Who's House? OUR HOUSE!!!

It's been a very long time since I felt like I was a part of something genuine, just, and true. The last time I felt moved in this was was Jesse Jackson's presidential bid back in the '80s. But I quickly learned what disappointment meant and how frustrating it was to change anything. There were so many years when I thought that change would not, and could not, be possible.

Too many promises broken, and too many battles lost. Too many friends who left, and too many times when I said, "I give up."

But no more! What an incredible night! What a historic victory! On a magnitude and scale that goes far beyond one's hopes, it felt as though the country -- the America that I know -- we drew one collective breath together and exhaled with relief, joy, and then jubilation.

For once I wish I was back in Arlington, VA. I wish I could take the Metro to the McPherson Square exit and run up to the front of the White House to join with hundreds of others who have gathered there for the celebration. And with all my might, I would've yelled at the top of my lungs for everyone to hear, "You're in OUR House now!!!"

UPDATE: Bloody hell. Proposition 8, the California ballot to ban same-sex marriage, is going to win. And the exit polls are revealing that the minority electorate voted in favor of the ban which means once again supporters of same-sex marriage are still unable to take race, the language of marriage, and the historical specificity of immigrant, bicultural experiences as factors.

Mr. President

By way of O.W. at Poplicks.com,

Settling It Old School

It was bound to happen (by way of Poplicks.com) ...

Meet Joe the Plumber

So last night's final presidential debate was exciting as it was irritating. Exciting in the sense that it's over and according to several polls Obama won it easily. Even McCain's jab at Obama for not running against Bush in 2004 was pretty good. But it was irritating not because of McCain's huff 'n gruff demeanor, but at Joe the Plumber.

Who the hell is Joe the Plumber anyway???

Well apparently the NY Times found out and frankly, I'm not surprised. See the article here.

Joe in the Spotlight
by Larry Rohter and Liz Robbins

One week ago, Joe Wurzelbacher was just another working man living in a modest ranch house near Toledo thinking about how to expand his plumbing business. But when he stopped Senator Barack Obama during a visit to his block this weekend to ask about his taxes, he set himself on a path to being the newest media celebrity — and, like other celebrities, found himself under scrutiny.

Turns out that “Joe the Plumber,” as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, may run a plumbing business but he is not a licensed plumber. His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. And he owes a bit in back taxes.

W...T...F???

What the hell is wrong with these people?!?!?

Did I Just Hear That?

"That one"???

All Things Considered

So the $700 billion bail out plan failed yesterday, world markets plunged dramatically, Wall Street today is fighting back, McCain didn't have the knock-out debate, the vice-presidential debates are coming up, and I got to tell ya' ... I'm loving Tina Fey's performance as Governor Sarah Palin on SNL.

David Letterman

A clip from the David Letterman Show where McCain who was scheduled to appear canceled at the last minute to fly back to Washington, DC, to address the economic fallout. Letterman then finds out that McCain didn't quite exactly do what he said and instead showed up at an interview with Katie Couric at the same time of Letterman's show. You just have to love how Letterman handles the whole thing.

Seriously?!

My advisor sent me a link to an online poll conducted by PBS that asked if Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President of the United States. Without hesitation, I checked my response, which was a "NO" in case you're wondering, and the results popped up. I was flabbergasted. At the time of my vote, 51% said she was qualified, and 47% said she wasn't.

WTH???

Too Funny!

Quick Thought

What the hell is this war of words that pits racism and sexism against each other? As if one was worse than the other so therefore it deserves more attention and import than the other? Or that sexism was the cause of Hillary's downfall? Or that Obama needs to win because racism is worse than sexism?

DNC Compromise?

I watched the Rules Committee meeting for as much as I could all day. I saw the drama, the heartaches, the passions, and the pleas and at the end of the day, I am still dumbfounded. I know Michigan and Florida violated the rules regarding primary elections to which Obama and Clinton honored the DNC by not campaigning in either state. Yet this "compromise" seems very bizarre. The delegates from Florida and Michigan will only count as 1/2 vote. I suddenly cringed at that thought because it harkened back to the days of the early republic when blacks only counted as 3/5ths of a vote. Now Florida's and Michigan's votes regardless of race only counts as 1/2 vote? That's the compromise? How is 1/2 different from 3/5ths? This compromise had the overall effect that weakened Clinton's possibility for a huge gain and increased Obama's chances to secure the nomination. But here's the kicker, some "reasonable" proportion of Michigan's "uncommitted" votes will go to Obama that is included in the compromise (???). That I do not understand. One person, one vote. How can votes be reappropriated to mean something else? I guess that's what the Rules Committee did, but I'm having a fairly difficult time accepting the rationale for it.

This discourse about "family" and "unity" is quite intriguing. The comments made by Mona Pasquil is an excellent example. If "family" is going to be used then I suggest a multicultural, immigrant, working class family with lots of extended family members. Watching the meeting televised on C-SPAN reminded me of the complicated and heavily politicized big family dinners back in my youth (I think 30-50 core members). There was a lot of posturing and politicking. There were people talking to, by, and past each other; there were some talking in words that no one knew. There was the patriarch of the family demanding order; there were numerous kids making a ruckus over everything (myself included). There were arguments, fights, and bickering and yet despite all the mess we still, for the most part, stuck together. There were the appeals to reason and compassionate pleas for unity. But I wonder about the extent of the fallout to the DNC and in particularly voters? How have they been alienated, ostracized, or left to fend for themselves without any help? I also wonder how mad will people be at the family and what are they capable of if they are angry enough especially when some feel as though the process was "hijacked" by less than transparent intentions? Despite these questions, the most basic and quintessential question remains and that is what is keeping this "family" together in the first place and is "it" -- whatever "it" may be -- strong enough to hold us together?

As vibrant and powerful as my extended family was, there were some wounds that were too deep to heal, some grudges too painful to let go, and an endless fountain of deep seated resentment. The last time the family got together en masse was over sixteen years ago at the funeral of my great grandmother. She was one of the main and last reasons that kept everyone together. Despite this loss, we generally still keep in contact with each other, albeit at a comfortable distance, but never totally out of touch. Like any family, the gossip was a good enough reason for any get together. But I can't call this extended family of mine as a perfect example of a strong union. Instead, our antagonisms continue to imperfectly and awkwardly form the reason on why we stick together. It's too easy for me to say "we're family" and that's why we stay together. But if "family" is about the day-to-day struggle of making it through then I can find the simplicity of it an apt fit.

Quick Thought

I was at the supermarket the other day when I saw the cover of the latest TIME cover featuring a split image of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with the title, "There Can Only Be One."


By the way, the idea for that cover was ripped from the NBA's playoff campaign where basketball superstars are perfectly aligned side-by-side (see BenMVP.com for more). Their campaign called, "There Can Only Be One," seems to be a slight variation of a very popular tagline from the movie, Highlander (1986). The actual line is "In the end, there can be only one." Anyways, I digress ... again ...

I get the idea that the Democratic Party ought to choose a presidential nominee now but the race between Obama and Clinton is so tight that choosing one will be enormously difficult. Such a decision will come down to the nitty gritty details in order to make the distinctions clearer. Fine. I get that. But I remember back in late March of another cover from The New Republic of a morph between Obama and Clinton. I think TNR called it "HillarACK" which sounds like someone was saying Hillary's name before barfing his dinner out.

So this I also "get" but it's extremely problematic. Again there's a similar dynamic that because Hillary and Obama are extremely popular, very resourceful, strong candidates in their own right that making a decision is proving to be much harder than anticipated. There are consequence in the long run if no candidate emerges with a definitive lead especially for the Presidential race against John McCain. But through the beauty of morphing graphic technology, instead of choosing one, we can take the best of both candidates and create the super-candidate for the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party. What do we get when we blend Obama with Clinton?

A white guy. WTF???? So instead of embracing the specific identity of race through Obama or the identity of women through Clinton, this representation positions "white male" as not only the "best of both worlds" but also reinforces it as the default subjectivity for all matters regarding race and gender. This is more than an inability to choose between one or the other; it's a dangerously misguided and idealized representation about discourses of race and gender.

So what makes the TIME magazine cover so interesting, and subversive, in juxtaposition to TNR? We still have to choose between two candidates; it's a choice that is also intimately bound up in questions about race and gender. Either one will still be a political and historical exclamation point for the US.

But the TIME cover still uses the same visual strategy where the head, hair lines, eyes, nose, and lips are, for the most part, perfectly aligned, instead of morphing the facial elements together. There is still an echo of an idealized candidate though it is not as distinct as TNR's representation. Instead, the visual and political effect is more pronounced in TIME's cover and the tagline. Suture theory (Yes, I'm playing around with film theory) describes the process whereby subjects ( "us" ) are "drawn into" a film (identification), taking up positions as "subjects-within-the-film," so that our meanings and experiences become defined by the film's narrative. OK so the cover is not a film but it is a representation that demands textual analysis. I'm sure there's a communication studies theory that is applicable but I'm more familiar with film theory and suture theory is what popped into my head. I imagine hearing the anguish and utter horror from a psychoanalytic film theorist as I butcher a well established film theory. But I'm a cultural studies scholar and we're trained to use theory in less than traditional ways. So deal with it. Anyways ...

So if suture theory describes a process of subjectification then what the TIME cover has done was to not only force a character identification, but also a choice. It is a demand on the viewer (that is, "us") to choose a friggin' candidate. The world encapsulated in the representation of the TIME cover is the same world that we inhabit. This is the major difference from the TNR cover because the morph is an imaginary completeness that functions to disguise an inherent lack (Yes, this is my best use of psychoanalytic film theory). There is no demand on the viewer to do anything more other than to abide by a fictionalized narrative that is politically problematic as a discursive construction and as question of agency. The TIME cover on the other hand is not at all ambiguous or ambivalent about what is at stake. It reads as a kind of refusal to an idealized candidate and the misguided appeals to a race-less/gender-less utopic narrative. Instead, it compels a very pragmatic and deeply political act: choose one.

I thought that this was going to be a quick thought but apparently it went further than I anticipated. Oh well.

The APA Vote

I'm getting rather annoyed at the way in which Asian American voters have been "MIA" in the news especially when they've always been crucial especially in big states like California. It doesn't help when the hot topic these days is the "black-brown" debate about why the Latino voting block overwhelmingly supported Clinton's campaign than Obama's. Is it because Latinos are "more racist" to blacks? That is just as stupid as saying men who vote against Hillary are misogynist.

Look, the simple fact is this. Hillary is courting and benefiting from very well-established political connections with the Latino electorate from San Antonio to Los Angeles. Of course, Bill had a lot to do with it, but it's clear that Hillary is working the connections, strengthening her network, winning the Latino leadership, getting their votes, and paying her dues. She did the same thing with the Asian American electorate as well. She's also made it a point to reflect diversity in her campaign staff (1-year old by the way. I also think it's funny that Rudy's campaign staff is all white, and McCain had no Asians). Hillary has the highest number of Latinos and Asians in key positions on her staff. All of which translated into a California victory. As a matter of fact, CNN reported that Asians and Latinos carried Hillary outpacing the white-black vote who were in support of Obama. Go figure that out.

A colleague out in Los Angeles notes plainly that Hillary sent her money and ran a strong bilingual ad campaign. Obama did not. Obama made the same mistake that current LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa did when he first made a run some years ago. Villaraigosa "assumed" Latinos would vote for him, therefore he didn't run a strong ad campaign which did not translate into sending money to local tv/radio/newsprint media which did not translate into ... *drum roll please* ... VOTES! Obama may have strong Latino support, but they are not the historical leadership that are located in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas in the agricultural industry which I'm hearing he's been slow on the ball with Texas. Check out the analysis by my old friend and colleague Jeff Chang about the different political strategies that enabled Clinton's victory of California and the Asian American-Latino voting block.

It just occurred to me that Obama's "message" of "Yes We Can!" is the English translation of "Si Se Puede!" which I think -- and I have to check this to be sure -- is the old 1960's rallying cry for the United Farm Workers, the labor union founded by Cesar Chavez and Philip Vera Cruz. Did Obama just appropriate that phrase? *ponders*

Anyways, I digress. My original post was to talk about the APA absence in media coverage and our role in the presidential elections. So the moment CNN does cover APA electoral power, we get this nonsense. Bad accents and bad journalism all at once. WTF?!?