Hillary Clinton: Racist

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XCVIII

And, Core's Law of New Media.

Hillary Clinton made a racist joke the other day.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized for joking that Mahatma Gandhi used to run a gas station in St. Louis, saying it was "a lame attempt at humor." The New York Democrat made the remark at a fund-raiser Saturday [Jan. 3]. During an event here for Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Clinton introduced a quote from Gandhi by saying, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

After laughter from many in the crowd of at least 200 subsided, the former first lady continued, "No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century." In a nod to Farmer's underdog status against Republican Sen. Kit Bond, Clinton quoted the Indian independence leader as saying: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

The director of a U.S. center devoted to Gandhi's teachings said the remarks amounted to stereotyping and were insensitive.

After being approached by The Associated Press to clarify the remarks, Clinton suggested in a statement late Monday that she never meant to fuel the stereotype often used as a comedic punch line that certain ethnic groups run America's gas stations.

"I have admired the work and life of Mahatma Gandhi and have spoken publicly about that many times," Clinton said. "I truly regret if a lame attempt at humor suggested otherwise."

Michelle Naef, administrator of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, a Memphis, Tenn.-based organization founded in 1991 by a Gandhi grandson, credited Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton, with long having "supported the Gandhi message." But she said Saturday's remarks "could be incredibly harmful."

"I don't think she was, in any way, trying to demean Mahatma Gandhi," Naef said. "To be generous to her, I would say it was a poor attempt at humor. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but I find it offensive when people use stereotypes in that way." ....

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

A clue for some folks who don't understand why a fuss is being raised about this: it was not a joke about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi; it was a joke about Indians and other Asians living in America. IOW, it was a racist remark.

It is also the kind of joke for which a Republican or other conservative would be fried alive by mainstream media — which is, of course, going to give Hillary Clinton a pass on this.

So, we have a double-double standard at work here: (1) Clinton herself would have feigned (and I do mean feigned) outrage if a Republican had said any such thing, and (2) mainstream media would hound to death any Republican who had said such a thing, until he had to resign something or other.

As to it not being meant to fuel the stereotype often used as a comedic punch line that certain ethnic groups run America's gas stations — that is obviously a lie. Of course that's what it was meant to do: it wouldn't have been said if it hadn't been meant to do that; it wouldn't have made any sense if it hadn't been meant to do that.

And that Naef sure is a bright one: no doubt Clinton was not "trying to demean Mahatma Gandhi". Obviously, she was trying to demean every member of an entire ethnic group. Naef's stupid remark is, I take it, a lame attempt to distract attention from the manifestly racist nature of Hillary's joke.

Let's be honest, shall we? The only problem Clinton and her buddies have with this joke is that the public got wind of it. And, as a corollary, you can't tell me she hasn't done something like it before.

Frankly, I don't really care: the general election in November is going to make up for a whole lot — especially with Hillary Clinton sitting her last two years in the US Senate in a noticably smaller minority. :-)

Oh. This is another illustration, Faithful Reader, of what I'll call Core's Law of New Media: There Is No Such Thing As Local News Anymore. In the Internet Age, anything anybody says anywhere can be known almost immediately everywhere else.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 01/07/04 08:30:52 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media & Most Notable & Political.

The Leftest Part of the Left Coast? Reconsidered

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XCVII

Another... interesting... column in the Seattle Past-Intelligence Post-Intelligencer, Jan. 5, by Neal Starkman.

Millions of words have been written as to the motivations of voters. Particularly in close elections, as in the 2000 presidential contest, pundits and laypeople alike have speculated on why people voted for whom. The exit poll has been a major tool in this speculation.

But the speculation misses the mark by far. It's increasingly obvious, for example, that none of the so-called theories can explain President Bush's popularity, such as it is. Even at this date in his presidency, after all that has happened, the president's popularity hovers at around 50 percent -- an astonishingly high figure, I believe, given the state of people's lives now as opposed to four years ago.

What can explain his popularity? Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq? Of how he has fortified our constitutional freedoms with the USA Patriot Act? Of how he has bolstered our economy? Of how he has protected our environment? Perhaps they've been impressed with the president's personal integrity and the articulation of his grand vision for America?

Is that likely?

Granted, there are certain subsections of the American polity that have substantially benefited from this presidency. Millionaires and charismatic Christians have accrued either material or spiritual fortification from Bush's administration. But surely these two groups are a small minority of the population. What, then, can account for so many people being so supportive of the president?

The answer, I'm afraid, is the factor that dare not speak its name. It's the factor that no one talks about. The pollsters don't ask it, the media don't report it, the voters don't discuss it.

I, however, will blare out its name so that at last people can address the issue and perhaps adopt strategies to overcome it.

It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.

It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think.

You know these people; they're all around you (they're not you, else you would not be reading this article this far). They're the ones who keep the puerile shows on TV, who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards, who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things, who generally make life much more miserable for all of us than it ought to be. Sad to say, they comprise a substantial minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the populace.

Politicians have been aware of this forever; they cater to these people. They offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. They evade directed questions with non-sequiturs. They offer meaningless, jingoistic pap instead of thoughtful policy. And these people, the "S" people, eat it all up with a ladle.

I don't have a solution to this problem. To claim I did would belie my previous arguments. But I do have some modest suggestions that might provide a start for discussion: an intelligence test to earn the right to vote; a three-significantly-stupid-behaviors-and-you're-out law; fines for politicians who pander to the lowest common denominator and deportation of media representatives who perpetuate such actions.

It's well past time that people confront this issue, no matter who's offended. We are on the way to becoming a nation of imbeciles. I'm certain that a plethora of "George W. Bush" jokes is already being circulated in every capital of the world. We can stop this sapping of our national integrity but we must do it soon, lest the morons become the norm and those of us who use our brains for more than memorizing advertising jingles are ourselves ostracized from society.

Let's start talking. Let's bring the S factor out of the closet and into the daylight where we can all see it, gulp at its hideousness and finally make serious attempts to bring it to bay.

Neal Starkman lives in Seattle. Submissions for First Person, of up to 600 words, can be e-mailed to editpage@seattlepi.com; faxed to 206-448-8184 or mailed to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, P.O. Box 1909, Seattle, WA 98111-1909.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Hey, Seattle: keep 'em coming!

See The Leftest Part of the Left Coast? and "Threats to Democracy at Code-Red Level".

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 01/07/04 08:08:35 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

The "Democratic Demolition Derby"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XCVI

Georgia's Sen. Zell Miller writes an open memo to Terry McAwful McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, at OpinionJournal, Jan. 5.

See also "A National Party No More".

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 01/07/04 07:47:20 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

Vote for Your Favorite!

For the Robert Fisk Award for Idiotarian of 2003.

Final-round voting is now underway!

At little green footballs.

My vote? Michael Moore, of course.

Re: Fiskie Time Has Come Again.

See also Idiotarian of 2003 Finals.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 01/07/04 04:41:38 PM
Categorized as Other.

The Leftest Part of the Left Coast?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XCV

The Blog from the Core has thought it appropriate to point out that especially wacky articles blogged here recently were addressed to a San-Francisco audience. Here is a revelatory article by Jennifer Nelson at the San Francisco Gate, Jan. 5.

In the three years since I moved to the Bay Area, I have been astounded at the general rudeness of people in the area and, more specifically, the antichildren, antifamily attitude that prevails.

Although I grew up in the Sierra foothills, I had never lived in the Bay Area until my husband and I moved our family from Illinois to the East Bay three years ago. We settled in Oakland, trying to shorten the daily commute into San Francisco as much as possible.

I took a part-time job at a high-tech public-relations firm, which had a dog policy (no more than three dogs in the office on any given day) and corporate calling cards from a company that gave part of the proceeds to left-leaning nonprofits. At the holidays, the firm donated money on behalf of each client to a nonprofit that gives farm animals to poor families in developing countries. Not your run-of-the-mill American corporation, but very Bay Area.

But in the months and years that followed, I discovered an angry, unpleasant element to the Bay Area kookiness. My first real experience with the rude attitude prevalent in the area started when I found my way into Berkeley. A friend had recommended Berkeley Bowl as a great alternative to haunting farmer's markets.

Berkeley Bowl is a fabulous market. The parking lot and many of the patrons, however, are not. I have never seen such angry people as I saw on my first visit to Berkeley Bowl (and every visit thereafter). These are people who drive used Volvos plastered with bumper stickers that say "Wage peace," "The truly educated never graduate" and "Barbara Lee speaks for me." But many of them have no patience and don't seem to think the rules of the road apply to them. After parking and shopping next to these folks for three years, I'm starting to think that a steady diet of edamame, veggie burgers, organic greens and soy milk makes people really, really angry.

Part of my problem, I've decided, is that I'm easily tagged as a "breeder" by the many folks in the Bay Area who believe in population control or who just dislike children.

The tell-tale clues of my status are hard to miss: First, I drive a minivan with three, sometimes four, car seats. Second, I often am seen in the company of three children who call me "Mom." These traits have led people to freely let me know that they think I'm overpopulating the world. Probably the strangest experience I've had is being pregnant in the Bay Area. During my other pregnancies, I lived in Sacramento and was used to people smiling when they saw a pregnant woman. Here, no smiles -- mostly scowls.

My favorite story is this one: When I was getting physical therapy when I was six months pregnant (after falling and breaking my wrist), the therapist asked me whether I was pregnant with my first child (she had already told me that she had one child and planned to have only one). When I said, no, this was actually my third child, she immediately asked me whether I was going to have my tubes tied after the birth.

After my baby was born, the hostile looks and mutterings continued. While I was waiting in line for coffee one day with the kids in tow, one woman offered to me that she thought three children constituted a big family. When I told her it really isn't considered a large family in many other parts of the country, including the Midwest town I had recently moved from, she asked me with disdain, "Where was that, a religious community?" Then there was the woman who said to me as she pushed by my stroller, "Three? Don't you think you have enough?" It's not like I was asking her to contribute to their college fund! I was just taking my kids to the bathroom.

From time to time, I have to bring one or more of my children with me to shop at the Bowl. (And let me just say that I am on the strict side of parenting -- my kids behave in public, or we leave.) People are less than happy to see kids in that market (the same is true at Market Hall in Rockridge).

I can understand why -- both markets are crowded with people and products, making the navigation really tough. But, you know, even people who don't regularly get out to Oliveto's, Aqua or Roxanne's (because Bay Area baby-sitters charge $12-$15 an hour) like fresh cracked crab, a nice selection of domestic and imported cheeses and Artisan bread. Sometimes we just have to bring our wee ones along to buy the food we're eating.

Part of the problem with some folks in the Bay Area is that they have lived here too long. They have no other experience with other towns, no diversity in their idea of community.

A couple years ago, The Chronicle ran a series on neighborhoods in Berkeley. According to one longtime resident of the very white, very expensive Elmwood District, "We think of ourselves as being part of Berkeley and don't worry about our neighborhood being diverse." Wow, how nice for them. I guess Hispanic gardeners and African-American housekeepers provide that neighborhood's diversity. Meanwhile, they live in their million-dollar homes, drive expensive Volvos and walk on Oriental rugs that require insurance -- and they still get to call themselves liberals.

My favorite quote from that article reveals clearly how sheltered and close-minded Bay Area liberals can be. According to the story, Republicans are rare in the Elmwood District. One lady, who grew up in Elmwood and now lives next door to her childhood home, told the Chronicle reporter, "I don't think I know any."

In the few years I've been living in the Bay Area, I've come to realize how rigid many liberals can be in their thinking. As a minority in this area (politically speaking), it's interesting to me how people here just assume you think the way they do. That just isn't true in most other parts of the state or the nation.

I'm sure some readers are yelling, "If you don't like it, then move!" as they read this. In fact, despite the loudmouthed, judgmental liberals I've run into since moving here, the Bay Area has a lot to offer. There are liberals who like kids, aren't jerks and use their turn signals. I'm glad to call many of these folks my friends.

Few areas in the nation can match the sheer beauty of the Bay Area. Finally, catching Taj Mahal at Yoshi's Jazz House, hiking with the kids in Joaquin Miller Regional Park, watching the elephant seals at the Año Nuevo State Reserve, enjoying the crispy chicken tacos at Cactus Taqueria on College Avenue -- these are just a few of the benefits of living in the Bay Area.

The email I get from readers runs the political spectrum. But, with each column, I get notes from several readers who are furious that The Chronicle gives someone with my political beliefs any space at all, even if it's only on the SF Gate Web site (they seem to be unaware that the paper itself has a conservative columnist on staff). Some revert immediately to foul language and name calling. One reader wrote that he'd throw a party when I die.

I guess what it all comes down to is that, for a segment of the population that prides itself on its tolerance and diversity, some Bay Area liberals can be extremely hypocritical. They believe in cultural and racial diversity (Elmwood notwithstanding), but not in diversity of opinions.

It's too bad. Debate and discussion only strengthen democracy. Our nation's strength comes from our belief in freedom -- freedom of speech, religion and thought. So, for the time being, I'll continue to annoy those Bay Area liberals by driving my minivan and daring to push a stroller through Market Hall when I run out of Gruyere and my husband's not around to watch the baby.

Jennifer Nelson, an Oakland writer, worked in policymaking positions in the Deukmejian and Wilson administrations. She can be reached at jlnelson1990@yahoo.com.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

After parking and shopping next to these folks for three years, I'm starting to think that a steady diet of edamame, veggie burgers, organic greens and soy milk makes people really, really angry. I think, rather, that it's been a steady diet of President George Walker Bush that's done it.

[Follow-up: The Leftest Part of the Left Coast? Reconsidered.]

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 01/07/04 07:37:06 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.