The Democratic Congress' Fatal Self-Deception
I give you my dear friend Kenny Pierce with yet another gem:
"If Fred Thompson doesn't have all the other Presidential pretenders quaking in their boots -- especially the charmless Hillary -- then they're way too bloody stupid to be running the country. His take-down of Michael Moore was masterful in about half a dozen different ways.
Meanwhile the Democratic Congress continues on its suicidal path toward the destruction of its own party. I can't remember in which on-line forum I said, shortly after the mid-term elections, that I thought the Democrats' apparent success would turn out to be a disaster for them, and that Hillary's candidacy had just taken a major hit. My reasoning was that the Congress, being rendered stupid by their hatred of Dubya, would take entirely the wrong lesson from those elections, and would proceed to spend the next two years making it absolutely clear that no matter how bad an idea it is to give Republicans power, giving Democrats power is, mirabilu dictu, an EVEN WORSE idea.
And the Democrats are playing out the script exactly as written.
See, when those elections came in, suddenly everywhere you turned the Democrats were talking about their "mandate," and specifically they were claiming that they had a mandate "to end the war." Now, let's set aside the fact that the Congressional elections were not, in fact, a referendum on the war, and that the Constitution (which the Dubya-terrified insist that Dubya wishes to undermine) certainly does not say that if the opposition party wins control of Congress during a war, then Congress is authorized to usurp the power and function of the executive branch. (When you hear a Democrat complaining about Dubya's attempts to behave un-Constitutionally, ask them if they object to Nancy Pelosi's blatant attempts to pursue a shadow foreign policy in direct opposition to and subversion of the President's foreign policy. Nobody who supports what Pelosi did has any business pretending that it's Constitutional checks and balances they're out to defend.) Let's pretend for the sake of argument that the only issue that anybody in America took into account in casting their Congressional vote this last time around, was the war. What, then, is the real mandate?
I'll tell you what it is. The mandate is not to stop waging the war. The mandate is to stop screwing around getting nothing accomplished like Bush and Rumsfeld and Co. have spent the last four years s-a-g-n-a. The American people thought that if Bush was allowed to just keep on muddling along and pretending that Rumsfeld was right and you could conquer the world with six National Guardsman, a K-9 unit, and a bunch of high-tech equipment, then we'd continue right on with the slow bleed of Iraq and never get anywhere.
But you can feel that way about Bush for two different reasons. You can feel that way because you want to bail out and clear out of Iraq the way we did in Vietnam -- that is, you can feel that way because you either don't believe we can win or else never wanted us to in the first place, and you can want to give up and leave. Or you can feel that way precisely because you want to actually win the war, not just pretend we're winning it. And if you wanted to win the war back in the last election, back when Rumsfeld was still in control rather than Petraeus...well, I think most of us felt that without a major change in course, Bush wasn't going to get it done.
Thus even if the Democrats were right to believe that the country had rejected Bush's Iraq policy, it didn't at all follow that the nation was embracing the Democrats'. As hard as it is for Democrats to get into their minds, most Americans prefer winning wars to losing them, and most of us would still prefer to win in Iraq. Most of us don't want to replace Dubya with leaders who will say, "Okay, we lost, let's go home." Most of us either want to keep Dubya because we still think he'll eventually clue in and get the war won, or else we want to replace him with a leader who will actually win the war.
And that's all true even if we make it easy on the "mandate"-brandishers by allowing them to ignore the highly relevant facts that (a) the war was not by any means the only issue on the table in the mid-terms, (b) in the one district where it was absolutely and without question the dominant issue in the race, the notoriously Red-State voters of Connecticut bitch-slapped the Democratic anti-war nutroots, and (c) the swing Democrats whose election gave the Democrats temporary control of Congress, did so by distancing themselves from the Howard Dean / Dennis Kucinich wing of the party.
So the Congressional Democratic leadership has joyfully embarked on pursuing its imaginary "mandate." And what's the result?
[chuckling] Well, it hasn't taken long for their efforts to start bearing precisely the fruit I expected. The nation as a whole doesn't think very much of Bush as a President. But we the nation think better of Bush as a President than we think of the Democrats as a Congress.
Well done, Pelosi & Co. Any time you want to join the real world, feel free...but, see, trouble is, you can't join the real world without getting rid of the Bush-hate-goggles. So do you lust after the hatred more than you desire success? Because in the long run you can't have both."
Selling Renewable Energy (Solar Etc.) Without Incentives
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on.
Chances are, as natural gas and oil prices go up, there will be a corresponding jump in your monthly electricity bill. So, instead of promoting a solar power system based on today's savings in electricity, we need to have easily understandable projections on what the savings will be over the life of a system. These numbers need to reflect what's really happening to the cost of energy!
Here are some ideas I'd like to share. First, we need to find a way to make renewable energy economically competitive without the tax incentives. We do this by answering the question: "What is the opportunity cost of not using solar to decrease your energy bill?"
There's something interesting I've found. There's a direct correlation among electrical rates, the cost of air conditioning a building, the heat index and the amount of sunshine on any given day. In other words, on the hottest, sunniest days, we use more electricity that costs more per kilowatt. So, why do we continue to promote average hours of solar production, when in fact (at least down here in California), we produce far more solar power per day during the heat of the summer when energy costs are highest, than we do in our temperate winter months when energy costs are lowest. A sound marketing approach would be to evaluate solar energy in "dollars" of production per year instead of in kilowatts. I'm sure there are some smart people out there who can match kilowatts of solar production on any given day of the year to what the rates will be (based on the projected costs of electricity).
Secondly, we should stop trying to sell a solar package as a "cost." In real estate, there is a principle that says anything affixed to real estate becomes an integral part of the real estate. Once a solar package is installed, it immediately increases the value of a property. So how can you predict how much more a building will be worth in 5-10 years with a package as opposed to without one? In the real estate appraisal business, there are three approaches to appraising a property. The market approach (what are comparable properties selling for), the reproduction cost (the cost of creating an identical building at current construction and material prices) and the actual original cost adjusted for inflation. In all three methods, there's a strong case that a system installed today will make the building worth more today and in future years.
We need some realistic numbers to predict how much more a property will be worth in the years following installation. I believe that if you sell a building 5-10 years after installing solar, you should recoup all of your investment in the system plus an added bonus. If the rumors are true, a residential system (using the market approach) adds $20 of value to a home for every $1 it saves on the electric bill.
For commercial appraisals, you would divide the income (savings) by a cap rate (which was about 9% at last report). A system that saves $2000 a year then would be worth $40,000 on a home or $25,000 on a business. But if the cost of electricity goes up (if that is remotely possible), then wouldn't the value of the solar power system increase as well? In reality, we are not selling something that costs — we are actually offering a financial investment that grows comparably with other forms of energy.
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on. In commercial real estate, they use a "Cash Flow Analysis" form as the tool to evaluate a building's value using the income approach. We need a similar tool for putting a value on solar. If solar makes sense with this approach, then just think of how much better the systems look when you add the tax advantages!
This approach also applies to the cost of Energy efficiency implementation.
Reducing operational costs increases the value of the business and or property.
Compiled by Jay Draiman, Energy analyst
12/1/2007
Posted by: Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst | Friday, December 14, 2007 at 01:55 AM
The Greedy Corporations and the Profit Hungry Shareholders
Honesty and integrity went out the window – anything goes
Corporate greed and the insatiable thirst to make a profit, to satiate shareholders share- holders’ profit expectations have changed American values, where anything is justified in order to derive enormous corporate profit and satisfy the expectations of the share-holders; maintain the image of profitable corporate America. It is a vicious cycle that feeds itself to ultimate disaster.
These attitudes have brought corporate executives to exercise the drive and mentality that anything goes, no holes barred.
Inflating earnings, hiding debts and liabilities, outright fraud and deception. Theft by executives, theft of corporate assets, graft, bribery, illegal contributions to politicians, trips, gifts and favors to politicians, crooked lobbying organizations.
Where and when does it all stop? When are Americans going to wake-up and realize they are on the path of disaster of magnitude proportions that will bring our downfall?
We still have honest ethical hard working people in America. Let us all rise and protest these money hungry actions and methods, before it is too late.
Work hard to better America, institute honesty and integrity.
It starts at the top – the politicians, the legal system, corporate America and progresses to the masses.
The media is not exempt. Honest reporting is a must, the public expects no less.
Exercising - Sincerity, honesty and integrity is a good beginning.
If you work hard, perform your duties sincerely and honestly, you will be able to earn a better profit/living. You will not have to worry about covering up for your wrongdoing and you will be able to sleep better at night, look at yourself in the mirror.
We should learn to respect each other.
Bring back family values.
Am I asking too much?
Jay Draiman, Northridge, CA – Sept. 24, 2007
PS
An essay concerning the origins, nature, extent and morality of this destructive force in free market economies. Definitions. Paradoxes and omissions in Adam Smith's original theory permit - encourage - greed without restraint so that in a very large society [USA] over two centuries it has become an undemocratic force creating precipitous inequalities; divisions in this society now approach a kind of wealth apartheid, and our values are quite unlike Smith's: this is an immensely wealthy society but it is not a humane society. Wealth and poverty are connected, in fact recent sociological theory shows our institutions routinely design inequality in, but this connection is largely avoided in texts and in the media, as is the notion that greed is a moral wrong. Problems created by greed cannot be solved by technology. We are also distracted by already-outdated environmental rhetoric, arguments that scarcities and human suffering follow from abuse of our ecology. Rather, these scarcities are the result of what people do to people. This focus opens practical solutions.
"The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." The future Nobel laureate in economics had no patience for capitalists who claimed that "business is not concerned 'merely' with profit but also with promoting desirable 'social' ends; that business has a 'social conscience' and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of re formers."
He wrote that such people are "preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting pup pets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades."
He argues that corporations add far more to society by maximizing "long-term shareholder value" than they do by donating time and money to charity.
He said "there is one and only one social responsibility of business-to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." That's the orthodox view among free market economists: that the only social responsibility a law-abiding business has is to maximize profits for the shareholders.
I said. But we have not achieved our tremendous increase in shareholder value by making shareholder value the primary purpose of our business. In my marriage, my wife's happiness is an end in itself, not merely a means to my own happiness; love leads me to put my wife's happiness first, but in doing so I also make myself happier. Similarly, the most successful businesses put the customer first, ahead of the investors. In the profit-centered business, customer happiness is merely a means to an end: maximizing profits. In the customer-centered business, customer happiness is an end in itself, and will be pursued with greater interest, passion, and empathy than the profit-centered business is capable of.
Many thinking people will readily accept my arguments that caring about customers and employees is good business. But they might draw the line at believing a company has any responsibility to its community and environment.
This position sounds reasonable. A company's assets do belong to the investors, and its management does have a duty to manage those assets responsibly. In my view, the argument is not wrong so much as it is too narrow.
First, there can be little doubt that a certain amount of corporate philanthropy is simply good business and works for the long-term benefit of the investors.
That said, I believe such programs would be completely justifiable even if they produced no profits and no P.R. This is because I believe the entrepreneurs, not the current investors in a company's stock, have the right and responsibility to define the purpose of the company. It is the entrepreneurs who create a company, who bring all the factors of production together and coordinate it into viable business. It is the entrepreneurs who set the company strategy and who negotiate the terms of trade with all of the voluntarily cooperating stakeholders—including the investors.
The shareholders of a public company own their stock voluntarily. If they don't agree with the philosophy of the business, they can always sell their investment, just as the customers and employees can exit their relationships with the company if they don't like the terms of trade. If that is unacceptable to them, they always have the legal right to submit a resolution at our annual shareholders meeting to change the company's philanthropic philosophy. A number of our company policies have been changed over the years through successful shareholder resolutions.
The Theory of Moral Sentiments. There he explains that human nature isn't just about self-interest. It also includes sympathy, empathy, friendship, love, and the desire for social approval. As motives for human behavior, these are at least as important as self-interest. For many people, they are more important.
When we are small children we are egocentric, concerned only about our own needs and desires. As we mature, most people grow beyond this egocentrism and begin to care about others-their families, friends, communities, and countries. Our capacity to love can expand even further: to loving people from different races, religions, and countries—potentially to unlimited love for all people and even for other sentient creatures. This is our potential as human beings, to take joy in the flourishing of people everywhere. Whole Foods gives money to our communities because we care about them and feel a responsibility to help them flourish as well as possible.
The business model that should be embraced could represent a new form of capitalism, one that more consciously works for the common good instead of depending solely on the "invisible hand" to generate positive results for society. The "brand" of capitalism is in terrible shape throughout the world, and corporations are widely seen as selfish, greedy, and uncaring. This is both unfortunate and unnecessary, and could be changed if businesses and economists widely adopted the business model that I have outlined here.
To extend our love and care beyond our narrow self-interest is antithetical to neither our human nature nor our financial success. Rather, it leads to the further fulfillment of both. Why do we not encourage this in our theories of business and economics? Why do we restrict our theories to such a pessimistic and crabby view of human nature? What are we afraid of?
Businesses such have multiple stakeholders and therefore have multiple responsibilities. But the fact that we have responsibilities to stakeholders besides investors does not give those other stakeholders any "property rights" in the company, contrary to those' fears. The investors still own the business, are entitled to the residual profits, and can fire the management if they wish. A doctor has an ethical responsibility to try to heal his/her patients, but that responsibility doesn't mean his/her patients are entitled to receive a share of the profits from her practice.
Many probably will never agree with my business philosophy, but it doesn't really matter. The ideas I'm articulating result in a more robust business model than the profit-maximization model that it competes against, because they encourage and tap into more powerful motivations than self-interest alone. These ideas will triumph over time, not by persuading intellectuals and economists through argument but by winning the competitive test of the marketplace. Someday businesses like these, which adhere to a stakeholder model of deeper business purpose, will dominate the economic landscape. Wait and see.
The first is that running a profitable business requires using soft values. It's easy to caricature the greedy profit-maximizing business owner as ruthless. But the best businesses are led by people who excel at soft values, who treat their customers and employees well. Business that treat customers and employees badly find it harder to thrive.
Running a family like a business destroys it. Running business like a family destroys it and leads to tyranny.
Posted by: Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant | Monday, September 24, 2007 at 01:09 PM
honest leadership and open government
I see Murtha and Cold Cash J. are still players. That part kinda squibbed out eh?
Minimum wage increase? Good deal if you're NOT a Samoan...
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 03:08 AM
Liberal bias in the media.... balony!
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Mac, Joan is the cat's whiskers as far as I'm concerned.... here's more
Bad Reputation
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 05:52 PM
GD: If only. I'm a broken-down middle-aged Jewish man, Midwest-dwelling; thank God my wife is nearsighted and loves me anyway. I love Joan Jett's music. Do you know (trivia) that Joan Jett is considered one of the finest guitarists in rock (male or female) and plays guitar right-handed even though she is LEFT-HANDED? Unlike other superb guitarists and bassists in rock history- Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain of blessed memory, and Paul McCartney- all left-handed and all played or play left-handed. Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 09:34 PM
Psst.... Kenny..... go Democrat.... they like everybody! We even have our own Repubican wing that we call the Democratic Leadership Council.
For example, Kenny, you might like the Democratic Freedom Caucus:
And just for the record, I didn't start out wanting to drag Milton Friedman through the mud.... it just sort of turned out that way. I'm sure he was a nice man. But Paul Krugman was very civil in his critique, and I don't know if he's a nice man or not. I just think his criticisms are on the mark.
Mac is just so sensitive sometimes! But he is quite the stud muffin :)
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 08:33 PM
Me, earlier:
"But then I sort of have the impression that the Ghost doesn't value generosity or honesty in debate for its own sake; so she may not really grasp the point you're making."
The Ghost, subsequently:
"So mac, your argument amounts to Krugman is not a nice man and Friedman was? Whatever."
My impression, and my hypothesis, would both appear to have been accurate.
Gringo, I absolutely agree that with this immigration debacle the Republicans in general and Bush in particular are out to prove that no matter how politically moronic the Democrats get, they can be outdone if you try hard enough. And there's no question the Republicans are trying.
In fact (to resurrect an old chestnut), they're very trying.
Which is why I am unable to follow Ace's advice and send the Republicans a copy of the form by which I inform my county that I am un-registering myself as a Republican in order to protest the immigration "compromise" -- having never registered as a Republican to begin with. Ah, well. Neither party has ever cared what I thought in the past, so I got over it long ago and got used to my place on the political sidelines.
Posted by: Kenny | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 06:05 PM
Dubya has indeed been very good for al-Qaida.... he fails to mention that it was his decision to prosecute a war in Iraq rather than keep the pressure on al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan that set the conditions.... destabilizing Iraq and making it possible for al-Qaida to gain a foothold in that chaos, while at the same time the Taliban becomes resurgent in Afghanistan.
He should have highlighted to the Coast Guard Academy that his is exactly the type of flawed, incompetent foreign policy they should be wary of as the leaders of tomorrow.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 03:39 PM
More On Corporate Greed and Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman helped create the monster of modern Republicanism characterized by this quote from the fictiional character Gordon Gecko in the movie "Wall Street", 1987.
Interestingly, the Government ultimately went after Enron because its illegal activity failed its shareholders and pensioners. It is interesting that this Republican administration would not intervene as the Federal Government, when California accused Enron of fraud and extortion in its energy rates.... an accusation later proven to be true by intercepts of actual communications.
Why wouldn't Dubya intervene on behalf of one of the largest States in the Union when a transnational corporation was extorting? Why wouldn't he even investigate?
Because in the scheme of modern Republicanism, the ONLY sin is failing the shareholders.... the only sins are activities that fail to make a profit.
But Dubya wouldn't even intervene.... wouldn't even investigate. Why? Because they were fellow crooks following a corporatist philosophy of greed.
It's too bad the State of California cannot sue the President of the United States.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 02:33 PM
Friedman was a free-trade fundamentalist; he often told businesses and organized interests seeking protectionist legislation and tariffs that their position was wrong; this included Big Steel, Big Auto, and numerous other industries.
Big assumption that their position was wrong mac.... I figure with sustained policies such as these by 2015 America will be producing lead pencils that it can sell on the street corner.... of course would charge extra for the service of sharpening them.... service industry based economy you know....
Laissez faire, non-interventionist policies are becoming even more detrimental in the age of globalization. Without governments standing up for the people, human capital will be exploited just like that..... as capital (more like cattle) to be bought and sold in the international market place.
This is how the world looked from the U.S. after a decade or so of Friedman's ideas.... how do you think things are going today? Modern Republicanism is running on a great big plastic credit card, and China is the bank that issued it.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 10:20 AM
GD: You bore me when you don't infuriate me. Name-calling is no way to oppose Bush and his policies. Get a life and do something constructive.
Kenny: Thank you for your kind remarks.
One more thing about Milton Friedman in regard to GD's outrageous remark about telling "greedy corporatists what they want to hear": Friedman was a free-trade fundamentalist; he often told businesses and organized interests seeking protectionist legislation and tariffs that their position was wrong; this included Big Steel, Big Auto, and numerous other industries. GD, you are ignorant of economic and business history in this country. You're only good for invective-filled sound bites, full of ignorance. In other words, you are no better than Karl Rove and all the Republican politicians who follow his advice, and whom you presume to oppose. Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 09:20 AM
Dr. Olasky is also also a representative sample of psychological profile for extremist thinkers that I have pointed out here on ATB..... I think specifically to Alexandra on one occasion a few years ago.
Liberalism does not appeal to the likes of Olasky because hybrid notions of society repleat with compromise, tolerance and secular outlooks arise. Liberalism comes under attack from the extreme left, and extreme right. For the religious extremist, Liberalism does not allow enough trappings of religious influence in society, and for the Atheist extreme, Liberalism allows too many trappings of religion.
For the extremist, it must be either Atheism or rabid "christianity", Communism or Rabid laissez faire Capitalism.... every thought process is an "either-or" proposition. Either Goverment is everything, or it is nothing.... no sense of balance or pragmatic compromise.... only hyper-intellectualized idealism and ideology.
Modern Republicanism is the domain of right wing extremism..... that is why I've said repeatedly in this forum that America has far more to fear from rightest ideologues than leftest.
Dr. Marvin Olasky
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 08:46 AM
Modern Republicanism does have a problem with the idea of compassion, the common good, the American Constitution and the idea that even libertarians need government. Also, just as Islamic extremists want Sharia law as the law of the land, the core "christian" vote that has helped modern Republicanism in the last two decades is also ready to jettison secular government and create a "christian" state.
Here's were some of the lop-sided ideas for "compassionate conservatism" came from in the 80's and 90's
Marvin Olasky is one of the "great pseudo-intellectuals" that should be flushed down the toilet with the Bush administration and the rest of modern Republicanism.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 08:24 AM
Kenny,
Your assertion that the Democrats will demolish themselves by being themselves has merit. Unfortunately (for a rational Republic)their competition looks hell-bent on doing likewise to itself---unless you see the Republicans as managing to self-implode by a contrary method, i.e. too girly-menschen to be themselves. At any rate, gringoVision is taking a different look at this frazzled body politic today, searching out the ideological heart beat and clucking of multiple tongues: COMPASSIONISM, USA. The intro....
Is there an American 'ideology' today? A dominant, a commanding system of beliefs? Is there, as Princeton University's WorldNet defines it, "an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a....nation"?
Is there a reason why the Media must all but shriek the American deaths in Iraq, while remaining strangely mute or tongue-tied about the many, many more Americans killed by illegal aliens in the U.S.(half by drunk drivers) and the many, many, many more who are mangled to death on U.S. roads?
What could that reason be? Christianity? Free enterprise or capitalism? Conservatism or liberalism? But a number of citizens cotton to secularism, "progressivism," even socialism and atheism.
So much division. How can there be a national credo, just as there is no longer a truly national author, like Mark Twain? Is today's American brain now too Balkanized, as a tectonic shift in demographics and culture looms on the red-white-and-blue horizon?
Maybe not. Or maybe yes and no. A giant paradox of seeming contradictions, a system that contains all these discords, may be alive and well. Call it Compassionism.
'Compassionism'? Yes, the new American ideology (or emotive force, for those who prefer feeling to thinking). It's 'new' in the sense of being the most relevant and all-inclusive for today's politically correct Republic. It assimilates what normally is not assimilated, including even the mutually repellent. Whatever they call it, some will see in it---approvingly or disapprovingly--- elements of raw capitalism or "corporatism," Judeo-Christianity, and/or camouflaged communism or socialism, i.e. greed, God and God-less government.
In fact, it's not any single one of these three historic belief systems. Rather, it's an amalgam, an epic American fusion of all three. It integrates their normally separate approaches to social and political dogma. It hardly minds if some of its constituents loathe each other, berate each other, curse each other or just seem hopelessly incompatible at dinner parties. Let them "think" or "feel" or "opinionate" as they choose. It's more concerned with a bigger picture. Compassionism has a job to do and intends to do it. At bottom, that job is planetary, even if some fear that it's true goal, consciously or unconsciously, intended or un-intended, is to globalize away the USA. Compassionism today, through its news media, entertainment industry, courts, government, Business and Education, is revolutionizing everything inside U.S. borders, regardless of dissidents, hold-outs, traditionalists, heretics or outright un-believers. In fact few, if any, will admit to believing in it wholeheartedly. Communist/socialist elements fear or hate the capitalist and Christian elements, the capitalist or business interests rebuke the socialists, and Christians have issues with all of them. Nevertheless, contradictions and all, Compassionism thrives, taking what it needs from its separate non-believers, or semi-believers. It knows how to survive with hardly anyone fully believing in it. There are no parishioners, congregations, menorahs, devotees, church suppers or conversion ceremonies. This allows Christians, capitalists and socialists to feel untainted by each other. It's largely a faith without the faithful. As a dynamic, it's far more interested in results, not in whether a majority fully "believes" in it. Fanatics need not apply. Worship is not de rigeur. Heretics will not be burned at the stake or beheaded, especially if they are not too politically incorrect. Compassionism intends to rule and mandate, not excommunicate.....
[Complete at gringoman.com, including
* Early Compassionism: The Civil War.
* Landmark 1965 Immigration Bill. Did Senator Kennedy and elite Compassionists (Dems and Pubs) knowingly deliver U.S. demographics to the Third World? Or was it unconscious and un-intended?
* Al-Qaeda compares Russians (Communist) and Americans (Compassionist).
* Who began Compassionist "chain-migration" (immigrant's right to citizenship and entitlements for extended family)?
* Why Compassionists will not over-turn the Anchor Baby rule.
* Abortion and Compassionism
=====================================================================================
Forgive your enemies. It will annoy them----Oscar Wilde
=======================================================================================
Forgive your enemies, unless you voted for them----gringoman.
www.gringoman.com
Escaping Politically Correct
Posted by: gringoman | Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 04:42 PM
Paul Krugman
So mac, your argument amounts to Krugman is not a nice man and Friedman was? Whatever. Krugman is more on the beam than Friedman, and as the prophet of a rightest, corporatist economic theosophy Friedman happens to be a lightening rod.... especially as many of his policies, adopted by modern Republicanism, fail.
Krugman does a very fair treatment of Friedman.... not ad hominem attacks at all:
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 05:05 AM
Mac,
Kudos for that excellent comment comparing the generous and intelligent Friedman -- even though you disagree with him -- with the small-minded and vindictive Krugman.
Krugman, when attacking Friedman, always reminds me of the standard publicity tactic of mediocrities: attack a giant. People might notice you then just because they notice the giant...even if the giant himself takes no notice of you.
But then I sort of have the impression that the Ghost doesn't value generosity or honesty in debate for its own sake; so she may not really grasp the point you're making. But may I say, Mac, that having read your consistently cordial and generous comments for a couple of months now, it is not even the smallest of surprises to find that you remember Friedman principally not as "that guy I disagree with," but as, "that outstanding individual who always showed class in debate even when his opponents had none." Class recognizes class when it sees it, even when it sits on the other side of the aisle.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 04:25 AM
GD: You're pushing it, pal. "Told corporatists what they wanted to hear"?? Friedman spent most of his life in academia or advising governments. He told liberals and simple-minded leftists what they didn't want to hear. He spent little or no time advising businessmen (or women) of any sort. Your term for persons who live in the world of business is apparently "greedy corporatists."
Apparently anyone who believes in a capitalist system or works in the business world is "greedy." I suppose you live as simply and in as little luxury as a Trappist monk. I saw Friedman debate Keynesians, Marxists, middle-of-the-road liberals, and anti-libertarians. I saw him react with equanimity when booed in public at supposedly civil debates. And I saw him tear the stuffings out of the arguments of self-righteous arguers, haters of "greedy corporatists" without lifting a finger, simply using his debating and rhetorical skills.
Apparently the Swedish academy, headquartered in what most people consider a social democracy that mixes capitalist and socialist economic models, is so in the sway of "greedy corporatists" that it awarded the Nobel Prize in economics to Friedman for this reason alone. You obviously have never read Friedman (you're too busy showing us how smart you are by quoting the Holy NYT, as if reading it were proof positive of your erudition and intelligence) or have grappled with his arguments. Instead, according to you, because he believed in free markets, he must be a toady to "greedy corporatists." I said previously that I'm in the moderate-to-liberal wing of the Democratic party and believe in a mixed economy myself. But I respect Friedman as an economic theoretician and polemicist even when I disagree with him. Krugman? Yes, I don't like him, GD. He doesn't argue, he attacks. He loves to insinuate and ascribe the worst motives to anyone who doesn't agree with his oh-so-enlightened left-liberal views. He is supposed to be a distinguished professor of economics, tenured at Princeton, but all I see is snarky cynicism and holier-than-thou invective in his columns (to quote Billy Joel ("Pressure"): NYT? I read it too, what does it mean? (Joel referred to Time magazine, but the same principle applies)). Friedman never relied on ad hominem attacks. He was cheerful and open-minded in debate. He had principles, even if I disagreed with many of them.
Obviously, you believe that all forms of capitalism are inherently evil, GD. Perhaps you can reasonably argue here in this blog how we can reorganize our economy along the ideas of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez to achieve greater prosperity and economic security.
Incidentally, the Friedman who "told greedy corporatists what they wanted to hear" was against the Vietnam war, called for an end to the military draft when this was a very unpopular position, believed that illicit drugs should be decriminalized, and was against restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion. So much for toadying to his audiences. GD, you infuriate me. But then, this is what I expect from a man (woman?) who, when someone (me) says that Jimmy Carter and others should be careful about calling someone the worst president ever; history often sees things in a different light 25, 50, or 100 years down the road (case in point: Richard Nixon: as an adolescent I worked hard for his impeachment and thought he was the worst president ever; history sees his accomplishments as well as his flaws without exonerating his role in needlessly prolonging the Vietnam war or promulgating Watergate; I've grown up and no longer see him as Satan incarnate; growing up- ever considered it, GD? You seem to have time to post any time day or night, 24/7; I have something called a full-time JOB and a FAMILY to take care of and if you notice I rarely post until late evening or on weekends and sometimes go weeks at a time without posting, due to the commitments of ADULT LIFE) and you deliberately miscontrue this as me saying that history will "vindicate" GWB. I no longer feel bound by my New Year's resolution to you or about you, GD, you go too far, and do not have the moral or intellectual honesty or courage to back it up. You can say whatever you want, but don't misconstrue others' arguments for your own narrow-minded ends. Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Monday, May 21, 2007 at 10:19 PM
If Liquid were here, I'
d sho her this one
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Monday, May 21, 2007 at 09:28 PM
So mac... you don't like Krugman or somethin' ? Friedman is only a celebrated economist because he told greedy corporatists what they wanted to hear. His economic philosophy is morally bankrupt and demonstrably in error.
There are typically a lot of facts in Krugman's articles that could be checked and refuted.... I don't see that happening an awful lot.... just diatribes against anybody who criticizes the Republican Princling.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Monday, May 21, 2007 at 06:34 PM
One more thing, while I'm at it: Paul Krugman, der Gut Perfessor, has gone from reasoned economic debate to routine Bush-bashing. His columns are filled with invective, not argument (the same is true for the ad hominem attacks propounded by Dowd, RIch, et al.) I may even (as a moderately liberal Democrat) agree with much of their viewpoint. You can argue to doomsday that Bush is an a------ and that Karl Rove's attack-dog style of political rhetoric and perennial campaign-style attacks "started it"; it doesn't make it any more pleasant. I am particularly sick of Krugman's attacks on Milton Friedman. It is convenient that spineless Krugman, who never offers a public argument for debate unless he is cheered on by the awed, adolescent-leftist undergrads in his Princeton classes and the emotional-maturity equivalent of the herd of independent minds who read Krugman's NYT columns as Gospel, capital G intentional- no, he picks arguments with theoretical giants who are conveniently dead and cannot rebut for themselves.
I'm no free-market fundamentalist, and beyond his theories I have strong qualms with some of Friedman's behavioral choices when he was alive (advising the Chilean junta comes to mind), but there is no doubt that he is one of the two or three great macroeconomic theoreticians of the age, and Krugman is, well, Krugman, a tenured prof with a semiweekly soapbox in the Holy NYT. If Friedman were alive he would demolish Krugman and his arguments with less effort than it would take GD to brush a fly off his (her?) face; Krugman will not even be a pimple on 20th-21st Century economic theory, while Friedman's writings will be read and debated long after anyone remembers Paul (Latin for "small") Krugman's name. I'm not surprised that the little worm Krugman attacked Friedman at length in the NY Review of Books, and, having run out of epithets momentarily with which to attack Bush, has begun to continue his posthumous attacks on Friedman in his NYT sinecure.
GD, I question the wisdom of some of your choices for cutting and pasting on this blog. Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Monday, May 21, 2007 at 06:01 PM
Kenny,
Sorry for not getting back sooner, but to reply:
Yes, I think the Democrats think these things; they may even be right, temporarily. If they get their way, hell will break loose, each and every American will feel it hard at the gas pump, and the Dems will pay. It won't be 100% their fault, but the enraged public won't be in the mood to split hairs.
However, our president, who apparantly thinks he's throwing a keg party and everybody C'Mon Over!, will save the Dems by bringing them millions and millions of new, in-house voters--which is what this sudden interest in family values on the part of the Polosi gang is really about.
Meanwhile we Native Americans--as we'll call people legally here before the great immigration reform of 07--will be history. Ipod, Superbowl and Hiphop will be our firewater.
Right now, I would really, really appreciate a Stalin. He had such a way with traitors.
Posted by: igout | Monday, May 21, 2007 at 05:40 PM
I just don't understand what the big deal is with Jimmy Carter saying that stuff about Dubya when everybody else agrees.
Jimmy, by the way, was only President for four years during a terrible terrible time to be President. He accurately identified dependency on Middle Eastern Oil as a MAJOR security issue.... a good call that has taken three decades to take seriously. He achieved a peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs in a situation that seemed intractable.
Also, he inherited a negative public opinion about military spending, a demoralized military and a build-down already in progress as a result of a decade in Vietnam, which left him will few military options in the face of an Iran that was in the throes of an Islamic revolution that was a reaction to failed American policies which included overthrowing an elected government and installing a King....
So, I wouldn't blame too much on Jimmy Carter. He is the mindless obsession of rightests because he is now rubbing their noses in their failed policies.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Monday, May 21, 2007 at 05:10 PM
GD: Why don't you give me a break? It's well known I'm no fan of GWB, and I never said history will "vindicate" him. Those are your words, not mine. I said that Carter, who ascribes God-like powers to himself, has already determined once and for all time that GWB's is the "worst" in history. Surpassing the Philippines land grab of McKinley, or Wilson's ill-considered entry into WWI and subsequent promulgation of the 14 Points, or Carter's own Barney Fife-like (without the humor) stumbling between gentleness and Pekingese-style yipping at the Ayatollahs during Iran Crisis I...Please don't put words in my mouth. Incidentally, I just saw the headline on the web browser that your beloved Sage of Plains has backed off his God-like weekend remarks...I'll stop now because I'm dangerously tempted to renege on my New Year's resolution not to slam you, GD. Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Monday, May 21, 2007 at 04:17 PM
Give me a break mac.... defending this Republican administration at this point in time borders on the absurd..... I fail to see how "history" is going to vindicate its actions without major mental contortions.
Dubya and this Republican administration will go down in history as the failed epitome of a failed political and social philosophy.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Monday, May 21, 2007 at 04:54 AM
A quick Google search has variously attributed the quote to Twain, Samuel Johnson, Voltaire, Abraham Lincoln, and "anonymous." Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 07:27 PM
GD: For once you quoted an NYT columnist who doesn't cause my teeth to grind reflexively (unlike Dowd, Krugman, and, usually, Rich). As for Jimmy Carter and Bush's rank among U.S. presidents, history will judge. GD, you seem to think that it's an established "fact" and JC is merely stating facts. This is not the case. Incidentally, Carter compounded his sanctimonious and presumptuous remarks about Bush by passing judgment on Tony Blair. Even the most left-wing of the British print media (the daily Guardian but not its more moderate Sunday sister, the Observer; the New Statesman; the Independent) have tempered their end-of-an-era criticisms of Blair with some praise. Carter, oafish boor that he is, can find nothing good to say about Blair, who isn't even an American. Some Peace Nobelist. Some diplomat.
Kenny: I like that quote. Was it Mark Twaiin who said that he'd rather remain silent and have others think him a fool than to open it and remove all doubt? Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 07:23 PM
Tom Friedman has a really really good piece in today's New York Times that highlights just how well Dubya and this Republican administration has done in the area of "success" with respect to ITS OWN OBJECTIVES in ITS OWN FOREIGN POLICY....
My point? If you don't like Jimmy Carter criticizing Dubya's administration, listen to everybody else....
NYT
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 07:09 PM
Dubya is the worst President ever, and this Republican administration is the worst administration ever.
Jimmy Carter just happens to be pointing it out.
Kenny, we were talking about official rhetoric.... not stuff posted by posters on the web.... big difference.
And I still maintain that the value of the rhetoric should be judged by the truth to which it points. Durbin's rhetoric really wasn't very far "out of the box".
I wasn't really sure what Corporal Antioch's point was. I think he is suggesting that this Republican administration militates toward corporate plutocracy and Constitutional issues are not their formost concern.... that would be a correct evaluation.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 06:58 PM
Mac,
Good ol' Jimmy has long been in dire need of meditation upon a particular text of Scripture, but the one I have in mind is one that is common to both your tradition and mine:
"Even a fool is considered wise...if he keeps his mouth shut."
Posted by: Kenny | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 02:25 PM
I also ended a sentence with a preposition. What's gotten into me today? Wish I could say it was hangover, but I rarely drink aside from Passover and half a glass on New Year's Eve. Just have to blame age and brain deterioration. Shalom, Mac B.
Posted by: mac Brachman | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Jeez! I mispelled "one" as "won"! Kenny, please don't tell your father! Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Sorry to go off topic, but I was wondering about the news all over the 'net and the Sunday papers: James Earl Carter, Jr., aka Jimmy, aka The Sage of Plains, has decreed that George W. Bush is the "worst president" in U.S. history. By now people know I'm no fan of GWB but even less of won of ol' Liver Lips, no matter how many Nobel Peace Prizes he whines and wheedles his way into. Shouldn't the Plains Sunday school teacher review that New Testament text about the motes in others' eyes and the beams in one's own? Happy Sunday (Sabbath to most of you Christians out there) and Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Ghost,
Okay, take a look at Corporal Antioch's rhetoric. (Ignore for the moment his apparently blaming LBJ's War on Poverty on, of all people, Dubya; just concentrate on his rhetoric.)
Do you see any problem with it?
Posted by: Kenny | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 09:57 AM
Why don't we call the Busheviks what they truly are ... Leninista Halliban.
Where's the NRA Strict Constitutionalists? Are there no Constructionists?
He Who Laughs Last
(NSPD 51 - HSPD 20): Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”
He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”
The White House released it on May 9.
Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.
The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”
It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”
This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”
The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.
But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”
The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial
branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”
Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”
The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.
She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.
As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”
The Secretary of Homeland Security (currently an Israeli citizen) is also directed to develop planning guidance for, “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.
The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.
“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”
The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”
NSPD 51 - HSPD 20 language was drafted by a NSA team under operation 'Uber Alles'.
Posted by: Corporal Antioch | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 01:41 AM
As for Iraq, and Who's on First, who gives a rip? (Google "General Paul Van Riper") DoD/DHS is simply the largest corporation, by far and away, on the planet, and the only corporation entirely supported by tax donations. In other words, the biggest casino, highest stake tables, largest house take. Pure profit. Infinite P/E. Capiche?
If it wasn't War of Iraq II, (a war so nice they waged it twice), it'd be War of Eurasia, War of Drugs, War of Poverty, War of Immigration, or War of Health Care.
It's all a grandiose con, and you don't need to be Spider Man to tingle the stench.
Posted by: Corporal Antioch | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 01:16 AM
Newt Gingrich riposted that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama represented the greatest threat to Republicans in 2008, precisely because he wanted the media to focus on the two *least likely* Democrats to carry a majority of the electorate. Newt himself is trailing the field. Slick talkers don't twiddle the Neo-Zi joy stick, apparently.
Karl Rove riposted that Mark Foley was the reason the Republicans lost the Congress precisely because the damage was contained, already history, story of Onan, and like Jimmy Swaggart's "I have sinned", well out of existence. Karl himself is laying low, hoping the whirlwind of Wolfowitz and Gonzales won't sweep him up, like Toto, too.
Neo-Zi's sotus corruptus, literally catches the breath, whiff of brimstone.
Posted by: Corporal Antioch | Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 12:51 AM
The fruits of modern Republicanism
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Saturday, May 19, 2007 at 05:50 AM
Divine Wind
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, May 18, 2007 at 09:15 PM
Well Kenny.... the Democrats are not as far "left" as the Republican myth suggests. They have a very strong center-right corporatist contingent with the "Clinton" wing; the DLC.
The polls showed that Dubya's handling of the war in Iraq was probably the largest factor in the Democratic sweep back onto the political field.... followed closely by dislike of Dubya himself.... collectively, I think the American People have seen also the "clay feet" of modern Republicanism in general. The Republican Party is, after all, all spin and no substance. They are all about Party loyalty, being "on message", and maintaining power at any cost including undermining the Liberal Democratic structures of the nation.
There are two other famous Political Parties in modern history that had similar agendas.... I think you know which ones those are, so you can fill in the blanks: N___ and C________.
And, contrary to popular belief, the Democrats do have a political philosophy that is centrist in nature.... even Pelosi.
By the way.... I cannot figure out what the obsession with granting amnesty to illegal aliens, but both Parties seem to want that. I like the idea of legal immigration, and our quotas should not be all Mexicans for two reasons. 1. They are fleeing from the kind of kleptocracy that Dubya would like to establish here in America; their incomes that they send back to Mexicon helps perpetuate that kleptocracy, and 2. They are simply being exploited by unethical Americans.
We may need Uncle John's Band to play at our American never-ending Party igout :)
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, May 18, 2007 at 06:49 PM
Hey, Ghost, I think you'll get a big kick out of this particular Peril post. I know that since you know me mostly from the ATB comments section you're accustomed to thinking of me as a sort of fellow-traveler of the Republicans, and you're used to disagreeing with me. But I think this one might very well make your day.
Posted by: Kenny | Friday, May 18, 2007 at 06:31 PM
Ghost,
I just want to make sure we really do agree on this one.
You agree that the Pelosi Congress really thinks the American people gave them a mandate to end the war, right?
And you agree that insofar as the American people expressed an opinion on the war during midterms, they expressed dissatisfaction with Bush's job of running it, right?
And you agree that of the people who were dissatisfied, there are some people who want to get out now because we can't/ought not win; some people who would like to win if we can, but aren't sure we can and are really not sure that we can do it with Bush in charge; and some people who would like to win and think we absolutely could win the thing with the appropriate tactics?
And finally, if the anti-war Democrats make the mistake of thinking that their minority opinion of what ought to be done about Iraq is something they've been "mandated" by the American people to do, they will almost certainly take actions that will please their anti-war base but will annoy and alienate the rest of America, right?
'Cause those were my main points and it sounds like you might actually agree with all of them. And that would be a first.
I feel I should emphasize that this means that it is possible to believe that Dubya is the Spawn of Satan and still agree with all of my main points, so that you'll feel able to agree with me with a clear conscience. ;-)
Posted by: Kenny | Friday, May 18, 2007 at 05:31 PM
Ghost, igout,
Nice to find myself largely agreeing with you, though in finding that I actually seem to agree to a certain degree with Paul Krugman, I am sufficiently shaken as to wonder where it is that I went wrong in my reasoning. Still, it's not difficult to correct for Krugman's inveterate, self-blinding question-begging epithets ("anti-American," for example, simply means, "daring to disagree with Paul Krugman," but that's the way Krugman habitually talks so it's not like we don't know how to correct for it). And having so corrected, one can easily see, I think, that Krugman understands something Pelosi doesn't: a great big chunk of America doesn't buy into the far-Left view of reality that dominates the Democratic Party these days, and the fact that the American voters have lost faith in Bush doesn't mean they've gained faith in the Left. Of course, being Krugman, he thinks that this is a sign that a great big chunk of the American people are on a grossly lower moral plane than himself, but as that is merely the standard delusion of those who know nothing but the Politics of Self-Congratulation, we can simply give him a indulgently pitying smile and move on.
And, igout, I wrote that post and sent it over to Alexandra before the news broke about the amnesty deal. I stand by my belief that the Democratic Congress is full of exceptionally stupid Democrats who are doing their best to destroy their own party -- but I should have noted, and failed to note, that the Republican Congress is even more full of even more exceptionally stupid Republicans, and if I had to pick which party's morons are likely to win the race to the bottom of the basement of the political outhouse, I think my money would have to be on the folks who thought Dennis Hastert was a great choice of leader rather than on those who put their faith in Nancy Pelosi. A tough choice, no question, but if it was my life that I had to bet, I'd take the Republican Congress in the Dunce Pool.
Which, again, puts me in agreement with the Ghost, and that is always a pleasant change of pace.
Posted by: Kenny | Friday, May 18, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Get with the program, Alexandra. Democrats along with many clueless Republicans are about to vote themselves a whole new American people. And then the party will never end.
Posted by: igout | Friday, May 18, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Nice article Kenny. However you overlook the fact that the Democrats are more entertaining, and far more harmless than any modern Republican governmental cocktail (molatov) that can be dreamt-up as a follow-on to the "conservative" opus that is the Bush administration.
However, Paul Krugman does see it your way in this morning's NYT:
It's really not about Dubya.... it is about modern Republicanism.... and their was a mandate in November 2006. But you're right Kenny.... it wasn't only about the war.
No wonder Americans reflect on the good old days of Bill Clinton.... it would be nice to have trysts in the Oval Office as our only point of concern.
Oh, I'm not saying that Republicans will never again win an election.... just that they will continue to be wrong adding to a long history of demonstrated wrongness.... far more dangerous, and far less entertaining than the Democrats. Rightest ideas have skewed Liberal Democracies in the past, sometimes to the point of no return. I just hope America swings no farther right than center right, and will always be a Liberal Democracy.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, May 18, 2007 at 05:18 AM