“It’s got to be irking women and blacks. This was supposed to be all about us!”

This is just sad really. What’s a white female editor at the New York Times to do?

“But we digress. The question at hand is: What do white men want?”

Hmmm… how to put this gently?


I’m sorry, did I say that out loud? I realize there’s an element of tongue in cheek to this woman’s writing but this really is how they think (if you want to call it that) over at the New York Times. There are two things wrong with it.

First, they discuss race and gender like a pair of 12 year olds trading baseball cards. You have three black men, four white women and two hispanics? I’ll give you four white guys two Indians and a Chinese dude. People are individuals. They don’t wake up in the morning, look between their legs and say “Hey, I’m a guy. I think I’ll go to a Knicks game today.”

Wasn’t that the whole point of the Civil Rights movement in the first place – that everyone will be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? So much for that. Pollsters can’t quantify the content of people’s characters, so I guess that’s out the window.

Which brings me to the second problem with this vacuous type of thinking. All of this language around the Presidential election – and all elections these days – is centered around “What’s this guy gonna do for me?” What do white men want? What do black men wan? What do purple Indonesians who live in the South Bronx want? Whatever happened to “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country?”

It’s out of fashion apparently. Oh well… what do the Democratic primaries have to do with John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King anyhow? This is all about what groups of people categorized by the accidents of their birth want for Christmas. Long live democracy!