Okay, I was kind of in a bad mood and being a dick. When I said the lower classes, I didn't necessarily mean the poor--class isn't all about money, it's also about taste. But even that isn't really an excuse on my part because then what I was saying was "people with lousy taste have lousy taste" which is inane even by internet standards.

That said, here's a story: I live in an extremely blue-collar town and when I went to view what is now my apartment, which had been vacant for several months despite very reasonable rent, I found this gem of a well-maintained 1930's apartment--dark varnished wood fixtures and cabinets, art deco ceiling lights--like, freakishly wonderful, something you'd pay $3000 a month for in Toronto. But as the landlord was showing it, he was sort of defensively placing himself between me and these wonderful antique cabinets and saying, now listen, don't worry, I'm going to be ripping these out and putting in new cabinets before anyone moves in. Apparently the yahoos who rent in my town were all turned off by the old wood fixtures and wanted stuff that was more "modern" i.e. formica cabinets from Home Despot.

This is in the same town where there are tons of nice old houses that have had their wood or shingle siding pulled off and replaced with vinyl--the cheapest grade of vinyl, no less, always the gray or taupe stuff. Yes, I know vinyl is cheap but these houses also have two snowmobiles and an ATV and a travel trailer in the yard. They're lower-class, not poor. There are just too many people out there who, given the choice, will spend their extra money on boneheaded motorized toys and cut costs by vandalizing our heritage. I have to look at their shitty vinyl houses and listen to their muscle cars and their goddamn hollywood-country music on public-address systems and there's just no bloody escape from it. Maybe there has always been a majority of people with lousy taste but they weren't always empowered to impose it on the rest of us. Okay, now I'm pissed off again so end of post. Guess where my handle comes from? ;)

with its connotations of drive-by shootings, cowardly punks who will only take shots at you from inside the getaway vehicle.

Unfortunately, the media is structured so that that's all you have time to do.

Limbaugh shouldn't complain. At least with a drive-by, in a few seconds they've moved on. If the media were designed to do things right, they'd pull up, park, get out and spend three or four hours (metaphorically) beating you to death with tire irons.

Would somebody or somebodies explain to me why an uptick of new home sales means the economy is improving?

Fair warning: I'm kind of being Socratic here. I'd like to understand the logic underpinning that assumption because I don't really agree with it.

I'll check this letter thread for responses in the next day or so.

... but that's never stopped me before.

I don't know the first thing about Creigh Deeds--he may have two heads, one of which eats babies for breakfast, for all I know--but he's a better choice than McAuliffe.

It means that Democrats are starting to get it: stop running candidates who don't know the first thing about winning elections.

I'm Canadian, live in Canada.

Our single-payer health care system isn't perfect. There are long waits for surgery and getting in to see a doctor can be a real pain in the ass.

I have never experienced the American system but have spoken with many people who have.

Based on what I have experienced, I would not trade the Canadian single-payer system for anything like what they have in the United States. Almost everybody I know in Canada says the same thing. The few who feel differently, tellingly, are rich enough that in the U.S. they would be able to buy care that is better than what the Canadian single-payer system provides.

In 2001 I had a life-threatening (but non-cancerous) tumour removed from my stomach. Three weeks in the hospital (including the five-day wait for the surgery.) In the United States this would have bankrupted me. Here, it cost me nothing except the three weeks' lost work time.

Actually it would be well on its way to being worse.

That segment of the Republican base that really, really loves the shit out of Sarah Palin is also the part that doesn't like McCain and also feels entitled to use firearms in a very direct way to veto presidential elections.

For those people, there would be no downside to McCain eating a bullet.

First, Reich's comment:

"The only practical purpose I can imagine for the bailout is to slow the decline of GM to create enough time for its workers, suppliers, dealers and communities to adjust to its eventual demise..."

And that is a perfectly reasonable tack to take. The automobile industry as we know it has no future because the automobile society as we know it has no future.

Secondly, the idea that the left is being unreasonable in piling on... Look, Obama may or may not want to get certain things done but his ABILITY TO DO SO will be enabled or constrained by pressure from the electorate. If the Left just goes along with whatever he says, while the Right constantly pressures him for compromise and half-measures, then the pressure is only coming from one direction. But if there's a big chorus of voices saying, "No, don't rule out public single-payer health insurance" and "No, quit giving money to Wall Street and start putting it towards real programs" then Obama will have the backup he needs to do those things.

You try being President sometime, see how long before you start again.