Finally, after agreeing with you in principle numerous times while being insultingly classified by you as "all talk," and after I and others asked you repeatedly what you meant by your oft-stated phrase "direct action," you finally provide one little answer:

“... marching on and sitting in the local offices of our respective congresspersons would be very effective IMO.”

Gosh, you are SUCH a revolutionary! So, being arrested for peaceful demonstrations is more effective than speaking truth to power via our chosen professions, even if and when it costs us our jobs? And this course of "direct action" is advocated by you in a post wherein you use a screen name that I think it's safe to say isn't your real name? ("Ad Noto" doesn't sound like a name.) Such courage, such anonymous courage!

why Do they sound so different, in their stances. now.

especially given the quotes that mr. greenwald is so kind to find, and from the not distance past at all. i'd choke if i had something in my mouth other than my tied-tongue at this turn of events.

it reminds me of cindy lou who & the grinch. and how, before his heart grew three sizes, he stole the very crumb too small for a mouse to eat. besides sliding out the candy cane from the sleeping tot's tiny hands!

it's just that, who can be sure this "story" will end on such a high note? wtf. i don't understand stupid torture and i hope i never do. there are better means and ways. when will we ever learn?

bah. humbug. i'm most curious as to the priorities of our new administration.

Wow.

I'm sorry I wrote that you never said what you want.

...ask these modern day leaders of ours, these intelligent bloggers such as Glenn and others to put their heads together and come up with a plan... To be honest with you I don't have a good handle on how it would all shake out... Which is, in part, why I come to a blog such as this. Looking for leaders.

You said you want Glenn to figure out what you want.

So speaks the big scary radical.

Get over yourself, dude.

... Wonder where I got that impression about condescension from!

I won't insult you for providing readers here with essentially nothing in the way of solutions. What I will ask, however, is why have you spent so much time and energy insulting others who also seek methods to break this damnable gridlock which threatens to smother us all?

If I can speak plainly (and I will), no one here (minus the usual suspects) is an enemy--all of us are seeking the same thing.

There. Enough pontificating from T3.

There will be no revolution from the left in this country. Period. Libertarians will argue themselves to death before they revolt. Incrementalists are advocates for the status quo; why shouldn't they be? Plenty of people have quite a stake in the way things are. and the direction they're going, toward autocracy, whether brutal or mild, it doesn't really matter, it's still autocracy. But why rock the boat? No, better to push for changes around the margins, particularly "changes" that make things... erm... work better. Yeah. That's the ticket.

No, Revolution, if it comes (again) to this country will come from the Right, not from the left, and not from the disputatious Libertarians, and not from the squishy middle (even as that middle is squeezed dry.) In fact, the argument should be made that the Rightist Revolution began with Reagan, has been unrelenting ever since, and is now very nearly complete -- with a Centrist Democrat poised to ascend to the White House and finish what Reagan started. He's putting it all together as we speak.

Why do you think the rabid right wing is cooing their delight with him?

And why would DiFi and Wyden suddenly go wobbly on prohibiting torture? Could it be that the "pragmatists" and the "incrementalists" moving into the White House have sent out a message that, well, it's gonna take a while to reverse the Bush outrages, and, you know, there are priorities, and, sorry, what happens to captive brown people isn't one of them. Fit in or sit down and shut up.

What did Obama say about his FISA reversal? Oh yeah, "...going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok." Which was taken as a "Get with the Program or scram" statement at the time and it still is by some diehards.

But for those few extremists on issues like torture and domestic spying and constitutional self-government, marginal things all, most have gotten with the Program. Why not? What's to lose?

But on the frothing right, especially in the South, but not limited to it, real rebellion, perhaps even an armed uprising, is brewing. Even as the new Regime does everything imaginable to placate the wild and angry rebels, their fury fumes ever hotter. Anything, literally, could trigger their outbreak of actual, take-to-the-barricades revolution. Even Rush can't seem to keep them under control.

There's nothing even remotely like that on the real left (what little of it there is) let alone on the so-called "left" of the Blogosphere (most of which is dominated by reformed Republicans.)

And if an outbreak of Rebellion/Revolution from the Right does occur, what are the rest of us going to do?

Condemn it, of course. Right? Join the Northern Command forces to put it down? No! Certainly not! Listen to the inchoate rhetoric and calls to arms from the rebels, hear their cry, and try to understand? Maybe.

Join them? Never.

Just don't be surprised if it happens. Be grateful if it doesn't.

hrh - be my guest, but be prepared for a lot of head scratching because the ones who use it aren't usually quick enough on the uptake to understand why it might be offensive to women in the first place. 'Course you prolly already figured that out. :-)

To be precise, I'm using just the middle paragraph. Maybe even shortened up a bit. If it leaves some scratching their heads in my wake, I'm ok with that. It wouldn't be the first time.