Drew P. Balzac
There's a saying that's been attributed to Socrates: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." It's a false attribution, but the wisdom in the saying still holds. That saying has resonated with me quite a bit during this primary season.
Doctors aren't exactly praised for their bedside manner. Now a particular doctor who spoke at a Sanders rally, Paul Song, has stirred some anger because of an abrasive choice of words he used. Song made a reference to "corporate Democratic whores," and, not surprisingly, Clinton loyalists wasted no time using it as opportunity to accuse the Sanders campaign of sexism.
It was a poor choice of words for sure, though it should be kept in mind that there's a definite difference between using the word whore to slut-shame a woman and using the same word very metaphorically to shame men and women alike for being sellouts. Either way, though, it was a potentially triggering and awful choice of words, and Song owes people and apology (and Sanders, appropriately, has already issued one).
As awful as it was, though, it doesn't characterize an entire base of supporters. Nor does it characterize Sanders' platform or record. What I find telling is that you never see the same sort of thing coming from the Sanders camp to deflect criticism against him, or to shut down conversations about his positions. He's Jewish (if not religiously, at least ethnically), and if you look at the Wikipedia article on anti-Semitism, you'll read about these two stereotypes about Jews: "Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies [and] Jews bring disaster on their 'host societies' or on the whole world." One could easily argue that accusations that Sanders is "not really a Democrat" resonate quite a bit with the former. Accusations, furthermore, that he is sowing division in the party resonate quite a bit with the latter. Clinton also commented recently that she "feel[s] sorry" for young Sanders supporters who have been wooed by his promises of free tuition and other social goods--implying that he is full of empty promises that can never become political realities. One could say that resonates with the stereotype that Jews are out to cheat other people, especially non-Jews. But I have yet to see anyone from the Sanders camp cry anti-Semitism as a convenient dodge.
Maybe the difference is that Sanders supporters want this election to actually be about substantive issues. They want to debate policy, not personality. And they'll let policy differences speak for themselves instead of resorting to accusations of prejudice to win anyone's loyalty.
On a different note, here are some excerpts from Voices From the Other Side: An Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba by Keith Bolender.As Henry Kissinger explained while expressing his support for Reagan's terrorist wars in Central America, "if we cannot manage Central America, it will be impossible to convince threatened nations in the Persian Gulf and in other places that we know how to manage the global equilibrium"; to translate into English, we will not be able to rule the world effectively--always for the good of mankind, by definition (xii).
Until then Cuba will remain the modern day embodiment of St. Ignatius Loyola's perception: "In a besieged castle all dissent is treason" (17).
One of the most effective weapons in the terrorist's arsenal is the frightening sense of randomness. The inability of knowing where the next bomb might go off, who else may be tortured and killed, instills fear in the entire population. It is an irrational fear based on actual events. These acts are designed to inculcate the nervous anticipation that the next assault could take place anywhere, anytime, against anyone. It is the sense that these attacks are being aimed against the average person that is terrorism's most effective weapon. The unpredictability leads the population to demand security from their government, and the government to offer it in increasing doses (17-18).
Doctors aren't exactly praised for their bedside manner. Now a particular doctor who spoke at a Sanders rally, Paul Song, has stirred some anger because of an abrasive choice of words he used. Song made a reference to "corporate Democratic whores," and, not surprisingly, Clinton loyalists wasted no time using it as opportunity to accuse the Sanders campaign of sexism.
It was a poor choice of words for sure, though it should be kept in mind that there's a definite difference between using the word whore to slut-shame a woman and using the same word very metaphorically to shame men and women alike for being sellouts. Either way, though, it was a potentially triggering and awful choice of words, and Song owes people and apology (and Sanders, appropriately, has already issued one).
As awful as it was, though, it doesn't characterize an entire base of supporters. Nor does it characterize Sanders' platform or record. What I find telling is that you never see the same sort of thing coming from the Sanders camp to deflect criticism against him, or to shut down conversations about his positions. He's Jewish (if not religiously, at least ethnically), and if you look at the Wikipedia article on anti-Semitism, you'll read about these two stereotypes about Jews: "Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies [and] Jews bring disaster on their 'host societies' or on the whole world." One could easily argue that accusations that Sanders is "not really a Democrat" resonate quite a bit with the former. Accusations, furthermore, that he is sowing division in the party resonate quite a bit with the latter. Clinton also commented recently that she "feel[s] sorry" for young Sanders supporters who have been wooed by his promises of free tuition and other social goods--implying that he is full of empty promises that can never become political realities. One could say that resonates with the stereotype that Jews are out to cheat other people, especially non-Jews. But I have yet to see anyone from the Sanders camp cry anti-Semitism as a convenient dodge.
Maybe the difference is that Sanders supporters want this election to actually be about substantive issues. They want to debate policy, not personality. And they'll let policy differences speak for themselves instead of resorting to accusations of prejudice to win anyone's loyalty.
On a different note, here are some excerpts from Voices From the Other Side: An Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba by Keith Bolender.As Henry Kissinger explained while expressing his support for Reagan's terrorist wars in Central America, "if we cannot manage Central America, it will be impossible to convince threatened nations in the Persian Gulf and in other places that we know how to manage the global equilibrium"; to translate into English, we will not be able to rule the world effectively--always for the good of mankind, by definition (xii).
Until then Cuba will remain the modern day embodiment of St. Ignatius Loyola's perception: "In a besieged castle all dissent is treason" (17).
One of the most effective weapons in the terrorist's arsenal is the frightening sense of randomness. The inability of knowing where the next bomb might go off, who else may be tortured and killed, instills fear in the entire population. It is an irrational fear based on actual events. These acts are designed to inculcate the nervous anticipation that the next assault could take place anywhere, anytime, against anyone. It is the sense that these attacks are being aimed against the average person that is terrorism's most effective weapon. The unpredictability leads the population to demand security from their government, and the government to offer it in increasing doses (17-18).