Letters to the Editor
LeCastor
Published Letters: 1916 Editor's Choice: 86
-
anti-white vs. anti-black racism
[Read the article: Teammates: Allen used "N-word" in college]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First of all, Man, I know it might really not fit into to your stereotypes, but "i'm a text-book quoting rich person who feels bad that i have it so good..." is not me at all. I really don't understand why, even if i were a textbook rich person, my perceptions would not be valid. You and your streed cred aren't worth more than my observations. AND I'm not a tectbook rich person -- my family emigrated from the USSR, i lived for my first 3 years in the US in a ghetto. GHE-TTO. As ghetto as you can get, because my family was POOR. And yes, we are the textbook American Dream story -- now i am in the upper middle class, if not more, for sure. But i have as much street cred as you, if you really need it to value my opinions.
Not invalid - just not worth much. Your little bit of empiracle observation means nothing in a population of almost 300 million people - particularly when you live in the most expensive city in America and work in one of the most elite fields in the world - try city government if you want to see people of color in charge - go to a city college if you want to see professors of color.
Again, that's not were I always lived, i've lived in other parts of this country and other countries. Imagine that. I went to public school until i went to college.
So because i work in corporate law means i can't possibly be aware of what is going on in the world...
Nope - you live with blinders on and you get your ideas about black people from the NY Times - I've lived in Black/Latino neighborhoods (as well as white ones) in this city for the last 20 years, and the city you describe - only white professionals, only black nannies, is not the one I know (my house cleaner is white, for example), while my building has at least 3-4 blqck professionals...
Okay, but it is the city that i live. The city i live also exists, and it's just as "valid" as your city, and the racial issues in my city are just as pressing and serious as in your city. I mean, are you trying to tell me that black people in new york aren't more likely to be worse off than white people?
i'm pointing out that racism is a thoroughly national problem, often more visible and acute in areas of the country typically identified as 'blue' or 'liberal,' and that social and cultural segregation is often equally (or more) prominent in liberal-friendly places like los angeles. there's no comparing white male reactionary whining to the legacy of slavery, but i take offense at the implication that 'blue' states have some sort of moral high ground on an issue that effects every American, almost every day.
Yes, it is a national problem. But there's more to racism than just being called "cracker on the street" and fights. Blue states are the ones that support programs like affirmative action, blue states have all sorts of social programs to help poor people, who happen to be disproportionately non-white. Blue states are the ones who tax their constituents to pay for these programs, health insurance for poor children, subsidized transport, soup kitchens, cooling centers, public parks and pools. Yes, in CA, there is some backlash against illegals, but where i have lived recently, the northeast and NYC, there are infinitely many more social programs, educational opportunities, busing, etc., then when i lived in Texas. It's the truth. I lived in both.
-
The Electoral Map
[Read the article: Teammates: Allen used "N-word" in college]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, it's mostly red because physical geography doesn't reflect populations. 1 tiny New York being blue has more people in it than half of the states between Illinois and California. The population is half/half blue/red.
-
So Parson Jim, You should you be a feminist.
[Read the article: Let's get it on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To fight for equal rights and opportunity.
Giving wives more than they "deserve" in divorce, presuming that women are better mothers then men are fathers, allowing alimony only for wives -- that's all relics of pre-feminist laws, laws that viewed women with pity in family court, because they could never earn enogh money to live on, and laws and judges taht presumed that women are "nurturing" and will be better mothers. It has always been like this -- no one has "priced themselves out of the market" recently. It's just that you've only been around recently.
So, you should join the fight for equitable justice. And taht's with the feminists, not the anti-feminists.
It's the anti-feminists, like Dr. Laura and Kate O'Berine who believe that men are just overgrown child-oafs who need the wise and knowing women to take care of them like one of the children. It's the anti-feminists who celebrate women being "masters of the home," and use taht to discourage them from working outside of it, like Phylis Schalfy. It's not the feminists.
-
International Cooperation
[Read the article: Keep the Great Writ alive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem of other countries not cooperating already exists in the context of the death penalty, where other countires want assurances that suspects they turn over will not be subjected to the death penalty.
-
Liebowitz
[Read the article: Newsweek's women woes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, the international editor's behavior was incredibly unprofessional, but that kind of star is par for the course in most of the rest of the wordl, maybe with the exception of scandinavia, canada, the UK and a few other European countries.
As for the lesbian thing, I found it surprising too. I read the whole article, looking for confirmation of all the vague language of "being close" etc. It's disturbing that Newsweek would shy away from that -- we're not in the 1950's anymore.