Ty: A very angry person writes to say that by supporting Ralph Nader, we're supporting John McCain. He is convinced that Nader voters will mean a John McCain victory. I should note that Ava and C.I. have not declared who they intend to vote for or even if they will be voting.
Jess: Barack can't close the deal. That was the problem he had in the Democratic Party primary as well and, as I remember, Ralph Nader wasn't on that ballot. Hillary got more votes than Barack in the primary. She won the big states. If Barack loses, it will fall on Barack and the Democratic Party. Barack would have never gotten my vote because I'm not a Democrat. I would have voted for Hillary just because I was sick of the media attempting to pick the candidate. But I voted for Nader in 2004 and I'll be voting for him in 2008. Nader's got my vote and Barack never stood a chance at. If Barack can't get enough votes, maybe the Democratic Party should explain why they refused to go with the strongest candidate?
Ty: There were a lot of Barack e-mails and I'll move to the next one which is that we are racists for not supporting Barack and we, this is a quote, "hate Black men."
Betty: Cute the way "man" was worked in there, huh? Unlike Barack Obama, I am a Black person. I'm not bi-racial. Barack's unqualified, inexperienced and he's honestly frightening. Not due to his skin color but due to the fact that he is so conservative.
Cedric: And for the record, Ty, Betty, Marcia and myself are African-American. Betty self-identifies Black. It's a media myth that his so-called race hurts him or might hurt him. Barack posing as Black has carried him to wins he didn't earn. Barack was never on my list of choices. I was fine with many of the nominees. But never Barack. He's a liar. And that was my attitude before 2008. After his non-stop race baiting, the feeling only strengthened. I do know what it's like to be a Black man and anytime Barack needs to know what that's like, I'll explain it to him. But here's a starter course for him: Black men and Black women -- we don't have everything handed to us. We actually have to work to achieve, not just smile and have Whites bend over backwards to elevate us up the ladder.
Marcia: True that but maybe if we went around attacking the Black community, some of the same 'helpers' promoting Barack would promote us as well? The 'racism' cry is bulls**t. I think the best example of how it's not about race is Elaine and C.I. They were very excited to meet Barack when he was running for the US Senate and eager to support his run. They met him. And he made clear that he didn't favor withdrawing troops and argued that the US was in Iraq now. That's when they knew he was a fraud. Now he's revealed some of that publicly over the summer. To claim that his lack of support from all quarters stem from racism is just cry baby talk. He's a weak candidate. He has very little experience. He takes no strong stands and caves on everything. His speaking voice is weird. He is his own problem. It has nothing to do with his being bi-racial or his pretending to be Black.
Jim: His weird speaking voice?
Marcia: Has anyone else noticed that he's really effecting a southern drawl these days? Help me out, he picked that up in Hawaii or Chicago?
Betty: I know just what you're talking about and it goes to the fact that he is a changeling, he isn't genuine. His original speaking voice was awful. He worked for years to grab from others and that's how he arrived at his current speaking voice. For the record, he is too loud. He needs to learn that you can give a speech without shouting every line. He needs to learn to modulate. He speaks like a very bad Saturday Night Live skit.
Cedric: He also needs to learn how to speak like a person and not like a professor. He's always speaking down in those speeches.
Marcia: Pompous ass is all he is. But let me toss to Elaine on support for Barack.
Elaine: Okay. Well, like Marcia noted, and like I've noted since 2005, C.I. and I went to that fundraiser ready to make the maxium donation and that was because Barack was supposed to be anti-war. It is also true, because we discussed this on the way there, that we were aware of the need for more people of color in the Senate. So race may have played a small part in our excitement about supporting him. However, we got our face time, he wasn't against the illegal war. That was it for us. We left immediately. He's a fake. He was a fake in his Senate run and he's a fake today. It has nothing to do with his race, bi-racial, or with the claim that he's Black. It has everything to do with the fact that he's a fraud. I've often quoted C.I. on this, but as we were leaving, C.I. said, "There's really nothing there." And there really wasn't. He wears a suit well and he has a nice smile. On such the Democratic Party thinks they can build a presidency. He may win, if he does, the country's going to need some serious help. I think what C.I. and I saw when he was running for the Senate was, as Marcia pointed out, revealed to the country this summer. I'm really amazed at the people like Tom Hayden who can't tell the truth except for a brief moment. At some point, there's really no point in denying that Barack's bought and paid for and not a deep thinker.
Ty: Okay another e-mail insists we call out sexism here but we never even focus on racism.
Dona: Oh, that's just malarkey. We've long called out racism. But whenever you regularly call out sexism, that's all anyone sees because (a) it's so rare and (b) it's more accepted to strongly advocate against racism than it is to strongly advocate against sexism.
Marcia: I don't mean to monopolize the discussion but I want to jump in here. Until January, I just read this site. To suggest that racism hasn't long been called out here is insane. Ava and C.I. have regularly addressed racism. In their TV commentaries, they regularly address sexism and a strong counter-argument could be made that for months the only place sexism was addressed here was in Ava and C.I.'s writing. Whereas racism has been regularly addressed in many other features, many times.
Betty: I really take offense to that e-mail because, setting aside all the other articles and just focusing on racism, it has regularly been addressed in these roundtables. The topic has never been shied away from and we have had serious conversations about race. None of that glossing over that Bill Moyers regularly offers. Cedric, my opinion is that sexism is more openly pervasive than racism. Would you agree with that?
Cedric: Before this year, if Betty had raised that question in a roundtable, we would have had a back and forth on that where we were both offering reflections and opinions; however, with what's already gone down in 2008 and is going down in 2008, there's no question that it is more than okay to be a sexist openly. And, to drop back to a point Marcia was making, if you look at Ava and C.I.'s pieces, you will see the point about just how acceptable sexism has been on TV. It hasn't been hidden. It's been out in the open for this entire decade. This is a backlash decade for women.
Jim: If there's one topic that we should have covered more than we have, our feeling has always been it's homophobia. We have covered that but not nearly enough and if you pull Ava and C.I.'s articles out of the mix, we are really lacking there.
Ty: As a gay man, let me add there. When this site started, I wasn't out at this site. I was out in my own life. But I'd already gone from a great student to a lukewarm with one professor when the issue came up and I wasn't sure whether I wanted to reveal my sexuality online as a result of his reaction and his insistence that, if I became a journalist, what I could cover was limited. So for the early days of this site, it really was Ava and C.I. raising that issue because I did have a distance from it. I agree it is the issue that is most lacking here. And I take responsibility for that. Once I made the decision to abandon journalism and stopped hiding my sexuality here, we began tackling the topic more. But I have no problem owning the fact that group pieces often didn't focus on it. That wasn't because Jim, Dona or Jess were squeamish about it. That's because they knew I wasn't sure what to say and what not to say so a wall was erected. I leave out Ava and C.I. in that because they regularly addressed it in their own writing here.
Wally: I also think there's the issue of focus. The site's focused predominately on Iraq. Usually each edition features an article or a few not on Iraq and those articles really have had to compete. C.I., at The Common Ills, regularly addresses the homophobia in Iraq but that's not been the case here because everyone has strong feelings about what they want to write and a lot of topics fall by the wayside. If there's a piece that, for example, Jim, Rebecca and Mike feel strongly about working on, it's going to get worked on. Because they will advocate for it loudly and passionately.
Rebecca: I would agree with what Wally said and I'm trying to think about this topic in terms of here. I do address homophobia more at my own site but it's also true that I've got five days a week to write about stuff. And I do a lot of grab bag posts where I can cover a variety of topics. The articles here tend to be articles. So something I could do a paragraph or two on at my own site might not work -- in my eyes -- for a piece here. Wally mentioned Mike, Jim and myself and we're usually more focused on the hypocrisy in press or politics. We advocate for those topics strongly. We don't get together outside the writing period to plan that out. It's just what we're naturally attracted to. You could also argue that we're more 'mouthy' -- for lack of a better term. Jim, talk about the writing edition, anyone, just to give people an idea of how it goes.
Jim: Sure. Each week we've got "Highlights" which Mike, Rebecca, Betty, Ruth, Marcia, Cedric, Wally, Kat and Elaine do. We've got the TV commentary that Ava and C.I. do. We have at least one "Truest Statement Of The Week," and we have my note. In addition to that, we have an editorial and a few feature articles. So there's a great deal of competition for what we're going to cover. We'll probably do something on sexism and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame this edition. That's long been advocated by Rebecca, Elaine, C.I., Ava and Kat. But I read Kat's post Friday and got the point I'd been missing in past weeks. What happens is that we all have our picks from the list of possible topics and we're arguing for our picks to be covered. A lot of time, I'm so busy arguing and advocating that I'm not listening closely to the other arguments being made. Reading Kat's post, I got what I was missing during our discussions during the writing -- which are intense -- and it's also on the list because of the fact that our readers do want more music articles. I read a couple of e-mails on that last week. So there are many reasons why something gets covered or not.
Dona: Equally true is that as we get closer to what we hope is the end of an edition, something that requires a lot of research is not going to be attempted because we're all tired and ready to get to bed. That's why I advocate short pieces. That's a way to deal with a topic quickly. We don't generally do short pieces unless Jess and I can convince everyone that they're needed. I think they're needed solely for variety. In terms of sexism, Ava and C.I. didn't just cover it here from the start, they educated all of us. I do understand the reluctance of women my age and younger to label sexist things sexism because I had to have my own awakening. For myself, and possibly some still in denial, you don't want to believe the country's like that. You want to believe that it's passed. And I know I resisted calling sexism aimed at me sexism because I feared doing so. If I didn't acknowledge it, it didn't happen. I don't know if that makes sense, but it moved from an oblivious denial to a willful denial before I could admit what was going on.
Kat: In terms of articles about sexism I'd like to add a few points. First, sexism is the great uncovered topic of 2008. It has been so pervasive and so dismissed. Look at what Sarah Palin's facing right now with "She really wasn't the governor, her husband called the shots!" That is just sexist bulls**t. Another reason sexism will get covered here is because if it's advocated as a story and makes the list of potential topics and Jim, Rebecca and Mike are advocating for another article, it will raise the hackles of Ava and C.I. who normally will go along with whatever but if they feel sexism is being dismissed, they will get vocal.
Betty: That's true. And so will the rest of us. Ruth especially. I have heard Ruth say, "We have to cover this." And she's said it three or four times this year and it's always been on sexism. That's the only time Ruth will offer an opinion like that. Otherwise, she's game for any topic.
Ruth: I think that comes from seeing so much dismissal of the topic. The New York Times did their one article about it and even in that article they couldn't or wouldn't identify it. So if a daily paper can only do one article on it in all of 2008 or if Bill Moyers can ignore it on his weekly show for the entire year, I am going to insist that we cover it.
Cedric: That really is what 'alternative' is supposed to be. It's not about being just like the MSM but 'from the left,' it's about covering the topics that they won't. I know my grandmother has appreciated every article we've done on sexism here and Ava and C.I. are her heroes. Last week's editorial -- by Ava and C.I. -- resulted in my seeing another side of my grandmother. I know she's a strong woman and I know she's been a wonderful grandmother and she raised me. But she pulled down a scrapbook she kept when she was young, she pulled it down Sunday after she read Ava and C.I.'s editorial, and I had no idea until we were looking through it that my own grandmother had been a second wave feminist. She and her friends really shook things up on their campus and argued and proved repeatedly that there was no "off limits" for women. It was really great to see that side of her. Again, I know her as a strong woman but I guess I never thought about how she arrived at that strength before.
Dona: I'm sure it will be worked in elsewhere this edition but just to give it another shout-out, NOW on PBS did an hour long look this weekend at women and politics and that is a program everyone needs to be aware of.
Jim: To go back to the 2008 presidential election, no one here feels that Barack's going to end the illegal war -- his own actions and words have made that clear. It would be a huge betrayal fof what we have always stood for at this site to support his run. We're not CODEPINK, we're not going to play suck up to the Democrats.
Ruth: That really has been one of the biggest disappointments of 2008, seeing how many groups supposedly for ending the illegal war will hold their tongues for or even support Mr. Obama.
Ava: What's especially disappointing there is that we were supposed to have learned from 2004. Naomi Klein, among others, called out the nonsense of 'supporting' the Democratic presidential nominee by silencing the peace movement. But that's exactly what has happened. There's not even been a big demonstration since January 2007. Mike's written repeatedly about how disappointed he's been in so many on the 'left.'
Mike: Yeah, I really have. I was writing about that a couple of times last week and noting how many had revealed themselves to be about the Democratic Party -- even people who aren't Democrats -- and not about ending the illegal war. It's been a huge letdown or a huge gift, however you want to look at it. But I've got very little reason to trust, let alone read, many of the people I once did. And Ava mentioned Naomi and she did make this point repeatedly in 2005 and still does. But no one wants to listen to it. They just want to focus on an election and on electing someone who has been all over the map regarding the illegal war.
Betty: If you look at the 'protest' actions at the DNC and RNC conventions, it is very obvious that no one wanted to embarrass War Hawk Barack but no one was 'hampered' by that when it came to John McCain. C.I. and I were talking about a hearing C.I. covered at The Common Ills last week and I was hoping C.I. would talk about that.
C.I.: Okay. It was the House Budget Committee and the hearing was on the Iraq War spending. You had two 'protestors.' One offered a chant as soon as the committee meeting was brought to order. John Spratt, the chair, at the urging of the Ranking Member of the Republican Party, advised the chanter that she'd have to cut it off or leave. She cut it out. I'm not sure how effective chanting at the start of the meeting was. No Democratic representative defended the illegal war in their statements during the meeting. But if you thought your chant was effective, why did you immediately stop when challenged? The other 'protestor' had a banner. Again, Spratt informed that the banner wasn't acceptable to the meeting and needed to be put away. It was. This is the peace movement? I really didn't find either 'protest' effective but that's just my opinion. Certainly the two people must have thought it was effective or they wouldn't have attempted it. But, in both cases, as soon as the order came down to desist, they did. It was like a C-Span call in where the caller didn't care whatever else got said as long as he or she got to share his opinion for a brief moment. It actually reminded me of when Condi, Secretary of State Condi Rice, was testifying to Congress not long ago and she was again confronted with the "you have blood on your hands" cry. The person was again very close to her. Condi came off well. Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings but she did. She smiled and had obviously figured out how to adapt to that protest. The point being, new ways are needed. Not only are they not being utitilized, the 'protestors' are like declawed cats. Give them a chew toy and they're happy.
Jim: And that's not an endorsement of Rice.
C.I.: Thank you, no, it's not. It is noting she's prepared for that tactic now and knows how to handle it. If I'm being really honest, she came off gracisous during the exchange and that's not what the anticipated result was.
Dona: You didn't think the protests were effective. Why was that?
C.I.: I should point out that I only covered the first panel and I was only present for that. But the first panel was not adminsitration witnesses -- nor was the second panel. The first panel was the GAO's Joseph Christoff testifying. I really didn't see the need for a protest during that. He's non-partisan and he is reporting on the financial costs of the illegal war which are alarming enough. As I said before, no Democrat on the committee made a pro-war statement. The statements were about how to get out of the Iraq War. The Republicans largely avoided that panel. It was like two or three Republicans that even spoke during that panel. If a War Hawk testifies, I can see the point in a protest but this was about information. This is just my opinion, but I felt the two 'protestors' were a distraction because the information being addressed needs to be out there. The August GAO report got very little attention from the press -- especially considering how damning it was. So I just felt it was a misdirection to disrupt the testimony of the first panel.
Mike: You transcribed it in three snapshots [see "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot"] or the Democrats and Christoff and you also passed on some stuff for me to use at my site. But the point I wanted to make was that I read the report and followed most of it, the GAO report, but I leanred so much more from the transcriptions.
Rebecca: Which is because it was an economic report. The transcriptions C.I. did offered an exchange where points could be emphasized and clarified. Sherry e-mailed me about the three snapshots saying she felt she had a better understanding of the August report as a result of the transcriptions.
Ty: A lot of people who e-mailed this site last week agree with Sherry. There were also a few questions, is it okay to ask?
C.I.: Me? Sure, go ahead.
Ty: With the exception of the issue of information being private, kept from the tax payers, which should be public, you didn't really offer opinions. Lionel e-mailed wondering why that was?
C.I.: I felt the hearing was important and that the report hadn't been adequately covered so I tried to offer just what was said. I wouldn't do three days of snapshots on one hearing normally. But this is about what is being spent on the illegal war. And by just offering a transcription, we were also able to see what Congress is thinking of. By the way, I purposely did not include pro-John McCain for president or pro-Barack Obama for president statements. That's the only thing I intentionally skipped when deciding what should be excerpted. Was that it?
Ty: Betty, not our Betty, wondered why you didn't plan to cover it for three days. She noted in her e-mail that you would write that if it was wanted, there would be more.
C.I.: First, I expected the second day would include reporting on the hearing but who covered the hearing? The day after, I didn't see anything. I planned to do one day of transcriptions -- I took notes throughout but only planned to offer one day. The second day was going to be highlighting press coverage of it. When there was no press coverage, I offered a second day of transcriptions. Then, because people were interested in the hearing, there was the third day. But it was an important hearing.
Jim: Why do you think it didn't get more coverage?
C.I.: A number of reasons including the fact that the November presidential election has sucked up the space for most stories. In addition to that, the feeling was, I'm speaking of news outlets I spoke with, that the report had been covered in some form and they needed to cover other things. I disagree that it was covered enough already. The report itself was a complex report and written in government-ese. This was a chance for points to be clarified and emphasized. Supposedly, we're all appalled by the huge amounts of money being spent on the illegal war but if we were all appalled by it really, I think the press would have covered the hearing. I don't know if it was on C-Span but that committee does broadcast and archive their hearings so there was no reason that our Panhandle Media couldn't have covered it. Especially The Nation who has so many writers and so little of actual use to offer. I've got other things to focus on currently, as most people know. And the last thing I wanted to do was fly into DC but I did because of the topic and because it was Christoff testifying. Those who didn't cover it who are publicly against the illegal war, or pretend to be, better not start hitting on the cost of the illegal war anytime soon because they ignored this hearing which demonstrates that they really aren't too concerned about the costs.
Jim: You didn't stay for the second panel because?
C.I.: I had to be back for a treatment, for one thing. And the second panel was made up of partisans on both sides -- as witnesses. If I weren't dealing with my health, I would've stayed. But I used that as my excuse to avoid the second panel. Christoff had actual information and the Congress was asking him about that.
Jim: Ty had the questions but I had one more which was why not just stream it online?
C.I.: I had planned to be there when he testified. The hearing was booked some time ago. I wasn't sure who would be there. A large number of people turned out but Kat can tell you that she and I have gone to hearings where we were part of a group of maybe ten. This one had a good turnout. But I would have felt badly if it hadn't -- due to the topic. I also would have had a million reasons not to stream if I hadn't gone. Having to sit there through it, I had to focus. I don't really know if that answers your question or not.
Jim: Yeah, it did. Ty?
Ty: Marcia's written a great deal about the closeted types -- politically closeted -- and that led to an e-mail asking us if we agree. Particularly in terms of Marcia's comments about the politically closeted who pretend to be concerned about racism. So I'm going to toss Edward's question out here as a topic.
Dona: Marcia should probably state her opinion first. Ava can jump in if she wants but Wally, Mike and Ruth should especially address the topic since they've spoken the least. Elaine hasn't spoken that often, so she might want to jump in as well.
Marcia: Okay. I'm an African-American and I think we're used, as a race, by a number of politically closted types. I've offered various examples at my site. And to be clear, I'm not just speaking for myself, this is a growing perception community wide among African-Americans. I think you can also include Latinos in that, judging by some of the e-mails I've received on this topic. It seems that we are trotted out to perform so that these White people can pretend they are soulful and caring.
Wally: I agree with Marcia. I'm White, by the way. Marcia's offered numerous examples but the one that springs to mind is Jena Six and how that was treated, week after week, by Amy Goodman and Laura Flanders as the most important subject in the world. Then it wasn't. They did a brief update on Bell, the one they always focused on, and some did another update when he entered a guilty plea. That was it. And the other five were on their own. Truthfully, the other five were largely always on their own. There was little interest in them. But it plays out like Goodman and Flanders, among others, used the story for something other than information. If it was about information or news, they would have stayed on it. They didn't.
Mike: Yeah. It was supposed to be the most important story of 2007 but there was never any real efforts to stay on it even in 2007. It was as though the march took place and everyone wanted to move on. It played out, especially seeing how little concern there is for it now, like, "Look how amazing we are for reporting this." By the way, I've got a really bad cold and am offering minimal participation for that reason. Ruth?
Ruth: I honestly feel that Marcia's correct. I feel that certain stories are used not to inform or even help but to sew unrest. I'm not saying the stories shouldn't be covered, but I'm speaking of how they are covered. Everyone's using Jena Six so I'll stick with that. The march took place and then the coverage was gone. Was the coverage about helping the young men or about stirring up a nation to march? Judging by the way the story immediately disappeared -- and KPFK continued to cover it after others dropped it, just to give some credit -- it appears that the motives were other than what were stated. It was more of a "blow against the empire," to use terminology from my day, type coverage then it was about helping the young men.
Jim: I'm going to jump in to note comments in e-mails from many readers who felt that it was a "Look at those awful people in the Deep South." They noted that there was no such coverage on a variety of events -- including rape -- in other states. They noted that the Sean Bell coverage from Panhandle Media was much less passionate and that Sean Bell died. There was a feeling, especially from readers in Florida who knew of multiple incidents of racism in their own state, that the story got so much play because of a 'we're so superior in the north' attitude.
Ruth: Absolutely. Especially true of the Jews who want to play act like it's the fifties and sixties all over again. Jena Six was always an iffy story. Sean Bell was murdered. One story took place in the south, the other in NYC. Which one got outrage from Panhandle Media? It was very much a superior attitude coming from NYC Jews. I know that attitude, I'm Jewish and I lived in NYC before we got a house in Connecticut. There's a very real, very visceral hate for the south expressed by many. That's why the murder, by the police, of one man was time for careful talk and why the Jena story could offer up any charge in the world, even when it was contradicted by the parents of the Jena 6, NYC Jews didn't feel bound by facts. And, to be really clear, I'm talking about the Jews who are Communists or Socialists. Some will be bothered by that statement, but it's reality. They go out of their way to demonstrate how 'superior' and 'advanced' they are from everyone else but especially from anyone living in the south. I agree 100% with Marcia and my only problem is with myself because I've used all my time to talk about that and would have also liked to have echoed her comments regarding Cynthia McKinney's campaign.
Kat: Okay, I'll grab that. There is a very real feeling that Cynthia's being used. You've got Greens going on broadcasts and writing articles and blogs who talk about everything but Cynthia McKinney. They have plenty to say about Barack. I think Cynthia's being used and will continue to think that unless or until these Green 'voices' start focusing on getting votes for her and stop carrying water for Barack. And that's a feeling community wide.
Cedric: Sorry to jump in again but I want to add to what Kat's talking about because the way it is going right now it does look like a number of Whites are using Cynthia. It's something that, obviously, a number of White people want to play dumb on. We saw that at Marcia's site this week. We saw a Green 'voice' excuse her own silence on Cynthia's run with the laughable nonsense of "I have a widget on my site for Cynthia's campaign!" Why are you writing comments at Marcia's site, ridiculous ones, instead of covering Cynthia's run. You're a Green. Why is it that anytime Barack ends up in a controversy, you're weighing in some form to defend him but you can't find time to cover Cynthia's run? And then your dumb ass husband wants to show up saying to Marcia, "Well you've only covered Cynthia X times!" Marcia's not supporting Cynthia in this election. Her candidate is Ralph Nader. She's writing about Cynthia because it's an issue in the community, especially among African-Americans, and it's an issue where we feel a number of 'concerned' White people are again using an African-American.
Betty: I've got to jump in as well. Until this election, I've never not voted for Cynthia in any of her runs. I have tremendous respect for Cynthia and think she's amazing. Unlike Barack, she is one of us. If you're Black, you can identify with Cynthia's life story, you know where she's coming from. And we are protective of her. And we do see her being used. When Donna Warren goes on KPFK as a Green in a discussion/roundtable on the presidential race and can talk about anything and everything but Cynthia, we do object. When Green 'voices' go on Democracy Now and sing Barack's praises, we do object. When Green bloggers have time to bore us with their bad musings on every topic under the sun except their presidential candidate, we do feel that Cynthia is being used. Marcia had a great comment about Mike that really applies for most of us. If a White person, Mike's White, is treating us equally, we're not suspicious. If a White person is going on and on about racism, we do step back and examine that person's actions. In the case of Amy Goodman, she's only interested in us as victims. And I doubt Bill Fletcher, whom I don't care for -- I don't like political closet cases, would have been on Friday's Democracy Now! without the kind of criticism that Marcia has consistently offered. We, Black people, are to Panhandle Media what young, missing, blond women are to the MSM. We can be featured endlessly as victims but we're rarely 'analysts' or any one speaking from a position of power or self-determination. We notice that. We register it. And that's when we grasp that you're not really against racism, you're someone who feels we are your burden. We find that insulting. And we realize that it's never about us, it's about making yourself look good. It's not an anti-White attitude, Marcia got an e-mail asking that, it's about a disrespect we're treated with. We are very much disrespected by a number of White 'voices' and I'd include Edward S. Herman's latest piece in that. Hold on, because I'm nowhere near done and am about to let it rip. He's co-written a piece that's circulated with Black members of this community and we are appalled by it. He's making Jermeiah Wright about to be the suffer of this year. Reality check, Herman, no one living in a new house that cost over a million dollars is suffering. You look as out of touch as those fretting over Michael Jackson's latest 'crisis.' Try speaking to actual Black people, they'll tell you, if I had no money worried, my life would be a lot more fine and dandy. And to echo Marcia's point re: Wright, I am damn sick of White people who do not go to church repeatedly telling us what's acceptable in the Black church. My father's a deacon. I was raised in the Black church. I attend a Black church. It is racism to suggest that we allow thrusting hips to simulate sex in a sermon. It's such racism and it goes to that whole "Darkies love their sex" b.s. that a number of these old White people grew up under, it's the reason they romanticized the Black experience to begin with. I don't know what these idiots think and maybe they don't have kids. But I can tell you right now that those of us who have children, Black people, do not take our children to church every Sunday hoping that a preacher's going to make a fool out of himself by being graphic or swearing. Your White elitist attitude and your patronizing attitude towards Blacks is on display and you may think you look cool and down with 'the people' but you just look racist. Again, the 'primal nature' of Black people as more sexualized is a stereotype, it's an insulting one and you're repeating it just demonstrates your own racism.
Ava: I think C.I.'s got Betty's remarks -- C.I. and I are taking notes -- but I'll speak slowly so C.I. can catch up. I agree with all that's been said and think Betty's point about the stereotype, the sexual stereotypes, and how racist they are are true. As a Latina, I'll note, yet again, that Latinos marched by the millions for immigrant rights and after the stories on the marches, there was no interest in the topic in Panhandle Media. They aren't providing coverage. They aren't providing information. They're hopping around to whatever they think the 'hot,' water cooler story is. I will also note that there was a closing of the ranks for some African-Americans early on during the Wright coverage but that ceased when Barack broke with him. It's really appalling to see these White voices we're referring to continue to present Wright as a victim and as representative. He's a homophobe and he's really disgusting. I'm surprised Jim didn't bring up the Maverick player this week whose comments are in the news. But I caught ESPN with Jim and Jess when that was being discussed. One of the sports writers made the very obvious point that you just couldn't say something like that and get away with it currently. But some White 'lefties' want to act like saying "G**damn America" was okay? They have no concept of what goes on in a church or of how outrageous it was for a preacher to call down damnation on the country. It offended a large number of people, including African-Americans, and to expect it that wouldn't is to flaunt your own attitude towards the country.
Jim: Okay, on that note, we're going to stop. We could go on and on. As many e-mails as possible were included. We have plans to include other e-mails in other features.
