A Sane Radical

If there were such a thing as The Daily Show generation, I would be a member of it. Jon Stewart took over the late night show on Comedy Central when I was in college, the time in my life when I started to form my political outlook. The show got me through graduate school (or, I should say, George W. Bush’s presidency, which almost perfectly coincided with the eight years I spent getting my PhD), the time in my life when I learned how to articulate and substantiate my political outlook. As 9/11 happened, as the nation’s unity shifted into vitriolic division, as the Bush administration launched two wars using justification that proved to be unfounded, and as American political discourse became increasingly absurd, The Daily Show became a source of catharsis. Watching the show, I didn’t have to feel weird or crazy for getting upset when “you’re either with us or against us” got branded as patriotism, for observing the irony in Sarah Palin's admiration for her daughter's "choice" to have her baby, for cringing anytime anyone who's not a murderous dictator gets compared to Hitler. In a time when the most insane politicians and pundits seem to get the most power and attention, The Daily Show has been one of very few voices that articulated what I often felt alone in feeling and thinking.

So it's no surprise that I was one of the estimated 215,000 people who attended Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear this past Saturday. I wasn't sure if was going to turn into the progressive response to Glenn Beck's rally, if it was going to be an irony-fest for smug hipsters, or if it was just going to be one giant party. From where I was standing, it wasn't really any of these things. True, I got the sense that people in attendance identified themselves as liberal, since the overtly political signs largely poked fun at Christine O'Donnell, FOX News and the Tea Party. But people weren't there to push any particular political agenda. I didn't see anyone promoting any political candidates, in spite of the fact that the rally took place just three days before election day. I didn't even overhear any political discussions amongst the other attendees around me. I was pleasantly surprised by the age range of the people I saw. While my early morning bus to D.C. was full of college kids, I ended up sitting near a lot middle-aged folks, some of whom admitted that they didn't even watch The Daily Show. The energy was positive. People just seemed happy to be there, making room for each other, making sure that their signs weren't obstructing someone else's view, sharing snacks. This really was a gathering of reasonable people who wanted to make themselves visible as the non-insane majority of America.

I applaud Stewart's closing speech, his "moment of sincerity" in which he condemns both our political process and the "24-hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator" for projecting images of ourselves as angry, fear-mongering monsters incapable of compromise. Stewart was very careful in condemning extremists from both sides, saying at one point, "Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one's humanity but their own?"

This is where I think Stewart missed an opportunity to talk about the substance behind the rhetoric. While extremism on any end of any political spectrum is never a good thing, we need to acknowledge that it is not the extreme left that is currently holding the microphone. It is not the extreme left that is calling President Obama is a fascist, claiming that that health care reform is tantamount to a Bolshevik takeover, that all Muslims are out to destroy America. I can't think of a single Marxist who is actively subverting our Constitution (never mind that Marxism in and of itself is not extremism), but people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have made careers spewing racist and homophobic beliefs every day. Let us not forget, too, that our Congress still has room for former unabashed Klu Klux Klan members, such as Senator Robert Byrd, who died earlier this year. Our political terrain is so tilted to the right, that even "moderate" people are voting for laws that undermine a woman's right to an abortion, allow law enforcement officers to racially profile people, keep gay and lesbian Americans from getting married and serving in the military. Pundits and politicians from the left dare not suggest that we reduce defense spending, insist on a public health care option, grant citizenship to immigrants who have labored their whole lives in this country. There's no political payoff to stand by liberal policies, but it's politically safe to concede to conservative ones. No radical leftist party has gotten the kind of clout that the Tea Party has.

Stewart is right in saying, "When we amplify everything, we hear nothing." I would add that, right now, it seems like only one side is being amplified, and that's the only side we're hearing. Perhaps if there were an insane leftist ideological machine that was equally as influential as FOX News, we would get a better sense of where to locate the actual middle. Maybe people will realize that the liberal counterpart to FOX isn't NPR or even MSNBC. Maybe people will realize that Obama really is more of a centrist than he is a liberal. Maybe people will see that some reasonable and moderate people do dig the theories of Karl Marx, and some reasonable and moderate people are a little bit racist and homophobic.

The "Wall Street bailout" is one example of where right-wing fear-mongering has dictated what positions we're even allowed to take on any issue. Those hell-bent on taking down Obama and the Democrats have used it as an example of how "big government" is turning our country Socialist. There hasn't been a radical counterpart to this position, no prominent ideologue jumping for joy over the extent to which the government has to step in to solve our problems, nor any famous anarchist opposing the bailout with the belief that our financial system should collapse. The Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was actually signed into law by George W. Bush, not only prevented a complete collapse of our financial system, but has also been paid back in full and with interest. TARP was not at all a leftist conspiracy for a government takeover of Wall Street, but somehow it has been framed as one by the insane right. As a result, Obama gets no credit for following through on it, but John Boehner gets a lot of airplay decrying it and calling for it to be shut down. (Never mind that in 2008, when Bush was president, Boehner cried on the floor of Congress, begging his colleagues to vote for the bailout.)

Or, another example is the debate over the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. When the leftist position is one that is merely advocating for equal rights to all American serving in the armed forces, there isn't room in the political spectrum for someone like me, who is disturbed by the policy, but is even more disturbed by the fact the Department of Defense is the nation's largest employer. There isn't room in our political spectrum to even suggest a downsizing of our military industrial complex.

I can appreciate that the purpose of the rally wasn't to promote any particular political agenda. The rally may not have been as successful if it did. I just wish that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had spoken more about the substance behind the rhetoric in addition to rhetoric itself. The problem in this country isn't that insane people from both sides of the political spectrum are yelling too much and making it impossible for anyone to compromise. It's that insane people from the right are the only ones yelling while everyone else is staying quiet. And their yelling is also setting parameters of what everyone else is allowed to support or reject. I don't believe that the solution is to encourage the insane left to do some yelling, but I do think we need to readjust the barometer before we all agree to "take it down a notch." We need to restore not only sanity, but an idea of what "moderate" really means. In today's political terrain, I get lumped in with the insane radicals, simply because the middle bar is so skewed to the right. And while I have no problems with identifying myself as a radical, I have to insist that my concerns are entirely reasonable and that my ideas for what would be better for this country are governed by careful thought. I may be a radical, but I'm also a sane one.

When An Anti-Jingoist Watches Sports

I don't really follow sports, and when I do, I don't ever swear allegiance to any one team. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that I grew up in San Jose, CA, a city that really only has the Sharks to claim as its national sports team. (And, really, who the hell here gives a rat's ass about hockey?) I suppose there are always the San Francisco teams to get behind, and I remember the 49-er frenzy when I was a kid, back when Joe Montana was a star. But for the most part, the notion of feeling personally affiliated with a sports team, and loyally supporting it, has always been kind of foreign to me.

The funny thing is, the only sports events I ever did follow consistently were the Olympics and the World Cup, two events premised on competition between nations, and thus should inspire the most flag-waving, anthem-singing, allegiance-swearing fervor. My impulse has always been to root for the United States, because, of course, that is the country I call home. But since I was a kid, I always noticed when my parents would get excited about China's performance, and it never occurred to me that they, as American citizens, were being unpatriotic. And when it did occur to me that they weren't necessarily supporting China as a nation (for, after all, both sides of my family were kicked out of China after various revolutions generations ago, and no one has expressed any interest in returning to the homeland), I came to understand that my parents were feeling an affinity with a people and a common ancestry. One's loyalty or sense of belonging isn't always represented in terms of teams. So while my family certainly has a strong sense of home and origin, it has never been that interested in jingoism. I guess I haven't been, either.

My educational background and academic career have equipped me to intellectualize my inherent distrust of nation, and have also interfered with my watching of sports. I'm far more interested in what programs nations have in place that enable the strong performance of its athletes rather than the performances themselves. I'm always impressed when athletes from war-torn and impoverished countries manage to medal. The Beijing Olympics were particularly interesting for me, because it displayed China as a country once closed-off debut itself as a superpower. While I was certainly proud to see my ancestral nation host and compete so impressively, I was also quick to wonder how much money was going into "representing" the nation when so many of its people are dirt poor. I found it thrilling to see an Asian country give my true homeland, the big and powerful U.S., a run for its money, but I also felt fatigued by the cost of competition. In the end, rather than get caught up in the medals race between the United States and China, I found myself looking out for nations that were medaling for the first time.

So for this year's FIFA World Cup, I've been largely rooting for the underdogs. Yes, I rooted for North Korea, even if they're supposed be an evil dictatorship. I just thought it was cool that they were making it to the World Cup for the first time since 1966. Yes, I rooted for Ghana, even when they were playing the United States. I just wanted to see an African country make the final in the first World Cup to take place on the African continent. And now that we're reaching the final, I definitely don't want to see one between the Netherlands and Germany, two former colonizers of South Africa.

I suppose my cheering habits betray my politics and world-view. I'm clearly fiercely critical of colonialism (and its counterpart: globalization). I'm also an American through and through, right down to my awareness of American racial politics and the history of white supremacy in the United States, which somehow translates to an affinity with my Asian brethren and other folks of color when they manage to defy expectations that history dictates.

Obviously, I'm not much of a sports watcher.

---

UDPATE: I actually got my ass up at 7 am to watch the Germany vs. Argentina game. Gotta hand it to the Germans-- They were simply way better than Argentina defensively, and knew how to position themselves in order to finish off their attempted goals. Really strong, tight team. No wonder they've been slaughtering every team they've played. See, I do pay attention to the game!

Sen. Daniel Inouye, Senate President Pro-Tempore

Not to undermine any honor due to Senator Robert Byrd, who passed away on Monday, but it is worth noting that his passing has created a void in the position of Senate president pro-tempore. This position is filled by the longest-serving member of the majority party, who is now Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).

This means that Sen. Inouye is now third in line of presidential succession. That is the closest an Asian American has ever come to the presidency.

To be clear, no part of me is wishing that Pres. Obama and Vice Pres. Biden get knocked off just so we get an Asian American president. (Besides, in my opinion, our president's Hawaiian upbringing, Indonesian step-dad and Chinese brother-in-law practically make him an honorary Asian anyway.) I'm just saying that this is a noteworthy moment in American history. Perhaps it is now somewhat imaginable that an Asian American could someday get the top job.

Sen. Inouye, 85 (damn, these senators are old), has been a U.S. senator since 1963. He fought in the Nisei 442nd Regimental Combat Team during World War II, and was awarded the Medal of Honor. As senator, Inouye was instrumental in securing reparations for Japanese Americans who were interned during WWII. He also voted against the Iraq War in 2002.

The Real Estate Pain-in-the-Ass That Nobody's Telling You About

Let me just start with a disclaimer: I just became a homeowner with a whole lot of help from my parents, and I am in no way an expert on the ins and outs of buying a home. I'm just speaking as someone who has witnessed the buying and selling side of real estate this year, and who has come into contact with a little pain in the ass thing we'll just call the "10% rule."

With any home loan you apply for, the federal government (via Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) has to back up the bank. I guess that's what it means for your loan to be FHA approved. As of about two years ago, the federal government has instituted a rule saying that it will not back up any loan that will be used to finance the purchase of a condo in which one owner owns more than 10% of the complex. As a result, banks generally won't bother issuing loans that will be used to finance the purchase of a condo in which one owner owns more than 10% of the complex.

This rule was put in place in response to the housing crisis. It makes sense in the context of giant establishments (say, hotels) in which one big investor may own a good chunk of the building. Say that investor owns 50% of the building-- If that investor goes bankrupt for whatever reason, the rest of the investors in that building would also get screwed. And so do the banks. So this 10% rule is meant to protect "little" owners, I suppose. It makes it difficult for any one body to own too much of one complex, balances out the distribution of ownership and power, and allows the banks to also protect their assets.

But even the most well-intentioned rules cannot be universally applied. This rule has been quite the pain in the ass for "little" people like my family. For a while now, my dad has been helping my greataunt, who is elderly and senile, with her estate. Seeing that she was running out of money, my dad applied on her behalf for a reverse mortgage. For some reason, this 10% rule came into the picture, and the banks denied her application, precisely because one owner in her complex owned more than 10% of the units. (This is also the fault of her homeowner's association, who didn't step in to prevent this one owner from purchasing that many units.) I don't understand why this 10% rule should apply to reverse mortgages. Seems like an exception should be made, especially for someone in my greataunt's situation. After all, what good is a house you've invested in your entire life if you can't live off of what it's worth once you're too old to support yourself?

My greataunt was not only running out of money, but she was also running out of the mental capabilities of taking care of herself. In order to facilitate her move into an assisted living establishment, my dad had to help her sell her condo. Sure enough, the 10% rule became a huge obstacle. No potential buyer would have been able to get a bank to approve a loan in order to finance the purchase. We were seriously worried that my greataunt would be stuck with this condo as her finances kept draining.

Miraculously, we did get a buyer who was able to pay in cash. So we were able to sell my greataunt's condo, and now she hopefully has enough cash to live on for the rest of her life. But had that buyer never come along, my greataunt would be in dire straits. And even though things worked out in the end, this 10% rule probably cost her tens of thousands of dollars. Given our desperate situation, we had to sell the place at a lower price than we could have had we been open to buyers who could get their loans approved.

This 10% rule continued to be a pain in the ass for my family when we went out to Cambridge to hunt for my condo. The first place we were interested in was one unit of seven, in a building owned by a developer who was selling each unit one buy one. The developer still owned five of the units, so, of course, he owned more than 10% of the units. We were told right away from the New England Moves, the mortgage company affiliated with Coldwell Banker, that they would not be able to finance this purchase. A local lender, East Cambridge Bank, would have been able to, but at a slightly higher interest rate. We did make an offer on that unit, but with some reservations. Even if I could secure the purchase with a loan from East Cambridge Bank, what will happen a few years down the road, when I want to sell the place? If the developer still owned more than 10% of the units, would I have trouble selling the place because no buyer could get a loan? Not willing to risk this, we made a low-ball offer (figuring that we'd get a counter-offer, and thus wouldn't be tied to the contract), and went looking for other units. Luckily, we ended up finding one that we liked even better and in building where this 10% rule wouldn't be a problem. But in the end we couldn't ignore the fact that this rule was affecting our lives at many junctures.

What's truly upsetting is the fact that no one seems to be upset or bothered by this 10% rule. The sellers I've come across during my real estate hunt completely dismiss it. And the morons in my greataunt's homeowner's association totally whitewash the problems the rule causes, in spite of the fact that not one of them will be able to sell their properties. You'd think there would be some amount of public outrage, at least enough for the federal government and the banks to tweak the rule, add an addendum or exception here and there, so that it doesn't end up screwing over average folks who need to meet simple goals like buying a home or selling it, in order to secure their futures. This rule is not helping or protecting people like me or my greataunt. On the contrary, it's only helping super rich people who could buy real estate in cash and bypass the banks entirely. Or, it's helping mafioso banks that are willing to issue unconventional loans at high interest rates. The 10% rule is a good idea gone very, very bad.

Well, maybe my little anecdote here can help spark some conversation at least.

Fuck You, Arizona

Dear Arizona,

You really are on a roll, aren't you? First you push SB 1070, which I don't find all that surprising. After all, the atmosphere in your state is such that angry white folks who call themselves "Minutemen" have felt empowered to dress up as law enforcement officers and murder innocent people (including a 9-year-old girl) in the name of "homeland security" and "border control." Of course you're going to enact an immigration law that gives local law enforcement officers the right to determine the citizenship status of anyone they detain or arrest. Before I find myself driving through your state, I'll make sure to tattoo my social security number on my ass. Just in case I get pulled over for speeding or something. Because lord knows that Asian folks don't look sufficiently "American" enough, either.

So to ride on the momentum of that racist bullshit, you decide to also pass HB 2281, which prohibits schools from offering courses that "are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." Not that the language of the bill explicitly says this, but HB 2281 effectively bans ethnic studies programs, such as the Tucson public school district's Mexican American Studies program. Reasons for targeting ethnic studies? The state superintendent has called such programs "ethnic chauvinism," and state senator Russell Pearce, the architect of SB 1070, calls ethnic studies "hateful speech" and "sedition."

As an instructor of Asian American Studies, I have to lament the passing of 2281, not because I had hoped to get a job as one of your teachers (hell, I'd sooner live in Texas), but because the racial tensions and rampant anti-immigrant sentiments in your state indicate that now, more than ever, is precisely when ethnic studies curriculum is needed.

First, let's just establish that ethnic studies is not now, nor has it ever been, an advocate of "ethnic chauvinism" or "hateful speech." It is the opposite of those things. As a discipline, ethnic studies was established by students, teachers, activists and community organizers who opposed racism in all its forms, advocated for human rights regardless of privilege, and recognized the experiences of all Americans, regardless of ethnicity, as having a legitimate place in American history. Yes, an ethnic studies curriculum is going to educate people on the fact that the 1790 Naturalization Act explicitly declared that only white male persons could apply for citizenship rights, that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded a large chunk of Mexico to the United States in 1848, that the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was the first of many race-based immigration bans to be enacted in the United States, that it wasn't until the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act that race-based and national origins-based immigration legislation even began to be overturned. To teach these historical facts is to acknowledge the existence of white privilege, but to acknowledge the existence of white privilege is not equal to teaching hate. In fact, closer to teaching hate is the refusal to acknowledge this side of American history, for it is precisely ignorance that allows people to shout with anger and entitlement, "We need to keep 'our' country away from 'them'."

While we're on the topic of collective identification, let's touch upon the second gripe I have with HB 2281, which is its implication that "ethnic solidarity" is the antithesis of individuality. Ethnic studies is not just for "ethnic" people. In fact, it serves its purpose of equality and empowerment best when it reaches out to all people. To get rid of ethnic studies altogether does not treat each pupil as an individual. On the contrary, it erases the individual histories and experiences of so many people in America and serves one prominent collective: namely, white Americans. What collective are we identifying when we speak of "our" Founding Fathers? Do we not assume a collective identification when we study our Constitution, which begins with the words, "We the People"? I understand that buzzwords like "individualism" are a handy way to promote "American" values and undermine anything that smells of pinko-commie-socialism, which any critique of our hegemonic social order seems to be associated with. I'm just saying that that supposed opposition is a fallacy. As people who live and work within America's borders, regardless of our citizenship status, we are always called upon to be a part of collective. There's nothing seditious about acknowledging the different ways in which we experience being Americans at the same time that we respond to that call.

Though if I had known that ethnic studies was about overthrowing the government, I probably could have made my courses a lot more interesting...

So this is just my long-winded way of saying, Fuck You, Arizona. Go ahead and practice your racist laws and your historical amnesia. I can only hope that more of your brave citizenry will resist this kind of injustice and stupidity.

Sincerely,

Me