From the WSJ:
California Democrat Henry Waxman kicked things off the morning after Barack Obama’s victory, with an announcement that he will seek the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. The post is currently held by Mr. Dingell, the bulldog Michigander who next year will become the longest-serving Member in U.S. history. In Congressional physics, seniority is gravity, which alone makes Mr. Waxman’s challenge extraordinary.
It is even more so because it is a coup d’etat against a climate-change moderate. For environmentalists, Mr. Dingell is a wet blanket because his committee will write any global-warming legislation. The word on the Hill is that Mr. Waxman enjoys the tacit support of übergreen Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who dislikes Mr. Dingell’s independence.
In media shorthand, Mr. Dingell’s approach to climate change is called “industry friendly.” Apparently, this is because his principles include words like “realistic” and “achievable” and “cost containment.” An ally of the Detroit auto makers, he does not pretend that putting a price on carbon will be painless and fun. He also knows that well-to-do redoubts such as Mr. Waxman’s Beverly Hills won’t bear the heaviest burden. It will fall instead on blue-collar, middle-American regions that rely on manufacturing or coal-fired power.
Even so, Mr. Dingell’s committee has held nearly 30 hearings on climate change since his party took power. In October, he released a cap-and-trade bill that aims to reduce emissions to 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Incredibly enough, even that huge cut counts as a liberal heresy. The greens demand 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 — a meaningless distinction considering that four decades is a political and technological eternity.
Then again, compared to Mr. Waxman, just about anyone could be mistaken for an Exxon executive. The Congressman has spent the last year trying to dragoon the Environmental Protection Agency into imposing an economy-wide carbon clampdown under current clean-air laws, an idea Mr. Obama also backs. But Mr. Dingell dares to point out that these laws — passed in 1970, 1977 and 1990 — were never written to include CO2. He should know. He wrote them.
Well, FISA was never intended to deal with the NSA, but let’s be serious: since when have intentions mattered to those who see in the penumbras and emanations created by the ontological limitations of written texts places to shoehorn in pet “interpretations”?
Here, the “death of the author” (as Barthes framed it) is a more obvious metaphor, however, as Waxman and Pelosi, in an effort to shore up an alliance for Obama’s potentially economically devastating policies, seek to remove the author himself, who could foil their plans to rewrite the Clean Air text — without having to literally rewrite it, and so put in through vote — in order expand it by interpetative fiat.
And while I hate to keep hitting on these same points, what should be clear here is the importance of differentiating original intent from the intent of the interpetive community to resignify, and so re-write by way of their own intent.
Of course, having the original author around is no guarantee that you’ll get truth about what his original intent was: authors can lie, or misremember, etc, which is why the intentionalist argument I proffer is that meaning is fixed at the time of signification (with special — but equivalent — circumstances governed by an identical understanding of semiotics). Still, such instances of second level authorial misdirection are more likely to obtain in complicated literary works than in legislative efforts, where there is an effort to be clear and precise rather than evocative and textured. But what the theoretical implications argue for is an essentially conservative position: less legislation means there is less to “interpret”; and without that raw material, it is far more difficult for those inclined toward a poststructuralist / neo-formalist idea of interpretation to grow narrowly construed law into more sweeping legislation.
All of which is a bit of digression, but one I felt worth the effort.
[…] Installing Mr. Waxman at Energy and Commerce would mean a far more aggressive push on global warming next year. It would also send a warning to the Blue Dogs and rural-state Democrats who might not fall in with the Obama-Pelosi energy agenda. Think rubber truncheons and bare light bulbs (compact fluorescents, of course).
Like Mr. Dingell, Senator Lieberman may also lose his gavel. Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid informed the Connecticut renegade that rank-and-file sentiment against him had climbed to a point where he could not stay as Homeland Security Chairman. He may also be booted from the Democratic caucus.
To hear Democrats tell it, much less the Angry Left, Mr. Lieberman is Judas, Brutus and Cassius rolled into one. They’re still furious about his high-profile campaign for John McCain, including his speech at the GOP convention. They also want to exact revenge for his unstinting support of President Bush’s Iraq policy.
In 2006, Mr. Lieberman was defrocked for the sole reason that as a matter of policy and conscience he refused to repudiate the war that he and so many of his party colleagues had voted for. After Mr. Lieberman lost his Senate primary race to the antiwar Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont, nearly all Senate Democrats were happy to abandon their friend and endorse Mr. Lamont. Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama and the rest didn’t even have the courage to stay neutral, for fear of affronting the empurpled left.
Were he a vindictive man, Mr. Lieberman could have returned the favor after he won the general election as an independent. With the Senate split 50 to 49, he might have handed control back to the GOP. Instead, he caucused with the Democrats and voted with them on social and economic issues. Now that they have comfortable margins, his reward may be a complete purge.
If a venerable New Deal liberal first elected in 1955 and a Vice Presidential nominee only two elections ago aren’t fit for polite Democratic company, it shows how far left the party’s center has shifted.
Of course, to hear progressives tell it, the country has moved so far to the right that a man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate — a protege of Ayers, Alinsky, and Said, a member of the New Party, a man who cut his political teeth on the New Left strategem of community organizing, a man who week after week absorbed the socio-religious teachings of Black Liberation Theology after having been mentored by a CPUSA poet in his high school years — is a “left-centrist” or “moderate,” and that progressivism is “pragmatism,” rather than a persistently activist form of idealism that embraces the pragmatic to skirt certain ethical issues and to avoid the necessity of appearing consistent.
But make no mistake: unlike ’76 or ’92, the “Democratic” Congress of ’08 is filled with those whose political philosophy is founded on the kind of New Left (which, recall, was repulsed by the “liberal bourgeois”) progressivism that, in one of its more profound incarnations, took shape 40 years ago, and is now finally at the helm of state.
And so we should not be surprised that, having bided their time, these progressives — empowered by the new movement progressives who, too, have embraced the tactics of Alinsky and Gramsci — will work quickly to remove impediments to their last gasp effort to move the country structurally toward the left.
Periodically, this country, in an restless desire to embrace “change,” has elected those progressives whose programs and legislation, once adopted, become nearly impossible to rescind. And so it only takes periodic power, should one take the long-range view of historical materialism, to bring about the ultimate neutering of classical liberal ideas.
So you see, it is not “ODS” I happen to be suffering from. It is skepticism and cynicism — both of which are founded on historical trends, institutionalized changes, and the behavior of those to whom we’ve handed the reins of power.
In the face of such empirical evidence, “hope,” it seems to me, is rather a desperate attempt at rationalizing the worst.
Of course, having said that, I am prepared to be proven wrong. And in fact, if I have anything to say on the matter, I will do my best to ensure that I am.
(h/t Terry H)
Unclosed tag! AIEEEEEEEE!
Useless is just a tool. Think of him as the Ryan Seacrest of his own dirty socialist administration. ODS would impart way too much substance to our favorite US Magazine coverboy I think.
Cynical? Skeptical? Moi?
“Always leave a few mistakes for your editor to fix. After they piss in the pot, they like the flavor better, so they buy the story.”
— R.A.H.
And usually bring about more of the problems they were ostensibly to fix. Which leads us to need more CHANGE!!!
It’s gonna be a long
fourtwo years.Do you realize that I just had to buy my own gas?????
Bitches.
One full week and McCain is still silent on slanders against Palin.
She is John’s burnt offerings to get back into the good graces of the Dem Senate.
Get those sweaters out, rationed electricity/government controlled thermostats are in our future.
Perhaps one important task for the currently reconstituting Republican party is a serious attempt to better understand the mechanism of this metaphorical ratchet and pawl in order to be better able to dismantle it when they regain some modicum of national political leadership.
Congrats Michigan UAW members. You’ve screwed yourselves.
Joe Lieberman relentlessly campaigned against the Democratic nominee and had a prime-time speaking slot at the Republican Convention. He’s been treated much more gently by Democrats than David Brooks and the other Palin skeptics have been treated by the Republican bloggers out there.
STFU, Geek.
Geek
you don’t know the difference between commenters and elected officials…
surprise.
That was too harsh, so I’ll try to say the same thing, with more light than heat: punishing an elected official for taking stands contrary to the party which rejected him is a far, far different thing than criticizing a pundit who says stupid, insulting shit just to make himself feel superior.
Geek
You’ll notice of course, that President Bush has frustrated any transistion of Obama people screaming “I’m President until Jan 19th!” and directing his people not to cooperate.
right?
I remember how the Democrats thought Jeffords was a horrible man without an ounce of integrity.
McCain is a coward and a defeated bewildered old man. I heard he was heroic once. I think they did a 60 Minutes on it.
Gotta admit that Lieberman should’nt be caught offsides by all this: The dude went into the breech for McCain. It’s one thing to be the rightward point on the Dem dial, but its altogether another to actively seek teh defeat of your party’s nominee.
It was a principled gambit, but a dangerous one. He will pay–he knows it, the Dems know it.
which sucks because he is my senator and i like and regularly vote for the guy.
for what it’s worth
i’m a reagan dem-union member
and when the repubs spoke my language in the ’94’ takeover of the house-i had high hopes-
then they f*cked up by betraying their principles,giving me the finger,we’re in charge,gerry-mandering districts-etc. etc
spending out of control/ and when the dem bitches got all politico and the repubs didn’t get back in their faces- i was thinking “pussies”
i can name the best repubs on like two hands
y should i fight for them?-if they won’t fight 4 me?
i think people who articulate better on this site than me feel the same way
…i’m getting all emotional/i’m gonna cry
I miss that universe, too.
…and won’t be griping about it for that very reason.
One thing that ticks me off about so-called “civil disobedience” types is when they find out they still have to take the consequences for breaking the law. THAT’S THE POINT. You show your commitment to your principles by taking the consequences.
Personally, I think he should just switch parties. Not that the GOP needs another big government Republican, but because we’d take him, if only for his principled stand on the war, and his desire to see Democrats remain Democrats and not become “progressives” — who not too long ago vilified Democrats. Until they found out the best way to achieve power was to take over the party by way of a Trojan Horse strategy.
You know, I feel a little naked without my gavel, but I’d rather be stripped of that than defrocked.
I think he should retire. He has McCain stink on him and he’s very gay with the climate changey. I don’t really see what use there is for a Lieberman in my little party.
It’s not his party. They rejected him. He ran (and won) as an independent.
Jeezus, mcgruder.
i never “hated” clinton
just knew he was a scum-bag
my view of him shifted on 2 things
“depends what the meaning of what the word ‘is’- ‘is'”
and waco
then i
started gettin’ a little hatey
but my most hate was 4 the media
i still can’t believe how much/how bad they are!
my slack-jaw tightens !
nowadays when i speak to people close to me in my hackey-sack circle/ and i’ll show them some right wing news
the intelligent ones will engage/be surprised/shocked that there’s two sides to a story
control the narrative
that’s the name of the game
What Waxman, Pelosi and Reid seem to forget is that there are elections in two years. If even part of their grandiose plans become law, the economic consequences would be dire. Working people aren’t going to be at all happy with $6 a gallon gas and “skyrocketing” utility bills, especially in the name of some nebulous myth called “climate change”. The precious “middle” that broke for Barry last week will come back and hammer them in 2010 and 2012.
The problem is, these buffoons ARE that blind.
Spiny Norman-
You are correct in your analysis, however, will the Conservatives have an alternative to offer in two years, or just the “Democrat-Lite” version we have been seeing.
“I remember how the Democrats thought Jeffords was a horrible man without an ounce of integrity.”
Hey, you’re free to welcome Joe into your caucus. No one would begrudge the Republicans for making official his status as a Republican backbencher. Jeffords should have changed parties decades before he did.
How’s Operation Leper going these days?
And so we should not be surprised that, having bided their time, these progressives  empowered by the new movement progressives who, too, have embraced the tactics of Alinsky and Gramsci  will work quickly to remove impediments to their last gasp effort to move the country structurally toward the left.
The Left?!?!?! Not the left!! Noooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargggggghhhhhhhhah!!!!!!!!!
To quote a delightful PW regular:
OMGWTFBBQ!!!1!!!!
Hey, you’re free to welcome Joe into your caucus. No one would begrudge the Republicans for making official his status as a Republican backbencher. Jeffords should have changed parties decades before he did.
He is a great water carrier for the wingnuts, but on a major ticket? Hellz no. That’s got to sting for Holy Joe. Too bad because he might have actually helped the McCain ticket win (or at least kept them out of the “deeply humiliating loss” column).
Bricka bracka bricka bracka
shish boom bah
Alinsky, Alinsky
Rah, rah, rah!!!!!!
(Official Party Cheer for Community Organizers)
Uh, you’re the one who’s defending punishing an elected legislator for not being in lock-step with the party that ejected him.
Of course, to hear progressives tell it, the country has moved so far to the right that a man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate – […] is a “left-centrist†or “moderate,†and that progressivism is “pragmatism,â€Â
I had this thought a few days ago, when the heads were reassuring us Obama would
rulegovern from the center. Had to really.When McCain was hoisted as the colors for the right by his place on the ballot, the whole mess slide left.
When Obama is the center and McCain the right, I am a radical extremist by virtue of remaining a true conservative in the mold of Reagan.
Dunno, but it’s costing us an arm and a leg. Wish we could keep a better eye on it.
Too bad because he might have actually helped the McCain ticket win
Sure Lisa. The base would have liked him better than Palin, and the left would have abandoned Obama.
Woulda been a landslide I tells ya!
oh, sorry, I was laughing with you…*rolls eyes*
@ #33- That was criminal…
I suppose you and I are going to face off over it, lee.
Sorry; swiped that last one from a leper hockey game joke.
Congrats Michigan UAW members. You’ve screwed yourselves.
How do you figure Carin? Looks to me like their union wages and retirements are going to be paid by you and me. Obama already ordered Bush to bail out the auto industry.
Giggling uncontrollably at Slart.
The left would be the left. The base would have been like “meh” (but would have pulled the lever for him anyway) but the middle (the people who actually tip elections one way or the other) would have been intrigued – possibly even impressed.
I suppose you and I are going to face off over it, lee.
Nah, lets just wrap it up.
I wouldn’t have voted for a McCain/Lieberman ticket. I could barely get myself to vote for McCain with a conservative running mate.
See #32. Palin was the only bright spot in the whole election after McCain was nominated.
Obama already ordered Bush to bail out the auto industry.
As if they have haven’t been sucking at the teat of America since the inception of automobiles. Our whole city and suburban infrastructure was built to their wishes and specifications. Which is why our public transportation is Teh Suck. They are definitely “Like a Rock” alright. Around our necks.
Palin was the only bright spot in the whole election after McCain was nominated.
We lefties feel the same way, Lee. Hell, I want to send her flowers.
Nah, lets just wrap it up.
Remember to leave a tip.
We lefties feel the same way
That she was a bright spot?
Huh…guess it was just hard to see from here, through all that hate.
Ouch, Mossberg. That one was on the tip of my tongue, but I seem to have lost that.
Ah, Lisa, you sound just like that “environmental economist” on the news the other day who was opining about the Auto industry “mismanaging the SUV market.” Cuz, you know, consumers can’t choose anything, being bitter, clinging hick morons with corncob pipes who would probably buy an epileptic mule if BIG BUSINESS told them to.
This country has enjoyed spectacular economic growth over the last 60 years in large part because of our outstanding national highway system. We move more freight for less money than any other country on the planet which brings us things like great foodstuffs and innovative products in a logistically timely and economically reasonable way.
It ain’t just about public transportation and driving around cities. There is a whole, wide, wonderful country out there that actually thrives on the auto/truck centric vision. Yo9u city folk just wouldn’t unnerstand,y’hear?
Remember to leave a tip.
Oops, I left a lip.
My ears aren’t what they used to be.
If you can find a better car, buy it. – Lee Iacocca(Imajokea)
Looks like people took him up on it!
Lisa,
How do you respond to the argument which posits an inexorable march toward totalitarianism wherever power is accumulated (like, for example, under governmental configurations best described as “socialist”)? I cite as evidence for this argument, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-Tung, etc. I ask because I see a lot of blithe dismissals from the left regarding arguments like the one I’m proffering, but I rarely see a substantive response offered. This could be owing to my having not looked in the right places, but I figure since there’s this charming, well-spoken Lisa person who is putatively progressive, I should just ask.
“I’m not half the man I used to be!” – unknown leper(after the face off)
Uh, you are able to distinguish between a relative direction and a generalization about members of a given party, yes?
To wit, I wrote, “And so we should not be surprised that, having bided their time, these progressives — empowered by the new movement progressives who, too, have embraced the tactics of Alinsky and Gramsci  will work quickly to remove impediments to their last gasp effort to move the country structurally toward the left.
To translate, that argues that remnants of the New Left, who in the 60s and 70s vilified the liberal bourgeoisie of the Democratic party, have reassembled themselves as “progressives” (a more pleasing, optimistic term with less socialist or Marxist baggage), and now that they have power and the succor of the new movement progressives (essentially, the netroots), they will try to move the country TO THE LEFT. Meaning, in the opposite direction of the right or center.
I thought it was obvious, but, well, ZOMG!!1!!
“to hear progressives tell it, the country has moved so far to the right that a man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate […] is a “left-centrist†or “moderate,—
Sorry, don’t you mean “so far to the left”?
…these progressives…will work quickly to remove impediments to their last gasp effort to move the country structurally toward the left.
I think this “last gasp” feature exists because progressives truely see all the rest of their ignoble structures always collapsing immediately behind them, or perhaps because they know they must always try to outrun the lit fuse which so imperturbably threatens to enter their hindquarters.
In effect, they know they are always just moments away from their last gasp. And that they might just blow up good, real good.
Oh, and I wouldn’t have voted for a McCain-Lieberman ticket either. I like how Joe ties the proggs in knots because of his support for the Iraq war, but I remember how willing he was to subsume all of his principles to be L Gore’s running mate in 2000. And he stopped short of really criticizing Clinton for committing out and out perjury to prevent a citizen from having her rightful day in court.
All that integrity people give Lieberman credit for these days, must be a recent phenomenon.
Sorry, don’t you mean “so far to the left�
No bastitches, it’s a relative perspective from the point of view of the left.
Keep working, you’ll get it…
My ears aren’t what they used to be.My ears aren’t where they used to be.
Oh cut it out.
Your lips are moving but I don’t hear a thing.
McGehee,
Senate republicans will probably welcome Joementum at this stage.
“We need the dues. Toga parties don’t come cheap these days”
OTT, that would fit right in with my opinion of Senators in general, and Senate Republicans in particular. Phone sanitizers one and all.
RC,
he caucuses with the Dems.
He fucked them, properly so may I add, but he likes himself some power and influence.
in otehr words, he’s one less reliable vote but still keeps his FU stick.
Walter Johnson was a hell of a Senator
W L WP GP GS CG Sh SV IP BB SO ERA
417 279 .599 802 666 531 110 34 5,914.1 1,363 3,509 2.17
mcgruder:
To be fair the Senate Fraternity fucked him first by allowing Mentos Lamont to run against him without a one of them coming to to his aid. Hillary, Dodd, Obama all threw him under the bus. Joe was nice enough, in a 49-50 senate, to put that aside and continue to caucus with Dems.
While I love Joe for his staunch support on Israel and the GWOT I really would rather not have another RINO in the Senate.
BJTexas: Doesn’t matter. Mcgruder has his Pravda, and he WILL NOT BE SWAYED!!!
I cite Sweden.
I cite Sweden.
Let America be like Sweden for 8 years, and get back to me on how Islamic Sweden is doing.
Yeah, thor, because SWEDEN IS JUST LIKE AMERICA!!!
It would work here, too, if there weren’t about a thousand differences in geography, history, government, cultures, traditions…..
BTW: Sweden’s per capita suicide rate is about 20% higher than the US. Notice all the European counties in the top 20 of OECD counties listed.
I cite Sweden.
Good one, Comrade Thorsky.
BJT, Thor’s response was not to say that Sweden is a perfect model for the United States, but just to cite it as an example that socialism does not = Kim Jong Ill or Fidel Castro. Sometimes it just means higher taxes and government programs that may or may not suck (depending on your POV).
Lisa
Too bad because he might have actually helped the McCain ticket win (or at least kept them out of the “deeply humiliating loss†column).
Sorry, dear, if Lieberman, nice liberal man that he is, was on the ticket, McCain would have won exactly 0 states. Because conservatives and center-right Republicans would have sat home rather than choose between hard left and center left.
Get yourself an extra cushy seat cushion. Eight long years is a hard ride.
‘I cite Sweden”
I think Mal was looking for a charming, well spoken progressive. Not a sexually confused lunatic.
Isn’t Sweden strictly isolationist?
Anyone that thinks we can pull off isolationist in today’s world is too unimaginative to hold a conversation with.
OH…hi thor.
“I cite Sweden.”
Good one, Comrade Thorsky.
Except that the [alleged] exception only proves the rule.
[…] the hands of the full caucus, Joe Lieberman is no Progressive, Lieberman Must Go Once and for All, “(D.) for Vendettaâ€Â, Reaching Across the Isle, What to do about Joe Lieberman?, Lieberman at the Fulcrum, A Time for […]
I’ve said for years that an individual’s control of his life versus government control is a zero sum game, and that if graphed, the arrow of individual control has been going down for roughly 220 years, while the arrow of government control has been going up. The curves have been steepening the whole time. I’m afraid they’re fixing to go exponential.
Thing is Randy, if you plot your proposed series against the various series of steady improvements shown in Robert W. Fogel’s “The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700-2100: Europe, America, and the Third World”, your political arguments are going to suffer from any claim to have been behind the good we’ve seen (and continue to see) pour forth from our economies.
Lisa @ #39. I call bullshit, Lisa. I would have stayed home if Lieberman would have been McCain’s VP pick.
#77. Sdferr. So your argument is that autocracy is OK because we’re well fed?
No, obviously not. My argument is that more freedom in trade and general private economic behavior results in better lives for everyone.
But if I take your hypothesis — less freedom over time to individuals and more power to gov., — then in order to account for the obvious improvements in material well-being Fogel shows, I’d be forced (against my inclination) to say that the increase in gov has more to do with the improvements than I believe to be the case.
As if they have haven’t been sucking at the teat of America since the inception of automobiles. Our whole city and suburban infrastructure was built to their wishes and specifications. Which is why our public transportation is Teh Suck.
Seriously, take away all that Detroit brainwashing and everybody would realize that riding a city bus is just so much cooler than having your own car.
You can’t always get fat dudes in tank tops and piss soaked winos to ride around in your car with you, you know?
Sorry, I misunderstood you, though I read the part after the book cite several times. I’d just say that the curve of economic improvement was ahead of the curve of the ability of the governnment to stifle it.
So far.
I can’t remember what Nishi called it, but she posited a point where scientific progress essentially took off vertically. I think the government will get there first.
I am not saying that your hypothesis is wrong entirely, mind you. In many important ways, Randy, I think you are correct.
I remember reading about Ben Franklin awhile back and being simply amazed at the freedom he had to create one commercial enterprise after another with hardly a care for the government stepping in to tell him how to go about it, what licenses he would need, what depth of insurance bonding was necessary for him to carry out his plans, etc, etc, etc.
We, speaking generically, have (willingly, I’m sad to say) given up many of our freedoms of action over time for the sake of what we think are worthwhile securities, removing at a cost unforeseen, this minor risk and that.
Yeah, I think it was Franklin who had something to say about that, too.
i see sweden
i see france
i’m not wearing underwear
under my burka!
oh- and i shout out to my honor killing daddy
don’t worry papa-i’ll always be yours
Mandatory insurance isn’t even blinked at anymore. Credentialing, licensing (see the movie “Tinmen” for the origins of construction business licensing to “protect” the gullible), taxing, zoning, use feeing, on and on it goes and where it stops nobody knows (or an armed revolution sits waiting to happen).
That Franklin dude was one smart cookie.
How many BTUs are there in a Congress critter anyway? We have to heat the house somehow, and if it sin’t gas or coal or wood or electricity….
May they receive what they deserve, all of them. That’s my prayer for politicians everywhere.
You can’t always get fat dudes in tank tops and piss soaked winos to ride around in your car with you, you know?
Riding alone, without said fatties and winos is missing out on the Essential American Experience.
Goodonya, comrade Lisa. At last some slightly left, more robust sense. Here in Oz. we have a relatively free, economically stable, democratic socialist country, (tho’ feeling a few tremors emanating from your unfettered derivative markets and since that handsome actor, Reagan, virtually unregulated your banking system & despite the 8yrs of machinations from the Bush bumlicker, little Johnie Howard). We have an amalgamation, that works, of the best Gov. practices from all over the world including Sweden, and have individually modified them to suit our nation. Hope some of the myopes in the US, can muster the courage and imagination to look to overseas models to solve their problems.As to the list of Totalitarian dictators, Hugo is the only one not appointed at the point of a gun and his case was primarily due to the longterm rape and pillage of the underclass by the former administration. Re Lieberman I think leavin’ him well and truly alone should be enough punishment for any politician.
Re Jeff G. I think you should migrate either to our Outback (where I’m sure you’d be made welcome) or to the Arctic circle to witness Climate change, close up. While your’e there I suggest you take a course in Science – perhaps a major in Ecology, to improve your ability to constructively add to the debate.Anyone out there who can take pity on a less than experienced blogger and tell me how to format these posts (paragraphs, links etc.) as (obviously) this is not one of my various fortes. In all humility. Lotsa Luck, Mindlesley
tinmen-dickey dreyfuss movie?
brain freeze- his co-star?
i know it was a barry levinson film [diner]
man- i’m a NAME DROPPER!
#92
Ah. I see the problem right there. what you are calling features, we referr to as bugs.
Uh. Unlike you lot , the spawn of criminals(god bless the irish), we had the foresite to institute a ‘Bill of Rights’ before we created a government.A small,I admit, but important point. Before one attempts to impliment a socialist agenda here they must first deprive a vast amount of our citizenry of their natural rights. Firearm confiscation, manditory service, etc no-nos for the gov.org.
Rusty Mate, I admit we are disadvantaged in some ways by lack of a bill of Rights. As it happens our Labour (“democratic”)party is the only major political party to have a policy re forming, eventually a bill of Rights. The delay in doing this is because of the implications of getting it wrong,given the complexity of existing laws etc. Meanwhile we rely on the evolving precedences of both our own and British law. We have courts to which we can appeal breaches of our rights and have heaps of laws to protect privacy and various discriminatory matters. And we are signatories to UN Rights Agreements. The major criticism I have of our system, is the constraints on free speech posed by our libel laws. although in practice they are rarely used they still exert, by their very presence, a negative influence on what we would like to be a free media. You can still get firearms here, but not the big calibre, auto, rapid fire ones that have caused such grief on your streets and in your schools.PS Sweden has one of the world’s highest incidences of Schizophrenia and therefore are more prone to suicide. Also the angst-ridden in the US may be more prone to shoot someone else as suicide by proxy. Take care gang, Mindlesley.