Quick Thought

I was at the supermarket the other day when I saw the cover of the latest TIME cover featuring a split image of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with the title, "There Can Only Be One."


By the way, the idea for that cover was ripped from the NBA's playoff campaign where basketball superstars are perfectly aligned side-by-side (see BenMVP.com for more). Their campaign called, "There Can Only Be One," seems to be a slight variation of a very popular tagline from the movie, Highlander (1986). The actual line is "In the end, there can be only one." Anyways, I digress ... again ...

I get the idea that the Democratic Party ought to choose a presidential nominee now but the race between Obama and Clinton is so tight that choosing one will be enormously difficult. Such a decision will come down to the nitty gritty details in order to make the distinctions clearer. Fine. I get that. But I remember back in late March of another cover from The New Republic of a morph between Obama and Clinton. I think TNR called it "HillarACK" which sounds like someone was saying Hillary's name before barfing his dinner out.

So this I also "get" but it's extremely problematic. Again there's a similar dynamic that because Hillary and Obama are extremely popular, very resourceful, strong candidates in their own right that making a decision is proving to be much harder than anticipated. There are consequence in the long run if no candidate emerges with a definitive lead especially for the Presidential race against John McCain. But through the beauty of morphing graphic technology, instead of choosing one, we can take the best of both candidates and create the super-candidate for the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party. What do we get when we blend Obama with Clinton?

A white guy. WTF???? So instead of embracing the specific identity of race through Obama or the identity of women through Clinton, this representation positions "white male" as not only the "best of both worlds" but also reinforces it as the default subjectivity for all matters regarding race and gender. This is more than an inability to choose between one or the other; it's a dangerously misguided and idealized representation about discourses of race and gender.

So what makes the TIME magazine cover so interesting, and subversive, in juxtaposition to TNR? We still have to choose between two candidates; it's a choice that is also intimately bound up in questions about race and gender. Either one will still be a political and historical exclamation point for the US.

But the TIME cover still uses the same visual strategy where the head, hair lines, eyes, nose, and lips are, for the most part, perfectly aligned, instead of morphing the facial elements together. There is still an echo of an idealized candidate though it is not as distinct as TNR's representation. Instead, the visual and political effect is more pronounced in TIME's cover and the tagline. Suture theory (Yes, I'm playing around with film theory) describes the process whereby subjects ( "us" ) are "drawn into" a film (identification), taking up positions as "subjects-within-the-film," so that our meanings and experiences become defined by the film's narrative. OK so the cover is not a film but it is a representation that demands textual analysis. I'm sure there's a communication studies theory that is applicable but I'm more familiar with film theory and suture theory is what popped into my head. I imagine hearing the anguish and utter horror from a psychoanalytic film theorist as I butcher a well established film theory. But I'm a cultural studies scholar and we're trained to use theory in less than traditional ways. So deal with it. Anyways ...

So if suture theory describes a process of subjectification then what the TIME cover has done was to not only force a character identification, but also a choice. It is a demand on the viewer (that is, "us") to choose a friggin' candidate. The world encapsulated in the representation of the TIME cover is the same world that we inhabit. This is the major difference from the TNR cover because the morph is an imaginary completeness that functions to disguise an inherent lack (Yes, this is my best use of psychoanalytic film theory). There is no demand on the viewer to do anything more other than to abide by a fictionalized narrative that is politically problematic as a discursive construction and as question of agency. The TIME cover on the other hand is not at all ambiguous or ambivalent about what is at stake. It reads as a kind of refusal to an idealized candidate and the misguided appeals to a race-less/gender-less utopic narrative. Instead, it compels a very pragmatic and deeply political act: choose one.

I thought that this was going to be a quick thought but apparently it went further than I anticipated. Oh well.

"Asian" or "Asian American?" (Cont)

Reposting from SFGate.com. It's a great article addressing this problem of the shooter's racial and national identity, and it's impact on political discourses and analysis.

Virginia Tech Massacre
Shooter Debate: Speculation Mars Discussion Online
by Vanessa Hua

Initial media reports described Cho Seung-Hui -- whose shooting rampage Monday at Virginia Tech left 33 dead, including himself -- as a resident alien, an Asian and a South Korean.

On Tuesday, racially tinged speculation, based on the 23-year-old Cho's heritage and immigrant status, flew around the Internet, even though he spent two-thirds of his life in the United States.

"Yet another reason for the U.S. to further restrict immigration to this country," a user going by the name of Christabella posted on a blog at SFGate.com, The Chronicle's Web site. "Had they not allowed Cho to waltz into the nation on a student visa, those 33 people would still be alive."

Cho, the underlying argument went, was a foreigner.

That kind of thinking has alarmed Asian American leaders. Overemphasis in news coverage of his immigrant status, and stereotyping in general, could influence perceptions of all Asian Americans -- not only Koreans -- especially in areas with little connection to Asians and Asian Americans, said Eric Mar, a San Francisco school board member who is Chinese American.

The Asian American Journalists Association, headquartered in San Francisco, questioned stories and online comments posted Tuesday morning that highlighted Cho's race and immigration status because that emphasis suggested those factors played a role in the shootings.

In fact, Cho was like many school shooters -- about three-quarters of whom have been white boys and young men, according to a 2000 report from the U.S. Secret Service. Cho appeared to feel marginalized and angry, according to criminologists and psychologists such as Louis B. Schlesinger, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Born in South Korea, Cho, 23, immigrated as a child to the United States in 1992. He was raised in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, the son of a couple who worked at a dry-cleaning business. He was sullen and depressed, an English major whose twisted fiction concerned faculty and a fan of bloody shooting games, according to media reports.

"A useful way to think about this is, 'How connected might an individual feel to a community and a society?' " said Daniel Webster, co-director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University. "Sometimes the barriers might be racial, sometimes it might be language. Sometimes it might be their own mental health that prevents them from forming bonds."

The public is attempting to make sense of the tragedy by categorizing Cho and his motivations, said James Garbarino, a professor at Loyola University in Chicago, and author of "Lost Boys: Why Our Boys Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them."

People have "an impulse to distance themselves" from the campus killer, Garbarino said. "The more someone is like one of us, the harder it is to sleep."

Some of the people posting to blogs and chat rooms online Tuesday blamed Cho's actions on his "foreign" status. Others dismissed such arguments as preposterous and asserted that the massacre resulted from easy access to guns, violence in the media or the popularity of violent video games. Still others theorized he was a member of al Qaeda, carrying out a terrorist attack. He was an English-as-a-second-language student depressed about finals, according to another theory.

Indeed, commentators' theories may say more about them than about the gunman.

"It's a psychological protective technique," said Franklin Zimring, a criminologist at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. "This is about gun control, or immigration, or not allowing guns on campus. People are painting the picture."

The Day After Imus

So now in the aftermath of Imus and his racially and sexually derogatory epithets, his subsequent firings from NBC and CBS, the Rutgers Women's Basketball team press conference, the fans, the outrage, the marvelous coalition of support for the students, the hope that this painful episode will set a new standard for media responsibility, we now turn our attention to ... RAP MUSIC?!?!?

Oh shit. I heard the report on CNN Headline News this morning that there's a greater concerted effort to now target rap/hip hop artists like 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg, and others. The argument, ironically, seemed to have come from Imus himself when he appeared on Al Sharpton's radio show. He commented that he did not get the phrase on his own. That it's origins are in the very worst of rap/hip hop. In other words, he wasn't saying anything new or different from what rappers were saying in the music. I know it's a cop out, and it doesn't hold water. I just can't believe that people are buying into that point. I know elder African American leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and many others for different reasons, have always had a problem with rap and it's derogatory portrayals of black men and women. But this is a fairly reactionary and conservative critique about the politics of representation and culture -- that the causes of misoygny, homophobia, or racism, etc., can be traced to an offensive representation be it film, picture, television, or even words. The solution then is simple: remove the representation from our public sphere.

This is highly problematic on so many levels. There's no talk about culture in a substantive manner. There's nothing about patterns of economic inequality, or even a commentary about the state of our education. Or worse, once again, it's a "black problem" that they created, that they must now solve, but what's different this time is now it's a fairly diverse coalition of interests willing to go further than before. It's being framed as a personal moral issue and that is worrisome. But as a political logic, it certainly makes sense to a lot of people who work on a simple map of power relations: cause and effect.

But what bugs me the most about this development is the fact that Imus somehow was able to redirect the focus and energy from himself to rap and hip hop. Maybe not by himself solely, but this episode and the mess he created certainly facilitated it. In the end, I can't help but think that cowboy is going to have the last laugh.

Did I Read That Right? Imus is Gone?!

Wow he's really fired! I'd never thought it would go this far, but I guess, as one of my students remarked, this was a "perfect storm."

I'm still in a state of disbelief, surprise, and awe. Go figure.

From SFGate.com: "Don Imus Loses Job in Stunning Fall" (David Bauder)

Don Imus' racist remarks got him fired by CBS on Thursday, the finale to a stunning fall for one of the nation's most prominent broadcasters.

Imus was initially suspended for two weeks after he called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" on the air last week. But outrage kept growing and advertisers kept bolting from his CBS radio show and its MSNBC simulcast, which was canceled Wednesday.

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. "That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

Imus, 66, had a long history of inflammatory remarks. But something struck a raw nerve when he targeted the Rutgers team — which includes a class valedictorian, a future lawyer and a musical prodigy — after they lost in the NCAA championship game.

I also liked this article from the NY Times as a reminder of our political obligations: "Our Prejudices, Ourselves" (Harvey Fierstein)

AMERICA is watching Don Imus’s self-immolation in a state of shock and awe. And I’m watching America with wry amusement.

Since I’m a second-class citizen — a gay man — my seats for the ballgame of American discourse are way back in the bleachers. I don’t have to wait long for a shock jock or stand-up comedian to slip up with hateful epithets aimed at me and mine. Hate speak against homosexuals is as commonplace as spam. It’s daily traffic for those who profess themselves to be regular Joes, men of God, public servants who live off my tax dollars, as well as any number of celebrities.

In fact, I get a good chuckle whenever someone refers to “the media” as an agent of “the gay agenda.” There are entire channels, like Spike TV, that couldn’t fill an hour of programming if required to remove their sexist and homophobic content. We’ve got a president and a large part of Congress willing to change the Constitution so they can deprive of us our rights because they feel we are not “normal.”

So I’m used to catching foul balls up here in the cheap seats. What I am really enjoying is watching the rest of you act as if you had no idea that prejudice was alive and well in your hearts and minds.For the past two decades political correctness has been derided as a surrender to thin-skinned, humorless, uptight oversensitive sissies. Well, you anti-politically correct people have won the battle, and we’re all now feasting on the spoils of your victory. During the last few months alone we’ve had a few comedians spout racism, a basketball coach put forth anti-Semitism and several high-profile spoutings of anti-gay epithets.

What surprises me, I guess, is how choosy the anti-P.C. crowd is about which hate speech it will not tolerate. Sure, there were voices of protest when the TV actor Isaiah Washington called a gay colleague a “faggot.” But corporate America didn’t pull its advertising from “Grey’s Anatomy,” as it did with Mr. Imus, did it? And when Ann Coulter likewise tagged a presidential candidate last month, she paid no real price.

In fact, when Bill Maher discussed Ms. Coulter’s remarks on his HBO show, he repeated the slur no fewer than four times himself; each mention, I must note, solicited a laugh from his audience. No one called for any sort of apology from him. (Well, actually, I did, so the following week he only used it once.)

Face it, if a Pentagon general, his salary paid with my tax dollars, can label homosexual acts as “immoral” without a call for his dismissal, who are the moral high and mighty kidding?

Our nation, historically bursting with generosity toward strangers, remains remarkably unkind toward its own. Just under our gleaming patina of inclusiveness, we harbor corroding guts. America, I tell you that it doesn’t matter how many times you brush your teeth. If your insides are rotting your breath will stink. So, how do you people choose which hate to embrace, which to forgive with a wink and a week in rehab, and which to protest? Where’s my copy of that rule book?

Let me cite a non-volatile example of how prejudice can cohabit unchecked with good intentions. I am a huge fan of David Letterman’s. I watch the opening of his show a couple of times a week and have done so for decades. Without fail, in his opening monologue or skit Mr. Letterman makes a joke about someone being fat. I kid you not. Will that destroy our nation? Should he be fired or lose his sponsors? Obviously not.

But I think that there is something deeper going on at the Letterman studio than coincidence. And, as I’ve said, I cite this example simply to illustrate that all kinds of prejudice exist in the human heart. Some are harmless. Some not so harmless. But we need to understand who we are if we wish to change. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should confess to not only being a gay American, but also a fat one. Yes, I’m a double winner.)

I urge you to look around, or better yet, listen around and become aware of the prejudice in everyday life. We are so surrounded by expressions of intolerance that I am in shock and awe that anyone noticed all these recent high-profile instances. Still, I’m gladdened because our no longer being deaf to them may signal their eventual eradication.

The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently.

Harvey Fierstein is an actor and playwright.

"Trash Talk Radio" by Gwen Ifill

Just adding another excellent article about the verbal attack from "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" against the Rutgers women's basketball team. I like this piece, "Trash Talk Radio," from Gwen Ifill of the NY Times who tells it like it is. That the "cinderella story," one that can be shared by everyone especially from those who have been there, was defiled by a 60-year-old relic who's rants and raves are as anachronistic as they are patently insulting and offensive:

Let's say a word about the girls. The young women with the musical names. Kia and Epiphanny and Matee and Essence. Katie and Dee Dee and Rashidat and Myia and Brittany and Heather.

The Scarlet Knights of Rutgers University had an improbable season, dropping four of their first seven games, yet ending up in the N.C.A.A. women’s basketball championship game. None of them were seniors. Five were freshmen.

In the end, they were stopped only by Tennessee’s Lady Vols, who clinched their seventh national championship by ending Rutgers’ Cinderella run last week, 59-46. That’s the kind of story we love, right? A bunch of teenagers from Newark, Cincinnati, Brooklyn and, yes, Ogden, Utah, defying expectations. It’s what explodes so many March Madness office pools.

But not, apparently, for the girls. For all their grit, hard work and courage, the Rutgers girls got branded “nappy-headed ho’s” — a shockingly concise sexual and racial insult, tossed out in a volley of male camaraderie by a group of amused, middle-aged white men. The “joke” — as delivered and later recanted — by the radio and television personality Don Imus failed one big test: it was not funny. The serial apologies of Mr. Imus, who was suspended yesterday by both NBC News and CBS Radio for his remarks, have failed another test. The sincerity seems forced and suspect because he’s done some version of this several times before.

I know, because he apparently did it to me.

I was covering the White House for this newspaper in 1993, when Mr. Imus’s producer began calling to invite me on his radio program. I didn’t return his calls. I had my hands plenty full covering Bill Clinton.

Soon enough, the phone calls stopped. Then quizzical colleagues began asking me why Don Imus seemed to have a problem with me. I had no idea what they were talking about because I never listened to the program.

It was not until five years later, when Mr. Imus and I were both working under the NBC News umbrella — his show was being simulcast on MSNBC; I was a Capitol Hill correspondent for the network — that I discovered why people were asking those questions. It took Lars-Erik Nelson, a columnist for The New York Daily News, to finally explain what no one else had wanted to repeat.

“Isn’t The Times wonderful,” Mr. Nelson quoted Mr. Imus as saying on the radio. “It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.”

I was taken aback but not outraged. I’d certainly been called worse and indeed jumped at the chance to use the old insult to explain to my NBC bosses why I did not want to appear on the Imus show.

I haven’t talked about this much. I’m a big girl. I have a platform. I have a voice. I’ve been working in journalism long enough that there is little danger that a radio D.J.’s juvenile slap will define or scar me. Yesterday, he began telling people he never actually called me a cleaning lady. Whatever. This is not about me.

It is about the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. That game had to be the biggest moment of their lives, and the outcome the biggest disappointment. They are not old enough, or established enough, to have built up the sort of carapace many women I know — black women in particular — develop to guard themselves against casual insult.

Why do my journalistic colleagues appear on Mr. Imus’s program? That’s for them to defend, and others to argue about. I certainly don’t know any black journalists who will. To his credit, Mr. Imus told the Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday he realizes that, this time, he went way too far.

Yes, he did. Every time a young black girl shyly approaches me for an autograph or writes or calls or stops me on the street to ask how she can become a journalist, I feel an enormous responsibility. It’s more than simply being a role model. I know I have to be a voice for them as well.

So here’s what this voice has to say for people who cannot grasp the notion of picking on people their own size: This country will only flourish once we consistently learn to applaud and encourage the young people who have to work harder just to achieve balance on the unequal playing field.

Let’s see if we can manage to build them up and reward them, rather than opting for the cheapest, easiest, most despicable shots.

Gwen Ifill is a senior correspondent for “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” and the moderator of “Washington Week.”

Huh? Wha'?

Yes it's been much too long since I've last posted here. That's actually a good thing because I've been productive and writing my chapter and reading more law reviews on Virginia v. Black. At least, I'm trying to fit that in whenever I can on top of teaching classes.

I've been following Tim Hardaway's anti-gay comments and the subsequent outcry which resulted in his banishment from the All-Star weekend in Las Vegas. One in particular, has Charles Barkley not only admonishing Hardaway's comment, but stating that he should've known better. That as an African American and a black man, the history of discrimination, negative stereotypes, and violence should've taught him better than to say something so ignorant and incendiary.

[UPDATE: Yet another video removed for TOS violations.]

I was watching it and to my surprise Barkley seemed like the elder statesman. Well, rough around the edges, but he got the gist of it. Anyways, I came across this clip and consider it as a "different" to the usual public condemnation and subsequent "apology" by Hardaway. It stars George Takei, first shown on the Jimmy Kimmel Show, and I love the fact that it throws the stereotypes back at Hardaway. I think it works quite well.

[UPDATE: Damn this was a good video clip too.]

WTF Rosie?!? Follow-Up

So Rosie O'Donnell finally apologized after a week of what appeared to be some intense pressure from her "ching chong" episode. It was the lamest apology which was obviously done on the spot as she was fumbling over words to describe "Asian people." It sounded more defensive than an apology. But the kicker was when one of the co-stars noticed TWO ASIANS in the crowd. Rosie then asked whether the "ching chong" bit offended them, and they said it did not. It's so damn predictable to turn to a "legitimate source" (i.e., Asians) to demonstrate that the slur wasn't all that bad. That is not the point. The point is that she and others on the cast should've known better not to do it. If you're not going to use homophobic slurs on air, then you better not use any others. But props to The Soup for catching and turning it on it's head. Now that was funny.

Her apology:

[UPDATE: Apparently the clip is not available from YouTube anymore.]

And The Soup's version of it:

WTF Rosie?!?

Just because you are a "liberal" and/or identify with a minority that doesn't excuse you from being an intolerant/racist git towards another. That is hypocrisy plain and simple. And by the way, thanks Rosie for reinscribing a denigrating stereotype on national television. As if we needed your help in maintaing racial prejudice.

Here's the original clip and a pretty decent response: