Review: Show No "Mercy"

I'm not usually very critical about network television.  In the past, I watched what I liked and ignored what I didn't and that was that.  But now, since I've been away from television for about 4 months (my DTV converter box - yes! I have one of those - broke after 6 months, and I didn't get a new one till now; seriously don't buy anything from Apex), I've found I've become more critical of television.  Is it because I was so enamored, so brainwashed and entertained by it before that I didn't see its faults and only by walking away from it for a time did I see them?  Or were my expectations just raised way too high by its absence and subsequent return into my life?  Who knows.  Whatever the reason I've become a critic and as such, here is the first show I'm criticizing: 

Mercy (NBC, Wednesdays, 8pm PT)

The only reason I even watched this show is because I saw Taylor Schilling on the Today Show saying how great of a show it was.  It got me curious, so I tuned in.  Turns out Schilling is a great saleswoman.  The show - terrible.

Ok, maybe it's not terrible, but that is the word I remember thinking when watching this show.

I'll give it that since I saw Schilling in a dress and standing in heels looking like a model in her interview, it was really hard for me to believe that she was an Iraq war veteran, which is what she plays on the show.  Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad, if the writers hadn't beat us down with allusions to the Iraq war so much throughout the show.  I thought the intro's allusion to the war, when she saves a man's life who's been in a car accident by jabbing him with a knife and sticking a straw through his torso, then tells his hysterically obnoxious companion she learned it in the Iraq war, was enough.  But I guess the writers feared you might miss the intro to the show, so they then had Veronica - who is actually a nurse, by the way, at Mercy Hospital - detail another way to save a patient, telling a coworker she learned it in the Iraq war.  If that wasn't enough, a handsome doctor (James Tupper) shows up in her life whom she happened to have an affair with, in guess where:  Iraq!  And then we learn from a little mishap in the hospital that caused a loud noise and made Veronica dive for cover, that's she's suffering from post-traumatic stress - from her tour - in Iraq.  Uh huh, yeah.  It seems like I wasn't the only one who didn't fully believe in Schilling's ability to pull off Iraq war veteran.  The writers don't either.  Why else would they keep mentioning it?  Either that, or they know nothing about Iraq, because the least they could have done is include examples with all those allusions.  You know, "A soldier I knew taught me this trick."  Actually, that would be enough.  You wouldn't even have to mention Iraq but once, and people would put the pieces together.  But I guess the writers don't expect the audience to be capable enough of doing that because they kept cramming "Iraq" down our throats. 

The other thing that pulled down the show, in my eyes, is that they focused way too much attention on Schilling's character.  I suppose she's the main character, but there's nothing really compelling to back up that argument except for her abundance of screen time.  There's just something missing from the character or from the writing, which doesn't make me root for her, which is what you need for a good protagonist.  If they had given more screen time to the other actors, and made it more of an ensemble type cast a la Grey's Anatomy, I think they would have pulled it off better.

And then, don't these writers know (I'm being really hard on the writers, but maybe it's not entirely their fault; it could be the people above them) that you're supposed to start in the middle of the action, not at the beginning.  They got that with the intro scene, which was compelling.  But it was all downhill from there.  Because then they got into Veronica's back story, her tour in Iraq, her drunk Irish family, her "horrible" marriage, her affair with a doctor, and on and on until you really don't care anymore.  It reminds me of those people who have no filter, who keep going on and on about their life when you first meet them.  Well, the thing is, when you first meet a person, you don't care about them.  You build up to that, and then when you care about them, that's when you wonder why they're the way they are and that's when you're curious to find out.  I think had they not revealed the whole Iraq war thing at all, had let her just smile when people asked her how she knew things, not said she met hot doc in Iraq, but just at a hospital, and let her be scared by loud noises, people would wonder about her, and that would have made for more compelling television.  "Mercy" didn't give us a chance to care before we found out, and now I really don't care.  Part of the mystique of the main character is wondering why they are the way they are.  If I know in the first episode, I don't care to keep watching.

Some reviewer liked the fast paced action of the show.  I didn't care for it.  I started to notice that each subsequent scene was getting cut pretty short, with nothing to show for it.  It was as if the writers (my bad, if it's not them) didn't have many ideas for what to include in this episode, so they packed it with a lot of unnecessary back story and then used the quick scenes to take up air time.

The particularly big "groan" moments for me:

When Veronica tells hot doctor that she's recommitting to her husband, and then he says that though he came for her, he has a two-year contract and he's going to stay.  And then she looks shocked!  Shocked!  Oh no!  You could just hear the writers typing out "PLOT TWIST" on this scene.  Dundundun.  What is she going to do with hot doctor around?  Oh no!  The least she could have done is have a more believable reaction.  Fear?  Sadness?  Happiness?  But shock?!  Really?  She's shocked that he's not just going to leave his new job just because of her?  Seriously, you need to take your ego down just notch there, girl...  Groan.

The other groan moment was when Veronica's friend, Sonia (Jamie Lee Kirchner), and her young police officer friend have a conversation walking to the elevator, in which Sonia sighs about the town and asks the officer if he knows that her brother's in a gang.  Interesting, since in the next line she says, he should know because he arrested him.  Uhhuh...  Then why did you ask him like he didn't know!  You must want the invisible audience around watching to know that you have a back story about a not-so-perfect brother that affects you and that should change the way they see you.  Mmhmm.  Enough with the back story!  Save it for later.  Sheesh!  Groan.

I know that this has been a really scathing critique.  In my defense, I guess I just expected better from the TV and the TV disappointed me, and I was trying to figure out why it disappointed me.

But, not to be totally negative, it wasn't all bad.  There were some good moments.  The intro with the straw, when the guy sucks out the air and is saved - pretty sweet.  The moment when her husband throws their engagement ring out the window and she cries that they're still paying for that, and the next scene finds them on the ground, digging around in the grass, at night, searching for the ring - pretty endearing.  Too bad it turns out to be a "horrible marriage".  Choosing between two "good"s is always more compelling than between a good and bad.

In my opinion, I don't think this show is going to last.  It's just not very good.  I mean, it's possible for the writing to improve and the episodes to get better, but from what I've seen, they've already revealed all their cards.  How do you go back from that?  It's possible, but they might need a miracle.

A Skinny Bitch's View

I was talking to my friend this weekend about a play she saw which focused on the plight of an overweight character within a group of skinny girls.  Being a skinny girl herself, she didn't care for the play, which seemed to be more about "skinny bashing" than anything else.  Her reaction, however, was not the norm, as other people she knew, some overweight, identified with and loved the play.

Skinny Bitches 

This got me to thinking about the time I was watching "More to Love" (and excited to watch it too!), when I heard one of the girls referring to non-fat girls as "the skinny bitches."  That comment made me abruptly lose interest in the show; I didn't want to root for anyone who seemed to so dislike people like me just for being thin.

And then my friend and I started venting in a very non-PC way about the plight of "skinny bitches" like ourselves.  Yes, it's like the cliche about the lonely rich girl or the sad pretty girl, but seriously, s-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y, why is it okay for someone to call me a "skinny bitch" and me not to be able to call them a "fat bitch"?  Are we not both expressing a truth?  Why is it acceptable for them to say that, but would be deemed "mean" of me?  Don't get me wrong, we're both being mean, but why is it more acceptable for one person to be mean to the other and the other has to take it?

I know, I know; it's because society values skinniness over fatness.  And so the skinny people are more admired, get more positive attention, and in order to balance it out, some overweight people feel the need to bring us down a notch, to let their bitterness and their resentment rain on our parade, so to speak.  Why should they make it easy for us to be happy when it's so hard for them?  We can't have it all, after all.

And with that argument, I let my indignation go.  It's annoying, but I understand.  But don't get me wrong; I still think it's unfair.  It's unfair, because once again - as in my blog about waiters and tipping - their anger is misplaced.

They Should Be Angry At Themselves 

I'm not the one who forced them to eat and gain weight.  All I did was keep my own weight in check.  How come they get to enjoy more food than me and also get to be bitter at me for the result of it?  If I make them feel bad about themselves, it's not because of anything I've said or done to them.  (The overweight people I know, I couldn't care less that they're overweight unless it concerns their health).  But for some people, I'm a reminder of what they want but haven't been able to do for themselves.  That's it.  They should be angry at themselves.  Or they should let it go.  The people who misplace their anger onto other people for their own faults are the ones who will never be able to change themselves for the better. 


Your Body Knows Better Than You

Sure it's hard to lose weight.  I know.  In junior high school, I subsisted on a diet of bread and water thinking that I had to be as skinny (meaning weigh as little) as my skinny friend.  Turns out she was shorter than me (at the time) and that's why she weighed less.  The result of my starvation diet and constant exercise?  I probably stunted my height a bit.  But it taught me a really great lesson, and that was that:  my body knows better than me.  After I stopped with the starvation and exercise cold turkey, I ballooned to about 30 pounds heavier than my lowest weight.  But for some reason, I didn't get scared.  I just let it go and realized that my body would return to its normal weight if I just let it.  And it did.

Accept Yourself

The other thing I learned from my weight loss experience is to Accept Yourself.  Accept yourself.  You're not supposed to weigh what other people weigh, or look like other people look.  You're going to look like you and that's what makes you unique and special.  If losing weight is too hard and you want to quit, then quit.  But quit, and accept yourself.  Don't take your anger out on other people who didn't do anything to you.  Quit and enjoy your food and enjoy your life.  You don't have to feel bad about yourself.  You can choose to love yourself.  And if there are people in the world you meet who want to make you feel bad, realize that that stems from their own insecurity about themselves.  They're taking their anger at themselves out on you.  Sound familiar?  People who love and accept themselves will love and accept you just the way you are.  That's the truth.

To Tip Or Not To Tip: That is the Question

I read a blog the other day written by a waiter who said that the 15% tip is no longer standard, and is actually rude.

Of course, there were many differing viewpoints in the comments people left, with waiters arguing that they deserve 20% or more for all the work that they do (and on less than minimum wage) and customers arguing that if waiters don't like what they're making, they should look for other work.

Generally, I've been a customer, but I have worked for tips before, and I must say, it's a really nice feeling when you get a tip, especially bigger than you usually get.  However, I don't make my living by that, so I'm not worried by the tips I get.  Also, all the tips go into a jar, so I don't know who tips what.  Maybe if waiters had such a jar, and less knowledge of who tips what, they would also feel better.  Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

As I read these comments left by waiters and having read articles in the past about the 15% tip, I came to realize that it annoys me that waiters expect to be tipped at least 20%, and that they dislike customers who tip less.  I've always been uncomfortable with the whole tipping thing in general.  Supposedly, it's an option, a bonus you give to someone who does a remarkable job for you, but in reality, it's mandatory, a fee imposed on you for the service rendered.  If that is the case, if it's mandatory and not optional, why not just call it that?  Why not call a pig a pig?  Why say, "It's nice if you tip me but if you don't tip me enough, you suck?"  As some commenters noted, the system needs fixing.  

That said, the anger of waiters is misplaced onto the customer.  Sure there are bad, terrible customers in the world, but waiters are not the only people who deal with them; so do DMV workers and McDonald's workers and any other customer service workers who don't get tipped.  The problem then is not the customer; it is with the system that allows managers to pay their waiters less because they'll make it up in tips.  That's the problem.  If waiters really want to make a difference, what they should do is to get mad at the people really responsible for their low pay - their managers and their government.  Their managers could pay them more and their government could force their managers to pay them more.

Customers are just there for the food and the ambiance.  Service is there but customers imagine that the service is included in the price.  Imagine if the McDonald's worker who bussed your table after you left demanded a tip?  Then you wouldn't think you got a deal, which is also something customers like.  A deal.  That's why we'll come in by the hoards on $1 taco nights.

We also like things at face value.  If we pay for a $10 meal, it would be nice if it came out to $10 at the end of the night, but then we have to figure in tax and tip.  So why not just raise the price of the meal to pay the waiters so that everyone's happy?  Managers won't because they know if people see high prices for food, they'll go somewhere else.  Of course, that seems to be what waiters would like to see happen to people who can't tip 20%, but these waiters seem to neglect the fact that if enough customers go, so goes their job.

Perhaps what is really needed is just to change the term "tip."  The term "tip," like "gratuity," implies something extra, a bonus for work done.  Why not just call it what it really is, a "service fee."  If the bonus is not an option but a demand, then the waiter should demand it at the end of the night or negotiate for it at the beginning of the meal.  Say, "If you think I did a good job, I expect to get a 20% service fee, all right?  If you can't afford that, please step out of the restaurant and go someplace you don't have to pay for this fee."  Or perhaps managers could just include the 20% service fee on their menu, like some places do in Europe.  That way, customers know ahead of time what the cost of their meal will be and can decide whether they can afford it or not before they dine at the establishment.  I imagine a lot of customers who waiters complain about would not even enter the door if they knew this.

Honestly, there's much to much math being done at a restaurant, especially if you're dining with a large group.  It's such a headache to pay the bill at the end of the night.  All the calculating make me just want to go running to McDonald's or Baja Fresh, or any other sit-in place where the price is the price, and I pay it and I'm done.  I'm fine with serving myself; just like I'm fine with the self-service pump at the gas station.

I don't mind being generous, but forced generosity isn't being generous.

The Vicious Cycle of Product Use

I was talking to my friend this weekend about an article on NPR I forwarded to her and a few other friends, about shampoo and how women used to only shampoo their hair once a month.  That's right, once a month.  This is the article here:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102062969.

It's an interesting article that explains the role of ad marketing in convincing women that they needed to wash their hair once a week, then eventually once a day.  And women bought it, and men too, and they bought the products, which is why shampoos are big business now.

The point of the article and the title of it as well, was that Less is More.  That in reality, the more you use shampoo, the more you need it, because the chemicals in it strip your hair of sebum (which your hair needs to stay healthy), and causes it to dry out, which then causes it to get really greasy.  Just like washing your face too much can cause your oil glands to act up to overcompensate for the loss of oil, washing your hair too much has the same effect.

Thus, it becomes a vicious cycle where your hair gets oily and you wash it with shampoo, which seems to clean it, but essentially makes it more oily.  Now you're hooked on this product which you think you need to maintain your normal state of cleanliness, when it's the reason that's causing your hair to get greasier in the first place!  It's a sad sad cycle too that's hard to get out of unless you realize that it's the product that's causing your greasiness and not just your natural oil production.

I guess it's a hard thing for Americans to realize, what with our addictions to coffee and anti-bacterial soap, but using products doesn't always make your life easier, and using more products don't always make things better.  They might actually make things worst.  That's hard to swallow for a generation that grew up on the idea that hair washing every day was necessary for good hygiene.  But in actuality of fact, as the article also states, if you wash your hair less, it produces less oil and you won't have to wash it as much.  The only caveat here, however, is that you need to switch whatever shampoo you're using to one that doesn't have the chemical sodium lauryl/laureth sulfate, which is the chemical that strips your hair of sebum.  If you continue to use the same shampoo that causes your oily hair, you won't be able to get out of the cycle.

The funny thing is, even with all the evidence that is presented to people, they still continue to do what the shampoo companies want them to do:  wash their hair every day, and blame their own genetics for their excessive oil production.  I guess it's hard when you've gotten into the habit of doing things a certain way, to change that habit.  No matter what you hear, you want to keep doing things the way you've always done them.  That's why the shampoo companies are doing very well today.

Caster Semenya - Gender Redefined

The web is abuzz with news that Caster Semenya, the South African running sensation may be a hermaphrodite.  There had been controversy over her gender before the leaks from British and Australian papers, which is why gender tests were done on the rising star in the first place.  People had noted her thick build, her deep voice, and her lack of "feminine" qualities and accused the 18 year-old of being a man masquerading as a woman.  Turns out the truth is not so simple. 

What I dislike about all the coverage on this topic is how people are saying that this news could devastate and embarrass her.  She could want to kill herself because of it.  Yes, it is terrible that it was told to the whole world instead of in private, but does that mean that she should be ashamed of it?  So she has male sex organs.  So what?  There are other people in the world who are born the same way and they live normal lives.

It makes you wonder; the way people are putting it, feeling sorry for her, is it because in some way they consider her to be a freak?  Do they think that she must need to define herself one way or the other, or die?

If they could just stop seeing things in such a black and white manner, and instead view her as a unique human being with the special gift to live life on both sides of the human spectrum, they might just see her situation as fortunate instead of as pitiful.  Perhaps she gets the best of both worlds.

I would hope that Semanya feels that way.  And perhaps maybe a little relieved to know why she isn't like all the rest of the girls.

Highlights of Obama's Health Care Speech

All this talk about Joe Wilson detracts from Obama's actual health care speech, which I found to be enlightening and clarifying.  I love that he always gives a history lesson when he speaks.  It's like I learn something new every time I hear him.  Some of the points I liked the most:


Health care reform has been a long time coming, nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first proposed it.


John Dingal, Sr. introduced a comprehensive health care bill in 1943, and his son continues his legacy by continuing to introduce that same bill at the beginning of every session.


Social Security and Medicare were tough decisions for lawmakers in their day, but both Democrats and Republicans were able to agree on the bills for the good of the American people.


The public option is still an option, but as Obama asserted, it is only a "means to an end," and can be pushed aside for better solutions.


We must pass health care reform to save America's economic future.


Of course, the news agencies and networks are abounding in polls showing what people thought of Obama's health care speech, a 14% jump in approval, but I think the real effect of the speech will show up in the long term.  It takes a long time for things to settle in to people's minds.  Change takes a long time to be acceptable but once it's allowed in, it grows and becomes possible.

Joe Wilson's "You Lie!" Will Haunt Him

It's great when someone messes up and you can criticize and malign their character for one moment of weakness, and most of all, feel with all due satisfaction how much more superior you are to them because you would never ever do anything that stupid.

Yes, it's a wonderful feeling.

I'm certainly enjoying that feeling right now as I think and read all the news articles and analyses about Joe Wilson and his heckle, "You lie!" heard all around the country.  There's even a website that sprung up to ridicule Wilson's annoying ways called joewilsonisyourpreexistingcondition.com.  The site has such tidbits as "Joe Wilson didn't refill your Brita pitcher" and "Joe Wilson said that you looked fat in that dress."  It's quite amusing.

So Joe Wilson has gone and made himself a scapegoat, perhaps even hurting himself in the process (it's said his Democratic opponent, Rob Miller, has received $400,000 for his 2010 campaign against him since his outburst), and all because of two little words uttered at an inappropriate moment.  My bad, I mean, "screamed" at an inappropriate moment.  Kind of reminds me of another Joe who got into an exchange with Obama and made headlines.  Joe the Plumber.  Not like I want to remember that guy, but I did want to point out the similarities.  Like this guy is also named Joe.  This guy also accosted Obama.  This guy also thinks he knows it all.  What is it with guys named Joe who like to confront Obama?  Is it because they are jealous that their name is so plain compared to his?  Although, to be fair, Joe the Plumber's real name is Samuel.

Whatever happened to him anyway?  No one cares anymore.  Once his fifteen minutes of fame were up, people brushed him aside.  I strongly suspect that the same thing will happen with this Joe, Joe Wilson.  He's becomes a caricature, or an actor's worst nightmare, typecasted.  People who oppose him will always see him as an inconsiderate jerk.  People who support him will probably treat him like a punchline at parties, "Say that line again, Joe.  Come on!  Say, "You lie!" again."  Think Gary Coleman and his line in different strokes, "What you talkin' about, Willis?"  Or the ever brilliant Simpsons, wherein Bart in one episode became a one-line hit for saying, "I didn't do it."  It ring so true to this moment.  Joe Wilson has become the one-hit, "You lie!" man.  And sadly, that's all people will ever see him for.  Some people might support him and think he's cool, but they'll abandon him as soon as the next new rabble-rouser comes along to divert their attention.  But for Joe Wilson, he's lost credibility, respectability.  He might even lose his house seat come next year.

That's what happens when you let your emotions overwhelm you.

As for Obama.  He got out of this looking like a sleek shiny new penny, as he always does.  He stays cool under fire, as he did in this situation, responding calmly, "That's not true," and going on with his speech.  That man, I must say, is a great leader, a great role model.  I mean, if my president has to go head to head with some of the most intimidating and powerful leaders in the world, and he does, I'd rather have a president that can look coolly in the eyes of the other man/woman and say, "That's not true," than a man who angrily points at him/her and yells, "You lie!" on national television.  But that's just me.  I'm sure people who like to point and yell side with Joe Wilson on this debate.

If only they realized their anger shows weakness, not strength.

Anyone can give in to anger.  It takes a strong person to hold himself back and control the situation.  As Obama did.  In this encounter, Obama won not just because he acted coolly, but because he came off the better man, and it raised the curiosity of more people to watch a speech they might not have in the first place.

Fear of Change: Health Care Reform

Anytime you mention reform of any kind, you're just asking for opposition because if there's one thing people don't like, it's CHANGE! Good or bad, people would rather stick to the way things are, and struggle it out then to change the thing that's hurting them. That's because their negative imagination makes them fear the unknown future more than they fear the dreadful present. As Spencer Johnson noted in his best-selling allegorical book, "Who Moved My Cheese?," people will do just about anything to keep from changing.

So I guess then I shouldn't be so shocked that so many people are latching onto any type of negative press they hear about Health Care Reform to violently fear it, vehemently oppose it, and imbue it with all the vitriol they've mustered for all the things that have gone wrong with their life. But I'm still shocked. Shocked that so many people are locked into such a state-of-mind that they can't see that change can be good, that the future can be brighter, and that the universe is not always out to get them.

There are plenty of complex analyses of the pros and cons of Health Care Reform, so I'll give you my simple take on it, which is "Why not try?" If we fail, we fail, but then we'll know how to make it better. If we stay where we are, we'll never know, and we'll still be failing, every day, every minute.

Here are some other points I thought were salient:

We have private and public schools, universities, utility companies, postal services, why not private and public health care?

How can we leave such a vital component of human life into the hands of people who may or may not have our best interest at heart, and definitely have their own pocketbooks in mind when it comes to OUR health?

Remember what happened to California, and all those blackouts the greedy electricity companies made us endure to hike up our electricity bills?!!! And what could people do who need electricity but endure it and take it, with no alternative? It's a basic necessity so they have us at their mercy. That's how the health care companies have it with us now, with our health! And people think that's ok. They've somehow convinced people that this is ok, and that Health Care Reform would be the evil thing. Meanwhile they're making major profit margins off our sickness, and they're one of the biggest lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

But it's not hard to convince people when they poke at the fear that everyone has, of the unknown future. And people bite. It's sad, but they do.

When private companies have a product that is a necessity to our lives but without much competition, they have us at their mercy, and that power corrupts. Look at Enron and the banking industry. These companies need to be checked, because when you're at the top, you don't care about all the little people under you getting hurt, needing help. As long as your needs are satisfied, your palace is kept in nice order, your corporate jet is filled with champagne, you could care less. That's just human nature.

That's why it has to be checked. The public option is a way to keep the health care companies in check. It's as simple as that. If we have to pay for it, we have to pay for it. We do pay for it anyway. And probably much more because we pay when people get really sick, rather than when they could have gotten preventative care and taken care of the problem early on, so we would have paid less.

And I know some people hate the idea that their hard-earned money is going toward paying someone else's health care bills, but if you really think about it, it really helps you. Consider: what if some person got infected with some deadly contagious disease but had no health insurance and couldn't see a doctor? What happens when that person comes in contact with someone, who passes it to someone, who passes it to someone, who passes it on to you and your family? Now you have a big problem that could have been avoided if that first person just had the ability to go to a doctor.

Universal Health Care like Universal Education helps everyone. Like Universal Education helps ensure an educated workforce, Universal Health Care will help ensure a healthy, vibrant workforce that can contribute to the economy and make major breakthroughs. Everyone benefits.

President Obama is making his speech on health care tonight at 5pm PDT. I have faith in him to pull this out. I hope that the public option will still be on the table. If not now, at least for the future. But I'd rather have some reform now than none at all. If it's just stronger regulation, that's something. A big step in a positive direction.

Happy 9/9/9!

I was thinking, "What a cool day! Too bad it's the last one we'll see with the same consecutive digits for a long time." But then I realized there's November 11, 2011, or 11/11/11. It's pretty easy to write too. And for those binary lovers, there'll be October 10, 2010, or 10/10/10.

Considering that our calendar is a subjective take on time-keeping, and that September actually means "Seven" (Septem = Seven, in Latin because it used to be the seventh month before they changed the calendar, thereby changing the order), November ("Nine" in Latin) would actually be the literal 9/9/9. But who cares about being literal?

Have a great nine day!

"Make us all proud. I know you can do it. "

Obama makes me proud in his address to school kids this morning. It was an inspiring and moving speech that, I believe, cements the fact that our president is a truly wonderful thinker and orator.

Here's the link for the full text of the speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

Some of the parts that resonated the most with me:

"Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future."

"Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.""

"These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time."

"No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice."

"And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself."

I agree. Thank you, Mr. President.

Happy Labor Day!

Of all the holidays, Labor Day is the one in which most people can feel it honors them.

Cheers to all the people in the past, present, and future who have made all the little and big conveniences in life possible with their hard work and sacrifice. Thank You and have a Wonderful Relaxing Day!

Obama's Speech to the Nation's Schoolchildren

It seems that concerned parents and the Republican party are terrified that their “impressionable” children will be "brainwashed" into supporting a "socialist agenda" just by hearing one speech, which will not even focus on anything political, but rather the importance of education and hard work in making dreams come true.

It boggles the mind that some parents think their kids so dumb that they can actually be "brainwashed" after one speech. I mean, Obama is a wonderfully gifted orator but he's not that good. Have they never been kids before? Most kids don’t even pay attention. If they did, do you think there would be such rampant drug use after all those D.A.R.E. presentations we endured? Obama is an amazing speaker but one wonders how great his speech can be if he has to dumb it down for the youngest kids. By my mind, he won't dumb it down too much but will rather go middle of the road so that the older kids don't feel talked down to. But that means that the younger kids, the more impressionable kids, won't understand him that well anyway, at least not well enough to understand “health care reform” if he should dare say it.

Of course, what parents are really afraid of is not that their kids will become liberals per se but rather that their kids will stop listening to them and their ideas. They're afraid of losing control over their kids' thinking. But they should know that when it comes to politics kids listen to their parents more than they listen to strange men on TV, even if that strange man happens to be the President of the United States. After all, I was a Republican as a kid. That's because my parents are Republicans, so I figured I was too. I didn't really think it was a choice. It was like religion. Whatever they were I was. And I didn't care enough to choose differently.

But by making this speech such a big deal and by getting it banned in some schools, what they and the Republican Party have done is to make it cooler to those older kids who matter more – the ones who will be of age to vote for Obama for reelection. Yes, that’s right. That’s the primary reason that the Republican Party is up in arms over this speech anyway. They’re afraid these schoolchildren will like Obama so much, they’ll abandon the Republican Party in droves and flock to the Democrats. That’s what the Republican party is worried about the most: That young people, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, will be so enchanted by one speech by him that they will, four years later, when they come of age, propel him to another four years in office. That’s the main fear, Obama’s charisma charming future voters, not all this stuff about forcing ideology, because you know Obama would never be able to get away with talking about any of that.

The funny thing is, those kids, who might have thought it was lame before, will now be intrigued by the controversy surrounding it. Because you know the thing that kids (and people in general) like the most? Banned stuff! And with the internet, kids banned from seeing the speech can easily hop on a computer (and they will) and watch it anyway, just to see what all the ruckus is about. At the same time, kids who are allowed to see the speech might just feel privileged because they know that there are kids in the country who aren't allowed to watch.

Apparently, some people haven't learned enough from history to realize that when you tell someone "No!," that's the one thing they really want to do. Especially when other people get to do it for nothing. Heck. I want to see this speech now.

The Modern Racist Paradigm

The Modern Racist Paradigm is an eye-opening documentary about race and the inferior feelings that minorities feel about themselves and their ethnicity because of the media's idealization of the white race, particularly the white man.  See it here:  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9142171923095749295.

It's a captivating and sometimes heartbreaking look into the extremes people go to to be accepted by the dominant group.  I rather think it's like being in high school, and so many peoples' experience of wanting to be in the "in crowd."  I hadn't even thought about how outside forces have such a big influence on how you view your own race.  But I found that the argument that religion and the media reinforce the "norm" of the white race rings true to me. 

I agreed with that idea and the parts focused on that idea, but what I didn't buy into are the parts focusing on a white ethnicity being the standard of Beauty and Culture.  I thought that was very skewed on the part of the documentary to prove its central point.

After all, what about tanning creams and the rise in prevalence of tanning salons, and white people constantly sunning themselves at the beach for that perfect tan (some even becoming orange)?  We don't say that they're trying to be black.  White people themselves get made fun of and thought weak if they're too white (think shirt tan).  And what about women who use eyeliner to elongate their eyes (flick a line up at the end of their eyes) like Rihanna and Olivia Wilde (of House)?  We don't say they're trying to look more Asian or exotic, but they do, and it makes them more appealing.  If a white guy dates an Asian girl, he must find her appealing.  Does that mean he's self-hating and idealizes Asians over whites?  How come she's the only self-hating one?  White people also get a lot of nose jobs, so what standard are they going for?  It would appear that white people have their own share of body neuroses too.  And a lot of them. 

As for culture, what about white people trying to rap and do martial arts or salsa or bellydance or yoga?  Isn't that them trying to be black or Asian or Latino or Middle Eastern or Indian?  And what about the standard of food?  When you think of good food, you don't think white food.  You think French and Italian maybe, but also Chinese, Mexican, Japanese - that's standard fare.  In England, they say the best places to eat are Indian food because English food sucks.  White people say this.  Have you ever tried Scottish haggis? bleh.

I think in the end it comes down to the fact that we take on things about other cultures that we like and translate it to our culture, they take things from our cultures that they like and translate it to their culture, and the problem lies not so much in doing that, but in the extreme attitudes some people develop when they idealize the other and despise themselves.  But self-hating is universal.  The grass is always greener on the other side no matter who you are.  You can blame other people but ultimately you're the one who decides to love yourself or not.