I understand what you're saying, but I don't think reparations are really possible here. In other reparations cases, the payments are for crimes committed in a particular time. So we have one set of people committing crimes against another in a time of war--and then after that war, a court issues penalty for those crimes. There's no 'war' per se in this case. What we'd have is one period of history bringing tort against another--effectively, it would be the present suing the past, society in one point in time demanding payment for mistakes we now understand. I just don't see how that is possible.
What we can do, and what we have done for about two decades now, is take 'reparations' and look for ways to translate it into a social process. So, in the turn of the 20th century through the 1950s we have the emergence of a middle class in this country due to certain government actions. Blacks didn't benefit due to the inequalities put in place in the situations you describe. So, in the 1980s we create social programs that go back and set in motion the same transition to middle class for blacks that everybody else started a century ago. And that works, more or less, albeit far from perfectly. So, 'reparation' takes the place of scholarships and admissions policies and hiring practices and assistance funds, etc.,that over time favor the growth of a black middle class. And that's just one attempt.
The challenge, then, is to keep finding the arguments and insights and solutions to bring about a complete translation of 'reparations' along those lines--which could take decades, and which keeps getting derailed because conservatives think it's just a big joke and undermine it whenever they can.
I mean...it's a strong piece of candidate advocacy, but it's not accurate in its reading of the state of the framing in this race.
The framing has not been 'ceded' to the Republicans by the Clinton camp, which is not to say that the comparison to McCain is good politics. It's actually very bad politics by the Clintons for obvious reasons. On that much I agree.
But...it's the McCain camp that's been ceding ground to the Clinton frame--and for some time. McCain started doing that in mid-February when he put the 'ready on day one' phrase on his website, thereby stepping head first into a frame that Clinton pushed after Iowa.
How are Republicans trying to frame this race? The frame the right is pushing involves the use of violent rhetoric that defines Obama as an internal threat to the survival of this country. It is not new framing, having been advanced by right-wing pundits and politicians for the past 7 years. So far, the Republicans do not control the framing in the election, although they are trying to do that by pushing a violent frame up from right-wing punditry and media.
If people are serious about pushing back against right-wing framing in this election, we need to do the work--which takes time and cannot simply be plugged into tautological arguments that end up with '...and that's why the candidate I don't like is ruining everything.' I'm not knocking people's choice to advocate strongly for a candidate--I think that's very important to do. But it's not framing analysis, which by definition requires a slight distancing from initial preconceptions about who one wants to win.
even though I occupy the third category that shall remain unnamed: not advocating for either (oh, the shame of it).
But it also makes me wonder: Aren't all campaigns negative?
That is to say: the message of every candidate running for office is always the same 'elect me because I'm good and my opponent is bad.' The question isn't if it's negative or positive, but how deeply we invest ourselves in the morality of those positions--whether we push ourselves to believe that a person deserves to win because they are good and, therefore, the opponent is an immoral force--a force against good.
That's the terrain of reification and it's difficult to recover from that once we veer onto it.
if everyone can still read the diary? It's censorship to not be on the popular list anymore?
It's called editorial prerogative. Jerome is an editor on this site. He can edit any way he thinks is best for his readers/users. Anyone at anytime can disagree with those choices, but it doesn't make it 'censorship.' And if someone does not understand the difference between an editor and a dictator, please--they should ask for help so that they can understand, not accuse good people of crimes.
But there's another point that needs to be made, here. This decision by a few zealous folks at dKos to defend KO (who needs nobody to defend him, and did not ask anyone to defend him) and to attack Jerome and by extension all of MyDD is a complete waste of time when there are urgent things happening in the world. Please just stop. And I write that as someone who spends a great deal time and energy contributing to and participating at dKos.
If anyone has come to the conclusion that MyDD is an enemy of democracy or is somehow undermining free society, then they need to step away from the laptop, eat something more nutritious than Funions, and maybe go outside for a walk. Get some fresh air for goodness sakes. Then, once the blood is circulating again, sit back down and apply that boundless energy to something that actually makes sense.
None of us would be here having these conversations where it not for this site. MyDD has done more to restore deliberative democracy in this country than anything since the rise of newspapers. And that fact has not changed because a diary was demoted from the rec list.
I don't see any understanding of the term "anti-Catholic in what you wrote--just the same perversion of it along the lines of Donohue's phony arguments. Sorry, pal, but if you think speaking back to Church dogma is "offensive," then you are as ignorant of Catholicism as Donohue--despite your claims otherwise.
And frankly, I've had enough with people who hide their attacks on Democrats behind fraudulent claims about defending Catholicism. It's dishonest.
My sense is that this is not about Edwards, but it happened to Edwards. So for better or worse, the ball is in his court.
I just want to reiterate that point because this is both a challenge for Edwards and a chance for him to lead. If he leads, it makes sense that the netroots should back him. If he does not lead, then it makes sense that the netroots should back the candidate who does.
Either way, this is only the first of many such moments to come, and in each case--for each candidate who is tested--the reaction will be similar.
So, while I support what Chris says--completely--I also am pulling for Edwards to step up and lead on this one. Because I want our candidates to take down the Rethug slime machine. I want Edwards to "stand up," get on TV, stick it to Donahue, stick it to FOX, and show that nobody pushes around his staff or intimidates his supporters. I know he can do it.
And this is not because I am for, against or indifferent to Edwards. It's because I want these thug smear campaigns--and the politics of fear they bring--to end.
Does MyDD pay travel expenses for front page bloggers? If so, how does it break down (e.g., does MyDD pay for air, meals, and lodging or just tickets a per diem etc.)?
Does MyDD accept travel expenses from outside sources (e.g., candidates, interest groups, etc.)? If so, how does this work? Does the organization pay MyDD and then MyDD pays the blogger, or are you all free-agents who get paid directly.
When we make a donation in response to a call for a donation, does it go to MyDD and then MyDD pays out to the person who needs it or does it go directly to the person who needs it? Or is it case by case?
I've been curious about this stuff for while, so I thought this would be a good place to ask.