Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
mont-calm
Published Letters: 62
i think it's important to reframe the elitism question in terms of origins because i don't think that's how most americans perceive it. i think for most americans, class has to do with how you act and handle yourself and the activities you do, things you surround yourself with, visible habits, etc. everyone knew that both bush and kerry were incredibly wealthy, but bush's "down home texas beer drinking brush clearing" act gave off the signifiers of the country, the everyman, etc. etc. while kerry gave off the signifiers of MASS, windsurfing, and other common images that are associated with old wealth. of course both of these images were crafted by the GOP machine and ignored the basic fact that both of the candidates lived lives that were incredibly removed from the lives of most americans - as do the current candidates. obama has to be able to counter the ridiculous claims that paint him as essentially an upper middle class yuppie harvard type. his race and origins should be enough, but apparently they're not. it's absurd that karl rove can call obama the guy at the country club considering how many country clubs have historically excluded blacks from membership, but if there is no counter to that image, then it will stick - because obama sends his kids to private school, he "eats right," and all this other stuff. technically it is the stuff of the upper middle class lifestyle, but he should be able to use his community work past and origins to negate that stuff.
well, i always thought that progressive tied those of us on the left with you liberals/democrats. that way we could fight some fights together (aka obama) and feel united under one banner. if you wanna go back to liberal, i'll go back to leftist and those of us in this corner can resume our oppositional stance re: obama - support some of his moves, agitate for more left-leaning action on others (rahm emanuel anyone?). i was happy enough to be on the same side as you all for a little bit, but if you want to "reclaim" liberal i'm afraid that us over here won't be continuing on with you. i don't support nafta, i don't support the state of israel, i don't support taking troops out of iraq and putting them in afghanistan, and the list goes on and on. we are all progressive, but i am not a liberal.
on the surface it doesn't make sense, but if one of the choices was "iranian temporary marriage," then that could indeed mean prostitution. since unmarried men and women can't rent a hotel room together in iran, you can apply for a temporary marriage that lasts say half an hour and get a hotel room together. it's a common tactic for johns and prostitutes to do this kind of thing. unfortunately it's also a common tactic for people who are trying to date. surely the ayatollahs know that temporary marriages are used for dating as well as for prostitution, but if you throw the baby out with the bath water that's fine with them - they have almost as much beef with dating as they do with prostitution.
here's a bit from an nyt article about temporary marriages:
"The couple could have gotten married for as short a time as a few minutes or as long as 99 years. They could have specified whether and how much money Maryam would be paid as a kind of dowry, or how much time they would spend together."
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/tmpmrig.htm
i wish that this article made its way like wildfire through the conservative blogosphere, but of course that will never happen. the problem is that there's now a sizable chunk of the american population that lives in a totally separate reality with a totally separate history that explains the current crisis. let me just indulge in one example... my boss considers himself a moderate conservative and is in every way a functioning adult (as in not a total knuckledragger wingnut with rapture fantasies) but he recently told me with conviction that if only the government hadn't forced the mortgage companies to make loans to people who couldn't afford mortgages we wouldn't be in this mess. he also recently told me that the iraq war wasn't reflecting poorly on the US because it was a coalition of nations that went in there (i hadn't heard anyone else say that in at least 5 years...). i actually kind of smiled when he said that cuz i thought he was joking but he was being dead serious. i'm not sure what tv he watches but i am positive that he reads michelle malkin because he's relayed to me (with outrage!) some of her totally insane "news items" that you just don't see anywhere else.
i think the real question now is, when we have our separate tv networks, our separate newspapers (i know many conservatives who just don't read the nyt due to its commie leanings), our separate blogospheres, our separate pet economists and talking heads, how can anyone convince anyone else of the validity of their own narrative of history or causality?
(mind you i'm not one of those "media should be objective and consider both sides of the story" types. i firmly believe in politically committed journalism but am seriously having trouble coming up with a way to convince anyone of much of anything...aside from concern trolling of course ;))
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
