I must say, I haven't blogged in a while, but when I did, I expected I
would write about a turning point in my acting career. "Starring in a
National Commercial" or "Series Regular on a New TV Series". And while
I am still hoping to write that blog in the future (preferably in the
near future), instead I find myself wanting to talk about politics.
Indeed,
the 2008 US Presidential Election has been engaging to say the least.
From a highly contested Democratic Primary, to the Obama acceptance
speech at Mile High, to Sarah Palin, the campaigns have been charged.
Obama, who once enjoyed a 9-point lead in the Gallup Polls, has fallen
to a statistical dead heat with McCain, now down 2-points, 47-45.
I'll
admit that while I still have questions about the feesability of some
of Obama's plan, he's still the best candidate out there, especially
considering the egregious lies the McCain-Palin camp has pushed (Just
check out www.factcheck.org or www.politifact.org to sift through
several of their lies). Unfortunately, the strategy appears to be
working, and Obama's message of "More of the Same", feels like, well,
more of the same.
As a concerned Obama supporter (who, for the
first time in my life, donated to a presidential campaign), I felt I
had put in my two cents in what Obama must do to win, and it starts
with his first Presidential debate, on September 26th. The strategy is
quite simple, really, although the aftermath could be quite ugly, and
whether Obama has the guts to do this remains to be seen. But there's
no more efficient way to the presidency...
Release "Hothead McCain".
So
far, the Democrats have left McCain's character untouched, even calling
him a "war hero", and instead trying to debate McCain on the issues.
But if there's any indication from the last two Presidential elections
(and probably even farther than that), this election will not be won on
the issues. Democrats have had better ideas on domestic and foreign
policy for the last eight years, and yet they've lost repeatedly
because issues and policy discussion doesn't resonate among the voters.
You know what does? Scandal.
Republicans have character
assassinated Democrats with great effectiveness, from Bill Clinton's
Monicagate to the Swift-Boating of John Kerry. Fortunately for Obama,
he can turn the tables because McCain has laid the ammunition for Obama
to use. So here's what Obama must say in this debate:
* John McCain is a liar. * McCain lied about Obama's education policies, and Obama's own criticisms, to name a few. * McCain lied about Palin's opposition to earmarks, even though Palin accepted $200 million in earmarks for the "Bridge to Nowhere" project. *
The media has corrected McCain on numerous occasions, and yet he still
spreads the lies. McCain will restore dignity to the White House? *
With every lie, John McCain dishonors the United States, dishonors
democracy, dishonors his own campaign and supporters, and spits in the
face the American People. * John McCain, the war hero, was an honorable man. John McCcain, the Republican Presidential Candidate, is a disgrace.
Obama
must challenge McCain's character every chance he gets. If Obama pushes
enough buttons, McCain will reach a breaking point and turn "Hothead",
which will ultimately lead to a Howard Dean-esque political meltdown
from which he can't recover.
Obama may feel that he would be
stooping to the Republicans level, but he doesn't have to worry about
that. Because he'd telling the truth. McCain created the mudhole. It's
time Obama forces McCain to wallow in it.
A dear friend of mine accused me of not updating my journal enough. Of
course, she was right. At the same time, I accused her of sheltering
her xanga posts by not importing them to Facebook. So Trinh, I'm going
to update, but in return, my faithful readers are going to know you
exist. All's fair in love and online journals.
I was reading Trinh's xanga about her non-profit work in the Gulf Coast.
Trinh and our mutual friend, Lynne (and yes, that rhymes), have been in
Biloxi, Mississippi for the past month helping the Vietnamese community
there recover from Hurricane Katrina. Although the media has moved on
to sexier stories, the struggle to rebuild the Gulf Coast continues,
and there is still much work to be done. Trinh's pictures in her xanga
tell the story far better than my words every could, so I will leave
that story to her. But as I finished reading Trinh's entry, her last
line had struck a chord:
"It's
been overwhelming, and the work is draining, no doubt. I've outreached
to at least 120 houses in four days, so it's no surprise that I'm
constantly tired. What surprises me though is that I already feel like
my morale is low, and it's only the beginning..."
- Trinh's Xanga
My
first reaction was to immediately post a comment about how Trinh should
keep her head up and how her work was truly making a difference. The
world needed more people like Trinh and Lynne, people who dreamed of a
better world and took action, and all I could think of was the tragedy
it would be if either of them had lost hope! But as her words and my
thoughts sank in, I started to think about my own dreams of becoming a
great actor, and how my experience will be littered with obstacles and
failures. Such is the universal human struggle: how do you succeed when
the obstacles seem insurmountable?
When you have a destination,
but the path is unfamiliar, you seek people who have taken the path
before you. Thus, if I were to desire success, I must seek the
successful. Enter Thomas Keller, executive chef and proprietor of the world-renowned French Laundry. After watching the amazing film Ratatouille,
of which Keller served as a consultant, I was compelled to better
understand Keller's love of food and its preparation. I started reading
The French Laundry Cookbook,
and within the first sentence of his introduction, Keller gets right to
the point; great food starts with understanding its (and thus, the
chef's) main purpose: to make people happy. But if you want to make
others happy, you must find happiness yourself:
Reading the first paragraph alone got me thinking about love, and I came to a two revelations:
1. Love is NOT a more intense version of like.
I
don't always like the people I love, and some of the things I love to
do require things I'd rather do without. So LIKING something is not a
prerequisite for LOVING something.
2. Love is about truly understanding the necessity of an action to accomplish a greater dream.
The
true struggle of love lies in connecting our actions with the
unrealized result. I may not like sitting in front of a computer for 30
minutes submitting to casting calls, nor do I like driving 30 minutes
out of my way for an audition, nor do I like juggling two part-time
jobs in order to keep a flexible schedule, but if I truly love acting,
then I know all of this will lead to the realization of my dream. The
better I connect these actions to my dream, the closer I reach Keller's
ideal: that I will appreciate submitting to casting calls, and driving,
and juggling the part-time jobs. (The great irony is that in indulging
in the appreciation of the actions leading to success, you actually
realize success in the present. In other words, taking the actions to
be successful BECOMES SUCCESS ITSELF.)
So maybe the key
to success is appreciating what we are doing now, and having faith that
our actions will lead us to greater successes. Biloxi may have a long
way to go, but Trinh and Lynne, you have my faith. And just maybe, you
might find success sooner than you think.
No, it's not the title of a best-selling feminist book. It's a speech
given by Roy F. Baumeister, a Psychology professor at Florida State
University, last Friday at the American Psychological Convention in San
Francisco. Instead of espousing the superiority or deficiency of one
gender over the other, Dr. Baumeister suggests to look at gender
difference as the result of the ways successful societies (and when we
refer to "successful", we refer to the ability to survive and maintain
itself) have exploited both men and women. I had understood before the
idea that women were biologically more valuable than men, but this talk
better articulates how that idea manifests itself in gender motivations
and actions. A very fascinating read. What do you all think?
So I was wandering around UCLA, waiting for my audition for a student
film (for which I was cast!) when I ran into three friends, Vince,
Gerard, & April. We had a little chat, after which they invited me
to meet up with them at the Coop. I agreed, and after my audition I
headed over there.
We
had a nice conversation, after which April asked to leave because she
had to catch this comedy, Coupling, on BBC America. She said she always
caught the show late by a few minutes, and this would be no different.
The guys suggested that we ask one of their friends working at the Coop
change one of the channels for us so we could catch it together. All
you have to do is ask, right? Well, before I knew it, I was hooked.
A
crude description of Coupling is that it's a UK hybrid of "Friends" and
"Seinfeld", but more raunchy. A better description is that it is a
sharp, well-executed comedy that deserves to stand on its own merits.
As an incredibly fickle and critical TV-watcher, it might just be the
best modern comedy I've ever seen.
Of course I can give you a
complete critique of the series, or I can just present a clip and you
be the judge. Of course, as I write this, Season 1 of Coupling is
heading to my apartment as we speak.
It's been several months since I've blogged. Overall, my life has gone
very well since that last entry. I often thought to myself that I only
seem to write whenever I feel emotionally unbalanced, to both extremes.
Sadly, this tradition continues.
I
was horrified, as was much of the nation, when I first heard about the
tragic shooting at Virginia Tech. Having such fond memories of my
college experience at UCLA, I can't imagine the trauma the Virginia
Tech students must be feeling, knowing their college experience will be
forever marred by this bloody, senseless act of violence.
In our
collective grief, our inherent desire to make sense of the senseless
has given a cue to the mass media outlets to point fingers, and
re-ignite heated debates. Were gun control laws inadequate, or did they
contribute to the tragedy? What can be done to make our school campuses
more secure? Why didn't the Virginia Tech administration lockdown the
campus after the first shooting? Why are we seeing more gun violence in
American schools? How do we identify and stop these killers before they
strike? Just about any answer to these questions has already been said,
both in print and on the air, so I won't be so pretentious to try and
come to any conclusions. That's why we pay for cable news.
But
there is one issue not covered by the media that deserves attention. It
is well known by now that the shooter was another student, Cho Seung-Hui.
His name makes it apparent that he is Asian, and indeed, the media have
identified him as a South Korean immigrant. While the Korean community
has quickly announced their condemnation of the shootings,
no doubt rooted in fear of a similar backlash to that of Muslims after
9/11, very few have questioned the label that the media have stamped on Cho. Am I saying he is not a South Korean immigrant? Well no...
and yes.
Let's take a closer look at Cho's background.
Yes, he was born in South Korea. Yes, he immigrated to the United
States. And yes, he was not a US citizen, having just renewed his green
card in 2003. What media outlets fail to emphasize, however, was that
he immigrated in 1992, FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, when he was EIGHT. He
graduated from a high school IN VIRGINIA. And he majored in ENGLISH. So
while the official paperwork may say that he was a Korean immigrant
living in America, for all intensive purposes, he was KOREAN AMERICAN.
Yet,
despite the fact that Cho grew up in America, and despite the
fact that he lived most of his life in America, the media has
conveniently omitted that single cultural description, "American", only
allowing him to be "Korean". Why would that be? My roommate and I
discussed this issue over dinner, and he hypothesizes that this is an
attempt for Americans to cope by disassociating themselves from the
killer. I would only add, and he would agree with me, that this
"American" omission is not done consciously, but rather an instinctual
reaction to protect our fragile view of the world. How can you believe
that an American could shoot and kill fellow Americans? When he is not
American. Now if he were just Korean, then the picture makes sense. He
was a loner. End of story.
Obviously, this is not the end of the
story. The news outlets will continue to dig for the missing pieces so
long as the American public is still hungry for (easy) answers, filling
in the gaps when it's convenient. Profiles of "Cho Seung-Hui: Mass
Murderer" are being produced as we speak. The gun control debates will
continue. No doubt colleges around the country will think about adding
metal detectors and armed security to prevent future shootings. And the
older generation will wonder what the hell is happening with our youth.
And when the American public has had its fill of fast-food information
and bubble-gum answers, we will forget and move on with their lives.
Sadly, cultural amnesia is an American tradition.
