Like a traffic accident...

I can't help but look.

Paper sons...

Being involved in the Asian American community here in DC, I've learned a lot about the histories of other Asian American communities...  But, unfortunately, most communities' immigration stories do not get told beyond that community, which is why this article in the NYT was not only good to read but also good to see.

I know many Chinese Americans who have introduced themselves to me, saying something along the lines of... "My name is John Lee, but it's really Chen."  Or, s/he has two different names on her/his business card -- on the English side, it says, e.g., "John Lee" but the Chinese characters on the back read "Chen".  Because someone up the ancestral line was a paper son.

Interesting stuff.  I don't think there's an analogous history in the Japanese American community.  We don't have "paper sons".  Maybe because the numbers of immigrants were smaller?  I don't know.

And on a tangentially related note, here's another story about an Asian and American names...

Who knew?

Who knew that my pooch had a famous namesake

Now, if only our Gidget spoke Spanish and we could get the residuals on her commercials...

I'm sorry for two NSFW posts in a row ...

but this just made me laugh.

Not the letter so much as the advice columnist's response:

Dear Prudence,
Last fall, I met a terrific woman from the Mediterranean who may be "the one." She's beautiful and has a great body that she likes to show off, but she is also very hairy. She never shaved back home, and having now been steeped in years of women's studies in the United States, she has become militant about not conforming to the ideal of hairless womanhood. She can't wait to spend lots of time at my parents' beach house this summer. She has bought a tiny bikini that she plans on wearing, so lots of her pubic hair is guaranteed to be on display. My mom and dad are going to faint. Hair in the armpits? European. Hair on the legs? Granola. But pubic hair all over the place? I've told her she may want to "trim up a bit," but she refuses. What to do, besides hide her from my mom and dad?
—Hairified

Dear Hairified,
If she feels about you the way you feel about her, surely she wants to snatch this opportunity to make a good impression on your parents. Appeal to her vanity: Tell her that if she refuses to trim her undergrowth, your parents' embarrassment will keep them from appreciating her great mind and beautiful figure. Appeal to her sophistication: Since she's lived a cross-cultural life, she knows that making a small gesture can be all that's needed to keep from muffing a sensitive encounter. Appeal to her affection for you: Explain that if her pubic hair is also her public hair, you're going to want to hide in the bushes. Emphasize that you are not asking for permanent defoliation, just for an application of depilatory so that when beach time comes around and your neither European nor granola parents see her itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny bikini, their hair won't stand on end.
—Prudie

Porn for pets!

I am posting this purely in the interest of science.  Nope, had nothing to do with the oddity of this article.   Nor any salacious intent.  Or any fascination with the subject at hand.  No indeed.  I'm posting this piece because it's interesting and bizarre -- and because my dad is now my "friend" on Facebook, so posting articles there about chickens choking their chickens ain't gonna fly (not for me, at least).

All mixed (up) metaphors aside, here is the article in question: Hands or Paws or Anything They Got

Make sure you watch the embedded video.  Ahh, nature in its natural state!

Kidney story

This is the story of a son who donated his kidney to a stranger so that his father could receive one. It is told from the perspective of the son and was really informative. And it totally made me bawl, given my current family situation. If you have about 15 minutes and want to learn more about what's involved in a kidney transplant, this is worth the watch.

The thing I started writing about earlier...

The set of articles on the New York Times website. I found them interesting and useful. I suppose it says something about my age that I was attracted to articles on "what you need to know" about...

Estate Planning
Health Insurance
Home Insurance
Income Taxes
Credit Scores

The estate planning article also included a link to a site where it will apply the laws of intestacy of your state and give you a basic breakdown of what will happen to your assets if you die without a will. That was useful. I had assumed that since I am married but without children, my husband would get my estate in its entirety. I was wrong. My parents will get half.

They don't need half, nor do I want them to have it (believe me, their estates are worth a whole helluva lot more than mine). So, now I'm gonna look into doing a basic will.

That's my PSA for the month.

River Road literally becomes a river...

This is not too far from my dad's house and where I grew up.

IF Obama were to win on the 4th, what would his cabinet look like?

My own little guessing game, based on mere conjecture combined with some wishful thinking... Your thoughts?

State -- Dick Lugar
Treasury -- Timothy F. Geithner?
Defense -- Richard Danzig? Keep Robert Gates?
Attorney General -- Eric Holder
Interior -- Tom Vilsack? Tony Knowles?
Agriculture -- Charlie Stenholm?
Commerce -- a CEO
Labor -- Dick Gephardt or David Bonior
Health and Human Services --
Housing and Urban Development --
Transportation -- (Tim Kaine later in the administration)
Energy --
Education -- Joel Klein, Kathleen Sebelius (after her term is up)
Veterans Affairs -- Tammy Duckworth (or Max Cleland)
Homeland Security -- Jane Harman

Environmental Protection Agency --
Office of Management and Budget --
National Drug Control Policy --
United States Trade Representative -- Gary Locke (this the wishful thinking part)
National Security Advisor -- Susan Rice
Chief of Staff -- Tom Daschle!

 

UPDATE (10/31/08): There are lots of folks making their own lists.  Check out The Huffington Post for their thoughts...

I didn't know this; maybe you did...

So, I was watching part of a CNN piece called "Sarah Palin Revealed" last night. Ya' know, her all-American humble roots in Alaska. Her dad was a science teacher (!what does he think about her "dinosaurs co-existing with humans" theory?) and track coach (good thing he didn't coach volleyball), and it was her mom that got her into the born-again church, where Sarah was indeed born again at 12. And yes, the rumors are fact that Sarah went to at least four colleges before she finally earned her degree in journalism. (I'll spare the snarks about the combined intellectual candlepower demonstrated by the McCain-Palin ticket...)

Anyway, interesting tidbits, as far as I watched. I admit that I didn't watch it all the way through, but I did tivo it for later.

But I did catch this... Sarah and Todd Palin's marriage is often portrayed as two high school sweethearts that eloped because they couldn't afford a wedding and knew they wanted to share the rest of their lives together.

Okay, that may be true. But CNN also revealed this little factoid, which I hadn't heard before... Sarah and Todd eloped and almost eight months later, their first child was born.

I'm sure we can all do that math. Girl just heard she was preggers, so they got hitched. Huh. So, Bristol is just following in her mother's shoes, just a few years earlier.

"Bad things happen when good people stay silent."

If you haven't already read the letter from Anne Kilkenny, a resident of Wasilla, AK who has known Sarah Palin for years, you need to read it.

More of the same...
Kilkenny provides her first-hand observations of Palin's political career and unravels the Republican spin on their veep choice. I was particularly surprised to learn that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla (1996-2002), she took the town coffers from debt-free to $22 million in the red. Considering the population of the town at that time was approximately 5,500 (according to the 2000 census), that's a per capita debt of $4,000. Sound familiar? Very scary. Who in this economy can afford such a public burden strapped to their backs?

Kilkenny also debunks some more of the R rhetoric. E.g., she points out that Palin did cut property taxes (which are progressive) but raised sales taxes (which are regressive); notes that Palin has a history of seeking revenge against those who oppose her; and confirms that Trig is indeed her baby (not her daughter's).

Bad things happen when good people stay silent.
Kilkenny says she wrote this letter because she wanted to offer people her opinion about Palin, and, unlike many others who know Palin, she is not connected to a job or organization that would make her vulnerable to Palin's retribution. Of course, she also says that Palin has hated her since 1996, so this letter could be all about spite. Who knows what Kilkenny's motivation was..?

If nothing else, this is another (probably better-informed and more personal than most) opinion on who Sarah Palin is. If even some small portion of this background is true, it paints Palin as power-hungry, smart, and ambitious. It also raises huge questions about how whether the public interest is truly at the heart of Palin's policy decisions.

An interesting read.

I've got to hand it to the Republicans...

I wish the Democrats could manipulate the spin at the same level as the Rs. The Rs do know how to do it quite well.

This whole Palin thing typifies their strategery. To wit...

I was wrong to think that the Rs were trying to woo the female vote simply by adding a woman to the ticket. Oh no, that's much too simple. The Rs are trying to woo female voters by stirring up the gender issue and then defending Palin against the alleged sexist attacks. That way, the Rs look like the good guys, especially when compared to the Ds, who didn't do squat to defend Hillary against the sexist media attacks.

Ya' see, the Rs are creating the story about the evil east coast media machine beating up on poor Sarah. Every time you hear a Republican operative speaking, s/he brings it up. They are very disciplined at sticking to message. Poor Sarah. It's not fair that the media is investigating her. It's sexist to criticize her. Would they do this to a man? It's out of bounds to subject her family to any scrutiny whatsoever. (Never mind that she absolutely invites voters to buy into her "compelling personal history" as somehow further proof that she has what it takes to be veep by touting her role at a hockey mom, parading her kids around, etc..)

It doesn't matter that the MSM have not done anything the Rs are accusing them of. The investigations and stories have been on legitimate grounds. The media is just uncovering the hypocrisy and lies spewed from the Rs. Hillary, on the other hand, was called a "bitch" and "shrill" and told to go home and iron shirts and all sorts of nasty nasty in the media and by the punditry -- and that was clearly sexist. Palin has not been subjected to any of this. The closest anyone has come to a sexist question is asking how she will manage having such a large family -- including two children who are exceptionally in need of parental support -- while campaigning full-time and, if elected, as veep. I don't think that's sexist, but it might border on it if you think that a mother has a special role to play in the raising of her children. If, on the other hand, you think a father or a nanny can do it or that it's legitimate to ask about a potential veep's time management skills or how she will prioritize demands on her time, then it's fair game (so long as it's not done in a "your place is in the kitchen" kinda way).

Anyway, so the Rs are ginning up the "sexist" story.

Make no mistake: they are not highlighting it; they are creating it. And the media is buying into it by defending themselves against the accusation.

Bad move, media.

The media doesn't need to defend themselves. They need to call out the Rs for this artful dodging. Please, please, please, someone call this one for what it is. The Republicans are using the media. They are saying that the media's portrayal of Palin is sexist (to deflect people from focusing on the real story: her qualifications, or lack thereof). Then they are staunchly defending Palin against the alleged sexist treatment.

In doing so, the Republicans are changing the story from Palin's abysmal qualifications while also trying to win the votes of those who were so offended by the media's/Democrats' handling of Hillary by showing what "good guys" they are, not letting the media get away with "it". Clearly, the Rs are trying to set up a foil to the Dems and show in stark relief how they came to their female candidate's defense, while the Democrats didn't (thereby showing how sexist the Dems must be). The Rs think that women will be swayed by this "knight in shining armor" defense that was so lacking by the Dems.

Problem is -- women who supported Hillary aren't so naive as to think that the Republican party is somehow better on women's issues than the Democrats just because the Republicans created this bru-ha-ha in order to make themselves look better.

Problem is -- there hasn't been a sexist attack against Palin by the media (unlike Hillary, who was absolutely subjected to it). It has all been created by the Republican spin machine.

Problem is -- Palin's credentials and qualifications and any official actions she took or authorized as a public official are absolutely fair game. This attempt by the R machine to define the story as sexist is a red herring. The Rs want to control the stories about Palin and paint her in the "reformist" light that serves their message. But the truth is interfering with this message control, so since they can't change the facts, they are going to attack the messenger (typical R tactic) and say the reporting is sexist. And hope that women swoon at the chivalry of the Republican party in defending their "gal".

Media, please stop buying into the Republicans' hands. Don't let them get away with this little tactic (ya' know, when you can't assail someone's actions, attack them personally instead). Do your job and investigate what is fair game when it comes to Palin and all politicians. Call out the Republicans for trying to create this story to somehow set up a dichotomy between how the R's have defended their candidate but the D's didn't.

(BTW, you should definitely read the story that I linked to above -- and here again and this one too. Good stuff!)

End rant.

Possible US N&WR Ranking System Change...

may result in drastic changes by law schools with part-time programs as the schools try to keep their rankings high... because it is widely accepted that law schools manipulate their admissions statistics by shunting the borderline students (i.e., lower LSAT scores) to their part-time programs (whose admissions stats aren't considered in the rankings) so they can still look good on paper.

I went to Georgetown Law. I applied to and graduated from the evening program. And I agree that GULC is guilty of doing this too. Many of my fellow evening students wanted to be in the day program but didn't get in. They were instead offered a space in the evening program, and after a year, they transferred to the day program (full-time). So a good chunk of the evening program was a waiting list for the day program.

However, it is also true that many mid-career professionals apply to the evening program at GULC and work full-time throughout law school. Like I did. Some also apply with that intention but end up quitting their jobs and transferring to the day program. For those of us who matriculated in the evening program -- not because we didn't get into the day program but because we had other obligations during the day -- Georgetown was great. I think we had the most diverse and interesting students. In fact, while GULC didn't tout our program through the stats, they always did when mentioning the incoming students' accomplishments. Without fail, most of the achievements cited regarding each incoming class came from the evening section (although they never said so). But we knew. Because these were our classmates. It's true that we did get the short end of the stick when it came to grants and funding, attending seminars/programs (which were usually convened during our classtime) and recognition. But I think we also got great respect from the professors and an unrivaled sense of section unity.

And I would argue that our section statistically outperformed any other section. We may not have had the highest LSAT scores, but we knew how to balance life, work and school -- which is even more important when it comes to getting the work done and doing well on exams. I would bet that the evening section had a higher percentage of honors grads than any other section. So, I think US N&WR should consider the part-time programs in their rankings. And I think the schools should stop manipulating the admissions stats by using the part-time program as a waitlist. Just populate the part-time sections with students who want to be in it. Then you'll get folks who are really motivated because it takes a helluva lot to work all day and then go to class at night. Not an easy undertaking. And you'll also have a very high-performing class.

I'm jest sayin'...

So much for the Olympics and all that rhetoric about athletic competition bridging cultural divides and so on... blah, blah, blah

Apparently you gotta speak English to play with us, or so says the LPGA.

Because fluency in English has something to do with how well you swing a golf club? It's not that, says LPGA folks. "This is an American tour," Peters said. "It is important for sponsors to be able to interact with players and have a positive experience."

Um, can you be more fucking sexist?

In other words, the all-mighty buck is the bottom line, and sex sells. They don't want good golfers; they want good "spokeswomen" (I'm being charitable here). So wait, I'm confused. The LPGA isn't about golfing well; it's about pleasing the sponsors. Next thing you know, there will be a prettiness requirement. Because, remember, "It is important for sponsors to be able to interact with players and have a positive experience." Then we can discuss length of golfing skirts...

I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that wouldn't the golfer who made the best shots, putts and scores draw the greatest interest and audience, regardless of her English language proficiency? And isn't golf a silent sport anyway? What really does language have to do with a player's ability to play or draw a crowd (which is what the sponsors want anyway)? Um, nothing. This is a dumb rule which objectifies the female golfers rather than seeing them as athletes.

Oh wait... there's this: There are 121 international players from 26 countries on the LPGA Tour, including 45 players from South Korea.

Ahh, I see. Not only is this a sexist rule, but it sounds like a country club version of yellow scare to me. Sexist and racist.

Appalling.

A celebration of hapa-nation!

Multi-Culturalism Explained In One Word: Hapa

Tell Me More, August 18, 2008 · In a guest commentary, the program's outgoing Intern, Kristin Lee, describes how she explains her multi-cultural roots, and why she embraces the term "HAPA" to describe her heritage.

People describe me as "hapa" all of the time, although I grew up on the East Coast and didn't make my first trip to Hawai`i until my 30s.

However, "hapa" is a term becoming more widely recognized and used, and it's a good shorthand for this CroAsian chick. (Japanese on my dad's side and Croatian on my mom's. But I'm fourth generation -- e.g., my great grandparents immigrated -- American all the way around.)

The shit keeps on rolling in at DOJ...

Yup, another DOJ report finding that the Department illegally considered politics in hiring decisions.

Monday's report singles out the department's former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, for violating federal law and Justice Department policy by discriminating against job applicants who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists.

And it looks like Goodling may be disbarred as a result. Of course, she won't face (administrative) charges because she no longer works at Justice. And I doubt there are any criminal charges associated with her malfeasance.

I think a lawyer who deliberately and repeatedly flouts the law while acting as a agent of the premier law enforcement agency of the government is getting off easy by just being disbarred.

Besides, she can always go back to working for the RNC (unless you think she never stopped working for them, even while at Justice). They take care of their foot soldiers.

I'm jest sayin'.

The Fix agrees with me...

Sorta.

And sorta doesn't.

My maybe veeps to watch were Bayh, Bredesen, Edwards (Chet) and Kaine. This Fix proffered the following rank:

5. Hillary Rodham Clinton

4. Joe Biden

3. Kathleen Sebelius

2. Evan Bayh

1. Tim Kaine.

As I've stated, I don't think Obama will pick a woman. Joe Biden is an excellent idea. The other two were on my final four list. We'll see.

(Of particular amusement, one of the commenters to The Fix column advocated for Senator Dodd. He urged us to think of the bumpersticker: Vote for Obama! Dodd is my co-pilot. Ba-ha-ha-ha!)

I just want to know...

what the heck were they thinking?

Poor girl isn't going to be a big fan of U2 is my guess.

So. very. sad.

As my colleague noted, the level of discourse just plummeted.



Tim Russert, 1950-2008.

Why Americans are fat.

Because we eat too much.

Check out these two quizzes. Portion sizes now and 20 years ago.

I wonder if it's actually 20 -- or more like 35 years ago?