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: