Improvisation, Creativity, Hip-hop and Nerdy Asians

This is probably the best title for a blog post that I've written. Ever.


Catching up on my blog reading Sunday night and came across surgeon and researcher Charles Limb on TED talks.


Some observations:
1. He has the worst powerpoint presentation. Ever. (Please see below)

2. 13: 30 He raps in his TED talks. Yes, he raps. Dorky Asian Guy raps. Back to my thesis that Hip-Hop + Asian People = Love (Please see below)

3. 14:26 Pan to a bunch of white people crossing their arms, yawning and scratching their heads -- as Dr. Limb stands bobbing his head. Womp. Womp. (Please see below)

4. In the related article, he says: 

And I have to tell you, I’ve been having a ton of fun with this study, just experientially. When we were making our beats and our stimuli, trying to design the study, there’s no way to do this study without trying to rap yourself. It really transforms the lab!

I wish I was there to watch him come up with freestyles about his life. Got em.

Close

I stumbled upon "Closer" via Clutch Magazine's article "Is It Really 'Just Sex'?" - though I think that question might lead one to believe the short is less complex than it is.

One night after a casual 'visit', Angela is all but ready to leave Derek's apartment. Derek, however, is determined no to let her go without a fight.

Programmer's Note: Tahir Jetter makes his first visit to the Sundance Film Festival with his dramatic short film "Close." With its truthful and intimate look at a turning point in a relationship, Jetter describes "Close." as "heavily autobiographical." In fact, at the New York premiere of the short, one particular audience member found the film's narrative more than coincidental, to which Jetter can only comment, "Nothing like making a movie about a person you've been romantically involved with and then having that person go and see it." A graduate of NYU's Tisch School of the Arts, Jetter is working on expanding "Close." into a feature film.

It's hard to figure out where exactly to begin. The gender dynamics are interesting - not only superficially because of the gender reversal - but because of the violence. It is interesting how Derek's violence is juxtaposed with his earlier behavior imitating a highly sexualized, stylized dancing (Beyonce's Single Ladies dance) that almost initially makes him seem effeminate, or at the very least at ease with his sexuality. His violence - rapelike - is harsh in comparison to our first few images of him. What's more interesting is reading the caption to the video in which the director shares that it's autobiographical. I wonder what he makes of his own violence, especially since he is able to so vividly depict it. 

It's funny because I went to follow him on twitter and he had posted something about Blue Valentine (another must-see). Closer is reminiscent of Blue Valentine (or perhaps the other way around) in that its eerily real, the silences palpable, the frustrations understandable. 

Welcome Back, Welcome Back, Welcome Back

Sorry folks for the long hiatus from the blog. I got caught up in *studying* and work and life. I also probably went out too hard - posting every day. I'm going to start posting again, but probably once or twice a week. Or whenever I have something interesting to say. Keeping up a blog took much more time than I had expected and suddenly it was taking too much time, but instead of scaling back I just stopped.


Moderation - that's one of my words for 2011. 


Now, on to my post for today:


I've decided that one of my 2011 (re)solutions is to give more of my money away. I like fancying myself a benefactor of the arts and supporter of the cause. Obviously, my work is devoted to my causes, but I want to put some of my money where my mouth is. And, since I am a poor poor non-profit worker bee, it's more of a sacrifice and thus I want to examine how wealth, money and the pursuit of it factor into my life during 2011. 


The first thing I want to draw your attention to is Kickstarter - a relatively new website where artists look for funders for their projects. 

Kickstarter is a new way to fund creative ideas and ambitious endeavors.

We believe that:

• A good idea, communicated well, can spread fast and wide. 

• A large group of people can be a tremendous source of money and encouragement.

Kickstarter is powered by a unique all-or-nothing funding method where projects must be fully-funded or no money changes hands.

And, my first funding project is: Shakedown - a documentary about the lesbian strip club scene in L.A. Seems like a cool concept, plus I'll get me a DVD if the funding ends up going through.

I think all too often people still believe donating money is only for wealthy people. With the advent of microfinancing and other microfunding opportunities, I think the general sentiment is beginning to change. But, I think its an interesting way for me to begin to contemplate what money means to me.

top three things that i love today

1. the interns at work

2. korilla bbq - mmm... kimchi

3. Anthony Borrdain's no reservations

that is all.

waiting for superman, part deux

I forgot to mention, there was one thing that I did like about Waiting for Superman - the portrayal of families of color, in a sense, the de-pathologizing of Black families

The Black and Latino families that are portrayed in the news and pop culture feed off of negative stereotypes of welfare queens, crack addicts and absent fathers. The explanation for poor performance in  Black and Latino children usually begins with their families not valuing education. This is so silly since education is so popularly and universally valued. No, Asians and Jewish people do not value education more than any one else. It is not an explanation as to why they do well in school. Nor is it an explanation as to why other students fail.

The families in the film all cared deeply about their children's education, making large sacrifices in order to finance and support their child's learning through additional tutoring or by sending them to private school.

Some reviews have faulted the film with having only shown parents invested in their child's education - which seems problematic to say the least. Instead, the documentary excels in its provision of a counternarrative to the idea of pathological Black families and a culture of poverty.

waiting for (race)

Today, I finally got a chance to see "Waiting for Superman" -- a new documentary that is supposed to highlight the pitfalls of our education system. I had heard negative reviews from my friends who are schoolteachers, but still wanted to see for myself.

One would think that a movie about the problems with education (and a movie that at times historicizes concepts) would mention officially sanctioned racial segregation (then desegregation and then de facto segregation spurred by current policies and court judgments!) and race. Race is not used once. Not one time.

The documentary features five children: a hispanic girl from Los Angeles, a black girl from New York, a hispanic boy from New York, a black boy from D.C. and a white (older) girl from Silicon Valley. (Which thing is not like the other?) All the children expect the white child live in urban poor districts and attending failing schools. The white girl lives in a neighborhood where the average home price is just below 1m and attends a stunningly beautiful all-white school. She wishes to attend a charter school because her test scores are lower than she would like. The narrator mentions how "middle-class" kids suffer too because a small minority of over-performing children make the school averages look better when many of the kids are not where they should be. And, while it is important to realize that America's education problem is far reaching and across the board, it isn't the same across the board. To compare in a way that suggests symmetry between the white wealthy girl and the poor black and brown children is apalling. And, to not mention how race plays a factor in all of this is nothing short of shameful.

All of the children are trying to get into charter schools. The documentary correctly makes the point that if they stay in their failing public schools, most will drop out and all will be grade levels behind where they are supposed to be. Most of them do not win the lottery to get into their preferred charter school. And, the film fails to problematize this.

The documentary also overwhelming points to teachers as the problem, while simultaneously saying that teachers aren't the problem, unions are. Well, folks, what are unions made of? Teachers! The focus on failing teachers, and not failing curriculum, the lack of integration, lack of resources, too short school day, and tracking. 

And in terms of just production, editing, conception, etc. - it doesn't really build much of an argument for anything (well maybe except for the inadequacy of teachers). The long montage of famous, smart people who went to public school? Unnecessary and confusing. The scenes that were cut in of classroom situations from various cartoons, movies, tv shows and 50s instructional videos? Unnecessary and confusing. They brought in a lot of stuff but didn't really delve into it: KIPP schools, Harlem Children's Zone, Michelle Yee, rubber rooms in NYC etc.

All in all, this had the potential of being great in concept, but flatlined in the first few minutes.

oh, i thought you were dead

I was exhausted tonight going home. I had spent the day volunteering and, as usual, the trains were barely running. My normally 20 minute express train had turned into a 40 minute local monster. So, I took a nap...

... only to be awaken by the mta police. I actually wasn't dead asleep; I was semi-cognizant that the next stop was mine, but still sleepy enough that when I woke up I had to wipe away a little drool. (hehe) Anyways, our conversation is roughly as follows:

MTA Police: Oh, you're alive.

Me: Uh, yes, I was napping.

MTA Police: I wasn't sure, I thought you might be dead.

Me: WHAAA?! No! Do you find many dead people?

MTA Police: Oh, yes, all the time. I already found four dead people this week. They just don't talk about it.

Me: Yo, that's mad crazy. Seriously?!

MTA Police: Yeah, we find dead people all the time. I mean, you could have had a heart attack.

Me: ::confused::

MTA Police: I'm not saying you're going to have a heart attack, don't worry. But, people have heart attacks and die.

Me: Hmm. Okay. Well, thank you.

Wait, what? Did the MTA Police really think my hunched over self was dead? Apparently, yes. It's definately an odd feeling to have been thought of as dead. Disconcerting, uncomfortable and weird.

It makes me wonder just how many people are found dead in subway cars and if I've ever been in a car with a dead person and not have realized it. It's eery. Especially since it's a very real possibility. And, I wonder if it's something that I should be more aware of - not necessarily "are there dead people around me?" but just generally being more conscious and aware of people around me.

and they say chi-city

admittedly, i've been a little slack lately. but as your birthday present to me, i ask your forgiveness, but i'm back and posting. this past weekend, for my birthday i was in Chicago visiting friends. and, although, i don't normally post about travel - i figured i would today.

i hadn't (and still haven't) had much time to research chi-city before i got there for my short trip. what i did know was that it was a city full of rich history, great hip hop artists (or should i say GOOD?) and pretty fly architecture.

so, i dragged my friends on the 1 hour architecture tour. while self-aware of how geeky i was being, i wasn't embarassed enough to not do it or get super excited the entire time leading up to said tour. and, being a new yorker, i'm not really into "tours." if anything, i'll use frommer's and take myself on a self-guided tour, but pay to go on a tourist trap -- usually not my thing. but, i have to admit, the tour was AMAZING. if you go to chicago, you gotta take the architecture tour. see the picture above? well, i didn't take it, but i promise that you get that view but better for an entire hour. the architecture tour is on a boat that takes you down the river and through downtown chicago. you get a little history, a little urban planning, some architecture and really just a lot of interesting things to look at and consider. we got on the tour at 6:15 so the sun was just setting and everything was lit up and beautiful. we missed some things that are better seen in daylight, but it was okay because if we had taken it in daylight we would miss seeing everything lit up.

i also saw The Lion King - disney's traveling tour. not really a Chicago thing, but i gotta mention it because it was breathtaking. if you haven't yet, see it!

had chicago deep dish pizza and chicago style popcorn (caramel and cheese mix). it was good - i'm glad i went and had it, but, honestly, nothing i would run back for. new haven pizza still easily takes the cake for me. i ate the stuffed version at Giordano's which like i said was mediocre. i mean it was good, but nothing to write home about. what was interesting was that the crust was flakey, almost like pastry. the popcorn was good because it was super fresh and i'm used to eating the popcorn that comes in those big cans around christmas time... haha! as for other food, i ate at the Original Pancake House, would not recommend it. i was expecting so much more but got really bad corned beef hash and mediocre pancakes. they were more yeasty and acidic which was interesting, but i'm not really running back there.

as for nightlife, we went to a couple of bars. (met a really cute guy!) chicago didn't have the depth of establishments like new york does, but we went to a couple quality spots. i hear that midwestern men are more polite and generally less aggressive and grimey than east coast guys - and that stereotype certainly rang true that night. other highlights of the night: watching a girl be so drunk she literally just fell at my feet, getting hit on by some drunk lesbian who obviously was there with her girlfriend and dancing to N.O.R.E.

anyways, had an amazing time and felt like i got to do some Chicago things. i stuck to mostly downtown because that's where both my friends lived, but next time, i would like to explore some other areas. downtown was clean, but almost to the point of feeling sterile and contrived. nice, but i guess i like the gritty stuff.

a message from your humble editor

happy birthday to me!

be back tomorrow.

love, khl

"The Mean Girls of Morehouse": Gender at Same-sex Colleges

A recent vibe article entitled "The Mean Girls of Morehouse" focuses on a group (self-named "Plastics") who are current and former students at Morehouse - an all male historically black college in Atlanta, but whom have felt stifled at the overt criticism of their lifestyle. The group often cross-dresses, wears makeup and takes female hormones. And, while I don't agree with Morehouse defining what a man is and what a man is not, I am hesitant to say that these students belong there.

Simply put, women do not belong at Morehouse.

In the same vein, I don't believe men belong at all-women's colleges like Spelman or Barnard, for example. But, let me be a little more specific: I recognize the difference between gender and sex. Gender is self-identification -- do you identify as a man or a woman? Sex is physically identified. So, the Morehouse Plastics are male in terms of sex and what in terms of gender?

“I’ve always been into clothes, shoes, hair and everything,” says Diamond, who was born and raised in Providence, R.I. He says there’s a good chance he’ll transition into a woman at some point. “My mother says I always played dress-up in her clothes, my grandmother’s clothes. I’d even get my brother to do it sometimes. That’s just always been me—pushing the envelope of what I’m supposed to be as a man.”

So does Diamond really consider herself a man? At the question, he groans. “Yes, I refer to myself as a man, you know, to relieve any confusion. Sometimes people don’t understand the whole androgyny thing. There’s always the question: Well, what are you? Yes, I’m a man. I like women’s clothes. And yeah, I’m gay. But I don’t want that to define me. How come people can’t just see me as a person?”

What's problematic is both Diamond and the author can't seem to make up their mind as to Diamond's gender. The author uses both female and male pronouns to describe Diamond; and, Diamond declares himself a man, but add the qualifier ("to relieve any confusion") and talks about eventually transitioning to a woman. 

And, Diamond really doesn't have to choose which gender he/she is... unless he/she has expressly placed himself in an environment in which is predicated upon him being gendered as a man. 

Same-sex colleges are special places designed to help men and women achieve in environments designed to help them thrive. Morehouse is an all-male college. So, unless Diamond truly sees himself as a man, he shouldn't be there. There are plenty of colleges where the questioning of his gendered identity would be more acceptable, but at a same-sex college it becomes contentious. Diamond, if she identifies as a woman, misidentified herself and lied in order to insert herself into the college. If, she entered as a man, then when she decided not to be a man anymore she should have withdrawn or at least consulted with someone at the college. However, if Diamond is resolute in his identity as a male, then he belongs there as much as anyone does.

One last thing, this is not a gay/straight issue. This has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with gender.