Garrison Keillor on Republicans

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
You haven't changed your mind? Or changing your mind doesn't make you a hero? In times like this, we take our heros where we can find them. A timely flipflop in this instance could change the world, and at this rate it could only change it for the better.

I wouldn't go so far to say that a change in the vote, in an instance such as this, justifies heroism.

 

[shereads]

I wouldn't go so far to say that a change in the vote, in an instance such as this, justifies heroism.

Okay, not heroism, but something like the opposite of not-heroism.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
Okay, not heroism, but something like the opposite of not-heroism.

Informed?

 

[shereads]

Have you considered that you could be helping save America's ob/gyn patients from "docs" who can no longer "afford to pratice love on their patients?"

(That's a recent quote from the monkey.)

 

[shereads]

Informed?

Being informed is only part of it. Cheney reads a bit, and rumor has it he's voting for Bush anyway. He's the not-opposite of not-heroic. There's an equation here somewhere, but I'm tired. Goodnight.

 

[amicus]

Garrison Keillor on Republicans


Thebullet....aka Andrew Wiggins, et al


The Democrats on a practical and an idealistic level....


I am not familiar with Garrison Keillor but the writing reminds me of the Walter Mitty socialists of the 30's and 40's who proclaimed their concern for the masses and thereby superiority because they immersed themselves in altruism for the common man.

Recall, if you will, the Democrats of the last half century or so:

Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Carter, Humphrey, Dukakis, Muskie, Hart,Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt....no doubt I have omitted a few.

Wherein do you point to a true leader and idealist? Perhaps JFK, but I would challenge even that.

On a practical sense, Democrats are still living in the early 20th century.

Labor Unions, Coal miners, dinosaurs kept alive by laws that permit pollution by coal fueled power plants when nuclear power would be more economical and efficient.

Steel workers, high priced raw materials and labor that cannot compete on a world market.

Auto workers, same story, if it were not for import tariffs, no american automobiles would be sold, the Union workers do not compete in an open market place, they reflect the 'guild' mentality of fuedal europe.

Teachers Unions existing on government largesse, afraid to compete in an open market. Education should be a commodity like any other service.

Minorities, Black and Hispanic, depending on government, being held back from true independence by a benevolent 'altruistic' Democratic political philosophy.

Democrats, tied to Environmental restrictions that raise the cost of lumber and petroleum to the common man in the guise of retaining the pristine nature of the mosquito ridden forests and tundra.

Democrats, who advocate an 'America First' Isolationist policy, who lack an understanding of global politics and weaken the military of the United States with every term in office.

Democrats who hug and swear it is just fine to kill babies and applaud when men fuck men and women fuck women and think they should be married while the nation snickers.

And you wonder why the Kerry campaign is faltering?

It is my great hope that a landslide victory by Bush/Cheney will administer the coup d' gras to the Democrats, once and for all.

Then perhaps, just perhaps, a 'loyal opposition party' will arise from the ruins, look around at the 21st century and be content with being the 'fair sex' nagging party until the 'new Democrats' eventually find a platform suitable for the times.

There is a need to rein in the Patriot Act and the Christian Fundamentalists. There is a need to monitor and investigate Pharmaceutical and Insurance giants.

There will never be 'socialized medicine' in the USA.

Social Security will become private insurance.

Abortion will become illegal as it was before 1973.

Public education will become 'private education'.

I have tried not to personalize my distaste for liberal politics in this piece, but the arrogance of the left that they could do better along the lines of failed Marxist theories, is, to say the least, disgusting.

Idealistically, Democrats have no ideals. Notice the absence of a Party Platform at the Democratic Convention. Democrats/Liberals, are morally bankrupt.

The unspoken core belief is that Government(administered by Democrats) can solve all the problems of modern society. That somehow government can create jobs, provide healthcare and all the social services deemed essential.

Government creates nothing. It can only confiscate wealth by taxation and direct activity by force. Is that what you really want? Is that what you really advocate?

You really want to solve the problems of modern society? Then get the hell out of the way of free men and women who work and save and invest according to their own individual self interest. Stop taxing our homes our incomes our property. Let us choose how to educate our children, leave us to fund our own retirement.


Freedom, Individual Liberty, try it! You'll Like it!

This obscene caricature of Democrats being sensitive and caring to the needs of others is the biggest scam of all. Democrats don't give a whit about your well being, they just want your tax dollars.


amicus...

 

[thebullet]

Yo, Amicus:
You never heard of Garrison Keillor? What kind of American are you? Fuck! You must live under a brick or something. No wonder you are such a heartless bastard. (No offense intended.)


FYI: Garrison Keillor's writings are the voice of Middle America. He is not some left wing nutcase as you seem to think. Garrison Keillor IS America to many many people throughout this land. And what he represents is goodness, caring, and old fashioned American values. And if you bothered to read the above piece that he wrote, you would realize that.

I'm not making this up, Amicus. Ask anyone who hasn't spent the last 30 years reading nothing but porn. Geez, Amicus, you've got to get out occasionally.

I really don't have time to answer your totally outrageous comments, since in 20 mnutes I have to drive to Long Beach Island, NJ to visit a capitalist pig who happens to be a friend of mine and former business associate. However, I've gotta get a few things off of my chest.

Goldwater, Reagon, W, Gingrich, Frist, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, et. al.

This is a list of Republican "leaders" in the same period you are referring to. Were I a Democrat, I would proudly compare my list to yours. (I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a liberal, but you insist on calling me both.)

Amicus, if you don't consider Bobby Kennedy to be an idealist, then you know nothing about the man. At the height of my personal Conservative life, I considered Kennedy to be the great idealist in American politics. It was his idealism that drew America's youth to him in 1968. Regardless of what you can throw at me about the McCarthy hearings, or any other of the various slanders and pseudo-facts you may have heard, by 1968 Bobby Kennedy was the head of a new American idealism. Had he lived, he almost surely would have won the nomination of the Democratic party. He would have turned America in a different direction. His assasination was a turning point in American history.

As for your other tired old diatribes against everyone in America that isn't already wealthy:

You rant about labor. I'll give you labor. I just spent $80,000 to send my son to a fine college. He recently graduated with a Computer Sciences degree. He is excellent at what he does. He can't get a job because of outsourcing. There are 100-200 applicants for every available job. Most of the programming, web-development jobs are going to India and Israel. And our dear President tells me this is a good thing. Fuck him and fuck you.

To their credit, Democrats look for a country where it is possible to work for a living wage and get decent benefits. Where is the sin in that, Amicus? Are you so cruel that you happily see millions of people a year losing their health benefits? Is it just tough shit that people have to work two and three jobs to make a living when before one job could support a family?

And while this is happening, the very richest of Americans are increasing their wealth beyond the dreams of avarice?

Don't you see a dichotomy here, Amicus? Don't you see that perhaps something is not quite right? You favor this new America that is being more and more split apart along the lines of wealth and power?

Amicus, if you really feel this way, then I pity you. Perhaps you just haven't thought it through. Give it some thought Amicus and tell me how the neocons would make things better.

 

[amicus]

innesota's shame
Republicans don't like my criticism? Too bad. They have to answer for Norm Coleman's campaign, which exploited 9/11 in a way that was truly evil.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Garrison Keillor



Nov. 13, 2002 | The hoots and cackles of Republicans reacting to my screed against Norman Coleman, the ex-radical, former Democratic, now compassionate conservative Senator-elect from Minnesota, was all to be expected, given the state of the Republican Party today. Its entire ideology, top to bottom, is We-are-not-Democrats, We-are-the-unClinton, and if it can elect an empty suit like Coleman, on a campaign as cheap and cynical and unpatriotic as what he waged right up to the moment Paul Wellstone's plane hit the ground, then Republicans are perfectly content. They are Republicans first and Americans second.

The old GOP of fiscal responsibility and principled conservatism and bedrock Main Street values is gone, my dear, and something cynical has taken its place. Thus the use of Iraq as an election ploy, openly, brazenly, from the president and Karl Rove all the way down to Norman Coleman, who came within an inch of accusing Wellstone of being an agent of al-Qaida. To do that one day and then, two days later, to feign grief and claim the dead Wellstone's mantle and carry on his "passion and commitment" is simply too much for a decent person to stomach. It goes beyond the ordinary roughhouse of politics. To accept it and grin and shake the son of a bitch's hand is to ignore what cannot be ignored if you want your grandchildren to grow up in a country like the one that nurtured and inspired you. I would rather go down to defeat with the Democrats I know than go oiling around with opportunists of Coleman's stripe, and you can take that to the bank.


Yo, Amicus:
You never heard of Garrison Keillor? What kind of American are you? Fuck! You must live under a brick or something. No wonder you are such a heartless bastard. (No offense intended.)


FYI: Garrison Keillor's writings are the voice of Middle America. He is not some left wing nutcase as you seem to think. Garrison Keillor IS America to many many people throughout this land. And what he represents is goodness, caring, and old fashioned American values. And if you bothered to read the above piece that he wrote, you would realize that.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


That quote from Keillor didnt sound like 'the voice of Middle America...' to me my friend.

And yes...I had heard of Keillor before, put down his 'Wobegone' after a few pages and never went back and did not recall the name.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Amicus, if you really feel this way, then I pity you. Perhaps you just haven't thought it through. Give it some thought Amicus and tell me how the neocons would make things better.


__________________


Dear Mr. Wiggins, I do not believe for one moment that you are sincere in having me tell you about a free enterprise system.

I spent nearly 20 years on talk radio, banging heads with 'believers' believers in theology and Marxism aka liberal aka democrats.

I reached the conclusion long ago, that one should never attempt to understand a woman, just accept her as she is or leave her. I reached the same conclusion about liberals and christians.

Logic and reason do not apply with women or other emotion driven individuals.

Times change, my friend, they really do. The United States for nearly a half century has been a 'post industrial' society exacerbated by the computer revolution.

The old manufacturing and 'heavy labor' jobs are being replaced by technology, you know this as well as I do.

The higher standard of living in the US demands higher salaries, which raises the price of goods to a level they cannot compete with in a global market. Thus other societies, still becoming industrialized step in and fill the gap.

It is not that hard to understand. What is hard to comprehend is why democrats and liberals insist on championing those who would remain in the past. We cannot go back to a heavily industrialized society. We must move away from fossil fuels, (coal, petroleum) and those changes will indeed change and disrupt society as the transition is made...just as did the horseless carriage destroy the horse business and the computer the typewriter business.

If you truly have concerns about the working class, the lower class, then remove the burden of taxes from them. Remove the property tax on homes, remove the death tax and the capital gains tax, let the money flow where the market dictates. Remove the obscenity of the sales tax that takes 10 percent of the 'food' dollars a working man earns.

And acknowledge, although I know it sticks in your craw, that some kids don't need high school...they don't need college, they need the freedom to work at the age they choose, not support the flaccid parasites of the public education system.

Mandatory education? How dare you! How dare you insist I educate my children according to your agenda. The absolute audacity or your concern astounds me. Get your liberal mentality the hell out of our lives! Go away!

You really want to do something of value for this great nation? Advocate, explain, show how individual freedom in all aspects of life is the only path to true independence of spirit and life.

You represent slavery to me, my friend, you and your liberal, democratic advocates. Do I hate slavery? Yes, I really do.

The 21st century will see the last gasps of Christianity and Liberalism and I predict it will not be a peaceful demise, although the pacifist Kerryites might make it easier than I think.

Serious is amicus? You bet your liberal ass.


Amicus the unrepentant advocate of human freedom in the face of the dreaded left wing slave owners.

chuckles, let them eat cake!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

minisue:

I haven't read Patterson, but I'll certainly give him a look.


BTW, although most of my work is hidden away in the Romance section of Literotica which only the lonely hearts and wimps read, anyone with an anti-administration bent is invited to check out my last few chapters of Tales of the eKids. You might find the story amusing, perhaps even provocative.

If, however, you are a neo-con, please stay away. You'll end up fucking up my scores.

Disclaimer: the story takes place 18 years in the future. Any similarity with any administration living or dead is strictly coincidental. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

ROFLMAO.

Loved this line.

If, however, you are a neo-con, please stay away. You'll end up fucking up my scores.

Considering their performance so far, I have the distinct feeling anyone who posts at this site would second that emotion.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Uh-oh. Looks like it may once again be time for The Chore: searching and bumping some of the many unanswered questions about how, precisely, Amicus believes the world would be free of dumped toxins in rivers, etc., in his fantasy world of unrestricted capitalism. I believe we last left that story with the rather bizarre explanation that - although there would be no laws restricting pollution, for example - the courts would handle any problems that might arise. Someone then asked Amicus whether the court system, minus a system of regulatory standards for pollutant levels, might find itself unable to connect toxins fifty miles downstream from six or eight different possible sources, with a particular culprit.

That's when Amicus pronounced himself bored with the topic, frustrated by the inability of women and lower primates to understand his self-evident logic, and moved on, awaiting a day when the questions would be forgotten.

Welcome back, Smoove A. We were worried about you.



Don't make me do the search, okay? Stop repeating theories and provide some proof that your way would actually work and wouldn't make more slaves. Or not, whatever. (FYI: Keillor may seem as cornfed as America itself, but he wears red socks. Coincidence? You and I know better.)

 

[Guest]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Re: Re: Garrison Keillor on Republicans

I'm a Keillor fan and this had me smiling and feeling happily smug until right about here, where I just felt awful:

Those are the thoughts, finally put into words, that have kept me awake nights since the invasion of Iraq. The futility of sharing our fate with people who can't or won't admit what's being done to the Constitution, and why, has left a lot of us Liberals feeling exhausted to tears. This gave me a little burst of energy:

Thank you for posting it. As fine an essay for its moment in American history as anything of Mark Twain's in his day.

There's a line in Lord of the Rings, I can't remember which character, about "fighting the long defeat." We were defeated on or around SEPT. 12 2000 when someone in the White House, maybe Rove or Cheney or even the non-reader himself, realized what a surprising and valuable opportunity had been delivered into their hands by Osama Bin Laden. He got what he wanted; they got a chance to do America over again, more to their liking, without the inconvenience of being questioned and held accountable. We're defeated, not because we were too stupid to see what was going on, but because most of us simply weren't cynical enough to believe that an American "statesman" would use such a wrenching tragedy to silence his political opposition.

I hope that was a typo, Sher. None of these persons were in the White House until Jan. 2001.

 

[cantdog]

shereads:


There is the paradox. We are forced to become the enemy in order to have a chance of defeating the enemy. My wife believes that if we do that we will be prostituting our honor.

I say, what the fuck, if we're going down anyway, let's go down fighting.

Shereads, to your little statistic that Al Gore got the most votes of any Democrat in history can be added the codicil that by the way, Al Gore LOST!!!

Was I the only one who felt it slipping away in 2000 as Bush attacked and Gore circled the wagons? I don't feel a bit proud that Gore actually won the popular vote. I'm not happy that Gore refused to lower himself to Bush's level. In the past four years we've witnessed the destruction of the EPA, the worst federal deficit in the history of our country, a war of conquest that has turned America into the world's villain, a 'no child left behind' policy that reads like a personal vendetta against the poor, and a tax policy that is little more than welfare for billionaires.

I blame Gore. I blame the Democrats. When will these people grow some hair on their chests? Why don't they have any balls? Do they care so little for our democracy that they would forfeit it to Nazis with barely a whimper? It would appear so.

When will these people learn that America is worth fighting for?

You still imagine that the Dems are an opposition party. They have not allowed one of their opposition candidates to have the party's nomination because they do not actually oppose the fascists.

This way, running Kerry, whoever wins, the country is safe in the hands of empire-builders who will commit American lives to the defense of the corporate bottom line anywhere in the globe.

You blame them for not standing up. They have stood up, right alongside the Reps, directly in the corner of the corporate money that sets the goals for the country. They are standing there now. Not proudly but solidly.

 

[amicus]

Shereads....thank you for the welcome back...I have been otherwise engaged and not avoiding issues.

I sometimes attempt to see the world as you do, but when I try to put words to it...I fail.

In your inability or refusal to look a free market place in the eye, perhaps you overlook even the 'possibility' that enforced property rights could resolve issues that befuddled you.

There has always been oppression, always been kings and dictators that made and enforced the laws.

Only recently after we shrugged off British rule and set out to conquer a continent did a free market capital driven society come into being.

Mistakes were made by the bunches, I would never contest that. I do however acknowledge that common human trait, that we seem to learn only through trial and error and oftimes, the errors are huge and tragic.

Some time ago, a reference to a fire in a garment district and a flood in Johnstown was made. It would be marvelous for all mankind if we had vision into the future, to know what ills might befall us.

And I cannot deny the greed and avarice of some who risk and endanger human life and property for profit.

There is no perfect system of government even I do not propose the free market as 'perfect', but, it is the best system possible with the best chance of maintaining human rights and values without the use of the force of government.

I have never had a qualm or a feeling of guilt about advocating a free system of exchange. It is my conclusion that such a system of freedom, like the tide, lifts all boats, large and small.

I will never be a wealthy man but perhaps my children or grandchildren will find the path to financial success. I want them to have that chance, I want them to have that unfettered opportunity, free from the controls and confiscatory ethos of a controlled economy.

I am sure you, as well as I, could come up with a system to detect pollution from several sources 50 miles away, determine the responsibility, assess the damage, administer the fines and the corrective policies and compensate those whose property rights were violated.

Might we find that big money bought a judge? Yes we might. Might we find that a big company hired thugs? Yes we might.

Let us not throw the baby of freedom out with the bathwater of a few corrupt individuals.


regards....amicus...

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Garrison Keillor on Republicans

I hope that was a typo, Sher. None of these persons were in the White House until Jan. 2001.

Well, I'll be dipped in hot sauce and served with a side of Doritos. You're right.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, I'll be dipped in hot sauce and served with a side of Doritos.

And a nice Chianti, Clarice?

Second smart aleck remark.

There's an image that's going to stick in my mind for a while. Excuse me while I take a cold shower.

 

[thebullet]

Cantdog said:

You still imagine that the Dems are an opposition party. They have not allowed one of their opposition candidates to have the party's nomination because they do not actually oppose the fascists.

Geez, Cantdog, where the heck are you coming from? Are you another one of those "it doesn't matter which one wins, they are just the same" idiots? Well if you didn't notice in the last four years, it sure as hell does matter!

Although I'm not a Democrat, I'm certainly not a space cadet who doesn't notice a moderate difference between the Dems and the Republicans, i.e., the Dems give a damn about the common man. Are you a Green person? If so, please explain to me how it didn't matter that Bush stole the election from Gore with Green complicity. Tell me how Gore would have turned his back on the Kyoto accords, destroyed the Environmental Protection Agency, and laughed at global warming.

Are the Greens really closet Republicans? I wouldn't be surprised, given the support Republicans are giving to Ralph Nadar to get him on the ballet.

Cantdog, come out of the twilight zone and reenter the real world before it is too late. You better gather your fellow space cadets and organize them against the extreme Right or you won't be allowed to express your unusual point of view.

 

[shereads]

I am sure you, as well as I, could come up with a system to detect pollution from several sources 50 miles away, determine the responsibility, assess the damage, administer the fines and the corrective policies and compensate those whose property rights were violated.

We did. It was called the EPA.

Let us not throw the baby of freedom out with the bathwater of a few corrupt individuals.

You keep maintaining that corruption is a fluke. We've seen so much evidence to the contrary, I envy your ability to tune it out.

Another point that's not been answered: at every degree of left- or right-lean across the political spectrum, we all seem to define freedom differently, just as most of us seem to consider ourselves moderates surrounded by extremists.

Setting aside the fact that I'm right and you're wrong, what do you think leads people to have such diverse definitions of freedom and liberty? For example, the American right advocates freedom from government intervention in the financial lives of individuals and corporations, while favoring a gay marriage ban, a flag burning amendment, the Patriot Act, and any number of limitations on personal freedoms. I'm mystified by the idea that government belongs in our bedrooms but not our bank accounts, and that religous freedom means, to some, the right to impose religious symbols on others. You are appalled by my belief that a pregnant woman should be free to decide whether to remain pregnant, and when you answer with the child's right to be free to live, you don't seem to distinguish between a fertiized ovum and a baby. Somebody has to make those distinctions in a civilized world, so we end up with the infinitely imperfect system we have now, in which everybody is disasttisfied with what others call freedom - But to scrap the system and start over again leads me to ask, specifically what woud you do better? If there are no taxes and no condemnation of property to build public highways, will there be a toll wherever someone's privately owned road crosses his property line?

Who pays for the courts of law that solve property disputes? Who protects those who suffer from the effects of polluted air and water, if some of the victims happen to lack the sophistication or knowedge to bring a lawsuit against individual polluters?

Your assertion that chidren shoud be allowed to work at an age they choose also has me curious: what limitations, if any, would your system impose on child labor? Are there instances where children need protection from greedy or negligent parents whose interest in having an extra income might otherwise supercede the right of the child to enter the adult world armed with basic skills like reading and math? Does a parent have a right to deny a child medical care for religous reasons? I'm not challenging you just to make conversation here; I really am curious about whether libertarians and advoctates of a tax-free society see any benefit from public highways, air traffic control, and the protection of children from lousy parenting? Without a sytem of laws and regulations, how do judges determine the merits of any case that comes before the courts?

Take your time. I'm going to walk the dog now.

 

[slo_hand]

Thank you george w bush

I must take time to thank the republicans for opening my eyes..I used to be an Independant voter, I have renrolled as Democrat, I was apathetic towards the voting process(even though I have voted in every election since 1972). I have achived success in my life and am financially well off,so I joined the ACLU and the Brady Campaign, most of my donations are Not tax deductible but it does not matter!!! I am volunteering my time on voter registration drives in my community(as Tip O'Neil once said "all politics are local") So once again I must thank you, mr president for showing me and perhaps millions more just what "republican paranoia" can achieve!!!

 

[shereads]

Re: Thank you george w bush

I must take time to thank the republicans for opening my eyes..I used to be an Independant voter, I have renrolled as Democrat, I was apathetic towards the voting process(even though I have voted in every election since 1972). I have achived success in my life and am financially well off,so I joined the ACLU and the Brady Campaign, most of my donations are Not tax deductible but it does not matter!!! I am volunteering my time on voter registration drives in my community(as Tip O'Neil once said "all politics are local") So once again I must thank you, mr president for showing me and perhaps millions more just what "republican paranoia" can achieve!!!

The Shrub has his uses, yes. But I'm still firmly against experimentation with primates except for medical purposes.

 

[shereads]

I do see an essential difference between the two parties, as compromised as my party has become: our rich guys tend to vote against tax breaks that woud make them even richer than they already are; their rich guys are imposing a higher percentage of the tax burden on the lowest income levels than ever before. Our guys sometimes vote in favor of protecting the environment, whose combined lobbies don't equal the cost of Ken Lay's lunch. Our guys, of which Clinton and Gore are examples, sometimes promote causes of the underdog - single mothers, the working poor and children in day care, none of whom have ever made a substantial contribution to anyone's political campaign and many of whom don't even vote. That's bad politics, but somebody has to do it.

Our guys don't display confederate flag bumper stickers and pretend to be ignorant of the racism it represents. Our guys are accused of being too intellectual, by people who consider that an insult. Our guys will not pack the Supreme Court with people who think that habeus corpus is a fancy term for being soft on crime, or that freedom of religion means freedom to impose religious values. Our guys didn't coin the term "faith-based" to make tax support of religious organizations more palatable. Our guys don't deny the science of global warming, or refuse to admit the failure of abstinence-only programs in the schools. Our guys at least acknowledge the existence of poverty and bigotry. I wish we were a party of serious opposition. But it says something about us that we don't have to coin a slogan that labels our politics "compassionate."


Edited to add: Once in a while, the Democratic party attracts someone like Paul Wellstone. That alone is a reason to hold out hope.

You still imagine that the Dems are an opposition party. They have not allowed one of their opposition candidates to have the party's nomination because they do not actually oppose the fascists.

This way, running Kerry, whoever wins, the country is safe in the hands of empire-builders who will commit American lives to the defense of the corporate bottom line anywhere in the globe.

You blame them for not standing up. They have stood up, right alongside the Reps, directly in the corner of the corporate money that sets the goals for the country. They are standing there now. Not proudly but solidly.

 

[Pure]

Garrison makes some good points, and has a lot of fun doing it. The piece is a nice read.

What's good, imo:


Lies pop up like toadstools in
> the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough!
> Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale!
> Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation
> to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine
> like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou
> at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated
> gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of
> Divine Grace.

As one reads it one gets a glimpse of the past, the 1880-1914 period.



------
This is mostly fun:

> The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified
> into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate
> shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with
> Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists,
> misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax
> cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes,
> sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks,
> Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong's
> moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers
> out to diminish the rest of us, Newt's evil spawn and their
> Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of
> the free flow of information and of secular institutions,
> whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts
> trying to walk.
-----

What missing is an analysis. Sort like saying "German in 1940 is run by a second rate corporal and failed painter, a blowhard, and a failed architect.

-----
The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine
> American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people
> to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate,
> produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue
> the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of
> peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and
> letters flourished and higher education burgeoned - and there
> was a degree of plain decency in the country.
--------

I believe the Dems thought of nominating Ike. His politics in 1951 were quite unclear.

John Foster and Alan Dulles politics were not.

Joe McCarthy's were not, and Ike let him alone for long time.

It's misleading to say, he wouldn't support the French. The foreign policy boys were getting the American empire underway, moving into the vacuum of the French, British etc.

There is in the last NYTIMES mag, a piece on re inventing the Republican party as progressive, yet favoring individual initiative, etc. By Brooks, I think. Not bad.
-----

In all, the question "Who let the monkeys loose?' is never posed or answered. Sorta like saying Hitler seized power and never asking where the nazi's funds and support came from.

===
I can't resist a plug for

www.antiwar.com

There are a number of conservatives there who critique the war and the current instantiation of the Republican party. I like Raimondo a lot.

 

[shereads]

Fyi, Nader is not running on the Green Party ticket this time, bullet. It was a Green Party former supporter who started the web site, Ralphdontrun.com.

Cantdog said:


Geez, Cantdog, where the heck are you coming from? Are you another one of those "it doesn't matter which one wins, they are just the same" idiots? Well if you didn't notice in the last four years, it sure as hell does matter!

Although I'm not a Democrat, I'm certainly not a space cadet who doesn't notice a moderate difference between the Dems and the Republicans, i.e., the Dems give a damn about the common man. Are you a Green person? If so, please explain to me how it didn't matter that Bush stole the election from Gore with Green complicity. Tell me how Gore would have turned his back on the Kyoto accords, destroyed the Environmental Protection Agency, and laughed at global warming.

Are the Greens really closet Republicans? I wouldn't be surprised, given the support Republicans are giving to Ralph Nadar to get him on the ballet.

Cantdog, come out of the twilight zone and reenter the real world before it is too late. You better gather your fellow space cadets and organize them against the extreme Right or you won't be allowed to express your unusual point of view.

 

[amicus]

Shereads...


We did. It was called the EPA.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us not throw the baby of freedom out with the bathwater of a few corrupt individuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You keep maintaining that corruption is a fluke. We've seen so much evidence to the contrary, I envy your ability to tune it out.

Another point that's not been answered: at every degree of left- or right-lean across the political spectrum, we all seem to define freedom differently, just as most of us seem to consider ourselves moderates surrounded by extremists.

Setting aside the fact that I'm right and you're wrong, what do you think leads people to have such diverse definitions of freedom and liberty? For example, the American right advocates freedom from government intervention in the financial lives of individuals and corporations, while favoring a gay marriage ban, a flag burning amendment, the Patriot Act, and any number of limitations on personal freedoms. I'm mystified by the idea that government belongs in our bedrooms but not our bank accounts, and that religous freedom means, to some, the right to impose religious symbols on others. You are appalled by my belief that a pregnant woman should be free to decide whether to remain pregnant, and when you answer with the child's right to be free to live, you don't seem to distinguish between a fertiized ovum and a baby. Somebody has to make those distinctions in a civilized world, so we end up with the infinitely imperfect system we have now, in which everybody is disasttisfied with what others call freedom - But to scrap the system and start over again leads me to ask, specifically what woud you do better? If there are no taxes and no condemnation of property to build public highways, will there be a toll wherever someone's privately owned road crosses his property line?

Who pays for the courts of law that solve property disputes? Who protects those who suffer from the effects of polluted air and water, if some of the victims happen to lack the sophistication or knowedge to bring a lawsuit against individual polluters?

Your assertion that chidren shoud be allowed to work at an age they choose also has me curious: what limitations, if any, would your system impose on child labor? Are there instances where children need protection from greedy or negligent parents whose interest in having an extra income might otherwise supercede the right of the child to enter the adult world armed with basic skills like reading and math? Does a parent have a right to deny a child medical care for religous reasons? I'm not challenging you just to make conversation here; I really am curious about whether libertarians and advoctates of a tax-free society see any benefit from public highways, air traffic control, and the protection of children from lousy parenting? Without a sytem of laws and regulations, how do judges determine the merits of any case that comes before the courts?

Take your time. I'm going to walk the dog now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

We did. It was called the EPA......


You and many others seem to believe that the environment needs to be preserved in a manner you see fit. The EPA is not an answer to protecting property rights of all landowners.

You perhaps see the forest and not the tree. There is nothing simple about modern life, I doubt life has ever been simple in terms of human relations between individuals and groups.

I have labored unsuccessfully, time and time again to make the point that the 'individual' is at the very core of all the values you claim to support. You reject that, time and time again, by advocating the 'greater good' at the expense of those individual rights.

If you advocate that a woman's reproductive right to terminate a pregnancy for her convenience supercedes the right of the fertilized ovum, or embryo, or foetus, to live, then I say you do not value the innate individual right to life.

If that is your position and you remain consistent, then no individual rights can exist, they survive only at the whim of the times or the majority opinion.

We have only just, in the past half century broached the strangle hold that religious morality has held on mankind since forever. We are left with the huge task of formulating a moral system based on reason that can be comprehended, not believed, with as much depth as religious fervor provides. It is not an easy task for mankind.

You speak of highway systems, emminent domain, air traffic control and there are a thousand other areas that need addressed if we are to have a society that functions while still protecting the rights of the individual to live with freedom. That too, is not an easy task.

I too see conflicts with clear cutting, strip mining, hydro electric dams, nuclear waste and dozens more areas of intense importance.

I do not know what the future holds; I do not know what discoveries will be made, I do not know the political shape of the world to come.

I do know that if we are not to slide back into another dark age, ruled by faith based/collectivist mentality, I know that mankind must fight the ignorance of those who would sacrifice individual rights and human liberty for the 'greater good'.

You want healthcare for all; supplied by whom, paid for by whom? You would have a government agency determine treatment and who gets it and how much the doctors are compensated? You trust an elected or appointed bureaucrat to make rational decisions, to be free of corruption and bribery.

You want daycare provided for all; supplied by whom, paid for by whom? You really want to turn the care of your children over to those same elected or appointed bureaocrats of city hall?

You want the real estate of this nation regulated and controlled, not by supply and demand, not by sustainable yield, but by bureaocrats in Washington DC who pay farmers not to grow, miners not to mine, dairymen to dump milk? Reminds me of a story about the Soviets who produced 30 million shoes on order from the Kremlin, all for the left foot....sighs...

Is is so difficult really to see the intrinsic beauty of the free market? When an undertaker dies in a small town in North Dakota, within a week, the free market system provides a replacement. Not by government edict, not at the point of a gun, but by the unrestricted operation of a free market where people work at what they choose for a wage they are free to accept or reject.

Sometimes I understand the confusion and frustration of the liberal mind, when it attempts to solve all the problems, past present and future of a dynamic people.

You need not worry yourself to death. Just leave us alone, let us solve our problems without your intervention, without your guidance, without your approval.

Oh, but then, you folks would have to learn a real trade instead of being parasites on the living bodies of real people.

I pasted most of your comments so I could more easily respond to each thing....and then did not look back....egads....guess I got carried away.

There was a thing you said about parents and children and child labor....let me ask you this, if you were, are, or will be a parent, would you visit such misery upon your own flesh and blood? No? Not you? But you think others would. So you must make grand laws that apply to all...when perhaps only one in a hundred thousand would need control....sighs...

I don't have a dog to walk, I made burritos out of her last week.

amicus...

 

[shereads]

You never answer a direct question, amicus. When I ask you how certain things would function better under your ideal system, you just admit that things are complicated and it's an imperfect world. You have yet to illustrate that the world as you'd remake it would be workable. Neither has history had the opportunity to test such a thing. It seems to be just a fantasy, like Reagan's Kinder Gentler America.

Shereads...


We did. It was called the EPA.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us not throw the baby of freedom out with the bathwater of a few corrupt individuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You keep maintaining that corruption is a fluke. We've seen so much evidence to the contrary, I envy your ability to tune it out.

Another point that's not been answered: at every degree of left- or right-lean across the political spectrum, we all seem to define freedom differently, just as most of us seem to consider ourselves moderates surrounded by extremists.

Setting aside the fact that I'm right and you're wrong, what do you think leads people to have such diverse definitions of freedom and liberty? For example, the American right advocates freedom from government intervention in the financial lives of individuals and corporations, while favoring a gay marriage ban, a flag burning amendment, the Patriot Act, and any number of limitations on personal freedoms. I'm mystified by the idea that government belongs in our bedrooms but not our bank accounts, and that religous freedom means, to some, the right to impose religious symbols on others. You are appalled by my belief that a pregnant woman should be free to decide whether to remain pregnant, and when you answer with the child's right to be free to live, you don't seem to distinguish between a fertiized ovum and a baby. Somebody has to make those distinctions in a civilized world, so we end up with the infinitely imperfect system we have now, in which everybody is disasttisfied with what others call freedom - But to scrap the system and start over again leads me to ask, specifically what woud you do better? If there are no taxes and no condemnation of property to build public highways, will there be a toll wherever someone's privately owned road crosses his property line?

Who pays for the courts of law that solve property disputes? Who protects those who suffer from the effects of polluted air and water, if some of the victims happen to lack the sophistication or knowedge to bring a lawsuit against individual polluters?

Your assertion that chidren shoud be allowed to work at an age they choose also has me curious: what limitations, if any, would your system impose on child labor? Are there instances where children need protection from greedy or negligent parents whose interest in having an extra income might otherwise supercede the right of the child to enter the adult world armed with basic skills like reading and math? Does a parent have a right to deny a child medical care for religous reasons? I'm not challenging you just to make conversation here; I really am curious about whether libertarians and advoctates of a tax-free society see any benefit from public highways, air traffic control, and the protection of children from lousy parenting? Without a sytem of laws and regulations, how do judges determine the merits of any case that comes before the courts?

Take your time. I'm going to walk the dog now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

We did. It was called the EPA......


You and many others seem to believe that the environment needs to be preserved in a manner you see fit. The EPA is not an answer to protecting property rights of all landowners.

You perhaps see the forest and not the tree. There is nothing simple about modern life, I doubt life has ever been simple in terms of human relations between individuals and groups.

I have labored unsuccessfully, time and time again to make the point that the 'individual' is at the very core of all the values you claim to support. You reject that, time and time again, by advocating the 'greater good' at the expense of those individual rights.

If you advocate that a woman's reproductive right to terminate a pregnancy for her convenience supercedes the right of the fertilized ovum, or embryo, or foetus, to live, then I say you do not value the innate individual right to life.

If that is your position and you remain consistent, then no individual rights can exist, they survive only at the whim of the times or the majority opinion.

We have only just, in the past half century broached the strangle hold that religious morality has held on mankind since forever. We are left with the huge task of formulating a moral system based on reason that can be comprehended, not believed, with as much depth as religious fervor provides. It is not an easy task for mankind.

You speak of highway systems, emminent domain, air traffic control and there are a thousand other areas that need addressed if we are to have a society that functions while still protecting the rights of the individual to live with freedom. That too, is not an easy task.

I too see conflicts with clear cutting, strip mining, hydro electric dams, nuclear waste and dozens more areas of intense importance.

I do not know what the future holds; I do not know what discoveries will be made, I do not know the political shape of the world to come.

I do know that if we are not to slide back into another dark age, ruled by faith based/collectivist mentality, I know that mankind must fight the ignorance of those who would sacrifice individual rights and human liberty for the 'greater good'.

You want healthcare for all; supplied by whom, paid for by whom? You would have a government agency determine treatment and who gets it and how much the doctors are compensated? You trust an elected or appointed bureaucrat to make rational decisions, to be free of corruption and bribery.

You want daycare provided for all; supplied by whom, paid for by whom? You really want to turn the care of your children over to those same elected or appointed bureaocrats of city hall?

You want the real estate of this nation regulated and controlled, not by supply and demand, not by sustainable yield, but by bureaocrats in Washington DC who pay farmers not to grow, miners not to mine, dairymen to dump milk? Reminds me of a story about the Soviets who produced 30 million shoes on order from the Kremlin, all for the left foot....sighs...

Is is so difficult really to see the intrinsic beauty of the free market? When an undertaker dies in a small town in North Dakota, within a week, the free market system provides a replacement. Not by government edict, not at the point of a gun, but by the unrestricted operation of a free market where people work at what they choose for a wage they are free to accept or reject.

Sometimes I understand the confusion and frustration of the liberal mind, when it attempts to solve all the problems, past present and future of a dynamic people.

You need not worry yourself to death. Just leave us alone, let us solve our problems without your intervention, without your guidance, without your approval.

Oh, but then, you folks would have to learn a real trade instead of being parasites on the living bodies of real people.

I pasted most of your comments so I could more easily respond to each thing....and then did not look back....egads....guess I got carried away.

There was a thing you said about parents and children and child labor....let me ask you this, if you were, are, or will be a parent, would you visit such misery upon your own flesh and blood? No? Not you? But you think others would. So you must make grand laws that apply to all...when perhaps only one in a hundred thousand would need control....sighs...

I don't have a dog to walk, I made burritos out of her last week.

amicus...