Reality-Based Chat. Speak! Showing 951-1,000 of 1,199

[Grant]

Lisa, that's ridiculous to imply Dakota is anti-Semitic because she is concerned with the candidate'ss' stance on IsRael. Opposing what amounts to apartheid doesn't make you anti-Semitic...

[Dakota]

Lisa wrote: "What do you have against their pro-Israel stance? As a Jew, I am very disheartened at some of the anti-Semitism that has emerged in the United States of late. I always felt very safe here but somet..."

Disagreeing with Israel's disproportionate destructive attacks on Gaza and ghettoization of Palestine doesn't make me anti-Semitic. I have no problem with the Jewish culture or people whatsoever! I just don't agree that apartheid, racism, and ghettoizing an entire group of people based on their cultural and religious identity is a part of what makes someone Jewish. Israel could do away with beating Palestinian children, illegally detaining anyone who looks Palestinian, torturing their illegally detained prisoners, blasting sewage water on the homes of low-ses Palestinians, and launching totally disproportional attacks on these people. None of that has anything to do with Judaism. That's an extremely corrupt, pseudo-terrorist government taking their privileged alliance with the United States as permission to make every attempt to wipe out another nation of people. IT's racist, xenophobic, and flat-out wrong.

The only time I really even think about Judaism when I think about Israel is when I consider how hypocritical it is for a nation supposedly run by Jews choosing to lock a group of people in ghettos based on their nationality and religious heritage. I would surely think that the Jews, of all groups of people, would know better than to do that.

[Dakota]

And this was an unnecessary diversion from the original point, which is that Bernie Sanders is a much more sane and humanist alternative to Clinton. She's a very powerful woman and hasn't ever always wielded that power in such a way that benefits the people. She and Bill almost single-handedly destroyed Haiti's economy so they could make some quick and easy money: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/...

I don't know that voting for someone just because they have a better chance of winning makes sense, either. He does have a chance of winning in the general election.

[Darlene]

Dakota, I think you made some good points… some of which I have thought about myself and wondered why nobody ever mentions. And I'm certain that Lisa can and will speak for herself but I don't believe she was implying or outright stating that you are anti-Semitic. She simply asked what is wrong with having a pro-Israel position… and then went on to say that as a Jew, she feels as if there has been an increase in anti-Semitism in this country and it makes her uncomfortable and unable to feel safe. I don't think she was at all, saying YOU are anti-Semitic.

As for Bernie Sanders… I LOVE him!! And although people generally seem to agree that he could never win a general election, I am actually quite pleasantly surprised by the support ha has garnered. I have 3 children who are young adults and they are all HUGE fans of his!! He speaks to issues they are extremely concerned and even angry about and they feel he 'gets' them on a personal level. I don't think Hillary Clinton has a chance of connecting with many of these kids on that level. And that leaves me a bit concerned over whether Democrats will be energized and enthusiastic for 2106.

[Dakota]

You're right, Darlene. She didn't explicitly state it, though I felt there was a strong implication there. Then again, it's also possible that's just something I inferred :)

I'm nervous about 2016, but I take comfort in the fact that the GOP is in a similar position. There's no candidate they're really fired up about either. While Bush is leading in the primaries (right now), a HUGE chunk of the GOP can't stand the idea of another Bush in the White House. I shudder to think what will happen if we have a Bush/Clinton race in 2016. I probably won't vote if that happens. I'll never support a regressive conservative politician and I can't support an imperialist like Clinton.

[Darlene]

Dakota, I understand. It's difficult on forums such as this at times because we are reading a person's words… usually a person we have never met in 'real life' and it's hard to know how a comment is meant. It's open to interpretation. As I said, I believe you made some very relevant and thought provoking points that never really get discussed.. certainly not among our politicians or even in the media. And I think I also understood how Lisa felt. There is so much outright hatred being expressed in our country at this time. I can certainly understand how a person might feel threatened. I don't think YOU meant your comment to be anti-Semitic and I don't really think Lisa meant to imply that you are!! :)

I agree with you that the GOP is in a similar position. I look at the myriad of candidates that are vying for recognition on their side and I can't help but shake my head!!:) It seems to me that their party is so divided into many different factions, I don't see ANY candidate being able to win even a plurality of the vote. Of course, that's usually when the establishment steps in and decides…. and as we said, the establishment candidate usually does not inspire excitement. I AM concerned that you mentioned that you probably won't vote if the race comes down to Clinton/Bush. I hope you will reconsider. I have to be honest…. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Clinton either and her campaign is already plagued by scandal, innuendo and lots of unanswered questions. But I STRONGLY believe we NEED to vote. I am worried about the direction the Supreme Court is taking and I'm concerned that the Republicans are going to take the country back a couple of hundred years… in terms of civil rights and women's rights, etc. I KNOW how you feel and Clinton is far from perfect but I really believe we need to see the 'big picture'… this is about far more than just who is president!! Anyway, I respect your opinion and I hope you will reconsider!! :)

[Dakota]

It depends, but voting for Clinton would, to me, feel like voting for imperialist war, and I can't do that. That's the bigger picture.

I'm also worried about the Supreme Court, but there's nothing in Clinton's track record that suggests to me that she's going to appoint someone appropriately progressive. Given her major donors, it's just as likely that she would appoint someone centrist instead of someone left, and with our world rapidly approaching a state of climate disaster, we can't afford someone who's just going to play to both side's interests. If we want to leave an Earth that can actually be lived on, we need a huge economic revolution in the form of socialism. Otherwise, we're kind of screwed.

[Lisa]

Hi Dakota, I don't know you and whether you're anti-Semitic or not. I wasn't accusing you of being anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, when people make blanket statements against Israel as if it has no right to exist as opposed to being against the policies of the current Israeli government, it comes across as anti-Semitic. Israel is a democracy and many Israelis opposed the current government. Netanyahu won by a narrow margin and had difficulty forming a coalition to form a new government. I'm not going to defend his policies as I oppose a lot of them. If I lived there, I would have voted against him. I want to remind you that many Israeli Jews (a majority of the population in fact) are refugees from Arab countries or descendants of such immigrants. No one in the world seems to care. Part of that is because Israel is its own worst enemy when it comes to publicizing that.

I agree with you about Bernie Sanders being a good guy. We can't afford to leave the world a climate disaster but we also can't afford to choose a Democratic candidate for President who's sure to lose. We tried that before in 1972 and ended up with another 4 years of Nixon.

[Mary]

I agree with your suspicion of Clinton, Dakota, and am also disheartened by the way the 2016 campaign is going so far. I'm even slightly envious of the Republicans, who at least have some interesting new personalities to discuss; we have the same old Clinton doublespeak, evasions, lies, and the same old Clinton-bashing from the right. Bernie Sanders is interesting, but he's hardly a new personality. He's also not only a socialist and to the left of Elizabeth Warren, he's 73. I'm 66 and am in the longest-living demographic (black women; the oldest person in the world right now is a 116-year-old American black woman), and I know how much I've lost in energy and stamina. I also know how much my mother has lost in energy, stamina, mobility, and cognitive skills at 87, so I'm concerned that both of our declared candidates are older than I am. Still, I agree with Darlene; we liberals must vote. The Republicans win because we don't vote, and they are counting on us not to vote so that they can win.

On the Israel/Anti-Semitism issue, Lisa is smart and sensitive enough to know that everyone who criticizes Israel is not anti-Semitic just as I'm smart and sensitive enough to know that everyone who criticizes Obama or any other black person is not racist. But Jewish people (like my people) have faced bigotry throughout the world for centuries, and as I think I mentioned in an earlier post, Michael Douglas recently wrote an article in the L.A. Times about his son dealing with anti-Semitism. I've also noticed increased anti-Semitism on Google+, where posters are less sane, sober, and politically correct than those on Goodreads and Linked/In. In fact, I noticed (and commented) during one discussion (dealing with the Prime Minister of Israel dissing Obama by speaking to Congress) that a few people who were complaining about racism made anti-Semitic comments.

Those of us who have dealt with discrimination and oppression all of our lives are naturally more paranoid than white, middle- or upper-class, Midwestern or New England, heterosexual, Protestant males, who represent the mainstream. The older we are, and the longer we've witnessed or dealt with discrimination, the more paranoid we are.

I don't think it's any more ridiculous for Lisa to be concerned that the increasingly venomous anti-Israel stance might either fuel or be fueled by anti-Semitism than is my concern that the anti-Obama hatred can fuel or be fueled by racism against blacks. And I find it interesting that Lisa was directly attacked when she made a fairly mild statement about her fear of increasing anti-Semitism while I have gone on several anti-racism rants in direct response to comments on this thread without being (directly) attacked. At least among liberals, I guess it's more acceptable to complain about racism than about anti-Semitism.

[Lisa]

Thank you Mary. That was very well said as usual.

[Dakota]

Lisa,

Being against Israel doesn't mean being against Jews as a people or a culture. I've never criticized the right of Jews to exist, or even Israel to exist as a nation. What I am calling into question is the apartheid-like tactics employed against Palestine by Israel, as well as their war crimes, human rights violations, and violations of UN-based policies. I'm not going to apologize for strongly critiquing that and calling out anyone who supports such a nation. If you would like to find where I said that Israel as a nation shouldn't exist, I would love to discuss and/or amend that statement, but I'm confident you won't, because I didn't say it.

Mary, not voting is a form of speech, and it's a right that I'm going to hold to. I absolutely and totally refuse to vote for Clinton when her entire time in office has been marked by imperialism, destroying the economy of Haiti, and focusing more on what she can gain in capital than in what citizens can gain in quality of life. I refuse to be held accountable for America's tendency to vote in regressive politicians simply because I decided not to vote. That isn't my responsibility or my fault. I will continue to campaign for Sanders NOT because he's running as a Democrat, but in spite of that fact. While Democrats do tend to vote in politicians with more liberal social positions, they're still too cowardly right now to address the cause of those social inequalities in the first place: mainly, the combination of capitalism and the patriarchy.

While I am keenly aware of my own relative privilege as a white cisgender American male, I have experienced the oppression that comes with the marginalized identities of homosexual and working class. I'm well-aware that it's important to be sensitive to the issues that historically marginalized groups have faced and continue to face today. Don't misinterpret my extremely harsh criticism of Israel as not being sensitive to the inexcusable torture and dehumanization that the Jewish people have gone through throughout history. There are two reasons why I don't let the plight of the Jews stop me from calling out Israel's pseudo-terrorist actions:

1) I'm not criticizing the Jewish people, culture, or religion in any way, shape, or form. Though my personal beliefs as a humanist lead me to eschew the doctrine of the Hebrew Bible, I don't begrudge other people their right to read, study, believe, and practice their faith to the extent that it doesn't violate the human rights of others. The mistreatment that the Jewish people have faced over the course of history is a horrible thing for such a group to endure and I find it repulsive that it happened and continues to happen today. I refuse to believe, however, that criticizing Israel amounts to anti-Semitism in and of itself. Indeed, there are many Jews who criticize Israel openly and freely, and there are even Zionists who think Israel is doing a horrendous job and needs to be stopped.

2) Even if a criticism of Israel did amount to a criticism of the Jewish people, it is still possible for oppressed people to contribute to the oppression of others, and that needs to be called out whenever it happens. As a cisgender white male, I have cisprivilege, white privilege, and male privilege, that trans women of color don't have access to. If I am constantly contributing to that system of oppression by benefit of actively engaging in transphobic, racist, or sexist actions, or even by not fighting against these systems of oppression, then I want and expect to be called out for this at all times. I don't want anyone to use my sexuality as an excuse to not call me out on my bad behavior, and I do the same to others, including Israel. Though Israel is tightly tied with Judaism in almost every way, and is run by the Jewish people, I still feel entirely comfortable calling them out for contributing to the systems of oppression that Islamic people face every day. And not even just Islamic or Palestinian individuals, but also people of color, particularly Ethiopians living in Israel. Having experienced tons of oppression doesn't make one incapable of oppressing others. I would even posit that capitalism and the patriarchy both create these systems of inequality and also force those suffering to also oppress others.

Have a good day, ladies!

[Mary]

It's interesting, Dakota, that I assumed you were a woman as did Grant since he (?) used the pronoun "she" when referring to you. I can't speak for Grant, but the only Dakota that I know of is the third-generation actress (Melanie and Don's daughter) Dakota Johnson. I assumed Grant was a white man, which might also be wrong. Darlene made a very good point when she said that we are addressing people whom we don't really know, and so we are bound to misinterpret each other.

We also need to recognize that we are all biased, and our biases are based not only on our race, gender, class, religion (or lack thereof), generation, and sexuality but also on our experiences, which for most of us includes living in a racist, sexist, intolerant of certain religions, homophobic, capitalist country. My experiences also include having lived in Jim Crow Kentucky until 1964, which meant I went in back doors and rode in the back of buses and couldn't eat in most restaurants. I also spent (as I said in my memoir) 48 years in white institutions, where I had to fight to be treated equally; sometimes I had help from my white (sometimes, Jewish) colleagues, but I often fought alone. So I'm unapologetically combative and will not hesitate to call out what I see as racist behavior. I've been accused of being racist (usually by racist whites), and it doesn't bother me because if noticing people's race and making assumptions about them based on their race (as we all do) makes me racist, then I am racist. It might sting to be called racist, anti-Semitic, or homophobic, but it's not as hurtful as being oppressed by racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia. Calling me racist doesn't bother me anymore than calling me the n-word does. I'm more concerned with how I'm treated than with what I'm called.

Obviously, oppressed people (like abused people) can be more oppressive than those who have not been treated like second-class citizens. Oppression leads to fear, paranoia, anger, and low self-esteem, which can lead the oppressed to oppress others whom they might perceive as weaker. Blacks can be homophobic; gays can be racist, etc. While I reject most of the stereotypes of black people (we are not lazy; we are not savage since we didn't burn people and cut off their body parts, and if we want to learn and make education a priority, we can do as well in school as any other racial or ethnic group), I embrace the angry black woman stereotype. I agree with my favorite writer Toni Morrison, who said more than thirty years ago that black women have every right to be angry.

Still, I try to be civil while making my sometimes angry points about racism. I try to disagree as politely as possible, even as my blood pressure is rising, so I will discuss bigots and racists without directly calling any posters racists. Lisa did not call you anti-Semitic, nor was she implying that everyone who criticizes Israel and objects to the current leader's policies is anti-Semitic. But there certainly is a connection between Israel and Jewish people, and there has been an increase in anti-Semitism lately, which might be connected to the attitudes toward Israel. Lisa should be able to express that point without being called ridiculous.

I respectfully disagree with your attitude toward voting, but that might be because my folks (women and blacks) were not allowed to vote for so many years. I also know that the bigots really don't want black people to vote because we had the nerve to vote for a half-black man, which is why I am even more determined to vote and am encouraging younger blacks to vote. As a white man, you might have a different view.

Enjoy your evening, Mr. Dakota.

[Dakota]

I don't really know that race influences voting preferences, but maybe it does, and that's fine.

Mary, I think we have different priorities. Winning the right to vote was so desperately important (and disgusting it took so long) but with the right to vote comes the right not to vote. I'm not advocating that nobody vote ever--that would hand power over neatly wrapped and tied to the political elite. What I am suggesting, however, is NOT voting for imperialist candidates. This isn't a matter of not voting simply because I don't believe in voting (which I do!) but because I can't personally stomach the idea of voting for anyone other than Sanders, and even then, I feel icky inside doing so given his foreign policy.

Your comments on the angry black woman trope reminded me of this video I saw on Everyday Feminism a month or so ago: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/a...

I showed it to my middle school students during our unit on poetry. We were doing some slam poems and I showed this as an example of ways to perform poetry outside of the meter. The majority of my students said they had never heard of any kind of angry black woman stereotype, which I thought was interesting. Then again, my class was about 60% white, 30% Indian, and 10% Chinese, so that could explain it.

My ultimate point was not giving the oppressed a pass for oppressing others. While Judaism and Israel are tied extremely tightly together, Israel has a lot to answer for. There was recently a BLM protest in Israel where the Ethiopian Jews chanted, "We are Baltimore!" It made me realize just how international this issue truly is.

To be honest, what bothers me the most about the Palestine/Israel conflict are how many Israelis have told me that I shouldn't be against Israel because of how homophobic Islamic extremists in Palestine are. While homophobia is utterly ridiculous and barbaric, I don't think they deserve to be occupied and routinely attacked/dehumanized/illegally detained/raped/beaten for being homophobic. Heterosexual Israelites using my civil rights as a cover for racism is so flipping annoying.

[Mary]

I am happy to meet another teacher, Dakota, and am impressed that you teach middle school. I couldn't even handle high school because I didn't want to waste time disciplining the students. That young girl's poem reminds me of Paul Laurence Dunbar's "We Wear the Mask." Many black writers of the 19th and 20th Century focused on how blacks had to mask their feelings around whites. Ellison makes the point with his clown motif and the grandfather curse--"overcome 'em with grins, undermine'em with yesses"-- in INVISIBLE MAN, and Alice Walker made it with Sofia, who learned to wear a mask only after she was beaten and put in prison, in THE COLOR PURPLE.

But I think the black women of my generation (baby boomers), which came of age during the black power movement, as well as those who came after us, are probably less masked and two-faced than women of other cultures and ethnic groups. When we were discussing JOY LUCK CLUB, one of my Asian students said that Chinese women would stab people in the back but act passive and polite to their faces; I responded that black women would tell the people that they were going to stab them, stab them in the front, and then say, "You've been stabbed." But because we are more aggressive and direct, we frighten people, and you know what happens when people are frightened. Black women aren't as likely to be shot as black men are, but there are some real-life Sofias, and not all of them survived their encounters with the police or frightened whites.

Race, class, age, religion, gender, marital status, level of education, and even geographical location all affect voting preferences. A young, single white woman living in California is more likely to vote Democrat than an older married white woman living in Alabama. But, contrary to what some racist conservatives think, blacks will not vote for any black person. I would never vote for Ben Carson, for instance, and I don't know any other black person who would. I am also more likely to vote for Martin O'Malley than Hillary Clinton, even though I am a (dark-skinned) woman, and he's a very pale white man (one of his assets in my opinion because we need to calm down these Tea Party racists). I argue that we blacks vote our interests more than working-class whites do. My (double) maternal great-grandfather was Republican because Lincoln freed the slaves, and most blacks (like James W. Johnson who wrote lyrics for campaigns) were Republicans at the beginning of the 20th Century. FDR, Truman, and LBJ changed our minds about the parties. After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and most of the racist Southern Democrats went to the Republican party, we voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, who were not only pro-union and more sympathetic to the working-class than the Republicans but were now also less racist.

One problem with being part of an oppressed group is that people will try to use that experience to manipulate you. My colleagues in the English and Foreign Languages Department knew that I had an overdeveloped sense of fair play because of my background, so they would always try to convince me that they were being treated unfairly and sometimes would compare their situation to that of blacks. This angry black woman would always verbally smack them down by pointing out that they didn't have to go in the back door because they were teaching Linguistics or Spanish instead of Literature or Composition, and they were able to attend and vote during department meetings, despite being "in the minority."

The fact is most old-school Christians (like my mother) are homophobic. One of my problems with religions is that many of them (Quakers are exceptions) don't teach tolerance. I have to remind my religious, homophobic relatives that the Bible was used to justify mistreatment of blacks every time they make that stupid not Adam and Steve but Adam and Eve point.

Israel/Palestine is not an issue that I focus on (nor is ISIS). I'm much more concerned about domestic policies than I am foreign ones. Israel has been an ally (despite the current leader's behavior), and we should support our allies, especially when they support us, but we should also stop trying to run the world and take more of an advise and consult role. We have enough problems with oppression and bigotry in America without trying to police the Middle East.

Since I'm something of a voting crusader (although I usually criticize what I call "missionaries"), I'll take one more shot at convincing you to vote in 2016. Even if you don't vote for Hillary (or O'Malley if I have anything to say about who our candidate is), vote for your local and state candidates. You can write in Bernie Sanders for President or even vote for a Green Party candidate. We Democrats must vote to counter the Plutocrats. If by some miracle Bernie is our nominee, I, of course, will vote for him, despite his advanced age.

[Lisa]

What I'm saying is yes, Dakota, you were against anyone being pro-Israel not just being against the current politics of Israel. A lot of news about Israel is very biased against it in the current media. At any rate, being Jewish my fate is connected to Israel and if anyone denies Israel's right to existence, they are directly threatening me.

[Beverly]

I'd love to support Sanders for the nomination, but his age scares me. Does anyone know his age? I have this fantasy of a Sanders/Warren ticket. Probably never happen, but we can dream.

[Lisa]

I think he's 73. I'd love to see a Democratic ticket that's winnable. I really dread seeing another Bush in the White House.

[Mary]

Yes, Sanders is 73, which means he'll turn 75 in 2017, the year he would take office, and that's assuming he's already had his birthday this year. I was thinking about Sanders' age as I was watching Beau Biden's funeral. Maybe one reason his father hasn't made any "I'm running" noises lately is because he knew that his son was sick, and he would have to be one of the surrogate fathers for the two children left behind. But the main reason Biden was never taken seriously as the heir apparent to Obama, and the slightly younger Clinton was given that role is because Biden is now in his seventies. I think Sanders' age is even more of a problem than his socialism since the country has now moved to the left, and everyone (even the shameless Republicans) is complaining about the income gap.

I'm sticking with O'Malley for now, but I want to know more about him and his family. His relative youth is an advantage, but it can also be a disadvantage because they will target him with the inevitable "sex scandal"; in fact, one Internet article has already accused him of fathering a baby. I'm happy to know that he has a band because that makes him seem less bland, but the band could also backfire.

Lincoln Chafee, the other alternative to Hillary, doesn't look promising. First of all, he's a former Republican, and after that he was an independent. Also, his persona (his facial expressions and voice) seems almost comical. Still, I was very annoyed with how Rachel handled his announcement. She pointed out that he was the first person from Rhode Island to run for President and then looked into the camera with a wry smile and said, "That's all I've got." She is promoting Bernie because he comes on her show, but she is clearly all in for Hillary. In fact, she's probably also promoting Bernie because she prefers he be the main alternative to Hillary instead of Martin or Lincoln because she believes Bernie is more likely to lose to Hillary in the primaries. These media folks, even the liberals, make me sick.

[Jimmy]

I love Rachel Maddow. One of the best ever.

[Xdyj]

Dakota wrote: "I don't really know that race influences voting preferences, but maybe it does, and that's fine.

Mary, I think we have different priorities. Winning the right to vote was so desperately important..."

Just curious, which president in US history would you consider non-imperialist?

[Mary]

Jimmy, she said last night that she's having Chafee on today, and she's hoping to get O'Malley later. I wonder if Chafee contacted her after her dismissive treatment of him last week or if she was criticized and decided to make amends. She also made a point of saying that she didn't know the Clintons, and she's right; Hillary and Bill have never been on her show. I don't think Rachel (or her staff) is reading our Goodreads thread, so I suspect some other liberals have posted complaints on her website about how she's so clearly pushing Hillary. I like that Rachel does want to do the right thing, and she will correct herself if she is criticized. A year or two ago, I complained on her website about her mean-spirited attack on John Edwards (who was in North Carolina minding his business at the time that she attacked him for no apparent reason), and the next week she quoted him in a positive way.

I used to like Rachel more than I do now; I find her attempts at humor annoying. She's not Jon Stewart or even Keith Olbermann, so she should play it straight (no pun intended).

Xdyj, do you mean among the 19th, 20th, and 21st Century Presidents? I think the earliest Presidents were too busy trying to build this nation to be imperialistic. Obama might be one of the least imperialistic later Presidents, and GW Bush was too until 9/11 happened.

[Jeff]

I can't get enthusiastic about Hillary as a candidate and, living in SC, my presidential vote never counts anyway, due to our "winner takes all" electoral college system. (I've never been a Democrat, but have always voted for the Democratic candidate, except the time I voted for Pogo.) So I've ordered my Bernie t-shirt and bumper sticker.

I especially like Bernie because he has the courage to call himself a socialist. When I married-into my wife's Italian clan, I got labeled the "family socialist" by my ultra-conservative father-in-law, and he smirkingly introduced me as such at a big Thanksgiving dinner, attended by an old couple who'd been minor royalty in Hungary, and came to the West after WWII to escape Communist rule. I could see them stiffen, being told there was a socialist at the table, and hastily assured them that I wasn't a Marxist. Socialism has never scared me, as I've lived in two semi-socialist countries (Austria & Germany) and grew up in an American subculture - the military - that is the embodiment of socialism, with its womb-to-tomb benefits. Whether or not I "am" a socialist depends on what "is" is, but that's another discussion. Suffice it to say, I'm for a government that embodies a balance: the best of socialism and the best of capitalism. Capitalism with adequate regulation. I do tend to have a dialectical view of history.

Maybe I'm delusional, but Bernie's candidacy may be a time to de-stigmatize socialism and to educate the millenials about the systematic stigmatization of socialism by the far right. The folks who crafted the New Deal, as well as the union activists that fought for child labor laws, the 40-hour week and other worker benefits we now take for granted all got labeled socialists at the time by propagandists who would have everyone believe that liberal/progressive = socialist =commie "fellow traveler." Truman's proposal for universal health insurance got labeled "socialized medicine" by conservative propagandists, and that was enough to kill it. The label proved to have legs, and was trotted-out again to campaign against the ACA. The Occupy movement seems to indicate that there's a lot of potential energy out there in support of economic democracy; maybe this watershed election can catalyze it into kinetic energy, and Bernie seems to be our best hope for advancing a truly progressive agenda.

So, as Dakota recommends, I plan to vote next year, and will probably write-in Bernie. I think Bernie's being circumspect in saying we're on the brink of oligarchy. I've about come to the conclusion that our democracy has already been subverted by the corporate state, and we're already a de facto oligarchy/plutocracy. If we're still on the brink, Citizens United will take us over the edge, if it's not reversed soon.

I'd like to know what some of you think about whether or not we still live in a functioning democracy.

[Mary]

I think it's barely functioning, Jeff. Gerrymandering, Citizens United, and the attempts in Republican states to make voting more difficult have all made us less democratic than we were in 2008. It's interesting that the response to what happened in 2000 and 2004 when people were in long lines to vote, and some people in Ohio just left the lines in 2004 because it was raining hard, was to make voting easier. But when the Republicans didn't like the results, they went the other way.

But there are other problems with this so-called democracy. I see how the New Hampshire folks are arguing that they should be the ones to "pre-select" the Republican candidates, not Fox, but why should two relatively small, unrepresentative of 2015 America states pre-select our candidates? In 2008 California moved its primary from June to March because we wanted to have more say in who the candidates were, but by our March primary, the only Democratic candidates left were Clinton and Obama, and I think McCain had already been "pre-selected." What kind of democracy is it when the most populous states (California, New York, Texas) are not the ones selecting the candidates?

And then there's the purple state problem. Again, the most populous states are ignored during the national election because they are either blue (California, New York, New Jersey) or red (Texas). Purple states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida get all of the attention. If we just count the popular vote and get rid of the electoral college, that will change.

And while we are changing things, we need to change the Senate. Like the Second Amendment and the electoral college, the rules for selecting the Senate are outdated. Why should Alaska (which has fewer people than most large cities) and tiny Rhode Island have the same number of Senators as California, New York, and Texas? How is that fair representation? The fact is the Republicans are able to win now only because of these outdated rules that disenfranchise those of us who live in large, populous states.

[Lisa]

I'm all for eliminating the Electoral College. Since I live in a blue state (Illinois), I always feel that my vote would count more heavily if I would move to Wisconsin (a Purple state). That is just not fair and I think if you asked most Americans, they would agree.

[Jimmy]

In addition to changing the Electoral College, more would have to be done. Voter registrations would need to be protected. That means federal protection. I can't see the Republican party getting involved with that.

[Mary]

Right, Lisa, Illinois is another one of those populous states that doesn't get a lot of attention during Presidential elections.

There's plenty that needs to be done, Jimmy, but if we can get rid of gerrymandering and the electoral college, we won't have the situation where more people voted for Democrats and yet the Republicans are still running the country. That happened in 2000 with Bush v Gore, and that happened the last two Congressional elections.

[Jeff]

My wife and I were at the state house rally (Columbia, SC) Saturday. I've been to many rallies for progressive causes at the state house, but this was the largest, and for the first time in a long time I felt proud to be a South Carolinian. The white supremacist who murdered nine souls in Charleston is getting the opposite of what he wanted. Instead of race war, he has brought black and white citizens of SC together in grief, in a united front; and it looks like the last remnant of the Confederacy will finally be taken from the state house grounds. I recommend that you search Google or Bing for Columbia poet lauriate Ed Madden's poem "When we're told, 'we'll never understand'", which was read aloud at the rally.

[Beverly]

I'm starting the week humming the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" and seeing all kinds of stars twinkling on the horizon. The success of the ACA, the SC decision on gay marriage, and the spirit of racial union spurred by the Confederate terrorist is remarkable. Especially considering how the Right has both houses of Congress and a majority on the SC. If we can get this much done under these conditions, just imagine what could happen if we take back the Congress?

[Mary]

Yes, it was a good week for liberals, Beverly, reminding me of Rev. Martin Luther King Junior's statement: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." In other words, progressives always win eventually, but, of course, when we win everyone wins. Whenever people are treated like second-class citizens, we all lose, and when those second-class citizens are given equal rights, we all win.

Now let's see if we can build on that progress by demonizing people who malign gays and nonwhites the way we demonize people with sex scandals or people who admit (or are caught on secret tapes) using a racial slur or making overtly racist comments in private. Racist Trump and Homophobic Santorum should not be allowed to participate in the Republican debates. They should be called out by the media and the other Presidential candidates.

[Lisa]

I think if they speak, they will only expose their own weaknesses.

[Xdyj]

Mary wrote: "Yes, it was a good week for liberals, Beverly, reminding me of Rev. Martin Luther King Junior's statement: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." In other words, pr..."

It would take some time as old prejudices die hard, but I think that's the eventual goal :)

[Dan]

Sorry, I have been away, involved in a lot of other things. I have just posted an essay on the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision that some of you may find interesting. It can be read on my blog, http://www.danriker.blogspot.com, or on DailyKos at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06...

[Beverly]

Why I am intolerant - and don't plan to change.

Yes, Mary, I agree we need to (continue to) demonize racists and other intolerant people. This always leads to charges that we on the left are hypocites: we preach tolerance but are ourselves intolerant of intolerant people. This is a valid criticism, but it doesn't mean we are wrong or should change. We keep hearing how the U.S. is politically polarized, how we needto talk to each other instead of at each other, blah blah blah. But these arguments leave me cold. They assume that neither side is right or wrong, but merely in disagreement. Sometimes this is correct - in the Congress certainly compromise should rule the day - whether you agree with the other side or not. But as for the pure realm of ideas and socially acceptable behavior - NO. There is such a thing as right and wrong. Polarization is necessary to keep the dark side from ruling the world. I am constantly reminded of Germany in the 1930s. Should the left have treated the Nazis and their millions of followers with tolerance and the status of "honest people having honest disagreements?" Should the opposition have "tolerated" the Nazis? No. They should have opposed them with every breath of their being. Demonized them and shunned them, and as they took more and more power, bodily eliminated them. Tolerance only allows evil to breed and grow. The unfortunate reality is that conflict and polarization is inevitable.
So I am resolved to continue being intolerant of intolerant people. Racists, homophobes, confederates, sexists, secessionists, theocrats and all their ilk. This includes intolerant people on the extreme left as well - communists and those who automatically assume that the U.S. is 100% wrong and our enemies are 100% correct in every war we fight and every relationship we enter.
Tolerance and acceptance are critical to any society's survival. But they can also allow evil to destroy us. It's a paradox and a trap we can't resolve. So I will remain intolerant of some, while preaching tolerance and acceptance of others.

[Lisa]

Hi Beverly, You've articulated this dilemma very well. I couldn't have stated it better.

[Jimmy]

I think there are people on the edges of those groups that Beverly mentioned that can be changed. It may be a mistake to paint them all with the same brush. I've known soldiers from around the country who just never encountered different points of view. When they did, I could see their viewpoints evolving.

[Lisa]

It is sometimes productive to dialogue with people who aren't rigid in their positions. For those who are rabidly on the other side, it is usually a waste of time.

[Mary]

I've been saying that I will not tolerate intolerance for years, Beverly. I also say that while I'm a cultural relativist and don't like missionaries (people who try to convert everyone to their way of thinking, like Mormons, evangelical Christians, and Bill Maher, who is an atheist missionary), there are certain values we should all hold. And one is that no one should be treated like a second-class citizen. I was going nuts watching Huckabee on ABC's Sunday morning show yesterday. He actually had the nerve to quote Martin Luther King on civil disobedience against the courts and to suggest that people who don't want to sell wedding flowers to gay couples or preachers who don't want to marry them are now being discriminated against. Of course, George S. did not mention that the Supreme Court struck down school segregation in 1954 and struck down all bans against interracial marriage in 1967. Of course, this so-called "liberal" journalist didn't ask Huckabee if he felt the parents who didn't want their children to attend school with black children during the fifties and sixties were being discriminated against by that ruling. He also didn't ask if he thought people who didn't want to sell flowers to interracial couples or to marry them were being discriminated against. I was so upset I couldn't even wait to hear what Bernie had to say; I turned the television off.

It should be clear now that the Republicans are the party of bigots. So far no Democrats have left our party for theirs the way the Southern Democrats fled after the Civil Rights Act passed. If there are homophobic Democrats, they are keeping quiet and staying put. So the Republicans are not only the party of the 1%, but they are the party that argues against equal rights for all.

On the good news front, NBC cut ties with Donald Trump. It'll be interesting to see how he responds now that both his bank account and his media exposure are being affected (as they should have been during his "birther" campaign) by his racism. Let's see if other Republicans (like Jeb whose wife is Latina) will call him out now that the media has led the way. I'm hoping that fellow bully Chris Christie will denounce Trump as a racist, and then maybe Trump can denounce him as homophobic, and the rest of the Republican bigots will be intimidated by those two bullies into "evolving" on both gay rights and the need to eliminate racism by not only bringing down the Confederate flag but also being sure that everyone can vote. I'm probably dreaming. They'll blame us liberals for causing division in the country by discussing racism and forcing gay marriage on religious people.

[Beverly]

Mary wrote: "I've been saying that I will not tolerate intolerance for years, Beverly. I also say that while I'm a cultural relativist and don't like missionaries (people who try to convert everyone to their w..."

I think the problem we face here is dealing with people who have been propagandized. Propaganda's power lies in its clever blend of truth and lies, and vigorous disdain for facts. We are all emotional about our views, but the propagandized have gone further - they have joined a cult. Certain types of people will respond to promises that their group is superior to all others and are willing to surrender critical thought in exchange for this appeal to their ego. Any conversation with them ends up in a dispute over the facts, or their assumption that other people and their needs and feelings simply don't matter.

[Mary]

Right, Beverly. Of course, propaganda appeals to our basest emotions--fear, distrust, ego. "Amazing Grace," that song Obama sang last week (not as well as some people seemed to think; he's no Aretha or James Cleveland), says, "I was blind." People are blinded by biases--race, class, religion, gender, etc.--so it's easy for bigots like Huckabee and Trump to convince them that they are being victimized or that their lifestyles or livelihoods are threatened when other people's rights are protected.

[Beverly]

Is anyone else feeling a bit lighter today knowing that the secessionist flag in South Carolina had finally been retired? I am weary of people spouting revisionist history and declaring their "heritage" and "pride." I frankly don't care what anyone's "heritage" is. If you are THAT insensitive to the feelings of others I don't think you have much to be "proud" about.

[Lisa]

I think that it's a step in the right direction. It's signaling that racism is unacceptable. Nevertheless, it's still here not just in the South where it's more blatant but everywhere in the United States.

[Mary]

Yes, and we need to beware of substituting symbolism for real action. They are talking about changing the name of a Long Beach elementary school (Robert E. Lee) here in California. My question is why would they have named a school in California after Robert E. Lee in the first place. Did anyone see the picture of Hillary (circa late 1960's) with a portion of the Confederate flag in the background? I'm suspicious of it. I remember seeing that picture of her wearing striped pants and funny glasses, but I didn't notice a confederate flag in the background. I hope it's fake because if it isn't they will nail her with it. I'm frankly more concerned about her friendship with Donald Trump and her failure to denounce him more vociferously than with some picture taken around fifty years ago.

[Sophia]

Mary wrote: "I've been saying that I will not tolerate intolerance for years, Beverly. I also say that while I'm a cultural relativist and don't like missionaries (people who try to convert everyone to their w..."

Am I the only one who thinks Trump is a plant to make Jeb Bush look like a moderate? And savvy candidates know they need the Latino vote, and how better to highlight the fact that JB's wife is Latino than to have Trump insult her and Latinos in general, so JB can shine in defending her and Latinos in general?

[Mary]

I don't think so, Sophia. He's more likely to be a Democratic plant, sabotaging Jeb and all of the other Republicans. Actually, I think Trump is just a narcissist who will do anything for attention. What should worry the real Republican candidates is that he's popular with their base. I think it's time for the moderates (if there are any left) to leave the party the way the racist Democrats left that party after the Civil Rights Act was passed. If Jeb and Marco don't want to be in the party of bigots (I include the very homophobic Huckabee and Santorum among the bigots), they need to become Independents, Democrats, or form a new party.

[Sophia]

Do you think the extremism of the RP might actually create an opening for a three party system?

I think that would be too good to be true.

[Jimmy]

Trump has such an ego, he's going to go all the way to the national convention with his delegates. I think he may even be getting serious about securing the nomination. I can't see him taking losing lightly. He may just have talked himself into all of this. Too late for him to back down now.

A Republican split is definitely a possibility in my view.

[Lisa]

Who knows? I wouldn't put anything past them. I'm hoping that after Trump fails to get the Republican nomination, he runs for President as an independent.

[Mary]

I'm not sure about the three-party system, Sophia, but a few Republicans like Lincoln Chafee have already left the party. He was initially an Independent, and now he's a Democrat. In fact, O'Malley and Clinton are the only two long-term Democrats running on our side. Sanders was Independent, and Webb just became a Democrat when he ran for Senate a few years ago. If the "moderate" Republicans form a third party, he would probably join them.

As for Trump, I agree with Jimmy. His ego might take him all the way. If the Republicans don't kiss his butt (assuming he loses the primaries), he could run as an Independent just for spite. He's friends with Bill and Hillary, so if they are smart (and they are), they might be somewhat careful in how they criticize him (Hillary's early comments were fairly tepid), hoping that he will attack the Republicans more than her.

I have to admit that I'm finding Trump funny again. The thing he did with Graham's cellphone number was pure Trump, and I almost fell out of my chair laughing when he said that Perry is trying to convince us that he's smart by wearing glasses, but we can see through the glasses. I thought the comment was funny because I was fairly certain that the not-as-smart-as-he-thinks-he-is Trump didn't recognize the pun.

[Lisa]

There are probably enough Centrists to form a third party. If there was one, I think they'd win a lot of elections since most people are Centrists in America. Trump running as an Independent isn't the same thing however. He's just an egotist who's out for himself.

[Mary]

Maybe that should be the name of the new party, Lisa, Centrists. I wouldn't belong to it since I'm left of center, but I might vote for a Centrist if he or she was running against a crazy Democrat. At this point, I wouldn't vote for a Republican.