Friday, September 30, 2011

He's An Even Bigger Jerk Than I Thought

Then again, he's a Republican, so why should I be surprised?

He treated the whole thing as a big joke, from start to finish.  Only the joke was on California.  And he's still laughing, while Jerry Brown and the other grown-ups in the Democratic Party are trying to pick up the pieces.

Maria Shriver, you're well rid of him.  I just wish the rest of us could be.  The only thing of value about the interview is that his quotes, separately and together, sum up the basic Republican philosophy:  "It's all about me.  And the rest of you are screwed."

This is how politics in Hollywood really work:  the conservative actors (Reagan and Schwarzenegger) get elected and create a train wreck, while liberal actors like Warren Beatty nibble at the edges of the system and try to contain the damage.

How much more damage do we need before we no longer have a system?  Or a country?  Somewhere between extreme recklessness and extreme caution (if anywhere) lies the answer.  If only we could find it.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

THIS Is Why We Can't Afford To Drop Out Of The Game

Most progressives expect Obama to do nothing but take ten steps forward every time he addresses an issue.  Unfortunately, that's not reality.  Reality is this:  one party that always wants to take ten steps backwards, and another that finds a way to push forward, one step at a time.

This is one example.  It's not single-payer in fifty states, but it's the beginning of it.  And it wouldn't have happened without congressional Democrats--and yes, Obama.

There's no percentage in staying home and sulking.  The other side never stays home, and definitely never sulks.  They're relentless.  We have to be, too.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Democracy May Be Sliding Backwards Here ...

... but, in Saudi Arabia, it's actually taking a step forward.

Hooray for the Saudis.  And shame on us, for moving in the other direction.

Why ARE People In Denial About Climate Change?

This article attempts to answer that question, with mixed results.  It focuses largely on the complexity of the science and the loathing that right-wingers have for most of the people trying to address the problem.

While I would agree that both of these are factors, I think that the author, like others before him, are overlooking an important failing:  the unwillingness to outline the steps that are needed to combat climate change, and (above all) to do so in a way that shows how it can be done.  More typically--and I'm including Al Gore in this assessment--they tend to take the approach of saying, over and over again, that This Is A Very Bad Problem, And Someone Should Be Doing Something About It.

Well, how would you respond to anything that's presented that way?  You'd go out of your way to ignore it.  Why should anyone of us feel vaguely burdened to try to save the world all by ourselves from a threat that all of us, in one way or another, are helping to create?  And to do so without any idea of how to do it by ourselves?

What is needed is someone, or something, that can not only emphasize the need for collective action in a positive, patriotic way, but also emphasize (a) the individual steps that everyone can take, and (b) the collective benefits of taking those steps--abundant jobs in a sustainable economy, and independence from regimes that hold us hostage to their limited resources?

It really is that easy.  Mr. Gore, had you done this in 2000, you might have been elected President and the history of the 21st Century thus far might have been very different.  Well, personally, I think it's not too late for things to be different.  It had better not be that different.  Because the article does, very effectively, make one very salient point that we ignore at our peril:  it is close to midnight for our climate and our planet, and there is no fairy godmother to rescue us.

There is only ourselves.  I pray that it will be enough.

In Fact, It's SO Hard To Be Rich ...

... that the only way you can hang onto it all is to rig democracy to the point at which it no longer exists.  OverAnd overAnd overAnd over, again.

Conservatism just can't exist on a level playing field.  Just ask conservatives.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

On The Other Hand, It's Not Easy Being Rich ...

... if you're a Democrat.  Then, according to the Republican Party, you're practicing "class warfare."  I guess that's because you're proving that liberal ideas sell better than conservative ones.  That's OK with me.  That's how the marketplace is supposed to work.

Elizabeth Warren isn't a hypocrite.  She makes money.  She said she's fine with other people making money.  So where's the problem?  Obviously, it lies in the fact that she doesn't need tax cuts to make a living, unlike her Republican counterparts, who apparently can't make ends meet without them.  Or does it lie in the fact that she recognizes that society makes her personal wealth possible, while Republicans pretend that they're Atlas, shrugging away?

The real Atlas is the other 98%.  And, come November of next year, boy, are WE going to shrug!

It's Not Easy Being Green ...

... if you're a Democrat, because then you're just accused of being a job-killer.  But it's OK if you're a Republican.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Maybe We're Harder on Obama Than We Should Be

After all, Jerry Brown as Governor of California is hardly inexperienced, and he's having the same problems.

It's not us.  It's them.  And they don't deserve the keys to the kingdom.

Well, At Least Now We Know Where The Wasteful Spending In Washington Is

It's in this Congressman's food budget.  $19,702.00 per year?  Per child?  Excuse me, per GROWN child?

Their spending is the only thing bigger than their lies.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

We All Need A Laugh Now And Then

... so I offer this.  Evangelicals don't need to worry about being persecuted; with stuff like this, they're effectively persecuting themselves.  But gays and lesbians--and those of us who care about them--should be outraged at the maliciousness of this stereotyping.

How To Rebuild The Economy: Save Old Theatres!

This article has a lot to say about the need for a new way of economic thinking.  Two of the ideas it discusses--a focus on maintenance over consumption, and on more community-oriented living--led me to reflect on my decades-old fascination with American theatre and, specifically, with America's theatres.

I've been an advocate of saving historic theatres and reusing them for the performing arts ever since I went to my first Broadway show, "Butley," at the Morosco Theatre on Broadway (on West 45th Street, to be precise--"Broadway" being more a designation of theatre capacity rather than location).  The play was, for me, merely okay, except that it did give me a chance to see (and later meet) the great Alan Bates.  But what was more lasting, as it turns out, was the impression that the theatre itself, with its amazing intimacy and exquisite architecture left on me.  Even more impressive was the fact that I was sitting in the same theatre where "Death of a Salesman," among other great plays, had premiered many years before.

When I learned, several months later, about plans to tear down the Morosco and two other theatres (the Helen Hayes and the Bijou) as part of a plan to build what is now the Marriott Marquis Hotel, I couldn't believe it.  How could anyone tear down at theatre, and others like it, with so much beauty and history attached to it, simply for another hotel?  And this was being done in the name of "saving the theatre district."  Right.  As someone wrote in The New York Times, this idea was akin to saving Manhattan with an H-bomb.

As it turned out, the destruction of all three theatres (and two former theatres, the Astor and the Victoria) served as the catalyst for a broader, nationwide movement in favor of saving and reusing historic theatres, one that included the landmarking of most, if not all, of the remaining Broadway theatres.  So at least they did not die in vain.  But die they did--and, with them, a large piece of the history of the American theatre.

For me, the historic nature of older theatres (and even some younger ones) has always been the most important reason for saving them.  I take a back seat to no one in admiring their unique architecture.  But, as has often been proven in restoration efforts, architecture can be replicated or repaired.  A historic site, on the other hand, is only a historic site as long as it exists essentially the same way as when history was made there.  When a theatre is torn down, or (almost as bad) "adaptively re-used" to such an extent that it no longer has any theatrical elements, the site can no longer be said to be historic.  Often, a justification for denying landmark or historic status to a structure is found in the fact that most of the original structure has been lost or destroyed.

There is now, however, a third reason to think about more aggressive efforts to save historic theatres, one that can accomplish the goals of architectural and historic preservationists alike.  That reason is also a reason for saving other historic structures, as well as some less historic ones:  the need for a new economy, one that is based on the maintenance and reuse of existing resources, and a social/residential structure that is less isolated and more community-oriented.  Our economy is sluggish and shrinking in no small part because it is built around a philosophy of endless consumption of infinite resources. 

We all want to pretend that the frontier hasn't closed.  Physically, it has.  But, to the extent that the ultimate frontier is our willing to adapt and overcome the challenges at hand, the frontier will never close.  And, to adapt and overcome our current challenges, we must be willing to come together and find new ways to live within the limits of our planet.  In there own way, historic theatres offer opportunities to do both:  to come together, and to find new ways to preserve our existing resources and rebuild our existing communities.

So, how about it?  Mr. President, and everyone else, here's where you can start building a sustainable, people-first economy:  SAVE OUR THEATRES!


Saturday, September 17, 2011

Maybe The Revolution Won't Be EITHER On Television Or The Streets

Maybe it will be in finding new ways of valuing work, such as the modern system of time banks.  In time banks, participants receive credit for work donated, which they can use to receive various services from other donors.  Okay, it's really an old idea (bartering), but organized with latter-day efficiency and planning.  And with one radical component:  all work is valued equally.

It's work, after all, that has consistent value.  A good teacher is just as useful in one century as in another, for example.  Money, which is always controlled by a minority, always has relative value.  And yet, it's the party of the moneyed class that accuses the rest of us of being relativists.

Sorry.  That dog doesn't hunt.  Nothing you can do can stop us from working and building the future--and changing the things your dollars chase.

Further Proof That Bad Things Come In Threes

Charles PercyKara KennedyEleanor Mondale.

We need more people like them, not less.  RIP to all three, and condolences to their survivors.

The Question Is, Will He Fight For It?

President Obama is guilty of having a lot of good ideas, and certainly far better ones than those coming out of the idiot side of the ideological divide.  Anyone who reads me regularly knows that I think this is one of them.

But my problem with him, and a problem more and more Americans are having with him, is the fact that there's no fight in him (to borrow a phrase from my mother).  Politics has always been the art of combat as well as compromise, and the latter isn't worth a thing unless it's preceded by the former.  Then, it's a true compromise; otherwise, it's just saying "uncle" to the bullies, and begging them to bully you some more.

I've seen Obama's learning curve kick in at the last minute before.  I hope I'm seeing it again.

Friday, September 16, 2011

So, You Don't Believe Me When I Predict Violence In The Streets?

Well, then, maybe you'll believe a billionaire.  I hate to say it, Mr. Mayor, but I think your right.  It's only a matter of time, and not very much of that.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

See How Simple This Is, Mr. President?

NASCAR is doing what you were supposed to be doing:  promote green energy and bring red and blue voters together.  If NASCAR can do it--and "get it"--why can't you?

NY - 9 Did One Thing For Me, Though ...

It officially ended my love-hate affair with Ed Koch.

Koch was my mayor during the nearly four years I lived in New York City.  I admired and respected his willingness to stand up for traditional Democratic priorities without subscribing to latter-day Democratic ideology.  But, then and ever since, this willingness has led him into grandstanding exercises that ultimately seem to have less to do with the alleged issue at hand, and more to do with promoting the interests of Ed Koch.  To my mind, his single most egregious offense was his reflexive, unwavering support for George W. Bush, which he used, in the face of mounting evidence against Bush's policies, to cite as proof that he was "a liberal with sanity" (a favorite self-description).

Sorry, Ed, but you're nothing but a tireless, tiresome self-promoter.  Why else would you use Israel as an excuse to promote a Catholic candidate with no political experience over an observant Orthodox Jew who has gone so far as to opposed the planned mosque near Ground Zero?  Why, especially, would you do this when you know you're adding a vote to the Republican majority ready to gut the benefits so many voters in the district depend on?

Because it gets everyone talking about you.  And, at heart, no politician is ever content to be yesterday's news.  Least of all, you.

And right now, Ed, in my book, you are definitely least of all.

UPDATE, 09/16/11:  It's not like he doesn't have a history of this, either.  And it's not like he's hellbent on proving me wrong.

Tossing In The Towel Because Of NY - 9?

I'm not.  This article does a great job of drawing lessons from Bob Turner's upset victory over David Weprin, by  suggesting that it shared something in common with the Democrats upset victory earlier this year in upstate New York.  The only thing it misses is the common fact in both races that, apart from hyper-partisanship, turned off voters:  both special elections were needed because of the resignations of sexting Congressmen.

My advice to anyone running in 2012, regardless of party?  It's not about you.  It's about all of us.  Show us you get that, and you'll win.  And deserve to do so.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

What Does It Mean To Take Responsibility For Yourself?

In last night's Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul was caught in a "gotcha" moment, courtesy of moderator Wolf Blitzer, who asked him about whether society should let a hypothetical young man die just because he couldn't afford health insurance.  As the audience cheered on the prospect of the young man dying (Good Lord, where do they get these audiences?), Paul tried to reframe the argument in terms of personal responsibility, emphasizing the need in a free society for each individual to accept responsibility for his or her own actions.

I'm hardly against personal responsibility.  I'm all for it, in fact.  I just happen to think that one of the most responsible things anyone can do is recognize the fact than everyone, in every society, makes choices that can't help but to affect the lives of people around them, including people they've never met.  So if, for example, you choose to not accept health insurance, you should also not expect anyone else to pick up the tab when you get sick.  In fact, you should not accept health care at all under those circumstances, because you will be diverting health care providers from dealing with patients who have accepted and are managing their obligations to pay for their care.  And, ultimately, you burden the health care system with unpaid costs that compromise its ability to serve future patients.

Well, guess what?  It turns out Ron Paul knows of one such person.  In fact, he knew him quite well.  And, if Ron Paul really wanted to illustrate his point about personal responsibility, he could put his money where his mouth clearly is, and pick up the tab.

But then, that would compromise the whole Ayn Rand point of view, by admitting that we ultimately are responsible for each other.  That principal is what makes a society a society in the first place.

And that is why Ron Paul won't do it.  It is also why he, and anyone who thinks like him, has no business in public office.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Krystal Ball Rocks!

Not just women, or Democratic women, but more people should be like Krystal Ball.  That's how democracy really works:  when the bad guys push, the good guys need to push back.

But Think About All Of The Jobs He Created!

Right?  Right??  RIGHT???


Sometimes, the rich are job-creators.  Sometimes, they're just thieves.  There ought to be treaties with real teeth to repatriate money that's just been put into hiding, without any productive purpose.

The rich are different from you and me.  They have more money.  And the rich are just like you and me.  When there's no one to police their behavior, they turn to crime.


Is it possible that he finally gets it?  That he understands everybody has to share the burden of making society work, and that the only reason the rich are a privileged class is because they've conned us into treating them that way?  Maybe so.  But the proof is in his willingness to fight for what he's proposed.  And the jury's still out on that.  We'll see.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

My First Downloaded Book!

And it looks like its going to be well worthwhile.  I agree:  use capitalist means to accomplish socialist ends.

Enough Said

This is what I posted on my Facebook profile as my status:
My last memories of the Twin Towers are from the League of Historic American Theatres annual conference in NY. On our last night, we sailed around Manhattan, and got to see 1 and 2 WTC lit up from top to bottom. They never looked more beautiful. What I hope we take away from today, in addition to memories of the absent and the lessons learned, is that hope is more powerful than hate. The memorial, and the new construction, are a testament to that fact.
[NOTE:  The link is not part of the Facebook post.]

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Don't Mess With The Majority!

An op-ed piece on The New York Times' Web site discusses the applause given to Rick Perry, during last Wednesday's Republican Presidential debate, when moderator Brian Williams asked Perry about the fact that he has presided over a record number of executions while serving as Governor of Texas.  In the course of asking the question, Williams was interrupted twice by applause from the debate's audience--applause for Perry, that is, for being the record-holder in question.

Let's leave aside, for the moment, the main point of Williams' line of questioning:  whether Perry might have allowed an innocent man to be executed.  As the piece itself makes clear, there is a very good possibility that he has.  Instead, let's focus on the applause itself--and the somewhat smug defense thereof made by Matthew Sheffield at, whose "thoughts" on the subject are quoted in the Times' op-ed as follows:
As someone who makes his living by trying to appeal, at least in some fashion, to the emotions of crowds, Williams’s inability to understand the audience’s spontaneous outbreak of applause response to his declaration that Texas “has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times” is a classic case of a liberal elitist being unable to compute that his smugly held opinions are not shared by others. It was the media analog of 1988 Democratic presidential nominee’s Michael Dukakis’s anodyne response when asked in a debate about whether he would want a hypothetical murderer of his wife executed.
But perhaps I’m selling Williams’s perspicacity short. One suspects he would likely have understood a similar audience reaction were it to applaud enthusiastically a Democratic candidate’s firm support for abortion legalization. Such a response could equally be perceived as grisly but it seems unlikely that Williams would entertain such a thought.
What, exactly, is he trying to say here?  That reporters have no business asking questions that challenge the majority opinion?  That the majority must always be blindly obeyed by the minority (for example, as the Republicans did in 2009 and 2010--not)?  Or that the "applause" is not, in and of itself, a kind of bullying attempt to silence Williams in advance (and props to Williams for not letting it stop him)?

And none of this even gets into the question of whether America is as gung-ho about gassing, frying or shooting up convicts as the crowd apparently was.  Polls may show majority support for the use of the death penalty, but they also show how qualified that support can be.  This reflects the fact that most people view the taking of a life by the State as a serious and somber matter--which, of course, was the point behind most of the criticism of the applause.  By ignoring that point, and attempting to make the whole incident a commentary on "liberal elitism," Sheffield effectively concedes it.  Thanks, Matt.

But, I'll give you your due.  Both sides are equally guilty of using debate applause for its own purposes.  Here's one memorable example.

Matt, neither of us is Jack Kennedy, Lloyd Bentsen or Dan Quayle.  But, the next time you want to try and take a cheap shot at a reporter, leave the reporter's First Amendment rights alone and otherwise stick to the substance of the facts.  Those rights are guarantee to all of us.

User Fees: The Conservative's Tax Of Choice

For everyone who can't avoid it, that is.

I remember when Maryland had the misfortune to have Bob Ehrlich as governor for four wasted years.  To keep his pledge to not raise income taxes on anyone, he jacked up everything else, including and especially user fees.  A small business now has to pay $300.00 per year just to keep their organization in good standing with the State of Maryland's Department of Assessments and Taxation.

User fees were always intended to be a supplementary, and not primary, source of revenue for public funding--a way of splitting the difference between the individual user of a service and the society that indirectly benefits from the existence of the service.  The simple truth, however, is that no public service can or should be effectively paid for only by its direct users. 

Take the military, for example.  There are direct beneficiaries, such as those who serve in uniform and the private companies that supply them.  And the rest of us are indirect beneficiaries of the security they provide.  On the other hand, imagine trying to fund a war on "user fees."  We would then have to be asking everyone to make sacrifices that would literally be impossible.  World War II, however was fought and one because everyone was involved--and in a variety of ways:  military service, private contracting, victory gardens, scrap drives and (yes) higher taxes on everyone.  All of these methods together are far less burdensome than any one of them alone.

As World War II proved, we're stronger when we stand together than when we stand alone.  That's why Ayn Rand's "philosophy" exists only in books, not in reality.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Greatness Lies In Sacrifice

That's how Tom Brokaw sees it.   And so do I.

What If Solar Energy Received The Same Subsidies As Fossil Fuels?

That's what Roger Ebert asks.  He might just as easily as "What if everyone in this country came to their senses all at once?"

Mr. President, I've said it before and I'll say it again (to you and everyone else).  Alternative energy should be America's real stimulus plan.

A Liar, Then And Now

It's a measure of Obama's perceived political weakness that this liar is now emerging from hiding and taking credit for something he admitted during his presidency that he didn't do.

Sorry, W.  You're still the Republican answer to Jimmy Carter, only worse.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

A (Not So) Funny Thing ...

I don't recall that, during the Democratic town hall meetings for the health care debate (to which Tea Party members brought guns), any Democrats wrestled anyone to the ground.  Especially an unarmed 71-year-old.  Just another example of IOIYAR.

And Its The Sacrifices That Make It A Day We Need To Remember

That's why, to paraphrase a quote from this, the story of 9/11 is best told in the voices of 9/11.

A Great Country Needs Citizens Willing To Sacrifice For Its Greatness

And we're running out of them.  Here's more proof.

John F. Kennedy once imagined that America's future was in space.  I'm beginning to think that we're running out of future, because we're running out of people willing to take risks to build it.

A Three-Sentence Primer For Understanding Republican Primary Debates (And The Views Expressed Therein)

When it benefits you, they're against it.  When it benefits them, they're for it.

And Rick Perry on mandated health care is just the latest example.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

So, You Want To Pretend That It Isn't About Race?

Well, I'm sorry, but it is.

Yet Another Chapter In The Case For Higher Taxes

If you can't make any kind of sacrifice for these people, I have every right to question your patriotism.

And, believe me, I do.

You Can't Reach The Top By Kicking The Bottom

But, if you're a bully, maybe you think you can.  This tends to make me believe it.  From a Web site I've just discovered, The Blue State Post.

Well, I Guess You're Admitting That They DO Pay Taxes!

The undocumented (i.e., "illegals"), that is.  After all, this wouldn't even be an issue if they didn't file returns.

And how can you say that they should "follow" the rules for coming to this country when you want to apply a separate set of tax standards for them?  Are you admitting that immigrants are more productive than those born here?  And that we have, for most of our recent history, been living off of them, and not the other way around?

Guess it's not surprising that this story was on Fox, America's official source of disinformation.  Or, as they used to call it in the former Soviet Union, "Pravda."

Monday, September 5, 2011

As Well As (Hopefully) Another Source Of Future Jobs

It's always nice to find someone who agrees with me that higher taxes are the "welfare reform" that the well-off--and the rest of us--desperately need.  Taxes force the wealthy to put their wealth to work.  This is an especially relevant way of doing that now, given the fact that our current crisis is rooted in speculation on land.

And Let Us Remember The Source of Future Jobs

Green technology.  The environment and the economy aren't opponents; just the opposite is true.

If only enough people will realize that in time!

On This Labor Day, Let Us Remember And Support Those Without Jobs

As well as health coverage.  And die as a result.

However, at least he died with his "liberty" preserved by a Republican House.

Or did he?

Saturday, September 3, 2011

"Which Side Are You On, Obama? Which Side Are You On?"

When you hear that question being echoed in the media, it's time to start thinking seriously about the possibility that Barack Obama, the nation's first African-American president, will only serve a single term.

When you see Obama accept environmental policies enacted by his predecessor, the man whose dismal Administration led us to embrace "hope and change," you have to wonder whether that's not what he deserves.

When you think about the Tweedledum and Tweedledee nature of current American politics, you have to wonder whether this is what we deserve.

And, when you consider the unwillingness of most Americans to stare the facts in the face, or even to take the time to look at them, the disheartening answer appears to be "Yes."

Do We Want To Be Owners, Or Savers?

Both are elements of capitalism, and yet they often come into conflict with each other:  the desire to own a piece of the pie, versus the desire to buy an even cheaper pie elsewhere.

This is hardly a new phenomenon in America; it has been around since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as a new book about the A&P grocery chain shows.  But, to some extent, our inability to choose between these two competing characteristics of capitalism goes a long way toward explaining the limits of progressive politics in our society.  We somehow want to have the benefits of being a master along with the benefits of being a servant, instead of being a society of citizens who share benefits and burdens.

Will we ever be the latter?  Who knows?  We seem to be completely unwilling to try.  And unwilling to understand that, when everyone is out for themselves, everyone is guaranteed to lose.

Friday, September 2, 2011

A Matter Of Perspective

It's true, as this article points out, that their was never a progressive majority.  But it's also true, as this article points out equally, that a lot can happen when progressives out-work and out-organize the other side.

This is no time to give up.  This is the time to tell the other side to get out--and let sanity rule.


That's what charter schools are supposed to support.  Then again, I'm not sure that this is the sort of innovation their supporters have in mind.

Why Isn't This An Economic Opportunity?

Think about how many jobs might be created if, instead of allowing "space junk" to burn or orbit, we made a real effort to recapture it?  The space program could use a boost, in any case.  After all, even from an Earth-bound perspective, so many jobs and so much usable technology (including the computer on which I'm typing this) sprang from it.

Is Nate Walking On Tiptoe Around The Obvious?

The most recent post in Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight Blog for The New York Times discusses what he calls "The North Dakota Paradox"--i.e., the fact that Obama is extremely unpopular in North Dakota despite the fact that the local economy is in good shape.  Silver also notes the Obama is still relatively popular in states with deep economic troubles.

This would seem to suggest very strongly that, in terms of 2012, it's NOT about the economy.  And yet, Nate seems to go into overdrive to suggest that no one should come to that conclusion.

Well, if no one should do so, what is the conclusion?  Certainly, it seems that the popularity (or lack thereof) of the President is being driven by something.

Would it be too much to ask to see if the levels of Obama's popularity correlate to anything at all?

Including the issue that no one wants to talk about?  The one that rhymes with "face"?

Frankly, a comparison of the demographics of North Dakota with those of more pro-Obama states might lead one to conclude that the answer is as obvious as I think it is.  Why else would corporations be sitting on record profits, as Nate himself points out?  Even when they effectively control both houses of Congress?

Possibly because they want the White House to be the "white house."  Again.  After all, to these people, nothing is ever enough.  Or ever will be.

UPDATE at 6:00 p.m..  I knew about this, as can be seen from my earlier post.  It may indeed be the answer; as some of the comments suggest, it shows how capitalism can be mixed with socialism, which is something I wholeheartedly support.  It may indeed mean that North Dakota is an exceptional case.  On the other hand, if it is the explanation, why is the state's politics so relentlessly red (as Nate himself points out)?  Maybe he's right that the jury is still out.  But I think the court of public opinion ought to call it back in, and poll it closely.

Freedom Of The Press Is The Right To Own One

And the owners aren't as "liberal" as the VRWC claims they are.  That's why Rick Perry gets a pass, and his Democratic counterparts do not.

Sorry, Conservatives, But Liberalism Works

Even Forbes agrees.  And the supposed "failure" of health care reform was the rationale for a Republican House.

Can't wait for 2012!

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Let's Start September On An Artistic Note ...

... by sharing this, possibly the best analysis of Woody Allen's two-decade descent I've ever read.  I have to agree; the films started to decay about the time that the man did, and the latter decay is the root cause of the former.

Hard to believe Allen was once a cultural hero of mine.  This is the way I view him now.