If I knew I couldn’t win an argument on the merits of my case, what would I do? First, I’d be careful to avoid any unscripted Q&A sessions. Second, I’d align my “brand” with some more inspiring image like an aircraft carrier or the scene of a terrorist attack. Finally, I’d push the FEC to change their rules so that community groups would not be allowed to criticize my arguments. Or as MoveOn.org explains it:  

The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to issue new rules that would cripple groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or members of Congress. Incredibly, the FEC has just issued — for public comment — proposed rules that would do just that. Any kind of non-profit — conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service, charitable, educational, civic participation, issue-oriented, large, and small — could be affected by these rules. Operatives in Washington are displaying a terrifying disregard for the values of free speech and openness, which underlie our democracy. Essentially, they are willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush administration policy.

To make a public comment to the FEC (before the comment period ends on April 9th), email politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov. Comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General Counsel. For more information on how to comment, visit: http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040312rulemaking.html

Benjamin Helphand

Details magazine is the latest culprit in a litany of offensive attempts at humor aimed at an ethnic or racial group. In this case, Details has combined racial and gay stereotypes in an insulting display.

In its April issue, Details poses the question “Gay or Asian.” There’s a photo of a model and intro text that reads:

“One cruises for chicken; the other takes it General Tso-style. Whether you’re into shrimp balls or shaved balls, entering the dragon requires imperial tastes. So choke up on your chopsticks, and make sure your labels are showing. Study hard, Grasshopper: A sharp eye will always take home the plumpest eel.”

What follows is a series of arrows pointing at the model and descriptions that say things such as:

DIOR SUNGLASSES: Subs as headband and amplifies inscrutable affect.

RYAN SEACREST HAIR: Shellacked spikes, just like that crazy cool Americaaaaaaaan!

WHITE T-SHIRT: V-neck nicely showcases sashimi-smooth chest. What other men visit salons to get, the Asian gene pool provides for free.

LADYBOY FINGERS: Soft and long. Perfect for both waxing on and waxing off, plucking the koto, or gripping the Kendo stick.

Emails deriding Details have been flying around the Internet for the past week. There’s at least one Web petition protesting the feature.

The Asian American Journalists Association has weighed in with a letter to Details Editor-in-Chief Daniel Peres that demands an apology.

GLAAD also issued a statement calling the feature offensive.

Apparently the “Gay or …” feature is something Details has run for a while. Details doesn’t appear to maintain a website with archives, so there’s no convenient way to check what’s been done. If no one was offended by previous “Gay or …” features, maybe they should have been.

chinoloco

After Senator Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash just before the election in 2002, myself and a carload of co-workers trekked from Chicago to Saint Paul, Minnesota, to campaign for former Vice President Walter Mondale, who was being run in Wellstone’s place. We lost the election and the Senate.

Even so, campaigning in the Twin Cities was a watershed moment in my own political awakening. First, the trip introduced me to friends who became my partners in crime in various civic projects back in Chicago (most recently, the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate). Second, the trip taught me something of what is wrong with the Democratic Party. The party’s decision to run Mondale, largely because of his name recognition, showed a spinelessness and an unwillingness to invest in future leadership, which in retrospect is a bit embarrassing.

Finally, early one morning in a St. Paul union hall, I had the pleasure of seeing Al Franken perform a short, uplifting routine to a grieving audience. That morning I knew the Democrats had begun to find their voice. I knew we’d begun to stand up to the White House’s monosyllabic spin. This is why I’m happy today to recommend to everyone that they tune into Al Franken’s new radio program, The O’Franken Factor: 12-3 p.m., beginning March 31.    

Benjamin Helphand

Apparently, Janet Jackson still has CBS running scared. It seems that after her Superbowl incident, the network didn’t want to take any risks with Jackson, who appeared on Late Night with David Letterman today. The irony, however, is that this time, the network wasn’t concerned about the cleavage and naval area being shown on television. Instead, CBS bleeped out the term “Jesus,” which Jackson said in response to Letterman’s question about the Superbowl incident.

Growing up Jewish, I sometimes found myself in an awkward position in school when we sang deeply religious songs or when the principal led the entire (public) school in prayer, explicitly referrring to Christ. That is, in my opinion, completely different from someone using the term “Jesus” in a context that wasn’t related to religion (at least not consciously).

Did CBS bleep out “Jesus” because it was a use of the Lord’s name in vain? Were they afraid of getting sued by non-Christians at a time when the pledge of allegiance is under attack for the phrase “one nation under God”?

If it’s the former, then there’s a slight irony that a reference to Jesus has been silenced at a time when the growing conservative tide that has backlashed against everything from Janet’s nipple to same-sex marriage has been articulated largely on the basis of religious convictions. Perhaps they don’t want someone like Jackson, who has become the beacon of sexual chaos in the U.S., to be associated with the term.

If it’s the latter, then perhaps one’s got to wonder whether secularists have taken things one step too far. Jackson wasn’t saying the term in a State-sponsored event. The fact that she wasn’t using the term in a religious context seems to suggest that no one’s freedom of belief or expression was violated (except maybe Jackson’s).

On a somewhat related note, were you aware that section 215 of the Patriot Act states “third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it’s trying to protect against terrorism?” Would the real Joseph McCarthy please stand up?

Laura Nathan-Garner

Bassem Mroue of the Associated Press reported yesterday that the U.S. led Coalition Provisional Authority has temporarily shut down al-Hawzah, a weekly newspaper run by Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric in Iraq. Mr. Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority have determined that newspaper contains articles designed to provoke instability and incite violence against the coalition forces, and that the operations of the newspaper will be suspended for sixty days.

In response to the closure, over a thousand supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr staged a demonstration near the newspapers offices.  

Hussam Abdel-Kadhim, 25, who participated in the demonstration, claimed that what is happening now is what used to happen during the days of Saddam. No freedom of opinion. It is like the days of the Baath.”

Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan and author of Sacred Space and Holy War, which examines the history of Shiite Islam in Iraq, Iran, and the Persian Gulf, responded to the incident by stating:
  
“There is a real question as to whether cracking down on the newspaper like this will make things better or worse. Since Muqtada has a tight network of mosque preachers throughout the south, he is perfectly capable of getting out his views without a newspaper, through the sermons of his lieutenants. Likewise, he gets quoted in Iran-based Arabic language television and radio broadcasts.”

Now that the newspaper has been shut down, will those that want to hear the message of Muqtada al-Sadr increasingly turn towards mosques for their political dialogue? And, if so, what will Mr. Bremer do then? Trying to limit the rash of violence is all well and good, but by stripping Iraq of legitimate public forums of political discourse, such as a newspaper, Mr. Bremer may well be driving those hungry for political dialogue increasingly towards religious centers. And that, I doubt, is what Mr. Bremer wants.  

Mimi Hanaoka

The Passion of The Christ has excited outrage, controversy and furor; in fact, the historical inaccuracies and arguably anti-Semitic material in the film have created a powerful advertising machine. The film has done enough damage, but is it capable of doing any good?  

If The Passion of The Christ is capable of making any productive contributions to contemporary life, let it be a revival of interest in Aramaic and other languages that are in danger of extinction. Although Aramaic — an ancient Semitic language — is often misunderstood to be a dead language, it is still spoken by small pockets of Christian communities in the Middle East, including regions in Iraq, Turkey and Iran.  While Aramaic will have to settle for the injection of publicity it received from The Passion of The Christ, the Maori language and culture of New Zealand today gained a concrete and powerful tool for its preservation.

Today, New Zealand introduced its first Maori language television station, the aim of which is to preserve and promote the language and culture of the indigenous people of New Zealand.  The Maori comprise approximately 12.5 percent of New Zealand’s population of four million, but less than 10 percent of the Maori population speaks the Maori language.  

The station is targeted for a young audience, since a startling proportion of the Maori population — approximately half — is under the age of 24. By making Maori immediate, accessible and relevant, the television station will hopefully encourage a revival in Maori language and culture.  

Perhaps today is a bad day for sound scholarship and religious understanding, but it is certainly a good day for the preservation of language and culture.  

Mimi Hanaoka

The latest installation in the line of merchandise and marketing that capitalizes on Asian stereotypes is Comedy Central’s staggeringly humorless and offensive show, Banzai. The show’s official tagline, posted on the Comedy Central web site and which presumably intends to mimic the broken English that all Japanese apparently speak, reads: “Get ready for new gaming opportunity!”

The show panders to the bottom-feeders of the Comedy Central audience — in the brief minutes that I watched the show in transfixed horror, I saw a man who was excitedly screaming in broken English as two dwarves attempted to climb a “mountain,” which was, in fact, a rather tall man.  Characters, which I can only presume where meant to look like the Japanese script of Kanji, occasionally cascaded across the TV screen.

Comedy Central joins Urban Outfitters and Abercombie & Fitch in peddling Asian-themed merchandise.  Abercrombie was pilloried for its offensive line of clothing; among the Abercrombie t-shirts that excited national outrage was a shirt that featured a hunched over and apparently Chinese cartoon figure under the slogans “Wok-N-Bowl,” “Let the Good Times Roll” and “Chinese Food and Bowling.”

Asian-American Village has addressed the creative retaliation that Abercrombie & Fitch’s marketing ploy has produced, such as t-shirts that read “Artfulbigotry & Kitsch.”  While it doesn’t appear that Banzai has excited the same outrage that the Abercrombie scandal achieved, it is certainly evidence of a commercial trend.  

Aside from its curious and total lack of humor, and disregarding the offensiveness of the show, Banzai evidences a complete lack of cultural context. “Banzai,” the title of the show, is a cheer that is often used at times of celebration. However, it is also a cheer that resonates deeply with Japanese nationalist sentiments, and which Japanese nationalists, who often campaign in the streets of Tokyo, yell out with pride. At a time when Japan is entering into a situation of armed conflict for the first time since the end of WWII, and when the remilitarization is a serious — and, for many, a very troubling — issue in Japanese politics, Comedy Central displays its blindness to the cultural context in which it exists.  

Mimi Hanaoka

Many opponents of gay marriage argue that if gays are allowed to marry, then that will create sexual chaos and justify polygamy, pedaphilia, and petaphilia. Yes, petaphilia (though you may be more familiar with the term bestiality).  For a fun and insightful read, check out this article from The Village Voice.

Laura Nathan-Garner

Okay, I know. I am a hypocrite. In early February, I posted a PULSE item that called for an end to the use of the “conservative” and “liberal” labels. Banish them to the dustbin of history, I said. They’ve worn out their utility. Yet I recently filed a 3,000-word story on Bush’s “Healthy Marriage” initiative, in which I used the word “conservative” no less than 15 times. To add to the outrage, I only used the word “liberal” twice. So I guess I only want to avoid pigeonholing when liberals are being pigeonholed. When it happens to conservatives … ehh, no big deal. They deserve it, anyway.

When someone cuts me off in traffic, I honk and shout profanities. But when I cut someone off and he honks at me, I get indignant. “Who does this guy think he is?”

If someone is tailgating me, he’s a reckless asshole. If I’m tailgating him, I’m just in a hurry.  

But hypocrisy loves company, so thank God I’m not alone.

John Kerry is filthy rich, but he advocates an equitable distribution of wealth. (At least Bush got rich the respectable way, by inheritance.) If you truly believe what you say, John, why not start distributing some of that wealth right now? It’s 20-minute walk to Beacon Hill; I can come and pick up a check. While I’m there, maybe you can explain the three mammoth, gas-chugging SUVs parked outside your door. How goes the struggle for energy independence?

And we can’t let Dubya off the hook. The man who brought integrity back to the White House didn’t exactly kick hypocrisy out. When Bush said to Tim Russert, “The policy of this administration is to be — is to be clear and straightforward,” he was already on thin ice. But then they had this exchange:

Tim Russert:  Will you testify before the commission?

President Bush:  This commission? You know, testify? I mean, I’d be glad to visit with them. I’d be glad to share with them knowledge. I’d be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some.

I’m interested in getting — I’m interested in making sure the intelligence gathering works well.

Enough said. But pointing out Bush’s hypocrisies can get boring. Republicans have only been working on Kerry for a couple of months. Eventually, that will get old, too. In American politics, if you call your opponent a hypocrite, you’re only trying to make him look bad to voters. You certainly don’t expect them to start cultivating integrity.

When everyone is hypocritical, hypocrisy gets normalized. Without absolving ourselves of accountability, we have to acknowledge that we live in a culture that is astonished by real integrity. At best, we regard it as admirably eccentric (think Aaron Feuerstein) — at worst, kinda sad (Michael Dukakis). We like to throw accusations around, but we consider it naïve to expect anyone to change.

If we won’t insist on integrity from the candidates we support, how can we expect it from those we oppose? The next time you want to call someone a hypocrite, start with your favorite candidate and demand that he do something about it.

If you doubt that Kerry or Bush can be accused of hypocrisy, check out FactCheck.org.

henrypb

A Hypertextual Review of “City of God”

City of God (written by E.L. Doctorow, 2000) may have an experimental beginning that can be frustrating for some readers … don’t worry, though. As you travel into the narrative landscape, it slowly pulls together threads of meaning that create an evolving state of awareness; by page 50, you are recognizing clear patterns, and by pages 80-90, you have the names of the main characters down. Don’t let this frustrate you, this book is not a Bic Mac designed to be hastily gobbled down. Rather, it is a sumptuous feast for the senses and soul, a fulfilling meal designed to feed the spirit.  

It tackles the big issues of the 20th Century and creates a dazzling array of voices to bring this historical moment of the century’s end to dramatic life.  It is so searing when it hits on all engines; the descriptions of the city are very powerful, bringing a sense of the majestic aliveness of urban life and its chaotic sensory effect.  The portrayals of the past through a World War II Jewish ghetto and a young boy’s experiences are soul-shattering.  The relationship of the main characters in the New York present are vivid and real …

The last 100 pages are a powerful literary experience of the continuing importance of religion in our society, while also providing a no-holds-barred critique of the reactionary traditions that try to stop us from evolving as humans and as spiritual beings (in a very subtle storytelling manner).

If this sounds interesting, you might also be interested in Black Elk Speaks by John G. Neihardt, Nothing Sacred by Douglas Rushkoff, The Concept of the Foreign by Rebecca Saunders, The Infinite Conversation by Maurice Blanchot, and The Cunning of History by Richard Rubenstein … I read these books near the time I was reading City of God, and they all speak to the need for new modes of interpersonal human relations or a new spirituality for a changing world.

thivai

If you haven’t heard, Kobe Bryant’s accuser has spent the last day (and will spend Thursday as well) testifying about her sexual history in a Colorado courtroom. The purpose, we’re told, is to allow a judge to determine whether she should be forced to testify about her sex life during the trial.

My initial thought was, “How ridiculous. Why should this even be a consideration? (Not to mention, how horrible for this woman to have to share her sexual history with a courtroom full of strangers).” But then, I thought about it and realized that the alternative was for attorneys and so-called “expert” witnesses to discuss this woman’s sexual history without her input. Not that I think that this redeems this woman’s predicament. After all, forcing this woman to testify during the pre-trial phase isn’t exactly emancipating (at least, I wouldn’t suspect that to be the case). As far as I know, Kobe’s sexual history isn’t in question (his basketball savvy isn’t either, for the record).

In many ways, I feel like this woman is in an unenviable predicament. She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. I don’t even know the issue at hand any longer is that of whether or not she was raped. The question, in many ways, seems to be about her credibility and her sexual history — not about Kobe (whom, if you weren’t aware, is actually the defendant in this case). That is extremely troubling. What does it say about our justice system when we have to determine whether the plaintiff is guilty until proven innocent before we determine whether the defendant is innocent or guilty?

Laura Nathan-Garner

In response to Lyricalreckoner, polis writes:

Not to be pedantic, but you do realize that all Indians are not necessarily Hindus, right? Though your point about Hindu influence in Union City may still stand (there might be a large Hindu population there), it’s important to disentangle the idea that India is a Hindu Nation. This is something Hindu Nationalists would like you to believe, and they are becoming increasingly successful at this in and outside of India, but many other religious groups live in India besides Hindus and, moreover, India is officially a secular nation.

polis