Food Politics and American Elections

I find it fascinating how often American election campaigning features the cultural politics of food.

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said in an interview with GQ out Monday that one can tell how "manly" a man is by looking at how many toppings he puts on his pizza. He also said a pizza covered in vegetables is a "sissy pizza."
"The more toppings a man has on his pizza, I believe the more manly he is," said the former Godfather's Pizza CEO.

Cain explained that "the more manly man is not afraid of abundance" before calling into question the manliness of a pizza with vegetables on it.

"A manly man don't want it piled high with vegetables! He would call that a sissy pizza," Cain said.[CBS]

Lattes, arugula, organic, wine and sushi are pretty much bad words, conjuring images of elitist effeminate un-American liberals. Fried pork rinds, barbecue, and beer - now that's a presidential meal worthy of a true American leader! See how gender, nationalism and class stereotypes are all mobilized here.

This is not entirely surprising, given how much food is caught up with issues of identity and how symbol-heavy elections (especially American elections) are. There's a long history of wheat and beef being associated with 'civilization', while root vegetables were associated with lower-order humans. (Read more on this here.) The Sociological Images blog has a number of posts demonstrating gendered food in popular culture. Notable examples here, here and here.

Drawing Away the Pain - US Election Edition

At least this crazy election gives the cartoonists lots of good material to work with.

Tom Toles


From Cagle Cartoons

From Boiling Point Blog



From Matt Bors' Idiot Box







From Bendib

I think you get the point.

From Uprising to Movement: Five Ideas

This is a pretty good, simple, article pointing out some of the problems and potentials with the left right now, and offering 5 important suggestions for change.

1. "Think Global, Demand Local" - He suggests working with state/province and local powers for progressive change. (I think the local level has a lot of potential for progressive action, with all the fantastic grassroots community organizations. I find it odd how few people pay attention to municipal elections.)

2. "End the Oxymoron of Autocratic Progressivism" - By which he means undemocratic, top-down organizations, like many leftist think-tanks. We need to practice the values we preach! This means, I think, really coming to terms with compromise. We won't all have the same vision of the progressive future, but we need to let go a little and try not to impose our own little utopian fantasy on others.

3. "It's the Economic Issues, Too" - Social issues are important, but they tend be more divisive. We must support gay marriage and choice and other social issues, but we shouldn't let them crowd out other important basic issues like jobs and poverty and health care. Why the heck has the Right captured the populist imagination, when their policies do the most to harm the little guy/gal?

4. "Elections Are Means, Not Ends" and wasting too much energy on them is counterproductive. As he puts it: "we believe that the messianic politicians will just hand down change from Mount Olympus, that all we have to do is make sure the right messiah is on top of the mountain"

5. "Remember That Thing Called Direct Action" instead of spending so much energy on elections, shift our focus outside the electoral arena. He says:

The Establishment wants us to focus all of our energy on elections because elections are the controlled space whereby popular ferment can be contained by rules, regulations, etc. And without direct action, republican democracy is truly disempowering: our only means of influence are to beg the Very Serious And Important Intermediary —the congressman, the governor, the president, etc. —to do something on our behalf. But there are many different methods of direct action —i.e. taking matters into our own hands—that can wield a tremendous amount of power.

Howard Zinn on Anarchism

Abridged from an interview with Ziga Vodovnik:

Ziga Vodovnik: From the 1980s onwards we are witnessing the process of economic globalization getting stronger day after day. Many on the Left are now caught between a "dilemma" - either to work to reinforce the sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control of foreign and global capital; or to strive towards a non-national alternative to the present form of globalization and that is equally global. What's your opinion about this?

Howard Zinn: I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization. In a certain sense the movement towards globalization where capitalists are trying to leap over nation state barriers, creates a kind of opportunity for movement to ignore national barriers, and to bring people together globally, across national lines in opposition to globalization of capital, to create globalization of people, opposed to traditional notion of globalization. In other words to use globalization - it is nothing wrong with idea of globalization - in a way that bypasses national boundaries and of course that there is not involved corporate control of the economic decisions that are made about people all over the world.

�

ZV: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon once wrote that: "Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order." Where do you see life after or beyond (nation) states?

HZ: Beyond the nation states? (laughter) I think what lies beyond the nation states is a world without national boundaries, but also with people organized. But not organized as nations, but people organized as groups, as collectives, without national and any kind of boundaries. Without any kind of borders, passports, visas. None of that! Of collectives of different sizes, depending on the function of the collective, having contacts with one another. You cannot have self-sufficient little collectives, because these collectives have different resources available to them. This is something anarchist theory has not worked out and maybe cannot possibly work out in advance, because it would have to work itself out in practice.
[...]
ZV: Most of the creative energy for radical politics is nowadays coming from anarchism, but only few of the people involved in the movement actually call themselves "anarchists". Where do you see the main reason for this? Are activists ashamed to identify themselves with this intellectual tradition, or rather they are true to the commitment that real emancipation needs emancipation from any label?

HZ: The term anarchism has become associated with two phenomena with which real anarchist don't want to associate themselves with. One is violence, and the other is disorder or chaos. The popular conception of anarchism is on the one hand bomb-throwing and terrorism, and on the other hand no rules, no regulations, no discipline, everybody does what they want, confusion, etc. That is why there is a reluctance to use the term anarchism. But actually the ideas of anarchism are incorporated in the way the movements of the 1960s began to think.
[...]
ZV: Do you thing that pejorative (mis)usage of the word anarchism is direct consequence of the fact that the ideas that people can be free, was and is very frightening to those in power?

HZ: No doubt! No doubt that anarchist ideas are frightening to those in power. People in power can tolerate liberal ideas. They can tolerate ideas that call for reforms, but they cannot tolerate the idea that there will be no state, no central authority. So it is very important for them to ridicule the idea of anarchism to create this impression of anarchism as violent and chaotic. It is useful for them, yes.
[...]
ZV: On one occasion Noam Chomsky has been asked about his specific vision of anarchist society and about his very detailed plan to get there. He answered that "we cannot figure out what problems are going to arise unless you experiment with them." Do you also have a feeling that many left intellectuals are losing too much energy with their theoretical disputes about the proper means and ends, to even start "experimenting" in practice?

HZ: I think it is worth presenting ideas, like Michael Albert did with Parecon for instance, even though if you maintain flexibility. We cannot create blueprint for future society now, but I think it is good to think about that. I think it is good to have in mind a goal. It is constructive, it is helpful, it is healthy, to think about what future society might be like, because then it guides you somewhat what you are doing today, but only so long as this discussions about future society don't become obstacles to working towards this future society. Otherwise you can spend discussing this utopian possibility versus that utopian possibility, and in the mean time you are not acting in a way that would bring you closer to that.

�

ZV: In your A People's History of the United States you show us that our freedom, rights, environmental standards, etc., have never been given to us from the wealthy and influential few, but have always been fought out by ordinary people - with civil disobedience. What should be in this respect our first steps toward another, better world?

HZ: I think our first step is to organize ourselves and protest against existing order - against war, against economic and sexual exploitation, against racism, etc. But to organize ourselves in such a way that means correspond to the ends, and to organize ourselves in such a way as to create kind of human relationship that should exist in future society. That would mean to organize ourselves without centralize authority, without charismatic leader, in a way that represents in miniature the ideal of the future egalitarian society. So that even if you don't win some victory tomorrow or next year in the meantime you have created a model. You have acted out how future society should be and you created immediate satisfaction, even if you have not achieved your ultimate goal.

�

ZV: What is your opinion about different attempts to scientifically prove Bakunin's ontological assumption that human beings have "instinct for freedom", not just will but also biological need?

HZ: Actually I believe in this idea, but I think that you cannot have biological evidence for this. You would have to find a gene for freedom? No. I think the other possible way is to go by history of human behavior. History of human behavior shows this desire for freedom, shows that whenever people have been living under tyranny, people would rebel against that.

American Electoral Politics - Mortal Kombat Style

Considering how the media covers elections (much like a horse race), this cool flash game is probably better for exploring the real issues. Watch the intro, it's pretty funny.

Unfortunately I keep losing. Damn Hillary is too slow. Her Bill Clinton attack is cool though - like a big blue ghost. Next up - I'm going to play as McCain.

Via Neatorama

Other political video games

Interesting maps of income and voting patterns in the USA

Immediately apparent is that if the poor had all the votes, Bush would have lost in 2002 - even in many "red states". To paraphrase Krugman, contrary to popular myth, The Democrats' base isn't the "latte liberals".

More interesting graphs and analysis here.

Via Creative Class

Guess Who's Running for US President?

Hint: last week, before he announced his candidacy, he said:

I am not ready to announce yet — even though it's clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative.

It's true. Stephen Colbert is running for '08.

He'll be almost as good as this guy.

In other breaking news (via PoliticsPlus) Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters.

The end of civilization as we know it!

This funny video comes to us from Vote for MMP. Only 2:16 long. If you like it, rate it 5 stars and favourite it. We've only got a week left 'til the referendum.

Just in case you need more information, here's Ten Reasons to Vote for Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

One of These Countries is Not Like the Others

Let's play a game.

What do these countries all have in common:

Chile
Philippines
Sri Lanka
India
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Israel
Mozambique
Liberia
UK
Germany
Canada

... something not shared by that beacon of women's rights, the United States of America.

Yep, these nations, and many others, have been run by women.

In America there has been no woman president. Only 16% of congress are women. Well, someday perhaps the USA will catch up. Maybe the Philippines or India can come and liberate American women.

In Canada, we aren't exactly doing so well, either. No women lead any of the four major parties. We have never had more than 21% women in parliament, with few of these coming from aboriginal, immigrant or other minority women.

Granted, attaining gender parity in politics may not be the most urgent and pressing matter facing women, but it is one visible marker that helps us guage our progress.

Inspired by India electing its first woman president, Pratibha Patil.

What's Bush Reading Lately? A Photo Essay

Someone Get this Man a Chomsky... Stat! The security of the world depends on it!

Bush's Book List

A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 by Andrew Roberts, who "proudly declared himself 'extremely right-wing' in a recent Financial Times interview" and who calls the war on terrorism "the Manichean world-historical struggle" against fascism, including "Totalitarian Islamic Terrorist Fascism".

Roberts believes almost all the advances of freedom in the 20th century have been made by the English-speaking peoples. The Iraq invasion was just another example of English-speaking countries doing what the UN should have done. (read more in this gushing review)


America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It by Mark Steyn, Toronto's favourite racist (although he moved to New Hampshire, no doubt to get away from the scary diversity here, oh and he calls himself a "culturist" not a racist). In his spare time Steyn keeps himself busy preparing for the upcoming Muslim takeover of the world.


Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime by Eliot A. Cohen, which "argued that the greatest civilian wartime leaders, notably Abraham Lincoln and Churchill, had a far better strategic sense than their generals"


Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground by Robert D. Kaplan, who thinks the world is one big Western, and the US military is operating is trying to civilize "injun country".

In one way or another, each affirms core neo-conservative ideas: the essential beneficence of U.S. (and Anglospheric) power even if the "natives" are ungrateful; the supreme importance of both "will" and military might in wielding that power, particularly against enemies that can never be "appeased" or "contained" and that, in Roberts' words, are motivated not so much by legitimate grievances against U.S. policies, as by "loathing of the English-speaking people's traditions of democratic pluralism"; the evils of "liberalism", "secularism" and "moral relativism" of western societies that undermine their will to fight; and the catastrophic consequences of retreat or defeat.

All of these also play to Bush's own Manicheanism and self-image as a courageous, often lonely, leader in the mold of a Lincoln or Churchill, determined to pursue what he believes is right regardless of what "old Europe", "intellectuals", "elites", or even the electorate thinks about his course and confident only in the conviction that History or God will vindicate him.

And let's not forget The Stranger by Camus, "a classic novel about a westerner that kills an Arab for no good reason and dies with no remorse" as summarized by Jon Stewart.



I'm sure we can all agree, we'd prefer if he the leader of the free world got back to basics:

Blog Against Sexism Day

Whew there have been a LOT of people Blogging Against Sexism Today.

Just a few notable posts:

• Kate Sheppardreminds us how women's issues are deeply connected with environmental issues
  
• Kuri has some interesting observations about power/authority/hyper-masculinity
  
• A Liberal in DC notes Canada still has a long way to go in terms of gender parity in politics
  
• All About Pamusement has an excellent post on the hypocrisy of the Harper government towards women
  
• Sand Gets in my Eyes on women's struggles in Saudi Arabia (where she is currently living)
  
• Brit Bravo blogs about CodePink - women against the war
  
• tigtog offers up examples of some of the more insidious forms of sexism
  
• The Road to Surfdom shows us a particularly nauseating example of sexism
  
• Thinking Girl offers a thoughtful (and sad... and true...) post about the challenges facing women.
  
• Polly Jones gives us the answer to all our childcare problems
  

Men blogging against sexism today:

• BlogTHIS and The Dominion blog about women's health in Haiti
  
• Canada's Debate reports on women's murders in Guatamala
  
• Porcupine Blog remembers 4 great women freedom fighters
  
• Latino Politico on the importance of las mujeres and how equality often begins in our own homes
  
• Terry Glavin gives us a brief overview of the history of IWD and where we are today
  
• Buckdog blogs to end violence against women
  

And since we are blogging against sexism, I thought it appropriate to list some Women Bloggers I like, in no particular order:

• Verbena-19
  
• An Arab Woman Blues - Reflections in a sealed bottle...
  
• Women of Color Blog
  
• Marginal Notes
  
• Moons of Saturn
  
• Skdadl at Peace, Order, and Good Government, Eh?
  
• Politics'N'Poetry
  
• Sketchy Thoughts
  
• Thinking Girl
• April Reign
  
• Hope and Onions
  
• Feminist Toronto
  
• Liberal Catnip
  
• Idealist Pragmatist
  
• Diva Rachel
  
• Thought, Interrupted by Typos
  

Recently discovered blogs with women authors:

• Freedom for Egyptians
  
• Mshairi - "life, love, poetry, africa, gender activism"
  
• Redneck Mother is raising children, lettuce, and hell in Texas
  
• Saudi Stepford Wife
  

(There's lots, and many are indeed Canadian, despite Kinsella's "memo to Canada: WE NEED MORE SMART FEMALE BLOGGERS NOW!")

Lastly, don't forget to read The 33rd Carnival of Feminists

p.s. if I got anyone's gender wrong, please let me know in the comments. After all it is notoriously difficult to be sure about anything on the Internet
UPDATE:

• April Reign covers the death of Doris Anderson
  
• Idealist Pragmatist offers up a video of Stephen Lewis on women's rights
  
• Inside the Box: women of inspiration
  
• An Arab Woman Blues brings us a message from "liberated Iraq"
  
• Afghan Lord marks International Women’s Day by describing the suffering of Afghanistan’s women.
  
• The Cylinder blogs about IWD in Palestine
  
• Hope and Onions has an amazing "30 stories from 30 places, in order to demonstrate the breadth of women's experiences around the world". This will take some time to read, but is well worth it.
  

Politicking Means Never Having to Answer to your Constituents

I recently wrote a letter to our illustrious PM registering my disapproval of our actions in Afghanistan. I clearly stated we should end our combat mission and work towards peace and security for the Afghan people. Here's a selection of what I wrote:

Killing people doesn't win their hearts and minds. We should not be fighting as part of NATO, but should find positive alternatives, such as protecting NGOs who are on the ground working efficiently for reconstruction.

The Northern Alliance (the 'Good Guys' we are supporting) are just as violent and fundamentalist as the Taliban were. The people of Afghanistan are left with little choice and little hope.

We need to stop killing the Afghan people, and start talking. Negotiating. Rebuilding.

Here's the prefab response I received (note the total lack of response to my actual letter):

It is in Canada's national interest to see Afghanistan become a free, democratic and peaceful country. An unstable Afghanistan represents a serious threat to Canada and the world. Canada has assumed an international leadership role by serving in the United Nations mandated, but Canadian led, Afghan security mission.

Canada has a tradition of stepping up to the plate and providing leadership on global issues. The Prime Minister is proud of the Canadian Forces personnel who have put themselves on the line to defend our national interests and to help Afghans rebuild their country. They are standing up for core Canadian values and achieving important victories for the people of Afghanistan.

As you may know, the House of Commons voted to extend the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. If you would like to access further information on this issue I would encourage you to visit the following websites:

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1329
http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/library/karzai_address-en.asp
http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

There's some very interesting and subtle manipulation going on. They make it sound like a UN mission, and don't mention NATO at all. They don't use words like "kill", "maim", "fight", or "war". Indeed it sounds like a UN peacekeeping mission.

It's not that I actually expected anything different, of course. I think a simple acknowledgement of my disagreement would have made me feel heard, but that's just not politics.

Toronto City Elections

Although our local municipal elections are possibly our greatest opportunity to make a difference with our little slice of democracy, the Toronto elections draw a woefully small proportion of Torontonians out to vote. Usually there seems to be a fairly high profile mayoral race, but in the ridings the incumbents are shoe-ins, often simply because theirs are the only names voters actually recognize.

Toronto is not a corporation, but if we are too busy and self-absorbed to be active and engaged citizens (voting in elections is a very small part of this responsibility) then we end up with elected officials functioning as business managers. The CEO of Toronto (oops, I mean the Mayor) and the middle managers (er, councillors) need to be accountable for their decisions.

Descisions around issues like transportation, housing, urban planning and development, health and safety are fundamental to the way we live our daily lives. They affect all of us. Involvement in city politics offers one of our best chances at being heard. There are lots of fresh new faces running this year, and some hotly debated issues are at stake.

If you live in Toronto, here's some helpful resources, mostly via Who Runs this Town:

• The City of Toronto's election site
  
• A comprehensive list of candidates
  
• Election blogs at Eye Weekly, Globe & Mail, Spacing Mag, The Toronto Sun
  
• Election coverage at The Star
  
• CBC's town hall debate
  

EDIT: Also check out this elections page from the Ontario Tenants site.
and from the good old TPSC, possibly one of the most informative election sites dealing with public space issues

Political Videogames

You can play a sim McDonald's videogame: You have to slaughter cows, exploit workers, advertise to children... all in the name of profit! It's just like the real world. "You'll discover all the dirty secrets that made us one of the biggest company of the world." This is a flash game, so there's nothing to download.

More neat games include:

• Disaffected: A Kinko's Parody Game
  
• Orgasm Stimulator - Be careful or your partner will know you're faking!
  
• Food Force - Learn about world hunger
  
• Dick Cheney's Texas Takedown
  

Here's a big site devoted to the use of video games for advertising, politics, education, and other everyday activities, outside the sphere of entertainment.
Enjoy!

More: Fun, Health

When White House Officials and their Cronies do care

They do care when there is an election and a potential disaster is going to hit an important swing state. This article shows how FEMA gave $21 Million in Miami-Dade county in the 2004 hurricane season, even though the severity of the storms were like "bad thunderstorms" causing minimal damage. People bought furniture, televisions and computers with the money they received from FEMA. Of course, this year, there isn't anything to gain, so now , I guess, no help is on the horizon for residents of these counties more severely affected by Katrina than even by Francis, the worst storm last year.

They do not care when there's no personal gain to be had from a situation. To do not care despite the fact that they KNEW what would happen.
This is a transcript of the National Weather Service message from 10:11 in the morning on Sunday before Katrina hit. Remember the National Weather Service is the government weather service, and the president was personally briefed on this.

10:11 Central Time- Devastating damage expected. Hurricane Katrina. A most powerful hurricane with unprecedented strength rivaling the intensity of hurricane Camille of 1969. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks, perhaps longer. At least one-half of well-constructed homes will have roof and wall failure. All gabled roofs will fall, leaving those homes severely damaged or destroyed. The majority of industrial buildings will become non-functional, partial to complete wall and roof failures expected, all wood-frame low-rising apartment buildings will be destroyed, concrete block low-rise apartments will sustain major damage including some wall and roof failure. High-rise office and apartment buildings will sway dangerously, a few to the point of total collapse. All windows will blow out.

Military disaster reponse crews knew what was happening, but needed to wait for the president's authorization. They were told "not to respond to affected counties and states without being requested and lawfully dispatched by state and local authorities." (courtesy of Sydney Morning Herald, Democracy Now and Times Online)

Seeing as how there's no immediate POLITICAL benefit to keeping residents of NO healthy and safe, why send aid? If they had started prepping response in advance of the situation, WHEN THEY WERE WARNED OF IT, imagine the difference!!

But, see, warnings like the one above, does not an emergency make. "Devastating damage expected" is not cause for a response. How do we know this? Well, Department of Homeland Security head, Michael Chertoff, explained at a press conference, nearly a week after Katrina, why it took so long to get National Guard troops to New Orleans:

You know, these are citizen soldiers, we have to get them mobilized and deployed. When we send the National Guard overseas, we don't tell them to pack up and leave in 24 hours unless it's some huge emergency [emphasis added].

I'm not very good at math, but I think I can get this one. It's very simple really. Potential of Losing Lives = Not-Emergency. Potential of Losing an Election = Emergency.

Ex-Bush Aide Who Edited Climate Reports rewarded with a new job at ExxonMobil

Phillip Cooney, ex-Chief of Staff at the EPA, had been editing out of the relevant research any connection between global warming and oil. He recently resigned.

Update to the Phillip Cooney story: he is no being hired at ExxonMobil.

Well, I can't say I am surprised. I doubt anyone else is either. He was already working for the best interests of oil, now it's just official.

"Perhaps he won't even notice he has changed jobs," said David G. Hawkins, who directs the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private environmental group.

Read about it in the New York Times (user: redjenny44 password: redjenny)

Mad Cow Cover-up

The Cover-Up Begins to Unravel, leading some (like me) to agree that the current US administration is full of mad cowboys.

Speaking of things that make me mad...

Bush & co. doesn't like to acknowledge global warming: Phillip Cooney, is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is the White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases. He has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming.

The day before this was published, at a press conference, Bush said this: "I don't know if you're aware of this, but we lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions of dollars spent on research about climate change."

Said Carl Pope on Democracy Now: "You can spend a lot of money on research, but if you let the oil industry censor the research after you complete it and if you don't act on the findings, you might as well burn the money on the White House steps."

Read the full story on Yahoo News and NY Times (login: redjenny4 password: redjenny)

Just in case you thought the Bush administration's hypocrisy was in doubt

In Uzbekistan on Friday, troops shot at unarmed protesters, killing several hundred people. The country has a strong alliance with the US. The Uzbeki government says they were only shooting at radical Islamic terrorists. Most credible news sources, however, say the protest was economic in nature, with the vast majority of the protesters simply citizens complaining about the extreme poverty they are living in. Pressure has the US government now deriding the extreme Uzbeki dictatorship. Still this all begs the question: why is the current US government all buddy-buddy (including supplying arms) with such a brutal dictatorship, while at the same time invading another in the name of "freedom and democracy"?

A bit of a run down of what bloggers are saying.