Letters to the Editor
-
@ CeliaInSF
In the ways that you mention. But also in our political decisions. I'm still taken aback at how you can dismiss or ignore Hillary's war vote.
I have never been a one issue voter. I expect politicians to make mistakes in their votes. The longer they have been around, the more mistakes that they make.
When Obama has been around longer he too will be more vulnerable on votes, but he is already very, very vulnerable on Wright. Most white Americans don't know that the kind of stuff Wright was saying goes on in black churches. I know I didn't. When I first heard that "God Damn America" stuff and the comments about 9/11 I was appalled. Wright's book will be coming out in October.
One thing has been really clear to me reading these threads. White America doesn't know how black America thinks and black America doesn't know how white America thinks but having a conversation about race in the middle of an election that should have be the Dems for the taking it sure not my idea of the best possible scenario. And if Sunday morning still is the most segregated hour of the week, then it is as much black folks fault as it is white folks. Where's the Christian outreach? I'll bet that if I were to walk into an all black church to worship, I would be made to feel unwelcome. Many white churches would make blacks also feel unwelcome.
One way to reduce violence is if we start rejecting is politically. Don't hit your kids and don't bomb you neighbors. We can get into the merits of self defense but with Iraq and threatened premption in Iran is permission that you can kill people before they even hurt you.
Today, while I was posting in this thread, I was listening to NPR about the candidates positions on Iran. No matter what the rhetoric, their positions are pretty much the same: Iran must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons.
Surely, you can see why they would say this? Obama says this. Clinton says this. McCain says this.
The person I heard who was the most rational on Iran was Biden, who points our that they are at least five years away from a nuclear weapon -- probably more. However, every single candidate says that should Iran get the technology, that they must not attack Israel -- as they have indicated that they would. Iran is not Iraq.
We can look at the way we treat our problems, locking up mentally ill and drug additcted people with the rapists and murderers.
Well we can certainly agree there. I don't think drug users at the consumer end should be locked up at all. I believe marijuana should be legalized and probably most other drugs as well.
all of our social problems are addressed with war - the war on drugs the war on poverty- but I'm less concerned with linguistic war than with actual violence.
Words give permission to violence, which is why Clinton should not have said "obliberate" and she has since retreated from that word and expanded upon her meaning. Clinton's position on Iran = Obama's position on Iran.
It was acceptable until far too recently to beat your wife or or for either parent to beat their child.
No, not acceptable. It just did not have the full force of the law to prevent it. The sheriff of the county my mother grew up in threatened to arrest my grandfather for beating his children -- so harsh was he. However, it would have been hard to obtain a conviction.
The law (in the hands of men) has been slow to catch up to the generally societal disapproval of extreme family violence. It was the women's movement that changed this. As women became rape crises counselors, victim advocates, CASAs, and have entered the legal and law enforcement professions themselves, they have changed things. Women can effect change and they can combat violence.
It was considered a private matter.
Correct. The man as the head of the family had authority. (It was conferred by God -- who is a bearded white guy I am told by some.)
It was ony in the last couple of decades people recognized spousal rape, date rape or grey rape at all. (Rape bad and crime prior but it was a crime of property not violence.)
Except for the people it happened to. BTW, I hate that term gray rape.
All of this we can credit with the first and second wave of feminism. The second wave saw the need for itself - we're you throwing off, discarding or dissmissing the gains of the first wave? Certainly not! Neither is the third.
With the third wave, we got sex positive feminism. Now, it is okay to dress our ten year olds like sluts and girls can aspire to be strippers. That is a step backwards rather than a long way baby. The problem is that feminists are now positive about their sexual freedom (a good thing) and men are now positive about exploiting women's sexual freedom (a not so good thing).
-
Evans
Fear is a huge motivator. And when you vote out of fear and not from hope, you are voting against something.
This is the politics Karl Rove has brought us.
That and the dividing of the electorate into bite sized demographics instead of trying to appeal to everyone.
I would say that out of all of the candidates remaining, it is Obama's supporters that are the most positive.
I seldom hear Clinton supporters say that they are still backing her over issues, but gainst Obama because they are fear he won't win, or that his supporters are abusive, or he's an empty suit, or blank slate, or he's arrogant, etc.
Want more positive action in politics? Start with yourself.
-
LCD
Good Lord, I think if you Google "Lowest Common Denominator", you should be taken directly to this letters section.
-
It's a Language Thing
I keep seeing posts that appear to be confused as to why so many Hillary supporters are reluctant to get behind Obama due to the sexism they get from some of his supporters. My husband and I (and a few of my male friends) have gone around about this, and we've reached a certain consensus, so let me give it a shot here.
Racial language in the U.S. is often pretty easily recognized. Anybody calling Obama a "boy" or a n*ger" is pretty damn sure to get their head bit off, as well they should. There are other, more subtle, forms of racist language, but they're hard to tease out and it'll take too much time.
Then there is homophobic language. The harsher terms, f*ggot, dike, etc., are not generally used in polite company, but are considered acceptable in a lot of circles. A lot of the lesser terms (gay, pansy, queer, etc.) or the feminization of males or the masculization of females, get a total pass in our culture, which is hugely disappointing.
Then we get to terms used on women. C*nt is obviously offensive to most people, although it still gets used with frequency. Bitch and ball-buster are sexist, but a lot of men don't seem to see it, although they aren't the ones the terms are being used against. Ask yourself this, how often do you call men bitches or ball busters? They are terms that are reserved for women and they are not positive. It isn't enough to call a woman an asshole, or a jerk, nope. What's interesting is how this form of sexist language, like some of the more subtle forms of racist language, are culturally acceptable.
So, while I understand the frustration of a lot of posters over the sexist language coming out of the Obama camp, I don't think you can actually lay this at the feet of Obama. From what I can tell, watching this all unfold, we have a lot of weird language standards in the U.S. Openly racist or vulgar sexist terms are considered wrong. Homophobic language is apparently okay and sexist language and certain forms of racism are "rude", but pretty much okay in our society.
That sucks. It's a problem. But I think it is a cultural problem, not an Obama specific problem.