Sarah Palin and Sexism

Yesterday I had lunch with my friend "D," a political junkie like me, and we were discussing Sarah Palin and I mentioned that I thought that like Hillary, she was enduring a fair amount of sexism and scrutiny rooted in sexism by the mainstream media, political pundits, and progressive-liberal Democrats, and Obama-maniacs (and I count myself in the last 2 categories), and maybe her harshest critics are other women of all political stripes.

Now. As many regular readers of this blog know, I am hardly a Sarah Palin fan, but I have tried to restrain myself and to really examine the rhetoric around Palin, both the hagiography (she seems to be Saint Sarah as far as some people on the Evangelical conservative right think) and the demonization (I don't think she's a sign of the apocalypse, although her voice does feel like demons dancing in my brain--and I mean her literal voice not the content of what she is saying. If there is a purgatory and I'm meant to be there, then it will be filled with the voices of Fran Drescher, Rachel Ray, Rosie Perez, and Sarah Palin--and doesn't that say something that these particular FEMALE voices are the ones that drive me stark raving mad?)

When "D" asked for examples of sexism and comparisons of what Palin is facing versus what Clinton faced in the primaries, I noted that one thing was the belief that opponents can't be too hard on Palin for fear of charges of sexism--that we can't expect Palin to stand on her own two feet and that particularly men have to be careful of being perceived that they are being too hard on her. And I mentioned my own harsh critique of Palin, wanting her to be smarter and more knowledgable than she appears to be, to which my friend said that there was nothing wrong with having high expectations (or even just basic expectations) for political candidates for higher office.

But on reflecting more about this, I do think that the scrutiny around Palin has some hints of sexism--at least that as a woman in politics, like Clinton and others, Palin is not immune to the double-bind expectations that we have of women in the public sphere. That they have to be feminine, and yet not too feminine. That they should be both independent and yet utterly maternal and devoted to their families. And I think that for some partisan folk, it's easier to go after Palin rather than McCain because McCain seems untouchable in certain ways--due to his stint in the Hanoi Hilton, his age and health (although there are some really awful commercials hinting that his cancer is more wide spread than he is leading us to think and that he may keel over any minute--the ad is sponsored by some independent group but I can't help thinking that it was in such POOR TASTE and I'm not sure if it was an ad meant to hurt or help Obama, because if people THINK that this group supports Obama it could actually backfire and help people sympathize with McCain. Either way, it was a BAD AD).

So we go after Palin. And to be fair, there's a LOT to go after. So it's not entirely the fault of the media or pundits or Democrats. But still. I think that in some ways, going after Palin takes away from what this election should really be about--how to get our nation going in a progressive direction (at least it is for me). I also find it odd that more scrutiny of Cindy McCain doesn't hit the mainstream. Because I recently read a piece in The New Yorker about her that was just disturbing. Among other things, McCain's adoption of Bridget without consulting John McCain (she also got her pilot's license without ever letting him know she was taking lessons), and her deliberate forgetting that her father had a family that he left for her Mom (in other words, Cindy has an older half-sister yet consistently refers to herself as her father's "only child" which is offensive to say the least and a stark contrast to the Obama family dynamics), and the separate spheres that she and John McCain seem to lead their lives.

Finally, for a BRILLIANT post looking at the intersection of racism and sexism, head over to What Tami Said for he post entitled "Dear Liberal Elites" (yes, that means ME and YOU). As usual, Tami said it much better than I ever could.

In defense of knowledge

Like many of you, I was glued to my tv set yesterday from 9-11pm (OK, truthfully, 9-12am because I was watching all the post-debate spin and punditry as well as reading the live blogs and politicos on line).

And as a continuation of a post I wrote a few days ago titled cheekily "In defense of elitism" I want to clarify some of what I wrote in that post in light of the interesting discussion thread that follows and in light of last night's debate.

I never thought Sarah Palin would totally go off the rails. I thought it *might* happen, and I thought Joe Biden also *might* make one of his notorious gaffes. But the debate pretty much was what I thought it was going to be--Palin didn't repeat her "deer in the headlights" moments ala Couric interview and kept to the script that her handlers gave her (the woman was a communication studies major and had a job as an on-air newscaster--she knows how to look directly into a camera and punch certain sound bites). And Biden gave an impressive debate performance in terms of demonstrating that he had a plethora of facts and figures at his fingertips as well as deep and wide knowledge about domestic and foreign affairs (and a deep history in the Senate and familiarity with John McCain's record).

I know that everyone is saying that Palin did well because she staunched the bleeding from the CBS interviews and because she reassured the conservative base that she was firm on issues near and dear to the "right" (anti-gay marriage, smaller government, "winning" the war in Iraq). In other words, she showed up, didn't fall on her face, and stuck to talking points, sound bites, and campaign slogans and did fine, even if she didn't seem to answer questions directly or with any specificity. Biden, on the other hand, clearly demonstrated a grasp of the questions and the underlying issues AND provided clear answers that showed, again, his deep knowledge and ability to synthesize information from various quarters and on his feet in a debate format. And the pundits and America seem to agree since all the polls I've seen (including CNN) show Biden as the clear "winner" of last night's debate.

And here's what I'm left with. Biden had more knowledge. And an ability to synthesize that knowledge. And THAT is what I care about. Someone who is able to synthesize a wide as well as deep body of knowledge. A college education or law degree doesn't guarantee that someone is able to do this. But you know what? It doesn't hurt. In fact, I'd argue that a college degree, while not being a barometer for intelligence, is a barometer for diligence. For being able to follow a schedule of classes and set of requirements. And a higher degree, law, grad school, MBA, demonstrates an ability to take this training and thinking to another level.

And THAT is important. Knowledge. The celebration of knowledge. Not for it's own sake--not to make one superior--not to be celebrated as self-aggrandizement. But knowledge as power, particularly the power to make change in yourself, your community, and your world. THAT is important. Because knowledge IS power. We need to arm ourselves with as much knowledge as we can, about global climate change. About international issues that impact our domestic crises (the housing market, gas prices, rising cost of living--we are living in a global world--trade with foreign markets, particularly China is crucial to U.S. economic stability right now).

The issues we are facing in our nation, today, are complex and complicated. I want knowledge to be celebrate and lauded in our leaders as role models for our children and students--that we NEED people to be smart. We NEED people to want to pursue KNOWLEDGE--of all kinds (I need a new roof--and clearly I DO NOT have the knowledge to put on shingles and assess the state of my current roof, but I KNOW that there are people I can call for their expertise and KNOWLEDGE to replace my roof).

I wish we embraced knowledge more. Not just a rhetoric of "folksiness" or a series of facial gestures (all that winking that Sarah Palin did seemed bizarre to me). I would have been reassured if she had been able to give answers that reflected her synthesis of the information and her clear KNOWLEDGE of the subject and not just a parroting back of sound bites and campaign slogans. So for me, the clear winner was Biden and the clear ticket to support in November is Obambiden, because I want my leaders to be people who demonstrate KNOWLEDGE.

Another SNL skit I can't resist

Yes, yes, yes...it IS another skit mocking Sarah Palin (sigh).


Please...send me references to skits mocking John McCain--I'll gladly post them!

[note: this is a totally partisan blog, so don't bother sending in anti-Obama/Biden material]

I do think that these skits are part of a larger issue regarding sexism and politics. I had this conversation last night with some friends at dinner. As you can probably guess, my friends are of the elite, liberal ilk (and many of them are professors to boot) and they were talking about the thrashing Sarah Palin was going to suffer through during tomorrow's debates with Joe Biden. This is a common theme I have been hearing around town among Obama supporters--that they expect tomorrow's debate to be a verbal smackdown.

But I'm not so sure. And I think that one of the things I've been hearing, that Biden has to be careful about his "tone," that he can't be too "mean" towards Governor Palin, that he can't appear to be "sexist," well, what all of this means is that there is this idea that as a woman, Sarah Palin needs to be handled in a certain way.

And this belief, that a man can't treat a woman as an equal, is a sexist attitude. I think it's something we ALL do. Like the legacy of racism, sexist attitudes are embedded in our daily lives in ways we often never recognize. And they often go uncommented on. Case in point: a friend who is a mother notes that when one of her male colleagues brings his infant daughter into the office, people note what a good Dad he is for taking care of his daughter and taking part in child care. Whereas NO ONE ever says the same of my friend, who also brings in her infant daughter to the office (academia allows this more easily than other spaces) from time to time.

But getting back to Sarah Palin and the Vice Presidential debates tomorrow, I don't know if it will be the thrashing that so many folks seem to think. I haven't been impressed by her AT ALL. Certainly not her record as mayor or governor. Nor the rhetoric she has used in her speeches. And definitely not during her interview with Katie Couric or with Charlie Gibson. I don't have high expectations for her, not because she has ovaries but because she seems unprepared and underqualified to discuss issues of foreign affairs and domestic public policy in our current time, nor does she seem to have a grasp of history and how we feel the effects of history right now (and I'm thinking of the current financial crisis most especially).

However, Palin could surprise us all. By just hanging in. By just being competent. There is so much extra expectation of how well Biden will do and so much speculation about whether or when Palin will fall on her face. All she has to do is show up and hold herself well and she will be granted the winner.

And this, too, is part of sexism I believe. That we are deciding to hold her to a different accountability because of her gender. No one, of course, is saying this. But I feel it everywhere implied. And quite frankly, I wish people would stop worrying if they are seeming "hard" on her and just treat her the way they treat any other male politician. That seems the most respectful thing to do.

Post convention thoughts

I teach in an English department. I know the power of narrative, how persuasive the right combination of words can be. And I study popular culture and am aware of the strength of certain images and symbols. Politics, to a large degree, is about rhetoric and spin: it is about persuasion.

A LOT has been written about Sarah Palin, about what she does and doesn't do for the Republican ticket, about her being a heart beat away from the presidency and what her selection says about McCain's judgment in choosing her.

I was going to do an entire post about Sarah Palin and about the RNC, and comparing the RNC to the DNC, but there are so many other bloggers and media outlets who have already done this work (I'll embed some links within my post--it's nice, because essentially these posts are ones I would have written, perhaps in a different style/format, but they tackle the topics I would have tackled).

What I want to end the week with now, and the two solid weeks of being glued, alternately, to CSPAN, CNN, and MSNBC, are a few thoughts about what I would like to see happen (I know this probably *won't* happen, but I thought I'd try to be hopeful and stay positive, because there's just TOO MUCH NEGATIVITY, and I'm tired of the sniping).

*I would like to see an end to coded racist language against the Obama family, in particular, and African Americans, in general. I'd like to see an end to coded racist language against all people, but the truth is, in my opinion, African Americans get the brunt of this more than other racial groups in the U.S. The word "uppity" should only be used, in a vernacular fashion, to refer to objects that are placed beyond someone's reach, as in "Can you please grab that book for me? It's too uppity for me to get it." The word "uppity" SHOULD NOT be applied to a U.S. Senator who is also the Democratic candidate running for President, and by the way, is the first African American representing a major political party, as in this quote by Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland:

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said. Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

*I would like to see an end to people equating Islam with terrorism or Muslim culture/references with Islamic terrorism. Here's a choice quote from another U.S. congressman:

"Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, 'Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

*I would like both parties held accountable for telling the truth, about themselves and about their opponents. A great website to check out is FactCheck.org, which keeps track of both parties and holds both campaigns accountable for their misleading statements or outright lies.

And while The Daily Show is probably not as unbiased as the above site, their juxtaposition of key political figures and pundits is worth noting as we move forward in the final push to November 4:



*I do think that the families and particularly the children of politicians and public figures should be off limits. At the same time, I think that political candidates should not try to make political hay out of their children.

*I think people should be more respectful in their critique of Sarah Palin. Although I find the Republican call of "sexism" a bit hard to swallow in light of the treatment that Hillary Clinton has received during the last year and a half (and really the last twelve years because she got a lot of disrespect based on gender during the Clinton administration), I do think that there's quite a bit of sexist rhetoric, especially in the blogosphere. And if people want to critique Palin, they can do so without using sexist language. Critiquing her, just like critiquing any of her male peers, is fair game--having unfair gender expectations of her, is not.

*I would like people to recognize that women, just like men, are complex creatures. And that just because you are a woman does not mean that you can speak for all women or are in favor of what, politically, we refer to as "women's rights." Same thing goes for being African American--Barack Obama does not speak on behalf of all African Americans. He does not "represent" black American. He is not running for president of the American "black diaspora." He is running to be President of the United States.

*Having said that, I wish people would start to recognize the pervasiveness of racism and racist thought in this country--or perhaps conversely, how difficult it is to recognize white privilege and white supremacist thought. Notice I didn't say "racist people"--Jay Smooth already covered this a few months back. But I've had numerous conversations with friends who have older white parents who are struggling with their internalized racism--these are older white Democrats who have never voted Republican and don't plan to vote for McCain, but they balk at voting for a black man because the picture of Barack Obama and his family is NOT the picture they have of a first family. These are not bad people--and they have raised children who are liberal and progressive minded.

But really--THIS is the reason I teach what I teach, why I focus my research on race, and why I started a blog called Mixed Race America. Race is such a pervasive part of American culture/society/history/politics. It's large and amorphous, fluid and flexible. No one is ever "right" about race, and just when you think you've figured everything out, something changes, something happens, something erupts to blow your previous theory and conceptions, of race, right out of the water.

*And really, what it all boils down to, for me, about Obama and his historic candidacy and the issue of race are two lines from a Pat Parker poem:

"For the White Person who Wants to Know How to Be My Friend"
The first thing you do is to forget that i'm Black.
Second, you must never forget that i'm Black.

Completely biased impressions of the RNC

WARNING: What follows is a completely partisan, totally biased, largely unfiltered stream-of-consciousness type observation of what I'm watching on CNN of Sarah Palin's acceptance speech in front of the Republican National Convention.

*10:42 pm EST CNN just showed secret service escorting a woman with a large tote back with raised fist out of the convention hall. Wonder what that is all about...guessing she's a protester?
[UPDATE: 9/4/08: This just in from CNN's website: "Police said two protesters were removed during Palin's speech. They said they were members of the anti-war group Code Pink. A spokesperson for the Joint Information Center said the two women were escorted by law enforcement officers from the Xcel Center for heckling. They stood and yelled off to the side of the podium during Palin's speech. They were not charged and have been "sent on their way," this spokesperson said."]

*Sarah Palin is ripping on Obama for his previous comment about people clinging to religion and guns months ago to a crowd in SF.

*What is the "Washington elite" that Sarah Palin refers to? Wouldn't that include her candidate, John McCain? The man was in Washington DC so often and not at home with his wife and children that Cindy McCain got so stressed out that she formed an addiction to pain medication [don't believe me? See Newsweek's cover story on Cindy McCain from June 30, 2008. It was actually a pretty balanced/sympathetic portrait of Cindy McCain and it made me feel sorry for her because basically she was raising her kids like a single mom, albeit a single mom who has millions at her fingertips so lets not get too carried away. Also I'd bet money that Cindy McCain has been either emotionally or physically abused (or both) by John McCain (we know that he's called her a "c---" in front of others in the 2000 campaign). The man has huge DOCUMENTED anger issues. Please, someone slip Mrs. McCain a pamphlet to a woman's shelter. Get out woman! Take the kids and GET OUT NOW.].

*10:46pm Sarah Palin is claiming to be a reformer. I wonder if that's why she hired a lobbyist while she was mayor and why she flip-flopped on that "bridge to nowhere" that she initially voted for and then didn't vote for. And seriously, what WAS the vetting process for Sarah Palin???

*I feel like a Peanuts character right now and that Sarah Palin is one of those "adults" because all I'm hearing is "wah, wah, wah, wahhh wahhhh."

*Palin's youngest daughter is totally cracking me up--she's adorable and she's holding her baby brother and was stroking his hair when she decided to smooth it down by licking her palm and then slicking back his hair with her wet-spit palm! This girl's got character.

*10:50pm What's up with the digital screen that the RNC is using behind its speakers? When Rudy Giuliani was speaking they showed, predictably, a skyline of NYC. Just now they showed the Washington monument and the reflecting pool behind Sarah Palin. Wouldn't that just reinforce a connection between her and the "elitism" of Washington DC?

*She's claiming that while drilling won't solve our energy crisis it's better than doing nothing at all. TOTALLY FAULTY LOGIC! It may, INDEED, turn out that doing "nothing at all" is much BETTER than doing something if the something turns out to have irreversible detrimental consequences for the environment. And what's up with the earlier calls that the Republicans keep shouting to "Drill it! Drill it!" Is it just me or is this a vulgar phrase, and I mean this in more ways than one. If we want energy independence then WHY AREN'T WE DEVELOPING MORE ALTERNATIVE FUELS???!!! Or more specifically, why aren't Repulicans spearheading Green issues related to energy independence???

*CNN keeps panning to the dozen people of color at the RNC--I've seen the "Viva McCain" guy at least 3 times in the last half hour. Aren't there any other brown people and/or Latinos they can focus on? Do they think that we won't recognize that when they keep showing the two-three African American men over and over again that we won't realize that they are the SAME black faces and not new black Republicans? And what's up with the Asian Americans in the crowd...I did spot Elaine Chao, guess you got to give it up for the Asian American token in the Bush cabinet.

*10:55 Sarah Palin just ripped on Obama for his support of MIRANDA laws....WTF???!!!

*Now it's the St. Louis arch behind her--I guess the RNC is trying to show "American" views to support the belief that it's "Country first." Wish I could see more of it--looks like a nice slide show from the highlights of someone's cross-country trip.

*I don't think neon green is the right color for Cindy McCain, but it does seem to be within her color palette because she tends to favor very bright, solid colors.

*I wonder if they are selling those white cowboy hats that the Texas delegation keeps waving in the air. I'd like one of those!

*Is it just me or is the crowd in the RNC of an older demographic than the one at the DNC last week? Where are the young folks? Where are the college-aged Young Republicans?

*11:01pm Now she's pumping up John McCain's "war hero/fighter" credentials. "There is only one man who's fought for you where winning means survival and losing means death." What does that mean exactly? In the Viet Nam analogy it doesn't quite work. John McCain's plane was shot down, he was tortured, and eventually he was released, but we also evacuated Viet Nam (ie: fled) and South and North were eventually united as a communist country (although you wouldn't recognize it as such anymore). So if John McCain survived, does that mean he won? But what did he win, besides his life? We lost the war, and many died...I'm just not seeing the logic in this rhetoric.

*They aren't showing him now but Levi Johnson, the boyfriend of Bristol Palin, cleans up nicely (for a contrast you should see these photos on Huffington Post). You wouldn't guess that he's the self-identified/proudly proclaimed "red neck" that he says he is on his My Space page. I haven't checked, but do you think his My Space page is still up or has the McCain camp taken it down...And can people still find him on Facebook? Has anyone tried to "friend" him lately?

*11:06 Palin just wrapped up her speech by asking people to elect a "great" man as President of the United States.

So I'm taking her advice and voting for Barack Obama in November!

[Aside: Is it just me or is the soundtrack for the RNC essentially a country-western track? Don't Republicans listen to something besides this one genre of music? Seriously, aren't there some soul fans in the GOP leadership? A little Marvin Gaye anyone? Or perhaps they don't want to run into anymore problems with singers telling them that they don't have their permission to use their songs, which both Van Halen and Jackson Browne have recently done.]

p.s. Just like last week, I can feel tears welling up in my eyes, but they are NOT tears of joy...they are tears of panic and frustration and anxiety because this election is SO IMPORTANT and I can't believe that it's going to be a nail biter because to me this seems like a NO BRAINER (sigh), but like I warned at the top of this post, this is my own completely biased take on tonight's convention coverage on CNN.

Day after Labor Day observations

Just a few random thoughts after catching up on blog reading, television viewing, New York Times skimming, and just other musings of my day yesterday:

*Comparing the people attending the RNC vs. the DNC I am struck by how white the delegates are. Granted, I didn't watch as much coverage (there wasn't as much coverage to watch given the scaled back convention) but in scanning the crowd it was difficult to make out any people of color, and there certainly did not appear to be any groups or crowds or masses of people of color. And there seemed to be an overwhelming male force in the convention hall as well.

*Is it just me or are the newscasters half-disappointed that Hurricane Gustav turned into tropical storm Gustav and the levees held and there wasn't sheer mayhem and devastation? I mean, they SAY they are glad, but then they (and maybe CNN is the most egregious offender) are quick to point out that there are even MORE hurricanes on the way, like Hannah & Ike. There is a tone of sensationalism running throughout the news coverage of the Gulf region that makes me feel icky--like I need to take a shower. Personally, I was THRILLED that it turned into a tropical storm--and even then it seems awful that people had to have their lives disrupted like this.

*I can understand people being against abortion--everyone I know is against abortion in the sense that they consider this to be a last option--something they would rather not have to choose. What completely BAFFLES me about people who espouse "family values" is the "abstinence only" education for teenagers and/or the belief that contraception is a form of abortion rather than seeing contraception as a necessary practice not only to prevent unwanted pregnancy but to guard against sexually transmitted disease. Abstinence only education DOES NOT WORK. Talking candidly with your teenage children about sex, waiting to have sex until they are ready, ways to combat feeling pressure to have sex, and using proper birth control in the event that they find they cannot wait, THIS IS SEX EDUCATION THAT MAKES SENSE. Having this message reinforced in the school where kids may feel more comfortable asking questions and talking amongst their peers rather than with their parents MAKES DOUBLE SENSE.

*Universities, colleges, and K-12 schools that begin classes BEFORE labor day makes me sad (and Southern U. is among these).

*Did I mention that the delegates at the Republican National Convention appear to be overwhelmingly white and predominantly male?

*Being pissed off at the government or at the Republican party and destroying property or taunting police does NOT seem to be the most effective way to get your message across. It actually seems to undermine your message of change. Protesting peacefully and in mass numbers against policies that seem to go against your principles, like protesting against the war and against inhumane treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, seems both moral and ethical.

*Tennis elbow (which I have) takes a LONG time to heal and resting it and icing it is good, but I'm antsy to play golf and to do other activities in which full use of my right arm and elbow would be good.

*The image of the digital flag behind Laura Bush & Cindy McCain at the RNC was HUGE. I'm glad that Republicans like to remind everyone what country they are in. I wonder if they worry that we will be confused for Canadians or Scandinavians if they do not put up an image of a big flag billowing in the wind behind the first lady?

*Kudos to CNN's Campbell Brown for hammering away at McCain's spokesperson (Tucker somebody) who kept dodging her very basic question of asking him to name one executive decision that Sarah Palin had made with respect to foreign policy (since he had just said that Sarah Palin had more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama since as governor of Alaska she was the chief commander of the Alaskan National Guard). Tucker kept repeating that she had executive military and hence foreign policy experience given the executive level commands that she gave the Alaska National Guard. Campbell Brown kept asking him to name JUST ONE decision she made with respect to the Alaska National Guard and poor Tucker just kept repeating himself without ANSWERING HER QUESTION. It made him look foolish and he sounded like a broken record.

*No matter how many times I re-read Persuasion I still fall in love with Austen's language.

*Did I already mention that in terms of a mixed-race America, the image of the delegates convened for the Republican National convention seemed very homogenous and not at all mixed (with two exceptions, I did spot an Asian American man amongst the denim clad Texas delegation (they all wore matching denim shirts and cowboy hats) and when Cindy McCain addressed the crowd they did pan to her children which included Bridget, who is South Asian.

SERIOUSLY, here's my question, and it's a very real question: Is the Republican party as white and as male as the delegates in the convention hall have me thinking they are? I mean, I understand that I am a die-hard Democrat. And I understand that I have surrounded myself with like-minded people who are also largely Democrat or at least liberal on social issues. But if I think hard about the people I know who are Republican, there are a handful of Asian Americans (like my parents friends R & J) but by and large all the people I know who are Republican are white (and I've only met one black Republican, a friend of Southern Man. Talking to him was an exercise in having an African American man tell me that racial profiling of black men by the police was completely justified because statistics prove that black men commit more crime. It was SURREAL having this conversation with him, because he is also anti-affirmative action, pro-life, and anti-immigration. I didn't know him that well, so I didn't feel it was a good thing to get in a screaming match with him).

Really, is the Republican party overwhelmingly white? I am not trying to say that this then means that all Republicans are more racist/don't care about people of color. But is it a coincidence that the people I know committed to social justice and anti-racism are largely people of color or white allies, and all of them are Democrats?

[10:12pm--This just in: Senator McCain withdraws from an interview tonight on CNN with Larry King because of Campbell Brown's questioning of his aide, Tucker Bound (see my comment above). Click here for the article and see this YouTube clip below where Tucker Bound becomes defensive and inarticulate at Campbell Brown's questions. Apparently the McCain camp is trying to "punish" CNN for how "unfair" Campbell Brown is towards Tucker Bound. Judge for yourself. Personally, I think Campbell Brown was doing her job.]

Labor Day Links

In honor of labor day, I am going to be linking to other bloggers and posts that I think are relevant to what is going on in today's world (like Gustav, the Democratic convention last week, McCain's VP bomb) and just posts I thought might be of interest to readers of this blog.

Hopefully those of you reading this in the U.S. (where Labor Day is an official holiday) are enjoying a day of lazy respite from your normal work routine. Or if you are an academic type like myself, then perhaps you have a pile of reading on your desk that you hope to get through (a re-reading of Crevecoeur, a glimpse into Deleuze & Guattari, skimming over some racial melancholia, and for pleasure, my umpteenth re-reading of Persuasion for a grad seminar).

*I often feel like Tami of What Tami Said and I are separated at birth, sisters in the blogosphere. Her post "What we deserve (A Rant, I know)" summarizes much of how I feel about PUMAs (Party United My Ass), the splinter group formed out of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters (whose numbers, I hope dropped radically after both Hillary's speech and McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin--more on that below). She wrote this before the roll call vote, which you can see in the post she wrote following the one above.

*Tenured Radical, a wonderful writer (and fine academic) has a great post that talks about the importance of Obama's acceptance speech, and is inspiring in its analysis of Obama and what he stands for as much as the actual speech itself. And she follows this up with two posts about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP, asking "Is Sarah Palin Good for Women?" (and I know you might have a knee-jerk one-word response but take the time to read this post) and another on the conservative response to McCain's pick (click here).

*Another blog I like a lot, Poplicks, also has two posts about McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin, with more links in their comments section to other sites dissecting the (il)logic/pandering/disastrousness of this selection. Miss AK-47 and this other post with an interesting comment thread by a PUMA member weighing in, Women: Putting the "Wild" in Wild Card, gives us a glimpse into what people (esp. liberal-progressive folks) are thinking about the choice of Sarah Palin (and yes, I'll be writing my own rant later in the week).

*Poplicks also has a post about the path of Gustav and the effect that this is having on the RNC and McCain--and speculating on the political opportunism of McCain delivering his acceptance speech in New Orleans in the wake of Gustav (sentiments that are echoed by Paul Krugman's Op-Ed in The New York Times).

*The LPGA recently issued a rule (should I add asinine?) that all players must be conversant in English to play on the tour--a ruling that seems to specifically target a single ethnic-national group: South Koreans. For more, see the Constructivist's take here, as well as my own length comment(s) and thoughts by Angry Asian Man here and here.

*Finally, for something to satisfy your appetites beyond the political, Land of the Not-So-Calm has posted a recipe for chop ch'ae, a Korean noodle dish that makes me salivate (and the photo she includes will make you salivate too). Her posting made me think that I should do some kind of recipe swap with readers/bloggers where we share tried and true meals with one another (because I'm always looking to expand my cooking repertoire).