Brad Friedman of BradBlog informally interviewed Russ Feingold several days ago at a dinner at which Feingold spoke, and Freidman recounted Feingold's answers on various topics of interest. The most revealing was Feingold's answer as to why he did not consult with the Democratic Senate caucas before announcing his intention to introduce his Censure Resolution:
First, he made clear that, contrary to the general impression out there, there is no rule or requirement for a Senator to confer with anybody before proposing something on the floor of the Senate. Thus, he simply proposed the Censure Resolution having decided that "it was the right thing to do."
That decision came, he said, after the end of the year. He had been encouraged by the tough stance the Democrats had taken concerning renewal of the Patriot Act before the session ended, but found that during the break their resolve seemed to have disappeared and they returned to their "foxholes"."Foxholes?" I interrupted..."Yes, I said, foxholes," he answered back quickly, with a clear inference that he had chosen the words quite deliberately.
Once he'd felt the Dems had again lost their resolve to fight, and once the information concerning the warrantless NSA spying had come to light, he'd decided the right thing to do was to simply take action. And he did."Yes," I followed up, "and don't get me wrong, I strongly support your effort there, but might you have gotten more support from your Democratic colleagues had you consulted with them first before announcing the Resolution publicly?"
He explained that had he done that, the matter would have then been vetted by "Democratic consultants" who would have decided to kill the idea entirely before it could even be proposed on the floor. "Our party," he said, "is too beholden to Democratic consultants."
Initially, it should be noted that I have been waiting for some time to hear Feingold explain: (a) whether he did provide any advance warning to other Senators before announcing his Censure Resolution and (b) if not, as seemed to be the case, what the reasons were for not doing so. This is the first time I have seen anyone ask him this. That the truly probing questions are being asked by bloggers rather than by national journalists is becoming increasingly commonplace.
As for Feingold's explanation, it is easy to see exatly what he is describing. Democratic consultants attacked and tried to kill his resolution even after it was announced and had been widely publicized. Is there any doubt at all that had he consulted in advance with Democrats, all that he would have confronted would be efforts to dissuade him from doing anything?
As Crashing the Gate chronicles, and as Feingold implied, the Democratic Party has all but turned itself over to highly risk-adverse, overly calculating political consultants who have drained the party of ideals, passion, energy and life. Almost all of them inspire nobody, because they so transparently lack any governing principles or passion about anything. They embrace only those ideas which are guaranteed in advance to be popular, and they run from ideas they believe in and that are right whenever they are told -- by the bookish, soul-less consultants who dominate them -- that those ideas are risky or unpopular. And everyone sees this and knows this.
Say what you will about the Bush movement, but it is difficult to accuse it of lacking passion and conviction. Indeed, the deep emotional fulfillment it provides to its adherents is one of its greatest strengths. Democrats never throw caution to the wind or take a real stand -- one that might be unpopular or risky -- for anything, including their core convictions, to the extent such a thing exists any more. The Swift Boat attacks in the 2004 election were so effective mostly because they provoked no reaction from Kerry -- no fury, no aggression, no unrestrained human conviction. When a response finally did come, it was pre-scripted, contrived and transparently empty, and that became the hallmark of the campaign.
Feingold's Censure Resolution had such resonance because it was something which came -- finally -- from conviction, from principle, from a political soul. Here is how Feingold described it, as summarized by Friedman:
Whether supported or passed or not, Feingold said, it's important for the history books. When people look back to see what happened here, and wonder if anybody stood up for our Constitution in the face of unprecedented disregard for it, via the illegal practice of spying without a warrant on American citizens on U.S. soil, it'll be right there that at least he and about five others in the Senate had the courage to stand up and say, "No, this is wrong."
Jane Hamsher wrote yesterday about an American Prospect article by John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira on closing the "identity gap" for Democrats, and as Jane argued, the central problem for the Democrats is not that independent and swing voters think that Democrats stand for nothing, but that core Democrats like Jane think that, too.
The desire, by itself, to put a stop to an administration that is plainly out of control will carry a political party only so far. At the moment, this Presidency is collapsing so fast and furiously that it is probably unnecessary, from a strategic perspective, for Democrats to articulate some overarching "vision." And even if they wanted to, their long-standing stagnation and belief in nothing would render them unable to formulate such a vision by November. Political principles aren't just cooked up overnight by some consultants, which is the point.
But what is critically important is that Democrats stand for something. It almost matters less what that "something" is than that they demonstrate they are capable of taking a stand even in the face of whiny, fearful warnings from their consultants. The Censure Resolution is still pending. The administration's blatant lawlessness -- exacerbated greatly by their recently intensified efforts to quash dissent, intimidate investigative journalists, and prevent disclosure of their wrongdoing -- is a serious threat to our country, and it is very difficult to see what possible justification exists for having Democrats continue to stand by, quiet and invisible, while all of this unfolds. More than anything else, that's what Democrats have become -- quiet and invisible.
UPDATE: The conservative group, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances -- along with the libertarian group Liberty Coalition and the ACLU -- is sponsoring a press briefing tomorrow demanding that Congress take seriously the president's lawbreaking as part of the NSA scandal. According to the e-mail I received:
Is the NSA Spying Program Constitutional?
The National Security Agency’s program of warrantless wiretapping deserves a full and thorough inquiry by Congress. Please join the Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances and the Liberty Coalition in a conversation about the warrantless NSA spying program as well as current legislative proposals.
The speakers include:
Bob Barr
Former Republican Member of Congress Chairman of Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances
Bruce Fein
Constitutional Scholar- Former Associate Deputy Attorney General for President Reagan
Michael Ostrolenk
Co-Founder/National Director of the Liberty Coalition
Lisa Graves
ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel for Legislative Strategy
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy under Attorneys General Ashcroft and Reno
When: Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Where: Rayburn 2226
Time: 2:15-3:15pm
If you have any questions please call Tsoghig Marieann Hekimian at 202-675-2337
As the President's approval ratings plummet towards truly embarrassing depths, and as the scandals mount, the administration is experiencing difficulty in sweeping the NSA scandal under the rug. Many predicted it would all be wrapped up and disposed of long ago. The fact that opposition continues to come from ideologically diverse groups reflects that what is at stake are not any ideological precepts or partisan interests, but the most basic American principles of government.
Feingold's Censure Resolution had such resonance because it was something which came -- finally -- from conviction, from principle, from a political soul.
ReplyDeleteI haven't held a passionate admiration for a politician in over 20 years. Had anyone told me it would come to pass that I would hold such admiration, and that the object would be a Democrat -- one who co-sponsored a campaign finance bill that I detest -- I would simply not have believed it.
At this point in time, the single most pressing issues facing the country implicate civil liberties and the rule of law. Feingold's limited objections to aspects of The Patriot Act caused him to be widely demonized, nevermind that he accurately saw that dangerous police powers having more to do with the drug "war" than with terrorism were included in TPA. He is now the only member of the Congress willing to take a firm and principled stand against a lawless Executive who is acting as monarch.
So, it is the case that a libertarian who had heretofore tilted GOP such as myself, goes all week-kneed over a "leftwinger" like Russ Feingold. That's just the way it is, even if I'd like to smack him over the head about the First Am when it comes to campaign laws that restrict speech. Nobody's perfect, and he's so good on the more pressing matters of the day, he must be forgiven. As Glenn says, the man has a soul; he is a statesman who puts country ahead of party, and never have we more needed such individuals in office.
Who are these consultants?
ReplyDeleteWhy do they have so much power?
fringy
Seems to me I read this same sort of rhetoric...can't remember the year. But I think it was ginned up by the advisors behind the McGovern race for President. They had fire in their bellies! After the election, they had fires in barrels as they unsuccessfully sought other employment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the DC establishment dems have actually become what Norquist said of the neutered minority party. Who are these consultants that my contributions are paying. Really, who are these people who are lining their own pockets at the expense of our party and nation.
ReplyDeleteI think they don't really have a reason to rock the boat. Something tells me they like the Bush policies of tax breaks for the rich ( themselves) and really don't give a damn about the rest of us.
Does anyone out there know who these Democratic Party consultants are? And what cushy deals do they have ?
This is actually encouraging—if the problem is Democratic politicians' overreliance on consultants, that's easier to fix than their being in the pocket of big contributors.
ReplyDelete—gmanedit
The weaselly consultants are probably moles from the other party. They certainly act like it.
ReplyDeleteIts really a very simple principle.
ReplyDeleteJust as, if you always tell the truth then you never have to worry about getting your story straight, if you always do what you beleive is right then you never have to worry about whether it will play in Peoria.
Even if they can't decide what they are for, I wish the Democrats would at least agree on what they are against because there is plenty of things to oppose from this administration. We could build a coalition with folks like Hypatia who understand the overwhelming importance of saving our democracy.
ReplyDelete1. Stop warrantless eavesdropping.
2. Stop threatening, planning, and contemplating the use of nuclear weapons.
3. Stop torturing people.
4. Stop invading countries that are no threat to us.
5. Stop extrajudicial imprisonments.
6. Stop pretending there is a War on Terror.
As someone asked previously, who are these consultants? I think we need to shine a light on them and force them out into the light of day.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that boggles my mind the most is their track records. These consultants have failed miserably, yet they still have the ear of much of the party's establishment. It doesn't make any sense.
Bravo, a great post!
ReplyDelete"We could build a coalition with folks like Hypatia..."
ReplyDeleteYour razor ain't too sharp today, I guess. You must also believe that the women in "Playboy" really look like that. Hypatia has the same relationship to a real libertarian that the actual models have to the final product that appears in that magazine.
Hypatia has the same relationship to a real libertarian that the actual models have to the final product that appears in that magazine.
ReplyDeleteReally? Based on everything she has argued - from her passionate hatred of communists to her opposition to the drug war and intrusive government power to her belief that government should be restrained on every front - she always seemed like a classic, even caricatured, libertarian to me.
What views of her specifically disqualify her as a libertarian? She doesn't like Your Leader?
So because he thought others might not go along with him he decided it would be a good idea to sandbag his own caucus with the censure resolution? And that is good because ..?
ReplyDeleteSounds more like posturing for a run at president than an actual attempt to bring the Dems together on a censure resolution. But it is clever to blame the results on the consultants -- I'll give him that.
The new book by Markos from Daily Kos and Jerome Armstrong from MyDD, Crashing the Gate, does an excellent job of profiling the consultants and their practices.
ReplyDeleteIn the Democratic party, they serve as gatekeepers for spending campaign money. A candidate can't take the money unless they use the standard consultants. The consultants then take a percentage of campaign advertising spending, whether or not the candidate is successful.
TV advertising is still a huge requirement for campaigns, so politicians have a hard time getting around this stranglehold.
Kerry never mentioned that Nixon tried to use one of the swiftboaters to get him. Why? Why the hell didn't he get pissed and let it show?
ReplyDeleteI got a campaign doorhanger from a guy running for the state legislature. It looked like something designed by a consultant: a letter that said basically (only) 'vote for me' and a booklet (roughly 3x5 inches, about fifty pages). I had to open the booklet to find out which party he was from (Dem!).
ReplyDeleteTracked down an e-mail address for the campaign. Asked them: 'In 25 words or less: Why should I vote for you?'
Haven't heard back yet.
Hypatia: So, it is the case that a libertarian who had heretofore tilted GOP such as myself, goes all week-kneed over a "leftwinger" like Russ Feingold.
ReplyDeleteBravo! My feelings, and position, exactly.
As a typical libertarian, I doubt Hypatia and I would disagree on a lot. (2 libertarians, 3 opinions and all that.) But I have great difficulty understand how any person who self-identifies as a libertarian can support the Republicans that this point in time.
Maybe after they've had a few terms in the wilderness they'll clean up. Any party that stays dominant for too long develops warts. They've gone far more rotten than I'd imagined possible in a mere 11 years.
So, right Glenn.
ReplyDeleteThis is an internal discussion for you Donkeys.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would observe that the Feingold Censure Resolution is not a substantive new idea for governing with which the Dems may show voters that they "stand for something." It is merely more of the "Party of No" persona the Dems embraced after the 2000 loss.
You have to stand for something, not just against the Elephants.
>But I have great difficulty understand how any person who self-identifies as a libertarian can support the Republicans that this point in time.<
ReplyDeleteI'm having a similar difficulty understanding how self-identified Republicans can support the Republicans at this time.
I suppose it's all about being part of the team as opposed to being guided by principles. After all being bound by the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights never USED to be a partisan issue. It used to be what united us as Americans!
I know that you will doubt my sincerity, but this post will offer some encouragement to those who are discouraged about efforts to bring the Bush Administration to heel. Yes, the spin of the post is to the right, but you can ignore that and get some good information about an organization working to overthrow Bush. By the way, as its quoted charter states, it is an extremely partisan group too. Hurray! Just the kind of thing Mr. Greenwald is talking (and now writing) about
ReplyDeleteGlenn, or anybody else with some knowledge on the subject--I don't know if you have the time to go into it, but I'm wondering when they started turning things over to consultants. I'm guessing the notion that Clinton's success came from his ability to find the center and not rock the boat probably had something to do with it, but I really don't know anything about it.
ReplyDeleteWhen did they start listening to these guys? Who are they--where do they come from--what are their credentials--what makes one's advice worthy of being trusted--do they each have a consultant or do a few advise all the dems on how to act? How do they arrive at their conclusions--test groups etc?
If you have the time to answer any of these, I'd sure be interested in knowing more about the problem.
Your take on this is money. People have always responded to honest passion. In fact, it's probably the biggest motivator in politics. Whatever made them think passion is too risky? I can't remember the last time a politician made me feel strongly about getting out the vote. I remeber as a kid in the 60s the sense of passion people had about guys like RFK, and even MLK, though he wasn't a pol proper. But with what's on the table these days, Americans are ripe for the picking at the first sign of someone saying things that sound like they sprang from that summer in Philadelphia. Justice. Equality. Wisdom. Common Sense. Real Christian Values--as opposed to the Faux-Xian war-mongering practiced by so many of the right-wing pretenders (that jesus himself wouldn't recognize as having come from anything he ever said.)
If someone starts to speak to the real-world issues that face us, and does it without trying to play on our fears and prejudices, (like the Repubs do all the time) you'd see a groundswell unlike anything in recent memory.
Betcha.
In the age of Bush you can either be a good American or a good Republican, you cannot be both.
ReplyDeletebart: You have to stand for something, not just against the Elephants.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think the sentiment of voting against Reps will go far in the next elections. Whether or not it succeeds depends on how far the Dems can undermine the rigged and gerrymandered election precincts that the Reps have put into place at the state level during the last few years.
My guess is that many traditional Reps might actually sit out the next elections. Many on this list might help that effort by encourgaing their fellow, like-minded Reps to do so. Either that or bite their tongues and take a chance and vote for a Dem--or (OMG!) the Libertarian or Green candidate.
At the House level, of course, if the Dem they vote for doesn't pan out, they can vote him/her out in just two years. Not too much damage can be done in that time--unlike the eight years that the Reps have had to gut and quarter the constitution so far.
HWSNBN sticks his veeerrrrrryyyyy long noser in:
ReplyDeleteI would observe that the Feingold Censure Resolution is not a substantive new idea for governing with which the Dems may show voters that they "stand for something." It is merely more of the "Party of No" persona the Dems embraced after the 2000 loss.
You have to stand for something, not just against the Elephants.
Oh, I dunno. I'd say that sticking up for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the type of nation that this country was founded as constitutes "stand[ing] up for something".
Of course, HWSNBN "stands up" for Commander Codpiece and the Cult'O'Dubya. Nothing else. The rest of the time he spends huddling in terror in his closet. I'm sure that some psychologist could explain the pathology....
Cheers (from Arne, who, having been to Sharm el-Sheikh over the holidays, would still go right back to the Sinai for some more diving in a heartbeat...)
I appreciate what Feingold has done. His courageous act reflects, I think, a sentiment shared by many in the US. Consider this poll that shows that a majority of Americans support a censure resolution, if it's not associated with his name or any other politician.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how this can be gotten round on a procedural level in the Senate, but some courageous Rep might take these numbers to heart and join with Feingold to provide some bipartisanship to the resolution.
The problem is not that the consultants have no passion - its that they are always wrong! Nobody believed the swift boat claims about Kerry when they came out - what hurt him was his lack of response. Voters were worried that he wasn't tough enough and his lack of response proved it - if he won't stand up for himself can we expect him to stand up for us? Hillary is the worst - I have no idea how she feels about the NSA wiretapping or immigration or most other major issues. Another side effect of consultants is that even when the democrats come out with a statement or position - nobody believes that it is heartfelt - they are just telling people what they want to hear. Everybody except their base that is.
ReplyDeletePS -- Maybe we can get Hypatia, EWO, and other Libertarians to run against constitution-gutting Reps, thereby giving self-repsecting Reps or Indeps a protest option to Reps--many of whom will probably run unopposed, if studies about this issue are correct.
ReplyDeleteWren asks about moi: What views of her specifically disqualify her as a libertarian? She doesn't like Your Leader?
ReplyDeleteAs you note, I have an obsessive disgust with yesteryear’s Communists. Notwithstanding that, of late I’ve been dismissed as a leftwing “moonbat” at several pro-Bush sites. It seems that the new definition of “left-wing” is disapproval of George Bush. One can only be amused that I would be considered a lefty, but such is life in these United States in 2006 -- if one thinks the Executive ought to obey laws requiring warrants and prohibiting torture, that he ought not be throwing citizens into prisons for years and years with no charges and no access to a lawyer, well, objecting to all that renders one a bleeding-heart commie, I guess.
Well, whatever…
Notherbob2, however, might want to check out Glenn’s update if he thinks only faux libertarians object to Bush’s evisceration of the rule of law and the Constitution, to wit:
The conservative group, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances -- along with the libertarian group Liberty Coalition and the ACLU -- is sponsoring a press briefing tomorrow demanding that Congress take seriously the president's lawbreaking as part of the NSA scandal.
Glenn Greenwald: pound for pound, the best blogger in the world.
ReplyDeleteRemember, they tried to move the goalposts, spying on Americans contacting Americans is not NSA or FISA, it's extraconstitional.
ReplyDeleteBesides the RNC outsourced campaign solicitors, creating a bait and switch scenario whereby they could justify spying on their ranks. Also, using PATRIOT provisions they solicited Democrat donor lists. What are the chances that Democrats would donate to republicans? Not enough to justify the cost overrides of such labor in terms of beneftis analysis.
However, it did create a minimum standard for FISA warrantless spying in the fifteen day window, plus the filing deadlines for requests and weekend or holiday loopholes around the same.Funny that, the FISA judge resigned and Bush refused to submit his requests after initiating taps as well.
This would be against Amendment Four but consitutes the scenario of planting evidence that was one reason said provision was placed within the Bill of Rights.
Mr.Murder | 04.25.06 - 1:16 pm |
-Mr.M
Outsourcing calls provides the thinnest justification for FISA actions, so AWOL can literally spy on anyone with a phone for that reason.
They can use their own campaign solicitors to open an interprative window towards spying within the literalist interpretation of the law's letter.
I have been wondering something. I have read previous posts on this blog and others about the 'consultants' the Democrats go to for guidance on just about everything (I wouldn't doubt some have to call ahead and make sure it's ok to go to the bathroom). And the fact that they are so anchored to these 'consultants' makes one wonder if they aren't in fact GOP moles put in place to throw a monkeywrench into the Democrats political gears.
ReplyDeleteIf the Dems won't stand up for anything no one will believe the party stands for anything.
ReplyDeleteFor me the pivot point was torture. Even from a calculating, poll-watching position, that was the time to stand up and say, "Enough."
That would have obliterated any stupid GOP taunting and parsing: on Iraq, intel, human rights, American values, common decency, sane policies for foreign and domestic security, even individual constitutional protections like not having the govt secretly conduct open-ended snooping and to restore checks and balances.
I'll always be disappointed that something so obviously requiring a firm, unequivocal stand was treated like the marketing of a self-obsalescing new soft drink.
According to this Baltimore Sun article (via War and Piece), the Republican Congress is considering a proposal to expand the powers of the NSA and CIA to enable warrantless arrests of its employees:
ReplyDeleteIf the measure is approved by Congress, the nation's spy chief would be ordered to consider a plan for revoking the pensions of intelligence agency employees who make unauthorized disclosures. It also would permit security forces at the National Security Agency and the CIA to make warrantless arrests outside the gates of their top-secret campuses.
IMO, the Democratic Party (in general) believes primarily in the Democratic Party. It's not very inspiring, but there it is.
ReplyDeleteThis party-over-principle orientation of the Democratic Party is characteristic just of the jaundiced consultants at the top, Glenn, but also can be seen in your book-blurber, Markos, and his online community over yonder. If you raise any political issue or point in Daily Kos that is perceived to be a threat to the interests of the Democratic Party, you'll be roundly hooted out. "This is not a liberal blog," you'll be told, "This is a Democratic blog. Take your anti-Democrat stuff elsewhere." And then you'll be referred to a post by Markos saying the same.
That mindset--the elevation of a single political party as an end to itself, rather than as a means to an end--is repugnant to me. It literally churns my stomach. In truth, Glenn, I wish you weren't so cozy with Markos, but on the other hand, you don't slag on me for my choice of friends, so I'll just shut up about that.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
I've been coming by this blog for a couple of months now and I have to say, I'm mystified by the number of people who self-describe themselves as libertarian. Pretty much all I see is status quo, status quo with a few minor tweaks, anti-communist hysteria justifying almost anything and arguments for motivating government to do stuff to people we don't like.
ReplyDeleteI get no clear representation of anything like steadfast principle, and no principle that isn't subject to compromise for pragmatism. Further, I see no enunciation of the glaring fact that anything done by the state, regardless of the "party" responsible and the supposed benefits that will follow, is a transparent grab for more power and the perpetuation of continued and increasing enslavement.
I understand that "libertarian" is a label that attracts people with fairly disparate viewpoints. But, for me, there are a couple of bedrocks that stand as unassailable principles:
1) The use of force except when used in defense is not acceptable. All governments are an embodiment, institutionalization of and an attempt to legitimize force.
2) Humans should be allowed to do whatever they choose to do provided those choices don't infringe on another's similar choices.
What I see here from "libertarians" is just another version of "I'm smarter/more moral/have larger genitalia than others so I'm entitled to direct their lives and property in ways I see fit."
I'm interested in what others who use the label think libertarianism is...and how they fit under that umbrella.
Exactly. The only antidote to the frame “pusillanimous” is an act of courage. The fact that that makes it a freebee for Democrats, that there is so much to be righteously courageous about and that so many Democrats have yet to get off their backsides while the people lead the way, makes me want to vomit on their shoes. Of course this means that only Democrats such as Feingold, Clark, Kerry and Gore can be plausible standard bearers for the base of the party in ‘08. The rest have forfeited their political as well as their moral leadership.
ReplyDeleteIn truth, Glenn, I wish you weren't so cozy with Markos, but on the other hand, you don't slag on me for my choice of friends, so I'll just shut up about that.
ReplyDeleteI just don't think purity is a luxury anyone can afford. I don't agree with many things Markos says and I have no doubt that the same is true for him. I don't know of many people - maybe any - I agree with all of the time.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is an opponent of the Bush administration and wants to put an end to its hegemony over our government is someone I consider an ally with whom I am more than happy to work. Al Gore asked Bob Barr -- House Impeachment Manager, sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, hard-core enemy of the Clinton Administration - to introduce his big executive power speech a few months ago for exactly that reason.
Markos makes plenty of criticisms of certain elements in the Democratic Party. He just wrote a book doing that. Any successful political movement needs stragetists who want to win, idealists who create principles, leaders who inspire others, etc. To me, diluting the power of the Bush movement - and then ending it altogether - is an urgent priority. Whoever else is devoted to that goal is someone we should work with, regardless of why they want to achieve that goal and regardless of other political differences, all of which - I have no doubt - will manifest and can be hashed out later, once the immediate threat to our system of government is defeated. That's how I see those issues.
Adina: TV advertising is still a huge requirement for campaigns, so politicians have a hard time getting around this stranglehold.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Jerome and Markos call on the Dems to use private ad agencies rather than political consultants for TV, etc, so the Dems really could get around it.
I am thinking of bringing litigation myself against Glenn Greenwald, who obviously has placed an illegal wiretap on my brain without first getting a warrant.
ReplyDeleteAs I stay up each night thinking about everything and forming my opinions based on everything that has happened that day, I now know that when I visit this blog the next day Glenn will have brilliantly sorted out my germs of incoherent thoughts and come up with a masterful, fully flowered statement which gets to the basic issues facing this country.
I am so glad Glenn deals with the Democrats today because it has been extremely difficult for people like me (who are not partisans but are motivated by a set of political principles and will support anyone in any party who has those same principles) to wrestle with this thought which constantly is running through our minds:
"Oh my God. This Administration is a horror show. We have to EXPOSE all the reasons why what they have been doing is immoral, and put people in office who will ROLL BACK all these hideous policies and ugly misinterpretations of American Values, but OH MY GOD, that is certainly not the DEMOCRATS!"
It's been tough. And as Bart very accurately points out, Bush is not running again. All this focus on Bush's popularity ratings is soothing to the soul as it is its own repudiation of those policies, but when you go to those charts showing the approval/disapproval ratings on all the Senators in this country, those results are diametrically opposite to the low Bush approval ratings.
Every nauseating Senator from both parties whose name is well known, so we really know exactly how nauseating they are, is held in much higher regard than the few heroes.
It's really discouraging.
So this isn't about Bush in my mind. It's about the POLICIES and ACTIONS that these beastly Republicans and Democrats in office, who I view as ONE PARTY, have supported, voted for, and allowed to happen.
Nobody is on trial here but the actions themselves. As Buscho is sitting in the driver's seat, they get the most blame.
But putting BushCo-lites in office who are going to continue those same policies while they raise taxes enough to fund more waste, different wars, and a never ending series of polls to tell THEM how to manipulate the public is not any sane answer to the problem.
My heart skipped a beat when I saw Barr, Fein AND the ACLU coming together to take a principled stand on one issue which is tremendously important in itself, the NSA, but not only that, it is sympomatic of everything else that is wrong because it touches upon the really CORE issue: a Dictatorship type of government which operates immorally and outside of OUR laws here in this country to make this into just another totalitarian police state.
It's too late for each and every Democrat, in my opinion, except Sen. Feingold. There was a time to stand up, in defiance of polls or practicality or civilized political customary bullshit, and he stood up. Alone.
No other one of these Democrats, on a state of Federal level, is ever getting my vote.
I don't care what they say or do now. They didn't say or do it when it first mattered, and if it weren't for the still free Blogosphere, they all would have gotten away with this Crime Spree in which the criminals have tried to steal America.
When Glenn writes Almost all of them inspire nobody, I would myself have written that ALL of them, except Sen. Feingold, inspire nobody.
And they never will. It's not in their political, or human, souls.
Naturally, that includes all the Republicans in office, unless there is one I haven't heard about yet. But as I haven't heard about him or her, he/she couldn't have been speaking very loudly.
I really think the reason Paul Craig Roberts has come in for such hateful attacks on this site when I mention him is precisely because he is essentially a non-partisan.
His views on economic issues mirror traditional Republican positions, but he always goes where his principles lead him, regardless of party, and that is the ultimate taboo in a world where PARTISANSHIP is the ultimate determiner of most policital passion.
The Dems and the Repubs understand each other, and tolerate each other because they are essentially twins, but God forbid someone has an independent mind and dares to criticize the the wrong policies of both parties.
That person becomes the real enemy, because he threatens all the partisan pigs in both parties who are greedily feasting at the Big Government trough.
It's the James Carvilles and the Mary Matalins of this world who have really sold out this country.
I just started reading the comments, after posting about Glenn's "Need for a poltical soul" and the first comment is by hypatia.
ReplyDeleteShe writes:
I haven't held a passionate admiration for a politician in over 20 years. Had anyone told me it would come to pass that I would hold such admiration, and that the object would be a Democrat -- one who co-sponsored a campaign finance bill that I detest -- I would simply not have believed it.
Wow. She really speaks for me also.
I don't know the last politician who inspired her passionate admiration, but the last one who inspired mine was Ronald Reagan. Then along comes Sen. Feingold, who I suspect may be a pinko, and he is the very next politician to inspire real passionate admiration in me.
Love you hypatia, and btw, I have been reading your posts on other blogs, and you are really a very admirable person. You take a lot on your shoulders, never give up, are tireless in your efforts to focus on the real issues at stake even though doing so exposes yourself to attack, and everyone who cares about these same monumentally important issues is really in your debt.
>Whoever else is devoted to that goal is someone we should work with, regardless of why they want to achieve that goal<
ReplyDeleteGlenn's right. This should not be a fight between right and left. It should definitly not be a fight between Republicans and Democrats. This should be a fight between those who beleive in the respect for individual rights that was codified in our founding documents vs those who are willing to throw those rights away as long as they're on the winning team.
"Republicrats"?
ReplyDeleteTom Paxton nailed this one decades ago....
Thank goodness for the likes of Russel Feingold who sing their own tune. Get the grassroots out and let's get some more people like him in office. And to hell with the DLC....
Cheers,
Glenn said...As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is an opponent of the Bush administration and wants to put an end to its hegemony over our government is someone I consider an ally with whom I am more than happy to work.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more, and though I, as water, may not mix with the oil that is Hypatia's and EWO's pseudo economic and political philosophy I am glad that conservatives and "libertarians" of any flavor and shade are finally seeing that Bush is neither, any more than he is sincerely religious or "born again" or even off the sauce. I will even hold my nose and vote for Hillary, if it comes to that. Thank God I do not think it will.
Make that: I couldn't agree more, and though I, as water, may not mix with the snake oil that is Hypatia's and EWO's pseudo economic and political philosophy, I am glad that conservatives and "libertarians" of any flavor and shade are finally seeing that Bush is neither, any more than he is sincerely religious or "born again" or even off the sauce. I will even hold my nose and vote for Hillary, if it comes to that. Thank God I do not think it will.
ReplyDeletemind the snark
Don't get me wrong. I have a few problems with Hillary, but we could do worse. As I like to point out to people, Bill Clinton was the best Republican president this country has had since Eisenhower. Republicrat, if you like. Centrism and pandering to it is far worse in my book than Feingold's stand on principle.
ReplyDeleteThe Swift Boat attacks in the 2004 election were so effective mostly because they provoked no reaction from Kerry -- no fury, no aggression, no unrestrained human conviction. When a response finally did come, it was pre-scripted, contrived and transparently empty, and that became the hallmark of the campaign.
ReplyDeleteAnyone remember Dukakis's response to the rape/death penalty question? A defining moment that still defines too much of the party leadership. Actually, I think Kerry really blew it on the answer to "would you authorize the Iraq invasion again, knowing what you know now." My reaction? I was listening to the car radio when the report aired, and I turned to my wife and said, "Did you hear that? That was the sound of us losing the election."
Feingold's Censure Resolution had such resonance because it was something which came -- finally -- from conviction, from principle, from a political soul.
And made the rest of the Dems uncomfortable because the contrast showed up their own lack of those things so starkly. Thus it had to be repudiated.
Mr. Greenwald says (at 4:21 above): “To me, diluting the power of the Bush movement - and then ending it altogether - is an urgent priority. Whoever else is devoted to that goal is someone we should work with, regardless of why they want to achieve that goal and regardless of other political differences...”
ReplyDeletenotherbob2 said...
“What a crock Mr. Greenwald is...[comparison of Mr. Greenwald’s “principled” position on Bush compared to his (opposite) position on Mary McCarthy]... [As I said before,] what a crock. Yes, there is bedrock here, and it ain’t the Constitution. The sacred principle is “Get the Rethugs!”
This thread is another fine explication of the many facets of a political system that has been broken and limping for 175 years.
ReplyDeleteMore than ever, a political system that relies on the flow of private money quickly becomes the slave of the moneygivers. Feingold is Spartacus.
For the moment, Democrats are the only available pathway back to democracy. But they are not fundamentally different than Republicans.
Until we take the political process out of the hands of plutocrats by enacting comprehensive public camapaign financing and enforce an apolitical, rational media, we will continue to sway back and forth on this sickening teeter-totter between police-state authoritarianism and enervating big-government socialism.
The sacred principle is “Get the Rethugs!”
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with this, and neither do a fair majority of Americans at this point. And don't think for a second that these "thugs" as you so aptly call them have not been trying to turn this country into a one party state. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.
Until we take the political process out of the hands of plutocrats by enacting comprehensive public camapaign financing and enforce an apolitical, rational media, we will continue to sway back and forth on this sickening teeter-totter between police-state authoritarianism and enervating big-government socialism.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and if some have a problem with it, because public financing of elections "smacks of socialism," they should get passports and plan on becoming ex-citizens because they were never patriots to begin with.
Speaking of that “pinko” Russ Feingold, apparently dwindling Bush diehards don’t much like his new ad.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is Senator Feingold has released a grossly slanderous ad, which is not described as a parody on their website, but rather as "unique and serious."
I find it interesting that Feingold accuses President Bush of spying on political opponents when it was actually his predecessor Bill Clinton who has done anything of the sort.
Now I knew Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster, but this is the first I’ve heard this charge. It’s so hard to keep up.
Apparently, Mary McCarthy has just surpassed Osama as public enemy number one. Who knew she was more dangerous than Islamo-fascism? Wow. I can’t wait to find out what it was that she actually did.
Ender said: . . . what "big-government socialism" problem have we had? When? Where? You talking about FDR? I submit it simply does not exist in any real way. It is just another bogeyman. It is a myth.
ReplyDeleteIf I may comment without having any cites at hand, I have long had the impression that the social welfare efforts of the past tended to generate large and inefficient government bureaucracies to administer the benefits, with the continuation of those government jobs becoming the prime motivator of the program's continuance. Perhaps it is a myth. If so, I believe it is widely held.
Apparently, Mary McCarthy has just surpassed Osama as public enemy number one. Who knew she was more dangerous than Islamo-fascism? Wow. I can’t wait to find out what it was that she actually did.
ReplyDeleteYup -- and why the CIA is gonna let her keep her pension instead of prosecuting the bejesus out of her.
Well, I read all the very interesting comments here today, and agree with many, disagree with some.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with ender and patrick meighan and ellie.
Unfortunately, I disagree with Glenn. But he is still my hero even though I disagree on this point because I understand why he thinks what he does, but I just happen to disagree with him.
Glenn writes "Any successful political movement needs stragetists who want to win, idealists who create principles, leaders who inspire others, etc."
I disagree entirely, although maybe I am a dreamer and not a pragmatist. As a matter of fact, I am definitely not a pragmatist as I don't even believe in ends and means blah blah blah, etc.
In my view, you start with the "end", which is your moral principles, and that dictates what means you employ. The 'means' must be to always privately take those actions which uphold your principles, support others with the same moral principles, and not to join forces with others who have different principles but agree with you on a particular tactic because that tactic serves both your own legitimate moral "end" and their own illegitimate moral "end."
In my view, "any successful political movement" requires only three things.
A microphone, a voice behind that microphone, and an audience to which that voice addresses itself.
That's all.
There's plenty of microphones around, there's an audience of over 200 million people, but there hasn't been any voice behind the microphone.
Sen. Feingold was the only voice and he was stranded on an empty platform for nine and a half hours filibustering in defense of his priniciples.
Didn't get a lot of support from all the usual, corrupt suspects, but enough of the 200,000,000 people heard him to make a difference and for him to gain their allegiance in the future.
As for definitions of libertarianism, of which there are apparently an infinite number, when I personally talk about "libertarian flavored individuals", this is what I mean:
LEAVE ME ALONE. I agree entirely with Greta Garbo. I WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE. I can deal with the private citizens who invade my space (hint: don't answer the phone) but I certainly don't want the GOVERNMENT itself being the biggest, disgusting invader.
I do agree to abide by rational laws in a society which has banded together in defense of certain principles, essentially a belief in the inalienable rights of human beings.
I also agree that our nation must be defended, by our government, against other nations which threaten our existence as a free Constitutional Republic.
The Consitution, in my view, did a fantastic job of setting out a framework for how people can live together in a free society which is based upon the Rule of Law.
It was a little weak, in my opinion, in guarding against the dangers of a tyrannical majority enforcing its disgusting will on a principled minority.
I also happen to believe in the system known as laissez-faire capitalism, and if there weren't an obscene Big Government sticking its fucking nose into everything and empowering meritless, government egged-on entities to trample over every legitimate, private entepreneur, Capitalism could have provided a perfect environnment to elevevate everyone up to a very decent standard of life, with enough left over for private charities and compassionate private citizens, of which there are many, very many, to fill in the gaps.
Most of those "compassionate" private citizens, however, certainly aren't the pinkos who themselves are so lacking in compassion that they assume nobody else has any either. That is why they always want BIG GOVERNMENT to be the one handing out the money because they know they themselves would never do so. Their own eyes are just on a slice of the action, not concern for other human beings.
As for "who are the consultants"? I don't know who they are, but I know who wants to be one: Daily Kos.
Although I visit that site to see if they have anything up on the issues which interest me, it's always an endurance test to stay there long.
I see why they're uncomfortable with Vichy Dems' point of view. My God, Kos himself said Obama was one of his three favorite politicians.
It really doesn't come much worse than that. It really, really doesn't. Actually, it might come a smidge worse, but frankly, I am not really interested in smidges at this point.
I don't like Daily Kos. I fear them, as a matter of fact. They remind me of the bad guys on "24" as much as does Bushco. I don't want polls. I don't want a "Democratic" party as an ends in itself, to reshape from within. I am not at ALL willing to concede that a "reformed" Democratic Party has any more chance than would a "reformed" Republican Party in restoring this nation to some semblance of sanity.
Less, probably.
I want a laissez-faire capitalist system of government.
That certainly DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PATRIOT ACT.
Unless the PATRIOT ACT is revoked in its hideous, ugly entirety, this is not a country I find particularly appealing.
It still may be better than most, in fact it is, but that's only because it still has the vestiges of Freedom.
The Patriot Act in itself will get rid of those vestiges pretty soon, and then we'll all be living in a nightmare.
I really like Sen. Feingold not so much because of the censure motion, which I support as a first step if no other steps are yet available, but because he recognized that the Patriot Act is a symbol of precisely what is now most wrong with America.
Like I said, you are awake to the threat from Bush, but Jeebus, the rest of your views are not too coherent or well-informed, "leave me alone" is not a political philosophy, it's a personality disorder known as narcissism or even schizoid, but that's cool, I'm a recluse myself. In any case, we can agree on that one point. We know the Bush admin is the greatest internal threat this country has ever faced.
ReplyDeleteReichstag Burning said...
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is a myth. If so, I believe it is widely held.
6:52 PM
We are all opposed to government waste and abuse. When you find corruption and graft in a police dept., do you do away with the police? Some libertarians believe that you should.
As Mike Huben says (with tongue firmly planted in cheek)...
"Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them."
Who has the record for pork now?
I would say that it is a myth and widely held because certain quarters benefit from the population accepting this widely held belief, myth, whatever. There never was such a thing as a "welfare queen". It was a myth.
Ender says: I don't want to take too much issue with this because I pretty much agree with you in spirit but what "big-government socialism" problem have we had?
ReplyDeleteCorporate welfare. The only Kings and Queens of welfare have always been the imaginary people (corporations), who control every aspect of our lives, or as Ted Nace has called them, super citizens.
EOW - "I disagree entirely, although maybe I am a dreamer and not a pragmatist. As a matter of fact, I am definitely not a pragmatist as I don't even believe in ends and means blah blah blah, etc."
ReplyDeleteI wish I had more time to address this today. I may write a post about it in the next few days. i don't always disagree with this view but I think there are times of crisis where the need to achieve a certain result is sufficiently urgent such that it justifies measures which one might otherwise prefer to avoid.
Having said that, there is political philosophy and then there is politics, and those worlds are separate and distinct with completely different goals. They may be related - at their best, each is related to the other - but there has never been a time in history that I know of when it was possible to achieve significant political results while insisting not only on being pure oneself, but also only working with others who were pure in the same way.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteanon @ 7:52 am: "leave me alone" is not a political philosophy...
ReplyDeleteParaphrasing Walter Lippmann, the normal politics in the US is indeed a "leave me alone" philosophy, typically democratic and American. For Lippmann, according to Alastair Hannay, moblizing public opinion serves exactly this function in times of crisis:
"... Call it the neutralization of force. Lippmann sees the mobilization of public opinion in times of crisis as helping to restore things to normal, bringing us back to that 'habitual process of life' in which we 'live and let live'." (In On the Public, p. 53)
I'm not sure the best way to get this message out in a way to be effective in helping our nation get past our current dillema but it needs to be repeatedly stated.
ReplyDeleteGW Bush is NOT a Consrervative Diring the 80's the Republicans were fond of saying that they're "getting government off the backs of people" Of course outlawing vibrators in Tennessee and mining ATT switching stations for suspicious word combinations are perfect examples of getting government off our backs. So I guess the other useful slogan beyond GW is not a conservative would be G.W. Bush is NOT defending our freedom
lather
rinse
repeat as needed
> I think there are times of crisis where the need to achieve a certain result is sufficiently urgent such that it justifies measures which one might otherwise prefer to avoid.<
ReplyDeleteThe 2004 election was a perfect example. No matter the details of one's political philosophy, I personally felt that it was important that the people who started the Iraq war were punished for having done so.
50.5% of Americans apparently felt differently.
Waas on the Robert's leak and the double standards...
ReplyDeleteOn the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Sen. Pat Roberts was involved in disclosing sensitive intelligence information that, according to four former senior intelligence officers, impaired efforts to capture Saddam Hussein.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteanon @ 7:52 am: "leave me alone" is not a political philosophy...
Paraphrasing Walter Lippmann, the normal politics in the US is indeed a "leave me alone" philosophy, typically democratic and American. For Lippmann, according to Alastair Hannay, moblizing public opinion serves exactly this function in times of crisis:
"... Call it the neutralization of force. Lippmann sees the mobilization of public opinion in times of crisis as helping to restore things to normal, bringing us back to that 'habitual process of life' in which we 'live and let live'." (In On the Public, p. 53)
8:25 PM
With all due respect and I mean no disrespect, or wish to give offense but I have just one word for you to consider:
Idiot
Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ιδιωτης, idiōtēs ("layman," "person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ιδιος, idios ("private," "one's own"). In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person." Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analagously modeled on the words prophet and prophecy.
History
It was originally used in ancient Greek city-states to refer to people who were overly concerned with their own self-interest and ignored the needs of the community. Declining to take part in public life, such as (semi-)democratic government of the polis (city state, e.g. Athenian democracy) was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are "stupid."
It's a wonderful word and I am quite partial to Ambrose Bierce's definition. I have even been one on occasion.
Hey Glenn,
ReplyDeleteOT, but just preordered 3 copies of your book for me and mine and it was #12 on Amazon at 4:50pm Tuesday afternoon Pacific time. Can't wait to read it.
LOL!!!!!
ReplyDeleteOur tiny little "copy and paste" troll isn't here throwing temper tantrums and lying about the chimp and his repulsive agenda.
Gosh, maybe it is "haaaaaaaaaaaaard work" trying to "catapult the propaganda" for a chimp that less than one third of Americans support.
LOL!
Truely a moment to savor.
Glenn: "Markos makes plenty of criticisms of certain elements in the Democratic Party. He just wrote a book doing that."
ReplyDeleteMarkos's critiques of the Democratic Party are unspeakably cheap and stakes-free. It's, "Do as I say, Democratic Party, or I shall vote for you anyway, and urge my vast online community to do likewise, and shun all who disagree with said strategy." That's no way to speak truth to power, and Dems like Markos are a very large reason why the Democratic Party currently has no political soul, thus necessitating your very post, today.
All that said, you're right, the need to protect the constitution from its current assault outweighs the need to ally only with those who don't personally sicken us, so on we march, with Daily Kos, and Bob Barr, and whoever else wishes to defend the rule of law.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Unfortunately I am beginning to see (at large) a typical trend where pointing out hypocricy morphs into a "well, if some get away with it then we shouldn't punish anyone" mentality.
ReplyDeleteThe moral isn't "dont punish leakers" it's "punish them consistently and without partisan bias"
Jailtime weeds out the patriotic leakers from the political hacks. Patriots will be willing to take the risk - the hacks will be turned off.
Not so much the use of political consultants per se, inasmuch as that the Democrats are either using terrible political consultants, or those consultants are secretly and corruptly working for the other team.
ReplyDeleteIn short, the current Democratic lineup has been hoodwinked.
eyes wide open: laissez-faire capitalism
ReplyDeletecirca 1890? yeah, that worked out really well
unrestrained capitalism is simply unrestrained exploitation of the workers
the massive power of korporations must be counter-balanced by unions, government regulations, and an independent judicary
and that is precisely why we're being screwed over today
Patrick Meighan said... Markos's critiques of the Democratic Party are unspeakably cheap and stakes-free. It's, "Do as I say, Democratic Party, or I shall vote for you anyway, and urge my vast online community to do likewise, and shun all who disagree with said strategy." That's no way to speak truth to power, and Dems like Markos are a very large reason why the Democratic Party currently has no political soul, thus necessitating your very post, today.
ReplyDeleteI think Glenn is referring to soul of the individual. I think this because things like political parties don't have souls. This isn't rythm and blues we are talking here. Having said that, I have plenty of trouble with the Democratic party, and rarely read Kos, yet I respect him. But you have to have lost your soul to not vote for the Democratic party anyway under the current circumstances. Aside from that your little diatribe was quite entertaining.
Leave me alone is so a political philosophy. What do you think laissez-faire means anyway?
ReplyDeleteIt may not be your political philosophy, but it's the political philosophy behind the Constitution of the United States which was written in order to assure that the Government would leave the citizens alone to the full extent reasonably possible.
The police and the courts protect one individual from another and the armed forces protect us all against attacks from foreign nations. But the Consitution protects everyone's right to have the Government just leave them alone unless they commit a crime against another citizen.
I am sure the Constitutional framers never envisioned a time when so many of the cases which go to Court are actually about citizens who never violated any other citizen's rights. They violated these faux rules set up by Big Brother.
If we didn't have an intrusive government, we wouldn't have all the spying, rings of steel around cities, cameras all over, eyeballs getting biometrically scanned, police state atmosphere, or any of the rest of that and we wouldn't have all the torture and degradation and humiliation and murder of people who I am certain would be pretty damn happy if our government had just left them alone in the first place.
It has nothing to do with being a recluse. It has to do with not wanting government to be Big Brother.
Moving on, here are some quotes from Tony Snow:
– “President Bush distilled the essence of his presidency in this year’s State of the Union Address: brilliant foreign policy and listless domestic policy.” [2/3/06]
– “No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [9/30/05]
Impotent? Is he out of his mind?
I'd say this guy is real bad.
Seems like he doesn't want to just leave people alone :)
It's one thing to "hope to dilute power". Its quite another to have a plan to effectively use the power you are given; otherwise, you're no better than those who abuse power -- you have no plan in place to show your promises are any better. This statement is not believable:
ReplyDeleteGlenn: "To me, diluting the power of the Bush movement - and then ending it altogether - is an urgent priority. Whoever else is devoted to that goal is someone we should work with, regardless of why they want to achieve that goal and regardless of other political differences, all of which - I have no doubt - will manifest and can be hashed out later, once the immediate threat to our system of government is defeated."
Glenn and others refuse to interact with some who are for the same objectives. It's fine to say this -- but your actions -- who you associated, what you condone, and what you fail to change -- are at odds with this principle. Ask your friends about their hypocrisy, who they refuse to interact with, and get them to explain why they refuse to interact with those who supposedly support the same goals. The real issue: They enjoy spreading non-sense as to “why they will or won’t interact” all the while those stories do not add up. They are only digging themselves into a deeper hole with their larger tales that do not add up.
You can't have it both ways: Asking the world to believe something that you do not practice; all the while asking the world to believe "our hypocrisy is acceptable", but theirs is not. Not buying that mustard.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteYou write They may be related - at their best, each is related to the other - but there has never been a time in history that I know of when it was possible to achieve significant political results while insisting not only on being pure oneself, but also only working with others who were pure in the same way.
Thank you for addressing my point. I know the above is true but I am still pretty mad about it in my heart because I keep wishing there were more pure people.
On the other hand, I tell myself, well, one must above all always deal with reality, and if the two appear to be in conflict, there must somehow be a solution.
As a favorite writer of mine (who shall remain anonymous because I am getting bloodied as well as bowed by mentioning her name, or her intials which are A.R.---heh heh) said something to the effect that when you think there is a conflict between two rational premises, check your premises.
You have found a way to bridge the gap, which is why I said you are still my hero.
In times of real crisis, it is possible that most bets are off, and you are saying this is one of those times.
I could not agree more this is a time of real crisis. I guess because I am not in the field of battle, as you are, I have the luxury of just worrying more about what happens after the "non-violent revolution" we all so desperately want.
Rock on, Glenn!
Anon: "Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that."
ReplyDeleteYou asked for it. You're welcome.
notherbob2 said...
ReplyDelete"You must also believe that the women in "Playboy" really look like that. Hypatia has the same relationship to a real libertarian that the actual models have to the final product that appears in that magazine."
I didn't think you right wing fundamentalist christians were supposed to be looking at Playboy notherbob. Best hope your friends aren't reading this thread or you're likely to get kicked out of the club.
To "anon" at 11:28. What specifically do you advise? I am interested in knowing and could you please tell us?
ReplyDeleteAnd who is it that has Glenn's same objectives that you say he refuses to interact with?
by the bookish, soul-less consultants who dominate them
ReplyDeleteI doubt the 'bookish' part.
If they read an occasional book -- and I don't much care if it's Federalist Papers or Glenn's book, or Rawls on liberalism, or Caro's LBJ bio, or something, they'd have some perspective.
Some sense of something bigger than tactics.
Some notion that the world didn't begin in 1992.
It's an oversimplification, but they're probably'soul-less' to the exent that they're not 'bookish'.
Say what you will about the Bush movement, but it is difficult to accuse it of lacking passion and conviction.
ReplyDeleteNow, now, surely a constitutional scholar such as yourself really ought to realize that Libby, DeLay, Abramoff, et al. aren't convicted yet, by and large, just indicted, under investigation, etc.
Eyes Wide Open: "when you think there is a conflict between two rational premises, check your premises"
ReplyDeleteActually, the quote is something else: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Your version of the quote is not simply a misstatement, but has an inherent faulty construct: Namely, it is impossible to have two valid premises that contradict each other. This argument presupposes that the statements are valid, and that they are true and sound.
Your version of, "conflict between two rational premises" has an inherent flaw in that it mislabels the premise as "rational". That's not correct nor precise.
. . .
The broader issue is whether this assertion -- that contradictions do not exist -- is true.
That premise/assertion, I would argue, is false: for the following reasons:
A. It is possible to have a contradiction between actions and words; Some leaders will publicly scream for some sort of solution, only to deride those who point out that the leader has no solution, and that people of rather minimal faculties can create a far more compelling vision and future. Leaders do not like it when they are shown to be inept.
B. It is possible to have a contradiction between conduct and standards; It is possible to have a public policy or stated principle that is well known, all the while taking action to undermine those who point out that this person is not following the standard and principle they advocate. Leaders do not like to have their followers realize they are not capable of doing what they say.
C. It is possible to have an inconsistency between what one says publicly, and what they privately discuss/sanction, or condone; For example someone may encourage others to take some sort of action, but privately resent the fact that others are taking them seriously and doing just what they ask for. Leaders do not like it when others outshine them, especially when this is done with little effort.
D. It is possible to have a public persona that says one thing, but the private persona is something else. For example a business leader may say X about what they dream for; but in private they believe this goal is hopeless or simply bait to induce others to follow them. Leaders do not like it when people dig into the reality of a situation and find out the leader is a fraud, or their real results are at odds with the myth they would have others blindly embrace.
Off topic but IMO important. It appears the Russians and Chinese have put the kebosh on any plans that Bush may have about attacking Iran with nukes or otherwise. That is unless he wants to start WWIII. The Russians and Chinese have just invited Iran to join them in a mutual defense pact. A pact formed to specifically offset the power of the U.S.
ReplyDeletecynic librarian: You always have the most terrific quotes and links and are an education all in yourself.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how you do all that, but it sure is a great public service.
THANKS!
Eyes Wide Open, I doubt the seriousness of your questions.
ReplyDeleteA. Eyes Wide Open"What specifically do you advise?" I doubt the seriousness of this question because we see little evidence that the specific solutions which have been presented have been taken seriously. Rather, the issue turns into, "We have heard enough" or "We do not want to hear it" despite requests to have that information. The lessons for all is: Beware whether they actually back up their "request for assistance" with a track record of supporting all actions to comply with that request. This community has shown a disdain for those who take seriously those who genuinely respond with a serious response. Those days are over. If you choose, you may dig through your archives to find the answer to this question.
B. Eyes Wide Open "I am interested in knowing and could you please tell us?" Again, the issue is: I doubt your seriousness -- because in the past when this community has asked this question, and encourage to respond to this request -- all genuine and good faith efforts to freely comply and provide a solution were trashed as being "not good enough" or "not in the right format" or "too much." Clearly, the issue wasn't that the community did or didn't want assistance; but that many would rather "complain about there being no solution" rather than saying, "Wow, we found we have a solution."
When there is a desire for an answer -- and that desire is real -- you will need to be very clear with many things:
A. What format of that answer is acceptable;
B. How many "references" to that solution is sufficient;
C. Are you serious about doing the work;
D. And if you have that answer -- as you ask for -- are you serious about really letting others freely decide whether they want to embrace that solution, or will they shoot the messenger?
This is an issue of credibility. The track record is at odds with the apparent "claim or interest" in desiring to know. Rather, the evidence is that the "Desire to know" is not genuine; and someone were to actually respond, the issue isn't whether the solution is or isn't workable; but whether the flavor of the comment and plan was or was no suitable or palatable to those who have a bitter breath.
C. Eyes Wide Open: "And who is it that has Glenn's same objectives that you say he refuses to interact with?"
You will have to ask Glenn about the particulars of those whom he associates, and those whom they refuse to interact. The point is -- it is not to be believed that "all people who support the same goal" are accepted. Rather, there are some who are shunned for simply responding to your question. Not again.
If you genuinely desire a solution, you will have to be specific:
A. How many links do you want;
B. What is the maximum number of comments you want in the response;
C. Whether you will continue to remind all others that you genuinely ask for and are interested;
D. The maximum number of words you want in the solution;
E. Whether you are committed to simply accepting that someone else might genuinely want to answer your questions, and that they provide the information to assist you.
However, the track record of the community is contrary to the above. When some might bemoan the state of affairs, the claim that those who offer a solution are doing out of a desire for 'self promotion". Indeed, if that were true, why would someone take the time to respond to a request?
That is the point: Why should anyone take a "request for information or assistance" when the community has a track record of turning that request into an excuse to berate those who comply with that request.
If you desire to know the answers to your question, all you have to do is look at what you have already been given. If you cannot find it; then you need to ask Glenn who he associated with -- and those they refuse to interact with. If they deny this or say, "We never did that. . . " then you have a basis to ask, "Why do you say that you will work with all people; but you claim to not know about this issue."
There is your answer. When you ask Glenn about "the people he and others in his community refuse to interact with" -- there you will find the answers to your question. If they deny that this route or option exists, then you know they are not being candid with you either. You already have the information; your task will be to decide how seriously you want to work to find the answer. You will have to find it. It will not be given to you a second time.
"hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteI haven't held a passionate admiration for a politician in over 20 years. Had anyone told me it would come to pass that I would hold such admiration, and that the object would be a Democrat -- one who co-sponsored a campaign finance bill that I detest -- I would simply not have believed it.
Damn well said!!! In my eyes it would have been a coin toss, D or R, because I was waiting for an individual.
Random thoughts....
Many excellent posts. True idealism is knowing the proper order in which to slay your enemies. Kos will be in hiding long before the sword is raised. The virtue of a donkey is that of a pack mule. Every long journey needs a few.
True public financing of elections is too easy to game. If it is really not to be another way for entrenched power to skim off the top then I will become very rich and very famous and it will be repealed just to shut me up. Or said another way... We already have public financing of elections, it is just called the vote.
I would like to caution that the democratic party does not in anyway oppose the policies of the Bush administration, even in the upcoming Iran folly. I used to believe one of the few values of an institutional two party system was its ability to minimize incompetence and radicalism but I have been proven a fool yet again. I will not be surprised in the least if the democrats get the house or senate and there is still no investigation, all in the name of 2008.
notherbob2, do you get the feeling you are standing on the earth waving as the rest of us fly out of view?
anonymous said,
Glenn and others refuse to interact with some who are for the same objectives.
I need a cite on that one. There is no doubt the democratic party will use the anger being expressed here to their advantage. There is also no doubt the democrats will stab in the back all but the most obsequious supporters when the time is right. What the democratic party misjudges is that this anger will come down twice as hard on them and with their inability to fight back, it will not be pretty.
"anon" at 11:44. You are absolutely right and my misstatement of her sentence was just plain dumb.
ReplyDeleteI hate myself for doing that, which was a real violation of AR, but I was writing very quickly because I keep going back to Amazon to see how our horse is doing.
Sometimes I am just so terribly imperfect that it really frightens me.
In the future, I promise to be more careful.
Lastnamechosen: True public financing of elections is too easy to game. If it is really not to be another way for entrenched power to skim off the top then I will become very rich and very famous and it will be repealed just to shut me up. Or said another way... We already have public financing of elections, it is just called the vote.
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate on how you see a public campaign financing system being gamed?
Reichstagburning writes: Can you elaborate on how you see a public campaign financing system being gamed?
ReplyDelete527.
Ban those, too, and something else will arise. You cannot effectively criminalize political speech, unless you want a police state.
gris lobo, that's exactly what it looks like about China and Russia and Iran, which was why I concluded many days ago that we are not going to attack Iran.
ReplyDeleteAll the blah blah blah is just a pump and dump for oil at this point and for all we know, Seymour Hersh could be long oil.
Stranger things have happened. After all, he himself knows these negotiations have been going on between Iran and Russia at least since February.
To anon at 12:33. First of all, as I asked the question in complete seriousness and you doubt that I did, I respectfully submit that you may not be the quickest study of human nature.
Also, I am sorry that I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are saying. Foggiest.
Color me stupid, but I simply do not get any of your points. It occurs to me you are a humorist?
If not, boy, talk about different wavelengths.....
Also, I don't like being given homework assignments. You remember me, the "leave me alone" person?
If you had written some sentences with concise, intelligble thoughts, I would have been happy to think about them.
PS. Anon at 11:44. I reject the rest of your post however, and if AR were here, I am certain she would show you very quickly why what you say is wrong.
She was Ayn Rand and I am just me, so I won't try, except to say it is possible to do a lot of things in this world. Some people can even touch the tips of their noses with their tongues.
None of those things which you say are "possible" and you thus think prove that that "contradictions" occur between rational premises, in contradistinction to what Ayn Rand said, in my own opinion have anything to do with what Ayn Rand was saying and, to me, certainly do not prove her wrong.
But that's what makes horse races, speaking of which.....
Interesting stuff there, EWO. I have learned to wait until I read enough from any particular person before I engage them on the web, to avoid jumping to conclusions and accidentally calling someone an idiot (or genius), only to learn I should have held off because I find out I was wrong. Avoids unnecessary flamethrowing.
ReplyDeleteAnyhoo, I'm starting to get a better idea of where your coming from, and I think you have some interesting ideas, not to mention values.
I've seen you refer to Ayn Rand enough to know what kind of capitalism you like. I agree it would be great, but as some others have pointed out, what we have in America today is not remotely that kind of capitalism.
It was in the 19th century that we took the final steps away from an economy that would treat each individual fairly, giving each equal access to resources and capital. What we did was give away our rights to corporations, and that was pretty much the end.
I wish I had time to really explore some interesting ideas, but time constraints this week are keeping me way busy. I'm doing some writing of my own and it gets frantic at times.
One of the ideas I've been working on is that the Founding Fathers never anticipated the scale of the economies that came later. By the end of the 19th century private individuals had amassed fortunes unlike anything the FFs ever knew could exist, (except for monarchs.) Fortunes were so large that people had more money than they could ever use on luxuries, so they started to invest their money in political power. I'm convinced if the FF's had seen the potential for abuse these massive fortunes allowed, they would have built in protections, as they did from every source of abuse they knew about in their day.
You mention tyranny of the majority--as I recall, Madison thought the 3 branches, and the make-up of each, would create enough factions to make sure no particular group could tyrannize another. Of course he never anticipated all 3 branches working together to empower a particular minority. Money can buy almost anything.
One thing that economies of scale create are fortunes based solely on the massive size of the population. Instead of the village baker making money for his family, one being/person/corp can make the bread for millions of people. Natuarally they make the money that comes from such massive scale marketing. So the return isn't representative of how much work they do, or its value to society, its just a factor of population. So we start to diverge from randian-reward based economy and begin to build something impersonal, and disconnected from any of the things kindergartners understand to be the rewards of hard work. (Kids can be the most ruthlessly fair people on the planet--kids always get the idea behind fair distribution.)
The guy who makes billions selling ball bearings isn't working any harder than the guy who works on a fishing boat pulling 70 hour shifts. He isn't as valuable to society as a doctor, or even a fireman. He might even be retired to his island, while somebody else does the work of making and selling ball bearings.
He justs happens to be the first guy to get the patent on a manufacturing technology and he gets all the money from it from now on.
If one, or only a few entities, end up being allowed to make ball bearings (due to the laws that power managed to ram thru in the late 19 century) then they make fortunes just on the basis of the large population of consumers.
There is value in being a consumer in a large population. Large populations will create massive amounts of capital as they buy up goods. Currently we allow single individuals to be the beneficiaries of that collective power. What if we didn't? What if we decided to put a limit on personal fortunes? What if we made the limit so high nobody could legitimately claim they were being kept from doing anything but amassing enough wealth to buy power? At a certain point, one can have enough cars, swimming pools, mansions, jets, islands, etc etc etc etc before you reach a point where any of us would say that would take care of my worldly needs. Some will always maintain they should be allowed to amass money without limit based on principle--but that priciple is a disguise for bald-faced greed--and I don't believe even they really believe it.
This is very controversial stuff, so I regret not having time to defend it from some common misconceptions, but you get the idea. What if we had a society where instead of a handful of ultra-wealthy individuals on top and millions sharing whats left, we had a society where everyone had equal access to capital, and anybody who made more than a set limit would be allowed to retire to their private estate, or work for the joy of doing a job they love. We would still have a distribution curve, and people with more than almost anybody else, but the curve would be something kindergarten kids would appreciate.
What if with the trillions of dollars we spend on war (we would still have the biggest military in the world--by far) we spent on becoming a society where every child had access to as much education as they wanted.
Societies in history left monuments and vestiges of themselves, (we can still visit Roman aqueducts etc.) When this country was young we did the same thing. That's changing now. We won't build a wall to protect new Orleans (that would last for thousands of years, like Northern Europeans have built in many places) because we have people in power who make sure we only spend money where it benefits the few in control. All that talk about New Orleans as a Grand American City is being sacrificed on the same idol they killed the reconstruction of Iraq on.Halliburton gets the money that would have been wasted on those worthless ragheads. That's the real thinking behind the policies we see coming from this WH. We end up burning through expensive weaponry in ridiculous wars instead of ending poverty and replacing internal combustion engines.
With the money we as a society produce we should be the wealthiest empire in history. The things we are now capable of doing on this planet boggle the mind. But we keep living the way we have for millenia, with a few ultra-wealthy, all-powerul people on top, while the rest of us fight over the scraps. And the scraps alone are now considerable. Enough to keep us all in Big Macs, RV's, SUV's, and the latest big show on our new TV's. But the difference between the lifestyle the masses lead, and the one they could lead, is gargantuan.
It would be a shame if we evolved for all thses billions of years and died off because we couldn't grab the ring when we finally had it in reach.
Hypatia: You cannot effectively criminalize political speech, unless you want a police state.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stating it so succinctly.
In the original formulation of this Republic, public speech was both atomized (all media was local) and inherently weak (no outlet had national reach). The Founders did not conceive of a circumstance where information could be as tightly controlled, modulated and "catapulted" as it is in the current environment.
We are truly faced with an unforseeable but grievous threat to our democratic system and to our personal freedoms. In other words, it looks like we are getting a police state anyway. Therefore, it seems that unless we act (1) to free our legislators from their servitude to wealthy contributors, and (2) clean the airwaves of its load of propaganda, converting it into a neutral, educational resource for the electorate, we may lose everything.
There are many good examples in the other developed (read: European) democracies of well-regulated electoral processes and restrained media. The police state you fear may ironically arise from the effects of the very broad scope of the first amendment as it is currently interpreted, rather than from some careful restrictions on its applicability.
I didn't mean interesting values. I meant interesting ideas--and values. (Good ones!)
ReplyDelete"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDelete"527.
Ban those, too, and something else will arise. You cannot effectively criminalize political speech, unless you want a police state."
You seem to be indicating that nothing should be done because it's useless to do so.
Sounds a bit defeatist to me.
This is what I would propose to clean up our political system and get the big bucks out of it.
First, the House is supposed to be the peoples house. I would rescend the law that limits the number of Represebtatives to 435 and go back to what the Founding Fathers intended. A representative for every 30,000 citizens. Then I would require that campaign funds raised for election come only from the people they represent.
The same for the Senate on campaign funds except they would be able to raise funds statewide in the State they represent.
Only the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates would be able to raise funds nationwide.
Next, rather than public financing, I would have a Government run nationwide TV channel that would give equal time to all viable candidates. Viable candidates being anyone for a house race that can produce 3000 signatures from their district or that can pay a non refundable fee of $5000 to enter the race. Similar rules and fees would apply to Senate and Presidential races.
The problem with politics now is that politicians rather than being beholden to the people they represent are beholden to the campaign contributors that contribute to influence politicians according to their seniority, influence, and which committees they sit on.
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDelete"gris lobo, that's exactly what it looks like about China and Russia and Iran, which was why I concluded many days ago that we are not going to attack Iran.
All the blah blah blah is just a pump and dump for oil at this point and for all we know, Seymour Hersh could be long oil.
Stranger things have happened. After all, he himself knows these negotiations have been going on between Iran and Russia at least since February."
I knew that Russia and China were not going to go along with the U.S. in the Security Council but the defense pact was a new one on me today. Good news too! As the Bush admin feels more and more cornered I expect some type of October surprise more and more. Glad Iran has probably been eliminated from that possibility.
Hypatia, don't you think anything we do to ensure fair elections involves some restrictions on free speech? Not sure what alternative there is.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me fair elections are right up there with free speech (and all the others in the Bill of Rights) in terms of their importance. Without fair elections--which also means fair rules in all regards--we're doomed as a Constitutional (Democratic) Republic.
I was tempted to ask you this earler today, but didn't have time. I'm not sure what we need to do to clean up the elections, but I think it's clear we have huge problems, and nothing close to what most would think of as fair elections.
I too have major problems with infringements on any of our rights. But lately I'm starting to think some are just necessary if we are to maintain political fairness.
In almost every aspect of life we impose rules to maintain fairness--even on day to day things. Fair debates in school require scrupulous timekeeping. Any little advantage can become huge to those who know what they're doing. The people who run elections these days really know what they're doing. They manipulate whatever limits we impose to any advantage they can find. But so far, if one side has more money or is the incumbent, the game is pretty much rigged.
As long as everybody has to follow the same rules, I can live with any restrictions that still allow all sides to fully explain themselves to the populous. This is an area we need to devote huge efforts to, and very soon.
ewo: You always have the most terrific quotes and links and are an education all in yourself.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
ender said...
ReplyDeleteSeriously? That is huge news. Where did you read that? Link us up if you are able GL. Please and thank you.
I don't have a link ender. I heard it on CNN News today. The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer if I remember correctly. They may have something on their site.
To anon @ 8:58 pm: I've always been partial to the Dostoevskian form myself. Calling on the ancient tradition of the sacred fool, perhaps, or the manic, inspired madman. One so simple-hearted and good of soul that s/he can't continue to exist in a world filled with deceit and hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteEyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDeleteLeave me alone is so a political philosophy. What do you think laissez-faire means anyway?
Capitalism is not a political philosophy, nor is it a form of government. Jeebus! Do IQs just drop around this subject? Idiology.
I've noticed an anonymous the last few days who spends a considerable anmount of effort breaking down people's posts into 1's,2's and 3's and A's, B's and C's, in order to show said poster they've made a mistake in logic (or something.)
ReplyDeleteEWO made a quick reference toa quote and you spent--how many paragraphs--breaking down that single reference. It wasn't substantive, and he explained why he'd been in a hurry and said he'd try harder in the future.
I get the impression you're smart. Don't work so hard trying to show just that. Say something about what you really think, or comment on another person's thoughts in a way that gives some notion of what you think about the subject.
If you spend all your time doing what your doing, it gives the impression all your inetersted in is showing how smart you are, as opposed to being genuinely interested in the content here.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAnon: "Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that."
You asked for it. You're welcome.
11:32 PM
Actually, you did. But bring it on.
Pack a lunch and a dinner, and some couple of clean pairs of shorts because i'm sure you will wet yourself again, winger.
anon @ 2:10 am: I've noticed an anonymous the last few days who spends a considerable anmount of effort breaking down people's posts into 1's,2's and 3's and A's, B's and C's, in order to show said poster they've made a mistake in logic (or something.)
ReplyDeleteI know. My first thought was, "So?" And then I remembered the logician's form of mental diarrhea:
log·or·rhea
Variant: or chiefly British log·or·rhoea /"log-&-'rE-&, "läg-/
Function: noun
: pathologically excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness that is characteristic especially of the manic phase of manic-depressive disorders —log·or·rhe·ic or chiefly British log·or·rhoe·ic /-'rE-ik/ adjective
reichstag burning said...
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate on how you see a public campaign financing system being gamed?
Well the devil is in the details and without a specific proposal it is pure speculation on my part, but I can envision 100,000 "volunteers" on each side of the political isle taking the money and message time to simply repeat the talking points of each party and dropping the caveat that if people believe they don't have a real chance to win then you should just vote for X.
The Founders did not conceive of a circumstance where information could be as tightly controlled, modulated and "catapulted" as it is in the current environment.
I could not disagree more. We are in a unprecedented time of information freedom. Our conversation here is a testament to that freedom. I used to live in large cities just for the luxury of spending $20-$30 dollars a day to read the major US papers and foreign press. I would drive to the GPO just to get government issued reports (what happened to the BCCI John Kerry?) I photocopied thousands of documents at the national archive. We live in an info junkies dream if we can hold on to it.
The problem with campaign finance reform is illustrated well with a line from the Godfather. "Real power can't be given. It must be taken." Money flows from power. Power does not flow from money. If you ban all basketball players over six feet tall, the Lakers are still going to be a winning team.
The only interesting idea I have heard on this front is mandating anonymous donations, but I still don't like it. All the current campaign reform system does is give tremendous power to established media outlets at the same time they should be dying a well deserved death.
armagednoutahere said...
I too have major problems with infringements on any of our rights. But lately I'm starting to think some are just necessary if we are to maintain political fairness.
We must have faith in our fellow citizens. More speech, not less. If we are all currently "sheeple" dancing to the marionette strings of the propagandist's sleight of hand, then the best we can do is hold on to our rights and wait for the "awakening." We will emerge from the cave because we were never dead, only sleeping off an injury that would have killed a lessor man.
gris lobo,
This is huge news. If for no other reason than the opposition party in this country has become the Russians and Chinese. World War III, here we come.
Dear Lord, I sincerely hope your coming because you really started something. Waiting for the end of the world.
If you haven't been following the Juan Cole case, where John Fund--columnist for the Wall Street Journal--smeared Cole in an op-ed piece, look it up and see how it fits much of what Glenn has written about in the last few weeks concerning the animus of the Right for the truth.
ReplyDeletethelastnamechosen said...
ReplyDelete"gris lobo,
This is huge news. If for no other reason than the opposition party in this country has become the Russians and Chinese. World War III, here we come."
Afraid I have missed your point. Sorry but I don't understand how the Russians and Chinese have become the opposition party in the U.S.
"Dear Lord, I sincerely hope your coming because you really started something. Waiting for the end of the world."
I didn't start anything, I just heard it on the News today.
If it's the end of the world everyone will be there, including myself. Personally I hope it gives Bush pause about the wisdom of attacking Iran.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI've noticed an anonymous the last few days who spends a considerable anmount of effort breaking down people's posts into 1's,2's and 3's and A's, B's and C's, in order to show said poster they've made a mistake in logic (or something.)
Welcome to that Anonymous. He's a smart and well informed Anonymous with a well organized mind. We are legion. Resistance is futile.
Public financing can be gamed? Sure, anything can be gamed, so let us do nothing. Ridiculous how rigidly you people adhere to a second rate romance novelist dressed up as a faux philosoper and feel like there is no freedom with any regulation. Without regulation there is no growth or health in nature. Without regulation you have cells going wild. You know what that is? That's cancer. Go watch that in a hospital some time. That's death, a very painful, wasting, disfiguring death. People can still be free with regulation of things like markets and corporations and butchers and restaurants. Instead of reading this girlish drivel from Rand, read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
After reading The Jungle, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered an investigation of the meat-packing industry. He also met Sinclair and told him that while he disapproved of the way the book preached socialism he agreed that "radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist."
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteanon @ 2:10 am: I've noticed an anonymous the last few days who spends a considerable anmount of effort breaking down people's posts into 1's,2's and 3's and A's, B's and C's, in order to show said poster they've made a mistake in logic (or something.)
I know. My first thought was, "So?" And then I remembered the logician's form of mental diarrhea:
log·or·rhea
Variant: or chiefly British log·or·rhoea /"log-&-'rE-&, "läg-/
Function: noun
: pathologically excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness that is characteristic especially of the manic phase of manic-depressive disorders —log·or·rhe·ic or chiefly British log·or·rhoe·ic /-'rE-ik/ adjective
2:22 AM
You may feel this person is condescending and pedantic to you. Perhaps, but I wish my mind was that well organized and orderly. but you guys don't like regulation and order, do you? Free form Anarchistic idealists.
ender said...
ReplyDeleteSeriously? That is huge news. Where did you read that? Link us up if you are able GL. Please and thank you.
Ender I couldn't find anything on CNN's site but I guarantee you I heard it this afternoon.
The name is the Shanghai Cooperation Association which is a NATO like alliance that includes some eastern European contries as well as Russia and china.
I did find a reference at Pravda:
"So what about Iran? The simple answer, in two parts, to all this madness is to turn the Iranian matter over the the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a NATO-like security coalition led by China and Russia. Iran is soon to become a member of that group anyway."
The title of the complete article is
Strike Iran, Watch Pakistan and Turkey Fall
24.04.2006 Source
URL:http://english.pravda.ru/opinion
/columnists/79463-iran-0
armegednoutahere: I always really love reading your posts. I usually agree with almost everything you say, and this last post is no exception.
ReplyDeleteI have to think a long time about what you write about capitalism before I have something interesting to say about your comments. And I hope you write a book because it would be fascinating to read.
I agree that we haven't had Capitalism in this country for a long, long time, and I think Ayn Rand thought we never did.
Actually, the main thing about her was she believed in individualism and was against all forms of authoritarianism.
In her early book Anthem, the "State" had banned the use of the word "I", which was the only crime for which people got the death penalty. If they said "I", that is.
She voted for FDR because he was against Prohibition.
I think she sat out the Reagan election (I have to check on that) because she was one of those "purists" and didn't want a theocracy of any sort in this country.
As you probably know, she thought of herself primarily as a Romantic Novelist (as opposed to a political theorist or a philosopher) and her interest was in writing about heroic men as they could be, not necessarily about how most of them actually are.
Anyway, thank you for saying I have good values, as that means a lot to me coming from you.
To anon: Capitalism is not a political philosophy, nor is it a form of government
Yes it is.
Jeebus! Do IQs just drop around this subject?
Yes, I.Q.s appear to drop around this subject.
Enough said :)
PS. I am waiting until everyone else is asleep. I thought if I placed a few more orders for Glenn's book when everyone else is sleeping, it might open tomorrow as #1!
EWO has this thing for purity. Very, very scary, because I've heard it before. Hitler talked about it, and not just racial purity, but I'll get to that in a second. Cynic quotes Lippman, again scary. I looked him up.
ReplyDeleteEarly on, Lippmann was optimistic about American democracy. He believed that the American people would become intellectually engaged in political and world issues and fulfill their democratic role as an educated electorate. In light of the events leading to World War II and the concomitant scourge of totalitarianism however, he rejected this view. Lippmann came to be seen as Noam Chomsky's moral and intellectual antithesis: He agreed with the Platonic view that the population is a great beast, a herd, that has to be controlled by an intellectual specialist class. In this sense Lippmann might be viewed as a forerunner of US neoconservatism. Chomsky used one of Lippmann's catch phrases for the title of his book about the media: Manufacturing Consent.
Personally I think you should read the book by Chomsky. Anyway, ponder that about Lippman and how it relates to the idiot as the non-involved, self-centered individual who has no concern for anything but himself. Now back to purity. I prefer integrity, and this is Neitzsche: "The will to a system is a lack of integrity". There is a lack of integrity wherever you look these days. perhaps that is why there is a will to a system, some regulation. perhaps that's not a bad thing, until integrity returns. Hell, what do I know. I just know Iagree with Neitzsche, and he was misunderstood by most people, the Germans in particular.
gris lobo,
ReplyDeletePlease forgive me. I should have ended my comment with a :) What little point I had was that the democrats seem to be doing little to prevent the next war.
The "Dear Lord" line is from an Elvis Costello song and was merely an observation that this will do little to dissuade GW. I tend to see internet conversation as a face to face and tend to see a face to face as a mind meld. I am very rarely clear, even in my own head. I do appreciate your patience in the face of one who assumes so much but communicates so little.
A.
ReplyDeleteYou will be assimilated and anonymized. Resistance is futile
Congrats, Glenn. I wish you continued success.
ReplyDeletethelastnamechosen said...
ReplyDelete"gris lobo,
Please forgive me. I should have ended my comment with a :) What little point I had was that the democrats seem to be doing little to prevent the next war."
Thanks for the clarification. And don't feel bad if you don't feel clear some days, I have my own days like that too. :)
As for your point, I don't think the Dems can do much right now to prevent another war. Hopefully that will change in November and hopefully nothing will break out before then.
I also found this at TASS:
ReplyDelete"Yuri Baluyevsky; Russia to be neutral in possible Iran-US armed conflict
19.04.2006, 18.32
MOSCOW, April 19 (Itar-Tass) - Russia will maintain neutrality in a possible armed conflict between Iran and the United States, Russian army chief of staff Yuri Baluyevsky stated on Wednesday, as he was answering Itar-Tass questions.
"Unequivocally, and I'm saying it as chief of the General Staff, Russia will not be offering the use of its armed forces on this or that side," Gen Baluyevsky said.
He called for resolving the Iranian nuclear problems through negotiations.
"A diplomatic solution of the Iranian nuclear problem is the only right path; one should walk on it, the nuclear problem should be resolved under strict control by the International Atomic Energy Agency," he underlined."
Which seems to refute any implication of a Russian military response in the event that the U.S. enters into conflict with Iran. But I will note that the above statement was made before the announcement today that Iran would be joining the Shanghai Cooperation Association.
Gris Lobo,
ReplyDeleteExcellent research. God I love the internet.
Who's Number One?
ReplyDeleteCongrats, Glenn. Got mine on pre-order, btw.
.
To the anon who wants to equate capitalism with animal cruelty and speaks of Rand as "girlish drivel" while extolling The Jungle whose author was a socialist:
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you are talking about.
GO HERE FOR SOME LINKS
We're talking about "soul" on this thread?
Watch some of those videos linked to on that site, if you can stand it.
There would be no cruelty against other humans if every person had enough compassion for animals to condemn hunting, eating animals, wearing fur, and all the rest of it.
All systems of government are equally guilty, but the skinning of live cats for their fur and the beating to death of dogs so there meat will be more "tender" for consumption is a speciality of Communist China and Communist Korea.
Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him? ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight. ~Albert Schweitzer
Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they're in the game. ~Paul Rodriguez
Cockfighting was illegal in Oklahoma until 1963, when a judge ruled that chickens are not animals and therefore unprotected by anticruelty laws. ~U.S. News & World Report, 6 December 1999
I have developed a deep respect for animals. I consider them fellow living creatures with certain rights that should not be violated any more than those of humans. ~Jimmy Stewart
If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons. ~C.S. Lewis
I invite everyone on this blog to stop eating animals, give up fur and leather, condemn hunting for the cruel sport it is, (look what it did to the souls of Cheney and Scalia, among others), fight to promote legislation which prohibits vivi-section, and join us in our fight to stop the worldwide neverending holocaust.
Until that happens, condeming the torture of humans is completely hypocritical.
Laissez-faire. Leave them alone.
Sorry for the gloom, on such a happy day. On a more positive note:
ReplyDeleteProduct Details
Paperback: 146 pages
Publisher: Working Assets Publishing (May 15, 2006)
ISBN: 097794400X
Shipping Information: View shipping rates and policies
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1 in Books(See Top Sellers in Books)
Yesterday: #2 in Books
Seen anything more beautiful lately?
Hello Gorgeous!
But then again, more doom....
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Estate has morphed into a Fifth Column.
The recent Washington Post report quoting intelligence officials to the effect that "the White House has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers" is an especially alarming sign. Let all those who gave Kerry $2,000 beware. Goss and gosslings are in position to finish destroying any vestige of nonpartisanship and objectivity at the CIA. Who is to stop them? John Negroponte who, as ambassador to Honduras, helped run the Contra war in Nicaragua for CIA Director William Casey and feigned ignorance of the rampant death squads there?
Is There A Double Standard On Leak Probes?
ReplyDeleteRoberts, one of the staunchest defenders of the Bush administration's effort to stop the flow of sensitive information to the press, said in a statement that "[t]hose who leak classified information not only risk the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods, but also expose the brave men and women of the intelligence community to greater danger. Clearly, those guilty of improperly disclosing classified information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
But three years ago on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Roberts himself was involved in disclosing sensitive intelligence information that, according to four former senior intelligence officers, impaired efforts to capture Saddam Hussein and potentially threatened the lives of Iraqis who were spying for the United States.
Y'all might like to know that the Philly Inquirer starts off Wednesday's "Blog Cabin" (A series of selections from blogs on a particular subject) with Glenn's comments on the Mary McCarthy case. Congratulations to Glenn!
ReplyDeleteIncluded here is my letter to the Inquirer in response (as they probably won't print it):
Reading through Wednesday's "Blog Cabin", it's not at all clear why Michael Barone refers to Mary McCarthy's political contributions when discussing a case of possible treason or disloyalty to the United States. Did John Kerry come out and say that he was opposed to America? If I were a right-winger, I'd say the Inquirer was trying to make us look "unhinged", as Michelle Malkin would say.
Alas, we know right-wingers do indeed consider McCarthy's political contributions to be an important issue. "Blog Cabin" then shows Captain Ed to be making a series of presumptions about things he couldn't possibly know about with any certainty, i.e., what McCarthy might have done behind the scenes before making her accusations public.
This column shows right-wingers to be acting in a wildly, hysterically irresponsible manner. Unfortunately for the political right and for America at this particular time, the column accurately characterizes their responses to McCarthy. Glenn Greenwald is correct when he describes their conduct as "un-American".
Eyes Wide Open is PETA bread? And the kinder, gentler capitalism? You and Hypatia are really weird. And full of bizarre weirdness. Now mind you, I prefer animals to people. They're what's for dinner.
ReplyDelete"EWO says Go here for some links"
ReplyDeleteLike most things, you seem to have it all bass-ackwards. Go here for some links, yourself. That's fine pictures of the end result of you and your fellow libertarian/objectivist/crapitalist travellers bullshit faux political philosphies on the right. It's just another word for exploitation. The Commie Red Chinese have little to do with it, but you guys will bring them around. You already are. Nice people, eh? They love animals, too. Just like Hitler. Loved dogs and kids, He was even a vegetarian.
Just to follow up on the Murray Waas link with a couple others on the same topic.
ReplyDeleteThe Carpetbagger has additional dirt on what a political hack Pat Roberts is.
Digby has the evidence on just how far the war on journalist has gone and the eliminationist rhetoric now so common on the right.
And our friend Anonymous Liberal has a very good post on this subject, pointing out something I hadn’t thought of:
You see where I'm going here, right? Doesn't it seem highly likely that Trent Lott was right and that one of these sources was a Republican Senator? In fact, if I were a betting man, I'd wager that someone from McCain's office, maybe even McCain himself, spoke to Priest off the record about the prisons.
Conservative commentators and bloggers might want to keep that possibility in mind as they call for the aggressive prosecution of Mary McCarthy. Even if McCarthy was a one of Priest's sources, she clearly wasn't the only one. If conservatives keep trying to pry open this box, they might be surprised what pops out. It's easy to call for the head of an obscure Kerry-supporting CIA bureaucrat, but what if you learn that a prominent Republican politician is guilty of the same offense, or worse yet, what if that politician turns out to be the next Republican nominee for president?
We’ve seen double standards in the media for a long time, with one set of rules for Republicans and another for Democrats. But now, the radicals in power have taken this a step further and are implementing two distinct judicial categories – one for Republicans (it’s not a crime, no cause for concern, move along please) and one for Democrats (a total threat to our national security which must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law).
The purge of anyone with any friends who are journalists (not working for Fox News) or anyone who has affiliations with the Democratic Party is essentially anti-democratic in nature – no other administration has engaged in such total purges or demanded such loyalty.
Make no mistake, these are the actions of an authoritarian government. We have arrived.
"notherbob2, do you get the feeling you are standing on the earth waving as the rest of us fly out of view?"
ReplyDeleteUgh, yeah, it's kind of like that, only you all are sort of circling; chasing your tails, as it were.
notherbob2 said...
ReplyDelete"notherbob2, do you get the feeling you are standing on the earth waving as the rest of us fly out of view?"
Ugh, yeah, it's kind of like that, only you all are sort of circling; chasing your tails, as it were.
10:07 AM
You must be confusing us with your buddy "The Dog," your hero, "Tail Sniffer Joe" McCarthy and the other troglodytes on the right. We don't have tails anymore. We got evolution, remember?
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDelete"I invite everyone on this blog to stop eating animals, give up fur and leather, condemn hunting for the cruel sport it is, (look what it did to the souls of Cheney and Scalia, among others)"
I respect your right to your view and the right to express it to others. I do however disagree with it. So I will take this opporunity to express the opposing viewpoint.
I have been a gun owner and a hunter for most of my life. I oppose cruety to animals just as you do but cruelty to animals and hunting are two different things. In fact hunting can be one of the kindest of things that can happen to animals. I will give you an example.
In Florida in the 70's there was a flood. Many deer were trapped with no way to escape. A hunters group asked the state for permission for a special hunt for animals that were going to die anyway. People like yourself opposed it and prevailed. The result was hundreds of deer suffering horrible deaths from hunger and disease that took months to kill them while they suffered the whole time.
Animals left to their own without predators overbreed and eventually ruin their habitat and nature culls them through starvation and disease. Managed wild life programs where hunts are regulated by both gender and quantity provide a humane way to manage wild life populations. They increase the quality of life for the animals because there are adequate food and resources for the animals that are there.
I also oppose your idea that we should not eat meat or wear leather. If you believe in God then you know that God put animals here as a resource for man, one of many that should be managed and used wisely. And in the Bible he put no constraints on man eating meat or wearing leather. If you don't believe in God then we are at the top of the food chain and should still manage and use all of the resources wisely.
I would leave you with one last thought. Unless you plan to starve yourself to death you must eat something. If you are a vegetarian just remember that plants are living beings too. Just beacuse you can't hear them scream when you chop and tear their live bodies apart for your dinner doesn't mean that they don't. It is a known fact that plants respond to care and even the human voice, abeit much more slowly than animals.
gris lobo:
ReplyDeleteIf you believe in God then you know that God put animals here as a resource for man, one of many that should be managed and used wisely.
If you are a vegetarian just remember that plants are living beings too.
I am speechless, but thankfully your words speak for themselves.
As for the rest of the "urban legends" you put forth, those arguments are all factually untrue, have been proven to be false by countless people, and are viscious rationalizations for committing evil.
Let's face it. You like to kill. You've constructed a "God" who encourages you to do so. And you're worried about the feelings of plants.
Sorry, I do not interact in any way with hunters and therefore will put you on scroll from now on.
In my opinion, you are a murderer who enjoys killing. Seems there a lot of those around now.
If anyone on this site is also a hunter, please let me know so I don't waste my time reading your posts.
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDelete"I am speechless, but thankfully your words speak for themselves.
As for the rest of the "urban legends" you put forth, those arguments are all factually untrue, have been proven to be false by countless people, and are viscious rationalizations for committing evil."
I don't deal in urban legends. You obviously are living in some sort of fantasy land. If you buy meat at the grocery store and eat it, somebody had to kill the animal for you to be able to do that. And yes, plants are living things. So if you buy them and eat them somebody had to kill them too. The fact that decry those that do the killing so that you can eat is hypocritical to say the least.
Let's face it. You like to kill. You've constructed a "God" who encourages you to do so. And you're worried about the feelings of plants.
I haven't constructed anything, read the Bible.
"Sorry, I do not interact in any way with hunters and therefore will put you on scroll from now on."
Fine by me. Please do so. I do however reserve the right to read your posts and reply as I deem necessary (looky there Bush doesn't get to be the only decider after all)
"In my opinion, you are a murderer who enjoys killing. Seems there a lot of those around now."
Gee it's not like you didn't know I am a combat veteran. Do you think I was shooting tiddly winks at the enemy? As for hunting I have always eaten what I hunt.
BTW you should take a good look in the mirror someday and take a close look at how many people you have harmed with your capitalist free trade dogma. People that have done nothing but work hard all there lives only to get screwed by somebody that looks the other way when it happens.
The Bush/Cheney Administration operates outside the rule of law, perhaps because they reckon that they would be ineffective and hamstrung if they operated inside the rule of law.
ReplyDeleteAlas, when they exceed the irksome limitations of the rule of law, they descend even deeper into the frightful chaos of dysfunctionality than if they had remained hopelessly tied up in bureaucratic red tape.
If one is going to break all the rules, Harry Potter style, one had better doing something heroic and marvelous rather than something idiotic and tragic.