US POLITICS: Congratulation to USA for their upcoming health

i think the fantasy is some kind of bourgeois contempt for politics itself (and thus basically right-wing, to my marxist-soaked college mind) "man i hate it when people disagree!! if only someone was here to just MAKE THINGS WORK!! like a businessman!!"

it's like they just want to be able to come to the END of politics once and for all, rather than seeing rights-based democracy for what it is -- a forum for endless argument about everything, while excluding political violence

First, the confusion and contradictions exhibited by Ford are no accident. The independence movement melds populism of both the left and right varieties (see Lou Dobbs, author of the 2007 book Independents Day), centrism, and technocratic anti-politics into one messy soup. Concern about long-term budget deficits and slipping U.S. economic superiority, plus tax cuts, are usually mainstays of the movement's vague platforms. The mere idea of being somehow different from whatever is on offer in current politics seems to be "unity" enough. Independents share not a vision of where to take the country but an analysis of its politics.

Second, most of the people involved in these efforts aren't independent at all but deeply embedded in the political system as candidates or consultants. (McCain and Lieberman are lifelong politicians; among Ford's several titles is chair of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.) They never suffer for lack of funds. And the most gullible audience for their efforts consists of the most practiced purveyors of conventional wisdom, like Washington Post columnist David Broder, who swooned over Unity08. Often it seems like the independents' primary complaint about the state of American politics is simply that they're not the ones running it.

But the independents never have to face up to these contradictions because of the third fact about these efforts -- they almost never amount to anything. Bloomberg, who's spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars of his fortune on his three campaigns, is the exception, but even after almost a decade, he hasn't been able to extend his technocratic project beyond the city or into the future. Because the independence projects fade so fast, the idea never quite goes away. It's always available as an imaginary alternative to the actual political choices before us.

i think the fantasy is some kind of bourgeois contempt for politics itself (and thus basically right-wing, to my marxist-soaked college mind) "man i hate it when people disagree!! if only someone was here to just MAKE THINGS WORK!! like a businessman!!"

it's like they just want to be able to come to the END of politics once and for all, rather than seeing rights-based democracy for what it is -- a forum for endless argument about everything, while excluding political violence

― goole, Friday, May 7, 2010 4:38 PM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i have no evidence for this really but i tend to think its a product of being 'washington insiders'--you are buddy buddy with so many people from so many different political backgrounds that you begin to think like 'hey were all buds here, why are we still arguing about politics?? this is all just a mistake'

btw speaking of classic pareene posts about this shitheel fantasy

http://gawker.com/5507347/the-worst-column-in-the-worst-opinion-section-in-the-world-today

Useless Old Man Fed Up With Useless Old Legislative Body
By David S. Broder
Thursday, April 1, 2010

Congress is broken. Partisanship is bad. Partisans are bad. Whatever you think of the thing that this column is ostensibly about, about which I will offer no actual opinion or analysis, you have to agree that it is bad when politicians act like politicians.

Democrats tell me one thing. Republicans tell me another thing. Which one of them is right? The answer is that they are both bad because they cannot come together to tell me one thing.

Old people in Florida feel like the legislation will just help "other people" and not them, and while that might make it sound like they are old and selfish and probably racist, I will interpret it in an exceedingly generous way while also not pointing out that they're just wrong because they were lied to by one specific group of partisans that I will not hold responsible for poisoning the discourse. Because old people are Regular Americans whose wisdom is always better than the wisdom of partisans. Even when they're wrong and hate poor people.

Then I will write "This is not a selfish country," after two paragraphs about how people were opposed to this legislation because they thought it involved helping poor or black people or something, using their money.

I have apparently no knowledge whatsoever of what the bill that I am writing about does or what it contains. I just know what I hear from partisans and old people and I faithfully report that partisans are bad and old people are good.

Blah blah politics as usual congress is terrible blah blah blah.

hahaha could go in that shit that looks like the onion thread

right, it's a view of politics that ends up being way too personality-driven and ignores the vast constituencies that those people are (purportedly) representing. who gives a shit if john kerry and orrin hatch can shoot the shit amiably and not get into a fistfight when you're in the room with them -- boston liberals and utah conservatives can't! that's the point of the whole fucking enterprise!!

xps, classic

i think the fantasy is some kind of bourgeois contempt for politics itself (and thus basically right-wing, to my marxist-soaked college mind) "man i hate it when people disagree!! if only someone was here to just MAKE THINGS WORK!! like a businessman!!"

it's like they just want to be able to come to the END of politics once and for all, rather than seeing rights-based democracy for what it is -- a forum for endless argument about everything, while excluding political violence

― goole, Friday, May 7, 2010 3:38 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

huh, never considered this, tbh. because i'll cop to maybe being that guy, i guess?? like, what infuriates me about a lot of politics is how ~irrational~ it all is. spending on wars is ok, but universal health insurance and fucking trains is rong??? some of my beef with the right is founded in deeply held beliefs about Right and Wrong, but tbh 85% of my beef with both parties is the fact that they're both so stupid

100% truth-bomb this trailer has opened my eyes

o.b.a.m. nude

better yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEqVcZyqsC8&feature=player_embedded#!

I literally do not have enough face to palm.

― HI DERE, Friday, April 23, 2010 1:49 PM (2 weeks ago) Bookmark

WHOA DID THEY DISS OCCIDENTAL IN THAT BITCH

yes they did they slay all the sacred cows that's why it is a truth-bomb

today's Dems are Rockefeller Republicans (at best)

what were yesterday's dems?

it's rockefeller republicans all the way down

what were yesterday's dems?

Dead.

and the day before yesterday?

ladies and gentlemen, KEN DEL VECCHIO!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0216016/bio

Trivia

Is a lawyer.

Is the Author of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice

Chairman of the Hoboken International Film Festival (formerly the New Jersey Interational Film & Screenplay Festival).

Has an IQ of genius level.

Selling more books than John Grisham did in his first novel release

http://image.xyface.com/image/t/movie-the-drum-beats-twice/the-drum-beats-twice-97921.jpg

Lots of anti-Kagan articles to link:

Jonathan Adler.

Four law professors attack Kagan's deanship tenure.

Paul Campos on the dangers of the blank slate.

Finally, everyone's favorite: Greenwald.

Yesterday on Twitter, Matt Yglesias supplied the rationale for this mentality: "Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust [Kagan], and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama."

Just think about what that means. If the choice is Kagan, you'll have huge numbers of Democrats and progressives running around saying, in essence: "I have no idea what Kagan thinks or believes about virtually anything, and it's quite possible she'll move the Court to the Right, but I support her nomination and think Obama made a great choice." In other words, according to Chemerinksy and Yglesias, progressives will view Obama's choice as a good one by virtue of the fact that it's Obama choice. Isn't that a pure embodiment of mindless tribalism and authoritarianism? Democrats love to mock the Right for their propensity to engage in party-line, close-minded adherence to their Leaders, but compare what conservatives did with Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to what progressives are almost certain to do with Obama's selection of someone who is, at best, an absolute blank slate.

One of the very first non-FISA posts I ever wrote that received substantial attention (uniformly favorable attention from progressives) was this post, from February, 2006, about the cult of personality that subsumed the Right during the Bush era. The central point was that conservatives supported anything and everything George Bush did, regardless of how much it comported with their alleged beliefs and convictions, because loyalty to him and their Party, along with a desire to keep Republicans in power, subordinated any actual beliefs. Even Bill Kristol -- in a 2006 New York Times article describing how Bruce Bartlett had been ex-communicated from the conservative movement for excessively criticizing George Bush -- admitted that personal allegiance to Bush outweighed conservative principles in the first term and that "Bush was the movement and the cause."

Awfully false equivalence by Greenwald there. Trusting Obama to pick a good Justice is quite different from conservatives supporting decisions by Bush that they would have opposed from a Democrat. A blank slate is not the same as flipping your position on an issue.

"huge numbers"

Trusting Obama to do anything is infantile.

I trust Obama to have good posture.

Trying really hard not to start a Ken Del Vecchio thread you guys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMJCX-Ddt8g

gg otm in re: iglesias (and that terrifying iatee post yesterday); just because kagan is probably the best choice for obama and the party doesn't mean she's the best choice for like, me

did you vote for kucinich in the primaries?

good point

Bennett Ousted at Utah G.O.P. Convention

Senator Robert F. Bennett, an 18-year veteran Republican who had been seeking a fourth term this fall, was stripped of his party’s nomination on Saturday at the state convention, becoming one of the first Congressional victims of the surging ferment of discontent from the Tea Party-infused Republican right.

It really hasn't been well established that Kagan is all that great of a pick politically anyway. Maybe she'll dominate in the hearings like Sotomayor, Ginsburg etc. did, but one of the others probably would too.

basically I want someone on the left about whom we can say "LOL Wood" like we can about Scalia.

Obama nominates zombie Brennan.

If only.

Kagan, they said, has weathered criticism from conservatives and liberals. The left has criticized her defense of some of the terrorism policies of the George W. Bush administration, although her defenders point out that she was only representing the policies of the Obama administration.

One Democrat close to the process said the questions about Kagan and her lack of a record on issues liberal groups are concerned about has not hurt her.

Because of her work in the Clinton administration, one activist said, "she has a lot of powerful liberal friends in this town. She has been very effective in using her progressive allies."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050705029.html

I love how every time there's a Supreme Court pick we all sit around posturing like we actually pay attention to circuit courts and judges and what qualities and experience are relevant, like we can divine the meaning behind quantity or quality of legal writing etc.

Not to say all of this discussion is lol pointless but a whole lot of it is lol pointless

well maybe you should marry it if you love it so much

x-post--Eh, speak for yourself. If some of us have read folks that are more expert that's good enough for me. Plus I sometime have to read circuit court opinions for my dayjob. So there! Also, some of the journalists writing about these judges do follow caselaw trends and some have legal backgrounds.

Some of us are pretty good at "reading comprehension," Tracer; and we can read legal prose.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616/ns/politics-supreme_court/

kagan.

of course

http://i40.tinypic.com/oa6m8w.gif

!!

oh and holder wants to weaken miranda. what the fuck.

confirmed by cnn :/

fml

*drinks up*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FblQR8ZeUpQ

I love how every time there's a Supreme Court pick we all sit around posturing like we actually pay attention to circuit courts and judges and what qualities and experience are relevant, like we can divine the meaning behind quantity or quality of legal writing etc.

I personally am fonder of how opinions like this get trotted out to tell people "stfu & trust people who are doubtless nobler than thee"

I keep looking for something that would make me think Kagan is a terrible nominee and can't really find one. It'd be nice to have someone who is obviously a liberal (like uh, former ACLU SG Ginsburg), but I'm not persuaded to oppose the nomination outright because she didn't hire enough minority professors at Harvard.

ringing endorsement there