Would You Rather Move Forward, or Would You Rather be "Right?" by Sheila Coleman-Castells

This guest post is written by Sheila Coleman-Castells. Sheila is bay area by birth, and West Virginia choice. She is a "Washington Insider" who, in this post shares her views on how we move forward under Trump. This post originally appeared as a Facebook status and is reposted with permission.

I am a child of the Civil Rights Movement, and I was born in Berkeley, CA. My grandfather was one of MLK's sidemen in CA, raising money from Hollywood and rich Californians and working on social projects such as the Peralta Colleges. He taught us some important things, but he paved the way for us to be insiders. Why? Because while ya'll protest and throw rocks and pebbles (so helpful, and we appreciate it), some of us have to put on that uncomfortable-ass power suit (complete with spanx), and walk the halls of the legislatures and the governor's mansions and Congress and negotiate with these criminals so that we can get actual legislation passed so that you can have the rights that you think you protested for. In reality, you didn't get shit. Real movements work because there are people working inside AND outside to make thing come to pass. On Friday, people went to airports and protested. Great...excellent. But THAT NIGHT, the ACLU left their kids' basketball games, or came out of the garden, took off their jeans, took a shower, put on that suit and went to work in the courts.

Insiders.

So, I so appreciate the pipe dreams, but protests and sit-ins alone don't do shit. It takes lawyers, lobbyists (like me) and other "insiders" to bail your ass out of jail and actually write the briefs and the legislation and all that you want. Activists are great. Feel good all you want. But legal action and laws are better. That's what me, and people like me do.

There have been a lot of protests since Ferguson, has anything really changed? -ed. 

Interestingly enough, I get beat up all the time for not being "progressive" enough. 

Yes, Me. Madame Blue. I eat blue, sleep blue, bleed blue, but because I am pragmatic and feel that we must work with what we have, I am a "traitor" to some (mostly those who are "armchair politicians" who have never, ever worked in politics in their lives). I had a battle with one of these progressive partisans (hint: He was a disaffected Bernie supporter) just yesterday. There are people who believe that what they WANT should be what IS. Well, I WANT a beach house in Martinique, but I ain't got one, and standing out in the 14 inches of snow in my yard with a bikini is going to make me REAL damn blue, not to mention a candidate for a one-way trip to the funny farm.

Well, some of us work in the real world of "realpolitik", and know that we need to start where we are, not where we "ought" to be or where we "want" to be. One of the first things we need to do is to understand those we've left behind. There isn't a Whole Foods within 150 miles of me, and not one in the whole state of West Virginia. That ought to tell you something about West Virginia, and it is not that people cannot afford that food. We have a Range Rover dealer in Morgantown where a Whole Foods might just do nicely, so such a market exists. What does not exist is the type of elite foodism that comes with a Whole Foods, not to mention that this chain wouldn't stoop to open a store here because there is no "cachet" to being in West Virginia for them.

And there is the rub. West Virginians voted for Trump in droves for many reasons, some overlapping, others not. But here is the one that they ALL would say: The Democratic Party doesn't speak for, or to them anymore. The Democratic Party isn't the party of the working man and woman. The Democratic Party isn't the party of the person of faith. The Democratic Party isn't the party of families and traditional American values. The Democratic Party doesn't care about THEM.

And listening to my Blue Brothers and Sisters, I might see where they are coming from, although I would disagree that we can't speak to them.

I cannot tell you how many Dems I know who have never gotten their hands dirty in a job, or stood on their feet all day to make a dollar. These are the same folks that decry me working for a nationally prominent, mostly Republican, trade association (although my principal job is to fight for Energy Efficiency, a very Blue ideal) where the men and women swing hammers and breathe in sawdust each day. My favorite group are the Dems who hate religion (Bill Maher is their patron saint), and think that anyone who believes in God is an idiot (but who will protest to save Muslims, like last week). So, how can you think that Christians are stupid but Muslims need saving? People of faith are one and the same, and most just want to practice that faith in peace. Yes, there are both Christofascists and Radical Islamists, and both are a tiny majority of the whole. But many of my Democratic friends dislike religion and religious people, and sing that hater hymn loud and clear; then they scratch their heads and tell me that they don't understand why the "fly-over states" (hint: I live in one) go Republican when the GOP could hardly care less about them? Well, the GOP sings from their hymnbook (whether they actually believe and practice it or not), and we ain't on the same page.

My dears, perception is reality, and reality is in short supply with many of us Democrats. I can't tell the GOP what it should be, nor do I care. But I have to tell the Dems what THEY need to be. They need to move back toward the center-left, and leave the margins for the shouters and the fanatics if they want to win in 2018 and beyond. Progressive values are great, as long as they include tolerance for all perspectives and all orientations. We have forgotten the working man and woman, and we have nothing to say to them. How do you get your child to college when you, yourself haven't been? Why is it bad to work with your hands and your back? We educators have had to tackle that beast for years, and we have experience in empowering parents to help their kids where they are, not just held up a lofty goal that was unattainable. You walk before you run. Where feeling disempowered about influencing their children's future is concerned, I have seen more similarity with inner city minority parents and rural majority parents. Both groups feel powerless. So let us help them where they are, not berate them for being where they are.

People of faith, many faiths, do wonderful things. Some do horrible things, but you would not dare judge all Black or Gay people by their least common denominator. Why do we Blue folks often do that with religion? Leave your own personal baggage with church or temple at the door, and see the big picture. Stop demonizing people who choose to believe in a god. That is a sure way to alienate people every day if the week. Look at the bigger picture: There are people who are fed, clothed, housed, soothed, sobered up, and educated by communities of faith every day of the year. Not everything about faith is bad, and if you don't choose it, fine. Most of us aren't trying to get you to join our congregation or our parish. But for those who do, it is NOT because we are intellectually inferior or doubt science. "Religious" is not a synonym for "stupid". If I hear that crap one more time, some of you might be meeting a God you don't believe in right quick. Bigotry is bigotry...why is racial bigotry worse that religious bigotry? After this weekend, many have said that it is not. So why say or do this on the regular?

Read this article, then rethink. I was told something very important when I was young that has stuck with me for many years: Would you rather move forward with you goals, or would you rather be "right?" Sometimes, it is better to work together and form consensus with those with whom you have things in common rather than be in that lofty tower of righteousness and all alone. Trump exists because we pushed anyone who didn't believe in our candidate in a corner and failed to speak to them (as well the fact that the GOP were more effective in getting their message to not only their base, but those on the fence). Not all Trump voters are racist idiots. Many are scared and desperate for what they perceive to be stability. Can we reclaim them? Can we reclaim the fence?

We can, but only if we start embracing ALL of us. People like me who love being a Mom and a part of a family, who are somewhat traditional, who believe that my faith makes me much of whom I am, who appreciate all levels of education and have both common sense and empirical knowledge. Us who have no issue with Boy Scouts don't think that is corny or old-fashioned, and actually do want to know how we are going to pay for stuff in our society. Us who embrace work and a leg up for the poor and downtrodden, and want equality for all people. Why can't I have that, and why is that not "progressive?"

Let's win in 2018. Let us reclaim the center and stop being idiots. The Tea Party were a bunch of jerks. Are we becoming the HERBAL Tea Party? If so, jerks apply within.

Cop Out

OK, I know this is old news but it has become one of the sticking points of my marriage, Dumbledore the made up wizard character in the Harry Potter series was "outed" by author J.K. Rowling about two years ago. My wife was thrilled. Every gay rights minded Harry Potter fan I know was thrilled. I was not. Honestly I see it as a stunt. First off Dumbledore's sexuality is in no way germane to the books. It simply doesn't enter in to it. second why "out" him now? What's the point? This is no great symbol for gay rights or anything else. It's complete BS.

Rowling went on to say, "If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!" I doubt that very much. Cynically I think she was looking for a secondary boost in sales or publicity. If we can posthumously out Dumbledore and have people cheer why not other pretend people? Why not Captain Ahab? Hey, Atticus finch was gay. Does that do anything for ya? It doesn't matter if Dumbledore or Snape or Moaning Myrtle were gay. It's not a win for social justice. It's nothing. If it were going to be a win for anything important it would have been revealed in the books. I think the following quote sums it up nicely.

Ross Douthat of The Atlantic Monthly:

"It seems like a case of J.K. Rowling trying to retroactively bestow a level of adult complexity on her characters that they don’t possess on the printed page. A writer confident in her powers wouldn’t feel the need to announce details like this after the fact."

In an interview with Harry Potter fan site The Leaky Cauldron GLAAD spokesman Sean Lund sees the Dumbledore revelation as a good thing. You can read the interview but I'm not convinced.

Having openly gay characters in books and other media is important for gay rights. Hopefully having visible gay characters helps normalize homosexuality for the audience. But "outing" a fictional person after the character has been killed off after the final volume of the series has been released is baloney. It's a meaningless gesture signifying nothing.

Blah! to you J.K. Rowling. You're no pioneer, no activist.

Belated Commentary “Everyone’s a little bit _____-ist, sometimes.”

Carl Everett of the Chicago White Sox, who has previously stated that he doesn’t believe that dinosaurs existed because they’re not mentioned in the bible, has come out with his opinion on gay marriage. In this month’s issue of Maxim magazine Everett says something to the effect of, “I’ve had gay teammates and I’ve accepted them, but being gay isn’t right. I don’t believe in gay marriage, it isn’t right.” He goes on to reveal that two women cannot make a baby, nor can two men. This morning on Mike & Mike in the Morning on ESPN radio Mike Greenberg suggested that this comment by Everett will spark “a firestorm of controversy.” It shouldn’t. Everett’s comments should be taken up to the point of “I’ve accepted them” and end there. As far as his opinion of gay marriage, or the validity of homosexual romance he is entitled to his opinion; even if he’s wrong.

Listening to Greenberg read Everett’s statement on air I got the impression that Everett was clearly stating his belief rather than attempting to influence people or incite debate. I don’t agree with Everett’s remarks but the fact that he is willing to accept gay people regardless of his personal opinion is enough for me. After all, we all have our own prejudices (cue Avenue Q soundtrack here). I am not for illegal immigration. I’ll never vote for harsher immigration laws, or denial of services to immigrants regardless of their legal status. Equality and justice for all doesn’t mean we all have to like each other. There will always be groups of people that we have some dislike for. As long as we don’t allow our prejudice to inform our treatment of people, or God forbid our public policy, it doesn’t matter what we think behind our eyes.

Ewoks are not Ethiopian. They’re Iraqi.

OK, they’re neither. One of the lasting memories of childhood is an argument between my mom and her boyfriend a couple of years after Return of the Jedi. The argument was about whether or not Ewoks were derogatory African stereotypes. My mother took the position that they were simply annoying little teddy bears created to sell merchandise to eight-year-olds. This led to one of the more vicious political arguments I have ever witnessed including during my recent trip to the senate.

Now the Ewok argument is being played out on a larger scale as republican leaders attempt to get people to boycott "Revenge of the Sith" due to its alleged anti-Bush bias. Among other things republicans point to Darth Vader’s line “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.” As invoking Bush’s “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Republicans have also pointed to the films apparent criticism of the war in Iraq.

For crying out loud people get a grip! People have been trying to find hidden messages in Star Wars films for too long. Sure, Lucas borrowed from eastern philosophy and Christianity in order to shape his epic. Sure, there are allusions to other famous stories. Yes, the films depict an amalgam of classic themes on the human condition. We get it. That’s where it should end. When asked about the republican’s ire Lucas himself issued one of the greatest non-confirmations of my young life saying that the story was written during the Vietnam war, not the current war. This statement at once denies that the movie had any overt bias against the current administration while at the same time using the GOP’s accusations to compare the current war to Vietnam, something most republicans want to avoid. In a sly way Lucas is pointing out what should be obvious to all of us, if the GOP see caricatures of themselves in the behavior of the Sith, who are patterned after a xenophobic administration that perpetrated a failed war, maybe they should take a hint that this a clear case of life imitating art. People need to stop trying to find the hidden political messages in Star Wars. After all, how long has this movie been in post production? Wasn’t some form of “Yer either wi’us ‘r a’gin us” used in films as far back as the 1930s? Isn’t likely that it was written into Bush’s speech because it’s an iconic phrase? So did Lucas play on Bush, or did Bush play on John Wayne? Or did Lucas play on Wayne? Could the line have been written prior to Bush’s speech? Yes, yes, yes and yes. Besides, if Bush says something that childish shouldn’t he be lampooned for it? Or are world politics so simple that the entire issue can be as simple as disagreeing with the war equals wishing death upon American civilians? I for one am not against the war because I’m for the terrorists, but rather because I am for the soldiers, and I am for the people of Iraq.

If republicans are upset about Sith now, imagine if Return of the Jedi were released today. Instead of being worried about comparing Bush to Vader the GOP would be up in arms about how the Ewoks, with their guerrilla tactics, were a clear nod to the Iraqi insurgents. After all, the Ewoks used IEDs and other primitive weapons to attack checkpoints in an attempt to defeat the most technologically advanced army in the galaxy, a strategy that closely parallels the tactics of the Vietcong who preyed upon the over confidence the US put into it’s military might. If Jedi were released today Lucas might find himself at Gitmo while our boys kept on the look out for insurgents using big logs and hang-gliders armed with giant rocks. Again, if the GOP sees a parallel, in a film, about outer space, written during Vietnam, to the current political climate they might want to take that as a sign. From what I can tell Vietnam is now widely acknowledged as an abject failure. If we have reached the point where even those who are perpetrating this war, the same people who promised that Iraq would “not be another Vietnam,” are starting to see the similarities, maybe they should wake up and realize it’s not a case of liberal bias, it’s reality.

On a related note…

…I’m kind of glad it’s all over. I was born approximately 11 months before Star Wars was released. The films have been a constant for me, as they have been for most American males my age. Like a Red Sox fan under the age of 90 I don’t know life without gossip and speculation surrounding one of the passions of my generation. Still, I’m glad that I’ll never again have to leave a movie theater listening to a depressed, thirty-something, never-been-kissed Star Wars junkie complaining that “this one wasn’t (fill in the blank) compared to the originals.” Never again will I have to fight the urge to shake this person and scream, “Dude! When you saw the originals you were 12 years old!” Here’s the deal gang, these are movies made for kids. Adults loved the originals in part because there had, to that point, never been a movie like Start Wars. Heck, if you’re reading this chances are your parents were in their mid-twenties when Star warts came out which ain't exactly old. The special effects were unlike anything that had been done to that point. The story was different than anything that had been done to that point. Star Wars was different. Now it’s not. Now we get a few special effects vehicles every summer. Now we have an entire channel that does nothing but sci-fi. Not to mention that no matter what, there’s almost nothing Lucas could have made that would live up to the hype and anticipation that preceded Episode I. Nothing will ever live up to a beloved childhood experience it’s stupid to expect it.

That said Episode III was far and away the best of the recent trilogy. The interesting thing is that this film puts the entire series into a different perspective. The original three were about Luke’s journey from Tatooine farm boy to Jedi Knight. Anakin’s transition into Vader shifts the focus of the entire series to his rise, fall, and eventual redemption. Looking at the series as a whole Luke becomes a supporting character. Say what you want about the acting, the directing, the writing or whatever Episode III delivered exactly what Star Wars fans should have wanted. I think John Cloud said it well in a recent issue of Time magazine. Cloud wrtites, “True, Lucas’ beautiful but turgid prequal trilogy has disappointed. But then again I am no longer an awe struck boy secluded in a theater, trying to find himself in that place far far away.

An End to the Age of Texas Justice by DMJ

“At the end of the day, perhaps the best argument against capital punishment may be that it is an issue beyond the limited capacity of government to get things right.”
- Scott Turow, author and former federal prosecutor

In 1981, Donald Beardslee murdered two young women in a complex plot to recoup a debt owed to a drug dealer in Redwood City, Ca.. He was on parole for a 1969 murder at the time. Beardslee was executed by lethal injection at San Quentin State Prison in January, some 20 years after he was convicted and sentenced. But the length of Beardslee’s stay on Death Row does not serve as an endorsement of the appeals process in capital cases. Rather, it points out the utter fallibility of a system so vulnerable to human error and malfeasance that even decades’ worth of legal hearings cannot guarantee that the innocent will not be executed.

This is not to say that Beardslee himself is innocent, though some questions remain about his culpability in the murders. His lawyers unsuccessfully tried to have his conviction thrown out based on new evidence suggesting that Beardslee may have suffered long-term brain damage that affected his ability to distinguish right from wrong. But questions of Beardslee’s guilt or innocence cannot obscure the larger issue: A mountain of evidence shows that innocent people are sentenced to death with alarming frequency in the United States.

There can be no question that innocent people have been condemned to die. Over 100 convicts have been exonerated since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Taken together, those “criminals” served over 1,000 years in prison between their sentencing and exoneration, an average of 9 years each.

The DPIC’s latest report, “Innocence and the Crisis in the American Death Penalty,” is filled with tales of the innocent being sentenced to death. The reasons are myriad – police and prosecutorial misconduct, false or fabricated eyewitness testimony, incompetent or overburdened defense lawyers. Remember that almost all of those exonerated are free solely due to the dogged efforts of a handful of lawyers, students and death penalty opponents. Now imagine what a fully-funded, government-sanctioned effort to investigate capital convictions would find.

An avalanche of evidence also exists showing that the death penalty is fundamentally racist in its application. Under almost any subdivision, ethnic minorities – especially African-Americans – are much more likely than whites to be condemned to die for similar crimes. Black killers of white victims are 16 times more likely to receive a death sentence than white killers of black victims, according to the DPIC. There is no “justice” in a justice system that so blithely murders the innocent and that is so open in its racism.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should follow the courageous lead of former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, once a death penalty supporter himself. By the year 2000, Illinois officials had exonerated more condemned prisoners than they had executed since the state reinstated the death penalty in 1977. Confronted with this shocking exposure of the justice system’s failures, Gov. Ryan commuted the sentences of all condemned prisoners and ordered a special commission to investigate the state’s system of capital punishment. Until the people of California can trust that not one innocent life will be extinguished – a moment that may never come, in my opinion – this state must get out of the business of killing.
8:41 pm est

Hell in a Handbasket

Friday, March 18, 2005


The past few months have been fast and furious in the world of national domestic politics. Having graduated and found a job I've had a lot more time to actually pay attention to it all. Thus I expect BISR to take on a more political bent, at least until opening day. I started writing about Social Security some three odd weeks ago, but the more I learn about it the more I want to say. Thus you'll have to wait for that one. Besides, Social Security will be a long-standing issue so it can wait few more days. So instead I bring you two stupid government decisions from the past week.

The first, and most recent, is the narrow approval given by congress to allow for oil drilling in the Alaskan wild life refuge. The idea behind this is that the US has become too dependant on foreign oil and this drilling will relax crude prices in US markets. Hogwash. The fact of the matter is that we Americans love our cars. While driving along yesterday the radio asked me if the AAA forecast of perpetual high gas prices would change my driving habits. The answer was no. The fact is that we'll get used to it. By the time any oil is found in the refuge and is able to be pumped and barreled we'll all have gotten used to paying 2.50 per gallon. The new oil entering the market won't necessarily cause a downturn in prices. Why should it? If people are willing to pay the price, why lower it when you can make gobs of money by keeping prices where they are? The drilling is based on two factors, and lower gas prices isn't one of them. The first is that Bush is an oil man who favors opening up economic opportunities for the rich (i.e. tax cuts for the top one percent). Second, caribou don't contribute much to the economy.

The second decision was made by the EPA and pertains to mercury emissions. At first glance it looks like a nice little rule that will reduce the amount of mercury emissions allowed by coal-fueled power plants. But there's a catch. With this administration there's always a catch. The catch is this, plants will be allowed to trade on their emission caps. This policy mirrors a similar provision on international emission trading allowed in the Kyoto agreement. So, suppose plant A doesn't want spend the money to upgrade its technology to meet the new standard, but plant B is already under the new emission cap. Plant A can by cap room from plant B and thus continue to release more mercury into the environment than is allowed by the new guidelines. The up shoot is that while nationwide emissions may drop, local emissions could stay the same or even rise. Flipper babies anyone?

The second thing about allowing plants to trade or sell emissions is that it creates a new market for Wall Street. European markets are starting to open up speculation in emission trading and it won't be long before it becomes a significant player in the US as well. The fact is that pollution, or the permission to pollute is becoming a commodity. It's a scary thought in and of itself, but scarier still to think that emissions which have been shown to cause cognitive defects in children will be making someone rich. It isn't hard to imagine a failing plant simply closing down and then selling it's long term pollution rights for the rest of time. The one positive I can see in the emission trading game would be this; if emissions become publicly traded environmental groups could by emissions rights and then refuse to sell them thereby pulling the right to pollute off the market. Of course this strategy could backfire if it becomes successful and drives the prices up to the point where only super rich companies can afford them. Still every little bit counts.

Everything this administration does seems geared towards making money for the rich and killing everyone else. Right now congress is debating cutting Medicaid for the poorest Americans while considering making the tax cuts for the richest permanent. The good people of the world have to take a stand. So I urge you loyal BISR readers, do something, write something, talk to someone, anyone, incite outrage, this crap must end. If it doesn't most of us are doomed.

Texas is Full of Assholes

Today the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty could not be given to minors. The surprise here is that the ruling was needed. 30 of the 50 states have already banned the death penalty for minors. According to NPR News, in 1990 there were 10 countries that allowed the death penalty for minors. Before today there was only one. The case that came before the court was indeed particularly heinous. It was a case involving a then 17 year old male who, during a burglary, was recognized by the home owner, taped her eyes and mouth shut, bound her, drove her to a rail road trestle, and threw her to her death. He was then tried as an adult and given the death penalty. There are several issues involved when considering the issue of whether to execute juveniles who commit particularly violent crimes. First of course is the question of whether state sponsored execution is moral to begin with. This fundamental question is followed by the questions of how we treat minors in other facets of society, and finally, why we prosecute crime and administer the death penalty all.

The big issue, the one that has sparked debate in this country for at least as long as I’ve been alive (and I’m sure longer than that) is whether the death penalty is appropriate at all. My personal views on this issue have changed over time. As a young man I believed in the eye-for-an-eye tenor of the death penalty. After all, it’s only fair right? Later I believed that the death penalty should only be administered if the family of the victim was willing to do the deed themselves. Indeed, I even conceived of a big game style hunt to carry out the task. Later still I believed that death row inmates were a drain on the general society and that they should be executed on the spot, directly after sentencing in order to save taxpayer money that was being wasted keeping them on death row for decades while they used their appeals. Over the last few years I’ve had many debates with many people about the death penalty, and they’ve swayed me. Then I did some research. The thing that really turned me against the death penalty was an episode of the nationally syndicated radio program, “This American Life” which aired on February 11th, 2005. The episode is devoted to the story of a man who, despite forensic evidence, eye witness testimony, and the fact that the police had the real killer in custody, was given the death penalty in the state of New York. The episode, titled “DIY”, can be heard at www.thislife.org. Don’t get me wrong, I think that people who commit violent crime should be dealt with harshly, but the more I read, the more I heard, the more convinced I became that putting the decision to kill in the hands of the government was too inexact a science. When you add in the yokels that make up most juries it becomes too horrible to think about some being sentenced to die by a jury of their peers. I’ll tell you, if I were ever facing the prospect of state sponsored death a jury of my peers is the last thing I’d want. I’d want twelve people way smarter and more compassionate than me. The fact is that people are wrongly convicted all the time. Witnesses lie, cops follow their prejudices or their desire more than they follow evidence, and often testimony or evidence that would clear a defendant are ignored, or never heard. Basically, the death penalty is a bad idea. It doesn’t deter crime, it doesn’t bring closure to families that still have to mourn their loved ones, and there’s just too much risk of getting it horribly wrong.

The idea of applying the death penalty to minors is even more horrific. The US generally recognizes 18 as the age of adulthood. It is the age when you can vote, have sex legally, marry without parental consent and go off to die in Iraq. (Remember, if you’re a male you have to sign up for the draft at 18 if you want to be eligible for federal student aid. Even though they say there isn’t going to be a draft, and even though you’ll likely be exempted from the draft if you’re enrolled in a degree-seeking program. Ignacio, I’m talking to you!) According to both law and custom a person who is 17 years and 364 days old is incapable of making any of these kinds of decisions on their own. So, is there some magic of biology that occurs at 18 that gives one the ability to make calm rational decisions about life? Have any of you ever been 18? Hell, I’m 28 and I’m just now starting to make calm rational decisions. The fact is that no one suddenly becomes responsible at 18. Some people are responsible at birth, others are never responsible no matter how old they get.

So what’s the point? The point is that kids are fucked up. They live in a fucked up world, in a fucked up country, with a fucked up government, elected by a fucked up society. Sure, it’s OK for us adults, we can cope, but remember high school? Now add mixed messages about sex (it sells, but it’s bad), drugs (drugs are BAD! Now take your Zoloft and Ritalin, and Cialis), politics (Marriage is good, but only for a man and a woman, ignore your divorced parents and that happy gay couple down the block who have been together for 20 years), individuality (be yourself, as long as yourself conforms to all school policies), etc. If you think it was bad when you were a kid, it’s way worse now. The point is that there are certain personality disorders that psychiatrists are prohibited from diagnosing in minors because the kids are still developing. The point is that minors are far more likely to be swayed by group interaction. There’s even a term for it, Peer…something. It’s all the rage.

It seems that juveniles being tried as adults is becoming more common as America becomes more fed up with increasing and increasingly violent crimes being perpetrated by minors. I’m not suggesting that a 17 year old doesn’t know that killing is wrong. What I’m suggesting is that the whole idea of it isn’t as developed. I’m horrified at the thought of violence in a way that I wasn’t even a couple of years ago. When I was 17 I could watch anything Hollywood was willing to put on a screen. Now when I hear about people stepping on land mines, or being torn apart by car bombs, of beaten with blunt objects it affects me physically. There’s a reason we don’t let minors do all the things we don’t let minors do, we don’t trust them. We know what it’s like to be a kid and we know that we cannot entrust them with certain responsibilities. So how can we decide to kill them?

In his decent one of the judges noted that we allow minors to make decisions about abortion without parental consent. He asked how we could entrust them such an important decision when at the same time we say that they cannot be held responsible for making the grown up decision to kill. This question is flawed in that it is based on false pretenses. In order for it to be valid we must first accept that abortion is an adult decision. It’s not. Especially in the case of minors abortion is often a way out trouble caused by making an immature decision. We allow minors to do this without their parent’s knowledge because abortion is a traumatic and stressful experience that doesn’t need to be compounded with punishment and possible life long family stress. Second, if are to accept this as a valid question then we must also accept that the decision to kill is a mature decision. It is not. The decision to kill is childish. Those who kill in a fit of rage, or during the commission of another crime do so because they are not mature enough to do otherwise. The kind of anger that leads to spontaneous murder is infantile. Crime, in and of itself is immature. The decision to rob or extort is arrived at because the perpetrator cannot see, or is unwilling to undertake a mature and responsible course in the order to achieve their goals. One could argue that any otherwise rational person who commits homicide could not possibly be mature enough to understand the full effect of their actions. It seems impossible that anyone who fully grasps the impact of committing murder could not possibly go through with it. Conversely, anyone who is capable of fully grasping the effect of murder and still go through with it must be insane, and therefore also ineligible for the death penalty. Indeed, murder can be seen as the ultimate immature crime, the instant removal of a perceived obstacle. If this is the case then how can we condemn to death a juvenile who acts in exactly the role society has cast them in?

This is not to say that society bears sole responsibility in creating child killers, though we should examine why this is much more of a modern phenomenon. Nor should juvenile killers skate simply because they were under age at the commission of their crimes. Anyone who takes a life in cold blood, whether spontaneously, or through conspiracy, should be locked away from society. However, in a nation where we cannot accurately assign the death penalty to adults, how can we even debate assigning it to children?

Remebering Reggie

Reggie White is dead. He died in his sleep of an apparent lung problem on Sunday December 26, 2004. White will be remembered for a lot of things. In Philly he became “The Minister of Defense,” known as much for his spirituality as his ability to crush quarterbacks. In Green Bay he was The Savior, the first mega free agent to show that the frozen tundra was a great place to play. White, as much as Brett Favre, was responsible for returning a title to title-town. I’ll always remember White because he was a pen’s length away from signing with SF and giving us an even greater dynasty. With White on the edge we may well have beaten the Cowboys in ’93. In my mind’s eye I can see Troy Aikman getting pummeled just as he releases what in real life was a 70-yard catch and run by Alvin Harper that all but ended that game. I’ll always remember the year White injured his shoulder and continued to play with his arm strapped to his chest. Playing this way for several games, I remember watching him pick up a Carolina OT and throw him aside with one arm en route to a sack. When White retired he did so as the NFL’s all-time sack leader*. Most of the coverage of White’s death lauds his actions on the field. ESPN and others have trotted out writers, broadcasters and former players to talk about how great Reggie was as a man, and as a leader in his community. I, however, will always remember White for something else. For something that has remained as buried in the days after White’s death as ketchup-as-a-vegetable and “trickle down economics” were after Regan kicked.

To me, and for many of my friends White will be remembered most for remarks he made to the Wisconsin state legislature on March 25, 1998. These remarks, though shocking, were mostly laughed off because Reggie seemed like a Zealot, a caricature of the Southern Minister. Here are Excerpts of White’s comments that day.

“We always should look at the situation and ask ourselves a question. Why did god create us differently? Why did god make me black and you white? Why did god make the next guy Korean and the next guy Asian and the other guy Hispanic? Why did god create the Indians?

Well, it's interesting to me to know why now. When you look at the black race, black people are very gifted in what we call worship and celebration. A lot of us like to dance, and if you go to black churches, you see people jumping up and down, because they really get into it.

White people were blessed with the gift of structure and organization. You guys do a good job of building businesses and things of that nature and you know how to tap into money pretty much better than a lot of people do around the world.

Hispanics are gifted in family structure. You can see a Hispanic person and they can put 20 or 30 people in one home. They were gifted in the family structure.

When you look at the Asians, the Asian is very gifted in creation, creativity and inventions. If you go to Japan or any Asian country, they can turn a television into a watch. They're very creative. And you look at the Indians, they have been very gifted in the spirituality.

When you put all of that together, guess what it makes. It forms a complete image of god. God made us different because he was trying to create himself. He was trying to form himself, and then we got kind of knuckleheaded and kind of pushed everything aside.

As America has permitted homosexuality to establish itself as an alternate lifestyle, it is also reeling from the frightening spread of sexually transmitted disease. Sin begets its own consequence, both on individuals and nations.

Let me explain something when I'm talking about sin, and I'm talking about all sin. One of the biggest ones that has been talked about that has really become a debate in America is homosexuality.

Now, I believe that one of the reasons that Jesus was accused of being a homosexual is because he spent time with homosexuals. I've often had people ask me, would you allow a homosexual to be your friend. Yes, I will. And the reason I will is because I know that that person has problems, and if I can minister to those problems, I will.

But the Bible strictly speaks against it, and because the Bible speaks against it, we allow rampant sin including homosexuality and lying, and to me lying is just as bad as homosexuality, we've allowed this sin to run rampant in our nation, and because it has run rampant in our nation, our nation is in the condition it is today.

Sometimes when people talk about this sin they've been accused of being racist. I'm offended that homosexuals will say that homosexuals deserve rights. Any man in America deserves rights, but homosexuals are trying to compare their plight with the plight of black men or black people. In the process of history, homosexuals have never been castrated, millions of them never died. Homosexuality is a decision. It's not a race. And when you look at it, people from all different ethnic backgrounds are living this lifestyle, but people from all different ethnic backgrounds are also liars and cheaters and malicious and backstabbers.”

White also appeared, in uniform, in several anti-homosexual ads put out by a coalition of Christian groups.

So far I have seen only one article that mentions White’s anti-everyone remarks, and even that one seeks to forgive him by pointing out that he apologized. The article, by Ray Ratto, for ESPN.com, also notes that White gave up a lot of money and a possible job as an analyst when he made those comments. The article does not mention that White only apologized when he was pressured to do so in the face of losing his endorsements**.

“As controversial as his speech was, the aftermath has become, perhaps, even more controversial. After the speech, White said that if people found his comments offensive, "that was their problem." But soon a call was made for companies that sponsor White to release him from contract. These companies include Nike, Campbell Soup, and Johnson & Son, Inc. (Edge Shaving Cream).

In his apology, White said, "I made a point that our society is fortunate to be comprised of different races and cultures. I must admit that my examples may have been somewhat clumsy and inappropriate on how the races differ, but my intent was not to demean anyone. If I did, I humbly ask for your forgiveness." White's apology was not as inclusive of homosexuals. "I do not apologize for standing on God's word when it comes to sin in my life and others."

While some sponsors (Chunky Soup for one) did not renew White’s endorsements, Nike welcomed him back with open arms.

“We welcome Reggie White back as a Nike athlete to another season of exciting NFL football. With regard to his recent remarks before the Wisconsin Assembly, Mr. White has issued an apology to those who may have been offended. Therefore, we are prepared to continue support of his commitment to excellence on the field and his established record of community service throughout the country."

While I acknowledge that White did apologize I am skeptical as to why he did so. I feel that it is clear that he believed these things when he said them, and continued to believe them after he apologized. White’s wife was more direct on the issue of CBS deciding not to hire White as an analyst saying, “that CBS was "too scared of the Sodomite community," and added, "I feel sorry for them because they can't stand the truth." These remarks, along with White’s “that’s their problem,” along with the fact that neither he, nor his wife, nor Nike, made any attempt to include homosexuals in the apology makes the entire act insignificant. White apologized, not because he felt remorse that he had hurt people and contributed to the world’s overall total of ignorance and intolerance, but because he was hoping to hold on to some money.

At the time many people tried to make this a free speech issue. It is not. I have yet to read anything related to the issue that says that Reggie White should not have been allowed to say what he said. No one that I’ve read has suggested that he should have been punished for his beliefs, or his expression of those beliefs. From what I read at the time, and the discussions I’ve had on the matter since then the consensus seems to be that Reggie White was a jerk. And that is what’s being glossed over in the wake of his death. One thing I’ve noticed about people who scream about free speech are actually arguing, not for freedom of expression, but for freedom from consequences. Remember Rush Limbaugh on NFL Countdown? The issue is not that people cannot, or should not express certain beliefs, the issue is whether or not we have to love them for it, or whether a company should continue to carry such a person as an endorser. In the case of Rush, or Kobe, or Reggie White certain entities decided to distance themselves from what they thought was a negative image. Really, in these situations it becomes the company endorsing the athlete rather than the athlete endorsing the company, and just like you don’t see a lot of athletes endorsing Zips or Pro Keds, you don’t see a lot of companies endorsing rapists, or racists, or open homophobes.

Sure Reggie White did good things for the community, but he also did harm. How many homosexuals in his parish were stung by his remarks, even as they applauded his other charity work. These beliefs do not negate the good there may have been in Reggie White, but the good he did cannot override or sweep away the harm he may have done. When someone dies their whole story should be told. Here is the voice of true dissent, to me Reggie will always be The Minister of the Indefensible.

* Deacon Jones, who actually coined the term “sack” is probably the real all-time sack leader, however, sacks were not recorded as a statistic for most of Jones’ career.

** Apology related quotes from, the June 1998 issue of Allied Rainbows. Allied Rainbows serves as a medium for Vermont's Gay/Straight Alliances to share ideas and resources that will help them to function at the highest possible level. For more information, email Palmer Legare at ZekTAllen@aol.com

Long Time No Rant

Ah the end of the year is nigh and I realize that though I have had many thoughts in the last month I have yet to commit anything to paper; or in this case, bytes. Though there have been many Rant worthy events in the last few weeks I just haven’t had the time or the motivation to add my thoughts to the mass jumble of opinion out there. So now I present to you a Rantdumb sampling of disjointed opinions on a variety of topics.

I did some volunteer work the other day collecting canned goods for Latrell Sprewell’s family. Like Eddie George said in Jerry McGuire, “People don’t understand what kind of problems $54 million comes with.” Latrell must be getting negotiating advice from Patrick Ewing. At least now when he chokes we’ll know the reason.

DC has baseball! Now they don’t. Now they do. No, wrong, they don’t. This sucks, I want a local team and since I’m not moving before this summer it has to be in DC. Sure, I think stadiums should be built with private money. Stadium funds should come from people who choose to support baseball, like advertisers, ticket buyers and the like. The reality is that MLB has a monopoly and they hold all the cards. No stadium, no team. I can’t stand the people who get all outraged that a stadium would cost $600M and think that the money should go to schools instead. Hey morons, the money would come from a new tax on businesses most likely to profit from bringing a team to DC. The taxes would be on hotels, tickets, rental cars, concessions and rent that the team pays to use the venue. This means that most of it would be paid for by baseball fans and people from out of town. Fans should be paying for it and who gives a fuck about out of towners? If I can get some Okie to subsidize my baseball team so much the better. Besides, Baseball only takes up 81 days per year, the rest of the time the city could rent it out for other events. You can’t do these things in order to raise money for schools! You can’t tax Okies and bars for school money. School money comes from taxing income on private citizens, if you taxed businesses also you’d be taxing the same people twice for the same thing and it would be a disincentive to go into business in DC. On the other hand you can tax business by something that will help business. What they screechers don’t understand, or choose to ignore, is that the increased taxes will not be levied against individuals. The stadium isn’t draining any money from the schools, or diverting money that currently exists and could go to schools, it’s a new revenue source, one that exists for a stadium. No stadium, no new tax, no new revenue, no net impact on the schools whether there’s a stadium or not. Finally, DC spends more money per student than any state in the union. The DC school problem is one of mismanagement, not funding. But hey, it’s easy for me to say, I moved to Maryland.

The other angle is that Linda Cropp may be the Grinch who steals my Christmas. (Spoiler Alert: If you don’t want to know what you’re getting for Christmas skip to the next paragraph.) Last week I went online and ordered Washington Nationals gear for all the male members of my family and a few friends. I thought it would be nice for them to be the first folks on their blocks to get some Nats gear to show off. Yesterday the team suspended all promotional activities. The nice folks at MLB Shop.com couldn’t really give me a direct answer about the things I’d ordered. It seems like they’re waiting for a definite answer before they ship anything, which means they may never ship, which means I may be giving my little brother a picture of the shirt that might be coming to him eventually, maybe. My guess is that MLB’s pride would cause them to cancel my order if the team doesn’t go to DC rather than allow me the fun of giving my folks gear for team that only ever existed on paper, and in the hopes of DC baseball fans. “You’re a mean one, Linda Cropp! You really are a fiend…”

The Kerry camp is supporting a recount in Ohio, though they also concede that it won’t change the outcome of the election. What if the recount shows Kerry winning by 10,000 votes? Will they still concede? If Kerry wins will he be suddenly scarred by acid?

So Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi ARE on steroids. Or were, at some point. So Giambi’s weight loss wasn’t totally due to the tumor, or the bacteria, or VD. So hitting 258 homeruns after the age of 35 (~51/yr) after hitting only 445 in the previous 13 years (~34/yr) isn’t just due to a new workout routine. SHOCKING!!!! Every one of Barry’s stats should carry a *, as should Giambi’s and anyone else proven to be on roids. The players involved should be suspended indefinitely. It doesn’t matter if the evidence is culled from illegally obtained testimony. As commissioner Landis said after the Black Sox Scandal, "Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player that throws a ballgame; no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame; no player that sits in a conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing games are planned and discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball." In this case the references to gambling can be replaced with doping and apply just as well today as it did in 1921. Of course Shoeless Joe didn’t have Don Fehr on his side. The fact is that there will likely be no reprisals against any of the MLB players connected to the BALCO scandal because MLB is too weak and too afraid of the union to do anything bold.

All right folks, that’s it for now. I’ll be back in the Bay starting Dec. 22nd so hit me up. Happy holidays.

What Now?

Depressed, demoralized, despondent. This is not how I felt four years ago. Four years ago I could handle it. After all, it was a fluke, a mistake, an anomaly. Four years ago the people had spoken and their message was that, despite our electoral system, they wanted to continue the prosperity and relative sanity that we had enjoyed as a nation over the previous eight years. Four years ago I believed I could handle the next four years with relative ease. After all, there I was, ready to take on the world. Ready to graduate from college, ready to get out into the world and succeed. Four years ago was very different than today.

I remember watching the results come in on that November night. Three of the most important people in my world were with me and we were sure that our guy would win. We were having cocktails and making jokes about the coke-head who had run for president. Then Peter Jennings called Florida for Bush. Then for Gore. Then for Bush. Then it was too close to call, and it was one am on the west coast and we all had to work in the morning. I remember my girlfriend at the time crying, leaning against the counter in a dark corner of the kitchen and weeping quietly. “So many people are going to die,” she said, and as I tried to console her I wondered if she was right. We all knew things would change. We knew the country would quickly become a much more conservative place. We all knew this asshole was itching for a war, all but promising one during his campaign, but I dismissed her words as fear and emotion. I thought that everything would be all right; after all, what’s four years in the grand scheme of things? How much damage could really be done in just four years? And it would only be four years, the guy was elected, not by the people, but by a loophole.

The next nine months went much as I predicted. Bush decided to tie some foreign aid to a promise by countries not to council abortion in planned-parenthood clinics. I looked forward to watching Will Ferrell open SNL by lampooning our dumb-ass in the white house each and every week. I surfed web sites that kept tallies and archives all the ways the dumb ass butchered the English language. Then, just two weeks after I had made a trip out to NY and DC to look at grad schools, “it” happened. The phone rang at almost the same time the alarm clock went off. I turned on the TV just in time to see the second plane hit. And just like that we had our war.

Like every other male age 18-26 the thing I thought of most in the following weeks was the draft. Like many, I believed that this would be a protracted conflict. Also, the uncertainty regarding North Korea and the country’s collective blood lust led me into fears of World War III. Not the devastating nuclear war of so many bad 80’s movies, but a real multi nation, two front war, that would drain our nations resources and man power. As time has shown our worst fears were never realized. There have been no more major terrorist attacks on US soil. The war in Afghanistan did not become a war against a united Arab world. The North Korean front never materialized. Bully for us.

As 2000 became 2001 and then 2002 I became desensitized to it all. After all, everything was happening to someone else. Someone else was at Guantanamo Bay, someone else was fighting in Iraq, someone else was getting a tax rebate. Me? I was trying to get through Grad school. I didn’t have the time or the energy to be outraged. I left that up to someone else. I was in denial, in my own little dream-and waiting for the day President Snowman would be ousted. I had faith. Sure, I still remembered the girl who worked at the Subway sandwich shop on the campus of my undergraduate university. She was nice enough, smart enough to attend a state school, and pleasant in that ignorant Midwestern way, the type of person you’d see on “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.” She said she had voted for Bush because of the tax cuts and the rebate she was sure was in the mail that very day. She had no idea that because of her job as a minimum wage sandwich jockey she wouldn’t be getting anything. She simply did not make enough money to qualify.

Still, the fact remained that this dumb ass hadn’t really been elected the first time. And after a war and an occupation that was still claiming the lives of US service people (I am SO PC), after so many people received no rebate and no tax cut, after watching the man invent SO MANY WORDS, I was sure he would be gone. Maybe not in a landslide, maybe not run out on a rail, but gone, which was good enough. After all, raise your hand if, like me, you actually feel less safe than you did last year, and the year before that. (OK now put your hand down, you look silly and people will begin to talk.) I had faith in the people. I had faith that the country would look back at the sexy Clinton years with all of its economic promise, cigar blow jobs, and complete lack of fear of being turned in as a terrorist by your neighbors, and say “I want that. I’ve had enough recession, enough blood for oil, enough being the butt of every world political joke.” I had taken my third drive across country. I had seen the people, met them, talked to them, and they were good, they would do the right thing.

Now this. This time there is no excuse. Bush won. The lawyers were there. The election reforms were there. So far I haven’t heard of any “voting irregularities.” Voter turnout was high. We did it to ourselves this time. So here I sit, the very picture of dejection. Dreading the next four years. Feeling for all the world as if the Clinton years were but a brief respite from the ultimate direction of the country. After all, the axis of evil has been in power for most of my life, and I don’t even remember my three years under Carter. I’ve lost faith. I’m back to being a cynic. I’m back to believing that the only real civilization to be found in this country is on the coasts, the rest of the country simply exists to provide me with food, cheap manufacturing, and girls with sultry southern accents. I don’t know if I can face the next four years. I don’t have the intellectual cocoon of grad school to retreat to. I no longer have the activist in my life who provided balance for my narcissism. I don’t know what the next term will bring. The specter of the draft still looms and I don’t see our military actions decreasing. By the end of this term my brother will be 18, what will happen to him if these wars continue? How can you ever reach a resolution to a war on something as elusive as “terrorism?” The real terror for me is that there’ another Bush out there. He’s said he won’t run, but what if he does? What if he gets his eight years? By that time I’m sure there will be another, young Bush just reaching the age where he’s eligible to run. We may be headed for the world’s first popularly elected monarchy. Of course, depending on what happens in the next few years we may get four years of The Presinator as a change of pace.

So there it is my few but loyal readers. I have no words of solace. I love this country. I always have. This is the land that gave us baseball, and blue jeans, and a free public education. No matter what I’ve though of the government I’ve always loved the people of this country. I stand up during the national anthem because even though it represents everything I hate about our government it represents all the people I love as well. I keep an American flag, not because I support our foreign policy, but because it’s my flag, and when I see it I think of my grandmother, and my brother, and my uncles who fought for that flag even though their parents and siblings were locked up in concentration camps back home, the uncles who fought in order to prove that they were just as much a part of the fabric of this country as anyone else. But now my faith is shaken. The anthem is just a song; the flag is just a collection of colors. We live in a country dominated by rubes and morons, people ready to believe whatever they are told by whoever has the best advertising. As I get older, I am slowly becoming a religious man, because I feel as though it’s all there is left. I’ve lost my faith in everything else.

Fuck You!

The FCC is cracking down on cursing. In the wake of Janet and Justin’s wardrobe malfunction the FCC has been handing out fines and tightening their previous rulings on curse words. One recent example is the FCC’s ruling regarding Bono’s call of “Fucking brilliant!” at a recent awards show. The FCC’s position is that cursing is not only offensive in that it “invariably conjures up a graphic sexual image” but that exposing children to cursing is morally detrimental. The radio program “This American Life” recently did a story on cursing in which they interviewed a psychologist who has been studying the effects of cursing on children, and a lawyer for the FCC. The psychologist concluded that cursing on TV or radio does not have a detrimental effect on children, and that most children know and repeat curse words at a very early age (as young as two) even if they do not grasp the full meaning. During my own research into idioms and the use of figurative and idiomatic language I came across studies that showed that when people encounter figurative language they usually produce the connotative meaning first and may not ever think of the denotative meaning at all. That is, when people hear the words “kick the bucket” they rarely think of a foot striking a pail. Applied to cursing, this theory is borne out during the “This American Life” story when the interviewer asks several children of various ages what they think of when they hear the phrase “Fucking brilliant” in context. Invariably the children failed to mention sex of any kind, let alone graphic sexual imagery as the FCC suggests.

All this got me thinking about the role of cursing in my own life. The curse word and I have had a long and bountiful relationship that has evolved over time. By the time I was six years old I could curse like a long shore man. I’m fairly certain that I picked up my four-letter vocabulary from peers and family rather than the media. I think I picked up on swearing because it had such a great effect, it truly expressed how I felt as a child who was by no means as smart as I thought I was, but far smarter than I felt anyone gave me credit for. I quickly learned that I could get a stronger reaction by swearing at adults than by being “good.” Telling your second grade teacher “That makes me unhappy, I don’t think that’s fair” gets a kid fairly well ignored, after all, life isn’t fair and kids don’t get what they want etc. However, telling the same teacher that, “This is some fucking bullshit and if you don’t change it I’ll sue yer sorry ass you bitch” gets a much different reaction. And, though I still didn’t always get what I wanted, at least it opened up a dialogue.

As time went on my sense of when to swear evolved, though I still gave a good fuck about where I was when I decided to let one fly. To me it was always about emphasis, if I felt that a four-letter blast best expressed my point I let fly. It was proud day for me when my friend Ben, himself an accomplished master of the four-letter tirade, said that I uttered the best “Fuck you” he had ever heard, “Dude, when you say it, people know you really mean it.” But a funny thing happened when I got to college. I started to care. I tried not to curse in front of my grandmother, or my brother’s friends, or girls I liked. It was weird, the first time I realized I was holding back, searching for a different word.

There were a few things that went into the transformation. First, my major was populated by religious types, and despite my caring fuck all about they’re perception of God, I didn’t want to offend or alienate them. This became particularly important when I ran for a small student government post representing my major. Second, as time went on I realized the benefits of appearing educated, which often meant cutting back on the casual swearing. Conjoined with this is the fact that actually being educated often results in having people be less inclined to dismiss you out of hand. As I progressed through school I no longer had to shock people in order to open up a dialogue, all I had to do was talk.

And thus I have developed a new theory, a radical new para-dig-em: children need cursing far more than adults do. By the time we reach adulthood most of us have a myriad of ways to express ourselves. Not that we need to, or should abandon “adult” vocabulary, but the fact is that if we need to curse in order to be recognized or stand out then we have far deeper problems and should probably just be ignored. (Case in point, when the reins of TV, radio, or a script are strapped on, Jay Mohr is a funny man. Left to his own devices he loses his wit to a deluge of anal sex jokes.) But kids, kids need to curse just to avoid being ignored. This is not unlike Dogbert’s strategy of corporate yelling, if you are loud and belligerent enough people will be shocked and give you whatever you want. Don’t just be the squeaky wheel; be the wheel that says, “You better grease me or I won’t just squeak, I’ll wait ‘til yer doing 90 on the interstate, then I’ll jump off, roll away, and cause you to crash into that bus full of nuns and invalids.” I say we should teach our kids how to curse strategically in order to move ahead in the world. I know I will.

Freeform on a Friday By AH.

The man himself Sir Rantalot asked me to post something for his website. Lately I haven‚t had a strong focus to act like a microscope/telescope/magnifying glass bringing verbal order to the more or less random events of our lives. Mostly been just been kicking stuff around.

Enjoying being a parent. It helps having, objectively speaking, the cutest kid in the Milky Way. It's hard to imagine how much you will enjoy your kids until you have some of your own; and damn near impossible to convey in a meaningful way the beauty and delight of their Tabula Rasa perception of the world, their ever shifting behavior patterns, the satisfaction of comforting them when they are sad and joy in watching them take hours of delight in playing with something as simple as a cardboard box. So I won‚t try.

Note to Broadway: "The Princess Bride" is dying for a musical makeover. Just a little FYI. Oh, quick rave: „Avenue Q‰ is awesome. Log off, go run to your local music store and buy it, log back on, and continue reading.

Is it just me, or is our generation (I'm 29 FYI) the biggest bunch of flakes ever? Tossing it out there. I‚m sure are some standards to apply to quantify this relative lack of consideration/inability to make plans/lack of calling to cancel/etc. to other generations. Just answer me this: have you tried throwing together 8 20-something people for a dinner/movie/whatever? Wow.

At the risk of making myself sound pretentious, has anyone checked out "My Dinner with Andre?" There is a part in there where Andre is talking about why everyone talks about leaving New York, but no one ever does (which isn't true. I left NY. But then I didn't grow up there). He says it is because New York is the model for the new prison, where everyone is both a prisoner and a guard, and this schizophrenia has people walking around in a confused haze.

This may sound abstract, but let's put it in another context. Say you are an employee and shareholder of a company. The company wants to freeze wages and cut staff, leaving those left over double the workload. This will make the share price rise. Are you for it or against? Is it a moral judgment, or are your leanings in proportion to how much share you have and if you are the one getting the ax? (Quick note to job seekers: get a job with a private company if at all possible).

Someone once asked me what I think the biggest problem our country faces right now. I think it is the continued stratification of our society and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. It’s already epidemic and has already created an informal class system, which runs against the grain of what this country is about.

Not saying we can do anything about it. It just kinda sucks, that’s all.

I think the attitude of the ruling class was best summed up in the Mel Brooks movie "A History of the World Part One" when one Senator begs: "But what about the poor?" and the entire assembly in unison yells back "Fuck the poor!" Truth is beauty and beauty truth.

Living in the bay area and not remotely being in the neighborhood of even imagining I could buy a house kinda brings this divide into focus for me. The divide between homeowners and renters is another focal point of this class thing. The fact that I won‚t own till I move or win the lottery is just another concrete reminder that our generation will be the first American one to be materially poorer than the one that preceded it.

My friend once said that he wasn't rich like my parents. I was aghast because my parents aren't rich. My dad teaches at a community college and, without disclosing too much, is definitely within the five-figure range. I worked at restaurants until I graduated college to augment the bare minimum I was given to live. I guess my friend thought my folks had dough because of where they lived.

My parents were lucky enough to buy a 4 bedroom/2 bath house in North Berkeley a few blocks from campus for around $25,000. Now it's true that this investment has returned probably 50-fold (damn Bay Area real estate is a good investment). But it means nothing until they actually sell it. In the 6th grade I had three pairs of identical blue jeans, of which one I duct taped together because the button came off. People at Longfellow elementary thought I was the poorest kid in the class.

My point is this: my definition of wealth is not numerically oriented but is held up to this standard: are you working for your money or is your money working for you? To this my parents and myself definitely fall into the former.

Quick aside: what is with this week of mourning‚ for Reagan? Perhaps the public has a shorter-term memory than even Reagan had himself. I guess growing up in the Bay Area gave me a somewhat skewed and not so mainstream perception. Let me put it this way: I was SHOCKED that Reagan beat Mondale (I was 9 at the time). I mean, the promise of higher taxes, a choice of a woman as a running mate-what‚s not to like? I’m glad Mondale’s home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia agreed with me. Every other state was enjoying their “Morning in America.” And now they seem to be enjoying their mourning in America.

Since the only other president to die in my lifetime was Nixon, a disgraced president whose death was more or less swept under the rug, I had no real basis of comparison for this event. I was like “What the hell? An entire week of mourning?”

Am I the only one who recalls a line from Evita "When they are bringing your curtain down-demand to be buried like Eva Peron"?

In fact the whole song is strangely poignant:
O what a circus
O what a show

America has gone to town, over the death of an actor named Ronald Reagan.

We've all gone crazy
Mourning all day and mourning all night
Falling over ourselves to get all of the misery right

Oh what an exit, that's how to go
When they're ringing your curtain down
Demand to be buried like Ronald Reagan
It's quite a sunset
And good for the country in a roundabout way
We've made the front page of all the world's papers today

Oops. I just admitted I could paraphrase portions of Evita by heart. I'll just check my heterosexual credentials at the door. At least I got a small assist by the internet.

Though those who work for the federal government got Friday off to mourn, those of us working in the private sector still had to go to work. I mildly resented that, as I wanted to mourn in my own private way. Does a day at the beach and a movie count as mourning?

Anyways, that‚s what I got right now.

Toodles.

Let's Catch Up

Greetings Rant fans. I am writing this from high over Iceland on my way to London for the Mark Bingham Cup. It's been a while since my last post, the rigors of commencement, obligations to family, and transition to a new job and a new home have kept me from the keyboard. Today I'd like to hit on a few things that have been floating around my newly shorn dome since my last dispatch. This won't be posted for another week after it's written but I'll be back in form after things calm down a bit.

Same Sex Marriage:

I know this has been done to death over the past few weeks but I am constantly amazed by the comments I hear and read from the far right. I can't fathom how people can feel that extending more rights and freedoms to people takes anything away from themselves. If you are not gay I really don't see how this issue effects you at all.

I know, I know, "the sanctity of marriage, " "Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve," etc. Lets look at some of these arguments. First, the "sanctity of marriage" thing. Guess what? It doesn't exist, ask my wife's boyfriend. There is no sanctity of marriage in the US. Nearly everyone in my family is now, or has been divorced. Why not give marriage to same sex couples? Maybe they can teach the rest us something we can't seem to figure out.

I can't believe a letter I read in the DC Express recently. They actually printed a letter pushing the "Adam and Steve" platform. Basically the letter suggests that if we allow same sex marriage the human race will die off because people will stop procreating. The idiocy of this argument astounds me. Hello! The people getting same sex unions (with acknowledgement to the Melissa Ethridges of the world) were never likely not going to procreate anyway. Also, no one has been waiting for same sex marriage so that they could finally indulge their homosexual desires. Just like hanging out with gay people or having gay parents will not "turn you gay" sanctioned ay marriage will not put and end to us breeders. Besides, same sex couples often give good, loving homes to the children discarded by irresponsible straight folks. We have no shortage of children, or people for that matter.

Finally, another letter I read recently suggests that the definition of marriage is a huge issue. The author suggests that same sex marriage is not comparable to the civil rights movement because opening lunch counters and integrating schools did not "require us to re write Webster's." According to the author the dictionary defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Here's what my dictionary says:

"mar.riage (n) 1. a legally recognized relationship established by a civil or religious ceremony between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. 2. a married relationship between two particular people, or an individual's relationship with an individual spouse"

No mention of "man" or "woman," strangely prophetic? Or is it in fact the case that "man' and "woman" are not actually in the definition? And so what if they were? Webster's like all other dictionaries publishes new editions every so often. The dictionary changes because language is not static. Language is a reflection of culture and culture is fluid. Proof? "Party " is now listed as both a noun and a verb. No one got up in arms about that change.

Good job Mailman!

Good job by Karl Malone giving a hard elbow to that guy in game two of the Western Finals. The fact that Derek Fischer got smacked by The Gangsta Choka and then got called for a foul that sent Tha Choka to the line was ridiculous. In fact, all of game two was a farce. Also, what's up with not having all the conference finals games on regular TV? Was "Extreme Bloopers" so great a program that ABC couldn't have carried a playoff game instead? Fer fucks sake!


Baseball Notes

Sexson Done

The Richie Sexson deal is looking better and better for the Brewers (see Sir Rantalot's archive for 12/5/03) now that Sexson is out for the year with a bad shoulder. Meanwhile Lyle Overbay is mashing (.335/6/40), and the other players Milwaukee acquired in the deal have contributed. Right now the Brew Crew is above .500 and just 4 games out of a tough NL Central.

Chavez Out 6 Weeks

At first glance this sucks for the A's, but if take a second look you find that it really does suck for the A's. Once again Sir Rantalot the GM looks prescient in his insistence that the A's sign Mark McLemore (see Sir Rantalot's archive for 12/16/04). Losing an all-star gold glove 3B is never good, but at least the A's have a guy who can step in and at least hold down the fort until Chavey gets back.

The injury also opens up more playing time for my man Marco Scutaro to get more playing time. As you may remember (if not just scroll down and read "2B 2B do?") Scoot was my pick to replace Mark Ellis, but he was unfairly bumped by the versatile switch-hitting McLemore. Now Scoot and his .288/1/11/.321/.701 and good glove get back in the line up.

The other domino is that my original choice for 2B, Esteban German has been recalled from AAA Sacramento. German got the call after the A's quietly dealt Frank Menechino to Toronto.

Finally, it's nice to see Eric Byrnes making a place for himself again. I predict that the A's will let Jermaine Dye walk at the end of the year and install an outfield of Byrnes, Kotsay and Kielty from left to right for 2005.

What's Up With Dem Guys

I recently came across an article that showed the Royce Clayton was hitting 58 points above his career average. With McLemore starting at 3B for Oakland I decided to look and see how the other guys who I said the A's should sign are doing this year. Players are listed by salary in order to show who the A's may have actually been able to bring in, in lieu of say, Eric Karros (550K .137/2/8) or McLemore (.231/0/1).

-Jay Bell (Minor Leagues)
-Fernando Tatis (Minor Leagues)
-Tony Womack [Unkown, but not much]: .287/3/12/.330/.727 (Shoulda had him)
-Royce Clayton [550K]: .304/5/18/.363/.844 (Coulda had him)
-Eric Young [1M] : .310/0/6/.354/.754 (No HR but still more production than EK)
-Pokey Reese [1M] : .253/2/21/.346/.636 (Better than McLemore but more expensive)
-Rich Aurilia [3.15M] : .241/2/19/.305/.640 (Not worth the money)

So there it is. Go back and check it. The guys I really wanted are performing with Reese the disappointment. OK, Rant fans, I promise to take shorter breaks for the foreseeable future, check back soon, and remember you can rant back by signing the guestbook.

It Sucks, but its not Censorship

There has been a lot of outrage recently bout the governments decision to only fund closed caption “educational” programs. This means that show that are not deemed so will no longer be captioned. The NAD, among others are crying censorship. I never thought I’d side with the Bush administration, but feeling both polemic and contrarian this morning I'll go ahead and play The Great Satan's Advocate.

The US government is not in the business of entertaining people. They are however (allegedly) in the business of "educating" and "informing" people. Yes, yes, all information is knowledge and anything can become a teaching/ learning situation. Even NASCAR I suppose. But the government doesn't sponsor me teaching my brother how to calculate OPS or WHIP while we're at a baseball game just because I say I'm teaching math. The government choosing to sponsor programs they deem educational or informational isn't censorship. The programs are still there.

It would be nice if the mystery panel would agree to caption Sports Center, but television is a market driven industry. The rest of us don't expect the government to subsidize reruns of our favorite shows just because we like them. The industry survives off advertising so allow me to suggest another option. Networks begin to caption their programs with advertising money. I don't know all the costs involved, but it may be in the best interest of the network, the NFL, MLB, and Hannah-Barbara to go ahead and caption the programs themselves. If not they risk losing viewers. I know plenty of Deaf people in that key male 18-45 demographic, and their money's just as good as anyone else's, if people hurt the advertisers they'll get their captioning.

In conclusion, entertainment is a private business, not a government function. If the government decided to caption all media I would be fine with that. As it is, I don't really care about Mars, and I wish we would stop fighting all these dang wars, at the same time its faulty to say that its NASA or captioning. It could very well be captioning or help for the homeless; captioning or school lunches, captioning or health care (I know we don't really have health care). The point is, captioning Scooby-Doo isn't the first thing I thought of when I mailed off my taxes.

Everything should be accessible as far as quality of life goes, but who incurs the cost may be a separate issue. The rest of us get TV for "free" thanks to advertisers, not the government. Maybe it’s not too much to ask for captioning to be the same way. We can all vote with our wallets. If the networks, or the NFL want money for captioning they can get it from advertisers. Not to mention, if it becomes a private sector issue, what network or company wants to be known as the one that refused to caption its programs? The major sports leagues are too image conscious for that and the networks should follow suit. Of course any programming that does get public money should have to be captioned as well.

As-liens

    I wrote this for an Asian American Studies class back in 1999. Some interesting points, some stuff I don't know that I still believe but I got an A. For years various groups have protested the way Asians are portrayed in the media. In 1985 pressure from Asian American advocacy groups led to a disclaimer being added to the film Year of the Dragon. The Media Action Network for Asian Americans (MANAA) attempted a similar action with the film Rising Sun in 1993. The issue in both cases was the fact that these films cast Asians and Asian Americans in a negative light. Both films used the same Asian stereotypes that people have seen a thousand times before. It is an old story, ever since Chinese Laborers began to come over in large numbers in 1852[1] anti-Asian propaganda has been an accepted part of the American landscape. By now the basic stereotypes are well known, and well documented. Asians occupy a duplicitous role in American media, images and stereotypes that at times appear to be polar opposites serve to affirm the right of the west to dominate the east. Franklin Wong ties these contradictions together in his work On Visual Media Racism: Asians in the American Motion Pictures, notes, fantasies of threatening Asian men, emasculated eunuchs, alluring Asian dragon ladies, and submissive female slaves all work to rationalize white male domination[2]. So, despite the fact that Asians can occupy any of these poles, they are not allowed the middle ground, and therefore, not allowed to be fully developed characters. The fact that Asians in film have been perpetual second class characters is bad in and of its self; however there is an even more insidious element working in the mass media. This is, subliminal Asian stereotyping through the use of characters that are not overtly Asian, yet embody all the same fears and prejudices usually applied to Asian people. Often, this tactic is used by white characters and entertainers who attempt to exoticize themselves through the use of Asian imagery. This covert stereotyping is even more dangerous than kind seen in such films as Gung Ho, or The World of Suzie Wong because one cannot point to it an obvious or overt denigration of Asian people. Yet these images are clearly focused on Asians and their effect is doubled because these anti-Asian stereotypes are often thrust upon those whom the audience finds most alien: extra-terrestrials. 

     Asians have long been seen as the perpetual other. They cannot assimilate to the degree that most European immigrants can because their appearance always gives them away. Asian Americans, even those whose families have been in the US for several generations, are constantly faced with comments like, You speak very good English, and So, where are you from?. Since their citizenship cannot be determined by looks alone Asians are always seen as alien. Therefore, giving Asian attributes to an extra-terrestrial serves to re-enforce this feeling. To paraphrase Frederick Douglas, you cannot oppress a person with out first stripping them of their humanity[3]. There is no better way strip Asians of there humanity than to make them entirely not of this world. Also, many science fiction stories revolve around either a) a group of white male heroes setting out to conquer the universe or b) aliens invading Earth, usually by way of the US. These heroes see those aliens who are uncooperative as the enemy, so, it is natural for these sci-fi Matthew Perrys to destroy and subjugate the offending alien worlds, often questing after their exotic alien women as well. Often there aliens are made up to look like old Asian stereotypes, many look as though they have just stepped right out of an old WWII propaganda poster. The very foundation of science fiction as a genre is based in the ideas of manifest destiny and Yellow Peril. 

     The history of Asian extra-terrestrials can be traced to Sax Rohmers character Fu Manchu, who, Only served to enhance the most negative images of Asians and Yellow Peril. (Fong, 175). Fu Manchu, an evil Asian man bent on world domination, found his extra-terrestrial counter part in the character of Ming the Merciless. Ming, the thinly veiled Asian villain first appeared on screen in 1936. With his Fu Manchu mustache and taped on epicanthil fold Ming (Richard Alexander) wanted to take over the Universe, the ultimate embodiment of Yellow Peril. Of course he is thwarted in his plan by the dashing Polo player turned super hero[4] Flash Gordon (Buster Crabbe). Gordon of course is all that white America sees as ideal, tall, blonde, and good looking. Therefore it is seen as natural that Mings (Caucasian looking) daughter (Jean Rogers) rejects her father and falls in love with Gordon. Mings daughter had to white in order to get around Hollywoods anti-miscegenation laws. This film series exemplifies how Americas attitudes and fears towards Asians could be placed upon a wholly foreign (extra-terrestrial) entity with great success. When the Japanese sprang forward as an economic power during the 1980s Flash Gordon was reborn to the silver screen, and once again Ming, unchanged from his previous incarnation threatened the western world. 

     In 1966 Gene Roddenberry unveiled his creation to the world. It would become a sci-fi legend. In Roddenberrys universe the Earth has been unified into one government. Indeed much of the known universe has joined The Federation of Planets and dedicated its self to peace and scientific research. Roddenberrys story follows a multiracial cast as they attempt to go ...where no man has gone before. Star Trek was meant to be a utopia, a time when all the people of Earth were united in a common cause, and, on the surface it succeeded. There they were, White American, African, Asian, Russian, and Alien working together to explore the unknown. However a more critical evaluation of the shows dynamics reveals another message. The ships overtly Asian character is Hikaru Itaka Sulu played by Japanese American actor George Takei. People have critiqued Sulus role on the show, saying that it was the typical Asian sidekick role seen on earlier shows like, Have Gun Will Travel, and, The Green Hornet. Timothy Fong says that Sulu , was an obvious sexless character. While all the primary male crew members...had intergalactic encounters with women --human and alien-- Lt. Sulu was always left alone. ( Fong, 184). With just this superficial reading of the character it is clear that he is fulfilling the model minority stereotype; he is smart, subordinate. a good worker, and a-sexual. However, not only is Sulu is not the only Asian stereotype on the show, he is also the least stereotyped Asian type on the ship. There are two other far more harmful Asian stereotypes displayed through extra-terrestrial characters. 

     First there are the Klingons, people who follow the Star Trek world today know Klingons as made popular by African American actor Michael Dorn. Currently the Klingons resemble Humans with large bone structures on their foreheads. Like Humans, they come in a variety of colors. This version of the Klingons first came about in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, (1982). From here on the Klingons began to adopt an increasingly African American look, until the most recent episodes and movies which have made them more racially diverse. This is a far cry from 1966, originally the Klingons were scotch tape Asians (Fong, 176); White actors given slanty eyes. The Klingon race incarnate all the characteristics that most scare White America. The Klingons are violent, ill tempered, lustful, and drunk. They are on a mission to destroy the peaceful Federation and take over the universe. Finally, they fight to the death preferring death to defeat or capture. One scene from an episode entitled The Trouble with Tribbles almost mirrors a scene from the 1944 film Dragon Seed. In both scenes the evil Asians show up at a restaurant and demand liquor, when they are denied they go on a violent rampage. Often, they are shown eating large hunks of meat off the bone Gengis Kahn style. The association with the Mongol Hordes is further intensified with the naming of the villain Kahn played by Ricardo Montelban. 

     Just as the Mongolians were related to the more civilized and refined Chinese, the Klingons have a corresponding race, the Vulcans. The Vulcans are an alien race that was at one time just like the Klingons, (with whom they share common ancestors), warlike and evil. However the Vulcans chose logic as their religion, and so, became smart calculating, and totally devoid of emotion. The most famous Vulcan is none other than Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy) the first mate on the starship Enterprise. Mr. Spock personifies the ultimate model minority, he is smart, calm, reasonable, and he always obeys his boss Captain Kirk (William Shatner). Spocks most important characteristic though is his complete lack of sexuality. Spocks a-sexuality is even more pronounced than Sulus, in one episode it is revealed that Vulcans only desire to mate once every ten yearsduring a time called Pon Far. During this brief mating period Spock becomes consumed by lust, he nearly rapes a female nurse, and almost kills Kirk. To top it all off Spock shows shades of Charlie Chan, in that he often spouts off old Vulcan proverbs in a Confucius Say manner. These depictions of Asian like extra-terrestrials clearly demonstrate the prevailing attitudes towards Asians, that is that they are fine as long as they stay in their place, and dont have normal libidos. 

     As time and social attitudes have changed it has become slightly less acceptable to throw around Asian stereotypes out in the open. While it still happens, the Political Correctness of the nineties has brought more attention to the issue. Writers like Gina Marchetti and Elaine Kim have turned a critical eye towards the media and its depiction of Asian people. Groups like MANNA, and the JACL try to educate both the public and film makers about Asian stereotypes, however the Asian as alien imagery lives on. In fact one of the most successful movie franchises ever is one of the worst perpetrators of this kind of subliminal racism. George Lucas Star Wars series is rife with racist images many of them associated with Asians. The first featured Asian like extra-terrestrial appeared in The Empire Strikes Back. The first and most prominent Asian extra-terrestrial is the wise old Yoda. Yoda represents the wise old shopkeeper stereotype, also found in movies like The Karate Kid. Yoda plays the Sensei to young Luke Skywalker and teaches him the ancient and mystical ways of The Force, just as Mr. Miagi takes Daniel under his wing in Kid. This story line draws influence from Asian ideas of Karma and Chi. The Force is both the living and spiritual energy of the universe that can be used to enhance the body and mind, and eventually rights all wrongs. At the end of the film a pilot named Nim Num who speaks a Asian like language helps the heroes fight the evil Empire. Nim Num is short, has large round eyes with slanted lids, and an almost fish-like appearance reminiscent of old anti-Asian propaganda. Nim Num however, was only a glimpse of what was to come. 

     In 1999 Lucas released the long anticipated prequel to his Star Wars Trilogy. People crammed theaters to full capacity to get a look at this latest addition to the Star Wars series entitled The Phantom Menace. To the dismay of Asian audience members there are two Asian stereotypes represented, the Yellow Peril, and the Geisha. First the audience is introduced to the sinister Viceroy Nute Gunray of the Trade Federation. The Federation is the precursor to what is in the later episodes the Empire. The Federation wants to control the economy of the galaxy and they will do anything to achieve their goal. This is a common fear of White America and is the theme in films like Rising Sun. As the film opens they are blockading the small planet Naboo in an attempt to take control of the planets trade and shipping rights. The Viceroy and his cohorts have caricatured Asian features and speak with thick imitation Asian accents. These characters caused great deal of controversy, for the first time the Asian extra-terrestrial is being called into question. In one article Andrew Gumbel states The noseless leaders of the Galactic Trade Federation are clearly a throwback to the Yellow Peril characters popular in Flash Gordon and other series, but risk being interpreted as a racial slur[5]. 

     While it is refreshing to see Lucas and his extra-terrestrial Asians called to the mat the press made little or no mention of another, more subtle Asian stereotype present in Phantom. Queen Amidala of the embattled Naboo people is depicted as a strong yet inexperienced leader. While holding court she is dressed in elaborate Kabuki like garments, a sort of Space Geisha. Conversely, when she is out adventuring through space she loses the kabuki make up dresses more like a soldier. In this swashbuckling persona she looks more White and can go around shooting bad guys and climbing up buildings. It is also while in her more western looking garb that she shows the most leadership and makes the best decisions. Interestingly her mind seems to follow her image; while in her Space Geisha gear she is passive, indecisive weak, all traits associated with the geisha stereotype. While in this state she follows the advice of her mentor Senator Palpatine, who the audience knows, is the real man behind her peoples predicament. Senator Palpatine is a privileged white man, so, it is no surprise that he is able to dominate Amidala when she adopts her Asian persona. The final repercussion associated with these Asian extra-terrestrials is the issue of homogenization. Already Asians and Asian Americans are faced with racist ideals that see all Asians as the same. Many people cannot tell the difference between different Asian ethnicities, or cultures. Fong acknowledges this problem when discussing Asian Americans working in the news media, he says, This notion assumes that Asian Americans are just one homogenous entity, which they are not. (Fong, 198). It this general ignorance about the differences between different Asian groups that lead to incidents ranging from the Vincent Chin killing, to the casting of Japanese American actor Gedde Watanabe as a Chinese exchange student. This problem is compounded by the Asians as extra-terrestrials paradigm. By taking Asian stereotypes and assigning them to ambiguous Asian extra-terrestrials the lines between ethnicities are further blurred. 

     By taking a closer look at not just overt Asian characters but at characters that are given Asian characteristics it is clear that the problem of racial stereotyping is deeper and more subtle than previously reported. Even as America becomes more and more Politically Correct covert stereotypes continue, largly unchallenged. The same fears and hatreds that were seen in the past persist today. There are bad Asians and good model minority Asians. The difference between good and bad Asian aliens is the same as between good and bad Asian characters in other films. In her analysis of Year of the Dragon Marchetti says, Only the rich are villainous among the Chinese. The Chinese workers may be ignorant, passive, and impotent, but...decidedly not villainous (Marchetti, 295). The same idea of powerful or rich Asians is evident in the films Rising Sun, and Gung Ho. On the other side , good Asians are the quiet hard workers in The Good Earth, and Go For Broke who take their abuse without complaint. Gross Asian stereotypes are fading in favor of more indirect ones. Film makers who continue to use Asian extra-terrestrials can always claim that critics are reading too much into a simple character. By hiding behind the veil of Science Fiction Hollywood will continue to be able to set an anti-Asian agenda. It has been a long road from Fu Manchu and Ming the Merciless to the Viceroy Gunray and Queen Amidala but the attitudes behind the stereotypes have yet to change. Asians are still seen as a threat to Americas economy, there is still a desire to strip Asian men and women of their humanity in order to justify their domination by white male western society. White America sees these Asian extra-terrestrials the same way they see other Asian villains; as Marchetti says they feel they have the moral right to eradicate the villain because the foreign represents a threat to the racial and ethnic status quo (Marchetti, 287). 

 [1] Fong, 11 

[2] As cited in Gina Marchettis Ethnicity and Cultural Studies. 

[3] From Martin, Waldo E. The Mind of Frederick Douglass, The University of North Carolina Press: 1984 [4] From Reel.com review. 

[5] from The Independant June 4 1999 

Sources:   

Books:

 Fong, Timothy P. The Contemporary Asian American Experience: Beyond the Model Minority, Prentice Hall Inc.: 1998 

 Friedman, Lester D. (Ed.) Unspeakable Images, University of Illinois Press: 1991 

 Martin, Waldo E. The Mind of Frederick Douglass, The University of North Carolina Press: 1984 

 On Line

 (http://) members.theglobe.com/treknut stinsv.com /TOS/640char thumb-1.image.altavista.com/image www.amazon.com www.english.wayne.edu/ ~calice/oh/images 

 www.freep.com/fun/ starwars/nstar4.htm www.geocities.com/Area51/3253/regular 

 www.iac.net/~twisty www.reel.com 

 www.scifi.com/startrek/cast/images 

 www.starwars.com/characters 

 Films 

Howard, Ron Gung Ho, 1985 

 Hughes, John Sixteen Candles, 1984 

 Lucas, George Star Wars: Episode 1, 1999 

 Lucas, George The Empire Strikes Back 

 McG Charlies Angels, 2000 

 Okazaki, Steve Living On Tokyo Time, 1987 

 Ping, Chu Yin Shanghai Noon, 1999 

 Tasun, Frank The Geisha Boy, 1958 

 Wang, Wayne Dim Sum, 1984 

 Television

 Star Trek, Amok Time 1967 

 Star Trek, The Trouble With Tribbles, 1967