has nothing to do with being selfish.  In fact, I am NOT.  I donate to charities.  I am good.”

Actually, scratch that.  I think that’s how most people justify their opposition to the Public option.  I can see it, I just cannot understand it.  Richard Dawkins must have regretted that somehow his seminal book got it so right, literally.

Not wanting to count on the innate selfishness that we were born with, GOP has augmented the horror story of a Public Option by playing up to people’s fear for an invasion by illegal immigrants.  “Their kids will get accepted into colleges before your kids are.  Now your hard-earned money is going towards to paying for their health care too!  Where is the free handout for YOU?!”   So much so that Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled, “You lie!” after POTUS countered the fear mongering that the health care legislature as proposed will provide free health care to illegal immigrants.

Here you can witness the historical moment that turned Professional Heckler Joe “You Lie” Wilson into a GOP “Atta boy!” Martyr:

I appreciate that POTUS is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. 

L.A. Times:

“And so, though some liberal Democrats have threatened to revolt if Obama does not insist on a new government insurance option — the so-called public plan — the president told the joint session of Congress that he would consider other approaches to making coverage affordable for the uninsured…  At this point, Obama seeks to remain flexible because the House will not pass a healthcare bill that does not include the public plan, and the Senate will not pass a bill that does.”

I pity the fool that covets Obama’s job after last night…

I know somewhere I must be over-simplifying things.  I must have missed something.  Even though I do understand that POTUS has to be the Über diplomat in order to push this thing through, to help it see the light of day, I cannot help but wonder, screaming aloud inside my head, at the same time feeling guilty for not being supportive, being a sort of “backseat driver”, or worse, like one of those parents that never volunteer yet always the first ones to complain…  I just have to ask out loud:

Really.  What is the point of a health care reform without a public option? (That is not Medicare, thank you very much.)

Whatever you do, don’t do a half-ass job.

Apparently, in politics, this laughably simple rule I set for my children, is difficult to follow.

This is why I love the grouchy old man Stewart…

1 Reply

You can debate the merits of HCR or whether Mr. Stewart did “OWN” Betsy McCaughey on this segment (she may be crazy but she has guts, you have to give her that!) What Jon Stewart said at 2:00 is the reason why I love and respect him.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive – Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Political Humor Healthcare Protests

People in Germany need to have more sex. Or keep their clunkers. According to the Economist. Well, kind of.

2 Replies





People in Germany really need to start having more sex.

Otherwise they are really going to need Death Panel for Grandmas, you know, when there are no more young people to take care of the old people.

That was my first thought when I saw this chart.

On second thought, sex does not necessarily lead to pregnancy, unless you are having it in the back of your parents’ car. Or your very first beat-up old clunker. Even better if you are drunk.

So my revised word of advice:

Germans need to have more drunken sex in the back of their parents’ car, or get more clunkers.

Then I saw this other chart, comparing government sponsored “Cash for Clunkers” programs in several countries:

.

.

Hold on a second, while I take a mental note…

Note to self: Great cocktail conversation tidbit – “Do you know the U.S. is not the only one, and definitely not the first one, to come up with the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program?”

Note to self, again: Scratch that. Someone is bound to say, “Exactly. Those are all socialist, or Facist, countries, or whatever, European! countries. That’s why we should object to it loudly. Preferrably bring a loaded handgun with you to town hall meetings.” And then the cocktail party, if I were ever invited to one, would go downhill from there… So, NOT A GOOD IDEA! Ok. Fine! Scratch the entire Note to Self 1.

When I saw this second chart about Cash for Clunkers program in other countries,

Eureka! I thought.

See how the government in Germany spent $7.1 billion on their “Get Rid of Clunker” program?

There you go, my friend. That is why the birth rate in Germany remains the lowest.

Live squid is not part of the standard diet in China, or Asia for that matter

2 Replies

Once in a while I get all riled up with my mouth foaming like a rabid dog. My irrational anger especially loves a good target of Stereotype Mongers and Exoticism Panderers. This is that kind of moment.

PMS. Whatever.

The target of my rant today is this book:

Lost on Planet China: The Strange and True Story of One Man’s Attempt to Understand the World’s Most Mystifying Nation, or How He Became Comfortable Eating Live Squid

Look at that title, and please tell me it is not being deliberately sensationalizing.

Mind you, I have a great sense of humor. Like all great Jewish comedians (by the way, I am neither) I have perfected self-deprecating humor. I can make fun of myself, ourselves, my people, my race.

BUT I was not impressed with the passages my husband quoted me from the book. My “stereotype police” and “pandering to exoticism” antenna immediately went up when the author starts the book by talking about a restaurant menu full of internal organs of a goat. He claimed that was the first restaurant he walked in when he landed in China. Just picked it out of the random. His good luck then. I would not even know where to find one myself.

Let me emphasize this again:

WE DO NOT EAT LIVE SQUID OR GOAT BRAINS AS A DAILY MEAL.

They are probably sold in some specialty restaurants. But NOT part of the standard diet. Can people just please get over it already?! Besides, you eat moldy cheese which is pretty sickening if you ask me. So there, we are even.

And seriously, I HAVE A QUESTION:

How come it is all chi chi, high class, cultured, sophisticated, and cosmopolitan to eat raw fish and octopus in a Japanese restaurant? And live squid is now, YEW. How disgusting. How barbarian.

FUCK ME!

After browsing through the reviews and seeing a high percentage of the people say that they knew NOTHING or little about the country and the culture before they read the book,

GREAT. JUST GREAT! I thought.

I am becoming more and more agitated by the existence of this book.

TTYL. Now I need to go find a book about how white people can’t jump.

“Raw information will become not just a commodity, it will be a nuisance”

Leave a reply

Chris and Malcolm are both wrong…

The title says.

Once in a while I come across smart people (online only, since you know, we moms are notoriously boring and mundane in real life, and many may even suspect that we have few braincells left so we don’t get engaged in intelligent conversations, in real life – AND that, my friend, was said with a sarcastic tone through gritted teeth, so don’t you mommy police out there flame me!) who I really really want to meet in real life. I found one today

Brad Burnham at Union Square Ventures.

His latest post on the Union Square Ventures blog, Chris and Malcolm are both wrong, is the most elucidating, thought-provoking, argument against both Chris Anderson’s glossy, wrapped-nicely-in-a-package theory of “Freeconomics” and Malcolm Gladwell’s critique of Anderson’s book, Free, in which the theory was mapped out, supported with anecdotal examples (a la Gladwell’s own books?!), packaged, and sold, NOT for free, not any more.

I enjoyed reading Gladwell’s books, but am always wary that easy reading and interesting stories that make you go “A-Ha” do not rigorous research/theorization made. Although I have not had a chance to read Anderson’s book, Free, I have read enough articles summarizing the thesis, AND his previous book, The Long Tail, to also be wary of the same thing.

So, thank you indeed to Mr. Burnham for the article in which his critique of both is summarized in this, ok, granted, nicely-packaged and highly quotable, paragraph

My frustration with the debate about Free is that it seems like a last ditch effort to fit the internet economy into the familiar framework of the industrial economy. That isn’t going to work. Free is not a pricing strategy, a marketing strategy, or the inevitable consequence of a market with low variable costs. It’s a symptom of a much more fundamental economic shift. Until we agree on what resources are scarce and have a framework for how they will be allocated in the future we are not just talking past each other, we are talking about the wrong things.

Mr. Burnham’s argument is that the new currency is ATTENTION (and participation), and it does not come free. Hence the “fundamental shift of economy”.

There is an exchange of value between users, the creators of the raw material – data, content, and meta-data, and the network where that data is converted into insight. This exchange is still governed by the basic laws of economics but the currency is not dollars, it’s attention. The network that takes attention and converts it into insight is also quite different than a traditional firm.

Once again, per my usual excitable nature, I would quote the entire post if I could. Probably better if you take the time and check out the entire post on the Union Square Ventures blog.

AND the last but the not the least, at least in my book

NEVER once did he mention “paradigm shift”. THANK YOU MY GOOD SIR!

***Another great, and very useful, quote, that is absolutely t-Shirt Worthy!***

“Raw information will become not just a commodity, it will be a nuisance.”

(Thanks to @leftunderbooks)

Goodies! A debate!! Timeline of the chain of debate between He said, He said:

Chris Anderson finally published his book, after he pre-released it to reviewers, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, this summer. (It costs $26.99 on Amazon! WTH?!)

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a review for New Yorker, debunking Mr. Anderson’s entire thesis, using, for example, YouTube’s failure to make a profit as fodder, titled: “Price to Sell: Is Free the Future?” Mr. Gladwell’s answer is not surprisingly, NO.

The Business Insider immediately posted a long article, praising Mr. Gladwell’s critique of the hole-ly thesis, “It’s about time.”

Finally, a smart person who is widely considered cool calls b.s. on Chris Anderson’s popular argument that everything should be free.

The glee, oh, the glee.

Mr. Anderson also started engaging Mr. Gladwell in a friendly intellectual debate on his blog: “Dear Malcolm, Why So Threatened?” (If you ask me: the title itself is not very friendly at all…)

In praise of “Fallen Princesses” Photography Project by Dina Goldstein

3 Replies

Courtesy: JPG Magazine: Snowy

.

I am absolutely in amour with this picture and actually, all the pictures by photographer, Dina Goldstein. She is currently working on a project, sort of like an alternative story telling, “Fallen Princesses.” In her own words:

“These works place Fairy Tale characters in modern day scenarios. In all of the images the Princess is placed in an environment that articulates her conflict. The ‘…happily ever after’ is replaced with a realistic outcome and addresses current issues.”

“I began to imagine Disney’s perfect Princesses juxtaposed with real issues that were affecting women around me, such as illness, addiction and self-image issues.”

This is one of the best examples for:

Motherhood does not make you stupid. It makes you THINK!

.

p.s. I found this picture via @god, thank goodness he has a great sense of humor!

p.p.s. For a critique on how these pictures do not deliver the expected Punch, not subversive enough to destablize the stereotypes, please see Bitch Magazine

Cough cough, though I do love Bitch Magazine‘s “Feminist Response to Pop Culture” and agree with the perspective here, I have to say I haven’t found anything subversive enough to do exactly that, i.e. destablizing stereotypes substantially long enough to have the destablizing take roots, other than cutting off our own tits… even at that, we would still be labeled as “Suffering from hysteria”. The world will continue to stereotype any group with less power at will because that’s how power is gained and maintained. Ever wonder why stereotypes come in pairs?…

My apology to Kathleen Parker. Frank Gaffney is way crazier…

Leave a reply

Now I feel bad for lambasting Kathleen Parker for hinting at a tenuous relationship between Obama and Osama because of the rhyming last names.

(This reminds me: is it now a good time to resurrect the old Internet sensation the Llama Song?)

I was alerted to an article by Frank Gaffney, “America’s first Muslim president?” Turns out Ms. Parker’s criticism is quite reasonable compared to Mr. Gaffney’s read of Obama’s Cairo speech.

Is he for real? It’s got to be a parody. Simply too good to be true. But it is. I. Don’t. Know. What. To. Say.

Read it for yourself.

Wow.

Highlights of “arguments” made by Gaffney:

With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “the Speech”), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself. Consider the following indicators:

• Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to “the Holy Koran.” Non-Muslims — even pandering ones — generally don’t use that Islamic formulation.

• Mr. Obama established his firsthand knowledge of Islam (albeit without mentioning his reported upbringing in the faith) with the statement, “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.” Again, “revealed” is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Muhammad.

• Then the president made a statement no believing Christian — certainly not one versed, as he professes to be, in the ways of Islam — would ever make. In the context of what he euphemistically called the “situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs,” Mr. Obama said he looked forward to the day “. . . when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.”

Now, the term “peace be upon them” is invoked by Muslims as a way of blessing deceased holy men. According to Islam, that is what all three were – dead prophets. Of course, for Christians, Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God.

In the final analysis, it may be beside the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim. In the Speech and elsewhere, he has aligned himself with adherents to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah — notably, the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood — to a degree that makes Mr. Clinton’s fabled affinity for blacks pale by comparison.

Gaffney would have made a huge contribution if he were part of the McCarthy Red Scare investigation team. Just sayin’