Tag Archives: i am a fan

“We have nothing to fear from love and commitment”

The State of New York voted down the gay marriage bill yesterday. By a vote of 38 to 24. There are 32 Democrats. Somehow I am not too surprised. Not because I am familiar with the NY political scene, but lately people have been letting me down. I am losing faith. (Don’t worry. This is supposed to be an inspiring post!)

Tea Parties.

Townhall crazies.

Birthers.

People who don’t know that you CANNOT be a Nazi AND a Communist at the same time.

Sarah Palin’s book, on the New York Times Bestseller list.

The fact that now I can remember Rush Limbaugh with fondness. Ah, the good old days before I was made aware of the existence of one Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck.

I found the panacea for my doom and gloom as far as humanity is concerned today: Senator Diane Savino, a Democrat from Staten Island. Or rather, since we all should be wary of blind hero worship: we learned of her strong position on one issue today, and I plan to reserve my full-throttle love affair with her until I have a chance to know more about her other political beliefs and standings. But I will say this:

I am absolutely in love with her speech at the New York Senate floor yesterday defending the rights of gay people to be legally married.

The video of her speech is turning into the latest, hottest Internet Meme as I write. At least in the parts of the cyber world that I wander. People were elated to witness an impassioned speech explaining why voting YES to gay marriage is the right thing to do, that is at the same time rational, humorous, engaging, and moving. Perhaps the defeat in the State of New York is not for naught. Here is the silver lining: a plainspoken, easy to understand, relatable argument, from a Roman Catholic nonetheless.

* Like a dork, I sat down, listened to her while frantically trying to type down her words. So I can read them again. So I can read them out loud to anybody who would listen. Like a great Jon Stewart episode that speaks volumes of truth amidst the laughter. The transcripts for the highlights of her 7-minute speech is after the jump. IF you don’t feel like watching the video, or perhaps you disagree (and if so, I appreciate your staying around), please do read the highlights. I typed them out for you, my imaginary friends!

On the fundamental of the gay marriage bill:

“This vote is not about politics. It is not about democratic politics, or republican politics…

This vote is not about an issue of politics. This vote is about an issue of fairness and equality, not political. It is the fairness of two people, who are of the right age, of sound mind, who choose to live together, share everything together, and want to have the same protection that the government granted those of us who have the privilege of marriage and treated it so cavalierly in our society.”

On how she helped someone else see her point:

At 3:09, Senator Savino tells the story about her encounter with a stranger who stuck his head inside her car and asked her whether she was going to vote YES, and why. She reminding him that they could, as a matter of fact, go and get married at the city hall the next day, and nobody would question the quality of their relationship. Their commitment to the marriage.

“Do you think we are ready for that kind of commitment?”

The man saw her point.

On the role of the government as far as marriage is concerned:

“We in the government do not determine the quality or the validity of people’s relationships. If we did, we would not issue three quarters of the marriage license we do.”

On “what we are really protecting”

“Let me ask you something ladies and gentlemen, what are we really protecting?”

“Turn on the television. We have a wedding channel on cable TV devoted to the behavior of people on their way to the altar. They spend billions of dollars, behave in the most appalling way, all in an effort to be princess for a day. You don’t have cable television? Put on network TV. We’re giving away husbands on a game show. You can watch The Bachelor, where thirty desperate women will compete to marry a 40-year-old man who has never been able to maintain a decent relationship in his life. We have The Bachelorette in reverse… That’s what we’ve done to marriage in America, where young women are socialized from the time they’re five years old to think of being nothing but a bride. They plan every day what they’ll wear, how they’ll look, the invitations, the whole bit, they don’t spend five minutes thinking about what it means to be a wife. People stand up there before god and man even in Senator Diaz’s church, they swear to love, honor and obey, they don’t mean a word of it. And so if there’s anything wrong, or any threat to the sanctity of marriage in America, it comes from those of us who have the privilege and the right, and we have abused it for decades.”

The powerful conclusion that should be the rallying cry for the march:

“We have nothing to fear. We have nothing to fear from people who are committed to each other. who want to share their lives, and protect one another, in the event of sickness, illness or death.

We have nothing to fear from love and commitment.”

Update: Andrew Sullivan over at The Atlantic explained what I called the “silver lining” a lot more eloquently, with more punch (which is expected since I am not a writer but a stream-of-consciousness-typer-aka-excuse-for-illogical/bad-writing). And I am loving it too. There is hope, peeps. There is hope.

“[E]very time this question is thoroughly debated, and each time we put ourselves, our dignity and our families on the line, we win even if we lose… Civil rights movements always move forward by occasionally moving backward. And at each moment in the struggle, those unpersuaded watch us, how we respond, who we are. Anger and sadness are more than legitimate responses. But so are calm and confidence.” Andrew Sullivan

Update: I found a blog whose host took the time out to transcribe the entire speech. Amazing!

Bohemian Rhapsody. The Muppets Style. You complete me.

Laugh all you want. But my one favorite song, if I have to pick, is seriously Bohemian Rhapsody. I am a walking cliche, I know. I can listen to it over and over again all day long. Thanks to the invention of the Internet (Thank you, Al Gore! <– This is a repetitive trope here), I can now watch and listen to all different renditions of this song.

On this Thanksgiving, I AM THANKFUL FOR YOUTUBE, despite the existence of Charlie the Unicorn

My favorite has been the performance in 2003 by UC Men’s Octet. Yup. Bohemian Rhapsody a cappella. How awesome is that? (You can see the video of this oldie but still goodie at the end of this post).

Now the Muppet Studio just posted on YouTube on November 23, yup, that’s yesterday, the HD version of the Muppets gang doing Bohemian Rhapsody. How awesome is THAT?!

Note to Self: Need to find a different word than “awesome” to describe things that excite me lest I be mistaken for a high school gal… On the other hand, it may be a sign of my ultimate Americanness... Awesome.

I had to do a Stop the Presses! thing and bring this to you right away, my imaginary friends. Enjoy.

Do you know who started the famous Bobbed haircut?

Annex - Brooks, Louise_12

Louise Brooks, aka Frank Wedekind’s “Lulu”, 1929.

Nobody, I mean, nobody, does it better…

I have had the same postcard on my bookshelf since college.  I included it as one of the images for a self-portrait collage that I put together…  Now come to think of it, I started having identity crisis since that age and I haven’t been quite able to find myself ever since.  Kind of pathetic if I dare to be honest: A 40-year-old woman suffering from teenage angst.

Demian!

Marlene Dietrich & Anna May Wong in “Shanghai Express”

So now I am completely obsessed with Anna May Wong. I wanted to find and read everything about her… then I found this:

Shanghai Express

This is fucking Marlene Dietrich we are talking about here…  Marlene Dietrich looks like this:

(Ignore the cigarettes. They didn’t know better back then…)

Annex - Dietrich, Marlene (Angel)_01

Annex - Dietrich, Marlene (Shanghai Express)_03

Annex - Dietrich, Marlene_17

Yeah.  I get the irony about me posting photographic evidence of objectification of these two gorgeous women after I posted We will not become what we mean to you.   I have the luxury of a revisionist perspective, looking back at these women and what they have done in portraying strong, powerful women, albeit always thwarted by the end of the film.

On the other hand, now this conviction, and personal, secret mantra, “We will not become what we mean to you”, just became even more powerful for me.  The paradox of the subjectification of the unavoidable objectification perchance will remove us from this endless loop, a discourse that goes nowhere.

I am spewing nonsense now.  This shit is complicated.  No wonder people avoid the discussion of gender and racial politics like the plague.

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

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…)

“No, Newt, You’re the Racist” Thank goodness someone more elequont wrote this rebuttal…

to the charge by some Republicans against the Supreme Court Nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as being a racist against the white people, and specifically, white male people.

I first saw this charge when I was waiting to board the plane. (You know the CNN scrolling texts on the bottom that drive everybody crazy but, I have to admit it, was pretty useful when there was NO sound on!) I could NOT believe my eyes. But I was not surprised either.

In my head I was formulating all these rebuttals, clever comebacks, theories, arguments against charges of any type of Reverse Racism. The best I could come up with was: It is like the Royal Families complain about being prejudiced against because people are jealous of the privileges they enjoy.

Seriously? Give me a break!

Thank goodness for Vanity Fair. Here is again another article that I LOVE so much that I want to print it out and eat it whole. I really should be working since I am buried by projects that are all due YESTERDAY. But I need to get this off my chest before I explode into a pile of, YES, non-white, mess…

No, Newt, You’re the Racist by Michael Hogan (May 27, 2009)

Mr. Hogan, I assume who is white and male (NOT that there is anything wrong with that…), managed to deliver a rebuttal against this utter nonsense in an even-handed, non-didactic, non-preachy way.

Digression: I also appreciate much the fact his article does not invoke White Guilt either, for nothing is more annoying to me than condescension and patronization born out of White Guilt. No, thank you very much, we have managed along quite well. We do not need to be rescued by a knight in shiny armor. Give me outright Racism any day ( Disclaimer: obviously, I understand VIOLENCE committed on the basis of racism is no joke. Here I am referring to TALKS. DISCOURSES.) When it is veiled in White Guilt, I am at a loss as to how to react to it.

Anyway, the best quote from the article is as follows, although I do hope you read the entire thing if you have stayed with my rant so far…

The reason so few sensible people take [any charge of reverse racism] seriously is that there is no effective anti-white discrimination in America or, for that matter, the world. Being white is almost universally easier than being any other color, just as being male is almost universally easier than being female. (If you’re white, male, and still angry, the problem is you.)

Nicely done. Thank you.

If you happen to be white (in appearances) and you cannot see the implied privileges that come with your skin color, here is a great article/exercise that may resonate with you:

“White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh in 1990. Yes, it is decades old. But hey, some things never change… or at least, not much.

p.s. Once again, the comments steal the show and become the proof for the importance of writing the article being commented on in the first place.

Michael Hogan, poor guy, he’s being pummeled and maligned in the comment section. It is rather scary and disturbing what was said in those comments. I wish I hadn’t read them because now I am officially pissed. And scared at the same time. And disturbed. And dispirited.

If I were working on an ethnographic study on the Global Twitter Tribe, I would start here with Twitter Earth…

If you have some inexplicable fascination of Twitter, the much beloved or maligned or questioned (depending on you hang out with…) but can't-be-ignored, new kid on the block, by my troth! you definitely should check out Twitter Earth
 
Twitter Earth is basically a 3D presentation of Twittervision, which shows every tweet, live, and where it comes from, visually. You just need to trust me and click on the link here… words failed me… which they often do… 
 
Whenever I clicked on Twitterearth, I found myself thinking, "Wow, I could really sit here and watch this thing all day." Meaning, instead of watching the goldfish swimming on the Aquarium screen saver, I would rather watch Tweets around the globe live in action.
 
Even more wishful thinking would be to watch this thing on a JumboTron…  Wouldn't it be cool to have this app running non-stop on the giant screen at Times Square?!  
 
p.s. To those who wonder when I will stop yapping about Twitter "Enough Already!" tomorrow, I shall yap about… t-shirts!!! 
 
 

Wired article struck a cord and so I am copying and pasting the whole thing…

Ok. I am not really going to do this. But I just want to do something about this article: Scott Brown’s “Gag Reflexes” in Wired (April 2009). The online edition has a longer title: “Scott Brown on Stand-Up Comedy, Lingua Franca of the Wired World” which sums up Mr. Brown’s theory.

Maybe crumple up the page and eat it. But I already promised my husband that I will refrain from wrinkling up any magazine pages before he’s done with them. (Ok. I am attempting to be funny here. If you read Mr. Brown article, you would understand why I feel exposed, caught in the act of trying to be funny. To earn more currency in this new economy…)

Is it wrong to want to quote an entire article really? Ok. Maybe not 100%. I don’t really care for the examples Mr. Brown gave to support his argument. But the insights sprinkled in-between, those struck a cord.

I am no writer, and I am too tired (not to mention lazy), and here is my journal (i.e. I will do what I damn please), so I am going to jott down sentences that particularly resonate with me, and be done with it: (Thank goodness for Ctrl + C & Ctrl + V !!)

“… everything is ‘material,’ and life is one big writer’s room, a massive clusterchuckle of witty one-upsmanship

“More than that: Everyone must be funny. Because ‘funny’ is becoming a language unto itself, the lingua franca of the wired world.”

Always feel this way since I got hooked on Twitter. Sometimes it feels almost like a comedy show writers’ room, the pressure is on to be the next funniest. hence wisest, person in the Twitter stream that you can see.

“Humor saturates the infosphere, for at least two reasons: First, a successful joke implies insight, and insight, especially if it’s pithy and self-explanatory, is the basic currency of a high-speed information economy. Second, the fundamental tools and techniques of that economy—memory, annotation, contrast, collage—are also the fundamental tools of comedy.”

I absolutely agree with #1. Feeling grateful that someone actually voiced this murky concept so clearly in one single sentence. Everyone is a guru of life, and the shallow shall be deep again. Not so sure about #2 since those are the fundamental tools of storytelling, upon which human history has been, and will be, passed on. What we don’t see in the histories in the past is IRONY and self-awareness, imo, which, well, make intelligent comedies.

Moreover, it has always been my one belief that a great sense of humor indicates a great presence of intellect and tolerance.

And this final quote may sound like an accusation “Gotcha!”

“If the references are flying over your head, no worries: You can zip over to Wikipedia and be back in time for the punch line.”

Like I said, Google is Your Friend! Raise your hand if you have NEVER done this… Thankfully Mr. Brown provided hyperlinks to all the references he cited for the article.

The Legend of Kung Fu again: video of the curtain call performance… the actual show is 100 times better

From the curtain calls it is easy to see that why Chinese consider this show to be strictly for tourists: cheesy, gaudy, and full of Kung Fu cliches. But it is the same with all the Kung Fu (and Wuxia) movies that we love. So why not just admit that I thoroughly enjoyed this show? There is no shame in this…

The Legend of Kung Fu at Red Theatre. Turns out they are such a well-organized attraction that they have a nice website with preview clips.

FWIW, uploaded the curtain calls I videotaped as a proof that I was there…