Letters to the Editor
-
when a man- like lesbian
calls a married woman a man hater, I just have to laugh a little. And you think Madonna is a genious too, LOL!
-
How's That Again?
Cher Ms. Paglia: to Rob, presumably one of the "good guys," you stated, "To claim purity on the basis of good intentions alone isn't virtue -- it's complacence." That sounds rather like all the democratic candidates to me. Keep up th egood work! Your friend, Higgins
-
David's pining for "intellectual liberals"
Ok, here's where the poster "David" gets that "intellectual discussion" he was lamenting on the lack of,
"Same old Hillary but Gloria's missing the story
Gloria Steinem's op-ed for Hillary was outrageous and I've been a fan of Gloria's for decades.
Somehow Gloria missed the main point - Hillary's voting record on the war and on Iran count her out - dead out - for the office of President. her time spent as the wife of a president do not count as experience and we certainly haven't seen any evidence of great compassion or ability to lead. I was sadly disappointed, but Camille Pagila nailed it,thanks."
Fact:
Hillary voted yes on the Iraq Resolution
Fact:
Every previous NORMAL President would use something like the IR as a DETERRENT; they would not have immediately gone to war 24 hours later. This is what is known as a DETERRENT, in which case DIPLOMACY is used 99.9% of the time.
False intel by "curve ball" was thrown around, Bush manipulated all of it, and there's the vote on the Iraq Resolution. It is not called the "IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION."
Fact: Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time of the Iraq Resolution vote; he was in the State senate, where he said he was not in favor of said vote. Obama also happens to live in the biggest Democrat stronghold in the Midwest; of COURSE he's going to verbally say he is against the Resolution.
Fact:
In the mid-90's, Bill Clinton tightened sanctions against Iran because of their links to terrorism.
Fact:
Dick Cheney, to skirt these sanctions and continue doing business with Iran, created an offshore subsidiary to rake in iran's money. Now he wants to bomb them.
Fact:
Hillary voted for the Iran resolution.
Fact:
Hillary is being consistent with Bill's view of Iran from the mid/late 90's, Dick Cheney is not.
Fact:
Obama did not even bother showing up for the Iran Resolution; he claims he couldn't make it because he was campaigning; welllll that's a GREAT leader that can claim moral superiority against another, because they didn't make it an effort to stand up for something he so valiantly disagrees with.
Fact:
It remains that Obama has not cast a controversial vote, and is not on any official record as to his views on the Iraq, or or Iran resolutions (war in case of Iraq).
Fact:
Obama's voting record is identical, excluding 4 minor votes as Hillary Clinton.
"David" and "Eclecticbrotha" you need to get past lockstep agreements with someone who posts crap, just because they mirror your own opinions.
-
Would someone please ask Paglia to read Orwell?
And not "1984" or "Animal Farm", but the essay "Politics and the English Language" where he excoriates the kind of prose Paglia has built a career on.
I'll even give her a link directly to the essay - http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
-
Why Hillary should be Salon's favorite candidate
This is a publication that censors the War on Drugs even when there is a legitimate news story and even when candidates have definite and even adamant positions on the subject.
Salon expresses the Clinton zeitgeist through and through.
Salon didn't see fit to analyze the Supreme Court's attack on mandatory minimum sentencing, and hasn't printed one article on Kucinich where his position on marijuana is mentioned.
I don't see why you people aren't voting for Bush, in fact.
I mean really -- the Bush administration would probably run Salon the same way.
-
Steinem Schmeinem.
Gloria Steinem's OpEd peice for the NYTimes is an ambarassment to her intellect and to feminists. She praises Clinton for having "the courage to break the no tears rule" without considering her gender in this context. How would Americans have reacted if they had seen one of the male candidates cry? Given that the circumstances had to do with losing in Iowa, would he not have been seen as a "cry baby" and weak?
Steinem is oblivious to this kind of reverse sexism when she writes that we should support Clinton because she has "no masculinity to prove." That is not only a sexist remark it is wrong. It seems that is precisely why Clinton wound up behind in Iowa, because all along she had been trying to prove her "masculinity," her toughness, her resolve. As it turns out, all people wanted to see was a real person.
Steinem's article only underscores the Clinton campaigns desire for special treatment because their candidate is a woman. Electing a women president is given as one reason to support her and Clinton uses her gender as a rallying cry to motivate people. Mr. Obama wouldn't mind special treatment because he is African-American but does not ask for it directly and does not as a rule refer to his race on the campaign trail. There are no Obama rallies where people cry: "Go black man!" That one issue is so much less sensitive and out in the open than the other, is that not indication enough that the wound in the American psyche with regard to race runs deeper than with regard to gender? Gloria Steinem doesn’t think so. She believes gender trumps race and that "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life." It seems to me she has it all backwards.
Furthermore, Steinem would like you believe that Clinton’s teary moment had something to do with courage. I think it was Clinton's sense of entitlement and the much touted 'aura of invincibility' giving way to self-pity. This moment underscores the problem with her public persona, that she suffers from a lack of sincerity and genuineness. Therefore, we are sure to see imitations and reiterations of this emotional display by her and the other candidates. Mitt Romney will no doubt come up with his own sob story.
My own reason for opposing Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her gender. I would like to see a woman lead our nation. And if a woman possessed the inner-directedness and self-possession, as David Brooks calls it, of Obama, I would vote for her. This time around I'll have to settle for those qualities in the form of a man.