Anonymous (August 3, 2006 8:26:12 AM) said:

"

"Conservatives just cannot understand that workers ARE consumers and you can't bankrupt (fire, downsize, offshore, rape, etc) workers without hurting consumers!

No wonder we're heading for a recession where the majority of American consumers simply can't afford to buy anything!"

Conservatives can and do understand that. But they also understand is that in a globalized world, where barriers to trade and investment are consistently being reduced, they don't need US consumers to make their wealth; they now have world consumers. As our middle-class is hollowed out, the middle classes of the developing world are burgeoning. But wait, there's more! The lower classes in the developing world -- BILLIONS of them -- are starting to get enough income that multinational corporations can earn profits off them that make the profits they prevoiusly made from the US consumer look like chump change.

The anti-union, anti-worker policies of the current administration are combining with the trade policies of several administrations and the varous tax restructurings (which, since the 80s, have been shifting the tax burden off the corporations and the wealthy, and onto the middle and working classes), all to the same end: the further enrichment of the asset-owning classes, and the further impoverishment of everyone else. I truly do not know how conservatives can keep a straight face when they accuse progressives of fomenting "class warfare" and the "politics of greed." They've been waging class warfare on us for decades, and we're losing.

Of course, I'm not an economist. If I'm wrong in any of this, I'd love to be corrected by anyone more knowledgable; given the stakes, I'd really rather be wrong than right.

But my Daddy had an interesting saying: "The good thing about being a pessimist is that if you live long enough, you're eventually proven correct. But the better thing about being a cynic is, you don't even have to live very long."

Good call, writing that headline in the past tense.

Let's hope that in four more days, we'll be able to use the past tense permanently for Holy Joe.

Then again, we all know he'll probably get a show of his own on Fox, or some other soapbox that's even bigger than before. But at least he'll be an EX-Senator (and probably an ex-Democrat, too) by then.

I got nothing to contribute to the discussion except these:

Normally I'd agree with Mr. Biddle and the other poster upthread who pointed out how wonderful it can be, once you get past the breakup pain, to stay friends with your exes, if you can. If you loved them enough to be with them, you lose a lot if you can't stay friends.

But in this case, I'm with the other posters who have pointed out that the married ex-fling was, in fact, married. You don't need friends with morals that flexible. If they'll cheat on their husband and children with you, they're not going to be any more trustworthy or reliable as your friend, and probably a good deal less so. Behaviors can change; character rarely does. (Not to mention the possible damage to the husband and children, if they knew or suspected. They don't need -- or "deserve" -- that in their lives.)

I didn't think that was a useful enough observation to bother posting, though, and I wouldn't have, if it weren't for this:

Jonathan Mason August 3, 2006 11:50:21 PM EDT said: "Sex is sex, and love is love, and rarely the twain do meet."

Not helpful. Too many people out there think this is how men in general think -- possibly because there are a large number who do. But a large number is not a large proportion. Obvious we-are-not-a-monolith caveat aside, neither I nor any of the men I know, straight or gay, believe this, or anything like this.

Jon, Zeke, since you so clearly know what it is that the world is crying out for, and what this for-profit corporation SHOULD be bringing to its audience, why don't you create some content of your own, and stream it on the net? Since you make it clear that you look down on mere materialism and the profit motive, you wouldn't have to be sullied by such things -- you could be PURE, and noble, and all that.

So why aren't you doing just that? If a few kids with a website can create the first generation of "Spare Change" for just $6,000, what's your excuse?

Could it be because you recognize that when Mtv did, in your eyes, try to do something more to your taste, they weren't making any money? ("we had influential content, influential music, things were changing, but we had low, low ratings ... Back then, our steady diet was a lot of leading-edge stuff, and not a ton of people were watching.")

In other words, you seem to clearly accept the reality that, if Mtv hadn't chosen to evolve as they did, they very possibly wouldn't have survived as an enterprise at all. And the reality that if you were to try to do something like what you're suggesting that Mtv should be doing, you'd probably be broke in no time. But hey, you'd be pure! Wouldn't that be enough?

It's real easy to spend other peoples' money -- and time, and energy, and talent -- pursuing one's goals. Not so much when it comes to one's own resources, though.

That was "LOOSE Change," of course.

"Spare Change" is the name of a weekly newspaper written, published, and sold on the street by homeless and recently-homeless people in Boston and Cambridge.

Just so's you know it wasn't random stuipidity. (My stupidity is anything but random.)