Go, Gopher State!

I love Minnesota politics. And not just because my grandpa was part of it, but b/c of its contributions on the national stage, too. Gene McCarthy's anti-war stance (and Humphrey's tepidness on that very issue as Johnson's VP), Mondale choosing Ferraro, Governor Ventura... and this:It'll be days before we know the end result, but Franken has done an amazing job and this is testament to the ways in which, as a population, Minnesota is open to some creativity.

What About the NEXT Election?

Normally, I don't like to dabble in fear. But there is a nasty underbelly to American society that I think we're being a bit Pollyanna-ish about. It's called the Christian Right. Now, I don't mean the decent church-going folks who spend hours of their week organizing or participating in church activities, nor folks who pass along literature such as Gideon's Bibles to college students, nor even the ideal-minded voter who uses abortion as a litmus test for choosing a candidate. By "Christian Right" I mean the organized and fairly well structured affiliation of groups, causes, and leaders who misconstrue the U.S. Constitution as a religious document, who see the world only from their Christian ideology, who don't separate Christian doctrine from American and Western social norms, and who are currently using irresponsible scenarios to fan the flames of hatred and intolerance. See these two links in particular.

While it seems that this presidential election is offering many of the changes it promised (on both sides), what I fear is what happens in four or eight more years. I admit it seems unlikely that in 2012 or even in 2016 that we will be faced with President Palin, I admit that these years are frought with uncertainty. Hard times call for desperate measures, as the saying goes and the base supporting Palin will likely take this to heart as Paosner's article notes. This base feels that they -- and only they -- are the "real America" in Palin's own words. They are the base from which home-grown terrorists are likely to come in the guise of defending that real America.

Janet Folger, for example, has argued that her opponents are "not advocating tolerance. If that were the case, they'd live and let live. Instead, they do things like demand that the Boy Scouts change their position by accepting homosexuality. And they will sue anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's basically forcing people to embrace their behavior" (source). She conflates "tolerance" with maintaining an intolerant status quo, something which lost in the Boy Scout case anyway. But Folger was funded by Rev. James Kennedy and there are more like him -- from Pat Robertson to Rod Parsley, to James Dobson. These are the names of the Christian Right who have their own funding, their own access to power, and their own versions of what the political fringe understands as madrasahs -- radical schools of fundamentalism -- in order to inculcate their inflexible ideology.

On its own, I'd imagine this ideology might wither and die. I certainly don't think it is popular when exposed for what it is. However, the issues it raises resonate with a lot of voters -- even folks who are now going for Obama. Note how even the good Senator from Illinois has bluntly stated that marriage is between one man and one woman; anything else is just too secular for much of America, despite the fact that sanctioning committed relationships between people is the government's job. A marriage license is, after all, a legal document. Tolerance would be accepting ALL forms and religious sanctioning of the practice, regardless of gender and if you don;t want homosexuals to marry, then don't marry them! Furthermore, the McCain campaign has been warning its base about total democratic control of "all branches of government.. no checks and balances." This is malarkey of the first-order as the Court is still famously balanced, if tilting right for now and even in that center-right tilt, it often rules against the Bush administration. Further, there will still be a minority power in Congress and so the deals will not be signed, sealed, and delivered with no input from the Republicans.

Again, though, the point is how this will all unfold itself in the social fabric. Will a coalition of intolerance form under the guise of "real America" and a "real alternative" sort of like a perversion of the Green Party in 2000? Will home-grown terrorism shift the "War on Terror," apparently further legitimating the charges of government persecution? Or, will economic difficulties once again stir age-old racial tensions and divisions, thus muting the progress we have seen under an Obama candidacy? I think the answer remains murky at best, but I have hope that Obama is smart enough to already see this coming. However, there is a lot not within his control: the economy, the massive shift he proposes to a more eco-friendly manufacturing base, the confluence of intolerant ideologies and ideologues, and public perception of how we collectively handle these and other challenges.

Two-Minute Love Songs

Going into it, I thought Michael Cera is getting typecast, Mark Mothersbaugh soundtracks have run their course, and I questioned what could come of the oft-used plot where uber-hip youths embark on a journey throughout NYC while set to glamorous music and shots of cultural landmarks. Happily, and while these things might indeed be true, the movie is alright. In some respects, it relies upon and is about reinventing the tried and true narratives. Rather than looking for the next big thing, the characters, like Thom, are focused on classics like The Beatles' "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" because they celebrate the little things. It's not about sex and orgasm, but spending time with someone, holding their hand. The movie echoes this same ethos in its concern with the neighborhood places of NYC as opposed to Times Square or Rockefeller Center's ice rink. It's -- and Mothersbaugh's -- love for the mix tape (or CD) reinscribes this ethos. It's not about the next big CD, but the untold little ones, the shifts between bands and songs and the way they get interwoven with our lives.

Sounds a little McCartney-esque, I know, but the movie pulls it off. Where McCartney's ouve suggests it is all about the silly love songs, this movie starts to get at the tension between the big and little. The characters are self-consciously hip, they *do* want (and have) sex, they seek fame to what degree they can. But the self-conscisous attempts at labeling, crafting an image, selling a defined product, or wanting what others want all come to naught. Fame, it would seem, come out of some other activity, some other creative process that eludes the regulated and regulating switchboards of control and mastery. Even more, when the big things rule our lives, we are ruined in the process.

So, the trick is to live within the tension between Desire (big-D) and our desires (little-d). Accept jouissance when it comes (pun intended), but don't ruin it by making it a foundation for action. This seems timely to me, if only because our social jouissance has led us to some grim times. Not long ago there was talk of an endless rise in the market, a swift victory in the middle-east, and an endless Republican majority in government. Yet, for all the values and ethics of Karl Rove, George W., and Dick Cheney, no one ever told them it wasn't about national orgasm. Politics, at its best, is about holding hands.

Younger than McCain

Pretty funny song, but I think the images make it funnier. It's a good use of multimodal literacies.

The Politics of Hope

I'm posting this here and in other places because while it seems fairly slick and is professionally done, it is also why I support Obama. The message and the vision he has combats the cynicism in which we live and breathe in America today. If you watch this and are not moved, if not by the professional and amateurs who freely gave of their talents, then by the message itself and the hope it brings for current and future generations, then you are worthy of pity and I hope something awakens your heart to what is possible and how that is so very different from what has gone before.




If nothing else, something is waking up. You can feel it and hear it on the news. Even if Obama loses the nomination, what stirs will not go gently back to sleep.

Stochastic Quantitative Reasoning

Still on the political thought-train... but I'm thinking of using this article in my writing classes. Holland does a good job of working not just with evidence, but also with the vagaries of probability. Since so many of my students want to just put up some percentages or polling data in support of their argument, I'm thinking this might 1) show them how it's done and 2) open up a space for talking about why Holland chooses to make clear the limits of his speculation.

Beyond that, he's probably right. The media was caught up in Obamamania. Women turned out in greater numbers than in 2004 (57 v. 54 percent) and coupled with a switch in Biden voters (I can attest that in my own caucus precinct, we nabbed over 50% of Biden voters largely on the theory that supporting a clear front-runner in our precinct, Obama, might help erode a third-place show so that Biden might make up ground elsewhere in the scramble for that #3 spot. Risky and ultimately it lost, but that was what the Biden precinct captain advised, so I let him go with it.

The Power of Dreams

Part of moving to Iowa (at least this year for me) means a renewed attention to politics. Arguably, I haven't been as politically minded or active since volunteering for Nader/ LaDuke in 2000 (and more her than him, really). The Kerry/ Edwards ticket just wasn't all that: too entrenched, too old school and a re-hash of hippie visionaries v. straight-laced Americana. Nader and LaDuke both had remarkable policy insights and a far-sightedness that I still don't see in Edwards and only saw as a glimmer of a possibility in Kerry. From my then Madisonian perspective, Kerry/ Edwards were certainly better than Bush/ Cheney, but between 2002 and 2004, we had slid so far back into despair it looked to me that we were willing to settle for middle-of-the-road.

Things are different now, and not just because I'm looking out from Iowa instead of Madison (which is, as I imply, it's own little sphere only technically part of the state). Currently the mediasphere is ablaze with talk of Oprah's endorsement of Obama. Normally, I wouldn't care. Kevin Bacon was just here stumping for Edwards (yawn), but Obama has swayed Cornell West to follow up Oprah's appearance in Cedar Rapids. Despite the fun in 6 degree games, the Obama campaign is not only putting together a collection of the finest African-American thinkers and speakers, I think it has some of the finest American thinkers and speakers.

More importantly, with the support of Oprah, there is a sense of dreaming again -- not just a dream of schadenfreude where we get back to a democracy before our current fascist interruption, but a real dream that recognizes the democracy we had before Bush II was itself broken. We shouldn't forget how the rich grew richer under the "Clinton I" regime, how he signed NAFTA, and how corporate profits supported Clinton policies. As this article from The Nation points out, there is a real dream awakening here and I think the anger directed at Oprah is part of that awakening. As the article says, even if Obama doesn't get the nomination, it is always "not too much to hope that the redemptive power of an intelligent dream might reinvigorate the exhaustion of our embattled political landscape."

His Imbecible Lying Ass

Just thought the image was too good not to distribute. It's from alternet.org.

Into the Wild

OK, disclaimer: I haven't yet seen the movie. I have two kids, the Halloween season is here which means parties and costume making and, of course, the beginning of baking season (are you listening, K8?). However, I have read the book and want to assign that in my Expository & Report Writing class next semester. Like his other book, Into Thin Air (see original excerpt here), Krakauer does a good job of reporting on an event he finds illuminating about the human condition, its frailty, and, therefore, preciousness. In that regard, it also makes an argument out of the "facts" he gathers; in this case, that local Alaskans were too quick to judge the actions of a young man on his own personal and inward search.

My concern is, though, that the movie's appeal will distract from the book (at least until it comes out on DVD and I can show it in class with references to its visual rhetoric). Fortunately or unfortunately, this genre gets taken up pretty quickly into Hollywood (e.g., Sebastian Junger's The Perfect Storm and Warner Brothers' adaptation about the 1991 event). Hmmm. maybe that's a better assignment... I dunno. Anyway, I'm just wondering about these migrations of texts across genres. It seems really interesting to get students to think about and compare how each does what it does, why it does it, and to what ends or limitations. What I don't like, however, is the hype surrounding these multi-million dollar movies and/or the cynicism that lends itself to something that is "just a movie" and therefore not worthy of spurring action (see Rickert 2007 for more on this, which, BTW was what MBD used to grill me during my defense.. thanks, Mike!).

My Birthday with Barack

Yes, I had a BBQ dinner with Senator Obama. I have to admit it ranks up there with meeting Sting as far as brushes with fame go... or at least admittedly with men far better looking than I. Now, that it was my birthday was even cooler but I assume you don't really want to know all that. You want to know: What did you think? Will you vote for him? Was he "real"? Maybe even, why should I vote for him so early in the race to '08? I can't honestly say this guy has some magic quality that demands anyone should support him beyond the policies he has already outlined. But, I can tell you what I know. But first, a funny story...

A Funny Story
When Obama arrived in his RV, he had to wait for the media to set up.

From inside, we could see them file past the front windows lugging their boom mics, cameras, etc. After they did, the Senator came out and began greeting relatives of the hosts who had assembled on the front lawn. Then, we saw the media folks file the other way past the windows and rather hurriedly. From out the side window, then, we could see Barack at the neighbor's porch -- suddenly filled with about ten people wielding their own personal cameras and craning their necks. Definitely a political move, but what else ya gonna do?

Character
First, he's cool, but in that politician way. He's no dummy. He knows the tricks of persuasion as any politician does. He's very gracious when he meets you and takes time to say your name, to get it right and to make you feel included. He makes eye contact. He's also casual and yet careful in his speech and movement. As I said, he's a politician. He's "on" at venues like this and unavoidably so.

But what he takes time for and what he does in the interactions spoke a lot, too. As we were running overlong in our group conversation, he made a concerted effort to politely remind us that he wanted to get everyone's question in. At that moment, he knew there were still three people who had not asked their question and -- here's the important point -- he knew which three people out of the ten of us.

Third, he really thinks about what he says when he talks. He does not spout platitudes or talking points. His speech is less polished and he doesn't hesitate to stutter a little, backtrack, or clarify. In this forum, at least, he seemed to genuinely respond to questions he said he had not heard before that moment. Jess, who saw him speak last Wednesday, said she had the same impression.

But I think what I have written here could be said of most politicians, at least the good ones, no matter which side of the aisle they claim to sit. So, why Barack? Why not Edwards? Why not Clinton? Hell, why not go for Kucinich at this point just in the hope that it moves the Dems more"left"? Responses to the first two candidates should be obvious -- Edwards is a hypocrite (even if a well-intentioned one) and Clinton is just too polarizing. The difference between Kucinich and Obama, though is a tough one.


Economy
Where Obama is inexperienced, Kucinich is at least a veteran of political office. Yes, Kucinich is the strongest supporter of unions on nay ticket, he's vegan, he's a member of the Green party in all but name. But Naomi Klein's recent talk "Lost Worlds" and her book, The Shock Doctrine, has been weighing heavily on my mind. I think her analysis is sharp, her view of history insightful, and she's one of the sharpest thinkers we've got. But, if unfettered capitalism is bad for recovering communist countries, why should we think we can shock our own economy out of its excesses? If we withdrew from NAFTA and GATT as Kucinich has declared he would, what would happen? What void would be left and what would move into it?

Obama, on the other hand, recognizes the wide berth needed to steer the ship of the U.S. state. He may be inexperienced compared to some, but he's got a clear picture of just how much can be accomplished without precipitating disaster. Obama's health care reform works similarly -- we can't go to single-payer without untold consequences from large players like Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. He admitted that were he design a health care system from scratch, single-payer would be it. But we have to work with what we have.

Education
As far as education goes, I have both the most respect for his plan and the most questions. He talked a lot about including actual teachers in formulating education policy -- something other Dems are only just now starting to do. I also like his stance on limited standardized testing, whole child education, and pairing experienced teachers with newer ones as a form of merit for the experienced ones AND as a professional development opportunity for the newer. But this is where my question comes in -- he characterized this pairing and professional development model as a form of "assessment" instead of how NCLB does it. But I was confused over what was being assessed -- the teacher, the student, or the school. And how does an assessment of one bear on an assessment of another? Moreover, when I pressed him on the question of who does the assessment, he said he was in favor of a nation-wide consensus agreed upon "by experts." This puzzles me, too. Who determines an "expert?" Moreover, I tried to steer him toward some response regarding the diversity of the U.S. population and honoring different cultural norms. Sadly, his consensus response doesn't seem compatible with this.

That criticism aside, he is capable of seeing these points. He commented on how disillusioned teachers are under NCLB and on how the students who fail do so largely because they do not "fit" anywhere in the current was we school our children. Yet, his response seems to be simply that we educate poor and disadvantaged earlier and earlier like their white, middle-class counterparts. In effect, it's a 0-12 public education system. I would agree with him on the problem, but not the solution. The ways we assess child, teacher, and school have to accept difference -- racial, cultural, economic, regional, etc.

Fin
Explanations like the ten of us got are hard to come by on national news. So, it will be up to his team to see how he gets the message out. Certainly, he has the money. I think he's got the talent and the drive. He's better than what we have now, but what isn't? But I think I learned something today about this whole crazy election stuff -- it really is just a big job interview. That's all. Who do you really want to do this job? Does experience matter over principles? Does crude pragmatism translate to success? Or does the past record at many different levels transfer to the one being sought out by a candidate? If you have really looked at all the available candidates and you have a favorite, vote for that person. No. Matter. What. Anyone. Else. Says.

Rutgers, Imus, and Critical Consciousness

I was going to post some exploration on the language of cephalopods. But with the whole Rutgers women's b-ball-Don Imus-Al Sharpton thing, and teaching this week on the power of language and how students sometimes have to read into texts in order to understand the power differentials, I found something more pertinent. Here it is reprinted from CommonDreams.org:

Trash Talk Radio

by Gwen Ifill

Let’s say a word about the girls. The young women with the musical names. Kia and Epiphanny and Matee and Essence. Katie and Dee Dee and Rashidat and Myia and Brittany and Heather.

The Scarlet Knights of Rutgers University had an improbable season, dropping four of their first seven games, yet ending up in the N.C.A.A. women’s basketball championship game. None of them were seniors. Five were freshmen.

In the end, they were stopped only by Tennessee’s Lady Vols, who clinched their seventh national championship by ending Rutgers’ Cinderella run last week, 59-46. That’s the kind of story we love, right? A bunch of teenagers from Newark, Cincinnati, Brooklyn and, yes, Ogden, Utah, defying expectations. It’s what explodes so many March Madness office pools.

But not, apparently, for the girls. For all their grit, hard work and courage, the Rutgers girls got branded “nappy-headed ho’s” — a shockingly concise sexual and racial insult, tossed out in a volley of male camaraderie by a group of amused, middle-aged white men. The “joke” — as delivered and later recanted — by the radio and television personality Don Imus failed one big test: it was not funny.

The serial apologies of Mr. Imus, who was suspended yesterday by both NBC News and CBS Radio for his remarks, have failed another test. The sincerity seems forced and suspect because he’s done some version of this several times before.

I know, because he apparently did it to me.

I was covering the White House for this newspaper in 1993, when Mr. Imus’s producer began calling to invite me on his radio program. I didn’t return his calls. I had my hands plenty full covering Bill Clinton.

Soon enough, the phone calls stopped. Then quizzical colleagues began asking me why Don Imus seemed to have a problem with me. I had no idea what they were talking about because I never listened to the program.

It was not until five years later, when Mr. Imus and I were both working under the NBC News umbrella — his show was being simulcast on MSNBC; I was a Capitol Hill correspondent for the network — that I discovered why people were asking those questions. It took Lars-Erik Nelson, a columnist for The New York Daily News, to finally explain what no one else had wanted to repeat.

“Isn’t The Times wonderful,” Mr. Nelson quoted Mr. Imus as saying on the radio. “It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.”

I was taken aback but not outraged. I’d certainly been called worse and indeed jumped at the chance to use the old insult to explain to my NBC bosses why I did not want to appear on the Imus show.

I haven’t talked about this much. I’m a big girl. I have a platform. I have a voice. I’ve been working in journalism long enough that there is little danger that a radio D.J.’s juvenile slap will define or scar me. Yesterday, he began telling people he never actually called me a cleaning lady. Whatever. This is not about me.

It is about the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. That game had to be the biggest moment of their lives, and the outcome the biggest disappointment. They are not old enough, or established enough, to have built up the sort of carapace many women I know — black women in particular — develop to guard themselves against casual insult.

Why do my journalistic colleagues appear on Mr. Imus’s program? That’s for them to defend, and others to argue about. I certainly don’t know any black journalists who will. To his credit, Mr. Imus told the Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday he realizes that, this time, he went way too far.

Yes, he did. Every time a young black girl shyly approaches me for an autograph or writes or calls or stops me on the street to ask how she can become a journalist, I feel an enormous responsibility. It’s more than simply being a role model. I know I have to be a voice for them as well.

So here’s what this voice has to say for people who cannot grasp the notion of picking on people their own size: This country will only flourish once we consistently learn to applaud and encourage the young people who have to work harder just to achieve balance on the unequal playing field.

Let’s see if we can manage to build them up and reward them, rather than opting for the cheapest, easiest, most despicable shots.

Gwen Ifill is a senior correspondent for “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” and the moderator of “Washington Week.”

© 2007 The New York Times

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Here.

Sublime Americans?

I went to the Farm Toy Show in Verona today. It's a collection of collectors packed with their merchandise into a high school gymnasium and not limited to farm toys. It's really pretty expansive and includes Hot Wheels, baseball cards, beanie babies, Elvis, and sundry Americana. While it was exciting that my son came in second place for his age bracket in the pedal-tractor pull, I guess I never really critically noticed events like this.

First, it's interesting as a form of play and that has its own merits. However, it occurred to me as I stood there that there was something both alarming and wonderful about the spectacle. I head Snyder's words, "America -- your stupidity. I could almost love you again." Everyone had their own collection of things: big metal 1940s trucks, tiny plastic tractors, tables covered with astro turf and sets of mini-houses and dairy barns. It was as communal as it was individual. Folks cared about their neighbors and talked to us not to make one more sale, but to hear our story or connect with us as people instead of customers. Even the hipsters in Madison -- who have perfected the art of converting chit chat into greenbacks -- have the air of superficial interest. In the gym, though, were those seventy year olds who knew the pleasure of getting to know another human being, sharing together a brief moment of a long life.

Second, the resources: we're on the verge of war with Iran, already at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and involved in military strategy, skirmishes, support, or occupation in countless other places. Most of this is under the stated goal of "spreading democracy," and it's certainly part of the unstated goal of making the world safe for business. Yet, the plastic, the money, the time people spend looking at *things.* I can imagine their homes: a room or rooms formerly occupied by sons and daughters, the basement loaded with boxes and the table top scenes, living rooms adorned with china hutches and porcelain dolls. This is what people do to occupy their time, to stave off boredom, to connect.

So, the desire here -- the desire to connect, the desire to fight loneliness, the desire to not die alone. The gregarious American -- sublime? pathetic? a menace? Is this even just "American"?
Have we moved away from the frontier American who longed for the open plains, the miles between him and his neighbor, the lover of space? Has the frontiersman taken over the living room and in the name of conquest and commensurability tried to halt the space between him and his family?