The Futility and Frustration of Democracy

Right now, there's one very good reason for Clinton to stay in the race for a couple more weeks. Two of the upcoming primaries (West Virginia and Kentucky) are ones where Clinton leads the polls by a large margin, and realists admit that race is a very big issue in those two states. If Clinton were to drop out now and then Obama did very poorly unopposed in those two states, it would look bad for Obama and the Republicans would probably be encouraged to play the race card even more. So it makes sense for Obama to let Clinton have those two, while he takes Oregon and ties up a majority of the convention delegates.

...you relied on matches in the depths of the Congo? i'd've gone with a magnesium block, myself... hope they were at least waterproof matches.

Actually, I relied on the fact that the Efe Pygmies never let the fire go out. And a bic lighter. Simba matches were always handy. Not water proof, but if you live in the rain forest you learn to deal.

I've got a local culture warrior (an American ex-pat) whom I occasionally poke a stick at, who hates Obama, likes Hillary -- but will vote "for anyone the Republicans put up".

If my opinion counted (which it doesn't), Obama is your least bad choice.

John McCain's campaign was considered dead, but he (just barely) persevered, and now the Repubs are holding their breakfasts down and learning to adore him.

Hillary Clinton wants to be John McCain when she grows up (or at least by August).

well, between your relying on the pygmies, and the pygmies relying on your carrying a light, i'd say the pygmies were the wiser then... :-)

the pygmies were the wiser then

Not for a moment was there ever a doubt about that!

Both American political parties are a wee bit right-wing. The Democrats are a bit right of our British Preservatives, and the current Rethuglicans have been taken over, lock, stock and barrel, by a small foreign Levantine group called Likud.

If I had any choice (which I haven't, because I'm just one of the rest of the world) I'd like Obama, because he doesn't seem belligerent, and hasn't (yet) said he wants to obliterate anyone.

Keep Hillary in suspense; as long as she's in the race she won't jump over and start helping McCain, so that she can be next, even if she has to start undermining Joe Liebermann.

God, your American politics are so parochial. If I was in power, I'd force Jimmy Carter to stand again just so we could get some peace and quiet.

I really don't like 'Forces of Liberty, Freedom and Democracy' turning up in their flak-jacket drag right on my doorstep.

regards

Richard

I still can't get pissed off at Hillary Clinton for still running, although I'm an Obama supporter and also consider Hillary to have morphed into Bush Lite. The thing is, I long for the days when the nominee was NOT decided until the convention -- and it wasn't always a coronation, either.

Sometimes I think we could all -- liberal, conservative, whatever -- do with a lot LESS unity. Maybe if we didn't work too hard at "unifying" voters, fewer would give up in disgust at being pigeonholed, and a lot more voters would turn up at the polls instead of staying home. Then again, who knows? It's not like we can actually do a controlled experiment on this, so we just have to wait it out.

And maybe the wishful thinking on my part is merely nostalgia for much, much, MUCH shorter campaign seasons ....

I'm not pissed at Clinton for still running. I am pissed at her for making the case that McCain is better than Obama. For that, she should not be running.

Well, I'm a little pissed at her for still running.

On the other hand, I do admit that I worked for Kennedy when he was pulling this on Carter.

"The first 16 minutes were about Wright. The War in Iraq was not brought up until 40 minutes into the interview."

From a media perspective, it was VERY important to elaborate on the Wright thing: Obama was virtually mocked by other media outlets, and especially in soundbyte oriented "new media" aimed at his primary voters--young people, and a lengthy response was required, because Wright made such an ass of himself.

There is this PR concept called "reverse flow" kind of like the loop part of a feedback loop--and elders often get their info from youngers these days, so the Russert show--aimed at elders--was necessary.

Carter was on the tonight show aa day or so ago, and he said that as a suprD he is not comitted, but then in a real cute way (( I love Carter;-) ) said that " my 11 ] grandchildren[long pause]....support Obama. My four kids[long pause] Obama..." and then he gave that sh1t eatin' grin, and said he was undecided.

Richard Parker: "he doesn't seem belligerent"
you probably don't mean it this way, but in the US, this kind of phrase as pertains to an African American--a black guy--sounds to our ear as slightly racist, b/c the stereotype of blacks s always about being "uppity" or "belligerent."

Obama is a man first, which seperates him from the stereotypes--he knows the importance of the 'kings English', as did the blackened Irish before him; he puts race as subsidiary to who he is in contrast to Jesse Jackson, All Sharpton, or other candidates who run on skin color and so-called 'black issues' alone.

Al Sharpton runs on bio-bullshit; skin color to him is the determinant for his next victim.

ray: I, like you, am no fan of Sharpton, who made his career by creating a fake scenario where he orchestrated the alleged rape of a black girl by white racists, and was later proven to be a liar.

The girl Tawana Brawley, was never raped, and racists other than Al had nothing to do with it.

I hate liars.

But I was so proud of Al when I saw that he was protesting the racist NYPD shooting of an innocent unarmed black man who was executed by police on his wedding day; I am sickened that we allow police to murder, and be found innocent.

What did you think of that?

You know, I love the Daily Show when they're funny, but I love it even more when they stop and say, "Even we can't find something funny in this." The pieces they've been running on racial fear and fear mongering over Wright have been angry and spot-on and should be required viewing. It's dead wrong that this is the only place in mainstream culture where this conversation is happening, but it's so refreshing to hear.

Never let the fire go out!!

And Fight to the Finish!

And Werk Macht Frei!
and Only the good die young...
...and "Hillary Clinton (whom I started out supporting, by the way) is a psychopath. It is obvious that she cannot win, and it is now up to her to "do the right thing.""

since when did you imagine the whitewoman would know whe she is wrong? White women are NEVER wrong, even when they are!

It is our sacred core social construct! 1)G-d 2) country 3) mothers: white preffered, especially when buying...er...adopting "cute asian/black."colored" babies"

Let's see here...

"Reverend" Wright accuses the government of creating the AIDS virus and says the atrocities of 9/11/2001 were justified. His apprentice Snobama is so ignorant of politics that he insults his own party's base; so ignorant of science that he believes the mercury militia's lunacy about thimerosal and autism; so ignorant of economics that he thinks he can repeal the law of supply and demand; and so ignorant of history that he doesn't know every one of his socialist policy proposals has been tried before and failed catastrophically.

As for judges, leftist ones who buy into Democrat "all points of view are equally valid" rhetoric are more likely to let creationism into the classroom that conservative ones who actually read the law and the facts (like the Republican Judge John E Jones III) before making their decision are.

"This is because Democratic policy is better. Not great, just better."

[snort] Than what?

Someday I will meet a scientist who can apply the same level of critical thinking to his politics as he applies to his research. Twenty years of searching, haven't found one yet. Just call me Diogenes... (assuming, that is, you understand the allusion)

wolfwalker, I think Diogenes would have had a better chance with his mirror than you would. Did I understand your allusion?

the real cmf:

Yes, it is in no way unfair to blame Hilary's resent behavior on her being a white women.

Please criticize Hilary's actions. (In fact I as well formerly supported her, but now am for Obama.) ALL candidates in this race should not be reduced to whatever involuntary group they belong to.

wolfwalker:

Clearly history is on your side and the majority of the politicians and judges that let creationism into schools are democrats. Oh wait, let me use my critical thinking and see if you have evidence to back up your claim.

And I don't think anyone here is disputing that Wright is bat shit insane.

We got the fire lit and survived the night. We were attacked by no fewer than 7 different species of swarming biting ants that night in the cave.

This is why I spend my vacations in close proximity to casinos and restaurants that will serve me steak and eggs at 3:30 in the morning. :-)

As for Democrats and Republicans, you can keep them all, thanks. Too much "one size fits all" solutions from both disaster areas. Ideology is the mind killer.

I am enjoying watching a major Party rip itself to shreds, though. Maybe we can get the GOP to go fully critical next. They need another Goldwater, who warned long ago that religion and politics were a really bad mix, and start the schism along that fault line.

Haha, Wolfwalker is retarded.

izz: Hillaries actions are whitewoman actions: parading propaganda throughout the nineties, and generating a climate of paranoia and fear, aimed at middle class fauxminists. Action.
Hillary yakking endlessly about healthcare, while tending real estate fraud in Arkansas; Hillary carpetbagging to New York to pander to the insular, nepotistic Jewish vote; ete etc...

Hillary, if she could choose what "involuntary group" she would be in would always opt for "privileged' and pander to that element. In todays world, some parts of it, the new white IS black, but she staked her bets on white female privilege: too late to switch parties;-)

And in that stupid(stOOpid) paradigm where all the closeted racists say "even if ppl wer GREEN!!...) Hillary would be the GREENEST one of them--because it is da' kulluh of mUney.
what are your thoughts now?

"Also, Republican policy has a few elements that are truly evil, far more nefarious than anything the democrats have to offer."

I think starting the Iraq War is pretty nefarious, yes, but refusing to end it when you have the power to do so (all the while screeching at how evil the war is) is pretty nefarious, too.

I think both parties are nefarious- and they keep us divided. I'm a former evangelical-Limbaugh conservative and I am amazed at the number of liberals who are just as blind as neo-cons when it comes to The Party and The Doctrines of The Party- "We're almost 100% right, and the other guys are literally evil!"

Paul

The democrats did not have the power to cut funding.

"They need another Goldwater, who warned long ago that religion and politics were a really bad mix, and start the schism along that fault line."

We elected a "Ron Paul republican" here (NC) in the GOP primary (he beat his rabid neo-con opponent with 70% of the vote) and the local Republican leaders are defecating with fear and panic- the godless "libertarians" are taking over the party, they say.

It's still hard for me to believe how applying the Constitution to different aspects of politics (drugs, war, abortion) can so enrage Republicans- who I always thought were "constitutional" as compared to the Democrats.

Frankly, I can't wait to see religion in politics (in America and the world, too) but for now I'll settle for those politicians who can keep their religion out- and the Constitution in- of politics.

Paul

"They need another Goldwater, who warned long ago that religion and politics were a really bad mix, and start the schism along that fault line."

We elected a "Ron Paul republican" here (NC) in the GOP primary (he beat his rabid neo-con opponent with 70% of the vote) and the local Republican leaders are defecating with fear and panic- the godless "libertarians" are taking over the party, they say.

It's still hard for me to believe how applying the Constitution to different aspects of politics (drugs, war, abortion) can so enrage Republicans- who I always thought were "constitutional" as compared to the Democrats.

Frankly, I can't wait to see religion totally excluded from politics (from humanity in general, too) but for now I'll settle for those politicians who demonstrate that they can keep their religion out- and the Constitution in- of politics.

Paul

"The democrats did not have the power to cut funding.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3110

Paul

Paul,

The system is what it is. You just need to learn some of the details. I'm not saying I like it.

Paul: "I can't wait to see religion in politics"?...?

move to Israel...a chateau on the Golan Haights maybe? Or better yet IRAQ! They LOVE da' 'ligions ober dere!

the real cmf:

So according to you, all members of a certain subgroup act in the same way so that describing one of their members actions in terms of that subgroup is OK.

Would you be fine with someone saying Obama is an Uncle Tom? Or complaining that he is being uppity? (I firmly disagree with both of these statements.) Really this is the level sexism AND racism that you are displaying.

Again, I take no offense at you saying that Hilary acted in ways that you don't like.

All members of a group do not act the same. And it is a benefit to public discourse to speak accordingly.

Greg, in your very first sentence, you entirely dismiss the political views of roughly half of the American population, without a shred of argument. Now, I understand why you're doing that--you're writing for your fellow Democrats. Still, after having done that, don't you think it's a bit audacious to then accuse others of being engaged in a circle jerk?

Both parties (and both ideologies--progressivism and conservatism) have their moronic adherents, and it would be easy to dismiss them based on said idiots. To do so would be a tragic mistake, however, as it's much fairer to evaluate political ideologies on their most coherent and well-reasoned forms.

You owe it to yourself to find and study the best presentations of conservative thought. At worst, you'll have a better understanding of your "enemy", and be better positioned to "defeat" him in political battle. At best, you'll learn something about the diversity of political thought in this country, and perhaps even about some of the areas where conservatism seems to have better answers than progressivism. If you're interested, email me and I can suggest a few places to look.

izz: "all members of a certain subgroup act in the same way so that describing one of their members actions in terms of that subgroup is OK"
No, Izz, just white women, who are prone to the most useless, biased, baiting stereotyping humanly possible.

I hope you are( and were) as adamantly affirimative in your stances abnout race and gender when it came to/comes to these stereotypes:
1) white men have all the power; white men this, white men that; white people are all complicit in racism,privilege, etc
2)black men with education and proper english are "articulate" black men whereas black men with ass dropping saggy jeans should not be criticized; black men cannot be racist; and izzy, is it racist when Jesse Jackson says "Obama isn't black enough" or an Uncle Tom?"
( you damn bet it is); but Izzy, no one will call him out on it, whereas a white man will be villified, and a white racist like Hillary essentially calling Barack a "boy" throughout the whole race is racism too--did you call her and her or the Hillary hyenas on that one?

In the paradigm, it is important that all sides of idiocy are represented; idiocy must be heard, and white women who benefit from privilege (Steinem;Dworkin; Hillary; MacKinnon)have for far to long benefitted from deceptive portrayals of privileges that the vast majority of white men never had; so yes, it is as fair to lump them into the clod of sod from which identity politics has drawn its great strength as anyone else. Not only fair, but necessary.Necessary NOW.

Had this society addressed white womens privilege 300 years ago, the klan, the civil war, and racism might never have been allowed to become what it was here.I honestly don't know any white male who wouldn't gladly dump the one privilege hungry white nag he has been riding for any other of the worldfull of other women.

But the whitewoman, having her cake and eating it too ( all those keen insights on "the View" about weight loss...) sure has done her darndest lately to make out like white males are the ones with privilege, and has done nothing to combat the stereotypes about white men--except maybe sneak out once in awhile to get some salsa dancing in with her hotspiced latin lover...;-)

the real cmf:

Once again you are holding one member of a group responsible for the actions of all members of a group. How is Hilary responsible for the idiocy that is Barbra Walters?

Of course there are inequalities in our society and many of those are sadly linked to race and sex. It would be foolish to pretend that each of us has an equal start in life. These problems need to be addressed. But judging a person on their individual strengths and weaknesses is what each of us can do on an everyday basis to combat this tendency.

Stereotyping white people (for example) does not somehow make black people more equal.

And I totally agree that Jesse Jackson is being racist when he says "Obama isn't black enough".

As to some specific points of your post, you make many assertions in your post that history just does not support. How were women magically controlling everything in the 18th century when they were too busy dying in childbirth and not being able to vote? If women are so privileged why are there fewer women in government, fewer CEOs, and on average women make less for doing the same jobs as men?

Greg: I'm sorry that the real cmf and I have run away with this post a bit.

izz: "How were women magically controlling everything in the 18th century when they were too busy dying in childbirth and not being able to vote? If women are so privileged why are there fewer women in government, fewer CEOs, and on average women make less for doing the same jobs as men?"

There is nothing magic, or even original, about white women who found matriarchal dynasties (ala Queen Victoria, or her Elizabeth or Hatshepsut before her)that uphold female privilege; there is even less magical about middle class women who follow that ethos using their vaginas as tools of a strategy of "less work" and nmore food.

But, OK, you win. You're right: white female privilege doesn't exist, and we "should'nt" single it out for what it iss; the modern post-Victorian ideals of so-called "equality of the sexes" where men are still bearing the larger burdens of : homelessness, victims of violent crime, death at the hands of a society that pedestalizes so-called female virtue( whose biggest proponents are middle class white soccer moms and their counterparts, the hyenas of Africa..) while demonizing lower class men by rote; a misandrist society full of double standards where men are routinely and distressingly spoken of in negative ways, but where if one speaks even the simple ugliest truth of American women, the entitled white woman and her blogroll cry's of "misoginy!"; a society where male sexuality is STILL the most punishable offense as it was when the very concept of rape laws hit the books (again: white women sooo offended by the male gaze that laws were passed to criminalize the very essence of masculinity); where men have never truly been free as all laws are tools of controlling males;

and the vote? You can have it, as long as you or one of your women folk drop the bacon off at MY door, because societal ethos requires that of you.

On average women make less? Take one Warren Buffet out of the equation, and then let's talk--but so called progressives love the outliers after all. And yeah, right: a new re-tooled workplace that allows for mothers to bring kids? A cold day in hell before we acknowledge that laws and social engineering are designed to keep men away from custody and primary care of their children, while we bandy about even more new privileges for mothers...

Childbirth? C-section, or don't breed.

Or perhaps nature has designed women to become obsolete, because we know that death is one possible outcome of birth;-)

Maybe nature has designed us men folk for more than one of you, and the problems we see are the result of the inferior biological specimen passing on inferior genes resulting in a social infection--like the AMA doping kids, and the doctor culture of control that feminists have yakked about as 'patriarchal' is actually another tool upholding womens privilege--when was the last time you marched for "prostate health?" But everyone is on board for breast cancer...

Why aren't women CEO's? See the former comment--c-section, or get a nanny.Or don't breed, cause it's lonely at the top. I can't imagine Trump being Trump if he was bouncing babies on his knees all day.

I had a great conversation with a conservative last night. It seems we agree on something: he was a farm kid who worked his nuts off--literally, as did I when I was young, by wrestling with young bulls in order to geld them, as gelding fattens them up. I picked rocks out of fields until my skin was so burnt that I was sick for days; baled hay, chased hogs, picked garbage....and later in life did construction--real hard work.

I tried really hard to hire women, and was successful on several occasions in encountering women who worked the hard jobs--but other women, employing privilege, were eligible, or had been made eligible for soft jobs because of the privilege of being female, and having an education that I was not afforded--being lower 'class' male in the beginning of Title 10 era.

I worked because my family didn't own the land--the republican mentioned above worked because it is "what men do", and we worked literally shitty jobs in rural areas for low pay( migrant wages).

Not surprisingly, no women worked beside us. And this is true of the majority of women in America, and particularly white women, as latinas, etc work their fingers into nubs preparing the sheets that the cuckolding white woman sleeps on--equal rights and pay means equal hardship, and equal responsibility, and unfortunately most women--the Oprafied white minions--choose privilege over substance: and that privilege comes to them because they CHOOSE to benefit from the prevailing archetype of woman as subsidized by the hardship of men, instead of actually picking up that axe....

So when you say "holding one member of a group responsible for the actions of all members of a group," I say, *whatever*.White female privilege has been passed down as a tool of entitlement for a thousand years. Blame the Ashkenaz, or bl;ame your self: better yet don't blame me.

and "judging a person on their individual strengths and weaknesses is what each of us can do on an everyday basis to combat this tendency" sounds awfully Kantian to me, but in the newspeak of multi-cultural pseudo compassion "...

But you win, you're right: the stereotype that the politicized white women of the Hillary era portray "whitemen" is accurate--and ok, in your worldview. You win Stepha...er izz.
Happy now?

"the idiocy that is Brabra Walters..."

like a "hammer and a nail," they worked together to create bogus archetypes.

but know one but Babwa is wesponsible fo-uw her idiocy;-)

Hey, now, don't drag me into this. There are a number of issues you just mentioned where I think my disagreements with you are a matter of to what degree inertia versus organization is responsible for the problem and how much they're one issue versus overlapping problems. I'm still sucking my wounds over Edwards being overlooked despite--or because of--being the only candidate to really talk about class. I'm pro-Obama largely because he has the guts to talk about race openly. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary has yet to say anything about anything.

StephZ: I wasn't d_r_a_g_g_i_n_g you into it...I was "cajoling you"
;-)

I like you dug the whole "Edwards discovers class" blip on the screen...and I am with you on substanceless Hillary ( have you noticed todays papers how her core constituent of Jew-baiting New Yorkers have oh so subtly slammed the 'Obama hates Jews' card?)

I like Obama because he has avoided the major broad blanket stereotype laden discussion about race that fruitloops like Sharpton wanted to have.

But while I got you here?:" to what degree inertia versus organization "

of what? and how?

izz: "Once again you are holding one member of a group responsible for the actions of all members of a group"

That's leadership, man.(note the use of 'man')Shit rolls uphill, and real leadership is a shit eating job...

You cajole with a sledgehammer, dude. Haven't I been accused of enough sock puppetry for a while?

Let's see, inertia: taking offense before evaluating what's being said; seeing people's reactions to you in light of identity instead of circumstance; parents buying the same toys they played with as kids, encouraging traditional gender roles; girls still not being encouraged to get dirty or sweaty; relying on someone to do things instead of asking for directions and trying; assuming that fathers have less interest in their children (although there is frequently malice involved too--they're divorce cases after all) and the assumption by fathers that they won't get custody even if they ask; joining the established causes instead of asking what most needs to be done. Lots of inertia all around.

It's hard enough to get people to order something other than the usual when they go to McDonald's. Asking them to think about something uncomfortable...well, how much luck have you had? It doesn't take organization around a topic to cause problems. Feminists--white feminists too--do challenge lazy thought on all sorts of topics. No, not all of them, not all the time. Even I can only engage in so many battles at once, you know. But I do battle.

Another things you'll see is that the people addressing these issues may not loudly label themselves as feminists, even though they are, because the label has been misused (ahem). If they work on custody issues, they may be called child advocates. Class issues; progressives. Biased laws and sentencing; legal reformers. Just because they've chosen a broader (less tarnished) label doesn't mean they're not feminists. It also doesn't mean they won't bristle when you start talking about part of their identity--even if you don't mean them. Cause we all get lazy sometimes.

Enough rant for today?

StephZ: Inertia?!!! How dare you call me uninirritiatated! I resoundingly refabricate that conundrum, and villify the very perfrereactoratory fallibillity of that monumental misnomerist perception!!@#$

*Show me the evidence!*...see I told you so,[ in a whisper] Steph Z is actually blankety blankety....

"encouraging traditional gender roles" yeah, i have a better idea: lets dress little boys up like girls, like many women do( it's so cute!), and then say "well he put the clothes on himself..." and then step back and act surprised when the boy grows up confused or into a "gay identity" , and say " I don't know if its genetic, or what...!? He was always just like that (whatever 'that is')

But I am with you on that whole identity formation thing...

"It also doesn't mean they won't bristle when you start talking about part of their identity"

yeah: white men have all the power.Nope, wait let me revise that "men haver all the power"...er..."it's a patriarchal world..."...darn it...where did I put that broad brush of mine? Better yet: where did I get it from? Is it really mine?

this one stuck out at me: "the assumption by fathers that they won't get custody even if they ask"

How about this never before aired assumption: the assumption that men even want kids in the first place before they encounter cajoling women who leverage sex for babies against males ill equipped to recognize that primary female coercion?

and "there is frequently malice involved too"--yes, I would even hypothesize (and others have as well) that women seeking babies in the first place is a primary act of female agression--so from the very start malice is involved--that of objectifying men as sperm donors and then bread winners.

"girls still not being encouraged to get dirty or sweaty" primarily because many mothers like to play dress-up all day with their cute lil' human dollies, instead of participating in the day to day creation of sentient human beings...

"joining the established causes instead of asking what most needs to be done"
Yup, and yup.

"Asking them to think about something uncomfortable...well, how much luck have you had" harharharhar...did you like that last feeble attempt over at the g-d mother and country-school society?

"may not loudly label themselves as feminists" aha! my best pals Never use the feminiSS label--and are stronger for it. Maybe some re-tooling at the schooling level of 'how to build alliance' rather than all of that knee jerk defiance? It isn't my fault that the idiots who wage social wars are unaccountable to each other for the misuse of what we used to call "doing the right thing," and attempting to "own" the dialogue with rhetoric.

But, yeah, enough FOR NOW...;-)

"I'm gonna get me a [sledge] hammer and a nail, learn how to uUUuse my hands..."

I am such a feminist;-)

For the record, I'm pro-confusion.

Of course the "you" talking about their identity could just as easily be me talking, although I suspect (just an idea, you know) that I'd phrase things differently. Direct confrontation has an annoying tendency to entrench positions. I also suspect you're perfectly capable of picking up and putting down that broad brush when you see fit, whomever it belongs to.

As for kids, if men are really trading kids for sex, someone needs to have a little chat with them. You'd think by now they'd know what kids can do to one's sex life. Really, I see some of what you're talking about, but rarely. More often I see more inertia ("But everyone has kids." "It's just that time in our lives.") with somewhat fewer examples of joint forethought and planning.

And, oh, there's more, but it's getting late. It's not like the topic won't come up again, I think.