As a minority in America, I don’t feel particularly judged for my ethnicity or discriminated against much.

But like every minority in America I know that my group isn’t going to be represented much on TV (unless you’re black/ Latino; then you get two recurring guest roles on a network show/ a minor recurring part).

The last time I saw an Indian on US TV was the Fandango puppet. Which I hate, as does every Indian I know. Even the non-traditional ones

So when I saw that the Indian contestant, Nipa something or the other, on The Next Food Network Star, with her penchant for tantrums, unwillingness to touch raw meat (!) etc., I felt like OMG THIS WOMAN IS MAKING ALL OF US INDIANS LOOK BAD! I touch raw meat! I make fish curry! I can cut a chicken!

As cousin #2 and I watched her on TV today, he turned to me and said “suddenly that Fandango puppet is looking GREAT.”

Indeed it is.

I support Barack Obama’s run for president.

I suppose that’s no surprise to those who know me or to those who have a cursory knowledge of me through this Web site. After all, I’m part of his standard demographic: young and college-educated.

Several acquiantances have thought my Obama support was identical to that of the people you see at his rallies– the fanboys/ fangirls who’re excited by his every word, gesture or action.

I’m not.

When I first heard Obama was running, I was skeptical. Like a lot of people, I thought he had barely a sliver of experience to run on. I had LOVED his 2004 Convention speech and thought that he was a good speaker, but really– is he more than that? Then the Iowa caucuses happened, and he won.

Like most people, I was SHOCKED that he won. After all his opponent is a former first lady, a second-term senator and has the backing of the entire party machine behind her. How the hell could she lose this? But he won, despite the odds.

Like a lot of people I was excited by this moment: a black candidate who had been the underdog in a crowded field had won a presidential caucus in a lily-white state (to use the cliche). Even at this point, I was still convinced that I wouldn’t really mind either way–whether it was Senators Obama or Clinton.

Then New Hampshire took place and he lost. And I was crushed. I was shocked to find that I was crushed. I wasn’t even sure why. But that moment forced me to do my due diligence and read about him, his policy positions and his perspectives on the United States’ role in the world. The latter is especially important to me, a foreign citizen.

My eyes glazed over when reading about Obama’s domestic policy views. To be fair, nearly all the Democrats have identical domestic agendas.

But the thing that really interested me was Senator Obama’s foreign policy ideas. Unlike Senator Clinton, who like most Democrats believes that to be perceived as successful in foreign policy one must talk like a watered-down neocon, Senator Obama had the guts to challenge this orthodoxy. Whether it was his views on Pakistan, Iran or Cuba, he took stances that few politicians would dare make, and he made sharp arguments in their defense. It seems to me that his arguments are pragmatic– it’s not about acting “tough” for the sake of doing so, but being smart AND tough. What will achieve the desired outcomes? This should trump any posturing.

What’s more, I think that Obama has a good shot of improving relationships with several American allies and possible allies, simply by power of personality. Personality is a powerful thing. It explains why former president Clinton is thought of more highly in most African countries rather than Bush 43, even though the latter has done far more for Africa than the former. I’m not just suggesting that personality suffices, but I do think it’ll help open doors and help the US government reshape perceptions around the world.

Some might argue that the US need not care what the world thinks. But the reality is that in a world where most of our enemies fight against us asymmetrically, even the world’s largest, strongest army cannot handle the burden of global terrorism on its own. It needs allies, and it can make these allies through respectful dialogue, not by a ‘with us or against us’ attitude.

But it’s not just how the world sees America; it’s about how America sees America. For the last seven years, this country has become more frightened and suspicious of the world. It has led itself to believe that the only party that can really keep Americans safe from terrorists is the Republican party with their brand of bluster and heavy-handed policies. Obama has so far shown Americans (and should continue to show them) that it’s possible to keep the US safe without using war preemptively, energizing unfriendly regimes or humiliating foreign tourists. In short, he has the opportunity to offer Americans an alternative. It’s more than any other candidate could or would have done, and I’m grateful that he took such a risk. I hope that other people are wise enough to recognize the courage behind his stances and support and encourage this departure from standard US discourse on foreign policy.

I can’t vote for him this fall, but I really hope that you do. I believe he has the power to be a game-changer, for the United States and for his party.

Watching Fareed Zakaria’s new show on CNN. It’s called GPS– Global something or the other. He assembled a good panel to discuss global issues. I love shows like this because they follow an interview format with people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about; they’re actual scholars, not just political hacks.

The debut episode’s panelists include China scholar Minxin Pei, Christiane Amanpour, former Irish PM and European Commission President John Bruton, and the asshat (and Bushie) Doug Feith. I’m both enjoying and squirming at the muffled insults being tossed at Feith (and Bush, indirectly). Those of you who remember may know that that Feith was a DoD intelligence man, who cooked the Iraq intelligence and is so ridiculously neoconservative that it led Colin Powell’s chief of staff to claim “I’ve seldom in my life met a dumber man.”

Bruton, Amanpour and Pei are good. I find their perspectives refreshing, especially Pei. I don’t know much about China nor have I heard much from Chinese scholars so it’s interesting to hear a China scholar talk so bluntly about how the Chinese perceive Obama (not on their radar yet), how China is handling Tibet (stupidly) and press access in the recent Chinese earthquakes (unprecedented, but not as big a deal as people would like to believe).

Generally when people I abhor talk, I tend to tune out– especially in this case that wicked buffoon Feith. (Why is he teaching at Georgetown? Is he serving as a living example of what not to do?). But nowadays I am trying to listen to these whackjobs (or “differing voices” as some might like to say) because of an article written by Samantha Power, where she decries the way we read things online (the echo chamber of only the opinions/ stories that reinforce our perspectives rather than the wide array of differing opinions in a newspaper). So I did try to listen to Feith even though it did feel all nails-on-a-chalkboard, to me.

Anyway, back to Fareed. He’s a good questioner and clearly knows the issues, whether it’s China, India, the middle east or the US government’s policy toward various African nations. He’s also written a very good book recently about the growing marginalization of the US government in global treaties and deals.

Two things about Zakaria that I find interesting still:

One, that he has done no mea culpa ala Andrew Sullivan, for his flawed, arrogant support of the war. It’s one thing to have supported the Iraq war with a measure of humility, and on the basis that you were supporting it based on the facts you had. But to breezily and harshly dismiss critics as peacenik pansies and then to be critical of that same war a few years later without having the decency to apologize, is just ridiculous.

Second, and completely unrelated– he’s still an average host. His transitions and segues are weak, his intonation, elocution and pacing of words is choppy and uneven. I think a lot of Indians who’ve lived in both the US and India, sound like that. We lapse into our faux-English pronunciations one minute and a US pronunciation the next, and the overall sound is awful. He needs to practice with some news anchors and he can smooth that out.

That said, I have hope for this show. It’s the closest thing I’ve seen to an intelligent discussion on foreign issues, on a US TV station. Which means it probably won’t do very well outside of the Charlie Rose set *cough* me *cough*.

I enjoy America’s Next Top Model greatly, and I like Tyra Banks’ drama mama attitude. It makes for good TV. But does she really deserve a 3,000 word+ piece in the NYT magazine? I saw the story on Friday and skimmed the multimedia section (including a graphic of Tyra’s six most common smiles), but I still don’t get it. The article has some interesting tidbits here and there, but it’s mostly paeans of praise from friends, family and colleagues.

(I should add that I’m glad she moved back to NY both with ANTM and her talk show; not that her shows have much credibility, but the NY location will definitely give ANTM some of its groove that it lost in LA).

–

The best thing about the Sex and the City movie was the movie theater I watched it in. The Avalon is one of the oldest movie theaters in DC, and it’s absolutely beautiful. It was nearly torn down a few years ago, and the community resurrected it. It’s a beautiful, large, old-style theater with an intricate mural on its ceiling, a teeny-tiny ladies’ room done in Pepto-Bismol pink and it really is a community theater. Nearly everyone who came to the movie seemed to be from the community and it was lovely to see. It made up for the utter mediocrity of the movie, which had one of THE worst endings I’ve seen in a romantic comedy. I thought Made of Honor had a crappy ending, but SATC went one step worse.

Part I is below this post.

So where was I? Ah yes. Hot dogs, horror, staying put.

Waiting was the worst part. We had to wait for the slight possibility that more women might show up. An event that should have started at 7:30 began at 8.

I didn’t know what to expect, and I don’t’ know if this is typical speed-dating format, but I’ll share anyway.

All the women sit at individual tables, which have numbers on them. Everyone gets a card with a list of all the members of the opposite sex. A man sits at your table for seven minutes. You talk. Seven minutes are up, and then he moves on to the next, and then another guy comes by. You rate that man on your card, basically stating “yes” or “no.”

For a few minutes, we just sat at the tables while the guys waited in the front to be told where to go.

My friend, A, thought this was degrading for us. I guess she felt a bit like that line in The King and I where the king says that women are like flowers, stationary in one place and men are like bees floating from flower to flower.

My perception was the exact reverse. I got to sit there and stare at the row of men standing up front, waiting to approach a table. It was a bit like being a rancher picking a new cow at an auction (or is it a bull?)

Finally, we began. It was a relief to start after the awkward waiting. Most of the guys were nice enough—polite, friendly and willing to make conversation. I found myself repeating the same answers over and over again—yes I came here to study but now I work here. I work in PR.

I nodded and smiled and inserted the appropriate “Oh really?” and “oh?” to spur conversation. Bob Edwards would have been so proud.

But there was a horror story, people. A genuine one.

He looked ordinary enough. Slightly chubby. Sun glasses on his head even though we were indoors, in a dimly lit bar. A sort of Joe Pesci-wiseguy-ish expression on his face.

Him: Take off your glasses.

Me: Uhh no.

Him: Do you kiss on the first date?

Me: Wha?

Him: What about the second date?

Me: Uhhh it depends?

Five minutes later he talked about his desire to be a public official a.k.a a politician.

Me: Oh that’s nice. What sorts of political ideas do you have?

Him: Oh a bit of both parties. But I have to say I love John McCain’s foreign policy.

Me: Really?

Him: Yes, he doesn’t believe in surrendering.

Me: Define surrender.

Him: leaving. Also—we’re the greatest country in the world and the greatest empire in the world and everyone has to listen to us.

Me: If the US controls everything then how come countries like India are allying with countries like Iran on energy issues? What about this pipeline between India and Iran—doesn’t it make the US’s opinion on that topic irrelevant.

Him: Oh I think we should just bomb India for this.

Me: (Thinking of the geopolitical consequences of such an absurd thought process AND spluttering)..

Event Hostess: OK, your seven minutes are up!

Him: You should mark me as a yes on your card because I KNOW you want to continue this conversation.

Me: And you would be wrong.

GAG!!

P sat at my table next. (He’s a friend and colleague, for those of you getting here late to the game). He made up a cockamamie story about being Canadian and I claimed to be Bhutanese and we had a laugh about that. We spent the bulk of our seven minutes realizing that we have nothing in common aside from work talk, so in the end we just twiddled our thumbs and decided that our post-work interaction should remain minimal. Nonetheless, we marked each other as “yes” on our cards, because it’s a matter of pride, I suppose.

By 9:30, the event was done. And I was exhausted, talking to all these men. I never realized how much effort it takes to feign interest for over an hour. At some point you just do the nod, smile and space out.

I could have eaten the free wings, but I left instead. I had to change lines, get home, take a shower and watch a bit of Charlie Rose to restore my equilibrium. (God, that sounds so farty).

Would I do I again? I don’t know. It didn’t strike me as a particularly great format to talk to people, although it might be different if I tried this same event in DC. Who knows. At the same time, it may well work for some people and who am I to judge?