on U.S. citizenship and race

Last week was a newsworthy week, and I'm not talking about the royal wedding here. I'm talking about the release of President Obama's birth certificate. Ever since the 2008 election, there has been a bit of a ruckus over whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen, sparking the birther movement. Donald Trump, who may seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012, suggested Obama was born in Africa and challenged him to show his birth certificate. Finally, Obama released the long form of his birth certificate, thus proving he was born in Hawaii and that indeed, he is a natural born citizen.

I am utterly disgusted by the birthers, Trump, and anyone else who questions Obama's citizenship and allegiance to the United States. I'm sure that all of these people would say they're not racist, but I find this hard to believe. After all, has any other president been challenged to show his birth certificate? Have we questioned any other president's citizenship status? As of right now, 11 state legislatures have introduced legislation requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates to prove that they are natural born citizens by providing a long form birth certificate. Arizona was the first state to pass such legislation. Funny how none of this ever happened until we elected a non-white president.

Newsflash: People of color are U.S. citizens too. Yup, it's true. You don't have to be white to be a U.S. citizen. Seriously.

I know how it feels to have your U.S. citizenship questioned. When I lived in Minnesota, there were people that thought that I couldn't possibly be from the U.S. Over the years, I learned how to detect this skepticism. People would ask me where I was from, and even though I would answer Minnesota or Rochester, they would say "No, where are you REALLY from." WTF? I'm not lying, you assholes. Some people tried to be more subtle, but I knew what they were really asking. These people would say "So, have you lived here all your life?" Um, yup, pretty much, you moron.

Despite my midwestern accent, many people couldn't believe that I actually considered myself to be from Minnesota. Obviously not my family and not my friends, but perfect strangers who had the audacity to ask me deeply personal questions about my life. They probably thought there was nothing wrong with this, and maybe they were genuinely curious and interested in my life, but when you are asked these questions on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, it gets old. And it's not flattering. It's offensive.

These questions are so offensive to me because white people get to be just white. They don't have to have a race or an ethnicity. And they get to be just U.S. citizens. I, on the other hand, because I'm not white, have to have a race. I'm Korean-American or Asian-American. I don't get to be just American. Believe me, I've tried, but people insist that I add in the qualifier to denote that I am not white and that I'm supposedly different.

Living in Southern California, I'm not a minority, and it's so diverse here that I don't deal with people questioning my citizenship. (well except the time that the former president of the UC Regents insisted that I learn to speak Korean simply because I am one, but that's another blog post.) But I dread the thought of living in a non-metropolitan area and dealing with people who don't think I speak English, who assume that I'm well versed in Asian food and culture, and who will not believe me when I say that I really am from Minnesota. I just hope I won't have to start carrying around my passport.

odd behavior, mental instability, and teachers

It seems that whenever there is a shooting these days, everyone points their fingers to a couple stock explanations. Maybe it's lax gun laws, or maybe it's politically motivated, or maybe the shooter is mentally ill. Apparently, there are no other alternative explanations. And whenever a shooting takes place in a school, people quickly point to the mentally ill explanation, and then sometimes point their fingers to teachers. Didn't they notice the students' strange behavior? Why didn't anyone refer the student to the counseling center? Why didn't teachers alert school administrators? And so on. I used to think all this finger pointing was reserved for school shootings, but apparently it is not.

As you probably know, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire last Saturday at Representative Gabrielle Gifford's "Congress on the Corner" event, an opportunity for her to meet with her constituents. A bullet went through Gifford's head, but she survived. Others were not so lucky. Six others died, and 14 were injured. Of course, people are pointing their fingers at the standard explanations: gun laws, tea partiers, and mental illness.

Loughner was a student at Pima Community College. He apparently displayed unusual behavior and professors reported him to school administrators. Police were called to the school and he was suspended. Readmission to school would be contingent upon certification from a mental health professional. Fortunately, Loughner's professors reported his strange behavior. I am glad that this time, teachers cannot be blamed for failing to report unusual behavior.

I find it strangely odd that teachers are somehow expected to detect mental instability, being held accountable in some respect for their students' actions both inside and outside the classroom. And being that I'm currently a teaching assistant with plans to hopefully become a professor, I think about this sometimes.

The thing is, we are trained to assess students' knowledge and understanding of the course material we are teaching them, not to assess their mental health. We are simply unqualified to do so. Plus, I'm sure that it is quite difficult to do so in a classroom setting. For one thing, we just don't know our students well enough to determine their mental stability. No matter how big or small the class size, it is difficult to get to know students. My discussion sections may have about 20 people each, but it is difficult to get to know students when I see them only once a week and all at once. I am available via email, office hours, and appointments, but I can't make anyone come see me.

Second, strange and unusual behavior does not mean that a student is mentally unstable. An article in the LA Times reports Loughner "laughed and muttered to himself" and was incoherent and nonsensical when he spoke. He also made some bizarre outbursts in class. His classmates and professors thought that he was on drugs. I might assume the same. But even if a drug problem is suspected, I'm not certain that it's a professor's place or responsibility to confront the student. I really can't see that going too well, that a student would be receptive to a professor reaching out like that.

Other apparent evidence of Loughner's mental instability was his response to a test question. On an algebra test, Loughner wrote that "eat + sleep + brush teeth = math." So now I'm supposed to suspect that wrong, unusual, and irrelevant responses are somehow an indication of mental illness? This is only my 5th year as a TA, but I have seen quite a few unusual, creative, and flat out wrong responses to test questions. Do you mean to tell me that all these students are mentally unstable?

The Times reports other unusual behavior about Loughner, but I will spare you the details (follow my links for the article). When is strange behavior an indicator of mental illness, when is it a result of drugs, and when is it simply just strange behavior? While I'm no expert, Loughner's unusual behaviors could collectively indicate mental illness, but I just don't know, seeing as how I'm getting a Ph.D. in political science, not clinical psychology.

michael vick, dog fighting, and forgiveness

As I promised you the other day, here is my post about Michael Vick. Vick is a quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, and if you've heard of him, you probably know that he plead guilty in 2007 for running a dogfighting ring. He served 19 months in prison and was suspended by the NFL. In 2009, when he was released, the Eagles signed Vick to a one year contract. This season, they have decided to exercise an option.

The Vick controversy has re-surfaced most recently because of some comments by President Obama. Obama praised the Eagles for giving Vick a second chance, saying that "individuals who have paid for their crimes should have an opportunity to contribute to society again." Not surprisingly, Obama's comments have generated quite a bit of controversy.

I don't condone Vick's actions, but I'd like to point out that it's unfortunate that he abused dogs and not women. Sadly for him, he tortured dogs and they died. Had he assaulted or raped a woman, I'm convinced that we would be much quicker to forgive and forget. After all, maybe they asked for it, right? Maybe it's really they're fault? Unfortunately for Vick, we can't try to hold dogs accountable in the same way that we attempt to with women. Nobody can say "well, what did they expect to happen?" or "what were they wearing?" or "they asked for it" about dogs. It is impossible to suggest that dogs are somehow responsible for their abuse in the same way that we try to with women.

Had Vick exploited a woman and not a dog, we wouldn't hold him completely accountable, and instead we'd judge him solely by how well he throws a football. You see, when celebrities hit and rape women, we have a short term memory. As soon as Kobe Bryant's rape victim refused to press charges, Lakers fans were cheering him on to a national championship. After beating up his girlfriend Rihanna, Chris Brown was worried about the future of his music career. He didn't have to worry for long; his latest single is currently climbing the charts.

At this point, you may be thinking that I'm being too sympathetic to Vick. Dogs died, and he is a felon. Sure, this is different from rape or getting beaten up. You might also say that Bryant and Brown deserve our forgiveness because they were never convicted (but this still doesn't mean that they aren't guilty, only that their victims didn't press charges). I'm not going to engage in a debate about what's worse, killing dogs or assaulting women.

What I will say is that at its core, what all of these atrocities have in common is exploitation, abuse, and forgiveness. Why are we so quick to forgive celebrities like Bryant and Brown, but not Vick? Guilty in the courtroom or not, they are all guilty of violence and abuse. If we are willing to forgive other celebrities, we owe it to Michael Vick to judge him solely on how well he throws a football and nothing else.

(see here for other blog posts on the link between athletes and violence against women and Chris Brown)

"surprises" in the news

You're not going to like what I'm about to say, but I'm saying it anyway. The UC regents approved a 32% increase in student fees, so tuition at a UC will increase to approximately $10,300. Knowing that the economy is what it is, and that the UCs are simply following a national trend, I don't think this increase is nearly the tragedy or atrocity that some may believe it to be.

I took a quick look at tuition rates at public universities in different regions throughout the US and this is what I found (all rates are for in-state residents). A year at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities campus will cost $9120. Tuition at the University of Connecticut is $7632. A year at the University of South Carolina at Columbia will set you back $8756. The University of Texas at Austin has a tuition scale by school major ranging from $10,118 (liberal arts) to $10,801 (social work). And let's not forget a school in the Pacific Northwest- a year at the University of Washington at Seattle costs $7692.

Considering that practically everything is more expensive in California compared to the rest of the country, I'm not surprised that the cost of a public college education is catching up. What else do you expect in an individualistic, meritocratic society that views college education as a privilege, not a right? I'm not going to look for the statistics or crunch any numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of a public education is somehow proportionate to the state GDP. I'm not bothered by the tuition increase because everything costs more in California. I pay $584 a month to rent one bedroom in a 2 bedroom apartment. And that's with subsidized, on campus graduate student housing. In Minneapolis, I paid $367 to rent one bedroom in a 3 bedroom house. I know someone right now who is paying $750 for a 3 bedroom townhouse in Virginia (that's for the entire townhouse). I think you can see my point here.

I have to say something else that you're not going to like. A couple weeks ago, there was a shooting at Fort Hood, an army base in Texas. Thirteen people died, and 30 were wounded. The shooter was an army psychiatrist who was about to be deployed to Iraq. I do not in any way condone violence, and I realize that this was a tragedy, but I'm just not that surprised. The military is an institution that embodies the belief that conflict can be solved with violence, bombs, force, and death. When faced with a problem that cannot be solved diplomatically, force and violence are acceptable means of resolution. Under some circumstances, war is acceptable, even justified. This is the message that the military represents.

So, now we have an army psychiatrist conflicted and opposed to a deployment that he does not want. Is it any surprise that he turns to violence as a means to resolve his problem? Isn't this consistent with the message that the military sends?

violence against women

Here is a blog post in which I bemoan violence against women.

A 15 old girl was gang raped by at least seven males after a Homecoming dance last weekend. She was waiting for a ride, from her parents I think. The gang rape last 2-1/2 hours. Did I mention that about a dozen people passed by and did absolutely nothing? Some laughed. I didn't know that rape was a laughing matter. Some took pictures. I didn't know that rape was a photo opportunity.

Contrary to popular belief, rape isn't about sex. It's about violence against women. It's about patriarchy. It's about power and control. Men don't rape because they can't get laid. They don't rape because they have uncontrollable sexual urges. Men don't rape because a pretty woman walks by and they can't control themselves. Rape has nothing to do with sex. Today, a 47 year old man plead guilty to raping and murdering a 93 year old woman. I told you rape wasn't about sex. Rape is about male dominance. It's about men who think that it is their god-given right to exert power and authority over women.

I don't know why it is difficult for society to acknowledge violence against women. I also don't know why it is difficult to recognize that violence is rooted in patriarchy and the social construction of masculinity. When are we going to learn that it is problematic to equate masculinity with power, control, and violence? When are we going to learn that these qualities do not make a man?

The other day, I read an article about campus violence. The columnist was referring to a recent stabbing of a UCLA student. As usual, he cited mental health issues. Why is it that every time there is an incident of campus violence, we turn straight to mental health and point our finger? It is as if we believe that if only the perpetrator had sought help for his mental health issues, none of this would have happened. If only a professor had intervened and noticed when a student was down in the dumps. If only. Fuck you, that's what I say to mental health issues. Not because they aren't real, and not because they don't matter. But because mental health isn't to blame.

When I tick off incidents of campus violence, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and Northern Illinois come to mind. And UCI. About a month ago, a graduate student was charged with shooting his ex-wife. It was over a custody dispute. He shot her in front of their son. She died. When this information spread, naturally people wondered about this student's mental health status. Yes, grad school is stressful. Yes, it's tiring and students work a lot. Yes, grad school is isolating and there may be higher rates of depression among grad students than among the general population. But most grad students do not shoot and kill other people, let alone former spouses.

If you think about campus violence, there is a pattern. Those wielding the guns or the knives are men. All men. Show me some incidents involving women, and maybe I'll give mental health explanations some credence. But until then, I'm going to continue to blame society and patriarchy. I'm going to continue to blame our construction of masculinity and how boys are socialized to be men.

By the way, here's the latest on Roman Polanski. The 13 year old victim's testimony unequivocally shows that Polanski committed rape. He was 43. He used his power and authority as a director, a man, and as an adult to take advantage of the girl, drug her, and rape her.

Now that I have sufficiently depressed you, I'm not even going to try to make it better.

it's time to meet the BF

If you will recall, I mentioned in a previous post about 25 random facts about me that February is usually the time of the year when I am most likely to meet someone new, date, or start a new relationship (see #14). I mentioned that, in case you were wondering, February was shaping up to be a quiet month. Well, scratch that. I am about to embark on what is uncharted blogging territory for me: I'm going to blog about the new BF, Drew.

Drew is a graduate student in the Sociology department. See, in recent department history, there have been many couples made up of Political Science men and Sociology women. And so, I thought to myself, "Hey, that looks like a pretty sweet deal. I'll give that a whirl." Uh, I'm kidding. Kind of. Anyway, Drew and I had crossed paths in the Social Science Tower, but we formally met (for the second time) at a social gathering in the beginning of February. Thanks to the wonders of Facebook, we started talking to each other in cyberspace and it wasn't long before we started hanging out in real life. (That's right, Facebook: helping people get dates since 2003.) So, we've been together since around mid-February, and you know that person that I referred to as "my friend" in previous blog posts? Yeah, that would actually be Drew.

What does he look like, you ask? Check out the picture below, taken while riding the ferris wheel at the Santa Monica Pier.
Drew is a liberal, progressive, feminist-y dude (that's what I call him) from Virginia. He rides a motorcycle, has a neat-o buddha tattoo, and is a really nice guy. I knew he was a keeper when he passed my Vagina Monologues litmus test by joining me and my friends for a performance in mid-February, indicating that he supports the empowerment of women and gets stuff like male privilege, oppression, sexism.

We have a lot of fun together, and we laugh a lot. He laughs at my jokes, which is practically a dating prerequisite. (Drew makes jokes too, but we have decided that I get to be the funny one) Drew cooks a mean breakfast burrito, sings me songs, and gives me nice shoulder massages. And since he's a foot taller than me, he comes in handy when I need help grinding coffee at Trader Joe's (I'm not tall enough to see into the grinder) and when I need something from the kitchen cabinet above the refrigerator. I dazzle him with homemade lasagna, baked goods (naturally), and my ability to remember the lyrics to "Baby One More Time" by Britney Spears.

Here we are again at the Santa Monica Pier.
So, that's Drew. Stay tuned for pictures from our excursions to the Noguchi Garden, the Huntington Library, and the Santa Monica Pier.

stand by your man?

Now, I don't have children, but I'm pretty sure that parents teach their kids that hitting, biting, choking, etc is unacceptable in all circumstances. Maybe parents teach their kids to fight back, but they don't teach their kids to start a fistfight or that violence is ever an appropriate remedy. So tell me, why is it that society treats domestic violence in an altogether different manner? Why is it that, in cases of domestic violence, we justify it and think that somehow a woman deserves to be hit, beat, shoved, choked, slapped, etc? Why do we justify these behaviors with the idea that a woman got what she deserved or that she must have provoked it? Why do we place a degree of responsibility, shame, and guilt upon the woman?

Last week, I read an article in which teenage girls were in disbelief over allegations of Chris Brown's physical abuse towards his girlfriend, Rihanna. They believe that Rihanna should also be held responsible for domestic violence and that it was her fault. I am disgusted by this attitude.

We have to believe that women do something to incite this violence because otherwise it means that any woman is a potential victim and any man is a potential perpetrator. Even pop singers and teen idols. If we can place a degree of responsibility and blame upon the victim, then women can relax, believing that they would never do something to provoke violence. We can tell ourselves that it won't happen to us and that we are immune by convincing ourselves that domestic violence is a result of some individual fault rather than a systematic, patriarchal practices and beliefs that women are subordinate to men.

in the news

It has been a long time since my last post, but trust me, I have good reasons. We are nearing the end of quarter (week 10 is next week), and I've been busy with classes and reading. I am working on another draft of my qualifying paper, and I have been reading a lot about rape and high profile rape cases.

This week in my discussion section, we applied the concepts and court cases about the commerce clause, interstate commerce, and the 10th amendment to a hypothetical case involving the legalization and regulation of marijuana. The inspiration for this discussion came from Reefer tax madness, which discussed the introduction of legislation in the California State Assembly to regulate and tax marijuana.

The California State Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Prop 8 this past Thursday. There were rallies in Sacramento, and there is a looming debate over what happens to existing gay marriages. Do they get to remain married, or must they dissolve their marriages?

Inspired to act because of the octomom controversy, Georgia and Missouri have introduced legislation to regulate the fertility industry. I don't condone multiple births or reproductive technology, but this legislation is yet another way to regulate women's fertility. The medical community (as well as the government) has historically practiced the regulation of women's fertility and reproductive health. Until the 19th century, abortion was a common practice (women either self aborted or sought the help of midwives) and it was llegalized when medical doctors pushed for its illegalization. The reason they did this was because they wanted to put the midwives out of business. If a woman wanted an abortion, she had to consult a team of medical doctors who would assess her and decide if she should be granted one. Other examples in which the medical community weighs in on women's health: breastfeeding, childbirth, and now reproductive technology and multiple births. While there is a lot of controversy surrounding the octomom (she's single, unemployed outside the home, receives public assistance), something that hasn't been mentioned is her race. Are we upset that a woman of color is taking advantage of reproductive technology to pass along her DNA? After all, it seems that infertility is a tragedy only when it happens to white women.

R & B singer Chris Brown was in court over assault and criminal charges against his girlfriend, singer Rihanna. And, rumor has it that she's taking him back. Seriously? Seriously. WTF? Yes, people make mistakes, but hitting, biting, choking, etc (and any other sort of abuse) is never right. What message does this send to young girls that look up to Rihanna? Seriously, where is her self respect?

Sometimes, I miss living in the dorms at the University of Minnesota and eating in the cafeteria. Actually, I really don't, but I miss the cereal selection at Centennial Hall. I could eat Golden Grahams one day and Cap'n Crunch the next. It was great. Anyway, I was thinking about all of this when I was struck by a craving for Fruity Pebbles. I bought a box yesterday, and I hope I can eat them in a timely manner so they don't go stale.

untitled

So, just a few random thoughts here today. I read a couple newspaper articles on the woman who gave birth to the 8 babies, and of course, the situation generated a lot of criticism (from myself included). This is what I wonder: Is society so critical because this woman is a single unemployed woman who lives with her parents? Would there be as much criticism if she were married and worked outside the home? I mean, we are the same society that keeps the TLC shows Jon and Kate plus 8 and 17 Kids and Counting in business. Double standards? I think so. The media likes to point out that this woman is an unemployed grad student. Yes, that's right. If only she were an employed grad student. That would make all the difference. The media also likes to point out that this woman is not married. Seriously. 'Cause we all know that marriage is a binding contract and the secret to eternal bliss, right?

I was walking through campus today, and I overheard this girl tell her friend that she hopes that when she's 20, people will stop mistaking her for a 16 year old. I wanted to tell her that when she's almost 30, there will probably be people who will still make that mistake. I'm not complaining. Seriously. I know that I'll get mine someday.

I watched Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist last night. It was a cute movie, and better than I'd expected. I'd recommend it, but take my advice with a grain of salt. I don't have the most sophisticated taste in movies and just any sort of entertainment in general. After all, I am watching The Bachelor right now.

in the news

Before I comment on some interesting news stories, I'd like to share how I think I could be the Debbie Downer of research interests. Remember the story I shared earlier about how my O-side family asked me about school and then became silent after I started discussing my research interests? Well, I was at a CSD dinner the other night. I was seated at a table with 3 other grad students and 4 other guests. They asked us about our research. The first grad student discussed her current project, and these guests were really interested, asking questions, and sharing stories. As they all talked, I thought to myself, I'm about to kill the mood. When it was my turn, I just said a few sentences about how I study the anti rape movement. Silence. I am a real conversation killer. Good thing there is always the weather to discuss. (oh and we did. I am glad that Californians are always fascinated by my cold weather stories- I rely on these to fill awkward silences)

Last week, the Supreme Court let an internet porn law die. It dismissed a case in which both the SC and a lower court ruled that the Child Online Protection Act, passed and signed into law in 1998, was unconstitutional. I had my students debate the constitutionality of the law and whether or not the SC should have dismissed the case. It was a great opportunity to apply some of the concepts that we had been learning in our constitutional law class. They did a great job, and we had a lot of fun.

As you may have heard, this woman just gave birth to 8 kids. And, she already has 6 kids. Today, I read in the paper that the reason she wanted more kids is because she was hoping for one more girl. Seriously? Seriously. This is seriously irresponsible reproduction, and I hate that society glorifies multiple births. I am disgusted by the lengths that people will go through simply so that they can pass along their fucking DNA. There are lots and lots of kids who need homes and families- right now. As someone who is adopted, I am offended when people say they want to have their "own kids." Uh, when you adopt kids, they become your own, you dumbass. Maybe, since I am adopted, I just don't understand this need to reproduce and have biological children that may or may not look like you.

A convicted rapist was hired as an x-ray technologist by the LA county about a decade ago. So, this guy used to be a police officer and he rapes a woman while he is on duty. He goes to prison, gets out, and then a hospital in LA hires him. And, when they hired him, they knew that he was a convicted rapist. WTF? When will society take seriously these acts of violence against women? Men can survive allegations of sexual harassment, rape charges, and make derogatory statements against women and STILL advance in their careers. Why is society not shocked and why do we allow this to persist? (oh, and I want to point out that this guy is black, so he thinks he is being unfiarly targeted. Stay tuned for my discussion on race, racism, and rape next week. I know that you are on the edge of your seat right now)

It was a tough week for Illinois Governor Blagojevich, who was removed from office on corruption charges and for trying to sell Obama's senate seat. The impeachment trial lasted four days, and state senators voted 59-0 to remove him from office. Oh Gov Blagojevich, it was so close. You almost had 'em.

Here's another article: GOP's lacking its own stimulus. I actually didn't read this article; I was just amused by the headline. Sometimes, I wish I could just be a mature adult, but I just can't. And, here's another one: Obama Makes a Public Appeal for his Stimulus Package.

Okay, let's be serious now. Obama signed his first bill this week: an equal pay law. It was named for Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who learned late in her career that other male supervisors were making 40% more for doing the same work. The Supreme Court ruled that she could recover for the first 180 days after the pay disparity. This bill essentially overturns the SC decision.

And finally, another article that doesn't annoy me and won't ignite a rant: turkey wings. This was in the food section on Wednesday, and it had me salivating while I was drinking my coffee.

36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Today is the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and gave women the right to choose. Authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, the decision was grounded in the right to privacy. Thank you, Justice Blackmun for recognizing that women cannot be full participants in society if we are unable to control our fertility.

inauguration

A lot has happened since my last blog post. I learned that bittersweet chocolate and semi sweet chocolate are interchangeable in baking, I went to yoga, I baked some cookies, and oh yes, we got a new president. I celebrated Obama's inauguration in the same place that I celebrated his victory: the pub. It was pretty cool, witnessing history and all that jazz, and getting a new president.

I don't have a whole lot to say, except that I thought it was strange that Obama and Chief Justice Roberts were standing so far apart when Roberts was administering the oath. Is this the norm? Were they keeping their distance because Obama voted against Roberts' confirmation? So, I read an article about how Obama and Biden made a pre-inaugural visit to the Supreme Court. It mentions that Obama voted against the confirmation of both Roberts and Alito. (By the way, all of the justices were in attendance at this pre-inaugural visit, except for Alito- somebody's holding a grudge, eh?) Anyway, I wonder if it's awkward to meet with someone who voted against your confirmation. Is it kind of like running into an ex-boyfriend?

What else? I learned that the Constitution says that the president-elect takes office at noon, regardless of whether or not he (hopefully a she someday!) has been sworn in. During the inauguration activities, the camera would occasionally zoom in on Bush. I have to wonder, was he literally counting down until the clock struck 12? If I had a dismal approval rating, surely I would be counting down until my predecessor took office. (And, this is my confession: I couldn't help but feel a tiny bit sorry for the guy- but just a tiny bit- please don't kick my ass)

All right, other stuff. Here's an interesting article: The Democrats are seeking to expand its base in the Rocky Mountain states. There are five Democratic governors in the region; Obama won Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico; Democrats Janet Napolitano and Ken Salazar have been appointed to Cabinet positions. And finally, I'm glad to see that Obama, among several goals, plans to lift the global gag rule, which restricts federal funding to international family planning groups that either perform abortions or counsel women on abortions.

in the news

I might have an unhealthy addiction to Bath & Body Works and Burt's Bees. I just finished sorting through the random stuff in my backpack so I can use it as a carry-on tomorrow. I found 2 full sized bottles of Bath & Body Works hand creams, a jar of Burt's Bees hand cream, lip gloss from Bath & Body Works, and some Burt's Bees lip gloss.

The other day, I read an article about how the cash strapped UC system may start accepting more non-California residents in order to raise its revenue. It's attractive not only because non-state residents pay more in tuition, but also because it would help increase campus diversity. The article says that compared to other schools in the United States, the proportion of out-of-state residents in the UCs are considerably low. I think that any effort to increase diversity on the UC campuses is a good thing since it seems as though native Californians fail to realize that there are 49 other states in the United States. One of the biggest complaints that I and many other out-of-staters have is this notion of "California Exceptionalism," where in-staters (several who have never lived outside California) seem to dismiss the other states, believing that California is superior to all others. I guess that there are elements of state pride found in every state, but it's especially irritating here.

Moving on. I realize that it was probably unethical for Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich to try to auction off Obama's Senate seat. Instead of merely appointing someone to take the seat, Blagojevich tried to sell the seat for personal gain. But seriously, is this "pay to play" scheme really that far off from what really goes on in electoral politics? I'm just sayin'. Go to Open Secrets where the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of candidates for congressional races, how much money they raised, and where that money came from. Check out who raises the most money and who wins those races. Kind of looks like "pay to play" to me.

Minnesota says that Al Franken beat Norm Coleman in the recount, but the race appears headed to court. I don't really have anything to say about this, except that I saw Norm Coleman at the Minnesota State Fair in 2004. I think he gave a speech, but I don't remember what he said. I just remember thinking that he wasn't bad looking and that he had nice hair. (I'm really embarrassed that I just wrote that) And one of my old Minnesota friends lives in the same condo building as Al Franken. He has spotted Franken working out in the gym, and Franken apparently invited him to a party. I bet that was code for fundraiser. Anyway...

Finally, Carl Pohlad, the owner of the Minnesota Twins has passed away. During his tenure, the Twins won the World Series in 1987 and 1991. I have one question: Does this mean that the Minnesota Twins are for sale? Can I buy them? You know what my first order of business would be? Marrying the catcher, Joe Mauer.

Well, I'm headed to South Carolina tomorrow. Speaking of state pride, I'm revisiting the land of confederate flags, people who view "Yankees" with disdain, and the belief that the South will rise "again." At any rate, I'm looking forward to seeing old friends and making new ones. Stay tuned for pictures!

who's afraid of (gender) equality?

After a rather frivolous post, here's something more thought provoking. Election Day is a little over 2 weeks away. I live in a state that is sure to go blue, and ironically, it could also pass a proposition that would eliminate same sex marriage. Things are getting ugly here. There are nasty TV ads. And then activists (on each side) have taken to the streets, waving signs with catchy slogans to generate support and garner votes.

The latest ad to hit the airwaves seeks to instill fear among parents. There is this little girl who comes home from school and tells her mother that she has learned that a prince can marry a prince and a princess can marry a princess. The truth is, there is no law that requires a marriage curriculum to be taught in schools.

I find it interesting how people can have such strong opinions on privacy issues that have no bearing on their lives. Someone I know married their same sex partner over the summer, and I only noticed because they were wearing a wedding band. Thus far, who this person has chosen to love has had no impact upon my life.

We say that marriage is about love, companionship, and finding a life partner. Or something like that. You haven't truly lived a fulfilling life until you get married. Your life is empty until you find someone to share it with. And so on. Yet, if this were the truth, why would we reserve marriage for only certain individuals? Well, I argue that this is about gender equality. Wait a second. How the hell did I jump from privacy to love to gender equality?

Marriage originated as an institution that subordinated women to men. In exchange for household labor and uh, sex, wives depended upon their husbands for well, an identity, economic security, protection, and more. (As recently as the 1990s, some states did not even have laws criminalizing spousal rape) Yes, marriage has been redefined and we try not to think of it as a transfer of property from a father to a husband. Yet, it's still a patriarchal institution. Women are passive and wait for a proposal. Women wear engagement rings, demonstrating that they belong to someone. Women still take their husbands' names. Fathers still give away their daughters on their wedding day. (Oh, and some men ask these fathers for permission to marry their daughters. Some may think it's romantic. I think it's insulting.) Following marriage, there is still a sexual division of labor in the household. Women assume a greater bulk of the household duties, and they are usually the primary caregivers. Most women are still financially dependent upon their husbands. Sure, there may be outliers that think that they have truly equal partnerships. Yet, marriage, as an institution, is still patriarchal (and it's my belief that women are duped into it by diamonds, pretty dresses, and bridal registries- but that's a different subject).

So, now same-sex marriage is turning this patriarchal institution on its head. Some think it's simply wrong. Some believe that it needs to be stopped. And sadly, some are going so far as to seek a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. (uh, from what? Heteros have been screwing it up for years!) If we let gay people get married, we run out of excuses. We run out of reasons to subordinate women simply because they are women. Now we'll have men who will change their names, and women who will get to keep theirs. We'll have men who will assume household and caregiving responsibilities. We'll see that men can cook, clean, and change a diaper (and not just occasionally, but all the time). We'll find out that men are capable and nurturing parents. We'll find out that women can be breadwinners, too. We'll learn that women can be heads of households. Studies have shown that same sex couples are more egalitarian than their hetero counterparts. When we see all of this, we will run out of reasons to justify patriarchy.

Many argue that we should vote no against Prop 8 to guarantee equality for homosexuals. I also argue that we should vote no to guarantee equality for women too.

Palin Power

I'm rooting for Governor Palin. There, I said it. Now, because our policy views are diametrically opposed, chances are that I will still cast a vote for Obama. Nevertheless, I'm still rooting for Palin. I watched her RNC speech last night, and I was relieved- she did a great job. Palin was tapped to be VP to complement McCain, and she seems to do just that. Appeal to the social conservatives? Check. Appeal to the working moms? Check. Appeal to the working class? Check. Appeal to small town America? Check. Deliver a good punchline? Check. I suppose that last one wasn't a requirement, but I was entertained (even though this came at Obama's expense).

All right, this is why I want Palin to perform well: If she messes this up, I'm afraid that she's going to mess things up for all women. I'm afraid that people will say "see what happens when we nominate a woman? Let's not do that again." I'm afraid that people will say that women just aren't suitable for positions of power for whatever reason: family responsibilities, pressure, media scrutiny, qualifications, etc. Think about it, when a man screws up, we never think twice about electing another one. However, if Palin screws up, I'm afraid that we'll think twice about nominating another woman. Already, we are second guessing her qualifications and experience, and there have been doubts that she was properly vetted. It's been 24 years since a woman was on a major party ticket; I don't want to wait another 24 to see another one.

let's talk about sex

I finally got around to removing the Hillary sign out of my bedroom window. That I waited so long to do so wasn't out of hostility toward Obama but rather sheer laziness. Anyway, I've been paying more attention to the Republican National Convention than I did to the Democratic National Convention. Maybe it's because the RNC is in my home state of Minnesota, but there's just more excitement and drama on the Republican side.

All right, where do I start? Let's begin with the surprise VP nomination- Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. How many people have ever heard of her? Seriously, how many people even know where Alaska is? Only a few days before McCain announced his VP pick, my dad and I had a conversation about potential candidates. I mentioned that I thought a woman would be a strategic choice, and I had Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in mind. Anyway, I was completely shocked that McCain did actually pick a woman (and one with minimal experience). Who says Republicans are against affirmative action?

A thought about political experience. We hear all this talk that the VP is "a heartbeat away from the presidency." I mean, I know McCain is old, but would his VP seriously be a "heartbeat away from the presidency"? The media make it sound like McCain is going keel over and die any moment. Does this piss him off? Is he secretly seething and screaming inside "I'm not dead yet, you morons!" And, isn't it interesting that it's not okay to be blatantly racist or sexist, but apparently ageist is okay? Just something to think about. A final thought about political experience: I've never been VP and I'm not familiar with the office, but I would suspect that there's a pretty steep learning curve and Palin would be okay if she had to assume the presidency.

Other thoughts: I like how McCain is trying to attract Hillary supporters with the Palin pick. As if any woman will do, and as if I'll just exchange my Hillary sign for a Sarah sign. Sure, like I won't notice that the woman on the ticket is a gun toting, NRA card carrying lifetime member, and posterchild for the anti-abortion crowd who thinks creationism should be taught in schools and that climate change is a sham. Nice try, John McCain.

And finally, how could I forget that Governor Palin's daughter is pregnant? I mean, the New York Times reminds me every time I open up my internet browser. The media sure is having fun with this one. Between the drama on the Republican side and Gustav, they've had a busy week. Seriously, teenage pregnancy probably sucks as it is, and I can't imagine enduring it with all the attention, criticism, and Democrats laughing about the irony of the Republican monopoly on so-called "family values." Plus, some have gone so far as to question Governor Palin's plan to seek the vice presidency and campaign despite her daughter's pregnancy. Dubbed the Campaign Edition of the Mommy Wars, some suggest that Palin may not make a good VP, considering she has her hands full with 5 kids and a grandkid on the way. Really? Would we be questioning Palin if she were a man? I don't think so. Ugh.

If there are any lessons to be learned from this whole ordeal, it's this: comprehensive sex education. Can we please talk about sex now? Really. This abstinence only "education" and sweeping sex ed under the rug just isn't working. Fine, teach kids to wait until marriage, but they're not going to listen. Not even the kids who learn that premarital sex is wrong, not even the kids who are raised in socially conservative families, and not even the kids who take virginity pledges. And when these kids decide to have sex anyway, they're ill prepared and aren't going to take the necessary precautions for safe sex. Think that talking about condoms is going to put ideas into their head and encourage them to have sex? Think again: sex is everywhere; all kids have to do is turn on the TV, open a magazine, or surf the internet to find provocative photos of Miley Cyrus, spoiled teenagers having sex (hello, Gossip Girl!), and guys desperately trying to get laid (Superbad). Sure, touting comprehensive sex ed might be easy for me considering I don't have kids. Yet, doesn't it make sense to prepare kids for something they're going to do anyway? I mean, even the governor's teenage daughter has sex. Let's stop being in denial.