You Can’t Have It Both Ways

So I have been following the California gubernatorial candidates recently as they are gearing up for elections. Generally, I find their smear campaigns and promotional materials in general to be more entertaining and irritating than informative.

Although I am a registered Democrat, I chose to intern in college for Governor Schwarzenegger instead of working on the Angelides campaign just because I can’t stand candidates who smear to excess. I took a tour of the campaign office in Sacramento, and while the vibe was young, and everyone seemed pretty intelligent and chill, the office walls were covered with Schwarzenegger dart boards and insulting posters. It just turned me off. I’d far prefer a candidate to stand for something than against it.

While candidates who shamelessly attack one another are intolerable to me as a voter, I always find it interesting when candidates directly contradict themselves in the midst of a campaign.

For example, ever since controversy surrounding Arizona’s immigration law has gained enormous visibility, it seems like every politician wants to one-up each other in terms of the creative policies on immigration that they can stand behind. More specifically, I find it entertaining that Meg Whittman’s English ads promise that as Governor of California, she will be “tough as nails” on immigration, while she is simultaneously running commercials in Spanish to appeal to Chicano/Latino voters. You can’t have it both ways, hun. You wanted to run for Governor on a conservative Republican platform to set yourself apart from Schwarzenegger, who is more of a moderate, and guess what? No matter how many contradictory commercials you run in English and Spanish, your platform is polarizing, not unifying.

If you are going to stand for something, then stand for it, but it seems like she’s involved in some kind of popularity contest. Its almost as if she’s taken her experience at eBay, where she had to market to appeal to the greatest number of people as possible, and letting it effect the way she is running her campaign. You can please some people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Agency and Comradeship in the City

Last night I watched the first Sex and the City movie for the third time. Aside from some great apartment and outfit styling, it was just as frustrating to watch as the first and second times.

The premise of the television series (as is the premise of the movies) is to highlight female independence and self-sufficiency the arenas of career and sexuality, and the importance of the friendship bond among females. While I understand that there would not have been something like 15 seasons of this show if there weren’t a central ongoing conflict, (these womens’ romantic incompetence) it still bothers me that these women are portrayed as strong and independent, yet completely self-centered and materialistic.

In the movie, Carrie and Big come to an agreement that they should get married. Obviously, Carrie has been looking for love since the start of the show, and Big has always been a womanizer who has never made himself completely emotionally available to Carrie, and has always put his own needs above her own. Carrie may claim that she is looking for true love, but she is obviously barking up the wrong tree. This guy has been a total asshole to her for 10 years. She even admits that she knew he would pull something like leaving her at the alter but she didn’t want to believe it. She wants love so badly she has lost sight of who the person is that she is supposed to be in love with. And while she is a writer, her true love is fashion. She obsesses over the size of her closet and the price of her handbags and shoes. A central theme throughout the series is that she spends all of her money on clothing, shoes and interior decorating. She confesses in the movie that she spent her book advance on an interior decorator. This is supposed to be a role model for impressionable young women?

Then, we have Miranda who is a total self-righteous bitch throughout the entire movie. She is so focused on her career that she loses sight of the people who love her, expecting them to cater to her busy schedule while neglecting them. For example, she gets frustrated at a dinner that the check hasn’t arrived before everyone is finished eating because she has a brief to work on. Then, she forgoes sex with her husband for six months at a time and is shocked when he cheats on her. She separates from him and ceases all communication despite the fact that he has apologized numerous times and thinks the world of her. And where does their child come in as a factor, here? Not relevant to the story apparently.

Then, we have Samantha who has the sexual maturity of an 18-year-old boy. Her world revolves around sex to the extent that she loses interest in a long-term relationship with a man who really loves her when he works variable hours, preventing them from having sex all day, every day.

How does the movie end? Carrie gets married to Big, Miranda’s husband, Steve begs to take her back, and she finally obliges, and Samantha breaks up with her boyfriend because she loves him, but loves herself more. What message are we sending, here? That its okay to live in denial and marry someone who doesn’t value your time and treat you with respect as long as you have your $800 pair of Manolo’s and a walk-in closet? That its more important to focus on your career than on your husband and child? That as long as you love yourself, you’ll be alright?

Dear HBO, where is the balance? Why do women have to either be marginalized eye candy and/or completely bereft of relational competence when they are portrayed as intelligent (supposedly) and successful? Who the hell writes this shit? Why is it that every show lauds agency while completely omitting relational competence as central values? Its almost like suggesting to women (and men) that women are only valuable if they are hot and sexy or if they take on the traditionally masculine values of agency and material success? They can’t be both successful not materialistic? They can’t have respect for themselves while loving and caring for a man simultaneously? I see this juxtaposition of values all of the time in business, so obviously this ideology is taking hold in a real way. When are we going to grow up and realize that we need both the yin and the yang?

Liberty and Justice for All(ah)

While the Landmarks Preservation Commission and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg gave the green light on the construction of a mosque near the Ground Zero site in the context of a speech on religious liberty, protestors from various groups have apparently been popping up around the country to protest the construction of mosques at the local level. Many of the disputes began as zoning issues, but have turned into a battles of religious and political values. Many of the opponents of mosque construction claim that mosques are breeding grounds for Jihadist ideals, and that the teachings of Islam are contradictory to the US Constitution. Supporters of the mosques on the other hand, assert that denying the construction of mosques would be an unconstitutional denial of religious liberty. Interestingly enough, politicians have voiced their public support on both sides of the controversy.

On the subject of the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero, I think its a terrible idea, but it would clearly be unconstitutional to disallow its construction. I think it would be asinine to suggest that muslims attending a mosque at ground zero would commit acts of Jihad, but at the same time, I do believe that its a little insensitive to construct a mosque in the name of Allah on the site where 2,000 people were also killed in the name of Allah. Furthermore, I can pretty much guarantee that when a mosque is constructed at the Ground Zero site, protestors will make it difficult for anyone to attend or operate the mosque. Would it make a statement about religious freedom? Sure. But I doubt (as I’ve heard suggested) that it would be a symbol of unity through religious diversity. It would probably present more of a point of contention and danger than anything else.

As far as opposition not only protesting, but intentionally offending muslim proponents of mosque construction elsewhere around the country, it reminds me of a pattern of fear and marginalization that has existed in the United States since its conception. We have studied the marginalization of minority groups over time including black Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, women, etc, etc. In each instance, a exploitive desire and action has existed. To deflect attention away from this exploitation and from a general lack of ethical consideration, a particular group has been scapegoated as responsible for some type of fundamental ideological threat which instills fear in the general population (a population that theoretically has an average IQ of 100 – i.e. not super intelligent).

In the case of African Americans, attention was diverted from the fact that they were originally brought here as slaves, and also the fact that this country profited tremendously from their labor. When they began asserting their own human rights, ideological seeds were planted in the general public suggesting that they were a threat to white American women, dirty, lazy, unintelligent…. what have you.

In the case of Mexican immigrants, white settlers essentially took their land and either killed them or converted them to Christianity. Those who were pushed further South (beyond the Southernmost borders of the US – what is modern-day Mexico) were also killed, converted (by white settlers) and exploited for their natural resources including coffee and hemp (by the United States – this type of exploitation continues today). The United States represents the single greatest economic reason why Mexico is as poor as it is. THEN, when Mexicans try to cross the US border into what was originally their land to begin with, (in order to work for sub-minimum wages that essentially make the economies of states like California functional) ideological seeds were once again planted in the minds of the general population that Mexican immigrants are law breakers, and should not be subject to our constitutional rights. Furthermore, that they are a drain on our social resources and should be deported.

In the case of Muslims, we have been exploiting Saudi Arabia for years and years (where we get the vast majority of the oil we use – I’m talking like 95%). The US government decided a long time ago that they needed to do something about the fact that these resources are finite (the easy way, of course – through exploitation of other countries’ natural resources, and not through the development and implementation of alternative fuels). When Taliban terrorists decided to attack the World Trade Center, it gave Bush Jr. a convenient excuse to finish what Daddy started in the Gulf and invade Iraq (relation to Taliban and Pakistan, where the highest concentration of Taliban leaders exists? Yeah, we’re not quite sure either). But the excuse for spending billions upon billions of dollars of borrowed and taxpayer funds on a war for natural resources? Terrorism. And thus, you get another ideological seed which has been planted in popular consciousness that Muslims are dangerous. Fear is perpetuated. People buy Range Rovers. Cycle is complete.

Best Marketing Plan He Ever Had

Apparently, I had been watching MTV before falling asleep the other night, and woke up to Drak’s “Best I Ever Had” music video. I knew after watching it that I had to write about it. Its both offensive and genius; two of my favorite things.

The video begins with a bunch of busty women in low-cut basketball uniforms running onto a basketball court in slow motion, so you can get a clear shot of their *ahem* assets. The video goes on to follow the girls stretching in short-shorts in a locker room. The song is interrupted by a breif dialog between the female basketball players and Drake, who plays the coach. Drake is giving the girls a pre-game pep talk, telling them that they are about to play the best team in the league. One of the girls interrupts, “but you only taught us how to stretch.” The girls end up getting crushed on the court. Shocking.

From the female perspective, its pretty obvious why this video would be offensive. The girls on this team are all very attractive, and clearly have no talent for basketball. They are also portrayed as extremely stupid as they never appear to question “Coach” Drake’s choice in uniforms nor coaching technique. Their only purpose is to entertain Drake and the viewer visually.

Which brings me to my next point: the song for this video is a love song directed at a female audience. When I reviewed some of the comments on the official video’s YouTube page, several subscribers were confused as to what the content of the video has to do with the song itself. Two contradictory statements are being made here: on the one hand, Drake tells his love interest in the song “sweatpants and slippers/chillin’ with no makeup on/that’s when you’re the prettiest/I hope that you don’t take it wrong.” Conversely, in the song’s music video, Drake follows a bunch of stupid women who are dressed like strippers onto a basketball court, telling each one indiscriminatnly, “you’re the best.”

The viewer might wonder, “why would you sing songs that appeal to a female audience, and then turn around and offend that audience?” The strategy here is really quite genius, because the number one venue through which a song is heard is the radio. Women will (presumably) hear Drake’s song on the radio before seeing the music video, if they ever see it at all. Once the female audence is habituated to the song through repeated radio listenings, it will form a fan base that will buy Drake’s records, cioncert tickets, merchandise and fan site subscriptions despite the content of the video. The reason for that being that females are more likely to hear the song without the video at greater freequency than they will watch the music video.

Men, on the other hand, will probably dismiss the song when they hear it on the radio as directed at a female audience, and not applicable to them. If the same men happen to be flipping through the channels and spot a bunch of bouncing breasts in slow-motion, evolution would dictate that they are probably going to stop on that channel and watch the rest of the music video. Because the video appeals to a male sense of humor, Drake will probably end up picking up some male fans as a result.

BAM. Regardless of its message or impact (on a younger and easily influenced viewership, most likely), the video is guaranteed to up Drake’s fan base, which is his ultimate sourch of revenue. Considering the impressive chart positions that Drake’s songs hold, this strategy appears to be working very well for him.

The Fourth Branch

In college, I participated in a program in which I interned at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research in Sacramento. In this program, I also took a class on Politics and the Media, in which my professor (a former writer and editor for the Sacramento Bee) suggested there are not three, but four branches of government: the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch and the Media.

While I agreed with his assessment from an intellectual standpoint, I was still shocked at the extent of the media’s permeance of government that I found while working in the Governor’s Office. It was my duty to scan state media outlets (primarily via blogs) searching for “evidence” in support of various policies that were to be recommended by the Governor. Coming from a research background, I had been taught to critically asses not only published claims, but scientific claims to a very strict standard. Naturally, I found that a number of news articles that I was using to recommend public policy either omitted important facts, or cited “facts” that were flat out wrong. Thus, I realized that I was working as a part of a governing body that was recommending public policy that would potentially be signed into legislation based on untrue information. Pretty unsettling.

So, when I began following the recent controversy surrounding Shirley Sherrod and her forced resignation from the USDA, that unsettling feeling crept up within me once again. This time sadly, I wasn’t surprised.

For those of you who have been vacationing on a remote island this past week, here’s the breakdown: conservative political blogger Andrew Breitbart posted an edited video of Georgia’s Director of Agriculture, Shirley Sherrod, addressing a local chapter of the NAACP. The video’s strategic editing suggests that Sherrod is admitting that she didn’t do all that she could to help save a farmer from bankruptcy based on the fact that he was white. As a direct result of the media coverage that Mr. Breitbat’s video editing garnered, the USDA’s secretary demanded that Sherrod submit her immediate resignation. Sherrod obliged, but protested that her comments were taken out if context, and that her point in telling the story was to discuss how she overcame her views of matters in terms of “black and white.” According to the farmer’s wife whom the speech was about, the occurrence took place in 1986, before Sherrod even worked for the USDA. Furthermore, Sherrod apparently saved the family from bankruptcy, becoming a close friend of theirs. Following these developments, not only did the USDA apologize to Shirrod, but so did President Obama.

So, dear reader, who is to blame here? The government for not checking it’s sources? Andrew Brietbart for being a dumbass? The media that quickly jumped to conclusions? We, the viewers for giving a shit in the first place?

The answer is D: all of the above. And while we can’t help conservative nimrod bloggers and governmental dysfunction, we can do our part (and in my opinion, this is the MOST patriotic thing that we can do as Americans) by educating ourselves as best we can with our given resources, and by assessing both the public and private sectors (herein I’m referring to government and media, respectively) with critical eyes, ears and voting quills.

Did you know…?

That China and Taiwan signed one of their most significant trade agreements since 1949 last week? Did you know that the Philippines inaugurated its new president, Benigno Aquino? That Nepal’s prime minister, Madhav Kumar Nepal announced his resignation as part of a deal with the Maoist party that wants to instate its own leader? Or that there were riots in Greece as parliament debated health care reform and cuts to public debt that are being demanded by the IMF and European Union in return for a rescue package?

Neither did I until I read the Economist. Thanks, CNN, NYT, and LAT for conveniently omitting these stories. I was much more interested in listening to Mel Gibson berate his girlfriend with racist and sexist slurs at the top of the hour, every hour.

Heteronormativafornication

Admittedly, I don’t have a lot of time to watch television, so when I do follow shows other than the news, they tend to be shows I can access On Demand. One of the shows I have followed pretty closely is Entourage.

Because I live in Los Angeles and work in the entertainment industry, I find the similarities and incongruencies between the show and reality mostly entertaining and a little disturbing. As I view the show with a female perspective, the show’s focus on heteronormative values to the extent of being blatantly mysogenistic and homophobic is genuinely bothersome at times.

I realize that much of the show’s entertainment value lies in its satirical exaggeration of Hollywood. The disturbing part is that what some viewers may interpret as exaggeration is actually somewhat accurate. For example, the characters Arie and Vince may appear hyper-masculine (Vince is successful, famous and constantly surrounded by a disposable supply of attractive women who’s roles on the show are always fleeting and inconsequential, while Arie seems to be perpetually hurling homophophic and sexist comments, commonly suggesting that the significant women in his life – such as his wife and business partner – are controlling and cumbersome) while the characters Drama and Turtle are portrayed as longing to posses these qualities if they are unable to achieve them (Eric lies somewhere between the two extremes on any given episode).

Having dealt with managers, agents and artists (mainly musicians, but some actors as well) this portrayal isn’t too far from the truth. Agents (especially talent agents) are a high-strung ruthless breed in general. In my experience, and in the opinions of others whom I have spoken to, agents are assholes. Career is paramount, family is second, and they can be extremely cruel and calloused to those whom they feel are inferior or not useful to them. An friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) worked at a large agency in Beverly Hills as an Executive Assistant to the head of the agency’s Literature department. His boss bragged about signing a client during his father’s funeral, and was extremely verbally and psychologically abusive to my friend. Likewise, I have spent a lot of time with multi-platinum male musicians (I would assume their lifestyle is similar to that of a successful actor) and there is certainly no shortage of women, party favors, attention and ego. As in Entourage, their managers and assistants seem reap the residual benefits of their fame to a lesser extent. Also, it seems appropriate to mention that there is certainly an ideology specific to L.A. that encompasses a unique brand of normative gender roles.

When I first moved to Los Angeles from Northern California, one of the first things that was readily apparent to me was the general emphasis on heteronormative values. Since I’ve been down here, I’ve noticed that men tend to be a little more defined by their masculinity, and women by their femininity. Challenges to these values seem to represent a greater threat to Angelinos in general than they do to Northern Californians (just based on my observations). I was definitely struck by the male emphasis on monetary success, and the heightened value that is placed on how women look, and the compartmentalized sexual role that women play in Los Angeles. Likewise, it seems as though women in Los Angeles (more than women in the bay area at least) place a heightened value on their appearance as is evidenced in the way that they spend money on things like plastic surgery and clothing. Women and men who challenge these roles (in reality to a slightly lesser-degree than on the show) are seen as bitchy or gay, respectively.

Conversely, I also suspect that the satirical value of the show may be lost on the majority of viewers, which also concerns me. I once told my boyfriend, for example, that I felt at times that watching Entourage was like watching a sitcom from the 50′s in terms of gender roles. “Really?” he replied. He had never really noticed that there might be anything offensive about the way women are portrayed in Entourage (as nagging wives or co-workers, spoiled rich girls, strippers, one-night-stands or scantily-clad office assistants who are too stupid show up for work on time or remember where they parked the company Mercedes). Susan Faludi would have a field day!

What concerns me is that most of the immense viewership of Entourage might share my boyfriend’s perspective. Similar portrayals of women and homosexuals in shows such as True Blood, Californication and Hung are repeated throughout each episode. The millions who watch are inculcated with these types of hyper-heteronormative gender roles and values, and are presumably desensitized in much the same way my boyfriend was.

Thanks, Mom!

I spoke with my mother yesterday, who immediately asked me “how are things in Los Angeles after the verdict yesterday?” Admittedly, I had no idea what she was talking about.

She explained to me that there had been an incident in Fruitvale in which a BART police officer had shot and killed a surly BART patron in the back after the patron had been handcuffed and subdued. The prosecution had sought a maximum penalty of Murder II (despite the fact that the court should have allowed a maximum penalty of Murder I as malice aforethought was clearly present in this instance). The sentencing phase of the trial apparently ended yesterday at 4PM when a sentence of Involuntary Manslaughter (the minimum penalty set fourth by the court) was delivered.

My mother (who resides in the San Francisco bay area, where I grew up) wanted to know if rioting had started in Los Angeles as the trial had a change of venue order to Los Angeles in light of the Oakland court’s inability to procure an unbiased jury (the defense usually seeks a “change of venue” order when a case is high-profile and jury members residing in the area might be considered biased as a result of extensive media coverage).

When I told my mother that I had no idea what she was talking about, she was incredulous: “but its all over the news!” Apparently, not in Los Angeles. I read and watch the news every day, usually folling several sources: CNN, BBC News, the White House (great iphone application for news from the White House in real time), The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Economist (clearly, I work at a desk). Thus, I consider myself decently well-informed. Although to her credit, I stopped reading the San Francisco Chronicle, The Oakland Tribune and the Contra Costa Times when I moved to Los Angeles.

I wondered if I was as retarded as her voice seemed to suggest over the phone, or if there really was a significant difference in news coverage, so I decided to check the front pages of each of the news sources I usually read in addition to the ones I had stopped reading in college. I felt slightly less retarded when I realized that there was next to no coverage of the trial nor the subsequent riots in Oakland in the featured stories (or front page, as it may be in print) of any of the news sources that were not specifically based out of the bay area.

My purpose in pointing out the difference in news coverage in this case is not simply to absolve myself of my own ignorance, but to suggest to you that there is a much larger issue here. It seems to me that media coverage of this case was intentionally minimized in the Los Angeles area to thwart the type of rioting, voilence and collective public anger that its coverage in Oakland seemed to help incite. After all, the L.A. riots following the Rodney King case was no small ordeal, and it happened fewer than two decades ago.

Obviously, the courts aren’t stupid (all the time). They know (given the presence and use of “change of venue” orders) that media coverage of a case has a significant impact on public sentiment and the outcome of a trial by jury. Likewise, the media are clearly aware of their impact upon public sentiment and collective ideology. It is interesting to me there are not similar media “gag” orders or change of venue orders when it comes to elections.

The Sky May or May Not Be Blue, But at a $2 Billion Annual Cost to Taxpayers, It Must Certainly Be Falling

I’m so tired of hearing subjects debated on the news as though there is room for speculation and debate when a clear and quantifiable answer already exists. It’s a bit like watching group of small children argue over whether or not Santa Claus exists. Except that Santa Claus is any number of major world issues effecting huge populations, and tuning in are a huge viewership that will take anchors’ ruminations straight to the voting booths.

Case in point: the debate over Arizona’s recent immigration law. What’s frightening to me is that not only are broadcasts of opinions about the law one-sided and misinformed, but the law itself fails to acknowledge some crucial facts. What’s even more frightening is that the federal government and as well as a number of other states are looking to Arizona’s new law as a model for their own legislation on immigration reform.

Thus far, the most common debate on the subject includes two sides: the side that argues that immigration needs to be prevented and/or illegal immigrants should be detained/deported as they present a major cost to taxpayers in education/social services/incarceration, and the side that argues that detaining people in the street based on the color of their skin is inhumane and unconstitutional.

Generally speaking, I tend to side with the latter argument as social justice is a passion of mine. But after spending my high school years in Berkeley and college years in Santa Cruz, I know from listening to many a heated political debate that conservatives tend to focus on monetary cost while liberals tend to focus on the human cost. Neither one speaks the other’s language, and they end up in a circular conversation that goes nowhere. If I’m going to argue the liberal perspective, I need to do so from a monetary standpoint.

Bearing this in mind, I realized that there was a critical component of the Arizona law debate that has been conspicuously absent, and begs the questions: do illegal immigrants cost US taxpayers more than they contribute to them (and the US economy)? Does it cost US taxpayers more if the police stop, detain and deport illegal immigrants, or does it cost US taxpayers more if these people are made legal citizens?

There is an answer. And its not hidden away in a confidential government file somewhere. The answer is public, and anyone with an internet connection can find it. That is, if they are asking the question in the first place.

Here are a few of the facts I was able to find with their sources:
-as of today, there are approximately 22.8 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
-as of today, these immigrants cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $2.1 billion in social services, education and incarceration/year
(both stats calculated using immigrantcounter.com)
-in 2005, the federal government did the first comprehensive study on the projected cost of detaining and deporting illegal immigrants in the U.S. at between $206-230 billion over six years. that was when the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. was only at 10 million (7/26/05, Washington Post)
-native U.S. citizens gain an estimated $37 billion/year from illegal immigrant’s participation in the U.S. economy (according to the president’s council of economic advisors) to see a breakdown of these contributions, visit: http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/report.php?ID=104

Interestingly enough, even though they continue to debate the subject on CNN without attention to these facts, they conducted a study with similar findings to my own that can be found on their website. You can find that study here: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/07/immigration.economy/

As an aside, I really enjoyed Ryan Seacrest’s interview of Shakira on this subject. Although she discusses her thoughts on the immigration law from the human perspective, her passion is inspiring and she raises some very good points. Watch a video of the interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORFQD-avN-8

When I Say “Jump,” You Say “Trust Fund”

An article published today in the Los Angeles Times brought to light a labor rights issue in a unique subset of the performer population: children on reality television shows. According to the article, (which can be found at http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-reality-kids-20100627,0,939452.story?page=1) children who appear in reality television shows are not protected by child labor laws as networks argue the children are not actually working.

Whether or not children are compensated for their appearance on a reality show varies depending on which show they are on, and which state they reside in. For example, while children who appear on the show “The Real Housewives of Orange County” are not compensated, the producers behind “John and Kate Plus 8″ where ordered by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry to contribute 15% of the show’s earnings to a trust fund for the Gosselin children.

Apparently, there has not yet been an issue with children on these shows working too many hours as networks have been careful to cater to them and their needs. With the increasing popularity of reality shows however, it seems that without legal safeguards, an issue of irresponsible labor practices is bound to occur. Furthermore, with the media exposure that was received by the Gosselin family particularly with regard to John and Kate’s very public divorce, one has to ask themselves if introducing young children to the limelight without legal safeguards is responsible or ethical.