By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
Whole lotta bull
I began reading "The bull market" [October 8] by Mark Donald today. Finally! Someone else who actually has a brain! That "show" was the biggest offering of bullshit ever served. I just wish Mr. Donald had found me for his audience poll. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know I really enjoyed this article. Thanks for the down-to-earth realism.
In keeping with the boisterous religiosity of the Peter Lowe seminar, let me shout a loud "Amen, Brother!" to Mark Donald's article. Normally, a seminar like that would be the last place I would find myself. However, in an effort to reach beyond my normal self and try something new, I became one of the 20,000 suckers.
My pre-seminar prejudice was that the entire event would be nothing but a glorified book-signing event with a dose of religion thrown in. I turned out to be right.
I did learn something from the event, however. The next time I have an urge to reach outside myself and try something new, I will just say "No."
Excellent negative story on the Peter Lowe success seminar at Reunion Arena. I'd say it's about time someone exposed the hypocrisy of some of those fakers by turning a motivational acting show into a religious revival.
It's about time someone told the real truth, because most of those people that put stuff like that on are nothing more than money-grubbing blowhards out for the quick buck, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ or the Bible. (Most of them wouldn't know the real Bible if it bit 'em on the butt.) And then they wonder why I'm living in a homeless shelter without a job, while they're up on stage paying Zig Ziglar $30,000 a pop to speak for two hours when it's not gonna change your everyday life. It hasn't changed mine, and I used to listen to the guy on television. It's just like the cover said--they found themselves a bunch of suckers.
The first black president
As a professional black woman, I was appalled at your article ["Black like him," October 8]. First of all, the reason black people tend to support Clinton is because he has done a lot for race relations in this country and has come closer than any other president to apologizing for slavery. Secondly, we see Starr and his lynchmen as a bunch of hypocrites. Everyone keeps saying that Clinton has broken the moral foundation of this country and the office of the president. But how many presidents have had mistresses, and more important, how many owned slaves? So don't talk to us about morals.
I personally supported the O.J. verdict, not because I thought he was innocent, but because the prosecution did not prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore justice was served, for once.
One point I did agree with was our view on Monica Lewinsky. Who has asked her to apologize for again setting her sights on a married man and going after him? She was not sexually harassed; she was, by her own admission, the instigator. I see her simply as another white woman going after one of "our" men.
It is probably true that black women are not as sympathetic to feminist issues. Yes, we as black women are seen by the world as black first, women second. We don't get followed around in department stores because we are women, and we don't have to present six forms of I.D. to write a check because we are women. It's simply because we are black.
I read your article about the president being a black man, and I am laughing. You see, you Caucasians will never understand. As an intelligent, degreed, professional black woman, we are always underestimated. We think and act in pragmatic terms; we can't afford not to. You see, we, like Hillary, see a greater purpose for the President. We see the "gotcha" attitude of the religious right, the Rutherford Institute, and Republican laggards. Paula Jones is a little too late with her stuff. We have experienced how affirmative action has really benefited white women and allowed these "cry babies" to perpetrate their agendas through sexual high jinks and emotional outbursts. And since you media types always interject O.J. Simpson--let me tell you the real reason why we cheered, even the women in the battered women's shelter--we knew the story of how Nicole chased this married man, saw him through his divorce, and then became his wife, yet still flaunted herself to other men. We know about her drug use and her family benefiting from O.J.'s money and contacts, so we cheered because we knew this time there was justice for a black man. He didn't "beat" me or any of the women in the shelter--the case was about murder, not spousal abuse.
We support Clinton because we know that Monica was not raped and that she knew what she was doing. She entrapped him with a stained dress, and now she is famous. White women needn't be so outraged, they should instead watch their husbands, uncles, and friends who merely walk down the hallway of their homes to sexually molest their children. Boot Paula and Monica, and let's get on with the business of supporting the guy who won two terms, and you other people should just wait until the next election to vote your guy in.
You say Clinton's actions with Monica Lewinsky constitute a "strikingly similar pattern." Do you mean Paula Jones flashed her skimpy underwear at the governor?
Assuming she didn't, and assuming she went to that hotel room thinking that the governor just wanted to thank her for the wonderful job she was doing as a "lowly Arkansas state employee," and assuming he did exactly what she claims he did, he did take "no" for an answer. In more than 30 years in the business world, I've known more than a few men who considered "no" a come-on. Most women I've known in business between 40 and 75 had similar experiences and don't consider a single approach, abandoned when rebuffed, to be sexual harassment.
It doesn't surprise me at all that feminists haven't rushed to embrace the right-wing Republicans and religious zealots in vilifying President Clinton. Most feminists, after all, know how to recognize their own best interests and have experience in choosing the lesser of evils.
I am very upset with your article on Clinton about race. I do think it is a conspiracy, and I am an African-American lady. Clinton is a great president, and he worked hard to get this economy working good. I am not behind him because people say he is a black president. People make mistakes, and just because he is president, he is not supposed to be God. Check the Bible: "Whosoever is without sin cast the first stone." We all have skeletons in our closets. You probably did not know, but Newt Gingrich asked his wife, while she was very ill in the hospital, for a divorce. Why couldn't he have waited until she got home to ask her? That was very cold.
The only person who can judge Clinton is God, and nobody else. It really upsets me when people make it a race thing when it is not. I read in the Wall Street Journal that 65 percent of African-Americans; 55 percent of senior citizens; 50 percent of working mothers; and 45 percent of Republicans said that they disagree with what Congress is doing. They will not vote Republican next time. Tell me if I am wrong, but this does not sound like race to me.
Clinton has not affected this country. It hurts me to see everything charged to race. I want Ken Starr and Linda Tripp to know that they are scum, but even though they made a mistake in my eyes, I forgive them. I am not the one to judge and neither are you.
Ms. [Christine] Biederman's report on the difficulties facing Paula Jones in her suit against Bill Clinton makes some intriguing and accurate demographic observations. While it's true that the majority of African-Americans and women voters supported Clinton, the real problem for the Jones Team is the widespread lack of moral convictions in America today--not the racial demographics of Arkansas or any other state. Sadly, the man who holds the White House is a symbol of America's Hell-bound decline into depravity.
The ugly truth is that fornication is so rampant in our society that it has become semi-socially accepted. "Inappropriate relationships" outside of marriage are perverse according to the Bible, yet apparently acceptable to Clinton supporters. This group of amoral Americans would have us believe that Clinton's outrageous propositioning of Paula Jones and his subsequent affair with Ms. Lewinsky are little more than personality quirks. It is a sad day for us as a nation when this type of extramarital perversion is tolerated by the common folk.
Ms. Jones may have a difficult time finding a moral jury to fairly judge her case, but we as a nation have a clear-cut way out of this. We must vote for Republican, Christian candidates this November who will vote to impeach Clinton, and then we must elect George W. Bush in the year 2000. It is time to reclaim this nation for those who truly own and deserve its blessings, we conservatives and true Americans.
Derek G. Davis
Recently you wrote an article about the parade entry that I have fought to get into the Dallas Veterans Day Parade [Buzz, October 8]. Your line in the article about not being able to make some people happy is very appropriate in this case. I personally thought that the article was a hatchet job on me and failed even to consider the simple fact that what the city attempted to do was not only a violation of my constitutional rights but was just simply illegal. All that we ever asked of the city was to be treated the same as the other entries in the parade, which is our right as Americans.
Fortunately for the taxpayers of Dallas, the parade officials saw the wisdom of not attempting to defend their position in federal court, where they faced a certain loss.
I would like to point out something that is grossly misrepresented concerning the War Between the States. A surrender does not mean a "loser." Mr. Webster defines it as such: "to give up possession, to yield, abandon." Clearly there were no winners on either side, as the war was devastating to both sides. Losses of homes, loved ones, and so forth.
History is not always pretty, but it is something that has happened, and no amount of denial can change it. Confederate veterans fought for their property, land, and beliefs, and the idea that most of the South were slave owners is greatly exaggerated. The parade in Dallas is for veterans. Re-enactors are used because we do not have veterans alive from some of the wars in which our country has been engaged. If someone is offended by a Confederate uniform, it is unfortunate. I would be offended by a Union uniform, but I will not complain loudly, as I accept that it is part of history. Mexico waged a strong war against Texas, and today there is a lot of trade coming our way from that country. It is slanted journalism such as you present that keeps bitterness alive.
Southern people have a right to their heritage--to express it, celebrate it, and honor it. Northern people have the same right, and African-Americans have the same right, as do Mexican-Americans. All God's children have a right to be proud of their heritage. How sad to think one should hide such noble heritage, regardless of whose side their ancestors were on!
I can assure you, Sir, Old Times are not forgotten and shall never be.
Caron Withers Snyder
How can you write such garbage and get away with it? It is obvious you don't know your American history. They offer several history courses at all the local junior colleges; you should consider taking one. And the name-calling--is that the best "yooz guys" can come up with? I had three great-great-grandfathers in the Confederate Army, none of whom owned slaves. They were lucky to own shoes. Texas was still a frontier in 1861, and the people who came here, a large number from the North, worked very hard to build a life in Texas. They were "invaded" by the federal army and had no choice but to join the Confederate Army to protect their homes and families. Do you think we don't have the right to honor our ancestors and our heritage? I guess you would, since you are misplaced down here in the South.