Wednesday, November 29, 2006

HELP!!!

I received heartbreaking news that a close friend from my undergraduate days at SFSU has a 2 year old son who is fighting Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML) and needs a bone marrow transplant to survive.

OJ Leonardo and his wife, Stephanie, have a son named Harrison who underwent chemotherapy treatment at the beginning of this year. His cancer went into remission this past August. However, just before Thanksgiving, he was hospitalized again as the cancer relapsed. Doctors and the family are preparing another round chemotherapy and searching for a donor.

The chances for a suitable donor are higher for similar ethnic backgrounds. Specifically, the donor must have identical Human Leukocyte Antigens (HLA). Unfortunately, the parents' and Harrison's brother's HLA types do not match which means they are searching for a non-related donor. For Harrison, he is biracial, of Filipino and Caucasian descent. The pool of bone marrow candidates is very low among Asian American communities which makes saving Harrison's life, and many others, extremely urgent.

Spread the word. Volunteer as a donor.

For more information about Harrison and bone marrow programs, see: http://www.helpharrison.com/.

Monday, November 27, 2006

A Defining Principle ...

I came across this quotation when I was reading Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court case that protected flag burning under the First Amendment. Actually, the quotation was originally from Justice Robert Jackson who gave the majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). Justice Jackson later became the chief prosecutor against Nazi war criminals after World War II. His words about free speech are simply elegant.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Sentence: Life in Prison

In my research, I come across numerous cases of hate violence from the physically violent to the emotionally traumatic. But I paid particular attention to this case from last year because of the sheer brutality of the attack. As prosecutor, Mike Trent, said, "this was torture." The perpetrator, who is one seriously screwed up kid, had, among other things, a history of violent behavior in particularly towards Latinos, fascination with Skinheads and neo-Nazis, fantasizes about necrophilia, and hears voices in his head. All of which provided the jury enough reason to sentence him to life in prison.

But what moved me, and it seems so rare in these cases, is how both mothers, both families, embraced and mourned together with the perpetrator's mother apologizing repeatedly for the actions of her son.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4344623.html

Has Asian Masculinity Arrived? And to Where Exactly?

Well yes and no. It's a whole lot better than what it was when I was younger -- geeky, dorky, nerdy. Really depressing stuff. But today, we have images and celebrities like Yul Kwon from this season's Survivor, Daniel Dae Kim from Lost, John Cho from Harold and Kumar, and Masi Oka, the sex appeal of dorkiness, in Heroes. And they've made it in the sense that they are ranked in People's Annual Sexiest Man Alive. In case you're wondering, George Clooney topped the savory list of mouth drooling masculinity and I most definitely agree with that result.

At the same time, however, I can't help but notice how the polls are also revealing about the details. One of the polls asks "Which Lost star do you want to share a deserted isle with?" Leading the pack is Matthew Fox (47%) and Josh Holloway (44%). Daniel Dae Kim? He's at 2% and Naveen Andrews at 5%. But Harold Perrineau rounded out the bottom at 1%. I have to keep in mind that the low numbers could be about how their characters were developed in the story and I am not a Lost fan so I'm not familiar with the narrative too well. But to contrast that point, we can turn to the Heroes poll, which does look a bit more promising than the Lost crew. Milo Ventimiglia (30%), Santiago Cabrera (27%), and Adrian Pasdar (23%) lead the index of desirability, while Sendhil Ramamurthy received 18%, but Masi Oka ended up with 2%. Hmmm ... what gives?

It's refreshing, and reassuring, to see a whole new generation of Asian American men defining, and whether they know it or not, challenging preconceived notions about stereotypical representations of Asian masculinity. However, I can't help but notice the near bottom rankings of these men. It confirms for me, yet again, that our sense of desire and fantasy are racially organized. I am not surprised at this outcome but I am not discouraged. I think these polls also reveal how much further Asian American masculinity can go. There's nowhere else to go but up and that's something I can look forward to.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

WTF?

So apparently Michael Richards, the dude who played Kramer from Seinfeld, went on a venemous racist rampage Friday night when he performed at The Laugh Factory in Los Angeles. And don't give me this "he completely lost it" crap because he knew exactly what he was doing on stage. It started when Richards was heckled by an African American and several of his friends. That's the usual thing in comedy clubs as a form of linguistic sparring. Comedians are known to push the boundaries because that's the nature of the game, but Richards clearly escalated the situation when he dropped the nuclear bomb of all racial epithets. Whenever "the word" is used and you are not African American, then be prepared for some serious repercussions against you. It's completely offensive to African Americans, and to everyone's sensibilities. It's a word that no one else can use except African Americans, and even then it's quite limited.

WARNING: Do not watch if you're easily offended.

CNN follow up:

UCLA Student Tasered

Damn. Campus police will taser a student on campus but they can't catch rapists or stop petty theft? That's utterly sad.

But thanks to YouTube and the pervasiveness of audio/video recording devices, nothing is ever missed and everyone is always watching ... or being watched.



For more articles from The Daily Bruin:

Letters to the Editor

UCLA Students Protest Excessive Police Action

Friday, November 17, 2006

Thinking about 2008, Part II

I got the funniest cartoon from a student after we discussed about the possibility of Hilary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice running for President. The jabs at each other are priceless. :D

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/13180/HillaryCondi_HoDown.swf

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Thinking about 2008

Since the midterm elections, there's been a lot of talk about potential Democratic frontrunners for the 2008 Presidential election. The Washington Post featured an article showing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the two leading contenders. It suggested, among many things, what the campaign would look like if Obama somehow won the Democratic ticket. Would we see negative ad campaigns like the one Harold Ford bore the brunt in his re-election bid in Tennessee? Maybe worse? Could the country would stomach ads like these or reject them outright? Or would we cater to these stereotypes and exploit these divisions? What if Hilary won? What kinds of ads would be used against her?

I think the implications, and possible revelations, if either one were nominated, is that the kinds of negative ads, and our responses, will reveal how far we've really come.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Halloween in "Da' Hood?"

I've heard of other racially themed Halloween frat parties in the past such as Latino gangs in the "barrios" or Vietnam War themed parties involving US soldiers and "oriental" prostitutes dancing to the beat of "Me So Horny" by 2 Live Crew.

Short of anything illegal, and that's always a topic for debate, whatever you say or do in private is the business of you and your friends. That's going to happen and there's nothing I can do to prevent it. But once it is made public for others to see and hear, especially if it's on the internet, then it's open game. Don't be surprised that a world of anger and criticism is going to be unleashed upon you. And don't cry foul and whine that you didn't know it was offensive. It's too late in my opinion. If you didn't know before, you will now and that's the other "higher education" for you. Original article here:

A campus fraternity set off the debate by using Facebook to publicize a “Halloween in the ‘Hood” party, which described Baltimore as “the HIV pit” and urged partygoers to dress in “regional clothing from our locale” like “bling bling ice ice, grills” and “hoochie hoops,” according to The Baltimore Sun. Because of that language — and because of a prop at the party that featured a skeleton dangling from a rope noose — the university’s Black Student Union objected. Campus officials decided to suspend the fraternity, pending an investigation of the event.

Not Halloween but along the same line is this incident from Texas A&M:

A student-made video that appears to depict a master-slave scene, including a beating and an actor in blackface, has stirred racial tensions to a boil at Texas A&M University at College Station, according to the San Antonio Express-News.

By the way, the president of Texas A&M is Robert Gates who is set to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. He called the video "moronic" but university officials are unclear if it violated any law or campus policy.

UPDATE: I just found out that the fraternity sponsoring the "Halloween in the Hood" party was suspended, and the organizer was of Korean descent. What a damn moron.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Quitting WoW

I really like this article about Warcraft, its design as an immense time sink, and the social alienation it engenders. I know there is such a thing akin to game addiction, but the article provides a solid personal account.

I just left WoW permanently. I was a leader in one of the largest and most respected guilds in the world, a well-equipped and well-versed mage, and considered myself to have many close friends in my guild. Why did I leave? Simple: Blizzard has created an alternate universe where we don't have to be ourselves when we don't want to be. From my vantage point as a guild decision maker, I've seen it destroy more families and friendships and take a huge toll on individuals than any drug on the market today, and that means a lot coming from an ex-club DJ.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Keith Ellison in the House

In the aftermath of the Democratic victory in both the House and the Senate (Allen conceded yesterday), I forgot about Keith Ellison's run and victory as the first Muslim American to win a seat in the House representing the Fifth District for Minnesota. Awesome! Check out the NY Times article on him.

Empire

I came across this article from Wired about my two favorite passions: science fiction and video games. I'm a fan of Orson Scott Card and his books, Ender's Game (1994) and Speaker for the Dead (1994). So when a renown science fiction writer tries his hand in video games, I perk up with interest. Card's soon to be released book, Empire, is being developed (it looks like it's already been developed) into a video game. The book-turned-to-game is about:

a near-future America in which a civil war has erupted between the political left and the right. Card was involved from day one in building the franchise across entertainment mediums.

Like I said, I'm intrigued at this development because of the way video games has become more "cinematic" in design and narrative development, and in some ways, the reverse is true demonstrating their mutual influence. Some video game companies like EA has courted blockbuster directors like Steven Spielberg to develop a new line of games suggesting the exploration, and the importance, of not only aesthetic presentation (does it look kEwL?), but storyline progression and character development.

But a game about a US civil war between red and blue states?

It sounds awkward and ... well ... not very video gamish. I guess I really am used to seeing an invading alien armada, or demons from another dimension, or even the occasional mad scientist-uses-genetics-to-create-a-biological-monster type, but what the hell. I'll try any game once. Let me download the beta and check it out for myself.

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

When the Dust Settles ...

So midterm elections are over and the Democrats have retaken the majority of the House picking up 27 seats thus far. There's a few other races in which the winner is still too close to call. But what is certain is that the House is historically poised to elect my hometown favorite, Nancy Pelosi, for Speaker of the House -- the first woman in this position. :D

However, the Senate, as expected, is a different story with the outcome relying upon two states: Montana and my new home state, Virginia. Here in Virginia, the race between Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, and Republican incumbent, George Allen, showed Webb in the lead with 7,000 votes cast with 99.8% of the precints reporting. I was following the Senate on the news and the results showed Allen -- the "macaca" dude -- leading Webb -- the former Republican dude -- with a modest margin that literally shrank every hour. It literally was the most exciting race to watch as the precints reported their results. By midnight, Webb took the lead from Allen with a very slim margin. At any rate, the result is less than 1% so it automatically triggers a recount that could take days to weeks. So not knowing what's going on in Montana, the outcome of the Senate balance of power may be delayed for a time. A Democratic majority in the Senate is extremely thin but that was to be expected.

Aside from the question still being decided in the Senate, Democrats have made a significant impact in this midterm election sending a clear message to Republicans and the Bush administration that change and accountability are in order. The House is under new management and President Bush is put on notice. The Democrats are jubilant over their victory, and the Republicans could not withstand the change in political winds.

So why am I so apprehensive about this victory? I think part of the problem is that I still didn't see a Democratic national agenda. There were three themes that dominated the elections: War in Iraq, Republican scandals, and questionable leadership in particularly President Bush. But what do Democrats offer as their platform? I don't think there was. If anything, the platform has been mostly riding on voter anger in retaliation for a failed Republican party. So, in essence, the Republicans royally screwed up, and it was the Democrats to lose the elections.

Having said that, I am reminded by my undergrad professor in American Politics that the House is the direct representation of the people's passions (it's funny how I also drummed this point to my own students). By design, the House is the institution that keeps government in touch with the immediate concerns of the people. Voter anger against the Republican Party was definitely a powerful passion, and it worked in favor of the Democrats. But therein lies the problem. Passion, that is, riding on voter anger, is a temporary condition producing short-term results. The question that is bugging me is how do you fashion a long-term agenda that the people can rally behind? I am comforted, optimistic, and overjoyed at the fact that Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi will be leading the House. I am cautious, however, if the Democrats can sustain their strength and momentum and define an agenda until the 2008 presidential elections. And by the way, 2 years is an agonizing eternity!

Dissertating Daze (Cont)

So I got word from my dissertation advisor that amounts to a "Go for it!" attitude and asks if I can defend in Spring 2007. She also says the Court case sounds like a great chapter and all that I would have left is my conclusion. My other two committee members also shared the same sentiment and overall support for me. One even offered her office and research assistants to finish though she said she could only feed me bread and water. :D

*Whew!* I thought I was going to get an earful from my advisor at least but they've been absolutely supportive and always encouraging me every step of the way. I am lucky!

Friday, November 3, 2006

Traffic Insanity

How no one gets into an accident is beyond me. Enjoy the madness! :D

Wednesday, November 1, 2006

Dissertating Daze

*sighs*

I had sent an update to my committee about my progress and a question about my last chapter. It has been 6 months since I last updated them. To be frank, I was a bit apprehensive that I've been out of touch and had not produced another chapter since last year. But I received a very quick reply from all three of them and I am so lucky that I have the most supportive committee. I've heard nightmarish stories of committee chairs from my friends who in some cases broken down in tears. But not me thankfully.

I apprised them of my progress and that while I was working on my revisions and my conclusion, I told them I was unsure that my fifth chapter was appropriate. It was a case study on a spate of hate crime incidents at LMU in the 2004-2005 academic year. It was suppose to be this theory/praxis tension but it turned out to be an op-ed piece than a dissertation chapter. I really don't want to write another chapter, but this was seriously weak. Well I did get some constructive feedback and the verdict is ... *drum rolls* ... I'm writing a new fifth chapter. One committee member summed it up and said that it just didn't fit with my overall project and doesn't support my main argument in which I'll elaborate in a later post. But it really stuck out like a sore thumb compared to the other chapters. More importantly, she said that writing a dissertation is already a lot of work. You don't want to be in a situation where you have to spend more time trying to make a chapter fit when it really doesn't.

And I agreed ... reluctantly but I am relieved to know that my worries were verified.

Luckily, at around the same time, I came across a US Supreme Court case called Virgina v. Black (2003). Like many Southern states, Virginia has a statute banning cross-burnings as part of the effort to eradicate the KKK. It's roots are in post-Civil War Reconstruction efforts and 14th Amendment enforcement. However, the statute was challenged on the grounds that it violated First Amendment protections using the ruling in RAV v. St. Paul, MN (1992), in which the city of St. Paul, in a well-meaning statute, banned all forms of prejudicial and biased displays that include racial epithets, cross burnings, etc. That ordinance was challenged on First Amendment grounds and the US Supreme Court agreed. For many proponents of anti-hate crime legislation, this was seen as a major setback. It wasn't until a year later, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), where sentencing enhancement features were also challenged on First Amendment violations, that the constitutional validity of hate crimes legislation was affirmed. In this case, the Court ruled that discerning bias, that is, a motivation and intent based upon a real or perceived difference, to determine the level of punishment for those found guilty, is constitutional.

Anyways ...

So the constitutional question in the Virginia case is: Does Virginia's prohibition on cross burning with the intent to intimidate any person or group of persons, violate the First Amendment?

Yes. But in a plurality opinion, delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, four justices held that a state is perfectly within its right to prohibit specific forms of speech such as cross-burning. However, a provision in the Virginia statute stated that cross-burning was prima facie evidence of intent was ruled unconstitutional by three justices. Justice Scalia argued that the Court should vacate and remand the case to the Virginia Supreme Court to review the provision, while Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Kennedy concluded that the statute altogether was unconstitutional. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

I became extremely interested in Justice Thomas's dissent. I've only glossed over the case and, in particularly his opinion, but it starts out with a statement about culture:

In every culture, certain things acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend. That goes for both the sacred, see Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 422-429 (1989) (REHNQUIST, C. J., dissenting) (describing the unique position of the American flag in our Nation's 200 years of history), and the profane. I believe that cross burning is the paradigmatic example of the latter.

I'm interested in this case because my dissertation examines how the law, or the "State," constructs and represents "hate" as an object of knowledge. Much of the anti-hate crimes effort at the State level is spent producing a working definition of "hate," but that definition is based upon, in part, on questions about culture. It's not exclusively about values per se, but ideologies and discourses about practices and representations of "hate" as a historical phenomenon and a contemporary social/political problem. Justice Thomas's dissent, and in various parts of Justice O'Connor's opinion, have cultural arguments about representations of hate.

Anyways ... that's where I'm at. Back to researching and hopefully a strong chapter.

Woof!