The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Michael:

Graydon.

Good points, and ones I've often considered. The whole concept of two parties, diametrically opposed, is of course a fiction, and an unproductive one at that. Start out with the many ways in which "right" and "left" and "liberal" and "conservative" and "progressive" keep having their meanings altered, corrupted and reversed. And, in all seriousness, the distinctions between "Democrat" and "Republican" are minute; I see the distinction more or less as: Republicans think they know better, and that the people (who may or may not have elected them) should get in line and do as instructed. The Dems also think they know better, but at least appear to listen to the populace and adjust their stance accordingly. Another distinction is the good ole' Who's-Been-Bought-By-Whom one.

Regarding Sawicky, DeGenova, et al.:
I think DeGenova probably meant something totally other than what he comes off as meaning. And while I like to defend the liberals on this one, but such poorly (or better, carelessly) crafted remarks are shameful, and discredit the movement.

I don't want to see the US trounced in Iraq. It would be an object lesson against BushCo's arrogance, but it would mean even more casualties and probably lead to full-on world war. I don't want the US in Iraq in the first place, really, except that I do think Saddam should've been removed somehow, on purely humanitarian grounds. No, I've not got any ideas how that could have been accomplished...I'm a scientist, not a politician or general, so it's my job to point out that the emperor has no clothes, not to get him some. Now that we're in Iraq, I would like to see fighting ended quickly and as bloodlessly as possible, with a sensible post-war reconstruction plan implemented, maybe overseen by a UN panel of people who have not only general experience with occupation but also good knowledge of Iraqi history and culture and politics.

I agree entirely with Burke here, but would like to add my own interpretation of things: I attended a small liberal arts college in Ohio widely known for holding loud ineffective protests about pretty much anything. I admire the protesters' and direct actioneers' resolve, and respect their commitment to action, but as others keep saying: IT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!
Every movement needs radicals. They get things going, attract attention (there is no such thing as bad press, it92s all media exposure...up to a point), and make those of us working towards change within the system look calm, rational, and credible. We need radicals. We just don't want to *be* them, or to have so many that the rest get drowned out.

You know, Mark, I find many of your posts quite interesting, despite the fact that I totally disagree with you on many, many points, but there was a point when you lost credibility:

"Tell me how Gore-Lieberman would have never
bowed to the Zionist lobby or pushed even harder
sanctions or even war on Iraq"

The "Zionist lobby" hasn't really existed since, well, about 1948. It was a movement to *create* the state of Israel, and a successful one at that. And it's bloody bad enough to be getting this anti-Semitic "the Jews control the world and f*** everything up anyways" rhetoric from the so-called Christian Right, do we really need it from the oh-so-concerned-about-human-suffering left?

Comment statistics for Michael on the Electrolite blog

Total: 3 comments. View all these comments on a single page.