In return, I gave her this face.

Here’s the deal: I wasn’t offended because I didn’t own a mirror; I was offended because BRF is actually becoming a “thing.” As soon as the fake public safety announcement video went viral, hungry journalists wasted no time. Articles like this, this and this immediately identified celebrities that suffer from BRF. Anna Paquin even confessed to Jimmy Kimmel that she suffers from “a severe case of BRF.” She added, “It makes you look really angry all the time, like you want to kill people or like you’re a giant bitch.” Personally, the BRF trend amazes me, considering how the term originated from a YouTube skit. Everybody knows this, yet we still treat it like an actual phenomenon — or worse, a disorder.

Yep, you read that right. BRF is now officially a biological disorder that can be cured using corrective plastic surgeries. Plastic surgeon Anthony Youn told The Today Show, “Basically, many of us have features that we inherit and/or develop with age that can make us look unpleasant, grumpy or, even, yes — bitchy.” He recommended procedures like “grin lift” and Botox injection to turn that frown upside down.

It looks like our generation has found the new “cellulite” myth! (In case you didn’t know, “cellulite” was coined to lure women into condemning skin dimpling, which is otherwise a perfectly natural condition, like aging. In return, the cosmetics industry and plastic surgeons profited hugely once “cellulite” became a thing that must be corrected.)

Another thing that pisses me off is the reeking smell of sexism in BRF. Even though the original video was mostly geared toward women, it also mentioned the male version of BRF — Resting Asshole Face, or RAF. Yet, as expected, it is not RAF that gains traction in media. (I don’t see any actor publicly apologizing for his unfriendly facial expression.)

Why?

Because we have this double standard that makes a man look dangerously sexy when he scowls and a woman unattractively fierce. This is why RAF is not a disorder. Rather, it’s seen as a feature that augments a man’s sex appeal. Meanwhile, women are either bugged by busybodies on the streets — “Smile, honey!” — or tagged as a cold person.

Ann-Marie Stillion, a communication strategist and artist from Seattle, describes what she has to do to “fix” her BRF: “I smile a lot now, not because I’m so happy but because I know it makes people more comfortable.”

This kind of attitude made me push Robin Thicke aside to write about BRF instead. I mean, unless you’re a walking billboard for Crest 3D Whitestrips, I don’t see why anybody has to walk around with a fake smile on his or her face to appease other people. So, can’t we just please get through a week without feeling like the media is a sexist on Viagra?!

The post Is BRF the next cellulite? appeared first on The Daily Californian.

I saw a meme on Facebook the other day that says, “I am not Trayvon Martin.” It was posted by a “middle-aged, middle class, overweight white guy” who did not personally identify with Trayvon but still understood why the verdict was wrong. It has since gone viral.

The message resonated with me because I am not Trayvon Martin. Although I have the typical phenotypes of a Southeast Asian woman, I grew up without experiencing any direct racism. In contrast, I often experience kindness from strangers. I would walk home late at night (sometimes in a black hoodie, with my hands in my pockets), and people would stop to ask me if I’m lost or in need of assistance.

Why?

Because at 5-foot-1 and 100 pounds, I look like a 12-year-old on most days. In other words, I look nonthreatening — a lost child that needs to be protected, not attacked.

But what about Trayvon Martin?

On February 26, 2012, Martin, a tall and lean 17-year-old, was walking back to his girlfriend’s house — located in a gated community of Sanford, Fla. — after a quick run to 7-Eleven for some Skittles and Arizona juice. He was 70 yards from her back porch when George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watch, shot him in the chest. Some can say that Trayvon was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. But I disagree. He was walking in a gated community at 7 p.m.! Which part of that sounds like the wrong place and time to you? Nothing, right? The situation would have been radically different if it weren’t for the color of his skin — a fact that did not escape Zimmerman.

Here’s my initial reaction: Why was Zimmerman even patrolling at 7 p.m.? The sun went down in Florida at 6:23 p.m.  on that night. Obviously, Zimmerman either had too much free time on his hands — apparently his “goal” to become a judge doesn’t entail devoting any time to studying laws — or he was out targeting people who looked like Martin. The latter theory is backed by a racial slur that Zimmerman dropped during his 911 call to the police: “These assholes always get away.” Now, if that doesn’t imply intentional prejudice, then I don’t know what will. From what I see, Zimmerman went after a teenager with a bag of Skittles in his hands, because the notions of black males in hoodies and malicious thugs were interchangeable in his mind.

Unfortunately, the female jurors in Florida could not reach the same logical conclusion. They ruled that Zimmerman was not guilty because he acted in self-defense. Perhaps they were too busy scrutinizing what Martin was wearing that night (because a black hoodie automatically screams suspicious behavior) to notice Zimmerman’s criminal record, which includes charges for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest and a restraining order from his ex-fiancee alleging domestic violence. Clearly not the best person you’d want on your neighborhood watch team.

To those who support the verdict, here’s my two cents: At the end of the day, an unarmed minor was killed, and the killer got away scot-free.

And that is precisely why I, along with other dissenters of the verdict, can’t help but think that this tragedy was caused by the insidious seed of racism in our minds. What if Zimmerman had seen someone like me that night? I have no doubts he would’ve offered to drive me home, even though I’m three years older than Martin and can often be seen armed with pepper spray.

I am not Trayvon Martin. But I don’t have to be Trayvon Martin to understand that racial profiling was a major factor in Zimmerman’s actions, that racism perpetuates and divides our country, that judging people by their skin pigmentation is inexcusably and intolerably wrong. And until enough people who are not Trayvon Martin realize these fundamentals, nothing will change.

Anh Thai ponders about insidious world problems in her Tuesday blog. Contact Anh Thai at athai@dailycal.org.

The post I am not Trayvon Martin appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Creative Commons/Courtesy

If your man’s condom fails in Texas, you’ll only have 20 weeks to decide whether to keep your unwanted pregnancy and only six clinics to help you.

Texas House Bill 2, which prohibits women from seeking abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, was passed last Friday by a vote of 19 to 11. It also requires abortions to take place in fully equipped surgical centers. Since only six of the state’s 42 clinics actually meet this requirement, many clinics will have to close down once the bill goes into effect on Aug. 1.

Although this is one of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the country, it did not come as a surprise victory.Texas already passed a law in 2011 that enforces a mandatory sonogram 24 hours before an abortion. Consequently, women seeking abortions must make at least two trips to the clinic. This law, along with HB 2, impedes the abortion process by increasing traveling expenses. USA Today predicts that for women in rural areas, the closest clinic could be as far as 350 miles away. Although the cost of an additional day or two might not seem like much, this kind of time and money are not something low-income women or teenage girls can afford.

 Just because the resources aren’t there doesn’t mean the needs have diminished. On average, the 42 clinics in Texas perform about 72,500 abortions per year. Once the new law is enforced, the six remaining clinics would undoubtedly have an astronomical backlog of appointments, creating a lag time that might cause many to miss the 20-week deadline.

 Needless to say, these kinds of restrictions will make many women desperate for an alternative solution. After the 24-hour waiting period was installed, reports showed that low-income women would cross the border between Mexico and the United States to buy misoprostol, a U.S. prescription drug that is officially used to treat gastric ulcers. However, because abortion is illegal outside of Mexico City, the medicine does not come with any instructions about the correct dosage and is often sold by untrained sales representatives. As such, many women are still pregnant after taking misoprostol. Some even suffer from heavy bleeding as a result of incorrect dosages.

 Pro-life supporters have  also overlooked the fact that these supposedly inadequate clinics are also the ones providing women with breast cancer screenings, pap smears, STD tests and contraceptives. These resources are already sparse due to cuts made in 2011 to Planned Parenthood, which forced more than 60 nonabortion clinics to close in Texas. Thus, it is no surprise that some have dubbed this anti-abortion trend a “war against women.”

Yet, Texan Republicans are recalcitrant.

“I will fight and I will fight and I will fight to protect my baby,” said Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Texas, a proponent of the bill, while dramatically waving a sonogram of his child at 13 weeks.

This begs the question: Why must he take away other women’s rights to protect his own child? If Villalba wants to save his baby, then he needs to talk to his wife. Unless he’s the father of the child, Villalba — and proponents of HB 2 alike — has no right to dictate what a woman should or shouldn’t do with her pregnancy. As its state slogan says, Texas might be “like a whole other country,” but it should at least give choice a chance!

Image Source: annharkness via Creative Commons 

Anh Thai ponders about insidious world problems in her Tuesday blog. Contact Anh Thai at athai@dailycal.org.

The post If your man’s condom fails in Texas appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Creative Commons/Courtesy

For Berkeley students and Bay Area residents in general, the BART strike was a major inconvenience. Most of us don’t drive, and even those who do prefer to use public transportation over long distances. As such, it’s not uncommon to think that the unions have the upper hand in this negotiation.

Yet nothing has been resolved since unionized BART employees went on strike last Monday. This is due to the fact that the unions have overestimated their leverage. A strike needs at least one of the following two factors in order to be impactful: inelastic demand for the suspended service or overwhelming public support.

On the surface, it would seem that the first factor is a given. However, Bay Area workers are speedy adapters. Most have chosen to use alternatives like carpooling, ferry, AC Transit bus and even Google bus to get into the city and back. Some have also opted to telecommute from home to avoid road congestion.

Perhaps the reason the public has adapted so quickly is that most of us are unsympathetic to the unionized workers’ cause. And it’s hardly surprising once we’ve looked at the numbers. BART workers are among the highest paid in transportation services. On average, BART operators of automated trains earn $30.22 per hour. Their work week only requires 37.5 hours, so a 40-hour schedule already has 2.5 hours of overtime built in. They only pay $92 a month toward their medical insurance plans, regardless of family size. They contribute nothing to their pension plan. Finally, there’s no limit to how much vacation time they can accrue (two years after she was forced to resign, former general manager Dorothy Dugger was still the top earner on BART’s payroll because she was cashing out 3,100 hours of unused time off). It’s no wonder that some Berkeley students have volunteered to fill in the vacancies — even a Cal degree will not usually earn you $30.22 per hour at the entry level!

Despite unfavorable support, the unions still refuse to budge unless BART agrees to give its workers a 4.5 percent raise per year for the next three years in addition to better healthcare and pension plans.

Meanwhile, BART’s management has agreed to double the original proposal to an 8 percent raise — 5 percent would be unconditional and 3 percent conditional on whether workers agree to pay more for their healthcare and pension.

With top state officials stepping in as mediators, BART employees have resumed work on Friday. However, another strike is inevitable if an agreement cannot be reached by Aug. 4.

Until then, here is some advice for both parties. First, the board of directors needs to seriously apply stricter scrutiny on employee benefits — we didn’t vote for these board members only to have them squander our tax money! Second, the unions need to wake up and take a look at the real world. Sure, the economy has recovered, but it’s far from being stable. Many people in the private sector have not received a raise in five years (cost-of-living adjustment excluded), so public servants should not be the first to complain. After all, the ones who are most affected by this strike are the low- and middle-income classes, who rely mainly on public transportation. In other words, the unions are hurting those they claim to help! It would be helpful if they can remember what former president Franklin D. Roosevelt said when he forbade public employees to join unions: “The employer is the whole people.”

Image source: acidhelm via Creative Commons

Anh Thai ponders about insidious world problems in her Tuesday blog. Contact Anh Thai at athai@dailycal.org.

The post Why BART workers should stop complaining appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Creative Commons/Courtesy

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Although this seems like a no-brainer, it’s a concept that eludes most supporters of affirmative action.

Last Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its 7-1 decision to uphold the current admissions process, which considers race as a factor, at the University of Texas at Austin. The plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, filed a claim against UT for denying her a spot in the entering class of 2008. In her defense, she said that she was rejected despite having the grade requirement and a competitive application. She also noted that she was more qualified than some of the admitted minority students.

As a minority student, I’m disappointed that the Supreme Court did not come to a more decisive conclusion. It should have banned affirmative action instead of simply sending the case back to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Affirmative action is, at its core, racial discrimination covered by good intentions. It often hurts the very students it’s trying to help by shrouding their credentials with doubts. Questions like, “Did I get in because I’m black/Latino/Native American/Asian/etc.?” or, “How would I have fared if I were white?” are inevitable.

If the students themselves can feel uncertain about their competence, then it’s natural for others to also question their merits. This is why Fisher felt that she was cheated by the admissions committee — i.e. they chose someone less qualified than her simply because they’re looking to “diversify” the campus.

Admittedly, the UC campuses, particularly Cal and UCLA, saw a decline in the admission rate of blacks and Latinos after the affirmative action ban, Proposition 209, took place in 1996. However, what these statistics do not account for is the fact that white students also saw a decline in their acceptance rate. This means that it’s unfair to simply point fingers and blame the ban for a less diverse campus. In fact, at Cal, students who face hardships at home often get a second chance in the admissions process, while their race is hidden from the reviewer.

Instead of using affirmative action in the admissions process, universities should try harder to facilitate education at low-income elementary and secondary schools. After all, the dividing line exists between different class levels, not races. A middle-class student will most likely receive a better education — which translates to a better admission chance — than a low-income one. Thus, the problem stems from economic inequality, not our history of racial prejudices. Consequently, making racial-based decisions will neither fairly increase diversity or right past racial wrongs. Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black judge in the Supreme Court, agrees, “The University would have us believe that its discrimination is likewise benign. I think the lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benign.”

Image source: jnarvey via Creative Commons

Anh Thai ponders about insidious world problems in her Tuesday blog. Contact Anh Thai at athai@dailycal.org.

The post Affirmative action, or skin-based judgement appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The queen of butter’s show was axed by Food Network on Friday, following a leaked deposition that revealed how Paula Deen has used the “n-word” in the past. Deen currently faces a discrimination lawsuit — Lisa Jackson, a former manager at one of her restaurants, sued her for using racial slurs and allowing racist jokes at the workplace. Twitter users went wild, using #PaulasBestDishes to sarcastically accompany many made-up recipes: Kale and Kabbage Kasserole, Coon on the Cob and Cotton Gin and Tonic, for instance.

According to Allen Adamson, managing director of branding firm Landor, Food Network had no choice but to fire her: “Today a mistake becomes too costly because of social media. When it’s racial there is less tolerance.”

Her supporters beg to differ, vowing to boycott Food Network for its decision. They argue that it’s ridiculous to punish her only because she’d used the “n-word” in the past. One supporter even goes so far as to write, “If everything any of us ever did, at any point in our lives, can today be treated like a current sin then we’re all done for.”

However, these people are too focused by the “n-word” controversy to realize that Deen is indeed an ignorant racist — the kind who fails to realize her own prejudice even as she says it.

In an interview with The New York Times in 2012, Deen recalled how her great-grandfather, a slaveholder in Georgia, committed suicide after the Civil War was over. Why? Because after his 30 slaves were set free, he had no means of running his plantation. She added, “(He) couldn’t deal with those kinds of changes … Back then, black folks were such an integral part of our lives. They were like our family, and for that reason, we didn’t see ourselves as prejudiced.” Naturally, she failed to see that a) the “black folks” were working against their will, and b) they did not consider themselves to be her family.

To make matters worse, she even called a “black-as-a-board” employee, Hollis Johnson, to come onstage to show the audience that she is committed to racial tolerance. The farce would have been more believable if she didn’t instantly quip a joke about his skin color: “Come out here, Hollis. We can’t see you standing against that dark board” — a reference to the black studio backdrop.

This kind of inappropriate prejudice predates even the interview. In the deposition, Deen admitted to having thoughts about giving her brother a “really southern plantation wedding” back in 2007. That is, she wanted to use “middle-aged black men” as servers for the wedding because she had seen it done at a Southern restaurant, and she thought that it was “really impressive.”

It is hard to tell if Deen has reflected on her actions. Despite her awkward apologies on YouTube, she still does not seem fully aware of her racism. When asked if she had used any racial slurs in her jokes, Deen shrugged, “I don’t know … I can’t, myself, determine what offends another person.” Yes, you can. It’s called thinking before you speak, Paula.

Anh Thai ponders about insidious world problems in her Tuesday blog. Contact Anh Thai at athai@dailycal.org.

The post Even butter can’t fix this, Paula! appeared first on The Daily Californian.

757Live via Flickr/Courtesy

For both Berkeley and Istanbul, 1969 was a year filled with bloodshed. On Feb. 16, 30,000 people marched to Taksim Square to protest against the government; two were killed and many were injured by the police. Almost three months after Turkey’s “Bloody Sunday,” 6,000 Berkeley dissenters, protesting against the university’s plan to develop People’s Park, were met with cruel opposition from the police. One man, James Rector, was killed, another blinded, and many were critically injured or jailed. May 15, 1969 became our “Bloody Thursday.”

Now, it seems like history is about to repeat itself. Berkeley already experienced a relapse in violence during the 2011 Occupy movement. At present, Turkish protesters, especially those gathered at Taksim Square to oppose the government’s urban-development plan for Gezi Park, have been treated to endless doses of tear gas and water cannons.

The government, both then and now, remains unsympathetic to the people’s voice. “If there has to be a bloodbath, then let’s get it over with,” declared Gov. Reagan in 1969 as he sent in additional National Guards to patrol Berkeley. Like Reagan, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan hardly sees the need for a dialogue between the government and its people. Instead, he favors heavy-handed methods that unnecessarily endanger lives and solve nothing.

Yet we must not forget that Erdogan won by a landslide — for the third consecutive time, to boot — in the 2011 election. President Reagan, known as “the Great Communicator,” was also wildly popular with the public. So what went wrong?

Unsurprisingly, the answer lies in the fact that politicians like Reagan and Erdogan have too much unchecked power in their hands. Reagan was the first governor to directly interfere with the UC system. He promptly fired UC President Clark Kerr after he was unable to persuade the latter to expel dissenting students from the university.

Since his first term in office, Erdogan, whose party enjoys a 50 percent majority in the popular vote, has been largely oppressive. He continually tries to introduce conscientious legislation (e.g., criminalizing adultery and prohibiting alcohol consumption) into a country that is officially secular. Under his leadership, Turkey has jailed more journalists than Iran, Eritrea or China.

Erdogan exemplifies his recalcitrant attitude when he dismisses the protesters as “vandals and looters.” He also blames the foreign media for the dissenting campaigns, which is ironic considering how the media is prohibited from entering Gezi Park. Furthermore, while protesters are beat by police, Turkey’s news channels air nothing but cooking shows and penguin documentaries (read article here). Not to mention at least 25 Twitter users have been arrested by the government for “spreading untrue information.”

Nevertheless, a recent poll by the Washington Post shows that Erdogan still remains popular in Turkey. If no major opposition rises against him, there is a high chance that he will expand the president’s power before running for the position himself in the next election. And if he wins —  another likely possibility — then we shall have another Ronald Reagan in the world.

Anh Thai ponders about insidious world problems in her Tuesday blog. Contact Anh Thai at athai@dailycal.org.

The post Deja vu: bloodshed in Berkeley and Istanbul appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Anh Thai/Staff

People face trade-offs, says the most fundamental principle in economics. Facing the recent NSA controversy, the trade-off is between security and privacy. According to President Obama, we “can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.”

Besides the fact that 100 percent security is simply impossible to attain, most people start out with less than perfect privacy anyway — that is, we have been willingly supplying our information to online third parties without bothering to read the fine print.

For instance, Apple’s privacy policy states that it collects “a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, credit card information” and Social Security number. Similar data are also collected from your family and friends whenever you share your Apple products with them. Now, what most of us don’t know is that Apple reserves the rights to share these data with “strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers.” It is unclear who these “strategic partners” might be or the extent to which that term is applicable.

Online powerhouses like Netflix, Walmart and Amazon also adopt a similar privacy statement. Why do you think we often get those so-called “interest-based ads” on Amazon? Or videos that we should watch on Netflix? It’s because they collect our data, including our preferences, and manipulate that information to their advantage.

By definition, such usage is not illegal. The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979) that any information voluntarily supplied to a third party ceases to enjoy the Fourth Amendment.

If the private market can legally use our data in such a way, then why can’t the government? The truth is, these data mining tools have significantly improved law enforcement. For example, “the aid of technology at the United States National Security Agency” helped us capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

The cost of something is what you give up to get it, says another economics principle. Personally, I don’t think the cost is high at all — if shifting through metadata can escalate the capture of terrorists, then by all means, go for it. After all, unless the government has reason to believe that you’re worth investigating, you will be just another number among hundreds of millions of numbers. As one Twitter user puts it, “[I]f it can save people from another 9/11 like attack, go for it. I don’t care. My emails/phone calls are not that exciting anyway.”

Anh Thai ponders about insidious world problems in her Tuesday blog. Contact Anh Thai at athai@dailycal.org.

The post Ain’t nobody got time for fine prints! appeared first on The Daily Californian.

I have a dream. Gatsby has a dream. So does Xi Jinping.

While watching “The Great Gatsby,” I couldn’t help but think about the ideal of the American Dream, that marvelous little cloud that hangs above us all. For a long time, however, that cloud was known to rest above our heads and our heads only. Now, China too wants to be under our sky.

As early as last November, Xi Jinping, the new head of the Communist Party of China, started to popularize a slogan called the China Dream. Thanks to social media and Xi’s unfailing persistence to rehash that phrase, the China Dream has began to stick.

As if the name was not obvious enough, Xi precisely defined the China Dream as the act of “realizing the great renewal of the Chinese nation.” This is not about the people’s welfare; it’s about the state’s (i.e., the CCP’s and the CCP leaders’) welfare.

Although the similarity is undeniable, the lack of focus in the individual makes the China Dream quite different from the American Dream. In “The Epic of America,” James Adams defined the American Dream as “a dream of being able to grow to fullest development as man and woman, unhampered by the barriers which had slowly been erected in the older civilizations, unrepressed by social orders which had developed for the benefit of classes rather than for the simple human being of any and every class.” Going back to the roots, the American Dream encompasses our fathers’ belief in that “all men are created equal … with certain inalienable Rights,” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” In short, it is a dream that prioritizes the individuals and their rights to a good life, regardless of their backgrounds.

In contrast, the China Dream’s origin is dangerously nationalistic. Back in 2010, a Chinese colonel, Liu Mingfu, published “China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post-American Era,” urging China to overtake the United States’ position as the top military power. Though popular, “China Dream” was pulled from the shelves due to its controversial nature. After Xi mentioned the term, however, the book was promptly restored to the “Recommended” section. As if the connection between Mingfu’s book and Xi’s dream wasn’t clear enough, the latter directly associated that dream with the armed forces in December: “To achieve the great revival of the Chinese nation, we must ensure there is unison between a prosperous country and strong military.”

Furthermore, definitive words like “renewal” and “revival” are highly problematic. By evoking national victimhood, the China Dream stirs up collective emotions that could very well turn vengeful and belligerent. Already, many Chinese bloggers are asking the government to use force against Japan to settle the dispute over the Senkaku and Diaoyu islands. At the moment, China is engaged in three-front conflicts with India, Japan and the Philippines. A resurgent nation is an emotional nation, and an emotional nation is a pernicious nation.

Arguably, Gatsby’s hamartia is his desire to change the past. This desire deviates from the American Dream, that undulating cloud of hope that promises us an opportunity to break from and rise above our past (e.g., the lives of Ben Franklin, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama). If Xi truly wants to empower his people, then he should learn from Gatsby’s mistake. Instead of beating “ceaselessly back into the past” of an ancient empire, he should think of what matters most now and forevermore for China: the Chinese people.

Anh Thai ponders about insidious world problems in her Tuesday blog. Contact Anh Thai at athai@dailycal.org

The post Is the China Dream the next American Dream? appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Daily Cal opinion blogger Anh Thai asks students and employees on campus what the China Dream means and how the China Dream compares with the American Dream.

The post What does the China dream mean? appeared first on The Daily Californian.