Syndicate and Hague

To those of you who have pointed out to me lately that my blog is lacking in its previous copiousness…you’re right. I have been a bad blogger, which is partly due to a hectic life, partly due to a newfound sleep schedule (seriously, wow!), and to Twitter.

Twitter has served me well during this mess of a Democratic primary and it has also served to mute the flow of blog postings because quick hits that might have wound up in my blog before now sit in 140 character form on my twitter feed. I will consider pulling the feed into the blog here, but that’s not going to happen right away. If you’d like to keep tabs on my quick and dirty comments about random things, you can find me at http://twitter.com/saralovesyou.

I’ve been feeling a little social-networked/Web 2.0′d out lately, as well as a little politicked out, which has resulted in sluggish blogging on my part.

All that said…

It is time for you to stop now, Geraldine Ferraro.

It’s actually time for all Clinton supporters to take a step back, breathe, and realize that it is over. Game. Over. Obama won, fair and square. He out-campaigned, out-finessed, and just plain old out did the Clinton campaign.

But them’s just the numbers. While I’m irritated by the Clinton campaign’s Rovian fuzzy math, I’m downright angry at Ferraro and other feminists of her generation who are not temporarily being, but showing themselves as flat out racist in the course of this election.

I actually heard a few days ago, and I will not repeat my source because I personally would be embarrassed to have anyone know I’d said such a thing, from an older woman who said that “In my opinion, Obama is just another white man.”

And here is a problem among many…the intention of that remark was that Obama is just as sexist and mistreats Clinton based on her gender as any other man with power (read: white man) has. But the implications of that remark run a much more troubling path.

I will be the first to argue that all men–men of color included–have access to ways of power/privilege in ways that women do not. This does not mean that they have it any “easier” or “better,” but that there are avenues of communication that are shared between them as men.

However, it is tragic that the same women who recognize male privilege don’t see the ways white women have access to ways of power/privilege in ways that men of color do not.

I just can’t bring myself to go over all the intricacies of this argument because I am So. Tired. of all of it. And all over these here Interwebs, there are people making headway into the very basic nature of both of my statements. Try Jack and Jill Politics or Feministing for a sample. In posts and comments you’ll see problems. You’ll also see compelling arguments.

I’m firmly situated behind Obama as a candidate, but I see his flaws. There’s a certain “chivalry” to his dealings with Clinton that have struck feminists as being condescending (pulling out her chair for her at the debate, for instance). More troubling about how he deals with women was when he called a reporter “sweetie” when she kept annoying him as TV reporters tend to do.

The women who came before me in particular had to deal with men casting them aside professionally, dismissing them, muting their interactions with endearments, and downplaying their intelligence and decision-making skills. This isn’t relegated to the past: just as we don’t live in a post-racist society, we don’t live in a post-misogyny society.

However, there is no argument for the racism of the white feminists in response to Obama. There just isn’t. He’s a compelling candidate in his own right. A candidate whose speeches inspire and whose ideas are based in a solid liberal philosophy. He’s a candidate who established a community-based campaign fueled by small donations from a broad base. He showed himself to be the better candidate. If he can organize this well in the general election, we will be handing McCain his ass on a platter. It will be beautiful.

Nonetheless. Clinton lost. Obama won. We need to move on from that, but we’ll be dwelling in the racial/gender divide for some time now. I hope it becomes productive.

*Note: I’m not super happy with this post because I’d like to dissect everything more. As I said, however, I’m so freakin tired of all this.

I’ve developed a new morbid addiction. The Ron Paul Survival Report is an awesome site that is essentially devoted to showing what is wrong with Ron Paul. The blogger is thorough as hell. Every time I’ve checked his sources to make sure he was accurate (I try to vet the people I quote, you know), he’s been right on.

Most recently, Ron Paul is doing another one of his “money bombs” on MLK day. Ignoring his history of racist statements and affiliations, the general philosophies of extreme free market economics he espouses (which disenfranchise the vast majority of us), and the plethora of white supremacists who have flocked to his campaign (seriously)…RP is reinforcing his status as racist by actually speaking at Bob Jones University tonight at 5 p.m. It’s currently on his website (I checked).

So. Do you folks know about Bob Jones University? Well…let me enlighten you. Back in 2000, candidate George Bush spoke at Bob Jones, which set of a firestorm even from some of the most ridiculously conservative folks around (Bill Kristol, I’m looking at you). Why? From the Salon.com archives.

The school refused to admit any African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, most unmarried African-American applicants were denied admission, presumably to prevent interracial dating. After 1975, the school — under court order — began admitting unmarried African-American students, though according to the U.S. government, it rejected “any applicant known to be a partner in an interracial marriage.”

After the 1975 court order, Bob Jones administrators established rules requiring expulsion for any student who married or dated outside his or her race or belonged to an organization that advocated or encouraged others to marry or date outside his or her race.

In 2000, this was still the policy. After the controversy stirred up by Bush’s visit, they subsequently dropped the policy. In 2000. Eight years ago.

Now, you could argue: “But they changed the policy!” Despite the fact that I think that’s crap, I still think a candidate (or anyone) should not speak somewhere that is this misogynistic. From the Bob Jones website:

Dress Code for Women

Classroom/general dress consists of a dress or top and skirt; however, pants may be worn for some recreational activities. Shorts may never be worn outside the residence halls and fitness center.

Pants

• Loose-fitting pants may be worn between women’s residence halls, for athletic events, and to homes in the area.
• Loose-fitting jeans may be worn in and between women’s residence halls and when participating in activities where the durability of the fabric is important, such as skiing and ice-skating.
• Low-riders are not permitted.
• Shorts may be worn only inside the residence halls and fitness center

Other

• Combat boots, hiking boots or shoes that give this appearance are not permitted. Leather sandals, including those with a strap between the toes, will be permitted at times when women are not required to wear hose. Flip flops made of rubber, plastic, etc., are not permitted in public.
• Hairstyles should be neat, orderly, and feminine. Avoid cutting-edge fads and cuts so short that they take on a masculine look.

For some added hilariousness:

Abercrombie & Fitch and its subsidiary Hollister have shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions. In protest, we will not allow articles displaying their logos to be worn, carried, or displayed (even if covered or masked in some way).

Anyway, so, whatever. I’m not worried that RP is going to win the Republican nomination, much less the general election, but I do feel concerned that a certain segment of people respond to his rhetoric. It’s isolationist, self-interested, and generally loathsome. Anyone who believes we shouldn’t be funding public education is setting up a situation in which the poor remain poor and the rich get richer. From his website:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

Yeah. Um. Hello? If schooling is funded by local taxes, poor areas will not have competitive schools. I see no way in which this doesn’t disproportionately (moreso than now) advantage people who already have money and power. If your local tax base is small, where is money coming from to fund education?

Here’s the thing. This whole “personal liberty”/”I know what’s best to do with my money”/”personal responsibility” argument is just one thing: extreme selfishness. We live in a society, which is like being part of a household. A household has expenses. Let’s say we each need to put in 50% of our incomes so that we can pay our bills and improve things. Great. I’m a contributing member of the household. I’m willing to do what I need to in order for this to be a good place to live.

Now here comes along someone who says “This is ridiculous! Why should I put in 50% of my hard-earned money? You don’t do things right. You waste money on things I don’t think we should bother with. Let’s just leave it up to each individual to pay for each thing as it comes.”

You’d never live with someone like that unless you are a fool. You’d think they were supremely selfish and wonder how they expected to be part of a household when they obviously placed no value on it.

Anyway.

The images below are from the Ron Paul Chalk Flickr set. They make me laugh about us.