Reality-Based Chat. Speak! Showing 451-500 of 1,199

[Dan]

I don't buy the design idea, but I have enough of my Quaker heritage still in me to believe that all humans are special and possess that light of whatever.

I take full responsibility for my life, but I can honestly say that when I was young and thought about what I would do when I grew up, I missed every one of them by many miles except having a happy marriage, and being a good parent.

Sometimes I still wonder what I will be when I grow up.

[Dan]

I just signed up for a MoveOn "Run Warren Run" gathering here in Portland on Saturday. They are trying to organize them all over the country.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "I don't buy the design idea, but I have enough of my Quaker heritage still in me to believe that all humans are special and possess that light of whatever.

I take full responsibility for my life,..."

I think we can be responsible for the reasonably foreseeable, but not for the wholly unforeseeable, consequences of our actions. But even within that context, no human being can expect to be infallible in handling the onslaught of decisions required by living life in real time. Processor overload will inevitably occur, at certain moments, which will prevent computation of even that which is theoretically "reasonably foreseeable." As for being "responsible for our lives," our lives are subject to influences, and wholly malignant interventions, and just random cataclysmic events, that are wholly out of our control, so I don't think we're responsible for those things. I think J.M. Barrie was a despicable character, and I don't like his choice of pronouns (I'd like to render the observation more gender-neutrally), but he said, "The life of every man is a diary in which he means to write one story, and writes another." And I think that is, alas, indisputably correct.

Interesting to learn of your Quaker background. I guess you won't have taken too much exception to my "pacifist missionary" pronouncements, then. :) :)

[Dan]

No, but when I was a kid my ambition was to be a Naval officer and I desperately wanted to go to the Naval Academy. I would have made it except for the fact that I have one legally blind eye that cannot be corrected. That also kept me out of the Army when I tried to enlist. Thus, I was about the only member of the senior class of my college fraternity who did not spend the first year after graduation in Vietnam.

Instead, I got to see the casualty reports every night on the UPI wire in the Baltimore bureau. The longer the list got the more against the war I became. I haven't been fond of war since then.

[Dan]

My iconoclastic nature apparently is deeply rooted in my genes. One of my ancestors, a Quaker by the name of Cassandra Southwick, was driven out of Salem in the 18th Century and died on Shelter Island. The Puritans tried to sell her daughter into slavery, but no one would buy her. John Greenleaf Whittier wrote a poem about the incident, mistitled Cassandra Southwick. My great, great, grandfather was a Quaker named Daniel Allen, who was "read out of meeting" for joining the Union Army in the Civil War. He had been a "station master" on the Underground Railway. His grandfather, George Allen, also was read out of meeting in Providence, RI, because he became a privateer in the Revolution.

[Dan]

Here is a Vice piece about the efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren.
http://www.vice.com/read/the-elizabet...

[Dan]

Here is a link to a bunch of data that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrats do a much better job of running governments - state and federal.
http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/whic...

[Mary]

Dan, the Quakers are the one religion I would consider joining. When I beat the Muslim-haters with what the Christians did to my people during slavery and well into the 20th Century, I mention the Quakers as the religious group that didn't support slavery.

The reason Democrats are better at running government is because they believe in government. If you think government is the problem, then you are going to prove it by running it badly. You'll hire unqualified people like heck-of-a-job Brownie and end up with the Katrina disaster.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: " Instead, I got to see the casualty reports every night on the UPI wire in the Baltimore bureau. The longer the list got the more against the war I became. I haven't been fond of war since then..."

So you had an epiphany in the worst kind of way... by watching bodies mount up. :( And that drove you ideologically back to the views of those of your Quaker ancestors who weren't iconoclastic (relative to their religion). Is it by dint of your ideological conversion (or phylogenetic reversion :)) to an antiwar perspective that you consider yourself "iconoclastic," or in virtue of your youthful enthusiasm for military service that stood in contrast to your Quaker genes (though two of your ancestors had been read out of meeting)? Or is it your inheritance of the genes of *those* iconoclasts... or all of the above? :) I'd have said you were "iconoclastic" without knowing any of it :), but it's a genuinely fascinating heritage that you have, and I'm honored to know a descendant of Cassandra Southwick's, who died, I think, in the year of the Quakers' declaration to Charles II (and this one, I know by heart): "We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever..." Amen.

[Dan]

People have the impression that because Quakers were pacifists that they were passive. Far from it. While they eschewed physical violence, they did engage in verbal violence, and also sometimes in outrageous behavior, especially in the early years.
Some of the early Quakers in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were known to go naked into the Puritan churches, or to walk down a street naked. I have read some of the things they said to authorities then, and the authorities today probably would be almost as offended by their language as were the Puritans. They wanted to provoke the authorities - and would not have been out of place with Abbie Hoffman in Chicago in 1968.
They opposed slavery from their beginning in the 1600s. They were among the leading abolitionists. They were leaders in getting women the right to vote. In the 1930s they paid the Nazis to release Jews into their custody and then they sought places for them to live. They were active in the civil rights movement. In recent years they have supported gay rights.
There actually are several different sects of Quakers. Here in Portland, there is George Fox University, a Quaker school, but somewhat evangelical. There is a very evangelical sect, which has ministers and music, etc. The sect my family was part of is one of the most traditional, with no ministers, no music, and no requirement to believe in the divinity of Christ. There is another that is sort of in between those two. My wife and I attended some Quaker meetings of the traditional sect in Maryland before we moved to Oregon, and since I don't believe in the divinity of Christ, if I attend any meetings here it will be those of the same sect, which have a good-sized congregation here.
I have had a life-long reputation for iconoclasm. I can't help myself. I've always challenged authority, my bosses, teachers, the way things are done if I don't think they are being done right, etc. If something is broken I want to fix it. I got myself in a lot of trouble from time to time. My French teacher in high school, who was from France, said I was most typical French student she had ever seen outside of France.

[Mark]

My French teacher in high school, who was from France, said I was most typical French student she had ever seen outside of France. 

I'd take that as a tribute and a badge of honor. :) (And then I'd imediately want to stage une grève! :)) You might have noticed that I have an... oh, slightly contrarian streak, myself. :)

I'm very familiar with all you've said about the Quakers. By the way, isn't the notion that traditional Quakers haven't eliminated ministers; they've only done away with the laity? :) (That comment may not rise to the level of ministry, though. :))

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "I just signed up for a MoveOn "Run Warren Run" gathering here in Portland on Saturday. They are trying to organize them all over the country."

Cute reference to Updike (or the song by Gay & Butler, or maybe something in this century, I'm not sure). I earnestly hope the Rabbit Warren will scare is the Republicans. (Not a bad metaphor, actually. I understand that, contrary to the prevailing impression, rabbits can be quite vicious. But if there's anyone capable of biting back with a vengeance, then that would be Warren.) :)

[Mark]

Mary wrote: " The reason Democrats are better at running government is because they believe in government. If you think government is the problem, then you are going to prove it by running it badly. You'll hire unqualified people like heck-of-a-job Brownie and end up with the Katrina disaster. .."

Precisely. I'm not sure, actually, why anyone would elect a Creationist to run the National Academy of Science, either. (Not that anyone has, but Francis Collins' status is rather curious.) Anyway, Americans do seem to have an infallible penchant for electing people intransigently hostile to the existence of certain institutions, to run those institutions. You might as well elect me to run Corporate America. (Well, I'd like that, actually, but I think you know what I'd do. :))

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "Here is a Vice piece about the efforts to draft Elizabeth Warren.
http://www.vice.com/read/the-elizabet..."

This is extremely helpful. I really don't think we should (or can afford to) "take 'no' for an answer." It occurs to me that Warren is sort of the "anti-Nader." Nader could not be dissuaded from destroying the country through his participation in the 2000 election as a Green Party spoiler candidate, and now Warren seems reluctant to save it. But I think (and hope and pray) that she can be persuaded. (Actually, I still cling to the hope that her insistent refusal has been a colossal theatrical fake-out, presaging a late entry after Hillary has taken all the flak, which would obviously seem to be the strategy of greatest political cunning and effectiveness.)

[Dan]

I am reading "The Reactionary Mind" by Corey Robin, mentioned in a Paul Krugman colu,n recently. It is a study of conservatism. There is a quote from George Bernard Shaw that I thought particularly apropos this recent discussion:

“The most distinguished persons,” Shaw wrote in 1903, “become more revolutionary as they grow older.”

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "I The most distinguished persons,” Shaw wrote in 1903, “become more revolutionary as they grow older.” ..."

In contradistinction, Winston Churchill is famously (but erroneously) claimed to have said (roughly quoting François Guizot), "Young men who are not liberal have no hearts. Older man who have not become conservative have no brains." I once mentioned this to a few students of mine who were stumping for Reagan, and commented that, "As the brainless addressing the heartless, I didn't like their politics." :) :)

[Mary]

My French teacher from France thought I had the worst accent of any student who could read and write French so well. I told him that I was from Southern France.

It's good to learn that the Quakers are word warriors like me. I was thinking that they might find me too combative. I love to debate the way some soldiers love to shoot.

[Dan]

Truth-out.org is going to publish in their "Speakout" section on Friday my article on corporations. I will also publish it on my blogs. I'll put the links here.

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "My French teacher from France thought I had the worst accent of any student who could read and write French so well. I told him that I was from Southern France.

It's good to learn that the Quaker..."

Mary - You should have told your teacher you were distantly related to Mireille Mathieu, and felt compelled to emulate her singing -- very "Midi ." You could have "Midi-skirted" the whole issue! :) :) :)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uiKGi...)

I think "fighting with outward weapons" does not include the use of morphemes. :) If Quakers were unable insistently to advance the cause of social justice and pacifism with words, then (absent sign language), I think they'd be pretty hard put to advance it at all. From my own observations, I'd say you're pretty safe, Mary. :) :)

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "Truth-out.org is going to publish in their "Speakout" section on Friday my article on corporations. I will also publish it on my blogs. I'll put the links here."

Congratulations, Dan!! That's great news! I very much look forward to reading it. Please do honor us with the links, when available!!

[Mark]

Jimmy kindly posted this link under "North American/Caribbean," but I thought it needed broader attention, so I am copying it here, with my subsequent comment. This is the mindset relative to women's rights that we are currently fighting, and I do not doubt for an instant that, if the Tea Party had their way wholly unimpeded, it could happen here.

Jimmy wrote: "http://fusion.net/story/38969/teen-se..."

So... they did ultimately pardon this woman after only thirty years. Well, good for El Salvador, seeing as the measure had actually failed a few days previously by one vote. All I can say, Jimmy, is "increíble!" But more to the point, the mindset that allowed this to continue for thirty years represents the direction in which the artist formerly known as "The United States" (but now, in large part, consisting of "The Confederate States of Gilead") is heading. I don't think the involuntary ejection of a blastocyst is murder, but I think the 30-year incarceration of a woman for having experienced that trauma is a Crime Against Humanity of unspeakable magnitude, meritorious of prosecution at the ICC in The Hague. Es decir, que esto quede perfectamente claro a todos los a quienes pueda interesar, es una atrocidad indicible y imperdonable en absoluto!

[Dan]

There are Republicans in the U.S. who want to have the same kinds of laws. I am disgusted by this beyond my ability to express it in civilized company.

[Darlene]

I agree, Dan! Think of the 'Personhood Amendment' in Mississippi! Thankfully, it didn't pass but it was a definite sign of just what sort of country Republicans WISH to have! That amendment would have even made certain forms of birth control illegal!! It's disgusting and crazy!! And isn't it interesting that it comes from the party who talks SO MUCH about freedom and decreasing government involvement in our lives? I can't think of any area which would be any more personal for government to be involved in. I have always believed that one of the reasons that pro-life people have gained any traction is that they have managed to convince people that pro-choice people are actually FOR abortion! I have never really understood that. I don't think people are generally pro-abortion… I think people (me, for example) just feel that this matter is simply none of my business… it's highly personal and emotional.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "There are Republicans in the U.S. who want to have the same kinds of laws. I am disgusted by this beyond my ability to express it in civilized company."

Dan - Yes, it is the sort of thing to which one almost cannot react without apoplexy (or the need for an emesis bowl).

[Mark]

Darlene wrote: "I agree, Dan! Think of the 'Personhood Amendment' in Mississippi! Thankfully, it didn't pass but it was a definite sign of just what sort of country Republicans WISH to have! That amendment would h..."

Exactly, Darlene! You know, Republicans confer upon certain women (and African-Americans, and Hispanics, et al.) the status of "honorary old, white, male, affluent property-holder" -- especially to the extent that they're willing flagrantly to betray the interests of other people of their own gender or ethnicity or heritage), but the truth is, right-wing Republicans (which is a bit redundant) fundamentally hate "the other," do not view people as human, who are not of their own race, gender, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status, and wish actively to see them reduced to their erstwhile status as chattel -- without voting rights, without reproductive rights, and without any fundamental right to live. Every single one of their policies (for physics-types who like "theoretical unification" ) can be unified by that single principle: "we (Republicans) do not wish to confer human rights upon "the other," and moreover, we want it all. We want to lock it all up in our pocket; it's our bar of chocolate.*" This, I think, says it perfectly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCH...

They very clearly do want to convert this country into Antebellum Gilead, and they want it now... And God only help us if we don't find a way to stop it.

---

* Eric Cantor, by the way, who is now too moderate (!) for the Tea Party, said exactly this in his high school yearbook: "I want what I want when I want it."

[Mary]

Did anyone see the film of current Republican leader Scott Walker dodging the question about evolution in England? I'm not sure why the 2016 Republican candidates are even going to England. Didn't they see what happened to Romney?

On the abortion issue, we let the Republicans get away with calling their movement "right to life" even when most of them were for capital punishment. I also think that we shouldn't do a Scott Walker or an Obama on the question of when life begins. Life begins when the baby takes his or her first breath. Until the child breathes on his/her own, it is actually a fetus, which is the potential for life. I've personally known only one woman who has admitted to having an abortion, but I know many women, including my mother and a niece (who lost two fetuses), who have had miscarriages. Many women won't even announce their pregnancies for the first few months because miscarriages are so common. I think modern technology has actually helped the Republican cause here. Because we can now see pictures of the fetus, it's harder to make the life-begins-at-birth case.

But the case that is easy to make is that the Republicans don't care about babies once they are born. They don't care if mothers can't feed or clothe their babies; they don't even care if the mothers throw the babies in the garbage can as long as they are forced to carry the babies to term and give birth.

[Darlene]

I saw the clip of Scott Walker in England, Mary. He looked ridiculous!! He claimed the question of evolution is one all politicians shouldn't answer…. why? And did you notice how much laughter there was in the audience? UGH! You're right… they should stay away from overseas trips. They end up embarrassing themselves and the country. And I really don't know when it happened that science is something that people deny. I know that this has roots in the far right religious community but honestly, I went to Catholic school for 12 years and science was never a problem. We learned science in science class and religion in religion class and nobody I knew ever had a problem with that!

I know a fairly large number of women who have had abortions and the decisions were very personal and often painful and difficult. I agree with what you said… the technology of ultrasounds have allowed prospective parents to see what couldn't be seen years ago. It makes things all the more 'real'… if that makes sense. And I agree with you about Republicans… they care NOTHING about those very children and their mothers once the children are here. That is when they actually blame the mother for making bad choices and not being able to feed and clothe her children!

[Mark]

Mary wrote: " But the case that is easy to make is that the Republicans don't care about babies once they are born. They don't care if mothers can't feed or clothe their babies; they don't even care if the mothers throw the babies in the garbage can as long as they are forced to carry the babies to term and give birth."

Absolutely, and this is the crux of it -- but I don't think even the Republicans partake of any delusion that they actually care about human life. It has always been -- strictly, exclusively and ever -- about exercising control over the bodies of the mothers. I think, frankly, even the rank-and-file troglodytes understand this. "Pro-life" is a code-word for: we own your bodies.

[Mark]

Darlene wrote: "I saw the clip of Scott Walker in England, Mary. He looked ridiculous!! He claimed the question of evolution is one all politicians shouldn't answer…. why? And did you notice how much laughter ther..."

We are (justifiably!) an object of fathomless derision and contempt to every society in the world not composed of retrograde scientific morons. If Scott Walker had been laughed off the face of the planet, it would not have been sufficient recompense for his "long train of abuses and usurpations" against science, reason and humanity.

[Mark]

By the way, I really wish somebody could obtain the rights of the Veruca Salt clip I linked to earlier ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCH...), do some CGI work to make her head very slightly resemble the image of each given Republican candidate, and play it incessantly as a campaign ad in the 2016 elections. :)

[Dan]

I believe the state should not be coercive of our personal lives unless we are doing something that harms others, and others does not include fetuses that cannot survive outside the mother. Whether to have an abortion is a personal decision, and there are so many variables that the state has no business interfering.

I do understand opposition to abortion on religious grounds, but they can only express that opposition. They are violating the Constitution if they try to impose their religious belief on others.

I think they are losing ground on this issue even though you wouldn't know it the way Republican politicians act. But remember, they only survive because they have assembled this base of extremists, bigots, religious nuts and sexists that is nearly 100 percent behind them. If they lose parts of their base, they can't win elections. So they placate every extremist.

I was looking at the votes in Congressional races this past election and it simply is amazing the margins by which Republicans won in so many races. I counted only 43 districts - and that was a stretch - where Democrats might have a chance of victory. Partially because of gerrymandering, in the South, parts of the Midwest, and the Upper Mountain states they win 65-80 percent of the vote. Democrats have to gain control of more state legislatures by the next Census.
I am not even very confident the Democrats can win back the Senate next time as many people thing they will. The Republicans don't because they are about to abolish the filibuster permanently and they wouldn't do that if they thought they were going to be in the minority again anytime soon.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "I believe the state should not be coercive of our personal lives unless we are doing something that harms others, and others does not include fetuses that cannot survive outside the mother. Whether..."

I have been yelling "electoral nullification" about thrice daily for four months, now, so not only am I not confident the Democrats can win back the Senate next time, I am absolutely certain that they can't. I was likewise 100% certain the Republicans would immediately abolish the filibuster, the very moment they regained control of the Senate, so I never understood Harry Reid's reticence to abolish it for the sake of Democrats during their surviving years. (Well, I did, actually, but I didn't want to.) Your reasoning, though, concerning the conviction underlying the Republicans' willingness to entertain "abolition" (which, when you think about their desire to reinstate the Confederacy, is really a tad ironic) is certainly rock-solid.

Since I think there is no measure of egregious fraud in which they are not willing to engage in the matter of elections, I'm not sure it actually does matter whether they manage to keep together their coalition of the hateful and the cretinous, but you have raised a theoretical hope that might be worth pondering, just as a sort of strategic Gedankenexperiment. If we're willing to stipulate that it might conceivably matter if some element of that coalition could be dislodged by some means -- is there any means imaginable, and what would it be? I think it might have to involve a Faustian bargain whereby Democrats would attempt to "outflank" the Republicans on the right on just one issue, but which issue? Could we promise the troglodytes freedom to purchase tactical nukes at Walmart's? (seems a bit risky, but maybe we could arrange to have the things disabled) Promise to erect a 5,000-ft. statue of Rush Limbaugh in place of the Washington Monument? Require (Christian) prayer 1,713 times a day in public schools and wholly eliminate science education? (No loss on the education part, because we have mostly accomplished that de facto, in any case, in most parts of the country, so the provision would apply vacuously. We could leave the prayer unspecified, then once having regained control, require that it be spoken in Aramaic, so that nobody could actually enforce the thing. And there are no Americans left who can count to 1,713, in any case.) I'm trying hard, but I really can't think of a proposal sufficiently insane that it would manage to outflank them (and yet would fail to annihilate the human race). 'Tis a puzzlement, but I think a famous philosopher once said, "whatever works" :) -- and I actually agree. At this point, I'd be willing to try practically anything. Think! Is there a way of dislodging some element of their constituency? (No viable plan will be considered too outrageous to be... considered.)

[Dan]

Well, that's exactly what my central thesis is in my book. Old-fashioned progressivism - Teddy Roosevelt progressivism - is the way to separate some Republicans. I think it has to be done on a state by state basis. Some states are hopeless, but there are quite a few states being run by Republicans - either completely - with either a governor or a legislature under their control, but have a progressive history. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Washington are all candidates for intense progressive campaigns. I think it also is possible to gain control of Virginia, North Carolina and maybe Florida. I also think that Texas could be put in play in five to ten years. If that happens the Republicans are screwed.
It has to begin at the local level - winning state legislative races, building up a base of good office holders to draw from for congressional races.
It will take a while, but I think that if presented properly it can be a winning strategy.

[Lisa]

Mark wrote: "Mary wrote: " But the case that is easy to make is that the Republicans don't care about babies once they are born. They don't care if mothers can't feed or clothe their babies; they don't even car..."

Like Barney Frank once said, "The Right to Life begins at conception and ends at birth." I think that pretty much sums up their views.

[Dan]

My article on corporations, which also is a chapter in my book, was published by Truth-out.org today at http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/ite...

It also is published at www.progressiveamericanthought.blogsp... and www.danriker.blogspot.com

[Mark]

Just when you thought (which almost certainly you didn't) that it was safe to be non-white in the United States, there comes this new report (of a shooting, what else?) from ABC News:

Mexico Condemns Deadly Police Shooting in Washington State

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "My article on corporations, which also is a chapter in my book, was published by Truth-out.org today at http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/ite...-..."

This is a wonderful article that everyone should read forthwith! I particularly appreciated your reminder (which observation I have never seen made on a mainstream media outlet with the exception of MSNBC) -- and I hope you will not mind my repeating it here -- that:

"In recent years, however, the Court has expanded the rights of corporations to include some previously held by individuals only, including the right to free speech.The Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United that permits corporations to makeunlimited contributions in political campaigns expanded earlier decisions of the Court by ruling that there can be no limits on the amounts of money corporations contribute to political action groups because money is equivalent to speech, and speech cannot be limited. While rights of corporations have been expanded, their duties and responsibilities have not been. They are not subject to the restrictions imposed on governments in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. They do not face the same kinds of penalties for violations of laws that people do.If individuals committed the kinds of frauds that corporations practiced as part of the subprime mortgage scandal, they would go to prison, but the corporations involved just had to pay fines, fines they could easily afford. None of their officers, or directors, faced criminal charges."

This is the problem. Corporations are sociopathic de facto "persons," wholly exempt from responsibility for criminal acts. In human terms, they are serial killers with "get-out-of-jail-free" cards.

Of course, the problem with "constituent statutes" (which are a move in the right direction, cited later in your piece) is that they "permit" (but do not compel under what, in my opinion, should be penalty of "corporate death" and distribution of all assets, of the corporation and of its CEO and top executives, to low-paid employees and to public charities) "corporate managements to consider factors other than shareholder returns when making major decisions."

In any case, kudos! A great and comprehensive discussion of problems with corporations! (If I've cited too lengthy an excerpt -- though I think it constitutes "fair use" -- please let me know, and I'll pare or remove it.)

[Mark]

Lisa wrote: "Like Barney Frank once said, 'The Right to Life begins at conception and ends at birth.' I think that pretty much sums up their views. ."

Lisa, Barney Frank is possibly the most consistently "spot on" contributor of crushing, "summative" observations that I know of.

[Mary]

MSNBC should hire Barney Frank. They hired Al Sharpton, who said in 2004 something like: "We don't care what you're doing in the bedroom, but we care about what you have to eat in the kitchen." Frank is just as articulate, and his Boston accent is better than Sharpton's New York/North Carolina (or whatever Southern state his family is from) accent.

The Republicans see government as useful only to keep the second-class citizens (the women, working-class, poor, and nonwhites) in line. They believe the government should force women to give birth to their children, put the fathers in jail if they don't financially support them, arrest both parents if they do drugs or seem to be neglecting the children, turn the children over to foster care, and then if the foster parents kill the children, arrest them. Or if the child happens to be a large black male, the cops can kill him when he's an unarmed 17 or 18 year old.

I don't think the British have recovered from our reelecting Bush, Darlene. The headline of one of their papers asked how could so many millions of people be so stupid. It was a fair question.

[Dan]

Mark, you are correct about the constituent corporations, but with B corporations there is enforcement. Any interested party can bring an action against the corporation if it is not doing what is supposed to. For example, a B corporation could not just move a plant to Mexico without compensation to its employees and to its community. If that were the case with all corporations, there would be a lot less outsourcing to other countries.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "Mark, you are correct about the constituent corporations, but with B corporations there is enforcement. Any interested party can bring an action against the corporation if it is not doing what is s..."

Thanks, Dan. I'd really meant only to comment on "constituent corporations," but I'm delighted to have you emphasize the distinction, which I think is critical. It really sounds as though, if we're to have a corporatocratic society at all (which, as you know, is a dystopian condition that fills me with despair -- but which I acknowledge to be utterly inescapable with a 99.9% probability), then what we need is to have B corporations exclusively, with every other variety categorically prohibited from blighting the planet. Obviously impossible, also, but on the counterintuitive-but-not-impossible supposition that movement could be induced (and very few of us really want to succumb to despair, so it really avails to try whatever might work)... then obviously, the movement we would like would be in the direction of overwhelming dominance of B Corporations. It does occur to me that, if corporations, along with their products of whatever nature, could be very visibly "color-coded" in the minds of the public (and they could somehow be brought to understand the distinction), then at least some significant segment of the public might be inclined simply to refuse to do business with "non-B" corporations (let us call them "red" corporations, or use perhaps the color associated with biohazard signs), then some form of traction might at least be gained through that element of economic boycott -- though, undoubtedly, they'd all resort to congenially color-coded "fronts." It seems a priori largely impossible to induce change that virtually omnipotent predators do not want, but nihilism is not an option that appeals to me, either. What do you think of the "corporate color-coding" idea as a mechanism by means of which to facilitate grassroots boycotts (or the implicit threat thereof)? (I suppose part of the problem is that there'd have to be a sufficient number of "B" corporations, in the first place, for consumer choice even to figure in as a relevant factor).

[Dan]

I have no idea how many "B" corporations there are. Here in Portland there is a chain of grocery stores, New Seasons, which lists itself on all its fliers as a "B" corporation. I was just there this afternoon to try to find a few things I couldn't find at any other store in the area - and I found them. They specialize mostly in organic foods and things the other chains don't carry. It is a great store, and extremely popular, but it is more expensive than Safeway, and much more expensive than the regional chain, Winco, which is mobbed every day.

I don't know if people will pay more to support companies like this, although they certainly are doing it here.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "I have no idea how many "B" corporations there are. Here in Portland there is a chain of grocery stores, New Seasons, which lists itself on all its fliers as a "B" corporation. I was just there thi..."

I don't know either, Dan, but the fact that they're doing it in your area (which albeit perhaps unrepresentative to the extent that it is affluent) does establish "a proof of concept" that encourages me in a way that I haven't been before. It isn't inherently necessary that all such corporations cater only to the relatively affluent: if one exists that is successful, then more can exist that might operate successfully in Portland, and in places very different from Portland. I may have a propensity to grasp at straws, but I don't think you provided this information strictly by way of offering a straw... and I'd like to see it play out further. Maybe even "straw dogs" (to whom neither "heaven nor earth" are "humane") can benefit and become motivated by the offer of straws that seem real and tangible. I hope your article will receive very broad attention.

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "MSNBC should hire Barney Frank. They hired Al Sharpton, who said in 2004 something like: "We don't care what you're doing in the bedroom, but we care about what you have to eat in the kitchen." ..."

Here's a second vote for the installation of Barney Frank as an MSNBC commentator, Mary. He wields an incredibly incisive mind, and he knows how to use it entertainingly. If there's one thing the Democrats need, it's someone who can create effective and entertaining "memes."

[Dan]

Mark, overall Portland is not that affluent. In fact, the average income in Oregon is somewhat below the national average. However, Oregon also has some of the worst income and wealth disparities in the nation. So there is a base of fairly affluent people here, but it is nowhere near the size of that market in Dallas, or Washington, DC.
Portland is distinguished by being a "food" city, with many pioneering chefs, and a large number of restaurants serving a wide range of incomes and a wide range of foods.
You can get a really decent French bistro meal for under $20.00.

[Mark]

Dan wrote: "Mark, overall Portland is not that affluent. In fact, the average income in Oregon is somewhat below the national average. However, Oregon also has some of the worst income and wealth disparities i..."

Portland is a city I'm personally wholly unfamiliar with, Dan. I never had occasion to consult there, nor even to attend a conference. My inference, partly from the city's reputation as a culinary Mecca and one with enlightened social attitudes -- and from your reference to "New Seasons" as a corporation purveying pricier food that might primarily cater to the affluent -- was that my (apparently erroneous) preconceptions were true, and that Portland might fairly be characterized as a sort of smaller Seattle. Obviously, every city is socioeconomically heterogeneous, and my parenthetical "albeit perhaps unrepresentative" was in no way meant to imply that Portland was a gated enclave of the idle rich -- possibly surrounded by a moat! :) But actually, your more informed portrayal of Portland makes the success of your "B Corporation" all the more encouraging, so I'm only delighted to have it. I wish I'd been able to visit Portland at some point, because I'm definitely an aficionado of "French bistro meals" -- especially inexpensive ones. My general feeling, living where I do, is that "I'm having a miserable time; wish I were there!" :) :) But you know... Texas, and all that... :)

[Dan]

I know Texas quite well. As a kid I lived in El Paso and Ft. Worth. When I worked for MCI, I spent a great deal of time in Dallas. One of the jobs I had was based in Dallas, but I commuted to it from Washington every other week. I once was almost transferred there, and parts of two different organizations I ran at various times were located there. During that time I also got to visit El Paso again - and found two of the three houses I had lived in! Also visited Houston.
Being a baseball fan, my greatest disappointment was not getting to a Rangers game. I got to the stadium one night just as the game was called because of rain.
Some of the most harrowing experiences of my life were ice storms in Dallas.

[Lisa]

Mary wrote: "MSNBC should hire Barney Frank. They hired Al Sharpton, who said in 2004 something like: "We don't care what you're doing in the bedroom, but we care about what you have to eat in the kitchen." ..."

That's a great idea, Mary. If Barney Frank were on MSNBC, at least the news would have some witty comic relief.

[Mary]

For some reason, MSNBC is not as interested in hiring former politicians as Fox is. Al ran in 2004, but he's never held a political office. Lawrence O'Donnell worked for at least one Senator, and I think Chris Matthews worked for Tip O'Neill. As far as I know, the only former politician turned MSNBC anchor is ironically Joe Scarborough, the token Republican.

But speaking of Al, Frank, and wit reminds me of a broadcaster/entertainer turned Senator--Al Franken. I've been hearing from him frequently because I'm a donor, but I like how little we hear from him in the media. He is not on television. He has kept quiet and learned this new profession. Franken is clearly an intelligent Harvard graduate and was quite interested in politics, but he is keeping a low profile deliberately, and I think that's what new Senators should do. In fact, I also appreciate that Cory Booker isn't making much noise.

No offense to the Warren fans, but isn't she a former professor, who has been in the Senate only a couple of years? Obama was equally new to the Senate, which might be part of his problem in Washington D.C. (I think some of the resistance to him is based on resentment more than racism), but he had been working in politics (while also occasionally teaching) longer. I think he had been in the state legislature in Illinois since 1997 when he ran for Senate; in fact, he first ran for U.S. Representative and lost. Cruz, Paul, and Rubio are other Senators who need to behave more like Franken and Booker. I like Warren and wouldn't mind if she became the Vice President, but I hope she's smart enough to recognize that she is not experienced enough to be President. She's brilliant and on the right side of the issues, which is the left, of course. But experience does matter in Washington, which is why these Presidents keep hiring the same old people (Cheney and Rumsfeld on the right, traitor Leon Panetta and many other Clinton folks on the left). If we can't get one of these experienced governors to run, let's go for a more experienced Senator.

I'd suggest Barney Frank should run for President, but (like Joe and maybe even Hillary) he's probably too old, and if we chose a gay man as our nominee, the Tea Party creeps would really blow their lids.

[Mark]

Mary wrote: "For some reason, MSNBC is not as interested in hiring former politicians as Fox is. Al ran in 2004, but he's never held a political office. Lawrence O'Donnell worked for at least one Senator, and..."

If he could be elected, I'd like to see Frank as president. (And I'd also like to see "the Tea Party creeps" go apoplectic and succumb to mass hysteria and trichotillomania when it happened... but that's just me, and I'm a pacifist, so I wouldn't actually like to see *anyone* physically hurt.) But age aside -- and age certainly wouldn't be a problem for me, since I think Frank is sharper than anyone else -- both Frank (gay) and Sanders (socialist) are unelectable in America because of Exodus 22:18 (and they'd both be demonized and stoned to death). But there'll be a (misogynistic) witch-hunt if either HC or Warren carries the day -- and, in fact, there's no possible Democratic candidate who would not induce legions of religious lunatics to run screaming into the streets waving copies of the Malleus Maleficarum (and torches, of course). I see the pragmatic relevance of "experience" with Congress (or in a gubernatorial position), Mary, and I suppose I agree with you, but I'd still be willing to waive all that if Warren could be induced to run.