The Madonna/Mother Teresa Paradox

As some of you know, I spend a lot of time trying to figure out life, despite knowing that this is probably an exercise in futility. I think about things like fate and suffering and the difference between cultures while riding the bus or looking out on the water from the ferry. This makes me piss poor at small talk, a fact proven once again last Friday night when someone in a bar challenged me to make small talk for the duration of one beer. After 5 minutes, I lost interest in the conversation and wanted to go home.

Before my bar/bored experience, I was in Borders and flipping through an interesting book I spotted, Backwards in High Heels. It's basically a manual for any woman confused about life (which I assume a large majority of us are) but decidedly anti-self-help, which makes it actually useful. As the authors (whose names I forget) brazenly state, self-help is a lie. We don't all get what we deserve, and no matter how many affirmations, or how open you are to the Universe or Abundance or whatever, it's unlikely you'll win the Nobel Peace Prize or write a Pulitzer-Prize novel or whatever fantasy we all harbor about life. But we can cheer up a friend, be kind to our co-workers and strangers, and maybe help the PTA raise some money.

A few weeks before picking up said book, I saw Men Who Stare At Goats, and they also riff on this theme of dreams v. reality. George Clooney basically tells Ewan McGregor that we all have a destiny, but it may not be what we want. Little Anne Frank wants to go to prom? Too bad. But she can write a book that moves millions for generations to come.

Most "spiritual" people (and yes, in this instance, I am using that in a derogatory manner) like to preach that "all things are possible with God" or something like that. But it occurs to me that Mother Teresa could never have been a supermodel, no matter how tight she was with the Holy One.

The realists and cynics in the world say it's all about who you know and how many resources (i.e. how much money) you have at your disposal. But poor Madonna, Queen of Material Girls, sits in her castle with all the money, power, and influence at her disposal and will probably never get nominated for an Oscar.

Which brings me to my question: How does one tell the difference between fantasy and one's true calling?

These two women have irrevocably changed the face of our planet in their own unique ways, causing worldwide movements in charity and sexual attitudes. Yet they too are limited by something--is it fate? Circumstances? Talent? Purpose?

Most of us are not meant for either sacrificial poverty or decadent wealth; the large majority of us fall within a spectrum of middle-classedness. But what if the idea of owning a home and raising kids and fundraising through a bake sale makes you shudder and want to run screaming to a far off country just so you can feel somewhat alive? What if your biggest nightmare is that you're Pam from "The Office" and the biggest event at your place of work will be your wedding? What if you really want to help humanity without living in a hut in a war zone? What if you'd rather enter into a married partnership where your focus is each others' career goals and inner callings, not raising new people to be hurt and harmed by the world?

How does one have a dream that's outside the box but not outside reality?

Why Archie Panjabi's Emmy Win Makes My Heart Sing

The first chapter of Zadie Smith's most recent book "Changing My Mind" is an eloquent essay on Zora Neale Hurston's masterpiece Their Eyes Were Watching God. (The line that opens chapter three is probably one of the most memorable in literature -- "There are years that ask questions and years that answer." But I digress.)

Smith discusses how she was hesitant to read it when her mother presented her with a copy at fourteen:
"You'll like it," her mother said.
"Why? Because she's black?"
"No, because it's really good writing."

And it is, by Smith's account (and my own). But then Smith says something more profound:
"At fourteen, I couldn't find words (or words I liked) for the marvelous feeling of recognition that came with these characters who had my hair, my eyes, my skin, even the ancestors of the rhythm of my speech. These forms of identification are so natural to white readers -- (Of course Rabbit Angstrom is like me! Of course Madame Bovary is like me!) -- that they believe themselves above personal identification, or at least believe that they are identifying only at the highest, existential levels (His soul is like my soul. He is human; I am human). White readers often believe they are colorblind."

But in reality, as Smith points out, they are just more characters written in their image, allowing them to harbor the illusion that their "like" or "dislike" of a novel is based on more esoteric factors, such as writing style, theme, or plot. They also have the benefit of white privilege, where every ethnic story is made relate-able to them (i.e., the rampant use of the word vermilion in South Asian fiction, a word I did not even know until I read it in a "New Yorker-approved" South Asian American book).

Smith then goes on to explain how Hurston creates such a complex, layered character in Janie Crawford in Their Eyes that it leaves her speechless. The book "allows me to say things I wouldn't normally," Smith writes. "Things like 'She is my sister and I love her.'"

Which is exactly what my heart sang when Archie Panjabi won the Emmy for her role in The Good Wife.

It's probably not fair to draw any parallels between a television drama, no matter how good, and canonical American literature. I admit this is somewhat pretentious on my part. But Archie Panjabi speaks so eloquently backstage after her win about the true value of being able to play a character that is proud of her heritage without being defined by it.

When people say "you can do anything you put your mind to" or believe, or whatever New Age slogan is en vogue at the time, I often want to roll my eyes and say "if you're white." As Archie Panjabi and co-star in Bend It Like Beckham, Parminder Nagra, know, the brown girl doesn't get cast in Pirates of the Caribbean or Pride and Prejudice, like their co-star Keira Knightley did, no matter how good an actress you are. So it's refreshing to see a South Asian get to play a character that's as complex and layered as Elizabeth Bennett, albeit on the small screen. I am left without words to express the marvelous feeling of recognition that bubbles up inside me when a woman with my hair and eyes and skin plays it tough and guarded, but with wit and grace. All I can say is "She is my sister and I love her."

VINTAGE POSTS: Technology Toolkit

An oldy but goody, here's my post on Wild Apricot on The Essential Technology Toolkit for Start-Up Nonprofits (Part One with a link to Part Two)

Nostalgia for intensity

Many of my friends know about my visceral dislike of Sex and the City. I mean, when did easy become synonymous with feminism? But I don't want to beat a dead horse (I'll simply refer you all to two of the best commentaries on the new SATC movie here and here.)

Instead, let me discuss the real culture-changing movie for those of us in our 30s: Pretty in Pink. OK, really I'm referring to any John Hughes movie. The whole Brat Pack series were pretty life-changing for anyone who wore a dress with puffed sleeves or Z Cavarichi pants (the latter may have been a Staten Island phenomenon). But Pretty in Pink was on VH1 this week, which left me nostalgic for intensity.

For those of you living under a rock and unfamiliar with the plot, here it is in a nutshell: Nice girl (Andie) is part of counter-culture element at public high school, ruled by rich, popular kids (demarcated by their choice of pastel shirts and white blazers). Rich, cool jackass (Steff) likes her. She turns him down. Rich, cool nice guy (Blane) likes her. She goes out with Blane. They have a bad first date, redeemed only when Blane asks her to the prom. They kiss. Andie shares excitement with father and says she thinks she's in love. Did you catch that--she thinks she's in love after ONE kiss!! Blane flakes out after Steff poisons his mind. Trouble. Andie makes her own prom dress and goes to prom solo. Blane apologizes. Tells her he loves her. Always. They kiss again. The End.

Now, perhaps I used movies as my handbook for negotiating American culture a little too much in my youth, but I'm still struck by how OK it was to fall in love after one kiss. If they'd try to make this movie with today's Millennial Generation, it would take months for the main characters to even admit to dating. Then someone would admit to commitment issues. Which begs the question, why would anyone have commitment issues in high school? What are you afraid of? Turning into your divorced parents? (OK, that may be legit). But still. The complete thrill of Pretty in Pink is the character's intensity. Nowadays, Andie would be the crazy girlfriend and Blane would be the sane, rational guy, appropriately afraid of committing to anyone he met in high school. And Andie would probably end up trying to adjust her needs to the desires of such men. Which I believe, would turn her into Carrie.

Crap, I think I just understood Carrie on a deeper level. I really didn't think she could have one.

Nevertheless, I still sympathize and root for Andie 25 years later. I get butterflies when Blane looks at her. I am vicariously thrilled at the whole sewing montage when she makes her own prom dress--it's like the A-Team's DIY montage for girls. Hell, every girl wants to be that fashion designer--the one that can create a new look that allows her to triumph over school bullies and insecurity. Not the fashionista that simply knew which name brands are the most hot. Puh-lease. Where's the triumph over adversity? Where's the counter-culture rebellion that ever teen identifies with? And most of all, where's the intensity?

When did being intense become undesirable? Was is around the same time that being easy became synonymous with feminism?

Top 10 Questions Still Not Answered by Lost

Assuming the survivors were not dead on the island...

1. How come Shannon (and Sayid) were able to see Walt right before Shannon died even though Walt wasn't dead? And why was he speaking backwards (I believe he was saying push the button)?

2. Likewise, how did Ben make Goodwin's wife appear to Juliet in order to guilt her to carry out his orders? (Goodwin's wife wasn't dead.)

3. How come women couldn't give birth on the island in 2004 onwards, but clearly were capable before (i.e., Jacob and his brother).

4. What's with the smoke monster taking pictures/flashing light at certain survivors, like Kate and Juliet when they were in the jungle? Was Juliet ever a candidate?

5. How come the survivors couldn't see Hydra island at first - remember Sawyer was shocked to see the island from the hilltop with Ben - but then had no problem later on?

6. What was the "loophole" Jacob mentioned when Locke/The Man in Black showed up with Ben and Ben killed him? Was Ben a candidate? And if Ben was always able to kill Jacob, why did the Man in Black need to take Locke's form? Couldn't he just appear as Ben's dead mother, as he did before, to get Ben to do whatever he wanted? And really, it took 2000 years to come up with that plan?

7. If the sideways was purgatory, then why did Desmond black out when he met Penny and seem to travel in time to his Island consciousness if all he really needed to do in purgatory was "remember"?

8. Why did the smoke monster kill so indiscriminately? Or if it was with discretion, then what was the rule? Why did he spare the Mr. Echo's life at first only to kill him later?

9. What were the rules??!! It seems rather convenient to never explain them so the writers could then do whatever they pleased and not have to worry about consistency. I mean, really, this is just lazy sci-fi writing. If you're going to expect us to suspend belief in an alternate universe, then you have to give us some rules to make sense of things!

10. If the man in black was inhabiting all the dead bodies, including Jack's father, then how can he claim he can't leave the island when he clearly did to spook Jack?

You, Inc.

A timely discussion on branding yourself, not only for job hunting or entrepreneurial purposes, but also so that you stay focused in life.

Bouncing Back: The Challenges of Being a Woman Business Owner

The guest was a little late calling in, so Sky and Candace ended up interviewing me a bit about my decision to leave MediaGlobal. Unfortunate circumstance but good life lesson.