Katie's latest shenanigans

it would end this way...dammit.

We are under a winter weather watch starting tonight until 6 am Wednesday morning. Up to six inches of snow is possible. And the ten day forecast- bear in mind we have exactly two weeks left here in Iowa- predicts snowfall EVERY day.

Great.

Four black sacks of trash, four more for goodwill, and seven boxes (and counting) packed

Assessing our house right now, there's no way it'll be ready by morning to go on the market. We originally set our goal to get it on the market as October 15. Obviously, that came and went. Then, it was last Thursday. There was just no way.

Numerous times I've wished Mom were here because I know she and I could knock out all the mess and cleaning and just get it done. After Katie was born, I remember Mom helped me straighten up the rest of the house that she and Dad didn't get to the day they spent cleaning when the baby and I were in the hospital (Eric and I are that messy); like magic, the dining room was clear.

Right now, the dining room is the hub of the chaos and I'm ready for the junk to disperse, either by some trickery or by sleeping it all away. It's a gauntlet, and Katie scrunches up her shoulders every time she walks through like a little pinball trying to avoid all the corners and obstacles. I think as soon as we get the stuff we're keeping downstairs and the stuff we're tossing to goodwill in the morning, once again, like magic, it'll be clear.

So, in the meantime, I'm looking forward to being closer to many of my close (and majority-pregnant) girlfriends in about two weeks. I told Steph yesterday that she and the girls can make it up for never coming to Iowa or making it to my baby shower by helping us unload the truck on the 22nd, pregnant or not. And, of course, the drive home is much less painful from Dallas than from Cedar Rapids. No more frozen tundra, no more six months of winter and a blip of a summer (beautiful as it may be).

A fear of disaster capitalism: My comment to the New York Times

Here's a passage from a story in the New York Times:

"Mr. Obama, who has largely been secluded from public view since being elected three weeks ago as the 44th president, is taking steps to be more visible in the next phase of his transition. He is scheduled Tuesday to name his budget director, Peter R. Orszag, who held the job under President Bill Clinton, and is expected to outline new budget reforms that will call on Americans to make sacrifices." (emphasis mine)

And then this passage:

"Mr. Obama noted that he still intended to pursue a middle-class tax cut. “The very wealthiest among us,” he said, “will pay a little bit more in order for us to be able to invest in the economy and get it back on track.”

And now the background:
This story is about Obama's economic proposals to get the U.S. economy market going, and the members of his economic team. Great, fine, whatever.

Okay, here's my problem. I've been reading Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine- it's wonderful and provocative. It connects the dots- something mainstream journalism rarely ever does- between Friedman free-market policies and the atrocities the U.S. has been involved with around the world. In short, she shows how the implementation of so-called free market policies around the world, that is, the privatization and denationalization of markets and commodities, is intimately connected to violence.

In fact, she argues, free market policies rely on the a "shock" doctrine to unsettle and erase a population's reliance on Keynesian economic policies. The startling realization I had while reading this is our "work" in Iraq identically matches the work done in Chile, Brazil, Argentina and other countries around the world where interventionist American foreign policy, either covert or in public, overthrew democratically-elected governments (Salvador Allende, for instance) to implement through violence free market policies. These policies strip government funding from social services, increase interest rates to control inflation, but entail atrocious violence to control populations and result in massive poverty. This is a fact. This is neoliberalism. This is the free market that Bush has been touting the past few days to "calm" the markets.

Here's my concern with the New York Times article, and really, even though these are just excerpts, they are not taken out of context. I've been nervous about just who Obama will appoint to his economic team. I'm worried he will appoint devout neoliberals (a.k.a. neoconservatives) to his cabinet. He sorta has. But the line where the Times writers state that he is asking Americans, broadly speaking, to make sacrifices really got me worried.

And then, the next quote, where Obama clearly states that only the wealthiest will have their taxes raised. This is my problem, and it may seem minor: the conflation of the general American public with the wealthiest overall by discursively connecting all Americans, as in the first quote, with the wealthiest, as in Obama's quote. This functions to diminish the actual economic anxieties and realities of those of us who do not make millions of dollars a year. Moreover, it masks the discrepancies that exist between the rich and the poor, or that there even is a discrepancy.

Media scholars have shown, and the world's unreal expectations of what life is like in America- that we all drive nice cars and have gads of money, that there are material consequences to rhetoric like this in the news. People understand the world increasingly through representations in the media, and in this instance, a number of things may occur: policy makers may underestimate the need for truly "bold" economic policies that the Bush administration and other Republicans would NEVER dream of putting into place, the circumstances of the poor and struggling are underestimated and diminished- relegated to, "it's their own fault"- by such stories.

But, on another note, to connect to Klein's work, I do worry that we may not see progressive economic policies from the Obama administration but something else. Larry Summers was President Clinton's Treasury Secretary, and the Clintons are not Keynesians, for sure. I like his ideas so far...but we'll see. It's too early to tell.

I'm hoping the San Diego airport looks nothing like this today

After being closed for two hours yesterday from fog, this is the scene at the airport when I arrived.

Some serious ridiculousness

Perhaps my friend Shaina's headline was best: "This just in: Racism solved overnight!"

Of course, she's sarcastic. Much like me in my sheer disgust with white people thinking that with the election of a non-white guy to the presidency, all things are equal. As if it only were that easy.

But that's white privilege for you, to assume that racism is simply some complaint that people use as an excuse to get things for free. To say so is to deny the trenchant institutional barriers that remain against equality in this country, despite the ability to elect a non-white guy as president.

What started this line of thought was a post on MySpace, "White Guilt is Dead," from a guy I knew from high school. I knew it was something I shouldn't read and expect to walk away from unaffected, but I read it anyway.

The very premise of this post could be summarized by the post I saw by someone else on the Oklahoman's site after the election, something to the effect of, black people can no longer play the race card. The very premise of this line of thought, that racism can no longer be used as a valid "excuse" for inequity, is in and of itself racist. It excuses the racist structures that still persist, even with Obama's glorious election; in fact, the reactions to his election can be said to exacerbate the racism in this country. And don't even get me started on the white victimhood shit. Until white men no longer control the majority of this country and make the majority of the major decisions in the U.S., hush your mouth. You ain't got shit to complain about, alright?

So I hope someone will check out this link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/16/13346/058/190/661895

I think it counters very nicely the way so-called conservative Christians talk out of both sides of their mouth in regards to living a Christ-like life while simultaneously condoning and perpetuating racist screeds like the one to which the Dailykos poster, and myself, responds.

To close, I plan on making a hobby out of confronting people head-on when they pull racist crap like this. I don't care how good a friend you are- you'll hear it from me. One of my best friends sent me a polite response to a post I made on MySpace informing me she and her husband were voting for McCain. That would be fine, if her response to me wasn't in reference to an article I posted that discussed the racist and violent outbursts at McCain/Palin rallies. Implicitly, she was condoning that behavior. And I just can't stomach that anymore. Not even from her.

I've already sent an email today to some wack job church in Wichita, which can only be regarded as the epicenter of Christian wingnuttery, in response to their sign outside their church that states something like America has a Muslim president (um, he hasn't been sworn in yet folks) and how a Muslim president was an sin or an abomination of God. All I've got to say about that is, are you fucking kidding me? Oh, and this: that whole bearing false witness thing. I guess it doesn't matter, eh?

About my dissertation...

I've been drafting and drafting my dissertation proposal. In our department, we have to present our proposal at our weekly PhD seminars to our graduate peers and faculty members before we defend our proposals to our committees. The original plan was to be past both of those milestones by now, but one week prior to my seminar presentation, my advisor gave me the big thumbs-down...and I was back to the drawing board.

Finally, at long last, I got the green light from Sujatha (my advisor) on Friday morning that we could schedule my seminar presentation and defense. It is SUCH a relief, only because I have to do all these things before we move to Dallas, or come back in the fall when she gets back from leave. It was never that my idea was bad, I just didn't have the theoretical section and methods ironed out enough at that point. I did a little dance Friday morning when I got Sujatha's email, though. My officemate, who is at the same point I am, just not moving in five weeks, congratulated me. He and I will be presenting our proposals on the same day at seminar.

Anyways, about my topic. I wanted to write about it here because I noticed Amad from Muslim Matters responded to my last post- very cool to see you on here, Amad. I can't remember how
I found Muslim Matters, probably on another blog, but the work your site does is so important. I hope anyone who happens upon this site- especially anyone who tried to discredit Barack Obama because they think there's anything wrong with being a Muslim- happens upon Muslim Matters as well...

To my topic: it's changed quite a bit since I came to Iowa in 2005. I never could have predicted this is what I would be doing, but that's only because the U of Oklahoma has little to no coursework on globalization, particularly as it pertains to mass communications theory, so I wouldn't have thought of it then. I came here knowing I wanted to work with
Latino immigrant communities and their relationships with media. At first, it was how Latinas negotiated gender identity in relation to mass media, but then, the immigration stuff became prominent nationally, and so I became more interested in immigrant communities in general. And, of course, I had cancer and then had Katie in two successive summers, so my other plan to do my dissertation work in Peru on an activist organizations' work to construct radio broadcasts to empower indigenous women in the Andes kinda fell through...

And then I began to study for my comps. For my primary area, International Communication, globalization, and diaspora, two of my readings sparked an idea: Benedict Anderson writes that newspapers (and so, mass media) were the catalyst for the creation for the nation. News consumption serves as a ritual that coheres the members of the nation; it is a regular reminder that others, just like them, are participating in the same process. So, the news/mass media play a crucial function in maintaining the nation, which is ultimately an imagined entity.

Globalization unsettles the nation, however, through the processes that alter the autonomy of the nation-state. We've witnessed a good example of these processes the past few weeks with the financial crises- no nation can operate independently of the global financial markets. They are all intertwined, and the nation-state (the government apparatus of the nation) must work with the financial sector to function properly. Think Hank Paulson here and his capitulation at first to the multinational banking companies.

Arjun Appadurai writes, much more intelligently than me, that the interplay between people, money, technology, media, and ideas (or, as he calls them, ethnoscapes, financescapes, technoscapes, mediascapes, and ideoscapes) characterize the processes of globalization. These "-scapes" are independent yet imbricated in one another, and activity in one sets off activity in other. An example: foreign investment in privatized Mexico, supported by the U.S. and Mexican governments, upheaved the Mexican economy, compelling its impoverished citizens to migrate to the U.S. to work, often at the (illegal) recruitment of U.S. businesses. Here, you see the interaction of money, people,and ideas (government support of certain policies, i.e., privatization of formerly communal lands in Mexico, U.S. government backing of these endeavors).

When you think about Appadurai's argument that these -scapes overlap one another, so, for instance, corporations can also have a stake in the finance, techno, and media-scapes through multiple holdings in multiple companies, including media companies and, say, government contracting, then I argue that we see the convergence of the media and ideo-scapes in relation to the ethnoscapes.

In short, my dissertation is asking how globalization and the nation-state can co-exist, and I think it's because the media serve a surveillance function that discipline the citizenry, reminding citizens first, that the nation exists (without giving too many details about its globality, per se) and second, how to be good citizens.

This is where immigrants come in. I think it is through media representations of the immigrant family that the boundaries of the nation are defined and by extension, the criteria for membership in it, and that through representations of the deviant immigrant family, we learn how we in turn should conduct ourselves based on the discursive example of them of what not to do. I'm choosing the immigrant family because it is gendered, but also because it serves as the key economic unit. This is a really complicated part of my theoretical section that I have to unpack, but that's the gist of my argument and rationale for using it. Plus, studies tend to focus on women, and I want to know the role men play in all this.

But here's the really cheesy, I guess, conclusion to my proposal, that sums up my position on all this (and yes, it's okay for researchers to have a position):

To me, immigration reform is not only about immigrants or delusions of cultural invasion as the American Right would have us believe but rather about controlling populations in light of pervasive neoliberal regimes that benefit economically from migrant peoples as well as the misdirected attention of resident citizens. The goal of this study is to examine the ways in which such control manifests, is resisted, and most importantly how the media participates in this process. On the one hand, the immigration debate results in a chilled civic atmosphere that pits people against one another and degrades and ostracizes migrant communities; on the other, the immigration debate myopically disguises the scope and mechanisms of globalization and the ways in which we are all affected by it by insisting on the primacy of the national scale. If the mass media provide the imaginary of which Appadurai (1996) writes and straddle the media- and ideo-scapes as I argue they do, then an examination of their role in constructing the public knowledge that facilitates the disciplining of docile national bodies as well as the mass media’s capacity to resist this work is crucial to the preservation of American democracy. Given the rhetoric of the current American presidential election in which we are urged by the Republican Party to put “Country First” while simultaneously vilifying the Fourth Estate, I regard the work to preserve democracy ever more pressing.

The latest goings-on with Katie

Katie had her 15-month well-baby appointment Thursday morning. She's 31 inches tall, and weighs 21 pounds. There's no health concerns, although I told the doctor that she's a pretty picky eater. As a result, we now have a list of ways to increase her caloric intake- as Dr. Norman said, it's basically anything we wish we could eat. We have the doctor's permission to put as much cheese and butter on her food, to fry her vegetables, and to even let her drink cream instead of whole milk. I'm not kidding. Heavy cream.

We're not giving her cream, but we will start adding half-and-half to her milk. The only reason I brought up her eating habits to the doctor was because we've noticed that she's a little crankier than usual and for a spell, woke up at night. It could be related to the teeth that were coming in, and she's plenty active- still pooping and peeing just fine. But we know that Katie only gets truly cranky when she's hungry...but she only reliably eats fruit and drinks her milk.

Also, her teacher gave us a handout that explains how to handle picky eaters, and this reading and the doctor both agree that Katie has to be in control of her eating. We can't make a big deal of what or if she eats. And, she has to eat because she wants to, not because it makes us happy. We've also been instructed that meal time has to end promptly when she begins to fool around- which we normally do anyways- to teach her to respect meal time. This is probably the area I'm most to blame for, because I've typically let her play with her food if she wants.

But, our life in Iowa is winding down- there's only five weeks til we move. We won't have to put Katie in day care right away in Texas, but I've realized that her school has spoiled me. It's going to be hard to find a place that's as wonderful. Katie's teacher arrives at 9 am, and we get there most days a little before. I notice that Katie looks for Jessie, her teacher, when she isn't there yet. The other morning, I dropped Katie off right around the time Jessie was walking into their room, and all the kids rushed her to say hi. They love her and she's the one person Katie will go to easily when we drop her off.

That's leads to one last thought: say and think what you will about women leaving the home to work, but the difficulty working parents have in finding good child care is appalling. Full time child care is essential for Eric and I to get our work done, yet the monthly cost for day care for a child Katie's age is astronomical. If I had ever thought that I would want to be a stay-at-home mother, I should not have started my PhD because it's landed us deeply in debt and it would be a waste on my intellectual investment to just give up on my work...so no matter what, it's not an option. It just isn't.

But one thing I've been reading for my dissertation proposal argues that the family unit is the key economic unit in a capitalist society, although it is hardly ever viewed as such. It's the family that makes the biggest investment in human capital, and therefore, for society to be healthy, we need to make an investment in nurturing child caregivers- regardless if it's mothers or early childhood teachers. As it stands, caring for children is devalued in our society, even if it's done solely by the child's mother. But since so few parents can afford to stay at home to raise their children- and the U.S. is one of the few developed countries that does not offer paid maternity in some form- it is nearly impossible to expect one parent to leave the workforce. Yet, we are in dire need of a healthy, productive work force (although it sucks that humans are defined by their productivity). That's something to think about.

Employee Free Choice Act- why it should pass, via a little satire

Good stuff

Check out these pictures of Obama:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html

Moo-mer Noo-ner

That's right. We got her to say "Boomer" and "Sooner." She also says, "Go! Go!"

Relinquishing control of the wipies: Sunday morning art and a new word

We've danced all morning and now Katie is taking every wipy out of the box. I just gave in. She handed it to me to open and I just opened it. Otherwise, she'd be throwing a fit right now and really, who cares if she empties the thing. I don't.

She gets to color and make art all the time at school, so it occurred to me last week she needed crayons at home- and that I needed some sort of filing system to save every piece she brings home (yes, every single one). When she sits on my lap at my desk, she always grabs for the pens and markers. I got her some pens and crayons of her own and she's pretty good at understanding that she can only color on the paper. In fact, that's how I discovered her next new word, paper. Add that to a few others, like turtle, and I think she says "bye" for butterfly. Did I mention she dashes around the house?

I wish I could get a good shot of her hands, because they're covered in blue ink right now. Here's the best shot I could get.

It's a New Day

Blueberry fool

It's a ham-and-bean sort of day in Iowa. The temp is somewhere in the 30s, it's windy, and it's spitting snow on us. Nothing is accumulating- thank goodness- but it's generally inhospitable weather.

About those ham and beans: I thought I had a full pound or an extra bag, but didn't. After some debate about using black beans in addition to Great Northern, unshowered Eric bundled up and headed to the grocery store. There are two HyVees near us, one of which we generally avoid because it's smaller and pretty run down. It's nickname? The Ghetto V.

Anyways, unwashed Eric headed to this particular HyVee because it's closest, and came back saying he fit right in, particularly since all he bought was one bag of beans. We really looked like we're in a recession, if that was all he was buying.

I did indeed go into recession mode last weekend at Sam's, due in no small part to the letter I got from one of the schools I applied to, saying they were postponing filling the position. It freaked me out a little bit, but I ended up buying bulk veggies and goods and we shouldn't have to go the grocery store for much more than milk and bread for awhile.

That isn't to say, though, that I didn't get Katie some blueberries today. We needed milk and other perishables, so she and I headed to the other HyVee. When milk was one dollar more expensive, she and I made the trek across town to get the dairy products at Sam's. Lo and behold, they had a big container of fresh blueberries, and Katie LOVES blueberries.

We got home just in time for lunch. It started with a banana (another weekly purchase) but soon progressed to the blueberries. Eric put five on the tray, and she immediately put them all in her mouth, one by one. For the next twenty minutes, she stuffed her mouth full of blueberries, asking for "mo-ah" in between. Her word for blueberries: "Boobear" or something similar to that.

It was cute- as usual. As soon as three more were on the tray, they were in her mouth. We've kinda worn out the bananas, because that's what used to happen to it. She's a pretty picky eater- we only know that she'll eat fruit and drink her milk for sure. Right now, I think all those blueberries are coarsing through her veins, because she's not going down for a nap too easily.

"For those of you whose vote I did not win tonight..."

"I hear your voice."

That says it all in my mind. This isn't a president who will push through a "mandate," but will work for consensus. This is democracy.

This is one of those nights that I think we'll know exactly what happened and where we were at forty years from now. It's that important.

I am truly overwhelmed with what happened this evening. Overwhelmed, joyful and proud. Very proud. And so glad I was a part of it.

We can change the world...(another reprise)

YES WE CAN! (A Reprise)

"It's like hope...only different" ;)

The question of Obama's patriotism

So, my personal connection to the wingnut Right (not you, Eric Baker ;) ) accused me this morning of not supporting the troops because I support a candidate who supposedly won't even salute the flag, or some crap like that. 

Yeah, I'm for ending this war. I see it as an imperialist, neoliberal ploy to expand certain people's power that's ending up killing thousands and maiming thousands more of our troops, not to mention the hundreds and maybe millions of Iraqis that have been killed in our overwrought powergrab. But clearly, questioning war is not patriotic in the minds of some. Rather, dissent is intolerable for those who claim to be the most patriotic. 

Well, I'm afraid this isn't the military. We can question our commander and thankfully, we still have the ability to do so, according to that lovely little First Amendment of ours, however misappropriated and mangled it is coming out of Sarah Palin's mouth. 

But, to be more productive, what does it mean to support the troops? Does it mean sending them on a dummy mission, to an endless war? Or does it mean arming them with the best leaders and intel available, providing them with the best armor and gear possible, and then the best care after they've left combat, to ensure that they're successful at what they do, in general?  

If that's the case, McCain certainly supports his troops in one regard: he's not quite sure when he wants to end the war in Iraq. But, on the other, he fails miserably. For someone so "pro-soldier," he sure sucks. Don't believe me? Then maybe you'll listen to military veterans:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryld=1973

Oh, and I guess this means Colin Powell doesn't the support the troops, either. The hypocrisy never seems to end, it seems.

Trying to leave it all on the road

This last weekend before the election, the refrain for Democrats is, "Leave it all on the road." We know that who wins the election Tuesday will be the party with the most successful Get Out the Vote effort. I did my part yesterday, spending three hours canvassing here in the Southeast section of Cedar Rapids. Tuesday morning, I'll be a pollwatcher down the street at our polling precinct.

At first, I was a little nervous about canvassing. It takes a lot for me to muster the nerve to speak to total strangers out of the blue. Waiting tables was one thing- I was getting paid to talk to strangers- but I largely left "real" journalism because of my hesitance to bother total strangers. But I forget that I can be pretty persistent, and once I got started, it was really easy- and very enjoyable.

My Saturday started at a 9 am training meeting at the Linn County Democrats office. I noticed immediately that the street parking was full in front of the office and so I pulled around the back, where a number of people were walking in with me. At the training meeting, the small front room was full with, I'd say, 50 people. Turnout was so high, the organizers hadn't made enough copies of the training manual. I'm amazed at how efficient the system is, and how closely they track who votes and who doesn't- during the day, the parties will be able to know exactly who has voted and who hasn't, and will call those that haven't to get them to the polls, which in Iowa, close at 10 pm.

Another thing about voting in Iowa: not only have they had amazing turnout at early voting, the state also allows you to register and vote the same day, even the day of the election. And- I know Republicans will scream, "Voter fraud!" but individual voter fraud is exceedingly rare- if you don't have some proof of residence, you can bring a friend who lives by you to prove who you are.

I get really emotional about GOTV efforts. It just strikes me as the epitome of democracy- ensuring that as many people who can, vote. Part of the swag I was loaded down with yesterday were fliers to give people to let them know what they needed to bring with them to register and vote, and also door hanger-thingies with their polling place printed on it and the list of Democrats down-ticket.

I think if one thing encapsulates Obama's candidacy and his potential as president, though, it was this exchange at the training meeting Saturday:

An elderly man asks with a smile, "What are the rules about fraternizing with the enemy?" Referring, of course, to the Republican pollwatchers we'll be sitting next to on Tuesday.

The organizer running the training, to the chuckles in the room, says, "Of course, when you mark off Republicans from our list that are voting for Obama, we suggest you do those with a little extra flourish."

"But," he pointed out, "the Obama campaign has been stressing, 'Respect, Empower, and Include.'"

And that's just it. Obama's policies, while the Right freaks out about socialism (although I challenge them to actually define it, and then tell me what exactly would be so bad about it), are the most humane and just of the two parties. There might be some gray area in some of his plans, but I fail to see how conservatives can reconcile their beliefs with McCain/Palin's self-centered, individualistic, neoliberal platform. How can anyone object to a president who, by all accounts so far, treats each person with respect and dignity, in his politics and in his actions? How can anyone object to a president who empowers parts of the country who, up until this election, have been forgotten, abused, and sold down the river? Does it not mean something to anybody that Obama is reaching out to the nooks and crannies of the U.S. that have been sorely unrepresented until his candidacy? For me, it speaks volumes that so many people of color feel like they have a voice for once. Shouldn't that be what democracy is about? Giving a voice and a say to all, not just the majority?

On NPR some time in the last month or so, they did a feature on McCain and his favorite poem, which is coincidentally the one in which John Donne writes that no man is an island. I'm searching for that poem exactly, because I think it's ironic that a man who espouses the most individualistic policies would claim to love a poem that outlines exactly the opposite- how we are all connected, how, as Obama has said, and I've written before, we are all our brother and sister's keeper. We must all watch out for each other- and government's role is to help us in doing so. If government is not for the betterment of its people, and not just multinationals, then I don't know what else it's supposed to do.

Yesterday, this little 80-something lady who used a walker had her friend summon me back to her door after she sent me away, telling me she had voted by mail.

I went back to her door, "Yes, ma'am?"

"I forgot to tell you that I voted for Obama," she said. "I wanted you to be able to put another mark down for him."

"That's great!" I said, writing it down on the sheet. "What house number is this again?"

She told me the number, saying that we probably had her son's name down.

"Has he voted?" I asked her.

"No, but I'll be on him about it," she said with a smile, shooing a little dog away from the front door.

The part of town I was canvassing in was about the same as ours: middle-to-working class. But when people were home to talk to, they were excited about voting. They were excited to vote for Obama. And I can understand why. I am, too.

Halloween, Part 2

We stand for change

It got me at the end...

Our lucid little communicator

Last night, we were playing around on the couch and Katie climbed off suddenly. She walked into the dining room, turns around and looks at us and says, "Mil, mil." That's how she asks for milk.

So we ask back, "Milk, Katie?"

She nods her head "Yes," and walks to the kitchen and starts to pat on the refrigerator door.

Are kids supposed to communicate so clearly like this at 15 months? Patting the fridge door and saying, "Mil, mil," is nothing new. What's really funny is she's gotten good as saying "No," or rather, "Nononono" lately, and she's only recently learned how to shake her head in the affirmative. I mean, she says, "no!" A LOT. A LOT. So much that her teacher at school said, "We heard the 'N-O' word for the first time today."

I told her teacher that we actually hear that word all the time. But I understand now why Jessie spelled "no" out when telling us, because we need to start spelling out B-A-T-H-T-I-M-E and B-E-D-T-I-M-E. The other night, it was bathtime, and we asked Katie if she were ready for her bath. She shook her head "no" furiously, saying, "nononono." We then asked if she were ready for bed then, and she started freaking out and crying, shaking her head, and saying, "Nononono."

I think I've read the same three books to Katie about four times each this morning so far. Each time, she gets the book, comes over to me, if I've been sitting in my office chair, she turns me toward her, and pats my lap after handing me the book. I'm a little worn out of Moo, Ba, La, La, La, so I just told her that Papa would love to read it to her. So, she walked over to him, and he read it to her.

Okay, I think they just got hold of the latest issue of Mother Jones, and Eric's looking for some
article to read to her in there...just normal Saturday morning shenanigans.

Halloween, Part 1

One cool kid...

Some Katie to get you through the day...

"Up," "Down"

Katie's quickly adding to her repertoire of words: today, it was "bubble," and I just discovered that she can say and understand "up" and "down."

After talking to Mom on the phone for a little bit, I came into her room where she was playing with Eric. He got up to run her bath, and I had her on my lap in her rocking chair. She got down, grabbed a book, and I put her in my lap again. But she climbed down, and started pulling on my shirt. At first, I thought she meant to sit on the floor so she could sit on my lap there, but instead, she wanted me to vacate the rocking chair so she could sit there herself. As soon as I was out, she began patting the seat cushion, and I put her up there, where she rocked like crazy for a few minutes.

She's been using books to get us to get her lately. We'll be sitting on the couch, she'll bring us a book, we think she wants us to read it to her, but what she really wants is for us to lift her onto the couch, because she starts climbing all over us and walking back and forth. It's her little game. She loves sitting in the big people chairs.

But after she conned me into getting out of the rocker, I asked if she could say up, to which she said, "Up."

"Can you say 'down,' Katie?"

"Down."

And then, to show Eric, I'd say "Up," and she'd stand up. I'd say, "Down," and she'd sit down. Back and forth, back and forth.

...but that all ended with the advent of her not-first bubble bath a few seconds ago- we put in soothing vapor bath because she has serious congestion right now, to which she lifted her feet to keep from touching. Now, she's crying because bath time was over. I guess there's no winning.

A quick word before getting back to work...

One thing that has really stuck with me since last week's presidential debate is McCain's dismissal of the claim that the health of the mother should be an exception to an abortion ban. I mean, he didn't just dismiss it, he disregarded it as a concern, claiming that it was an excuse used by us lefties that could mean anything. You know: Geez, this morning sickness sucks. Guess I should use that old "health of the mother" exemption and go get myself an abortion. Geez, I'm inconvenienced by this pregnancy thing, guess I should use my health as an excuse...

So I looked up a few things- using that intellectual curiosity that it seems at least one Republican (thanks, General Powell!) still values. I knew that the U.S. has one of the worst maternal mortality rates for developed countries, that it's something like 29th in the world...

I don't have an exact citation for that, but I do for this one: according to UNIFEM, the UN organization that is dedicated to women's issues globally, 500,000 women die every year from pregnancy and childbirth complications. 99 percent of those deaths are in the developing world. That means 5,000 mothers in the developed world- like the U.S.- still die from pregnancy-related causes.

Do you get that? 5,000 women, who presumably have access of some sort, albeit in a private hospital or a free clinic, die from pregnancy complications. That's not a small number, and it's certainly bigger than it should be in a world that can send people into space. But evidently, and McCain's words are proof, women's issues, even those regarding their ability to give birth to children, are not issues. We are not invested as a world, much less a country, in protecting women, vulnerable or otherwise. We will, however, dismiss them, silence them, let them die.

Perhaps even more upsetting is the fact the complications from which so many women still die are mostly treatable: preeclampsia, for instance, or gestational diabetes in the U.S., and diseases like obstetric fistula in the developing world.

And within the U.S., guess who the women are that are dying from these problems? It's not the Cindy McCains of the world, that's for sure. It's the women in poor communities who cannot afford prenatal care, who cannot go to their monthly check-ups, and who may not know that such things are essential to their health.

But I guess that's not important enough, Mr. McCain. I guess it's just an excuse.

UPDATE: Thanks to my sharp father-in-law for noticing my faulty math...Fixed it!

"An Exceptional" President: Gen. Colin Powell Endorses Obama

Another big "Ugh!"

Another thought that occurred to me in my increasing disdain with the Religious Right:

JFK was questioned because he was Catholic, the claim being that he would answer to the Pope and not his country. Mitt Romney had the same experience. And, in a much more crazy way, Obama's allegiance is being questioned because of Rev. Wright's liberation theology (I think that's the correct term). God forbid someone speak the truth about the U.S.'s continuing racism...

Here's the deal: these leaders have been run through the ringer for the religious allegiances, the fear being that their allegiance lies somewhere besides America. See it in Michelle Bachmans' stupidity.

But then, today, I look at a friend's church's web site, and I guess I found out what I already knew. This site said something to the effect of, "Remember, you're a citizen of Heaven before a citizen of America..."

Um, hello??? How dare you question Obama's allegiances, when clearly your country comes after your desire to please God. I wish I could be kind and say this was somehow not an instance of clear hypocrisy, but it is. I really just can't stomach evangelical Christians. I don't know how they somehow get off thinking that they're persecuted in this country, that somehow their values are threatened in this country, and yet they demand perfection of all others while crying, "But I'm forgiven!" They fail to hold themselves to the same standards by which everyone else is held accountable because they're "saved." To me, that's just an excuse to treat others like shit based on your faulty interpretation of the Bible...how about expanding that measure of forgiveness to others? Or maybe the silly little Golden Rule? And how about a moment of reflexivity where you see that the very attributes that these extremist Christians are using to vilify Obama are built into their own churches, that is, some (alleged) loyalty to something other than "America."

You know, it wouldn't be nearly so annoying- no, infuriating- that evangelicals take direction from their pastors and answer to them if they didn't question and persecute anyone who it's whispered to answer to anyone themselves. Did anyone stop and question the premise of not only the crazy McCain rally lady's assertion that we can't trust Obama because he's an Arab, but also McCain's reply that he's not Arab, but a good family man? Apparently, the two categories are mutually exclusive or something and well, I have a hard time with someone like McCain telling me what is or is not a good family man even though I believe that Obama is just that.

"I hold in my hand a paper with the names of communists on it..."

And so Joe McCarthy began his reign of terror in the 1950s. Flash forward to 2008, post-Civil Rights, post-Cold War, and we see Republicans painting those of us with progressive values in the same light. Perhaps Republicans want to live in a police state where dissent is punished with violence, but I don't. If you don't either, then please stop listening to the bullshit Republican platforms that can't talk issues, only hatred, fear, and fascism.

That's right. Fascism. Or, I'll let the editor of the Nation say it for me:

But presidential politics can make you feel good! (ever notice he's usually smiling?)

A primer on U.S.-Latin America relations

I received the email below from the Ethnicity and Race Division of the Latin America Studies Association. It's an open letter to Obama, but, just as importantly, instructive about the history of U.S. relations with Latin America...and why "free trade" policies are oppressive:

October 12, 2008

Dear Senator Obama:

We write to offer our congratulations on your campaign and to express our hope that as the next president of the United States you will take advantage of an historic opportunity to improve relations with Latin America. As scholars of the region, we also wish to convey our analysis regarding the process of change now underway in Latin America.

Just as the people of the United States have begun to debate basic questions regarding the sort of society they want-- thanks in part to your own candidacy but also owing to the magnitude of the current financial crisis-- so too have the people of Latin America. In fact, a recent round of intense debate about a just and fair society has been going on in Latin America for more than a decade, and the majority are opting, like you and so many of us in the United States, for hope and change. As academics personally and professionally committed to development and democracy in Latin America, we are hopeful that during your presidency the United States can become a partner rather than an adversary to the positive changes already under way in the hemisphere.

The current impetus for change in Latin America is a rejection of the model of economic growth that has been imposed in most countries since the early 1980s, a model that has concentrated wealth, relied unsuccessfully on unrestricted market forces to solve deep social problems and undermined human welfare. The current rejection of this model is broad-based and democratic. In fact, contemporary movements for change in Latin America reveal significantly increased participation by workers and peasants, women, Afro-descendants and indigenous peoples-- in a word, the grassroots. Such movements are coming to power in country after country. They are neither puppets, nor blinded by fanaticism and ideology, as caricatured by some mainstream pundits. To the contrary, these movements deserve our respect, friendship and support.

Latin Americans have often viewed the United States not as a friend but as an oppressor, the guarantor of an international economic system that works against them, rather than for them-- the very antithesis of hope and change. The Bush Administration has made matters much worse, and U.S. prestige in the region is now at a historic low. Washington's tendency to fight against hope and change has been especially prominent in recent U.S. responses to the democratically elected governments of Venezuela and Bolivia. While anti-American feelings run deep, history demonstrates that these feelings can change. In the 1930s, after two decades of conflict with the region, the United States swore off intervention and adopted a Good Neighbor Policy. Not coincidentally, it was the most harmonious time in the history of U.S.-Latin American relations. In the 1940s, every country in the region became our ally in World War Two. It can happen again.

There are many other challenges, too. Colombia, the main focus of the Bush Administration's policy, is currently the scene of the second largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with four million internally displaced people. Its government, which criminalizes even peaceful protest, seeks an extension of the free trade policies that much of the hemisphere is already reacting against. Cuba has begun a process of transition that should be supported in positive ways, such as through the dialogue you advocate. Mexicans and Central Americans migrate by the tens of thousands to seek work in the United States, where their labor power is much needed but their presence is denigrated by a public that has, since the development of opinion polling in the 1930s, always opposed immigration from anywhere. The way to manage immigration is not by building a giant wall, but rather, the United States should support more equitable economic development in Mexico and Central America and, indeed, throughout the region. In addition, the U.S. must reconsider drug control policies that have simply not worked and have been part of the problem of political violence, especially in Mexico, Colombia and Peru. And the U.S. must renew its active support for human rights throughout the region. Unfortunately, in the eyes of many Latin Americans, the United States has come to stand for the support of inequitable regimes.

Finally, we implore you to commit your administration to the firm support of constitutional rights, including academic and intellectual freedom. Most of us are members of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA), the largest professional association of experts on the region, and we have experienced first-hand how the Bush administration's attempt to restrict academic exchange with Cuba is counter-productive and self-defeating. We hope for an early opportunity to discuss this and other issues regarding Latin America with your administration.

Our hope is that you will embrace the opportunity to inaugurate a new period of hemispheric understanding and collaboration for the common welfare. We ask for change and not only in the United States.

Sincerely,

SIGNED:

Eric Hershberg, LASA President 2007-09, Professor of Politics and Director of Latin American Studies, Simon Fraser University

Sonia E. Alvarez, LASA Past President (2004-2006), Leonard J. Horwitz Professor of Politics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst

Charles R. Hale, LASA Past President (2003-2004), Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin

Marysa Navarro-Aranguren, LASA Past President (2003-2004), Charles Collis Professor of History, Dartmouth College

Arturo Arias, LASA Past President, (2001-2003), Professor of Spanish and Portuguese University of Texas, Austin.

Susan Eckstein, LASA Past President (1997-98), Professor of Sociology & International Relations, Boston University, Cynthia McClintock, LASA Past President (1994-95), Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University Carmen Diana Deere, LASA Past President (1992-94), Professor of Food and Resource Economics and Director, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida

Lars Schoultz, LASA Past President (1991-92), William Rand Kenan, Jr., Professor of Political Science, UNC, Chapel Hill

Jean Franco, LASA Past President (1990-91), Emeritus Professor, Columbia University

Helen I. Safa, LASA Past President (1983-85), Emeritus Professor of Anthropology and Latin American Studies, University of Florida.

Paul L. Doughty, LASA Past President (1974-75), Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus of Anthropology and Latin American Studies, University of Florida

Cristina Rojas, School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa

Marisol de la Cadena, Associate Professor of Anthropology, UC Davis

John C. Chasteen, Distinguished Professor of History, UNC Chapel Hill

Mario Blaser, Assistant Professor of International Development, York University, Toronto.

Arturo Escobar, Kenan Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, UNC, Chapel Hill.

Katie cuteness

BOOMER SOONER!

It's 10:42 am, and TEXAS STILL SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

The latest election epiphanies

No, it's not that Palin, in her own Cheney-lite way, abused her power as Alaska governor. I mean, duh. No surprises there. But as I made a bundt cake this morning- yes, cooking helps me think, and so do stop lights- I was thinking about this ridiculous youtube video I saw yesterday of people waiting to get into a McCain/Palin rally. And I realized perhaps the greatest contradiction/paradox/oxymoron of Republicans.

This is significant to me because of the research that I do. My dissertation will examine immigration reform discourses and how they work to discipline the immigrant body and the national body- in other words, how does immigration reform define national boundaries, discipline us as citizens (because we learn socially what to do by seeing what not to and how not to be), all in light of the reconfiguration of the nation-state as a result of globalization?

Some of theorists on globalization point out that a leading concern among national governments and politicians globally, which is the contradictory threat of cultural homogenization or heterogenization. I've been interested in this idea since the first time I read about it three years ago and I've finally seen exactly how it plays out- oddly, by the weirdos at a McCain/Palin rally.

So in this video, a woman that really may be drunk asks, "When did you first hear about
'Obama'?" And she and the folks she's with say the first time they heard about Palin was five weeks ago. For some reason, though, this image, paired with the fear of Obama's "socialist" tendencies got me to thinking.

First, it's one thing to have a socialist policy. It's another thing entirely to be authoritarian. And for people to fail to see that the McCain ticket is verging on authoritarianism, complete with Palin's endorsement of Dick Cheney, scares this shit out of people like me who believe in democracy serving all people, not just those that have the right skin color and who go to the right religious institution. We see his emerging authoritarianism coming out in, say, his slogan, "Country First." In his and Palin's denouncement of the press- and as a journalism doctoral student, I, and all my other journalism colleagues, can tell you that the press is the engine of democracy. To clamp down on it- either rhetorically or legally- is to signal the coming of tanks and martial law. Think V for Vendetta. Think of the USSR. No press freedom means no personal freedom. The press has become a floating signifier in this presidential election that alerts us to the ways that some parties want to clamp down on our civil liberties (because any criticism is from the "liberal" media, and not valid discourse in a fucking democracy), and how other sectors of society (like ACORN and its work to register poor people to vote) want to guarantee our civil liberties...which don't exist in an authoritarian world.

Second, and truly the point of this post, I think I truly identified the contradiction at work here. Republicans want small government, low taxes. They're pro-life, yet eliminate social services. And yet, they're the very first people to cry, "Invasion!" at the sight of immigrants. What I mean is, conservatives, at least as they manifest in 2008, want to pay lower taxes, and yet somehow have a functioning infrastructure. But then, they probably wouldn't mind if it was all privatized- how that would actually save us money is beyond me. But in the very same breath that they misrepresent Obama's tax plan or his health care plan, they start raving about the breach of national security, about how our borders leak like a sieve. So, they're preaching extreme individualism as they simultaneously erect a unitary, bound nation.

They're logic is faulty, if not selfish. But that's the neoliberal country we live in. It's the individual that matters, and not the community. It's obscene to ask anyone to support anyone but themselves, and so national health care, even if it helped the poorest of the poor, is an abomination and infringement on some asshole's freedom. Paying taxes for anything other than defense- and even then, we're just not sure- takes our money away; it doesn't help all people or guarantee a sound infrastructure. Rather than letting the tide rise to lift all boats, we still adhere to Reagan's "trickle-down economics." Tell me, when have the rich truly looked out for anyone but themselves? So why should we expect them to let anything trickle anywhere, much less down?

I'm curious, then, how a person can simultaneously put "Country First" and themselves? You can't. But you can spew hate, condone it, and scare people into submission and a mob mentality. Look around you, folks- that's what McCain/Palin are doing.

This almost made me cry, I miss nursing Katie so much...

Another pick-me-up

A pick-me-up on a rainy day

Warning: Explicit material in no way connected to Katie

No they didn't...

Sweet! Check it out!

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aviator6-2008oct06,0,7633315.story

They went there! It's about time! Yay for the Fourth Estate!

"Goo Ghoul"..."Google"?...Good girl!

We've been dealing with a monster case of diaper rash this weekend. By monster, I mean, nasty little blisters that might be some other sort of yeast infection or something. Almost every diaper- five out of seven today- was dirty, so Katie didn't get a reprieve from having her hiny wiped. By this afternoon, I started thinking it may be related to her diapers: they're an off brand, and may not be so, well, airy. We ran to the grocery store and I got a brand of Pampers recommended on some web site and some senstive skin wipies. We'll see if this helps.

This comes during a three-day stretch that Eric is gone in Dallas for some hob-nob opportunity with his soon-to-be boss. While he's been sleeping in a super-swank hotel, I've been cleaning up after endless poopy diapers and restraining Katie's head to administer antibiotic eye drops because she's also getting over a bad case of conjunctivitis...so Eric will have doctor duty tomorrow should the little blisters not clear up overnight. We even tried going sans diaper a few times today. The first time, Katie knew something was different and kept lifting up her shirt while prancing around the house. I got a few pictures because her little rear end just peeked out beneath her t-shirt. Tonight, though, after tiredness was compounded with thirst and a seriously hurtin' hiny, she stood in front of Eric, no diaper, taking banana slices from him, letting it all air out... and peed on the floor...I only noticed when I felt a sprinkle on my foot.

And now the cute stuff: my little drama queen, as adorable as she is, hates many a thing these days. She doesn't like to eat much more than bananas ("nanas"), cookies, or crackers (she can sorta say both of those) and milk. She hates doctors- seriously, when the doc physically moved away from the computer Tuesday and towards her, she started crying hysterically. She hates stethoscopes, ear-looky-thingys, all things doctor's office, except walking around it and taking books off the shelves. If we start to walk into her room together, she starts to squirm and complain and if we put her on her changing table...I guess, in short, she loves creating mayhem, but not too much on the order side of things. She loves, loves, loves to push things around (I guess, on many levels) and can spend all day rotating between pushing her little stroller, to pushing her high chair, to pushing her train, to a scrap of paper or magnet from the fridge...Oh- and did I mention, tantrums? Like the one she's throwing this very minute because I took my phone away that she was gleefully dialing someone- Lord knows who- on? And yes, generally, the tantrums are terribly cute- especially the times she gets so mad she shakes her fists at us. It's work to keep a straight face.

But, still, she's my angel. Really. And everytime we say "no" and she corrects herself, we say, "Good Girl!" Her vocabulary goes in stops and starts- we seem to be in a "dog-gy" rut at the moment- but the other day, she started say "good girl" back to us. Today, when we'd finish an especially tedious diaper change, she says, "Good girl" to me, to which I say, "Yes, you are!" Of course, it sounds more similar to "Goo Ghoul" or "Google"... but I know what she means.

Okay- off to stem this tantrum and stir the green curry chicken...

Why I'm a union member

The AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka:

Campbell Brown, ladies and gentlemen

I'm starting to get a little embarassed

You know, I may have underestimated just how silly Oklahoma is. I don't know exactly how I forgot- it's kinda why I was trying to get the hell out of there in the first place. Over the past three years, I'd go home and remember...it wouldn't take long. Some headline on my in-laws' copy of the Oklahoman would remind me. But I forgot- it may just be the most fundamentalist state in the union. Really.

The really scary, scary, scary thing is that's okay with some folks. Like, they don't get why it's a problem to, you know, circulate fictitious, race-baiting emails about one of our presidential candidates and predict the end of the world upon Obama's election. I love some of these people, I really do, but it's beginning to make me a little embarrassed that Americans are so blinded by the Right's lies that they believe shit so ridiculous. That it would even give them pause, rather than comparing the candidates' platforms, paints a rather bleak picture of our country. I gotta say, perhaps those Founding Fathers (and I use that term cautiously) had it right when they didn't trust the American people. We're kinda proving them right in our inability to judge facts and evidence, rather than what belief system people adhere to and it's pros and cons.

It's a possibility that I'm perpetuating the belief that "traditional" peoples are backward; but in this case, people who use the Bible to justify their political beliefs are truly threatening the safety of this nation. They're using Jesus Christ to justify war- and then claiming that Muslims are the barbarians.

And what if Obama was a Muslim? Last I checked, the Constitution guarantees his right to be whatever religion he wants to be, even if it were some marginalized fundamentalist Christian sect that condones and even plans to overthrow or assassinate American leaders. But you don't see Christian groups being categorized as terrorists- unless, of course, they happen to be led by a brown-skinned man speaking of the continued oppression of his people. In that case, an American citizen (whose white mother was forced to cancel all her public appearances due to her untimely death from cancer) has his feet held to the fire because of his alleged religious affiliations, yet Sarah Palin's pleas to God to get that Alaskan pipeline and her conflation of the Iraq War with the 9/11 attacks go by with no problem.

Seriously, people, stop drinking the fucking Kool-Aid. This is getting embarassing. See it for the race-baiting that it is- those emails are NOT about the truth, although they may reveal the true character of some Americans who don't hesitate to believe that a Muslim being president is the worst thing that could happen to this country. It's not our decreasing civil liberties that scares fundamentalists- the very liberties that ensure their right to practice their religion freely- it's not the encroaching police state as evidenced by McCain's doublespeak- lies are truth and truth are lies, in spite of verifiable evidence to the contrary- it's the specter of a brown man with an unusual background that scares fundamentalists. It's his message of hope in a society accustomed to leaders (religious and governmental) using fear to pacify the masses. Our country has assassinated others for their message of hope and change, and we continue to assassinate Obama's character with these hateful, fictitious, RACIST messages circulating in cyberspace.

Don't buy into it, people. Please, for the love of God, don't.

Finally popping that bottle of champagne...

Dad bought it for us in July for our anniversary. Eric was leaving for Dallas the next morning, and then I was studying for comps, and then...there was always an excuse. Now that I've passed comps, and Eric has accepted a job offer in Dallas, we're drinking it.

okay, so who cares? why am I writing about this tonight? Well, it's midnight, the crickets are singing outside my window, Katie's sleeping soundly, and Eric and I are both working while celebrating. Yeah, lame. I know. I finished one cover letter and my CV tonight. Oh- and found a friend on MySpace that I've been looking for for years. She's my long-lost, much smarter "twin" Tiffany Mindt. If you know us, you know we look like sisters. I hope we work in the same department next year, because we thought so similarly as undergrads at OU.

Getting excited about moving, but had the same bout of depression while looking at the housing offerings online that I had before moving here.

One important thing: Katie is cutting a molar, if not many of them. She went into her room this afternoon, started crying her in-pain cry, and while her mouth was wide open, I noticed the tooth poking through. Yet, she sleeps soundly right now. We have such an awesome kid, you know that?

So everyone keep their fingers crossed that I'll have a job next year, or a fellowship. Reactions to applying for tenure track run from aghast to oblivious. I'll take oblivious- he's promised me fantastic letters of recommendation. I've also lectured in front of 300 undergrads in a pinch, though, so...Going tenure-track while ABD is challenging, but I want to tell them that being $70,000 in the hole for this little education of mine is quite the incentive to finish the damn thing. I'm grateful, nonetheless.

More words from Katie

1. School
2. Cracker
3. Bear (she doesn't quite have the "r," but we know what she means when she's holding up her teddy bear)
4. Bye-bye

And, she loves to kiss her stuffed animals' noses. She'll kiss them on the nose and then try and eat the nose. Super cute, particularly because she's rather stingy with her kisses for Mommy and Papa.

And why I think Obama's the best person for the job...

Hi, Brad! There was some debate over which Brad this was (Croy or Henderson...)

So, the issues I agree with specifically:
1. Based on the advice of military experts, Obama has pledged to remove troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
2. He and Biden are committed to multilateral diplomacy and rebuilding the US's alliances around the world, unlike the pre-emptive and unilateral policies of Bush (which McCain endorses). This, I feel, can make strides towards counteracting the US's policies the past eight, if not 40 years that has led to our current positions re: the "War on Terror."
3. Obama/Biden are pro-choice and resoundingly back reproductive rights, efforts to combat violence against women, gender-equitable medical research and stem cell research.
4. Their platform states, and independent research backs them up, that they would lower taxes on the income levels that most need it, unlike McCain, who would make Bush's tax cuts permanent, "lower taxes" in general (supposedly) while making health care premiums taxable.
5. Universal health care.
6. His labor policies in general: raising the minimum wage, working to protect unions and workers' right to organize, and to amend NAFTA and combat CAFTA.
7. Obama/Biden pledge to increase the Family Medical Leave Act and to work for other legislation that would make balancing family and work easier, such as paid leave and adding leave to the FMLA that would allow parents to take off work for their children's academic activities.

What he does that McCain doesn't:
1. He doesn't employ a politics of fear to sway voters. In his words, "It's never been about me. It's about you." He conjures hope.
2. He has demonstrated through the types and amount of legislation that he has authored, co-authored/sponsored that he can operate bipartisan-ly (if you can say it that way).
3. He's never stood idly by and laughed while someone called Hillary Clinton a bitch; that is, he doesn't have a long history of treating women like shit (such as, offering his current wife up to the Miss Buffalo Chip contest at Sturgis or calling her a cunt when she teased him about his thinning hair; divorcing his first wife when she was incapacitated in a wheel chair; ogling Palin in public, etc, etc.).
4. Obama did not get where he is based on his family pedigree; he made it to Harvard on skill and intelligence, not because his daddy was an admiral/Senator/CIA director. Not that I have anything against those with such a pedigree, but our current crop (Bush/McCain) certainly don't make the case that good breeding really amounts to...anything but a bunch of misanthropes.
5. Obama has a history of engaged public service, as much as Palin/the GOP wants to denigrate the role community organizers play in getting shit done and changing people's lives.
6. He doesn't conflate faith and democracy. He doesn't exploit the religious right for personal gain. Although, he was put through the ringer for his religious affiliation (and, for the record, I think Rev. Wright hit the nail on the head), unlike Palin and her wackjob "pray for a gas pipeline."
7. His neoliberal rhetoric isn't as nearly exploitative of global workers, or at least takes into account the situation of global workers. He's pro-labor.
8. He uses the fucking internet. He doesn't claim to have invented the Blackberry. He doesn't have a brigade of lobbyists working for his campaign. He used U2 for his campaign song, and isn't a member of a party that keeps getting cease and desist orders from artists who do not want their music associated with him.
9. Obama is in no way associated with the devil incarnate, Karl Rove. Having Rove in your employ should immediately disqualify any future candidate from contention for the presidency as it reflects directly on their judgment and character.

Can I fit this in to 45 minutes?

I'm actually going out tonight- a friend from the union is in town to defend her dissertation, and since I passed my comps, I'm game for some shenanigans. Anyways, I've got to go in about 45 minutes, but this has been on my mind for a few days.

Somehow, I entered into the abortion discussion Tuesday. And somehow, Eric Baker- an old friend of my husband's who I have never met- was directed to my blog (yeah. Thanks, Larry). And somehow, we got into a spat.

I don't apologize. I'm not sorry for anything I've written (maybe I should be... but I'm just not). But I feel a little inane for having ventured into that topical terrain; in my rather insular world in grad school, pro-choice is a given. It needs no explanation, and certainly no explication of the logical fallacies of the "other" side of the issue.

But I realize Iowa City is unique, even as college towns go. It's not called the Republic of Iowa City for nothing. And I know that when we move to Dallas in December (yes! We are!), I will no longer be one of many but will instead be the wingnut, like I so kindly called Mr. Baker and those who share his beliefs. I haven't been gone so long from Oklahoma to forget how, shall we say, special it is in terms of its ardent conservatism; I mean, the politicians were still debating freakin' cockfighting when we moved away three years ago. It was a shock- a shock, I tell you- to move somewhere you could actually distinguish between the Democrats' and Republicans' platforms and where the Democrats didn't try to out-Republican the Republicans (I'm thinking the Carson-Coburn race here). And, after all, it was the Texas delegation that, in the name of "compassionate conservatism," bowed their sweet little heads in prayer when a gay Congressman spoke at the RNC in a few years ago.

But, I come back south with an agenda. I won't be quiet about it; my husband certainly knows what's on my mind. I'm writing my dissertation on Oklahoma simply to criticize the hell out of the place I (maybe hesitantly) love and call home.

My point: the "abortion is murder" position is flawed for so many reasons, namely that it reduces something as emotionally and ideologically fraught as pregnancy into a life or death issue- that is, the baby's life or death. Not the mother's. In this position, the mother is completely elided and subsumed under the "rights" of a entity that cannot sustain itself outside of her. I love being a mother. I can't wait to be pregnant again. But that doesn't mean I have the right to assume that every woman loves being a mother or wants to be pregnant, much less to force them to be a mother, at all costs.

In this country, we have the right to our own beliefs, and the right to resist the imposition of others' beliefs upon us. Furthermore, the reductionist argument that abortion is murder, or, put another way, the criminalization of abortion that once existed in this country and that certain sectors are trying so hard to re-introduce, led to the deaths of women across society. Not only did women die directly from back-alley abortions, but they also died from the system in which this ideology was a part that allowed and even condoned violence against them in a myriad of ways: domestic violence, sexual violence, numerous pregnancies that strained their bodies to death.

Because that's just it; the reductionist "abortion is murder" argument fails to take into consideration so many contigencies that I think ultimately cancel out its worth. If you don't condone abortion in any instance, what do you do if, around week 28 of an otherwise healthy pregnancy, you find your wife has preeclampsia and they need to induce labor, despite the risk to the baby? I mean, if the "life" inside the mother is ultimately more satisfying, is there ever an instance when it takes the backseat? Does the mother ever come first? This example follows the trajectory of the "abortion is murder" argument; the baby comes first. But should it always?

Perhaps more disturbingly, I realized as I cooked dinner tonight that the reductionism of the abortion is murder position is analogous to the reductionism that landed us in Iraq. It's this same black-and-white approach to ethical questions, the very same approach that ignores contingencies, and yet extrapolates one belief or position onto every decision that has landed us in war. It leads directly, although perhaps not quickly, to violence.

This is what feminism responds to. In a feminist world, women are respected. We are all equals. Women are not objects of violence. Women, indeed, all people, are free. In yours, Eric Baker, women, literally and figuratively, die.

One more reason why NOT McCain

Loads of unadulterated cuteness

Our weekend jaunt to the Twin Cities

Who are we voting for?

I can't speak for Eric, but I'm voting for Obama. I thought that would be apparent based on my blog...but evidently not.

In response:

There is so, so much other stuff I should be doing than fuming over Mr. Eric Dion Baker’s response. But you know what? I am so sick and tired of the Right’s strangle-hold on discourse in this country, their laughable belief that somehow their beliefs are under attack in the U.S. – yeah, as if Christianity could disappear from this country. As if. I am so sick of their appropriation of the values of democracy and their blindness to the GOP’s appropriation of Christianity for the GOP’s political gain- in short, I am so sick of the ignorance that comes with the GOP’s appropriation of so-called “compassionate conservatism” that gave us the last eight years of economic deterioration and introduced the beginnings of a totalitarian police state…I am so sick of people who would rather have someone who’s “human” (you know, because her 17 year-old daughter gets pregnant like so many other 17 year-olds, or because he can’t freakin’ pronounce “nuclear” -apparently like so many other West Texans) than someone who’s knowledgeable, intelligent, deliberate, and thoughtful be the leader of free world. Just because someone proclaims they read the Bible does not mean they do. And just because they proclaim they read your interpretation of the Bible, does not mean they are fit to lead the U.S. Get it?
But most importantly, I am so sick and tired of Right-wingers foreclosing conversation. I am so sick of the “my way or the highway” mentality that comes with the Right wing, although it is often couched in the form of “debate” or discussion. An example:

I think that since your side advocates the choice of abortion, and my side advocates the choice of life, perhaps we could both come together and advocate for the choice of abstinence. After all, which is safer, wear a bullet-proof vest or take the bullet out of the gun? Since you're pro-choice, maybe I should give you a third option of just getting shot and going to the hospital to have the bullet taken out.

Hahaha. Ha. How very McCain-“Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran” of you, Mr. Baker. Let me make this clear: I understand that somewhere, somehow, some Christian way back when made it seem as if there was only one way and that way was the only right way…ever stop to think that that’s the same way other people think, you know, like those “Islamo-fascists” the Right’s hell-bent on eliminating?

But the fact is, there is not ONLY one way to think, to live, to interact, to love, to die in this world. Somewhere, way back when, that was what someone wanted you/us to believe. But you know what happens when a group of people think that there is only one way, and that way- their way- is the ONLY way of living, and that everyone should be constructed in their image? I’ll give you a few examples:

1. Because they were not white Europeans, Africans were exported from Africa and traded, bought and sold as property. They were not white males, and so they were property.

2. Because they were not white Europeans, the Native American population in this country has been systematically slaughtered and annihilated, even through the present.

3. Because they were not white European males, women were denied the right to vote and access to the public sphere. This made it okay to beat your wife, to throw her on the street, to deny her access to her children, to strip her of any property she may have inherited from her family, to deny her U.S. citizenship if she married a foreigner. It made it okay for a man to rape his wife, to have sex with her whenever, wherever, and to force numerous pregnancies on her until she died from them. It made it obscene to teach women how to prevent pregnancy, or even to know how she got pregnant. Get that? It was illegal. Even in the context of marriage, a woman could not say, “No.” Tell me how that’s okay? Better yet, tell me when the hell a man has EVER had that problem?

You know what else happens when you buy into the groupthink? You get blinded to when you’re getting taken for a ride, a la GOP-style. You close your eyes. You stop questioning. You elect a puppet douchebag like George W. Bush and vote for a political party that has never once done something that’s actually in your best interest. And you acquiesce to the atrocities of the last eight years.

But because I am a woman, however, I do NOT surrender my body to you or to anyone else. Case en pointe: we are treated as objects, as animals, which is what your post accomplishes in your rhetorical pairing of human pregnancy with animal gestation. I am not commensurate to an animal, as your analogy makes it seem. Does your wife know, Mr. Baker, that you consider her to be the same as a dog, cat, or other various livestock? And is that the thanks you give her for bearing your five children? Your rhetorical choice is compelling, though, because it is indicative of the culture in which we live: women’s labor is “owned” and not appreciated, it is discarded as simply “reproduction” and “just what women do.” Because, according to you, women, as a part of their "nature," “like being mothers” and they would rather “see their child’s first steps” than “hear about them.” And you know this, I suppose, because you’re a man, which I guess means you know better than a woman what a woman wants to do, or what is in her “nature” to be. You know what? You remember a woman named Andrea Yates? Her husband didn’t ask her what she wanted, ignored her Post-Partum Depression, and you remember what happened?

So, no, Mr. Baker, abortion is not about murder. It is about power, pure and simple. It is about asking- no, expecting, demanding- women to sacrifice their lives- their very selves- to abdicate any control over their selves and their very being- when reciprocity is never asked of men and there is simply no similar or analogous situation for men. Take your completely infuriating disregard for the violence of rape as one point on the spectrum of disregard and disrespect for women. Furthermore, your erroneous “pro-life” discourse is part and parcel of the totalizing discourse that enslaves Africans, that slaughters Native Americans, and that subjugates women. It all flows from the same logic and thinking, although you like to think it’s somehow contained within the pages of your seemingly timeless, ahistorical Bible. It’s not, and if it were, you can have it. I don't want to be part of a religion that subordinates anyone for any reason.

If we lived in a society that respected women as human beings, equal to men, we would not have the specter of abortion- women would be armed with the tools to prevent pregnancy, either by using birth control or not having sex, until they were ready.

So, please, Mr. Baker, stop speaking for me and stop speaking for what women are or want. At least give us that respect. That’s not to say that I won’t stop name-calling, because I truly think you drink the Kool-Aid. If the past eight years (maybe even the past 40) hadn’t been so freakin’ ridiculous with Rightwing nutcasery, I might have the patience to be polite. But I just don’t anymore. I’m not like some of my liberal counterparts- I’ll call it like I see it.

As for women, we know for ourselves. I mean, historically speaking, men like you have thought that we needed you to do just this, to tell us what we like to do, what makes us happy, but we don’t. Your wife takes care of five children- it seems that’s her “role” and nothing else to you- she can obviously handle herself. Let her speak for herself. More importantly, let me and other women speak for ourselves. We don’t need you or men like you. We never have.