Wednesday, November 05, 2008


The Morning After

I'll try to put together something a little more thoughtful for tomorrow; last night was spent glued to the tv, happily watching the returns. Two quick nuggets:

- From the mouths of babes...Yesterday The Wife took The Boy and The Girl with her when she voted. (I went before work.) As they left the polling place, TB exclaimed “It's like the toilet has been clogged for eight years, and now we can finally flush it!”

In October of 2006, I wrote: “Speaking of Dems, I foresee precisely two possibilities for 2008: Barack Obama, or crushing defeat.” I'm glad we chose wisely.

That is absolutely, positively the best election-related quote! I may use it!
Quite possibly, we might get both.
Even Indiana voted for Obama. What a relief this outcome is.

Now comes the hard part--making it work.
Now comes the hard part--making it work.

Three words - Yes, we can.
Yes, we can... but WHAT?
Yes, we can.

How wonderfully "Bob the Builder."
DD, you have managed to depress me with that TB anecdote.

You and I are almost exactly the same age. For our entire adult lives, we've been watching the party in opposition, whichever it happens to be at the time, grow increasingly unhinged. There are large sections of the press and Internet that I simply don't read, because the spittle is flying too thick. Hard-hitting criticism and concerted opposition is one thing, but screaming fights about someone's parentage is something else entirely. I'd hate to see TB, who wasn't even alive in 2000 (IIRC) and certainly wasn't aware of the 2004 election, already opting for the latter.

I'm a registered Independent, because there are some positions of both the D's and the R's that I find noxious. (My political views are a constellation of opinions that don't map well to any existing political party.) I'd like to be able to have frutful conversations with people in both major parties, so we can collectively pass laws that might actually work for more than 40% of us. Hard to talk to someone who's frothing, though. I'm starting to get into a Mercutio frame of mind.
Dicty -- I get what you're saying, but I think you're taking it a wee bit too seriously. What TB was picking up on, in a weirdly literal way, was our sense of relief.

For the last 8 years, we've lived under an administration that made a point not merely of doing things with which we disagreed, but of impugning our integrity for disagreeing. Now that's over, and it's a tremendous relief.

The challenge for those of us who are incredibly relieved at the change is in not simply reversing the polarity of the demonization, but in rising above it. After a few 'woo-hoo's,' well-earned, I think/hope we'll do that.
DD: I hope so, but the signs are not promising. If the usual pattern holds, it's the D's time to be insufferably smug, and the R's turn to go deranged.

Apparently there are "Impeach Obama" groups on Facebook already. Impeach him for what? His choice for Chief of Staff? *headdesk*
Apparently there are "Impeach Obama" groups on Facebook already. Impeach him for what? His choice for Chief of Staff? *headdesk*

Good or bad, it's free-market hoarding of rare or potentially scarce resources, in this case domain names. Thanks for the internet, Mr. Gore!

"For the last 8 years, we've lived under an administration that made a point not merely of doing things with which we disagreed, but of impugning our integrity for disagreeing. Now that's over, and it's a tremendous relief."


You do realize that fully half the adult population of the United States disagree with you, and further, find this remark incredibly offensive?

Actually, no, 'm certain you *don't* realize it and more's the pity.

I actually have colleagues who think the "mainstream media" are "centrist*."


"How can Nixon have won? I don't know *anyone* who voted for Nixon!"


*the self referential nature of this perception is best left as an exercise for the student

p.s. What happened to all the vote fraud cases?
YaCP -

I have seen no information from any polling or election that half of the adult population of the US supports torturing prisoners (of war or otherwise) or listening to phone calls in the US without a warrant.

And there is no reason to believe that the subset of the adult population that voted for McCain supported torturing prisoners, given that McCain spoke out against it. I know McCain supporters who felt he would be a huge improvement over Bush and company, for the reasons DD articulated, even with the folks he picked up along the way in his campaign.

Define torture for me please.

Do you consider "Waterboarding" torture?

Do you consider
- sleep deprivation
- noise exposure
- sensory deprivation
- exposure to temperature extremes

as torture?

See, the problem the knee-jerk Bush Haters have is that when you get beyond the jingoistic rhetoric and actually discuss the issues, their emotional arguments fall apart. And to answer your question- yeah, pretty much half (or more actually) of the country *doesn't* think the Bush administration policies condoned "Torture" by any reasonable definition.

"Half the country" refers to those (based both/either voting numbers or polling data) did NOT support the Obama campaign.

Prtetending that Obama has some kind of "mandate" is foolish.

OBTW- that vote fraud issue? Looks like Obama may have "stolen the election" in any case! In many key areas the amount of fraud exceeded the margin of victory. Of course, McCain (the only citizen with legal standing) will never put the country through what Gore did when he tried to steal the election . . .
Yes, those are all methods of torture as would beating the crap out of you with a rubber hose. You are indeed a confused professor.
Sonowwe must revert to thinly veiled threats?

Shameful- not surprising.

"Beating" with *any* object was never an approved method of interrogation . . .


A lie doesn't get any truer when you screech it out while clapping your hands over your ears.
Let us not try the concern trolling confused. You are a despicable character not suited to civilized company. That you think only others you do not like have been tortured by the US and you are safe tells everyone who and what you are. The fact you object when it is pointed out that you are not safe makes it clear. I guess for you it only matters who is on which end of that rubber hose
No, Eli, nobody should be "on the other end" (you are apparently assuming that you are the one doing the beating)of the rubber hose-

that's the point.

You say "Bush condoned torture (beating with a rubber hose) when NO, beating with *anything* rubber or not was *NEVER* condoned interrogation technique.


Your bringing up "beating with a rubber hose" is a red herring.

Do you have a SINGLE technique that WAS condoned (part of official policy) that reasonable people would consider "torture?"

Even one?

Your personal Nazi fantasies aside, please stick to the point of the conversation-

what techniques, approved by the Bush administration, do you consider "torture?"

One more time, same question: you are accusing the Bush administration of toruter- what specific "Bush Adeministration" interro0gation technique do you consider "tporture?"

*My* point is this: the Bush administration approved techniques you consider "torture" are not considered "torture" by over half your fellow citizens.

Including, frankly, "beating with a rubber hose" but am a bleeding heart leftist (Libertarian, acually) so I agree with you on the rubber hose . . . most of my neighbors, however, say "fill the garden hose with lead shot first and have at it!"
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?