:(

Iran, Iran, I ran to post this blog

There's been quite a flury in the blogosphere today regarding the controversial Senate vote on Iran's Revolutionary Guard. One worried volunteer calling into Hillary's LA headquarters summarized the hysteria by frantically asking, "Is it true that Hillary Clinton voted to go to war with Iran today!?"

No, people. No. Senator Clinton did not vote to go to war with Iran. But her vote today was indeed a monumental move that I know will need to think about for a while before truly understanding the implications.

In a nutshell: Clinton voted in the majority today for the Kyl-Lideberman Amndment, which designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization under Executive Order 13224. In effect, this:

...provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism...
To block the assets of individuals and entities that provide support, services, or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists and terrorist organizations designated under the Order, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents, and associates. (Wiki)

In short, the Revolutionary Guard is now included on the list of individuals and organizations indentified by Executive Order 13224. Of course, what makes this a flaming ball of controversy is the fact that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is now the first and only official armed unit of a sovereign state to be included on the list of banned terrorist groups. Quite obviously, this complicates diplomacy. (Understatement?)

Beyond that, I don't have much to say. I'm not informed enough on the issue and potential implications. But at the very least I thought this would be an important item to mention on the blog and hopefully get some input/debate/stream-of-consciousness-type discussion on the issue. Let me know what you think.

Frustrations of a Capable Woman

A certain Dr. Mack recently brought to my attention the fact that my current legacy in the blogosphere is a criticism of Dennis Kucinich’s eyebrows (albeit a poignant one). So after much soul-searching and grave, meditative reflection, I have decided that this is not the mark Oh Kermie is destined to make on the internet. Au contraire, mes amies (note the use of the feminine). I have far greater designs for this dear little blog of mine.

For today, that design shall include a much-overdue condemnation of the systematic use and abuse of gender-specific pro-nouns and nouns. Mind you – this is not a topic that is new to Oh Kermie (or my prolific friends The Colonic and On a Diner Napkin). What is more, the general point I am trying to make has been expressed time and again by feminists everywhere. But regardless, in the last few months I have become increasingly sensitive to the specific injuries that I am about to discuss – especially since the perpetrators of these crimes are often my would-be mentors.

Yeah, I’m talking to you: USC Political Science professors.

It is one thing for a professor to verbally acknowledge an anatomical difference between male and female students. For example: “Where is Jane? She did not show up for her paper conference today” vs. “Where is Dick? He did not show up for his paper conference today.” Similarly, the gendered use of pronouns and nouns is acceptable when describing the actions of political leaders, figures in history, or pertinent others who happened to identify as a woman or a man (i.e., “We should remember the women who championed the nineteenth amendment and be thankful for all they did for American daughters of the twentieth century and beyond”). I am not even offended (feel free to take issue here) by references to the “Founding Fathers” instead of the rather new alternative of the “Framers,” given that the names signed to the Declaration of Independence belonged to men. (The fact that it’s a timeless alliterative device also helps…As many of you know, I’m a sucker for alliteration.)

However, I am absolutely outraged to hear my supposedly distinguished and learned political science professors automatically revert to the masculine when speaking about unspecified or hypothetical political leaders. As a senior who is now completely immersed in upper division Poli-Sci courses, I would expect to find my esteemed educators more sensitive to the myriad stereotypes and implied social expectations embedded in the continual use of “he” when describing any situation in which an undefined political actor may operate. I am sick of hearing about how the ambiguous “he,” a member of California congress, would react to proposed amendments to “his” legislation from the Appropriations Committee… or how “he,” the as-yet-undetermined Democratic presidential nominee, will fare against Republican opponents in 2008.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, you should know that women make up a quarter of the seats in state legislatures across the nation, and the Democrat leading in national primary polls by about 20 points is Hillary Clinton – the proud owner of a uterus. Assuming that the professors leading my political science courses had to abandon the cover of their respective rocks to earn their PhD’s, I am profoundly upset that this discriminatory lexicon continues.

When half of the students (or more) sitting before you are ambitious women yearning for a quality education that will help propel them to careers in politics, law, and a host of other fields, you should be careful that your words do not reinforce limiting stereotypes of who may or may not participate in American law and government. While I am certainly not accusing any of my professors (male and female!) of utilizing such discriminatory language intentionally, I am disappointed that they routinely overlook verbal equality in the name of convenience or acquiescence to society’s default pronoun (“he”).

Furthermore, I am profoundly disturbed by a professor’s recent reference to the number of hours “girls” in his class presumably spend getting ready before coming to lecture (he pegged it at three – my, what use we Trojan women make of our time). It is truly unacceptable to belittle the exceptional women of USC by calling them as you would your ten year old “little girl.” If you must pick a term to counter references to the “guys” in your class, try to use the correct equivalent of “gals.” Don’t insult my age and maturity with a noun meant for school children.

Respect the capable minds of those you should teach and inspire; don’t disappoint us with limiting terminology and reveal your willingness to reinforce gender stereotypes.

(For more on this topic, read this 2005 piece from CampusProgress.org.)

Criterion for Kucinich

I finally finished watching last week's YouTube Democratic debate, and it brought me to a very important conclusion...

THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MUST HAVE EYEBROWS.

Obama Gives New Meaning to "Substance Free"

Back in February I complained about Obama's dramatic, long-winded way with language and his fuzzy plans (if you can call them that) for the presidency. Now with five more months on the campaign trail and ample time to develop specific platforms on key issues, critics' claims that the Senator is "all style, no substance" ring true.

Obama's embarrassingly vague essay in the current issue of Foreign Affairs should have been a veritable ribbon-cutting on his agenda for American foreign policy. Instead, the Senator gave us very little by the way of concrete plans and opted once again to ride the waves of rhetoric, highlighting the issues we all know should be addressed with what might as well be an invisible pen. Amitai Etzioni at the Huffington Post is right on in his criticism of the lackluster piece:

Obama's favorite term, repeated ad nauseum, ad infinitum, is vision. What we need, the Senator writes, is "vision." We need a "visionary leadership" and "a new vision of leadership." This is, of course, all too true but also tells us very little as to which vision of foreign policy this new leader would ask us to follow. Obama, like most political candidates without a clear agenda, still manages to be quite clear as to what we are not to do. We should not retreat into Fortress America. We should not get out of Iraq in an "irresponsible" way. And we cannot stop fighting terrorism. So far so good. So far so little.

Now read Obama. He calls for the United States to provide "global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity." These lines are about as vacuous as they come. Such far-from-inspirational prose ("grounded leadership," "share a common security") does not set Obama aside from most if not all other candidates. They lack a substantive vision that one can get one's hands around and draw on to guide a foreign policy.

Obama has charisma. Obama has style. Obama has a vision. But - like a person afflicted with cataracts vainly attemting to obtain a driver's license - that vision is grossly insufficient to inspire a Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Spielberg Endorses Clinton!

Steven Spielberg jumped on Hillary's official bandwagon today:

"I've taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House."

Great words from a great man. This just made my day :)

I Am Woman, Hear Me Vote... For Hillary Clinton

Over the past few months I've engaged in ongoing debate with multiple individuals regarding Hillary's popularity among American women. I've consistently maintained that many women will be moved to vote for Hillary simply for the fact that she is a woman. Because the U.S. has never seen a truly viable female candidate for the presidency, I believe that many women are excited by Clinton's presence in the race and will favor her as a candidate because they identify with her gender identity. Of course, there will be women (I know a few of them) who completely reject Hillary for reasons other than her gender, and who disregard such a (trivial?) trait as gender in choosing to favor one candidate over another. But I contend that the gender issue is extremely relevant to the election, and that Hillary's femininity might even be a mobilizing factor for women who otherwise might not make it out to the polls.

Today an article in the Washington Post supports my theory, based on some fabulously fun polling data:

The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.

In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Clinton is drawing especially strong support from lower-income, lesser-educated women -- voters her campaign strategists describe as "women with needs." Obama, by contrast, is faring better among highly educated women, who his campaign says are interested in elevating the political discourse.

Campaign advisers say they expect Obama to pick up support from all categories of voters once they get to know him better, and that could change the structure of the race. But for now, women appear to be playing an outsized role in shaping it and could tip the scale toward the winner.

Let's hope we can help tip the scales, ladies!