Skip to main content

View Diary: Hannibal ad portas (384 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Absolutely right, Ced. More info posted below. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Kimball Cross, MrJayTee

    Henry David Thoreau:

    That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

    Emma Goldman

    If voting accomplished anything, they'd make it illegal.

    Noam Chomsky

    At this stage of history, either...the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others or alternately there will be no destiny for anyone to control.

    Howard Zinn

    Anarchism: Why It Shouldn't Be a Dirty Word

    Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

    by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 06:23:31 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  huh? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Whimsical, James Philip Pratt

      you trust people enough to believe that anarchists could organize a cohesive society?

      •  Irony. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catfood, Eryk, MrJayTee, apimomfan2

        It's always struck me as ironic that people who are so sure that humanity is too fundamentally flawed and corrupt to govern itself believe that the solution is to deliver great power and authority to a few humans so they can lord it over the rest.

        Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

        by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 06:46:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You do not understand human nature (0+ / 0-)

          at all dude.

          Human nature at it's core seeks leaders.

          Look at wolves. They always have a leader. Their survival depends on it.

          •  That sounds positively fascist. (4+ / 0-)

            Human beings are essentially authoritarian?

            You do know that you are revealing what lies behind your unrelenting Democratic Party and White House cheerleading.

            Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

            by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 07:18:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes some of them are (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ravenwind, diffrntdrummr

              This has been proven by scientific experiment. (See conservatives without conscience).

              The leap that you take from human nature gathering around leaders to totalitarian fasicms is bizarre and weak minded.

              And the ensuing insult is outlandish.

              Have you ever been in an emergency situation? Say a fire. Some people stand around dumbstruck and paralyzed..... others respond quickly and help those that can't decide what to do get out of the way of danger.  They voice commands.... like MOVE the fire is coming. That people tend to respond to that is not fascism dude. It is just human nature.

              •  Complete misperception of anarchism. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cassiodorus, MrJayTee, m00finsan

                Have you ever been in an emergency situation? Say a fire. Some people stand around dumbstruck and paralyzed..... others respond quickly and help those that can't decide what to do get out of the way of danger.  They voice commands.... like MOVE the fire is coming. That people tend to respond to that is not fascism dude. It is just human nature.

                LOL.  You think that any of this violates some principle of anarchism?  That nobody can exercise leadership?

                Anarchism opposes creating some kind of permanent leadership class.  Leadership roles and council membership are rotated.  Everyone is subject to recall.  As many decisions as possible are made by direct democracy.  Some decisions are made by consensus rather than majority.

                I can always tell when you're agitated because your use of "dude" becomes more frequent.

                Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

                by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 07:37:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sounds to me like despised minorities ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happymisanthropy

                  ... will lose badly in your little utopia.

                  I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.
                  ~ Mohandas K. Gandhi

                  by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 08:03:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And why is that? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Cassiodorus, MrJayTee

                    Minorities are protected in anarchist system by using a consensus decision-making process rather than majority vote when personal rights are implicated.  An SB 1070 would never make it through because a Raul Grijalva would be there to veto it.

                    The kind of decision-making we're talking about is hardly alien.  PTAs, New England town meetings, electric coops, church voters' meetings.  Are those more of a threat to minority rights than the DoD, CIA, DHS, BP, JPM or BoA?

                    Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

                    by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:24:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Misperceptions of anarchism (3+ / 0-)

                  "Anarchism opposes creating some kind of permanent leadership class.  Leadership roles and council membership are rotated.  Everyone is subject to recall.  As many decisions as possible are made by direct democracy.  Some decisions are made by consensus rather than majority."

                  There are no permanent leadership classes, people die, get old, fail to adapt to new circumstances that cause their "downfall", suffer accidental death, etc.

                  Your last thee sentences are inconsistent.  If as many decisions as possible are made by direct democracy (I presume you mean one person one vote) then it is not possible, or certainly extremely unlikely that (electoral) decisions will ever be made by consensus rather than majority rule.  What you propose will over time only lead the elimination of minority viewpoints.  Minority viewpoints are not necessarily good or bad, tolerance of them is valuable in that they provide the opportunity for alternatives in the face of changing circumstances.  Those clamoring for a "right way" to do things overlook the fact that the optimal (most reasonable stable response) is one that can change.

                  There is no constancy to behaviors, only behavioral systems that evolve to become more stable in the face of a highly dynamic environment.

                  If progressives want to change the system, they need to construct concepts that lead to to the emergence of "anti-corporations".  That is entities that over time can compete for resources that can sustain alternate methods of economic practice.  This need not be communism in the classical or historical sense of the term, but must involve a kind of collectivism that gives more advantage to those who are part of the non-profit collective relative to those who seek to either engage in traditional corporate capitalism or those who are preyed upon by it.

                  Progressives might do better to beat the radical right at its own game by taking over (ie buying out key corporations) or creating new alternatives (ie an Anti-Fox News) and then running them on a relatively more "not for profit basis" that will ultimately undercut the  market share of traditional corporations that engage in rawer forms of Darwinian capitalism.  

                  If done strategically, with a truly altruistic goal (that will be impossible to achieve completely), and perhaps with a federation of such "anti-corporations", progressives might have a chance at dominating the game of controlling the resources needed to grow and survive.  Consequently, the anarchism of the type you seem to advocate might best work for managing such an "anti-corporation" (ie every worker, stockholder gets ONE vote).  Obviously, then the decision by consensus would become more important, assuming participants wanted to "stay competitive".

                  All this of course, will need to be done in a highly competitive environment, where the bounty that has been the natural world that has historically supported humanity is rapidly disappearing, and where large and predatory capitalists roam.  This all might work if such anti-corporations are centered around a "science-based" economy, but it won't be an easy task, since no one can re-legislate Darwinian law, and the environment that has sustained humanity until now is rapidly disappearing (the primary reason for recent increases in social disfunction, extreme political views, etc.).

                  •  No disagreement here. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    catfood, Cassiodorus, MrJayTee

                    I was unclear.

                    One example of how decision-making is accomplished is provided by Michael Albert's Parecon model.  He proposes a core value that those with the most at stake in a decision have the most input.  In some cases, this will mean consensus decision-making is employed rather than majority vote or 2/3 or whatever.

                    Your idea is very intriguing and parallels some of my thinking.  I see "space" opening up in our society, both physical and cultural, where Capitalism and government no longer care to be involved to any great extent.  These spaces could be considered vacuums in which alternative ways of doing things can develop, experiment and grow.

                    I would think that a core element of your "anti-corporations" would be worker governance.  No one could claim this is all worked out, but we can agree that minority rights, especially in some areas, are critical, and work until we find decision-making methods that are effective.

                    Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

                    by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:41:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Worker governance (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      goinsouth

                      Yes, I think this may well explain the dramatic progress made in China.  Although it is in many ways a totalitarian state, particularly viewed through the lens of a capitalist media, corporations in China are often owned by the workers themselves.  The quiet evolution of the emergence of the power of this concept has driven much cultural and political progress there.  Although I know little of China, it appears to me that much has changed since the days of Mao and the cultural revolution.

                      The manifestations of our own cultural revolution are playing out in surprisingly parallel ways.  Although appeals to fear and suppression of minority viewpoints are still an active component of political discourse in both countries, the effectiveness of such approaches are waning.  While this may seem contradictory in the current political climate, the republicans and right-wingers are setting themselves up for mind-boggling failure when they finally do take control of government.  This is so because they will have made it nearly impossible to govern, except by force and coercion, which will not prove either popular or effective.  The only thing contemporary republicans seem to agree on is the need to dismantle American government at no expense to themselves.  This will hardly be a foundation for governing, but rather a prescriptions for a re-run of the Bush presidency and even the daft have some sense of what that brought America.

                      Ironically, this is what has damaged the Obama presidency, albeit for different reasons.  It simply failed to live up to its rhetoric.  When first taking office it abandoned the goal of dramatic and effective change in an effort to achieve the utopian concept of political consensus and near-term economic stability instead.

                      Although contemporary myth as to why GM failed was because the union pensions dragged them down, the reality is a much more complicated mixture of executive incompetence and a failure of labor to demand a more and more assertive role in management of the company at the decision making level of the board and more shares of stock for workers, so that workers had incentives beyond better benefits and bigger salaries.  Had they done this instead, the Ruppert Murdoch's of the world would have been forced to listen to their political views if they wanted their advertising dollars.

            •  If you think (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              diffrntdrummr

              using baited language to make your point helps, then I have an island to sell you where you can start your unique anarchist utopia. You don't get to pick who lives on that island with you, btw.

          •  Wolves? Lemmings? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Timaeus, Cassiodorus, goinsouth, m00finsan

            You are indulging in a logical falacy.

            People are not wolves.

            Your evident need to be part of a "pack" is a common and regretable flaw that comes from a psychological need to submit to authority.  Indeed many people share your need for packs and pack leaders, but it is by no means all of us.

            I seek not to lead, even less to be led, and I have no trust or respect for those who burn for either.

        •  Sure wolves are fascists by nature (0+ / 0-)

          uh-huh right.

          •  I don't equate humans and wolves. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MrJayTee, m00finsan

            And I'm not conceding your contention about the nature of wolves either.

            You're statement that:

            Human nature at it's core seeks leaders.

            is creepily fascist.  Not backing down on that.

            Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

            by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 07:43:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What you describe (3+ / 0-)

              so forcefully,  as if you have some special knowledge of what is best for others, strikes me as a very  authoritarian in nature.

              The fact being that I am finding disagreement with your positions leads you to be a bit of bully,  quite the opposite of your presumed admiration of the anti-authoritarian lifestyle.

              Remind me not to get stuck on an island with someone such as yourself that claims the bully pulpit to  try and force cooperation.

              •  Ad hominem! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                goinsouth

                That's your third fallacy.  A trifecta, congratulations!

                •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ArchTeryx

                  Too funny.

                  Calling out the irony of goinsouth as the intellectual authority leading the charge to promote an anarchist movement..... is somehow an ad hominem. LOL

                  •  OK, now your just lying. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    goinsouth

                    Seriously, you were bullied?  Are you OK?  Do you need a cool compress?

                    Accusing goinsouth of bullying, and of being someone who would "force cooperation" on people stuck on a desert island with her/him is not only ad hominem, it's ridiculous given the tone of debate that generally prevails here.  Seriously, you were bullied?

                    Three Fallacies and a Lie!  Can we get Hugh Grant to star?  

                    Who do you want to play you?

                    •  Get back to me (0+ / 0-)

                      when you actually read what my post says.

                      •  Get back to me when you stop pushing lies (0+ / 0-)

                        And logical falacies.

                        And then there's:

                        ...as if you have some special knowledge of what is best for others, strikes me as a very  authoritarian in nature.

                        You share your "special knowledge" that human nature is like that of wolves, and that we need to act in accord with that wolf-like nature, then criticize someone for acting "as if you have some special knowledge of what is best for others"?

                        You are a hypocrite.

                        You compare us to wolves who need a leader, then call someone else's idea "authoritarian in nature"?

                        Again, you are a hypocrite.

                        You are a dishonest, hypocritical liar, as your own posts have demonstrate.  You deserve no respect.

            •  Humans and wolves (0+ / 0-)

              Humans and wolves have a tremendous amount in common (probably upwards of 80% of their genome).  In particular both species exhibit social behaviors, particularly with respect to use of such behaviors for foraging.  It is not only fascists who share these traits, we all do.  Indeed, anyone who has either owned a dog or taken the trouble to study their behavior can see a lot of similarities.

              In particular, both species have seen an evolution of leadership that falls to those who are best able to seize it, either by brute force or by guile. It seems to me that the human challenge is to find ways to use reason to accentuate the latter rather than the former.  

              Perhaps it is this underlies the fundamental difference between the American wing and progressives, in that the latter have the sense to understand and evaluate our genetic constraints so that they are not held captive by them.

              •  Some important differences btw wolves... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrJayTee

                and people:

                1. How large is a wolf pack?  A dozen adults or so?  How long are the lines of accountability for the "leader?"  How does that compare to our world where a few dozen "leaders," completely insulated from their "followers," can make decisions affecting billions with no accountability to anyone, except perhaps their fellow "leaders?"
                1. Leadership in a wolf pack rotates, but only on the basis of strength or guile according to you.  You don't believe our superior intelligence and facility with language would enable us to rotate leadership on some other basis and provide the training and preparation necessary for the new "leader" to be effective?

                It's important to be aware of human tendencies tied to our genetic makeup.  To make ourselves slaves to such tendencies is to deny humanity's ability to advance from our days as hunter-gatherers, obviously a silly contention.  Is it not the case that the more aware we are of those genetic predispositions, the more empowered we are?

                Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

                by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 10:06:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Sea sponges share almost 70% (0+ / 0-)

                Mankind may be descended from apes but Australian scientists have found proof of links much closer to the sea floor, with a study revealing that sea sponges share almost 70 percent of human genes.

                •  Oops, the link. (0+ / 0-)

                  Per Agence France-Presse via Yahoo news.

                  SYDNEY (AFP) – Mankind may be descended from apes but Australian scientists have found proof of links much closer to the sea floor, with a study revealing that sea spongesshare almost 70 percent of human genes.

                  Looks like we have lots of interesting genetic connections.  Maybe that explains why the Republicans are usually dumb as sponges?

        •  But if we're not fundamentally flawed, how (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          goinsouth

          Will arbitrary authority justify its rule?

      •  If you live in a rural area, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, goinsouth, MrJayTee, m00finsan

        your local volunteer fire department is a form of 'anarchism', a rudimentary loose organization. Examples of anarchism exist in Spain, and have for over a hundred years.

        'Cohesive society' is a loaded phrase, one which could take decades to parse fully.

        •  Yep. Old New England town meetings. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, catfood, MrJayTee, m00finsan

          Consumer coops.  Worker coops.  Electric coops.  Credit unions.

          All employ an anarchist method of administration and management.

          Some key elements:

          1. voluntary -- contrast insurance mandates, military drafts, etc.
          1. direct democracy
          1. those affected most have the most say
          1. no private ownership of the means of production--means of production are owned collectively and neither by Capitalists nor by a State

          Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

          by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 06:54:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Which is why (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Philip Pratt

          the US is built around laws, not men. Duh! :-) Is it perfect? No. There is no such thing as perfection. The founders understood this as well.

          The founders were smarter than you think.

        •  Again the contradiction appears (0+ / 0-)

          Concepts of anarchism and organization are mutually exclusive.  You can't have one and also have the other, at least not for long.  In fact, if you have ever witnessed a volunteer fire department at work, its a far cry from anarchy.  They actually coordinate their efforts in a time-effective manner.

          Anarchism has lost out precisely because it is so loosely organized that it fails to be effective at sustaining itself, relative to other forms of political expression, although in a Darwinian sense we are all anarchists in that true altruism is not possible.  This is so because it has no genetic mechanism to pass on, over time, such behavior to subsequent generations.

          However, this is not to say that some or nearly all individuals can not be "fooled" into acting altruistically in a way that actually leads to better outcomes for all (except, perhaps non-human species, who continue to get the short end of the evolutionary stick, perhaps bacteria, flies, and cockroaches, and various human parasites excepted.

          •  You fundamentally misunderstand anarchism. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MrJayTee

            Concepts of anarchism and organization are mutually exclusive.

            Anarchism employs different methods of organization, but organization nonetheless.  You don't consider workers' and community councils "organization?"  Is organization synonymous with some cadre of leaders or rulers as far as you're concerned?

            And this is totally off the mark.

            although in a Darwinian sense we are all anarchists in that true altruism is not possible.  This is so because it has no genetic mechanism to pass on, over time, such behavior to subsequent generations.

            Are you attempting to say that altruism and anarchism are inconsistent?  That's completely wrong.

            And whether or not altruism is inconsistent with our genetic makeup is a matter of debate.

            Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

            by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:52:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your use of the term anarchism (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ravenwind

              may be accurate in some narrow academic or  limited historical context, but generally speaking most would equate anarchy with the notion of "everyone doing their own thing".

              If you are advocating something else, you might want to consider using another term for it, lest the distinction be lost on the vast majority of folks who don't see simply "doing your own thing" as much of a solution to most of the fundamental problems confronting humanity.

              Obviously, at some level anarchy is consistent with our genetics, as it exists.  Humans don't have the option of doing things that exceed their underlying genetics, at least not for long in an evolutionary time scale, say a few tens or hundreds of generations usually needed to achieve fixation in heteroallelic populations.

              True altruism, ie. giving up one's reproductive potential to benefit that of another not genetically related is a loosing strategy biologically, because such a trait has no mechanism for self-perpetuation.  Humans are constrained in their mode of reproduction by their genetics and, although a variety of behaviors are involved, all must ultimately conform to these constraints or disappear from the gene pool. Unfortunately, resources are finite and this leads to competition among genetic variants for these resources.  Hence, as recognized by Darwin himself, to argue otherwise would be tantamount to demonstrating that the Darwin theory of evolution by means of natural selection was wrong.  However, there is no scientific evidence of this. Indeed, the correctness of the Darwinian view provides the foundation of all modern biology and medicine, which has tested and retested the correctness of this view for over 150 years.  Darwinian theory is a true scientific theory in every sense of the word.  Indeed, it is much better tested and better confirmed than the theory of gravity.

              Consequently, it is unreasonable to expect that humans will act in ways that are fundamentally against their biological self-interest.  This is not to say that behaviors that are less than pure self-interest can not evolve (ie "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine).  To the contrary, the biological world is loaded with all sorts of mutualism and commensalism, both among individuals and species.  Such relationships afford considerable biological (reproductive) advantage.

              Given the evolution of social behaviors in animals, including humans, a variety of mutualistic and commensalistic behaviors is not surprising.  However, what many may ascribe to altruism are based on various degrees of kinship selection and deception and rather than true altruism.  Clearly, the former are quite prevalent in the evolution of American and non-American political discourse.  For example, the number of offspring, who have assumed elected office following in the footsteps of a parent greatly exceed the number expected by chance alone. Likewise, the latter are also quite prevalent.  We are all familiar with a saleman or politician telling us one thing about a product, only to discover after it was "purchased" that the reality was something different entirely.

              However, deception is not limited to simply occurring between species.  In many cases we have evolved to actually have one part of our brain "deceive" another part to modulate behaviors, in some circumstances.  An obvious example, is in hearing, where we actually get used to noise by tricking our brain into forgetting that noise is actually even there at all after some period of accommodation.  Likewise, "good politics" and PR is very much the ability to deceive as well as to persuade with reason.  

              In the biological world, all is seldom as it first appears.  Typically, it is much, much, much more complicated.  Biology is not "rocket science".  It is vastly more complicated than rocket science as there are so many more possibilities given the number of potential combinations of innumerable highly complex molecules, whose atomic "behaviors" lie at the core of all that we are and do.

              I believe that for humanity to survive, we will not need to adopt a particular political philosophy as much as we will need to have a much better understanding of those fundamental molecular interactions that govern and constrain human behavior and evolution.  The future will belong to those who do, not to capitalists, communists, anarchists, fascists, etc.  

              Recognition of this reality is especially important if Steven Hawking is correct that ultimately we must prepare to leave earth if humanity is to avoid extinction.  We need to hurry, as at most we have only a few billion years left before the sun swallows us up and one could argue that by accelerating global warming and destroying earth's biodiversity, we are giving ourselves even less time, perhaps as little as 100-300 years, at least for civilization as we have known it.

      •  anarchies self destruct (0+ / 0-)

        In Spain the one thing the Anarchist forces could agree on was that when they occupied a town the first thing they would do is shoot the priests.  The result was a huge boost to Franco in popular support.  Abolishing government does not restore everyone to a state of behavioral purity, burglars and rapists see anarchy as opportunity.  They also lie about their crimes and to ferret out the truth requires people trained and empowered to do that.

        •  anarchists (0+ / 0-)

          need structure..... they just don't know it! :-)

        •  Standard propaganda. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          quotemstr, MrJayTee

          In Spain the one thing the Anarchist forces could agree on was that when they occupied a town the first thing they would do is shoot the priests.

          This is such a hoary canard, tracing back both to the Franco fascists and the Stalinists, that your recitation of it betrays your lack of concern with facts:

          Sensational stories were made up by the press about atrocities that never took place: priests crucified, men doused in gasoline and set on fire, etc.

          Chomsky dismantles the bias of "liberal" scholarship against the Catalonian anarchists in "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship."

          Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

          by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:09:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The most frustrating thing about discussing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quotemstr, goinsouth

            Ideas like Anarchism is the quality of the opposition.  You can't even get to the real issue without having to disabuse the ignorant of the shit they've been fed by a system that depends on discrediting contrary ways of thinking.

            And that's on a "liberal" blog.

            •  Liberals are not anarchists (0+ / 0-)

              They believe government has a role to play.

              Advocating anarchism on a liberal blog, you shouldn't be surprised that it meets resistence.

              Anarchism is the left's version of libertarianism in my view.

              They both have value in forcing the govt to hold itself accountable, but as a ruling force in government itself, neither philosophy will take hold.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site