I think classical Republicanism makes some good points, but is willfully ignorant of an awful lot.

Neo-Con economics is a total sham.

Free market solutions:

-doesn't a free market require trust-busting so money and power aren't consolidated in a few big monopolies?

(isn't consumer choice supposed to be an important part of free market competition?) Where is Teddy Roosevelt?

-why should human citizens be rugged individualists who get no social services for their tax money while corporations get massive amounts of welfare?

Deregulation:

All these rules about not pouring poison in the groundwater, not giving no-bid government contracts and bilking consumers with deceitfully structured, extortionary loans get in the way of profit.

Again, it's the taxpayer who pays to clean the water, suffers from drinking the water, and bails out the speculators who have hurt society as a whole by screwing up the economy (where's their personal responsibility?).

Suppose you went out of town. I threw a giant party at your house and charged admission. When I left with a fistful of dollars, your house was destroyed. When you complained, I told you to stop being a victim and accept personal responsibility for your actions. On my way out: can you loan me 100 more bucks? I'm pursuing a new biz opportunity.

If McCain doesn't understand econ, his lobbyist campaign folk certainly do, and will gladly write his platform for him.

Basically, their not-so-clever trick is the same as always: divide a complicated world into a set of either/ors and claim that anyone who doesn't whole-heartedly endorse their entire philosophy is a scary fascist who wants to steal your money and your freedom.

A lot of them honestly buy into this blatant illogic with religious fanaticism; it's creepy. Complete compartmentalization.

I'm a fan of hard work, healthy competition, realize the market can be a powerful thing, and I do value free enterprise, for the record.

Good point. There has been a lot of historical tension. And surely there were racist feminists and also non-racist feminists who cared about civil liberties for black people too but were willing to concede to an imperfect step forward.

It's all very tricky, and understandable why lots of different groups felt and feel that their support is being taken advantage of, that they're alwasy being asked to "wait their turn."

But I think all of us progressive/human rights types have a lot to gain from working together.

or just to replace the Boy's Club with a Girl's Club?

ok, you say, that's an interesting abstract point, and no I obviously don't want to create a society oppressive to men; besides we're so far from a Girl's Club that it's moot.

could you say the same thing about black people?

i think it does matter.

maybe all this pairing up and and balkanizing into narrow interest groups doesn't help people's issues like health care for poor children, women, and men; stopping the war; etc.

This particular call for a broader perspective on the debate isn't at all intended to demean anyone's legitimate issues/concerns.

i get it. i'm a dude, and i get frustrated that many young women today speak with derision of "feminists," and buy into the Limbaugh caricature of feminists as loony kooks, especially when they're taking advantage of and taking for granted all the rights feminists struggled so hard for

it's great that these young women have these rights, but we're a long way from post-patriarchy, and we shouldn't take them granted

that said, it's also pretty insulting to tell young voters that the freedom achieved comes at the expense of not being able to exercise their own judgment, that their top criterion for selecting a candiate MUST be biological gender

on the general subject of what style of officiating is best of the game (purity vs. entertainment, etc.)...

does any else—even though you love drives and dunks—secretly wish they'd call the jump-stop traveling?

me, too, and I'm done.

but that's succinctly put.

Is the advancement of women more important than the advancement of blacks?

-- Kelly Q

Nicely said. They're both important! But they're not the only groups in the country (and Obama, like so many of us, isn't just one thing, but a product of the American Melting Pot). I'm excited that we have two strong Dems extolling equality for all people!

text

"There's something deeply wrong with a presidential candidate who attracts so many of these hateful psychotics."

because right-wing blogs never attract bitter hate-speech?

frankly, who would be surprised if this whole thing was a right-wing plant?

strawman, guilt by association, poisoning the well...

neat

with lots of knowledgable comments and no yellin

and didn't take advantage of them

and they'll get more chances, too

and kobe does normally get more than his share of calls

and the Truth spoke

i'm just saying from my non-partisan-wanting-to-enjoy-the-game perspective that it would've been more fun if the refs let em both play or called em both tight

it's easy to hate the glitzy lakers and the notoriously arrogant kobe, and maybe even think they're getting their (sorry Phil) karmic come-uppance. i get it

yeh, good points, and i agree that the one kobe complained about didn't look bad at all (at least from my angle)

but that said, and just for the benefit of argument, if you can consistently hack drivers in the lane without getting called, it won't hurt your interior defense

(and I ain't sayin the Celt can't legitimately play smothering defense, because they clearly can)

anyhow, LOL!:

"(3) David Stern has installed buzzers in the referees pants which go off every time a Laker player breathes on Ray Allen

Pandyora"

weird vibes, aye?