illumined horizon

I have to love all the speculation about Nader as a 'neocon' or puppet of the Rethugs... Funny thing though, whenever I ask the person making the allegations to provide a source or verification of his/her claim, I get no response... The real puppets for the Rethugs are people who don't want an alternative to the complicit (in the destruction of America) Democratic Party...

Nearly every progressive thinks Kucinich is the best choice even though he has no chance to win, and will be gone once the Republicratic nominee is chosen (if not Edwards)... Well, Nader has a near identical platform, and he'll actually be running for President 'til election day (with that platform), so if he runs again he'll be getting my vote (well he or Cynthia McKinney or whoever the Greens put up).

Conservatives argue that the Mercks and Pfizers want (deserve) to recover the billions they spend on research to develop new drugs... Well, I'm all for that, but why do it on the backs of the American consumer? Americans pay some of the highest drug prices of the advanced capitalist countries, anything that will bring drug prices down (in the U.S.) I'm for. If everyone was gouged the same it would be one thing, but with Americans getting hit with very high drug prices; I say import from Canada...

p.s. By the way, it's interesting the 'anti-regulation' Republicans actually want Uncle Sam to intervene here and put a check on the 'free' market to benefit Big Pharma. Just amazing...

They're the party of the past, in my humble opinion... They want to turn the clock back to a time when one could go from the climax of society, to the gutter in a heartbeat. They want insecurity where there is some sort of aid today. In short they want a two-tiered society of haves and have nots...

I believe if you consistently vote for the lesser evil, you get evil. For example, Michael Moore once described Bill Clinton as one of the best Republican presidents in U.S. history (I'm not sure what his feelings are now)... Anyone who can't stand the direction the Democratic Party is going in (or for that matter who the Presidential nominee is) has to have a place to put his/her vote, otherwise s/he will be completely ignored (as will all non-Democratic progressives). For this reason I do not despise Ralph Nader and other third party progressives like him. Instead I revere them, and hold them up as true (small d) democrats.

Not trying to let the Democrats off, but they do have a one vote majority (that vote being Lieberman who votes with the Republicans on foreign policy) in the Senate. So blaming them for a do nothing congress, fails to consider that the Republicans have set a filibustering record:

The Republican Senate minority today filibustered an omnibus budget bill, setting a modern-day record for blocking the most legislation during a congressional session. A new report released today by the Campaign for America's Future details the 62 times conservatives have used the filibuster to block legislation (or force modification of bills) in the first session of the 110th Congress. In just the first year of this two-year Congress, their use of the filibuster in the Senate topped the previous record, reached during the entire 107th Congress.

The new report outlines every bill filibustered, vetoed or threatened to be vetoed by President Bush. Conservatives filibustered bills to end the occupation of Iraq, provide soldiers in Iraq rest time equal to their deployments, support renewable energy and grant residents of the District of Columbia representation in Congress. Today's record-breaker involved a $516 billion budget package passed by the House to fund the federal government in 2008. The conservative minority demanded $20 billion additional funding for the war and opposed House language to bring troops home, and threatened a filibuster to prevent the bill from getting an up or down vote.

I caught the Ron Paul interview on Meet the Press. If nothing else, it was an entertaining show. I'm not in the Paul for Prez camp, but some of the topics he discussed were quite interesting. Such as bringing home all foreign troops, ending the drug war, protecting civil liberties, allowing only congress to declare war, legalizing drugs (oddly they didn't get to the Federal Reserve, or at least I missed it if they did).

It was funny when Little Russ pulled out all the quotes Paul had made against Reagan, Poppa and Baby Bush. I don't even remember Paul's answer, but regardless of what he said it's clear this trio are not his three favorite people...

I saw the Bill Moyers interview with Keith Olbermann. Moyers didn't pull any punches (it wasn't a softball interview or love fest either), Moyers was like how in the hell can you get away with what you're getting away with while working for GE (scratching his head as he asked the question)? Olbermann just kept saying, the long and the short of it is, I make them money...

The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with, I guess; still progressives such as Keith and Moyers are few and far between on the telescreen.

I was reading a very good Paul Krugman piece on the Republican infatuation with tax cuts, and I was surprised to learn that conservatives tried to say that the Reagan tax cuts were really the source of the Clinton boom. Well, I wonder then, which is it, did the economy do so well in the 80's or 90's because of Reaganomics? According to Krugman the tax cut motivation is political. It's not based on sound economic theory. By the way, though the starve the beast philosophy is in line with tax cuts, while most conservatives might be for this, the majority of Americans I don't think would be.

As time has gone on the Stolen elections of 2000, and 2004 have bothered me more and more, but now that we're on the cusp of being rid of this cretin (cross our fingers) this stuff is bothering me less and less. I'm starting to think maybe Democracy isn't about free and fair elections. It's about oppositions getting votes by any means, and the bigger cheater winning. Maybe the Rethugs are just not naive about this, and not the evil SOB's we're sure they are.

When I saw the headline that Kristol and Krauthammer were out at Time (read about it here), I thought, "here's a victory for the left (or at least a Pyrrhic one)." However, it seems that these two nutters are being replaced by some one just as unsettled (at least judging by the title of his book):

according to two sources familiar with the discussions, Time is in negotiations with National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru to sign him to a contributor contract. Mr. Ponnuru, who in 2006 published The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life, has written twice for the magazine over the past month

One might ask why use the states of Iowa and New Hampshire as the starting points to pick our presidential nominees? Well, one of the reasons they use those states, is that in theory candidates with less money can be competitive there. The nomination process works better than if they did it in large states, where non-front runners would have no possibility to win at all. It doesn't work for everyone or every time, but last time around for the Democrats Howard Dean came out of nowhere; and this time for the Republicans Huckabee was a pretty serious underdog, who looks like he will be a major contender. So there might be better places for the process to begin in, but at least starting off in Iowa is an attempt to give some balance to the race.

This from an NYT article:

The filibuster may be well established in the popular consciousness — think of long-winded senators speechifying for days. But because modern Senate rules allow lawmakers to avoid the spectacle of pontificating by merely threatening the act, filibusters and the efforts to overcome them are being used more frequently, and on more issues, than at any other point in history.

So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.

For policy making, this is the legislative equivalent of gum on a shoe.

It has produced a numbing cycle of Washington futility: House Democrats pass a bill, but Senate Democrats, facing a filibuster by the Republican minority, fail to get the 60 votes needed to end debate. Little wonder that approval ratings of Congress stink these days.

It's unbelievable the leeway the Democrats give the Republicans. We're all waiting for the moment when the Dems actually make the Republicans filibuster, rather than just saying they've filibustered and the Democrats honoring that.

I think it was last night (or maybe it was Thursday) Mike Malloy referred to Democratic Underground (DU) as one of his favorite discussion forums. Well DU, threw me off of their site for not agreeing with their myopic orthodoxy, and I think it was because I said Kucinich was right for saying he wouldn't under any circumstances support the party nominee (this was two or three debates ago). Funny thing is, if Mike was on DU he'd probably be thrown off. Last night he was talking about how pathetic and timid the Democratic congressional leadership is. This kind of 'blasphemy' against THE PARTY can get you kicked off DU. The party is the be all end all on DU...

Barack Obama has an interesting family. It sounds like something out of a Wes Anderson movie. His mother, Stanley (yes Stanley), was an atheist and a feminist before these things were much talked about or cool (if in fact they are cool today). His grandparents were Unitarians, his paternal grandfather didn't want white blood diluting his family, and there's a whole bunch more. I don't like to post articles without making my own imprint on a post, but I found this to be a very unusual piece about a politician's unusual family...

This piece has been circulating on the world wide web, and I've yet to see any corroboration of it anywhere. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, Chavez did not wrongly influence the vote, and he lost in a fair referendum. I also came across a blog posting that strongly criticizes Castaneda's op-ed, and makes the claim that all parties have denied the allegations that Castaneda makes.

Just a little FYI on Castaneda, and his credibility: Jorge Castaneda worked for Vincente Fox (I believe he was Secretary of Foreign Affairs). Vincente Fox's Energy Minister Felipe Calderon is the current President of Mexico. Calderon stole 'election' when he ran against Lopez Obrador. Chavez at the time said he would not recognize Calderon as President (I'm not sure if Chavez has recognized Calderon or not at this time). My point being, Castaneda has an ax to grind against Chavez, and I wouldn't believe his 'objective' analysis of Venezuela, unless some credible people come forward with the same information.

John Edwards is a brilliant communicator. Barrack Obama is a brilliant communicator. I think Edwards has the potential to be the next FDR and I think Barrack has the chance to be the next John Kennedy.

These are two of the most hyperbolic statements I've ever heard Thom Hartmann make (from this interview). Obama has no record with which to say he'll be any historical figure past or present. And if Edwards is such a great communicator why isn't he winning Iowa? He's been campaigning there for seven years...

I like John Edwards I just don't think he has a record to back up his rhetoric. Though, when I took a look at his record, it wasn't as bad as I'd thought it would be. I'm rooting for Edwards against the other two, but I'm not optimistic he'll be able to take them. The MSM will do everything it can to make sure that doesn't happen.

How many coffins have you seen coming back from Iraq? Or carnage done to innocent Iraqi children? I can assure you we've killed in the thousands. Yet where is it on NBC, ABC, PBS, CBS? Seeing bodies and the blood, in my humble opinion, is very important. I can recall the graphic images of bloodied Iraqis from Farenheit 9/11, they are very gut/heart wrenching (I've also seen a few other documentaries on Iraq, which is actually the best reporting on Iraq)... War seems like a video game, if the bloodbath isn't shown on the nightly news. If more blood and guts was shown in wars, in my opinion America would be involved in far fewer of them. Just think about how Colin Powell (a combat veteran) didn't want this war, yet the neo-con chicken hawks did.

I don't understand people who hate a person for being a progressive or a conservative. If some one opposes you on the political spectrum, that is his/her right. One knows nothing about a person based upon his/her political beliefs, except exactly that, his/her political beliefs. As the old saying goes, "why can't we all just get along"?

If you think Americans are largely moderate, and the 'extremists' are only at the fringes, be careful to not question conventional wisdom. Wikipedia says America is between 19 and 26% liberal, and though I actually had a hard time finding an estimate of how conservative America is; I did find this article (it looks to be from a conservative website so I don't know how reliable it is) that suggests 41% of Americans are conservative. This is right around what I had previously heard so I don't strongly doubt either figure.

I question the low ranking for liberal, as the word itself has been demonized more than the word conservative has. In fact, the whole point of Michael Moore's book Dude Where's My Country, is that Americans poll liberal on all kinds of issues, but liberal policies are not enacted because of problems/corruption of the political system...

A Republican congressman from Louisiana, said it took God to get rid of the public housing in New Orleans. I ask would this be the same God who said you will be judged based upon how you treated the least among us? You can't write this stuff... The job of a progressive talk radio host/pundit looks hard to me at times, but this article is a softball.

I haven't done all the x's and o's but it kind of seems like there is a conspiracy against liberal/progressive radio. Why is the money with conservative radio? No one has ever explained adequately to me why progressive radio is not profitable (even in the same ballpark as conservative radio dollar wise). It's sad that the pigman (Rush Limbaugh) and other filth is what is called 'talk radio', when there are many talented people like Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, and Thom Hartmann who don't get the same notoriety; but based upon their talent/intelligence deserve it.

conservative- A person who wants to take modern society back to a Dickensian society. Where a small ruling elite had everything that the middle class has access to today and no one else did. These individuals describing themselves as conservative (unless socially liberal), also want to strictly enforce (by the government) the moral and cultural standards of 1950's America on the whole of society. On the environment they believe like manna from heaven, individuals and business will show stewardship for land, and a distaste for pollution.

I could probably wax on, and really make something long, but did I miss anything?

This is great ha, ha. Just shows the hysteria of the right-wing. We're already getting "just wait for the next vote", and "he may have lost this round but he'll win the next." So now we've got the right-wing rooting for Chavez to verify their theory that he is not an elected leader. Just beyond the pale, just amazing...

I've seen a lot of the anti-Chavez celebrating over the loss of his referendum, but essentially what he was doing was eliminating term limits (or he tried to, it was voted down)... This is the same thing Rudy tried to do after 9/11... Anyways he failed, we'll see what happens next. But he's not doing much that's dictatorial, he just wanted to remain on as president and see the Bolivarian revolution through.

I'm now a strong defender of Chavez, but this is only because I was very slow to come to support him. I was very skeptical of him early on, but I think he's the real McCoy (as far as some one who actually cares about the middle and underclasses). He may care about his ego, just as much if not more, but at least he cares...

If it wasn't Islam it would be some other faith or enemy (or at least alleged enemy)... I hear people say all the time how warlike humans are, and I truly think we are actually peaceful at our core, but a lot of crap seems to go down where different tribes and nations end up resorting to violence to 'solve' some sort of conflict... Our leaders gin up a lot of wars, IMO and make otherwise easygoing people worked up into a fury.

The truth is not about rational thought (at least solely). You've got to use your intuition a lot in trying to find it. Finding the truth is an ongoing struggle, but as they say, it will set you free. The search is the truth. There may be some end points where one thinks s/he has discovered truth(s), but if new information comes along to change that, then so be it. This is the truth, the open-minded search for what's true/real... Even if most if not all truths will be temporal.

Think of a theory like evolution, and how rigorously it is defended, even in the face of a multitude of conflicting information. Our sacred cows much be open for redefinition, this is the truth.

The right-wing likes to trot out the canard, that liberals are pushing for America to become a nanny state. This is, of course, a state where government becomes so oppressive that a myriad of personal freedoms become infringed upon. What's elementary to me is that there's a conservative nanny state too, and it pertains to the social sphere. For example, why isn't smoking pot or prostitution legal (just two examples of many)? Who is injured by these 'crimes'? The religious right would have to be bound and tied before they supported what I'm suggesting. Moreover, I say progressives are for social freedom, while cons are against it.