Why I love The Mindy Project

(image taken from imdb)

I adore Mindy Kaling, she’s smart, hilarious, and creative. It all started a few months ago, I was flipping through channels and there she was. Something clicked “so that’s where the girl from The Office went.” So I watched my first episode of The Mindy Project, but there was huge problem. I was so behind. I hadn’t seen the first episode and knew virtually nothing about any of the characters. Thankfully, I remedied that with iTunes and bought almost the entire season. Drunk Mindy on a bicycle drew me, I basically did a Mindy-a-thon and watched fifteen episodes in one day. Guys, don’t judge, I’m under-employed so I have a lot of free time.

Back to Mindy. She references every romantic comedy that I adore, When Harry Met Sally, Bridget Jones Diary, and Sleepless in Seattle, etc. She makes being a romantic “cool”, which I adore. You may want to read her essay in The New Yorker from October 03, 2011, “Flick Chicks” which reveals how she feels about romantic comedies. 

So Mindy doesn’t look like the romantic lead in any of the films that she references. She’s not a size two or blonde. Mindy’s Indian-American (maybe she’s the first to have her own show, not sure). It shows the universal appeal of these romantic comedies. Those are all great things. But I read her old blog, it hasn’t been updated in a few years, she shops--not just for clothes but food as well, her admitted love for Haribo made me a fan for life.

Everyone knows Haribo are the best gummy bears, I would walk to Sainsbury’s on Fulham Road for the Haribo Starmix and buy four bags. Then six boxes of mini milks, I convinced myself they were 100% calcium and that will never change.

(source: Haribo website)

(Source: Wall's website)

You’re probably wondering why I’m telling you about The Mindy Project now, after all, the season is over. So you’ll go to iTunes, download the entire season and be ready for the fall. Notice how I conveniently left out the character's details, now you’ll discover everything on your own. 

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, Who Would You Choose?

I recently watched Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World. It got me thinking, obviously the chances of the world coming to an abrupt end as a result of an asteroid are pretty slim. But who knows, anything can happen. So the film’s major theme is the world is coming to an end, who do you want to spend your final days with? Later it became a topic discussion, I probably should have written a list and contemplated my decision but that’s not how I make decisions.

The world is coming to an end: how do you want to spend the time that you have left? In the film, several characters embraced debauchery while Dodge wants to find the woman that he should have married. So apart from the world ending, married couples are coming to the realization that they chose the wrong partner and seek out their soul mates. At least that’s what Dodge’s wife decided to do. I’m not sure that the end of the world would create personal clarity; it’s more likely to induce world wide looting. I can imagine Ahmadinejad on live television from an underground bunker stating the Americans did this but I’m taking the film too seriously. I feel sorry for Dodge, maybe because he looks miserable or the world’s ending and he only has a dog. Animals are a real responsibility, I know. Let’s have a moment of silence for Kennedy (my rabbit), Obie (my bird), Buffy (my dog), Aviv, Gil, and Maor (all three of my exotic fish). 

So the world is ending, who do you want to spend your last moments with? It’s the question that you start asking yourself. Who would you choose? I came to the conclusion: Ronan Farrow. No explanation is needed. His Twitterfeed borders on perfection and his wit remains unmatched so who wouldn’t choose Farrow.  

Clearly, I loved this movie. It almost made me become a doomsday prepper but I learned one thing from the film: it’s pointless. So I created a doomsday playlist, is it strange that all of the songs are from Coldplay? 

If an astroid becomes an imminent threat to the world I’m looting Barney’s for Manolo Blahniks and finding Ronan Farrow. 

You see why I want the shoes...

He's smart but also nice to look at...

America: The Myth of Second Chances

It’s Tuesday evening, I thought it would be a good idea to reflect on Jenny Johnson vs. Chris Brown twitter argument. Sunday night would have been any other night except twitter was filled an enormous amount negativity. It was the night Lindsay Lohan’s “Liz & Dick” film premiered on Lifetime and everyone had something to tweet, 99.9% of it was cruel. Between those hours, a woman known as a comedy writer began tweeting Chris Brown; she sent him rude tweets. Johnson tweeting Brown is not new, since 2009, she has been responding to his tweets with disgusting replies. I don’t know why Brown decided to respond to her, perhaps he was fed up. So I wondered how social media is becoming a largely negative tool--existing as a space to destroy another individual. America is known as a country that forgives people for mistakes. I’ve never believed that, mostly because I watched as the media destroyed Michael Jackson with headlines such as ‘Wacko Jacko’ so I’m skeptical and now we have more invasive techniques to harm individuals.

When the reviews of ‘Liz & Dick’ were published it was clear this movie was not seen as a success, I watched it sporadically and didn’t tweet about it. While everyone has a right to tweet about whatever they want, I just wonder why purposefully hurt someone who is already fragile. During the movie, Lohan was actively answering questions on Twitter and there is no doubt that she saw the horrible comments about her performance. I imagine the comments were even more malicious because they knew Lohan was reading them.
Sometimes I wish that we lived in a society where people didn’t pretend to care once these celebrities were dead. If the endless “RIP” tweets and Facebook posts no longer filled the internet, if reporters stopped using words like ‘troubled songstress’ or ‘long embattled actor’ wouldn’t we be more honest with ourselves? Maybe we as a society would acknowledge aloud or to ourselves that we contributed to the demise of that individual. Instead the media allows us to be hypocrites, almost encouraging us to go from judging someone to praising their talent once they’ve died. Michael Jackson is the perfect example of that, for years, I read newspapers and watched broadcasts that cast him as an outsider until he finally left this country. I doubt it was of his own free will and more likely because Jackson craved to be seen as a person rather than a strange object to ridicule on late night television. One day he was gone, that was when the media stopped calling him ‘strange, odd, or Wacko Jacko’ and they didn’t refer to him as an ‘accused child molester’ in every breath. But Jackson was died, he didn’t see those tears and hear people praising his work--it was too late. All Jackson will ever know are the heartless jokes and accusations. He will never know anything else--it’s too late. The tributes and praise came much too late, but people really didn’t care. Uplifting Michael Jackson after his death was more about relieving one’s own conscience than anything else, it was for the people who made jokes about Jackson and drew conclusions about his character. 

Yesterday I listened to an old tape of Wendy Williams antagonizing Whitney Houston, asking Houston to respond to invasive questions which resulted in profanity-laced answers. When Houston died and Williams sat in her chair shedding tears, I wondered if they were tears of guilt for mistreating someone or if those tears were indeed for Whitney Houston. We will never know. In the months prior to her death, Houston was met with jeers when singing and I wonder how many of those concert goers felt guilty about their actions. Some people have this notion that we can redeem ourselves through speaking positively of someone after they’ve died. We can’t. Those individuals are dead. They don’t know we care now. 
So now we come to Jenny Johnson, there isn’t much information on her. She’s described as a Texas based former television writer and comedian. Her education is unknown, although I assume she has had some college education. There is no way to judge her, she’s unknown. Johnson could have a drug addiction and we wouldn’t know about it. In contrast to Brown, who has a very public life, his problems are known to everyone. Sadly, everyone has an opinion. All that is known about Johnson is she spends her entire day on Twitter making vulgar comments to celebrities. Kim Kardashian has blocked her, yet Johnson continues to tweet her. 

Johnson has been tweeting Brown. She alone has decided that he feels no remorse for his violent behaviour. It’s as though Johnson believes that she knows more than the domestic violence counselor and his therapist. Because ‘he’s not sorry’, Johnson has decided to further punish Brown with a barrage of hateful tweets. Somehow, I’m still uncertain as to how, she’s managed to see herself as the victim in this entire situation. It’s impossible for me to understand the judgment that is hurled at Brown on a daily basis. I keep trying to find some reason as to why or how, but I’m left with one possibility. It’s almost too cruel to write. Society looks forward to the demise of individuals, often welcoming their fall. 
Johnson will never understand Brown nor is she attempting to contemplate his background. Instead Johnson views Brown as an object to demean, someone that she desperately wants to place beneath her and that is why her hatred for him continues. Perhaps her behavior is associated with her lack of a career, I don’t know nor would I speculate. I know that if we judge Brown so harshly, what happens to my students, who have been involved in shootings, who grew up in violent homes and act out at times, or my students who read at a 5th grade level yet they should be reading at a 11th grade level? What happens to my student who threw her newborn baby in the trash? If we cast someone in such a horrible light for the rest of their life then what happens to everyone else who has done much worse than Brown? People are losing track of the big picture. They saw one incident and should not be used to ostracize Chris Brown for the rest of his life. 
When I go for jury duty, I’m dismissed nearly every time because the defendants or victims are often my former students. I would go back into the classroom ignoring the gunshot wounds and teach--no judgment--just hoping they have a better life someday. Silently I hoped that the student who was involved in a shooting gets probation because I know his life and believe that he deserves a chance. My students usually never have one chance much less a second one. Arguably Chris Brown deserves a chance. 

Dear Mitt Romney

Dear Mitt Romney,

You said 47% of us believe we are victims. Mr. Romney, we are victims of an American society that believes education should never be affordable yet places equal or more value in attaining a degree. We are victims of a government that believes teachers should work for little pay and when they refuse, they are called “thugs” by Sen. Jim DeMint. Also since you are so out of touch with most of us, post college student loan debt is nearly $26,000 and the average teacher salary is $31,506 a year. Math doesn’t seem to be a strength for you so I’ll put it in terms you understand: their salary is a lot less than you spend on your horse. Moreover, the debt is even higher for students who attended a private university or seek a graduate degree. I’m sure it was difficult for you in college, living on those stock options but most of us worked in the school cafeteria part of the Federal Student Work Study Program.

Let’s compare that to students in the European Union, where the education is equal if not better than the United States. In France, it costs 177 Euros a year for a Bachelors degree program. So yes, we are victims.

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary: the word “victim” is “a person injured or killed or made to suffer.” Perhaps you should choose your words carefully, Mr. Romney, because we are made to suffer and clearly thus defining us as victims. However, we are not victims of our own making; instead, we were led to believe that hard work leads to success and that is not always the case. Instead I work two part-time jobs, at times three while attending college still seeking one full-time job, although I already have a post graduate degree. I am paying Sallie Mae for an expensive yet somehow valueless education.

There you have it: we are victims of an American culture that craves reality television over anything educational; where the expense of an education lay firmly at the feet of young students, where nepotism lives and breathes in every corporation in this country. Finally we are victims of a media that held your disgusting statement about the attacks on our US embassies because you sought to gain political points rather than release a genuine statement praising the diplomacy that Christopher Stevens’ achieved during his lifetime.

Now I’m going to put my education to use and explain how you, Mitt Romney are a victim. You are a victim of privilege without ever earning what you received; born into wealth, you possess Otherness. Mr. Romney, you will never understand us and we will never understand you. Never really part of this society, you project a “self” that some voters would like to see, but that is not you. Mr. Romney, you cannot connect with them: religiously, socially, or financially because their circumstances will never be understood by you. While your wealth ensures you will not be marginalized as most people who possess “Otherness” would be, it also keeps you from fitting in with the very individuals who wish that you were insignificant. Creating a dichotomy I find fascinating, you cannot force yourself to understand them. Perhaps you visit their churches, but no matter how hard you try, the experience is still alienating because your religious education differs from theirs to such an extent you cannot comprehend it. It’s also worth noting that your non-Mormon friends cannot enter your church. This also creates a social wedge that cannot be filled even with equal wealth.

Somehow you want people to believe that you are “like them” but you boost wealth stating you should not be penalized for it. Of course not, but it is wealth earned by your family. How can we respect you for something handed to you? Equally doubtful is how can you respect the self-made millionaire: the person who actually worked to receive what they achieved. Perhaps they smile at you, but their disdain burns from within. How can it not? It must. Every psychology course that I have taken has made my answer resolute.

Now we come to personal responsibility, those words uttered by you, Mr. Romney. Let’s begin with healthcare, are people entitled to healthcare? Absolutely, and you must believe it as well since you spend over $77K on a horse for your wife’s MS therapy. At some point you believed it in Massachusetts, but I digress, it is difficult to stay focused as your views change so often I could write a book on that alone. Most people believe healthcare is a right not a privilege, you said that you would keep some parts of the healthcare bill if elected, but changed your mind: three times. Mr. Romney, your message changes with each group you visit and that also signals Otherness. You have an undefined self, one that cannot be true; essentially a false self that moves from person to person, endlessly shifting and without truth.

I doubt that you will read this, Mr. Romney, but Otherness will continue to haunt you.

Sincerely,

One of the 47%

Are You Really the Smartest Person in the Room?

It is the question I wanted to ask Jonah Lehrer upon his admission of plagiarism and falsely attributing quotes to Bob Dylan. As an avid reader of The New Yorker, I often felt a slight twinge of guilt whilst sitting in the cafe with my magazine. It is expensive and somehow I validated the cost because The New Yorker is uniquely situated as a “smart magazine”; it’s unlikely anything else is worthy of this price. Now I’m wondering is the worth of my literary magazine associated with the titles of its editors and writers, that question has left me uncomfortable. The New Yorker is filled with Ivy League graduates even Rhodes Scholars, somehow to hire anyone without those credentials would be considered beneath them. I never really subscribed to that way of thinking. After undergraduate school it was my dream job, to work at The New Yorker and I soon realised that it was a job for the deeply connected. Only someone who has ties to the magazine would ever be hired, through their university or a family friend perhaps even a neighbor and I accepted that. There are companies that would never hire someone who did not graduate from an Ivy League school and this seems like one of them. 

I settled into reading the magazine that would never employ me--not bitterly. Having moved on and out of the United States, I would not have returned to this country for anything. 
Strangers smugly noted the cost of this magazine as I drank my mocha but I ignored them...perhaps I should have defended The New Yorker as having published a large amount of fiction that they most likely have seen at the cinema but I stayed quiet. Even my friends aren’t convinced, they’ve often referred to it as the magazine for elitists. Of course, they are wrong but it’s not my job to change someone’s opinion of a magazine. I have better things to do--like find a full-time job. 

However, now I’ll never be able to strongly defend a magazine where the editor believed himself to be far more intelligent than the readers that he self-plagiarized. Lehrer thought he was the smartest person in the room when his work appeared in two publications, for me it was not his lack of ethics but the magazine’s. Why wasn’t Lehrer fired immediately? Why did they believe he could redeem himself through future articles? Did The New Yorker realise that our trust in him was gone the moment it was discovered? Instead they attempted to absolve Lehrer of his intended deceit and allow him to keep his job, were they so desperate to hold onto their Rhodes Scholar that they also lost track of right and wrong? It was badly done. 

I just wonder if his CV had not been completely perfect, would he have been fired immediately? The answer is probably yes. It was not Lehrer recycling his own words for use in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Magazine and The New Yorker that left me shocked but that he was not fired. 

The false quotes that Lehrer attributed to Bob Dylan was beyond egotistical--he wanted us to believe that Dylan would explain himself, which anyone who listens to the singer knows that is an impossibility. One of the reasons Bob Dylan remains so popular is his undefined genius--his quotes that make sense to no one but himself...it is the magic that surrounds Dylan. What would Bob Dylan gain from explaining how he thinks to Lehrer? My guess is nothing. 

And now we are left with the endless articles about the pressure placed upon this young  man, just 31 and considered brilliant...the articles that attempt to defend him and there are those that paint him as the villain. The truth is vague because there are several truths... Are there writers who were jealous of Lehrer? Perhaps, but it was Lehrer who made it easier for them to knock him off the pedestal. I am not angry with Lehrer, he plagiarized and manufactured quotes because his employer did not punish him. In the end he resigned, but it doesn’t matter because he was there. Lehrer was in the right place and able to write, but he knew that being the smartest person in the room meant not having to work too hard.

People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient, then repent. -- Bob Dylan

The Byronic Hero

Today I was contemplating the Byronic Hero, after all it is the romantic ideal in literature and it continues today. Dark, mysterious, and brooding…slightly rude: the pensive man that exists in Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, and even Hamlet. Lord Byron describes him as That man of loneliness and mystery

 Scarce seen to smile, and seldom heard to sigh.

Essentially he represents the outsider, never to truly be accepted as is the case with Heathcliff whose isolation draws sympathy despite his cruel behavior. I suppose the idea of an outcast is far more attractive than the reality. After watching Anne of Green Gables and the sequel, I realized how Anne was willing to give up Gilbert to chase romantic notions of reading Tennyson by candlelight. Her search for the Byronic hero led her home when she decided that it wasn’t real...no doubt a myth fostered in literature. So naturally, I thought about Anne and her desire to find this unrealistic man—someone who embodies madness at times. I asked myself several questions: does the Byronic hero possess the ability to have a soul mate? I never reached a conclusion. Although I do believe that Catherine was as close to a soul mate as possible for Heathcliff, but he doesn’t seem to have all of the characteristics associated with a Byronic Hero. Why is this dark, brooding figure so appealing? I think we all know the answer to that: he's an impossibility. As a seriously devoted Harry Potter reader, I contemplated whether Snape was also a Byronic Hero. I don't think it's possible because he was selfless in the end, giving his life for Harry. However, I'm not going to continue down my Harry Potter obsession. Instead I thought about Mr. Darcy, how he possessed some of the characteristics associated with the Byronic hero. I started counting male characters that fit this mold.

 At some point I began to ponder Byron’s own life since this character is semi-autobiographical. Perhaps he wrote himself and soon others began to write him…Byron’s affairs with married women are well-known. Some believe he had an incestuous relationship with his sister and while his own life is far from boring it seems that he was searching for a place in society. His marriage was unsuccessful and Byron separated from his wife. There were tales of adultery, sodomy, and incest but no one knows the truth…perhaps that is why he exudes such mystery. Rumored to have fathered his half sister’s child, Byron’s own history a tainted filled with stories of illicit love affairs and exaggerated tales.

 But there is truth in his poetry; we can see a fragmented Byron in Jane Eyre’s Mr. Rochester, a man who is cunning and arrogant, morally bankrupt but is redeemed in the end.  

I don’t know if Byron believed in notions of redemption but others who wrote his character almost willed it upon him except Bronte, her Heathcliff never evolves socially despite his financial success. Heathcliff represents The Other, he can’t be defined racially and therefore he can never be accepted into society. Was he treated so badly that he can’t feel for another human being? My favorite quote from Wuthering Heights is the question: Is Mr. Heathcliff a man? If so, is he mad? And if not, is he a devil?

All is not lost...but it is

Somehow I happened upon Piers Morgan on CNN, it really was a mistake; however the image the show left in my mind was far more horrifying than I could have thought possible. Piers Morgan and Toure engaged in what they believed was an intellectual debate, instead it was reminiscent of college discussions that took place in my Women’s Studies class. When people oppose each other to such an extent that they are no longer listening to one another, instead they remain focused on defending their position; I believe we witnessed that except the attack was deeply personal and that is where it left the college campus and entered a middle school classroom. The difference was that this verbal attack was for the world to see and that only made it sad. 

Trayvon Martin disappeared from the discussion and it became two men in an intense verbal brawl. It’s unfortunate they had a strong television medium available and lacked a meaningful way to convey their position. I couldn’t fathom wasting an hour to fight with another individual. Those freshman discussions on Pro-Choice or Pro-Life were heated discussions; however by senior year those discussions had matured, offering facts explaining our position. While it may not have changed anyone’s mind, the forum was dignified and without insults. We were 22. These men are in their mid to late 40s. 

Nowhere in the discussion was Trayvon Martin. Instead Piers Morgan argued his British origin does not preclude him from discussing and understanding American matters while Toure suggested that he could not understand. I didn’t really take away anything except Morgan tried to diminish his British identity in favor of an American one when it suits him. Last April Morgan was completely British as a commentator for CNN’s royal wedding coverage and he commented on British manners to the viewers, that identity shifted last night. Toure and Morgan both took to Twitter to declare themselves the winner of their fight, yet Toure claimed to care about the death of Trayvon Martin only to make the story about himself rather than the victim. I wasn’t sure if it was height of hypocrisy, it was far to shocking to really come to any conclusion. It was perhaps the most self serving argument in television. The most uncomfortable aspect of this is coming to the realization that both men used the death of Trayvon Martin to gain ratings. That is truly abhorrent.