Gender: Do not display
Member since: Mon Aug 23, 2004, 10:18 PM
Number of posts: 27,371
Member since: Mon Aug 23, 2004, 10:18 PM
Number of posts: 27,371
- 2016 (28)
- 2015 (165)
- 2014 (369)
- 2013 (417)
- Older Archives
Overcoming the sexism and misogyny to finally get here is a epic tale for the ages!
Posted by ismnotwasm | Thu May 26, 2016, 01:19 AM (74 replies)
Articles like these outline why--pure racism in its unadulterated form. The so-called economic driven fears, while real, do not mask the racism. Millennials, who are overwhelmingly supporting Sanders OR Trump are not going to overcome this deficit.
It's one of the purist lines of thought mixed with polling that cements my support for Hillary. I will not be a part of racist America, to the best of my ability. The assumption that AA's are on all on welfare, are all poor, are all uneducated, except for a few "good" ones, is so disgustingly racist, I can't begin to express it
After all, working-class whites didn’t leave the Democratic Party over insufficiently populist policy and rhetoric. The liberal economic reforms of 1960s—and Medicare in particular—paid benefits to white working-class families throughout the 1970s and ’80s, even as the group moved to a decisive break with the Democrats. No, the proximate cause of the break was the Democratic Party’s close identification with black Americans, who—after the riots of the late ’60s and ’70s—became identified with urban disorder and welfare.
Specifically, whites were bewildered and infuriated with liberals who defended rioting communities—correctly noting the decades of deprivation and abuse that led to those violent outbursts—and pushed anti-poverty programs to address the underlying conditions. Black incomes rose while at the same time, many white incomes were beginning to stagnate or even fall. Why was the government spending our tax dollars on them, working-class whites asked, when they destroy their neighborhoods and refuse to work, and we’re losing our jobs and our homes? In Nixonland, historian Rick Perlstein captures the basic attitude by relaying this comment from a white construction worker, directed at George McGovern, “They’re payin’ people who are on welfare today doin’ nothin’! They’re laughin’ at our society! And we’re all hardworkin’ people and we’re gettin’ laughed at for workin’ every day!”
Here it is: I agree that social liberalism isn't quite the deal killer it used to be. Scheiber and Teixeira are right about that. It's still an issue—especially gun control, which remains more potent than a lot of liberals like to acknowledge—but it's fading somewhat in areas like abortion and gay marriage. There are still plenty of Fox-watching members of the WWC who are as socially conservative as ever, but I think it's safe to say that at the margins social issues are becoming a little less divisive among the WWC than they have been over the past few decades.
Also read: What If Everything You Knew About Poverty Was Wrong?"
But if that's the case, why does the WWC continue to loathe Democrats so badly? I think the answer is as old as the discussion itself: They hate welfare. There was a hope among some Democrats that Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform would remove this millstone from around Democrats' necks, and for a few years during the dotcom boom it probably did. The combination of tougher work rules and a booming economy made it a less contentious topic.
But when the economy stagnates and life gets harder, people get meaner. That's just human nature. And the economy has been stagnating for the working class for well over a decade—and then practically collapsing ever since 2008.
So who does the WWC take out its anger on? Largely, the answer is the poor. In particular, the undeserving poor. Liberals may hate this distinction, but it doesn't matter if we hate it. Lots of ordinary people make this distinction as a matter of simple common sense, and the WWC makes it more than any. That's because they're closer to it. For them, the poor aren't merely a set of statistics or a cause to be championed. They're the folks next door who don't do a lick of work but somehow keep getting government checks paid for by their tax dollars. For a lot of members of the WWC, this is personal in a way it just isn't for the kind of people who read this blog.
Here is an round-table type article that could have come out of Senators Sanders campaign playbook:
Take that crutch away and the electoral arithmetic becomes so dire that GOP strategy will have to change simply to remain competitive. True, a more moderate and reasonable Republican party would attract more voters who now vote Democratic, but overall it would be a plus for progressive governance by improving the climate for legislation that actually addresses social problems.
Is there reasonable hope that such a coalition can be formed? We believe there is.
Start with the evolution of the white working class itself. Over time, we expect that generational change will make the white working class more liberal and open to progressive agendas. This will occur as white working-class Millennials gradually take the place of generally more conservative white working-class Baby Boomers and older Americans.
Democrats generally receive greater support among Millennial white working-class voters than among older white working-class voters. This gap peaked in 2008 when Obama’s margin was 30 points better among 18-29 year old white working class Millennial voters than among their older counterparts.
This generation gap is partially explained by the fact that white working class Millennials are substantially more liberal on social issues. For example, in the 2012 National Election Study, 54 percent of white working class Millennials thought gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry, compared to just 34 percent of older white working class cohorts. They are also more likely than older cohorts to be secular in religious orientation, another indicator of liberalism. In the 2012 Democracy Corps post-election survey, 33 percent of white working class Millennials reported no religious affiliation
compared to 14 percent of their older counterparts.
Millennials once again, as welcome as they are to the Democratic Party, and politics in general, as exciting as it is to see them engaged, are being told that the Democratic Party is corrupt. Past its due date so to speak, they are told with no historical context, the assumption being that current economic and social ills are the fault of Democrats rather than an obstructionist Republican Party, told these things by downplaying the dangers of a struggling Republican Party--which can be compared to an alligator caught in coyote trap. It's a very dangerous road to travel politically, and this is WHY we end up with a monstrosity like George W. Bush. The republicans sold their soul to The Tea Party, which garnered them a whole lot of nutjobs in congress, but subjected the party to stress lines of fracture--which is why you have a potential President Trump. They will do anything to recover momentum, and I, for one want to see true progressive change, not the backlash of Republican congressional majorities.
Posted by ismnotwasm | Sun May 22, 2016, 01:58 PM (0 replies)
We tried to tell the Sanders people things from the beginning, things such as the economic approach was racially insensitive. Response? "You called me a racist!"
We tried to tell the revenue from the proposed Wall Street taxes was not enough to cover Sanders ambitious platform plans. Response? "You are a corporate Wall Street shill"
We tried to tell them that Sanders has not been vetted, while Hillary's whole public life is open for display and speculation. There are very legitimate criticisms of her, but, There is no "there" there. Response "You are a paid Brock operative"
I remember discussing with other Hillary supporters, not just the futility of pointing out logical inconsistencies, but why would we bother? We would we want to help the Sanders campaign?
On the other hand, I agree with you. Whatever Sanders thought to gain with this election is not happening. Trump turned it into a shit-show, the Sanders people who are zealots are right in that mix. Why collect money on a lie?
Hillary, as has been pointed out, is the only adult in the room.
Posted by ismnotwasm | Mon May 16, 2016, 11:32 AM (2 replies)
So tired of the CT woo woo x-files Manchuria candidate grassy knoll I'm too lazy to think or find and use good information people--who are growing in number,, and apparently think bullshit times bullshit divided by enough people equals truth.
Posted by ismnotwasm | Sat May 14, 2016, 09:55 AM (0 replies)
To be a black woman is to receive uniquely targeted messages about one’s body. The black female body is hypersexual or hypermasculine or both, but it is never our own. It is too obscene to be treated with respect but too alluring not to emulate. We are hip-hop vixens or mammies or (starving?) Africans. Black American women eat unhealthily, we are told, and so our happiness makes no sense. Our bodies do not deserve to celebrate, to move, to occupy space.
Exact statistics on the prevalence of eating disorders and disordered eating among women of color are often unavailable, but the National Eating Disorders Association notes that reports are on the rise. Most media discussion of disordered eating revolves around a single narrative: the experiences of primarily (upper) middle-class, heterosexual white girls and young women. When eating disorders — and body image struggles more generally — are dismissed as “white-girl problems,” black women have trouble finding both social recognition and helpful care.
What follows is an online conversation between eight black women about the messages we receive about our bodies, the ways they change, and how being black women complicates it all.
How are black women’s bodies talked about within (y)our own communities?
Driadonna Roland: I feel like the only body that is talked about favorably is a Nicki Minaj body — the exaggerated Coke-bottle, video-girl look that is literally not real life. So if men in my community discuss black women’s bodies, they only celebrate a specific ideal that is often unattainable. They don’t mean me. They don’t mean the majority of black women you see in your daily life.
Essence Gant: I’m from the South, so the conversations I’m used to hearing about our bodies are generally positive. Maybe it’s because comfort and soul food tends to make us thicker, and that’s something we’re taught to celebrate; “fat” or “plus-size” in New York would be “thick” and “curvy” in the community I grew up in. I feel like black Southern beauty standards have given more women more leeway and opportunity to be included in the beauty conversation. We love Jill Scott’s curves just as much as we love Naomi Campbell’s long legs.
Very interesting interview
Posted by ismnotwasm | Wed May 11, 2016, 10:03 AM (0 replies)
It went a long way to convince me how thoroughly the Rightwing has infiltrated the left. I abhor conspiracy theory politics, but it's a documented fact that Hillary Clintion has been the target of such attacks for decades. That some on the left not only picks the RW attacks, but enhances them and makes up their own is --disconcerting--
I don't blame the Rightwing for the decisions and opinions of the left. We are presumably compassionate, AND passionately care about the human condition from both social and economic standpoints. We want war to end and the environment to thrive. We want a expanding future for our children's and children's children ect. we want love, peace and happiness and discovery. We want good health. We want freedom of religion or freedom from religion. We want the entire world to thrive thus. This are not just worthy goals, but essential ones.
Yet we see denial of fundamental wrongs. Denial of racism when racism exists. Denial of sexism when sexism exists. Instead of debate, we see defensiveness. Instead of coming together, we let the lies of the right, the misconceptions of the left rip us apart.
This isn't the first time. The very structure of the Democratic Party allows for what is happening, that whole 'big tent' philosophy. What's different this time is back to my original point, how easily some Democrats use and expand on the lies of the right.
Did they really think we wouldn't fight back? Really?
Posted by ismnotwasm | Sun May 8, 2016, 09:19 AM (0 replies)
The hard part in getting through to those who are convinced that the lies about Hillary Clinton are facts, is that they have a boatload of phony “facts” and right-wing web sites to draw from, but their main source of information is Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and/or their duped listeners. When you go into detailed evidence against their claims, the response is longer than they’re willing to read or hear. So, its either a shorter version which may not get the point across, or the long version which won’t be read. My recommendation is to answer one attack at a time in as much detail as you can to prove your case. These are short paragraphs along with a few links for support. Speak softly and don’t yell at them for being duped. Your goal should be to disarm them and get them to hear you, which can’t be done if they raise their shield.
Whitewater was the beginning of the Hillary Clinton witch hunt. Hardly anybody understands Whitewater. The claims of honesty and trustworthiness began here. The Clintons lost their investment in the Whitewater Development Company. Their business partner, Jim and Susan McDougal, had a separate investment in another company which also failed. The McDougals retained the law firm that Hillary worked for, Rose Law Firm to handle their legal dealings. The claim is that the McDougals hired Clinton to offset the Clintons’ losses on Whitewater, which they considered to be a conflict of interest. Ken Starr, the pioneer of the Hillary witch hunts hurled accusation after accusation at the Clintons over this. After wasting 8 years and millions of taxpayer dollars and several independent investigations, a final report was issued in 2000 that stated that there was no evidence that the Clintons had engaged in any criminal wrongdoing. It was BS from the start, but dishonest Republicans keep the story alive today.
Wal-Mart: In 1986, Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart was under pressure, from his wife and his shareholders, to appoint a woman to his Board of Directors. Based in Arkansas, they hired Hillary Clinton, then 40 year old Hillary Clinton. According to fellow board members and company executives, Hillary used her position to champion more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program. Being the least experienced in business at the time, her voice was silenced on Wal Marts anti-unionism stance, and minimum wage was not considered a huge national crisis at the time. Her years on the Wal-Mart board, from 1986 to 1992, gave her an unusual tutorial in the ways of American business a credential that could serve as an antidote to Republican efforts to portray her as an enemy of free markets and an advocate for big government. To say that Hillary doesn’t understand business is dead wrong. While she had huge success in creating management opportunities for women at Wal Mart, the main attack line is that she “supported low wages”, which is not at all true. Looking at her track record in the Senate and as Secretary of State, she has always pushed for equal pay, and is fighting hard for a 40% increase in minimum wage, and for all improvements to middle class life in America.
Posted by ismnotwasm | Sat May 7, 2016, 03:12 PM (13 replies)
Except for the hard core CTers--now its impeachment instead of indictment for some if them. The strange thing to me is the passionate belief that the email thing is a real issue.
Posted by ismnotwasm | Sat May 7, 2016, 09:04 AM (0 replies)
A long article, horrific with detail. We dare not ever forget, dismiss or belittle this period in history. It's always close.
Dr. Beverley Chalmers’ latest book is not the kind people want to read. Yet, it’s one they should.
Titled, “Birth, Sex and Abuse: Women’s Voices Under Nazi Rule,” it is filled from cover to cover with horrifying accounts of countless Jewish and non-Jewish women being raped and brutalized, experimented upon, forced into prostitution or compelled to undergo sterilization or abortion against their will. Some German women successfully gave birth and had their babies taken away for adoption. Jewish women had theirs ripped away and murdered in front of them.
These actions were all part of the Nazi agenda to create a master race, but until Chalmers set about writing this book, no single work had thoroughly examined and comprehensively consolidated evidence of this aspect of the Holocaust.
More than a decade of non-stop and singularly focused research on the subject took an emotional toll on Chalmers, a 65-year-old expert on pregnancy and birth in difficult social, political, economic and religious settings. She had previously published on women giving birth under Apartheid in South Africa and having babies in the former Soviet Union under Communism. Others of her books reported on women with prior experience of female genital mutilation giving birth in Canada, and on women giving birth in highly medicalized settings.
“It was emotionally draining. My children suggested I write about something happier, but I kept going because these stories needed to be told. These women’s experiences needed to be brought to light and honored,” the author told The Times of Israel in an interview from her home in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Posted by ismnotwasm | Thu May 5, 2016, 01:08 PM (17 replies)
Here's a few of her accomplishments: There are many, many people who seem to think Hillary Clinton hasn’t accomplished anything. Apparently, being a First Lady, a Senator, as well as Secretary of State doesn’t count as accomplishments to her critics. But here is a very simple summary that encompasses Hillary Clinton and what she has accomplished throughout her life — Courtesy of a friend:
“First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College. Distinguished graduate of Yale Law School. Former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic. Former civil litigation attorney. Former Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Former First Lady of Arkansas. Former First Lady of the United States, and the first FLOTUS in US History to hold a postgraduate degree. First ex-FLOTUS in US History to be elected to the United States Senate. Elected by the… State of New York to serve two terms in the United States Senate. Former US Secretary of State. GRAMMY Award Winner. Author. Self proclaimed Pantsuit Aficionado. Married to a man named Bill, who plays the saxophone.”
You don’t have to like Hillary Clinton or her ideas. I get it. She’s a Democrat, a progressive (in most eyes), and conservatives don’t like that. However, you cannot say she does not have any accomplishments. Here are just a few:
Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.
She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.
She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.
At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).
Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.
Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.
Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.
Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.
The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.
These are not all of her accomplishments. Her activism on behalf of women a children across the world is renowned. Her activism for raising the minimum wage and combating climate change is stellar. You do not have to support what she does or stands for. But do not say she doesn’t have any accomplishments. The conservatives who say this are the ones who are pushing for Ted Cruz – who brought on a $24 billion shut down. That, to them, is an accomplishment?
Yes, Hillary Clinton has accomplishments. You don’t have to like them, but they do, in fact, exist.
Posted by ismnotwasm | Mon May 2, 2016, 06:51 PM (3 replies)