dagblog - Comments for "Saturday Night Rant"

It has never been more clear

Dan Kervick — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:37:06 +0000

It has never been more clear that the political strategy of Republicans and neoliberal Democrats is at its core a joint movement to neutralize and destroy the egalitarian and leveling impulses of the traditional left, and make sure those ideas never again play the role in American life that they once did during the postwar heyday of the New Deal and organized labor. They would rather that we endure 10% "structural" unemployment for years rather than give an inch on undoing the Reagan revolution, redistributing wealth and approaching our economic problems in the same way FDR would have approached them.

And it's clearer than ever why this is happening: the people who create conventional wisdom in this country are personally threatened by egalitarianism and redistribution.

Democrats have been told the eschew and disdain class warfare, and aim at some purple state "lift all boats" magic. But Republicans and corporate-owned Democrats fight the class war on a daily basis - and keep winning it.

This egregious expression of

wws — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:23:53 +0000

In reply to (No subject)

This egregious expression of affection was intended for Destor.

(No subject)

wws — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:06:03 +0000

In reply to Yup, that's what I meant.

Yup, that's what I meant.

Michael Maiello — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:06:23 +0000

In reply to Destor:When you say "I

Yup, that's what I meant.

Of course gender can be a

David Seaton — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:12:02 +0000

In reply to I agree with you, David, that

Of course gender can be a component of poverty. A single parent home, with a working mother (of any race) with only a highschool diploma is surefire recipe for child poverty.

One of the ways in which the

Beetlejuice — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:37:00 +0000

In reply to Saturday Night Rant

One of the ways in which the public is kept from seeing common problems and acting on them is the deceptive art of distraction. Just recently...past few weeks no less...there's been a big furor over Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While it's an importanrt issue that needs to be discused, it was used to purposefully distract public attention away from where it should be focused. I'm sorry but the economy and job creation are far more important at this point in time. Unfortunately, DADT was effective at distracting public attention and thus cooled public angst at Congress's inability to address the issues above and beyond Party rhetoric. Simplistic talking points serve no purpose other than to molify public anger serve no useful purpose in debating the issue, but that's all the public is given and no choice but to accept lack luster performance with deviations and distractions thrown in to keep the public intellectually off balance and confused.

Any blog that attempts to

Elusive Trope — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:35:35 +0000

In reply to Saturday Night Rant

Any blog that attempts to deal with, at a minimum, race class and gender is going to invite an almost too broad approach. I understand your point about poverty being the primary driver which as a society we need to focus. One has to look at early childhood education stats to know that the area one needs to approach if one is too approach any area is poverty.

Yet I will, for simplicity sake, I will address gender. There is more than just the simple acts of discrimination based on gender. It goes to the core of the idea of how we understand who we are, as individuals, and as a nation. Not to promote my own blog, but I would turn to the suicide of Billy Lucas who was tormented because he didn't fit into the dominant paradigm about what a male is, what masculinity is. And the very fact that those tormented him believed they were in the right to torment him shows a prevailing paradigm of the heterosexual patriarchy is all to embedded into our collective consciousness.

I would argue that any hope to deal with the issues of poverty has to be based on the idea that we need to undermine this paradigm. We cannot move forward, enlightened, if we continue to ignore our overall collective understanding of the world and how we come to understand as Judith Butler would put, the bodies that matter.

Destor:When you say "I

wws — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 21:14:10 +0000

In reply to I suspect that the race and

Destor:

When you say "I suspect that the race and gender divides were largely designed to convince the majority white population that the real bad stuff was all happening to some one else...."

then I think you were typing so fast that you skipped a pivotal word. Because -- think about it, please -- you can't have "gender divides" and also, in the same sentence, allude to "the majority white population..." Eh?

So that surely what you meant to write was: " I suspect that the race and gender divides were largely designed to convince the majority white MALE population that the real bad stuff was all happening to some one else...."

David: I am perplexed; how is

wws — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 21:08:00 +0000

In reply to Here is an interesting link

David: I am perplexed; how is this a response to the comment I made? We may be in agreement but, if so, I need your help to see how.

Combine your focus -- class -- with race and gender and what you get -- not only per class, but also per ethnicity -- is women, on their own, with children -- at the bottom of the economic pile about which we are concerned. Because women with children have more expenses and responsibilities than do men who, comparatively, either do not have children or who walk away from their responsibilities to them.

One might think that it would be black men at the bottom. I know I did, having read all the articles, over all the years, about joblessness, and rates of incarceration, etc. But that is precisely why I ask that you read Collin's book. There are surprises contained therein and, among them, is the economic advantage gained by exercising the perogative (whether constructive or destructive) that is still asserted by men, to women, in which women did and still do collude.

So tell me, please -- what am I missing in your message?

I agree with you, David, that

wws — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:57:34 +0000

In reply to I am not saying that race,

I agree with you, David, that class inequities are, and have been a serious issue in American society. But I also agree with Atheist, who has a really good point -- regardless of class or ethnicity, job for job, women still earn less than men do and still have more household/childcare responsibilities. Their healthcare costs more and they receive less social security. Forty years after the big effort, there is still not an ERA.

NYT op-ed columnist, Gail Collins, has written a wonderful new book: American Women: 1960 to the Present which, like her columns, was composed after careful research, then rendered in her easy-going, good natured style. I urge all of you -- male and female, to read it. You will learn something new, in every chapter, I promise.

I know I did. Which surprised me -- because I've read and, in some cases, met Friedan, Millet, Steinem, Faludi, Wolf et al. So I thought I was really informed about the facts to which this book refers -- after all, Collins is talking about the era in which women my age grew up, went to school, faced choices about career versus marriage, made those choices, sometimes reversed them and ended up where we are today. But apparently, there was a lot I missed that Collins covers: the role played by black woman activists in the late 50's and early 60's, as only one example.

For some of you -- David and Dick, for example -- this is a book about the experience of your female peers as compared to the experience of your mothers. For those of you who are younger -- Destor, Genghis et al -- it is about your mothers, aunts, older sisters. But no matter how young you are, there is probably no one blogging on Dag who has not experienced, even vicariously, much of what this book covers.

Please read it? And then weave your conclusions into threads like this one. OK?