MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
They left no doubt what they think of women
By AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/07/2018 - 2:54pm |Jennifer Rubin, WaPo earlier today
.......
You cannot say a party that embraces a deeply misogynistic president who bragged about sexually assaulting women and mocked and taunted a sex-crime victim; accepted a blatantly insufficient investigation of credible sex crimes against women in lieu of a serious one that the White House counsel knew would be disastrous; repeatedly insulted and dismissed sex-crime victims exercising their constitutional rights; has never put a single woman on the Judiciary Committee (and then blames its own female members for being too lazy); and whips up male resentment of female accusers is a party that respects women. Its members resent women. They scorn women. They exclude women. They use women to maintain their grip on power. But they do not respect them.
What’s worse is that Republicans who would never engage in this cruel and demeaning behavior themselves don’t bat an eye when their party’s leaders do so. Acceptance of Trump’s misogyny — like their rationalization of the president’s overt racism — becomes a necessity for loyal Republicans. If it bothers a Republican, he or she dare not say so. One either agrees or ignores or rationalizes such conduct, or one decide it’s a small price to pay (“it” being the humiliation of women) for tax cuts and judges. It’s just words, you know.
The Republican Party no longer bothers to conceal its loathing of immigrants, its contempt for a free press, its disdain for the rule of law or its views on women. Indeed, these things now define a party that survives by inflaming white male resentment. Without women to kick around, how would they get their judge on the court or their guys to the polls?
Women with this ordeal seared into the hippocampus of their brains will vote in November. Women are expected to forget or move on? I don’t think so.
URL:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/10/07/they-left-no-doubt-what-they-think-of-women/?utm_term=.1075f55b8c98
- Add new comment
- 9038 reads
Comments
Republicans see white men as victims. The Republican base supports this view.Trump wanted the Central Park Five executed. Despite exoneration by DNA evidence, Trump still considers the men to be guilty. Remember at the time White House official Pat Buchanan said that then sixteen year old Kharey Wise should be hung.
Pat Buchanan wrote that 16-year-old Wise should be "tried, convicted and hanged in Central Park." Politicians and columnists of all political stripes would rail against them.
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56107913&itype=cmsid
The GOP is the party of the white guy. The GOP controls the White House, Congress, and the federal courts. Kavanaugh is on the court to support white male rights.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 10/07/2018 - 11:32pm
Your link is to a 2013 review of Ken Burns' 2012 historic documentary that was an effort to tell the true story of the Central Park Five occurring in 1989 and the years after. I don't get the use of the reference here.Why not just go further back and bring up lynchings too? To simplify everything into good vs. evil stereotypes where everything is always the same and the goods and the evils haven't changed a wit is to think like a conservative.
Edit to add: A valid point could be made that "Pitchfork Pat Buchanan" was considered a renegade populist like Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, in opposition to the establishment and neo-con Republicans, and their side has won. And all of them pandered to racism as part of their populism, and the neo-cons and establishment GOP would rather not do that. But you're not making it. You're stereotyping and therefore adding to the divisiveness. Don't think non-racist Republican voters and swings don't realize this when this sort of stereotyping is done. Like in North Dakota.
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 7:23am
Thanks for voicing your opinion.
The bottom line is that the GOP is the protect the white guy party. Susan Collins fell into line. Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. The GOP has been voicing white guy anger for decades hence the Buchanan reference. I could have brought up Lee Atwater.
Hopefully, there will be enough voters appalled by Trump and the Republicans to put wind under the sales of Democrats. Democrats have to double down on outreach.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 7:25am
I felt the need to voice my opinion here in particular because you were pointing to Ken Burns' work, a strong believer that nuance can set you free and extreme partisanship can be a road to hell. I felt the need to speak to his P.O.V.
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 7:48am
p.s. I also feel strongly that at this point in time, if Dems are going to play identity politics culture wars to win, they better get a whole lot more sophisticated at it real quick and certainly not by pushing the simplistic meme that "all Republicans are racist white men". That's not going to fly with educated suburban women. Stoking simplistic divisions by stereotyping is not going to cut it, it will be seen as insulting to intelligence of the swing voters who are crucial here and can also easily be played by smart strategist I think you hurt the cause you purport to support with this kind of stuff. I've felt that way in the past, but I feel more strongly now for the election in a month.
That you find it romantic and minority neighborhoods that are already blue are energized and will get out the vote is like: delusional about winning the race for a Dem majority in the House and Senate. A legitimate argument can be made that long term that would be a good thing, but it's not going to help right now, it is likely it's going to hurt, the other side is gonna figure out how to use it to their benefit. Remember that everyone thought Hillary won, they know how to play swings.
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 8:40am
We saw Republican economics crash the Kansas economy. We saw black and brown babies kidnapped at the border. The majority of the country thinks that Trump is a racist. Hopefully, swing voters note this and will show up to the polls.
Reality check: I am posting opinion on a blog. There is zero impact on any election.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 9:21am
And so a factually dense column about the specific recent treatment of women by Republicans is turned into a thread about race and an endlessly reiterated assertion about the One Way to Win Elections.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 10:48am
Ah well, Jennifer Rubin is neither black nor liberal so what she says doesn't need any serious attention, you see?
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 10:53am
Except maybe when she talks about race, depending on what she says.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 10:56am
AD, the column is about inflaming white male anger.
From the article
—-
The Republican Party no longer bothers to conceal its loathing of immigrants, its contempt for a free press, its disdain for the rule of law or its views on women. Indeed, these things now define a party that survives by inflaming white male resentment. Without women to kick around, how would they get their judge on the court or their guys to the polls?
Anyone not a straight white male is the target. The other groups are linked together as a source of the anger.
—-
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 11:08am
The NYT has an op-ed that suggests white women are willing to use white privilege to maintain positof peer. The article addresses Susan Collins and Kellyanne Conway. I’m not the only one who sees race at play in this saga. I don’t see how it can be ignored
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/lisa-murkowski-susan-collins-kavanaugh.html
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 11:40am
rmrd, much of what I write about here has to do with people who are, in important ways, "not like me": women, people of color, people who are struggling in this US economy. Heck, I call attention to race. I am not defensive about being a white male. White maleness confers numerous real and superficial advantages on me, (it confers disadvantages in my contexts at times as well: I am not sure you would be open, even, to trying to understand. And no I do not feel sorry for myself. I do not whine about any of this and only very rarely will even talk about it.) In my real life, my day job if you will, and wearing my hat as a citizen who tries to be engaged, I have long been actively seeking to do things to address these and other kinds of injustices. I think of myself as someone who all things considered you would probably want to build a bridge to as a possible ally. And yet I am regularly turned off by your rhetoric.
Far from opening up possibilities of building bridges with people with whom you share some political common ground--as I am certain William Barber would--too often, you alienate. I am put off when I think I see white male defensiveness. I recoil at special pleading and white male whining and entitlement of the sort we just saw on full-frontal display.
Yet I just have to scratch my head and wonder: if I respond to some of what you write in the way I do, how must other white males, and others who are not black, who you sweep underneath that ginormous broad brush you paint with? Actually, I don't have to wonder.
You may think what I just wrote is code for: black people really need to be quiet and not push black issues. That is not what I am saying. At all.
Consider carrying someone else's flag on occasion instead of constantly competing to win the victim Olympics. Consider--perish the thought--actually disagreeing with a black person's action once in a while just to show you are capable of and willing to do so. If you continue to treat racist vs. non-racist in the binary way you do, and attach totalistic significance to that distinction in your mind, I doubt you are going to feel very pleased with the results. White males do not all wear horns. Black people, nor others who are not white males, do not all wear halos. The former are not all oppressors. The latter are not all and only victims.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 12:20pm
Here is Dr William Barber on racism in the GOP in a segment on AM Joy
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/21/1734763/-Reverend-Dr-William-...
Here is Barber white supremacy in religion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/11/23/the-raci...
The Republican Party is a clear threat to the country. I post about the fact that a majority of whites voted for Trump.That is obviously not all whites.
Regarding the need to disagree with blacks, I suppose that you weren’t around when I criticized Cornel West or a former frequent poster, Wattree.
Most of my white Liberal contacts make identical comments about white Republicans. Most of the white Republicans I encounter may not like Trump’s style, but agree with his policies. I still try to come to some middle ground with them, but the best I often get is that both sides do it.
Apparently you have the solution to convert Republicans. From what I see, they find their own line of disgust and make a switch on their own.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 1:27pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/heres-where-democrats-are-really...
One doesn't need to "agree with Trump on trade" to connect with Trump voters who were drawn to Trump's criticism of NAFTA and other trade deals. There are progressive approaches to fair trade which are not protectionist. See Jared Bernstein for example.
Progressive Democrats can seek a hearing with some Trump voters by putting (especially) clean energy sector infrastructure job creation, public where necessary, front and center and making clear who is standing in the way. Such proposals hold strong appeal for voters struggling to find living wage jobs with decent benefits across racial lines.
Challenging Republican opponents who are just fine with labor laws overwhelmingly stacked against workers who want to forming labor unions is another possible angle.
My views on immigration, which are a bit fluid, put me towards the center rather than the left of public opinion on those issues. One can acknowledge validity in rule of law concerns about illegal immigration from the many who find such practices offensive--and also hypocritical coming from a party that talks a lot about the importance of rule of law. Beats the hell out of calling everyone who has concerns about illegal immigration a xenophobe or a racist.
Brown has credibility with constituents in Ohio who've been hurt by bad trade deals.
I also support some form of national or community service requirement that allows for non-military options. As is the burdens of military service fall heavily on non-affluent people. All of us, regardless of our means, owe something to this great country. Rich kids should not be exempted. There is social class-based resentment on this issue which I believe is justified. Supporting such a position takes courage--but it might earn one some criticisms which are actually helpful in establishing a stance of presumptive respect for all Americans, regardless of their standing.
You asked. I think there are many possibilities which are not being tried, in red and purple areas in particular where the modern Democratic party has some reputational hurdles to overcome with some voters who have not had a favorable opinion of the party for some time now.
by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 10/10/2018 - 11:43pm
I don’t think Brown was ever in danger
https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/new-poll-shows-sherrod-brown-way-ahead-ohio-senate-race/IjYsRi22klFqKRLIFORJgO/
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 12:11am
AD is correct; Brown is not in danger because he knows what is required to be in and stay in that situation in Ohio (wikipedia):
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 1:16am
Testor, McCaskill, and Heitkamp aren’t radicals either, but they face serious Republicans challengers.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 12:31pm
always! that's the point, you can't win in those places as a 100% liberal Dem, you've got to moderate to the constituency preferences somehow
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 12:35pm
The point is that they are moderates and they are losing
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 12:47pm
Sherrod Brown is viewed as one of the most liberal senators. He doesn't run as a liberal. He talks about and has a record of trying to do things about issues his constituents care about.
If McCaskill, Tester, et al. run a campaign saying "I'm a liberal! Vote for me!" that isn't going to help them in their states. Most voters don't care a whit about labels. They want to know if you understand their concerns and, sometimes, what, if anything, you indicate you are committed to trying to do about them. Sometimes, in our day, it seems to be enough to win an election if enough voters think you sufficiently hate or are opposed to the people they have been taught are the evil villains. Need I say more.
The whole moderate vs. liberal model is hopelessly flawed.
Does supporting fair trade make one a liberal? Who cares? Pundits and commentators get all wrapped up imposing their own narratives, involving their notion of what a "liberal" or a "moderate" is and looking for generalizable lessons depending on who wins about whether "going moderate" or "going liberal" is the one way to win elections for the candidate or for a political party. It's amazing to me how many very smart, engaged citizens get carried along with that.
By and large voters just do not care about any of that. To the extent they do, if a candidate or their opponent succeeds in labeling them a "liberal" in a state that is not liberal, that candidate is more likely to lose. Any candidate with any brains, and any hope of winning, will not run a campaign in such states with a message "I'm a liberal." Some voters will treat that as a reason to vote for their opponent, even as many voters the candidate may be trying to reach will yawn and say where's the beef, I don't care about labels. What can you do to help ameliorate stuff I'm dealing with or that aggrieves me?
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 1:13pm
Testor, McCaskill, et al are willing to compromise to attain goals. Their voters seem to want partisans.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 1:25pm
It could be as simple as their stand on abortion. Especially for Heitkamp. That single issue is of overwhelming importance in some states with huge numbers of evangelicals.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 2:29pm
nope.not at all. How do you think they won in the first place, for chrissakes. Just the opposite. You seem to go and seek out little points to confirm your own myopic biases. For statewide votes, you have to look at the culture of the state. Look at Ohio governors, for example. Kasich is always thinking of going Independent. They had a Dem before that and Republicans before that. Rust belt and farming is their basic identity if there is any.
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 3:00pm
I’m addressing the situation in 2018. Testor, et. al. made no major changes in position.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 3:15pm
Check for how many registered Independents are in each state in question and get back to me on how partisan people are there. I just googled and checked registration of Independents in Ohio and it has soared, non-partisans are the majority there, for one example. Don't mistake the divisiveness of anti-Trump vs. pro-Trump with political parties. Your record on political analysis gets more dismal with every comment you make, you seem only to be up on what the myopic tribe at The Root says.
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 3:23pm
Brown was never in danger. Brown is willing to compromise. Brown is winnng in Ohio.
Testor is willing to compromise. Heitkamp is willing to compromise. McCaskill is willing to compromise. Their stances be it abortion or other issues hasn’t changed. In those states pure Republican partisans have the advantage. Voters are favoring those not willing to compromise.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 3:35pm
Brown was never in danger? Oh baloney. He's been near the top of the list of senators the GOP has been trying to get rid of for years. They have poured big money into his races to try to knock him off.
If you're acknowledging that they all compromise, then why did you bring up relative willingness to compromise among the four as some sort of distinguishing and relevant factor?
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 4:50pm
Brown has a significant lead in polling now.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/12/ohio-senate-race-poll-2018-governor-815787
Brown won 51 to 45%in 2012
Brown won 56 to 44% in 2006
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 5:11pm
As aa said, how do you think he won those races?
If you buy that Ohio voters are notably non-partisan--and I don't have evidence I would need to have a thought on that either way at this point--then how do you explain the fact that he has been able to survive with one of the Senate's most liberal voting records despite being a major target of the GOP?
On the theory that says "moderates" and "centrists" always have the edge over those closer to their party's wings in swing or less partisan states, you'd think all Ohio Republicans have to do--if they can--is nominate someone they can dress up as a "moderate" and they'll blow him away, right?
His stance on trade is part of it, I believe. But not the whole of it, by any means. He gets support from a Barber-like coalition. His is an existence proof that you can do that and win in a swing state, one that has been trending Republican in recent years.
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 5:53pm
See below.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 6:02pm
That particular tally counts as non-partisan individuals who registered with a party but did not vote in their party's primary.
I don't know how to make sense out of this one piece of information, and certainly not without looking at apples-to-apples tallies in the 3 other states using the same methodology.
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 4:47pm
I don't know what that means.
Every legislator who wants to get anything done compromises. There are better and worse compromises, compromises that move things closer to what the legislator is working towards and those that do so to a lesser extent or perhaps not at all. There are legislators who drive a harder bargain and are more effective at mobilizing maximum support for better versions of legislation closer to what they want to accomplish. Ted Kennedy was highly effective in that respect, regardless of whether one approved or disapproved of his views.
There's a word for legislators who do not compromise: ineffective. At least insofar as changing public policy in any particular direction.
As to the statement that their voters seem to want partisans, I'm also not sure what you mean by that and what leads you to believe this. I'd venture to say that many of their voters would welcome any sort of help in addressing matters of concern to them. Someone who seeks their vote can offer ideology. Or partisanship for its own sake. Or else they can try to understand the practical concerns of their constituents, connect with them, and communicate what they will seek to do about those concerns if elected.
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 3:30pm
I haven’t seen a trend of Republican candidates who feel bipartisanship is not a dirty word. Voting Republican has come to mean not voting for someone who will reach across the aisle.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 3:51pm
I think it is actually a miracle how liberal Brown has been able to go on nearly everything else as long as he continues to flog protectionism. He must really connect and seem caring and take care of individual constituent problems and bring home pork, ala "Senator Pothole" type, like D'Amato could do for NJ, and get away therefore with being conservative.
Also I am reminded of the 2008 presidential primary between Obama and Hillary, when they got to Ohio, I recall there was this huge brouhaha where each was competing to prove they really weren't free traders at all, to disavow their own white papers on trade and to call the other more of a free trader.
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 2:59pm
No-paywall link to Dionne's column for those interested: https://www.arcamax.com/politics/fromtheleft/ejdionnejr/s-2134168
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 11:32am
In regards to the issue of infrastructure, I think some of those who voted for tax cuts could be made aware how that makes local and state work more expensive. While the G.O.P. is taking advantage of their position to spend like trust fund babies at a crack house, there must be a few remnants of a tribe once referred to as "fiscal conservatives" out there in the woods.
In addition to arguments about costs and what stimulates the economy, more messages could be made like this from Mike Kelly, who observes that we actually need the things that are falling apart.
Rust belt, rust belt, is that some kind of fashion accessory?
by moat on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 11:39am
Thanks--appreciate your comment as always.
by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 11:50am
It alludes to inflaming white male resentment. You insist on giving far more emphasis to race than Rubin does. I disagree that that is primarily what this column is about. You are going to make anything you read about inflaming resentment against white males, full stop, no qualifiers, no nuance.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 12:26pm
I don’t see how you mention resentment with the racial aspect
Edit to add:
Rubin previously spoke about racism in the GOP
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/12/the-enable...
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 2:15pm
On the Senate barricades in North Dakota, here's how the meme is currently being worked by both sides, just reporting, not opining:
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/08/2018 - 12:00pm
Heitkamp is losing. If the majority (the 67% alluded to in the Hidden Tribes study) of the country wants a person willing to compromise, why are Testor, Heitkamp, and McCaskill losing?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 1:00pm
Response to AD above
Brown compromise s. The other candidates compromise. I am unaware of Republican candidates who are running on a platform of bipartisanship. The Republicans will be pro-Trump, or risk being labeled RINO. In race where Democrats are willing to compromise, but their opponents are not willing to compromise, voters are willingly choosing hardliners.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 6:06pm
FWIW, Nate Silver just now on Heitkamp:
by artappraiser on Thu, 10/11/2018 - 9:24pm