CalJunket |
|
|
Campus personalities present and past Rebecca C. Brown and Tommaso Sciortino tackle the issues. This week on a very special CalJunket: Rebecca learns not to chew with her mouth open and Tommaso finds out his best friend is addicted to no-doze. Site feed: caljunket.blogspot.com/atom.xml
AIM Rebecca:
Archives
|
Saturday, November 29, 2003
A post by Ornicus got me hating Rupert Murdoch even more. Conservatives and Liberals throw word Fascism around a lot. And while it’s easy to point to a swastika and say “Never again”, it’s much more difficult to recognize fascism in general. Its traits are nebulous: a delegitimization of difference and dissent (both in and outside the party); the desire for unfettered leaders without corrupt parliamentary procedure; and exalting power and moral clarity over cooperation and logic. Rush Limbaugh is a fascist. Just like Bill O’Riely and Ann Coulter. In Rush’s world, anyone who disagrees with him is a Liberal. Liberals never act in good faith. Latte-Liberals (any liberal really) indulge in luxury and are aloof wasting time in ivory towers, theorizing without doing. They are morally base and groups in league with the Liberals (Unions, environmental groups) are corrupt. Republicans on the other hand agree that “Rush is right”. They always act in good faith. Republicans do not indulge in extravagance not do they bother themselves with difficult issues when moral clarity can lead you true. They are morally superior, and understand that America’s military power should not be hampered by international law or the treaty of Versailles. The problem with Fascism is that it doesn’t exactly attract the best and brightest. You need to be a personal failure to have enough hate to lead a fascist movement, and that doesn’t make for a good business plan. It’s necessary to have an outsiders fund your loser group of fascist rabble-rousers. Corporatists fit the bill. Their goal: advance the interests of corporations and the rich. That’s why we see Republican implementing regressive taxes while removing irksome American traditions like the Estate Tax. Surely, the idea to tax earned money (Payroll tax) and not unearned money (Capital gains) could only be supported by a rich person, or a person who doesn’t really understand economics. In places like post WWI Germany and Italy, the rich found a sure fire way to avert socialism: support Fascists! Without German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Hitler and the Nazis would have been historical also-rans. Republicans, which pre-Nixon looked a lot like a reunion of stunt doubles from the movie Arthur, realized it would take more that alcoholism, money, and cockney charm to get power. The innovation that brought Nixon-Republicans (like Rumsfeld to Cheney) to power was to appeal to racism and anti-communism to gain votes. They learned the lesson of those that went before them, though: let the Fascists talk, but do not let them drive. Modern Day Australian industrialist Rupert Murdoch might have shown up late in the game, but his work would make Adolf cry with joy. Here’s a corporatist who knows his interests. In China, his network has helps support the world’s last communist power. In America, Fox news empowers failures like Bill O’Riely, allowing him to say whatever he wants as long as he supports media deregulation. It’s a dangerous game Murdoch plays, but if America ever falls to Fascism, you can bet that Murdoch will be some where else, delighting people with his irascible charm and down-under wit. (0) comments Sorry for the absence. Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Thanksgiving is tomorrow, and probably most of you will be participating in some sort of family meal celebrating such. And chances are that as primarily male college students, you will be helping out with the baking and cooking (just to defy paradigms and all). You may be at a loss as to what to prepare for your loved ones. Here's a recipe for some surprisingly good cornbread: 1 1/2 c. cornmeal 2 c. whole grain unbleached flour (or white flour for a less hearty bread) 1/4 c. brown sugar 1/4 c. white sugar 1 tbsp baking powder 1 tsp egg substitute powder 1 tsp ground cinnamon 1 tsp (plus or minus) ground cayanne pepper (a surprising yet always well-received ingredient) pinch ground allspice, nutmeg, and ginger dash salt 1/2 c. vegetable oil (no trans fats, unlike in margarine) 1 3/4 c. soy milk (or cow's milk if you insist) Preheat your oven to 400 degrees. Mix all your dry ingredients. Then add your milk and oil and mix thoroughly. You can either mix your ingredients in a big bowl and then pour it into a greased glass or metal 8" sqaure pan, or just mix the ingredients right in the baking dish (with the greater likelihood that your bread will stick a little to the pan). Then cook it for 45 minutes to an hour, depending on how broken your oven is. You'll know your bread is done when you can poke a knife in all the way and it comes out clean. I'm also making pumpkin pie and a yam & carrot dish for the holiday; I'll make sure to tell you how they turn out. Happy Thanksgiving! (0) comments Rebecca C. Brown gives thanks on this the most thanks-inducing of weeks Saturday, November 22, 2003
The RNC (not President Bush himself) has decided to start spending millions of dollars in the primaries to get a leg up on making sure Bush gets the nomination. Or maybe they're spending this money to encourage Democrats to stay home during the primaries, which is ineffectual because a Democrat will be nominated even if only eleven Democrats show up to vote. Or maybe they're priming swing voters to jump on the Republican hate wagon before it leaves town. Whatever the motivation, it's a big waste of money. This ad will start airing in Iowa on Sunday. I'm on a Kucinich e-mailing list, and I think my good friend Denny had some strong and important words to say about the RNC's depiction of the terrorist threat on America: "The Republican National Committee is using money that derives largely from the wealthiest few in America to pay for advertisements aimed at keeping all Americans scared. We will not be frightened into submission. We will not forget the lies we were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We will not forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We will remember that for the hundreds of billions we are spending on an unjust and destabilizing occupation in Iraq, we could have an investment in American education that would include free pre-kindergarten and free college tuition. We need to get our priorities straight and not give in to the fear-mongering. I offer America the hope of a new approach and a clear choice in the next election." Similar attacks against the RNC's fear machine appear on the other Democrats' homepages. In pouring over websites and watching debates, I am very pleased to see the Democrats unified in their pledge defeat Bush. I'm inspired to see so many of the candidates, both viable and long-shot, resist the temptation to play the middle of the road. (Svae for Lieberman. He's a sellout.) My only fear is that when the primaries are over, the Democratic candidate's current dedication to a rejuvinated left will deteriorate into moderate (read "right of center") pandering. Oh, and Go Bears. I'm not into rivalry at all, especially not in the athletic realm. The only grudge I hold against Stanford (with an "O" - misspelling has never equated to clever zinging for me) is that their tuition is through the roof and thus only kids with rich parents or exceptional sports abilities can attend. So that "Go Bears" was apathetic and obligatory. In fact, Go Bears, Stay Bears, Sit Bears. I don't care. So long as the Squelch is better than Stanford's "humor" mag the Chapparelle, I'm content. P.S. My tooth extraction went very well. Only minimal throbbing in my gums and jaw so far. Luckilly, my cute boyfriend got me a Cuisinart food processer for our first anniversary just days before my surgery, so even the most challenging meals can be instantly transformed into soft food that my swollen mouth can handle. Like pasta pate. Actually, I'm sticking to friut and soy protein powder smoothies. Mmmmm.....isoflavones. (0) comments Bad news and more bad news Tuesday, November 18, 2003
One of the lesser known fronts of the Cold war was the field of brainwashing. A couple returning POWs had inexplicably turned Marxists and the US military was interested in why. Several branches of the government worked on the project and in the end, the trick turned out to be no trick at all. A straightforward program of incarceration, isolation, and group punishment that would have been familiar to any prosecutor of the Spanish Inquisition was the best any captor could do. The reason the Communists seemed to have the upper hand was that they were willing to do things our American morals would not permit. I think that the liberal-conservative meme war might be like that. For those of you not familiar, Berkeley’s own George Lakoff is part of the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank whose focus is reframing political debate through language. The idea is that Republicans have found political advantage by using a very precise language specially designed to frame things in a conservative light. For a specific example of bad framing see Nixon’s “I am not a crook.” (As a better example, think of how Republican politicians always seem to keep the topic of discussion on taxes and “tax burdens”. That is a framing trick all by its own. Of course, everyone wants lower taxes. But only by mentally separating them from public services can Republicans hope to bamboozle people into supporting plans to undermine popular institutions like social security.) It’s a good idea. But while it’s important that liberals have the right language to use, it even more crucial is the willingness to say it unashamed. What conservatives have, and what liberals really need, is the media with the will to deliver our message. Conservative leader can trust any of a number of journalists to repeat their spin point or even to blow the cover off a deep cover CIA agent for that matter. Liberals have to contend with the regular media who seem to keep one eye on the news and the other on the number of angry letters they get accusing them of liberal bias. Fox doesn’t care about bias. The wall street journal doesn’t care about bias (or even basic economics if it gets in the way of their ideology). They probably don’t even get letters complaining of bias. Bias is a red herring and liberals should take their queue from conservatives and be unashamed of their own politics. I’m not suggesting that Liberals stoop as low as Fox News (Michael Moore has come close). What I am suggesting is that liberals, and particularly, liberals in the media, stop letting their gentlemanly code of conduct prevent them from saying mean things when mean things need to be said. Otherwise we’ll all end up sounding like NPRs Terry Gross trying to explain how it’s politically balanced to give O’Reilly a hard time during an interview. (Answer: It’s not politically balanced. But it is the best way to treat a guest you believe is dishonest.) Our country didn’t have to give up our morals or our freedoms to win the Cold war, but we did have to learn to give up our isolationist “everything is fine” attitude and take threats seriously. Aggressive, lopsided, and one-sided reporting from the right threatens to unbalance our informed electorate. Liberals need to stop pining for the polite old days of newspapers, and start getting the truth out there. We don’t have to compromise our morals, just instinct to be polite. (0) comments Only 37 hours left! Get on the Kucinich date wagon NOW! Sunday, November 16, 2003
Some numbers on blacks and marijuana. Here are some fascinating charts about reported marijuana use among Americans of different age, gender, and ethnic groups. This is a chart of the percentage of black drug offenders in state prison. For those of you who don't enjoy pouring over charts, here are some highlights: - (Table 3.2) At the time of the survey, 9.9% of black participants had smoked weed in the last year, while 9.1% of whites had. (Among 18-25 year-olds, namely kids people our age, 24.2% of whites had used marijuana in the last year, while only 20% of blacks had.) - (Table 3.1) 37.8% of white participants reported using pot during their lifetimes, while 28.5% of blacks had. (Again, look at the higher weed use among white people in our age group - 46.7% v. 31.6%.) - (Table 3.3) The delineation in which the black pot use is largest compared to white pot use is among those who had used within the last month, and even then the proportion was low - 6.1% of blacks v. 5.2% of whites. Now comes the crazy part. - (Second link) 63% of drug admissions to state prisons are black, compared to 12% that are white. Okay, let's think about this. America is 80% white, but only 12% black. Let's go with the least flattering figure for blacks and assume black marijuana users outnumber white users 6 to 5. Even then, in raw numbers, there are about 5.7 times as many whites using marijuana than blacks, so, by extention, there should be about 5.7 times as many whites in jail for weed as blacks. Instead, blacks outnumber whites over 5 to 1 on marijuana incarcerations. In short, the criminal justice system is anti-black, for one reason or another. Those of you who doin't think it is can maybe counter my emperical data with a reasonable explanation. Maybe "Blacks love to turn themselves in," or "Blacks like to carry their weed out inthe open when they walk past cops." But no, it couldn't be that police are more likely to pursue marijuana use in black neighborhoods, or more likely to look the other way when a white college kid smells like pot, or that a judge is more likely to sentence a black person than a white person for the same drug charge. Of course not. This is America. (0) comments An update for all my family and close friends Tuesday, November 11, 2003
On the face of it, it’s pretty difficult to argue against the progressive income tax without seeming like a jaded jerk. The most handy argument for it is that a flat tax would mean way higher taxes for you (millionaires don’t read this blog so it’s safe to say that). Though it is the actual reason we don’t have a flat tax there is something deeply unsatisfying about this argument. Heck! I could just as easily argue that everyone who reads this blog should get free money from the government, but I think it too would assault our basic sense of fairness. Of course, every single flat tax proposal made by conservative leaders (it comes up in congress almost every year) aren’t really flat at all. They aim to levy a flat tax on earned income (the kind of money you and I make at pizza hut) and lift all taxes on unearned income (the kind of money the rich make off of us when they use out student loan interest to buy homes in the south of France). Furthermore, even Republican leaders aren’t heartless enough to tax the homeless and those not making a living wage. Again, being “two-tiered” their flat tax isn’t really flat at all. Clearly then, you could easily argue against any given “flat tax” plan, but still, the platonic ideal of a flat tax is still there, floating in space: Wrong… But why? It’s an issue of fairness. Sure, Bill Gates is a better programmer than me. Heck, he’s probably even a better salesman then me. But is he really 43,150,080.03* times better than me at anything? Even at darts, which I am exceedingly bad at? No, although it is plain that Bill Gates should rightly own far more than I do, we can also freely admit that what he does own is due in some part to good fortune. Of course, Bill Gates is a particularly deserving case. What about flat tax proponent Steve Forbes? His main talent is the ability to be born to outstandingly rich parents. Quite a skill. Then again, I’m a really good whistler but our society has decided that this particular talent, though also inheritable, does not merit multimillion dollar rewards. The flip side is less dramatic but probably more common. While it’s difficult to get rich without deserving it (barring accidents of birth like our sitting president), it is very easy to not get rich even though you totally do deserve it. If you see Philo Taylor Farnsworth in heaven, thank him for inventing television, since no one ever did down here. Of course, this doesn’t even take into account the people who are rich specifically because they are jerks (see John D. Rockefeller civil-war profiteering) and those who are poor exactly because they were good Samaritans (all the George Baileys of the world). In the end, a progressive tax is (amongst other things) really just a luck tax. It asks of the most probably lucky ducks sitting on their piles of gold to kick back a little to us unfortunates. Until we invent that magical machine that can tell us how much each person’s soul is worth, we’re just going to have to trust to the law of averages. * Ratio of my current bank account balance to Bill Gates’ net worth. Including my student loans this number is negative. (0) comments Our personal connection goes deeper than idealistic liberal politics and diminutive stature Friday, November 07, 2003
Volume Two: Keeping America (and God) out of my uterus. "Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life." Thanks President Bush. Maybe he should have repeated this cute little maxim when he gave the final order to put over 100 people to death during his Texas governorship. I was also under the impression that, even if you believe life is derived from a divine creator, that law comes from the government, not said creator. But this post is about abortion, not about hypocricy or comingling of church and state. I have no doubt that the United States government's most recent attempt to stifle a form of abortion will die a bloody death in the high courts. I am, however, frightened that this anti-"partial-birth abortion" (no such medical term exists) bill even got past congress. It bothers me that a few hundred men and women (oh, but mostly men) in Washington are attempting to dictate what occurs inside a woman's own body. I'm peeved that a rare procedure that is almost only used to protect the life of a woman or to prevent the birth of a baby who cannot survive outside its mother's womb falls under the jurisdiction of a select few, the vast majority of whom don't have the capacity to get pregnant, and the even more overwhelming majority of whom have no medical experience. I believe this issue goes beyond the right's attempt to protect the health of fetuses. (Otherwise it would be illegal to smoke in the same room as a pregnant woman.) As I've stated before, I think this blind anti-abortion sentiment is rooted in a disrespect for a woman's self-determination. I believe that, subversive though this mentality may be, there persists an idea that the female body does not bear the capacity to take care of itself. Women menstruate, they have "hormonal" outbursts, they're physically weaker than men, they have bodies which are believed to be tied to nature because of their reproductive functions. The idea is that women have an inability to control their bodies (we can't really opt out of our periods without negative health repurcussions, and our hormones follow suit), and thus that men, and by extension the men in government (and religion), should have jurisdiction over the feminine physical entity. Many conservative figures in religion and politics are attempting to get "morning after pills" like Previn off the market, claiming that life begins at conception, despite the fact that a 72-hour old embryo is composed of only a few hundred undifferentiated cells. (It's comparable to biting the inside of your cheek and "killing" the skin that comes off.) This opposition to the "abortion pill" (what a charming and inaccurate name) is based not only on a distorted definition of life, but also a resistance to grant women control over their bodies. If abortions are available quickly and (relatively) painlessly, so the argument goes, then women will have sex whenever they want without worrying about the consequences. Drugs that prevent implantation are not going to encourage women to have willy-nilly sex (as much as Pat Robertson would love to picture that); it will give women and men who made a mistake a chance not to give birth to an unwanted, unaffordable child. Also, given that fathers of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock rarely have to suffer the same consequences as the mothers, it provides women with a limited opportunity to decide for themselves what consequences their bodies will suffer. On a lighter note, when I gave blood today I got a free 15 minute phone card. Woo hoo! (0) comments |
Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One Point One: Giving my stupid kids a last stupid name.
In addition to having a husband, part of my life-plan is to have 2-3 children (and a few dogs and cats). And my kids are going to need last names. (Unless, of course, they plan upon becoming wildly successful mono-monikered super models [I'm 5'1" - an unlikely event], soccer players [again, I'm 5'1"], or pop stars.) So whose will it be? Mom's or Dad's?
Ehhhh. Now I'm uncomfortable.
I'm not taking my husband's name. He's not taking mine. (To do otherwise, as I explained, would be dishonest to the pursuit of equality in a relationship.) So there goes that "convenience" (chuckle) of having a happy family with the same surname for all. But what of little Timmy and little Sally and little Habib? If they take "Brown" that would would be denying the other parent's contribution. Likewise if they take "HypotheticalDadName" instead of mine.
The yuppie option "Brown-HypotheticalDadName" might be cumbersome, but is it really that awful an alternative to perpetuating patriarchism? And the name Brown is like a pair of black slacks - it goes with everything.
But what happens when Habib Brown-HypotheticalDadName falls in love with and raises children with Dora McCallister-Rosenberg, and Habib and Dora are also progressive, symbolic equality-seeking Americans? Meet Phineas McCallister-Rosenberg-Brown-HypotheticalDadName. Now, the likelihood of this happening is slim. But that's pretty cumbersome. (Note also that by the time I'm a grandma turn of the century names will again be en vogue. My money's on "Horatio" as the 2050's anser to 2000's "Madison." Mark my words.)
If I give my boy(s) Dad's name and my girl(s) Mom's name, that creates artificial alliances. Same if I did the opposite.
Sigh.
Maybe the dude I marry and I can dole out last names in alphabetical order. If I have babies with Harold Agajanian, the first kid gets his name, the second kid mine, and so on. If I have babies with Grover D. Caterwaul, I'll get first dibbs. Like home-ice advantage in the hockey playoffs.
Oh Jesus. That's a terrible idea.
A good idea, on the other hand, would be for you to donate blood. Do it!
(0) comments
Thursday, November 06, 2003
You gotta fight for your right to get free cookies and orange juice
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
That's right kids. Blood drive tomorrow in Wozinak (I probably spelled that wrong) Lounge in Soda Hall from the morning to the afternoon. I'll be there at about 10:30, as will Paul. The two of us have a friendship based on the mutual love of Elvis Costello and giving blood.
There will also be "Get the Red Out" Big Game week blood drives from 9-4 in Pauley Pavillion on Monday Nov. 17 and Friday Nov. 21. Even if I were eligable to give on the 21st (you have to wait at least 56 days between donations), I wouldn't. Instead on that day I shall be getting four of my teeth hacked out of my skull. And I'm paying almost $200 for the honor.
GIVE BLOOD!!! First, you save some lives. Second, you usually get a free t-shirt (you can choose among large, X-large, and XX-large). Lastly, needles are way cool. Trust me.
(0) comments
Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Woman
Volume One: The Name Game.
For one reason or another, as I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a dearth of female participants in the Cal political blogsphere, among both blog authors and commentators. (I cannot prove that women aren’t reading, thanks to the genderl anonymity of IP addresses.) I won’t speculate as to the source of this disproportionality (though I may do so later). But I can say that as a female I might represent, however inaccurately, a woman’s voice to my male blogging peers.
One topic of debate, often though erroneously labeled as a “women’s issue” (as if any issue existed in a sexual vacuum), is that of a woman’s last name when she gets married. As I foresee my life, I will get married, and I will not change my last name. Is this some subvert (or overt?) anti-male behavior? Is it rooted in the hatred of men inherent to my feminism? Am I simply being defiant in an empty, symbolic way for the sake of defiance itself? Am I trying to piss off my husband? Or am I trying to eliminate the possibility of even snagging a future husband?
Well, no. First, I don’t hate men. Neither does my mother. Or my sister. Nor do my aunts. Or almost any other feminist. Here lies a great myth. Feminists don’t hate men. A critically thinking woman (or man) will, however, despise hierarchy in which women are as a group disadvantaged due to the social structure created by men and reproduced by men (and women). Second, the symbolic battles are often the most difficult ones to win. I will gladly combat symbolic repression with full zeal. Further, no symbolic triumph is empty. Lastly, no, I’m rarely defiant for the sake of pissing people off. (Maybe my parents, but never an entire gender.)
My visceral argument against changing my name is that my identity as Rebecca C. Brown, not as Rebecca B. Smith or Rebecca B. Jones or Rebecca C. Brown-Jones, has been in the works for over two decades (longer by the time I will be asked by convention to alter it by adopting another name). Though a name is little more than a word, I will entreaty my readers to think about the power of words and how language infuses social action. In this case, a woman taking her husband’s last name represents very clearly that her individuality and self-ownership (both physically and psychically) belong not to her but instead to her husband. Just as a father gives his offspring his last name (then adopts a role of authority over them), he so gives his wife his name. Quite simply, it’s nominal slavery. To make a less dramatic argument, it is entirely counterintuitive to equality for one person in a relationship to take the name of the other. I challenge you to assert otherwise.
Your mother or aunt or grandmother may have taken her husband’s name, maybe had children, maybe worked, or maybe stayed home. And despite relinquishing her symbolic identity, was perfectly happy and content. I will not disagree with you. I don’t think something as small as a last name can dictate a person’s happiness; however, it can contribute to her perception of self as a female. Further, the collective inability of women to maintain their last names defines in part what a woman’s role is in the family and in society in general. And though there are no laws dictating that we must change our names, if we don’t, we will, well, get a lot of shit for it.
(0) comments
Monday, November 03, 2003
Baby Boomers: Ticking Socialist Time Bombs
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
Sunday, November 02, 2003
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments
Here’s some brain food: I’m confused about “Starve the beast” conservatives’ plans to run government deficits in order to force a government breakdown when Baby Boomers start to draw on Social Security. Completely getting rid of the social safety net is open goal of a lot of righty policy makers. They see it as a way of promoting personal responsibility. But while it’s an interesting if risky way of enacting policies which a majority of the country doesn’t agree with, I wonder if they aren’t biting off more than they can chew? I mean, it’s all nice and good to force a showdown between low taxes and public services, but is it wise to have that showdown at the exact time that a larger percentage of the voting public is depending on social security and other public safety nets?
We’ve all heard about how the Baby Boomers are the “lump in the python” of demographics, slowly working their way to old age. But I wonder if anyone has tried to explain political power shifts in terms of this giant section of the population growing through different phases of life? Couldn’t you just connect the 60’s to the innocent exuberance of youth, the 70s with the disillusionment, the 80’s with the family man who just wants to make a buck and so on? Of course, this kind of touchy-feely analysis usually makes me sick to my stomach, but a good old fashioned statistical analysis could easily reveal if politics were being changed by increased representations of a particular age group.
Anyhow, it’s food for thought.
(0) comments
What's next? A gay pope?
"The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies. But while pageantry mixed with exultation in the ritual elevating Robinson to bishop of New Hampshire, it seems unlikely the church will hold together in its aftermath." (Full article here.)
I think my loyal readers shold be able to predict my view on the matter. I completely support the right of the percentage of the Episcolpalians who oppose homosexuality to splinter off from the Anglican Church. But they're being archaic and childish. I'm just glad that this matter does not have to be mediated by law, given that God and state are separate entities (despite frequent evidence to the contrary). That's why I'm confused by the last paragraph from the news story:
"Some predict this will develop into the worst Episcopal split since the denomination was founded in 1789. And depending on the shape things take, a spate of church lawsuits may well result."
Lawsuit? Maybe someone with a more acute understanding of law could explain how the church could file any suits. On what basis? That consecrating a gay bishop defies the rules lain out in the Bible? I very honestly don't see what actual laws have been broken.
On a seasonal note, I hope you all had an enjoyable and, more importantly, safe Halloween. David, Andy, and I went down to Scott and the other Andy's place in Santa Barbara for the weekend. We fastidiously avoided Isla Vista, lest we be arrested en masse, until the day after Halloween, when we drove down the main celebration stretch to laugh at all the hungover kids walk home. Ubiquitous red party cups and half-torn sparkly costume butterfly/fairy/standard-female-quick-costume wings littered the road. It was glorious. On the night of the 31st we played Beirut, a delightful game of agility and coordination. Scott and I are currently World Champions of the World. Last night I further solidified my role as designated driver. My plan is to get my license in December, at which point my DD assignment will from then on be unequivocal.
(0) comments