How Nordstrom honors the Asian Pacific American Heritage Month...

First of all, for all of ya who are uninitiated: May is designated by the U.S. Congress as the Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. Don't fret if you didn't know until now. The first week of May is actually Asian Pacific American Heritage WEEK. Between the Swine Flu and the Oprah-KFC debacle (Seriously, folks. How much does it cost to just pay for those grilled chicken? They look extremely unappetizing to me anyway...), I don't think the mainstream media even remembered. So, you are forgiven.

Secondly, I promise I will not get on my soap box. There are many books/articles/websites out there if you are interested in reading about stereotypes, underrepresentation, Fu Man Chu, Lotus Blossoms vs. Dragon Ladies, blah blah blah. (That would be me preaching to the choir - the conundrum is if you are, you would have known already. If you don't care, you are not going to check it out anyway...) Yup. Otherwise known to the "mainstream" society as, cough cough, "whining"... I say that because the common comment, from the "mainstream" society, to the critics of stereotypes is, "It's just a joke. YOU PEOPLE have no sense of humor!"

"You people". I wince every time I read or hear it. In real life. In the movie, Tropic Thunder, it was hilarious how they played with it.

Anyway, I digress.

So in honor of the Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, Nordstrom is hawking designer t-shirts by, you guessed it! Asian American designers. Anna Sui and Koi Suwannagate. YES! Represent, girls! (I just have to ask: Was the ubiquitous Vera Wang too busy or too expensive?) Don't get me wrong. These are extremely gorgeous tees, at $60 a pop. And the profits will go to the scholarship fund for OCA, an organization dedicated to advancing the cause for Asian Americans.

I am sure Nordstrom's efforts are appreciated but I am quite amused by the irony in this shirt.

Call me nitpicking if you wish. And I assure you, I have a great sense of humor.

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.

Happy Valentine's Day. And here is a necklace to remind you of your big fat behind...

Is it just me. or does not the entire jewelry line based on Jane Seymour's Open Heart design remind anybody else of a buttock?

The first time we saw the commercial on TV, either from Jared or Kay Jewelers, purveyors of cheesy jewelries, my boys cried out, at the same time, "It looks like a butt!" And I had to agree with them.

So nobody at those jewelry stores, when they were just looking at the designs, BEFORE they turned the design into actual goods, saw that and said, "Maybe we should look into something else..." ?

So, maybe it is really just me then.

Latest Poll: Less than 40% of Americans believe in Evolutionism... Wonder whether Canada fares better

as they have more Democrats and Liberals than we do?

This is the latest poll by Gallup this month, in honor of Darwin's 200th birthday, an update from the Economist Daily Chart that I posted a week ago: data for that chart was from 2006, and at that time, less than 50% of the Americans believed in Evolution.... What happened??!! We all collectively took the stupid pill?

Well, I am not sure what an "honor" the result would be. Darwin is probably turning in his grave.

Summary of the survey findings:

"On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they 'believe in the theory of evolution,' while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity."

What bothers me the most, or surprises me the most, is the fact that only 86% of the people holding a postgraduate degree correctly answered the question: "Can you tell me with which scientific theory Charles Darwin is associated?"

One can argue that whether you believe in Evolution is a matter of heart, which is subjective, and should have nothing to do with how many books you have read (esp. if you have been reading all the wrong books... and the definition of "wrong" varies by which side you are on...) But the theory with which Darwin is associated? This is basic knowledge, people! If you cannot answer this question correctly, you should march back to your alma mater and give them back your diploma!

Fewer than 50% Americans believe in the Evolution Theory... How many of the rest believe in aliens?

Numbers (or Bars) speak louder than words. Draw any conclusion based on your own bias and convictions. And don't send me any hate mail, but this visual impact is too much for me to bear. I feel dizzy. Would be interested to see how this affects the government's and Bill Gates' professed belief and vowed actions to improve science standards for education in the U.S.

Seriously, if you have any gripes, sign in to the Economist and post your comment there. As of now, there are 161 comments: obviously this is a topic that is close to home, to people's hearts and brains. (But if you ask me, it is obvious which side has more brains than the other...)

Now that I have a few moments to calm myself down from the initial impact, come to think of it, the number is not that surprising considering that this is the land that proudly hosts the Creation Museum as a historical and scientific institution. Let's be thankful that we are still behaving better than Turkey! Woohoo!

Courtesy of The Economist's Daily Chart (February 5, 2009)

"It's an Obamanation!" musings on commercialism hitching a ride to the Obama Fever by Salon.com writer

Sarah Hepola, thank you! Her humourous, yet sobering, look into the world of Obama-fever merchandising begins thus,

"The other day, curious how far the Obama madness had spread, I Googled the words 'Obama sex toy.' God bless America: I was not disappointed..."

Go straight to the slide show of some of the choice merchandise being sold if you want some visual evidence on why so glum, or if you just want some good old laugh over "Oh, only in America!" while shaking your head...

As for me, I cannot decide whether to laugh or cry.

It is 6:05 AM. When does the broadcast of the Inauguration start?

"Pay-As-You-Go Airline Charges by the Minute"

This from one of my fav magazines, Wired.

 

When I saw the headline, I thought to myself, "Great, now they have run out of things to charge us for, since they are asking the passengers to pay for everything including tiny bags of pretzels and water, they are going to charge us for sitting on the runway too?"  Luckily for travelers, the upstart airline, Airtime Airlines based in South Africa, will not be charging their passengers more for time spent by the plane idling and waiting in line to take off.  Whew. Now that's a relief.

 

This reminds me of the "Onion-esque" unveiling of the fictional airliner Derrie-Air threatening to charge by individual passenger's weight: "the more you weigh, the more you'll pay. After all, it takes more fuel—more energy—to get more weight from point A to point B..."  (It's a shame really. That would be one urgent reason for me to finally follow my default annual New Year resolution of getting on a diet...)  Only that Airtime Airlines is not fictional, it is a real airline, or, well, almost a real one, as soon as they get their hands on real aircraft that can fly real passengers... 

 

"Taking a cue from the cellphone industry, an upstart South African airline is selling flights by the minute and allowing customers to buy tickets and book flights via text message...  passengers will buy minutes instead of a traditional point-to-point ticket. They can buy a "starter pack" of prepaid minutes and top off their accounts by purchasing more minutes — by text message — at the going rate of 5 Rand (about 53 cents) a minute. Flight times have been mapped out in advance, so sitting on a runway for three hours won't triple the cost of your ticket.

Topping off accounts is where things get interesting. The cost for Airtime minutes can fluctuate, presumably according to promotions and market factors, so topping off becomes an exercise comparable to fuel hedging. Buy a big block of minutes when you think they're at their cheapest and you look smart, unless the price drops again the next day. Then again, it might go up. The price recently rose from 3 Rand to 5 Rand, meaning the cost of a round-trip flight from Durban to Cape Town climbed from about 750 Rand ($81) to 1,250 Rand (about $134). Still that's cheaper than the $200 it would cost on South African Airlines."

Read the entire article here.

NOT from the Onion, surprisingly: Russian analyst predicts USA to break up into 5 countries!

When you first read it in the Drudge Report on November 25, 2008, you probably wondered, "Did I click on the wrong URL?  Is this The Onion?"

"RUSSIAN ANALYST PREDICTS DECLINE AND BREAKUP OF USA"

A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."

The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events....

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong....

 

Somehow this piece of entertaining hypothesizing is picking up momentum and has graced the pages of "large" mainstream news outlets such as USA Today, MSNBC, and most notably the WSJ. 

 

According to Panarin:

1. The "California Republic," including the West Coast states of California, Oregon and Washington, as well as Nevada, Idaho, Utah and Arizona, that Panarin predicts will be part of China or under Chinese influence;
2. "North Central America," including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio, that Panarin predicts will be part of Canada or under Canadian influence;
3. The "Atlantic America," including Kentucky, Tennessee, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, and all of New England, that Panarin predicts may join the EU;
4. The "Texas Republic," including New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida, that Panarin predicts will be part of Mexico or under Mexican influence;
5. The "Offshore U.S.," with Alaska going to Russia and Hawaii going to either Japan or China.

Thanks to the WSJ we also have a visual representation of the breakup. 

 

I can see those who have spent so much money and efforts (and even risked their lives!) to come here and become US citizens become quite upset: what? You mean I could have just stayed where I was?  And now you are telling me that I have to go back and be Canadian (or Chinese or Mexican)? 

 

Note to self: consider moving, before the rush begins. 

The good old "Good Samaritan Law" about to be overturned...

I love California, in general. I love the people there. Liberals. Warm-hearted. Open-minded. Willing to listen to different opinions and considering uncommon alternatives. Thus go the stereotypes. But this is taking the liberal spirit a bit too far.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that good Samaritans can be sued for not being careful when they try to help a victim in an emergency. The case centers on a woman who is suing her co-worker who "dragged" her out of the crashed vehicle like a "rag doll", causing permanent damage to her spinal cord. I feel for the victim, I do. But there will be huge ramification to the society as a whole if we ever allow a rescuer with honest good intentions to ever be sued for trying to save someone else's life.

The Good Samaritan laws, or "The Good Samaritan Doctrine" as it is legally known, is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for "wrongdoing". Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment.

This is insane. So now we have to tell our kids: Yes, of course, if you see someone in danger, you are going to try and help them out. BUT, NOT before you obtain their permission for saving their life first. Actually, that's not good enough, because it could become a "You said, s/he said scenario." You should have them write down their permission and sign before you save their life...

How ridiculous does this sound? The scene from the movie Hancock comes to mind:

Cliche: History repeats itself OR I am really really pissed

Or is it?

From NPR:

"In 1979, Chrysler avoided collapse by getting $1.5 billion in loans from the government. Charles Hyde, professor of history at Wayne State University and author of Riding the Roller Coaster: A History of the Chrysler Corporation, says in return Congress insisted that the company come up with some $2 billion in cost-savings and concessions."

I mean, is it a cliche if history DID repeat itself?

Or maybe not, since it seems that at the last bailout of Chrysler, the Gov. actually came out ahead (to the tune of $500 million). How about this time? People have changed in the last 3 decades. 30 years ago people did not grow up with such a sense of entitlement, corporate greed was not openly a norm, and personal responsibilities were taught and valued.

Fast forward to today. Ok, fine, Tuesday. The Big 3 Automakers' CEOs flew on their own private jets, not ONE, but THREE, to Washington today to make the case for their needing to be rescued. Seriously? You can't make this stuff up.

Here is more of this priceless gem from ABC:

"The CEOs of the big three automakers flew to the nation's capital yesterday in private luxurious jets to make their case to Washington that the auto industry is running out of cash and needs $25 billion in taxpayer money to avoid bankruptcy.

The CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler may have told Congress that they will likely go out of business without a bailout yet that has not stopped them from traveling in style, not even First Class is good enough.

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone."

I am changing my name to Fannie Mae!

Ok, I didn't come up with such a clever title, of course not. The venerable Tom Paxton changed his old song "I am Changing My Name to Chrysler" to fit the current climate. Some things just never change, do they?

Watch Paxton sing this catchy song on YouTube:



Lyrics to the song, in case you feel like a sing-along at your Christmas Party where you serve pea soup and Spam this year.

I AM CHANGING MY NAME TO FANNIE MAE By Tom Paxton

Everybody and his uncle is in debt,
And the bankers and the brokers are upset.
Goldman Sachs’s, Merrill Lynch’s
Saw themselves as lead-pipe cinches,
Now they’ve landed in the biggest screw-up yet.
Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and all their kind
Have turned out to be the blind leading the blind.
They are clearly the nit-wittest
In survival of the fittest––
Let me modestly say what I have in mind

Chorus:
I am changing my name to Fannie Mae;
I am changing it to AIG.On this bail-out I am betting;
Just a piece of what they’re getting,
Would be perfectly acceptable to me.
I am changing my name to Freddie Mac;
I am leaving for that great receiving line.
I’ll be waiting when they hand out
Seven hundred million grand out––
That’s when I’ll get mine.
Since the first amphibian crawled out of the slime,
We’ve been struggling in an unrelenting climb.
We were hardly up and walking
Before money started talking
And it said that failure was the only crime.
If you really screwed things up, then you were through;
Now––surprise!––there is a different point of view.
All that crazy rooty-tootin’
And that golden parachutin’
Means that someone’s making millions––just not you! (to chorus)

©2008 Pax Music, ASCAP

(Credit to my venerable co-worker for alerting me to this song)

I dig "Really? Really??" "Are you serious?!"

I don't understand why there was not more bluhaha around the AIG retreat. For those of you who haven't heard of it, AIG brought all their top executives to St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, Calif for a week-long retreat. The $443,000 tab includes $23K for the Spa. Here is the breakdown for a vacation of the lifetime:

(See Washingtonpost.com for the full report)

Washingtonpost.com

Most of the attendees at the convention between Sept. 22 and Sept. 30 stayed in premium "pool view" rooms at the 400-room hotel, with 47-inch LCD TVs and marble bathrooms furnished with a "Deep Roman" bath and shower. The rate: $375 per night.

The group also booked 17 "ocean view" rooms, at $425 each, and one "presidential suite," discounted from its usual $3,200 a night to $1,600.

Another $9,982 was spent on food and drinks at the StoneHill Tavern, the Monarch Bayclub, in-room dining and the lobby lounge; $6,939 on golf; $1,488 at the Vogue Salon; and $1,450 on no-show and cancellation fees.

An invoice dated Oct. 3 said AIG still owed the resort $40,543 in charges after a $402,701 deposit. The itemized bill does not show what executives specifically ordered at the spa and salon, but a look at the hotel's spa menu shows 75-minute "intuitive massages" at $215 a pop (most of the executives spent $210 each for a spa treatment on Sept. 25) and men's and women's haircuts and styles starting at $50 and $75, respectively. Executives also spent $147,302 on banquets at the hotel and $23,380 at the Spa Gaucin, which features three-story waterfalls..."

The kick is, they went on the retreat IMMEDIATELY AFTER receiving the Fed's Bailout package of $85 Billion.

Talk about reinforcing bad behaviours! And I got dirty looks from the storeckerk when I bought my child a lollipop after he threw a tantrum???

I cannot believe that there were not more reports on this. Weren't people outraged? I surely am. I am utterly disgusted. Are people simply tired? Or have we been so thoroughly disgusted that we simply don't want to talk about it any more? This fall has been great for SNL. You cannot make these stories and characters up. Most people weren't alerted of this outrage until they saw the Weekly Update skit on SNL. (Fastforward to the 2:15 mark if you must...)



If I had written a story like AIG and the beyond-comprehension shamelessness in my creative writing class, I would have been criticized for being contrive, buying into the archetype, for catering to cliches. This is real life! In one's wildest creative dream, one would never have been able to conjure up a character such as Sarah Palin. I wonder whether people on SNL should consider voting for Republican this time to make sure that Palin stays in the limelight for four more years. With her in the White House, they can probably get rid of half of their writing staff and simply replay whatever is going on in real life.

I am beyond outraged. I am actually for once, speechless.