Category Archives: diversity

blog, diversity, journalism, news, politics, race

Manti Te’o? Oh, yeah, I talked to him…sure

OK, not really. But given the imaginary world of Te’o and his recent silence, well making up the truth is the next best thing.  The itnerview was set up by his imaginary girl friend.

Considering how loosely people want to play with the truth these days,  check out my post at www.aaldef.org/blog

Just today I heard former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger say “he never lied” about having that child out of wedlock with his family’s  nanny.

I guess acting a lie is different from actually speaking a lie in Arnold’s world.

And then we have, Lance Armstrong, and even our dearly beloved president. Although is it  really a lie when you say you’re going to end a war, but don’t?

Or when you say you’re going to end the invasive eavesdropping laws, or closed Guantanamo, but don’t?

Find the elusive truth here.

 

 

blog, diversity, journalism, news, race

Apology politics’ double standard: Why ESPN on Miss Alabama but not CNN on Kathy Griffin?

To hear the media hubub about Brent Musburger’s “appreciation” of Katherine Webb, Miss Alabama USA 2012 during that boring Notre Dame game the other night, you’d think he was drooling on camera like some creepy perv.

When I actually heard what was said,  I was offended that people took such offense. It was a gross overreaction to Musburger. He was simply admiring (like a person of his generation) Webb’s beauty, and trying to be playful during a game that had zero entertainment value.

Sure, it would have been better if there was a real game being broadcast, so that Musburger’s attention wasn’t so easily distracted.

But was he really leering and did that merit an apology?

Webb was on The Today show Wednesday saying she was “flattered” by Musburger’s attention.  But she indicated she took no offense.

I’m upset that ESPN felt compelled to apologize.

Apologies do mean something.  But when you get trigger happy with your apologies (remember they apologized for comments about Jeremy Lin last year) they become devalued as a quick PR ploy to simply move a story out of the headlines and into the trash bin.

In the meantime, ESPN  won’t stop showing scantily clad cheerleaders at pro or college events, or pretty wives and girlfriends of players, nor will they start featuring cosmetically challenged sportscasters (of any gender).

ESPN’s apology doesn’t change any of its real sexist ways.

How about this? Maybe ESPN will start showing the partners of WNBA stars? And have the sportscasters say great things about their dating choices?  Do you ever see that when it’s not a traditional heterosexual relationship?

You see, hollow apologies don’t really matter.

Meanwhile, for the truly outraged, it’s funny how  the simulated oral sex act on the CNN New Year’s Eve broadcast doesn’t exactly get the same rushed apology treatment.

I actually like both the performers involved, Kathy Griffin and Anderson Cooper.  Sure, cable can and should stretch limits on the premium channels, but not on basic cable, general news, even after midnight on New Year’s Eve. Remember midnight EDT was 9pm prime time PDT.

I’m no prude, but something other than a big ball dropped that night. And no network big wig thinks an apology is necessary.

blog, diversity, news, politics, race

An Asian American in Newtown, the President’s “Gettysburgian” address, and more on the changing gun control debate

I was hoping not to see it, but in this era of diversity, how could we not expect an Asian American name on the roster of the dead children at Newtown.

Madeleine Hsu, 6 was among the 20 gunned down on Friday.

She was described as “very upbeat and kind” and the “girl who wore flowery dresses” in a Wall Street Journal account. But there was no photo and little else, as the family told an AP reporter they wouldn’t be speaking to the media.

As the facts come in, here’s one thing that stuck out for me after a weekend of news discussion shows.

Except for these mammoth events where lunacy and guns cross paths and innocents get in the way, we are a safe, safe society.

According to latest crime stats, there is no reason to feel you need a gun to be safe.

That is unless you have an issue, about paranoia, criminality, or something else. But America is much safer than everyone thinks.

Only with the addition of guns, does the safety level decrease and the danger level rise.

Another interesting tidbit: On at least two of the Sunday network news chat shows members of Congress who have a pro-gun viewpoint were invited to come on the programs.

There were no takers.

No one had the courage to stand up for their “gun lobby” convictions in the face of 20 children dead.

That’s telling, and how I know we’ve reached a turning point in the debate over gun safety.

It’s the power of the Newtown 20.

The night-capper, of course, was President Obama’s speech on Sunday night.

It was just the right kind of speech. Moving and emotional without being overly so, spiritual without being too religious, although the president did read from scripture (2 Corinthians 4:16-18) and even invoked Jesus’ name at the end.

But he was more in the role of president as national comforter. He was Parent-in-Chief, describing what it’s like to be a daddy. He showed us the real value of the young lives lost. They are all part of us.

The idea of the nation as a family, came to mind. And when he mentioned “love,” I thought the president knocked it out of the park.

But it seemed to give him a bit of courage to say the bold political words that he had yet to say as forcefully in his administration.

When it comes to gun violence he’d visited so many other scenes in his four years, but last night he said it as plainly as he could: “We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.”

He spoke of the “obligation to try.”

And then he laid out the policy path:

“In the coming weeks, I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine.

“Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?

“Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

It was already a great speech.

But was it” Gettysburgian,” as one writer suggests?

If we are caught in a modern civil war over guns, it’s an appropriate comparison. We have to come together on this issue, once and for all. The tragedy of 20 innocent children senselessly massacred goes beyond the fatalities of war. We aren’t on the battlefield, we are on Main Street U.S.A.

And then came one last invocation of the religious.

Said the president:  “Let the little children come to me,” Jesus said, “and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

And then he read the childrens’ names one by one, including Madeleine Hsu’s.

(See my original post on the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund blog).

blog, diversity, journalism, movies, news, politics, race, sports

SCOTUS and Prop.8 ; Imagining a post-racial, post-same sex marriage debate world: the movie, “In the Family”; and Manny Pacquiao’s “Groundhog Day”

If you’re not sure what the Supreme Court is doing about gay marriage from all the different news reports,  then you need a time line.

Like the proverbial egg  passing through the snake, the issue is going through the process: In 2008, California narrowly passed a state amendment that banned same-sex marriage, but then a Federal court declared the ban unconstitutional. That ruling was subsequently upheld by an appeals court. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court simply said it would review the lower court’s decision.

Asian American same-sex marriage advocates saw it as a hopeful sign. API Equality-Northern California released this statement: “By granting a review now of the lower federal court’s ruling which held Proposition 8, California’s statewide constitutional ban on same sex marriage, to be unconstitutional, we hope that the U.S. Supreme will not uphold Proposition 8, but instead seek to affirm the lower federal courts’  ruling on this issue,” said Heidi Li, a California family law attorney and Steering Committee member of Asian Pacific Islander Equality – Northern California.

So the end is in sight of this snaky process. Maybe. We hope.

THE POST-RACIAL, POST-SAME SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE MOVIE, “IN THE FAMILY”

Those of you who remember me from my TV days in San Francisco, know that one of the things I did was act as resident film critic for the NBC affiliate (I was the one with the flower in the lapel, in between the convicted pedophile and the gal with the hat fetish).

I saw a lot of films in the ‘70s and 80s. Since then, I’ve been a lot more selective. But around the holidays, I always get the urge to see films (besides “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” for the umpteenth time) because this is truly the season when we are all prodded to the cinema right through Christmas.

But do you really want to flinch at another loud, crash’em up, blow’em up, spectacle in 1,2,3,or 4-D in the 8,14, or 16-plex?

I just saw the new Bond film and already find myself in need of a break. Slow food movement? I’m ready for the slow film movement.

Here’s my answer: “In the Family,” an independent film by Patrick Wang that some are calling a “masterpiece.” That may be a bit grand, but it is a fine antidote to the crashingly commercial. It opens this weekend, Dec. 7 at the Opera Plaza in San Francisco and the Camera Cinema in San Jose, and it’s definitely worth a look.

The film is a quiet tour-de-force. It’s absolutely one of the first post-racial, post-gay, post-hang-up movies I’ve seen ever. Hang up? That is to say it doesn’t get hung up on the obvious and because of that goes deeper. When do you recall seeing a film starring an Asian male, who is gay, in a conflict with his white family, over custody over a Caucasian child? And never once is there a mention of being Asian, or gay? Fish-out-of-water is a Hollywood convention and always played to the hilt. But here, the oddity of a Chinese American gay father in the South? Well, the movie just presumes it’s totally natural, like “Oh sure, there’s a gay interracial marriage and they’re raising a kid, and when the white father dies, the straight sister comes in to take the child.”

Oh, yeah. Like, you’ve seen these movies on Lifetime in your lifetime.

So are you ready for that?  In this movie, there’s nothing prurient or tawdry. When in a movie about gays is a kiss ever just a kiss? It is here. When is a movie with an Asian male in it just an excuse to show off some marital arts moves? All the time. But this movie is kung-fu free.

There’s also interesting things going on cinematically here. It’s an indy film so realism is a given, but this film shows off by disdaining the quick edit and letting the camera see and the actors act.  It seems like one long take after another. It is a long take. But by letting the camera go, the audience gets to see something amazing in the performance of the actors. They’re creating and letting us in on it. Cutaways? Sometimes. Mostly the camera is still and not moving, set on a wide shot and turned on. The viewer is allowed to see it all unfold as if watching a play (indeed Wang directed live theatre). Wang, an MIT grad naturally, shoots the movie in New York (Yonkers) but sets it in the South, (Martin,TN). And it’s totally believable.

So let’s review: here’s an Asian guy talking like a redneck, kissing his white husband, and raising a little white boy who calls him Daddy. With no karate chopping?

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

It doesn’t always work. In fact, you might feel like a fly in the wall who wants to move in for a closeup. Or land on someone’s nose instead of a backside.

But on the whole the movie works because it gets beyond the political rhetoric of race and gender, and marriage, and just looks at the human situation. There are even scenes that humanize the lawyers, which I actually found to be among the film’s best segments.

By the end, Patrick Wang playing Joey Williams makes perfect sense. It’s an Asian American story in a world where we simply exist. And may even be coincidentally gay, as if that matters. It’s the film after the culture clash. But even after some form of acceptance, there’s still conflict. And that’s where the movie reaches its peak.

Seeing the film reminded me of my days in Texas and Missouri where I spent the early days of my career. People thought I was Mexican and not Filipino. And then they were really confused when they heard my unaccented English and saw that I was dating their daughter.

If you want to imagine a post-racial future free of any race or gender B.S., or want to see a “Gaysian” portrayed in something other than the effeminate gal pal in chick flicks (those are the parts that used to go to Bronson Pinchot), then “In the Family” is a welcome sight.

Opening Dec.7 at the Opera Plaza in San Francisco and the Camera Cinema in San Jose.

 

“GROUNDHOG DAY” FOR MANNY PACQUIAO?

After losing the debacle known as the Timothy Bradley fight which was so unfair even I felt cheated, Manny Pacquiao has run out of options. The best he can do is repeat himself. And the guy is human, not a machine.

The Mayweather fight is the only thing left, and that’s not happening. So what’s a Filipino super-star pugilist to do? In keeping with this posts’ movie theme, call Marquez-Pacuiao 4, “Groundhog Day.”

Manny answers the bell and it’s Marquez. Again.

No.4.(Four, by the way, rhymes with “whore” if you haven’t noticed). And what are we doing by going to the well another time except for money? I mean, I guess Pac-man shouldn’t dignify Bradley’s “championship” by fighting for the crown that was stolen from him.

So what’s left? Marquez? Again?

If it’s all rigged anyway, let me watch it all a week later  when it’s free.  So, to pre-empt your question, I’m not watching the fight this week.

 I’ll be watching my “24” DVDs all weekend long when I’m not going to Christmas cookie parties.

Pacquiao has been a great champion, but he’s got other things on his mind. And now boxing is his J-O-B.

He’s 2-0-1 against Marquez, who some say beat Pacquiao in at least one of the previous fights. I saw them all. It was close. But Pacquiao deserved the edge. Now, I’m not sure. Both are older and Marquez may get the better of Manny finally. But so what?

Part of me says, who cares about championships and belts, let’s just see a good fight. Marquez and Pacquiao fits the bill. But the other part of me hates to see Manny expose himself to more of boxing’s brutality.

He’s got a future outside of the ring—if he can leave with his brains intact.