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:
If there's one thing I loved about growing up in San Francisco, it's moments like these that makes "The City" so unique and my experience so memorable. :D
For the original link from SF Gate:
Bad Santas: Dozens of wacky Santas partying it up in San Francisco as part of the 13th annual "cheap-suit-Santa'' celebration stormed the Cheesecake Factory atop Macy's at Union Square last weekend.
Brian Foley and his pals were waiting for a table when he noticed a herd of Santas -- estimates range from 30 to hundreds -- coming up the escalator, including one clutching a bullhorn.
And they weren't your garden variety Santas. "They all had gore makeup on -- fake blood on them, like Halloween meets Christmas,'' Foley said. "One had an eyeball popping out of his face.
"They all seemed drunk and happy, and they didn't really care that everyone was staring at them,'' he said.
"They came in full force and just took over,'' said Assistant General Manager Roy Feigenbaum. "They must have been here 15 minutes, parading around, ho-ho-ho-ing.
"Jaws just dropped to the floor, and staff was at a standstill.''
And the Santas weren't the only eye-catchers to show up at the Cheesecake Factory that night.
Two hours later, Gary Coleman came in for dinner.
And no, he wasn't dressed as one of Santa's elves.
One more week and the semester will be finally over! My last class on Thursday ended the same way it started ... with little fanfare. I ended my Tuesday night class by telling my students how much I appreciated their work and committment to the class. I didn't do that with the other section. I simply finished up a few more points about my research, fielded some questions, handed out the final exam, and passed out the evaluations. And that was that.
Tonight I'll have my first batch of finals from my Tuesday night section and another one this Thursday. And then I'll turn in my final grades and that will be the end of it.
If there's one thing I have noticed about students at George Mason University, it's their hospitality and courtesy. Almost all my students referred to me formally as "professor" even though I indicated that it wasn't necessary. When I was teaching in Los Angeles, there would always be someone asking how I should be addressed, or in some cases, students would simply call me by my first name without asking. Not so at GMU. I don't think it's about respecting authority per se, but it seems to be about not being presumptuous. There is a practice of care among these students -- well, my students anyway -- that is markedly distinct from students in Los Angeles.
There's really only three conditions that I demand people to address me formally with my title. First, if it's a formal / public event such as a fundraising dinner for a community organization, or a panel organized by students on campus. Second, I hate it when people bastardize my last name. I can only take that nonsense for so long. And finally, only my enemies address me as "Professor."
... and one more day of class to go. My Tuesday night class ended quite well. I talked about my research on hate violence, how it manifests, it's power, and legislative responses. I was extremely pleased with the overall progress of this section. Afterwards, I handed out my final exam, and talked about how this section made teaching a very meaningful practice for me. And I thanked them for making the semester wonderfully productive. I turned the class over the student to conduct teacher evaluations of me, and stepped outside. Students began to trickle as they left the room and many of them thanked me for a great semester. One in particular said that my class meant everything to him, and he wished he had more opportunities to take classes from me. That certainly made me feel great about what I teach and how I approach the practice of teaching. It was simply an excellent experience.
As for the other section, I'm fairly ambivalent about them. The students are in a program to acclimate freshmen as they transition from high school to college. They have joint classes, share the same residence halls, and are exposed to a "rigorous" liberal arts curriculum. They are selected because they scored slightly higher on the SAT than the average student, but come up short on being in the Honors Program. And there are some great students who actively contribute to the class and the assigned work.
So why the ambivalence? A few of them still have the "high school" mentality. Quite a few it seems. If I was asked to assess their transition, I would say they're stuck in the high school mode. And to be fair, I have to think about what I've done and how I conducted myself in class. I could've created or contributed to an environment where they're still thinking as high school kids because of my friendly and comedic nature. But I look at my Tuesday night section, and I see a huge difference in the quality of the work. I am still the same person, doing what I've always done, and the disparity is quite noticeable.
I think it's the air of entitlement among these students that bugs me quite a bit. That because they're in this program, they seem to think they are smarter than everyone else. But when I read their work, and listen to their discussions, I find them to be fairly average. I had high expectations for this set of students because they were affiliated with this program for good reason. But it's clear that either I set them too high, or they're just not up to task.
Whatever. The semester is almost over and I'm planning to make a push to finish my last chapter. So the sooner this is over, the quicker I can get back to writing.
This is weird. This "search engine" was forwarded to me by a friend called MsDewey.com. Like I said it's a search engine ... I think. But loading the flash introduction is abysmally slow, and searching for your topics is painfully slower. The results are difficult to read and it's not an expansive list of items unlike google or yahoo. As a matter of fact, all I seem to get are hits from Wikipedia or Amazon.com. After all, it's made by Microsoft so I'm not expecting the best in quality or efficiency.
So what makes Ms. Dewey interesting then? Well it's Ms. Dewey herself, played by actress Janina Gavanka. It's a human, and a very attractive, female interface. She is fully animated, responds to the results of your search, and engages in her own chatter when idle. Here she looks bored, smiles, and fidgets behind the counter and sometimes she says, "Hellloooooo? Type something here!" It's humorous and at other times it's a joke at your expense such as, "Somebody needs to get a hobby. Like, say, something interesting." On a whim, I typed in her name and she says one of the most funniest moments of the site itself, "Janina Gavanka, now that is talent!"
So technically it sucks as a search engine. But it's a different way of representing a search engine where it is personified, a "human" element driving the interface. That is interesting to me because we've been saturated with the idea that computers are personified from the ship's computer voice, played by Majel Barrett in Star Trek: The Next Generation, to the fully interactive library interface of Vox, played by Orlando Jones in The Time Machine (2002). So this site is a fascinating innovation of representation, but I wouldn't call it breakthrough for search engines.
Ms. Dewey's specific racial and gender identity is also interesting. It's no surprise that the interface is feminine in order to conjure up a sense of comfortability and warmth to users. Feminine representations as an animated subject or even a voice is more inviting. But the multiethnic dimension of Ms. Dewey is
Yikes! I can't believe it's already December!
Not good. Not good at all. Final exams are around the corner for my students and I need to finish my chapter. I've read quite a few court cases from Texas v. Johnson (1989) to Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in trying to understand the precedent and legal history behind Virginia v. Black (2003) which is to be the subject of my last chapter. But in reading one case I come up with a few more to look up, and not to mention I've accumulated over two dozen more law articles to read. I think I'm in danger of following up on too many tangents and not knowing when to stop. The funny thing is that moment of incoherence is when I should stop reading and start writing as a way to define/refine the parameters of my argument for the chapter. If after writing, the argument still feels weak, then start reading up again.
Rinse and repeat for consistency and flavor.
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/.
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.
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
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.
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:
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
