I stand by my mailer and will not back down
The petition about my mailer has a long list of inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and deceptive arguments about a very vital issue: racism in local politics. Race-baiting is for real in San Jose, but this group reduces our political culture to one based on belittling, silencing and obfuscation of the issues. And our voters in D3 pay the price.
This letter is meant to silence, like book burnings deciding who can have a voice.
This letter is designed to cloud the real issues and hide the genuine truth about policies the voters so desperately seek.
This letter is about a campaign stunt that can damage a campaign because they feel so threatened by truth.
This letter is not about true racism. For if this letter were about racism, the authors would condemn and ask for the resignations of actual racists who have had actual racist impacts (like the LA-4), as President Biden and I have done.
This group of authors have been utterly silent on any of the other race-baiting issues confronting Silicon Valley politics. But they have chosen to make up charges about this campaign and this mailer — why this one and why now?
Consider the background:
Matt Mahan has been smeared as anti-choice and pro-gun. And they said nothing.
I spoke up when South Bay Labor ran anti-Arab and anti-immigrant ads against Johnny Khamis — the letters’ authors were silent on that issue as well.
All this should make you wonder what’s motivating this effort. I have been critical of who benefits from the status quo — Big Benefits — big government, big business, big non-profits, and big special interests. As you look at the signatures and see many leaders of nonprofits — groups I have criticized for unaccountable behavior and as big beneficiaries of the status-quo.
Let’s take their claims step by step.
The first charge is that this mailer is similar to:
· GW. Bush accusing J. MCain of fathering a black child,
· or using a photo of black men not associated with the political campaign,
· or darkening the faces of candidates of color.
This is false equivalency. None of these terrible tactics were used in anyway on the flyer. But the authors feel they can make this claim, if that’s what you want to see.
The second charge is that by placing a photo of white women next to a photo of men of color it ‘literally and metaphorically pits these groups against each other’. The photos were not altered. Everyone is smiling. Mr. Torres’ photo was made public by the two participants.
This is a farcical analysis, and the piece does no such thing. There is no graphic or editorial signal of any sort — no words, no jagged lines, no arrows, no anything to suggest adversarial intent. They are just next to each other. Merely because a person of color is next to a white person is not an indication of racism. Unless that is what you want to see.
In the third charge, the authors take words, put them into a word salad, and rearranged them in an order to their liking. The authors contend that the word “dangerous” is a dog whistle — but they fail to mention that we use “dangerous” as an adjective to “partisanship.” We are talking about “dangerous partisanship,” meaning that Mr. Torres has consistently aligned himself with politics and policies that will be dangerous for D3. It is beyond imagination to suggest that using the words dangerous partisanship means that Mr. Torres himself is dangerous. I can assure you he is not.
This third charge takes my words and rearranges them to suit the racist meaning the authors of the letter prefer. It so distorts my voice as to not be recognizable. I focus on policies, issues, and solutions and I did not use the word dangerous to imply a personal attribute to Mr. Torres.
Here are the main things to remember:
The authors offer no argument that the piece has any explicit racist or racial import. There are no tainted, negative images. Nothing is manipulated. There are no inaccurate claims. No discussion or insinuation of personal life. No wild language, no insults, no derogatory terms.
So it’s all in the interpretation and what the reader might want to see. And this is where their analysis utterly falls apart. We’ve all read postmodern literary analysis and understand that a text can be read a million different ways. Any creative person can come up with basically any narrative, and with a few tricks, work backwards to build a story off any piece of work or art.
The authors are treating these mailers as though they are a Hidden Puzzle game, and it’s just unserious and cynical.
We are talking about a political mailer, and the only legitimate way to read it is to talk only about what it actually says and what images it actually uses. Anything else is just wild, cynical, creative make-believe, and has no place in serious political or academic debate.
The mailer is a straight-ahead comparison of policy differences and endorsement networks between Mr. Torres and me. The main headline and the driving thesis is a quote from Spotlight magazine. And attempts to read it otherwise are just fantasy.
The authors can find implications, suggestions, irony, hidden easter eggs all they want — but they’re not real. They’re making them up to fulfill a political purpose to support Mr. Torres winning the race.
It’s intellectually unimpressive and ethically offensive. This petition will sadly detract from the true issues of the campaign.
LETTERS:
Dear D, Thank you for writing your thoughtful email.
I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to give you a longish response because this issue is very important to me and I respect you reaching out to me.
Let me start off by just being completely candid. And I say this with all respect, as from someone and to someone who both want to see the world a better place:
The critique of my flyer is not accurate. I get what you’re saying, but I think it’s unfair. Actually quite unfair. And while I am sure your analysis is well-intentioned, I don’t think it withstands serious scrutiny.
Have you ever seen the Kurosawa movie Rashomon? Rashomon Effect Great flick. And the core creative point of the movie is that people just see things differently, based upon their personal histories and inclinations (the movie explores how different people see the same crime occurring — but they each see the scene very differently).
You and I are experiencing the same phenomenon with my flyer. But with an important twist.
I don’t think you are saying there’s anything explicitly questionable about the flyer. The flyer itself is straightforward. It’s about the differences between Mr. Torres and me. Differences in endorsements, endorsees, differences in policy.
That is obviously fair game. Nobody is disputing that.
What is happening here is that your critique makes creative interpretations of the flyer, and then claims those interpretations as fact. I think that’s an overreach which casts a shadow and distracts voters from getting the truth they seek.
The point I want to make is this: creative interpretations are not fact. They are just interpretations. And while everybody is entitled to their creative read, it’s not fair or fair minded to force upon the author or artist your interpretation of their work.
What’s glorious about uniqueness is each of us brings a different perspective. And perspectives are just that, they are not facts. Also, just because someone perceives something a certain way doesn’t mean it was intended that way or that it is true. And, it doesn’t mean others read it that way. And it certainly isn’t the last word on the subject because each of us has a unique perspective. Perception Is Not Reality — Psychology Today (I like how he ends the article with how we can challenge our perceptions).
That’s it. The facts are — there is no race, no religion, no ethnicity in the flyers’ formulation. People who live in downtown San Jose are exceptionally diverse on every single level, they demand diversity, and they want to make decisions based on policy.
That’s how we thought about it, that’s how we wrote it, that’s how we designed it.
You and others may choose to read the flyer differently, that’s your prerogative. And I will support your right to your perspective.
But please, please, do not impute your reading onto me when it so clearly doesn’t reflect what I intended to say, does not reflect what I did say, and does not reflect what I believe.
With all due respect for a wide variety of perspectives, I think a logical line has been crossed here. I think it’s very unfair to me and my supporters, and as a result, I don’t buy into this critique.
With compassion, understanding and appreciation of your note; and including — I just don’t buy it.
Please feel free to continue this conversation with me and I am happy to discuss this with others as well.
Irene
Hello gals, First, let me take the easy question. Hi J, although my stance on non-profits has nothing to do with the ambush accusation that I and my mailer are racist, let me address it as it seems the majority of women who signed the letter are leaders of non-profits and might speak to a misunderstanding or motivation to see something that is not there. However, let me be clear, the issue of nonprofits should have nothing to do with signing a letter that accuses racism.
I have been on numerous boards of non-profits. I actually started one 7 years ago and although it still thrives, it functions without me as the president due to the campaign. I have volunteered/worked for nonprofits: Special Olympics, Covenant House in NYC, Soup Kitchen, Pro Bono Project of Santa Clara County and many more. And I have been on the board of directors for: Momentum for Mental Health, Sentencing Alternatives Program to name a few. Not only do I have non-profit experience, I truly value the work non-profits do, the efforts they make in our local community, and the relationship they have with elected officials.
When I comment that Mr. Torres’ experience is ‘wanting’ it is just that. Compared to a candidate who has training, experience, and education in finance, housing, psychology, small business start-ups, law and legal application, mediation & arbitration — these PLUS non-profit experience is the comparison. If a candidate had XY and the other candidate had XY plus LMNOP — you could consider the candidate with only XY as ‘wanting’ in comparison.
I am not simply ‘a business person’. There is no easy box to check, no easy label to put on me. I am fiercely independent and will not be beholden to outside interests and I am radically inclusive of people and ideas that move D3 forward.
You can read about my creation of the Mediation Project (an article in the SCC Bar Association magazine) Founding the Mediation Project, the formation of Defenders of Clean Air eQuality Moms on Fire, or the work I did with Engine 8 in downtown Engine-8.
The building of a resume And you can review my resume on the campaign website as well.
Second, Hi M. Although in the 60’s we were all familiar with SEX being spelt out with ice cubes to get people to buy more Coke. That is not what happened here. I designed the mailer with photos that Mr. Torres had publicly placed on social media. They were unaltered. He endorsed Mr. Kahn. Mr. Kahn endorsed him. They had door knocking events together to symbolize their common policies. They had their election night party together. And currently Mr. Kahn is raising money for Mr. Torres.
The word salad chosen by the authors of the letter selected the singular word ‘dangerous’ to highlight. That is not my wording. I used ‘dangerous partisanship’. I believe that the Re-imaging Police Report that Mr. Torres supports is dangerous for D3. Mr. Torres himself is not dangerous, I can assure you of that. Mr. Kahn clearly supports defunding the police and I disagree with that policy as well. It is not the right choice for D3. It is Mr. Torres’ alignment of policies with Mr. Kahn that the mailer points out. The focus of the mailer was policy differences — not personal differences.
Please take the time to read my response to the attack as it makes very clear what was done to distort the mailer. As with interrogation techniques, suggestion can be very powerful and sway the reader to a particular perspective without the reader knowing of this influence in their decision. The authors of this letter told people what to think before they even saw the mailer.
As you can imagine this letter has been very disruptive to my campaign and the authors may very well have intended to slow down the campaign as evidenced by Twitter comments.
For any further discussion — please let me know when you would like to meet face to face.
I stand by my mailer and will not back down
Thank you,
Irene
