I Heart the Internet

I found this cute patch to iron on to a new jacket for PK. Only the instructions, including the all-important "do I use medium or high heat?" question, were all in Japanese.

First hit on google gave me the answer I needed.

Result: super cute personalized fall jacket for PK. I rock.

"The most deadly of things are the two that are red, gold and saffron."

Heard of the Women's League of Burma? It's is a multi-ethnic umbrella organization of twelve ethnic women's organizations from the multi-ethnic military dictatorship Myanmar, formerly (and still, by opponents of the dictatorship) called Burma. You probably know Aung San Suu Kyi, who was elected Prime Minister in 1990 in the only democratic election since the military took power in 1962; the results were nullified and she was put under house arrest, where she's been on and off (mostly on except for 1995-2000) ever since. She has chosen to stay in Burma rather than leave to join her husband (who died in 1999) or children, who live in the UK. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

Right now, Suu Kyi is in Insein Prison, notorious for its harsh conditions, after she "met" with 1000 monks who had marched to the gate of her house as part of a series of peaceful demonstrations by Buddhist monks against the government, now beginning to be called the "Saffron Revolution." This is the second major set of protests this year--there was another in April--and the first time that the country's monks have led the dissent.

Also on August 22, monks withdrew spiritual services from all members of the Burmese military. Two days later a march of 100,000, led by 20,000 monks and 150 nuns who had joined the monks the day before, marched in Yangon. Yesterday there was a huge military crackdown in the city; here you can see some video, including the shooting of a Japanese journalist at about 3:44; at 3:36 you can see the soldiers pushing the man towards his execution. (Link via Left Wing Nutjob.)


The monks have been locked in their monasteries and internet services have been cut off (though the American Association for the Advancement of Science, working with Burmese groups, has made available satellite images of villages being burned and civilian relocations). A U.N. Special Envoy has been sent to Rangoon to "intervene" and hopefully meet with Suu Kyi. Food aid, which had been cut off, has been allowed again at one northern port.

There has been criticism of Burma's neighbors China, India and Thailand for not joining major world leaders (including the U.S.) in issuing statements criticizing the crackdown--China even vetoed a U.N. Security Council Resolution against Burma in January. But Burma's economic importance to the East as a source of oil and natural gas means that, as one Thai leader frankly admitted, such statements are unlikely to come.

The Thai junta leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin got it about right when he stunned human rights activists with his blunt comments this week that Thailand wouldn't oppose the junta because they would lose out on natural resources. "In fact, the Burmese government has many friendly nations who stand ready to help, including China and Korea, because Myanmar is a nation with a wealth of natural resources; many superpowers want to go in," the general told TITV. "Therefore, no matter what happens to that country, many countries are secretly protecting it. This is the intelligence of some superpowers with whom we [Thailand] are friendly. If we get involved, our relationship with them may be damaged."

So that's what the Women's League of Burma is up against. A group of women world leaders, convened (to her credit) by Condoleeza Rice, is writing to put pressure on the government, at the suggestion of Phillipines president Arroyo, who also spoke at the U.N. before the meeting. (Interestingly, Filipina women's organizations seem to have played a role in the formation of the Burma Women's League.) Here is the statement and list of signatories.

Now, if you've read all that and are having that "but what can I do" feeling, you can add your little bit by visiting the website for the U.S. Campaign for Burma, where you can donate and find a list of other things to do, including an upcoming protest in Houston and potentially Los Angeles. If you're on a campus somewhere, you could organize a march to raise awareness, like they did at Harvard.

Post inspired by Jon Swift. Some of us know that when someone of that name holds your feet to the fire, you better get hopping.

Friday (?) links

It's remotely possible that I might actually follow through on one of my ideas and make this Friday link thing a regular feature. It would save me a lot of guilt over the fabulous emails you all send about possible blog topics that I don't get around to posting on.....

........

3. And on the subject of academia,

I'ont wanna take anything away from this Bollinger character, 'cause he did good, but basically if you boil it down, all that happened was Ahmadinejad got a stern talking to from a teacher. I mean, is that the newest weapon in the war on terror, getting blessed out by a college administrator? Are we gon airlift a bunch of university presidents into Iraq? i mean, that's like getting yelled at by Frasier.

..........

4. NoNym sent me this link with the laconic summary, "Local town bans illegals. Recession follows." The mayor of the town says

“I don’t think people knew there would be such an economic burden,” said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance.

DUH.

..........

5. Check out Open Vault; it's an educational Web site featuring video clips and interview transcripts from WGBH, with stuff geared towards higher ed. There is, for instance, a nice collection of video clips on feminist history/women's studies. The site interface could be a little more intuitive--you have to hunt for the pull-down menu to narrow down the subfields in the various categories, for instance--but as academicish/public works type interfaces go, it's a lot nicer than most.

..........

6. In case any of you need ammo next time some asshole tries trotting out the "women lack the upper body strength to serve in the military" bullshit: a NYT article that profiles a Mayo Clinic doctor and points out that different body types have different physical advantages in different situations. Who'da thunk.

.............

7. New Delhi plans to give garbage collectors gloves, boots, and aprons in honor of Gandhi's birthday.

The waste collectors are underwhelmed by the move. They do not want gloves, they say. They want wages, pensions, health care, uniforms that they hope will discourage police harassment, education for their children and decent housing.

Currently the only money they earn is "donations" from individuals and whatever they can glean by recycling the stuff they find picking through the trash.

............

8. Scandalized? Well, we're not planning on giving manicurists protective gear, or even acknowledging the health risks to their lungs, nervous systems, reproductive systems, livers, kidneys, immune systems, and eyes. For an average wage of $17,000/year.

..........


9. A follow up to Orange's post yesterday: did anyone see the P.O.V. (which I love) documentary about the women's rights situation in the Congo that ran ten days ago?



As so often, I missed it (along with Made in LA, darn it) because my tv reception sucks and so I seldom watch tv, even though the stuff on P.O.V. is consistently awesome (btw, 5 Girls premieres on Oct 2). I just figured out that their "check local listings" popup lets you ask them to send you email updates about particular shows, though: teh awesome.

Anyway, in conjunction with the "Femicide" film, they've got an interview by Ms.'s Michele Kort with Eve Ensler and Christine Schuler Deschryver, who works at a center to treat fistula in Bukavu, Congo. Definitely worth reading, or you can download it on mp3 and listen to it instead.

10. Finally, another PBS site, this time with web-only content. It's called Borders and it looks really neat. The latest show is called "American ID," on the topic, "What is America to You?" and it's all interactive and educational and cool and shit. A totally virtuous and yet addictive use of your Friday internet time. (Right now I'm just running the front page in the background b/c it has a lovely recording of singing birds.)

Jesus Wept . . . . With IRRITATION

Seen on the back of a Cadillac Escalade:

Don't let the car fool you
My real treasure is in Heaven.

Beware of the Big Dog

The definitive response to that MoveOnAd bullshit protest in the fucking Congress. If only we could get Elizabeth Edwards and Bill Clinton guarding the White House, there'd be some liars, thieves, and trespassers running out of Congress with their asses chewed on, but good.

Courtesy of the apostropher.

Seeing Orange

Orange who has guest blogged here don'tcha know, writes to me and says:


You have a much larger readership and reach than I do, so I hope you can link to this speech by a Canadian named Stephen Lewis. Lewis's foundation is dedicated to HIV/AIDS in Africa, but this particular speech is about the atrocities against women that continue to rage unchecked in the Democratic Republic of Congo, particularly in the eastern Congo.

In short, systematic and widespread rape, gang rape, mutilation, torture, instrumental rape, gang rape followed by vaginal shooting or stabbing, and so on, affecting many tens of thousands of women (if not hundreds of thousands). What is going on in the Congo is apparently worse than Darfur, has gone on for years longer than Darfur, and yet gets no international action, no international pressure, no intervention to protect the female human beings in that country.

I am not sure what the average American can do. Urge our senators and congresspeople to urge Bush and our UN ambassador to urge the UN to take action? For starters, at least we can increase visibility of the problem and hopefully get more people aware and motivated to act.

What say you? I hope you'll post something and nudge others with even bigger audiences to speak out. Thanks for your consideration.

There's no saying no to Orange, who is one of the two bestest people on the internets, as far as I am concerned. The other one is our friend Flea, who has just told me where I am having PK's next birthday party, I think.

I have to get a job

I spent all morning in Pseudonymous Kid's classroom helping the kids with writing. Then I went and had lunch in the cafeteria (which has gotten better than it was when I was a kid, I have to say), and then I went and read with the kids and then I went and gardened with them until school was out. Since none of the kids other than PK had rain boots, they all got their shoes muddy, and I told them that they should tell their parents that they need rain boots or else they will have muddy shoes when we garden.

Clearly I just need to get back in the classroom and be paid for it, man.

After school I hitched a ride from another mom rather than biking home and left PK to go to his after-school program. Now I have to clean the kitchen because the babysitter is going to pick him up at the after-school program in a couple of hours and bring him home for dinner before she takes him to a skate party while Mr. B. and I go talk to a therapist about the fight we had this weekend in which I threw a tantrum and deliberately smashed a glass on the bathroom floor. (Then of course I had to sweep and vacuum. Talk about your pyrrhic gestures.)

Since I left my bike at PK's school, I don't have any way to go get a birthday present for the kid throwing the skate party. I wonder if it would be irredeemably tacky to put ten bucks in a card and call it done.

Brava

Katha Pollitt in today's NYT:

What does all this girlish confession on your part say about the current state of feminism?

Not a thing. It says that people are complicated and everyone has a mysterious inner life.

Are you a Hillary supporter?

In this country we have a real problem with women and power. If people don’t stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her.

Also, in the accompanying photo, she looks fabulous. Which I really needed, because I'm starting to be stupidly anxious about my upcoming 40th birthday. Let's please have more photographs of older women who look great *and* look their age, rather than stupid-ass photo spreads of older women who look great because they look twenty years younger than they really are, thank you.

Too Easy

I was amazed to see this up over at C&L, with over 300 comments, and none made the joke that was so obvious I swear to god I thought it was the real point of the poster until I looked more closely at the faces.


. . . so please, donate now to the American Conservative College Fund and help send these kids to college. Because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

The good, the bad, and the ugly

The good

If you missed San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders's moving speech yesterday about why he did NOT sign an anti-gay supported a pro-gay marriage referendum in his city, go watch it. It's really moving and brave and the kind of shit you wish more leaders would do.

Check out Samantha Bee on the Daily Show, asking is America ready for a woman president?!? for a much-needed laugh.

The Women's World Cup is in the quarterfinals. We play England tomorrow.

Oops.

New Jersey Judge gets it right:

"On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of the common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for New Jersey's highest court.

The decision, citing past rulings, said the court "will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public" on when life begins.

Lynn Paltrow adds a few choice thoughts.

The bad

Lest you get too optimistic, though, anti-abortion bigots have been pretending that a new Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora, IL violates some kind of
local values. Yesterday they got a judge to help them keep it closed. Planned Parenthood's blogging the story, and they have some live video today.

Isn't it good to know that the Senate's paying attention to the important issues? Apo has the roll call of the people who deserve a scolding from their constituents.

The ugly

There's been some questions about why the Jena Six aren't getting more coverage. My battery's dying, but here's a link.

Even worse, a reader asks me why the hell I haven't said anything about the horrific race-based gang rape and torture of a woman and her son in West Virginia. For a week. She points out that the black blogosphere knows what's up and asks where the hell the white women are at on this one? It's a good question. Here's the latest news on the story.

Larry Summers: Zombie or Pirate?

Hrm. Herr Professor Mr. Eric Rauchway, who I have just gobs of respect for (and who I think is a pretty right-on feminist dude, btw), argues that the Regents of the University(ies) of California ought not to have "disinvited" Larry Summers (who I have little to no respect for) from speaking, on the grounds that academic freedom requires us to be open, even welcoming, to controversy.

Summers's case differs. Here, the objection came from within the community of scholarly inquirers at UC Davis who organized a petition signed by UC professors who believe it "inappropriate at a time when the University is searching for a new president" to invite Summers, who "has come to symbolize gender and racial prejudice in academia" since his clash with African American Studies professor Cornel West and his 2005 comments on genetic differences in scientific aptitude between men and women.

You might think this looks a lot like the case of Edward Ross--in both, a northern California university doesn't want to hear from an economist talking the sociology of innate differences. But there are key distinctions. Summers doesn't work here and, as one of his Harvard colleagues points out, he doesn't have the right to "speak anywhere and everywhere" or indeed on everything.

What's more, academic freedom depends on reactions like the response to Summers's 2005 comments. Knowledgeable scholars including the sociologist (and my colleague) Kim Shauman explained that there was actually a great deal more research into, and knowledge of, the ways women founder in scientific careers than Summers had originally suggested. Summers, Shauman said, was "uninformed." As the economist Brad DeLong noted, "Summers's views on gender, genetics, and math achievement are almost certainly wrong, are unsupported, and should not be pushed forward by somebody who is twenty years beyond the stage of his career where you throw out lots of unfiltered ideas in the belief that what matters is the quality of your best one." For the scholarly community to retain its rights, it must present evidence and argument to define what is and isn't good scholarship--that's how the ideas of, say, an Edward Ross become known as bad sociology.

So far, I was expecting Rauchway to say something like what I asked him in an email about this piece, to wit:

Summers made some uninformed, unsupported comments about a field not his own, informed scholars pointed out that he did so, and it's a threat to scholarly freedom to explore controversial subjects that he was disinvited? You seem to be saying not that he was controversial, but that he was unscholarly.

But what Rauchway was actually arguing in the TNR piece is that

By succumbing to a demand that they reject a controversial, though--as a former treasury secretary, university administrator, and respected economist--obviously relevant speaker, the Regents have suddenly made life much more difficult for those of us in the business of presenting controversial, if relevant, ideas and guest speakers on UC campuses. Casting someone as utterly outside the university's conversation is the severest penalty we as scholars can impose--appropriate perhaps to Holocaust deniers and such ilk as exhibit a chronic impenetrability to reason. Lawrence Summers, though he said some things well worth objecting to, falls well short of that standard. By applying this ban to him, the Regents suggest an impossibly low tolerance for controversy at the University of California.

So part of my confusion is: why was he invited to speak in the first place, and on what topic? And moreover, I think Rauchway is conflating "unscholarly" with "controversial" (a conflation, to be sure, that a lot of Summers's critics and defenders have made all along).

So as I said, I emailed Rauchway (who hopefully will come talk with us in comments here), and pointed this out, and he offered a pretty good analogy, which stumped me for a bit:

Here's the analogy that sticks in my head: I invite Noam Chomsky to talk about US foreign policy. (I wouldn't, but suppose I did.) He's not actually a foreign-policy scholar, he's a linguist. But he's become a prominent, and controversial, speaker on that subject. It would be a cinch to get a few hundred signatures on a petition that reads, "it is inappropriate at a time when the country is at war to invite someone who has come to symbolize knee-jerk anti-American sentiment."

Would I be meant to cave in and disinvite Chomsky at that point? I say, no: he's a perfectly legitimate teaching resource. But the regents apparently say, yes.

Like I say, it stumped me for a bit. On further thought, I think it's kind of a false analogy, though. First, because Chomsky has quite a reputation for arguing, writing about, and speaking on U.S. foreign policy: he has an established reputation in that field. Summers made a one-off stupid speech (which he claimed was based on scholarly evidence that he didn't produce) which blew up into a momentary shitstorm; not quite the same thing as a record of thought on the topic. Second, if you think Chomsky's a nutter and present him *as* a teaching resource ("I've invited a nutter to come talk because I know a lot of students read him and I want the opportunity to talk about where his ideas are sound and where they're nutty"), that's a very different thing from inviting someone with, as I said in email,

a record of hostility to women/minority faculty *as such*, and that kind of thing is a bottom-line non-starter for any legitimate U. pres candidate.

to speak (presumably privately?) to a Board dinner.

That said. I suspect Rauchway is right, even though I myself would neither invite nor want to hear Summers speak (and admittedly this is more feminist, i.e. political, feeling than it is Serious Scholarly Objection to his inexpertise in sociology and women's studies). Certainly he's right in a political sense (though this isn't the argument he's making): disinviting Summers just feeds into the whole anti-feminist, anti-academic right-wing nutso argument about how liberals have taken over the academy and suppressed conservative Truths. Also, it's just kind of tacky and unprofessional to disinvite a speaker based on either peer pressure or information that was broadly known before the invitation was issued in the first place.

I think the Regents are being regenty, which is to say oversensitive to public appearances. Which is of course precisely the kind of thing faculty are supposed to object to. On the other hand, I just can't agree that the Summers argument that women are naturally stupider than men about science and math and stuff is legitimately controversial among intelligent, educated, informed, and intellectually honest people.

Heroine of the week

Ye know what day 'tis, ye scurvy dogs.

So let us all raise a tankard of grog or a bottle o' rum to this bonny wench, name o' Bonnijo Chervenock, from the fine maritime town of Bellingham, Washington. The lass saved a 1780 Jolly Roger from the ravages o' time (ye can eyeball her fine needlework here), and now she's gonna be writin' one a them there dissertation thingies on "the effects of gunpowder on textiles."

Now any pirate can tell you that gunpowder's no friend to flags n' sails, but let's give the lassie her due: 'tis a fine and frisky dissertation topic, and 'twill surely be better readin' than most of 'em.

Oh my

Has it really been that long since I posted? Sorry about that. I had to take PK camping on his school camping trip at the end of last week (fun, but totally exhausting), then I spent Saturday sitting on my ass recuperating, then Sunday poor pretty Jumps died from pneumonia ($100 at the emergency vet in the morning, followed by a late-afternoon death and an evening cremation of Jumps and Brown Beauty, who expired from pneumonia, probably, a couple of weeks ago and had been waiting in the freezer ever since) and there's laundry to be done from camping (Mr. B. did that) and dishes to be done (I did those) and then bam, it's Monday and I'm carpooling kids to school and then taking PK to the dentist afterwards.

All of which means I really have jack diddly to actually *say*. Except that I'm thinking, finally, that the candidate I like best is John Edwards, because he seems to be the only one of the three Democratic probabilities who has that "vision" thing and isn't campaigning, for god's sake, by emphasizing how moderate and willing to compromise he is. That and his health-care plan, while too effing complicated by half (just like all the others--for god's sake, people, let's just go single-payer and let people buy private insurance to supplement if they want to), at least requires a public Medicare-type plan to be an option for everyone. Of course Cliton's newly announced plan looks awfully similar to Edwards's, and I would really like an excuse to prefer Hillary. But I just keep feeling that of the three major candidates, Edwards is the one who's the most likely to do something about the exploding wealth gap and the American underclass. And I'm just not sure I think Hillary's going to take on the erosion of civil liberties if she ends up being the woman in power.

I don't give a shit what the candidates' positions on Iraq are, because I haven't the first fucking clue myself what the hell we should do about that mess we created (other than *not* "stay the course") so I'm in no position to be able to decide whose ideas are the most accurate.

I'm sure Edwards' campaign will receive a huge boost from the Bitch endorsement.

Real Shame

Okay, this shit is genuinely shameful, and I am genuinely ashamed of it.

“I, like you, care deeply about the safety of children,” said [Mattel's] executive, Robert A. Eckert, in testimony before a Senate subcommittee. “I can’t change the past, but I can change how we do things.”

But the toy-testing campaigns promised by the industry are not at all sufficient, members of the Senate panel said, proposing a long list of their own legislative changes that go far beyond what the industry had offered.

The initiatives include an increase in fines for selling dangerous consumer goods and a prohibition _ — backed up by the power to file criminal charges — against retailers’ selling any product that has been recalled.

“This has got to stop,” Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. “It is time for us to take action.”

Oh, it's not selling unsafe toys to American kids that's so shameful. What's fucking shameful is that we--and I include myself--only give a shit about the American kids whose rooms are stuffed to the gills with cheap-ass toys made in sweatshops in China, whose workers are often not much older than children and who not only handle the lead paint or other toxins that we don't want our kids to have even minimal contact with, but do so for 12 hours or more a day, for a few cents per week, while living in cities where the air is polluted by the same industrial toxins that we're suddenly so concerned about.

And yes: we've all known about this for a long, long time. But we haven't collectively cared much. And now our concern is going to mean more pressure on Chinese workers, and Chinese management, to somehow make things that are safer on the consumer end without costing us more money. Which can only mean driving wages down and hours up to make up for increased costs in raw materials.

It's fucking shameful that we're willing to exploit and poison Chinese kids so that our own kids can have Ikea bins filled with plastic doodads and hundreds of felt tip markers and multiple sets of educational magnetic toys. And it's shameful that this is the kind of thing I don't want to talk to Pseudonymous Kid about, because I don't want him to feel guilty about his room full of toys made by slaves.

Vota la Raza

So I'm finally reading Mike Davis's 2001 book Magical Urbanism, and I cannot recommend it too highly to anyone interested in figuring out what's been going on politically under the Bush administration. The one thing the man got right was his claim that the Republicans were going to be the party for Hispanic voters; and if you think that the current anti-immigrant backlash under the Republicans is a mistake for them, well, let's just put it into context.

We all know that Latinos are not only the largest (non-white) ethnic group in the U.S., but also the fastest-growng group, including whites. Contrary to popular racist opinion, by the way, this growth is primarily because of birth rates rather than immigration. Moreover, although Latino growth in the suburbs has become quite rapid, traditionally most growth has been in urban areas.

Now, remember how in the last election we realized that the Red/Blue divide is actually a rural&suburban/urban divide? Guess which important electoral states have Latino populations large enough to affect a statewide presidential vote? Florida, Texas, California, and New York. I don't know what's going on in New York, but in the other three big Latino states, the Republicans have been working their white asses off trying to minimize the impact of the urban, Latino vote.

Under Tom Delay--you know, the guy who was indicted for money laundering and electoral fraud, forced to step down in disgrace, and still hasn't been convicted of shit--Texas redefined its electoral districts to ensure Republican control of the state.

Florida's electoral scandals in 2000 are famous; good ol' Katherine Harris, you'll remember, went on from being Florida Secretary of State and Bush's Florida Campaign Co-Chair to become a member of the House of Representatives. Y'all might recall that much was made of the Florida election's deliberate disenfranchisement of Black voters, but very little was said about the effect of state election shenanigans on Hispanic voters, primarily because people assume that Florida = Cuban = Republican voters. But actually the political power of non-Cuban Hispanics in Florida is growing: in 1996 Clinton won 30% of Florida's Cuban vote but 72% of the Hispanic vote in Florida overall--in other words, non-Cuban Hispanics in Florida vote Democrat. And in the contested 2000 elections, statistics seem to show that 62% went for Gore (not counting, of course, all the people whose votes didn't get counted).

In California this year, we've got the "Presidential Election Reform Act", an initiative that even Fox News says is designed to prevent California from voting Democrat. The idea is that instead of California's 55 electoral votes going to the winner of the state as a whole (usually a Democrat, because the coast, including LA and SF, is blue), the votes would be divided up by district--in other words, all the electoral votes assigned to the center of the state, the huge LA suburbs in Orange County and inland, and the immigrant-panicked San Diego area, would go to the Republicans.

The Latino vote matters in smaller states, too: for example, New Mexico and Colorado both went heavily for Gore in 2000, and Arizona, that bastion of Republicanism, went for Clinton in 1996, partly with the help of the fastest-growing Hispanic population in the country. Post-Katrina New Orleans has shrunk--except for Hispanics--some of whom are illegal, but most are not.

Bush presumably knew this when he came into office talking about making the Republican party the party for American Hispanics, while the Republican lack of support for their own leader's immigration bill demonstrates the party's own response to the "problem" of growing numbers of Latino voters: clam down on immigration, persecute anyone with a Spanish surname or an accent, and suppress the minority vote by shouting about "vote fraud" and intimidating Latinos with threats of deportation or investigation.

Unsurprisingly, the GOP is losing Hispanic support; Bush's goal of getting the Latino vote with his schoolboy Spanish doesn't seem to be able to overcome his own party's bundling of anti-Latino, anti-immigrant, and post-9/11 xenophobic sentiments, especially with known bigot Tom Tancredo actually running for the Republican candidacy.

Sadly, the Democrats seem to be doing the standard white liberal outreach nonsense, rather than putting Latino issues front and center. What do the Dems plan to do to help reinvest in American cities? What do they plan to do about NCLB and anti-bilingual education? What do they plan to do to address the horrific drop-out rate for Hispanic high school students? What, for god's sake, is our plan to support service workers, farmworkers, and industrial workers? Do we have any ideas about how to encourage and support small independent businessowners--restaurateurs, auto mechanics, bodega owners--against chains like Chipotles (owned by McDonalds) or Jiffy Lube or WalMart? How are we going to address the fact that one of the biggest effects of NAFTA (and globalization generally) is to help capital move across borders to set up maquiladores in Mexico and sweatshops in Los Angeles that pay sub-living wages to workers who aren't able to legally cross those same borders to find better-paying jobs? What are the Democratic candidates' positions on international relations with countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean?

Speaking of the Caribbean, one of the things that happens here in the U.S. is that we think of Latinos and Blacks as separate, often adversarial groups. But historically that isn't the case. In fact, the kind of Latino-Black fighting that goes on in, say, Compton--or the arguments about whether Latino immigrants are "taking jobs away from" low-wage blacks--is partly a result of fucked-up infighting over scraps between poor or disenfranchised subgroups in areas where white political and economic elites have consistently underserved poor neighborhoods and low-wage earners. In the short term, this sort of thing serves those same elites: as long as Blacks and Latinos (rightly) see that political leaders of either party aren't going to pay attention to them, turnout among those groups will continue to be low, and local leaders will necessarily focus on local power struggles over whatever minimal resources are available. If and when the two groups start coupling accumulated cultural and political power with growing numbers, however, (and in some Western states, perhaps, if and when Latinos and Indians come together, though this is a more difficult proposition because of the rhetorics of nationalism) white political elites will end up scrambling to keep up, and maybe shunted to the sidelines.

If the Dems can figure this shit out--and if California's anti-urban, anti-Democrat, anti-Latino "Electoral Reform Act" doesn't pass--it may or may not swing next year's election. But it's pretty damn obvious that these things are going to matter more and more in the near future. And any political leader or party who doesn't put Latinos front and center isn't likely to be winning elections for long.

Sporadic blogging ahead...

since my fucking laptop has crapped out. I'm using an account on Mr. B.'s computer intermittently (i.e., when he isn't on it himself), but as y'all know, using a computer not your own is kind of like borrowing someone else's clothes: you do it if you have to, but it feels weird.

Also, since I've had my chat accounts for years, I no longer remember the passwords. So if you happen to be one of the people to whom I like to talk, and you are not seeing me online, that is why.

Suburban Soccer Moms R Us

1. Today was Pseudonymous Kid's third soccer game. Mr. B. was up in Santa Barbara with the car for reasons I'll divulge in a minute, so I had to pack snacks for a dozen kids (cantaloupe, watermelon, grapes, granola bars, and the ubiquitous and wasteful juice boxes, which I actually really do hate) on my bike with the new Mountain Train (verdict: teh awesome, and we get lots of "cool!" from passersby) and get myself and PK down to the soccer field by 9:30 for Team Pictures.

Needless to say, we arrived at 10, I had had neither coffee nor a cigarette yet, the other kids on his team had all finished taking their pics, and I couldn't find the picture form this morning while I was rushing around. Luckily, we were *just* in time for the team picture (which PK took in his Vans rather than his soccer shoes because I forgot to have him change), and then we had about ten minutes before his game to get him into his cleats, borrow a ball from a little girl nearby, take his pic ("stop closing your eyes! smile! don't make faces! NO, don't throw the ball at the camera!"), and sprint over to the field.

Where, as always, PK's team lost, but he *is* getting better. He and I have been working a little bit one-on-one, trying to get him to be more aggressive about getting his foot on the ball, and he was much better about that this time--though he still prefers playing defense, the weirdo.

Then we rode over to the nearby strip mall and I got myself a coffee and a pack of cigs on my credit card, goddamnit, and then I was still not ready to climb back up the hill so we went and I bought about $80 worth of Halloween decorations and the ridiculous Hallmark store because PK's birthday is in late October and he loves Halloween and I am totally rationalizing spoiling him rotten and being an idiot so shut the fuck up already.

2. Our fabulous house with the koi pond and outdoor kitchen? Is (1) gonna be sold out from under us, which solves the "god, can I bear to move?" question for us quite nicely. The owner is offering to sell it to us for only $795k, so, uh, no thanks. There are a couple apartment complexes over by PK's school, and I'm thinking--should we just get a fucking 2br apartment, put most of our shit in storage for a year, and sock money away? Or should we buy a condo and do the same, maybe for a couple years? Hmmmmmm.

BUT. The real point of re-mentioning the fabulous house is that we're putting it to good use by hosting a fundraiser for Mr. Barack Obama (whose campaign Mr. B. is working on, which is why he was in Santa Barbara today, where Obama was giving a speech). So nyah: we're living above our means, but at least we're going to put it to good use. I, myself, am not working on the campaign because I have not yet decided who I really support. My heart is looking for excuses to support Clinton, who I really think would be the best on women's rights issues domestically; my brain is telling me to support Edwards, who I think would also be very good on women's rights and who I think is the only one who currently has the right idea about health care; but I wouldn't *mind* Obama, so. I'm just glad we're living in the States now, so that we can actually *do* this shit.

3. I have a question for y'all. A LOT of you left comments to the last post saying you feel guilty for not wanting a t-t job, or not wanting to be in academia, or not "using" your degrees; and a few people have written me privately or left comments asking if I want another academic job (short answer: probably yes), if I'm looking (not yet), and how I feel about the whole academic thing right now (not really sure; it's complicated). Rather than me trying to come up with an intelligent post on this subject, since I've got y'all rolling now, I'ma ask you guys to help me with this one: if you're an "underemployed" academic or a former academic or a grad student who is secretly spitting out the Kool Aid when your advisor's not looking: why? What went through your head? Was there a time when you "suddenly" realized it wasn't for you, or was it a gradual thing (and what contributed to it?)? And in retrospect (if you have the degree) or right now, if you're still earning it, what do you think of having/earning the degree when you're not planning on "using" it the way you're "supposed" to?

Shame

Okay, so I should be ashamed of:

having so much money
having a koi pond
"whining"
not saving
being greedy
being a social climber
having an "extra" bedroom (aka an office)

And probably a hundred jillion other things too.

But I'm tired of talking about what an asshole I am, and especially what an asshole my little sister is.

Let's talk about you! What assholish things should you be ashamed of, according to Everyone Else?

(Anyone who is perfect and beyond reproach needn't comment.)

Fuck all y'all; how the hell have we been doing it?!?

Results of today's budget figures:

Monthly income: $5400/month (including my SG gig and some disability money for Mr. B. from the VA)

Rent: $2650
Car insurance: $74
Gas (heat and cooking, averaged out over the year): $200
Phone: $40
Long distance: $10
Cells: $95
Internet: $60
Garbage: $8

Slightly discretionary:
Gas (car): $120
Groceries: $600
LA Times: $10 (cancel it)
Ventura County Star: $10 (cancel it)
Netflix: $10

What's leftover, per month, to pay for after-school care, summer camps, books (I buy too many books), eating out, clothes, and stupid shit we don't really need: $1475.

Which means that we have about $369/week discretionary spending for the three of us. Notice our lack of things like a car payment, life insurance (though Mr. B. has some through his job), renter's insurance, and health care deductibles.

Y'all wanna tell me how the hell we've been getting by, given that I spent $368 in July and August eating out, that PK's passport application cost us $128 in July, that I spent about $300 on back to school crap (obviously not all of it was necessary), and that PK's summer camps probably cost us another $300?

Fuck, man. We either gotta move or I gotta get a job. Maybe both. What a pain in the butt.

Rumors, rumors

An anonymous naval officer writes:

We're gong to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussion that are going in is window dressing and perhaps even a red herring. I see what's going on below deck here in the hangars and weapons bays. And I have a sick feeling about how it's all going to turn out.

I believe it. And I also believe that the whole contacting Congress to say no, no, no, is probably just spitting in the wind, but ya gotta do something.