Letters to the Editor
-
Arlo Figg feints and weaves
This is obviously not a fencing bout as bludgeons and knobkerries are being used. Arlo Figg, who apparently supports Senator Obama, resorts to insulting the Clintons in what is supposed to be a discussion on Gary Kamiya's article: "The race v. gender war". What an insight into the American psyche you, Arlo Figg, and Anonymous (who thinks using filthy language substitutes for debate) are providing to the rest of the world! You people are really scary. You call Bill Clinton a "sextagenarian" and perhaps that is your feeble attempt at a pun or perhaps you just cannot spell. So a sexagenarian", a person in his or her sixties, is considered worthless in his/her sixties. I suppose that you know that "sexagenarian" is a word that comes from Latin and has nothing whatsoever to do with sex, although some of you seem fixated on that particular topic.
I'm still waiting for a dispassionate and reasoned reply to my questions but, although some of the Clinton-haters on this discussion board, have no problem with spouting a farrago, you seem unwilling to deal with facts. The Clintons mean nothing to me and I sympathise with the supporters of John Edwards as their favoured candidate is being pushed aside by the media, apart from a condescending piece by Lawrence O'Donnell in Salon. I have neither the time nor the opportunity to read all your media outlets but I've also read Maureen Dowd in NYT. Both of these people, of Irish descent I suppose, seem to be biased journalists. I don't care what there ancestry is, they do not reach any criterion of impartiality. Now, to return to my original points, why is there such a veil of secrecy surrounding the charming Senator Obama and, to keep ON TOPIC which revolves around race and gender, why is hs mother not being acknowledged? I believe that Barack Obama's mother had a daughter with Mr, Soetero. That brings in the gender issue again so why is his sister not being brought forward? Yes, I've read about the lovely Michelle Obama who is not in her sixties but, with the help of God will reach them some day, because as Shakespeare said "Youth's a stuff will not endure".
Now, Arlo Figg, it is YOUR Presidential election but the U.S. keeps on interfering in the politics of other countries. Why, even now, George W. Bush is telling the European Union that Turkey should be admitted to the EU but I reckon he's going to get a dusty answer from the citizens of the EU. Could you please answer my questions and stop prevaricating. I don't need to know anything about HRC as her life has been trawled over by biographers, journalists and so on but the phenomenon that is Senator Obama has appeared in the galaxy quite recently.
-
In defense of white feminists
To Thrasher,
I am a white feminist. But - I completely disagree with what Gloria Steinem had to say - and not only that, I wondered how DARE she write such self-serving crap? Does Gloria Steinem really believe the oppression she has experienced as a (privileged, white) woman rises to the level of that experienced by a (non-priviliged, black) man? Or woman?
I fit the "demographic profile" of Gloria Steinem (though much younger). But I think that racism is like an onion - there are layers and layers to it, depths to it, that as a white person, you're just not going to be aware of, without using your imagination, reading, listening, paying attention - and even then, you may not "get it." I suggest Gloria Steinem follow Clinton's lead, and take a "listening tour" with black men, and see what they have to say about their lives in America.
Please, Gloria Steinem, RETIRE from your job as feminist-at-large and historic-icon, if you don't have anything intelligent to contribute!
-
Error corrected
Typo - Lawrence O'Donnell and Maureen Dowd - "their ancestry".
-
Gary Kamiya wants us to all get along but deal Obama an "Ace" in the Card Game.
He also misrepresents what Steinem actually said.
Here's the strawman argument: "Steinem was arguing that sexism trumps racism as a national concern and backing that up by claiming that women in America have fewer options than black men."
No she was not! Please see my previous post in this thread or refer to Steinem's Op-Ed at nytimes.com. Yet having set up this strawman (woman!) Kamiya proceeds to base is own counter-argument that black men in fact have it worse on dubious prison statistics, ignoring the fact that many more white men than black women are in prison even as a percentage of their populations. Why does he slip this in and then slide past it as if it did not matter, truly? Why not take a clearer look at it?
Could it be because then Kamiya would have to acknowledge that many men, both black, white, biracial, Asian, Latino, etc. are in prison precisely because of crimes committed against women?
Instead, Kamiya wants us to focus briefly upon those unjust drug laws (yes, unjust!) as a way of discounting anyone as racist who would focus on Obama's past drug use. "Don't look there!" (at male violence) the magician says. "Instead, look over here where I am waving my hand." (at those unjust drug laws) "But don't linger too long because I have another trick to show you."
He says: "thousands of young white women are not shot down on inner-city streets every year . . ."
True. People shoot other people. What people are shooting what other people has relevance. There are victims and there are perpetrators. Thousands of young women, black and white, are raped every year. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.
Then there is this little hypocrisy: "The presidential race should not be decided solely on the basis of competing victim-hoods."
Damned right, it shouldn't. So why has Kamiya entered the game? It surely cannot be because Salon has not had enough articles about this particular issue in the past week. We need another to fan the dying embers? Here on his first page, Kamiya could have ended it and taken the high road, but he does not.
Instead, he goes on, making certain he recalls for his reader, Clinton's war vote and placing himself inside her head to give the standard argument (from both some feminists and some Clinton detractors and anti-feminists) for her motives. He completely discounts what Clinton herself says her motives were. God forbid we should pay attention to the text itself when we can do a little postmodern psychological deconstructionism. If bloggers, pundits, and the MSM today cannot actually spin shit out of what people really say, it is best just to ignore what they really say and spin shit out of nothing.
He actually says: We all psychoanalyze candidates all the time . . .
And his excuse for doing so is? He is trying for the Camille Paglia amateur psychologist assassin award? Sorry Gary; she beat you to it and she does it better.
Nooo. The cherry on top this particular sundae is that Obama gets some cover. He gets to slide Kamiya's half-assed ace under his hand: Obama isn't really a mild-mannered black man who only lets his minions do the attacking for him. Despite his come-together rhetoric, he will really be a tiger once he gets in office. Well maybe. Well sorta. Just like maybe, sorta, Hilary Clinton is going to turn into Pollyanna from Sunnybrook Farm.
Now Kamiya only suggests this but the power of suggestion is everything and what people actually mean and say is nothing. Therefore I can be excused and Kamiya can be excused and Steinem and Hillary Clinton can both stand accused of things they never actually said.
I do agree that Hillary Clinton was unwise if she meant to equate herself as LBJ. He was an amazing coalition builder and a powerful legislator before he was president. She is not. Clinton is no LBJ. Neither is Obama. Neither is Edwards. Obama is not MLK. Huckabee is not Bill Clinton. John Kerry wasn't JFK.
People must run on the record they have. The tropes of political power long past gain us nothing. Every single one of the currently viable Democratic candidates are comparatively short on experience.
Maybe I have been hard on Kamiya. There are good points to his article, but it is light on facts and a respect for what people really do say and do. Enough speculation. We really do have our work cut out for us as Democrats. John McCain is a truly experienced Senator and candidate. He will not be easy to beat.