I am DYING to know what the Obama holiday card will say. Granted, much could happen in this year, but let me give it a try:
Barack, Malia, Sasha and I wish you all Happy Holidays, be it Winter Solstice, Ramadan, Channukah, Christmas, and the New Year. We've certainly had a busy year. As you may have heard, we moved from Chicago to Washington, D.C. We are enjoying our new digs. I have to say it's much easier to handle with the staff.
There was a little party for the start of Barack's new job. The girls hosted Miley Sirus and the Jonas Brothers for themselves and a few others of their age. A few people came to witness his taking of the oath. OK, possibly a couple of million. Clearly, this wasn't going to be an indoor ceremony and it was frigid out, but there's nothing like starting a new job with a few good friends! In the event that we even briefly missed Chicago, it is clear that we brought the weather with us.
Joe and Jill have been invaluable to helping our transition here, even after Jill blabbed to Oprah about Joe's choice for VP or Secretary of State in the new administration. Watch out when the Biden's get excited!
Barack is exhausted and hoping for a couple of days off around Christmas. I have to say that it's really challenging for him to work from home because the job is always there. I have enjoyed working on behalf of military families and seeing to the girls' transition to their new school and city. I have to say that they've handled this in stride. Of course the new dog is a big hit with them. I even think that they understand the level of responsibility they have to take for it. I also must confess that it's about time Barack has brought in an income higher than mine!
We wish you the best for the new year!
With much love,
The Obama family
Friday, January 23, 2009
Inauguration - Underreported
I was fortunate enough to drag my son and partner to Washington, D.C. to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama. I must say that I still have to pinch myself when I hear President Obama. I still have to wonder why he wanted this job at this time. I must admit that I can't think of a single other person who would be better at this job at this time.
However, I do want to clarify a couple of things that seem to have been underreported in the press. The first was the ENORMOUS number of Black people who attended the inauguration. We know that Washington, D.C. has the reputation of being Chocolate City because of its large Black population (and I certainly was one of them for many years). However, outside of being in Jamaica, I have to say that in the United States, I have NEVER seen so many Black people in one place in my life. Really. There were definitely people of other races, but overwhelmingly, the crowd was Black.
Secondly, the crowd booed, very loudly to boot, whenever the images of either of the former Bush presidents and Dick Cheney appeared on the jumbotron. There is no doubt that many American people were ready for the Bush era to end. It wasn't a mere rumble. It was loud and clear.
Finally, I LOVED Aretha Franklin's hat. It rocked! And with that, know that I'm still smoking on the bong of hope!
However, I do want to clarify a couple of things that seem to have been underreported in the press. The first was the ENORMOUS number of Black people who attended the inauguration. We know that Washington, D.C. has the reputation of being Chocolate City because of its large Black population (and I certainly was one of them for many years). However, outside of being in Jamaica, I have to say that in the United States, I have NEVER seen so many Black people in one place in my life. Really. There were definitely people of other races, but overwhelmingly, the crowd was Black.
Secondly, the crowd booed, very loudly to boot, whenever the images of either of the former Bush presidents and Dick Cheney appeared on the jumbotron. There is no doubt that many American people were ready for the Bush era to end. It wasn't a mere rumble. It was loud and clear.
Finally, I LOVED Aretha Franklin's hat. It rocked! And with that, know that I'm still smoking on the bong of hope!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
And what of the Republicans?
First, do read this editorial from today's Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110403872.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I find the need for Republicans to move back to a particular knee jerk orthodoxy about lower taxes, free markets, and smaller government to be utterly absurd in this particular climate. In a time where people are losing their jobs, where government has failed to protect them against the problems of the free market, and where we will actually have to spend money to dig us out of our domestic and international crises, why resort to such inflexible orthodoxes?
I've always been a fan of Keynesian economics, using the government to provide a safety net, etc. for its citizens. But if we recall correctly, it was FDR who spent to get this country out of the Great Depression. Social Security was started so that the old and disabled could have income and participate in the marketplace. He spent money he didn't have to create jobs so that people could rebuild this country, literally through public works, and create a tax stream so that the government could do more for the people.
How will tax cuts, less oversight of many industries, and a failure to support new industries (i.e. green industries) actually be helpful to getting the United States in better shape, particularly while we are at war with two countries? Is the Republican party that out of touch? It seems that a majority of the American electorate has, for now, rejected these sorts of solutions for our nation's ills and if promoting these ideas is the only way that the Republicans can see their way out, may they stay in the wilderness for good.
I do agree with them about one thing, particularly as of last night: I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!
I find the need for Republicans to move back to a particular knee jerk orthodoxy about lower taxes, free markets, and smaller government to be utterly absurd in this particular climate. In a time where people are losing their jobs, where government has failed to protect them against the problems of the free market, and where we will actually have to spend money to dig us out of our domestic and international crises, why resort to such inflexible orthodoxes?
I've always been a fan of Keynesian economics, using the government to provide a safety net, etc. for its citizens. But if we recall correctly, it was FDR who spent to get this country out of the Great Depression. Social Security was started so that the old and disabled could have income and participate in the marketplace. He spent money he didn't have to create jobs so that people could rebuild this country, literally through public works, and create a tax stream so that the government could do more for the people.
How will tax cuts, less oversight of many industries, and a failure to support new industries (i.e. green industries) actually be helpful to getting the United States in better shape, particularly while we are at war with two countries? Is the Republican party that out of touch? It seems that a majority of the American electorate has, for now, rejected these sorts of solutions for our nation's ills and if promoting these ideas is the only way that the Republicans can see their way out, may they stay in the wilderness for good.
I do agree with them about one thing, particularly as of last night: I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Admit it - you enjoy drinking lattes as well!
I can't believe that I've been able to hold my tongue on this blog throughout this political season, but now that it's almost over, I have this to say. If you are part of the Republican party, you may want to reconsider your conservative principles so that most ordinary humans are not tripped up by them.
What do I mean? The Republicans tend to get into trouble because they can't figure out how to set standards low enough so that they don't get burned by the same standards. When Dan Rostenkowski got convicted of illegally using government resources in the early 90s, Republicans got swept in because they were going to run a clean and efficient government. Then enter Newt Gingrich's Revolution and they were going to make sure that government shrank and got off of our backs. Never mind the promises of a government that lived up to a better morality and was for the little guy, and that ensured that liberals could never again take office.
What has happened since? Newt Gringrich, Mark Foley, and Vito Fasselli, the Congressman from Staten Island, New York (and many others) got busted for having their pants down (literally). Family values were so important that my buddy Vito had two of them. W has increased the size of government many times over. And the little guy . . . does Sarah Palin's Neiman Marcus wardrobe qualify as one Joe the Plumber and his wife would wear?
Frankly, I'm not so worried about sexual impropriety (alright, Mark trying to diddle minors goes way too far), smaller government, or the wardrobe of a woman who is in the public eye. However, when you get all high and mighty about sexual morality, make government bigger and more efficient for Halliburton, and claim you're all for the Wal-Mart crowd, these things are problematic. Perhaps a reborn Republican party might want to reconsider attacking people for their sex lives; decide that government should be bigger for military and defense purposes and shrink it for everything else they don't like; and decide that drinking lattes and driving Volvos may not have been so bad! At least we have one thing in common - I like lattes and love Volvos!
What do I mean? The Republicans tend to get into trouble because they can't figure out how to set standards low enough so that they don't get burned by the same standards. When Dan Rostenkowski got convicted of illegally using government resources in the early 90s, Republicans got swept in because they were going to run a clean and efficient government. Then enter Newt Gingrich's Revolution and they were going to make sure that government shrank and got off of our backs. Never mind the promises of a government that lived up to a better morality and was for the little guy, and that ensured that liberals could never again take office.
What has happened since? Newt Gringrich, Mark Foley, and Vito Fasselli, the Congressman from Staten Island, New York (and many others) got busted for having their pants down (literally). Family values were so important that my buddy Vito had two of them. W has increased the size of government many times over. And the little guy . . . does Sarah Palin's Neiman Marcus wardrobe qualify as one Joe the Plumber and his wife would wear?
Frankly, I'm not so worried about sexual impropriety (alright, Mark trying to diddle minors goes way too far), smaller government, or the wardrobe of a woman who is in the public eye. However, when you get all high and mighty about sexual morality, make government bigger and more efficient for Halliburton, and claim you're all for the Wal-Mart crowd, these things are problematic. Perhaps a reborn Republican party might want to reconsider attacking people for their sex lives; decide that government should be bigger for military and defense purposes and shrink it for everything else they don't like; and decide that drinking lattes and driving Volvos may not have been so bad! At least we have one thing in common - I like lattes and love Volvos!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tread Carefully Indeed
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!
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!
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)
