Daily Kos

Alito has no power--we have lost nothing

Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 03:58:04 PM PDT

Why are you all so upset about Alito?  I'm not.  

Sure, I made my calls, I put in the time, I sent faxes and letters.  It was a good and important fight.  But it doesn't really matter.  And I know that because I know my history--and I don't buy into the bullshit the wingers have bought into.

The only reason you think it matters is because you've been TOLD that it matters.  That somehow, Alito will be able to do something terrible to this nation.

You believe that, in MSOC's words, We Are Fucked.

We are not.  And compared to the power we all just showed by our effort to see him blocked, Alito is an impotent little shadow of a man.

It's just that the right wing doesn't know that yet. They will gloat and count their ill-gotten riches, failing all the while to understand that all they have is fool's gold.  The right wing doesn't understand that the SCOTUS didn't give you your rights, and it can't take them away.

I made this point clear in my much-recommended diary We've Defended You for Five Years for this Moment: the religious right has been on a crusade to pack the Supreme Court because they believe that the court, and not the PEOPLE were responsible for the liberating movements and social upheavals of the 1960's.  Allow me to quote from that very diary:

To Bush's base, everything wrong with America was the result of the multiple social revolutions of the 60's and early 70's.

They see raunchy MTV videos and they wish the sexual revolution had never taken place.

They see people of different races as their neighbors and children's classmates, and they wish desegregation had never taken place.

They see poor civic behavior, and they blame it on the "removal of God from the public square."

In fact, every progressive thing we cherish as a result of that era is something they hate.

And, most importantly, in order to reconcile themselves to how those changes could possibly have taken place in "their" America, they cannot allow themselves to believe it was the popular will.  In fact, they believe, EVERYTHING "bad" that happened in those "terrible days" of the 60's and early 70's was the fault of JUDGES.

But it WASN'T.  There was no way the Warren Court could have or would have made the rulings they did without feeling extraordinary pressure from the American people--from groups of dedicated, activist citizens just like you.

The truth is that not even a conservative Supreme Court would dare make life-changing rulings in contravention of an angry and disgruntled populace--if for no other reason than that it would mean the elimination of their conservtive cohorts in the legislative and executive branches through the voting process.

Again, from my diary:

And they are foolhardy and vicious enough to believe that the entire revolution happened because of a few totalitarian judges who deserve to be hanged for putting their sons and daughters into schools with black people and  then giving them libertine ideas about being able to miscegenate with them--and abort the Rosemary's baby that ensued after that. Oh horror of horrors!

And THAT is why they've been supporting Bush this entire time: because they were certain he would appoint judges who would overturn all that.

But they can't overturn all that, don't you see?

Even if an Alito/Roberts/Thomas/Scalia court agreed with Richard Nixon that "when the president does it, it's not illegal", there is NO WAY IN HELL that they would have dared agree with him with the public demanding his head.  Nixon would have been toast even with 9 Alito's on the Supreme Court.

Do you honestly believe that if Alito were on the court for Brown v. Board of Education, instead of Earl Warren, that southern schools would still be segregated?  It might have taken a little longer, perhaps--but even if took longer, the pressure to desegregate from the rest of nation would have been all the greater; and a Republican might have been forced to enact it instead.

Do you honestly believe that, if the NSA spy scandal goes all the way to the Supreme Court, that Bush's impeachment or lack thereof will depend on the ruling of Alito's court?  That the politics of what takes place will not be formed more by the protests and anger on the street?  If you doubt it, just look at what we have accomplished over the last two days. And don't tell me that you've forgotten that it is the Senate--not the Court--that rules on Impeachment. The SCOTUS could be manned by Mussolini, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Osama bin Ladin, and Samuel Alito--and you could impeach just as easily.

Roe v. Wade may go down, yes.  And 30 states in the Union may outlaw abortion.  That would be the worst calamity.  But it would come at the cost of a Republican minority in congress for 30 years.
They wouldn't dare.  And hell--if they do dare, I'll take that trade.  Abortions will still be available in the sane states. And by God, if Harriet Tubman could do it 150 years ago, I'll bet the moral among us can start our own Underground Railroad, and welcome the oppressed who need these procedures into our homes. It's all been done before, and we can do it all again. But the cause of truth and righteousness always wins out.

----------------------------------

The point here, people--and especially for all you boomers--is that the SCOTUS didn't give you your rights.  YOU TOOK THEM when you took to the streets and gave hell to the establishment.  When you marched, protested, loved in abundance, and did everything they now hate you for.

And only apathy can take your rights away.

The right wing thinks they've won a battle.  And they have.  They've put one wingnut empty suit in Hogwarts robes on a high-chair in a pretentious neo-classical building.

What they don't understand is that they lost the war long, long ago--and that the war was waged in every street, every workplace, every college campus across America.

A war that is now being waged right here, right now, on the Internet and everywhere else.  A war that, as has been pointed out before, we are winning.
------------------------------------------

So do not cry over spilled milk, fellow Democrats.  Continue the work you have been doing for 50 years now, because the tide of history is irreversible.  Rage, rage against the dying of the light--and shine that beacon of truth and justice as far and as brightly as you can.

Because one man in a robe never helped you in the first place--and one man in a robe cannot stop you now.

Tags: Samuel Alito, 1960s, Warren Court, abortion, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 394 comments

  •  now get up, get out there, and give them hell (4.00 / 159)

    God knows that between Abramoff, Iraq, and the NSA scandal, we've got more than enough to hoist this administration by its own petard.

    Nixon was nothing compared this SOB in office, and we were nothing then compared to what we could be now.

    Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

    by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 03:59:21 PM PDT

    •  why does this remind me... (4.00 / 4)

      ...of that james brown song.

      "get up...get up now.  Wah!"

      You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

      by DawnG on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 04:21:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  Hey (4.00 / 4)

          These are tightwad pricks who are massively uncomfortable with sex.  Even when it's with machines.  No wonder they don't get '60's culture.  Or '90's culture.  Or any culture.

          "There he goes again! Who's laughing now, betch?" -- Jimmy Carter

          by slippytoad on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:43:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  bring em home NOW-time 2 get hell outta dodge! (none / 1)

            •  It would be really nice..... (4.00 / 4)

              If ths diary mentioned some factual basis for its claims,

              No, I'm not running for the hills, but I don't see Alito as inconsequential.

              •  IN other words.... (none / 1)

                PLEASE give me more than "we'll get the bastards !"

                Alito will have real power - can we counter that and prevail ? I believe we can, but I'd like to see a plan.

                •  well (4.00 / 2)

                  here's one important fact.  Since most of the focus has been on abortion, it's worth remembering that the Supreme Court is very unlikely to outlaw abortion.

                  The Supreme Court may well uphold laws against abortion, but only those laws that legislatures write.

                  A lot of pro-choice people have acted very naively about politics in my experience.  They talk about President BECAUSE HE APPOINTS THE SUPREME COURT!

                  Which is one of the least powerful things the President does.  Important, yes, but against, say, waging war?  Or tax policy?

                  But to so many, I found that this one thing, not even the issue of choice generally, but THE SUPREME COURT, was all-important.  It made it worth voting for a president, or occasionally for a Senator, but beyond that, these very educated people were often not particularly interested in politics.

                  I guess they'll have to start acting like citizens now.  You know, taking  the time to figure out who their legislators are, stuff like that.  That would be a salutary change.

                  All this ridiculous focus on the Supreme Court was just a way of avoiding the responsibilities of engaged citizens.  I've always hated it, frankly.  This just means we all have to fight our political battles.  If choice is really popular, we'll win.

                  •  Don't count on it... (4.00 / 6)

                    I've been predicting for some time that, when the inevitable overturn of Roe v. Wade comes, it will be in a decision that states, as a matter of "common law" or "natural law," that "true human life begins at conception."

                    That will effectively make every single homicide law in the country automatically apply to abortion.  The only way that can be changed is by changing both state and federal law to exempt abortion from those statutes.  Meaning, of course, that such an exemption would have to pass the Republican Congress and be signed into law by George W. Bush.

                    The problem with putting Alito on the bench is that he's not only a solid conservative vote; it's that he, like Bork, is a conservative theorist, with a long track record of finding new concepts and arguments for enshrining  right-wing principles into the law by fiat.  Witness "unitary executive," in case you have any doubts -- could you ever imagine, back in the time of Watergate, any Supreme Court Justice seriously arguing that the President, as commander-in-chief, could do whatever he wanted without check from Congress or the judiciary, or that he could disregard the actual wording of laws in favor of his own interpretation of them?  Now, we may have a near-majority, and possibly an outright majority, of the Court that would hold such a position.  

                    With the court as it will be constituted after tomorrow, we will likely not only see a steady tilt to the right, we'll see the inscribing of authoritarian conservative viewpoints into precedent in ways we never dreamed would be possible, even a few years ago.

                    •  Repercussions (none / 0)

                      I've been looking around for a story I heard today concerning the 'defining a life' question.  Oddly enough the case had nothing to do with abortion, murder or birth control.  It was a traffic violation.

                      Yes a traffic violation brought up the question of when does a fetus/baby turn into a person.  A woman lost her case against a ticket for driving in the carpool lane, while 8 months pregnant.

                      Apparently, if you abort an 8 month old fetus/baby it's murder.  If you kill the mother, it's a double homicide.  But if you want to drive in a carpool lane, it's not a person and your breaking the law.

                      This country SERIOUSLY needs a medical amendment to the constitution.  Stating when a person legally becomes a person and that each person has medical/health control of thier own bodies.

                      Personally I think third trimester mothers should avoid driving myself.  But if they must drive, give um the carpool lane, they just might be going to a hospital!

      •  "Get on up (4.00 / 3)

        get into it!

        Get involved! Get involved! Get involved!"

    •  heh, I love your name. (none / 1)

      so I left a little surprise.

      No Bucks.
      No Justice.
      No Peace.

      by theleftknew on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 04:24:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Questions for you (4.00 / 2)

        Can you please explain why you insist on posting under multiples usernames and also on leaving tags that no one will ever search for?

        Why do you have such trouble behaving within the realm of the community standards here?

        You've been banned before, and you clearly want to participate here, so why constantly act out?

        Won't vote for the Dem? I guess your kids will thank you for the far-right Supreme Court.

        by td on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:04:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Here is my beef... (4.00 / 20)

      When the Abramoff scandal gets to SCOTUS (and it will - I can't tell you how or when - but I am sure it will) the Bush Administration will have FOUR sure things and if Coulter gets to Stevens they will have FIVE and then it is gameover.  Corruption wins.

      That is my beef.  That why I think Salazar is an idiot for voting for cloture (which is the same as voting for Alito - let's be clear on that fact) and at the same time calling for an investigation by the Justice Department into the corruption.

      This for me is not about rights per se.  It is about laws and that is a different discussion all together really.  The Fundies want to control the courts so that they can change the fundamental structure of our laws and country.  

      I hope that you are right and that I am wrong.  I really do, but my gut, instinct and experience says otherwise at the moment.

        •  Point and case - it will only get worse (4.00 / 8)

          Or as Keith Olberman would say "worser".

          About the only legitimately interesting and smart Democrat on the Supreme Court is Justice Stevens.  We have duds on the court - we don't really have that many on the court - we have just two I guess when you really look at it.  

          The sophistication of selecting Roberts whose powers of persuasion are clearly legendary and rejecting Meirs whose presence was mousy at best was the tell tail for me.  They are not only stacking the court, but they are also selecting personalities that will dominate.  It is a political calculation that should not go unmentioned.

          •  Steven (4.00 / 2)

            Stevens was a Ford appointee.

            Sorry to ruin your day like that :)

            The only DEM appointees are Ginsburg and Kennedy

            We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

            by ScrewySquirrel on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 06:12:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wasn't talking about who appointed whom (none / 0)

              I was talking about who has any standards who is left on the court who lean towards democratic principles.
              •  unfair to Ginsberg (4.00 / 4)

                who worked tirelessly for the ACLU.

                But I tend to agree that Stevens, a Republican, is the best thinker on the bench.

                By the way, Clinton appointed Breyer, and Kennedy is a Republican.

                •  Ginsberg is not Ms. Personality (4.00 / 2)

                  and frankly that is a part of the job.  Thurgood Marshall for instance was a presence - a thinker - a leader.  What I was pointing out is that the "left leaning" portion of the court is not as dynamic as the right now.  Thomas was a mistake and they knew it.  Meirs would have been another Thomas - a technocrat with little ability to lead - he is good at following the line - but has little ability to grab hold and take people with him.

                  Orin Hatch approved Ginsburg because he knew her power of persuasion would be limited.  I am not saying that she isn't a good lawyer or Justice - just that she isn't the natural leader that either side needs in this clubby environment called SCOTUS.

                  •  My sense is that... (4.00 / 2)

                    ...Alito will not be a great leader on the Court, either.  Roberts might be, but not Alito.  The kinds of people who will tell any one any lie they want to hear are born followers, not leaders. He'll be another Thomas.

                    He is, however, one vote out of nine that will be almost perpetually on the wrong side of everything, and he will be there for a very long time.

                    I'm not saying we give up...this is far too important to ever give up on...but the situation has gone from bad to critically bad. This court is very close to being able to undo much of what has been accomplished by the progressive movement in the last half a century, and several of them have basically said that's what they'd like to do.  That might not be something a majority of people in this country want, but there is a frightening number that do, enough that barring a major change in the attitudes and involvement of the American people, it'll happen. And if it gets undone, you and I may not live to see it fixed.

                  •  Well, maybe. (none / 0)

                    But we don't really know what goes on in chambers at the S.Ct.  A brain as incisive as Ms. Ginsberg's is respected in an intellectual setting, and these folks get to know each other very, very well.  You don't have to be a flaming extrovert to have a strong influence on the court's thinking, and I don't think her many successes in law prior to her joining the court should lead anyone to believe she's a shrinking violet when it comes to stating her opinions and backing them with sound logic and precedent.

                    She may not be a Brennan, but I don't think we should sell her short.

                    •  Okay so here it the thing... (none / 0)

                      For the past few years we have seen a decidedly different court than we did prior.  I think we can all agree that the way the court acts has a lot to do with the people on it.  I think it is accepted wisdom that the court as a body tends to effect the people who serve on it.  

                      Fondly enough I think Souter is a really good example of that.  I think outside of that court he was much more conservative and when he entered he became much more liberal.  The question is why?  Well it could have been a reaction to the likes of a Scalia whose heavy hand was too much.  Or it could have been influence from one of the more Liberal justices.  Will we ever know for sure on this court?  I don't think so.  What we do know from past courts is that there is usually an alpha dog that has some influence.

                      I don't get the impression that Ginsburg is our alpha dog.  That doesn't mean she isn't a great legal mind.  Thomas is the weak one where it comes to mental acuity on that court.  Kennedy might also be similarly dogmatic and not so expansive in his thought.  She may well be the smartest, but she isn't a leader on this court.

                      The strongest influencers are in my opinion definitely on the conservative side at this point in history.

                      I am now officially tired of trying to explain that I am not attacking Ginsburg, I am just saying that we are losing the leadership on the court.  I thought this would be obvious.  Guess not.

            •  um, you're also wrong :) (none / 0)

              You mean Breyer and not Kennedy.  He was a Reagan appointee.
          •  Unbelievable (none / 1)

            First of all, Justice Stevens is not a Democrat. He is a Republican, appointed by President Gerald R. Ford in 1975.

            Second, it is ridiculous for you to say that the presumed "Democratic" justices are dim bulbs. Steve Breyer is not a liberal, but he is anything but dumb. And David Souter, another Republican, is brilliant.

            What this should point out to you is that partisan labels mean little at the Supreme Court. If you doubt me, think about Byron White. He was a lifelong Democrat, appointed to the Court by John F. Kennedy. Would you say he was "liberal" or "progressive," as you define those terms?

            •  Plus... (none / 1)

              ....all Justices eventually go liberal unless they're batshit insane.  Let us not forget the lessons of Stevens:  Roberts has twenty good years on the court, he's going to go liberal in a big way very soon.  

              Hell, Thomas may too, over time.  Don't give up hope, just because Bush put them there doesn't mean they're going to be conservatives forever.

              •  Just like Thomas and Scalia have... (none / 1)

                riiight. Clearly, it isn't only the GOP that has problems with this "reality based" stuff.

                "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

                by bellatrys on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 04:52:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There's an escape clause there... (none / 0)

                  I think Scalia qualifies for the "batshit insane" out. As for Thomas... well, not so sure about his sanity, but you may have a point there.

                  In any case, I don't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for Thomas to turn liberal -- he's not smart enough. In fact, the phrase that drifts irresistibly into one's mind is snowflake in hell.

                  Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

                  by Canadian Reader on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 08:36:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I shouldn't have said "democrat" (none / 1)

              you are correct - what I meant was "liberal" in the sense that he is much more liberal and tempered in his judgement than the others save for Ginsburg.

              Also it is important to remember that every appointee pre 1994 whether they were appointed by a Democrat or a Republican was vetted by a Democratic majority so they would be slightly different from an Alito in character and temperment.

      •  and do you honestly believe that if Abramoff (4.00 / 2)

        makes to the SCOTUS that Bush won't already have been impeached, and/or Democrats control both houses?

        I mean, if it's that fucking big, it's already game over for the bastards.

        I swear--you people act like Democrats will never regain control of the congress or the presidency again.  You DO act like the Warren court was the only reason you have any rights.  And like the court is the only thing standing in the way of their elimination.

        My friend, if the court really IS the only thing standing in the way of your rights being eliminated, you're in serious trouble.  And you're also a little paranoid.

        There are three branches of government, folks.

        Count 'em--three.  And they're accountable to you, the public.

        And as for impeachment, the SCOTUS doesn't decide that, either.

        Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

        by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 08:48:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If the Dems retake Congress, and try to impeach... (4.00 / 2)

          ...Bush will simply take it to SCOTUS, who will order the Senate to cease and desist, since any action taken by the President as commander-in-chief is therefore automatically legal, and thus can never be grounds for impeachment.

          They'll either have to back down, or risk arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court (not to mention possible treason charges).

          •  Nooo,.. (none / 0)

            I do not think that is how it works.
            Give an example of the SCOTUS telling the House to Cease & desist on an impeachement.  Is there any precedent for that whatsoever?  Do they have a role in an impeachment?  When?

            IMPEACH THEM NOW! It only takes One State.

            by arbortender on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:39:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The SCOTUS wouldn't dare (none / 0)

            they wouldn't dare mess with Congress' internal procedures.  It's because of two important powers Congress has:

            (1) Power of the purse.  Congress can stop funding the SCOTUS in one fell swoop.  And if the Democrats are in power and the court tries to interfere in Conrgess' internal business, that's what will happen.

            (2) Power to impeach.  Congress can impeach judges too.  Somehow I don't think these justices are insane enough to save Bush's butt at the cost of their own.

            Besides, I don't think that even with Alito on, the court will go as far as interfering with internal business of Congress.  They're not that insane.

            "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

            by deaniac83 on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 12:18:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The last time I was worried about being called (4.00 / 4)

          paraniod was around the start of the Iraq War when I was arguing that the Patriot Act and the War were designed not to protect us from foreign threats but rather to control Americans.  I was worried then that I might be a touch paranoid when NOTHING rang true about the reasons BushCo said we must invade Iraq or else.  To date, with this Administration I have 100% batting average in seeing their real motivations before most people do.  I have enough imagination to understand that nothing is impossible when it comes to these people.  So you can call me paraniod now and you can call me right later.  That has been the patter now for the past five years.  

          I wish I was only paraniod because I wouldn't be waking up every morning wondering what part of our democracy will be sacraficed today...

          But you go right ahead and believe that some things are "impossible".  I think you will see one thing if you were to review my comments over my time here and that would be that I don't think I have ever used the phrase "I can't believe it" in response to each proven scandal, lie, nefarious policy, etc.  

          I had a front row seat for the Watergate scandal.  I understand the power of the Presidency and I have grown up in government.  This is an animal that I am pretty familiar with.  I am again not talking about what the beast will do for you, but what is in the belly of this beast at them moment and it ain't pretty right now.  Until we get some Democrats who understand their Constitution it does look grim from where I sit.

          You have fun going and demanding your rights with "approved" signs - a portion of the Patriot Act that I am sure Alito would support.  I saw Orin Hatch last night on Chris Matthews' show and he couldn't declare his full support for the First Ammendment.  That is what we are dealing with here.  We are dealing with people who want to deconstruct the Constitution one piece at a time and you know what?  They are doing a damn good job of setting up the perfect storm for their objectives.  I am just calling it like I see it and if you think that is paraniod - then so be it.  I actually hope you are right although my gut says you are wrong - dead wrong.

    •  You know, really... (none / 0)

      ...I would say we've been doing that good work for about three years now, not 50.

      Yeah, we've had some important successes over the last half century.  but the Left largely went to sleep for the last three decades of the 20th Century, while the Right went to town building the machinery to subvert democracy.

      It's the fourth quarter, most of our players have been out having a beer (talking about the good ol' days and musing about starting third parties), and suddenly we're shocked to find that we're down by 20 and in deep shit.

      So yeah, we're back at it.  And we're making greast strides.  But we haven't been back at it that long.  

    •  Ahhhhhh, finally............ (4.00 / 6)

      a voice of reason here in the midst of all this Alito/filibuster madness.

      It was pointed out in another diary early last week I believe, that Alito is not the one to be worried about.  The one SCOTUS nomination to be concerned about will be the NEXT one.  The NEXT one will tip the balance if Bush gets to nominate another one.

      And hopefully, if everyone can calm the hell down, we can make sure Bush doesn't get to nominate another one for SCOTUS.  And do you know why??  It's because we are going to put more Dems in the House and Senate so WE WILL have more of a say, and WE CAN reject any nomination that we feel is too conservative.  Realistically, we can take back the Senate.  We will be close to taking back the House, but not totally.  We will have more leverage after these elections.

      And for those of you who are so quick to abandon the Democratic Party, go ahead.  I'm staying to fight for a better Democratic Party.

      If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

      by Mz Kleen on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:17:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're right, we've got to win elections, etc. (4.00 / 2)

      What was THE POINT of insisting on making Democrats play this LOSING "filibuster" game today???  This exercise in C-span fulitily?  To see how powerful the "net roots" were???  This was a foregone conclusion after Republicans took the White House and upped their majority in the Senate in November 2004!

      The NYT lead on this story is "Liberal Democrats today failed..." which is EXACTLY why I, and many other progressive Democrats (see Senator Reid) counselled AGAINST this illusionary "filibuster."  

      If it wasn't Alito today, it would've been any number of OTHER WORSE Federalist scumbags.  The Democrats didn't "lose" today, the country did.  But thanks to those who insisted on creating a straw man, "the filibuster," who the Repubs could anihilate, the country (and apparently many delusional Dems as well) will see it as a "Democrat" loss.  

      Sadly, it was the American voter who gave us Alito, not the minority caucus of the US Senate.  

       

      •  Let me offer a personal answer (4.00 / 7)

        What was THE POINT of insisting on making Democrats play this LOSING "filibuster" game today???  

        The filibuster was, as you suggest, likely doomed from the start.  There's no joy in fighting a lost cause -- I know, because I've fought a lot of them in court and in life.

        But at the same time, fighting for what you believe to be right is valuable for what it does for you.  Screw the media, screw the opposition, and screw the weak-kneed DINOs in our own camp, too.  We did what we could, and where we failed to do our best, we can learn from our mistakes and do better next time.

        I wanted a win.  We all did.  But I have more faith in all of you -- all of us -- who fought this fight than I did before, and that will make me more willing to fight the next time, and to fight harder and more tenaciously.  Because we fought this time, I know I'm not going to be fighting the next battle alone.  We all know that, now.

        These past few weeks have been remarkable for the netroots.  We're not going to win all the battles, and we're going to take some major losses, as we did today.  But by God we will not go down without fighting.  

        It's not all I wanted, and I don't pretend that it's enough.  But it's something, and it's more than we'd have had we packed it in without a fight.

      •  Maybe... (none / 1)

        or maybe it was Diebold.

        I think, after what we've seen in the last 5 years (Alito being another damaging blow to this country) election reform should be high priority for the Dems.

        But sadly, this is another issue which has been woefully ignored by the corportate media.

        Good luck, America!  

        THANK YOU FOR NOT IMPEACHING THE WAR CRIMINALS AND TERRORIST ENABLERS. Next Stop: Iran. You're on a roll, Congress! -- FUCK, YEAH!!

        by STOP George on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 07:07:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ..so we will be OK with 9 Alitos? (4.00 / 4)

      ..uh OK..  Supreme Court doesn't matter.  Gotcha.

      "Since When Have You Westerners Accepted the Teachings of Christ?" - His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

      by sandmancan on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:43:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you fucking nuts? (3.77 / 9)

      You are a guy, of that I'm sure.

      Abortion illegal in 30 states and that is not an absolute catastrophe? Jesus christ almighty, do you have no fucking idea what the reality of that would mean for millions of women?

      "Underground railroad" my ass. There are already many states where the laws are so restrictive that an underground railroad is already needed. And you want to make it worse? Holy shit, are you a repub in disguise?

      Go back to little green footballs.

      Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

      by MarkInSanFran on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:57:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  please chill out (none / 0)

        We don't need this particular flamewar.  He's not saying that.  I'm pretty sure spoon is in favor of choice.  He's saying IF repubs do this THEN there will be hell to pay.

        In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

        by yet another liberal on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 06:06:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  From the diary: (4.00 / 8)

          Roe v. Wade may go down, yes.  And 30 states in the Union may outlaw abortion.  That would be the worst calamity.  But it would come at the cost of a Republican minority in congress for 30 years.
          They wouldn't dare.  And hell--if they do dare, I'll take that trade.  Abortions will still be available in the sane states. And by God, if Harriet Tubman could do it 150 years ago, I'll bet the moral among us can start our own Underground Railroad, and welcome the oppressed who need these procedures into our homes. It's all been done before, and we can do it all again. But the cause of truth and righteousness always wins out.

          That was what I was talking about, and it is absolute bullshit.

          Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

          by MarkInSanFran on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Mark has a point (4.00 / 11)

          Some states have laws waiting to go on the books that will make it illegal to tranport a teenager across state lines to obtain an abortion.

          And if 30 states outlaw abortion, that indeed will be an immediate tragedy for thousands of women.  Tell someone whose life is about to be ruined and who may be on the road to a lifetime of poverty that things aren't so bad and that a sustained uprising of the people will eventually force a change in the laws.

          There will be hell to pay--and women all over the country will be paying it.

          •  Hell yes - women are already paying it (4.00 / 3)

            There are no abortion providers in most of the country [ 87% of counties, I believe].  Most are rural, but not all.  Waiting periods, parent/spousal consent, lack of insurance coverage already make this an illusory or impossible "choice" for millions of women.

            I live in a blue state with some of the "best" laws in the country, but still have to drive a young woman 150 miles across 2 state lines and beg for funding before she can get an abortion after the first trimester.  That window has become smaller every year, and more expensive.

            The same people who champion Alito fight against every effective form of birth control.

            Tomorrow is the day I've been dreading since Reagan was elected - the rightwing gets a strangle hold on the Court.  It's not just about political strategy to me, it's real lives in the balance.  

            •  But I can tell you'll live to fight another day (none / 1)

              but still have to drive a young woman 150 miles across 2 state lines and beg for funding before she can get an abortion after the first trimester.

              I just want to let you how much I admire your efforts. You're a doer and a fighter; we're lucky you're around to remind us to keep our chins up and to shoulder on.

              I didn't find Spoon's Underground Railroad-type transport system that far out; clandestined travel might very well end up being the only answer for a lot of women in the coming years. Did this idea strike you one way or another?

              Cheers,

              God bless our tinfoil hearts.

              by aitchdee on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 11:23:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  My uterus and I would like to respond (none / 1)

        Abortion illegal in 30 states and that is not an absolute catastrophe?

        It's what we face.

        Jesus christ almighty, do you have no fucking idea what the reality of that would mean for millions of women?

        It's the reality, starting now.

        "Underground railroad" my ass.

        As I said, it's a whole new ballgame, starting now. Is it too soon to think about contingency plans?

        There are already many states where the laws are so restrictive that an underground railroad is already needed.

        Then it's not so farfetched after all. I understand your incredulity, but what was previously unthinkable is the state of reality, starting now.

        And you want to make it worse?

        I want to face reality as soon as possible.

        Holy shit, are you a repub in disguise?

        I'm a Democrat preparing to fight smart. I'm woman gearing up for massive changes. I'm a citizen prepared to do whatever it takes.

        Go back to little green footballs.

        I'll stay here, thanks, and face up to life, and take my inspiration from Kossacks like Spoon who, on this unbearable day, is trying to accentuate the positive and boost morale. God knows we need it.

        Returning to your first line, Abortion illegal in 30 states and that is not an absolute catastrophe?

        It's definitely a catastrophe. Have you had time to think about what we might do to ameliorate the damages?

        Look, we can declare irreversible screwedness when we're dead. Until then, we face whatever we gotta face, and then we move.

        Take care.

        God bless our tinfoil hearts.

        by aitchdee on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 10:33:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (none / 0)

        You know, you're right in that it would be an absolute catasprophe, but I'd expect that in every single one of those thirty states, the horror of what had transpired -- accentuated by the horror stories of the women forced to carry to term the progeny of their rapists or fathers or what have you -- would result in massive voter turnout at the next legislative election to change those state laws, and would pretty much ensure the unelectablility of any Republican to national office in 90% of the country for the next 50 years.

        You can tell people as much as you want that they have to "vote, or suffer the consequences," but sometimes, the consequences need to appear before people want to pay attention.

    •  Nice diary (none / 1)

      however I seem to remember an SC ruling that the justices were so embarrassed about they refused to sign it-shrub still became President though.
    •  are you high? (4.00 / 7)

      Um, so you think the republican supermajority on the supreme court will tremble in their robes every time there's a march on the quad? In case you haven't noticed, one of the republican tactics these days is too provoke liberal animosity on campus by tweaking their noses. They do it for sport, and to train the next generation of republican operatives:

      http://www.yuricareport.com/...

      I can't believe I'm saying this - and I can only say this in the context of the above diary -but  so what about Roe v. Wade? So what if the SCOTUS will act to decimate (in the original sense) the one case that has resonance in the polls?
      How about every case that will pit blue states' rights vs federal and corporate rights? we'll lose.
      how about every case of personal and civil rights vs red states' rights? we'll lose. Environmental preservation? we'll lose. Transparency in government? we'll lose....
      Most of the cases that will determine the nature of the deepest core of our democracy don't generate enough press to swing elections. Who got voted out of office because of Bush vs. Gore?

      "now get up, get out there, and give them hell"

      I agree with that comment completely. But the diary doesn't cheer me up.

      •  Holy Sh*t (none / 0)

        I hadn't read that link before (Yurika Report).  That is some scary shit going on.  I guess I've just been very naive all of these years.

        If you won't pray in our schools, we won't think in your churches.

        by BlueInARedState on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 08:59:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  google Morton Blackwell (none / 1)

          -the guy who founded the Leadership Institute. Yikes. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you have zero scruples.
          •  But it proves the point of the diary (none / 1)

            Organized, lying, smearing and disenfranchising...and yet...there are still more liberal thinkers on college campuses than conservatives.

            They're outnumbered there, just as they are in the real world. Underhanded tactics are the only way they win. But people start catching on, and the average person being more in tune with liberal values in general, doesn't decamp and switch sides. He begins to organize and fight back.

            When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. -Benjamin Franklin

            by MissAnneThrope on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 03:48:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  you forget one big thing (4.00 / 6)

      The right wing is STILL FIGHTING!!!

      Don't you get it? This is what their "culture wars" are all about!

      You and I thought that crap on Fox News was just a marketing ploy to boost ratings - but the Republican base takes that shit seriously, and they won't rest until they've destroyed all of the progress of the last 70 years!!!

      They're highly organized, they're well funded, they've got a vise-like grip on the Republican party - in short, they're about 30 years ahead of us.

      By the time we get enough people aware of what's going on and interested in fighting back, they'll have outlawed fighting back!!!

      You, and I, and the rest of the DKos community are passionate about these things. But you don't understand how little the rest of the electorate cares. They've got bills to pay. They've got two and three jobs to work, plus taking care of kids and running a household and worrying about their parents' retirement...

      Republicans do this stuff through their fundamentalist churches. They use them (illegally, in my opinion) to rally support for their political missions. And let's face it - we don't have anything like that. We've got no organized outlet for disseminating the message of our struggle.

      They've got a god-damned cult that people join, and part of the deal is that new members have to head to the front lines of the right-wing culture wars.

      I want so badly to be optimistic... but what have we got to rival that?

      We've got each other. We've got the internet. But how long will it be before RATS outlaws what we're doing here? Don't think it won't happen. Don't think it can't happen.

      Because that's what you see just before it really DOES happen.

      I hope to god that this was not our Waterloo. But I fear that we'll find ourselves banished to Elba, waiting hopelessly for the day when our loyal troops will rescue us and deliver us back to glory....

      •  Richard - (none / 0)

        But how long will it be before RATS outlaws what we're doing here?

        It's none too soon start talking about that possibility. About a year ago, someone here (it may have been Kos) said that contingencies are already in place should dkos ever get its plug pulled. I just don't recall the details of the discussion--not to say a lot of details were given. Does this ring bells for anyone?

        IIRC, it was some kind of ... stealth Internet. I remember feeling pretty good about the whole thing because reassurance came from high up.

        God bless our tinfoil hearts.

        by aitchdee on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 11:47:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ralph Reed and the school boards... (none / 0)

        I remember a quote by that despicable Ralph Reed that went something like, "If I had a choice between getting a majority in congress and a majority in all the school boards across the nation, I'd choose the latter."

        Well, here's my choice... get me a majority of church pastors, 'cos if you have that, surely congress will be next.

        Thanks,

        Mike

        The United States of America--the only country in the world where being educated and cultured actually *lowers* your social and political standing.

        by LordMike on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 01:37:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott (4.00 / 3)

      Practice your Google skills and look up:

      - Plessy v. Ferguson
      and
      - Dred Scott

      That's what the Supreme Court can do. That's why Alito IS a big deal. Public sentiment even back then, especially in the more populous "blue" states, was sufficent to give the supremes whatever cover they needed. But the ideologues on the court went with their own prejudices.

      The setbacks from Roberts and Alito may not be permanent, but they will have broad and deep effects that hurt thousands or millions in very, very real ways.

      Alito's presence on the Supreme Court will have real-life dramatic repercussions. Real people will be hurt in innumerable ways.  Many will be left destitute. Some will be disappeared. Some will even die.

      That is the power of this nomination. It is a tragic loss, and those who allowed it to happen are nothing more than craven cowards.

      And those apologists who try to pretty it all up with nice stories about it not being really so bad are doing nothing more than telling those real people who will suffer gravely in the aftermath of this confirmation that their pain is acceptable.

      It is not.

      •  Your upset over the nomination aside, (none / 0)

        it's unfair and untrue to call Spoon an "apologist" (for whom is he apologizing, exactly?), and it's downright cruel to accuse him of finding the pain that will inevitably come of this as somehow okay with him. Nonsense! He neither said nor implied any such thing. No Kossack should be used as a punch toy like this, no matter how high emotions are riding.

        At worst the diary is naive. Those of you who didn't like what you read could have said so without eliminating any possible benefit of the doubt. You owe the diarist an apology--mataliandy and anyone else who twisted his words or suggested malicious motivations or (for the love of god) ludicrous complicity.

        .

        God bless our tinfoil hearts.

        by aitchdee on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 01:31:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Faulty Assumption (4.00 / 24)

    You assume that people will organize as happened in the 60s. You terribly underestimate the passivity and complacency of the average American. As long as he/she can a) watch the Superbowl, b) enjoy a hot dog and beer on the Fourth, and c) shop-till-you-drop they won't even know we have a Supreme Court. Alito matters because America wasn't paying attention. and won't.

    There is no "left" left in Amerikan politics

    by ThanxAl on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 04:02:16 PM PDT

    •  True... for now (4.00 / 11)

      But the times they are a changin'- or will be damn soon when a serious crunch is coming that has the potential of knocking a lot of people out of their complacent mindset. When gas gets expensive enough that it's too painful economically to drive across town for the super bowl party, when the chips cost so much due to extraordinarily high costs of bringing food to market that they can't afford them, when it's all moot because they've lost their cushy jobs due ot the energy starved economy crashing at their feet. People will wake up and start asking questions. How did we get into this mess again?

      "People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving." - a lifelong Republican

      by Max Wyvern on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 04:14:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  times have changed (4.00 / 2)

        There is a major difference between now and the 1960's. Today there is no draft. When I turned 18 I felt the chill of the door opening to Viet Nam. The draft gave us a target to focus our white hot rage upon. I think that was the galvanizing force for protest. My Republican dad was worried as hell about his two sons having to go fight that war. He wasn't too thrilled about all the protests but he sure as hell was thrilled when I won the lottery and didn't have to go to 'Nam. The Repugs know that a draft coupled with an unjust war would be the end of the game for them.

        The great tragedy of Science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. T. H. Huxley

        by realalaskan on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:59:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I said this before the 2000 elections ended (none / 0)

        but also noted that history has shown our "reaction" time to such damning evidence is rather slow.  We have a significant problem accepting our poor choices in leaders, and especially in acknowledging that the USA can be so heavily corrupted . . . like vast numbers of "lesser" places which we've criticized and snubbed our ignorance towards.

        Further, in these 1984-ish times, that electorate reaction is blunted by institutionalized, political disinformation at almost all levels of media.

        No, it'll be far too late for change to occur such that my children will grow up without an impending fear of realizable disasters in their own country - from their own countrypeople.  When change does begin to occur, it will be in drips and drabs - yet, at such a tipping point, nothing short of a severe recalibration of governmental operations would tilt the windmills away from economic, environmental, societal caste and security hardships which will have become so entrenched in private interests, that it would something akin to full-court presses to wrest public interest and missions back from those maintaining the political status quo.

        This is without even donning my lovely tin-foil hat, btw.  Look at how easy it is to take away that which has taken decades to win.  History is against us, though we must not give in, such that hopefully something will rise from the eventual ashes of what was the USA's supposed purpose and framing contract by the time that our children's children become adults.

        I think my points are generally in agreement with yours (to the extent of where our scope is shared - e.g., economic harships), btw.  I'm just saying that it'll be too late by that point for enacting turn-about changes without significant alterations of our course.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 06:38:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nope, (none / 0)

        That's when John Q. Public goes batshit fascist for good.  He'll ask the tough questions, and find out that it's the bleeding-hearts who are responsible for his pain.  And then he'll fight--us.
    •  Give the pendulum a shove (4.00 / 13)

      I've always been a proponent of the pendulum-swinging view of American history.  Civil rights, the ebb and flow of the middle class, the balance of power between People and Money ... all have had a cyclical rhythm in American history.  Underneath there has generally been a bias toward progress:  with each swing of the pendulum things get a little better.

      The pendulum doesn't swing automatically.  It may take a civil war to get things moving in the right direction, or thousands killed in strikes.  A democratizing movement may further the genocide of native Americans.  We may intern Japanese-Americans defending against fascism.  It's messy, and anything but easy.

      The pendulum has been swinging the Republicans' way since the civil rights and Vietnam peace movements of the 1960's.  That's about how long it took to swing in the other direction since 1932.  Bushism, as dangerous and crypto-fascist as it appears, is in the long view likely to be the furthest swing right of the pendulum.  

      The descent of the Republican party into corruption and dishonesty, the evaporation of its constructive agenda, indicates there is little social momentum for its further movement to the right.  Only greedy corporations as pseudo-Christian religious fascists continue to push it that way.

      It is time for us to push very hard in the other direction.  No, most Americans aren't with us yet.  More outrages will undoubtedly be committed.  More scandals will come to light.  The tipping point will likely not arrive until the economy falls into recession, and Americans discover that the safety net they count on has been clipped away and stolen by the Republicans and their rich paymasters.  

      That will be our moment.  We must prepare the ground, so that when the nation arrives to help us push that pendulum to the left we will offer them solid footing.

      I can't expect to live in a democracy if I'm not prepared to do the work of being a citizen.

      by Dallasdoc on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 04:36:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse me... (4.00 / 14)

        ...but I absolutely hate the pendulum theory.

        The pendulum theory should be renamed the pablum theory.

        There are plenty of times thoughout history when the pendulum didn't swing, it went crashing out the window.

        When evil men get hold of all the instruments of power, which just happened today, by the way, watch out.

         

        •  Unfortunately (tragically, actually)... (none / 1)

          the pendulum tends to swing back only when someone has died, and paid the price with his or her life, and the public becomes outraged.

          For the mass of Republicans to flip, it might take something like a gay son or daughter being refused emergency medical care, legally in some Red state, by a healthcare worker who refuses treatment on "moral" grounds. It would have to get lots of press, but if it did, even the die-hards might finally get it.

          I hate to think it will come to something like this, but I wouldn't be surprised...

        •  MLK called it the "myth of time" (none / 1)

          He referred to the myth of time as that idea that, in time,  everything will get better.

          As he pointed out, time is neutral.  And unfortunately the "bad guys"  seem to make better use of time than we do.

        •  I hate it too, BUT (none / 0)

          I'm old enough to know and read and it was stated...we have to be able to push back hard, and have clear ground.  In other words, those who voted yes today need to go, and those who voted no can help us stand our ground.  Right really does make might, as has been said in the past.  Besides, our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan, hell, all kids everywhere need folks like us in there fighting.

          Think what you are doing today. -Fred Rogers

          by JanL on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:33:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  ..exactly.. (4.00 / 2)

          ..the goal of the current group of administration gangsters is to NEVER let the pendulum swing again.  Waiting for it to swing back is like the gamblers fallacy.

          "Since When Have You Westerners Accepted the Teachings of Christ?" - His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

          by sandmancan on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:45:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Try not to take it literally (none / 1)

          Not every country has a pendulum, and we're not guaranteed to have one.

          The pendulum is a metaphor for the dynamic tension in our society between money and people, between centralized authority and devolutionary momentum.  It has existed since Hamilton and Jefferson.  Jacksonian democrats followed by robber barons.  McKinley and LaFollette.  Roosevelt and Reagan.  The pendulum is a handy, inexact metaphor for the tension between the polar opposites of power in our country.  Both are native, both are strong.  It is the virtue of American democracy that the popular pole is strong enough that the moneyed, aristocratic forces have never gained final ascendancy.

          That's not to say that those forces can't, or even that they're not in the process of doing so now.  But we have a fairly long history which ought to be consoling.  Whenever the Rich get too powerful, our native ideals promote a powerful backlash.  As long as we think of ourselves as Americans, and remember our ideals, there's a good chance it will remain so.

          I can't expect to live in a democracy if I'm not prepared to do the work of being a citizen.

          by Dallasdoc on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 08:20:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  So, what are you going to do about it? (none / 1)

      Can you think of one person you can encourage to get active who isn't?
      •  I'm trying, Eternal... (none / 0)

        ...but to my great heartbreak, one of the ones I can't turn active is my fiancee.  Who is a wonderful, big-hearted, loving, generous, down to earth, hard-working, self-made man, best father, best friend, best brother, best son, best partner...

        ...he gives money - now that he's successful, lots of it.

        ...but he gets so overwhelmed.  He feels so much the weight of his chosen career and his "provider" role that the frustration involved in these kinds of things makes him want to just move forward.

        Last night he asked me, "Tell me one thing that will change if I call those senators tomorrow."  I gave him all the answers you would expect to get from a liberal activist, but when the filibuster failed, he said to me today, "I'm just as upset as you are by Alito.  I'm just not deluded that I can do anything about it."

        But he is totally supportive of me doing what I do - and actually proud.  What's with that?

        I fear his attitude is that of most Americans.  HOW DO WE CHANGE THAT?  We need some big wins - or even small ones that can be trumpeted LOUDLY - to dangle as carrots.  Ones that are recent, not historical  (to use a term favored by Condi Rice).  

        (It's also true that I do know how he feels.  Sometimes my outrage meter goes so far off the chart that I have to remove myself from blogs, news, radio, etc...just to get my equilibrium back.  But unlike him, something in me can't NOT act if I even think there's a possibility it might help.  Maybe it's just one of those "there are two kinds of people in the world" kinda things?)

        "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS." - Gandhi

        by hopesprings on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 06:54:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just tell him this: (none / 1)

          There's no guarantee that his activism will help.
          There's strong evidence that if he doesn't, things won't change. There are many millions just like him who don't speak up.
          It's 2 minutes of his life, no money from his pocket, and he gets to particpate in democracy.
          Good deal.
        •  Maybe that's why you liked him. (none / 0)

          He was able to keep an even keel and stay calm when the rest of us were tearing their hair. Maybe that is his way of not getting worked up.

          As for me, I am totally fine. Yes, I am disappointed. And I am very disappointed at Cantwell for not supporting the filibuster. I will vote for her if the election is close or she is behind, but if she is well out in front, I will cast a protest vote for the Green candidate.

          But this was just one battle. We win some and we lose some. The thing to do is to get back up on our feet if we get knocked down.

        •  A story. (none / 0)

          "Tell me the weight of a snowflake." A mouse asked a wild dove. "Nothing more than nothing," the dove answered.

          "In that case I must tell you a marvelous story," the mouse said.

          "I sat on the branch of a fir, close to its trunk, when it began to snow, not heavily, not a raging blizzard, no just like in a dream without any violence. Since I had time, I counted the snowflakes setting on the twigs and needles of my branch. Their number was exactly 3, 741,952, when the next snowflake dropped onto the branch- "nothing more than nothing" as you say- the branch broke off."

          Having said that the mouse went away. The dove, thought about the meaning of the story and for a while and finally said to herself, "Perhaps there is only one person's voice lacking for peace to come about in this world."

          It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
          - Henry David Thoreau

          by ejmw on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 07:04:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Don't be so quick to underestimate the will (none / 1)

      of the American people.  Things are getting tough financially for a lot of people, and over the course of this year things will be getting a lot tougher financially.  When it hits home in the pocketbook, people will be yelling, screaming, protesting, etc.  The American people ARE starting to wake up and realize what is happening.

      If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

      by Mz Kleen on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:21:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually something else just occurred to me - (none / 1)

        - the reason we have an AMERICA at all was because our Founders had it TOO good.

        The colonies here were doing swell and the Brits had pretty much left us to our own devices.  We had freedom and money and property...then King George (oh the irony) started to lower the hammer (pun intended after the fact.)

        Many a colonial historian has mused on how America under the crown was - as colonies of Imperial Powers go - a pretty damn nice place to be.  Especially if you were a landed white man.  Which all of our most revered and influential Founders were.

        What I'm getting at here is, Meteor and thereisnospoon are both correct.

        Those who think they can "roll back" the rights of Americans haven't read their history.

        The Genie is out of the bottle - and even "conservatives" will flinch when they see that suddenly, most of the European nations have it better in terms of both economics and "freedoms" than we do.

        They'll do more than flinch.

        Turning back the clock is NEVER really an option....not for the long term, anyway.

        Though God knows TRYING to do it is built into our human DNA - attempts at repression are  historical norms.  

        And if humans weren't dead-set on turning back the clock, plastic surgeons wouldn't be the best-paid and (often)the least-regulated doctors on the planet!

        This is me thinking optimistically for this five minute rant, anyway.

        "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS." - Gandhi

        by hopesprings on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 07:04:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Careful of your assumptions (none / 1)

      Leading up to the 60s, america was hardly a hotbed of activism. The post-war boom of the 50's was raging and people wanted to get on with their lives.

      Joe McCarthy held his hearings on Capitol Hill, although dissenters were labeled communists and not terrorist sympathizers. The Cleavers were the american ideal family amd, of course, Father Knows Best.

      What changed things? Not SCOTUS, I can assure you.

      An unjust war, a racist society, a few cities burned and the assination of the leaders who spoke from their hearts. That is whatchanged things.

      People took to the streets.

      People challenged the courts.

      And people worked to elect representatives who spoke out against these things.

      America wasn't paying attention in the 50s; in the 60s, the shape of the nation changed.

      Don't give up.

      Try my dream: President Obama

      by MrSandman on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:27:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bah! (4.00 / 2)

        The 60s were just as apathetic as now.

        9 out of 10 people under 25 in the 1960s didn't participate in a single sit in, march, protest, get arrested, or anything.

        Then, like now, the activists inflated their numbers
        in their own minds. In other words, the 60s weren't as wonderful as boomer memories make them out to be.  The Boomers aren't the be-all and end-all of protesters and hipness.

        We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

        by ScrewySquirrel on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 06:22:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then it only takes 10% (none / 1)

          Yeah, I agree. It was hardly a mainstream moment. But, you gotta admit, that 10% was pretty awesome, caused some major changes.

          And that was exactly the point.

          Try my dream: President Obama

          by MrSandman on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 06:33:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The ones who did made a hell of a (4.00 / 3)

          noise. And they weren't portrayed in the press as heroes. They were considered malcontents, busybodies, 'bleeding hearts', people out to make a name for themselves, drugged-out students, unpatriotic draft dodgers, and/or deluded and crazy communists.

          History after-the-fact is a lot different from history in-the-making. After-the-fact is always rosier and more sentimental than the reality of in-the-making.

          But it is the reality that finally, finally moves people. And reality has to get pretty outrageous before the hoi-polloi notices. People usually have to get hurt and/or dead before the hoi-polloi moves.

          Sometimes, not even then.

          Follow the money. It's getting away.

          by bablhous on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 07:12:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You were right (4.00 / 2)

          I was one of those nine you mentioned, eh?  I simply left my country rather than "single sit in, march, protest, get arrested, or anything".

          Yeah, a little thing called the 'draft'.  So while all the protesters, etc., were doing hard time somewhere, I and others like me were 'soakin' up the rays' in sunny SEA.

          But having lived through the times, I can tell you that the 'boomers', as you put it, had a damned sight more realisim than you as to what change in government really takes.  There is probably even a bit you could learn from them.  

          Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

          by wgard on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 11:58:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We are til you prove different (none / 0)

          I grew up and did my protesting got arrested, gassed, and clubbed (only a glancing blow, no battle scars) :( ....here in the SF/Berkely area. You know the hotbed of protest.

          Come to SF and see the gay guy next to the chinese girl next to the handicapped person next to the rich. We fought to make this one of the most liberal, FREE, areas in the USA. The fact that others didn't take up the fight ain't my fault.

          WE are still fighting, We gave you the battle plan and proved it can be done.

          THE DIFFERENCE NOW IS THE INTERNET

          People were starved for info and instructions and our only broadcast medium was rock n roll, and they tried to ban that. AND WE STILL CHANGED THINGS.

          We weren't effective and cool? You wanna talk shit,DO BETTER, PROVE ME WRONG, and I'll be there to pat you on the back and buy you a beer.

      •  What changed things? (4.00 / 3)

        I think you have cause and effect confused.  We who came of age in the sixties had been brought up in a society that believed in basic decency; it had just fought Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini, and was damned proud of itself, as it had a right to be.  It had recently created a social safety net (the New Deal).  It had recently recognized the rights of labor.  We grew up in this society, looked around at the racism and sexism that had been permitted to remain, and were outraged - because we had been TAUGHT that injustice is outrageous.  We looked at an unjust war that could in no way be compared to World War II, and again, we were outraged, because we had been TAUGHT that unjust wars were outrageous.

        Sure, there was some blowback from the older folks, who were comfortable with the status quo (after all, it had always been there)and were shocked at the idea that the government should be questioned with regard to the wars it waged (after all, this was America, and we were the GOOD GUYS.)   But in a relatively short span of time the majorities in this country recognized the truth and instituted numerous additional reforms because people, by and large, knew that it was the right thing to do.  Reforms were legislated by huge Democratic majorities, and they were not legislated out of fear of a few kids in the streets.

        The "boomers" (of which I am one) get too much credit, in my estimation.  Although we protested against injustice, we did so because we were a generation trained to idealism by our parents and grandparents, and we were harsh with them because they did not, in our eyes, live up to the ideals they had taught us.

        As for the assassinations of RFK and MLK and the killings at Kent State - those essentially ENDED the reform era.  They did not begin it.

        I tend to agree that the pendulum started swinging left when FDR was elected in 1932; it hovered a bit, then started right in 1968, with Nixon's election. All Watergate got us was a four-year Carter presidency -- and he was a very conservative Democrat.  (It was on Carter's watch that interstate gas prices were deregulated, by the way - remember that next time you pay your gas bill.)

    •  Dude (none / 0)

      I'm about as upper-middle class as you can get.  I am within spitting distance of a six-figure income.  And I'm scared shitless.  I look behind me to the ten years of my career (I started with a ten-dollar-an-hour wage at this same company), and it looks like a fuck of a long way down from here.  And the ledge I'm on is damn narrow.  Trust me, people's attention is being focused right now.  It won't be too much longer before so many people are in the shit that it will be impossible to hide the smell.  Bush's complete apathy about this is assuring it -- his SOTU speech on healthcare tomorrow is, as we damn well already know, going to be a total fucking dud.  I have no use for HSA's, and I make more than any 4 other random Americans you can pull into a room with me.  Just imagine how an HSA sounds to someone working at McD's.

      I work hard.  I play by the rules.  I run just to stand still.  It's not fun.  I don't feel like anything I have achieved is even temporarily secure.

      "There he goes again! Who's laughing now, betch?" -- Jimmy Carter

      by slippytoad on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 05:50:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nearly $100,000 is not upper middle class. (none / 0)

        It's middle class.  In the first place, class is not based solely on income.  

        There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

        by Boston Boomer on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 06:14:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not upper middle class? (none / 0)

          According to the historical household income tables at www.census.gov, the upper limit of the fourth quintile of household income in 2004 was $88,029.  If $100,000 puts one in the top 20% of households, I don't see how that can NOT be considered upper middle class, regardless of other factors.  Could you explain your comment, please?

          Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization. -- George Bernard Shaw

          by dsteffen on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 07:04:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Class is not based on income alone. (none / 0)

            It's about power.  If you work for a living, you are middle class.  Upper middle class implies owning a business or being an office of a corporation, highly successful doctors, lawyers, or people in academia.  These would have to be people who own a lot of property and so on--who are not dependent solely on a salary to maintain their lifestyle.  

            Wickipedia suggests that upper middle class incomes range from 250,000 to 500,000.  Upper middle class means you are economically secure and have some say in the power structure, but not real power.

            There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

            by Boston Boomer on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 07:38:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  People in academia are upper middle class? (none / 0)

              Have you met any academics?

              There are professors who make only marginally more than an experienced factory worker. An academic (outside of highly expensive cities like New York or Boston at least) making six figures would be the exception, not the norm.  I don't personally know of any making $250,000, though I'm sure they exist (probably as administrators.)

              •  The only "academics" (none / 0)

                who make $250k are administrators, excepting perhaps business or medical faculty at really prestigious universities.

                I will bet that it's still pretty rare for an academic to make over $100k outside of New York, Berkeley and LA, or established faculty at community colleges in large urban areas.  

                Je suis inondé de déesses

                by Marc in KS on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 04:10:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe my syntax wasn't clear (none / 0)

                I meant for "highly successful" to modify doctors, lawyers, and academics.  For example, Alan Dershowitz is an academic who would be condidered upper middle class.  The average doctor is middle class.  Lawyers and academics would mostly be middle or working class, based on their family background, income, and position in the power structure.

                My point was that we don't do ourselve