Ok, first of all, I agree with others here that this whole issue of who is or is not working class is silly, so what I'm about to say has no bearing on whether Obama is a "working class hero."

That said, Rose, you write: "before you can be a working class anything you first have to work at something."

Are you suggesting that making one's way through law school (Harvard, no less) and achieving the post of editor of the law review doesn't qualify as "work at something?"

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that somehow the only labor that qualifies as "work" is physical labor.

Are you?

I did pick up that note of optimism the first time. You're right, the story is ultimately a hopeful one!

I don't really have an opinion, because I don't really know enough about the purpose of the superdelegates, the history of their invention, etc.

But, as I understand it, if their function is precisely to serve as some sort of filter, check or safeguard in the process, then yes, of course they should draw on their expertise (such as it is) to correct for anomalies, egregious lapses in voters' judgement, as they see it, etc.

All premised, of course, on the idea that this is their function.

Whether their "supervisory" function is ethical to begin with is another matter.

Also, while we're on the topic, didn't I hear that Obama actually transferred to Columbia?

Meaning he went to a "lesser" (i.e., non-Ivy League or whatever) school first, essentially "working his way up" to Columbia?

In other words, he didn't just coast from Andover to Yale to Harvard or any such thing, right? He actually worked to go to those schools, unlike our current Flunky-in-Chief.

(Exhibit A for why white privilege harms all of us.)

Economic: -7.12

Social: -7.13

Fwiw.

Cheers! As far as I'm concerned, the whole point of a technology such as this one is to engage with one another, to actually work through differences of opinion to a point of, if not consensus, than at least mutual respect.

As for the white privilege thing, well, if we're to take seriously Obama's challenge (and I do and believe we should), we *have* to talk about these things.

One reason I'm attracted to Obama is his "Ask not what your country can do for you"-type empowerment.

He calls on *us* to work at mending fences, recognizing that the resentments and animosities that make us so easy for the right/corporate interests, etc. to divide and conquer can only be overcome at great personal effort.

We must *struggle* to get along. We are all of us called upon to do our bit.

Transparency is prerequisite to this end, and so I applaud you, red, for proposing this exercise!

I know! The One Party State thing most certainly was.

:)

Thanks for the recommendation, I've not seen it.

Agreed about the dangers of binary thinking.

Imo, that's the essence of fundamentalism, whether one be Christian, Muslim, atheist, or whatever.

Fundamentalism is grounded in the ethos of yes/no, which is why (to use the example that leaps to mind), these so-called "new atheists" (Hitchens, Dawson, and that other guy, Sam- whoever) are every bit as preposterous as the theistic fundamentalists they lampoon.

Thanks for the other recommendations. I think I saw Ran and/or Throne of Blood years and years ago, but all I really remember is the imagery, which was like nothing I'd ever seen.

As to Dawkins, yes, I probably shouldn't have lumped him in there. I've gotten into arguments with other of my online friends about him, but in fairness, that was based on one lecture I saw, which to me seemed superficial. Again, in fairness, I have a background in religious studies, so that's kind of where my critique comes from.

The thing all three do have in common is that all three seem to set up fundamentalism or an otherwise simplified view of what they think religion and/or God is about, and then knock down the straw man. Their critiques are valid as far as they go, but I don't think any of them offer anything to religious studies as a discipline. Of course, religious studies doesn't argue about whether God exists or not, but rather tries to understand the nature of religion in social-scientific terms, so the question of existence is really not relevant.

So maybe that's my problem: the conflation of "religion" with "belief in God."

I also, to be honest, kind of think that the need to disprove the existence of God is as "fundamentalist" as the need to prove the existence of God. Meaning, they've so polarized the debate that it's basically between "radical atheists" (or whatever you want to call them) and religious fundamentalists or zealots. The whole spectrum of conceptions and beliefs and ambivalences between those two poles is simply left out of the discussion.

Like Wright, they make the mistake of presuming belief is static. In reality, one can have moments of belief (awareness of the presence of God) followed by periods when there is no such awareness, and God seems distant or even non-existent. This sort of "hide-and-seek" relationship with God is probably a lot more common than both fundamentalists and hard core atheists might think.

In short, it's more productive to analyze faith as more dynamic than static.