She disabled the comments on her Speaker blog. I wonder why. Probably because thousands of people were heading there to do what I went there to do: tell her what a coward she is.

I usually use the preview... [sigh]

My intention of this statement was meant to mean that I believe the group should be held responsible for the individuals who caved to these monsters.

That is all I meant.

If I conciously or unconciously adopt a syntax that seems outside of a specif lexicon--then so be it.

Language is power--adopt the enemy's basic rhetorical tools then turn it against them. (and yes I feel they are mortal enemies).

It is this technique that will sway minds and hearts--nothing else.

This is the most fundamental failure of the Democrats dealings with these people. The "be-nice-to-get-along.." thing has got go becaues it has helped this administration go a long way in getting what it wants.

Neocons (let's be specific here) appeal to to the reptiles in us--that primitive kill or be killed model.

What's more--they know it works and are not ashamed to use it...

Please do not extrapolate my use of this biting rhetoric for a desire to pursue actionable criminality, violence, human debasement, and cruelty. That is just stinkin' wrong.

So, I hope that this helps clear things.

Yours in Peace,

Ed

Trust me, this short piece by Steve Benen is a must-read:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016222.php

You won't be sorry-- you'll just wonder...

Just to be clear, my comments were not directed at Glenn nor were they directed at those who are expressing similar hopelessness.

But there are a fair number of people who talk about incremental change as though we can get the bad guys to operate on a timetable of our choosing. Or that things really aren't so bad that we need to be impolite in our approach. That really, truly if we give them one more chance and say pretty pretty pretty please, they'll understand that gosh darn it, this is kinda important to us.

I'm not advocating punching anyone. I'm saying that even with what we do know (and God only knows what we don't know), that it isn't helpful for any of us to continue deluding ourselves that playing the game according to the old rules (or old beliefs about how things "should" be) has any chance of saving what's left.

If your actual life was on the line right now, this instant, what would you do about it? My guess is (whatever it would be) it would be a hell of a lot more likely to save your ass than waiting for Nancy Pelosi to come to your rescue.

I think that's a lot closer to where we are than many people are willing to accept and that's my point.

In any case, the sense that this is just a parlor game and that we can take all the time we need and not get our hands dirty cleaning up the mess is missing the mark, in my opinion.

-- willbhuman

I don't see many posters here saying anything like what you suggest. We don't think of it as a "parlor game". Not at all, in fact. I'll use we for this post because I think what I'm writing will fit in with many of the posters on this site. We find the "parlor game" approach to be that of the opposition. Like that eejit, shooter. He sees it as a parlor game. We don't.

Also, we don't think "we can take all the time we need and not get our hands dirty". I don't know, for example, what you would call what Glenn Greenwald does on this blog. But I would call it working his fingers to the bone to try and get something done as well and as quickly as possible. He is persistent and paced but constantly working towards long and short term goals for the betterment of America's present and future. Many of the posters here are quite clearly also on it like locusts on corn and are working hard to research and pass on what they learn and know to all who are listening.

It seems that you are advocating some kind of more physical and anarchist takeover of some sort. If so, what difference does it make if you try that now or you try that later. No amount of FISA destruction should have any effect on punching people in the nose. Or however it is that you intend to take over power.

Aside from all the dancing and "if only" points of view being expressed here by people who think history started in the year 2000 and/or are loathe to jettison their emotional ties to the Democratic party, there's something I'm wondering about.

There seems to be a fair amount of "well, if we make this progress in 2008 and replace some certain politicians for more acceptable ones, then we'll be in position for (fill in the blank) at sometime in the future..." My question is, seriously, how much time do you think you have?

I think when one looks at the speed and velocity of how things have been going, that to posit a leisurely timeline in which to turn things around is a sucker's bet. I'd further suggest that the people who are bringing this down on our heads are counting on us being suckers.

My suggestion is to think outside this box. For one, I'm with previous posters regarding a 9/11 inquiry. Six years later, we're still letting them get away with using those events to do anything they want. If it wasn't clear at the time that these people would use literally any awful tactic necessary to achieve their ends, I can't imagine it isn't clear now. Further, I agree that perhaps coming to some sort of closure about 9/11 might really be the only thing that can heal the schism that the fallout from that day created.

In any case, the sense that this is just a parlor game and that we can take all the time we need and not get our hands dirty cleaning up the mess is missing the mark, in my opinion.