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

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

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

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

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

Read it for yourself.

Wow.

Tis a low ball to insinuate anything via someone's family name...

Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group commented (criticized, no need for euphemism on my own blog) on Obama's latest speech to the Muslim world at the Cairo University on June 4.

Granted that most of Ms. Parker's columns leave me fuming, I have learned to agree to disagree with her and her fans. There is no arguing in politics and religions. That's why when people get together, they watch sports. (Or so I assume. We don't watch sports in our house, and therefore we are not popular on our block... Oh, that and the fact I have an Obama sticker on my car...)

I can see her point in "Obama's Muslim campaign": that Obama in his speech to the Muslims quoted too many lines from the Qur'an and criticized the errors in the U.S. history just a tad too much to make audience back at home squirm uncomfortably. But here is the sentence that really got my attention, not in a positive way:

"To delegitimize the man whose name rhymes with his, Obama had only to show up and not be George W. Bush."

1. Yes, I tend to obsess over one tree and ignore the forest. I get to do this in my personal life. So there.

2. I am not about to defend W.

What I have an issue with is this insinuation of a relation between Obama and Osama, "the man whose name rhymes with his."

Come on! Give me a break!

We are guilty by association of family names now? Great! Remember during World War II when all the Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to the concentration camps? (Oh, I am sorry, RELOCATION CAMPS they were called), many non-Japanese Asians in the U.S. hastily proclaimed their non-Japanese-sounding surnames for fear of guilt by association of family names. So we are going back to that now?

Here is my advice for all the non-mainstream citizens in this multicultural only in theory society, name your kid Brandon and Emily, and if you can, change your name to something less foreign sounding. For the sake of your children, in case they run for important public office one day.

Although the definition of "Foreign" is arguably faulty here. Basically anything that does not invoke a Western heritage...

Utah Senator Butt-Arse calls Gays immoral. And polygamy is? Where is the Big Love?

No flaming please.  I didn't mean to compare Gays to Polygamists.  But if Utah Senator Chris Butt-Ars (A-ha!) has his right to speak what is on his mind, to spout garbage based on stereotypes and gross generalization and nothing else, despite being an elected public official, then I have the right to generalize the State of Utah as still the hotbed of polygamy, and then to generalize polygamy as the Pantheon of immorality. 

 

Hey, it is a free country, right?  Butt-Ars's Republican colleagues in the Senate seem to believe so.

 

Here is the gist:

 

In an interview for a documentary film, "Butt-Ars called gays 'the greatest threat to America' and likened them to Muslim radicals. He said homosexuals lack any morals and want special rights.  'It's the beginning of the end,' Buttars said. 'Oh, it's worse than that. Sure. Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide.'"

 

Butt-ars has been stripped of his chairmanships by Senate Republicans after a closed-door meeting brought about by the outcry, and his Republican colleagues were outraged and they are standing behind him.  (I wish I had loyal friends like these...)  Butt-ars likewise refused to apologize, but rather relished the pride of taking a stand for his own beliefs.  (Imagine: what if we all had showed respect for the slave owners who took the stand for their own beliefs?  Hmmm...)

 

Below is the lengthy quote from The Salt Lake Tribune because you simply cannot make this stuff up! 

 

"I want the citizens of Utah to know that the Utah Senate stands behind Senator Buttars right to speak, we stand behind him as one of our colleagues and his right to serve this state," said Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville. "He is a senator who represents the point of view of many of his constituents and many of ours. We agree with many of the things he said. . . . We stand four square behind his right [to say what he wants]."

Buttars, R-West Jordan, said he "totally" disagrees with his removal from the panel. In a statement he plans to post on the Senate's Web page, he said the action was an attempt to "shy away from controversy." And, he said, he would not apologize for his comments.

"I don't have anything to apologize for," he said.

"When it comes right down to it," Buttars said in his statement, "I would rather be censured for doing what I think is right, than be honored by my colleagues for bowing to the pressure of a special-interest group that has been allowed to act with impunity."

 

Wow.  Are you kidding me?  Is this for real?  In this day and age?  I must be incredibly naive to be astounded by these news lately so easily.   

 

This and the Cartoon from the New York Post yesterday are reminders that we should not be complacent about "How far we have come along" despite the victory of having elected the first African American POTUS.  Baby, we've still got a long way to go...

The New York Post chimp cartoon - Not at all funny no matter how you look at it...

New controversy alert! February is not over yet, and as many of us have held our breath fearfully awaited, the FIRST racist cartoon about our FIRST Black Prez is out! My fellow Americans, once again, you do not disappoint...

So the unfortunate New York Post published this cartoon today and also on its website.

Take a deep breath, and be honest with yourself: what is your first reaction?




Perhaps only a kid who is not yet aware of racial stereotypes, historical racial relationships, and cultural symbols embedded in the American Psyche would not see it, but most of us do:

OMG! Are they kidding me? Is it what I think it is? Is the cartoonist referring to President Obama as a chimp shot dead? In this day and age? Is there irony in this? A sarcasm attacking racism or something but I simply cannot decipher it somehow?

Because:

1. Our Prez is Black. There is no any other way of saying it. He is.

2. The stimulus bill is his first legislative effort (and I thank him for it!!) and there are a lot of rumblings and grumblings about it

3. The cops as pictured are White. There is no any other way of saying it. They are.

Please tell me there is more to this cartoon. It has got to be. It is the 21st century, people, and we just elected our first Black President. Many are even thinking of abolishing the African American History Month because it does not seem like we need it any more.

Ha ha. Not funny. I want to cry.


The trusted Rev. Al Sharpton came out immediately and protested loudly:

"The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this when in the cartoon they have police saying after shooting a chimpanzee that "Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill."

"Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"

One can argue that you are being a racist yourself if any time a monkey is depicted, you immediately think of the signal = signified : monkey = African Americans

Isn't that a racist way of perceiving the world? Aren't you walking around with some colored glasses?

Well, let's be honest with ourselves. We all are aware of each other's external appearances. There is no escaping it. And we are all aware of the deep-seated stereotypes about each other permeated throughout our collective cultural references. There is no escaping that either. (I was not born in this country, and I have been taught to be aware of these in the years I have been in the U.S. mostly just by watching TV shows and movies, and trying to understand what the significance is in a lot of the cultural and social references...)

Because of this, the statement by New York Post's Editor-in-Chief defending the cartoon seems rather weak:

"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Is Col Allan from Mars? Born two centuries ago? There is simply no excuse.

Yes, I get his argument: the cartoon allegedly refers to the "breaking story" about the Chimp shot dead in Stamford, CT, which happens to be the headline story in NY Post.

(Is there any wonder nobody really reads it? Asking a question such as "Why did the chimp go berzerk?" is just plain stupid. Why? I'll tell you why: he was a chimp. If you are going to keep a chimp as a pet in the city and take him on walks in busy streets, yeah, you bet your ass he's going to go berzerk. If not today, some day!)

But this requires the readers to:

1. Know about the chimp story (which I had no inkling of since it has not been twittered about...)

2. Immediately infers the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill" as a comment on the stimulus being so dumb that "even a monkey can write it."

IF I have to jump two steps ahead in order to laugh at a cartoon, then the cartoon is NOT funny to begin with. Rule of thumb for telling a joke: If you have to explain it, it is NOT good. So DON'T TELL IT!

I cannot help but have this gnawing feeling that perhaps this is exactly what they wanted: getting us pissed. Perhaps, New York Post has won since I am sure their website is getting the record high number of hits, ever.

Gawker.com collected 10 cartoons by Sean Delonas. Make your own judgement.

Americans pay $650 billion more for health care than comparable countries...

It is technically $643 billion, the additional amount Americans paid for health care in 2006 compared to the other countries with comparable wealth and health, according to the research article "Why Americans Pay More for Health Care?" in the December 2008 issue of the venerable McKinsey Quarterly. (Ok, probably not as venerable as The Harvard Business Review, but still a good thing to be inserted into your conversation with your interviewers...)

Please don't freak out: this article is actually quite easy to follow and it is written in plain English, so there is no "Huh? WTF are they talking about?" or "Do they know what they themselves are saying?" moment. I promise. In addition, there are a lot of charts. We love charts! And these charts actually say something and make sense. Bonus.

Some quick takeaways:

Countries spend more on health care as they become wealthier.

The main source of this gap of $650 billion? Outpatient care. "Outpatient care is by far the largest and fastest-growing part of it, accounting for $436 billion, or two-thirds of the $650 billion figure. The cost of drugs and the cost of health care administration and insurance (all nonmedical costs incurred by health care payers) account for an additional $98 billion and $91 billion, respectively, in extra spending."

"Today, the US system delivers 65 percent of all care in outpatient contexts, up from 43 percent in 1980."

Although in theory this shift should have cut the cost down, in reality the overall cost went up because of the high utilization rate of outpatient care. However, it is not because we go to see the doctors a lot more often, rather, the average costs per visit has gone up and the number of expensive tests, such as MRIs and CT scans, are performed more frequently.

The root cause of this? Insurance and low out-of-pocket expense.

There is no check in place to guard the price increase. On the contrary, seeing a doctor may be like buying a high-end purse -- if it is expensive, it must be good. And vice versa.

The article concludes thus, "In the United States, the 'average' consumer of health care pays for only 12 percent of its total cost directly out of pocket (down from 47 percent in 1960), as well as for 25 percent of health care insurance premiums, a share that has stayed relatively constant for the last decade. Well-insured patients who bear little, if any, of the cost of their treatment have no incentive to be value-conscious health care consumers."

This sounds familiar but now we have the numbers to back up our suspicions: in order for any health care reform to work and stick, it is important that we carry out the education and cultivation of a new generation of patients that are "value conscious" and treat the burden of health care, even when they do not have to pay for it DIRECTLY, as ultimately their own INDIRECT cross to bear.

Obama is in Da House! Day One: Capping pay for White House employees and banning gifts...

Those who are affected, i.e. those whose salaries are more than 100K a year, are probably not too happy about this, but we are thrilled to hear that the man seeks immediately to rule by example.

"All of you are committed to building a more responsible government... Families are tightening their belts and so should Washington," said President Obama to his staff.

The president also signed new executive orders to implement new ethics rules to ban lobbying by current staff after they leave the administration, including a ban on gifts!

Say that again? I cannot believe this. Amen to that!!

It's January 6, do you know who your Senator is?

Finally.  Dare I say "Finally"?  Al Franken finally was given enough evidence to declare victory, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, based on a 225-vote lead.  Norm Coleman of course immediately indicated, "I am going to SUE!!!"  (Attaboy, like a good old American, that's what I'd do too!) 

 

Please please, let Franken have the chance to run his mouth on the Senate floor.  I cannot wait to hear what he has to say now that he has such an attention-getting mainstream forum, instead of his radio show (and it is NOT even on FM!)

 

I Promise: last post about Dr. Maddow this week...

Follow Rachel Maddow on Twitter!

Oh, oh, oh, and watch this old clip (from before we all fell in love with her) showing Maddow's commentary on John Bolton, dubbed as the Worst Diplomat, ever. Brilliantly funny!

Confession time: I have a crush on Rachel Maddow...

and I am not gay!

I think the crush is the kind that you have for an extremely intelligent and articulate person who you know you will never be able to win a debate against, so you simply capitulate and give her all your admiration, starry eyes and all.

So far, I have only seen her shows twice since we do not have cable at home. Now I want it!! Or, I can manage to travel more frequently so I can watch her show while eating a quart of ice cream in the hotel room. (Shhh, don't tell my kids!) I have never seen a cable news show where I laugh out loud almost through the entire show. He wry sense of humor is superb. Simply divine.

It is so strange: I have never even heard of her before until one day, she was a guest on Conan O'Brien. (Conan is another one of my favorites, deceivingly simple and anti-intellectual, yet I believe that there are lots of well-functioning brain cells under that coif of his...) Even just chit chatting, she exudes intellect, wittiness, and grace. (I know, "grace" is an odd word of choice to describe a butch lesbian... But that's exactly the word came to mind when I saw her...)

Am I gushing?

But she also decidedly has that "girl next door" charm. Only that girl has a Doctorate from Oxford and is extremely well versed in world politics and any cultural subject you can throw her way, that you just want to shut up and listen to her, and be entertained.

Below are some of my favorite parts from the New York Magazine article on her published this November:

This well-written article started with Dr. Maddow's 12-second explanation of what Dadaism is to the cable audience (as she was trying to make an analogy between Dadaism and McCain's fixation on Joe the Plumber. Try that at home, I dare you!)

Ever heard of something called Dada?”

Rachel Maddow is trying to make an analogy. It’s mid-October, two weeks before the election, and the MSNBC host is comparing the McCain campaign’s recent fixation on “Joe the Plumber” to the anti-bourgeois cultural movement of the early-twentieth century. But this is prime time, and Maddow first has to define Dadaism in as colloquial a way as possible. This is something of a challenge considering she only has about twelve seconds.

“Deliberately being irrational, rejecting standard assumptions about beauty or organization or logic,” she begins. “It’s an anti-aesthetic statement about the lameness of the status quo … kind of?” She twists her face into a cartoon grimace that morphs into a wide smile. “Why am I trying to explain Dadaism on a cable news show thirteen days from this big, giant, historic, crazy, important election that we’re about to have?” she asks with a self-deprecating laugh, as she recognizes the Dadaishness of her own quest. “Because that’s what I found myself Googling today, in search of a way to make sense of the latest McCain-Palin campaign ad!”

As I was trying to figure out WHY I immediately gravitated towards her show, New York explains on my behalf:

"There’s something about the mix of personal details that is—to a young, educated, left-leaning, cosmopolitan audience—instantly recognizable. As one New York acolyte told me, “She is more like one of my friends than anyone else on television.” And her ratings have been astounding, especially in the coveted 25-to-54-year-old demographic. Maddow averaged a higher rating with that group than Larry King Live for thirteen of the first 25 nights she was on the air, enabling the network to out-rate CNN in that time slot for the first time. It’s an impressive feat, even given the fact that the show started two months before the election when political interest was at a fever pitch."

Here is a Christmas present idea: Joe the Plumber book!

I am never one to abandon people when they are down in their luck. I do genuinely worry about people who enjoyed their 15-minute of fan and then never to be heard/seen again. I want the follow-up news, the updates. I want to make sure that they were not thrown over the wall like a piece of used tissue. I want to know how they are doing, and I wish them well.

William Hung of the American Idol fan: did he go back to school? Did he graduate and get a job? Did he finally land a girlfriend?? Look at him! He's all grown up and spruced up and look quite dashing now!

Bill and Jim, the twin brothers from the Biggest Loser: have they been able to keep the weight down, and are they still liking each other? How about their wives?

So, naturally, I thought about Joe the Plumber amidst the widespread euphoria over the election of Barack Obama. What happened to him? Anything exciting going on? Last I heard he was going into the studio to make a country music album. As luck would have it, I checked and there it is, updated merely 12 hours ago, the news that his book would be out on December 1!

See? He has not been forgotten. And I do hope that Republicans rally to buy Joe's books since they sort of used him for their political purposes, and now it is payback time!

I also hope that Joe sells more copies of his book than the one that's reportedly coming out by Sarah Palin. (Oh, truly, this has got to be the greatest week of 2008 for the American publishing industry!) At least Joe seems to need the extra income more than Miss Thing here. But I guess it really does not matter since they both received (or would) advanced payments at any rate.

And if I have to choose between Sarah's book (May I call you Sarah?) and W's book, I would have to say Sarah. After all that's said about her, she is after all a working mom of five who is a Governor. No mean feat by any measure. I am sure she would have something to say and something to teach us about juggling demanding work and crazy family life. On the other hand, come to think of it, I am curious, and afraid, to find out what W has to say about himself for the past eight years!

My youngest's got a fedora and a cane...

Son: Hey, do you know the name of my cane?

Us: No. What?

Son: John McCain!

(Confession: he was, for the longest time, pro-McCain. There, I said it. He actually cried over this several times pre-election day. His mind was set on McCain because he saw a lot of the commercials by the GOP camp during the 2008 PEK Olympics, and they all said, "My name is John McCain, and I approve this ad!" My son thought it was hilarious, and also McCain looks like a nice grandpa, and who does not like Grandpa??

He begged us so many times to vote for John McCain because, "He would cry if he loses! and I am going to cry too!"

I am happy to report that we did eventually win him over, and he watched the rally at Grand Park on TV with us, excitedly...)

So, how do you explain Roe vs. Wade to a 10-year-old boy??

Am I a bad mom? Sometimes I worry that in an effort to bring up children that are progressive, tolerant, self-aware, and self-reliant, and to make sure that they become "contributing members of a civil society" in the future, I may have pulled a cloud over their childhood. If they are fortunate enough to not to know about "the world out there", who am I to ruin their parade by telling them the "truth"?

So my 10-year-old had to do a research report on this presidential election. One of the projects was to interview a democrat and a republican, ask them this one question: "What do you think a Democrat (or Republican) believes?" I felt bad for putting our loved ones on the spot: voting is a private matter, in my opinion, and sometimes the true reason someone votes for this party vs. the other is for that person's conscience to know, and their conscience only. The people we ended up interviewing over the phone, surprisingly or maybe not so much, gave similar answers with regarding to almost everything: such as "A democrat/Republican believes that the middle class should receive tax reliefs."

The differences we learned from our friends and families are, based on their own subjective opinions of course, "A Republican believes in a smaller government, whereas a Democrat believes in more taxes," and "A Democrat believes in equality in all people and the responsibilities of the government to come to its people's aid when they are in need."

What strikes me the most was the fact that women from both parties see "Roe vs. Wade" as the main dividing line that separates Republicans from Democrats: one mentioned that Republicans believe in the "Right to live", the other, Democrats believe in "Roe vs. Wade". My son, being 10 years old, naturally had no idea what they were talking about, and our friends and families, bless their heart, naturally did not want to go into details.

So, how do you explain Roe vs. Wade to a 10-year-old boy?

This was why I woke up with self-doubt for my ability to be a good mother this morning: I actually gave it a try last night by giving him a general description of what Roe vs. Wade was about. How successful, I am not sure. My son understandably was disturbed by the concept of abortion, which I didn't go into too much detail of course. He does not even know how women become pregnant yet, oh my goodness... {{surge of more self-doubt}} At one point, I could see in his face his regret for supporting the Democratic Party (i.e. Obama in this election: he thinks Obama is the man, and the democrats will bring equality to the society, without me or my husband steering him either way... in fact we were quite puzzled by his interest in this election since we didn't talk about politics in front of the kids until he himself showed interest in the topic... ) And I was upset with the teacher's naivete in giving them the homework assignment: how does one talk about this presidential election, I mean, really talk about it, without getting into a discussion on the two sides over the "Roe vs. Wade" issue? How am I supposed to explain to my 5th grader, who despite his uncanny maturity still hugs stuffed animals at night? I know a lot of people would argue that this is the reason why there shouldn't be abortion allowed, period, if you don't know how to explain such a procedure to a child. This way you don't even need to explain it. To me, this is the reason why the issue of abortion should not be made to hijack the public political debate. It is a personal choice, and yes, I believe that women should have the right to choose. It is ironic to me that Republicans, for all their push for a smaller government, desperately want to extend their control over private matters such as gay marriage and this, and leave public health care issues to strictly between "patients and their care providers"...

What I learned from my 5th grader's homework this weekend...

My 10-year-old came home with a 10-page homework packet last week, a research report on this presidential election. (Let me not start with the fact that the packet is from 1997 and asks for an example of a printed ad in newspaper or magazine. I don't remember the last time I saw any candidate spending their money on a printed ad, at least, not in publications that we read at home, e.g. The Economist...)

Here is what I learned:

1. It is not easy to find out what exactly the Democratic party and the Republican party stand for. We went to both parties' websites and we ended up frustrated and confused. The "party platform" manifestos put out by both parties read so similar: they both use the same vague, generalized statements to show that they are THE party that will watch out for the little guys, the working American families. Both parties believe in education, better teachers, and the freedom for parents to choose the best education for their children. I had to explain to my son that nobody will come right out to say, "Oh, yeah. We are going to raise your taxes, and we are not going to do anything about the education system nor the health care crisis." You just have to read between the lines. Here is one great example from the "Republican Party Platform 2008" document:

"It is not enough to offer only increased access to a system that costs too much and does not work for millions of Americans. The Republican goal is more ambitious: Better health care for lower cost.

First Principle: Do No Harm

How do we ensure that all Americans have the peace of mind that comes from owning high-quality, comprehensive health coverage? The first rule of public policy is the same as with medicine: Do no harm.

We will not put government between patients and their health care providers.

We will not put the system on a path that empowers Washington bureaucrats at the expense of patients."

(by the way, how many people actually read this document? It is entirely fascinating the wordsmith effort that went into this...)

The GOP certainly did not state that they are against "health care for all" since that, on the surface, will certainly provide bad PR and negative sound bites.

2. The symbol for the Democratic Party has been a donkey since the 19th century: it has its origin in Andrew Jackson's campaign in 1828 when he was called a Jackass, and Jackson, true to his larger-than-life persona, adopted the image of the strong-willed donkey for his campaign. The symbols of elephant and donkey were later popularized by Thomas Nast's political cartoons, (in which neither animal was portrayed in a positive light, therefore, it's curious that both parties readily adopted the images!)