HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Betty Karlson » Journal
Page: 1

Betty Karlson

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 5, 2009, 02:37 PM
Number of posts: 7,231

About Me

The alert-stalking is reaching disgusting levels. I'm done with this site.

Journal Archives

There is plenty she can do to win my vote.

But paying lipservice to something she will abandon at the first chance she gets isn't one of them.

Here is the key-word for winning my support: UNEQUIVOCAL.

You want my vote? Then I want to be able to trust Clinton.

You want me to trust her? Then she has to become unequivocal in her championing of positions I hold dear.

And that would start with the big trust-winner of them all: "I was wrong".

For Clinton to win my trust, she has to say, clearly, that she was wrong to oppose my marriage rights, and EXPLAIN why she changed her mind. If that is "I changed my mind because the polls changed" I might not like the answer as much as an "epiphanous moment", but at least I would know that she is for once speaking the truth.

For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "I was wrong to promote the TPP, and here is why" and explain what she will do to bury that piece of sovereignty-undermining corporation-coddling.

For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "I was wrong to give signs to Wall Street that I was for sale, and take bribe-sized speaking fees from them. From here on, my Wall Street policies will be copied straight from Elizabeth Warren's recommendations. Here are some examples, which I promise to implement IN FULL! And while we ladies are at it, I promise to let Bernie have a field day with Citizens United."

For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "Third Way is over. It should certainly not presume to rule the Democratic Party anymore. Which is why I have asked president Obama to dismiss the current useless chair, and appoint someone not in the pay of laon sharks and prison industry to replace her with immediate effect."

For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "I was wrong on Iraq, wrong on Syria, wrong on Libya. I took the wrong advice from the wrong kind of so-called friends. I disavow those friends, and from hereon, I will take better advice, specifically from such-and-such."

I could go on, but you get my drift. For Clinton to win my vote, she'd have to start disavowing the things she did wrong. "but we must look forward now and by the way I have ovaries" will not woo me.
Posted by Betty Karlson | Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:52 PM (64 replies)

Dear Mrs Clinton: some well-meant advice from an irrevocably lost voter

Dear Mrs, Clinton,

in regards to your hagiography of Mrs Nancy Reagan, you flimsy twitter-pology, and your belated elaboration of excuses cited here:


may I please point out to you why this is not quite going to cut it? Let me first point out a few talking points that irked a bit in their context, and then suggest what your next (and hopefully sincere) attempt at apologising should sound like.

Your elaboration sounded like a very cleaver speech-writer did his or her best to give everything the most positive, Hillary-centered spin. Unfortunately, there is nothing positive about any subject involving Nancy Reagan and AIDS. Furthermore: this is not about you. It's not even about your campaign. So that speech-writer of yours has served you ill, or you ignored his/her best advices. Only you can tell which.

To begin with: the me-too tone. "I lost friends too" - yeah but you still looked at gay people as inherently inferior to yourself until 2013, Hillary. "I lost friends too" gave you as much insight into the plight of the LGBT community as George W. Bush had when, as a Texas politician, he assured a gay assemblyman that "I have gay friends too, so this is nothing against you personally", and then did what he did best: marginalising our community.

No denouncing of the Reagan's role in the AIDS dialogue ("just let those queers die out", only the admission that "they don't deserve the distinction of having started the conversation". They were just a few of "MANY in power who turned a blind eye". Hey, anyone did it right? (Were you, Little Mrs Me-Too? If so, how about a full admission that you were wrong at the time, and explain what - belatedly - made you change your outdated views?)

We "continue a fight together" - by shifting attention away from the way the LGBT community was effected (which the Clintons did very little to help) to Sub-Saharan Africa (where there are way more infected heteros and way more homophobes, so of course the Clintons are helping).

"This issue matters to me deeply" - hence my praise for the bitch who wanted to let the gay cancer work its genocidal magic. It's a mistake any true ally of the LGBT community could have made, right? I'm sure Bernie made some mistake too. Please someone try to be hurt by something Bernie actually said!

"If not for those advocates, activists, and ordinary, heroic people, we would not be where we are in preventing and treating HIV and AIDS. Their courage  and their refusal to accept silence as the status quo  saved lives." - So please vote for me: the status quo candidate par excellence! Let me be silent while you do the talking and the work.

"Slowly, too slowly, ignorance was crowded out by information. People who had once closed their eyes opened their hearts." - Except for me me me, because I was busy pandering to Reagan Democrats or whatever those aging DINO homophobes are called these days.

"Silence = Death" - I know that, which is why I acted as a hagiographer for the woman who deadpanned the conversation AIDS victims were desperate to start.


Mrs Clinton, if I may give you some well-meant advice:

This stupid and over-the-top hurtful offense of yours has ripped open all the old wounds. DOMA DADT, "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman", the whole record of vile bile you have campaigned on until 2013.

Halfheartedly admitting that the Reagan's do not deserve the distinction of starting the conversation on AIDS is hardly going to cut it, nor the "I have gay friends too / lost someone too".

If you want to reassure the LGBT community, you must understand that reputations come by foot, leave by horse, and return on their knees.

What little reputation you had ( "she will get things done" sped away on a derby-winning stallion yesterday. (Or was it a unicorn? Anyway, it's miles over the horizon now, and still accelerating. Because all those old wounds were ripped open too, you see?

If you care to win back your reputation, instead of taking gay votes for granted or writing them off like the millennials, consider this:

Make a speech with the core message: "I was wrong. Now I know better."
Make a speech where you denounce DADT as utterly wrong. Say how you have learned better.
Make a speech where you denounce DOMA. Just say Bill was wrong to sign it and wrong to campaign on it. He threw the gays under the bus; you must throw him under the bus. Gently, if you want to, but you must denounce his 1996 actions. Then you must say how wrong you were to support him in those actions, and what made you see the error of your ways.
Move on to marriage equality. Say why you were wrong to denounce it as recently as 2010, tell us what was your moment of epiphany, or when the first doubts started emerging in your mind, or whatever the process was that reshaped you bigoted mind into something palatable to the modern voter. You can even weave in some great feel-good story about your joy in 2015 when the gays won th right to marry in all of the USA. I mean, according to your twitter account you were overjoyed, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to remember how momentous that moment was for you personally?

Get that all into one speech. "I was wrong; now I know better."

And then say how dreadfully sorry you were for that offensive remark. Denounce the Reagans. I'm sorry, but you'll have to throw that ugly-hearted gay-hater Nancy under the bus too. Denounce her silence.
And as for yourself, Mrs Clinton: don't just make some noise. Make sense.


A very angry Betty.
Posted by Betty Karlson | Sun Mar 13, 2016, 02:14 PM (80 replies)

Zimmerman, sociopathy, and systemic failure

A full 1/6 of all people have a degree of sociopathy.

Your colleagues who do as little as possible while always shifting work to the colleagues they later blame for the mishaps: a small degree of sociopathy.

Zimmerman, bragging on Twitter about his ability to shoot a teenager, exhibits a rather larger degree of the same affliction. (See this thread here

But what worries me is that there are systemic shortcomings in the structure USA society that seem to encourage that behaviour rather than discourage it:

Scaremongering against fellow Americans (PoC, Latinos, gays)
An educational system that allows such scaremongering to be embedded into the lessons
Ready availability of weapons
Worshipping of vigilantism (Batman, Iron Man)
High degree of heteronormativity in conjunction with 'masculinity' expressed through one's ability to overpower someone else
An economic system so rich in volatility and income disparity that it breeds violent discontent
DU'er Politicub added the following observation: the U.S. labor market - with the increase in temp and contractor jobs - tips the scales in favor of those who treat people like playthings to be thrown away at will.

And the list goes on and on.

We need systemic changes. Lots of them.

Zimmerman is not an outlyer - he is indicative of systemic failure.

DU'er JustAnotherGen suggested that my response in the thread cited above be turned into an OP of its own. While I seldom post OPs, I am happy to oblige.
Posted by Betty Karlson | Fri Aug 28, 2015, 02:04 PM (31 replies)
Go to Page: 1