Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 55 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Of the two of them, Obama's the "Yankee?" Seriously?
[Read the article: The rubes and the elites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The path of least resistance for liberal journalists and bloggers is to respond to these disturbing numbers by demonizing less-educated white Democrats. That is easier for them than to grasp the idea that these voters might actually like Hillary Clinton.
Well, of course it's easier to grasp. After all, the "rubes" have no valid reason to like Hillary Clinton, a child of privilege, spoiled Young Republican, and openly activist lawyer whose primary achievement -- with the possible exception of a completely unexceptional handful of years in the Senate -- has been her openly broken marriage to one of the most powerful men in the world.
Why would they prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama?
I mean, seriously, Lind just called Barack Obama a "culturally aggressive Yankee." Obama.
If you asked a hundred people on the street whether Barack Obama was more "culturally aggressive" than Hillary Clinton, ninety-nine of them would find the question laughably ridiculous; the other one would look at you suspiciously and say "You've been reading Salon, haven't you?" And if you asked a thousand people which of the two of them were a Yankee, I'd imagine more than a couple could -- in two seconds of Googling on their nifty little smartphones -- produce photos of one of the individuals in question actually wearing gear labeled with the word "Yankee" while standing -- albeit awkwardly, with the constant expression of someone slightly unhappy to be there -- in New York.
-
Still missing the point.
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rebecca Traister wrote a story for Salon about the subtle (and not-so-subtle) misogyny that young women were starting to notice in some of their Obama–loving male peers.
The use of the word "noticing" here is questionably accurate, since in reality these women are perceiving subtle misogyny. There's a connotative distinction; you can't really notice something that isn't there, but you can certainly perceive it.
We have whole college programs intended to teach people -- especially women -- to perceive certain types of behavior, and specifically to imagine motivations for other types of behavior which fit certain assumptions even when those motivations do not exist. And, sadly, since it's impossible to prove the impeccably pure nature of one's own mind, the imagination is free to run wild as much as one wishes. This creates a fair bit of ridiculous, self-serving speculation, especially among those who are trained and paid to engage in such speculation.
Valenti continued, "I pinpoint sexism for a living. You'd think I'd be able to find an example. And I hate to rely on this hokey notion that there's some woman's way of knowing, and that I just fucking know..."
Here's a good example. This is a woman heavily invested in perceiving sexism -- and who, when unable to come up with specific examples of sexism, "just knows" that sexism is a major factor in someone's decision to prefer Obama to Clinton.
It might not be the only factor, the article admits; it might just be, say, 80 percent. But the idea that it's not really a factor for most people at all is, I suspect, inconceivable to certain old-guard feminists.
-
In reply....
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And don't tell me it's because, out of the goodness of their hearts and their rigorous training in logic, they want to set (by-definition) flawed-and-wrong others straight.
Well, if you don't believe that I would like to help certain types of feminists understand why their efforts are only marginalizing them, I don't suppose I can persuade you; you're clearly already married to your conclusion.
But perhaps -- even if you're only capable of conjuring up hypothetical motivations for me that include some healthy bit of cynical self-service -- you might also acknowledge that I, as an Obama supporter, believe the country would benefit if some feminists stopped conflating a dislike of Hillary Clinton in specific with a dislike of powerful women in general.
-
Let me join the chorus chanting "adopt."
[Read the article: We want a kid but don't think it's right to have one]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And if you want to adopt in the most pretentious way possible, while providing full culpability to your child (so that you bear no responsibility for his or her existence or relationship to you), you can do it this way:
Find a few candidates for adoption. Tell them all, "We'd like to adopt you, but we warn you that you may someday wish we hadn't. You may even wish that you hadn't been born, although of course that wasn't originally our decision. If you're interested, please sign this waiver."
For one thing, you'll be limiting your choices to kids who're old enough to sign their names, which is really the pool people should be adopting from anyway.
-
Underdog candidate. Heh.
[Read the article: "She's not as bad as you think"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary Clinton still boasts the three ingredients that an underdog candidate needs in order to continue in presidential politics...
It's worth noting that the three ingredients in question -- which amount to money, name recognition, and access to party machinery -- are ingredients she has only because she's not the freakin' underdog candidate.