Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Did I ever say that I despise checks and balances? The absence of checks and balances gave the Soviet Union such a nasty system. Without them one has lynch mobs for courts and legislation that destroys all freedoms. Totalitarian systems consider checks and balances impediments to revolution. Revolution effectively throws the b@stards out, but it is a poor way to get the incremental change and workable institutions necessary for the next stage of history.

I believe it was Aristotle who said that the best kind of state is one with a "mixed government" that mixes features of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and that is what the US has. The President is the monarchical element, deliberately designed as an elective version of the 18th Century British monarchy. The Congress is the democratic element, and the Supreme Court is the Aristocratic element.

Celebrate your win, by all means. It genuinely is yours; all of it.

Originally Posted by Chris Floyd

Before the election, we heard a lot of talk about this notion of the "lesser evil." From prominent dissidents and opponents of empire like Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky and Robert Parry to innumerable progressive blogs to personal conversations, one heard this basic argument: "Yes, the drone wars, the gutting of civil liberties, the White House death squads and all the rest are bad; but Romney would be worse. Therefore, with great reluctance, holding our noses and shaking our heads sadly, we must choose the lesser evil of Obama and vote accordingly."

I understand that argument, I really do. I don't agree with it, as I made plain here many times before the election. I think the argument is wrong, I think our system is so far gone that even a "lesser evil" is too evil to support in any way, that such support only perpetuates the system's unconscionable evils. But I'm not a purist, not a puritan, not a commissar or dogmatist. I understand that people of good will can come to a different conclusion, and feel that they must reluctantly choose one imperial-militarist-corporate faction over the other, in the belief that this will mean some slight mitigation of the potential evil that the other side commit if it took power. I used to think that way myself, years ago. Again, I now disagree with this, and I think that the good people who believe this have not, for whatever reason or reasons, looked with sufficient clarity at the reality of our situation, of what is actually being done, in their name, by the political faction they support.

But of course, I am not the sole arbiter of reality, nor a judge of others; people see what they see, and they act (or refrain from acting) accordingly. I understand that. But here is what I don't understand: the sense of triumph and exultation and glee on the part of so many progressives and liberals and 'dissidents' at the victory of this "lesser evil." Where did the reluctance, the nose-holding, the sad head-shaking go? Should they not be mourning the fact that evil has triumphed in America, even if, by their lights, it is a "lesser" evil?

If you really believed that Obama was a lesser evil -- 2 percent less evil, as I believe Digby once described the Democrats in 2008 -- if you really did find the drone wars and the White House death squads and Wall Street bailouts and absolution for torturers and all the rest to be shameful and criminal, how can you be happy that all of this will continue? Happy -- and continuing to scorn anyone who opposed the perpetuation of this system?

The triumph of a lesser evil is still a victory for evil. If your neighborhood is tyrannized by warring mafia factions, you might prefer that the faction which occasionally doles out a few free hams wins out over their more skinflint rivals; but would you be joyful about the fact that your neighborhood is still being tyrannized by murderous criminals? Would you not be sad, cast down, discouraged and disheartened to see the violence and murder and corruption go on? Would you not mourn the fact that your children will have to grow up in the midst of all this?

So where is the mourning for the fact that we, as a nation, have come to this: a choice between murderers, a choice between plunderers? Even if you believe that you had to participate and make the horrific choice that was being offered to us -- "Do you want the Democrat to kill these children, or do you want the Republican to kill these children?" -- shouldn't this post-election period be a time of sorrow, not vaulting triumph and giddy glee and snarky put-downs of the "losers"?

If you really are a "lesser evilist" -- if this was a genuine moral choice you reluctantly made, and not a rationalization for indulging in unexamined, primitive partisanship -- then you will know that we are ALL the losers of this election. Even if you believe it could have been worse, it is still very bad. You yourself proclaimed that Obama was evil -- just a bit "lesser" so than his opponent. (2 percent maybe.) And so the evil that you yourself saw and named and denounced will go on. Again I ask: where is the joy and glory and triumph in this? Even if you believe it was unavoidable, why celebrate it? And ask yourself, bethink yourself: what are you celebrating? This dead child, and a hundred like him? A thousand like him? Five hundred thousand like him? How far will you go? What won't you celebrate?

"This dead child, and a hundred like him? A thousand like him? Five hundred thousand like him? How far will you go? What won't you celebrate?"

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Celebrate your win, by all means. It genuinely is yours; all of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Originally Posted by Odin

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Yes. In the real world, a real man who has killed real children and openly expressed his intent to kill more real children was selected to retain his position of power of a real global killing apparatus ... to (also real) great cheers of acclaim.

That's part of the real world, too. Though I guess those kids kind of aren't part of it anymore; but that's sort of the point.

---
-edit-
Then again, the 'meanwhile' with which you dismiss that fact makes it pretty clear how much regard you have for human lives. Congratulations! You're in the majority!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Yes. In the real world, a real man who has killed real children and openly expressed his intent to kill more real children was selected to retain his position of power of a real global killing apparatus ... to (also real) great cheers of acclaim.

That's part of the real world, too. Though I guess those kids kind of aren't part of it anymore; but that's sort of the point.

---
-edit-
Then again, the 'meanwhile' with which you dismiss that fact makes it pretty clear how much regard you have for human lives. Congratulations! You're in the majority!

I must have missed where Obama killed 1 million Iraqis.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Also strange that "the majority" wants to turn a blind eye to the suffering that's still going on in NYC, because it would make their guy look bad.
THAT is the part that I would call "cognitive dissonance," a somewhat more advanced form of denial.

Nobody is turning a blind eye to NYC. I am just getting annoyed at the people who feel entitled to instant service.

Obama and the Democrats is the lesser evil, because environmental destruction kills as many or more people and other living things than the drone attacks. Winding down a war against a real enemy is a lesser evil than starting a war against a non-enemy. So I am happy Obama won and the Democrats gained a few seats, although Obama was still too much of an evil for me to actually vote for him (not being registered to vote in a swing state).

GOP Collapses in California

California has entered "a period of Democratic political control so far-reaching that the dwindling number of Republicans in the Legislature are in danger of becoming mere spectators at the statehouse," the AP reports.

"Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They gained even more ground in Tuesday's elections, picking up at least three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two other tight races... The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both, chambers in the Legislature."

Said GOP strategist Steve Schmidt: "Republican leaders should look at California and shudder. The two-party system has collapsed."

Now, according to the usual suspects, this means California will become a failed state.

Originally Posted by Odin

GOP Collapses in California





Now, according to the usual suspects, this means California will become a failed state.

California started to become a failed state when they passed Proposition 13. Maybe now that will reverse itself. they might even start funding what was once
the nation's best university system again.

Ran into this post on another site on why core Millies think the GOP sucks:

I had an experience that I wanted to share regarding post election thoughts. First of all, I am not a writer, so I hope I can convey the feelings here.

Anyway, my 21 year old daughter lives in a shared housing situation, a huge old house in the Wallingford area of Seattle. She has 8 roommates (welcome to the low wage economy), from University students, to a cook, a barista, a supermarket worker, you get the idea.

Anyway, they operate their house on a cooperative basis, and once a week, they have mandatory house meetings, where bills are shared and house tasks are assigned. Not everyone is the absolute best of friends, as they all come from different walks of life, but they make it work, $500 a month for room, utilities, and food is a pretty good deal.

So Friday, I had plans to go to breakfast with my girl, and, afterwards, had a chance to see the beginnings of the house meeting. While they were waiting for everyone to show, the conversation turned to the election. There was a great deal of joy at Obama’s victory, but what really, really struck me was the anger.

Listening to these young people talk, I was surprised at the amount of anger and absolute disgust at the Republican Party, Mitt, and the amount of votes Mitt pulled in. Especially, at the people who voted for Mitt (this part really surprised me). The feelings, and they were unanimous, was that R’s are disgusting, for sure, and there was no group, from brown people, to women, gays, and every other group you could classify, that the R’s and Mittens didn’t marginalize (and that’s putting it mildly), but the greatest anger was directed towards the people that voted for Mitt.

These young kids were PISSED OFF about it and the biggest reason was the “war on workers”. Here was a group of young kids who feel like they have 2 choices, to either work for slightly above min wage for the rest of their lives or amass a shitload (second only to a mortgage) of debt for a college degree, and even then, knowing that the degree doesn’t guarantee any type of good job. There was talk of help wanted ads that required a bachelors degree, for jobs that pay $10 per hour.

The fact that Mitt had shipped jobs overseas, and contributed to the decline of unions and growth of low wage jobs, and made MILLIONS doing it, was offensive enough, but knowing that the R’s nominated him and people voted for him just sent these kids over the edge with disgust. The words and phrases they used were “unforgivable” “they just declared a war”, stuff like that. To them, this election just sealed the idea that there are the rich, the very rich, and then there are the rest of us, making under $25,000 yearly. There was much more, but you get the idea.

I think Mitt and R’s have really no clue about the amount of damage they did this election. Again, what surprised me, was not so much the anger towards the R’s but it was the anger toward the people that voted R.

Anyway, for what it is worth….

Welcome to the 4T

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

California started to become a failed state when they passed Proposition 13. Maybe now that will reverse itself. they might even start funding what was once
the nation's best university system again.

Oh, good point!

Originally Posted by Odin

Now, according to the usual suspects, this means California will become a failed state.

"Will become"? That's being rather optimistic. California has been a cesspool for most people for quite awhile now. It HAS failed.

Broken California: Wasting Money and Hurting Business

I'm just glad I'm no where around that place. It's a disaster only becoming worse. And there are several other states not too far behind it.

j.p.

Forbes? Yeah, THAT is going to be objective, NOT!

Originally Posted by Odin

I must have missed where Obama killed 1 million Iraqis.

If you did, so did I. Then again, the bar for a person's life is 1. Not 1 million. Not 1 hundred thousand. One. And Obama's killed (and gonna-kill) a heck of a lot of those ones. You won -- a killer gets to keep killing.

Celebrate. Indeed.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If you did, so did I. Then again, the bar for a person's life is 1. Not 1 million. Not 1 hundred thousand. One. And Obama's killed (and gonna-kill) a heck of a lot of those ones. You won -- a killer gets to keep killing.

Celebrate. Indeed.

So now a thousand dead is morally equivalent to a million dead? Did you fail math????

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah man, can't they just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps?
(Stole that one from JPT. Thanks, dude. )

Nothing to do with bootstraps, everything to do with patience, a virtue our society has lost because it expects instant everything.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If you want unemployment down, just spend about $1T on infrastructure projects every year for the next 4 years. Problem solved. Oh, and the economy will be roaring, with inflation starting to rise ... which it desparately needs to do in any case. By the next election, the economy will be running at $26T a year.

Alright, I will give you this one. Will you tell those on welfare, in order to receive your check(s), you have to work or the gravy train is over. Then this idea will work.

What I saw on the 6th defeats your very argument.

Originally Posted by Odin

So now a thousand dead is morally equivalent to a million dead? Did you fail math????

Someone feeling the need to compare the "moral equivalency" between killers... Interesting stuff.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Alright, I will give you this one. Will you tell those on welfare, in order to receive your check(s), you have to work or the gravy train is over. Then this idea will work.

What I saw on the 6th defeats your very argument.

If you are talking about cash welfare checks, very few are on welfare -- less than 1 percent. Most of the rest were moved from welfare to work with welfare reform in 1996.

On the other hand, if you are talking about food stamps, 40 percent of individuals on food stamps in 2010 either worked or lived in a family where someone worked. Most of the rest are either elderly, disabled, or unemployed and looking for work.

Originally Posted by Odin

So now a thousand dead is morally equivalent to a million dead? Did you fail math????

More to the point, did you fail to learn anything about ethics at all?

Do you not understand what "fungible" means? And how that concept applies to a person? (hint: in the absolute negative)

---
-edit-
Or, to simplify, one thousand murders is no more good than one million murders. One hundred murders is no more good and one thousand murders. One murder is no more good than one hundred murders.

One murder is the antithesis of good. That first one contains all the evil in it.

If you prefer math, a million times infinity is infinity. As is a hundred times infinity. As is infinitely-plus-one. Or infinity-minus-lots.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

More to the point, did you fail to learn anything about ethics at all?

Do you not understand what "fungible" means? And how that concept applies to a person? (hint: in the absolute negative)

---
-edit-
Or, to simplify, one thousand murders is no more good than one million murders. One hundred murders is no more good and one thousand murders. One murder is no more good than one hundred murders.

One murder is the antithesis of good. That first one contains all the evil in it.

If you prefer math, a million times infinity is infinity. As is a hundred times infinity. As is infinitely-plus-one. Or infinity-minus-lots.

LBJ got us mired in Vietnam, but he also launched a war on poverty.

Ted Kennedy got a friend killed a car accident because of personal negligence, but also pushed through a lot of progressive legislation, including the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Eisenhower railed against the Military Industrial Complex, but he also supported the coup in Iran that put the Shah back in power.

Dick Nixon was a monster, but he also created the EPA.


Most people are shades of gray, not black and white. That is the way it always has been, and is the way it always will be.

Oh, and 3 years ago after my disabled friend was raped, weren't you the one defending vigilante lynchings of rapists? You have no right to the moral high ground.

Originally Posted by Odin

LBJ got us mired in Vietnam, but he also launched a war on poverty.

Infinity-minus-a-lot. Still infinity. Sorry little buddy; that's just the way math (and ethics) works.

Most people are shades of gray, not black and white.

Most people don't murder. That's part of the whole point.

Oh, and 3 years ago after my disabled friend was raped, weren't you the one defending vigilante lynchings of rapists? You have no right to the moral high ground.

Still and so obviously, you display an abject ignorance of even fundamental ethical concepts (and a bad memory, too). What I've spoken in favor of is people acting and taking responsibility for their actions, rather than expecting someone else (or some imaginary objective structure -- as if that weren't made of of 'someone elses') to do it for them, then further imagining that in doing so, their own hands would be clean.

There's no moral high ground to be had; the only unavoidable thing is that we're each going to have to live with ourself for the rest of our life. What's distasteful and ultimately unhelpful-to-healthy-society is lying to ourselves about the reality, hiding behind rationalizations and numbers. Celebrating the lesser evil is celebrating evil, and society is as we make it.

#1 Republican douchebag of the day:



Yeah, blame Obama for you being a selfish prick. People who don't tip are scumbags.

Originally Posted by Odin

#1 Republican douchebag of the day:



Yeah, blame Obama for you being a selfish prick. People who don't tip are scumbags.

This person is an asshole. I'd call this person an asshole whether they put "Blame Obama" or "Blame Reagan" on the receipt just as well. There's no difference between someone doing something like this and leaving a penny on a table as a tip (which, honestly, I find to be even more offensive than not leaving a tip at all - in the first case you're just an asshole, in the second case you're a condescending asshole which ranks much higher on the ranking scale of people who are pure scum).

This person is not a #1 Republican douchebag - he's a douchebag, period. But in all fairness if we want to put a political label on it I'm certain I can come across plenty of pictures where someone is being a # 1 Democrat douchebag of the day as well.

j.p.