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.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
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.
Monday, November 17, 2008
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?
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?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
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):
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.
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.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
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.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
"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.
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.
Monday, November 3, 2008
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.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
