I don’t think the reason Hillary Clinton is running for President is to show that a black man “can’t yet be elected president”.  Thanks for painting her as a racist bitter woman and him as debutante.  You truly contribute to the debate on issues that matter in this country.  Could you try not treat this election and the candidates like a 7th grade popularity contest? 

Thanks,

Mrs. W.

Well Dear Readers,

I have to hand it Page Six. They really know how to stay on the cutting edge of boringbreaking celebrity news.  Why are they still talking about Barbara Walter’s affair?  Didn’t that story break ages ago?    The admission of an affair was interesting for about 5 seconds.  But does anyone really care that Barbara Walters dated Alan Greenspan and Alan Greenberg?  And why is Christie Brinkley weighing in?  She’s made some banner romantic choices in her life, who is she to judge?  And what is the photo about?  I for one would not be pleased if someone posted a picture of my face that close up.

And what about the conservative moron calling her a “media whore”?  Umm…Ann Coulter anyone?  Barbara Walters isn’t exactly the poster child, of what conservatives view as, the liberal media.  Can one truly draw a comparison between Barbara Walters and Paris Hilton?  I’m thinking conservatives are opportunistic and will take a swipe at a woman who has broken more than one ceiling in her lifetime.  I’m also thinking that if it were Walter Cronkite admitting to affairs and to dating two women at once, conservatives wouldn’t care so much.  Just sayin…

I think you are a very talented writer.  Husband and I have been watching seasons of the West Wing over the past few weeks and have enjoyed the stories.  It is nice to imagine a president that is smart and understands grammar.  It is nice to imagine a country in which leaders are concerned about governing.  It is nice to imagine a government working in the interest of the people.  

I have a critique.  Well, a complaint, really.  You forgot about women.  Not only did you forget about them, you sexually harassed them.  I give you credit in recognizing that liberal governments are pro-women except when it means not sexually harassing them or focusing on their looks rather then their resume.  Ahem,  the New York Times. That even in a liberal White House, men are free to comment on the bodies of their peers without reprimand or shame.  This happens in the real world.  I know that it does.  Reflecting this in your portrayal of politics is fine.  But painting the women in the series as accepting or appreciative of the commentary is ridiculous.  The problem is you treat this kind of harassment as welcomed by women.  I can assure you it is not.  Do some women welcome commentary on their bodies?  Yes, I’m sure some women do.  But that does not make it feminism and it absolutely oppresses women.  Would you make similar comments in terms or race or religion?  Would that be acceptable?  Yet, it’s acceptable when referring to women and has the added benefit of being feminist?  As a writer, I’m sure you are aware of the power of words and the media.  It is your livelihood, how could you not be aware of it? 

Girls and women are told throughout life that their body is currency, where they are to find worth.  It is a sexist norm.  Reinforcing this in prime time media is shameful.  You had a soap box.  You could have changed the conversation about how women are perceived and what is appropriate, but you chose to tell half of your viewers that some women like it when male peers comment on their bodies, that it is in fact feminist and counterproductive to make a big deal about it.  You do this several times in several episodes.

I’m referring specifially to the “Night Five” episode in the third season.  The character Sam Seaborn comments that Ainsley Hays, his Harvard educated associate legal counsel female peer, looks so good she could make a dog break its chain.  Another woman in the office calls it harassment and sexist.  Then to make everyone feel better Ainsley tells this woman that she likes it when Sam comments because it shows that she is included and that nitpicking over words ignores the bigger issures keeping women down.   

WHAT?  As a writer, I am certain that you know the power of words, rhetoric, and media.  Reinforcing the notion that because some women find it acceptable = feminism = men don’t have to change the way they treat and talk about women is absurd, offensive, and just wrong.  Interestingly, in the same episode, the effects of child abuse are addressed.  How when a person that is supposed to love and respect you belittles and abuses you, it has a lasting effect on your life.  I guess that only applies to men.  Because belittling women under the guise of compliments is uniquely feminist.

Shame on you Aaron Sorkin.

The New York Times is taking it to the streets of Baghdad. In their Baghdad Bureau blog, they are asking readers to submit questions for Iraqi women. A Times reporter will select readers’ questions, take to the streets of Baghdad with an interpreter, pose the questions to Iraqi women on the streets of Baghdad, and videotape their responses. Many of the questions posted to the Times website inquire about how their lives have changed, should the U.S. get out of Iraq, the different religious-political factions, and was life better before the U.S. occupation.

This raises an interesting question about the U.S. perception of the life of Iraqi women pre and post Saddam. In her book, “Between Two Worlds:  Escape from Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow of Saddam”Zainab Salbi reveals what her life was like growing up and living under Saddam’s regime and inside his inner circle. Salbi gives a riveting view of life in Iraq before the U.S. invasion and shortly thereafter. She addresses the West’s view of Saddam’s “liberation” of women with respect to property rights and divorce. She refutes the notion that he was in any way pro-woman. He was a rapist and terrorized millions of people. These “freedoms” he granted were largely for show and at his whim. Given Salbi’s point of view, I find it interesting that the opponents of the war cited his pro-woman leadership as a reason not to go to war. Consequently, Salbi is also the founder of Women for Women International, a non-profit organization that advocates for women in war torn countries where rape has been used as a tactic of war.

I applaud the Times and their effort to give voice to Iraqi women. However, I can’t help but wonder if videotaping their political opinions in view of anyone on the street might not put them in harm’s way. I guess I’m not so sure how much of a balanced response they will get to readers’ questions. Under Saddam, saying or implying the wrong opinion was a death sentence to a person and their families. That horrific legacy coupled with the current violence and instability may not lend itself to accurate coverage of womens’ political views, at least not with a video camera.

Perhaps there is another way to reach out to Iraqi women and assess their needs?
I will be curious to see the results of this effort and will be following it on my blog.

read more | digg story

Well dear readers,

The March 20 Gail Collins column made me laugh. She describes the ineptitude of George Bush as he is speaking to Economic Club of New York. Once again, when speaking to a room full of informed professionals, he appears to be making up things as he goes along. Not that this is news to anyone who has heard his baseless drivel over the last 8 years. But I still cannot believe he is president. People have said on the news and to my face that despite his shortcomings and tragically wrong decisions, the country has not seen an attack since 9/11. I seriously doubt the man who can barely put a sentence together has had much to do with keeping America safe, if you can call it that. I feel less safe with the Republican knee-jerk foreign policy and dangerous fiscal plan. He has no business being president of the Dick Cheney fan club, much less the United States.

Whenever I hear him speak I find myself asking, why hasn’t he been impeached? Other presidents have been impeached for less offenses than lying to the public about nuclear weapons and spending trillions of dollars on a needless war.  It really is a wonder that some of the most profitable companies globally are Exxon, Shell, BP and Conoco.  Energy plan anyone?

Yet I feel a complacency on the part of the populous to actually do anything other than jump on the Obama bandwagon of hope and no action.

In any other setting, surely Bush would have fired by now.  Aren’t we judged in our own job performance by our ability to understand the scope of our work, articulate problems, and contribute to solutions?  Bush is judged on folksy charm and gets a free pass from his Republican colleagues and many Americans.  The Bush approach is to “believe” everything he is saying, despite facts and evidence to the contary.  The emporer has no clothes on.  Or as husband likes to say, they emporer is on drugs. 

read more | digg story