Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You'll understand that, while it wasn't addressed to me, this caught my (ever roving) eye.
So, you're saying that I'm a traffic accident that you can't tear your eyes from?
You're snarky enough...
How would you govern?
How would you fix everything?
Tell the people who want to hear.
I have better things to do.
Is that New Age-y enough for you?
(I'm not New Age-y either. Guess what, I wouldn't fit into any of your little smears.)
Or how about this:
*Take Care*
...Obama needs no enemies. The pathetic hero worship displayed by GBT is the kind I'm used to from the Bush followers. Sad to see the mindless fanatics exist everywhere.
I can tell you what "progressive" means to me (and perhaps many others): decent, reasonable access to healthcare; a living wage; a reasonable and respectful approach to the Constitution and Bill of Rights (and by respectful, I don't mean adoration--rather, a respect for the law); a refusal to torture, render or engage in ridiculously lethal and expensive wars.
I'll stop there.
I think the term "progressive" replaced that of "leftist" because the latter came to be associated with stuff like welfare, out-of-wedlock marriage
So basically "progressive" is like liberal, only with a good "fuck the poor" thrown in for good measure. That's what I thought. Oh and screw minorities, too. No mention of civil rights there, not even gay marriage ("Out of wedlock marriage" I can't even begin to comprehend, it's too complicated for me.)
So progressive is even worse than I thought. Thanks for letting me know. BTW, screw all that "decent" and "access". Who pays for the health care? Are you so progressive you can't say that.
"Progressive is turning out to be just what I thought. It's liberalism for people who are afraid of conservatives and only care about themselves. And "ridiculously lethal and expensive wars"? If you know of another kind, please let the US government know about it. It could save many lives.
Yup, it's liberalism for people who want conservatives to approve of them. Contemptible! It's liberalism as envisioned by conservatives.
#49 of 100
(of Ever-Ever land i speak
sweet morons gather roun'
who does not dare to stand or sit
may take it lying down)
down with the human soul
and anything she uncanned
for everyone carries canopeners
in Ever-Ever Land
(for Ever-Ever Land is a place
that's as simple as simple can be
and was built that way on purpose
by simple people like we)
down with hell and heaven
and all the religious fuss
infinity pleased our parents
one inch looks good to us
(and Ever-Ever Land is a place
that's measured and safe and known
where it's lucky to be unlucky
and the hitler lies down with the cohn)
down above all with love
and everything perverse
or which makes some feel better
when all ought to feel worse
(but only sometimes is normal
in Ever-Ever Land
for a bad cigar is a woman
but a gland is only a gland)
e.e.
I just took another look at the DSCC Blog and every article they have up with one exception (a recap) is clogged with anti-Lieberman letters. I saw no letters supporting the decision the Dem Caucus made today.
I do believe they will get the message......whether they care or not is another question entirely.
it's irresponsible for Glenn to smear the future with the past and imply or infer that bipartisanship will somehow always lead to Bush-like policies ....
Glenn can speak for himself but, as I recall it, he didn't imply that genuine (or, should I say, theoretical) bipartisanship would lead to Bush-like policies. Rather, the refusal to challenge or prosecute those policies--and the actors in them--would lead us to a future we wouldn't necessarily enjoy living in (again, not Glenn's view, but mine).
These generalizations are more desructive than constructive.
I'm sorry to say that over time these probably will cease to be generalizations and will become, disappointingly, far more specific. In any event, there's nothing wrong with challenging those in power from the outset. Why would a citizen in a democracy/republic do anything less?
So, you're saying that I'm a traffic accident that you can't tear your eyes from?
Never a traffic accident. But I'll bet I couldn't tear my eyes from you.
Unfortunately nothing will change until the American public moves beyond the two major party paradigm. Ever since the political system became dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the 1850's, they have always betrayed the public in favor of their financial supporters. The whole game has been to control the party apparatus to dispense party patronage and corrupt favors. These two rotten parties colluded to rig election laws, district boundaries, campaign financing, and every other aspect of the political system to favor themselves. The only thing that will get their attention is when the public either forces one of the major parties out of existence or overthrows the system. The other possibility is that the system could collapse on its own weight.
Unfortunately nothing will change until the American public moves beyond the two major party paradigm. Ever since the political system became dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the 1850's, they have always betrayed the public in favor of their financial supporters. The whole game has been to control the party apparatus to dispense party patronage and corrupt favors. These two rotten parties colluded to rig election laws, district boundaries, campaign financing, and every other aspect of the political system in favor of themselves. The only thing that will get their attention is when the public either forces one of the major parties out of existence or overthrows the system. The other possibility is that the system could collapse on its own weight.
The key game that the politicians have played for at least 150 years is to balance the three different rival political cultures within this country against each other to keep themselves in power. There are very real philosophical, cultural, and political differences between these rival political cultures (New England, Midlands, and South) that were identified by Alexis de Toqueville in the 1830's. The roots of it even go back into the 17th century. This rivalry is deep and not going away. The end product of it is stalemate for any meaningful change.
The organization you helped start to fund opposition candidates in order to end the betrayal is a good first step toward eliminating the rot. But given that it has continued for so long, there is no guarantee that it will actually work, and every reason to believe it will ultimately fail.
What really needs to happen for all elections to be made competitive, and for the system to allow all candidates to be rejected, with the rejected barred from running in subsequent rounds, until someone has been elected. Election campaigns are too expensive and way too long. The whole system is completely absurd; it takes longer to run for an office and raise campaign contributions than the term of office. In most other countries, especially those with parliamentary system, campaigning lasts only six to eight weeks. It is short, intense, and final.
As it currently stands, the US government has become completely dysfunctional. The signs are everywhere: huge trade deficits, huge fiscal deficits, two failing wars, two failing military occupations, debates about false choices, collapsing manufacturing, inability to convert the energy system away from fossil fuels (even as our allies move to do so), huge debts for individuals, corporations, and government at all levels, and worst of all - the treasury is being looted in a bipartisan frenzy of cronyistic bailouts and subsidies. This is not the way to stay a major power.
Eventually, the public may conclude that they would be better off without this corrupt system. In which case, the public will force it either to change or to collapse. We, the people, may be better off splitting the country to end this game.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
