What the Democrats Stand For

an edit, Joel:
"they're" to be replaced with "their"

The chambermaids after the party we told them not to have in the first place!

I don't think you can really say "less government" anymore. That's their line, but not their walk (note the word "their" Joel--just sayin').

I like to think about it as "not empathetic vs empathetic."

Republicans can only understand a problem or situation they've been in. Democrats (whether wealthy or poor) can "feel the pain" of others.

That's the view of this shrieking denizon.

Thanks for the copy edits. FYI, I changed "...but they're great-grandfathers have made it" to "...but their great-grandfathers have made it" even though, when my friend uttered the quote, he CLEARLY said "they're" and not "their." So you see, once again my journalism is accurate and impeccable.

Ben writes today:
To that last point, we'll be rolling out comments here shortly. Because this is an opinion blog, and not a work of unbiased journalism, it is sure to spark responses from a few fringe members of this Internet political community, who might be motivated to deluge comment systems with offtopic concerns (or perhaps go after other members of the Washington Post family, who have nothing to do with this blog - silly, I know, but I'm told it happens). Comments will be coming after the initial launch is finished, when I've gotten used to the rhythm of posting and you, gracious readers, have gotten used to it, too.

There are fringe elements? Ben has to get used to the rhythm of posting?

To address Joel's new Kit this morning--and to play off the chambermaids/frat-boy party metaphor:
Most of life is about 80 percent responsibility and 20 percent play or free time.

I had a telling moment after I interviewed a local Tahoe woman who went on to sweep the Mrs. California title. After the pagant, the glamour, the competition, the exposure to media lights and further interviews, after the prizes had been delivered to her door and her new kitchen installed, she confided to me, "You know, after all this, I realized I still have to cook dinner and do the dishes."

Wake up from your dream and smell the pot roast, say I.

Responsibility, coupled with accountability. That's all we ask. And, sadly, neither Republicans or Democrats seem to be delivering the goods these days.

By the way, if anyone posts a really good comment that gets gobbled up for no good reason by the Comment Gobbler, you could try emailing me at achenbachj@washpost.com and I might be able to figure out how to get it onto the blog.

Free editing assistance ...

Last comma in paragraph 1 isn't needed. A space is needed after the colon in paragraph 5. And what's with the use of brackets for parenthetical material?

Man, this is some heavy lifting we have to do without Achenfan.

Ben clearly needs a soundtrack. I suggest Pictures at an Exhibition, either a classic, symphonic version or ELP. Or maybe some Cream.

Democrats need to be the party of new, bold ideas. Democrats need to take chances and be willing to make an error. Democrats need to think outside the worn-out box.

E.F. in '08!

Will Rogers: "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

True Dat!

After five years, I'm still wrapping my head around the concept of Republicans as the party of fiscal irresponsibility, foreign nation building, and scandalous cronyism. It's all just like the last scene of "Animal Farm." Or "Animal House", I forget which.

Hmm.

Emptying Caligula-esque frat-party chamberpots does *not* sound appealing, does it?

I'm a lifelong registered card-carryin' Independent, FWIW.

Which could be interpreted as not wanting to be pigeonholed to one party or another's, er, dogma for lack of a better word, and that I'll make my own mind up about things, thank you very much.

Or it could be interpreted as a fear of commitment.

Interestingly, over the past 30 years the GOP has built their base by pitching themselves as more than a political party, but as lifestyle that includes attending evangelical Sunady morning services, small group meetings, and activism. Using a call to fight the threats of secular humanism and legalism against what should be God's Country, has galvanized conservatives in all states into a political machine, as far as I can tell.

Side note: Remember the big stir from a couple of years ago when some evangelical Christian radio program counciled listeners to invite a liberal Democrat to lunch and have a friendly conversation around the topic: "How can you call yourself a Christian *and* be a Democrat?"?

(Note: I received half a dozen invitations to lunch from different people, which I short-circuited by saying, "When have you ever heard me call myself a Christian?")

I don't know if the Dems can pull anything together to fight 35 years of building the conservative movement in time for '08. If the Dems win much going forward, it's more because the Empire is showing signs collapse under it's own weight, as they always do.

The universe is cyclical; just wait, it'll be your turn on the merry go-round soon enough.

bc

I had to go to the warehouse "club" this morning, where I noted the following Sign That Our Nation's Enemies Sometimes Have a Point: Lindsay Lohan (posed to look ooh-la-la!) is appearing simultaneously on the covers of Cosmopolitan and Seventeen.

Symbolism: simultaneously on a magazine of unrestrained sexuality (hot sex tips!), and a magazine for underage girls (what do you do if your best friend is mean?).

I note that "Sign That Our Nation's Enemies Sometimes Have a Point" has the acronym STONESHaP. This one may be a keeper.

Driving to work this morning, I decided to listen to the musical Wicked instead of my usual daily dose of Morning Edition. Who do these lyrics, sung by the Wizard in the song, "Wonderful" make you think of?

I never asked for this
Or planned it in advance
I was merely blown here
By the winds of chance
I never saw myself
As a Solomon or Socrates
I knew who I was:
One of your dime a dozen
Mediocrities

Then suddenly I'm here
Respected - worshipped, even
Just because the folks in Oz
Needed someone to believe in
Does it surprise you
I got hooked, and all too soon?
What can I say?
I got carried away
And not just by balloon:

Wonderful
They called me "Wonderful"
So I said "Wonderful" - if you insist
I will be "Wonderful"
And they said "Wonderful"
Believe me, it's hard to resist
'Cause it feels wonderful
They think I'm wonderful
Hey, look who's wonderful -
This corn-fed hick
Who said: "It might be keen
To build a town of green
And a wonderful road of yellow brick!"

Elphaba, where I'm from, we believe all sorts of
things that aren't true. We call it - "history."

(sung) A man's called a traitor - or liberator
A rich man's a thief - or philanthropist
Is one a crusader - or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label
Is able to persist
There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don't exist

They call me "Wonderful"
So I am wonderful
In fact - it's so much who I am
It's part of my name
And with my help, you can be the same
At long, long last receive your due
Long overdue
Elphaba - The most celebrated
Are the rehabilitated
There'll be such a - whoop-de-doo
A celebration throughout Oz
That's all to do - with you

Of course, I assume that the entire play was meant as a parody of our current administration. I was thinking this morning that in just a few years they'll make sure whoever plays the Wizard speaks in a Texas accent.

Tim, my sister calls that phenomenon "Why they hate us."

We've been having this free market/Capitalism vs. the common good pendulum swinging for about a hundred years. It's like Foucalt's-it rotates around an axis, knocking down a red pin and then a blue pin. I was waiting for some DeLay-type to mouth the word Copperhead with regard to the great unwashed in the other party over the war. However, the ball is moving closer to one of those red pins, and the Repubs are getting nervous (except Rick Santorum who seems to have no clue whatsoever).

I have just had an "Oh, Crimeny!" moment.

I found a list of famous grads of the Loomis Chaffee School at Wikipedia. I knew yesterday the list contained Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the former publisher of the NYT. I have the book, "The Trust" by Tift and Jones. (In the spring of 2003, I received a short partial list of well-known grads from the school.)

Now I see that the name of Robert G. Kaiser of the Washington Post is on the list. For Pete's sake!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Loomis_Chaffee

TBG,

I love "Wicked" as much as a straight man is allowed to. I have not read the source material books, either the L. Frank Baum books or the Gregory Maguire reinterpretation, but have seen the original cast on Broadway (less Joel Grey).

I understand the original OZ books were filled with very thinly veiled political satire. Extremely catty if you were around in the Populist era. People I know say the "Wicked" book is even more political than the musical.

LindaLoo's six degrees of separation is now growing exponentially. From that alumni list, you should be able to get about anyone in the world on the phone.

In one of the first WaPo chats that I engaged in--and it was with Kaiser--Kaiser said something to the effect of "my long-lost cousin."

I thought Robert Kaiser was joking at the time--and it struck me as very odd at the time that Robert Kaiser would say something like that. Maybe Robert Kaiser is distantly related to me, (maybe he isn't?), given the level of connectedness to many other people I've apparently unearthed, in my long, slow slog of research. (I am aware that the Loomis Chaffee School will give admission preference to Loomis descendants.)

Joel, am I related to Robert Kaiser, or was Kaiser only joking?

Joel notes that we have two basic philosophies - more government and less government. I would argue that the less government philosopy is not represented by either of the mainstream parties. Regardless of what they SAY, both parties practice large government, and differ only in a) who benefits, and b) how they finance it:

Republicans:
Benefit largest established corporations and other organizations, established financial firms, and rich people who give them money. Finance more government via borrowing. Motto - them that got it, get more.

Democrats:
Benefit smaller and/or entrepreneurial organizations and individual practitioners, venture capital and rich people who give them money. Finance more government via increased taxes. Motto - them that want it, get more.

Loomis, if Kaiser called you his "long-lost cousin" then you are at least soul-cousins.

Hey, I got the San Antonio Film Commission on the phone this morning-finally. But after studying the list, I now see more possibilities...

Thanks, yellojkt...

And this is the e-mail I received yesterday from the *receptionist* at the Cannes Film Festival:

Dear Linda Loomis,

The Festival de Cannes is reserved to film professionals. In order to attend the event, an accreditation is necessary, conditional to professional qualifications.

The tickets are then given by the office depending on the code of each badge. The tickets are unfortunately not for sale.

Yours sincerely,
Cyrille Imbrosciano

I replied with these questions (and a bit more text):

What accredition is necessary? How does one define "professional qualifications?"

yello,

The Wicked book reflects the play almost as much as any book in the world might. Kind of the same characters, some with the same names. I still can't imagine anyone reading Maguire's book and saying, "I know! Let's make a musical out of this!"

I forced myself to read it and I'm glad because my daughter was going to read it first. I don't as a rule censor what she reads, but there's stuff in the book that totally creeped me out and I don't think a 12-year-old girl needs to read it yet.

In other words, "political" is the least of what I'd call the book.

Jeepers:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060321205009990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001

For yellowjkt...*****

Forgive a personal intrusion. I lost the site, but could you give me the photo site for "Close Encounters Mothership in Enterprise ...in reflection?"

Am doing a project in which a similar photo would fit well.

Is the posted photo site yours or one from the National Aeronocs Space Museum?

How might I get a similar picture?

...oops....aeronatics

Jeepers, indeed.

Jeepers indeed.

I was on an overnight canoe trip from San Ignacio, Belize where we camped in the jungle. Anyway, for "fun" the guides took me back out on the river at night with a flashlight to look for the crocodiles (yes, we did see a few - you use the flashlight to look for the reflections from their eyes).

Entertainment news...speaking of going political...

After cracking "The Da Vinci Code," Ron Howard is ready to wrap his mind around the war in Iraq.

According to Variety, the Oscar-winning director is in line to direct "Last Man Home" for Universal. The project would be produced by Brian Grazer through Imagine Entertainment.

"Last Man" was written as a spec script by Jamie Moss and was snagged by Universal Pictures as a possible next project for Howard. The film reportedly takes place in 2003 in the days leading up to the most recent American aggressions in Iraq. A military unit is sent out to find an AWOL solider. The soldier, in turn, is looking for his brother, who went missing during the first Gulf War.

The once-and-future Opie is presumably putting the finishing touches on his adaptation of Dan Brown's controversial bestseller, which is set to have its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. His most recent film was the Oscar nominated drama "Cinderella Man." Howard's other credits include "Night Shift," "Gung Ho," "Splash" and, of course, "Willow

Leonardo da Vinci meets Palm Springs, Calif.:

Visitors of “The Da Vinci Experience” at the Palm Springs Air Museum this fall will be transported from the modern-day desert to 15th century Italy, complete with a Tuscan street scene and the smells of burning wood and wet leaves.

“We really want to change the mood,” said Godfrey Harris, president of Harris/Ragan Management Group, which is curating the exhibit of 61 working models of the Renaissance artist’s futuristic designs. “We want to get them out of the desert ... and cast their minds to 15th century Tuscany.”

Announced at a time when Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” has millions interested in the artist, inventor, engineer and musician’s work, the exhibit could bring a million more people to the desert next season.

It will make its North American debut Nov. 3 and will run through Feb. 27. Ticket prices will be $17.50 for adults and $12.50 for seniors, students and military. Prices were announced Tuesday at a press conference at the Air Museum.

Wow.. jeepers is right. But I thought alligators didn't eat roots.

Tha's no Yank alligator, TBG, tha's wha' we cawl a croc.

This is for you, Tim:

The Purist

I give you now Professor Twist,
A conscientious scientist,
Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!"
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
"You mean," he said, "a crocodile."

-- Ogden Nash

(Hangs head, looks sheepish). That was a lame attempt to write an Australian dialect. I'm sorry, Achenfan.

And on a serious note...

The big shopping mall in our area, Sawgrass Mills (built, that's right, virtually IN the Everglades) uses cartoon alligators for their signs. The way I looked at those signs changed forever when a local toddler was attacked by a gator. Forever after that, I cannot see those signs without thinking, what would that mother feel, driving by, seeing those cute cartoon alligators. I'm not saying it's wrong to have the signs--I'm just saying, you know, in real life alligators aren't cute.

Oh, kb, what timing!

My post related to your poem and ScienceTim.

Thanks, Nani, feeling much better.

I am a registered Democrat in the county I live in, and have been for a number of years. I've never questioned that choice, but lately here in my older years, I pose some questions. I look around my little village, and it's a dying place. And nothing is being done to save it. There are no jobs, buildings are old and dilapidated, and business has gone south. Young people can't find a job, so drugs and crime, are everywhere. We've voted Democratic for so many years, but what has it got us? The Republicans aren't much better, they hold it against us because we vote Democratic, so when they come to office, it pay back time. We're dead here, just need the dirt thrown over us.Main street looks worse than death valley, and the houses are in bad shape. I live in one of the poorest counties in North Carolina, and these folks vote for Republicans, that could care less about them. They want their children to send off to war. And they vote for them every time because in their heart of hearts, they're still living that Dixiecrat mess, and want to go back to that time. They don't want to move forward, because forward means new ideas and new things, and they want to stay in a time when they were everything, and were called, "mastah".They vote against their own interest trying to hold on to the idea that one day they're going to own a plantation, and have plenty of slaves.

I know you folks probably think she's bent and drinking too much Nyquil, but it really is true. I know I talk about race all the time, but it needs to be talked about, and better still, something done about it. As a country we can't continue this way, we won't survive.

ScienceGrandpa and spouse have recently returned from a Florida trip. They went looking for birds, and kept a watchful eye out for alligators. Nothing, in the crocodilian department. Last day, they were told where to go look for gators. They strolled around a big pond -- and there were loads of them. He swears that some were 3 feet across and 10 feet long. ScienceStepMom notes that they keep getting bigger.

Crocodilians are very independent-minded. They know that their kind have been here for (quick recall of prehistoric life documentaries) uhhh, about 210 million years. Eating one of us may get them killed, and compel us to thin their numbers, but they won't let it change their lifestyle.

Maybe Troy Hurtubise will launch Project Gator, to develop comfortable and effective Anti-Crocodilian armor integrated with SCUBA equipment (does anybody still bother to recall that SCUBA is an acronym? Like LASER?).

Jeepers is right. Poor guy has a rough stretch, rights his personal ship, goes out there to help people, and...

Loomis, I would think that The Right Press Credentials would be enough for the Cans people (or is that Khan?). I bet you can work that angle...

bc

I forgot to mention that Joel's Mad Science article was in our Sunday paper way out here in Western Canada, complete with a file photo of Hurtobise and his bear armour. It looks a lot like a Transformer.

kbertocci, I love Ogden Nash!

Oh, what's the weather in a beard?
It's windy there, and rather weird.
And when you think the sky has cleared --
why, THERE is Dirty Dinky.

As I was crossing a hot, hot plain,
I saw a sight that caused me pain.
You asked me before, I'll tell you again --
it LOOKED like Dirty Dinky.

And when you're caught, out in a storm,
with nothing on to keep you warm;
and then step barefoot on a worm --
THAT is Dirty Dinky.

Last night, you lay a-sleeping; no!
The room was thirty-five below!
The sheets and pillows turned to snow --
He'd got in: Dirty Dinky.

You'd better watch the things you do.
You'd better watch the things you do.
He's part of me. He's part of you.
YOU might be Dirty Dinky!

-- Ogden Nash

when i was boy we were poor, but i did not know it, because everyone i knew lived the same way. what became obvious by age 12 was that democrats seemed to care about people like my family and my neighbors, while republicans seemed to care about the people who OWNED everything (steel mills, department stores, banks, big houses, car dealerships, etc). it was my experience in those days that no one rich ever shared anything, but the poor people around me were generous with what little they had.

by the time i was a young man (the late 60s) it had become apparent that republicans were determined to steal many millions from the democrats' roster of voters by using race as the secret weapon. they succeeded. by the end of the vietnam war, republicans had succeeded in painting all dissenters as traitors. these last two tactics have been extraordinarily successful, continuing to the present times.

so now millions of working class people vote republican on the basis of single issues, such as guns, gays, right to life, race, crime, terrorism, etc. their republican elected officials will see to it, however, that none of those republican working class voters ever get a piece of the pie. fairly brilliant strategy on the part of republicans, but how very sad for all of us. i believe that someday it will change. generosity and respect for the poor and the working class is NOT stupid or pointless. inherited wealth does not make anyone smart or talented, or brave.

My sister and I were free to read any of the books in Mother's library. As a result I read The Red Pony at an age much too young to cope with the death of a beloved animal. It was an emotional slap across the face; I felt betrayed and angered by Steinbeck. He held the power to let the pony live. I was a tough little tomboy who rarely cried. That was a difficult day. Poor mother. She felt just awful about it. She did forbid us to read certain magazines sold at newstands such as true confession and crime. And, ha ha, she asked us not to read the Mary Worth comic strip because a young girl, Eve, who had recently been added as a character, smoked cigarettes!

yep:

Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus

Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation

"...tastes like chicken..."

Just a thought.

Joel, finished your book about 11:30 last night. The Al Fisher barefoot lecture made the hair on my neck stand up.

Excellent book, but as I think a boodle a month or two ago discussed, badly served by the title and the jacket cover. The impression also is that the majority of it covers the wacky/hilarity ensues portion of the ufologists, etc., but it really doesn't--perhaps only about that middle 20 percent. Most of the book is coverage of the space program, and its various and sundry internal debates and considerations. And an excellent primer on cosmology and planetary science, never mind the Area 51 nonsense. Wish it could be re-issued (in a trade paperback?) with a new title and cover (oh, and lose that author's photo, please--yikes).

Those of us who have had cause to don an SCBA do, ScienceTim.

can you use an SCBA underwater?

I know the answer to that. just kidding

TBG, my 12:55 post was in response to your 11:52 post.

Public Appearance news: ScienceTim will be appearing as an obscure presenter in the science program at the Baltimore Science Fiction Convention (Balticon 40), May 26-29 at the Hunt Valley Inn. I thought of this because the Guest of Honor is Neil Gaiman, who looks a lot like Joel, except, you know, um... never mind. I'm secure in my masculinity, you know. Maybe Gaiman could stand in for Joel's picture.

Should I bill myself as ScienceTim? Maybe 3 people in the room will get the reference.

In related news, StorytellerTim will be appearing in the children's program at the Baltimore Science Fiction Convention (Balticon 40), May 26-29 at the Hunt Valley Inn.

Tim will not be there. There was a fourth persona, in just one Boodle, but I can't recall his name or his shtick.

Mudge, why don't you post an Amazon review. Maybe someday the book can be reissued with a different look, but chances are that won't happen. I was complicit in every way with the packaging and the title and whatnot, and even in the author photo, so whatever mistakes are there are mine, primarily. But we live life in the forward direction and can't do a whole lot about the past. I plan to continue to think it was a good book even if there is a paucity of supporting evidence. ("Paucity" is a word I don't actually use. I'm not sure where it came from.)

Meanwhile, lifting the spirits, it turns out we're huge in Northwest Arkansas:

http://nwanews.com/bcdr/News/32498/

And thanks, seriously, for reading it.

butlerguy, thank you, thank you! so much for a great post. Everything I wanted to say, but the words just wouldn't come out.

I know Nani, but the stuff in Wicked went beyond dying ponies. There's some pretty kinky and disturbing stuff that a 12-year-old just trying to figure out sex--between what she learns, what she sees on Friends and what she reads--can do without for now. And I thought it was pretty gratuitous, too.

On the other hand, the musical has just what I want her to learn:

DEFY GRAVITY!

And Nani, I also agree with your assessment of butlerguy's post. Excellent! I think it's what we all want to say, and wish more people would listen to.

OK... I've REALLY got to get to work here, or I"ll have to give up the Achenblog for good and spend my time on Craigslist looking for another job!

yellojkt,

You've got to read Wicked and Son of a Witch. The play is amazing, but the books are a completely different experience. They can be very raw at times and there are some serious sexual references in places, but I love those books. I've read Wicked three times now. I like them a lot more than Dorothy's side of the story.

What do you mean "we're huge?" Seems like just one guy got quoted, ad infinitum. It was half the column.

Joel, I'm troubled. On the one hand, I'd like to boost your Amazon numbers and read your books. On the other, I have mentioned to the ScienceSpouse that the collected works of one Mr. Joel Achenbach, Journalist, would make a good birthday gift. I don't know if I have that much patience. It's almost 3 months away. I know, I know -- a good alternative is to buy one set of copies, and let her buy another set, unknowingly. But she's tricky, she'd probably notice me reading them at bedtime.

Have you considered issuing a boxed set? Then I could get a set of loose books now, and she could get me the upgrade. Everybody wins!

But I agree with TBG, too. Not stuff for 12-year-olds.

Joel-Thanks for broaching what remains one of the biggest mysteries about Democrats: Their constant posture of fighting for the underdog and reviling people who've "made it." Generally the Democrat uttering this is an incredibly rich white male (Kennedy, Kerry, etc.). Here's my take on Democrats. They want all of us to struggle to achieve the American Dream. They just don't want any of us achieving it. Because then we'll be Republicans. And they'll be out of jobs.

"it turns out we're huge in Northwest Arkansas"-- Harrrummpphhh. As well we should be.

ScienceTim, did you read Joel's book? It's right up your alley.

TBG and Sara: my point was I wish Mother HAD censored that book, or at least waited until I was older. (I'd probably cry again if I re-read it in my old age.)

The Democrats are fairly labeled the the party of 'big government'; however, post Contract With America Republicans should be labeled the party of 'bigger government with no fiscal restraint'.

SciTim: I gave up SciFi Coventions with the first Reagan Administration, but I'm considering making an exception in your case. Oh, and in that Gaiman guy's case, too.

Speaking of "secure in um, er, never mind, in my masculinty and all", I had Clive Barker inscribe my copy of "The Great and Secret Show":

"To (my first name)-

Sweet Dreams!

- Clive"

bc

For the person looking for my picture of the Close Encounters mothership and the Enterprise from the Udvar-Hazy Center, I think this is the one you were looking for:

http://flickr.com/photos/yellojkt/72252411/in/set-1553268/

The UHC has its own web page with information on some, but not all, of its artifacts. The Mothership does not have a separate entry.

The whole set of 69 pictures that I took is in this Flickr set:

http://flickr.com/photos/yellojkt/sets/1553268/

These pictures were taken by me with my Canon KISS (Rebel in the US) camera. Many were taken with available light. I retain an implicit copyright on the pictures. I don't believe all that Creatvie Commons stuff protects my rights anymore than real laws. If I discover the pictures have ever been used for a commercial purpose, I would get really, really upset. If you need more explicit permission than that leave a comment with an e-mail address on my blog and I will contact you so we can discuss off-line.

The blog post where I oooh and aaaah over the cool planes is here:

http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2005/12/plane-nuts.html

But I think anyone that saw the link when where were gushing over aeronautics a while back has already read it.

And on-topic, the entire yellojkt family will be at Balticon as attendees, not presenters. My 15-year old son may be a little old for StorytellerTim, but I will definitely hunt him down as long as it does not interfere with me getting Gaiman to autograph my copy of Anansi Boys (last blog plug , I promise.)

http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2006/02/anansi-and-boys.html

In one comment I have managed to reveal I have pictures of Spielberg movie props and that I attend science fiction conventions.

I am such a dork.

For the person looking for my picture of the Close Encounters mothership and the Enterprise from the Udvar-Hazy Center, I think this is the one you were looking for:

http://flickr.com/photos/yellojkt/72252411/in/set-1553268/

The UHC has its own web page with information on some, but not all, of its artifacts. The Mothership does not have a separate entry.

The whole set of 69 pictures that I took is in this Flickr set:

http://flickr.com/photos/yellojkt/sets/1553268/

These pictures were taken by me with my Canon KISS (Rebel in the US) camera. Many were taken with available light. I retain an implicit copyright on the pictures. I don't believe all that Creative Commons stuff protects my rights anymore than real laws. If I discover the pictures have ever been used for a commercial purpose, I would get really, really upset. If you need more explicit permission than that leave a comment with an e-mail address on my blog and I will contact you so we can discuss off-line.

The blog post where I oooh and aaaah over the cool planes is here:

http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2005/12/plane-nuts.html

But I think anyone that saw the link when where were gushing over aeronautics a while back has already read it.

And on-topic, the entire yellojkt family will be at Balticon as attendees, not presenters. My 15-year old son may be a little old for StorytellerTim, but I will definitely hunt him down as long as it does not interfere with me getting Gaiman to autograph my copy of Anansi Boys (last blog plug , I promise.)

http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2006/02/anansi-and-boys.html

I have managed to reveal that I have pictures of Spielberg movie props and that I attend science fiction conventions.

I am such a dork.

sorry joel, but i think the paradigm of 'republican--less government' went extinct about 2 minutes after they seized power. that's only something they say, not something they do.

and as for democrats being for 'higher taxes' -- no, we just want to pay our way now, instead of borrowing vast sums and passing the debt along to our granchildren.

please try to pay attention to what's actually going on, rather than some outdated 'convention wisdom'.

So outlawing abortion, limiting awards to people who get maimed by their employers, intervening in the Schiavo case, the Patriot Act and domestic spying, flag-burning amendments, gay marriage amendments, no t-shirts (or Democrats usually) at presidential functions, IRS tracking protests groups, cracking down on 527s, etc. -- none of those sound like "More regulations" to you?

Republicans want less regulation for them and their pals -- See Tom DeLay, "ethics rules" or "big business, pollution" -- and aside from that they're just fine with any regulation that suits them or their base.

make that 'conventional' wisdom, while we're in edit mode.

Joel for what it's worth, Captured by Aliens has been made part of our library here at work. We have a very large collection of Alien/UFO stuff as well as extensive information about the space program. I made sure it was properly catagorized.

It isn't just that Democrats want to help the poor and Republicans don't, it is also that Republicans want to help the rich at the expense of the poor.

omni, re: using SCBA underwater. I got my backside in very hot water once-upon-a-time for covering an incident where one of our firefighters took his SCBA under water. Yes, it worked fine. No, it wasn't certified to do so. But this was in a swimming pool. Now we have a dive team with the appropriate gear to go under in emergency situations.

> ...One day he missed his loving bride.
> She had, the guide informed him later,
> Been eaten by an alligator.

Jeez, I hope not. The mosquitoes would be bad enough.

> Should I bill myself as ScienceTim? Maybe > 3 people in the room will get the reference.

Me and the 2 ScienceKids.

> But she's tricky, she'd probably notice me reading them at bedtime.

Trickier than you think. Now get back to work!

I only attend the Balticon, and only as a presenter (this year, I'll make an exception, for Gaiman and for Gene Wolfe). When I'm there, I find that there's pretty much nothing there any more that holds my attention besides my own bit, and a few of the other science presenters. I still like reading the stuff; I'm just not interested in all the fluff of the convention, any more.

Some scenes aren't exactly stuff for 30-year olds either. ;). (Re Wicked).

Depends on the 12 year old. I was reading Shakespeare and animal anatomy texts at that age. By 13-14 I was learning about common perversions of the Roman Emperors.

The only thing my mom ever explictly banned was "The Valley of Horses", and I listened. Still haven't read it.

I definitely read "A Bio of a Space Tyrant" way too young. Piers Anthony is a seriously dirty old man.

Barring THAT book, what I see on TV is worse than most books I've ever read, if only because TV repeats the same stuff all the time, and makes it more real. I'm kind of glad I was addicted to PBS growing up.

Yo, Joel. Achenblog is on the main page, and you're getting new posters. Welcome, jesselee, trainridin, Drindl, and others.

You say that Democrats favor "higher taxes." This is simply false. We favor LOWER taxes on lower-income taxpayers, and reduction if not elimination of regressive taxes like sales taxes. The only people we want to see their tax assessments raised up to a level that is more fair and better reflects the fruits they have picked from society are taxes on the rich.

We want to lower taxes on everyone except those for whom taxes should be raised. Remember, a STEEPLY graduated income tax is the fairest of all, because it recognizes that, with each dollar a person earns, that dollar is removed further from a dollar that must be spent on survival, then bare subsistence, then decent living standards, then luxury, and then power.

And a graduated income tax with minimal deductions and exclusions is in essence a "flat tax" in that everyone pays the same percentage on his first $10,000 of income, his second, his third... his tenth, his hundredth, his thousndth, ad infinitum.

During our periods of greatest prosperity we had the steepest graduation of marginal tax rates, rising to 93% in the 1950s. This is because taxes tend to redistribute wealth from those who use each additional increment of wealth to the least economically stimulating extent. While recipients of government paychecks and government benefits tend to live hand-to mouth, spending their checks upon receipt and thereby directly stimulating the consumer economy, rich people tend to squirrel it away on more expensive foreign luxuries and other payments not immediately reflected in the economy.

Straightforwardly put, and as proven time and time again, the Republican tax cutters are just plain wrong.

Holy moley, I've been spotted!

Yes, dear. Back to work, right now.

So what does one do when everyone wants to be rich? I mean people work, and most of the time, their idea of successful is being rich. Sounds like the example I gave earlier, everyone wanting their own plantation, and slaves. The times are the same, the items are different.

yellojkt:

I know you're a dork, and I <3 you for it, but even so, the phrase that startled me was "the entire yellojkt family will be at Balticon as attendees"--whew. My daughter attends anime conventions and there is an overlap with scifi. I will drop her off and pick her up, maybe even stay at the hotel and hang out by the pool. But to imagine our entire family attending either anime or scifi convention? That adds a whole new dimension--like, those people at the conventions, I never pictured them *breeding*! Spawning the "next generation" if you can excuse the expression. I guess it had to happen. Yelloj, you are the ne plus ultra, and I thank Achenblog for introducing me to you.

Of course, as I'm giving you the title, I'm remembering the porching contest of "what's in the pockets" and the fact that ScienceTim is a SPEAKER at the convention, and so I must admit you have some tough competition, here on the A-blog.

It never ceases to amaze me that Democrats claim to have cured the budget deficits of the 80s. I remember Newt Gingrich and his Republican gang who refused to allow an unbalanced budget to pass in the house, while Clinton and Gore stood on the White House steps, complaining about the Republicans holding our government hostage.
I remembet too, the 10+% inflation of the 70s, and that 10-12% unemployment of the Jimmy Carter years, and interest rates for home loans being higher than credit card rates are today. In 1980, the Democratic National Plank stated that "increased unemployment was the only possible cure for the double digit inflation" that had its roots in the VietNam era policies of JFK, and LBJ.
You can look it up, if you don't remember that long ago. I was raised in Illinois, where if you weren't Democrat, your vote very literally didn't count. I never want to go back to those day.

The small government, big government comparison is so sadly gone from true political discourse it is sad. I love the chambermaid quote at the end.

What's cooler, a sci-fi convention, or a comic book convention?

"VICTORY!"

Don't get me wrong, I loathe what the Republican's under George Bush are doing, but the Democrats aren't providing much of a choice. Outsourcing? I was in a room filled with voters when John Kerry, during the Presidential debate, said he wouldn't/couldn't end outsourcing. Over 100 peope got up and left. He lost the election right there. Immigration? The Democrats can't seem to decide whether their libral principles ought to make them accept the world's burdons, giving away Middle class Amrican's jobs or not. Abortion? I don't care how you want to phrase it, you are either pro=abortion or you are against abortion. The anti-abortion crowd would saddle a victim of rape or incest with the burdon of being a victim again. They would force a young teenage girl to have a child for a mistake. They would jeapordize the life or health of a mother. And they would force parents to bring intom the world a child with awful birth defects - effectively sentencing the parents and the child to a life of living hell. The pro-abortion crowd, on the other hand, seems to treat abortion as a holy sacriment. Homosexuality? The Republican right wants to criminalize it and the Demoratic left wants to force us to accept it as a valid, healthy alternative lifestyle. Taxes? The Republican's want to give tax breaks to the wealthy so they can further mess up this society while the Democrats want to bankrupt us by providing benefit and retirement programs for public emplyees (qand illegal aliens) that no one from the working middle class can even dream of. National Healthcare? The Republican's want it completely private, pointing out that we have the best health care in the world, but ignoring the fact that 50 million of our citizens cannot afford it! The Democrats want a socialized-private medical system like Canada's that is a miserable mess and doomed to failure. ALl we need is a simple nartional HMO. Forget it. The "war on terror"? This is joke perpetuated by both sides. Our intelligence community gathers intelligence by surfing the net. The past two "twarted" terrorist plots were simply publications cribbed from Islamic web sites, written by the Arabic equivalent of our own black helicopter conspracy nuts. The CIA and NSA and the various military intelligence agencies are far more dangerous to America and American's than all of the terrorists in the world. Get rid of them! Iraq? What in thew world are wqe still doing over there when anyone with any common sense at all can see that anything we do is doomed to fail. Wh should American children be forced to die so that politicians can rack up points, looking like cowboys? Censure? President Bush is dangerously incompitent. He has repeatedly lied to the American people about everything under the sun. Censure him and promise to impeach him if you get a majority of the House and Senate during the mid-term elections. Make it a national issue! I'd for for that.

We were on vacation in San Francisco a few years ago and my son was about twelve. I dragged the family to City Light Books. While I rummaged through the beat poets section, my son, who was graduating from kids’ books to “adult” books, browsed the science fiction section. He picked out “Slow River” by Nicola Griffith. The cover said it had won both the Nebula Award and the Lambda Award. I raised an eyebrow because I knew that the Lambda Award was for gay-themed science fiction.

Let’s just say I subscribe to the “throw theme in the deep end of the pool” school of reading comprehension. I asked him how he liked the book. He said, “Fine, except for all the lesbian stuff.” I went and read it myself and there was one fairly tasteful but graphic lesbian sex scene in the book. The rest of the book is about the dangers of bio-contamination and very well written.

After City Lights, we went to some used bookstores in the neighborhood. My son had to go to the rest room and the bookstore didn’t have one, so I tried to take him into what I thought was a sports bar, but when the hostess saw me with a minor she hustled us both out mumbling something about losing her license. A Chinese take-out place finally had pity on the poor kid’s bladder. We had a good talk about what a red-light district was. A very teachable moment.

Quick comments:

Gene Wolfe too, huh? Not my cuppa tea, but the guy sure as hell can write. Gadzooks, SciTim, didn't you tell SciSpouse about crossing the streams? You folks are risking complete anihilation here, just to get SciTim back to workin'?

"Bio of a Space Tyrant", Wilbrod. *sigh*... 'twas truly awful IMO.

ljessl ain't new to these parts AFAIK, CowTown. L hasn't been around in awhile, but was a regular for a time...

bc

Both parties are looters that stand for little more than self-aggrandizement at the taxpayers' expense. Republicans used to at least give lip service to the idea of standing up for the middle-class taxpayer, but as someone else said they gave that up about two minutes after assuming leadership of Congress. Hardcore modern Democrats are socialists with a thin veneer of respect for private industry. Moderate Democrats tend to be affluent folks who view paying taxes as some perverted form of puritan guilt and self-flagellation.

Some very interesting observations!

What I have noticed is that not much analysis has focused upon the fact that the normal roles/issues of the two major parties are being reversed, and turned on their heads. I suggest that this may be a major reason for the disarray.

As you point out, "less government vs. more government" was a common denominator. But, now, the party of "less government" has spent their time in control of much of the entire federal government spending like drunken sailors on a shore leave.

Likewise, rightly or wrongly, the party of a "more government" can claim the Clinton record on spending and fiscal discipline as their own mantra.

In addition, the party so completely opposed to Clinton's "policing the world" is set on an unwavering course to "end tyranny in the world" and "spread freedom."

Likewise, the party that was so often accused of wanting to strip us of our rights (in terms of Big Government) is the one decrying the shredding of the Constitution.

Your answer to the hyperbole is incoherant. And have your web developers remove the white space between the textareas on this page, firefox treats it as text that should be in the box thus positioning the cursor not at the top left corner.

Granted, it is sometimes fruitless to attempt to discern the differences between politicians based on what they say. Better, you watch what they do. Unfortunately, to get a true reading on a person as your representative, you have to elect them first.

If you happen to stop watching them, then that is YOUR mistake.

As for the past several years, if you are so misinformed to think that there is no difference between the parties, then, as Mr. T used to say, "I pity the fool!"

I've voted Democratic since I was first eligible -- for JFK. My limited expeience leads me to conclude that Democrats get to govern only when the Republicans screw things up so bad we are the only alternative. God Bless, George Bush!

My wife knows my son and I both read Neil Gaimen. She is only attending as a good sport because she would like to see me that weekend and being at a SF conventions is better than nothing. Plus Hunt Valley Mall is just across the street.

I am still living down taking her to Magicon (1992 World Science Fiction Convention) on the same weekend as our anniversary. In my defense we stayed at the Peabody and left the kid with the grandparents.

My son dragged me to Otakon (an anime convention) last fall. I was the fish out of water there. I had no idea what was going on or what anybody was dressed up as. I did get some great pictures and a blog post out of it.

http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2005/08/otakon-for-non-otaku.html

Fourth blatant blog plug of the day, if you are keeping score.

And a note to other promiscuous linkers: The Comment Gobbler® does not seem to appreciate more than two links in the same comment. We will someday fully understand this strange beast.

Democrats think people who don't agree with them are stupid.

Republicans don't care what other people think.

While I'm not registered for either party, I'm much more the latter than the former. Apparently, so are most people.

Wow, was that really a special mystery guest appearance by ScienceSpouse her own self? Or were you jus' pullin our appendages, ScienceTim? If that really was you, ScienceSpouse, howdy and welcome to the boodle.

Well said, Woody, well said.

I just read Hertzberg's column Joel cited, and it's a shallow piece of work, has all the earmarks of just filling space to meet a deadline. His primary example of "Democratic disarray" is the Feingold censure motion. He then knocks down his own argument, but fails to produce the single most telling point: There are 44 Demcoratic senators, and 42 voted against it. Whether you like it or not, that's not disarray--that's pretty strong concerted unanimity. (And it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that 42 Democrats voting AGAINST censuring Bush has a helluva lot more to do with tactical considerations than consideration of the merits. Jeez, people, get a grip.)

Then Hertzberg argues that the Dems really can't be blamed for lack of a unified Iraq policy, because it isn't possible to have one. So he just undercuts his own premise.

Finally, the entire premise is faulty from the git-go. Where is it written that a party MUST be unified on any given subject? When you've got a bunch of different factions, groups, and interests--the so-called "big tent" idea--isn't it, you know, A GOOD IDEA to let various people have their disparate say about stuff? Isn't that, ya know, demo-EFFING-ocracy, you pinhead? Sure, the Republican Stepford Wives Party has been in lockstep for most of the last five years. Who held THAT up as a model the Dems should emulate? Gimme a break!

Where is it written that the opposition party (doesn't matter which one) needs to have its presidential candidate identified and leading a unified platform THREE EFFING YEARS OUT? Where's all room for discussion and debate? Where's all that so-called grass roots town-hall democracy? Aren't we all (in either party) supposed to, ya know, ELECT DELEGATES and have a CONVENTION where PEOPLE EFFING VOTE and decide this stuff? 'Cause that was my strong, strong impression.

Joel, we *really* need to get some italics here; this all-caps is making even me nuts.

Where's my meds? Gotta be around here somewhere.

As I said, shallow, shallow commentary. Kinda disappointed it showed up in the New Yorker.

That's THE ScienceSpouse.

Yes.

Right, dear. Back to work.

SCC: Of course, of course *scrambles to make correction* THE ScienceSpouse. How careless of me.

Anonymous Student

Wouldn't you portray Repulicans as being those people who don't agree with them as being ANTI-American? Isn't that a better characterazation?

As another poster mentioned, and since you, as a student may be a younger person than some here, you may not know that Republicans are often in a position of messing things up,which they can pull of like it's second nature.

No as a far far left winger, beyond most dems, I don't think that you are stupid. I may suggest that you haven't studied as many possible solutions as possible to make a viable choice, but it is, as we all must realize, YOUR CHOICE.

All I suggest is that you use it wisely when you vote. Student, do your best not to characterize Dems. Maybe you are hurting yourself more with that thought than you know.

Better you come down where I live and talk to some people who are homeless and break bread with them. Just a thought.

Take a few deep breaths, 'mudge. We don't need you checking into the Cheney Cardiac Unit. You act like this stuff is serious. A lot of politics is bread and circuses to keep us distracted from identifying the real powerbrokers. The votes that count in this country are done with Class "B" preferred stock.

If Democrats were for the little guy, they never would have let "bankruptcy reform" get a floor vote. Instead, they all cashed the campaign contributions from CitiChase and said to h*ll with anyone who can't pay their medical bills because they don't have health insurance because their jobs got outsourced and they can't afford the joke of a policy Walmart offers.

Now I'm getting as worked up as everybody else.

Dolphin Michael--I'm going to remember you claiming to be ultra-left, since I was just making a similar claim earlier today. Maybe someday we'll meet up at a porching hour and have a contest, like the "who's the biggest dork" contest. Who's the REAL pinko hippie radical tree-hugging card-carrying fellow traveler here? Really, though, I imagine we'd be so happy to find another person who agrees with us that we'd call a tie immediately--true leftists prefer cooperation to competition, isn't that right DM?

Mudge, interesting points. I wonder who if anyone, with an ounce of understanding of Congress would ever expect the Democratic minority to do much if anything to impact the current state of affairs.

My concern is that there is no debate going on between the Republicans in power to which the Dems can add their influence.

To blame the Democrats for the lack of debate by the Republican party on so many serious matters proves the point. The Republicans just don't have anyone who is stepping forward to argue any points.

Of course, this is over simplified, but certainly there isn't much debate. If anyone does step forward, they quickly get Swift-Boated--which most people need to know is an organized and well funded tactic of the neo-cons. === purely political racketeering.

Re: Canada's health care system a 'mess' and 'doomed to failure'. I will take a doomed to fail mess over being one policy exclusion away from bankruptcy anyday.

Re: :"pro-abortion". Abortion is never an easy decision, but ultimately it should be decided by the woman potentially undergoing an abortion. Some women will choose to abort, some won't. That's why people lined up against "anti-abortion" are called "pro-choice".

Repeal of Roe v. Wade, ironically, in the long run (too bad for those affected in the short term) will probably be the best thing to ever happen to the Dems. The GOP will have to actually stand up and justify its 'anti-choice' position without the safety net of the 'activist judges'.

kb, you are right, (no pun intended) that I said something stupid. My only point is that I often find myself defending people with whom I have disagreements myself, and who are to my "right" but to the Left of those with whom I am talking.

It is a funny situation. It is a good exercise that Anon. Student should try.

In today's blog you denigrate, "of people who have not only made it, but their great-grandfathers have made it."

Have you never heard of the Kennedy's or Jay Rockefeller to name but a few of the immensely wealthy Democrat families? You left out Pelosi, Boxer and a few others also.

This is known as cherry picking your facts.

Welcome, new ranters! Stick around a while, poke into the corners, you might find a few things here in the blog to amuse you, enrage you, enrapture you, enervate you, and exfoliate you.

Mudge, um, thanks for the comment, but don't start throwing around the "shallow" accusation or else I'll be ducking all day long.

(As you know, some people are a mile wide and an inch deep, and I take pride on being much ... wider.)

Dolphin Michael:

I DIDN'T say you said something stupid! I'm trying to be your buddy, here.

I think your most recent comment is very similar to what I was saying earlier about Howard Dean. (even though I had to draw myself a diagram before I came to that conclusion--left, right, farther left, right of far left but left of middle--I think I need to get a drink of water or go for a walk or something...)

BobQne: actually, it's known as quoting someone who has cherry-picked his facts, and poking a little fun at him in the process. Check the header -- the Humor content comes before the Observations. You should take that as establishing a priority order.

I am such a riot. I could ghost for Joel.

To be fair to the President, Iraq was a dilemma well before we invaded - just ask the UN inspectors....my recollection is most Dems provided equally turbid responses regarding Iraq back in 2002/2003.

SonofCarl -
Healthcare: I was giving both sides a failing grade. The solution is simple, institute a manditory national HMO and get the corporations out of it. Good health care is the RIGHT of every American. Canada and Britan have both private and public insurance schemes and the private ones, with money behind them, take care away from the public. The care for the rich is as good as ever. Everyone else gets leftovers.
Abortion: Again, I would be "pro-choice", too, but would point out that abortion IS awful and in spite of the protestations to the contrary, it is being used as a form of birth control by some. Ditto for late term absortions. Most American's want some common sense here as they do with every other issue.

My friend told a story about how the Dems were trying to come up with a slogan, and their best efforts were always too wordy. So they kept paring words. Finally they got rid of everything except one word:
"The"
It was funny when he told the story.

Tim, thanks for sticking up for me. I will note that I am happy to have new voices on the blog, of whatever political persuasion, and if it feels good to take a swipe at the kitter, that's fine. This Internet journalism thing is a bit odd, in that today's post, which is not exactly a dissertation, and isn't going to be mistaken for the latest tome from Sean Wilentz, takes on more gravity when they post it on the home page with my picture and a big headline, and it's hard for a newcomer to the blog to grasp right away that this thing is what Von Drehle called "toenail clippings." (He's just jealous.)

Try asking a serious pro-lifer who they intend to put in jail if they succeed in outlawing abortion as murder. The doctor might be a culpable accessory, but the woman seeking the abortion should be found guilty of murder one for pre-meditation. And what became of religious tolerance. Different faiths have differing views on when "life" begins.

Joel, it wasn't you I was exercised about, it was Hertzberg. He used a classic straw man fallacy, and deserved to be called on it. Per jellojkt, it's journalism I take seriously, not politics. I expect better from a big-name political reporter guy writing in the New Yorker. Here we're often just messin' around.

'Member, I'm the guy just finished your book. You get no "shallow" complaint from me.

BobOne, the line about grandfathers making it wasn't Joel "cherry-picking" his facts--it was Joel quoting a Dem. operative (who was cherry-picking his facts). I know how you Repubs hate cherry-picking of facts.

Cassandra, I don't want to be rich. If I could live in a house rather than a mobile home but only at the expense of someone less fortunate, I'd stay in the mobile home. My employers were born with silver spoons in their mouths, attended elite colleges, traveled the world. They are decent people in many ways, hard working, some attend church regularly, cheerful, interesting, fun even, but when it comes to helping the poor, they have hearts of stone. They must have hearts of stone to remain rich and to get richer. They must have hearts of stone to keep poor folks out of their colleges and high paying jobs, because who else is going to collect their trash, clean their homes, wash dishes in their favorite restaurants? I was shocked but not surprised at their attitude towards the Katrina victims. At my office, it was the clerical staff, who earn thousands less, who contributed to the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, and yes, unfortunately FEMA. It is our taxes that are mis-used; while the rich enjoy tax breaks, for simply being rich!

Had JFK, Bobby and Dr. King lived, I believe the world would be a very different place. But they didn't. Perhaps somewhere out there, there are children who will take up the torch. It's exciting when you think about it. Cassandra, just think, it might be our grandchildren. That's what I pray for.

Joel I don't think the Republicans believe in less government anymore. They believe the rich should pay for less government sure, but they love passing legislation and spending public money. It is pure myth that Republicans practice small and fiscally conservative governance.

Historical experience shows that regulating capitalism is necessary to prevent abuses.

But what you left out is that the Republicans want to regulate social behavior in the same way that Democrats want to regulate economic behavior.

Republicans want the government to forbid you to have an abortion, marry a same-sex partner or watch porno. In school, your children will be required to listen to Evangelical Christian prayers and take 'science' lessons in Creationism and 'Intelligent Design.' And $157 million of your tax money has already gone to support 'faith based' organizations that preach abstinence and other conservative-approved doctrines.

What business does the government have in these matters?

Democrats believe that the poor deserve an equal shot. Republicans believe the poor deserve to be shot equally.

Not belittle anything, but Joel, there is just no way that your current WaPo photo could ever be connected with gravity. The current photo inspires more, umm... is more analogous to cute in a teddy bear kind of way.

I am so sorry, but you've gotta do something about the photo.

dr -- Are you kidding? Look at those sagging eyelids. That's gravity for you.

All I know is that Democrats always have their hands in my wallet because they think we're too stupid to know how to spend our money. Earth to the Dems: I don't need you to hold my hand while I walk across a street. I'm not a victim. And until you guys stop looking down your nose at me, I'll vote Republican. By the way, I'm not rich, and that "top one percent" nonsense has just about worn itself out. Get a new message.

I see the Democratic Party as the party that want to give rights and privileges to people who aren't willing to work for them, while taking rights and money away from other people to pay for it.

I see the Republican Party as the party that defends my rights from those who would deprive me of them and efends my hard-earned money from being taken to support somebody who isn't willing to work.

Is that an over-simplification? Yes, but in the end it holds true. In Maryland, Democrats want to ban all gun ownership, while sending illegal immigrants and their children to college. I don't always agree with what the Republicans try to do, but I know they at least care about me and my rights, and that the Democrats don't.

Talk about Cherry picking... Jay Rockefeller?

kb, and Joel, sorry, just ran out to get a pepperoni and mushroom pizza from AV's.

come on over for a slice.

Republican motto: Spend all you want, we'll print more.

dr, see what you started?

Now I have to say I appreciate having any photo because I think it helps add warmth and humanity to the cold cyber-ness of the blog. It's not easy to publish your likeness so that people can take shots at it. I think anyone who criticizes Achenbach's photo should be required to link to a picture of themselves so we can compare and see how much MORE photogenic the criticizer is.

And to think, I had a whole multiple-paragraph opinion about abortion and birth control and government as collective action that I had to delete in order to post this defense of the photo.

Now, James, (1) when was your hard earned money any more important than my hard earned money? (2) Why should the poor (which you may be) have to pay MORE TAXES than the rich? (3) realizing that many Vietnam Vets and Gulf War Vets are now unemployeed, are you saying that they did not earn the support of their country and their fellow countrymen? (4) Maryland is not trying to ban all gun ownership. WHY do you spread such a myth? WHY???
-- is it your fear of the trilateral commission?
But James, most of all I wonder why you have such a hard time paying taxes when your wonderful Republican representatives are drilling this government's budget into such a deficit that we are surely going to send this country straight to Nanking?

Aren't you hiding your vision from the financial truthes of this government? What is going to happen if your Republican friendly Sheiks decide to switch their currency funding from the dollar to the Euro or the Yen? Or is this too complex so we just don't want to worry about that?

Sorry James, that was unfair.

BTW, I hope you are as concerned about religeous freedom as you are for your gun. I am willing to protect both. YOU?

Joel,
Just amble over to photographer Lucian Perkins, good Texan that he is, at the Washington Post and get your photo taken/updated (or by any other of the how many? WaPo staff photographers).

How difficult can it be?

Back over in RedAmerica, it has taken Ben less than 36 hours to hotlink to Michelle Malkin. What is the source of this woman's credibility? I never heard of her until just a few months ago, and now I can't avoid her.

Tell Ben he works for a news organization now and Michelle just doesn't cut it as a serious citation.

/Starting the Drudge Report stop watch.

Whenever I think of describing republicans, I think of a line from the movie, Howard's End. Anthony Hopkins played a rich Henry Wilcox in turn of the last century London. Speaking to his fiancee who wanted to help a poor clerk, he says "The poor are poor; one is sorry for them, but there it is."

I know the Republicans want to be known as the party of less government, but how can they claim that after running up a national debt of 9 trillion dollars?

"I quibbled, since, as someone who has made it quite well in life, he shouldn't be a Democrat."

One can have made it quite well in life and still fight for the ordinary people. The combination may be rare, but the two traits are no mutually exclusive.

Good point, kbertocci. Since I picked on Joel's picture, earlier, you can find some (bad) pictures of me here: http://www.astroday.net/JTTUfamSci.html

You also can find some old photos of me here, at an obsolete web site: http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/code693/irhs/irhs.html

Dolphin,
I didn't say my money is more important than yours. The Democrats don't think I'm poor. As far as veterans go, you are using a fraction of the population to support your argument that is so small as to be inconsequential from a $ standpoint. As for the increased deficit, I would rather pay taxes to keep that down and have told my representatives that.
If you don't think the Democrats want to ban all gun ownership you are either a fool or think I am a fool to believe you.
What's your definition of "religious freedom?" I've already defended more freedoms than you can count.

Dear heavens kbertocci, if we were forced to post a picture, the blog would shut down by my photogenically challenged self alone. It would overpower even the wonder that is Moveable Type. I once had an i.d. card so bad people actually fell down laughing when I was forced to reveal it. I tried to have it redone, but was always told it was not possible. The final insult was that when the i.d. was expired they would not let me keep it. I am convicned it hangs in a lunch room somewhere, and that people laugh at it daily. It would go well with my new personal motto, 'Unskilled and Unaware of it'.

Folks,
Russ Feingold will be on the Daily Show at 11:00 tonight on Comedy Central. Be There to see what a real Democrat looks like, talks like, and laughs like!

Of the two major political parties, only one supports the right to vote.
'nuff said.

Someone early on said that The Wizard of Oz is political commentary/satire.

It's not.

That's an idea that first appeared in the 1960s, and has been rather thoroughly discredited since.

The Democratic Party I grew up with was peopled by folks like Scoop Jackson; folks who REALLY DID care about fiscal responsibility and defense. Now the Dems are Ted, Al Sharpton, Shumer, Hillary, that poodle from Massachusetts Kerry, Brad Pitt and Babs Streisand.
Geez, I'm certainly not crazy about Bush, but do you think I'd vote for a party that now resembles picnic day at Berkeley? The Dems are now a collection of Special Interests. And lunatics. I'll vote Republican till the Dems come in from Haight Ashbury.

dr--ha! I rest my case. No, really, I'm laughing because of what you said about not being allowed to keep your ID. Our office manager has a collection of all the ID's of the people who used to work in our department. Since I've been here 12 years I've seen them come and go, and every time somebody leaves, my buddy gets out all the old ID's and we make fun of everybody's pictures. It's a real incentive to me to stay employed here, so my picture doesn't join the collection.

Well, here I am anyway (she says looking around carefully)...

kbertocci, you should attend a BPH and you'll see that there would be no clear winner in the "who leans more left" contest. Pretty much a tie like ScienceTim and Omni's match.

Speaking of Roe v Wade, as a pro-choice person, I have a question for any anti-choice folks who might happen to be here: if abortion is wrong, then why is it OK in the case of rape or incest?

I actually more admire the people who insist that ANY abortion is wrong than those that just think some are. At least they really have a belief I can understand.

I'm not so bold as to criticize anyone's picture. I will point out that a younger Joel appears on the cover of his book Why Things Are: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345362241/qid=1143060701/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-7920439-0733622?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

possumlady, very vivid picture, however, what I think is more interesting is that Republican followers usual never envision themselves as being poor or in need.

Maybe that's it, my father always said that "but for the grace of God, goes I."

While, and again, I apologize to James for using him as an example, but there seems to be a certain entitlement to a better life because he sees himself as working harder than others, (Or for whatever reason).

BTW, that is human nature. We all want a better life, but when you put that into the context of our current situation where MOST PEOPLE are ending up with significantly less disposable income over the past 5 years, James' words have a somewhat hollow ring to them in my book.

What I fear is that those still working to help the poor are going to get swamped by the "back wash" of our inept (my view) national economic leadership.

Blaming immegrants for lost jobs to outsourcing is just a political slight of hand. Just a week ago, the Post ran an article on how many highly capable Indian tech workers and executives are heading back to India.

To videotaping undocumented workers building scaffolding outside in 30 degree weather for one day's pay isn't the solution. It would be better to figure out how to increase the earnings of the median American worker.

Achtung, Yellowjkt:

I will send my email to Himself, J.A., and ask him to forward it to you, okay? Great pictures.

Republican / Democrat? That is an easy divide. Here is what a Republican believes... It was defined in the 1960's and laid foundation for the GOP party we see today... sadly, many are starting to forget...

The Sharon Statement

Adopted in conference at Sharon, Connecticut, on 11 September 1960.

In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.

We, as young conservatives, believe:

That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

That the genius of the Constitution- the division of powers- is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;

That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and

That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?

The Post's keep a right wing blogger out the soup lines program has inspired Wonkette to do their own bit of good:

http://wonkette.com/politics/blogs/introducing-sargeant-wonkettes-real-america-162021.php

Funniest thing I've read all day. Except for ScienceTim. He cracks me up.

More "government", less "government"; it's such a tiresome cliche. The Republicans aren't against government, they're against good government.

They've been on the wrong side of virtually every socioeconomic issue since Theodore Roosevelt scandalized them in his role as trust-buster. It's taken over a hundred years to establish an imperfect system of rules that protects consumers, encourages growth, and maintains some semblance of restraint on business from destroying the environment. And Republicans have fought virtually every step, from child labor laws to minimum wage laws to unemployment insurance to Social Security to the Clean Air Act.

As for regulation, they love government interference when it comes to subsidies for industries like sugar, oil, and farming; they just don't like regulations like those that are meant to keep workers safe or the air from being poisoned.

It's obvious to anyone that the average citizen and ther society as a whole requires protection from unfettered capitalism. Look what happened in Russia when the free-market ideologues held sway. Jeffrey Sachs is still heaping ashes on himself for his role in that disaster.

And it's not that Republicans oppose government interference in principle. They LOVE interfering in people's sex lives and other private conduct, or inhibiting academic freedom, freedom of the press, or freedom of expression.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is exactly what Achenbach's friend said: the Democrats are looking out for the interests of the average citizen--and to help the average citizen when he or she is down on their luck--and the Republicans are looking out for the wealthy.

Science Tim,
Like the sweater, which means it must really be cold at the top of Mauna Kea. The pictures of you in your youth still look like you! Even neater for me, since I never got to the summit of Mauna Kea, let alone the road to the summit, was seeing what it looks like there up on top.

How much fun would it be to go back to Hawaii and see the obervatory with you (my intent is not to make Science Spouse jalous)? As well as the stars! As well as eat some freshly caught fish in Kona.

I saw on TV briefly this morning that Hawaii was getting deluged with rain, and there's snow on the volcanic summits.

(Must Boodleskim backwards to see where you were picking on Joel's photo. I had a brief chat quite recntly with author David Liss' wife. I told her, whatever you do, help your husband graphically--get a new B&W photo of your hubby for the back of his books' dustjackets! What appears on Liss' books' jackets looks like it was taken with a Polaroid as the family hurried out the front door to get into their car. Blech!)

Aloha nui loa.

I stand corrected on the L Frank Baum allegory accusation. I guess you can't believe everything you hear. Now if you play Dark Side of The Moon backwards during The Wizard of Oz you hear Paul say "I am the walrus."

Um, yeah, I read 'mudge's rant as directed to Hertzberg.

If we're supposed to take swipes at the Kitter, I'll start: Dude, when are you going to do something about that WaPo.com pic 'o yer mug that *does not look like you*?

I'll cherry pick facts here regarding Republicans and Govt spending (this one's for you, Sternberg): When was the last time an Administration turned the corner from deficit budgets to balanced (or even surplus budgets)? And under which Administration have we gone back to record deficits, to the point where the Congress has to raise the deficit cap?

The word "irresponsible" does not begin to describe how I feel about the Adminstration and the Legislative Majority. And not just on matters of budget and fiscal policy.

Bah.

bc

Well then.
A Big BOO on me.

Double Bah!

bc

I think we need a crazy Democrat to revive the party. There is too much disillusionment right now w/ both parties. They both side w/ lobbiests & interests groups that increase their pocket power, which in turn increases their finacial base for campaigning purposes, which in turn enlarges their chances of remaining in power.

I believe the Democrats need someone to go off the reservation & restore confidence at a national level. Such candidate must look crazy to the rest of the Democrats. They need a new voice. I personally thought they had someone w/ such qualities in Howard Dean, but the media destroyed him after his "emotional" outburst during the nomination campaigning. Forgive the man for showing signs that he was human. That's no longer political correct to some voters.

Murtha & Feingold appear to be on their own as days go by. They are fine candidates, but I believe they need someone a little bit more off. I think you get my drift. Remember how out of place Newt Gingrich appear to be during the "liberal" years of the Clinton administration?? He spoke of morals, values, & all that good Right wing stuff. George Jr. was able to catch that wave & ride it all the way to the White House. The question is, where is the Democrats' Gingrich?? And, who can ride his wave???

Edwin

Thanks for the link, SonofCarl. I've never seen that early photo of Joel. It made me laugh! Joel looks like he's just emerged from spending two years in the basement of Firestone Library.

I shall be kind and say nothing about the glasses. My girlfriend had a name for those types of frames...

Don't get me started on sugar subsidies. I lived in south Florida for three years and saw that corporate welfare boondoggle up close. The Fanjuls own all South FL pols lock, stock, and barrel.

And my picture is on my blog which I have pimped four times today. Someday, someone will call me yelljkt in public and my careful CIA supplied cover will be blown.

James, once again, you need to do some research. Also, while you are looking up the facts, check out the support of the VA. Where is it going? Hint: SOUTH.

You are picking facts or implying facts out of the air. Many of the poor in the District are ex military. This holds true in many neighborhoods.

OK, I agree with you, I think we both should pay more taxes to keep the deficit down, but before you or I do that, I think that we should listen to the Dems and repeal the HUGE tax cuts to those making millions per year. If you make millions, I am sorry, I think that you should get back to paying a bit more tax to support your country that has given back so much.

On guns, no that isn't happening. Sure there is pressure, but the point of this whole blog today, James, is that the Republicans are in lock step and the Dems aren't. I allign myself with the dems.

I am more of a capitalist/socialist in the old style of Clean Gene. The Dems could NEVER get a majority of their own party to support the banning of guns. Forget adding in the Republicans... so chill man.

See the Dems give you room as a republican to participate in the argument. You are not a fool... I am far from one, so you can stop just right there.

Finally, you need to know about religeous freedoms, it seems. Our current administration is "sponsoring" certain religions over others in the military and in fund raising and organizing of support.

Hundreds of Millions of your tax dollars are going into specific relgion's hands.

James, you talk about worrying about guns being banned, but I am watching and so should you the takeover of the military chaplainsy by the evangelicals. The funding of their organizations with federal tax money through targeted non-profit gateways.

Show me the slippery slope that is happening or the slippery slope that is feared. Many of us are in disagreement with you and have eyes and are seeing what is truly happening.

Is this the title of the top book in the stack? "If We Can Keep a Severed Had Alive"...?

Does Joel answer that question in his book?

I recall the latin expression sometimes used in law: res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself)

Wow! The young Joel looks like the love child of Dave Barry and Bill Gates.

I've been eaten by the blog.

Okay, tell you what...

Lets all send letters to Brad Pitt and Babs Streisand and Ted Kennedy and Shumer and Obama (what a phony THAT guy is) -good Democrats all- and suggest they send the IRS 20 percent more of their income as a debt reduction strategy. Okay boys and girls, anyone want to guess what our hypocritical, whining Democratic pals would have to say about THAT suggestion??

muskrat, tell us why Obama is a phony. As a matter of speaking, most rich Dems would agree to do the same if the law changes, RE: Bill Clinton as he said in his talk about how "George Bush made him richer."

And again muskrat, the issue probably isn't about you or me, who probably make under 100K, but those making in the millions. Those are the people who are on a Tax holiday. HMMM?

Boys and Girls.

Sam, I note in that 1960 manifesto it says near the top, "We, as young conservatives...." Since when are "Republican" and "Conservative" synonymous? Yeah, I concede you guys took over your party--but that still doesn't mean the two things are synonyms. Back in 1960, there used to be what are collaed (now don't break out in guffaws) "moderate" Republicans, and (even worse from your point of view) "liberal Republicans. The really funny thing was, back then, it was a perfectly serious, and even respectable thing to be. Of course, your zealous brethern have very nearly wiped out what was once a pretty good breed of people. Nice goin'.

I don't suppose any of these names ring a bell: Edward Brook, Lowell Weicker, "Soapy" Williams, Hugh Scott, Richard Schweiker (my very own Cong., even voted for him, once, back in the Mesolithic Era when I had to walk 20 miles uphill to school in a blizzard). Yeah, there were even dozens more, back then. Why, if memory serves, you even had a president back then, name of Eisenhower.

Now you call them "RINOs" (Republicans in name only). You folks ought to be ashamed of yourselves, purging people like that out of your own party.

SCC: collaed should be called

The Republican Party used to be the party of less government. Today it is the last refuge of Enron traders. Those same happy folk that "ginned" up the cost of electricity out west, looted peoples retirement, and outsourced their jobs, all the while lining their own pockets ARE the Republican Party of today. They are the grandest collection of crooks, con artists and swindlers in history. The Democrats are merely the party of arguing old ladies that allow every sort of pervert under their tent.

Well, muskrat, are you willing to pony up your 20%, too?

It's everybody's debt, together, so guess who has to pay it? The problem with arguing that it's only the richest of Democrats who should pay it (certainly, they need to contribute) is that it removes any hint of fiscal responsibility on the part of Republicans. Heck, it's obviously an incentive for them to spend like there's no tomorrow, so they can financially bankrupt the fiscally responsible opposition. Therefore, it's a stupid idea and not even a valid rhetorical device. You need to work on your debating skills.

I do not recall electing Mr. Pitt, nor Ms. Streisand to any office. I don't think anyone else did, either. They may talk as much as any American. Not my business. Just don't assume that they always speak for me (a Democrat), just because they happen to be able to afford a better microphone. They don't speak for you, I gather. What makes you think they speak for me?

Exactly what would be your evidence that Obama is a phony? That he disagrees with you? That he's a bright, articulate, successful man who happens to be a Democrat? That he's a bright, articulate, successful man who happens to be black? That he's a bright, articulate, successful American who happens to have an African-sounding name? I seem to recall that the guys he beat for his office were a lying kink-meister who tried to browbeat his ex-wife into group sex, and a blowhard wingnut carpet-bagger. Or do you consider 'phony' to be an essential qualification for anyone in that race?

I've met Mr. Ryan's ex-wife (VERY briefly). I think I can speak for all us men-who-are-basically-animals at heart, when I say that in the same situation, I would not have been inclined to share. Obviously, that Republican is insane. I'm not so foolish as to claim that he's representative of the rest.

Tim, have a slice of pizza.

We need some corporate regulation to prevent a new Love Canal. Without the environmentalists people love to bash, our rivers would all be on fire by now.

But business and entrepreneurs need some freedom to invent and deal with their changing situations without having to ask permission and document every single firing. See "France".

We need some social regulation so people wear some pants walking around the mall, but if "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" means anything then we don't need the government in our blood streams or bedrooms.

If you're going to outlaw abortion, then make sure contraception is available. If religious freedom is a right, than so is the freedom to reject the conclusions and rules of any particular religion, no matter how large and well-connected, including at what precise moment a few cells become "human life".

We DON'T need professional politicians. They are sell outs to wealthy contributors because they need to raise big TV money. Just put up a website or have a fed/state voting channel. It would be cheaper to give a PC or cable to anyone who can't afford it than to continue funding our descent into partisan madness.

We DO need to all take a breath and recognize that we generally want similar outcomes: a viable national defense, consistent laws, a decent place to work and live.

No party has a lock on that.

Tim, tell us all about the Trekkie-thon where you met Jeri Ryan. Was she wearing her 7of9 catsuit? Lie to me if she wasn't.

Error, good point, BUT, sometimes some administrations can actually DO GOOD. The question is whether the "talk" is well meant or just political cover. Even if it is well meant, we have to look to see if the administration or congress can pull it off, so to speak.

LOL, yellojkt. I needed that.

Ya know, once in a while, it's nice to see some passion here: "a blowhard wingnut carpet-bagger." It has a nice ring to it, I must admit.

Welcome to all the new posters. It's a big injection of energy, thanks to the kit title and front page plug. Does someone still have that list of 'boodle handles suggested but never used? Might be nice to offer them again.

Uh, Tim, does The ScienceSpouse know about the former Mrs. Ryan? Dude, you're enthusiasm is showing.

DV

SCC your enthusiasm, not you're

DV

I'll tell you EXACTLY why Obama is a phony.
He keeps preaching about being a "new" Democrat, a more "pragmatic" Democrat. A more "centrist" Democrat. The only problem I have with the guy is that every time he opens his mouth, he's further left than Chuck Shumer. And I get tired of his same old nitwittery about the "top one percent" not paying their due; they pay half the taxes as is. And he throws out the same old tired Democratic line trying to make so many of us "victims". That's condesending, and I resent it. In short, he's no more of a "new" Democrat than Kerry or Ted are. And that's what I call phony. Period. By the way, oh righteous one, I couldn't give a rat's a-- what the guy's race is, something Democrats always seem obsessed with. Why is it when a black guy or woman dares to come off the same old tired liberal Democratic plantation, guys like you immediately label them "Toms" or Steppin' Fetchits? I see the Democratic Party -and guys like you- as the real racists. You're just too hypocritical to recognize it. People like you and "race pimps" like Jesse and Al have created a cottage industry of victimization. Oh, I might have forgotten to tell you - I'm black. And I resent the hell out of Democrats telling me I just can't cut mustard without their holding my hand. I'll cross the street without a Dem holding my hand, thank you very much. And I'm smart enough to know how to spend my own money without the Democratic Party telling me to send it to them so THEY can redistribute it. That tack was tried in Eastern Europe - last I looked, it's a concept that failed.

No Trekkiethon, sorry. I cannot tell a lie. It was sillier than that. She was the keynote speaker at Take Your Daughter to Work Day at Goddard. The general amusement at the irony of getting a TV star to speak for the real people who do real science did not stop a very long line of us from asking for autographs. I noticed that the line was predominantly male, and had few daughters.

I asked her to sign a coffee-cup for a friend. It was the corker to an in-joke. She was a little surprised that I asked for nothing signed for myself.

Odder than me, however, was the fellow behind me. Sten Odenwald, of the Astronomy Café, brought two copies of his book -- one for her to sign for him, and one for him to sign for her. He suggested that she give it to the Tim that they had on Voyager, I forget his last name, the Vulcan.

She was not wearing the catsuit, sorry. But she was wearing a very nice pantsuit. It was clear that a lot of what you see on the screen in Voyager was accomplished thorugh careful posture, and prosthetics. I prefer the reality.

Double Vision: I think "shrieking denizon" is available as a handle.

Just a quick note to all the Democrats on this board, including the one in the original article, I am still waiting for someone to explain What a Democrat stands for without referring to Republicans.

muskrat no matter your point of view or political persuasion, your point gets lost when you start calling people names.

I was always partial to Yeoman Rand, myself, until Dr. Crusher came along.

("Dr. Crusher"--one trembles to think what a shrink or a well-trained Vassar English major could do to deconstruct that name.)

Now my enthusiasm is showing.

Muskrat,

Dear me, you have bought the Kool-Aid, haven't you? What do Striesand and Brad Pitt have to with the Democratic Party? Do you really think that those of us who (nominally) call ourselves Democrats wake up each morning and look west to Hollywood for our marching orders? Please. I usually try to acknowledge when my conservative brethern make a good point, but I can't really do that in your case, because you're just throwing talking point cliches out.

You sum up the contrast between the frat boys and the maids quite well, but you missed the two issues that drive elections right now - pro god vs. pro individual and pro america vs. pro world.

muskrat, given the particular vigorous antipathy that you expressed toward Obama from among all the Democrats you named, it seemed a fair question to ask whether you had a problem with his race, among other things I suggested, since that is a distinction between him and the others that you named. Most of them are articulate and successful (I won't digress into a discussion of the applicability of my other adjectives). Given that you are the one who expressed such disgust for him, personally, I am amused to see that your reaction is to call me a racist. It's fair, however, since I was clearly implying that I thought you were possibly racist, based on thin evidence. Point taken.

I don't recall ever calling anyone a "Tom" or "Steppin' Fetchit." I have occasionally called people "morons" (yesterday), "fools" (yesterday) or "blowhard wingnuts" (just a little while ago!). Usually, I do so only if I present some corroborating evidence to support the term. In this case, I assumed everyone would be familiar with Mr. Keyes. When he has run for President, he has seemed relatively mentally balanced. That is not the face he showed when he was running for the House from Maryland.

Sorry Philly Jim - the Dems of today don't stand for anything other than whining and seeing the glass as half empty. The party is a complete joke. Look at Clinton: he talked a good game, but in the end he walked across snow without leaving a trail ie. he accomplished nothing. Social Security, Saddam, all the rest of it. In the beginning, he had both houses; he could've accomplished so much. And his presidency turned out to be so "small" (I'll skip the obvious joke).

The Democratic Party strives to make the country and the world a better place to the benefit of everyone and the expense of no one. The Democratic Party is realistic in its goals, and more importantly, its means. The Democratic Party recognizes we all have a responsibility to take care of one another.

Re: "Republicans: [...] Motto - them that got it, get more."

With a nod to "Pirates of the Caribean":
Republicans: Take what you can, give nothing back.

This has been bugging me all day: there is no 'o' in 'denizen.'

As much as I am loathe to praise Clinton, he did balance the budget even if it was largely smoke and mirrors. The current administration has broken all the mirrors and sold the smoke machine.

CSX - Good point about the Clinton presidency - he didn't accomplish as much as he should have. However, I think it is fair to say that this was at least in part due to the influence of the Republican attack machine which operated with ruthless effciency during his presidency, and hamstrung many of his efforts. The Republicans today do not stand for compromise in any way, shape or form. It's their way or the highway.

With all due respect: I cannot tell you what Democrats stand for. I can only tell you what I stand for. I do that best through my actions and my responses in conversation, so pay attention.

What Democrats stand for is something that has to be hammered out by consensus. We don't operate off talking-points memos from the leadership. At least, I don't. I hope the party hasn't forgotten me. Do any of you have today's memo?

I have been amused to note that about the half the time that I try to type "Democrat" I actually type "Demoncrat." Freudian slip?

CLINTON balanced the budget?? That had more to do with the tech bubble and oil -a commodity- remaining at a low price. Clinton was at the right place at the right time. As the old saying has it, economies are cyclical; when they expand, a sitting prez gets credit. When they contract, the prez gets slapped. Clinton was lucky - it happens. By the way, anyone notice that unemployment is lower today than in Clinton's time. You want to blame Bush for that? Okay then, that's the point I'm trying to make. In the end, the executive branch has incredibly little to do with balancing budgets.

If the Democrats take the House in November, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will be John Conyers, who has promised to move on the issue of reparations to blacks for slavery. Any enthusiasm out there for that?

The Democrats, when in control, provide their own opposition. This leaves a wedge for the Republicans to impact the process. When in power, at least in the recent past, the Republicans manage to be in lockstep. Even in the very unpopular reaction to the port sale deal, the republicans managed to sweep everyone into a cloak room and wheel and deal back to a nearly unanimous position, so it seems.

While this may appear as strong leadership, it just put the weight for effective government onto the shoulders of the Republican leadership and its ability to make good decisions for American. At best, in my opinion, the jury is still out.

At best... sadly many many minds have been made up and even the Republican voters are starting to consider this president as not at all trustworthy. This is tarring the the Republicans in congress who supported him.

Yeah, Alg, that's the current myth, but Clinton also reduced government spending during his term in office, which had something to do with creating a budget surplus. Yes, tax revenues did increase during his administration, but that wasn't the only reason there was a surplus.

And I surely didn't see Clinton blowing the surplus out the window by deciding to hold a war and cut taxes at the same time

"He stipulated that "already made it" means people who are quite rich -- well inside of the top 1 percent of income."

I can't help but ask if this includes such Dem supporters as Babs Striesand, George Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Bruce Springsteen, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, etc., etc., etc. Does your friend really include them among those "ordinary Americans"? Give us a break :-)

"To oversimplify, we've got two basic philosophies: More government, less government. More restraint on freewheeling capitalism, less restraint. More regulations, fewer regulations. Higher taxes, lower taxes. Help the poor and the needy, let them help themselves."

IMO, this is accurate except for the last line. Republicans (actually conservatives) believe in giving the poor the tools to help themselves. Give a man a fish (the liberal solution) and he can feed himself a meal, but teach a man to fish (the conservative solution) and he can feed himself for a lifetime.

Quite Nice, SolAsylum - exactly what has the Bush administration done to "teach a man to fish" in the past 6 years?

John

I should append that - what has the Bush Administration done that's any differnt then what previous Democratic Administrations have done?

Be happy to oblige, PhillyJim (I'm a Philly kid, too).

1) No torturing people. Even bad guys. Not even just a little bit, or the teasin' kind, with dogs and stuff.

2) No teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools. Hope that isn't a dealbreaker for you.

3) No wiretapping without a warrant (OK if it's after the fact, per the FISA law, though).

4) A woman's right to chose. (You and I BOTH gotta shut up, Jim.)

5) Competent defense and security. Stress on competent.

6) A reasonably uncorrupt Congress (first thing you're gonna say is, Dems have been just as guilty in the past. First thing I'm gonna say is, Yep, that's true. But this time it's your turn in the barrel.)

7) Increased scrutiny of big business and Wall Street, especially defense contractors, pharmaceuticals and "healthcare"/insurance folks. Also polluters.

8) No messing with the voting machines.

9) Waaaay less dependence on foreign oil (yeah, that's what YOUR guy said, too. Well, it was a good idea. Let's see some execution.)

10. Everybody can have all the guns they want, as long as they get licenses and have waiting periods. No bazookas, hand grenades, .50-caliber ack-ack, depth charges, air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, etc. for personal home defense. Also no cop-killer bullets, tracers, dum-dums, cyanide bullets, or umbrellas with poison needles. Also no blowguns tipped with curare in the schools except for show-and-tell day. Sorry, hope that wasn't a big one for you.

11. You already got rid of Terrell Owens, so we're all OK on that one. If you want to run Donovan McNabb's mom for office, it's OK with me. Can't speak for anybody else on that one.

12. Bump the minimum wage a bit.

13. Rescind all the Bush tax cuts.

14. Send actual help to victims of Hurricane Katrina.

15. Reform the entire health care industry (but I admit I don't have a plan. I'm inclied to start with firing squads, but it would violate the spirit of No. 10 above.)

16. Allow gay marriage. What the hell do I care who sleeps with who. Why shouldn't gays suffer like the rest of married folks?

17. Try not to destroy the federal government (i.e., knock off the hidden Grover Norquist agenda crap about "starving the beast"). However, it does need a good bit of tweaking, adjusting, re-orienting, etc., here and there.

There's probably a lot more, but I gotta go catch a bus.

Is there any enthusiasm for giving black folk reparations. The short answer is: NO.
Give that one up. Now. If THAT is what the Dems would give us, the party is nuttier than I thought.

Only have time for one example right now. He's the first modern President who attempted to provide a means for young people to invest their SS contributions, providing a means for teaching the individual resposibility associated with personal savings as well as introducing the power of the stock market. And what was the Dem's response? It went something like "there are no problems with SS (which they managed to say with a straight face) and in the meantime, keep right on sending those SS contributions to us to put into a lockbox for you." LoL :-)

A bit ago, MHR posted that if the Democrats took the House in November that John Conyers would control the Judiciary Committee and one of Mr. Conyer's pet prjects is "reparations for slavery". Indeed, Mr. Conyer's has proposed forming a committee to stdy the effects of slavery. He has never, however, proposed giving money nor assets to the decendents of slaves.

So let Conyers propose it, mhr. So what? It'll get voted down, 3 or 4 to 1. Case closed.

mudge,

You've sold me. Throw in something for decriminalizing medicinal marijuana for ailments up to and including eyestrain, and you have my vote.

The difference really is two-fold, though not all Dems and Repubs agree with both prongs (thus there are Reagan Dems and moderate Repubs): 1) care for the common man vs. care for rich and powerful elites; and 2) tolerance of diversity vs. promotion of a Christian Right political agenda.

Joel's fallacy, in pointing out that many well-off people are Dems, misses the point of the first prong -- the issue is caring or advancing or fighting for the cause of the poor, middle-class, etc., but not necessarily having to be poor, etc.

The mistake about small vs. big governments confuses means and ends. Many liberals and conservatives in reality favor big or small government (as well as strict or expansive interpretations of the constitution) depending on whether they believe (mistakenly or not) that the means will be more likely to bring about the outcomes they seek.

I didn't wanna stress PhillyJim out, yellojkt. We'll sneak that one in after E.F.'s inauguration. Ssshhh. Mum's the word. Pass it on.

Why do I feel this entire boodle is like the SparkNotes® version of Little Green Footballs? Can't we all just get along and write song parodies and make snarky Monty Python allusions?

We've even scared away LoneMule.

We need a kit about the Big Bang or the Treaty of Ghent, stat.

One tired notion the Dems have to jettison yesterday is that the solution to all things is higher taxes; on wealthy, on ALL of us. Every time tax rates have been lowered, by Reagan and Bush, revenues have skyrocketed. And yes, Jack Kennedy lowered the rates in '62 and the economy went ballistic. Deficits are a function of spending; unfortunately, neither party is tackling that one. Poor Bush wanted to cut the RATE OF INCREASE (not an actual cut) three quarters of one per cent last year and the Dems went crazy. They came out with the same old Washington Post nonsense: if this happens "deficits will quadruple", "grandma will be forced to eat cat food", entitlements will go south. Its the same old Democratic scare tactics.
What does the party stand for? Besides scaring the bejesus out of people, I don't have a clue.

joel - how DO you manage to skim the boodle? i've been trying to catch up all day!

'mudge - got my copy of the alien book so i'll soon be reading it as well -

lindaloo - i was trying to research the cannes for you... and found something you might find interesting - how to get accredited!

The Festival de Cannes (Cannes Film Festival) is an event reserved for film industry professionals. To gain access to the Palais des Festivals, they must be accredited. Accreditations are deliverred according to one's professional activity.

Press Accreditation for journalists, photo- reporters and media technicians

Festival Accreditation for professionals from the film industry from France and abroad

Producers Network a programme specifically dedicated for producers

Marché du Film for buyers, sellers, producers and film industry institutional representatives

Short Film Corner for French and foreign producers and distributors of short films

"Cannes Cinéphiles" Accreditation for film students, certain film clubs and educational groups

you might be able to use your journalism background to get you in!!!!! i've found with my film festival background in LA that volunteering is also a fabulous way to get into various film festivals - i image you would have to speak french to do so but you may want to write the guy back to ask him about volunteer opportunities...

cass - i'm so sorry about your cold! i didn't mean to give it to you but lindaloo gave it to me and you know... misery loves company! you'll be all better in no time!

Musk-RAT,you are not black. It is through this "self-made" philosophy that people like Bill O'Reilly have gained some ground w/ a few so-called blacks. The notion that everyone can help defend themselves is absurd. Try living in a ghetto & having no bread to eat on the table. Try depending on a mom that got hooked on crack due to the atmosphere around her neighborhood. Try seeing your dad every week while he awaits for parole in jail. Try that for a lifetime, & then tell me that you're better off being a Republican than a Democrat. You are not black. Condoleeza Rice is not black. Being black means understanding & recognizing that those less fortunate NEED help in order for them to salvage their lives from that misery in which they live in. Now, you might ask yourself, "what does that have to do w/ Democrats?" It means that these people are willing to throw YOUR people a few social programs their way in order for them to have a better life. It is sad to hear Republicans call themselves the party of Jesus. It is more like the party of Paul. I'll put it to you this way Rat, Jesus ordered us to help out the poor. He didn't say, "let them help themselves." That's the difference between the 2 parties. You ain't black bro. You could never be black. Peace.

Bc-- agred with you on how horrible "Bio of a Space Tyrant" was. I think it was published only because Anthony was already a famous author.

The appropriate age to read that, hmm, maybe 85 going onto dementia? What the hey, won't remember it, right?

Moral: Never assume an author has uniform standards of taste in their books ;).

And back to politics-- if an author can't always produce good books, why do you expect that a certain political party will make every idea work?

All political ideas need to be open to debate and some critical review, such as... gasp, actually looking at science.

Intelligence is not about applying one formula to everything in life.

If that worked, we'd all have pre-programmed brains as tiny as insects, we'd never need to think about anything but gathering food and serving the Queen.

I think I'm not making much sense.
Need fuel to work. Must seek out flowers and sting anybody in my way. BZZZZZZZZ

so many points, so little time/space to agree with/refute them all.

so, i'll stick with the ones i think i can make best. abortion: i personally am against it, in the sense that i would not do it. i don't think that it's right, according to my beliefs. however, i know that a lot of people don't share my beliefs, and i know that a lot of women have abortions. better for them to be legal than to go back to the back alley, kill em with coathangers days, imho. if you don't like abortion, then open up and allow comprehensive sex ed to be taught again, rather than funding all the abstinence-only programs (they do not work, and the statistics are there to back that up if you're willing to look for them).

more government vs. less government...you can't consider that anymore because, as i think someone said earlier, neither party is supporting small government. they just support big government to serve different demographic groups. i wish i could remember the "bottle" example a professor once used to explain the continuum of one party changing views with the other, because it goes a long way toward illustrating how one party changes to basically become the other while keeping the same name.

not all democrats today are whining and seeing the glass as half-empty. and if you want to talk about jokes, look at bush: he accomplished a war that will last now, he's saying, until at least 2008. not to mention a record-setting deficit, a bumbling foreign-relations record, and sending america's approval abroad into possibly its lowest depths ever. in the beginning, he had both houses; he could have accomplished so much! well, i guess he did accomplish a lot, just not much of it was positive.

Republicans are the party of big government and fiscal unresponisbility to the tune of 25% expansion and $9 trillion debt. Nice work.

P.S. Joel, are you embarrassed by your new colleague Ben whatever yet?

Sorry EF, the fickle boodle is now streaming to the Curmudgeon banner.

A brief comment on the Canadian experience on gay marriage: from what I saw, the actual no-spin polls were about 1/3 yes, 1/3 no way, and 1/3 civil union okay. This was then forced through by the Liberal govt. It is unlikely to be overturned (1. the Conservative govt is only a minority; rest are to left; and 2. most pro-civil union people will say water under the bridge, as it is unfair and politically problematic to strip rights once granted).

Yeah, we should keep on voting for the small/big party of elephants. Globalization does not only place Americans out of work, it also enslaves the rest of the world. The Bush/Cheney/Delay/Halliburton/Operation Iraqi "Freedom"/CitiGroup/Dubai Security/Saudi Arabia/ClearChannel Communications/Fox News/Jesus'Party (Paul's I should say)/Musk-RAT's Masters know what they're doing:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91C02709-1D7E-439F-B31E-F8AF2AB865EB.htm

Let's stop the Bush bashing. Get up & vote!!!

alg says:

>By the way, anyone notice that unemployment is lower today than in Clinton's time.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Now, I'm not an economist, but I try to look up facts before I point them out (or repeat them).

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in December 2000 (the month before GWB took office) was 3.9%. In December 2005: 4.9%

(FYI: the rate in Dec 1992--the month before Clinton took office--was 7.9%. It dropped steadily toward that 3.9 and has yet to see numbers that low since Dec 2000)

***yellojkt

I have checked out your photos but don't know where on your blog to leave an email message. I did get your name and home town, so I should maybe try that with help from the phone directory. ?

No...i would never just "use" a photo without permission. Would buy it. About ten years ago I wrote a small book about Devils Tower, the National MOnument. This is the 100th Anniversary of its designation by Teddy Roosevelt. My publisher might like the space ship photo for the revised edition...still very much in process. Illustrations in it so far are black and white...

So Ed, by "being black" one HAS to:
See himself as a victim.
Need a helping hand from a Democrat.
Not be able to help himself.
Have to vote Democratic.

I feel sorry for you. I really do. You're a walking, talking cliche. And stereotype. Sorry, I left that plantation long ago. Its called: having guts.

i think the big government, small government, more government less government comparison is dated. The last two presidents to shrink the size of government were clinton and jfk. reagan couldn't starve the beast, and cheney has openly said that deficit spending on programs works politically.

so why do we keep using this same analogy? some conservative think tanks and political theorists might be for small govt, but unfortunately no consverative policymakers are.

If the Democrats represented everyone outside of the top 1% income bracket they'd have almost every seat in Congress and the White House. But they don't, and the reason is not because some people without money are too dumb to vote for Democrats.

Americans, for the most part, don't define themselves by how much money they have. And they don't particularly admire people who do. This means that some people with a lot of money identify with Democrats and some people with very little agree with Republicans. The Dems wish it were that simple but its not.

Isn't it time the Democrats stopped talking down to people without money, who don't agree them? Sheez!

As for less government, I wish it were that simple. Both parties seem to grow government bigger and bigger.

Secret coded message for thereIsaidit only, everyone else scroll down:

To contact me, go to any of my blog entries and click on the time stamped permalink. In the comments, leave a message with your e-mail address with or without spam stoppers. You do not need to be Blogger registered, just put in any name in the form. Also tell me what blog post the message is in. The Blogger software will send me an e-mail message with your comment. I will then go and erase the original message. The whole process takes about a day for me to check e-mail. Or leave a "psst" comment in the boodle.

I hate to be so cloak and dagger, but the less I can keep my e-mail off public forums the happier I am. I get enough spam as it is.

Okay folks, one thing we're going to correct here and now: Clinton did NOT shrink the size of government. Entitlements grew exponentially. So did Medicare/Caid. Social Security spending. Government grew. The RATE of growth slowed, owing to the tech bubble/increased revenue. But government grew.

Actually, Alf if absolutely correct. I'm no shill for Dems or Republicans - as the quaint old saying has it: I have no horse in this race. But government grew in a hurry under Clinton. It hasn't shrunk since prior to FDR. It just seems to be an anaconda that can't be brought under control. To wit: look what happens when someone (well, NO politician in today's world)ever brings up an actual cut - people would go stark raving ballistic, so we're to blame too. Example: Social Security is broken. We know it. But do folks want to fix it: not a chance. Politicians -unfortunately- have two jobs. To get elected. And to get reelected. Suggesting cutting government isn't a good way for them to do either. And that's unfortunate. I will opine on one thing though: as irresponsible as Bush has been in terms of spending, its an easy bet that Democrats would be worse. They LOVE to spend YOUR money. That's one thing they can't seem to get through their noodles: its the public's money. Not Washington's. UGH!!

"To oversimplify, we've got two basic philosophies:More government, less government. More restraint on freewheeling capitalism, less restraint. More regulations, fewer regulations. Higher taxes, lower taxes. Help the poor and the needy, let them help themselves."

Under Bush (Republican), the federal government has grown an astronomical percentage and every man, woman, and child now owes about $30,000 for our national debt. Any "less" government and we might owe $60,000 each.

For details on the "Republican" implementation of the "less government" philosophy you allege here, please see the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which expanded the spending in Medicare astronomically, while burdening the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and our nation's seniors with disastrously designed "prescription drug benefit." For more info on that, I recommend watching the tutorial on said topic on the Kaiser Family Foundation website or seeing any of the various state governments going bankrupt to cover the costs of yet another Republican initiative.

Less government. This is the kind of commentary that makes people say the media is biased; it has nothing to do with the facts, these are just the talking points.

Revenues skyrocketed every time taxes were lowered? If that had been true, I expect I would have heard it loudly proclaimed from every mountain top, with a raft of statistics to back it up. I have a conservative friend whose conservative husband works in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I think I would have heard. This particular claim is simply a fanhtasy. It was widely derided as a fantasy when Reagan did it, and deficits and the debt ballooned. It was derided as a fantasy when Bush 1 raised taxes and began the deficit shrinking. It was derided as a fantasy (Voodoo Economics, Take 2) when Bush 2 did it, and we are now experiencing rapid growth of the debt and increasing deficits.

And somebody up above, I forget who, claims that it's because of the whining and obstructive Democrats that these bad things have happened, because they have prevented the goodness of Republican virtue from success. First of all, you should know: they've lifted plays from the Republican playbook of the 70's and 90's, much good it's done. Secondly, I will remind you that it is your party which holds both legislative houses and the Presidency and which practices lockstep discipline to get things rammed through. It was your party that said (I forget who made the actual statement, and I'm paraphrasing slightly): "We don't want bipartisanship. We don't want a big majority. We want whatever we can get 51 votes for in the Senate." In other words, explicitly alienating their own moderate wing so long as a bare majority continues to vote the way the the Repub leadership directs, pushing through the most conservative agenda possible, rather than choosing an agenda on the basis of being what a genuine majority of the American people want or need.

Jeez.

Several points: 1) You need to find a new source; 2)Instead of relying on a source, investigate the issue yourself; 3) Being a teacher, I grade your essay a C- because it was filled with over-simplifications and didn't appear to have a lot of original thought. What happened, did you write it the night before it was due?

Tim - you're wrong, my friend. Kennedy lowered taxes and revenue went up. Same for Bush and Reagan. Again -and this is the part where you have to pay attention- debt is a function of spending. The revenue was there each time taxes were lowered; in fact, it skyrocketed. But the houses just couldn't bring themselves to make real cuts in spending. Econ 101.

Pay attention. King George has cut taxes for wealthy, run our economy into a ditch from which we are just now climbing out, increased the size of the government, and run the national deficit into the astronomic category, and through his lies has dragged us into a war for no reason (WMD? HA!) So much for conservative politics.

Why do Democrats have a gut hatred for tax decreases? I like to think that I'm smart enough to spend my dough better than Nancy Pelosi. If you want income redistribution, move to Cuba. Tax cuts work every time they're tried.
What is needed vis a vis dept reduction -as Econman says- is a real reduction in spending. Good luck with that!!!!!!!!

Over and over, the message gets lost... raising taxes isn't on all people but just shaving the cuts to the ULTRA RICH. Whatever couple of hundred I got one time, I will give back as well, but the benefits will vastly outweigh my lost few bucks now, ok?!!?!?

Misconception number two... Yes, Clinton grew the budget, as it was just pointed out, everyone does. There are questions of which parts of the budget grew and also whether they grew in REAL terms. In fact, our problem with the deficit has always been that, as a percentage of the total budget, it has been relatively small, but never waivering... so it builds up.

Our government makes promises at certain times to the American public that we try to keep. Clinton's growth in government spending was one of those promises, as are the promises now for VA support and medicare and other services that we provide our own people. Now, those promises are being shaved.

Also, the rate of the growth military spending and Homeland Security is what is making our current budget creak under the weight. That and lost revenue.

Another misconception, earlier today, people mentioned the TECH bubble. Usually the COMM bubble comes up. Where did all those comm companies go? many were destroyed by acts of the FCC. Several rulings by the FCC under great pressure from very large corporations one of which got naming rights to the local arean here, pressure hundreds of businesses into bankruptcy. There was no bubble, there was a ruling. That ruling ripped through the comm world and put hundreds of people out of work and lost billions of investment dollars. Sorry, but to express this as a BUBBLE is offensive to me and many others that were screwed.

I am certainly glad that many of you feel that service has gone down since then, I tend to agree. As James pointed out earlier, many of those folks are hard working people and will survive, but all that money and effort was lost and several jobs were never restored. Just in the name of benefitting a large corporation that NEEDS NO HELP.

Finally, unemployment... a joke here in America. Misunderstood and misrepresented here. The unemployment rate represents the ratio of those actively looking for work and currently out of a job OVER the number of people in the work force with jobs plus that group.

The number that has grown in America today is the number of people who, by the Government's standards are no longer looking for work. This number does not equal the number of people actually looking and desiring work. They simply don't match the criteria. They are not fresh unemployeds.

This is the number that is skyrocketing.

I heard a statistic that, expressed the total unempoyed workforce in apples to apples terms (through estimates, of course) to people who were looking for jobs when Clinton was PRez to today... looking at those same people and including them as looking for work and the unemployment rate rises to between 7 and 8 percent.

We have created a larger institutionally unemployed group of whom many refer to as not wanting to work. That may be true to some degree but not representative of most, as a whole. We also like to visualize them in a way that we don't like... the welfare mom or the toothless person in West Virginia, or the lazy latino ... all unfair but heard over and over. In reality most unemployed people are white and have spent some of their lives living next door to you. They are a few of your neighbors. The thing to remember is that there are many more of them than 5 years ago.

This is what you have to remember when you hear about millions of jobs heading overseas.

The conclusion of this all brings us back to the complaint that CLinton's economy grew, but so did the federal government's entitlement programs... we, if you are giving added money to the poorer segments of the population through either payments or tax relief, you are giving money to those with the lowest ability to control their spending, it gets spent and right away.

Furthermore, the money gets spent in neighborhoods where the money gets spent over and over. FAST. Give the same dollars to the rich and they will save... important but not as important to lighting up an economy. Pumping money into the middle and lower class earners in America is so much more important than the rich.

Each dollar is so much more effective there. It is sad to see more people defending David Stockman here when even Stockman doesn't buy it now.

With regards to economic philosophy, Republicans believe in trickle down whereas Democrats believe in floating it up.

The growth of the middle class is the result of Democratic policies. Unions are a good example. Through collective bargaining the union workers have discretionary income which isn't saved, but returned to the economy, spurring more jobs.

Republicans grant tax cuts to the wealthiest five percent believing that money not paid in taxes will be used to purchase consumer products spurring more jobs. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, the wealthy already consume enough; they take the money not paid in taxes and put it in the bank or in stocks, neither of which creates jobs.

Less government and fiscal restraint. Neither party really believes in this. They both spend like drunken sailors using our money. Government growth has been greatest under Republicans (Reagan and now Bush II).

Petey, income redistrobution works for the poor and the rich. RIght now the rich are getting the dough. That's it. It isn't the process.

Beyond the safety and defense aspect, Petey, you are looking at your retirement years as your big payback for your years of paying Fed Taxes.

Well, put it this way, if we give HUGE tax breaks to the rich, your government (we own it .... ) a big hole in the wallet. That is going to 1. either cut your benefits or 2. pass the loss on to our kids.

Petey, you do have to look at the man behind the curtain. They are setting you up for the fall. A large portion of your deficit is here because of large corporations and very rich individuals.

This is through both tax policies and amazing business practices that is sending many a job overseas. We reward companies that send jobs overseas.

Petey, if you want to lower your tax rate, it is important to employ more Americans.

This has not happened through trickle down economics. While I will give you that the rich will spend more on business with more money in their pockets, the actually benefit per dollar that we give the rich is way more insignificant than if you distribute directly and let the poor spend and then find jobs in their community.

Dolphin Mike has been swimming in polluted waters - and its gotten to his cerebrum. Why are folks so jealous of the wealthy. I'm sure as heck not rich, but most of the wealthy elect to work 20 hours a day - its their choice. They're smart, they've cut it, it's the American way. They make a lot, and they get taxed a ton. The top one percent - the ghouls that Dems love to grouse about - pay over half the taxes in America. Its preposterous. The bottom third of earners pay very little, by comparison. If you're into income redistibution, try Eastern Europe in the 50's. It just doesn't work, my friend. If you don't have the incentive to work hard and make it, that's on you. Its a tough world out there, Dolphin Boy. I'm sorry you have such a chip on your shoulder. Marx would love a slug like you.

Here's the strange thing. Republicans say they hate government, hate government spending, hate welfare, and believe in free markets. The reality, Republican dominated industries such as energy, defense, pharma, construction, farming, and most red states depend quite heavily on either direct government expenditures or government subsidies. Democratic dominated industries such as Tech, media, entertainment, retail, and most blue states don't need a dime of government money or subsidies. So if Republicans hate government spending so much, why are they in the business of depending on government for their livelyhood. Be my guest and stop spending government money on Wyoming, bombs, and defending the Persian Gulf. Why not spend it on education, food that doesn't make Americans fat, and a police force that keeps Americans safe at home and around town.

I can't believe Robert gave props to unions. They confiscate "dues" and hand them over to the Democratic Party (anyone see a Special Interest group here???). Its a great thing that these corrupt thugs have lost a grip on America - they almost ruined a country. Good Lord Robert - Unions a good thing?? You're seriously deluded.

Here's a classic example of why there's a deficit. Jason opines that more has to be spent on education. Education spending has increased exponentially for years; its literally awash in a tsunami of money. And our kids can't read -going into college- at an 8th grade level. The problem here -as with so many things- isn't money. Its corrupt teachers unions, probably the most harmful thing to hit education in its history, bad tenured teachers, the inmates (undisciplined students) running the asylum, and a general lack of accountability. If the problem with education was spending, it would have been solved years ago. They've got tons of dough, and it hasn't made a difference.

This is drival. You have not said anyting worthwhile and certainly not offered up any new ideas. Not that this adminstration has anything other to say than, "Stay the course".

Film exercise for the evening: "Forbidden Planet".

We're turning into the Krell.

Capsfan, sorry, I couldn't responds to your drivvel, I was working 20 hours. What you think of as 50's Eastern European whatever is actually called Christianity Version 1.0. We take care of our fellow man.

It is really interesting as people have said earlier how many people can't read what is right there in front of them. They have no perspective on America. They never worked a day on a farm or in a factory and yet they are geniuses.

See, we can make assumptions about you. We love the talking points. Very helpful in your thought process, no?

BTW, Kevin Phillips has a new book out. Take a read. If you think that people like me are just poor folks... wanting to be rich without working, you are wrong on all counts. It seems that the opinions that I share bother you. But that is fine, as you are slowly falling into the minority.

Rather than ad hominem attacks, you might want to learn a bit about people you mock. If you think poor folks in DC want to be like you, go visit them and ask. Sit down and have dinner with them. You may find out that they don't give a rats ass about you.

I believe it was Ed that pegged some of you guys right. A bit harsh but right.

Excellent point E.F. Beware those monsters from the id.

Sure its drivel, but its the best drivel anywhere.

RD,

Makes me all the happier you use your powers on the side of niceness.

Did you see the ad links this blog is gererating at the bottom of the page?

to the tune of $30 a month to social security recipients for medicare costs...old people, on fixed income.

with a lot of companies, downsizing, going bankrupt and simply moving overseas, pensions aren't happening anymore.

to say that it's moving back to the old days with a serf and royal class would be the truth...

all benefits across the board, including VA medical benefits have been cut since the occpation for oil dubbed "a war on terror."

you've got scrooges in charge of the government complaining about paying Bob Cratchitt overtime...

and when the outsourcing was hitting a peak after the .com failure, bankruptcies were made next to impossible...

protecting the corporations, destroying the citizens ability to protect themselves and their country from being sold...

most white collar people have lived through downsizing, and not complained about the extra work, that became deriguere...

someones making more money, they're just not sharing it...

and the owners don't, there are corporate boards that make decisions that are bottome line....

like in the movie, "Meet Joe Black,"

with the illegal aliens, the rednecks out of work are finding it a little hard to do some yard-work, or hauling to make a little extra...

Oliver Twist is making a big comeback as a reality character in the America that you didn't grow up in...

Hell even Europeans get 5 weeks vacation, and healthcare...do you?

Will your kids?

Why do they need to drill the North Artic Slope when all of the Alaskan Oil goes to Japan, because we need it?

And what are our legislated plans for arriving at an unaddicted relationship to OIL....and what were those words that Dick Cheyney spoke in private to the OIL EXECS, that they couldn't be sworn in to explain to congress?

and what about that hooser, Gonzalez, explaining about NSA spying program....he thinks it's funny that he's not under oath and he doesn't have to explain to the people of the United States why they are being subjected to warrantless spying....what is he? a threat to your country, I would imagine, he's the presidents inside guy for helping to fill the country with illegal aliens so you don't have to pay so much for your food now...

you'll be working alongside of them in 30 years if you live that long.

This adminstration is for big government, federal control over states, and more control over our personal liberties and choices. They don't believe in "tax and spend" for a balanced budget, but they support a "borrow and spend" approach. There is little accountability and lots of arrogance and deception. I never thought I would long for the days of Bush I.

...a lenghty scan/read of the post.blog
comments on red america felt like those
arrow release scenes from movies such as
gladiator,kingdom of heaven,braveheart
and lord of the ring...withering onslaught
came to mind...
...some lighter lol moments from comments
such as one about ben testing the theory
of gravity...another about hiring a cat
for the anti-mouse readers...:-)
...senator feingold deserves accolades for
his cliffjumping on issues...am proud to
note he hails from wisconsin...sort of
picks up where proxmire left off...proxy
of course being the replacement for that
not so great wisconsinite...commie hunter
joe...
...i have read enough about howard dean to
think he is honorable,comes from a good
family,has integrity and speaks truth...
democrats should be thankful he does what
he does...there is plenty of blame to go
around for the failures...howard dean is
doing what he can...and it is plain to see
it is a climb the mountain task...
...there is plenty of money sloshing around
i guess for the iraq spendathon...heading
towards $500 billion seems a fair take on
the amount...the other day the wapo ran a
piece on timber outfits selling off forest
lands and the battles conservation groups
are in trying to preserve what they can...
i just would like to say that if bush2 can
find hundreds of billions for the war in
iraq how about buying up all this forest
land for all americans to own and be able
to find pleasure in or from?
...lastly a piece from yahoo news in last
24 hours about trendlines in the amazon
rainforest...by the year 2050 four tenths
of the amazonian forest will have been
destroyed...much of this centering on the
watershed areas...the effect from this on
global climate/weather and carbon dioxide
releasing into atmosphere likely is more
of a threat than any current terrorism
activity could possibly conjure...it will
take some very serious change in ways and
methods to slow this process not alone
stop it...it is for real and a better ? at
this point is where is the leadership on
changing attitudes and putting policies
in place to effect meaningful reaction
and proaction?...the clock ticks away...

I don't care what party you call 'home', the problems are on the table, and neither side will touch the solutions with a 10ft. pole.

One problem is ballooning debt. We now spend on INTEREST on the debt what was spent on defense in 2001. Simply amazing.
Bush just signed the debt INCREASE into law. Congress(composed of both democrats AND republicans), wrote that gem up together. To my mind that kind of 'planning' represents a wholesale selling out of the american public and a general disregard for sound fiscal principles. 'Democrats stand for...'riiight. Reform's gonna be a bear.
The only way to get through it is going to be by bi-partisan co-operation, meaning 'two parties, working together' toward some common goals.
Your personal share of 9 trillion in debt is 30 thousand bux, if divided out over the entire population, working or not, young, old, voting age or below, 30 grand.
Sad days when Congress et. al. will just sign anything unquestioningly...

We need reform. I put it to BOTH parties that they need to review their working practices and general ethical standards before trying to smear the opposition. Americans are smart enough to see through the shell game, and it's not like the Independents can't muster the necessary support to bring change to Washington...

Thank you.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats? There's nothing simpler. A Republican is someone who believes that all of the country's problems are due to the Democrats, and that if only we could get rid of all those evil leftists the U.S. would turn into a paradise within a generation. A Democrat, however, is someone who believes that all of the country's problems are due to the Republicans, and that if only we could get rid of all those evil rightists the U.S. would turn into a paradise within a generation.

here's something to think about..

all of that foreign money invested in the United States at the same time there was a down sizing trend.

What were those foreign nationals buying if not United States companies?

Do they have anything to gain by not using the cheapest labor?

Is there some reason why just because the company was originally created as an American company but isn't acting in the best interests of America that it should be treated as-if it were?

stop outsourcing, bring back vacations, healthcare, benefits, and 37.5 hour work weeks for the masses.

wealthy are

effin inherited, and have connections going back to the 1700's to Europe,

when the Declaration first came forward, there were some that were needed to back the revolution that were landed....they didn't want democracy, they wanted a free hand...that's what they supported, larceny as a part of the bargain.

Bush is just continuing in that trend, he really doesn't know that the rest of the world doesn't get to drive drunk, snort coke, draftdodge, send the National Guard into a warzone if it effin enters thier mind...

because their family has roots....

he doesn't know that people who signed up in the National Guard to stay out of war zones don't have a choice if he decides to rewrite the Constitution, rewire the Bill of Rights or declare the National Guard to be equivalent to Combat Troops whether they have combat training or not...

and three re-ups whether they want them or not....

*uck he'd do it would he, if yah asked him.

RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

of course he would, right after he did a couple of lines and a 'lude.

A few years back most of Americans were politically characterized as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Republicans took care of the finances. Democrats were more concerned with the social ills.
Now Congress is the reverse by being fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Democrats should take the old strategy of being fiscally responsible and socially liberal. Tax less only when Congress can spend less.

In addition:
I remember listening to my
Economics 101 professor in the early 1980s being very concerned with the debt and how it was decreasing the supply of money, thus increasing interest rates. Therefore, slowing down the economy.

Obviously, Republicans have not learned from history. Democrats should take advantage of that.

that won't take care of it if there is no real interest in including the

"average joe"

in the party.

The congress is to some extent economically isolated from their constituency.

IF you've been to DC as a citizen, you'll see that most of the menial jobs are done by illegals or recent immigrants. The average DC Metro income is in excess of 2 times the national average, and many are double or triple dippers in the retirement game...

retired military,
working for the government retired,
working in the private sector as a lobbyist or consultant then retire.

that doesn't make them evil it makes them out of touch.

see yah.

Well, looks like whatever went wrong with the WaPo blogs this AM, has been fixed.

Yay!

bc

Looks like Hal the Schemer found a fresh set of gerbils to power the blog server. You gotta budget for more HamsterChow® when you start marketing to the wingnuts. They have a lot of time on their hands and no shortage of talking points.

Yeah, what was this issue with bandwidth? Hope I never see that one again!

For a while there it looked like we'd have to actually work today...

That sort of error usually happens to bloggers on a GoDaddy.com budget package account when Fark or Wonkette or somebody links to them and their traffic goes up by two or three orders of magnitiude. Shouldn't ever happen to a professional organization with dedicated servers and terabyte bandwidth accounts.

Makes me wonder about what sort of chewing gum and duct tape holds together the mighty WaPo.com system.

Whew! What a boodle! Lots to think about and mull over. Tim, yellojkt, mudge, you guys are the best. You make me THINK even when I don't feel like it! And that's a good thing (my Martha impression).

Lindaloo, why don't you e-mail wapo film critic Desson Thomson. He goes to Cannes each year and is always receptive and helpful in his on-line film chat.

Speaking of lost productivity:
The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas, estimates the economy suffers $1.5 billion in lost productivity every spring due to the excitement surrounding the NCAA Men's' Division 1 Basketball Tournament.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=16018

I work in a Sales Department and we watch our numbers like crazy, but "The Brackets" are discussed almost every morning in the standup meeting during this tournament.

I hope nobody ever figures a way to quantify the economic impact of Achenblog.

There are a lot of pulled out of posterior numbers that try to quantify lost productivity due to internet access. I'm not sure it's any different from hanging around the coffee pot or talking golf all day like some of my coworkers do.

karen, I did blog on that very idea last week, though I didn't have any quantifed numbers. That's good to know, thanks.

http://www.10thcircle.com/10/?cat=4

We Washingtonians joke about the loss of productivity and the reduction in telephone traffic in this city for the first hour after JA posts a new Kit.

bc

Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the Alamo City yesterday at a privte fund-raiser. I wasn't invited. Imagine that!

No, last evening, I went into a San Antonio barrio, the near (to downtown) West Side District 2, for another proposed meeting on the Main Plaza development.

There was much better crowd control than the District 1 meeting about two weeks ago, because there was a sign-up sheet for those who wanted to speak, each speaker limited to about two minutes. I spoke.

But apparently, the poorer the district, the poorer the presentation to the residents therein about refurbishing and updating the downtown Main Plaza. The space planner/landscape designer brought the poster/display boards that he developed, that were at the last two meetings, that were designed to "sell" the project. There were no easels last night and these poster boards were propped up on the floor against the legs of the table at the front of the hall and against the floor-to-ceiling columns flanking the front-and-center table. The "presentation of the ideas" was totally haphazard--at best.

The meeting was in a Catholic church hall. The councilperson for this area is an older Anglo woman with a very good and decent heart, with thinning, flowing white hair, who truly cares for her constituents, as I have witnessed on more than one occasion. However, the prayer led by the Catholic father to begin the forum was way over the top, as was the meeting site itself. What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

These meetings to present the idea of the plaza just fail on so many levels. The presentation was, for the third time, given by the very stocky and beefy public works director. I take issue not with his looks but with his convoluted language and bureacratic speaking style. He has no art in his soul, nor passion. He is as dull as they come as far as speaking ability. There has not been at the now-three meetings any discussion or presentation about how this project may be the economic tide to lift many boats. The new, fancy-schmanzy city manager, imported from Tucson, into a job that pays well over $200,000, dressed like a fashion Barbie doll, was there. I think her presence at the meeting last night went over like a lead balloon in this, one of the city's poorest districts.

These people who live hardscrabble lives are sore about many things, particularly the $10 million cost of the project. These are probably individuals who may have graduated only high school, who may have traveled little or not at all in their lives, who may just live paycheck to paycheck.

Last night, they were fuming about expensive projects like the Alamodome sports arena that had a rather short public shelf life. They are frosted that many of their neighborhoods don't have sidewalks. They are angry that a certain area on the Southside near one of the missions just got plumbing in the last year--after decades in which other households and neighborhoods have been hooked up to sewer mains. They are both upset and disappointed that the downtown is, in their opinions, a sad, tired wasteland and that new companies who relocate here have built huge campuses in the outlying parts of town. They are bothered that the downtown afterhours is full of gangs, crime, and the homeless, and is not a desireable place to be. Moreover, I think they are upset that the city has failed them--the poorest--time and time again.

Is the neighborhood you're describing near the Adams Mark hotel? I stayed there for a conference about five years ago. If you take one of the tour barges to the River Walk area you'd never know that you're passing right under some pretty sad areas. This is a shame, because San Antonio is a cool town.

Loomis,
I admire your dedication to go to more than one public meeting. I'm baffled why some groups merit easels and others don't. It's not like you have to buy a new easel for each talk.

Public works projects are aimed at easing the fears of the middle class and any trickle down effects to the poor such as more service industry jobs or better policing in tourist areas are just gravy. Politician don't seem to interested in projects that might be more effective like perhaps better schools or more drug treatment programs, that would enrich the entire city from the bottom up.

Linda, am I reading this right? 'They are angry that a certain area on the Southside near one of the missions just got plumbing in the last year--after decades in which other households and neighborhoods have been hooked up to sewer mains.' They JUST got proper sewer connections?

That would be a civic government failure on THE grandest scale no matter the reason behind it.

I love tax cuts. They've helped me. But tax cuts amount to an expense. They don't "pay for themself," so to speak. In fact, you can see it in budget discussions. An extension of Bush's tax cuts is treated as an expense that adds to projected deficits.

I also wanted to comment on social security. For starters, Bush's proposal was DOA because a number of Republicans wouldn't back it. That's because Bush's plan was expensive. It amounted to telling someone with a load of credit card debt to take on more debt. It didn't actually speak to the core problem. Some tried to speak to the core problem during that debate. They suggested raising the ceiling on SS taxes, for example. Bush wasn't interested. His administration was too busy pushing an expensive plan for investment that, for sure, would have made the investment industry happy.

Linda, I'm representing the fire department in a public process to come up with solutions to overcrowding in single family homes. Obviously, the issue is immigrants who are crowding into homes, not keeping them up, and generally being a nuisance to the neighbors. We've explained to the stakeholders how the housing code, the fire code, the trash pickup process, the police response process, and everything else works, but they still aren't happy with us. Yes, there is racism and cultural snobbery at work here. What they want us to do - enter houses at 2 a.m. to count noses and kick people out - is unconstitutional. The bottom line is that we need more affordable housing, but how do we convince developers that they can make money off small houses and modest apartment complexes?

And here's a late-breaking bit from comedian Andy Borowitz, for the tail end of the 'Boodle ...

March 22, 2006
CHENEY INVITES HELEN THOMAS ON HUNTING TRIP

Effort to Reach Out to White House Press Corps, Observers Say

In what Washington insiders believe is an attempt to mend fences with an increasingly
contentious White House press corps, Vice President Dick Cheney today invited veteran journalist
Helen Thomas on a quail-hunting trip to Texas.

"I would like to extend an invitation to Helen to join me on a quail-hunting trip to the
Armstrong Ranch," Mr. Cheney said in an official statement at the White House. "It will be a
chance for the two of us to spend some quality time together."

The vice president's invitation took many Beltway observers by surprise, coming as it did only
one day after a heated exchange at a White House press conference between Ms. Thomas and
President George W. Bush.

But Ms. Thomas, never one to shrink from an opportunity, said today that she would be glad to
join the vice president quail hunting in Texas so long as the Pentagon provided body armor for
her first.

At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that he was taking Ms. Thomas'
request for body armor "very seriously" but warned that the Pentagon has been plagued by
production delays.

"The earliest we could fit Helen Thomas with body armor would be spring 2009." He said.

Ms. Thomas said she was considering other protective measures, such as wearing a quail outfit:
"If I look like a quail, there's no way Cheney will hit me."

Elsewhere, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that his department would beef up
security at the nation's chemical plants by compiling a complete list of plants that are
vulnerable to attack and publishing them online.

Whats Democrats stand for? just go see the furor over the Red America blog. Apparently, you are a bunch of children banging on their high chairs hoping the grownups will take you seriously. God its going to be so much fun in November.

The area is west of the Adams Mark Hotel, by several miles. Tourists don't venture there--into District 2.

The people at the meeting last night were clamoring most for? Better education for their children!

This is brief--I'm off in literally moments for a presentation at St. Philips College by Winona LaDuke.

I've been mulling it over for the past day or so, and have decided that I really don't care one way or the other that WaPo has added the Red America blog.

First and foremost, I'm not required to read it if I don't want, and I figure that's about 90% of the argument right there.

Second, I've spent a good deal of my career working for newspapers whose publishers were (IMHO) rightwing morons and/or business tycoons (often synonymous, but not always), as many newspaper publishers (before the advent of the big chains, and a lot of the big chains were run by rightwing morons, too). There's always been a basic principle in newspapers that the editorial page belongs to the publisher, on which he/she can do any damnfool thing he wants to, and if that includes hiring a buffoon for a columnist, so be it. And many editorial pages have a practice of hiring offsetting columnists as some sort of token balance, so it's not like hiring Domenech is in any way unusual. In fact, it's downright routine.

Third, this brings up the question of market economics. If hiring Domenech adds to the bottomline revenue of WaPo, I really don't care and it's none of my business. I'm not gonna read him, and I hope he falls flat on his face. But its no skin off me. Because a good newspaper (or a good newspaper Web site) has always been AND SHOULD BE something of a wide-open marketplace. Much as I dislike it personally, somebody's got sell the dreck, and if that's Ben's job, mozel tov. I don't view him any differently than the advertising department's selling ad space to some corporation I may or may not approve of.

I think the fourth point is if the guy's as bad as the early reviews indicate, so much the better. One way to look at it is he's not Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin (which would really make my gorge rise). But I don't believe the solutions to these people is to try to shout them down. Maybe I just have a kind of naive faith that these people are idiots, and sooner or later people catch on to that. I've been saying for six years that Bush was an idiot, and lo, it has come to pass that people are beginning to catch on.

So yeah, let ol' Ben have his blog. It's a free country.

Amen, 'Mudge, Amen.

I won't bother with him anymore either, but I did find it very curious that he explained the lack of comments by (my paraphrase) "having to get up to speed on posting here." Did not the man already have a blog? He's unfamiliar with daily deadlines? But yeah, it's WaPo's sandbox, they can invite anyone to play. As we do here, incessantly. :-)

This late in the process, I doubt that anyone is reading, but I will add my $.02. And I am going back to the original question.

My, my, the occasional vicious comment. I imagine this is fairly mild as these sorts of things go, and a sad commentary on the state of discourse. Perhaps the most amusing part of the discussion is the fact that partisans on both sides accuse the other of the exact same sins…. The problem is not the slippery slope but how everyone is slotted into the most extreme position regardless of how they feel. For example, gun control, which has been brought up. A person could not be in favor of banning all guns, but be strongly in favor of background checks, waiting periods, locks, penalties for allowing a child access, etc. But anyone with the position above is immediately tarred by the extremist as being against all guns. Not true, but it no longer matters. We have allowed the nuts to define the issue with no middle ground – either you want the government to issue everyone a gun and make them wear it, or you want to ban them from everyone. Thus the chance for a reasoned debate is gone.

Though I am a democrat, I find there is a great lack of new idea and creativity on both sides of the aisle, and that is the most depressing thing. With gerrymandering, the huge amounts of campaign $, special interests, and our own lack of attention and selfishness we will be stuck with the same old crowd after each election. That is really depressing. I would like nothing more than to see ALL of them thrown out and start fresh, but it won’t happen, and we can only blame ourselves. What bothers me even more is that I know the crash is coming. Part of me says well, these folks who have acted irresponsibly (economy – wise) will get what they deserve when these economic policies (tax cuts, rampant spending, etc) come home to roost and cause economic catastrophe. But then I realize that everyone else – such as me, who has made wise choices, not run up personal debt, lived within my means, etc.) will be dragged down with everyone else. Truly depressing.

Now on to the partisan angle. I certainly don’t have a solution for the Dems troubles. But I look around and see these massive problems, some created by the Repubs, others not, but they need to deal with them. I see it as common sense – it is patently apparent that running such a deficit and accumulating such debt is extremely unwise, as is failing to deal with climate change, as is the massive numbers of people without healthcare, etc. These are BAD things- obviously. And the Republicans have either failed to address them, or made them worse with their policies. Then there are the blatant contradictions in their message – ‘Small gov’t’ but massive expansion, “government off your back” yet inserting religion in classrooms, trying to legislate morality – their particular type of morality, etc. Yet they were returned to power. This to me is the core of the Dems problem. Why would the public reward the group responsible for these BAD problems? So some Dems default to the idea that the public must be stupid, otherwise they would not have reelected the administration in the face of common sense. No wonder there are repeated comments about Dems treating the people like idiots. Some undoubtedly feel that way based on the above observation.

The Dems still need a message, I agree. But I also think they are too tied up in the process, and need to loosen up somewhat. They need to find something and stick to it, and understand that they cannot be all things to everyone. A certain percentage will never support them, and of those who might, it must be recognized you can’t get them all, especially not with the weaseling and waffling seen recently (“I voted for it before I voted against it”) C’mon, give the people some credit. Pick your path and stay on it!

I hope we can all agree — be we Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Greens, Whigs, Federalists, Mugwumps or whatever — that it was okay for me a few minutes ago to snag a second bageldog in the company breakroom.

I'm just trying to find some common ground, people. If necessary, in the interest of political harmony, I'm willing to go grab another one.

Bageldog, by the way, would be a good 'Boodle handle, if anyone is looking for one.

what the heck is a bageldog?

http://www.distinctivefoods.com/navigation/bageldog.html

In retrospect, for some reason, I recall that I selected the largest bageldog that I could find.

Slyness wrote: "The bottom line is that we need more affordable housing, but how do we convince developers that they can make money off small houses and modest apartment complexes?"

Slyness, you might as well face up to the fact that you are fighting an uphill and unwinnable battle. People all over the country have been trying to solve the affordable housing issue for decades (I first started covering that issue in the 1960s, and it was old even then), without much success. There's absolutely no reason your folks will succeed where many others haven't.

First, you can't convince developers they can make money building low-cost housing, because basically they can't. Or put it this way--they can make a heckuva lot MORE money doing something else (building McMansions) instead. So their bottom line is they are businessmen, and why should they jump through all the hoops and ringers your housing authority and county inspection people will make them jump through? I wouldn't do it, either I was a contractor/developer.

What's worse is (if you live where I think you do, because I've been following this story), low-cost housing in your area is about as welcome as the plague. It's true everywhere else, but even more so in your neck of the woods, I suspect.

So if private developers aren't interested (and they aren't) that leaves ONLY the city/county/state/federal government agencies like HUD, and so on. Which means public money, which means taxes. And ask yourself this: do you live in a county and state that would happily raise taxes to pay for subsidized housing for poor immigrants who don't speak English?

No? I'm shocked.

In the case of your group, you have one additional burden that virtually every other housing authority and task force in the country doesn't have: You have a lousy reason for doing what you're trying to do.

There are plenty of good reasons to provide low-cost and affordable housing, all humanitarian in nature: there are lots of poor people, they need it, they are homeless, jobless, etc. etc. Everyone knows the arguments, and they are either compelling, or not compelling.

Your reason: the fire marshall doesn't like overcrowding.

First, the affected people don't give a rat's patoot about the fire marshall. They may not like overcrowding, but I'm pretty sure they like being poor and living in substandard housing even less. It's about like wanting to feed homeless people because you think they aren't getting enough roughage in their diets. It may be true, but it just misses the point by so far it doesn't even register on the radar screen.

I appreciate that you've been tasked with a difficult public relations task, but in my view it is completely, totally unwinnable. And that's before we even get into cultural issues, perceptions by the people you are concerned about that is just a front for racism, etc. (which, by the way, it has a fair chance of being, perhaps not in your case but certainly in the minds of many people).

You don't kick poor people out of housing and make them homeless because their smoke detectors don't work or they sleep six in a room. Assuming your fire marshall and the other people behind this have reasonably pure motives, they need to find some other solution and learn when and how to turn a blind eye to things.

Shrieking Denizon Bageldog would be an excellent Boodle handle, in my opinion. It would also work for a rock group. I offer this up for free, without trademark. It's the kind of guy I am.

The key word there is "second" bageldog, Bayou. There is whole ettiquitte involving ofice food. Who brought it in, for what occassion, how well you know the group with the food, whether everyone has had a shot at the food already. The whole concept is fraught with peril. I cannot give you blanket permission to indulge in additional bageldogs until all the facts are studied and considered.

Did the bageldog have mustard on it? 'Cause lack of mustard is sooooooo wrong.

You democrats are all alike. You bring a bunch of bagledogs to work and you expect everyone to SHARE. Then you're SHOCKED when someone takes more than their share, and of course they will, because they're - like all democrates - FREELOADERS. This doesn't happen with Republican co-workers. Everyone buys their own lunch, there being NO free lunch. And we certainly don't eat "bagel-dogs" like you silly got-to-eat-something-ethnic-or-whole-grain-all-the-time liberals. We eat baloney, dammit. Our OWN baloney.

'Mudge, the sad thing is that the fire code does not apply to single family and multifamily dwellings at all. So they could stuff the homes to the rafters, and there's not a thing we can do about it, unless an emergency occurs. And then we can't kick them out. So we aren't the problem, but we aren't part of the solution, either. If there is one.

I'd like to assure my esteemed colleagues that (A) the office in general had its shot at the bageldogs and, in fact, numerous bageldogs remain for those who may yet become interested and (B) mustard was applied to the bageldogs I consumed.

And how many calories were the bagel dogs? Fat grams? And did you realize that a bagel dog contains a dog, which is one of the most non-food foods in the western hemisphere? You may have permanently damaged your health.

The only time a dog in any wrapping doesn't fall under these immutable rules is at baseball games, bbqs, and streetside vendors. If you think carefully enough you will be able to qualify said bagel dog as originating from one of these, and your health will be saved for another day.

BayouSelf, if you can eat two of those things before noon and still post this afternoon you should get some kind of medal (the Coronary Cross, maybe?).

Yo, new kit. Sorry it took so long. On the road. Scrambling.

Carmudgeoun--"Turning a blind eye to things" does not help the situation the fire marshall is trying to deal with--or any other. The problem has to be confronted and dealt with, even if it will not be easy. Unfortunately, that is what the Bush Administration is really good at--using smoke, mirrors, and obfuscation to avoid dealing with huge problems.

The Bush Administration finally acknowledges--at least somewhat--that we have a problem with oil addiction, but refuses to take the most logical and cheapest step--conservation. Instead,such expensive and questionable ideas such as drilling in the Artic Refuge and other sensitive areas are championed without real any idea of what benefits will be reaped, and when. (Except by those who will take the tax benefits for said drilling...) However, there has been no sign that the Bush Administration realizes the true depth of the problem it has created in Iraq, or how much it will cost--in lives, and money--to fix it.

The reason I, as many other Democrats, recoil from any tax decreases, is as follows: WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. No where in our history, (or any other country's history, as far as I can determine) has a President CUT taxes during a war. Wars are expensive, and if the Bush Administration really believes in the importance of this war, it would be out there explaining to the American public, and its rich friends, why it is necessary to bite the bullet and pay increased taxes to cover the cost of fighting this war. Instead, it is foisting the bill off on future generations, while once again failing to specify the benefits that these generations will receive, beyond waving the flag and spouting "democracy."
The mess we had to fix after the Republican deficits of the 1990's is nothing compared to the fiscal hole that Bush has gotten us into now. Congress must also take some share of the credit for this incredible irresponsibility, since they went along with it. Madcow, the FREELOADERS are those with great wealth who are being given a free ride while those of us who work for a living will be support their current free ride with our hard-earned retirement dollars. One of the biggest tax boondoggles in history is the drug benefit recently enacted by the REPUBLICANS. It will cost untold millions, and, as usual, there was no effort to fund this huge drain on the Federal budget. Once again, Congress shares the blame, for passing such an ill-conceived idea !

The Democrats may support some programs that are not as popular as others, but at least they make some effort to pay for them. The Republicans create huge obligations and dump them off on future generations who have no way to prevent same. Irresponsible, unfair, and deplorable.

FYI, Mike, the Democrats were the driving force behind prescription drug benefits. The Republican plan is a slimmed down version meant to cut the Democrats' plan off at the pass. If this one's a boondoggle, you can only imagine what the Dems had cooking.

As for cleaning up after others' messes, it is the Republicans who are always having to pull the nation's fat out of the fire due to Democrats' policy disasters. Do I even need to describe the mess that Carter left the nation that Reagan had to clean up? Anyone with any perspicacity can see that the 90's peace and prosperity was a chimera built on Bill Clinton's neglect of foreign policy, which begat 9-11, the A.Q. Khan nuclear arms bazaar, and North Korea's entry into the club of nuclear armed nations. The success of his do-nothing, caretaker economic policies rested entirely on the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and the Internet revolution, and begat a stock market bubble that burst and a recession whose onset predated Bush's inauguration by almost a year. Thank God Presidents can only serve two terms. One more of Clinton may well have proved fatal.

thanks for such an acute and incisive post, Joel. Some might call you a hack, for not doing the most basic research about which party had enlarged the federal government the most. I mean, what good would it do to find out in which party was the federal government a larger share of GDP. Besides, that kind of stuff is so hard to find! Why, you'd have to do, like, two or three google searches! And thanks for not pointing out that the GOP likes to regulate, too, just other stuff. I mean, everybody knows that "regulations" only apply to business and not your bedroom, where the GOP likes to regulate. And, boy, the Democrats really are just about the poor. I mean, rich people didn't make any money during the Clinton years, right?

You wrote: "To oversimplify, we've got two basic philosophies:More government, less government. More restraint on freewheeling capitalism, less restraint. More regulations, fewer regulations. Higher taxes, lower taxes. Help the poor and the needy, let them help themselves.

Democrats, Republicans."

My friend, not only do you "oversimplify," you use talking-points from the early 1980s. Republicans today (at least in Washington, DC) are the party of budget deficits, fiscal profligacy, massive government expansion, cronyism, corruption, coverups, incompetence, religious intolerance, and exertion of federal control into one's private home (I mean, they don't even stand by habeas corpus).

hello! http://www.areaseo.com/contacts/ google pr. high your rank, Search Engine Optimization, Professional SEO. From google pr .

gute seite, nicht schlecht gemacht, gruss oahu wedding reception oahu wedding reception

Interesting site. Hi to Anand from Arindam here in Sweden4 weddings and a funeral soundtrack 4 weddings and a funeral soundtrack

I hope you'll continue to take good care, I'll be sure to stop by and read this often.3 carat wedding ring 3 carat wedding ring

nice work u got.. keep up the work... nice...a christian wedding ceremony a christian wedding ceremony

I have put a link to you on my site. Keep up the good work! 2 wedding ceremonies 2 wedding ceremonies

storyteller, Theodore Roethke wrote "Dirty Dinky", not Ogden Nash.