(no subject)

[sathor]

A rank 20 national syndicated columnist spewed forth a bunch of vile defamatory comments about Bernie Sanders - even saying that the reason he "isn't popular among latino and black voters" is that he associates himself with a certain african american who has been quoted as saying Obama is a, "rockefeller blackface."

I felt like I was in the twilight zone when I was reading it. Could such a popular columnist be so stupid? Apparently so.

She even threw in that Sanders "had a son out of wedlock" at the end of the article, as a way of harming his reputation. I guess it makes sense being that there's nothing else to attack about him - he's all about helping the common people, whom she obviously doesn't give a shit about.

The fuck happened to journalistic integrity? This was the FIRST column my local newspaper ran even MENTIONING Bernie Sanders. Defamatory claims like that, whether "true" or not, should not be aired in a public forum that is supposed to be unbiased - regardless of whether or not it's a fucking editorial.

I was so pissed, I made sure I said a few choice words on her Twitter. She even favorited one of them - hard to believe. It's almost as if she doesn't realize I'm basically saying she shouldn't have her job (maybe I'm getting that good at veiling my critical comments in positive language?)

Froma Harrop is the name, and apparently, she has a long history of saying a lot of insensitive, politically incorrect bullshit - as well as pissing a lot of people off. Surprisingly, her column is still run nationwide. She was born in New York City, went to a prestigious university, and even worked for the financial industry. It shouldn't surprise anyone that she'd align herself with the oligarchs, then - maybe Trump or a republican super PAC even paid her to write the article?

In other news, I've been looking into taking part of my savings and investing into a wide variety of dividend stocks. I could definitely end up losing in the long run but the money isn't doing any good sitting and I don't really have a personal attachment to it. I don't have a use for it, either - it's not enough to buy a house or retire on (and without huge stock market gains, it never would be.) So taking maybe half of it and investing seems something fair to do. Most of the companies I'm looking at have been around for a long time and I suspect will continue to be around - so even if the shares don't gain much value, or even lose a bit, I'm confident that the dividend payouts will have at least made up for that over years. Quarterly dividends would be a nice supplementary income, and when I do find work, I can further diversify my portfolio as well as continue to save.

I was looking at state jobs, but I'm sorta hesitant - they all require specific placement tests to be taken for the specific job opening - if you don't pass the test or receive the job, you'll have to take the test again at a later date - and they only offer the tests in Pittsburgh (3 hr drive) and Harrisburg (5 hours?) and Philadelpha (6 hours?) - occasionally VERY SPECIFIC job tests are offered in Erie, but that's still 1.5 hours away, easily. What this means is that I would have to, say, pick ONE job opening to apply for, go take the placement test for THAT SPECIFIC JOB at least 3 hours away, one way, and then wait and see my results. Even if I pass, I may not get the job as someone else may have taken the test and scored higher. Which means I get to do the process all over again. It's a pretty grossly inefficient setup considering almost all of these tests are multiple choice, electronic and could be proctored at any government building or university with ease - but they want me to burn hundreds of miles of gasoline to take them...possibly more than once? I don't get it.

So that may be out of the question. The sad part is, there were seasonal semi-skilled laborer jobs for the Department of Conservation open in Warren (and once you have the position, you get it back every year) but they still expect me to drive to harrisburg or pittsburgh to take the test. It's literally the most stupid thing I've ever heard of.

Comments

Reply 1

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Woah, dude, you really need to read that column again more carefully, because that is not what she's saying at all.

Cornel West did say those things about Obama. Froma Harrup said "Everyone is entitled to criticize Obama’s policies, but beating him up in racial terms is crude and unfair. Being black himself does not excuse West from the racial extortion he practices." I certainly agree with that, and she is also correct in saying that Bernie hasn't disagreed with or disavowed West's ad hominem remarks in any way.

Froma Harrup further said "That's the problem with movement politics, no matter what end of the political spectrum they occupy. Movement politics tend to be narcissistic and dictatorial. They allow dissent only within a narrow philosophical band. That constrains the ability to hear through others' ears." Word with extra word sauce! That's been a HUGE problem with all our efforts to bring about a social revolution in this country: the hard-liners, the doctrinairists, the True Believers in the One True Dogma (in all its contradictory forms!) who make it impossible to discuss anything rationally, or agree on a sensible plan of not-perfect-but-good-enough action.

She said: "Sanders has much mellowed since then, but he still inhabits a self-righteous cocoon that has made him an ineffective and marginal figure in the Senate."

Unfortunately true - he is notoriously stiff-necked and unwilling to compromise for the sake of getting things done, and as a result, while he's sponsored a lot of excellent bills, these are the only ones that have passed. This does beg the question of how effective he'd be as President, especially with the GOP controlling both the House and the Senate - because the President has to be able to work with Congress, even if they're obstructing him as much as they can, like the GOP has done to Obama.

"She even threw in that Sanders "had a son out of wedlock" at the end of the article, as a way of harming his reputation."

No she didn't. Did you read her statement in the context of the preceding two paragraphs? "I'm not crazy about the term "white privilege," but there is something to the notion that middle-class whites get a pass on the sort of "bad choices" that ruin black lives." She wasn't trying to harm his reputation - she was pointing out the true fact that because Sanders is a white upper-class male, his reputation is NOT harmed by a life-choice that would harm his reputation if he were anything but a white upper-class male.

She further says "I know that Bernie people are going to howl at me for this unflattering portrait. I ask them how they'd react to Donald Trump's defending race-studded attacks against our admirable president." Well? How would we react? If it's not okay for Trump, it's not okay for Bernie either.

I don't see one single "vile defamatory comment" in that article. Where she says "Boy, are these guys tone-deaf", she's really hitting the nail on the head: that is why Bernie isn't catching on with black and Latino voters, and it's something he's going to have to fix if he's to have any real chance. I sincerely believe that Bernie Sanders would attempt to do more for them than any other candidate out there, but I understand why they might not trust him because he's so, so white-bread - and also, of course, a President who won't compromise on anything will end up being a President who can't actually accomplish much.

(continued)

Reply 2

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Froma Harrup has been a long-time contributor to The Progressive Populist, among other things, so it amazes me that you'd say she's "on the side of the oligarchs". Yes; she's said a lot of "insensitive, politically-incorrect" things that pissed a lot of people off, like calling the Tea Party 'economic terrorists' for their shut-down of the government. Her misgivings about Bernie's campaign are not that he's progressive - they're that he's ivory-tower progressive (which he undoubtedly is) and are shared by a LOT of people who believe in Bernie's principles, but have doubts about his efficacy.

Seriously, read what else Froma Harrup has written. I don't agree with her straight down the line, but she has a lot of sensible things to say, and she is definitely not in the pay of Trump or the Republicans.

Re: Reply 2

[sathor.livejournal.com]

The context is helpful. That was the first and only article my local paper has even run mentioned Bernie Sanders - and it wasn't one that described to any degree any of the reasons why, for instance, poor african americans (or working class people in general) should support Sanders. It just made him look like an insensitive, out of touch politican, when he's the best option for the exact opposite of those characteristics when compared with the competition.

The following day, another syndicated column was run mentioning him again, this time a much more serious and conservative party-line denouncement of Sanders and his brand of socialism. "Higher taxes to fund his programs will destroy the economy and jobs." Mmhmm. Even though empirical evidence proves otherwise.

The day after that (today?) there was another article by Harrop discussing why she thinks the voter ID laws aren't disenfranchisement and how she doesn't see why it's a problem. So I can't say I really trust her, nor do I think she's a progressive at all. Maybe she's worn the title from time to time, but she doesn't strike me as a very empathic person to say the least. She seems insulated and ignorant.

Re: Reply 2

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Consider the possibility that your local paper is cherry-picking columns that support their political agenda, which is why you haven't seen any of Froma Harrop's other columns mentioning Bernie.

I'm looking at her site, and I don't see the column you mention about Voter ID - are you sure that was hers? Got a title for the column that I can search? What I found by Googling was this article:

"It's obvious that Republicans are pushing rules that discourage poor populations — people who tend to vote for Democrats — from voting. And it's no coincidence that enormous waits have occurred at polling places used by poor people and students, another largely Democratic voting bloc.

The problem comes in proving that the rules and long lines were intended to suppress the vote. Some cases are blatant, such as the Texas law requiring identification for casting a ballot that may include a concealed-handgun license but not a student ID or voter registration card.

Voter suppression usually hides in fuzziness. Consider the challenge to North Carolina's voting law now before a federal court. Civil rights groups argue that by shortening the period for early voting, the 2013 law was intended to suppress the African-American vote. That may well have been the intention, but try to prove it. North Carolina counters that the voting law changes apply to all."

I think she's a genuine progressive. Being a progressive has nothing to do with whether or not a person is empathetic; there are just as many narcissists and assholes on the Left as there are on the Right. I don't see that we have enough information about Froma Harrop to make that kind of judgement about her personal character - the woman is a political journalist; that's not a job in which anyone wears 'kid gloves'.

Alas, I really must agree with what she had to say about Bernie. I still intend to vote for him - and maybe she does too - but there's no denying the fact that his campaign does have some serious problems, and there are some very valid questions about how good a President he'd make - especially with both branches of Congress packed with Republicans. I wish we had some better choice than either him or Hillary 'The Lesser Evil' Clinton, but we don't.

IMHO, election reform is one of the two crucial issues facing our nation (the other being environmental protection.) But election reform is not going to happen through people sitting around wishing someone else would make it happen for them! Froma is absolutely right in saying "Inconveniences aren't mountains" - and 'getting out the vote' has been the cornerstone of progressive politics for over a century, so it's perfectly congruent with the progressive viewpoint to tell people to stop whining and start organizing.

Re: Reply 2

[sathor.livejournal.com]

S'funny you should mention not having options. I think for two terms now, we've had the same woman for our district in office. Nobody else has even been on the ballot. A republican, who receives 1/2 of her dead husband's IUOE pension, but has worked heavily to destroy unions and is pro "right to work." (still hasn't passed in PA...luckily?) Gerrymandered district and nobody else has the money to campaign against her anyway. Even if they did, most people here vote republican to secure their gun rights. Which reminds me - I think democrats and progressives could pick up a lot more votes if they just left gun control alone, and if they finally pulled some more people in, maybe they could start moving the conservation in the right direction. I think the consensus in this country will change as the generations after me - who grew up well connected to the internet and technology - grow older.

Yeah, we probably don't have enough information to condemn Harrop - but it doesn't mean I don't think she should be a little less harsh on what amounts to the ONLY candidate who isn't a corporate lackey. It makes me think that's /she's/ one, because like you said, there really aren't any alternatives - so why bash the one real progressive we have? It's not helping the cause of progressives to do so.

Re: Reply 2

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"Gerrymandered district and nobody else has the money to campaign against her anyway."

Exactly - that sort of thing is the reason why we need election reform first; because nobody can win a rigged game, and people with sense won't even try. The Citizens' Equality Act of 2017 makes a lot of sense, even though I think Larry Lessig is smokin' crack with his 'Referendum President' notion.

I don't know whether Froma Harrop favors Sanders or Clinton, but my guess would be that she's torn between them for the same reasons I am. Yeah, Clinton is a corporate lackey and my opinion of her policies is not so great, but on the other hand, she stands a much better chance of winning against the GOP than Bernie does. Under our current election system, having a strong independent candidate in the race creates a serious danger of splitting the vote: if half the Dems and progressives vote for Bernie and half for Hillary, we will have a Republican POTUS in 2017.

With that in mind, I don't think it's being too harsh on Bernie to point out the reasons why he's not reaching the voters he has to reach in order to have any chance of winning. If he doesn't have a chance of winning, then he's actually harming the progressive cause by running, because Hillary does have a chance of winning, and much as I don't like her, I'd FAR rather have her as President than Jeb Bush or Donald Trump.

Have you heard of Voltaire's aphorism, "The best is enemy of the good"? Bernie's got great principles, no doubt about it, but his very unwillingness to compromise them makes him ineffective at working with people who don't share them. A lot of the time, he's 'preaching to the choir' - pitching his message to those who already agree with him - rather than giving people who haven't yet made up their minds any reason to decide in his favor. He makes it way too obvious that he believes himself to be Occupying the moral high ground in all things, which comes off as sanctimonious, and is also highly *suspect* in a rich old white guy from rich white-bread Vermont.

The problem with being put on a pedestal is that it's a long way to fall. Having made such a big deal of his claim to the moral high ground, Bernie is really vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy, and I don't think it's being too harsh on him to point that fact out. His condoning the blatantly-racist insults of a wild-eyed wing-nut like Cornel West is unstrategic at best; political suicide at worst.

Froma Harrup gets bashed all the time; mostly by fanatic conservatives - seriously, Google "hate Froma Harrop"; you'll see; people say truly horrid things to her for her opinions, or what they assume to be her opinions after 'selectively' reading her words through their own emotional filters. She called the Tea Party 'economic terrorists' for shutting down the government, and took no end of shit for that. I say she was 100% right there - that's exactly what they are - but I also think she was right in what she said about Bernie Sanders: he does need to get a clue about some things.

Gun control

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

The gun control thing: y'know, Washington is a Blue state; has been for a long time now, and nobody has come to take their guns away from our hunters and ranchers. The whole idea that the guv'mint wants to disarm The People (so we can't have an armed insurrection when 'They' inflict Stalinist socialism on the USA) is 'Deer Hunting With Jesus'-style propaganda-fueled paranoia. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, which supports the right to bear arms as part of a 'well-regulated militia'. We HAVE a well-regulated militia: it's called the National Guard.

Gun control isn't a major issue for me. I'd like to see the same standards for firearms licensing, registration and insurance as we have for cars and drivers: the only people who'd lose by that would be the gangs and the firearms manufacturers. However, the firearms manufacturers own the NRA, and the NRA keeps up a steady stream of fear-mongering, so until election reform puts a curb-bit on lobbyists, I doubt it will happen.

Ever notice that the states which are most opposed to progressive politics have the worst conditions? Poverty, crime, lack of health care, teen pregnancy, child abuse, domestic violence, environmental destruction, beatings and shootings by police... all of that is the price of people voting Republican to secure a right that is in no danger of being taken away. Oh yeah, and to keep people they don't like from having abortions, getting married, or using the same bathroom as them, on the totally-batshit premise that Jesus doesn't like those people either. What was that quote about "people mostly get the government they deserve"...?

Re: Gun control

[sathor.livejournal.com]

Alexis de Tocqueville...nice quote. Someone I probably haven't read enough (or any) of. I had a livejournal post that was almost identical to that quote a month or so ago - guess it's just a rational conclusion, nothing magical about it. The majority gets the government it deserves, and I'm not sure "Good" has ever been a majority in this world.

All those things are absolutely true about my area (minus crime rate and police beatings.) Of course, I think they tend to be true across the board. Cities are almost always blue, but they have the highest crime and poverty rates of anywhere (if I'm not mistaken - cities might tend to have less domestic violence/teen pregnancy/enviro destruction though) My area is fairly red - doesn't mean a democrat couldn't get a elected, but like I said...it's all about the "gun control" and fear...very few people around here could actually articulate what they don't like about progressive politics besides guns and "deficit is too big because democrats." Their votes are simplified that much. I'm sure you know what I'm saying.