music of the week
music of the week
Americans are turning off racist networkTV?
It used to be that the TV series Americans were able to consume were all pretty much produced right here in the US. Acclaimed shows from other shores — even countries that spoke English — rarely showed up in America, and if they did, it was only sporadically on PBS. But in the last several years, that’s been changing. More and more British, Canadian, and Australian series arrive here every day, and sites like Hulu bring in shows that aren’t in English (like Hatufim, the Israeli show that served as inspiration for Homeland).
And then there’s DramaFever, an online video streaming service specializing in TV series and films from Asia. DramaFever has become one of the leading distributors of international content in the United States since its 2009 launch.
DF says its total monthly unique viewers — which includes syndication partners like Hulu and YouTube — quadrupled from 2012 to 2013, growing from 2.5 million to 10 million. And it just keeps growing, currently sitting at 20 million.
Big brands have noted this rapid growth, as Ad Week reports. Toyota, AT&T, Verizon, and Samsung have all purchased ads on DramaFever. The site’s content is available in more places than ever and has expanded beyond Asian programming: it’s signed deals with Hulu, AMC, and YouTube, and in December 2012, it began streaming programming from Spanish language broadcaster Telemundo.
When DramaFever launched with just four employees, co-founders Suk Park and Seung Bak weren’t expecting things to take off quite like they did. “When we started five years ago, we thought our audience was going to be Korean-American,” Park told me over the phone. “But we couldn’t have been more wrong.”
Indeed, 85 percent of DramaFever’s audience, Park said, is non-Asian, with 45 percent being Caucasian and 25 percent being Latino. “All types of ethnicities,” Park told me, “are seeking out foreign content” because it “speaks to them more than … traditional television.”
It’s fall TV premiere time! The time when we briefly glance up and say “Huh,” to the new batch of network television shows before going back to streaming House of Cards to our tablets. And if there’s one thing network TV loves, it’s white people. White people solving crimes, white people falling in love, white people just learning a lot about themselves. But TV loves nonwhite people too. Specifically, it loves them to stand back and to the side. A little further. Fuuurrrther. There we go.
This, of course, is not the first time the federal government has labeled Islamic terrorism “workplace violence.” The Fort Hood shootings by avowed Islamist Nidal Hassan were classified thus by the federal government, as well. In fact, the Obama administration has repeatedly treated “lone wolf” Islamic terror inside the United States as though it were non-terrorist crime – unlike the Bush administration, which, for example, correctly labeled as terrorism Hesham Mohamed Hadayet’s attack on the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002 and the Beltway snipers’ multiple murders in that same year.
The Obama administration takes great pains never to label Islamic terror as such inside the United States; instead, we are told, we should focus disproportionately on the threat of right-wing groups like the Tea Party.
Meanwhile, Islamists inside the United States kill and maim and torture.
Here are seven other recent cases of lone wolf Islamic attacks inside the United States in recent years:
Yusuf Ibrahim. In April, 28-year-old Yusuf Ibrahim was indicted for two 2013 beheadings. He allegedly shot 25-year-old Hanny Tawadros and 27-year-old Amgad Konds, then cut off their heads and hands. The two were Egyptian Coptic Christian expatriates.
Faleh Hassan Almaleki. Almaleki killed his daughter, Noor Almaleki, 20, in a parking lot in Phoenix in 2009 after she became “too Westernized” and refused an arranged marriage. He also used his car to assault the mother of Noor’s boyfriend. Ahmed Rehab of the Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the “domestic violence incident.”
Yaser Said. In 2008, Said allegedly murdered his two daughters after they began dating non-Muslims. He allegedly shot daughters Amina, 18, and Sarah, 17, on January 1, 2008 multiple times after luring them back home to visit their grandmother’s grave. Said is still at large.
Muzzammil Hassan. In 2009, Hassan cut his wife’s head off because she filed for divorce against him. He stabbed his wife, Aasiya, some 40 times and then proceeded to decapitate her. Ironically, Hassan founded Bridge TV in 2004, a station dedicated to fighting “the negative stereotype of Muslims post-9/11.”
Mohammed Taheri-azar: In 2006, Taheri-azar drove his car into a crowd at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in an attempt to kill Americans in supposed revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A letter he left for police read: “I live with the holy Koran as my constitution for right and wrong and definition of injustice… I’ve read all 114 chapters about 20 times since June of 2003 when I started reading the Koran. The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths and torture of countless followers of Allah, my brothers and sisters. My attack on Americans at UNC-CH March 3, was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic territories.”
Naveed Afzal Haq. Haq attacked the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle in 2006 with a gun, killing a woman and wounding five. According to the Seattle police, Haq said “he wanted the United States to leave Iraq, that his people were being mistreated and that the United States was harming his people. And he pointedly blamed the Jewish people for all of these problems. He stated he didn’t care if he lived.” Those who worked with Haq said he self-identified as a “Muslim-American… angry at Israel.”
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Muhammad shot and killed an Army soldier at a Little Rock recruiting station in 2010. The feds didn’t charge him with terrorism; instead, state authorities charged him with murder. As the Los Angeles Times reports, after converting to Islam in Tennessee at age 20, he moved to Yemen, was arrested there, and then came back to the United States to attack the recruiting station. According to police, Mohammed stated he was “mad at the U.S. military because of what they had done to Muslims in the past,” and he wanted to “kill as many people in the Army as he could.” According to the perpetrator’s father, the feds didn’t charge Muhammad with terrorism because doing so would have shone a spotlight on their own incompetence: “They should have done their job and this never would have happened. I think that somebody in the federal government and the FBI should be charged with negligence. Negligent homicide.”
Undoubtedly, there are other cases. And the power of worldwide communication means that terror groups across the Middle East are actively recruiting inside the United States. What we saw in Oklahoma may be just the beginning – or rather, the continuation – of a trend, especially if the feds refuse to treat Islamic terrorism for what it is.
This week Emma Watson, she of Harry Potter fame, made headlines by making a rousing speech on gender equality, as she called for one billion men and boys to sign up to UN Women’s #HeForShe campaign.
Glen Poole of insideMAN gives four reasons he won’t be taking the #HeForShe pledge.
I have started to collect racist ephemera — specifically directed toward Asian immigrants and their American descendants. I mean artifacts in paper such as pamphlets suggesting that Asiatic hordes would invade and take over, posters promoting the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Japanese American internment, documents containing ethnic slurs (“chink,” “jap,” “gook,” “Chinaman,” “nip,” “slant-eye” and so on), and advertising featuring caricatured images. I would like to frame this propaganda and hang it. Since almost all Asian Americans whom I know, among others, have objected to this endeavor, I would like to explain the point of the project.
My purpose is to provoke. I would like to disrupt our shared comfort. The greater the upset caused by references to the past, the more intense the urge toward action for the future. Memorabilia should be saved for many reasons, and not all of it needs to inspire nostalgia for the past.
My idea comes from a story I read some time back about African Americans who have a similar hobby. It turns out there exist a few, not many but not none, African Americans who search out articles such as lawn jockeys and then display them. (Although the genealogy of the lawn jockey is disputed, the bulk of contemporary opinion deems this piece of Americana to be derogatory toward blacks.)
A colleague of mine who is Caucasian and a librarian (thus in the profession of accumulating objects) said to me she thought a person with this type of mania would appear to be very angry. My sense is just the opposite: just as people who buy a book feel they have acquired its content even if they have not in fact read the pages, a person who possesses racist art gains control over it. The idol loses its power.
As an amateur student of history, as we all are at least as to our own lives, I would like prove the past was what it was. Many people, including Asian Americans themselves, deny that Asians in American, whether new arrivals or native born, now face or for that matter have ever faced significant discrimination rooted in bigotry. They suppose “politically correct” complaints refer to only the expected adjustment that all newcomers have had to make, learning different cultural patterns, nothing more. Asian Americans are too proud to acknowledge once having been victims before becoming successful.
Hardly anybody recalls, for example, the glib xenophobia of Ogden Nash, the best-selling author of light verse (only his accompaniment to Saint-Saens’s Carnival of Animals orchestral suite is recited nowadays), or Dr. Seuss, the perennial favorite among children’s authors, of The Cat in the Hat and Green Eggs and Ham. They have been whitewashed. Nash described “the Japanese” as “how courteous” as he “grins and bows a friendly bow; so sorry, this is my garden now.” Seuss supposedly wroteHorton Hears a Who as an apology of sorts for his earlier anti-Japanese graphics (not archived within Seussville).
The few items I have purchased — a union membership booklet with rules prohibiting the patronage of Chinese or Japanese businesses, with signed cards for attendance at meetings, and sheet music with lyrics of mock sing-song broken English — make an argument more effectively than I ever could advance explicitly. Too rare for my means are the perfect specimens extant: political flyers that directly assert California confronts a choice whether to be reserved for white Christians, against a background depicting the horror of heathen Orientals. The talismans of racism constitute convincing proof.
The hatred of Asians was open, overt, hardcore, egregious, and unembarrassed. And it was racial. It was not simply directed at anybody coming to these shores, since some of its advocates themselves also were foreigners. Nor was it about assimilation. The demand that Asians conform to the majority was accompanied by the declaration that it would be impossible for them to do so; they remained untrustworthy, inscrutable.
I wince whenever someone who intends to be progressive declares that she has a problem with a work of art, because she deems it offensive. So much art is (or was in its own era) transgressive. Attraction and repulsion are bound together.
Those of us who care about civil rights harm our cause by implying that social justice is merely etiquette. It reduces the issue from substance to appearance. What is wrong is equated with what is ugly, and vice versa. Universal principles are overwhelmed by subjective opinions.
Our opponents, after all, take advantage of the same rhetoric. The Nazis judged modernism to be degenerate. (My own aesthetics would not surprise anyone: I am impressed by painters such as Chaim Soutine, who produced garish canvasses of beef carcasses hanging in the butcher’s storeroom.)
These perceptions extend beyond tastes. Haters can claim to be offended by interracial couples holding hands. If the test were simply whether an individual has her feelings hurt, and no doubt the observer shocked by love transcending color is genuinely agitated, then their aversion about the effrontery of the act they have witnessed is not subject to refutation. Emotions cannot be denied, because they are by definition beyond reason. If creativity is judged by whether it has avoided giving offense, the racists’ sensibilities deserve equal respect to Susan Sontag’s essays.
There are risks to reappropriation. Irony is easily misinterpreted. A contemporary print I have purchased, by Roger Shimomura, shows two couples in a Pop Art style. In“Mix and Match,” the Caucasian male and Asian female are portrayed as romantic and ideal; the Asian male and Caucasian female are portrayed as disgusting and distressed, respectively.
I am not alone in my enthusiasm. A few years ago, John Kuo Wei Tchen, a professor at New York University, curated an exhibition of this material. Now he, with co-author Dylan Yeats, has published a book entitled Yellow Peril: An Archive of Anti-Asian Fear. They offer details on the exclusive nature of Manifest Destiny. The new world of the nineteenth century drove toward the Pacific but stopped by protecting our side.
Yet our anxieties recur. The concerns about the decline of the West, and the rise of the East, have become acute again. There is another possibility. The differences could cease to be meaningful, as civilizations come together.
The demagogues predicted miscegenation would become the norm. They were right. We could embrace the prospect.
1st reason is in Israel a woman’s dream of rape put a man in jail. supreme court defends the conviction.
2nd reason why men have no rights is a woman can steal sperm from her ex impregnate herself and sue the ex for child support and wins
Brace yourselves, people: This is a long, strange tale about a woman who allegedly stole her now ex-boyfriend’s sperm from a used condom and then used it to impregnate herself with twins through IVF. She then went ahead and sued her ex for child support – and won! The baffled ex, meanwhile, is suing the fertility clinic that performed the procedure without his knowledge. You follow?
Here’s how it happened, according to Houston Press. Joe Pressil began dating his girlfriend, Anetria, in 2005. They broke up in 2007 and, three months later, she told him she was pregnant with his child. Pressil was confused, since the couple had used birth control, but a paternity test proved that he was indeed the father. So Pressil let Anetria and the boys stay at his home and he agreed to pay child support.
Fast forward to February of this year, when 36-year-old Pressil found a receipt – from a Houston sperm bank called Omni-Med Laboratories – for “cryopreservation of a sperm sample” (Pressil was listed as the patient although he had never been there). He called Omni-Med, which passed him along to its affiliated clinic Advanced Fertility. The clinic told Pressil that his “wife” had come into the clinic with his semen and they performed IVF with it, which is how Anetria got pregnant.
Read more at http://libertycrier.com/woman-steals-ex-boyfriends-sperm-twins-sues-child-support-wins/#pxlYSzcAyaedgQ8V.99
TORONTO – During the heat of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon in July 2006, Ausma Malik was front and centre at a peace rally denouncing the conflict and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s support of Israel’s right to defend itself against Hezbollah missile fire.
Pictures from that day show the Muslim woman, wearing a headscarf and attending the University of Toronto at the time, outside the U.S. Consulate, speaking beside Ali Mallah, a well-known pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas activist and CUPE official.
But, it was what Malik, who is running for Toronto District School Board trustee in Ward 10 Trinity-Spadina, reportedly said at the time that is nothing short of eyebrow raising, especially considering the conflict broke out after two Israeli Defence Forces soldiers were kidnapped and at least eight IDF soldiers killed during a Hezbollah ambush.
During the 34-day conflict, hundreds of Hezbollah rockets rained on Israel.
Yet, according to published reports from that Toronto protest, Malik called Israel’s actions “state-sanctioned murder.”
She also rebuked Harper, calling on him to get a “backbone” while those around her — sporting Lebanese flags and the yellow flag of the Hezbollah terrorist movement — chanted “shame” and cheered jubilantly when word came Hezbollah had killed another 22 IDF soldiers.
“Today we unite as people of conscience … as people who will not be silent while a nation is torn to shreds, while innocent civilians are killed in the clear light of day,” she reportedly told the Toronto crowd that July day.
Malik would only respond to my questions by e-mail.
She characterized the July 2006 protest as a public anti-war rally organized by the Canadian Peace Alliance.
The Canadian Peace Alliance includes as its esteemed members such vociferous anti-Israel critics as Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians, Ontario Federation of Labour’s Sid Ryan, Judy Rebick of the website rabble.ca, CUPE and CUPW.
Malik confirmed in her e-mail her quote about Israel is correct — that she condemns the “killing of innocent people, no matter who they are.”
She did not respond to a follow-up e-mail asking whether she displayed similar concern for the ambushed and slain Israeli soldiers.
Malik did insist in her e-mail that she does not “support anti-Semitism in any form.”
But, what’s as concerning about Malik — apart from her seemingly outspoken anti-Israel view — is the number of councillors or would-be councillors who have jumped on the bandwagon to endorse her.
Would-be councillor Joe Cressy and current councillor Mike Layton are sharing a campaign office with her — as if to suggest they are a trifecta of progressives.
Layton is even pictured with Malik on his website, informing us how “thrilled” he is to endorse her “fresh perspective” and the fact she is apparently a “community builder.”
Ward 27 councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, who has helped prop up the toxic Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) movement in Toronto’s Pride parade the past four years, also endorses Malik’s “ability to build bridges to get things done.”
No surprises there. But the rhetoric from the left would be laughable if not so sad and hypocritical.
The best came from mayoralty candidate Olivia Chow, who on Sept. 13 tweeted that she was enroute to the office opening for the Layton, Cressy and Malik Trifecta — all “great candidates” that share her values for a “caring, better city.”
At the opening she was pictured posing side by side with Layton, Sarah Doucette, Joe Mihevc (who represents a ward with a huge percentage of Jews), Gord Perks, Cressy and Malik, as if they were all one big happy family.
I asked Chow at a Toronto Sun editorial board how she could align herself with a woman who reportedly contended publicly that Israel committed “state-sanctioned murder” and whether such a woman espoused “caring” values.
At first Chow, looking like a deer caught in the headlights, said she wasn’t 100% familiar with Malik’s background or her “foreign affairs point of view.”
Asked whether she checks people out before she endorses them, Chow said she does know “who she is” and local school boards don’t really have a lot to do with her seemingly anti-Israel views.
In a follow-up e-mail to me, Chow spokesman Jamey Heath said Malik has a “strong record on inclusive education” and that her criticism at the 2006 protest was about “foreign policy” and “not about public education.”
Hmmm. I don’t suppose Malik’s views will ever make their way into the policies of the TDSB. Nope, never.
Malik’s opponent for trustee, Richard Klagsbrun, who happens to be Jewish, said he is running to “rid the TDSB of the egregious politicization” that has made its way into the curriculum.
“Ms. Malik, a speaker at a rally that was out supporting an Islamist terror group … represents much of what’s wrong with public education in Toronto,” he said.
Touch — aka “kino” in the pickup artist lingo — is a powerful courtship tactic thatincreases women’s compliance to men’s requests.
Previous research has shown that light tactile contact increases compliance to a wide variety of requests. However, the effect of touch on compliance to a courtship request has never been studied. In this paper, three experiments were conducted in a courtship context. In the first experiment, a young male confederate in a nightclub asked young women to dance with him during the period when slow songs were played. When formulating his request, the confederate touched (or not) the young woman on her forearm for 1 or 2 seconds. In the second experiment, a 20-year-old confederate approached a young woman in the street and asked her for her phone number. The request was again accompanied by a light touch (or not) on the young woman’s forearm. In both experiments, it was found that touch increased compliance to the man’s request. A replication of the second experiment accompanied with a survey administered to the female showed that high score of dominance was associated with tactile contact. The link between touch and the dominant position of the male was used to explain these results theoretically.
Touching a woman early and often during the attraction phase of a pickup, andescalating the erogenous intent of the touching as familiarity deepens, is one element of what I call the core precepts of game. (Qualifying, teasing, body language, and outcome independence are other core precepts.) Womanizers and love maestros have long extolled the virtues of touching, and now science has added its stamp of approval.
Most interestingly, touch appears to work its magic on women by signaling greater male dominance. Women have a feedback loop that registers male touch as dominant behavior; behavior which arouses women because evolution honed in them a subtle appreciation for men who can protect them from danger and provide them hard-gained social and material resources. A sexually, romantically, and tactilely entitled man is attractive to women for the same reason a beautiful, hourglass-shaped, young woman is attractive to men: They both signal possession of deeper traits that would maximize an opposite sex mate’s reproductive advantage.
If you spend any amount of time in the field, one of the first things you’ll notice is how men who stubbornly refuse to touch women, often from fear of rejection or of “crossing lines”, fail to close the deal. I could pick out the handful of alpha males in a bar with no information to go on except which men touch girls the most often and effortlessly.
The second study (from 1987, but given the feminist-polluted condition of current sociology departments, that is perhaps a good thing) is a diamond shiv straight through the black heart of sex difference denialists. Dominance behavior increases male attractiveness but not female attractiveness.
Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general likability. The results were discussed in terms of potential biological and cultural causal mechanisms.
Dominance alone, as apposed to sheer aggression or domineering control freakery, made the male subjects seem more sexually attractive to women. The effect was not seen when the sexes were reversed.
Color me shocked. Women prefer virile, dominant men and men prefer feminine, deferential women. Thank you, ❤science❤!
A Toronto mother claims a niqab-wearing school bus driver poses a safety risk because she’s not easily identifiable.
Stacy Joseph says she doesn’t think the niqab, a veil that some women in the Muslim community choose to wear to cover their faces, should be worn while driving her seven-year-old son or her four-year-old boy who has special needs.
“As a parent I’m concerned that I don’t know who is driving them,” Joseph told CityNews. “I know the other bus drivers, I know them by face, I know them by name so I can easily identify them.”
She says this is not about any particular person or religion, it’s about the safety of her children.
Christians with Middle Eastern backgrounds in Denmark experience harassment, verbal attacks and in some cases direct violence from Muslims. TV2 News has been in contact with a number of Christians here in Denmark who tell of violent experiences.
Jojo was born in Denmark of Lebanese parents. She lived in Gellerupparken (a major Muslim area) until she was eight.
One day she sat in her car in Nørrebro (a Muslim-dominated area in Copenhagen). Seven young people with Arab background surrounded the car. One of them put his foot up on the hood and stared at her.
“Do you think I’m looking at you, you fucking ugly whore. Try to see what clothes you wear, bitch,” he said to Jojo, who dresses as Danish women do: shorts and a t-shirt in the summer.
Then he noticed the cross around her neck.
“Well, you have a cross on — then you are also a Christian fucking whore. Do you know what we do to people like you? Do you know what we do to people like you? You get stoned,” he screamed. …
The Danish police say that they do not get many reports about such matters, but they fear that such crimes are largely under-reported, because people do not dare to report the cases. …
TV2 News has also interviewed another woman who is persecuted for her Christian faith.
She wants to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals and because she and her son are being harassed on the block where they live. Living in that area as a single Christian mother without a Islamic scarf makes her stick out in an area with primarily Muslim families.
“My son is being called everything. I get called all sorts of things. Infidel. Filthy Christians. They tell me I ought to be stoned to death,” she says.
“My son was beaten at the bus stop. He was called pig, dirty potato (Muslim slang for Danes), and that ‘you and your mother should die.”’
She complained to the local estate office, which responded by inviting the group of children and young people for a meeting. One day they knocked on the door of the Christian woman’s home. Through the peephole she could see some of the children and young people and she thought they had come to say they were sorry, so she opened the door. But instead, two grown men pressed into her apartment.
“He called me a dirty Christian whore and an infidel. Then he pushed me into the apartment. He shook me and slapped my face.”
Both the woman of Iranian background and Jojo are now trying to move away from the areas where they live.
“I can not be in Nørrebro anymore,” says Jojo, who has decided to move to a shelter for her own protection.
In Sweden, local authorities are responsible for healthcare provision, so the announcement that the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL) is supporting a proposal to offer IVF to single women is a significant one.
The idea was put forward by a government-funded inquiry in May and is expected to be voted on in parliament by the end of this year.
Taxpayer-funded in vitro fertilization (IVF) is currently only available in Sweden for women in married couples or in long-term relationships.
Private treatment costs around 30,000 krona ($4150) per cycle.
In recent years, increasing numbers of Swedish women have travelled abroad for fertility treatment instead.
Under the new proposal, single women in Sweden would have the same reproductive rights as those in a relationship.
Passengers aboard an El Al flight from New York’s JKF airport to Israel claim that hundreds of ultra-Orthodox passengers demanded that they trade places with them before takeoff, saying they cannot sit next to women.
“It was an 11-hour long nightmare,” one of the passengers summed up her experience.
On Wednesday morning, the eve of Rosh Hashanah, thousands of Israeli and Jewish passengers landed in Israel, including scores of ultra-Orthodox Jews who decided to celebrate the Jewish New Year in the Holy Land.
However, things didn’t go so smoothly on one El Al flight carrying a large group of haredim, as well as secular Jews, that departed from New York’s JFK and landed in Israel at 5 am Wednesday.
According to the passengers who were on the plane, their fellow ultra-Orthodox travelers refused to sit next to women prior to the takeoff, which not only delayed the flight, but caused actual chaos to ensue on the plane.
“People stood in the aisles and refused to go forward,” said Amit Ben-Natan, a passenger who was on board the plane.
“Although everyone had tickets with seat numbers that they purchased in advance, they asked us to trade seats with them, and even offered to pay money, since they cannot sit next to a woman. It was obvious that the plane won’t take off as long as they keep standing in the aisles.”
Check out Nohble’s Newark, NJ location on this episode of ABC’s popular hidden camera reality TV show, ‘What Would You Do’. The segment features Nohble customers facing an awkward situation regarding prejudice and stereotypes .