Check out this blog entry from The Politico.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8659.html
It seems that Republicans are actually becoming sensitive to the fact that they're perceived as racist and sexist. For the record, I can't imagine how they came by that charge . . . was it painting the face of welfare recipients that of Black women? Was it Willie Horton? Was it the GLBTQ intolerance-fest that we saw at their convention some years back?
However, now that the Democratic nominee is going to either be Black or a woman, they understand that they'd best mind their ps and qs . . . or at least the "pc police" as they call them. But let's get real . . . some may call them the pc police, but does it make sense to campaign by making sure you insult as many people as you can get away with? What of basic courtesy? Let's take Allen's "macaca" comment, for example: what would have been the courteous thing to say to this man who had been following his campaign? Plain courtesy would keep them out of trouble.
But wait, there's more to think about. If they were going to really shift perceptions, what would they do with the immigration issue? What would the party's position be about people living across our border working in the U.S. For those who are stunningly hostile to anymore Latinos working in the U.S. and whose jurisdictions got rid of the immigrant menace, those communities are in economic meltdown because the economy required those workers. Further, if we're so concerned about Americans doing jobs Mexicans are taking, then why don't we allow more people to organize into Unions so they can negotiate better wages? Why not raise the minimum wage to over $10.00 per hour so people are not in poverty when they're working? What are Republican proposals for affordable healthcare aside from charging that the Democrats are socialist and the market can take care of it (which it hasn't).
How would we responsibly talk about terrorism without implicating everyone who has a last name from the Middle East? How would we build relationships in that part of the world so that we develop peer relationships that work? How would we really help Iraq develop political solutions to problems that can't be fixed by our military? What might we really say to Musharraf in Pakistan? I think this all smacks of racism!
So I can't wait . . . a season of Republicans trying to hold their racist and sexist tongues! What they really need to worry about is Obama's ability to out-organize them because if the far right doesn't provide foot soldiers for McCain, I don't see how he can win.
But while they're at it, I'd appreciate it if they didn't insult the Black man or the woman, and not only for the duration of this campaign, but never again!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
A Long Hot Summer
With all of the enthusiasm about the Democratic ticket, I hate to be the party pooper, but we should consider who-can-vote-problems BEFORE the general election. I am thrilled about the possiblity of a woman or a Black person winning the White House. However, there are many who are not excited about this prospect: frankly, they abhor it. While the Republican party is a little scattered about who to back (I understand that Mitt Romney is suspending his campaign), I don't underestimate how badly they would like to (1) keep the White House and (2) make sure people of color and women don't have access to that level of power. We know that Republicans in Ohio and Florida have tampered with voter lists as a means of disenfranchising people. Let's really think about what this entails.
One way that voters are regularly disenfranchised is that if their names resemble those of people who are in jail, they are prevented from voting. If the States withdraw the right to vote from someone who has served time in prison, for life, if your name is just like that person's, you cannot vote. There doesn't seem to be a way to say "I'm not that John Bean, I'm John Bean on Main Street". Unfortunately, this has a disproportionate impact on Black people and seriously compromises our ability to vote.
Further, if a state reinstates the right to vote if someone leaves prison, if that prisoner has not taken efforts to reinstate their names, again, people with the same name are often prevented from voting. These issues require proper training of poll workers and making sure that States properly indentify those who are no longer able to vote and make sure that people who have not run amock of the law can exercise this right. Unfortunately, people who have similar names to those who have been disenfranchised have also been denied the right to vote and even more Black people are prevented from exercising their rights at the voting box.
Identification is also a means of preventing people from voting. All voters need to be sure that they bring their state issued identification card, preferably with a current address, to the polls to ensure they can vote. I don't think that people who are serving jail terms can hold passports and this form of identification should immediately provide evidence of legitimacy when voting.
Finally, there have been significant issues about making sure that people can register to vote in the first place. Everyone needs to make sure that they follow their states' procedures in getting this done. If you are required to use heavy cardboard to submit your registration application, please do so (remember Ohio in 2004?). We all need to follow up with our Boards of Election to make sure we're on their systems and have voter registration cards if necessary. Frankly, our parties should ensure that this can be accomplished and we should put pressure on them to make sure things go well so that we can exercise this ever more important right.
One wonders if we had taken these precautions whether there would have been a first Bush term - (1) no Iraq war; (2) no change in the Supreme Court; (3) no destroyed economy; (4) no wiretapping U.S. citizens, and the list goes on. Ultimately, these details cannot escape examination in our exuberance about the ticket. I know that my right to vote was compromised because either the DMV or the Board of Elections, or both, here in New York State, did not do their job. We all need to take responsibility for it. It's not too early . . . it easily becomes too late to handle these problems.
One way that voters are regularly disenfranchised is that if their names resemble those of people who are in jail, they are prevented from voting. If the States withdraw the right to vote from someone who has served time in prison, for life, if your name is just like that person's, you cannot vote. There doesn't seem to be a way to say "I'm not that John Bean, I'm John Bean on Main Street". Unfortunately, this has a disproportionate impact on Black people and seriously compromises our ability to vote.
Further, if a state reinstates the right to vote if someone leaves prison, if that prisoner has not taken efforts to reinstate their names, again, people with the same name are often prevented from voting. These issues require proper training of poll workers and making sure that States properly indentify those who are no longer able to vote and make sure that people who have not run amock of the law can exercise this right. Unfortunately, people who have similar names to those who have been disenfranchised have also been denied the right to vote and even more Black people are prevented from exercising their rights at the voting box.
Identification is also a means of preventing people from voting. All voters need to be sure that they bring their state issued identification card, preferably with a current address, to the polls to ensure they can vote. I don't think that people who are serving jail terms can hold passports and this form of identification should immediately provide evidence of legitimacy when voting.
Finally, there have been significant issues about making sure that people can register to vote in the first place. Everyone needs to make sure that they follow their states' procedures in getting this done. If you are required to use heavy cardboard to submit your registration application, please do so (remember Ohio in 2004?). We all need to follow up with our Boards of Election to make sure we're on their systems and have voter registration cards if necessary. Frankly, our parties should ensure that this can be accomplished and we should put pressure on them to make sure things go well so that we can exercise this ever more important right.
One wonders if we had taken these precautions whether there would have been a first Bush term - (1) no Iraq war; (2) no change in the Supreme Court; (3) no destroyed economy; (4) no wiretapping U.S. citizens, and the list goes on. Ultimately, these details cannot escape examination in our exuberance about the ticket. I know that my right to vote was compromised because either the DMV or the Board of Elections, or both, here in New York State, did not do their job. We all need to take responsibility for it. It's not too early . . . it easily becomes too late to handle these problems.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday is my Super Bowl
I briefly tuned into the Superbowl. Frankly, I couldn't care less. But I hung on every word about the elections last night! What a something.
Admittedly, I am a split woman when it comes to backing a Democratic candidate. I back Hillary with my head, but Obama with my heart. I have to say that I was DISENFRANCHISED by New York State . . . I registered to vote when I got my driver's license in SEPTEMBER, but they never registered me. I decided to vote by affadavit yesterday and am assuming that my vote won't be counted. Fear not, I've sent in my voter registration directly to the Board of Elections . . . I BETTER be able to vote in the general election.
But let's talk about my mind/heart problem. I am feminist (ok, yes, the name of the blog makes that abundantly clear). I think Hillary Clinton's running is important not because she acts on her feminist impulses (she doesn't as far as I'm concerned), but because it shows the U.S. hypocrisy about sexism. We act like we've done our work here. We haven't. And it pisses me off that we always have to point to Afghanistan and women wearing burquas to point to the "liberation" of American women. What self-righteousness crap! I think it disheartening that it's hard to find a pair of jeans that don't make it over most women's butts! What does it mean that "beautiful" women are a size 0? We are supposed to take up SO LITTLE space that we should physically almost disappear as well? How frightening! What does it mean that over half the people attending law school are women but most of them do not end up in law firms? What does it mean that most of the people in poverty are women? What does it mean that quality childcare is completely unaffordable - do we really think that women belong in the workplace or is this one way to send us out? Given these problems, it seems that most of our feelings about Hillary are the way that we feel about women overall and suggest the extent to which it is difficult to really back a woman. The question is what do we believe about what sexism tells us about women that makes it hard to back her.
Let me jump on this question . . . I think she's duplicitous, particularly as it concerns Black women! Yes, she started her career with the Children's Defense Fund. Yes, she's written articles concerning women and children. However, there were some gaffes during the Clinton administration on which she remained as silent as everyone else. Let me spell them out:
Zoe Baird: She was the Attorney General nominee who didn't pay social security taxes for her nanny. I don't back this . . . nanny's do really hard work and deserve every dime they work for. However, I do think this points to one critical challenge for women - finding affordable childcare. I know that she earns more than many women, but childcare options are so expensive that even she had to shirk some of this duty. So Hillary, defender of children, could you not speak out against your husband when others trashed her as a candidate because there are few affordable childcare options? How could you have redirected this discussion? Again, do we really want women in the workplace? What would be required for us to do this with peace of mind? Never mind that Black women have been taking care of White women's children since the 16th century in this hemisphere (let's not forget slavery and its aftermath) and they haven't been paid well or offered decent childcare options. And some in the Republican Party want to get rid of Head Start . . . one of the only effective and reliable childcare options for many women. Where was Hillary's voice here? This silence points to Clinton treachery against women in general and women of color in particular.
Lani Guinier: the next nominee for the Attorney General position. She was a Black woman who published articles about Black people and political representation and its relationship to voting. The Republicans called her quota queen. However, if you read her work, she argues that White people can effectively represent Black people in Congressional districts and did not advocate any quotas for voting representation. Did Hillary have anything to say about this? 'Nuff said.
Jocelyn Elders: our Surgeon General who, wisely in my opinion, recommended that we should consider teaching about masturbation as a form of safe sex. Let's think about this. Many are averse to this activity; however, no one else is involved, no pregnancies, no STDs. The Republicans had a fit and Clinton tossed her overboard. Did we hear a single word from Hillary Clinton? Do we see racist remarks about rampant Black female wild sexuality attached to Elders' concerns about STDs and teenage pregnancy so that her point was completely lost? Hillary had nothing to say.
Welfare deform: poor Black cadillac driving welfare queens need to work if they think they're going to get any more "handouts" from the state, right? Because ALL women on welfare really are just trying to get over. The racist tinge of all of this goes way back . . . Black women have been categorized as brood mares - animals that can't stop breeding and have irresponsible sex. Remember, we have wild sex drives and can't control ourselves. That's why our children are in such terrible shape and maybe we can do something for ourselves if we just got into the workplace. There are jobs out there, we just refuse to work. If I recall correctly, raising children IS work. And damned hard work, especially if people systematically discriminate against you for work, the work you can get doesn't pay well and as a result, you can't get childcare and you don't get health insurance either. Hillary, did you have anything to say about this? What a betrayal against Black women.
So, I cast my affidavit ballot for Hillary, but my gut is upset because she has not taken some important public stands on behalf of women. These are the reasons she strikes me as duplicitous. Perhaps she would not be this far if she had a record on these events. But given the condition of women in the U.S., remember, sexism isn't dead, we can't afford this. Would Barack do better? I don't know, but he doesn't parade himself around as an advocate of women and children.
Admittedly, I am a split woman when it comes to backing a Democratic candidate. I back Hillary with my head, but Obama with my heart. I have to say that I was DISENFRANCHISED by New York State . . . I registered to vote when I got my driver's license in SEPTEMBER, but they never registered me. I decided to vote by affadavit yesterday and am assuming that my vote won't be counted. Fear not, I've sent in my voter registration directly to the Board of Elections . . . I BETTER be able to vote in the general election.
But let's talk about my mind/heart problem. I am feminist (ok, yes, the name of the blog makes that abundantly clear). I think Hillary Clinton's running is important not because she acts on her feminist impulses (she doesn't as far as I'm concerned), but because it shows the U.S. hypocrisy about sexism. We act like we've done our work here. We haven't. And it pisses me off that we always have to point to Afghanistan and women wearing burquas to point to the "liberation" of American women. What self-righteousness crap! I think it disheartening that it's hard to find a pair of jeans that don't make it over most women's butts! What does it mean that "beautiful" women are a size 0? We are supposed to take up SO LITTLE space that we should physically almost disappear as well? How frightening! What does it mean that over half the people attending law school are women but most of them do not end up in law firms? What does it mean that most of the people in poverty are women? What does it mean that quality childcare is completely unaffordable - do we really think that women belong in the workplace or is this one way to send us out? Given these problems, it seems that most of our feelings about Hillary are the way that we feel about women overall and suggest the extent to which it is difficult to really back a woman. The question is what do we believe about what sexism tells us about women that makes it hard to back her.
Let me jump on this question . . . I think she's duplicitous, particularly as it concerns Black women! Yes, she started her career with the Children's Defense Fund. Yes, she's written articles concerning women and children. However, there were some gaffes during the Clinton administration on which she remained as silent as everyone else. Let me spell them out:
Zoe Baird: She was the Attorney General nominee who didn't pay social security taxes for her nanny. I don't back this . . . nanny's do really hard work and deserve every dime they work for. However, I do think this points to one critical challenge for women - finding affordable childcare. I know that she earns more than many women, but childcare options are so expensive that even she had to shirk some of this duty. So Hillary, defender of children, could you not speak out against your husband when others trashed her as a candidate because there are few affordable childcare options? How could you have redirected this discussion? Again, do we really want women in the workplace? What would be required for us to do this with peace of mind? Never mind that Black women have been taking care of White women's children since the 16th century in this hemisphere (let's not forget slavery and its aftermath) and they haven't been paid well or offered decent childcare options. And some in the Republican Party want to get rid of Head Start . . . one of the only effective and reliable childcare options for many women. Where was Hillary's voice here? This silence points to Clinton treachery against women in general and women of color in particular.
Lani Guinier: the next nominee for the Attorney General position. She was a Black woman who published articles about Black people and political representation and its relationship to voting. The Republicans called her quota queen. However, if you read her work, she argues that White people can effectively represent Black people in Congressional districts and did not advocate any quotas for voting representation. Did Hillary have anything to say about this? 'Nuff said.
Jocelyn Elders: our Surgeon General who, wisely in my opinion, recommended that we should consider teaching about masturbation as a form of safe sex. Let's think about this. Many are averse to this activity; however, no one else is involved, no pregnancies, no STDs. The Republicans had a fit and Clinton tossed her overboard. Did we hear a single word from Hillary Clinton? Do we see racist remarks about rampant Black female wild sexuality attached to Elders' concerns about STDs and teenage pregnancy so that her point was completely lost? Hillary had nothing to say.
Welfare deform: poor Black cadillac driving welfare queens need to work if they think they're going to get any more "handouts" from the state, right? Because ALL women on welfare really are just trying to get over. The racist tinge of all of this goes way back . . . Black women have been categorized as brood mares - animals that can't stop breeding and have irresponsible sex. Remember, we have wild sex drives and can't control ourselves. That's why our children are in such terrible shape and maybe we can do something for ourselves if we just got into the workplace. There are jobs out there, we just refuse to work. If I recall correctly, raising children IS work. And damned hard work, especially if people systematically discriminate against you for work, the work you can get doesn't pay well and as a result, you can't get childcare and you don't get health insurance either. Hillary, did you have anything to say about this? What a betrayal against Black women.
So, I cast my affidavit ballot for Hillary, but my gut is upset because she has not taken some important public stands on behalf of women. These are the reasons she strikes me as duplicitous. Perhaps she would not be this far if she had a record on these events. But given the condition of women in the U.S., remember, sexism isn't dead, we can't afford this. Would Barack do better? I don't know, but he doesn't parade himself around as an advocate of women and children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
