A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Links

Since that damned Jay Stevens doesn't want to hang around to do it ...

Booman points out that you actually have to give credit to the Republicants for being unbelievable bastards.  Okay, maybe you don't, but America did.

I could go on for quite a while listing the cynical and dilatory and dishonest things the Republicans have done since Obama became president, none of which are easy to credit. But, it worked.

They knew the left would get dispirited and frustrated and start fighting amongst themselves. They knew their own base would love it and reward them for it. They knew the media wouldn't be an honest referee. They knew that in a bad economy, white majority America would respond to their ACORN/Henry Louis Gates Jr./New Black Panther Party/Shirley Sherrod/Health-Care-is-for-minorities/Sharia Law/Ground Zero mosque/illegal immigration themes. And they knew that if they only stuck to the plan, there wouldn't be a damn thing the Democrats could do about it. And there wasn't. They went scorched Earth, and if you're honest, we didn't have the tools to combat them.

CW says that a Speaker of the House who presides over an historical bad election for the party should just step down from leadership.  So why are the Republicants whistling past the graveyard that Nancy Pelosi might become the Minority House leader?  Simple enough.  Common wisdom assumes that people are idiots, as do Republicants.  Modern history shows clearly that Republicants can't fail to contradict themselves.  They've just spent 6 months telling folk that this mid-term is a referendum on Obama, not Pelosi.  Progressives, on the other hand, see some small truth to that, and recognize that Pelosi was a tough and strident ally. 

MSNBC proves itself more full of shit everyday.  Maddow is the only thing worth watching on it anymore.

There is no reason to *not* think the world of Darcy Burner.

Scott Lemieux makes an argument I've made many times, just vastly more eloquently.

Arguments about third party voting, then, generally aren’t arguments about whether any single individual should vote for the Democrats but whether groups of similarly situated individuals should vote for the Democrats. At this level, the advocate of third party voting in a first-past-the-post system has to address the fact that an unwillingness to sully one’s purity with strategic voting has very real downsides (such as hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars wasted attacking a country that poses no threat to the United States, fiscal policy that increased inequities and make s future progressive reform much less viable, several decades each of Roberts and Alito, etc. etc. etc.) and no discernible benefits. If third party voting is supposed to be the key to making the Democrats better, well, Nader already succeeded in his goal of throwing the 2000 election to Bush — how did that work out? According to Daniel, not very well — and, remember, this is true! So I’m not sure why the next time will be the charm.

Though it has been said a thousand different times in a hundred different ways, this one is unique.  Mr' President, you simply cannot trust working with the Republicants!

Because to someone in an adult relationship -- whose only experience of such things is a healthy marriage -- the idea that someone with whom you share a life could get so addicted to pure, blind rage and self-loathing that they would put their own well-being at risk -- put the safety of children at risk -- just to see you in pain would be...incomprehensible.

Too bad young Barack Obama never learned the hard lesson that "nice", "accommodating" and "reasonable" absolutely do not work when you find yourself involved with a psycho who wants to punish you for their own failures, set you on fire to silence the voices in their own head, and then piss on your grave to smother the shrieking goblins of their own past.

Because with the Modern Republican Party, that sure as shit is who he's shackled to now.

Heath Shuler couldn't have sucked more as a quarterback.  His Blue Doggy Democrats just got their asses stomped.  And now he wants to lead the Democrats forward?  Is he high?

And a little light-weight wingnut humor to finish.  Teabaggers, in a nutshell.

 

I-164, and I Voted

First, yes, I was going to post earlier about I-164 but it really doesn't matter.  Enormous amounts of pixels have already been devoted to it.  But I've got a few things to say.  Follow me down below.

Second, I voted.  It was heartening in the extreme to see such activity at the polling place.  At least in Montana, I don't think turnout is going to suck in the manner we've been lead to believe.  If I thank the Tea Party for anything, it's that.  They have motivated those against as much as they have those for.

Third, I think CI-105 will pass for very goofy reasons.  In comments over at 4 & 20 Blackbirds, Mr. Benson glibly stated that he would vote for this change to the Constitution because it's pleasant to have direct control over taxation.  How quaint.  How fun.  How corrupt.  Morally, this stance is such that if one has the funds to protect itself from taxation through a media blitz to change a Constitutional power, relying on the average person's will to control taxes that don't effect them, then it's a good thing.  Project that into the future, and embrace the Californication of Montana.

problembear's response was even more silly.  He agrees with Benson, based on the fact that his property taxes have gone up.  His property taxes went up because his property's value has increased.  Let's say that the real estate bubble re-inflates.  Property values will continue to rise, and the real estate industry will prosper.  More to the point, property taxes will continue to rise.  But rather than using a real estate transfer tax to off set the rise in taxation due to 'flipping', now the legislature will have less choice in how to eleviate the burden on the average home owner.  Well done, people.  ~golf clap~  You've just screwed yourselves by demanding direct control over taxation.  You've solved a problem that didn't exist and forced a bigger problem that could, based on fear of a tax that didn't even exist.  Well done, indeed.

CI-105 will pass; I haven't a doubt.  It is emotional.

Third, I voted against Nels Swandal, and for Beth Baker.  It's not that I don't trust Dorothy Bradley, or believe that Nels isn't qualified.  It's that a non-partisan race has been turned into a partisan race with Swandel's full support.  That kind of person doesn't belong on the Supreme Court of Montana.  He'll win anyway, but I just wanted to register my displeasure.

Fourth, I voted for I-164, with deep reservations.  Yes, 300% (more) interest is way too high.  I get that.  There still needs to be an alternative for the working poor.

Since this argument, at least online, has been driven by anecdote, I think I should share mine.  When I first started at my current job, I was a sales clerk (just as many on the right think I still am, idiots that they are.)  I was making subsistence wage.  When I first moved back to Bozeman, I had a credit rating in the 760s.  I was unemployed for 7 months, and that didn't last long.  I was banking with Norwest, which got eated by Wells Fargo  ~spit~.  In a particularly bad month, I bounced a check, by 50 cents.  I was assessed a 28$ service charge, which I was notified about in the mail a week later.  That charge was attributed directly to my account, meaning I was $28.50 in the hole, and didn't know it.  By the time I found out, I was over $200 in the hole due to service charges.  Now think on that for a second.  When you deposit money in a bank, as we have all painfully learned, they can do whatever the frack they want with it, including high risk investments in garbage derivatives.   But I borrowed 50 cents from the bank.   What is the interest rate of 50 cents when paying over $200 in a week?  See what I mean?

I went to the legal loansharks because I had to pay off this debt.  And because of that, I was was stuck in a cycle of borrow to the Future ... AND BEYOND! That lasted until a tax return, about 6 months.   I think I've actually blacked out the amount of money I paid those assholes, but they kept my head above water.  That was all that mattered.  When I was in Missoula, I could go down to the Missoula Federal Credit Union and get a signature loan, having proof of a full time job, that I could pay back over time, instead of fronting the money immediately.  I pray that this is the direction in which we are moving, but it won't come from banks.  It will come from credit unions, and loan associations.

My point is fairly simple, and it is this.  The working poor need an alternative for credit.  Hopefully, I-164 will open a gap into which others will move.  As a society, we often focus on the fact that these folks are poor, and ignore that they are working, very hard most often.  They need a safety net as much as anyone else.  Payday lenders have given them that.  Passing I-164 won't alleviate the need for such.   It will only appease a symptom, and certainly not cure the disease.

Sore Winners

If you only read one article today, make it this one.  The Sore Winners:  Will America's Super Minority Sink Us All?

Now ees the time on Sprockets ven ve quote:

The Sore Winners are easy to find. They are most visible at their flagship, Fox News, which dominates both cable news and the political conversaton and yet is always embattled, defending itself against the heathen. They are loudest not only on secular talk radio, but also in Christian broadcasting, which tells its listeners that a nation that remains a nation of Christians rather than a Christian nation is a nation that has turned against them. This is not to say, however, that the Sore Winners are strictly a political phenomenon, manipulated, as some would have it, by their masters in the media or by the money men from Wall Street. No, what makes the Sore Winners such a force in American politics is that their anger is so personal.

...

Worrying about what someone who doesn't think about you thinks about you: this is the essence of Sore Winnerdom, and it is no accident that it also the essence of the Republican animus. The Republican party was small and hidebound — the party of country-club corporatists, and the range-war West — until, with the Reagan Revolution, it began grafting unto itself the legions of the disaffected: the Christianists, the Southerners, the blue-collar workers displaced by the collapse of America's industrial base and estranged from the unions that failed them. The Tea Party, in this sense, is not a new development so much as it is part of an ongoing migration of the perpetually petulant, a political phenomenon grounded in a demographic one: the creation of a class of baby-boom retirees who have been deprived of meaningful work but given personal computers as Christmas presents. The skin on the Republican Party's "Big Tent" is by definition thin, and under it gathers a volatile throng of people with nothing in common but the fear that outside its environs someone is laughing at them — or simply having a better time.

Do read the whole thing.  And keep in mind that these are your fellow travelers in this country, and online.  Big Swede.  Mark Polish Sounding Name.  Flip sides of the same coin.  Rob Natelson, Travis Kavulla, Eric Coobs.  Special snowflakes among those lesser who fail to hoist the Sore Winners to shoulder and parade their success through the town square.  That is elitism, by the very real definition of the word, before it was changed to mean 'eating arugula and fancy mustards', as the Republicants have changed the definition of so many other words.  Soren Kierkegaard called this urge "Caesar or Nothing"; be so important to others that one loses the ability to abide oneself.  But, casting aside the sense of self has two consequences only.  If "they" won't adore you, then dominate ... castigate ... HURT them, or act in manner too self destruct (witness Nov. 2, 2010).

When I was in the SCA, lo many years ago, there was a knight who is still seen as one of the most accomplished of all time.  You, yeah you.  That nerd out there laughing?  He coulda kicked your ass in the blink of an eye.  And I'm not exagerating.  What he said has stuck with me to this day.  Paraphrasing:  No matter what awards or honors you've achieved, 99.999% of the world just couldn't give a shit.

So now, those who've  achieved by any combination of birthright, grant of skills, sheer luck and hard work, the Sore Winners are mad, because 99.999% of the world doesn't give a shit about their success.  And they're gonna take it out on you, even if you're one of those who achieved.  Don't get me wrong, here.  The TeaPublicans will eat their own, just as willingly as they will eat their lessers.  Because they are mad, angry.  Caeser or nothing.  My socialist/communist friends might tell me that it's because of the consumption culture in which we live.  They would likely be right.  Stating the obvious, in many ways.  But it doesn't change the reality around us, not does it assuage the anger of the Sore Winners.

Quotes of the Days

Tengrain:

Obama Appoints Record Number of Gays – Less than halfway through his first term, President Barack Obama has appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in history. “And none of them have any rights either, so quit whining,” Obama did not say. (AP)

Blue Texan:

You know that woman who goaded those brownshirts patriotic, Teabagger supporters of Rand Paul into stomping on her head? She’s an unhinged, left-wing, MoveOn eco-moonbat.

Bitch had it coming.

And do read the quotes from the noble right ...

Driftglass:

"If you want a picture of the Teabaggers, imagine a boot that was paid for by Medicare stomping on a human face -- forever." -- George Orwell v 2.0

The graphic is priceless.

Mistermix:

I assume the reason Rand Paul supporters literally kicked this woman to the curb and stomped her head was because she had a Muslim appearance and made them nervous. I’m not discounting the theory that this was simply a harmless fraternity prank that was misunderstood, nor the possibility that the bitch ran her big mouth and got what she deserved.

Dougj:

What I’ve learned over the past few days is that both sides do it. Whether it’s a left-leaning writer using the phrase “curb-stomping” or an angry mob of conservatives actually performing a curb-stomping, whether it’s a liberal drawing a Hitler mustache on George W. Bush or a right-wing militia member blowing up a federal building, whether it’s two black guys in berets standing outside a polling station or a hundred years of Jim Crow laws. It’s all the same stuff and we should just admit it.

Kyle-Anne Shiver:

From where I’m sitting, all of these seemingly coordinated efforts by Democrats and their press minions to label Party dissidents as “insane” are not only creepy, they smack of tactics widely used by the most repressive, most brutal tyrannies the world has ever known.

They smack of Soviet-style, scientific tyranny in the worst way imaginable.

Really?  Stomping a woman's head into concrete is sane?

Barbara Morrill:

Now we know why Rand Paul spent the past twelve or so hours blaming the vicious assault of Lauren Valle by his supporters on "both sides" and a "daze of lights flashing" -- because one of the assailants is Tim Profitt, the Bourbon County coordinator for Paul's campaign.

According to Mr. Profitt:

... the camera angle made the scuffle Monday night appear worse that it was.

Tammy Webber, AP:

Gay voters angry at Democrats could sway election*

Across the country, activists say gay voters are angry — at the lack of progress on issues from eliminating employment discrimination to uncertainty over serving in the military to the economy — and some are choosing to sit out this election or look for other candidates.

Y'know, just once, I'd like to see a story from the press about how people, (Gay, Het, Poly, White, Black, Red, Yellow, Male, Female, Rich and Not) are going to swing this election because they're tired of the damned stupidity, extremism, violence (physical, verbal and virtual) and bullshit coming from the "Tea Party" who want to take back America from the overwhelming majority of Americans to whatever goddamned fantasy they live in.

 

*Don't even start with the "You're blaming the gays for a vote that isn't in!" shit.  I'm not.  If you actually start to think about it for a second, Tammy Webber just invited one to do so.  But she offers no proof that the GBLT vote has that kind of sway in swing districts.  The press, having been willing accomplices to Tea Party excess, is now in CYA mode.  And what handier scapegoat could they offer than the Gay voter who doesn't vote.  Other than Obama, of course ...

UPDATE:  And like cockroaches, the vermin keep returning.

UPDATE 2:  I said, ~hrumph~, like cockroaches, the vermin keep returning.

 

 

Common Knowledge, Free And Worth Every Penny.

I can't fairly attribute seeing this posted at any one place, because it's kinda been posted all over.  Still, it needs to be seen in Montana just as much as elsewhere, so ...

Eight False Things the Public "Knows" Prior To Election Day.

 

Initiatives and What Not, Part 1

I was going to write part of this as comments at other websites, but I really shouldn't be neglecting my own baby.

There has been some discussion on the Montana-tubez about an upcoming election and how people are going to vote, or should vote.  Quite a bit of it has been about the 3 Initiatives on the ballot and the Constitutionally mandated call for a Constitutional convention vote.  I'll get that one right out of the way first. 

No.  The Montana Constitution is elegant and able, and mucking with it in this manner would only screw things up.  A lot of folk discuss the expense of a Constitutional convention, but that's beside the point to me.  It works; don't screw with it.  I write this knowing especially that those who favor a CC are after one thing most of all, to remove the plank of quality environment.  Uhhhm, no.  I just don't believe in destroying our state to save it.

The other no-brainer is CI-105.  It seeks to muck with the Constitution as well , to change it such that it prohibit a tax that Montana doesn't have.  It doesn't take a genius to see that it is the effort of an industry to favor itself at the expense of Montana's Constitution and it's democratic process.  The legislature sets taxation, not out of state realtor associations.  So, to CI-105, I say no.  And to John Sinrud, I offer a heart felt Fuck You and Kiss My Ass, you self-serving Montana-hating piece of used toilet paper.

Now here's where it gets a bit trickier.  I-161 would remove the protected pool of 5500 out-of-state hunting licenses offered to outfitters such that they can use them to drum up business.  It would put those tags into public non-resident offering, and raise the price such that the state would garner more revenue from the sale.  To this I say yes, and that puts me at odds with several people I respect.

Lets be clear right from the get go.  Outfitting is an extraction industry based on renewable resource.  That makes it little different from logging; it just shortens the time frame of renewal.  Elk and deer are in limited supply, and a certain measure of the harvest is being taken from Montanans for private profit of outfitters.  So lets just dispense with the idea of a "fair hunt" right out of the gate.  It isn't fair.  As I've indicated elsewhere, the tag allotment to outfitters is a business subsidy, offered by the state at the expense of the state.  It shouldn't be surprising that I'm not in favor of that.

The claims from the anti-crowd of I-161 are that the release of these tags from the protected pool will drive outfitters out of business and that out-of-state hunters won't hunt without outfitters.  These claims are contradictory, though that's probably not obvious on the surface.  Where outfitting differs from other extraction industries is this:  outfitting isn't profitable because every client gets a trophy elk.  Outfitting is profitable because it is entertainment.  No one pays a couple of grand because they need the spoils.  The people who hire outfitters aren't trying to fulfill some Galtian quota of raw resource.  They aren't needing the meat or the kill.  They want it, and I haven't seen one argument or statistic yet that convinces me that they won't still want it.  There will be those who will buy their tags (you can do it online, y'know) and come to Montana and get skunked like many of the rest of us do.  And then there are those who will realize that their hunting experience is better with an outfitter.  That's what they are paying for.  Many out-of-state hunters will still prefer outfitters.  And the only ones claiming that I-161 will put outfitters out of business, are the ones currently profiting from state largess ... the outfitters.

I am a hunter, and a Montanan.  And more to the point, I don't believe in subsidizing industry, especially when there is no reason to do it, and it involves a very real cost in revenue and resource.  I will vote yes on I-161.

Which brings me to I-164, the "Cap-the-Rate" initiative on payday lenders.

I work for a living, and the tired is setting in.  So, I will carry this over to a part 2.  But hey, the brother-in-law who had a heart attack is stable, and Teddy has his sutures out.  That's good, right?  See you all tomorrow.

Quotes Of The Days

Snarcasm runs rampant.

Dougj, responding to the argument that our Galtian overlords must be appeased before we raise their taxes to pre-Bush levels:

I think in the end, this is a pretty good example of where I have to part ways with pretty much all modern conservatives. I just don’t think this it is the job of government to validate people’s feelings. If there’s one thing the free market should be good at by now, it’s validating people’s feelings, especially rich people’s feelings, which are especially lucrative. There’s a big market for products and services that make rich people feel good about themselves and I say we sit back and let it do its job.

I guess I also don’t understand what form our acknowledgment of the sacrifices of the rich is supposed to take. A national holiday? A monument? I’m not kidding here. If erecting a Tomb of the Unknown CEO is all it takes to stop the whining, I’m all for it.

Oh, but I forgot.  Robert Gibbs said badly things about the professional left, so this won't be an issue as we give our power back to the Galtian overlords.  I sure hope that everybody feels okay when the day is done.

Bonus Dougj:

Why the fuck does it matter what Democrats are willing to acknowledge about how hard some rich people work when they’re not proposing a marginal tax rate much over 40%? For God’s sake, isn’t it enough that we don’t tax rich people much, now we have to get down on our knees and tell them how great they are for working so hard? And what would fellating these geniuses accomplish anyway? I guess maybe it would make them feel more appreciated so that they’d be less likely to go Galt. So everybody, drop what you’re doing and send Greg Mankiw an email telling him you appreciate how hard he works so that he doesn’t withhold his productivity.

Maybe this isn’t such a bad idea. If wealthy people are willing to accept higher marginal rates in return for bumper stickers that say “Obama says I’m a hard worker”, then I’m all for it, because we have a government to run and it requires tax money.

WaterTiger says:

This is what happens when you let Neo-Nazis run for political office.

Well, that's kinda right.   Any libertarians want to defend Miller's actions?  Any body?  Anyone?  Beuller?

Attaturk:

Here's a summary of the two parties:

The Democrats always learn the wrong thing, while the Republicans have never learned a damn thing.

It's hard to argue with that.

The Rude Pundit being rude:

So now Republicans, who have made the filibuster, once a measure of last resort, into the way the Senate runs, are saying that they won't be able to pass things if they have the majority because they need 60 votes.

...

If the Republicans take back the House and (in a Democratic doomsday scenario) the Senate, history will show that it was because of one of the great con jobs ever played in politics. For what is the current political zeitgeist but the result of one long game of three-card monte played for the rubes who actually think they'll know where the queen is? The con is this: Republicans and their media allies have convinced too many voters that Democrats have either accomplished nothing or have only accomplished things that will hurt them. They have done so despite the facts that: 1. a great deal has been accomplished; 2. what hasn't been accomplished is due almost entirely to Republican obstructionism; and 3. what's been passed has been watered down in order to appease Republicans and some of the asshole Democrats. The greatest part of it? That the GOP's refusal to govern is them standing up for "American" values, which, if you think about it, is about right.

...

Republicans use extremist tactics and extremist rhetoric (for, truly, there's not a single thing passed in this Congress that even approaches "socialism"), and, if those fail, they lie outright. And in doing so, they make their mostly reasonable, way-too acquiescent opponents seem like despicable fuckbags who want America to become part Mexico/part Sharialand. That's an awesome con job: shutdown the functioning of part of the government through procedural chicanery that most people won't give a damn about (A hold? What the fuck is that? We don't have time for civics classes anymore) and blame the majority, which is easy to understand: "Oh, Democrats in power. Democrats must naturally suck."

The frustrating part is that, even if polls now show some tightening in races, it's worked. The con job has been successful. The ultimate plan of the GOP is to make governing in DC so impossible, so untenable, that it ceases to function except on the limited terms of a savage conservatism. And we're making it possible. The whiplash-inducing fickleness of the American electorate is part and parcel of a people who are deluded with their sense of individual self-worth and entitlement.

...

Now, we get Republicans who are pretending to behave honorably. Olympia Snowe said yesterday, "Frankly we haven't done our jobs well here in Washington and that disturbs me. There's all this partisanship and polarization, and ultimately it yields two outcomes: either scorched-earth victory for one side or political stagnation." No shit. And who was it that negotiated in bad faith over the health care bill? Oh, yeah. Olympia Snowe.

You can't unfuck something that you've fucked. Republicans have paid almost no long-term price for the Caligula-like madness of the Bush administration. There's a chance that, now, two-years later, they're gonna get rewarded for refusing to participate in running the country. It's like setting free an arsonist after you've started to rebuild the house and telling him, "Oh, and here's those matches we took from you. Sorry for the inconvenience."

Coming soon: Yeah? So what are you gonna do about it?

That last one is a must read.

Read It

Just read it.

Some Links To Stuff That Ought Be Read

Jay tells us that the Health Care Reform passed by Congress has survived the first of many Constitutional challenges.  I note Jay's post as opposed to the direct newspaper reporting because Jay shows exactly what Fair and Balanced *should* mean.  (Also, I know it's goofy to post links to LitW, because anyone who reads here has already read over there.)

Also from LitW, Matthew Koehler shows us that wolves aren't the only reason that there are fewer trophy Elk out and about.  Sometimes, the problem is wingnut poachers.

Since 4 & 20 Blackbirds is receiving spam regarding their rankings on the Great Gazoogle, I figured I'd do my part to help them out.  jhwygirl has a terrific post concerning Montana's Right to Die statute, and the challenges it faces.  If you only watch one YouTube video this year (as if) make it that one.

There has got to be something wicked weird about the water in Northwest Montana.  Constitutionalists, militias and now this.  An artist's work displayed in Loveland, Colorado apparently depicting Jesus getting a holy hummer.  Some folks had a problem with that.  So they protested.  But it was a resident of Kalispell, Montana who came through for the win.  Kathleen Folden 'martyred' herself, by violently critiquing the blasphemous piece ... with a crowbar.  I thought the lunatics only came out at the full moon.

This one's for Eric.  Bill Schneider at New West is always a great read.  And he has a terrific article up about the NRA and Jon Tester.  It shows pretty clearly that NRA does stand for National Republican Army.  Tester's stands on firearm rights may not make him many friends among progressives, but he represents this gun owning liberal just fine.

It seems that Blacks are pretty down on black-white relations right now.  John Cole explains exactly why that is.  And he's right on the money.

Having apparently applied a salve to the deep wound given her by Robert Gibbs, Jane Hamsher (*THE* Professional Left and don't you forget it!)  has posted a terrific analysis of how things may not be as dire for Democrats in November as the media would have us believe.

Nate Silver thinks it's still pretty dire.

But what if the GOP doesn't take the House and Senate?

Remember that Republicant freak out about Obama maybe having gotten foreign money donations?  Yeah, about that ... IOKIYAAR.

Dead people been getting your money.  YOUR MONEY!  The Obama administration is attempting to stop such nonsense.  So who's fault is it that DEAD PEOPLE ARE GETTING YOUR MONEY?  Obama's, of course.  Never forget.  IOKIYAAR.

That's prolly enough for now.  So I'll leave you with a laugh.

Welcome To The Jungle

It's been noticed that I don't really cotton to the idea of 'progressive' ennui.  No I really kinda don't, and I've expressed that for a very long time.  Somehow I'm stupid, or ignorant, or misguided and just don't "get it" because I'm not willing to completely agree with whatever singular angst is driving the person judging my intellect from the outside at any given moment.  Yes, I fail as a liberal because I won't jump on every bandwagon offered with the shiny new progressive sticker.  See, that's just not me.  We all don't think the same things, and the funny part is that we all don't think in the same way.

Here's how I think.  I'm one of those weird kinda freaky people who warehouses a lot of seeming trivia; and then, when called for, pull decisions made on the relations of those tidbits, sometimes out of my ass.  There aren't a whole lot of us who do that, sorry.  I'm not always right, nor ever expect to be, because the way I think is clearly not conducive to being always right.  It doesn't make my thinking better, but it does make it a little unique, and often hard to handle for those who don't think in the same manner.  Here's the punch line:  It often makes it uncomfortable even for those who think the same things, just in different ways.  I'm a liberal.  I am of the left.  I am a 'socialist' enemy of the state, as some proudly deny while claiming the same distinction and others accuse.  But you won't find many lefties who think or agree with my way of thinking.  That's kinda sad.  We are allies, yet often don't even know it.

It's actually sucked up a whole lot of my mental effort here of late trying to figure out why I don't fit in the progressive mold, why it often irritates me so.  I think this post by David Roberts goes some measure of explaining why.

What do Americans get when they vote for a Democrat? What is the progressive brand? Progressives are remarkably silent on the issue, so the work of telling their story has been left to the opposition: big government socialism, soft on defense, elitist. Rather than referring back to a larger frame, progressive activists run from battle to battle mounting one-off, poll-chasing "campaigns," each of which must build a case and a set of narratives virtually from scratch. Look at the fumbling and bumbling that went on these past two years trying to push for something called "cap-and-trade." Progressives groped at polar bears, then green jobs, then the clean energy race, flailing this way and that with each new focus group. All conservatives had to do was reach for "tax" and the stories, associations, and implications came with it, off the shelf, no explication needed. Their campaign was pre-strategized, their coalition pre-assembled and pre-trained.

One advantage to my manner of thinking is that I tend to be a bigger picture guy.  Relations of seeming trivia, remember?  That's not a bad thing, especially when one is assumed to be opposed by the single issue folk.