isen.blog

Well, there is another way: if we stop supporting the System that supports the crooks then ... the crooks will be powerless. I know that sounds fukct, too, but it seems more genuine to me than playing their game.
 

David:

Both you and the commentor are right. If we give up on politics because it is too hard and frustrating, then we get the government we deserve. But it is also important to exact a political price for such actions, or you get walked on.

I do not see Obama as the villain here. He is stuck in a hard place and still needs to keep the Superdelegates and Clintonistas sweet until after the election is over. But I support the campaign of David Greenwalt (and others) to raise support for progressive Democrats to challenge the Faux Republicans. I have also informed every DNC fundraiser who calls why I give money that would have gone to the Democratic party either directly to candidates or to organizations like PAC Blue.

It is a finely balanced line. Never exacting a penalty for selling out breeds contempt and you become a doormat. But abandoning the process is equally fatal. When enough Democratic incumbents suffer the fate of Al Wynn and are replaced with real progressives like Donna Edwards, we will see change.
 

David, given that you have seen, and that people have told you, that politicians are not to be trusted, why would you ask the government to do more (e.g. make network policy endpoint-neutral)? It seems that someone with your knowledge should be consistently asking government to do less. Or, as the french put it, laissez-faire (leave us alone).
 

@Russel

If David does what the people who commented here want rather than what he wants then he'd turn into a politician himself.

The majority of people who commented here, with David leading the charge, united in their effort to defeat McCain and salvage the constitution.

But everyone does it their way, including those whose way is political.

--
Marc
http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com
 

Russell continues to fall for the defeatist right libertarian meme that government is incompetent and just plain bad. The rich and powerful love people like Russell, because when the government is weak, the rich and powerful remain rich and powerful.

Government can be bad and incompetent, or it can be good and competent. Government can deliver value to its citizens; indeed that's why some places tolerate it. I write this from Denmark, where the government actually delivers superb services and people willingly pay high taxes because they get value for their money.

I'm just saying. . . but NOT saying that the US should be just like Denmark. Take Lafayette LA as another example; people there *love* the "government" in the form of LUS, the municipal electric company. It is competent, it is fair, it delivers great service at low prices, and it consistently ranks way higher in opinion surveys than "capitalist" entities like the phone company and the cable company.

Russell says, "It seems that someone with your knowledge should be consistently asking government to do less." This is wrong in three ways. There's part of this that's insulting because it denigrates my knowledge; I've known more that just stupid, incompetent, corrupt Bush-style government. Second, there another part that separates me from my government, as if I have to ask it. Third, there's part of the Russell formulation that implies there is only one possible vector for government, volume (up or down).

Russell, a person of *your* knowledge might ask its government to do less. But a person of *my* knowledge, by participating, will MAKE *our* government do *BETTER*. Yes, we can.
 

David,
I hate to say it but as I posted last week..... "a politician is a politician is a politician"

Cheers,
Dean Collins
www.collins.net.pr/blog