Wednesday, October 22, 2008



That's just great;
let all those other countries have Obama. And let's see if we can find a few benighted regimes who will take McCain off our hands, too.


Lifetime sex offender
registration for those who authorized sexual offences in Guantanamo and Abu Grahib.


Obama's reliance on Bob Rubin doesn't really serve as that much of a contrast to the New Deal. What FDR proposed was essentially European-style corporatism (the NRA allowed industrial cartels to restrict output and set prices to guarantee prices on a cost-plus markup), and Gerard Swope of GE played the same role under FDR as Rubin did under Clinton. - Kevin Carson


I'll take the 50's allusion. I do believe we will have the opportunity make great changes if Obama is elected. However, we progressives will have to rush ahead even if we have to drag him along kicking and screaming. Keep up the good work and keep the faith. - Dan, Seattle

The current status quo in the US almost looks like a textbook conversion to fascism. This is further compounded by the history of the present president who appears to have been trained at the knee of his grandfather, Prescott Bush. The elder Bush conspired to attempt a fascist based coup against FDR, and might have succeeded except that he picked an actual patriot, Gen Smedley Butler, to be the public leader. Bush 43 is known to have enormous animosity towards FDR, hoping to destroy everything that FDR accomplished. This provides additional weight to the possibility that Bush 43's actions are malicious rather than merely incompetent.


What's wrong with socialism? The same thing that's wrong with capitalism: a preoccupation with production of needless stuff and infinite growth on a finite planet. Socialism and capitalism do not relate well to our new reality of hard ecological limits. But then again, neither does this website.


Even if you don't care
about the mistress he was in bed with carnally, you might care about the Wall Street interests Edwards was embedded securely with for many years before that scandal broke. It's really amazing just how well this 'Edwards as populist tribune of the people' BS was sold to the public for so many years, and only his wandering willie finally showed him up to us for the morally and ethically bankrupt hack he really is.

We will readily excuse in those we wish to champion offenses for which we would eagerly crucify our enemies, n'est ce pas?

I can forgive sexual sins
(if indeed that's what they are), but I can't forgive carrying support for measures that harm your fellows when you are an official of our government, and you well know the corrupted administration we have currently. I would seriously consider Edwards for Secretary of Housing; he has the right ideas so sorely needed in such position. His personal history isn't any worse than a lot of other officials and Senators we know, Republican or Democrats.

Morally corrupt behavior has a way of carrying over into many other areas of conduct, as watchers of the Clintons know only too well.

It's too bad John Edwards' presidential bid failed. I agree that what he did to his wife was rotten, but that doesn't mean he would not have been a great president. He wouldn't have been the first president to cheat on his wife, or the last. I suspect. - Larry Rogers

Kiddies, from where I sit, I can hear your chuckling at those who've drank the 'Obama Kool-Aid' but y'all go right ahead with your worship of Edwards as Holy White Knight and Savior of Us All. Nothing entertains me so much as hypocrisy and what does whether or no the Republicans getting enraged over McCain's cheating have to do with the ethical turpitudes of Johnny-Boy, anyway? I loathe and abominate McCain, but that fact doesn't equate to a blanket pardon of Edwards' numerous sins whilst in office either. Guess for some folks here it's all relative; ethical evaluation on a sliding scale seems to be pretty common amongst 'progressives' on this site, I've noticed.


You forgot the one word that excuses many corporate abuses of their people: resource. If you think of people as a "resource" you treat them as totally fungible. - Dave

These terms have become so ubiquitous in our society that most folks use them without realizing their origin or the fact that just because the terms sound sophisticated does not make them magically empowering.

The corporate way of life is only great if you are at the top of a corporation. I haven't seen a dramatic rise in the quality of public organizations (e.g. school districts) that have adopted corporate-style structure and operations.

All I hear from my kids' school district (A self-described "professional learning community" with a mission statement) is how there isn't enough in the budget to do anything like provide pencils, paper, or Kleenex. The students spend the majority of their time preparing for standardized testing (to secure funding) and participating in fund-raising activities. Learning at school has become a secondary activity, and it shows. The teachers are frustrated, the students get short weight, and society suffers. - HP Rancher

Excellent article. These words and phrases are the lexicon of the half-educated buffoons who have hijacked our institutions, both public and private. They make up for their lack of real intelligence and real education by cunning, unrestrained egotism and greed.

We have failed to prioritize correctly, so we suffer horribly, so we should just get rid of the word prioritize? Makes no sense to me. Prioritize economic justice and banish inequality! Win-win-win!

Prioritize isn't even a legitimate word to begin with. If you to have to cling to one of these meaningless phrases, that's about the worst choice you could make.


At October 23, 2008 9:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Sam Smith going to correct the false statement that "prioritize" is not a legitimate word?

It's bizarre to see that absurd falsity repeated here yet again, and highlighted, even, when anyone can simply look it up in dictionaries - as was pointed out in previous comments!

What good is there in misleading people, Sam??

At October 23, 2008 10:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sex has nothing to do with morality except in the minds of those who still believe in quaint, ancient myths from religions whose ancient creators believed sex was bad for the crops.

Morality is about good vs. evil, peace vs. war, creation vs. destruction, love vs. hate, making things better for everyone vs. making things better for the rich and powerful only, protecting the future of the world vs. destroying it for short term gain, helping those in need vs. exploiting others in every possible way for personal gain, etc.

The only way in which morality figures into sex, except among superstitious idiots, is when in lacks fully informed mutual consent. In all other circumstances it is no one's business but that of the one or more people participating. Ever. Period.

At October 23, 2008 10:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On can set priorities. That's a useful, appropriate phrase based on long-agreed-upon principles of English usage and tradition. "Prioritize" was arbitrarily invented in the world of "ad-speak" with no regard to those principles and traditions. It is a superfluous and ridiculous word and English would be much better off if people would stop using it and others like it whether some damn fool has added to a dictionary or not.

At October 23, 2008 5:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that your idol Edwards' moral transgressions extended beyond the bedroom and into the boardrooms of the banking tycoons, eh 10:44? Stop dragging up your personal definitions of sexual morality (which are just that--personal; there is no such thing as an objective sexual morality, and yours is no more or less valid than the next individual's)to evade facing up to Edwards transgressions and turpitudes while in office.

At October 24, 2008 1:17 PM, Anonymous McCain says graduated income tax is socialism. said...

Re:"WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH SOCIALISM? ", I came across this article from Slate that was posted at the Agitator.
"McCain's Hero: More Socialist Than Obama!
McCain can call Obama a socialist or he can call Teddy Roosevelt his hero. He can't do both.
By Timothy Noah

At October 24, 2008 2:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

5;54, my post does not mention Edwards and I can't say I've ever had any interest in him or his politics. I was writing solely about the notion that anyone's sex life is your or anyone else's business. I firmly believe that it is not. I guess you, on the other hand, like sticking your nose into other people's bedrooms. If that's what gets you off, it's fine by me, but I reject the notion that you have a right to stir up a scandal about what you see while you're getting your rocks off.

At October 24, 2008 4:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Er, about all I can say in reply to that is 'WTF'? How does my stating that there is no such thing as 'objective' sexual morality, and that your views on the subject are no more or less graven in stone than another's equate to my 'getting my rocks off' by 'sticking my nose into other people's bedrooms'? (BTW, I don't.) Sounds a bit more as if you might be getting your rocks off by deliberate misinterpretation and distortion of other's words, since the gist of my previous comment had nothing to do with Edwards' sex life, but everything to do with his ethical life while serving in office. And I notice that you can't seem to give any sort of reply that deals with that aspect of the man.

At October 24, 2008 6:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but you're the one who keeps trying to make a discussion about sex into a discussion about Edwards. I don't give a damn about any aspect of Edwards.

At October 24, 2008 6:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your comments, such as they are, are too stupid for further reply. The only one here who keeps bringing up the word 'sex' in relation to this thread is yourself, as any semi-literate reader of your past several posts can see for themselves. If you 'don't give a damn about Edwards', then what, exactly is your point, other than aimless ranting? Or are you simply a troll? (Which seems the most likely possibility.)


Post a Comment

<< Home