policy with pop

A "Precious" Sight: Poverty & Pain

I won two advance screening tickets to an episode of Glee in LA last minute (I’ll blog about the episode in another post)! With a day and half to plan my unexpected trip from Nor Cal to So Cal, I decided to take a train. What I saw before attending the Glee screening was eye-opening and heartbreaking.

The train is a great way to travel. You get to sightsee without the hassle that comes with driving. The steady speed of the train also allows passengers (or at least me) to read, study or even write a blog post without getting a headache!

Anyway, my trip started at 6:40am at the train station. As my train was going through Sacramento, I unexpectedly saw several tents scattered in undeveloped lands. At first I thought it was a little odd to set up camp in Sacramento. But, then it hit me. I remembered reading about the prevalence of people living in tents because they could no longer afford living in a home during the recession. I never saw it in person before.

Sacramento was not the only area with families living in tents. As my train went down the Golden State, I continued to see tents. In distressed towns like Merced and Fresno, I saw rows of tents under bridges.

It definitely made me sad to see so many tents throughout California. I realized how blessed I am to have what I have. But, I also wondered what could be done to help those families. I thought about that during my trip.

When I arrived in LA a day before the Glee screening, I decided that I was going to see Precious: A Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire. Now I’ve wanted to see the movie for months, but after unexpectedly seeing families living in tents, I thought watching this film was timely. Here is the trailer for the movie:

Without giving away all the details, Precious is about the struggles of a poor, obese, illiterate, black teen-mom, who is raped by her father and abused by her mother. Intense. Not only do viewers see the startling assault Precious faces at home, but it exposes the cracks in our inadequate education and welfare system. Now this movie is set in the 1987 but the problems highlighted in Precious still seem to like issues today.

One fear that some have about a movie like Precious is that it is “poverty porn.” That type of movie is one in which the rich and middle class go see to watch a story about poverty/struggle and feel good about themselves for seeing such a movie. In the end, the poor person’s story is exploited and those who enjoyed the film ultimately leave without doing anything about the problems they are exposed to.

After watching Precious, I wondered what can be done to help those like Precious. It’s been two days since, and I’m riding the train back home, passing by those living in tents. Thinking up solutions about addressing the problems of poverty and abuse is a challenge. That’s why I’m hoping to figure it out with you.

As I return to Sacramento, California’s capital, I wonder what the government can do to assist those who have slipped through the cracks. What do you think the government can do? What should it do?

And, what can an individual do to help the poor or the abused? Should we all feel an obligation to help those in need? Or is it every man for himself?

In any case, not to get all Oprah on you, but you have to see Precious.

Anthony Woods: The Democrats' New Dream Candidate?

Move over President Obama, there is a new groundbreaking candidate and campaign in town.

Anthony Woods at 29 years of age already has a compelling life story similar to the President’s background. Like Obama, Woods grew up in a very modest, single-mother household. Both are also African American men who happen to be Democrats and Harvard-educated.
 
But Woods is not an Obama clone. He stands in his own right as a historic candidate. Woods is a decorated Iraq War veteran, earning the bronze star for commanding 81 soldiers, who all returned home safely.

Woods’ bravery does not end at the battlefield. While attending the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Woods stood up against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and subsequently was discharged. As a result, he lost his military funding for school. Yet, Woods persevered and completed his master’s degree in public policy. Afterwards, he became an economic policy specialist. Now he’s running for Congress.

Anthony Woods may be Democrats’ dream candidate post-Obama’s victory. Woods breaks stereotypes in every way liberals could hope for. He’s black. He’s gay. He’s an Iraq War vet. He’s Harvard and West Point educated. He comes from humble beginnings. No story could be written better.

Because of his unique life, Woods has earned national attention, fundraised impressive amounts, and attracted a loyal base of supporters.

But, winning California’s 10th congressional seat in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher, who left the seat to take an appointment in the State Department, will not be easy for Woods. He runs against not one but three Democratic-establishment candidates. They are California’s Lt. Governor John Garamendi, state Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan and state Senator Mark DeSulnier.  The three Sacramento politicians have better name identification. But, ultimately, voter turnout in this special election will decide the winner.

The Democrat with the most votes in the primary will likely win the election outright. Sound familiar? Well, if Woods wins on September 1st, it may be one of the biggest political upsets in history, rivaling that of Obama’s victory against the Clinton machine. I’m almost certain a movie will be made if that occurs.

But, if Woods does not pull off a political upset in Northern California, he should take comfort in the fact that Obama lost his election for a congressional seat in Illinois in 2000.

How Should Mariah Carey Respond to Eminem’s Insults?

Remind me not to get on Mimi’s bad side…

Mariah Carey hits Eminem with a bus of a song in “Obsessed.”

The feud between the megastars started in 2002.  Eminem publically claimed that he had been sexin’ the diva. In the released single “Superman,” Em raps, “Buy you ice / B*tch if you died wouldn’t buy you life / What you trying to be my new wife? What you Mariah? / Fly through twice>”

Mariah did have a rebuttal. “Clown,” off her Charmbracelet album, is reportedly about Eminem and takes the rapper to task, but it was never released. While Mariah made some subtle jabs while responding to reporters’ questions, she never publically launched a counter-offensive. She took the higher ground so to speak.

I thought the 2002 feud had died. It’s 2009 for goodness sake.

But with his return to the spotlight, the rapper brought back his old insults. He raps about Mariah in “Bagpipes from Baghdad,” a song off of his Relapse album, calling her a c*nt, a wh*re, and a b*tch. He also clowns Mr. Mariah Carey, Nick Cannon, too.

Nick defended his wifey and launched a blog attack at Em, claiming Slim Shady (a white male) was sexist and racist for insulting the bi-racial diva.

But, Mariah can speak… sing for herself.  She recorded and released “Obsessed.” Now the diva’s camp claims that the song and video is not about the Detroit rapper (apparently she’s vegetarian and doesn’t beef). Right… Because referencing sex rumors and drug problems in your song has no relation to the reignited feud and Eminem. And, dressing up like an Em is only a coincidence.

Anyway, what do you make of Eminem's attacks against Mariah? Insults from a jilted ex? Or put-downs from a sexist and racist (like Nick claims)?

How should one respond to insults? For years, Mariah did the supposedly classy thing and only refuted any accusations. And the insults kept coming. Apparently girl got tired of the attacks and fired back. Which approach is best?

And who are you supporting in this war of lyrics?

Prince Harry: National Treasure or Royal Pain?

Apparently Prince Harry did not heed Mariah Carey’s sage advice - “If it’s a camera up in here, then I best not catch this flick on YouTube, YouTube.”

Prince Harry has set off a storm with his usage of racist language in the video made three years ago while he was serving in Afghanistan with the British army. Since St James’s Place issued a statement that Prince Harry has acknowledged and apologized for his racist remarks, we don’t have to debate about whether they were or weren’t (unless you want to). However, this does raise the question: Should there be a royal family?

This isn’t the first time Prince Harry has brought shame to his family. At 17, he admitted he used marijuana and entered into a drug treatment program. He also reportedly snorted vodka, which is dangerous. In 2004, Prince Harry was also accused of cheating his high school exit exams and was also in a scuffle with the paparazzi. 2005 saw the Prince dress up as a German Afrika Korps uniform with a swastika. He apologized for his costume. This video is his and his family’s latest embarrassment.

His ignorance and mistakes are not necessarily uncommon for a young man growing up. The difference is he is third-in-line to the throne and in the scrutiny of the limelight. Should the public expect more from him given the perks of his royal upbringing (like having a private education)? Or do Prince Harry’s mistakes humanize him and generate more interest in him and the royal family, making them relevant (even if only in a celebrity sense)?

I guess what I’m really asking is what is the royal family’s role when its power is primarily ceremonial? Does that role justify having royals? Obviously British tradition and culture play a role in why the monarchy has survived. Plus, the British royal family generates millions of dollars in tourism ($200 million in 2006-2007) and does charity work worldwide. But, does that all justify its existence and all the taxpayer money and respect it receives? You tell me.

And if you support having a constitutional monarchy, what expectations should the pubic have? How do you keep member of the royal family accountable? More to the point: how do the people punish them, if they can?

Republican: Barack the Magic...

While PolicyWithPop.com was on a two-month hiatus, America elected Barack Obama the next President of the United States. With its electoral losses, the Republican Party is in disarray and looking for new leadership. The Republican National Committee (RNC) is holding elections for a new party chair. There are currently six candidates.

It is really anyone’s game. One RNC chair candidate, Chris Saltsman, not only sent each RNC member a note asking for support but attached a CD that contains a controversial jingle that takes jabs at the president-elect in hopes of appealing to RNC members. It parodies “Puff the Magic Dragon.”

 

Let’s take a moment to remember the kiddie classic.

Now the conservative parody is not really kid-friendly and PC as the inspirational Puff. The song, produced by the Rush Limbaugh Show, is sung by a white political satirist, Paul Shanklin, imitating Rev. Al Sharpton’s voice. You can click here to hear it. The song bases its lyrics on an LA Times opinion piece and is entitled “Barack the Magic Negro.”

 

Magic what!?! Apparently it is a cinematic term, which refers to black characters that mysteriously appear out of nowhere and miraculously save the white protagonists. I’ve never watched it but apparently The Legend of Bagger Vance starring Will Smith and Matt Damon is an example.

The opinion piece mentions that Obama has been criticized for not being “genuine” black. The song takes this argument to another level. With an Al Sharpton-impersonated voice, the song’s lyrics proclaim: Barack is “black but not authentically.”

 

The opinion piece and the song’s lyrics are referencing the fact that Obama is half-white and did not live in “the hood.” They eerily echo Ku Klux Klan’s view. KKK national director Thomas Robb stated, “Obama is only half black. Not only is he only half black – he was not raised in a black environment. He was raised by his single [white] mother.”

 

If you read the LA Times opinion, do you think it crossed a line? Or was it a fair-game assessment of Obama?

 

Is the song racist as some claim? Or is it just political satir? Does it matter that it bases its lyrics on the LA Times opinion?  

 

If the song is acceptable political satire, is it smart for Republicans to bring up Obama’s race in a negative manner even as a joke? Does it open up Republicans to charges of racism? Or are Republicans strategically pushing the envelope to make it easier/more acceptable to criticize the first black President?

Racial Isolation on The Hills?

I love The Hills. I know. I know. It’s bad. But it’s so good…

But despite my love for the Lauren Conrad-centric show, I always wonder if she and her crew have any minority friends.

Ok, so there’s Frankie Delgado, a secondary cast member. That’s one.

Is the only non-blond principle cast member, Audrina Patridge, is a person of color? I don’t know. But if she is, she doesn’t really acknowledge it publicly.

So for now, the record stands at one. Thanks, Frankie.

The Hills (aka Los Angeles) doesn’t have just one minority, right? Nope. According to the 2000 US Census Bureau, minorities are the majority in LA (46.5% Latino, 11% Black and 10% Asian American).

So why doesn’t The Hills cast members have more minority friends? Perhaps they live and socialize in areas within LA that lack minorities, and therefore they don’t really interact with minorities. If so, would that be racial isolation (a nicer way of saying racial segregation)? Is that bad and therefore needs to be fixed? Or is it just how things are and we should just accept it?

There are rumors the reality show is… fake. Oh, the shock! There are claims that the MTV production team stage events for the cast. If the show is staged, should MTV make an effort to include minorities on the show? If so, why?

Would you want to see Lauren and her new friends of color hang out in Chinatown? Or watch Heidi and Spencer go to Compton? Wouldn't that be a change on The Hills?

Acting White with the Fresh Prince

When a black youth from the mean basketball courts of Philadelphia moves in with his rich Bel-Air relatives, comedy ensues. Yes, I am talking about the classic sitcom Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, which launched the career of Will Smith.

Besides causing the chuckles, this show also addressed relevant social issues. In the episode “Blood is Thicker than Mud,” the Fresh Prince brought attention to the social theory of acting white. Watch this clip to get the gist:

Because Carlton is considered a “prep school, Bel-Air bred, sell-out,” his black peers in the fraternity deem him “not enough of a brother to be a brother.” At the end of the episode, Carlton relates the incident to his father. Philip Banks, who grew up poor and worked his way to become a prominent lawyer and judge, asks: Why is there a penalty for success in the black community?

Acting white is generally defined as over-achieving minorities (usually black students but also includes Latinos) being accused of behaving in ways that are perceived to be white characteristics by their minority peers. “Over-achieving” is the operative word for acting white.

Acting white can result in loss of popularity, ridicule and harassment. Apparently, minority students have to be a fool in school to be cool. Many sociologist blame the theory of acting white as one of the causes of the racial educational achievement gap.

Acting white is not a universally accepted concept. There are those who believe acting white is a myth. They cite a North Carolina study that found that black and white students had the same attitudes about achievement – they want it and know school is an important step to get it. Furthermore, some believe the theory of acting white is unfairly placing too much blame of the education gap on the black community, when they believe other factors are to blame.

Do you think acting white is a real phenomenon? Is it responsible for the education gap? And if so, how do you propose we fix it? Or is acting white an inaccurate theory that diverts responsibility away from other factors?

Abercrombie & Fitch: A Hot Mess?

Looks matter. But should it be the be-all, end-all?

Apparently it is at Abercrombie & Fitch. The clothing store has a policy of rating its employees’ hotness weekly. The scale is from a 0 to 5 scale. 0 means the employee is… not hot enough to help customers and is banished to the stockroom, away from customer eyes. And, a score of 5 means the employee is hot enough to be a “model” (known as “sales rep” at normal stores) on the retail floor. Oh, and there’s no in between score. You’re either hot or not.

If you recall, in 2005 Abercrombie was sued and later settled a lawsuit that claimed that the store racially discriminated against minorities in the hiring and promotion process. In the settlement, Abercrombie paid $40 million to the class action lawsuit participants, hired a diversity recruitment coordinator, and implemented specific policies to attract minority employees and have fair workplace practices.

Despite these steps, Abercrombie apparently still has questions about its treatment of minority. A court-appointed monitor recently noted that Asian Americans and Latinos were “entirely absent” in the store’s marketing campaign.

Minorities are legally protected by anti-discrimination laws. Being discriminated because of one’s appearance is not illegal, unless it is being used as a guise for racial discrimination or discrimination to any other protected group under the law.

Assuming that Abercrombie is not using the hotness test as a guise for racial discrimination, is it okay that the store dismisses an employee as sales representative because of his/her look, regardless of skill and ability? What message does this send to its youthful buyers? Should appearance-based discrimination be illegal?

Spain Eyes Olympic Offense

The Olympics: the global venue that allows athletes to show the world their abilities. Sometimes they shine and inspire the world. (I'm talking about you, Michael Phelps.) Sometimes they give heartbreaking performances. (No need to name names, US women's gymnastics.) But sometimes, Olympic athletes gain international attention for their antics outside of competition. Case and point: Spain's basketball team.

Spain's Olympic basketball team riled the world by taking this picture before coming to Beijing:

As you can see, the players used their index fingers to stretch their eyes to make Asian "slant eyes." They are getting heat for the picture as critics are calling their pose offensive, disrespectful, divisive and racist.

How did Team Spain respond? It criticized the media for blowing this picture out of proportion and defended the picture pose. The team said it was just following the instructions of their sponsor Seur, a Spanish courier company, for an ad. They thought that the pose would honor China, the host of these Olympics Games.

When taking the pose, player Jose Calderson thought the picture "was going to be something nice, something with no problem." He went on to call the picture "an affectionate gesture" on his blog. Head coach Aito Garcia Reneses compared it to taking a picture on you on tips of your toes to honor tall opponents. He didn't consider that nor the "slant eyes" pose offensive.

Another player, Pau Gasol, admitted he was uncomfortable with the picture but not because he thought there were racial undertones but because he thought slanting his eyes was "clownish." Although he went on to apologize to anyone offended, saying that was not the intent.

Do you think the "slant eyes" are offensive and an unworthy pose for Olympic athletes to make? Or do you think the PC police and the media are creating unnecessary drama?

What do you think of Spain's response to this controversy? How would you handle? And what, if any, repercussions should Spain's basketball team face?

Obama, McCain, Paris! Oh My!

Republican presidential nominee John McCain recently released an interesting ad, entitled “Celeb” attacking Democratic counterpart Barack Obama’s fame as well as his economic and energy policy.

In the ad, McCain’s narrator compares Obama to tabloid favorites, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. On the policy end, the ad tries to frame Obama as a President that would increase taxes and America’s dependence on foreign oil, which the Obama campaign disputes.

The ad has sparked a lot of controversy. Some have said the McCain ad is politics at its lowest and worst. Are Paris and Britney really that bad!?!

There have also been charges that the ad is racist, similar to a 2006 Republican National Committee ad against another black Democratic candidate, Harold Ford Jr. In that ad, it suggests Ford had sexual relations with a white female Playboy Bunny, which critics say plays into pre-existing prejudices about black men and white women. Watch the old ad here for a reminder:

Because the McCain ad features Obama (a black man - if you didn’t know already) with Paris and Britney (white women who have overly sexualized media personas), some say the Republicans are once again using racial undertones in their attack on Obama. Obama, himself, has called the ad “cynical” but not racist. But nonetheless, McCain and his camp have responded by accusing that the Obama campaign is playing the “race card.”

In terms of effectiveness, an Obama advisor did acknowledge that Obama’s recent dip in the polls was probably attributed to the “Celeb” ad.

So what do you think of the McCain “Celeb” ad? Low? Racist? Politically shrewd?

But as the ad continues to get airplay and the debate heats up, Paris has decided to add some levity to the mix. Paris, whose parents donated money to the McCain campaign, responded with her own political ad. Here:

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

What are your thoughts on the Paris Hilton response ad? And who has the better energy plan: Obama, McCain or Hilton?