dagblog - Comments for "Living with One Another"

Another excellent blog, as

Elusive Trope — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:58:54 +0000

Another excellent blog, as usual. I would posit that part of the problem is that even those on those on the left don't want to acknowledge the depth of this problem because it would be an acknowledgment of how far we have to go as country. In other words, how can I can blame Obama for not implementing a pure progressive agenda if kids are committing suicide for simply being gay? One of the few blogs I've been able to post here deals with the Indiana kid and the It Gets Better project started by Dan Savage, and I can only hope that people see this as one of the place they can truly stand up for what is right. The banker may be making their immoral dollars, but our children are suffering, right in front of us, and they are dying, right in front of us. This is America. As long as it is, can expect any change anyone can believe in?

The issues are related, I

Barth — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:58:10 +0000

In reply to You blend two (IMO) unrelated

The issues are related, I think. Without resorting to too many cliches about the perfect being the enemy of the good, I will just imagine both of us resident in Arkansas, for instance. Aside from wanting to move from the state as soon as possible, we would have the immediate problem of being forced to vote for either Senator Lincoln or helping the Republicans take over the Senate.

This may be why moonshine liquor still finds popularity there, but one would have to take a healthy swig and vote for Senator Lincoln. The only reason to vote for her is that her presence in the Senate, which does little to advance our country, does at least contribute to the ability of Democrats to control the agenda and prevent the bogus "investigations" that caused half a decade to be wasted while they impeached President Clinton.

It's not much, but it is better than a kick in the pants (cliches work at this hour of the morning).

(Senator Lincoln, of course, is not going to be re-elected in all liklihood. I have mixed emotions over that, for the reasons set forth here).

I cannot expect candidates to simply mirror my views. I have to accept what they value and vote for whatever candidate could win who will do the most to move us forward.

Thanks. You are, as often

Barth — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:49:24 +0000

In reply to Tolerance. How in the hell do

Thanks. You are, as often the case, exactly where I am on this. I don't have the answer either. A morning of reflection was helpful but only momentarily.

You blend two (IMO) unrelated

kgb999 — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:38:52 +0000

In reply to Living with One Another

You blend two (IMO) unrelated issues. One is tolerance and the other is strongly contemporary politics. I think the tolerance issue is beautifully presented and will leave it at that.

So, in an environment where a voter is firmly convinced that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any desire to move forward with the mission you describe, and we are prohibited from thinking of third parties, or making the Democrats better - how is that moving in the direction of the mission I have no doubt you are dedicated to?

I'm not exactly understanding what you are advocating here though, because you framed contemporary action in all negatives (what we shouldn't be doing) and then presented a very esoteric pledge to help people in huts and villages help themselves. I get it that today, we are the ones in huts and villages - tents and cars are now home to an increasing number of Americans as Obama can't bring himself to call for a halt to the unquestionably abusive practices that are turning thousands of Americans homeless every day.

Neither political party appears interested in a damn thing but making sure the rich don't lose a single penny as a result of the economic catastrophe they created. I just don't see how to support them and advance any worthy goal. I sure as hell won't be voting for Walt Minnick (although, I'm pretty sure Idaho will be sending him back anyhow - the GOP is a total mess up here right now). If someone is fortunate to have a Russ Feingold or whatever voting Democrat makes total sense. I even like Patty Murray over in Washington OK (not stellar, but certainly decent). But voting for a Democrat who isn't pursuing common goals doesn't make any sense to me -even if it means a republican might take the seat. There will NEVER be a better Democrat who comes up through the party apparatus if all you do is make sure the incumbent never leaves - doesn't that just ensure nothing ever gets better?

I'm just not buying the least-worst formula. IMO, that is the biggest contributor to the decline of our nation. It seems obvious by this point that they've gamed it out and totally have our number. Under the game theory, we have come with a seemingly illogical (but actually, it just must be unpredicted) action that changes their formula. And least-worst sure isn't it. Or at least I sure haven't seen it convincingly argued beyond "Republicans totally suck so you have to vote for Democrats no matter how horrible they are".

So, what are you actually saying the correct course of action is right now. And how does that advance your stated mission (beyond "it keeps republicans from messing it up" which really doesn't answer the question)?

Tolerance. How in the hell do

Richard Day — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:47:19 +0000

In reply to Living with One Another

Tolerance. How in the hell do you teach tolerance with all the hate just spewing forth from our propaganda networks like Fox?

I do not know the answer.

One and a half billion Christians cannot go to war against a billion and a half Muslims.

It's nuts!!!

Wonderful narrative BArth. Thank you!!!