Hooray! I forked over some cash to him the other day.
The election is 7 April, but isn't the real date to be worried about the primary in March?
Or, if you're tired of elections, you could give me your excess money!
Unfogged needs to get on with it and set up a conspiracy to take over the world.... hollowed out volcanoes, steampunk submarines, killer bathyspheres, the lot ...
Hey, man, I tried. There were color coded post titles and everything. Turns out I'm not well suited for leading a conspiracy. (Is there a clean version of "Couldn't lead a bunch of sailors into a whorehouse"?)
Is there a clean version of "Couldn't lead a bunch of sailors into a whorehouse"?
The version with which I'm familiar is "couldn't lead a skunk to stink."
How about instead of forking over money to some politician, just give it to Oxfam or something, where you know it'll do some good?
Because governments exercise a whole lot of power, and leaving that power in the hands of bad people is a poor plan? One congressman isn't much, but do the same thing 500 times, and you've got control of an organization that can do a whole lot more good than Oxfam.
4: "Couldn't lead smoke up a chimney."
4. Couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery?
"Couldn't organize a chook raffle."
From the folks down under.
Chook as in chicken? Raffling off a chicken actually does sound kind of difficult.
just give it to Oxfam or something
This seems as good a place as any to mention that when I did my year-end donation totaling, I was embarrassed to see that I have apparently become a living embodiment of the "gives less money to charity as income goes up" stereotype.
According to this calculator, I'm only half-tithing. I don't have an actual goal of giving 10% of my income, but it was still sobering to see that I gave less of my money away last year than I'd like to believe.
Gives me something to shoot for in '09, though.
Oy. My income dropped like a stone last year, and I hardly gave anything either to charity or to political causes -- I'm hoping that as I get a better handle on my new income, I'll manage to ratchet that back up some.
12: my charitable contributions were off the charts this year, but that's mostly because I've started counting consumption expenditures as charity. (Since I don't really need the stuff, and buying it is helping the economy.)
I'm still hoping that I'll succeed in donating my fair share to the US Gov't for 2008.
Tax rates are guidelines, right? Like, I feel bad I'm not doing more to help out, but things are tight right now....
Tax rates are guidelines, right? Like, I feel bad I'm not doing more to help out, but things are tight right now.
Fear not, JRoth. The government is supposed to run a deficit in a recession in order to stimulate aggregate demand. By underpaying your taxes, you're doing a service to us all. And I for one thank you for it.
I actually have no idea how much I give to charity. I take the standard deduction, so I don't track it. I could guess, but I have fairly little confidence my guess would be even be of the right order of magnitude. I probably should track it, if only so the disappointment might motivate me to give more. (Or, alternatively, the numbers might shock me into realizing I should be itemizing.)
You wouldn't believe how hostile some homeless panhandlers get when I make my contributions of spare change contingent on them providing me with a printed receipt for tax purposes.
20: Huh. If they're properly incorporated as 501c3s, they should have stacks of receipts preprinted for that purpose.
20, 21: I always hold up a dollar bill and explain, "This is how much I would give you if you were properly organized. But, because your paperwork is a shambles, I'm forced to give you a post-tax donation of $0.76."
I think we all gain from this sort of informative exchange.
Uh-oh. AB just caught me laughing aloud* at 20+21. "Honest, honey, I'm mostly working up here."
* LA, in internet parlance
21: A few months ago I saw a guy with a cardboard sign saying he'd give a tax receipt. Probably not one you could use, but more inventive than yet another "Ninjas killed my family and I need money to train up" sign...
I gave as much money as I could, LB. You are the reason I know about him and have read his books, so you should take credit for my donation as well.
The date that matters for the special election in IL-5 is in fact March 3. In case that matters for anyone.
28: Woohoo! Advantage, internet.
I always make eye contact and smile when I say no, figuring that invisibility and lack of acknowledgement of shared humanity must get wearing; I know I hate it when I realize its happening to me. Cash seems generally counterproductive; if I'm carrying fruit for a snack, I give that. If I have time and inclination, I'll offer to come back with coffee or food.
But since my commute is most days suburban, there are only professionals or addicts who stand in the median rights-of-way at intersections where cars stop. I wonder how access to the lucrative intersections is controlled.
During my last visit to Chicago I was really disgusted by a train car full of football fans who mocked a pushy crackhead panhandler. They were from out of town, though, so wouldn't be volunteering for a campaign in any case. Someone in Hyde Park panhandled with a grocery list in hand. Also a clearly unprofessional panhandler near the train station in DC, unusual. Times are tough, I think.
A beggar on my block in Paris used to, in January or February or whenever it was that employer-sponsored food coupons from the previous year lost their validity, hold up a sign that said "Vos tickets restaurants expireront dans __ jours", and kept an up-to-date countdown.
Honorable mention goes to the D.C. beggar who managed to wheedle a donation out of a former colleague by saying, "I ain't buying no booze or narcotic, man. I want to get me some hallucinogens."
I got cranky yesterday at a Spare Change News vendor/panhandler, when he panhandled me right after scamming his way into the subway by trailing me through the gate. Admittedly, it's a reaction driven by having that done to me repeatedly by people who *could* pay, but it still put me in an uncharitable mood.
There is a high level traffic intersection that I pass daily that has had the same "family" working all four corners for the past several years. Every once in a while a newbie will show up, but the next time I pass it will be the same crew. I keep expecting to hear that the beggar's guild has dealt with the interlopers, but it never makes the news.
Because governments exercise a whole lot of power, and leaving that power in the hands of bad people is a poor plan?
1. Bad people are going to be in charge no matter what you do. Voting is our meager choice between various bad people, some of whom, in better years, are less-bad on select issues than others.
2. One member of the House of Representatives will do precisely squat to advance the cause of peace, justice, and good in the world. I like Dennis Kucinich a lot, and if there were five hundred of him in Congress the world would be a very different place, but there's one of him precisely because our system of government rewards the most despicable actors within it, while it marginalizes good people as hippies, crackpots, cranks, and killjoys.
3. What exactly do I get for donating my money to a Democratic pol? I give fifty dollars, say, and it goes towards defraying the cost of some thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraiser for the same Democratic pol. I give fifty dollars to Oxfam, I help some farmers in Malawi water their crops for a couple months.
As to your first point, Geoghegan is a genuine good guy, not a compromise at all. You now have the option of helping him step into the mix.
inaccessible,
Assuming your analysis is correct: so you've watered crops for two months. Compare that to the effect of Kucinich or another lefty Congressman's inserting a rider into a budget bill that sends Malawi aid to overhaul its education system, or who is another vote to end our protectionist agricultural policy so it's easier for Malawi to export its tobacco and sugar.
38: Ah, so now there would be two Dennis Kuciniches! At a rate of one Kucinich every twelve years, the revolution should be complete by the year 4601.
Or you can, like me (pat pat), give $50 to Geoghegan and an automatic monthly donation to Oxfam. It's not tons of money, but, say, 3 fewer cab rides per month.
At the rate of $50 to Oxfam a month, when will Africa be well fed and happy?
Ah, so now there would be two Dennis Kuciniches
That's an unpardonable insult to Geoghegan.
39. But we don't know what the increase function is. It might be exponential, in which case doubling would make all the change pretty quick. We aren't going to find that out unless we let the function run, and get a second Kucinich in there.
If nothing happens except that we get a third Kucinich in twelve years, you're right. That'd be a slow method. But if we got two more next time, and four more after that, we'd be cooking with gas!
40: but, say, 3 fewer cab rides per month.
So you'll just drive home drunk those nights, eh?
</cross-thread intertextuality>
if we got two more next time, and four more after that, we'd be cooking with gas!solar!
What we need to do is elect Kuciniches that reproduce asexually, like planaria.
So you'll just drive home drunk those nights, eh?
Drive?
Let me put this question to you a different way: how much money did you give Obama during the last election cycle? And looking at him now - at what he's done, at what he's said, and at how much money he raised and is still raising - don't you feel just a little bit - just a little bit - like maybe you could've better spent that money somewhere else?
I feel super great about all the money I didn't spend on McCain.
I sent him 50 dollars.
The only other campaign contribution I ever made was to Jim Webb and now he wants to do prison reform. Giving money to smart uncowed representatives is truly the gift that keeps giving.
Summing up, electing Tom Geohegan gives a one out of a million chance of helping a million poor people. Contributing to Oxfam gives a one out of one chance of helping one poor person. It's a wash!
42: I love how it's the mark of a serious and responsible person to be condescending toward Kucinich. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Jesse Jackson as well.
Back in the real world, Kucinich's stances on the issues are miles ahead of any mainstream figure, despite the fact that he's a weird person.
At the rate of $50 to Oxfam a month, when will Africa be well fed and happy?
I bet Tom Geoghegan would feed it all by himself, if we'd just have the courage to give him some money.
Tom Geoghegan doesn't feed Africa, Africa feeds Tom Geoghegan.
51: Webb is great. Given the heat I have occasionally taken for believing that something positive could come from alliances with carefully chosen paleocons, I would also point out that he is a neoconfederate sympathizer who at one point was a Reagan appointee.
I feel super great about all the money I didn't spend on McCain.
It's terrible that the bizarre state and municipal laws under which you live force you to donate to one or the other.
55: I dunno, Geoghegan is kinda skinny. I think he could at best feed one family for a few days, but even then you'd need some side dishes.
I would also point out that he is a neoconfederate sympathizer who at one point was a Reagan appointee.
He also remains a big fan of the Vietnam War, if I'm not mistaken.
||
AP hed:
"Extremists ridicule death of Bush cat."
We live in degraded times.
|>
62: I wonder if its being named India was also a strike against it.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on Jesse Jackson as well.
I voted for him in 1988. I would not do so again if I could go back in time, but that's mostly because I hold Al Gore in much higher esteem now than 20 years ago. I still have a lot of respect for the work that Jackson did in organizing the Rainbow Coalition and in articulating a morally grounded opposition to Reaganomics. I find Jackson's recent history of shaking down corporations a little unseemly, but no worse than what other politicians looking to cash in do on a regular basis.
Although 60 to 59 ends up being pretty funny, too.
He also remains a big fan of the Vietnam War, if I'm not mistaken.
And yet there he is, very likely to make more improvement to the US prison system than any number of private donations to pagestoprisoners.org.
49: I actually didn't give Obama money, just time -- he seemed to be raising plenty, and I'm poor this year. (Actually, I don't remember. Maybe 50 bucks? But not much.)
Geoghegan really is head and shoulders better than most possible candidates (like, if Kuchinich is your standard, I'd say he's easily Kucinich-class, with extra points for being less unsettling on the inessential stuff), and I don't believe he has buckets of money. If elected, he might disappear into obscurity, but I'd say there's very little chance that you'd look at anything he does and regret a donation.
||
Hey, has Katherine birthed yet? Wasn't she due by now? Did I miss the announcement?
|>
She was that close? I lost track. Funny, I thought she was behind heebie.
It's terrible that the bizarre state and municipal laws under which you live force you to donate to one or the other.
Parallels the unfair choice we must make between Oxfam and Geoghegan.
I thought she was behind heebie.
Everybody wants to be behind heebie.
Katharine was ahead of me. I think she must be due right around now, if not already?
She knew at the end of April, so I'd imagine this month at the latest.
And yet there he is, very likely to make more improvement to the US prison system than any number of private donations to pagestoprisoners.org.
You'll be sure to wake me once Webb overhauls the U.S. prison system.
What!? You mean it hasn't happened yet? A whole week after he first discussed it? You're right, the whole system is useless.
This punch still tastes terrible.
You'll be sure to wake me once Webb overhauls the U.S. prison system.
If that's not your standard for effective action on the part of a charity, it shouldn't be your standard for a congresscritter. Massive, intractable problems like poverty, the U.S. prison system, and pretty much everything going on in sub-Saharan Africa, are the sort of thing where mere harm mitigation is a perfectly welcome change. Actual improvement remains a slim hope, but one that government seems more capable of attaining than most charities.
"Extremists ridicule death of Bush cat."
At first I thought this might be an item from the Hep Jazz News Service referring to the occupant of the White House. Oh well. Poor kitty.
Wry irony is OK when cats die, though. We can't let them get too full of themselves.
Private charity is a long time loser. Hard-fought gains can be wiped out in a week by changes in military, financial, or trade policies.
A whole week after he first discussed it?
Webb was discussing prison reform before he ran for Senate. This isn't new. Neither is the entrenched, bipartisan support for expansion of the prison state within the rest of Congress.
Private charity is a long time loser.
Putting one's faith in the good judgment and benevolence of the Democratic Party, on the other hand, is a proven winner.
Guys, we need both floor wax and dessert topping. You're not going to find one thing that'll do both.
Rail, what you're proposing is a losing cause. It's what the right wing churches do. The changes that have to be made are at the higher level. You're basically giving up on the higher level, and seem proud of that. You shouldn't be.
I don't think that anyone is proposing supporting "the Democratic Party". We're talking about Geoghegan.
If a third party or an insurgent movement outside electoral politics seemed less futile than working within the Democratic party, I'd jump at the chance. Our nation strikes me as a lesser-evil place now (I hope it's not a greater-evil place, anyway), but progress may be possible. I suppose that there's some point of futility where charity is the best you can do, but to me that's a horrifying prospect.
I love you, rail, really I do, but these audition tapes for the part of mcmanus are distinctly lacking in post-apocalyptic fantasy.
Geoghegan: Is this pronounced "gay-ginn"?
Our nation strikes me as a lesser-evil place now (I hope it's not a greater-evil place, anyway), but progress may be possible.
Isn't that the best one can hope for in a democracy? Outside of the rule of the enlightened despot philosopher king, compromise to "less bad" is not only possible, but probable.
86: Pretty much. I think there's a mostly swallowed h in the middle -- G'haygin -- but hardly there at all. Gaygin with no h is closer than Guh-hay-gin.
He's lucky he's running in Chicago, because otherwise he'd face serious headwinds from homophobes and teetotalers.
The changes that have to be made are at the higher level. You're basically giving up on the higher level
I'm giving up on that higher level because I see no evidence that anyone in a position to do anything about major flaws in the American system wants to do anything about them.
You're talking about Tom Geoghegan. Fine. You could be talking about Jesus Christ and it wouldn't matter; they'd both be back-benchers because when it comes down to matters of real systemic reform, the only ones with the power to do anything are the people who don't want anything changed - who were put in power precisely to keep things as they are. As we speak the U.S. is bankrolling a massacre in Gaza, and Obama has remained notably silent on the matter while filling his foreign policy slots with I/P hawks. States are planning to spend the stimulus's transportation money on road-building rather than on public transit. The climate plan Obama rolled out a couple weeks ago was one that would've looked good back in 1992, not in 2009; no one in Congress is talking about reducing emissions to the levels that Gore, Hansen, and company think we'll need to stave off disaster. And am I really supposed to believe that the same administration that's bringing me the Vilsack Agriculture Department actually understands or cares about the scope of our energy and environmental crisis? Jim Webb aside, who in Congress cares about prison reform? Who's about to dismantle the war on drugs, much less the war on terror? Is there any major national security figure out there arguing that America's problems stem in large part from America's own actions, and that America needs to be less involved in the world, not more? Kucinich and Paul don't count as major national security figures.
There's a limit to what electoral politics can accomplish, because there's a limit to what elected officials - and the interests that own them - are willing to let happen. We're resistant to acknowledge this because we don't want to acknowledge just how powerless we are.
86: He pronounces with two syllables and two hard g's: Gay-ginn.
90: Okay, but listen to yourself -- "We're fucked because the people in power suck. There's no point working to put different people in power."
I'm not expecting Geoghegan to put on the cape and start wearing his underwear over his pants and fix everything. But if everyone in Congress were more like Geoghegan, we wouldn't be so fucked. And the only way to get to everyone in Congress is one election at a time.
This is probably wasted effort, and I should stop worrying about politics and go lie on a beach somewhere, and it sounds like you've gotten there yourself. But it's only probably wasted effort -- it might do some good, and I can't think of anything else that has potential to do as much good.
I pronounce it "Gee-o-gee-hee-o-again". Who's to say who's right?
I'm writing two big documents right now, but if I had the luxury of time to comment right now I'd be asking you how you think that change happens, IIR. And not in a belligerent way, but in a kind of bemused way.
Like: 80 years ago elderly people were dying in poverty and now fewer of them do, because we have Social Security. We didn't just wake up one day into a world in which one person had waved a magic wand and made it happen.
I'm not under any illusions that good-faith efforts always lead to meaningful change, or that good intentions can't lead to completely dreadful consequences. But I'm also kind of boggled by what sounds like your attitude that there is no point to taking any kind of political or quasi-political action, ever, because we can never hope to influence anything, ever.
Shorter 90: Robust, this is my real audition tape.
But the elected officials say what voters want. If the electorate does not pay attention to the details, this is the best they, whoops, we, get. In my mind, one big benefit of Obama is the pretty speeches we'll get, more thoughtful than slogans; if a few percent of people do not turn them off, US policies will become better because more voters pay attention.
Nothing big can be changed quickly, obviously it's disappointing that BHO is making so many centrist appointments, but it's more disappointing that McCain won as many states as he did, and that for a while there it looked like he might win.
Voters can change, I hope for the better rather than the worse. But not much will change on a scale relevant to millions in one year, or even in four. Having Guantanamo shut down fast will be nice, though, even if it won't help anyone in Gaza. I'm also reluctant to be pointed because I really have no idea what should be done there-- is "engage Hamas as if they were responsible statesmen" really so good? Also, war against Iran looks unlikely now my friends.
And am I really supposed to believe that the same administration that's bringing me the Vilsack Agriculture Department actually understands or cares about the scope of our energy and environmental crisis?
Yes. You are. They've brought in Holdren and Chu, so they are VERY FUCKING SERIOUS about the scope of the energy and environmental crisis. On your most apocalyptic day, you aren't half as knowledgeable and scared as Holdren is. I'm reserving judgment on Salazar and Vilsack, but Holdren is my number one dream pick with not a single qualm.
Theoretical uninformed tripe to follow:
Tyler Cowen, in a post about arts funding, said he does not expect income & wealth distribution to change "real soon." Obama & his economic team and their policies don't really offer hope. As I said, we can get UHC & Green Energy etc etc and still have a much worse off middleclass if they are the ones that pay for it. This was the 80s, they kept the programs and shifted the costs and inequality accelerated.
But. I don't have the fatalism of IAD but I do usually believe the superstructure reflects the base, the politics reflects the objective material conditions. We have Obama for the reasons we were not going to get Kucinich or Edwards.
But. The "material conditions" can change and maybe it is good to have experienced people/organizations in place to take advantage. So go Tom. And as LB says, why not, if it feels good and you avoid delusion?
But. I thought we would get a much better political outcome from 30 years of Reaganomics and 8 years of blatant incompetent imperialism so my views are subject to change. Barricades & guillotines are still in fantasy play.
Or maybe we have lost to the elites for centuries of debt peonage.
If that stuff comforts you, IIR, fine. It's nice to be right.
I really have no idea what should be done there
At this point, I'm not sure anybody does. The smart strategy would have been not to spend several decades systematically undermining Fatah in the pipe dream that some pro-Israel, moderate faction would take their place at the bargaining table. If Israel somehow succeeds in destroying Hamas, I expect they'll be followed in Gaza by an even more nihilistic and violent group, rather than reverting to Fatah.
||
I know it isn't really my place to ask this, but I'd love it if PG could come up with a pseud that's more unlike PGD. I keep glancing at the name and then reading the comment and thinking that that didn't sound very perfectly goddamn deligh .... oh, it's not.
kthxbai
|>
101: I think PGD agrees with you, but didn't want to be a pest.
100: Yeah, it's depressing to thing how implausible a smart strategy (from any of the players) seems at this point.
I love you, rail, really I do, but these audition tapes for the part of mcmanus are distinctly lacking in post-apocalyptic fantasy
I haven't been doing my job?
Oh hell, Read Krugman, and then maybe Yves Smith, who links to William Buiter who says we cannot afford a stimulus.
This is the rest of your lives. We are about 1930. The next 20 years will be different, but it will be, in its own way, as bad as 1930-45. Or worse.
It could be worse. Maybe permanent neo-feudalism would be better. As if we have a choice. The PTB will make those decisions, until all is burning.
Cheers.
101, 102: PG's been blogging as PG for about a decade now.
Since Obama's stimulus will really not make anything better, but only prevent things from getting as bad as they could, or at least this is what the optimists believe...
,,there is still the possibility that Obama wants things to get worse so he can get gradually more radical as the depression strengthens. Leninist.
It's possible.
The next 20 years will be different, but it will be, in its own way, as bad as 1930-45.
In its own way, weren't 1930-45 rather nice?
The economist at the Levy Institute of Advanced Minsky Research (funnin') expect unemployment to peak in 2012, and return full employment several years after that.
Financial crashes last much longer than usual recessions. Much longer.
Okay, but listen to yourself -- "We're fucked because the people in power suck. There's no point working to put different people in power."
But Tom Geoghegan isn't a person in power, and electing him to Congress won't really put him in power, either. The real people in power are the various corporations and other interests who buy congressmen, senators, and presidents, and keep them where they want to keep them. It costs money - lots and lots and lots of money - to make someone a senator or a president, and the people with the most money, almost by definition, suck. Short of violent revolution, how do you change that?
I'll take people's word for it that Geoghegan is a better guy than Obama. But putting one decent guy in the House is one thing; trying to use that same process of lobbing money at Democratic candidates to transform the entire U.S. government is totally different.
"In its own way, weren't 1930-45 rather nice?"
Swing jazz & Hank Greenberg.
Solidarity and exciting politics.
No fun in many places overseas, at least for minorities and losers. But f you were highly placed early in certain political factions, the 50s had its benefits. Goebbels had good times.
bah
political factions, the 30s had its benefits. Goebbels had good times.
I'm just curious as to who specifically gains from all this, and what they had to do with bringing it about. Every disaster is good for someone.
It's the old argument about whether it's blunder / incompetence / a quagmire, or sabotage / conspiracy / looting.
Please, no one say "Never explain by conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence". Please, plese don't say that.
Best time for the left in American history. Minnesota had a near-Communist governor, Elmer Benson.
But not really that good.
97: Holdren's great, but really, he's the science adviser. Vilsack's running the Department of Agriculture, which for decades has functioned as an arm of Monsanto and ADM. How much weight have science advisers carried historically, especially when the advice they're giving runs up against the advice of agriculture secretaries, treasury secretaries, Wall Street, etc.?
Never explain by piracy what can be explained by brigandage.
Swing jazz & Hank Greenberg.
My grandmother dated Hank Greenberg.
Vilsack is pretty disappointing. US ag, policy is deeply fucked up. I understand Obama can't move in all directions at once, but it makes you wonder if ag is even on his radar.
heebie-geebie you are the best
Absolutely right. If my and others projections are correct, the young should be attaching themselves to radical politics right now.
The left can enjoy stimulations intellectual discussion, hot sex with smart partners, blowing up government buildings, and the satisfactions of martyrdom.
The right can get material comforts, devious bullshit, hott sex with desperate terrified slaves, guilt, blowing up the weak & vulnerable, and a final conflagration.
Make your bets and choices.
I have no horse in this race, but it strikes me that since "PGD" is an abbreviation for a previous pseudonym that everyone basically knows, it might be easier for PGD to reexpand rather than force PG to adopt a new one.
bob mcmanus is bullish on hott sex.
119: Unfortunately, no. The cranky New York granny.
Never explain by piracy what can be explained by brigandage bricolage.
116: By sawing him in half and counting the rings.
What if we all speculate on what PG might stand for, until we come up with something so distinctive that we hear it when we see PG?
I bet it stands for Petunia Garbo.
But Tom Geoghegan isn't a person in power, and electing him to Congress won't really put him in power, either.
No, but electing a whole bunch of similar people will. And you can't elect a whole bunch of similar people without electing one.
It costs money - lots and lots and lots of money - to make someone a senator or a president, and the people with the most money, almost by definition, suck. Short of violent revolution, how do you change that?
By organizing large groups of small donors who don't suck, to give money to candidates who don't suck? You might do something like that by drawing attention to candidates who don't suck on blogs.
Obama's not great, but he's better than the alternative, and while he got a lot of money from big donors, he also got a hell of a lot of money from small donors -- it now seems conceivable that someone could win a national election relying primarily on small donors.
I do understand that this is pathetically naive, that power rests with the giant corporations who own everything, and that it's almost certain not to get anywhere. On the other hand, I don't have any better ideas, and I haven't heard them from you, either.
I'm just curious as to who specifically gains from all this, and what they had to do with bringing it about. Every disaster is good for someone.
Fuck if I know. I am conspiratorial myself, but you'd think the Illuminati would let someone like Merckle in on the game.
I haven't heard them from you, either.
someone cue bob to burn shit down.
120: Given that PG, however long her blogging history, hasn't been commenting here for long, I feel compelled to note that while people may bitch about her pseud being confusing (and I'm generally in the lead of the bitching), no one's compelling anyone to change anything. That would be obnoxious.
I understand Obama can't move in all directions at once, but it makes you wonder if ag is even on his radar.
I really don't think so. He was consistently pro-ethanol and pro-corn subsidies throughout the campaign; the closest he ever came to talking ag reform was name-dropping Michael Pollan in an interview, which caused the ag lobby to jump up and down until Obama clarified that he had no intention of shaking things up.
129: It's not that I'm fundamentally opposed to burning shit down, if I heard a convincing plan for how it would make things better. But I've never heard a plan that convinced me.
Only a barbarian would suggest that someone change their internet name.
that power rests with the giant corporations who own everything
Baloney.
Seriously, this just does not reflect my experience of the world, or of political accomplishment and social change, period.
Just in case there is an impressionable teenager lurking who thinks that IIR's world-weary attitude is shared by all rational adults.
I say again, total baloney. And actively damaging at that.
until Obama clarified that he had no intention of shaking things up.
Right, which is what worries me as I think Ag policy, while important in it's own right, is also a keystone problem for a number of other domestic (& probably trade, but I know shit about trade) issues.
inaccessible island rail,
it's true things are awful and bound to continue to be awful...but isn't at least possible to hope that things could be a little less awful if we elect slightly less awful leaders?
or is that hopelessly naive?
I haven't heard them from you
Sure you have. My idea was: the guy in Africa probably needs your money more than the guy in Congress does.
Beyond that, we're stuck with the government we've got until it collapses. Obama owes nothing to small donors, but plenty to Wall Street. For that matter, he owes plenty to big agribusiness, which doesn't bode well for his energy and environmental policy. As for foreign policy, Obama read his off at the AIPAC meeting last summer.
The Levy Institute for Ignored Lefty Economics had an empirical study showing that suicides of umpty-billlionaire financiers was a leading, not trailing indicator. If plotted logarhythmically, of course.
I made that up.
burning shit down, if I heard a convincing plan for how it would make things better
By starting with air travel screening stations! Burn the security-theater apparatus to the ground! That would make life better!
Note: Please have crews standing by so that other important airport infrastructure doesn't get damaged. Thank you.
Yeah. I don't think that Obama is strongly motivated to reform agriculture. But I do think he is strongly motivated to do a bunch of other good stuff. He's picking very good people to do the stuff he cares a lot about.
And, for all that it is my field and I have strong opinions about food, ag and water, if Obama addressed the stuff he cares about (which looks to include climate change), I'd be willing to wait another term or two on ag. Sure it is a big deal, but it isn't the only big deal and it isn't true that everything everywhere depends on getting ag right first.
Besides, the national ag policies touch my state relatively lightly.
Besides besides, I'm already waiting another two terms for a woman president and I cared about that too.
My idea was: the guy in Africa probably needs your money more than the guy in Congress does.
That's not a better idea. That's saying that we should all give more money to Africa, which is not by itself a reason to give less money to politics unless there's no other slack in your budget.
Obama's not great, but he's better than the alternative
the amusing thing is that there appears to be an awful lot of people who have seriously considered having themselves physically sterilised in order to make a minuscule improvement/political statement in favour of the future environment, but who would have an absolute fucking cow if you suggested voting Green.
137: Does Oxfam's status as a government-certified and -regulated charity pertain at all, or would you be comfortable recommending that we give our money to any apparently charitable organization, regardless of tax status? In other words, do you perceive any benefit to the infrastructure provided by the society you apparently feel such contempt for?
[Not actually an academic question; I've donated to a tiny organization in Cameroon that is a friend-of-a-friend, and certain does not have US 501c3 status.]
142: It's those little incongruities that make everyone's life so joyous, no?
burning shit down, if I heard a convincing plan for how it would make things better
Burning shit down is about not having a plan.
I just read that the French middle and lower classes were permanently better off after the Revolution than before. Pretty soon after, like even 1820s.
There were, of course, uncertainties and costs.
it's true things are awful and bound to continue to be awful...but isn't at least possible to hope that things could be a little less awful if we elect slightly less awful leaders?
Slightly less awful on things like (some) women's rights, and other issues affected primarily by the courts. But even there the trend is for Democrats to nominate moderates and eschew solid liberal picks.
I guess what bothers me ultimately is seeing liberals organize on the internet primarily for the sake of giving money to Democratic candidates who, by and large, fuck them over. There are better things you could be doing with your time and money. There are better things you could be doing with it, even with regards to various political issues you care about. Electoral politics isn't the only way to make your voice heard; Paypalling some money to some candidate in the hopes that someday, on some vote, he'll risk doing the right thing can't be the limit of democratic expression. I know there are plenty of people who actually do that - who march in protests against the war, who volunteer at soup kitchens, etc., and I'm diminishing that by reacting like this.
I'm burning out here, and I'm probably just pissing off or depressing everyone anyway, so I'll sign off for now and see everyone later.
to any apparently charitable organization, regardless of tax status?
Given that a fair number of organizations with tax status don't seem to be very charitable at all under any sort of reasonable definition, this makes sense (if actual aid is the aim)
there appears to be an awful lot of people who...
I call bullshit. Name names.
who march in protests against the war,
You know, I'm all for this sort of thing as well, but I'm not seeing it as self-evidently more effective than working to elect genuinely progressive candidates. There were some awfully big protests, and the effect they had, as far as I can tell, was minimal.
There were some awfully big protests, and the effect they had, as far as I can tell, was minimal.
As opposed to the effect of electing a Democratic Congress in 2006, which then ended the war?
148: Sorry, I guess I was too vague. What I hear a ton of from acquaintances etc. is concern about "accountability." If they give money to Doctors Without Borders or Catholic Social Services, they have a general sense that salaries get paid, the work that they claim to be doing actually gets done, and spending is accounted for. Not to say that results don't get exaggerated, but there's a sense that you are probably not paying for outright corruption, bribes, etc. (Let's not even get into the screwy hyper-control issues that some donors get into with their relatively tiny contributions.)
In contrast, if they give money to some random project in Algeria that is not registered in the US, files no tax returns, and is otherwise more or less un-check-up-able unless you actually pick up and fly to Algeria...they're a lot more worried that the program staff are going to take the money and use it for illegitimate purposes.
I'm not taking a position on whether this is actually more likely to happen, I'm expressing what is IME an extremely widely held opinion.
I just think that, no matter how cynical you are, it's important to retain the ability to be happy when things, for some moment turn out the way that you would like. Rather than pre-emptively announcing that it must be an illusion.
IIR, you don't have to be excited about Tom Geoghegan if you don't care abou it but think, for a moment, about LB's perspective writing the post. She's just seen news that one of the people that she would most like to see in a position of power, out of anyone in the country, is running for office. Of course she, and anyone else who's a Geoghegan fan, should be excited.
It may not make a difference in the long run, but there's nothing wrong with celebrating the days on which you do get good news.
Hey, d^2, I did vote Green. Results were poor.
Back in the sixties there was a general idea that if moderation didn't work, extremism would. That's where you got the Weatherman, of whom I was almost one. But lo! extremism wasn't effective either.
It's sort of like young kids who don't like playing by rules and decide to go into crime, as if that would be easy money. But lo! (again) it turns out that crime has rules too, and if you fuck up you're worse off than before.
151: I'm not claiming that the effects of working through electoral politics are swift or satisfying. It just seemed odd to see marching in protests as something that was self-evidently more effective.
Myself, they're both on the list of things I do because they might do some good and I don't have any better ideas.
they're a lot more worried that the program staff are going to take the money and use it for illegitimate purposes.
Well, yeah, I see where you're coming from, but the fact that it's registered in the US really doesn't help you much here. You can get all kinds of tax receipts without any sensible expectation the money will do much good at all.
So I guess what I was saying is that you've got to know something about the organization beyond it's tax status here.
154: Moderation doesn't work; extremism doesn't work; staying inside the Big Two parties doesn't work; third parties don't work; staying home doesn't work. The fact is we're largely powerless.
As far as political donations, my new rule is never to give to the national Democrats. Give to candidates in the Democratic primaries (e.g. against Feinstein) and give to selected Congressional candidates. IIR is correct about the national policies.
My donation policy isn't actually meaningful. My goal is $600 / yr and I'll probably go over that in elections years.
People should be softening up Feinstein already, if that's going to happen. If she were a guy I'd note that she has a face like a yappy, mean little bull terrier, but it would be sexist to say that.
It just seemed odd to see marching in protests as something that was self-evidently more effective.
Here's the thing about marching in a protest: I know I'm not going to actually empower the other side by doing so. Voting Democratic in order to end the war, on the other hand, has turned out to be - to borrow a phrase - a bit like fucking for virginity.
157: And yet sometimes change does happen. I'm not saying I know how to bring it about, but as long as I've got a lever to yank on, however pointlessly, I'm going to keep at it, and keep listening for someone with an idea for a better lever.
my new rule is never to give to the national Democrats.
Not a bad idea...
Voting Democratic in order to end the war [in 2006] wasn't plausible anyway.
you've got to know something about the organization beyond it's tax status here.
Well, this is what I was trying to ask IIR. Thousands of Americans use US government nonprofit status as a handy proxy for "legitimate" charitable organization. I could talk all day about the problems inherent in this, but OTOH it's useful enough, as rough proxies go.
IIR suggested giving to Oxfam as an alternative to political donations. I was curious whether IIR subscribes to the belief outlined above -- that is, did s/he suggest Oxfam because it's a big, known, respected, reputable name and there is some value to having governmental legitimation from the US or UK? Or was s/he just reaching for a recognizable name, and in fact thinks people should do their own homegrown research about which charities are "legitimate"?
159: First, you're responding to a post about a specific candidate, not the generic Democrat. They're not all interchangable, and if you work for the better ones, it could help.
Second, the thing about fighting for peace and fucking for virginity is that they actually make it worse rather than better. I can't see any way to score the Democratic congress as worse than neutral against the prior Republican congresses. So maybe working for them was wasted effort. Unless you spent so much of your efforts on the 2006 election that you couldn't possibly have done anything more for good causes, that's at least harmless.
If she were a guy I'd note that she has a face like a yappy, mean little bull terrier, but it would be sexist to say that.
Interestingly, if she were a guy, it would also be offensive to say that she has a face like an attractive woman.
Oh hey, this is probably a good place to note that, while my own charitable (and political) contributions approached the zero bound this year, my MIL did give someone a water buffalo on our behalf for Xmas this year. Yay, Heiffer Int'l.*
* And double-yay for their LEED platinum HQ bldg. That's the sort of thing you all should be putting yr $$ into.
In many cases a demonstration can be counterproductive -- provocateurs sometimes organize demonstrations themselves to discredit candidates they oppose.
I am not opposed to charities as part of the mix, just as an exclusive alternative.
JRoth, don't introduce your waterbuffalo to LB's folks. A word to the wise.
but OTOH it's useful enough, as rough proxies go.
I disagree on it's usefulness actually, but that's ok, it's a side issue.
I think you really have to do your own research, at least by proxy (i.e. trust your friends, but not an ad).
I tend to evaluate tax-exempt status only in a general mix of efficiency.
But yeah, it's a pain in the ass.
101: I think PGD agrees with you, but didn't want to be a pest.
True on both counts. I'm flattered to know that people care. I will try the expansion method, if people don't mind having my full phrase-like pseud inflicted on them regularly.
Also, not to be snippy, but PG seems like an unfortunate pseud anyway, it's not very creative.
As a freshman House member, Geohegan will be one of the least powerful people in the Federal government. Still, though.
Also, using my full pseud makes me feel pressure to make my comments delightful and/or perfect, and I have a hard time living up to that burden.
goddamn is really two words, so maybe you could be PGDD
but PG and PGDD are still look pretty alike
so i vote status quo
As a freshman House member, Geohegan will be one of the least powerful people in the Federal government. Still, though.
Ah, but in 20-odd years....
Actually, someone like Geohegan would be extremely effective as a Senator, which just a few years in the House can, theoretically, set you up for. Although in IL's evidently toxic political culture, he doesn't seem likely to be allowed that path.
He will be (1/438 / 2) / 3 of the formal government, or 1/2628. Then you deduct for his low seniority and deduct again in consideration of the fact that bureaucracies are often pretty much autonomous.
Fuck, maybe IIR is right.
I can't be the only one who thinks that this discussion has the flavor of a really earnest dorm room session around the bong. You can't do anything about the SYSTEM, MAN, and your Democratic party is a bunch of CORPORATE WHORES. Well, OK, but hasn't everyone but McManus already reached that (accurate) conclusion, and decided that its still worth working hard to make marginal changes for the better in the world where possible? Including trying to put more and better democrats in office. Doesn't seem like there's much more to say than that.
.
170: I say, "Goddamn" every time I see one of your comments, PGD. No worries.
175: yeah, but everyone is still recovering from the holidays, so we've got to cut some slack.
I'm more pessimistic than McManus or IIR, not more optimistic.
Wait, this island rail bloke, he's an extant commentator using a new pseud?
Just let me add that IIR is barking up the wrong tree. Franken won by what, 200 votes? You think he is in the pocket of whoever Coleman fronts for? Elections matter, votes matter and $25 donations matter.
Halford puts his finger on it. No wonder I'm being so irritable in this thread; I didn't talk to those people in college either.
Sorry, everybody! Maybe I'll post my chocolate-chocolate-coconut cookie recipe when I get home, as penance.
How about "PeGoDe," which could be pronounced like "pagoda" if we are willing to stretch some conventions of English orthography. I guess some here might have an aversion to the CamelCase, though (not that the original PGD expansion avoids that issue, I guess).
re:
Well, OK, but hasn't everyone but McManus already reached that (accurate) conclusion, and decided that its still worth working hard to make marginal changes for the better in the world where possible?
I thought IIR's point was that if you are in the business of making marginal changes for the better in the world there are a great many more effective ways of doing so than by donating to the funds of elected politicians? Not that marginal changes were impossible.
PGD, nobody's using "Matt Weiner" these days.
175: Precisely. This is basically where I am + Donna Edwards > Al Wynn infinity!!!111!
183: I kind of hate that 'lump of effort' argument. Isn't it irresponsible to pay attention to issue X, when there are children in Africa without access to clean water? Go down that road and suddenly you're Peter Singer.
If there's a concrete argument that people who work in/donate to electoral politics are doing so with money and effort that they'd otherwise be doing better stuff with, then make it. But it doesn't seem likely to me.
(Another way of putting this is that there are a lot more frivolous posts that I don't see IIR (who's been around for a bit but not long. They could be a namechange, but if so I missed it) responding to with 'you should donate to Oxfam instead'. I mean really, paying for a gym membership when there are people in need? The 'more effective ways' of making marginal change in the world don't seem to get brought out for their own sake so much as an argument against political action.)
Look at all those eeeees. There's a certain pleasure in that. But it seems sort of, you know, gay. (NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT).
You can't do anything about the SYSTEM, MAN, and your Democratic party is a bunch of CORPORATE WHORES.
the tragedy in life is realizing that this is actually true. The sophomoric thing is bothering to make big speeches about it.
I think Tom Geohegan should become a rep because he's been working hard for a lot of years for good causes, and if this is something he wants that will bring him pleasure in his life, then he should have it. But there's no guarantee that he'll be doing more good in DC then he would as a labor lawyer in Chicago. He'll be 60 when he's elected, which will make it tough for him to accumulate enough seniority to get power in the House...but who knows, people who are smart and energetic do get promoted faster. He probably will get some clout on union stuff just by really knowing the issues cold.
183 -- Phrased that way, it makes more sense. Certainly, in retrospect, there were probably more useful things to have spent my money on than that last contribution to the Obama campaign in October. I was reacting to the notion that raising money for political candidates was useless because you can't do anything to change the system through politics anyway. That, as I think Emerson pointed out somewhere above, is pretty much what Reagan/Bush and the 1000 points of light people were saying for years.
On the topic of the post, can someone explain what makes Geogghan so great? From 10 seconds of internet research, he looks like a grouchy and slightly crankish labor lawyer. Also, is he a Daley machine candidate, and, if not, why is there any reason to think that he's got a chance in hell of winning?
187: I honestly don't know how realistic this is, but isn't there an in terrorem effect from electing someone genuinely progressive, that has an effect on subsequent elections? Candidates who might swing more moderate start throwing bones to the left? The occasional other real progressive gets to run because it looks plausible now?
re: 186
I tend to agree, up to a point, about the lump of effort argument not necessarily being a good one.
Lumps of cash, maybe not so much. I may not give up all my free time to 'labour for children in Africa' but if I am giving some dollars/pounds then the 'is this the best place for my money?' question has some substance.
And, fwiw, I find the 'rag on the DFH' stuff pretty fucking irritating. It's easy to mock with sneering about talk of corporate whores, and 'the man', etc.
188: A list of positions is going to sound like boilerplate leftwing stuff; strong unions, against the Iraq War, health care, pensions, and so on. But he's got a long record of writing about and working for those causes, in a manner that convinces me that his positions are strongly and sincerely held. And the boilerplate leftwing stuff is mostly all I want.
I find the 'rag on the DFH' stuff pretty fucking irritating.
I read that more a complaint of superficiality (earnest dorm room session) than rag on the DFH, but maybe i'm misreading.
And, fwiw, I find the 'rag on the DFH' stuff pretty fucking irritating. It's easy to mock with sneering about talk of corporate whores, and 'the man', etc.
Generally I do too, but this time he started it. </whine>
Someone gets all 'more-realistic-than-thou' at me about how ineffectual any action is, (see, e.g., 157), it's hard not to get snappish.
189: I think that running primary candidates against bad Democrats is absolutely the best thing we can do.
And if the movement in that direction is substantial enough to actually reduce the amount going to the national Democrats, that would be a very good thing. You're only respected if you can help or hurt someone, and if you can hurt someone, they know you could help them if you wanted to.
One thing about Obama -- he had his own netroots operation. He didn't depend on us netroots people -- at least, he doesn't think he did. On the other hand, if he finds that he misses us, he might deal.
can someone explain what makes Geogghan so great?
I immediately gave him all the money I could afford this month because:
1. he has an idealistic and outraged notion that society is better when we take care of workers in very concrete ways.
2. I read two of his books, in which he traces macro effects back to specific pieces of legislation. I don't remember what they were but I remember him saying things like, "these people got the shaft as a consequence of this piece of Taft-Hartley".
Those are both traits that make me think someone should be a legislator.
who are smart and energetic do get promoted faster
Like my love, DARRELL STEINBERG, who seems to have become important in the CA Senate, like, overnight. (As is only appropriate and right.)
188: people really like his books. Secret Lives of Citizens, Which Side Are You On, etc. He can be a little self-important, but he's impassioned and eloquent.
189: not in the Hyde Park district, I wouldn't think.
Note Megan's conspicuous lack of google-proofing, combined with her New Year's resolution.
When will Darrell Steinberg finally take the hint? When she power-lifts him right on the CA Senate floor?
Heh. Someone from the state senate went through and read all my posts about him several times one day. And, I shook his hand once.
The fact that we aren't together every instant of every day is completely inexplicable.
LB, what precisely do expect Obama and the Democratic Congress to accomplish over the next year? The next two years? The next four years? What will you do if they don't accomplish those things? Is there anything they could do that could be so bad - torture, indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, what have you - that you'd find not merely disappointing, but bad enough that you'd refuse to support a Democratic candidate? I'd find your position more understandable if it seemed like your support came with actual conditions.
Yeah, I didn't mean. to rag on dfhs, just on one variety of political diagnosis that I think is not factually innacurate, but where the prognosis of despair is one that I associate with a kind of collegiate angst.
Maybe trying to impress him by kicking the basketball hoop was a bad move.
I suppose that with me and McManus it's senile angst.
there is still the possibility that Obama wants things to get worse so he can get gradually more radical as the depression strengthens. Leninist.
I adore you, bob.
Or ripping the pews in the Senate out of the ground and throwing them aside as I walked over to him.
Unfortunately, he's spoken for:
Steinberg and his wife Julie have two children - a daughter, Jordana, and a son, Ari.
Is there anything they could do that could be so bad - torture, indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, what have you - that you'd find not merely disappointing, but bad enough that you'd refuse to support a Democratic candidate? I'd find your position more understandable if it seemed like your support came with actual conditions.
Again, you seem to be confused about the difference between a generic Democrat and an individual candidate. Is there anything an individual could do to forfeit any chance that I'd ever support them? Sure, lots of stuff. Is there anything 'the Democrats' could do that would mean that I couldn't ever support a candidate running as a Democrat, even if I trusted that candidate individually to do everything possible to work for the issues I care about? Again, sure, but it'd have to be in the "I feel that I have a moral responsibility to no longer be a citizen of this country" category, Nazi Germany or worse. And I don't think we're likely to get there.
but where the prognosis of despair is one that I associate with a kind of collegiate angst.
Or late 19th century early 20th century radical philosophy or politics?
Do the mature pragmatists find Debs & Goldman infantile now?
What was it worth in 1910 to keep the next 40 years from happening?
They're actors or something. We discussed that in one of my many adoring posts about him and all my commenters agreed that they're actors.
Some men are too much man for one woman, Otto.
I personally have the strength of 0.20 men, by scientifically test. Try me, ladies!
I personally have the strength of 0.20 men
Because your heart is really unusually impure?
207 to 200, woth 207.1 italicized
206: You've misread my comment; I was talking about individual politicians. So, for instance, you voted for Obama, who supports a surge in Afghanistan and warrantless wiretapping. Is there anything that Obama could do that would get you to not vote for him in 2012?
213: Sure. Where that line is would depend on the alternatives and the circumstances.
Recently I've been reading about Minnesota's radical period. (When Hubert Humphrey entered politics, he was a moderate in Minnesota and a radical nationally). It's a tremendous story (teetotallers, bootleggers, businessmen, Communists, isolationists, small town bankers, farmers, and Finns all in the same party.) But it all came to an end by 1938 after 8 good years, and it doesn't provide many lessons for the future.
Wobegon was a radical hotbed then, and now it's Blue Dog Democrat at best.
212: But if they were, wouldn't that raise questions about his character? What kind of man engages in that sort of long-term public deception? (Not that I'm not pulling for you, but still.)
everyone but McManus already reached that (accurate) conclusion, and decided that its still worth working hard to make marginal changes for the better in the world where possible?
Hey, I voted twice in 2008, gave a little money, did a little work. With a heavy heart of course.
Try Tuchman's Proud Tower. There were a lot of incrementalists working around 1905 on disarmament, for instance. I honestly don't know how I feel about them, or the commies & anarchists, either.
Glad you have all the answers. I'll just listen.
re: 215
Any number of our current government here in the UK have backgrounds on the radical or semi-radical left. Still a bunch of vicious evil bastards, though.
I suspect actually getting the government you'd always hoped for, after nearly 20 years of Tory rule, and then finding out they are scum tends to leave one slightly cynical ...
213: Again, though, this is a weird question in response to a post about a genuinely good candidate. I'm not holding my nose and donating to Geoghegan because the alternatives are worse. I'm delighted by the prospect that he might be in Congress, and if I could pick Representatives by fiat out of the population of the world, he'd still be a strong candidate.
Because your heart is really unusually impure?
No, that's Apo.
What kind of man engages in that sort of long-term public deception?
A man who's too much man for just one woman.
Norm Coleman is too much man for any definable mixed human group. Minnesota nice refused to campaign against his scuzziness, so he swept the church lady vote.
Stop acting like such a little bitch, IIR. Meaningful change happens through people in power (I didn't say it had to be good change) and through organized movements. If you don't believe that trying to put different people in power can do any good, then go organize. Otherwise, spare us your sanctimonious purity.
One lesson of Minnesota radicalism is that any radical movement can be destroyed by a foreign war. The majority of Minnesota radicals opposed both World Wars, and each time the radicals were severely damaged by a mixture of police work, media slander, and (in WWI) goons.
Beyond that, in 1938 the party split between internationalists and isolationists, with the Communists characteristically switching after the Stalin-Hitler Pact was broken.
Here's the thing, Stras inaccessible island rail, yes, Obama is fucked up, and so are most, if not all other Democrats. That's why and how we vote tactically. In the current system, there's no alternative, unless you want to go underground and become an urban guerilla, and if that's where life takes you, then I for one am totally supportive. But we're in a forum where the mildest parlour pinks are seen as dangerous insurrectionists, so there's not much point in leading the charge to the barricades from here.
223: Please, please, please let's not go there? True or false, I really hated the last round of that.
(Not the bit about the parlour pinks. That's perfectly fair.)
Here's the thing, Stras inaccessible island rail,
I was wondering! But I thought that stras would have heard of Tom Geoghegan.
I still love that IOZ analogy. "Come on, you working class Midwesterners! Why do you continually and loyally vote for a party that does not really care about your fundamental interests and repeatedly treats you with contempt? Why do you do that? We progressive leftwing Democrats want to know!".
I thought Norm Coleman was supposed to be too much for more than zero women.
"Come on, you working class Midwesterners! Why do you continually and loyally vote for a party that does not really care about your fundamental interests and repeatedly treats you with contempt? Why do you do that? We progressive leftwing Democrats want to know!".
It makes a little more sense if you include the claim that working class Midwesterners have a preferable, even if not ideal, option, and progressive leftwing Democrats don't.
Stop acting like such a little bitch, IIR.
Awesome.
But we're in a forum where the mildest parlour pinks are seen as dangerous insurrectionists, so there's not much point in leading the charge to the barricades from here.
To me most of you here are like those disarmament activists in 1905? Hey, you do not have to respect my analysis or predictions, you can think I'm crazy or even wicked, but I am (sometimes) sincere about my understanding of the world. History, if it has any value I think suports me.
But what's the point, really? You have your more optimistic vision of the world, and we probably can't stop the apocalypse anyway. Do I really want to take that optimism from you? I don't fucking know.
But please, don't tell me I am amusing or flattering myself with sophomore angst. Many of the people who share my views have already split to Paraguay. At least I'm still around.
229: see the archives, WMYBSALB
Maybe we can call it graduate-school angst? TA angst?
226:dsquared reads IOZ.
Perrin & IOZ are funnier than Berube. It's true
TA angst is fear of too much marking.
No, Norm is bi. He has a fake marriage for the illusion of stability.
235: crap, that reminds me, I'm so disorganized right now: I've got to hand out a couple of red pen-sets this term, but not only do I not know who the TA's are, I'm only roughly certain what course I'm teaching.
Bob, I'm often not sure what you're trying to say. When I understand you, I often agree. I'm about as pessimistic as you are, to the point of defeatism.
Paraguay is the Bush hideout. It doesn't actually strike me as much of a refuge, either. Paraguayans are dirt poor; there's not much there.
Many of the people who share my views have already split to Paraguay.
I thought the folks in Paraguay were Nazis and Bushies? (A diplobrat friend who lived in Paraguay in his early teenaged years was once invited, whilst there, to a birthday party by a pretty girl of his acquaintance. He showed up to find that it was a birthday party FOR HITLER.)
re: 233
dsquared reads IOZ.
Doesn't everyone? And Lenin's Tomb, and Proyect, et al.
There was a guy in an office my father used to work in who would bring in a cupcake on Hitler's birthday, stick a candle in it, and sit in his office crooning 'Happy Birthday dear Adolf...". Oddly, the same office had a number of Luftwaffe veterans, but this guy was an Italian from Queens.
I presume Paraguay or similar places are preferred because if you keep your head down, and bribe the right people, you can survive pretty cheaply, even after Peak-everything. It's static? Monsanto isn't gonna care about Paraguay? Prevailing winds better for nuclear fallout.
Anybody else following Sean-Paul Kelley arounf SE Asia? Pretty good stuff, with cat pictures.
240: Was Hitler himself in attendance? I've heard from reliable sources that his suicide was faked and he actually hid out in South America after the war.
In NZ, we had a nice Labour gov't, the kind that most of you Americans would think was a bit too Left. You still got people saying they were corporate whores, fascists, racists, imperialists etc. (See Foreshore and Seabed, see October 15, and so-on.)
There is no perfect political party; and any political party actually existing will have to do some very not-nice things.
(By the way, if you think US parties are lesser evils, look at Indian politicians.)
244: Ha! As I remember the story, Hitler attended only via a large oil painting of his likeness. But maybe it was super double secret.
successful federal level politicians in many countries are almost by definition corporate whores. But LB's larger point holds.
Hitler was a retiring sort and didn't like noisy events.
Argentina and Chile still have their own indigenous resident Hitlers. And El Salvador.
Wait, what am I not supposed to do, LB?
245.1 Well, they probably were all those things. There's fucked up people on the left too, and the easiest way to figure out who they are is to find the ones who are really, really intent on seizing power.
Emerson: If this lawsuit goes forward, do you think all the Norm dirt will finally come out into the corporate media?
Christ, I waste too much time here. I should sleep or watch a movie or something productive like that.
A bit of good news. Conyers apparently plans to go after Rove, Mukasey, et al.
241: I don't read any of them. In fact, I only read Unfogged. The only things I know about the world are this Geoghegan fellow and that heebie is having a baby.
Speculating about whether IIR posted here before under another name. I mean, if you have to, I'm not going to stop anyone, but I'm going to find the process unpleasant.
Some say that Heebie's "baby" is like Ogged's "cancer".
Bob: I frequently find your analyses penetrating. I do think you are a little too attracted apocalyptic scenarios, and that you're analyses are sometimes distorted by the fact that you hate moderate a lot more than you hate conservatives. But other times I'm persuaded by your arguments.
254: You mean it's heebie's turn to go to the French Laundry? Sweet.
190
Lumps of cash, maybe not so much. I may not give up all my free time to 'labour for children in Africa' but if I am giving some dollars/pounds then the 'is this the best place for my money?' question has some substance.
If (like me for example) you care more about the United States than Africa and you know more about the United States than Africa what's so strange about trying to change the United States rather than Africa.
You can make the same argument with respect to grinding poverty in the US; it doesn't have anything necessary to do with Africa. I mean, "I've done a full analysis of the payoff from spending money on political change rather than anything else, and I think this is the best use of my money," is a possible position, but it's hard to come up with a preexisting set of priorities that would make that plausible.
I'm just denying that an analysis like that is psychologically plausible for anyone who's not clothed in burlap and giving all possible excess money over a minimal diet to charity.
245.1 Well, they probably were all those things
Yeah, um, no.
The NZ Labour Party isn't a collection of fascists or racists*.
That doesn't stop the far left from claiming that they are; the far left will claim that almost any party is a collection of fascists/racists/corporate whores. This is a universal truth. I just don't think there's much you can do with that advice.
* the Foreshore and Seabed Act was borderline, as was sticking with Peters, but I do not think that either proves racism, as opposed to political misjudgement and pandering.
From my perspective as an American ignoramus, it's kinda baffling as to just why all sensible British hate Blair/Brown so much (well, OK, the Iraq war, I can definitely understand that, but the hatred seems to go so far beyond that issue). They seem like moderately non-insane technocrats who don't actively value stupidity or want to intentionally and shamelessly transfer wealth from poor people to rich people. Better than Thatcher, right? Is this just like Clinton fatigue circa 1999? Come on folks, it can and will get a lot worse!
by the fact that you hate moderate a lot more than you hate conservatives
I have always voted for Democrats (except maybe dogcactcher, when I could vote Lib for fun), and unlike LB or Emerson, I would vote for Dick Cheney if he became a Democrat. I would never not vote.
I try to careful about what I say about Republicans or Conservatives, but basically I don't think they are worth talking to or talking about. I try to be careful because liberals would not tolerate the expression of how much I hate Republicans, and because of people in blue coats and people in white coats. Lousy moderates.
I say crazy things in rage & frustration sometimes. I am out of valium and vicodin for a month, so I will be calmer for a while.
a little too attracted apocalyptic scenarios
Possible pathology, but wasn't really there until after 9/11. I didn't have the history, and really didn't have the attitude. I wasn't even political.
Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Nah. Cutting taxes during a major war is a world-historical event, a discontinuity. Radicalized Krugman, too, like overnight. Especially since few seemed to care.
re: 260
On civil liberties issues they are, I think, probably the worst British government ever. That isn't an exaggeration. In fact, I think it's quite hard to explain just quite how bad they are on law and order and civil liberties.
Iraq war. Does there need to be anything else? Foreign invasion, hundreds of thousands dead, for what? This alone is enough to condemn them. Compounded by their domestic behaviour when it came to the justification of the invasion and the retrospective wave of cover-ups and egregious bullshit.
Their record on class issues, redistribution of wealth, law and order, foreign policy, pandering to racists and bigots, education policy, etc etc is, more often than not, on the wrong side.
There's also been a fair amount of corruption which they've somehow managed to get away with.
I'd go on but it's 2am and I need to go to bed. If you want I can try to comment more tomorrow. I find it very hard to describe just how much I hate them* and remain coherent. They are neither moderate or non-insane.
* This isn't to say, btw, that they haven't passed the occasional decent piece of legislation or that there aren't individual MPs within that party who I admire a great deal.
except maybe dogcactcher, when I could vote Lib for fun
The notion of a libertarian dog catcher is endlessly amusing to me.
"Fuck it. The market will catch 'em."
I am out of valium and vicodin for a month, so I will be calmer for a while.
That's not the way that normally works.
On civil liberties issues they are, I think, probably the worst British government ever.
Two posts by William Buiter, who I read for economics.
In Praise of Government Incompetence
I have watched this process at work in the UK since I returned here in 1994. It was breath-taking and depressing to observe the transformation of New Labour after 1997, from the party of open government, human rights and civil liberties into an increasingly paranoid group of power-hogging and repressive political control freaks, who have done more damage to fundamental human rights in the past 11 years than any other (sequence of) government(s) in any comparable-length stretch of time since the Glorious Revolution.
Sleepwalking Into a Police State
266: Funny, I just looked up the pseud this morning. S/he has an awfully jaded attitude for such a cute little birdie. I was also unaware of Inaccessible Island, despite the name being not 18 inches from my eyes, on the globe on my desk. I wonder if they have "Can't get here from there" jokes, a Southern Hemisphere variation of the Down East classic.
269: I had no idea the pseudonym referred to a bird. For me, it conjured up some vague notion of a Long Island commuter train that only runs during rush hour or something.
262 was not a fair or honest answer to the question about apocalypticism, which could lead to the kind of stuff LB & IIR were discussing, and probably pertains even to threads like the one about children.
I never leave my house without returning to at least once to check the doors & windows, and every moment I'm gone I am imagining my house burning down. My dog goes thru the doggy door, I am thinking poison. Meteors & Yellowstone eruptions are real. I have talked about your partner sticking a fork in your eye across the breakfast table. I wasn't joking. The terror is constant & complete.
Which is why I keep trying tranquilizers even though they don't work. Stimulants work, but my heart is going. Or so I imagine.
By my age, I actually am pretty functional, and have a sense of humour about it.
250: That does make me feel better. Thing is, you don't bother with shit like that unless there's some intention of follow-up.
I keep reminding myself, when I feel grumpy about Obama's tax cuts and 80 Senators and the like, that he's already shown the ability to play a long game, and I shouldn't assume bad things just yet. Indeed, Vilsack aside, he's already pulled in a lot of people who are way the fuck liberal, and on important issues (Holder, Panetta RE:CIA, the guy Megan raved about, etc.). I'm totally on board with being disappointed by someone new, but he hasn't actually crossed any lines yet (Warren is close, but it is a pretty meaningless thing; if he wants to punch hippies on BS culture war stuff while putting other hippies on the SCOTUS or in charge of White House Counsel, I can live with that).
276:I should also admit that the environmental, energy, and intelligence appointments are better than I could have wished for. Other good appointments.
The economic team is unacceptable. A total disaster. A catastrophe. An apocalypse.
On civil liberties issues they are, I think, probably the worst British government ever.
Nah, Thatcher has that one sewn up. (Northern Ireland.) (And I also think you're ignoring the pre-20th century ones...)
Speaking as a proud resident of Illinois's Fifth Congressional District, Geoghegan has no chance of winning this election
unf!
sure, just do a fly-by to pee on LB's parade, why don't you.
Just don't want anybody else to waste their money.
It's probably better just to donate to Ox-fam after all.
Geoghegan has no chance of winning this election
Go on. I'm genuinely interested in hearing why.
The Cook County Democratic Party (i.e., the Machine) is likely to slate Pat O'Connor, who is currently Mayor Daley's floor leader in the City Council, for the seat. If that happens, he then has the backing of the Party and all of its resources in the primary. That's how both Blagojevich and Emanuel won their initial primary contests. And there are already a number of other candidates (Fritchey and Feigenholtz, for example) in the race who, 1) can claim the mantle of the anti-Machine candidate, and 2) know how to run a campaign. The word on the street is that Geoghegan is a fine author but a terrible candidate.
Is there anything that Obama could do that would get you to not vote for him in 2012?
Against Sarah Palin?
Gehegeohegengar should run against Dan Lipinski instead.
Why donate to Oxfam would you can buy $50 worth of bullets instead?
re: 278
Oh no, I think [in some ways, but not others] this government is worse than Thatcher on civil liberties. Their program has generally involved extending state power quite a long way beyond Thatcher's legislation and their commitment to the database state and universal surveillance extends way beyond anything dreamed off back then.
Unless you have any specific Thatcher examples that I am missing ... ?
And yeah, clearly I have in mind 20th century governments. I'm not comparing the New Labour government of 1997- with the reign of Mary Tudor ...
Moderation doesn't work; extremism doesn't work; staying inside the Big Two parties doesn't work; third parties don't work; staying home doesn't work.
Socialism works.
The best progress America ever made on getting rid of inequality was when socialism was still a credible threat.
From my perspective as an American ignoramus, it's kinda baffling as to just why all sensible British hate Blair/Brown so much
You'll understand once Obama disappoints you as much as Blair has the Brits. It's finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel only to discover it was an oncoming train.
I'm not comparing the New Labour government of 1997- with the reign of Mary Tudor ...
That does makes sense. I'm not sure how to deal with things like the imprisonment of Maxton and Maclean in WWI; signs that Asquith/Lloyd George were particularly bad, or just that the circumstances were particularly harsh?
The main difference between the Tories and Labour to me is that the Labour Gov't doesn't seem to use the police/judiciary in such a fashion against political enemies (see miners strike, esp.the dodgy bail conditions), and that the Labour Gov't has avoided most of the particularly nasty Northern Irish attacks on civil liberties.
I do agree about the technological stuff.
the Labour Gov't has avoided most of the particularly nasty Northern Irish attacks on civil liberties.
I don't think this is actually true. Detention without trial, house arrest, secret evidence which the defendant isn't allowed to see, etc have all been employed. I suspect the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative and the worst stuff has happened to people who aren't British citizens.
It's possible you are right re: the miner's strike. If there were any mass opposition on that sort of scale I don't doubt their reaction would be similar, though.
186: If there's a concrete argument that people who work in/donate to electoral politics are doing so with money and effort that they'd otherwise be doing better stuff with, then make it. But it doesn't seem likely to me.
Gladly. Many people have a fixed "charity budget", in which they probably count their own volunteering as counting, intuitively or even unconsciously, for some amount of money. If they saw an ad for a charity in Africa, they might feel like donating, unless they had already donated to some political candidate the previous month. People who think more consciously about their charity, or who are more generous, might not feel this way, but I certainly do.
For the record, 264/294 get it, as we used to say, exactly right. It is perfectly possible to argue that Blair/Brown are not as toxic as Nixon or Bush II without contradicting this. On balance, Brit politics over the past 40 years may have been marginally less toxic than American. But that doesn't excuse the bastards who are trying to play catch up.
A. I'm not sure that anyone who spends time arguing on the internet with the likes of me over the sorts of things we argue about -- rather than directly helping the unfortunate -- is in any position to lecture about priorities. Turn off your computer, and go dig wells in Africa.
B. I'm not sure any state has been or would be able to resist completely the temptations offered by current technology, and by the actions/crackpot theories of the likes of bin Laden. Not that violations of the rights of human beings shouldn't be fought, where they can be beaten back.
C. Disappointment is a function of expectations. Which we've all been well warned not to have, to excess, for a year now. My expectation is that we'll see far more posed disappointment than actual disappointment. (Certainly people who were saying a year ago that Obama would disappoint because he wasn't going to bring about or threaten socialism can't have much credibility claiming to be so disappointed themselves).
I think B is false at least as far as the UK is concerned -- the government isn't so much failing to resist completely the temptations as 'rushing in headfirst trying to out-do the worst dystopian sci-fi fantasies'...
On the other side of 284; Geoghegan really is a well thought of national figure (in a certain social/political group, but still). While I've been a fan since before I was reading the Internet, that doesn't make me even a little unusual among people on the websites I read.
This could end up meaning absolutely nothing, or it could turn into a freak fundraising advantage. I'm hoping (and putting in tiny little amounts of effort to bring about) the latter.
re: 300
Yeah, I just meant that the existence of the temptations and the difficulty of resisting them isn't exculpatory in this particular case.
274: Goddamn, that's a lot to have to deal with.
Tom Frank's WSJ column today is an endorsement of Geohegan. It's a nice piece, though the overlap between WSJ readers and potential Geohegan supporters is rather small, I imagine. Always good to read something not hateful on the WSJ editorial page, though.
An Unrepentant New Dealer Runs for Congress (requires subscription; they don't let just anyone in)
Another piece (HuffPo) on Geoghegan.
And Hendrik Hertzberg on Geoghegan: Chicago's chance to redeem itself.
I can tell you're in the Facebook group. I just got Rick's e-mail, too.
Here's the thing about marching in a protest: I know I'm not going to actually empower the other side by doing so.
Depends on how you view "empowering" and "the other side." In a democracy, I consider losing the votes and sympathy of people in the mushy, busy-living-real-life middle, to the folks who are as engaged and committed to the flip-sides of my commitments, to be empowering the other side. Protests that create inconveniences for or otherwise unproductively distress the people in the middle will cause them to be less sympathetic toward my commitment and more sympathetic to my opposites. If you have the misfortune to have people who are actually destroying property as part of your protest, you're definitely going to lose some of the mushy middle.
After seeing how people in the middle reacted to the anti-war protests, I now refuse to engage in protests on any large-scale issue, but will attend vigils etc. on small issues, where the problem is more inertia by government than an active opposition to my preference. Where the government or another bureaucratic entity just needs a kick in the pants to show that people do care and are watching them on an issue, showing up to say so can be effective.
Also -- Geoghegan looks like more of a textualist than I would have expected from a liberal lawyer. Must be that Jesuit training.
PGofHSM is a bit of a mouthful. We could just start calling you "tips", if agreeable.
erm "PHofHSM (better? worse?)" is the mouthful, really.