We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, January 24. 2012
Birds of a feather...
The virtual tour of the Sistine Chapel
Blackfive reviews War Horse
Prelutsky: The Divided States of America
The Last Patrician: Romney Falls From Favor as America Loses Faith in Old Money
President Obama approved fiddling with budget numbers, New Yorker reports
Tobin: Lying About the Stimulus
Tracking the ‘Voyage of the Damned’
Graft, greed, mayhem turn Honduras into murder capital of world
Hinderaker: What is "a private family matter"?
With New Super-Fracking Advances, the Shale Revolution Might Be Just Getting Started
Hewitt on the previous debate:
Tracked: Jan 24, 07:25
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Newt's retort seemed a little restrained to me. I would have added something on the order of' "Kindly go f**k yourself, chump."
I cannot bring myself to support Newt Gingrich. Never. I would hold my nose and vote for him if he were the nominee because to do otherwise just isn't right.
But support him at this stage? No - will not do it. I'll stick with Romney.
Now if somebody else were to jump in, maybe I'd move off that stance. And I don't mean Chris Christie or Sara Palin. Bobby Jindal maybe. Paul Ryan definitely. Maybe Mitch Daniels, but Pawlenty no - VP yes, Pres no.
Well, Romney is probably unelectable, or close to it. And his early dishonest attacks on Perry did much to close off that alternate possibility. So we are left with Newt, a sleezy guy, and Romney, the wooden indian without the flair. *shrug*. I'll vote for whoever in the end, but not with any enthusiasm. And in the meantime the GOP establishment - by which I mean columnists and whatnot - fed the seed corn to the rats. We may be hungry at the national level for a while.
Frankly, I would vote for Newt BECAUSE he has no qualms about deep-sixing the media. It's fricking about time. It's why Ron Paul attracts his followers. Newt and Ron just don't respect The Media. Wow!
Why tolerate inane questions with no substance? Why waste time addressing some "gotcha" topic when the voting population needs someone, someone, someone to lay it out, plain and clear. These moderators (what?) are just bobble heads with plugs in their ears regugitating MSM doctrine. No brains involved.
Obama won on "hope" and "change"...lots of substance there. Lots of details. Lots of data for spreadsheet analysis. Lots of blank pages for the voter to paint his own Dream of His Father. How's that worked out for us, guys?
Mind-boggling debt, stagnant housing and jobs markets, no NO No NO change in the too-big-to-fail banking/finance structure, No NO No development of self-sufficient energy options, let's-not-talk-about-healthcare-costs, fifty states struggling with outta-control pension/Medicaid/education/right-to-work/? costs, food stamp heaven AND a foreign policy that no one gets...not even Hillary.
And then there's The Constitution. Hmmm. He was a lecturer on The Constitution. Hmmm. Maybe that's why we don't hear too much from his colleagues at the U. of Chicago. Hmmm. Maybe that's why he had to finagle his Illinois elections. Hmmm. Let's just discuss The Constitution.
Newt might be a godsend. He was not my first choice, but..maybe he will have the guts to ask some hard questions that NO ONE asked the last time around and tell the media to stop spinning the public. Someone has to halt this puppet-on-a-string government.
Thank God for the Internet (and MF).
Why tolerate inane questions with no substance?
There is the entire substance of your argument - why are we, collectively Republicans and Democrats, tolerating this media driven inanity?
Why aren't the candidates standing together and stating, categorically and unequivocally, we will not attend any more debate "events" unless and until substantial questions about our economy, our foreign policy, our national debt, social issues - in short anything of consequence to our nation are asked and given time to answer?
The problem is that potential voters might not want to hear the nasty answers. Or suffer from the results of corrective action. So the questions don't get asked and the answers are never formulated and the corrective measures are never explained in plain language for all to understand.
Frankly, the only person who actually had a plan that was understandable was Herman Cain. It was simple, direct, relied on a basic understanding of how taxes work, etc. You can laugh at 9-9-9 all you want - it was a plan and it had all the elements of what conservatives wanted to accomplish on the economic/taxation front. Nobody else came close to it - and that includes Ron Paul.
Apparently Hot Air is prepared to do a streaming debate according to the latest - I'm not sure a internet streaming debate would attract a lot of viewers and from a technical standpoint would work all that well. Now if FOX would lend their facilities for this kind of round table debate, I'd watch because it has potential for some real, honest questions.
I'm not going to hold my breath on that though.
[i]Why aren't the candidates standing together and stating, categorically and unequivocally, we will not attend any more debate "events" unless and until substantial questions about our economy, our foreign policy, our national debt, social issues - in short anything of consequence to our nation are asked and given time to answer?[/]
Is it possible that to do, at this time, might reveal the GOP nominee's (who ever it is) strategy to attack obama, on those very issues, a little too soon in the game? I do agree, though, the topics should be raised but with supplying alternative solutions to the problems.
With regard to the Divided States of America: About 30 years ago there was book that became very popular. It had the outrageous notion that the US and Canada would meld into 9 different states according to economic/cultural issues. So that San Francisco has more in common with Vancouver BC than it does with New york City. Or, that Montana and Nebraska have more in common with Alberta Canada than they do with Florida. I believe the name of that book was Nine Nations of North America. It was a good read then and certainly described the picture as it has become today!
...yes, it was. What a tremendous sacrifice. Can't say the next thought --but if i could, it would be about a mismatch between infinite sacrifice and temporal politics. Everything else in the story of war and peace is a never-ending page-turner, but the young folk in the graveyard, their stories stop in mid-sentence and the rest of the pages go blank except for the teardrop stains.
A note on the Opposites Don't Attract link:
The research in the linked article remind me of the findings Harvard political scientist Robert Putman presented in his book Bowling Alone:
...the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
Both of these articles are arguing that when confronted by diversity in social settings, people tend to seek their own kind. They pool around a common denominator, coalescing into identity groups and avoiding the effects of social diversification. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense as a species that we would be tribal; there's strength in numbers. Why wouldn't we seek a mate whose character would fit into the tribe?
Yes, makes sense. So, in other words, high school lunch room is a great predictor of the present and eventual total failure of the charade of diversity.
It's in the Ten Commandments and the Gospel too, 'love your neighbor'. Your neighbor.
The Bible is a funny book sometimes. There's an elaboration by Jesus in the New Testament on the issue on exactly who your neighbor is:
QUOTE Luke 10:25-37:
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
The Samaritans and the Jews loathed each other, so the Scriptural perspective on loving your neighbor is at least as much about the other. Rather, it's in the church-life of Christians where we see believers denominated and congregating as an identity group.
XRay, that's a great analogy! I laughed when I read it. We really haven't come that far, have we...all of the technology, education, living in the information age...and here we are, still back in the high school cafeteria peeling off in groups and staking out territory!
Hewitt should add this --it's big, points to design in the subprime crash: