T T G L - it's Time To Get Liberal (or Ted, The Great Lion)

This is [[No News is Good News|...]]

[[April 2009|2009-04]]:
*[[Time to Get Liberal]] -- inaugural installment, Greenwald, Goodman
*[[TTGL#2]] -- Susan Rice, meaning of Liberal
*[[TTGL#3]] -- Gates, Gay Marriage
*[[TTGL#4]] -- Progressive Populist, Hannity, Michelle Bachman
*[[TTGL#5]] -- Letter from Al on Gay Marriage
*[[TTGL#6]] -- From the NYT Book Review
*[[TTGL#7]] -- A short video about food, thanks Cyrus
*[[TTGL#8]] -- where have all the irish gone, ...
*[[TTGL#9]] -- gone to Ireland everyone (that can't get into the Vatican) 
*[[TTGL #10|TTGL-10]] -- who's arrogant now
*[[TTGL #11|TTGL-11]] -- it's torture time.
*[[TTGL #12|TTGL-12]] -- it's time Arlen got Liberal!  welcome!!
*[[TTGL #13|TTGL-13]] -- and that one drew some fire.  Thanks, Folks

[[May 2009|2009-05]]:
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 14 "Specter Move Predicted, Obituaries, Letters">>
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 15 "Who Knew What When">>
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 16 "President's UND Commencement, Sr Joan C, OSB">>
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 17 "Powell on Face the Nation">>

[[June 2009|2009-06]]:
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 18 "The Narrowing of the Mind">>
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 19 "re: The Healthcare War is Now Official">>
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 20 "">>

[[July 2009|2009-07]]:
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 20 "Franken over Coleman">>
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 21 " Republicans Make the Best Arguments ">>
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 22 "Flash — Nancy Pelosi to get the test of her life">>

[[August 2009|2009-08]]:
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 23 "TTGL =  Ted, The Great Lion">>

[[September 2009|2009-09]]:
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 24 "Can a person on the right be a Public Intellectual?">>

[[October 2009|2009-10]]:
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 25 "A Truck Hauling Asphalt ... ">>
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 26 "A Letter to PBS -- Executive Compensation">>
*<<tiddler ArchN with: 27 "Partisanship -- by guest writer Art P">>

<<slider ckArch 2009-04 "April 2009" "click to open OR close">>
<<slider ckArch 2009-05 "May ... " "click to open OR close">>
<<slider ckArch 2009-06 "June ... " "click to open OR close">>
<<slider ckArch 2009-07 "July ... " "click to open OR close">>
<<slider ckArch 2009-08 "August ... " "click to open OR close">>
<<slider ckArch 2009-09 "September ... " "click to open OR close">>
<<slider ckArch 2009-10 "October ... " "click to open OR close">>

When ATruckHaulingAsphalt dropped its load on Interstate 80 yesterday and the driver drove off. He'd had the truck bed up, hooked an overhanging road sign, ripped off the sign causing the spill, thus dumping the asphalt with the sign in the traffic lanes of one of NJ's busiest pieces of roadway. Who cleans up the mess? You and me, the taxpayers of course. I see a big opportunity for our beleaguered insurance industry, don't you?

Ok, since you asked, here's how it works. Or maybe you've figured it out already. You know the scene. In NJ, we are blessed with a really fine corps of state troopers. They are on the scene in minutes, diverting traffic around (in this case) pile of asphalt and the one car who'd become involved. Flares and cones warn on-coming traffic; the highway department is summoned, motorists angst increases. After a few hours, thousands have been annoyingly delayed. But, life returns to normal, and the highway commissioner and state police pause to reassess their performance, and their accountants figure up the cost.

What I'd like to see happen at this point is they send their bill for services to the company whose name is on the truck. Oh, you say, the driver didn't get the name or license plate. Ah, more time, a possible criminal investigation: leaving the scene of an accident! Sooner or later the culprit is identified. The company is liable, state or county contract not withstanding. The bill might be considerable; I'd offer hundreds of thousands, millions if it became criminal. If you're still reading you should be congratulating yourself on guessing where this is going. The company may be big enough simply write out the check to the state, but not likely. As it stands, they have the opportunity to say "thanks" to the highway department for cleaning up their mess. So, ... this is it: their insurance company writes out the check to the state for its services.

Why should they? As it stands, they don't have to do anything. What's missing? A law that requires them to take responsibility for their behavior. I'm sure with enough prodding, we could get the insurance companies behind this one when they figure the enormous amount of cream they could skim out of this process. There's so much talk these days about everyone taking individual responsibility, and since our Supreme Court has seen fit to [[endow corporations with the rights of individuals|TTGL-24]], one is free to conclude that responsibility attends those rights. What do you think?

And, as the major media likes to report as a concession to decency: //Thank goodness, no one was killed or seriously injured.//

[[TTGL #$1|TTGL-$1]] -- $2[[.|ArchN]]

I find [[your posting|TTGL-24]] amusing. Let me tell you a little of my history to show why. I started out as a Democrat because my parents (and the media that they brought into the house) were. When I was first able to vote I was an independent with Republican leanings: I voted for Nixon as the lessor of evils and for Ford because I actually liked and supported him. I found as an independent that I voted for the candidate I thought was best. It wasn't until Whitman's last term as governor that I realized that I should take politicians at their word when they aligned themselves with parties. I studied the theory of the election process and realized that the US system can only support 2 standing parties; third party votes are mostly just protest votes. I studied economics (both at Rutgers and on my own) and discovered what I have since come to refer to as "post-Newtonian economics" which does not exactly mean the same as others have come to use it to mean.

By "post-Newtonian economics", I mean an understanding of money and policy and the whole system that defies a "Newtonian view". I use "Newtonian economics" to refer to a model that is very "conservative" in both the political and physical sense. In a "Newtonian" model, money is real and distinct, it derives from precious metals and their direct proxies. In a Newtonian view when the value of the stock market goes down, all the money from it is accounted for as it goes into bonds and real estate and mattresses. "Money is never created or destroyed" (only found or forged or lost). I have come to realize that money is "complex", with an imaginary component. If we all agree that something is money then it will do all the things that money will do. Gold is much more valuable as a backing of money than it could ever be as a useful commodity. Money can be both created and destroyed in the real market place.

Thus I find that I have to choose in politics between a group that knows enough to be consistently wrong and will beat its members to keep them wrong versus a group that generally has no clue. The Republicans are trained and educated enough to understand and exploit a "Newtonian" view of economics (it works well at scales up to large companies) and they insist on that view being used to evaluate government actions. That view is doomed to failure, repeatedly. I can only hope that Democrats will allow someone to do the right thing out of ignorance.

Thank you,
[[Art P|Art-24-090926]]

Something in that last exchange triggered a rush of thoughts, some of which I will try to share with you now.

I am a liberal and a conservative and a progressive. I have been a Republican and a Democrat and a Libertarian and an Independent. For much of my life I have eschewed party alignments and saw the value in looking at each candidate as a unique individual. The last two decades have changed my view on things. I have made the mistake of seeing my transformation as being to a "party line Democrat" (not that I repeated the party line or so embraced the party principles but as I have come to vote for candidates that were shown in the line for the Democrats). The truth must be confronted. I have really become an anti-Republican.

The GOP has done a more complete (better?) job of distilling their principles and also in coercing their elected members into following those principles. As they have shifted, focussed, and expressed themselves, they have moved farther away from where I was went I felt kinship to them. Meanwhile, I have learned and grown, and that has moved me even further away from them. I only became a Democrat in order to oppose the Republicans. Almost every thing the GOP tries to stand for I find I reject. Here follows the litany:
* Fiscal conservatism (as borrowed from the Libertarians) - The GOP view is based on a fundamentally flawed model of money. GOP actions in this area are almost all guaranteed to be wrong. The more the action is based on ideals and not pragmatics the more likely it is to do bad things for everyone. The Democrats are just clueless and thru mostly accident do things better.
* Social conservatism with regard to religion - This has always been offensive to me. I have further come to believe that homogeneity of religion is detrimental to advances in all other fields, especially scientific, economic, legal, and even moral. The Democrats have too divided a base to agree here.
* Social conservatism with regard to sexuality - The GOP position seems extremely overdone, and further seems to represent the perversity of their membership. The Democrats seem to have dropped interest in this.
* Defense - The GOP has shifted to accept more influence from their religious teachings and thereby have gotten to a set of worse answers than their historic failings. For instance, to make Iraq less of a danger/flash-point we needed to specifically engage in nation building there. We needed to start rebuilding even before we finished destroying. We needed specifically to teach democracy. "The truth is plain to see" is exactly wrong. Democracy is not the natural order of things, we have had to work hard to get where we are, the world will not just fall in line when given the chance. I do not find that the Democratic ideals even hint at doing the right things here, they just don't seem to preclude them.
* Crime - Just like defense, the GOP has it wrong. It is not our place to be agents of God dishing out his wrath. We need to be focussed on doing what our records show works for protecting the people. Even here, people do not necessarily know the right ways to do things (just look at the GOP membership), so we need to work on ways to help people see what works for their own benefit. It is also a waste (in all areas) to outlaw victimless crimes. Let God punish people directly, we have more than enough work dealing with preventing harm to our citizens. The Democrats seem to see this in a better light because of their "Liberal" leanings and at least do little to prevent empirically based successes from being repeated (The GOP will prevent things that differ from their "ideal").
* Business - Emboldened by their successes fighting off the attacks on big business by Communists (and sympathizers), the GOP mistakenly sees Big Business as an inherently good agent that needs to be freed from "unnecessary" restraints. Most still refuse to see that some restraints (that at least I would call sensible) would have reduced the damage done last year when the house of cards fell down. Few Democrats seem to have a clear, systematic view of how restraints should be shaped, but they are sure that some are needed and have a long way to go before they are likely to overdo things.
* Environmental - Just like crime & defense, the GOP is consistently mislead by their religious orientation. Here they have no sense of conservative. They seem to think that every resource needs to be consumed, not wasted per se but applied to the obvious immediate gain of the local people, especially the locally powerful. Environmentally, Democrats are the real conservatives.

As I was about to further extend this list I decided all of them, listed or not, read the same way - that the GOP is extremely consistent about being wrong, and systematically wrong at that. I have not found that I am much, if at all, more ideologically in tune with the Democratic core as I was decades ago. I have just found that having a small chance of being right is so much better than being guaranteed to be wrong.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, I attempted to avoid actually paying attention to the candidates. I read news commentaries to attempt to find the pulse of the nation. Nothing that happened in 2008 changed anything about what I was going to do on that first Tuesday in November except for the names that appeared next to the boxes I would check, in deed it was unlikely that anything could have happen to make any more change than that. My only concern was who in the Democratic Primary was more likely to win in November. I did not want the candidate that would be the best president, I wanted the candidate that was most like to beat the Republican.

The first speech by Obama that I deliberately listened to, and listened to from start to end, was his acceptance speech and the next was his inaugural speech. I was surprised to find how right he was. He appears more correct and competent than America deserves, but he still so right wing that he is unlikely to push the country to where it needs to be (although if he were far enough to the left, it would be unlikely that people would let him push even as far as he will now be able to).

A question remains, is there an ideology that helps find the right answers or is the best we can get is one that doesn't prevent right answers?

Thank you,
[[Art P|ArtP-091021-Partisanship]]

Here's what you see in the ColumnOnTheLeft.  (Since this is a column on the "left", isn't that a good place to put the important stuff?)

First, our Motto:  IfItsBlueItsaLink, is a separate article.  You may go there if you wish.  But, on the left, you see a short list in the MainMenu:
*CurrentTTGL  -- the Latest issue of //Time To Get Liberal//
*OurFavorites  -- select links, one's we like to promote
*WritersGuide -- so you want to be a writer.  it's easy to be published here.
*MailBox -- lets' see how well you've done.
----
*an [[icon|ttgl.xml]] for RSS, a bookmark in your browser to make it easy to get back to TTGL and catch up on articles you may have missed.
*an [[Archive|2009-Archive]] link,  summarizing the TTGL's by month.
----
*a photo of a personal hero -- kudos to the first person to identify my alter ego.

While the ColumnOnTheLeft is the place for hi-level navigation aides.   On the right, you can see details.

''If it's BLUE, it's a LINK!''
<<tiddler TTGL-28>>

Mick--

Once again, Norm has proved (proven?) that it's all about Norm, and if there is some incidental benefit to the people of Minnesota in the process, all the better. Although it is getting increasingly unclear what the personal advantage is to Norm is to continue this fruitless challenge of Al Franken's win in the Senate race. There is of course an advantage to the National Republicans to keep Franken from being seated for as long as possible which is the most plausible explanation of Norm's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, especially now that Al would be No. 60 instead of just No. 59. But Norm has almost completely burned his Minnesota bridges if he still has any thoughts of a run for Governor in 2010 if "Gov. No New Taxes" decides to spend all his time running for president after his term expires in January, 2011 instead of just 90% of his time as he is now doing.

Norm, not being one to fall on his sword for the team, must have been promised something to continue the fight, and maybe it has just been money or a cushy job after it is all over, as word is out that Norm has taken out something like $700,000 in mortgages on his St. Paul house and is almost totally broke after his Senate salary stopped flowing his way when his term expired in January, and that a Texas Republican heavy-hitter and Coleman friend tried to funnel $100,000 to Norm's wife under the table for a little walking money. So maybe it's all about moola.

One of my neighbor/friend/O'Gara patrons who is a heavy hitter Minneapolis attorney told me that the Dorsey law firm, probably the top firm in Minnesota that has been doing the pleadings in Norm's court challenges has been asking and getting paid WEEKLY since they know that once it looks like Norm's goose is fully cooked, the big national Republican donors will all of a sudden get quite stingy and the money to fund this thing will completely dry up....

Stay tuned. -- [[DPM|DanM-2009-04-29]]

[[I watched that interview|DanM-2009-05-13]], and in addition to that gem Jesse made the following additional points:

1) George W. Bush was the worst president of his lifetime;
2) Norm Coleman has always been a hypocrite;
3) Dick Cheney was a coward for "having other priorities" during the Vietnam war.

> Meg M
> Ya gotta love Jesse for this comment:  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yfMdNC6cQ)
Begin forwarded message:

> Date: May 12, 2009 9:13:49 AM HST
> Subject: Navy SEAL Jesse Ventura volunteers to waterboard Cheney.
> Source: Think Progress
> Author: Satyam Khanna
>
> One of the most repeated lines from conservatives in the debate over interrogations is that waterboarding is not torture because it is performed on U.S. troops as part of training. Yesterday on CNN’s Larry King Live, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura — a former Navy SEAL who has been waterboarded — poured cold water on this talking point, saying that waterboarding is in fact “drowning.”
>
> Ventura said he could waterboard Vice President Cheney and get him to admit to anything:
>
> KING: You were a Navy SEAL.
>
> VENTURA: That’s right. I was water boarded, so I know — at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence — every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.
>
> KING: What was it like?
>
> VENTURA: It’s drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you — I’ll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
>
> Watch it:  “Even though you know it’s not going to happen — even though before it, you know you’re not going to drown,” King stated. “You don’t know it. If it’s done wrong, you certainly could drown. You could swallow your tongue. You could do a whole bunch of stuff. If it’s it done wrong or —  it’s torture, Larry. It’s torture,” Ventura responded.
>
> Read more…
----

<<tiddler IfItsBlueItsaLink>>

I for one, can state that I DO believe in the Democrat platform as being THE RIGHT ONE to shoot for. Principles, values that attempt to include the poorest people, those who don’t have a chance, and those who cannot speak for themselves. These are principles I like to live for and will always try my best to do so. The party may falter, it may have candidates who are stupid, lame, limited thinkers. I don’t assume that those folks will always be elected or if elected, be kept in office for long. What I do assume is that we have to try to select the best platform principles and hold to them, come hell or high water. Then if we miss the mark from time to time, we’ve at least done our duty in trying to reach the high values we would want used in our own home and personal daily life. This all I can aspire to in terms of politics. We do the best we can.

I’ve never had ANY leaning toward the other parties and find them to be lacking in many regards. So that has never been an issue for me. Thank God.

I enjoyed the read, Marty. Take care.

[[DebD|DebD-091024-Partisanship]]

ReadersGuide
CurrentTTGL

HowToBeARepublican:
#Have Rush be your leader
##He graduated from high school
##He dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University after two semesters and one summer. according to his mother "he flunked everything" even a modern ballroom dancing class.
##He was reclassified from 1-A to 4-F after diagnosis of Pilonidal disease (pimple on the butt). In spite of this, he had the audacity to label "phony soldiers" 26 Septermber, 2007.
##Refer to Barack Obama as the "magic negro" 19 March, 2007.
##On family values, he has been divorced three times.
##He strongly stated that drug addicts should not be tolerated in society. He was willing to overlook his addiction to oxcodone and hydrocodone. He illegally obtained these prescription drugs. Hypocrisy is not new to some members of the Republican Party.
##Get "Clear Channel" to pay him $35M/year while the economy is collapsing due to failed policies of the Bush Administration. As PT Barnum - another showman - once said, "There's a $ucker born every minute". Ru$h knows that and he plays that tune expertly! Ch-CHING!$$$! Funny part is that his many devotees don't even realize that they are padding his generous behind while their own savings and investments continue to tank because of the failed fiscal policy that Ru$h has touted!
##Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
# Look back to the Bush Administration for solutions. Did the tax breaks of this administration improve our economy?
# Vote "no" on any idea or bill that is not proposed by the Republican Party. Threaten to cut NRP funds(Steele is still using this threat) for anybody that votes for the people and is not approved by "The Party"
#Turn the other way when the Constitution is being violated by your president. Loathe the First Amendment.
# Oppose help for people having the homes being foreclosed while supporting bailouts for rich corporations.
#Hate Social Security.
#"Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India. I think it's called outsourcing. When there are fewer jobs, wonder what happened to the economy.
#The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
#Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a "spirit of international harmony".
# You are a conservative, but it is OK to spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same refunding as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it
# Affirmative Action is wrong, but it is OK for your Daddy and his friends (here and in Saudi Arabia) to get you to graduate from Yale without studying much; to dodge the draft in the Texas Air National Guard; to bail out your company Harken Oil and the Texas Rangers; to get the Governorship of Texas and then to have the Supreme Court appoint you President of the USA.
#Here in Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann has a hard time getting her facts straight e.g. swine flu, cap & trade, speaks of a revolution/sedition rather than solutions, reminds us of Joe McCarthy, & lies about her use of earmarks. Evidently, truth is not part of the conservative platform.

[[Ed|EdP-090501]]

So Dick Cheney, chicken hawk, a.k.a. five deferral Cheney (//"I had other priorities"//), during the Vietnam War that he supported, believes we need to bring back more fear mongering. On Face The Nation he stated: //"Well, then you'd have to say that, in effect, we're prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America." // A bold statement from someone that pushed for a war that had an ultimate goal of putting lots of money in the coffers of Haliburton.  Halliburton made so much money on no bid contracts that they had to move their operations to an Arab country to avoid paying taxes.

How many lives were lost due to distortion of truth during his involvement in the last administration?

[[Ed|EdP-090511]]
----

I spent most of my thirty three year career in education working with seventh and eight grade students. People that work with the age group should be able to confirm that their behavior is not very rational and usually exhibits behavior that Piaget would refer to as non-abstract. The brain does not develop to the abstract level until age fifteen/sixteen or later. When the middle level student does not get what they want, some of them resort to behavior that could be termed as being bratty and decisions based on anger and spite. (I do not hold this against the middle level student, unlike the adult, they haven't had time) I enjoyed working with the middle level student. I could see them grow, mature, and learn. They would use these new learnings as they reach the level of abstract thinking.

I use these observations to compare to our current political system;

*Unlike the middle level student, Republicans in leadership positions should be capable of abstract thinking and sharing of united goals for this country. They should have matured beyond the middle level behavior. Unfortunately, when they cannot deliver on good logic, they resort to "tea bagger" behavior and use a lot of rhetoric to obstruct. Has anybody been watching what has happened in California since they went on their big campaign against taxes? I think we are past the stage of armchair chicken hawks and our politically timely terror alerts. It seems that every negative from the last administration is now twisted to blame the current administration.
*Republicans rule, rather than govern, when they are in power by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everyone, as their answer for everything. Ruling, of course, must be distinguished from governing, which is a more nuanced process that entails give-and-take and the kind of compromises that are often necessary to find a consensus and solutions that will best serve the interests of all Americans.
*I understand that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). If there were no difference in philosophy, there would be no need for a least two parties. I believe our forefathers had this in mind when they created the Constitution.
*But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk. (I think our recent events with the stock market have verified this).
*As an example, the Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine insurance benefits. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe. I believe the real death panels and obstruction between doctor and patient is the insurance companies.
*The essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the Democrats, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

[[Ed Peterson|EdP-091124-Leadership]]
mailto:pete65@nsatel.net
//Example is Leadership// -- Albert Schweitzer

Being you mentioned Lincoln and Kennedy, I believe that if Lincoln were alive today He would be a Democrat.  I hope Specter changed to democrat due to his beliefs and not just political advantage.  However, that being said, most politicians are in it for themselves and a block of people with money and political clout.  

I have written to the Governor regards the senate issue.  I also send a lot of email letters to Michelle Bachmann but evidently she doesn't like my political tone and she never responds to my issues.

If you don't read this blog, you might find it of interest.      http://balkin.blogspot.com/

Best to your new endeavor.

[[Ed|EdP-2009-04-29]]

These are the FirstLinks:
*<<tiddler WwW with: "liberal bookmarks" diigo.com/user/applemcg/liberal>>
*<<tiddler WwW with: "Glen Greenwald" salon.com/opinion/greenwald/>>
*<<tiddler WwW with: "Bill Moyers" .pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.htm>>
*<<tiddler WwW with: "amy goodman" democracynow.org>>

TTGL is published using TiddlyWiki technology. So, you may need some help reading the format. There are plenty of good tutorials, so see below for that. As you begin to find your way around, your confidence will build.

For your very FirstTimeNavigation, here are a few simple things to notice, and try out:
*each block of text here is called a //tiddler//; in the upper right of each there are a few action words: ''close close others ... more'', they do this:
**close -- close this tiddler, leaving others on the screen. btw, if you do close a tiddler, it's not lost, or gone. if you remember its name, you can find it in the right hand column, otherwise, searching will help you get back.
**close others -- this tiddler will be the only one remaining on the screen
**more -- opens more options, notable additions are:
***references -- which tiddlers reference this one. useful to climb up the outline
***jump -- when you have a lot of open tiddlers, this produces a list where you can literally jump to another
*any SolidBlueText is a link to a tiddler. click on it to be taken to that one
*any [[underlined blue text|http://mcgowans.org/marty3/ttgl.html]] is a link to an external website, and
*any ItalicBlueText is a potential tiddler, but not yet filled in with any information. by this time, you've noticed what is commonly called CamelCase notation with some capital letters and words crammed together. ~TiddlyWiki technology uses this notation to identify these text blocks. Back on my computer, I can fill in one of these tiddlers just by double clicking and entering the text. Out here on the web, you don't have that opportunity, though there is a branch of ~TiddlyWiki technology to allow sharing. I've got one of these developing at: http://mcgowans.tiddlyspot.com/ . If you're still with me at this point, [[write me|mailto://mcgowan AT alum DOT mit DOT edu]], and we can move this format to a shared venue.

[img[Al Franken at Abu Ghraib|http://sliceofmit.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/abughraib-franken0623_510.jpg?w=204&h=136][http://sliceofmit.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/franken-photo-of-the-week-may16/trackback/]]
----
Al has been over to Iraq at least 4 times, and when he is finally seated as Minnesota's junior senator he will take up Paul Wellstone's role as the best friend the veterans have ever had -- clearly able to distinguish between the war policy and the brave folks were required to carry out the completely dishonest policy. -- [[DPM|Franken In Iraq]]

Not related to current events, but interesting historical note brought to mind by the observation that Lincoln today would be today's kind of Democrat.  Certainly true.  Historical note.  Watching a PBS show on Franklin Roosevelt.  In the part about how as a young man he already had his sights on following cousin Teddy into the W.H.  Question was why he became a Democrat.  Not only was Teddy a Republican, but, except for Cleveland and Wilson (both elected in unusual circumstances, particularly Wilson winning the 1912 election), the Republicans had owned the W.H. since the Civil War.  Well, Teddy had two sons who FDR felt had political ambitions, and certainly an inside track.  FDR concluded that there wasn't room in the GOP for another Roosevelt, so became a Democrat.
 
[[Harold|Harold-090501]]

<<tiddler OnYourChurch>>

I am appalled that the President and the Congressional Democratic powers that be are falling all over themselves to not only embrace Specter for joining the Demo caucus, but strongly indicating that they will support his candidacy when he runs for the Demo nomination in 2010.  I am sure that there are Penn Demos who had high hopes of getting the nomination and running against Specter, candidates that are younger and possibly more predictably following the party agenda.  One thing about him, is that he is pro-choice, while several of the Penn Demos are anti-choice.  To Pennsylvanians, I guess having someone in the Senate with his seniority stands him in good stead.
 
[[Harold|Harold-2009-04-30]]

Don't know if you noticed this, but in this morning's Wash Post is a story that the Democratic caucus in the Senate voted that Specter could not take his seniority with him, so becomes junior member on his committee assignments.  It is alleged that Harry Reid promised him otherwise.  Good for the caucus.  Only loophole is that after the 2010 elections, apparently the issue will be taken up again.  Maybe that is the carrot to see if he behaves himself in key votes.  This is going to hurt his ability to argue that the voters of PA need to elect him because of what his seniority can get them.

[[Harold|Harold-2009-05-06]]
----

<<tiddler EdP-090501>>

Our motto is: IfItsBlueItsaLink.
Since this is a TiddlyWiki, everything is connected.   It just so happens the default color of the wiki handle, is blue.  DarkBlue for  a local ''tiddler'' as the various paragraphs are called, and underlined blue for [[hypertext links to somewhere else|http://mcgowans.org/marty3/notepad.html]]

And, it's no accident that Blue is the preferred color of a state at election time, so we'll let the co-incidence stand.  Were that the case, there are means within TiddlyWiki to adapt to any scheme, so the passing Republican is free to try to produce a red-based wiki.   Good luck, though.  It's not within my competence to adapt color schemes.

[[Early May Letters|Letters090517]]
*May 6  -- <<slider ck14 Harold-2009-05-06 "Specter and Seniority" "Click to Open or CLOSE">>
*May 11 -- <<slider ck14 EdP-090511 "Chicken Hawk Cheney on Face the Nation" "Click to Open or CLOSE">>
*May  13 -- <<slider ck14 DanM-2009-05-13 "Jesse Ventura on Larry King" "Click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler MartyMcGowan>>

*<<slider ck09 OnYourChurch "On Your Church" "click to open letter">>
*TTGL-13 -- letters in reply to the Specter news from TTGL-12.
*May 1 -- Some regular contributors:
**<<slider ck14 Harold-090501 "On History:  How FDR became a Democrat" "click to Open or CLOSE">>
**<<slider ck14 EdP-090501 HowToBeARepublican "click to Open or CLOSE">>
<<tiddler Letters090517>>
*May 18 -- <<slider ck15  [[Franken In Iraq]] "Al Franken Visits the Troops" "click to Open or CLOSE">>
*<<slider ck14 Art-24-090926 "Art, on How I Chose Where I Am"  "click to Open or CLOSE">>

CurrentTTGL
OurFavorites
WritersGuide
MailBox
----
{{smiconsize{[img[RSS|./image/rss-01.jpg][./ttgl.xml]]}}}
[[Archive|2009-Archive]] 
----
{{pixsize{[>img[alter ego|./image/notMarty3.jpg][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E._E._Cummings_NYWTS.jpg#filelinks]]}}}
LookingLeft

http://mcgowans.org/marty3/notepad.html

i put this in the garbage with the rest of my trash ,this liberal ranting and raving is disgusting and terribly short sighted and blind to the truth 
[[MauriceM|MauriceM-091024-Partisanship]]

|The state of Hawaii did get compensation three years ago for our worst traffic tie-up of a generation (from the US government, an easy target).  An army truck carrying heavy equipment knocked off a section of the freeway overpass, when the truck driver didn't check on load height limits.  Rush hour traffic was snarled for a good seven hours when all westbound lanes were closed.  Drivers were advised it would take less time to to go around the island than to attempt to get through traffic jamming all of the side roads out of town.  (One person was found dead in his truck on the side of the freeway, but apparently died of natural causes.) <html><p>Here's a wonderful photo of the poor army guy trying to unjam the equipment  stuck under the overpass:<p> He couldn't drive off and leave the problem to someone else. <p> </html> [[Meg M|Meg-25-091003]] |{{img128{[img[honolulu advertiser|http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Sep/06/FPI609070323V4_b.jpg]]}}}|

I'm glad Art has come round to partisanship, though reluctantly.  

I always wonder when someone says, "I vote for the individual, not the party," if he/she actually thinks through how that person is going to get anything done in our system of government.   And it is always harder for Democrats to get things done.  As Will Rogers observed years ago,  the Democratic party is not an "organized party,"  thus witness messy process of health care reform, although it appears it will happen, despite the lockstep GOP opposition.

[[MegM|MegM-091024-Partisanship]]

!!!a news special -- flash -- Nancy Pelosi to get the test of her life:

will she or won't she?

what? you ask.

GLOAT, i say.

the news is now coming in. the CIA _did_ lie to congress. Leon Panetta, now director of the CIA for what, 6 months, said, on June 23, less than a month ago, that he was finally briefed on a secret mission the CIA was conducting in behalf of Darth Vader, er, ... pardon me, ... Dick Cheney.

so, before it happens (or not) i'm giving Pelosi the test of her life: were I in her shoes, I'd get hold of Chuck Shumer's list of camera guys, assemble them in the Capitol Rotunda, and scream, "I TOLD YOU SO". but, I'm giving her one chance, the "classy lady" test, and am willing to bet she won't. I'm also willing to bet that the spin-meister's of the right won't need too long to find a way to blame her for this fiasco, if not high crime and misdemeanor emanating from the previous white house.

your thoughts on this are most welcome. but, spare us, _please_ don't bore us with her _imagined_ crimes, as i know some of you must.

b.t.w. for those of you who think the white house had no business telling congress about this, i offer the alternative: you'd have us eliminate congress and return to the good old days of george the third, as if george the 43rd weren't bad enough.

btw ^ (2) -- squared, for the non-techies here. i expect even _less_ coverage from any major media, and unless faux comes up with something clever, even less coverage from them on the fact that Pelosi was likely telling the whole truth, and nothing but.
'

[[more|$1]] | [[prev|TTGL$2]] | [[this|TTGL$3]] | [[next|TTGL$4]] | [[current|CurrentTTGL]]

Your industry spokesman on tonight's show was most disingenuous in suggesting "Feinberg's working on it". = "You're doing a good job, Brownie". What he failed to point out is the laws are hampering Feinberg's ability to control executive compensation. For example, AIG is "outside the scope" of his regulatory authority. Someone with more guts than the Federal <> (triangle) allows needs to write a law that gives him authority to CUT pay. When the Red Cross and United Way Eastern and Natl execs of the early '90s were observing: "I need this salary to be able to afford the life-style that permits me to associate with the people who make a difference" I was moved to observe: "What do you do so well that you couldn't for half that salary", and halving again and again.

The spokesman played the tired argument: "you've got to pay to retain talent". My patience has grown awfully thin on that one.

I'm reminded of your coddling of John Yoo. I could smell a traitor by the third time you had him on. I'm sure you finally realize that "if every point has two sides", often one of them is mighty slim. Such is the case here.

I trust if you had to fully reveal the financial arrangements of some of your guests, much as the defeated Afghan presidential candidate offered, you'd not have to suffer us with the likes of such a display.

And at the risk of over-doing it here; your guest lost _all_ credibility when he offered financial executives were in the same boat as say, TV executives, and other business leaders. What other industries come to mind, where the profit is in the pipes? I'm a technology trainer for a financial services company on wall st. Our customers are among the biggest thieves. When i hear people say "it's not rocket science, it's not brain surgery", I say "nonsense, it's all plumbing. Rocket science is plumbing, brain surgery is plumbing. Plumbing is plumbing, and so is financial services. But only in financial services can you make money by siphoning off what's in the pipes."

-=+-- Martin ~McGowan
Cranford, NJ

p.s. I was a "rocket scientist" from 1966 thru 1978,
p.p.s. This will appear on my blog: Time To Get Liberal (sub-titled, Ted The Great Lion) at http://mcgowans.org/marty3/ttgl.html

I concur - a law of the sort you describe would be entirely appropriate.

Indeed, I am surprised such laws do not already exist - just as I am surprised that the practice of billing hikers (snowmobilers, et al.) who require rescue (from mountains, winter snows, etc.) from predicaments created by their own actions is not yet universal, although several states do levy such charges (after the fact, of course).

-- [[Norm B|Norm-25-091004]]

A reply to [[TTGL#9]]
----
I can imagine how upsetting and difficult it must be to feel connected to your faith, but opposed to policies of humans who purport to speak for all of that faith.  When the petitions were being collected to oppose ND having President Obama speak, I really felt bad for what I know must have embarrassed the vast majority of American Catholics. 
 
Don't know if you ever read historian Barbara Tuchman's book //The March of Folly//, which chronicles events in history when policies were pursued, notwithstanding considerable reason to believe they were a mistake.  One of the chapters is "The Renaissance Popes Provoke the Protestant Secession."  (Two others are "The British Lose America," and "America Betrays Herself in Vietnam.")  Had the Papacy recognized the need for being responsive to the call for reforms, there may never have been a Reformation.
 
-- Harold ..

*[[Harpers|http://www.harpers.org]]
*[[Prairie Populist|http://www.populist.com]]
*[[Minneapolis Star and Tribune|http://www.startribune.com/]]
*[[New York Review of Books|http://www.nybooks.com/]]
*[[New York Times|http://www.nytimes.com/]]
*[[News Dark Time|http://mcgowans.org/ndt/]]
*[[TruthOut.Org|http://www.truthout.org/]]            And ...
<<tiddler FirstLinks>>

And as a follow-up, there might EVEN be incentive to put only well-trained drivers behind the wheel of these trucks,  with enough knowledge of English to read all traffic signs, and enough rest to not imperil lives. This from a former trucker, who is now working to make sure that new truckers are properly trained. And to force another point, he was unemployed for a while because of medical problems and the accompanying insurance problems....
[[Pat M|Pat-25-091003]]

[[Professor Backstrom]],
 
    At a moment like this in MN history, I'm reminded of an earlier election, the subject of your book, Recount.  I was a student of yours in your Campaigns and Elections in the fall of '64.    You were offering a copy of your book to the student with the closest tally of the electoral vote in the Presidential election.   You were there on election night, at the Radison Hotel in downtown Minneapolis, with a table set up offering your book.   I met you there briefly, having come in with my brother Dan M, who's now (and nearing retirement himself) counsel to one of the state senate committees (municipal govt, or some such).    I recall feeling that I had a chance at the book, but it went to one of the young ladies in the class, who I believe "nailed it" exactly, picking each state correctly!
 
  I think of you because I thought we'd learned a lesson from that Rolvaag - Anders[oe]n election detailed in your book.   While the election means have changed, and are in great need of standardizing, the current MN Senate election hearkens back to that one, decided finally by 91 votes, mutiple recounts and trials.    I would have hoped that people and courts would have looked back in 2000 to the Rolvaag/Andersen precedent, and taken their time, letting the state (of FL) decide on what should have been  a state matter.
 
  Thank you for your instruction and fine example of the calling of a public life.   I've stayed close to the political scene, and came close to a run for public life, closest when invited to run for the Colorado legislature as a Republican.  ("no thanks, if you scrub off the indelible mark on my soul, you'll discover ''Democrat'' stenciled below").   My dad, Marty M Jr, now at Lyngblomsten House in St Paul, did serve 8 yrs in the MN House from Swift Co.  And our three children have all found the public sector, for which I'm most proud.
 
  This wonderful thing, the internet, is allowing me to "make the rounds" of those important moments in my life.
 
Thank you so much,

Can a person on the right be a [[Public Intellectual|PublicIntellectuals]]?  

The questions arises out of the discussion comparing the ability of the Republicans to organize around a theme or issue, and the Democrat's inability to offer a clear statement of action.  Conventional wisdom has the Republicans as organized, since they hew closer to the party line and follow "marching orders".  On the other hand, the Democrats are dis-organized since they offer more ideas, and are less likely to get behind an idea they didn't think of.    This is true in particular of liberal Democrats, and the less flexible people are at the extremes of either party.  

If I were to put myself on a purely left-to-right scale, I'd offer that I'm in the 2.5 sigma range to the left.  What does this mean?   Assuming one could line up every one in America on a single scale, most people (63%) would fall on either side of the middle within the 1 sigma range.  3 sigma is starting to get unique (< 3%), and 6 sigma would be your radical (1/10 of 1 %) range.  (I'll take correction from the more mathematically rigorous.)

I've purposely introduced some simple statistics and algebra to make a point.   I'm not a public intellect, but do value an intellectual experience; I'm a "private" intellect, let's say.   On my side of the aisle, I know just enough philosophy to point out that Immanuel Kant, in late 18th century Germany stated what he called the [[Universal Imperative|http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm]], or some such:  //Think and Act as if your thoughts and actions were true everywhere for all time//.  So, what has this to do with placing a limit on conservatives being public intellects?

I make some arguments [[here|TTGL-21]] base on some typical letters to the editor from the right fringes.   It's easy to see how the arguments are selectively applied, and if universal, in any sense would likely produce a different outcome, favoring the liberal, or at least more human-uplifting position.   (A specific example offered in that link is the Franken, Coleman recount contrasted to [[Bush v Gore|http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/]]).    I've had this view for some time:   the easiest way to dispose of Republican arguments is simply take them at face value and find one simple alternative of the many which present themselves.   e.g. In the rants against the Sotomayor ascent to the Supreme Court, we heard the tired argument against "legislating from the bench".    To which I'll invite my Republican colleagues to revisit the not-famous-enough Supreme Court decision in [[Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific RR|http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html]], where corporations were given status as persons.   If we could repeal that bit of judicial legislation, it would give us the ability to deal with the financial meltdown, properly govern corporate political ads, see states set their own tougher environmental standards, etc.   With these sorts of examples of Supreme Court meddling as a guide-post, to fend off the typical Republican argument, then simply get at the root of what they are saying, pick a simple counter-example and demolish their own special-purpose self-serving argument.   If you can't think of one in the heat of discussion, simply give yourself a little breathing room, offer that a demolishing counter argument is readily available, and if they are willing, you can "get back to them".   Try it; it's fun!

So, why can't a member of the right be a public intellectual?   The candidate public intellectual would have to identify the source of their belief, the philosophical roots if you will.   The two possible outcomes would be either the base would desert the candidate public intellectual ("too much of an egg-head"), or the presumptive intellect would naturally see the selective  (i.e anti-Kant) nature  of their argument and have to abandon it.  Here's an example, paraphrasing: "I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me" -- [[Arlan Specter|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0]].

Click any below, once to open, again to close:
*<<slider ckRG FirstTimeNavigation "Getting Around the first time" "click to open or close this topic">>
*<<slider ckRG ColumnOnTheLeft "What's in the left-hand column" "click to open or close this topic">>
*<<slider ckRG TiddlyWikiTutorials "List of beginner's Tutorials" "click to open or close this topic">>
*<<slider ckRG SearchingExample "How to Search for something" "click to open or close this topic">>
*<<slider ckRG UnSubscribe           "Unsubscribe from TTGL" "click to open or close this topic">>

> Do you even believe him?
> Date:May 24, 2009
>If he did vote for Reagan twice it was because he also said he worked for him. He worked for both of the Bush Presidents as well. So, it was in his interest to vote for them wasn't it? I believe it was also in his interest to vote for Obama. Did you read between the lines? He admitted giving advice to Obama. Do you think he was paid handsomely by the Obama people and the Dem ~Party-George Soros and company to endorse Obama at a crucial point in the campaign? Also, don't you find it strange he is still calling himself a republican after advising Obama? Do you think James Carville is advising Colin Powell on destroying the Republican party? He talks against the conservative base. Wasn't John Mccain moderate enough for him??? Why do people like you never question the motives of supposed "moderates" like Arlen Specter and Colin Powell? They do what is best for themselves. They are egomaniacs and do not give a damn about the country! Finally, does the name Richard Armitage ring a bell? He was Powell's righthand man. Why did this man and Colin Powell let Scooter Libby go to prison? Anyway, Colin Powell gets a pass because he is nice sounding African American general who sells himself out to the highest bidder.
> Scott   (aka:  neoconscottp@youtube)
your arguments characterize a flaw of the RR:   those that don't agree with you are forever "questionable".   for us liberals, all is questionable.  some of the questions are answered on "it depends on your values".  since you say the "nice sounding AA general  .... sells himself out to the highest bidder", may we on the left apply that to any of the mouthpieces of the right.   

please, don't tell me after suggesting it's the left who "sells out" that  it's only the right who operate from higher and more selfless principal. 

there is no argument you make that fails to throw too bright a light on the right.

Ryan,

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify things.   I was making a very limited number of points.  The individual I was reacting to was Steve Bartlett of the Financial Services Round table.   Here is the [[transcript from the NewsHour broadcast|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec09/execs_10-14.html]].

//First//, the ~NewsHour, in attempting to be balanced, puts on guests of questionable objectivity, since they are either too involved or too favored by the point they represent.  While the book is still out on Bartlett, the case is certainly closed on John Yoo.   Not only is Yoo's objectivity exposed as lacking, he may be a prime suspect, along with Judge Bybee in advocating torture, and circumventing the law in the process.  My point here is that the ~NewsHour needs to point out any financial involvement or legal interest of their guest in the point the guest is advocating.   

//Second//, the "pay to retain talent" argument is surely over-tired.   I would have let it go, except Bartlett kept repeating Feinberg's role (see the transcript above) as if, on the case in point -- AIG's bonuses -- Feinberg had any oversight.  Feinberg does not in AIG's case, since it's not TARP money.   Bartlett either knows better, or his ignorance disqualifies himself as an effective advocate.  The further disingenuity of Bartlett's attempt to repeatedly cast TV executives, particularly those in public broadcast, as having the same option of self-reward is what led me to invoke the simple plumbing metaphor.

And //third//, on the merits of the argument, as a taxpayer, I have some right to be sceptical of an administration, Republican or Democratic, who is willing to send 180 Billion of our precious public dollars to a company whose net worth is less than that, without demanding both more transparency on where the money went, and what the compensation should look like.  Fiscal responsibility has always been a hallmark of conservative opinion; you might laud us liberals who've finally gotten the message.

Mr. ~McGowan,

Remove me from your mailing list. I don't know where you got my e-mail address, but I never signed up for these e-mails and do not wish to receive them.  Further, while I am frustrated to find myself receiving unsolicited political e-mails, I am far more frustrated to receive such ignorant bunk.  While it would be amusing to take you down the philosophical road by which your little political opinions assume that government owns the people and that they should have no ownership of their own talents, intelligence and bodies, or to take you down the economic road by which the most talented executives actually DO (you may be shocked by the concept of people reacting to incentives, but, I assure you, it happens) seek out the highest pay, thereby leaving companies unwilling to pony up for decent leadership, I sincerely doubt you have either a sufficiently open mind or respectable enough intellect to follow either road.  The petty jealousy that drives your anger and hatred towards those who make more than you do (for what it's worth, I am almost certainly not among them) has inhibited your ability to think rationally and respect the rights of those around you.  

And to write a book celebrating "The Great Lion" leaves me wondering how you would react if I got behind the wheel of a vehicle drunk and killed someone you actually cared about; I know vehicular manslaughter is for the little people, and that our betters are entitled to such minor offenses, but perhaps one who claims to stand up for social justice should pause a moment and ask why having a royal last name puts a Kennedy above the law when one of them takes a life.  I would ask whether you are among the cretins advocating for Roman Polanski's freedom, but I frankly don't want to know; that there even IS a pro-rapist lobby in this country is frightening enough (and has forever ruined Monica Bellucci films for me).  

The last thing I need is to find more of your bile in my inbox.  Take me off your mailing list, seek a philosophically consistent economic outlook that doesn't inherently negate all personal liberties (liberty essentially being freedom from intrusion, which differs from rights in that- you know what, just go look it up) and try to grow beyond petty class warfare and jealousy.  

- [[Ryan|Ryan-091014]]

SearchingExample:
The panel in the upper right has a search window. 
Go there and enter a word, say "obama" (since case doesn't matter), and the the [return] or [enter] key on your keyboard.
At this writing, it finds 5 entries matched your search, including the "nobama".

it's Time To Get Liberal (or Ted, The Great Lion)

T T G L

http://mcgowans.org/marty3/ttgl.html

<<tiddler IfItsBlueItsaLink>>

.smiconsize img { width:24px;}
.iconsize img { width:40px;}
.pixsize img { width:64px;}
.img128 img { width:128px;}

[[more|2009-04]] | [[prev|Time to Get Liberal]] | [[this|TTGL#2]] |  [[next|TTGL#3]] | [[current|CurrentTTGL]] 
 based on the overwhelming response for TTGL #1, i'm undaunted.

What does it mean to be Liberal?

  tonight, on the news hour, Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN, while being interviewed about North Korea's recent belligerence, and the prospects for the "Six Nation talks",   (Russia, China, N&S Korea, Japan and US, i'm guessing) offered these signals to her liberal nature:  "It's not black and white" [!] and the ultimate of liberal witness:  'One can't be certain" [!!!]

  all i can say is "What?!"   Not certain!   Who do you think you are?  The US Ambassador to the UN?  My God (wo)man.  If you're not certain, what the haich-ee-double-toothpicks are you doing there?  your job is telling the world the way it is!

[[more|2009-04]] | [[prev|TTGL#2]] | [[this|TTGL#3]] | [[next|TTGL#4]] | [[current|CurrentTTGL]] 
It looks like we'll stick with the News Hour for the time being.  There's always one good bit to stimulate your garden-variety liberal.   Tonight, no less than Secretary of Defense (SECDEF if he were a Navy man) Bob Gates pointed out he'd said something last year while he was working for "that other guy".   Gates says (he said) that "how come the country that invented PR is getting out-publicized by a guy who lives in a cave?"  I have to take him at his word that he actually said that.  I guess that we hadn't heard it before is because of a couple of strong filters on the news:  first the major media who owes their $$-roll to those same PR houses,  and lastly one can imagine the former regime exercised a little throttle on what came out of it's own officers.   Gates probably had permission to publish it in "Peoria Garden News". Pardon the sarcasm.  

  Gates looks comfortable working for BO, like he no longer has to apologize for what he says.

   Hey folks, thanks for the feedback; two respondents replied to TTGL #2.   _we_ know we are liberal, "and Proud of it".   It's time (for everyone) to get liberal, even if you are to the left of Stalin (Al !)  

   BTW, last night John Stewart had a good time with the news that Iowa, good old Iowa (IA to the postal abbreviators) now recognizes gay marriage, and today,   circle your calendar -- TODAY -- the state of VT is the first state whose _legislature_ recognizes the right.

[[more|2009-04]] | [[prev|TTGL#3]] | [[this|TTGL#4]] | [[next|TTGL#5]] | [[current|CurrentTTGL]] 
OK, tonight it's going to have to come from The Progressive Populist, and the news is good.   Jim Hightower, reporting in the April 1 edition (tell us it ain't an April Fools joke, Jim), describes good news on the union front:  in December '08, Republic Windows and Doors barred the doors to 250 workers, closing the plant on 3 days notice, renegging on severance, health coverage, and vacation pay.  "Our creditor, Bank of America, has nothing to loan".   Guess what, when the stimulus money arrived, BoA found $2 million to cover those obligations, because of public outrage.

And a CA company,  Serious Metals was able to rehire those laid off workers and took over the Chicago plant they'd worked in  and they're now making sustainable building materials.   (though i guess i'd like to know what those are, other than nice words).   but let's leave it positive for now.

And John Stewart had fun with Sean Hannity and MIchelle Bachman (R ~ reactionary, MN) last night, showing them getting orgiastic over each other's reactionary views, throwing virtual high fives over the air.   Only Stewart's editing captures the essential folly of these smallest of minds.

[[more|2009-04]] | [[prev|TTGL#4]] | [[this|TTGL#5]] | [[next|TTGL#6]] | [[current|CurrentTTGL]]  
 this installment comes from Alan, from MA, responding to [[TTGL#3]].   In the spirit of this Passover/Easter weekend, time for a passover, or resurrection, of sorts.  Thanks Alan.

  stay tuned, dear reader, for those who've missed the first few, TTGL will go "on-line" soon,   we'll  keep these brief.
----
//Marty,
 
I used to think that gay rights was the Dems Achilles Heel. We know its the right thing to do, but the political cost  seems very high. Well guess what - we have a president who owes his public political success in part to the civil  rights actions of the liberals in the 60s. Of course, that one cost us almost 40 years of grief (ie, the Southern Strategy  was born because of the racial views of the South).
 
I sure hope the liberal support for the gay movement doesn't cost us another 40 years. I'm delighted to think that those bright, energetic, creative gay people come to Massachusetts for it's liberal views, and help keep up our state's advantage in bio, high tech, and the arts. Is that too much of a free-market notion for us liberals? I hope not.
 
Keep up the good work. Let's start thinking about the next series of elections, in which we can now ignore the southern block and win anyway. It's a new world out there.
 
Alan//

[[more|2009-04]] | [[prev|TTGL#5]] | [[this|TTGL#6]] | [[next|TTGL#7]] | [[current|CurrentTTGL]]  
With TTGL#6, your [[Time To Get Liberal is on-line|http://mcgowans.org/marty3/ttgl.html]], so that new readers may catch up!
Since Saturday a.m is my time with the [[NY TImes Book Review|http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/index.html]], here are a couple that might stimulate us Liberals:
*From the //keep-your-eye-on-the-enemy// department, we see [[Liberty and Tyranny|http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/books/review/InsideList-t.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=conservatism%20lives&st=cse]], by Mark Levin debuting at the top of the Nonfiction Best Sellers.  Following the link is a good idea, since the on-line version corrects its paper edition by pointing out Levin didn't really interview (7 yr old) Piper Palin for his talk show.  To the point, Levin throws stones at //Barak Milhous Nobama//, and Al Franken.   The review says his latest book looks for a return to "the founders", so following the review links can put you in touch with his "neo-Federalist" ideals.
*and from the //requires-further-study// desk, we find Richard John Neuhaus [[American Babylon|http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/books/review/Morris-t.html?scp=1&sq=american%20babylon&st=cse]], reviewed by Charles R Morris.  "Further study", since according to the tag: "A Catholic theologian takes on the writings of a rival thinker about the nature of our sense of right and wrong".   The rival thinker is the also late (both within the last two years) Richard Rorty, who supports the "ironist" view that all we know is our language.  Neuhaus view supports the idea of inherent good (and evil).   For this liberal thinker, the challenge is along the line of defending the right of someone to say something which is completely foolish if not uninformed.
If you visit the Book Review, I also recommend "A Delicate Balance", on Richard Beeman's //Plain, Honest Men//, on the framing of the US Constitution, and "The Believer", by Jack Miles, reviewing James Carroll's //Practicing Catholic//.   Both Miles and Carroll were "born ... in the early 1940's into working class Irish Catholic Chicago".  Carroll stayed Catholic; Miles is now Episcopalian and wondering why Carroll isn't.

[[more|2009-04]] | [[prev|TTGL#6]] | [[this|TTGL#7]] | [[next|TTGL#8]] | [[current|CurrentTTGL]]  
Just a frightening little video from Cyrus in Toronto:
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/1081/Chicken-a-la-Carte

[[more|2009-04]] | [[prev|TTGL#7]] | [[this|TTGL#8]] | [[next|TTGL#9]] | [[current|CurrentTTGL]]  
I understand there is a group of I-A (irish-americans) who are demanding that Notre Dame return the leprechaun:
----
>The Reverend John Jenkins, C.S.C
> President, University of Notre Dame
> 400 Main Building
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>
> Reverend and dear Father Jenkins,
>
> Permit me to add my name as well to the long list of Bishops of the Catholic
> Church who are utterly appalled at your dedication to immorality and
> wrong-doing represented by your support for the obscenity called ³The Vagina
> Monologues² and your absolute indifference to the murderous abortion program
> and beliefs of this President of the United States. The fact that you have
> some sort of past connection with the State of Nebraska makes it all the
> more painful that the Catholic people here have to see your betrayal of the
> moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
>
> I can assure you of my prayers for your conversion, and for the conversion
> of your formerly Catholic University. I am
>
> Sincerely yours in Christ Jesus,
> The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz
> Bishop of Lincoln
----

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-04 #8 #9  -10>>
Just when i was getting worried about the Liberal Issue of The Day, my daughter Maura bailed me out, reminding me of how deeply wedged the Vatican's head is these days.   
According to a [[BBC News report|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7998688.stm]], the Vatican is uninterested in any of the ambassadorial appointments the Obama administration is likely to send up, while "none are official".  Here's my recommendation:   Send the Vatican a ''copy of Kerry Kennedy  (Cuomo ?)'s book'', [[Being Catholic Now|http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Being-Catholic-Now/Kerry-Kennedy/e/9780307346841]] as our ambassadorial representative.  Maybe then the oligarchy will start to fathom the depth of their irrelevance.   And  my advice to B.O.:  be diplomatic, keep sending names, let them embarass themselves.  But by all means, don't concede with a Bill Donohue clone; then i'll move to Toronto with my Muslim friends.
Here's a swatch of the BBC article.  Thanks Maura (b.t.w, since you asked, //this// is my reply)
----
> Vatican 'vetoes' US envoy names
> Caroline Kennedy, file photo from March 2009
> Caroline Kennedy was reportedly among the list of vetoed candidates
> 
> The Vatican has rejected at least three possible candidates proposed by Barack Obama to serve as US ambassador to the Holy See, say reliable sources in Rome.
>
> None of the three candidates informally proposed by the Obama administration so far is acceptable to the Pope because of their support for abortion rights.
>
> One of the potential nominees vetoed by the Vatican is Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the former US president.
>
> Conservative Catholics in the US had already criticised her candidacy.
> 
> They say her outspoken pro-choice views on abortion made her an unsuitable choice. The Vatican is unhappy about President Obama's support of abortion rights and his lifting of a previous ban on embryonic stem cell research in the US. 
----

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-04 #9  -10 -11>>
I received a piece of email with a copy of  [[this material|http://visionsfromthehorizon.blogspot.com/2009/04/arrogant-americans-mr-president.html]] berating Barak Obama's apology for America's recent arrogance.  Here's the opening salvo:
----
>Friday, April 17, 2009
> 
>Arrogant Americans, Mr. President?
>Peter Heck - Guest Columnist -
>
>As I was sitting in church waiting for the start of the service, my grandpa came walking towards me pointing his finger. No matter how old I get, and no matter how long he's been out of the U.S. Navy, that's still an intimidating sight. As he approached me, his voice quivered as he said, "We saved that continent twice...how dare my president apologize for this country's arrogance." My grandpa is right. Americans need not apologize to the world for their arrogance; rather, Americans should apologize to their forefathers for the arrogance of their president.
----
While one could easily take this apart on disingenuousness of its appeal, "as i was sitting in church...",  here's what i sent to the forwarding party and those copied on the email:
  //when our president spoke of arrogant americans he couldn't have been speaking of you or me; he only can speak of those whose arrogance was manifest:  bush, cheny, rumsfeld, feith, wolfowitz, gonzalez, john woo, ... 
  
  those who would confuse us must think we are ignorant, or a word i choose to coin: igNOREnt -- adj., willful disregard of available evidence.  

  let us not mislabel the acts of those who were stealing democracy as patriotic.   let us not loose our heads listening to those who won't make that distinction.  the reason we have to listen to these weak arguments is the charge of arrogance may point at someone in whom we placed false hope.   those days are well past; we can get on with aligning american policy with it's vision -- that of a beacon of hope for the world (it may mean recognizing we haven't been that lately).

  barak's admission was not arrogant, rather it was humble.   i liken it to the pope's admission a decade ago that the church was wrong in sanctioning galileo.   (that only took 350 years).
//

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-04  -10 -11 -12>>
''It's Torture Time''
The talk (beltway banter) last week was all about B.O.'s willingness to let bygones be bygones.   It all depends on your definition of "bygone", Mr President.  Let me join the chorus against what seems to be a willingness to have justice turn a blind eye to the illegal torture conducted in our name.

With the benefit of a [[Frank Rich column|http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html]] in the NYTimes, i'm focusing an eye on an [[editorial from one Ali Soufan|http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html]], a questioner of Abu Zubaydah.  Apparently, the question is still open on the value of Mr Z to  al Queda, let alone the information he might have had, and the difficulty we might have had in extracting it from him.   To be sure, Mr Soufan was a prime witness to these questions, so his word should be worth something, and deserving wider audience.

Mr Soufan says, in a column titled, [[My Tortured Decision|http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html]], that 
> ''One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.''
What further comment on whether our government, the bush administration specifically, authorized unwarranted torture, will all be pointless apology.  It is not yet time to move on, (at least not until we hear from the DOT ORG of that name), and seek justice.   My soul still bears the marks of complicity in torture.

I agree with Rich, when, after recalling Andersonville, World War II internment camps, and My Lai, he concludes with:
> //What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation's commitment to the rule of law.//

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with: 2009-04 -11 -12 -13>>
TTGL # 12, the day on which one of our US Senators thought it was Time To Get Liberal.

Admittedly, Arlen Specter's decision was based on pure political calculus. But what can you expect from someone who was brought up republican? vote for Lincoln? Kennedy? No, those days are gone. Let's just vote with Darwin: Survival of the Fittest!!! I'm fit, the local repugnicans have gone off the deep end. winning their endorsement is tantamount to an early (at age 79 I still have 20 years -- consider Frank Lautenberg -- to look forward to). pardon the cynicism, but, hey, it's the repugnicant's who've told us "the government _is_ the problem". all i can ask is "which government is that?" the with Spectre as a republican or as a democrat. to which i'd offer, it was miserable with spectre as a republican, he recognized that, and guess what? thought he'd make it better by becoming a democrat.

Now, if only my _many_ friends in MN would wake up (i still _think_ i have friends in my native land -- be careful about them //native// lands), and send the only New York Jew _born_ in minnesota, that being Al Franken, to the US senate, we could get on with the business of governing this increasing ungovernable land (that is, until some of you get off your high horse, and start behaving as if you cared about those less fortunate than yourself).

Which reminds me; i'd better shut up, since one of you is likely to be America's Least Fortunate Person, and it's _your_ needs (not my petty ones) we should be paying attention to.

And Arlen, if you should see Ms Calabash, please say "Good Night" for me and Jimmy.

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive  -12 -13 -14>>
''TTGL # 13'' -- //Letters to the Editor//
All are in response to [[TTGL #12|TTGL-12]], where the language was a little salty, celebrating, as such, Arlen Specter's joining the Democratic Party.

<<slider ckSpecter Harold-2009-04-30 "Harold has a measured reply" "Click to OPEN or CLOSE">>

<<slider ckSpecter DanM-2009-04-29 "Dan M, On Norm Coleman" "Click to OPEN or CLOSE">>

<<slider ckSpecter EdP-2009-04-29 "Ed thinks Lincoln was a Democrat" "Click to OPEN or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive   -13 -14 -15 >>
''TTGL # 14''
!!!Specter Switch Predicted
Arlen Specter wrote [[The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs|http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656]] in [[The New York Review of Books|http://nybooks.com]] a full two weeks before his party switch.   It's easy to tell who doesn't read the NY Review:  all those reporters who say the Specter party switch caught them by surprise.   I wish I had gotten sooner to the pile of liberal press piling up behind me on the old organ bench.  Then you'd not have been surprised (or were you?) when it happened.   

Which presages the next section.   You didn't happen to catch the last two Nordeast republicans on the tube (News Hour) did you?  I did.  You have to feel sorry for Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- trying to keep their head above water.   Heck, they'll get elected, opposition or not.  The only good news is the GOP won't be able to find a race-baiter in the state of ME to run against them in a primary.  All these facts lead me to conclude this time, the party should be writing it's obit.  Which brings us to ...
!!!Obituaries
Two passings were noted over the weekend:
*[[The Republican Party|http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/04/1920892.aspx]], and
*[[Jack Kemp|http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/03kemp.html]]
in the former, none less than Jeb Bush, along with Mitt Romney and Eric Cantor, on their first (and last?) stop on a "listening tour" (how novel),  declared the party bereft of ideas.   Noting the only new idea in the party is the person of Sarah Palin, which prompted Rush (Al Franken's //Big Fat Liar//) to observe as heresy.   

In the later event, an actual passing of a //honorable man// in Jack Kemp.  On close reading of the Times obit, we are reminded it was Kemp who popularized tax-cutting, supply-side economics.   This, more than the Goldwater meteor, was what lifted Reagan to the Casa Blanca.  And Reagan rewarded Kemp by taking his equally committed free-trade proposals, and stuffing them down the Japanese throats.  (or one might infer that from the obit).

So, I think it more than a coincidence that the GOP declared itself an empty tank on the same day its first disciple died.  
!!!Letters to the Editor
*<<slider ck14 Harold-090501 "On History:  How FDR became a Democrat" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

*<<slider ck14 EdP-090501 HowToBeARepublican "click to Open or CLOSE">>

More to follow in [[TTGL #15|TTGL-15]] on the Specter switch to the Democratic Party.

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive   -14 -15 -16 >>
''TTGL # 15''
!!!The News -- Who Knew What When
This was the week that Nancy Pelosi was called on the carpet for her '02 briefing on waterboarding (or not).   I go with the realists on this one, and not those who excoriate her, David Brooks notwithstanding on the theatrical value of her performance.  The conservative blogosphere would shame her for not speaking out about what?   Something they want us to believe was perfectly legal.   Put in simple terms, Rush and Co. want her to resign, step down, be impeached, or benignly //waterboarded//.   For what?  Being briefed on whether or not the CIA was completely honest (don't use that //other// ''L'' word -- "lie") to her.    And not raising a stink about it?   Which brings us to the real issue.

What is the President going to do about this?    Frank Rich in today's NYT suggests even conservatives are getting behind the issue:  full disclosure.   And Maureen Dowd points out, that however obliquely, both Cheney and Pelosi agree on one thing.  Let's see more of the CIA documents.  But I'll bet their agreement doesn't extend to the filter we put on the selection criteria.

It's a good time to be a liberal.

!!!Letters to the Editor
<<slider ck15 Letters090517 "Early May Letters to TTGL" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive   -15 -16 -17 >>
''TTGL # 16''
!!!The News -- President's UND Commencement, Sr Joan C, OSB
[[Sr Joan Chittester on Pres Obama's UND Commencement|http://ncronline.org/blogs/where-i-stand/it-was-face-life-you-have-just-inherited-speech]] prompted me ot post this reply:

//Some faith-based positions are more real, much more real than others.  I heard the President use the words "in good faith" today when speaking with Israel's PM Netanyahu.   Where is the good faith from the religious right when they support creationist theories?   Especially the prevalent "young earth" movement, that would have us believe God worked for six out of seven 24 hour days in October, 4004 BC.   

I'm always impressed by those such as Sr Joan and President Obama who can take the high moral ground without the slightest witness to some really treacherous idea-merchants doing their best to pull down the discourse.//

It's a good time to be a liberal.
!!!Letters to the Editor
(the day we posted this was Al Franken's birthday # 58!)
<<slider ck15  [[Franken In Iraq]] "Al Franken Visits the Troops" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with: 2009-Archive -16 -17 -18>>
''TTGL # 17''
!!!News -- Powell on Face the Nation
Check it out for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1laECLxWd8.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and I share one wish: //a healthy two-party system//. And we may agree on another: that the current core of the Republican party -- Rush and Cheney fans -- are not a base to build on. The [[video poster|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1laECLxWd8.]], ''speakmymind02'' has this to say:
> //Sorry about the quality, I had to hurry to get this, but I got it....It should be a policy with Republicans, never to listen to anyone tell us what to do while they're still wearing the other Team'..//
as if Powell was "wearing the other team's shirt". What those who think of themselves as "on //that// team" should consider a parallel with the baseball leagues. For a while now, your franchise has been in the major leagues, with teams in every part of the country. But, if you'd open your eyes for a moment, you'd see that the team with the red jerseys is now limited to Appalachia and Mormon country. And you can peddle all kinds of erroneous statistics about how much land is red, etc, in moments of continued self-delusion. It won't do you or the republic any favors. ''Listen to Colin Powell'' if you can. Remove the beam in your eye. Get on with giving alternative arguments to the concept of public service.

If pushed on this one, I've got a few good conservative ideas that neither the democrats nor republicans have seemed to pick up that might be consensus-building issues for a reformed republican party.

It's a good time to be a liberal.
!!!Other Voices
<<slider ck16 [[Truthout: on the RNC]] "Truthout: on the RNC" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with: 2009-Archive -17 -18 -19>>
''TTGL # 18''
!!!News -- The Narrowing of the Mind
In the [[May issue of Harpers|http://harpers.org]], Jeff Sharlet's cover story, [[Jesus Killed Mohamed|http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488]], gives a tour of the Christian right wing making its way through the American military. It's close to yours truly's heart, since the chapel of the military right wing is located in the former home town of Colorado Springs, at the US Air Force Academy. Sharlet takes us to Iraq, and traces the right's rise out of the Viet Nam war. In those days, he says, the chaplaincy corps reflected main-stream protestant America, with a sufficient number of Catholic clergy. The denominations were represented in rough proportion to the percent of self-identifying of the major religions. Every chaplain was expected to serve the minority denominations. With Islam and Judaism represented on the order of 1 in 300 service men, the proportion of their chaplains was hard to match to any unit. By the arrival of the Reagan revolution, the chaplaincy was allowed to aggregate at higher levels. so, "protestant" rather than "presbyterian" became an aggregator. And what happened, the majority of "protestants" came from the easy-to-identify generic "protestant", much more likely to be a fundamentalist evangelical.

The question I've been struggling with for at least seven years (see [[The News Dark Time|http://mcgowans.org/ndt/]]), has distilled a ready assertion: ''The liberal is obliged to defend your rights to share your opinion, no matter how ill-informed it may be; the conservative is not similarly burdened.'' Sharlet offers an explanation:
>Today, fundamentalism based as it is on a vigorous assertion of narrow and exclusive claims to truth, can no longer justify common cause with secularism.
One might observe what's going thru such a person's head: //How can I, or why would I even consider having an open discussion with someone such as you, a likely agent of Satan.// Read the whole article. Sharlet introduces us to folks on both sides of the aisle, from those who are using the military as the right arm of Lord, to officers who are defending those abused for a similar lack of "faith"

While ''it's a good time to be a liberal,'' it's still rough to be an American
!!!Looking Ahead
Stay tuned for insights from Robert Reich, from his perch as (former) Labor Secretary, on the future of GM, labor in America, and our investment ($60B) in the company. A brief peek ahead: Reich is not one of the let-em-fail crowd; he is willing to speak about what the current elected leaders are willing to dance around. Today is the day GM dropped off the Dow-Jones, and was de-listed from the BigBoard.
<<slider ck16 [[...]] "" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive  -18 -19 -20>>
''TTGL # 19''
!!!News -- re: The Healthcare War is Now Official
From [[Robert Reich's Blog|http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/06/healthcare-war-is-now-official.html]]
>Thursday, June 11, 2009
>The Healthcare War is Now Official
>Yesterday the American Medical Association came out against a public option for health care. And yesterday the President reaffirmed his support for it. The next weeks will show what Obama is made of -- whether he's willing and able to take on the most formidable lobbying coalition he has faced so far on an issue that will define his presidency.
> ...
>The President can't do this alone. You must weigh in and get everyone you know to weigh in, too. Bombard your senators and representatives. Organize and mobilize others. And let the White House know how strongly you feel. This is one of those battles that define a presidency. But more importantly, it's one of those battles that define the state of American democracy.

While it's a good time to be a liberal, it's going to be even more work!
!!!Letters to the Editor
Making it a Robert Reich edition, I've reviewed Reich's 20+ year old book, [[Tales of a New America|http://www.librarything.com/work/1008644/reviews]] on The Library Thing.   Reich wrote this in the darkest days of the Reagan revolution, in the run-up to the '86 mid-term election.  Reich was reacting to Reagan's nearly un-challenged assertion that "The government is the problem".   My reply to that one is that Reagan was listening to Nancy's seers, who peered into the future, and were seeing the last 8 years under W's administration.  

In any case, there's the review, the substance of it is, while some of Reich chickens have come home to roost, many are still on the wing.   And this liberal would have to ask him if he's adjusted the scales on the "Rot at the Top" myth in behalf of the corporate oligarchies.   
<<slider ck16  [[...]] "" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive  -19 -20 -21>>
''TTGL # 20''
!!!News -- 
<<tiddler ToMinnPost>>
!!!Letters FROM the Editor
<<slider ckgl20 [[Professor Backstrom]] "Professor Backstrom -- on MN recounts" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with: 2009-Archive -20 -21 -22>>
''TTGL # 21''
!!!News -- Republicans Make the Best Arguments

Their only problem is they are deaf to their own thinking.

Kant's "Universal Imperative" (UI), or some such, briefly stated:
>Speak and act as if your objective were true for all people for all time.

What do I mean by indicting the Republicans? Just pick up any opinion page, check out a blog. You'll find the arguments on their side are invariably unaware of this simple thought: //Does this apply to me?//

It's the 4th of July weekend, so thoughts turn to (small r) republican values. Your editor is in MN for the annual family gathering, so the [[Mpls Star and Trib|http://www.startribune.com/opinion/]] is the data source for this experiment. Here, the most recent news has been the Franken election to the US Senate [[(TTGL #20)|TTGL-20]], so, for openers, in the 7/3/09 edition, writer Bruce Granger, Prior Lake, observes Coleman won the first count, Franken the second, so it must be a tie. more about that later. He concludes, "the only fair way..." is to revote with only the two on the ballot. Let's see, would that principal have spared us Bush v Gore? Duh? On the matter of the one-one tie, let's keep going: count again, and again and again, say N times. The final score would be Coleman, 1: Franken N-1. A general principal of mine is to simply take the Republican argument at face value, you won't have to look to far within their own camp for an opportunity to apply the rule.

We all understand the UI principal when a Republican senator or governor has made their way to their seat by being the "family values" candidate, only to find out they've not been able to follow their own advice.

Here's another example, same paper, same section, next column, from Mary Linnihan, of Mpls. She observes " ... the governments in nations such as Iran and North Korea are not intersted in talking, and never have been." This as a means of taking more stident action than talking. I imagine she's thinking of the "Iraqification" of Iran?! I guess the other thing she's suggesting is our government should join those beligerant nations. Haven't we tried that? Rather than talk _with_ them, we should only talk _to_ them. That's it, Preach, rather than Teach. She should wonder why people in other nations haven't learned much from us.

!!!Letters to the Editor
There are a couple in the old //IN basket//; stay tuned liberals, for updates, and keep 'em comin'. Thanks.
<<slider ckgl20 [[...]] "" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive  -21 -22 -23>>
''TTGL # 22''
!!!News -- 
<<tiddler NancyPelosiTest>>
<<slider ckgl20 [[...]] "" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with: 2009-Archive -22 -23 -24 >>
''TTGL #23''
!!!News -- TTGL: Ted, The Great Lion
It's hardly news any longer; Ted Kennedy died this morning: August 26, 2009. Needless to say, your TTGL editor is a considerable fan of ''T''ed, ''T''he ''G''reat ''L''ion. Though, to set the record straight, in my most politically active season, the campaign of 1980, I was a Carter supporter, and don't regret it. News commentators today are pointing out that Ted's accomplishments from the well of the Senate surpass those of his two brothers, John and Bobby. And this, largely because his chance of becoming President was dimmed by his own intemperate judgement 40 years ago last month.

While many would find a single, tragic failure enough to disqualify him from the presidency, it's likely the Bridge at Chappaquidick was a convenient excuse for those who don't see the government as directing a higher calling. The liberal philosophy, which calls us to care for the least fortunate, is too great a challenge for far too many of us. But Ted Kennedy wasn't overcome by fear to become the champion of those who have the least hold on the favors of this democracy. There is work to be done, much work to be done. As Ted's life and accomplishments are celebrated over the next few days, we'll see much speculation on his legacy for true and universal health care. I for one, am undimmed by his loss. I look forward to living in a country that recognizes the "least" among us have every right to the same care I can expect. The road Ted showed us is not yet paved; the only open question for each to answer is: //do I believe every American has an equal opportunity as I do for health care?//
!!!Letters FROM the Editor
I feel sorry for those who would disagree with the irrefutable Senator Kennedy:
[[Senator Kennedy on Who Has Health Care|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrJVbCzJH6c]] -- 4 min on You Tube
<<slider ckgl20 [[...]] "" "click to Open or CLOSE">>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive  -23 -24 -25 >>
''TTGL #24''
!!!Opinion -- 
<<tiddler PublicIntellectuals>>
!!!Letters
<<tiddler Art-24-090926>>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive  -24 -25 -26 >>
''TTGL #25''
!!Opinion -- 
<<tiddler ATruckHaulingAsphalt>>
!!Letters
<<tiddler Pat-25-091003>>
----
<<tiddler Meg-25-091003>>
----
<<tiddler Norm-25-091004>>
----

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive  -25 -26 -27 >>
''TTGL #26''
!!Opinion --  
I mailed [[this letter|NewsHourLetter-091014]] to [[PBS Newshour|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html]] this evening; my ire is way up at the equivocators in behalf of exorbitant executive salaries, one of whom they offered the stage to on tonight's show:
//
<<tiddler NewsHourLetter-091014>>
//
!!Letters
<<tiddler ArtP-091021-Partisanship>>
----
From a reader whose request has been honored:
<<tiddler Ryan-091014>>
-----
And your editor's reply:
<<tiddler ReplyTo-Ryan-091014>>
----

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive   -26 -27 -28>>
''TTGL #27''
!!Opinion --  
Today, plenty of opinion is supplied by Art P, in his following letter:
----
<<tiddler ArtP-091021-Partisanship>>
!!Letters -- Partisanship
<<tiddler DebD-091024-Partisanship>>
-----
<<tiddler MegM-091024-Partisanship>>
-----
<<tiddler MauriceM-091024-Partisanship>>

<<tiddler NavxTTGL with:  2009-Archive    -27 -28 -29>>
''TTGL #28''
!!Opinion --  On Leadership
This insight is offered by  Ed Petersen, in his following letter:
----
<<tiddler EdP-091124-Leadership>>
!!Letters --

TheEditor may be reached [[via email|mailto:mcgowan AT alum DOT mit DOT edu]]

TiddlyWiki: <<tiddler TiddlyWikiTutorials>>

Here is a brief list of TiddlyWikiTutorials to get you started:
*http://tiddlywiki.org/ -- the mother ship of TiddlyWiki technology
*http://www.giffmex.org/twfortherestofus.html -- TW for the Rest of Us, excellent starter tutorial, for READERs
*http://www.tiddlywiki.com/#[[Help%20and%20Support]] -- tutorials for Readers and Writers

[[more|2009-04]] | [[prev|2009-04l]] | [[this|Time to Get Liberal]] | [[next|TTGL#2]] | [[current|CurrentTTGL]]  
after watching this week's bill moyer's  journal,   with a pair of guests: glenn greenwald and amy goodman on media complicity in just about everything that's sunk us, notably iraq and lack of financial regulation, it's "Time to Get Liberal".

  I'm starting with Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.  I'd been giving Geithner some slack, since my limited knowledge of his pres of the NY Fed, was that of "scrupulous watchdog".  that is proving to not be the case.   summers, i'd never been a fan of, in particular since reading of his treatment of Cornel West.   Here are some links for the avid:
<<tiddler FirstLinks>>

let me know who, if you forward this to anyone;  please.

and let me know if you would like to see more of this -- "time to get liberal"

On [[Franken over Coleman|ToMinnPost]]
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/06/30/9951/impressive_unanimity_the_historical_significance_of_coleman_v_franken#comments_section


>It's a bit of ancient history but the '62 MN gubernatorial election (Rolvaag v Andersen) was decided by 91 votes out of one million: http://www.mnhs.org/people/governors/gov/gov_33.htm, and was the subject of the book "Recount", by Prof Charles Backstrom: http://charlesbackstrom.com/ at the U of M.
>
>In Bush v Gore, I was hoping someone would review that election, slow down, and ask, "what's the rush to judgment".  Possibly the "clear statutory standards" in MN law were a result of the election of '62.  As I recall, as a '64 student of Backstrom's, much of the back and forth (multiple recounts and trials) was over the marking of the paper ballots.  
>
>Good article; let's hope the author's suggestions are followed.

>FOCUS | [[Robert Parry|Truthout: on the RNC]]: The GOP's "Era of Apologizing"
>http://www.truthout.org/052309Z?n
>Robert Parry, Consortium News: 
>>"Republican National Chairman Michael Steele says, 'the era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over.' But that must have been a very brief 'era,' since it's hard to remember any significant mistakes that the GOP has owned up to - except perhaps that George W. Bush wasn't right-wing enough. Instead, leading Republicans - and right-wing pundits - have engaged in a steady campaign of defending almost every controversial action of the Bush years, including torture of detainees, a war of aggression in Iraq, disregard of constitutional rights, failure to address global warming, massive tax cuts for the rich, the absence of financial regulation, etc., etc."

How to UnSubscribe:
<html><a href="mailto:marty3@mcgowans.org?subject=TTGL,unsubscribe">Click Here</a></html>

As an amateur educator, the phrase: //Computer programming is the only language we are expected to ''write'' before we can read.//  motivates this page.

So, in addition to the ReadersGuide, this is the WritersGuide.

For the time being, I'm the only author here, ''but'' with sufficient interest, I'm willing to open up direct contributions to TTGL.  [[Let me know|TheEditor]]  if you'd like to contribute:
*as TheEditor, my commitment to you, the Writer
**I use your First name only  (maybe last initial)
**other nonpublic names are edited to initials only, and any personal relationship is omitted unless it bears on the piece
**editing out possibly personal stuff ( cutting, never changing ) showing internal skipping with the ... ellipses.
*and you, the Writer will respect your commitment to TheEditor
**your words mostly
**3rd party material is referenced (like a URL, NOT a complete copy)
**brevity -- visible on a ''single'' screen of fairly good-sized text.
*letter writers are now on a special mailing list.
**see [[TTGL-25]] and TTGL-24 for the current standard handling for your letters
**i'm working on a tiddler tag for each writer, so you can easily find (and print) your own collection

[[$1|http://www.$2]] [[..|WwW]]