Which West Wing--fact or fantasy?

I found a cafe with wifi here in CT (Thank you "Brew") and couldn't resist blogging about a New York Times article that talks about the fictional West Wing and the current election we have going on, especially because David Axelrod (Obama's chief strategist) was contacted by one of the head writers for The West Wing in 2004 when they were developing the character of Matt Santos, a non-white, "minority" senator with a mixed-race family background who is going head to head against his Republican challenger, a senior senator from a Western state who is known for telling it like it is.

[click here for the article]


[That's Arnie Vinick (Alan Alda), Josh Lyman (Bradley Whitford), and Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits) on the campaign trail]

For those of you who aren't West Wing fans, I can only tell you that the parallels are downright eerie. And I didn't even KNOW about the Phillies connection.

I only hope that our current election has as happy an ending as the fictional one (albeit without the tragedy of the V.P.--but they had to build that in since actor John Spencer did die in the middle of the series).

Looking for Republican leadership to talk about racism

Recently there have been a series of disturbing incidents that have come to light at some McCain-Palin rallies around the country. In a Washington Post article, Dana Milbank chronicles someone shouting "Kill Obama" as Palin pumped up the crowd, and then you have this incident:

Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

And over at OpEdNews, documented incidents of racism, threats to Obama, and really disturbing footage at rallies in which people say that Obama is a terrorist, a muslim, an Arab--and one in which a man holds a Monkey with an Obama sticker on it--this is all just too, too troubling:



[IMPORTANT ASIDE: What is VERY disturbing and under-reported in all of these accounts is the assumption people are making between Arab/Muslim = terrorist. First of all, if Obama was a practicing Muslim or Arab American, that would be FINE. Arab and Muslim Americans are NOT un-American and they are certainly NOT terrorists and it is a function of post-9/11 racism that makes the link between people of Arab descent and Muslim beliefs to terrorism. After all, white supremacist groups like the KKK have been engaged in domestic acts of terrorism during much of the 20th century, and have done so under the umbrella of Christianity. Yet we do NOT assume all Christian Americans are a legacy of this heritage of white racism and white supremacy nor do we assume that if one grew up an Evangelical Christian in the Southern region of the U.S. that one is automatically linked to domestic terrorism. I find the links between Arab descent and Islamic religion with terrorism or being "un-American" patently offensive.]

To his credit, John McCain has tried to address some of this ugliness. A New York Times article discusses how McCain tells his supporters that they shouldn't "fear" an Obama presidency and when another woman says she is afraid of Obama because he is an Arab, McCain shakes his head, says no, and tells this woman and the crowd at this Minnesota rally that Obama is a decent family man. And I appreciate that McCain is trying to calm down his crowd and be respectful towards his fellow running-mate, but in a lot of ways, this is reaping what you sow. In other words, certain members of the Republican party have been clamoring to have McCain and especially Palin attack Obama's character and trying to link him to "terrorists"--of course what they are doing is old-fashioned rabble-rousing, with the added element of institutional and historic (and recent) racism on their side.

So this is what I want to know. Where is the Republican leadership? I'm not just talking about John McCain and Sarah Palin and their campaign. I'm talking about others, like the primary candidates, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and the Bush administration. Where are THEY on calling on all Americans but especially McCain supporters (especially members of the Republican party perhaps since I'm assuming this is the demographics at these rallies) to be better than this rhetoric of hate and fear and prejudice. One Republican representative from Illinois has called on Palin to stop attacking Obama, saying that this campaign should be "better" than these tactics. But where are other leaders and politicians saying that McCain supporters, especially white McCain supporters (because honestly, (A) That's the majority caught on tape making these remarks (B) That seems to be the majority demographic at McCain/Palin rallies) should be at the forefront of talking about racism and prejudice and denouncing these acts.

Finally, here's a 13 plus minute MSNBC clip analyzing these ugly elements from recent days:



[Final Note: I'm not saying that all Republican or John McCain supporters are racist or more prone to racist tendencies. Obviously with the recent discussions of independent voters and die-hard Democrats struggling with their own internalized racism, we know this isn't the case--even with Obama's supporters of all hues, there's bound to be a fair amount of internalized racism. But as someone who has been to two different Obama rallies in the last year and a half, I have to tell you that I have not witnessed the kind of animosity and hatred that seems to be bubbling up in these clips. And at a rally during the primary that was held at Southern U., when Obama talked about John McCain and people booed, he told them that John McCain was a good man--and that he wanted his campaign not to devolve into the typical character assassination--for us to concentrate on the future and on a positive message of hope and change. And I think, for the most part, that has been the tenor of his campaign.

Also, this just in (4:57pm EST): an Op-Ed piece by Frank Rich in The New York Times that essentially echoes many of the things I've written above, except that I'd disagree with Rich about McCain being someone who is a stranger to racism.]

THAT One...what did he mean?

So yesterday was the second presidential debate--this time in a "town hall" format. Tom Brokaw was the debate moderator and the picture below shows the post-debate "thank yous" between the two candidates, their wives, and Tom.


In the post-debate spin, there's been a unanimous belief that Barack Obama "won" and that it wasn't a "game changer" for McCain, which he needed it to be given the fact that he is down in the polls.

But the question I want to pose for you in the blogosphere has to do with the comment that McCain made when he referred to Senator Obama as "THAT one":

Here's how it was described by a New York Times article:

In a moment that suggested Mr. McCain’s impatience with his opponent, he described the differences between the two candidates on energy policy.

“By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary of this back and forth: there was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate, loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney,” he said. “You know who voted for it? You might never know.”

He cast his arm at Mr. Obama. “That one,” he said. “You know who voted against it? Me.”

In the MSNBC post-debate discussion, Chris Matthews and two talking heads (whom I can't recall right now) dissected the "THAT one" moment, with one politico noting how unfortunate that phrase was since McCain should have been more aware that gesturing at Obama and using this phrase in the dismissive manner that he did would hit some people the wrong way (ie: McCain is going to look like a racist, although the dreaded "R" word never came up in the politico's commentary).

Matthews and the other talking head dismissed the racial/racist overtones, and declared that his snideness was a result of his age rather than any inherent racism.

And actually, I agree. Or rather, I wouldn't be too quick to say that this particular snide instance was an example of McCain trying to be "racist." Dismissive? Yes. Condescending? Definitely. Deliberately meant to be a put down of Obama? Absolutely. A veiled racist phrase? Harder to interpret. McCain's no dummy--he's not about to use coded racial language during a televised debate in front of million of voters. This is NOT the time to start calling his opponent Barack HUSSEIN Obama (which IS in my opinion, a racist reference to Obama's Muslim heritage--so every time one of McCain's surrogates refers to Barack HUSSEIN Obama, it's really meant to remind everyone, HEY boys and girls, this guy has the same middle name as a deposed Muslim despot).

And I think it IS important to distinguish between real coded racist language versus snide remarks that could be interpreted as racist but may be an instance of just plain old condescension. Now. Let me also add this. I think it was stupid. I mean, really, stupid. Because of how easily McCain's comments CAN be interpreted as racist. And honestly, even though I don't *think* it is an instance of coded racist language, there's a part of me that really wonders...

For a pretty funny dissection of the phrase "THAT one" head over to this site, where you can also see a clip of McCain making this remark--see for yourself and weigh in on what YOU think about "THAT one."

Post convention thoughts

I teach in an English department. I know the power of narrative, how persuasive the right combination of words can be. And I study popular culture and am aware of the strength of certain images and symbols. Politics, to a large degree, is about rhetoric and spin: it is about persuasion.

A LOT has been written about Sarah Palin, about what she does and doesn't do for the Republican ticket, about her being a heart beat away from the presidency and what her selection says about McCain's judgment in choosing her.

I was going to do an entire post about Sarah Palin and about the RNC, and comparing the RNC to the DNC, but there are so many other bloggers and media outlets who have already done this work (I'll embed some links within my post--it's nice, because essentially these posts are ones I would have written, perhaps in a different style/format, but they tackle the topics I would have tackled).

What I want to end the week with now, and the two solid weeks of being glued, alternately, to CSPAN, CNN, and MSNBC, are a few thoughts about what I would like to see happen (I know this probably *won't* happen, but I thought I'd try to be hopeful and stay positive, because there's just TOO MUCH NEGATIVITY, and I'm tired of the sniping).

*I would like to see an end to coded racist language against the Obama family, in particular, and African Americans, in general. I'd like to see an end to coded racist language against all people, but the truth is, in my opinion, African Americans get the brunt of this more than other racial groups in the U.S. The word "uppity" should only be used, in a vernacular fashion, to refer to objects that are placed beyond someone's reach, as in "Can you please grab that book for me? It's too uppity for me to get it." The word "uppity" SHOULD NOT be applied to a U.S. Senator who is also the Democratic candidate running for President, and by the way, is the first African American representing a major political party, as in this quote by Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland:

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said. Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

*I would like to see an end to people equating Islam with terrorism or Muslim culture/references with Islamic terrorism. Here's a choice quote from another U.S. congressman:

"Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, 'Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

*I would like both parties held accountable for telling the truth, about themselves and about their opponents. A great website to check out is FactCheck.org, which keeps track of both parties and holds both campaigns accountable for their misleading statements or outright lies.

And while The Daily Show is probably not as unbiased as the above site, their juxtaposition of key political figures and pundits is worth noting as we move forward in the final push to November 4:



*I do think that the families and particularly the children of politicians and public figures should be off limits. At the same time, I think that political candidates should not try to make political hay out of their children.

*I think people should be more respectful in their critique of Sarah Palin. Although I find the Republican call of "sexism" a bit hard to swallow in light of the treatment that Hillary Clinton has received during the last year and a half (and really the last twelve years because she got a lot of disrespect based on gender during the Clinton administration), I do think that there's quite a bit of sexist rhetoric, especially in the blogosphere. And if people want to critique Palin, they can do so without using sexist language. Critiquing her, just like critiquing any of her male peers, is fair game--having unfair gender expectations of her, is not.

*I would like people to recognize that women, just like men, are complex creatures. And that just because you are a woman does not mean that you can speak for all women or are in favor of what, politically, we refer to as "women's rights." Same thing goes for being African American--Barack Obama does not speak on behalf of all African Americans. He does not "represent" black American. He is not running for president of the American "black diaspora." He is running to be President of the United States.

*Having said that, I wish people would start to recognize the pervasiveness of racism and racist thought in this country--or perhaps conversely, how difficult it is to recognize white privilege and white supremacist thought. Notice I didn't say "racist people"--Jay Smooth already covered this a few months back. But I've had numerous conversations with friends who have older white parents who are struggling with their internalized racism--these are older white Democrats who have never voted Republican and don't plan to vote for McCain, but they balk at voting for a black man because the picture of Barack Obama and his family is NOT the picture they have of a first family. These are not bad people--and they have raised children who are liberal and progressive minded.

But really--THIS is the reason I teach what I teach, why I focus my research on race, and why I started a blog called Mixed Race America. Race is such a pervasive part of American culture/society/history/politics. It's large and amorphous, fluid and flexible. No one is ever "right" about race, and just when you think you've figured everything out, something changes, something happens, something erupts to blow your previous theory and conceptions, of race, right out of the water.

*And really, what it all boils down to, for me, about Obama and his historic candidacy and the issue of race are two lines from a Pat Parker poem:

"For the White Person who Wants to Know How to Be My Friend"
The first thing you do is to forget that i'm Black.
Second, you must never forget that i'm Black.

Day after Labor Day observations

Just a few random thoughts after catching up on blog reading, television viewing, New York Times skimming, and just other musings of my day yesterday:

*Comparing the people attending the RNC vs. the DNC I am struck by how white the delegates are. Granted, I didn't watch as much coverage (there wasn't as much coverage to watch given the scaled back convention) but in scanning the crowd it was difficult to make out any people of color, and there certainly did not appear to be any groups or crowds or masses of people of color. And there seemed to be an overwhelming male force in the convention hall as well.

*Is it just me or are the newscasters half-disappointed that Hurricane Gustav turned into tropical storm Gustav and the levees held and there wasn't sheer mayhem and devastation? I mean, they SAY they are glad, but then they (and maybe CNN is the most egregious offender) are quick to point out that there are even MORE hurricanes on the way, like Hannah & Ike. There is a tone of sensationalism running throughout the news coverage of the Gulf region that makes me feel icky--like I need to take a shower. Personally, I was THRILLED that it turned into a tropical storm--and even then it seems awful that people had to have their lives disrupted like this.

*I can understand people being against abortion--everyone I know is against abortion in the sense that they consider this to be a last option--something they would rather not have to choose. What completely BAFFLES me about people who espouse "family values" is the "abstinence only" education for teenagers and/or the belief that contraception is a form of abortion rather than seeing contraception as a necessary practice not only to prevent unwanted pregnancy but to guard against sexually transmitted disease. Abstinence only education DOES NOT WORK. Talking candidly with your teenage children about sex, waiting to have sex until they are ready, ways to combat feeling pressure to have sex, and using proper birth control in the event that they find they cannot wait, THIS IS SEX EDUCATION THAT MAKES SENSE. Having this message reinforced in the school where kids may feel more comfortable asking questions and talking amongst their peers rather than with their parents MAKES DOUBLE SENSE.

*Universities, colleges, and K-12 schools that begin classes BEFORE labor day makes me sad (and Southern U. is among these).

*Did I mention that the delegates at the Republican National Convention appear to be overwhelmingly white and predominantly male?

*Being pissed off at the government or at the Republican party and destroying property or taunting police does NOT seem to be the most effective way to get your message across. It actually seems to undermine your message of change. Protesting peacefully and in mass numbers against policies that seem to go against your principles, like protesting against the war and against inhumane treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, seems both moral and ethical.

*Tennis elbow (which I have) takes a LONG time to heal and resting it and icing it is good, but I'm antsy to play golf and to do other activities in which full use of my right arm and elbow would be good.

*The image of the digital flag behind Laura Bush & Cindy McCain at the RNC was HUGE. I'm glad that Republicans like to remind everyone what country they are in. I wonder if they worry that we will be confused for Canadians or Scandinavians if they do not put up an image of a big flag billowing in the wind behind the first lady?

*Kudos to CNN's Campbell Brown for hammering away at McCain's spokesperson (Tucker somebody) who kept dodging her very basic question of asking him to name one executive decision that Sarah Palin had made with respect to foreign policy (since he had just said that Sarah Palin had more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama since as governor of Alaska she was the chief commander of the Alaskan National Guard). Tucker kept repeating that she had executive military and hence foreign policy experience given the executive level commands that she gave the Alaska National Guard. Campbell Brown kept asking him to name JUST ONE decision she made with respect to the Alaska National Guard and poor Tucker just kept repeating himself without ANSWERING HER QUESTION. It made him look foolish and he sounded like a broken record.

*No matter how many times I re-read Persuasion I still fall in love with Austen's language.

*Did I already mention that in terms of a mixed-race America, the image of the delegates convened for the Republican National convention seemed very homogenous and not at all mixed (with two exceptions, I did spot an Asian American man amongst the denim clad Texas delegation (they all wore matching denim shirts and cowboy hats) and when Cindy McCain addressed the crowd they did pan to her children which included Bridget, who is South Asian.

SERIOUSLY, here's my question, and it's a very real question: Is the Republican party as white and as male as the delegates in the convention hall have me thinking they are? I mean, I understand that I am a die-hard Democrat. And I understand that I have surrounded myself with like-minded people who are also largely Democrat or at least liberal on social issues. But if I think hard about the people I know who are Republican, there are a handful of Asian Americans (like my parents friends R & J) but by and large all the people I know who are Republican are white (and I've only met one black Republican, a friend of Southern Man. Talking to him was an exercise in having an African American man tell me that racial profiling of black men by the police was completely justified because statistics prove that black men commit more crime. It was SURREAL having this conversation with him, because he is also anti-affirmative action, pro-life, and anti-immigration. I didn't know him that well, so I didn't feel it was a good thing to get in a screaming match with him).

Really, is the Republican party overwhelmingly white? I am not trying to say that this then means that all Republicans are more racist/don't care about people of color. But is it a coincidence that the people I know committed to social justice and anti-racism are largely people of color or white allies, and all of them are Democrats?

[10:12pm--This just in: Senator McCain withdraws from an interview tonight on CNN with Larry King because of Campbell Brown's questioning of his aide, Tucker Bound (see my comment above). Click here for the article and see this YouTube clip below where Tucker Bound becomes defensive and inarticulate at Campbell Brown's questions. Apparently the McCain camp is trying to "punish" CNN for how "unfair" Campbell Brown is towards Tucker Bound. Judge for yourself. Personally, I think Campbell Brown was doing her job.]

Labor Day Links

In honor of labor day, I am going to be linking to other bloggers and posts that I think are relevant to what is going on in today's world (like Gustav, the Democratic convention last week, McCain's VP bomb) and just posts I thought might be of interest to readers of this blog.

Hopefully those of you reading this in the U.S. (where Labor Day is an official holiday) are enjoying a day of lazy respite from your normal work routine. Or if you are an academic type like myself, then perhaps you have a pile of reading on your desk that you hope to get through (a re-reading of Crevecoeur, a glimpse into Deleuze & Guattari, skimming over some racial melancholia, and for pleasure, my umpteenth re-reading of Persuasion for a grad seminar).

*I often feel like Tami of What Tami Said and I are separated at birth, sisters in the blogosphere. Her post "What we deserve (A Rant, I know)" summarizes much of how I feel about PUMAs (Party United My Ass), the splinter group formed out of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters (whose numbers, I hope dropped radically after both Hillary's speech and McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin--more on that below). She wrote this before the roll call vote, which you can see in the post she wrote following the one above.

*Tenured Radical, a wonderful writer (and fine academic) has a great post that talks about the importance of Obama's acceptance speech, and is inspiring in its analysis of Obama and what he stands for as much as the actual speech itself. And she follows this up with two posts about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP, asking "Is Sarah Palin Good for Women?" (and I know you might have a knee-jerk one-word response but take the time to read this post) and another on the conservative response to McCain's pick (click here).

*Another blog I like a lot, Poplicks, also has two posts about McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin, with more links in their comments section to other sites dissecting the (il)logic/pandering/disastrousness of this selection. Miss AK-47 and this other post with an interesting comment thread by a PUMA member weighing in, Women: Putting the "Wild" in Wild Card, gives us a glimpse into what people (esp. liberal-progressive folks) are thinking about the choice of Sarah Palin (and yes, I'll be writing my own rant later in the week).

*Poplicks also has a post about the path of Gustav and the effect that this is having on the RNC and McCain--and speculating on the political opportunism of McCain delivering his acceptance speech in New Orleans in the wake of Gustav (sentiments that are echoed by Paul Krugman's Op-Ed in The New York Times).

*The LPGA recently issued a rule (should I add asinine?) that all players must be conversant in English to play on the tour--a ruling that seems to specifically target a single ethnic-national group: South Koreans. For more, see the Constructivist's take here, as well as my own length comment(s) and thoughts by Angry Asian Man here and here.

*Finally, for something to satisfy your appetites beyond the political, Land of the Not-So-Calm has posted a recipe for chop ch'ae, a Korean noodle dish that makes me salivate (and the photo she includes will make you salivate too). Her posting made me think that I should do some kind of recipe swap with readers/bloggers where we share tried and true meals with one another (because I'm always looking to expand my cooking repertoire).

Senator McCain, tell us what you REALLY think about race in America?

This Monday I wrote that there was more to say about John McCain and the topic of race in America. But the truth is, I have actually written about this topic before. In March, I called on journalists to start asking John McCain to talk about race ("Calling on McCain to talk about race")--because doesn't it strike anyone that as a white American man detained in an Asian country as a POW and one who regularly used a racial slur against Asians, "gook," until he disavowed its use in the 2000 campaign--doesn't anyone think that John McCain has opinions about race in America? Particularly since his family is mixed-race with the addition of the daughter that Cindy McCain brought back from Bangladesh unannounced.

[By the way, does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that Cindy McCain was able to just bring back a baby from Bangladesh into this country and she seemingly did it without first discussing the matter with her husband and the rest of her family? And then there's the whole background check, the paperwork, the months and sometimes years of waiting. She went to Bangladesh, toured an orphanage, and then brought back two little girls, one she kept and the other that got adopted by friends. And John McCain's reaction is "Whoa, honey! Didn't realize you were bringing back souvenirs!" but then he quickly says how delighted he is, but how much would you give to go back in time and be a fly on the wall at the McCain house?]

And besides one audience member at a town hall event in Ohio, doesn't anyone want to ask John McCain about women and gender issues, especially in light of the sexist slur he used against HIS OWN WIFE? ("Who is John McCain?").

Plenty of other bloggers I respect have also commented on John McCain and race and who this straight talker REALLY is:

Tenured Radical has an excellent post about the use of the phrase "the race card" and the McCain campaign's invocation of this specter.

What Tami Said has a post detailing the various racial slurs that McCain is overheard to have made at bar he liked to frequent in DC.

Angry Asian Man also has commented about John McCain's racism and his use of the slur "gook," plugging a book by Irwin Tang--and here's a video in which Tang talks about the importance of understanding John McCain's particular brand of Asian racism:



Finally, in case you haven't heard, there's been a scuffle between John McCain and...Paris Hilton! McCain used images of Hilton and Britney Spears in his latest negative campaign against Barack Obama, calling Obama a . . . CELEBRITY and likening him to Spears and Hilton. Paris Hilton then shot back with a video of her own with the help of the Internet sensation "Funny or Die":

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

President Hilton? I hope not. But this campaign season just got a bit wackier.

McCain Monday

Thank you Rolling Stone for providing an example of not only BAD racial satire but RACIST racial satire. Tip of the hat to Angry Asian Man and Racialicious (who cross-posted and who is sure to have an interesting comment thread).

Is there anything left to say? Actually yes, there's much more to say about race/racism and John McCain and Barack Obama and the 2008 presidential campaign. But the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet, and I'm going to post more later in the week.

Who is John McCain?

The political junkie in me can't resist writing about the presidential elections--especially because both candidates are more than relevant to the topic of race in America--especially the idea of a mixed-race America (Obama, we already know about--but many people don't realize that John and Cindy McCain adopted a daughter from Bangladesh--which makes his an Asian American family of sorts).

So lets spend some time talking about Senator John McCain.

And the first thing I want to note, is that McCain is almost untouchable in terms of mainstream media criticism. There are some severe inconsistencies in his voting record that don't get noted, his legendary foul temper and language that doesn't get reported, and his use of the racial slur "gook" (which, apparently he hasn't used in public since 2000) that never gets discussed. Oh, and most disconcertingly, the issue of his emotional and mental fitness to be President of the United States based on his five-plus years as a POW in a North Vietnamese prison.

Let me say first off, I hope that John McCain has an on-going relationship with a therapist. A really good one. And a psychiatrist who can offer him meds. I think there is a stigma about mental health--and it'd be GREAT if McCain could go public with his own mental health issues (if he has been seeing someone that is) in order to discuss publicly and candidly what it's like to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Of course, I have no idea whether he does suffer from PTSD. But you have to ask yourself this question: What is worse, the idea that a man was held captive for over five years and tortured and walked away without developing PTSD or a man who is still grappling with the demons from that period by undergoing psychotherapy and medicating himself appropriately.

I'd have ENORMOUS respect if McCain were on meds and seeing someone for PTSD. It would make SO MUCH SENSE. And if he's not getting help (or hasn't gotten help in the past?). Well, I think that says volumes about the stigma of mental health. But here's the real crux of the problem: we can't talk about this. Certainly not on NPR or The New York Times or CNN. No one is going to dare insinuate anything about his mental fitness connected with his time at the Hanoi Hilton. This is what I mean about McCain being untouchable.

So this is why his "gook" comments don't get reported on (see this former post and this post by Angry Asian Man).

And this is why his infamous "c---" slur against his own wife, which I reported about back in this post, doesn't get mainstream coverage. The exact quote, as reported in Cliff Schecter's book The Real McCain: Why Conservative's Don't Trust Him--and Why Independents Shouldn't is as follows:

"In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, 'You're getting a little thin up there.' McCain's face reddened, and he responded, 'At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.'"

[For a review of Schecter's book, along with a few other recent tomes on McCain, see this review by the New York Review of Books, which lists some major inconsistencies in McCain's voting record]

A Baptist minister tried to ask McCain if this really happened during one of McCain's town hall meetings--McCain refused to answer because the minister used "bad language" and the minister was escorted out of the building (for more details click here).

Finally, for a humorous take on all of this, see the clip below:

Monday morning queries

I think a symptom of my writer's block for my book is that I'm also having blogging block. So this morning I'm throwing out a series of queries--some things I really honestly have questions about, others that are more open ended/opinion oriented.

Here goes:

1) While I was out in CA I brought along the book Golf in the Kingdom by Michael Murphy, which is *supposedly* non-fiction, although the events and characters (there is a golf instructor called "Shivas Irons" who is a bit hard to take seriously) are sort've wacky and mystical and hard to swallow. It was recommended by several golf friends, but I just couldn't get into it--and I was on an AIRPLANE where I'll basically read anything, including the in-flight magazine, because I hate flying and need to distract myself.

So here's the question: does anyone know of any GOOD golf books/novels/stories--particularly ones that feature either female golfers or golfers of color--and I DON'T MEAN THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE. Maybe, just maybe, the book is better than the film. Maybe the mystical man who comes out of the mist is not supposed to be African American--because really, the whole thought that you had a movie about golf set in the South in the inter-war period and a young black man comes out of nowhere to help a white golfer with his swing and NO ONE acts like it's bizarre??? And NO ONE uses a racial epithet? Talk about fairy tales. But really, I'm thinking of teaching an American Studies class on golf--something that really addresses the issues I hold near and dear like race, gender, sexuality, the environment, and the love of the game. I figure teaching a class like this would NOT be preaching to the choir--and I'd love to teach a good golf novel--it doesn't have to have a female golfer or golfer of color--I'll take any good golf novel I can find. But it'd be a nice bonus if there were a fictionalized Lorena Ochoa character out there in a good short story or two.

2) I've been hearing the phrase "off the reservation" a lot lately in political circles. Most frequently I seemed to have heard it in relation to Clinton's presidential run when her husband would make statements not approved by the campaign and talking heads would say that Bill was "off the reservation."

Where does that phrase come from? It seems BIZARRE to me--because if it is obliquely referring to American Indian reservations, then the whole metaphor seems odd and flawed. Or am I misunderstanding this colloquial expression? I think when people employ it they are saying that someone from within a group is making comments or acting in a manner not consistent with the ethos or politics or ideology or philosophy of the group--or just isn't conforming to group norms. But from an American Indian point-of-view does this even make sense? Perhaps the "reservations" in question aren't meant to refer back to Native Americans but what else would it refer to and in an American context, don't you hear that? And isn't the whole phrasing of it as such, then, insensitive, inaccurate, and just plain racist? Because the American government created American Indian reservations as places where various tribes could live after we (US government and American settler/colonizers/immigrants--which means you and me unless you are an indigenous person reading this) displaced them of their land? How did this expression acquire its political connotations?

3) Obama's running mate--who should it be?. OK, this post is really directed more at those who support Barack Obama and/or the Democratic party, although I'd love to hear from anyone else with an opinion on this issue (US citizen or not). And the implied subtext of my question is, who should it be that will give this ticket the best chance of beating John McCain in the general election? And on a somewhat related note, has anyone ever wondered if John McCain was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder? I know it's REALLY verboten to talk about that--to in any way question his mental or emotional state post-Viet Nam. But I don't mean this in a critical "he's-not-fit-for-the-White-House" way (although I don't want to see him anywhere NEAR the White House) but in a "Wow-this-guy-needs-help-because-of-his-anger-issues" kind of way. He is on record as calling his wife a c*** as in "shut up you f****** c***" when she jokingly made a jab at him on the Straight Talk express bus during the 2000 primary run (there were reporters on the bus who recorded the incident). If he's willing to insult his wife in this manner in front of reporters, what goes on during their private domestic spats? Can't we get this man some help?
[June 21, 2008: CORRECTION: McCain made these comments back in 1992 NOT 2000--the exact quote can be found in the blog post "Who is John McCain"]

But seriously, back to the VP question--who would you like to see. Senator Clinton? Governor Richardson? Senator Feinstein? Senator Biden? Or my personal favorite: Senator Jim Webb of Virginia--you know, the guy who beat George Allen. George Allen is "Mr. Macaca"--the politician who made that awful gaffe. Webb is a Viet Nam veteran (like McCain), has a son in Iraq, and is so conservative a Democrat that he was a Republican once upon a time. He's also married to a Vietnamese American woman (second marriage) and although more to the right than my own politics are comfortable with, may give Obama the best shot at the White House as his VP.

Seriously, please leave a comment, answer any of these questions or invent your own--would love to hear from you!

Calling on McCain to talk about race

Calling all journalists in cyberspace: can you please start asking John McCain to talk about race? I know that there has been scrutiny placed on both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama over the topic of "race" during this presidential election season. But has anyone asked John McCain about his views on race in America? Don't we think that he HAS opinions about race in America?

The other day a friend and I were talking about the remarkable speech on race delivered by Barack Obama last Tuesday. And she said that he was the only person qualified to talk about race in the way he did--honestly, openly, directly--among the presidential contenders. I agreed, but then I pointed out that there was one other person. I pointed out that John McCain was in a unique position to also talk about his experiences with race in America--most specifically, his relationship with the Vietnamese American community, in particular, and Asian Americans, in general, regarding his use of the slur "gook" back in the run-up to the 2000 presidential elections, when McCain's "Straight Talk Express" took him to use the racial slur, unabashedly--telling reporters that:

"I hate the gooks. And I will hate them as long as I live. You can quote me on this."

I have to say this for McCain--he is a "Straight Talker," if by straight talk you are unabashed in your use of hate-speech.

He immediately issued an apology as the Straight Talk Express headed into the multiracial (and heavily Vietnamese American populated) state of California. And eight years later, very few people (except for some random blog sites and chat boards) seem to have remembered this flap, which also received very little press eight years ago. For more on the original incident back in 2000, you can read about it in The Nation (which also details the free "pass" that McCain seems to have gotten from the news media back in 2000, and which seems to echo the treatment he's getting now), an Orange County article about a small protest by Asian American students, and a San Jose Mercury News piece that also has an excellent op-ed by William Wong at the bottom.

[Aside: if you click on the link for the chat board--the discussion (which began a month ago) is VERY DISTURBING and points to the ways in which anti-Asian sentiment doesn't seem to disturb very many people. In addition to using the phrase "gook" continually, other people have added the full list of racial slurs against Asians, and others recount stories of harassing and beating up Asian American kids they grew up with. Apparently, this is a source of humor, and yet I can't find anything funny about violence and racial profiling]

So why am I bringing it up now?

Because lets imagine that his apology was sincere--that he only meant to refer to the "gooks" he hated as his North Vietnamese torturers (the Asian American studies professor in me has to switch off the critical thinking/skeptical part of my brain here). Lets imagine that he really hasn't used that racial epithet again (or at least in public) and that he has truly worked with the Vietnamese American community in their anti-communist agenda. [aside: these are all things included in his apology--that when he used the phrase "gook" it was meant to refer to his captors rather than to all Vietnamese people or to Asians in general, and McCain is often popular among Vietnamese (specifically South Vietnamese Americans) living in the U.S. for his anti-communist positions--with some leaders going so far as to say that if you are anti-McCain you are pro-communist.]

This places McCain in a unique position to talk openly and honestly about race. To talk about the challenges of being able to distinguish between an enemy abroad during a time of war and a community of people living in the U.S. It would also give him the opportunity to descry anti-Asian violence, since much of anti-Asian violence starts with mistaken ethnic identity (like that enacted against Vincent Chin and others--like Ming Hai "Jim" Loo--a Chinese American man attacked in Raleigh, NC by two brothers who stated that they "hate all Vietnamese").

So why aren't we asking McCain how to have a clear dialogue on race in this country? Shouldn't the man riding (and running) the Straight Talk Express bus be the ideal person to talk, openly, honestly, and directly, about race in America?