I'm envisioning a new economic system based on the idea that people should pay for content instead of for "packaging," and based on the idea that people should be able to make their living by contributing to their society instead of by voluntarily enslaving themselves to a corporation.

I'm very interested in your comments and ideas!  Poll below.

The executive branch has taken away almost all of Congress' power.  There is only one thing left that congress has, and that is impeachment.  

They have left you with nothing.  You have nothing.  Your branch of governement has been reduced to a vacuous shell.  You have only one option left, to save yourself.  You must remove the dictator.

TIME TO IMPEACH.

This will be a short diary.  I was just reading the final essay in the latest issue of TIME magazine.  I somewhat liked the point of the essay, despite it's fear-mongering.  The point was that listening to people, especially muslims, is a better way of gathering intelligence than "legally problematic surveillance techniques".  But there were parts I found pretty racist.

Right now, we need leaders, we don't need martyrs.  The democratic party is struggling because too many people want too much too fast.  This is tearing us apart.

What Markos has realized is that we need someone with vision and leadership skills more than we need someone who embodies all of our ideals fully.  This diary suggests that Markos and Warner are getting "too cozy" and that perhaps it has some quid pro quo action: Warner supports our convention, pays for huge parties, and we support him in return--he makes it seem like there is something sinister going on here.  While I believe that the diarist had good intentions, I think it's an overly cynical stance.  

More-->

It seems that the most common defence of homosexuality is to say that "homosexuality is not a choice", and that you shouldn't fault someone for a fact about themselves that was not of their choosing.  

But what if it is a choice for some people, and they just choose to be gay rather than straight....  Would that choice somehow make them less moral?

Saying "it's not a choice" works pretty well in mainstream american debate, and personally I'm not sure if it is a choice for some people or not.  But I would be hard-pressed to think of arguments which prove that choosing to be gay is somehow unethical.

A little more below, then poll.

Edward Abbey said "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul."  And I think that's true.  

Unfortunately, it can be very hard to actually get up off the chair and work for what you care about.  It shouldn't be hard, indeed it's what makes a life, but it is hard nonetheless.

I think sometimes we need a guideline or a measurement in order to put our own behavior into context.  So I propose this: the number of hours you spend online, learning, raging, thinking, and worrying about politics and the world situation in general, is a good measure for how much you care.  And the number of hours you spend on the ground, talking to neighbors, writing a letter to the editor, canvassing a neighborhood, or standing up with a local union against corruption and greed, is a measure for how much you work.  

A little more below, then the poll.

Should Democrats abandon the fight to legalize gay marriage in order to get elected?  Should we make compromises regarding abortion rights so that people will think we're moral?  I think we'd all agree that the answer is "no!"

However, some people go too far in the other direction.  They believe that every Democratic politician should voice strong approval of gay marriage and be loudly pro-choice, that otherwise they aren't "Standing Up" for what they believe in.

I disagree, not because people should be cowardly and afraid to voice their opinion, but because we simply have finite resources.  It comes down to what I'll call a values hierarchy.

A very common way of phrasing the problem that democrats face is that they don't appear to have "backbone".  What does that mean exactly, and is it true?  These are things we must ask in order to know who we are and how we are perceived.

The questions that come to mind when I consider whether or not someone has "backbone", especially as related to politics, are

How do they carry themselves?
Are they strong?  Firm?  Solid?
What do they stand for?
Are they flexible?
Do they show solidarity and coherence?
Are their various facets (think vertebrae) differentiated, yet integrated?

The spinal metaphor carries over quite well to the political arena, and I'll flesh it out as best I can, below.  

Animals that best exploit the environment they find themselves in will flourish.  The environment I have in mind is the meta-environment called "the laws of the United States", and the animals I have in mind are the Republicans.

The fact is, that as nasty as republicans are, they can only operate within the laws of the United States.  Of course, you are all objecting wildly to this last statement, so please follow me below for an explanation.

When people think of "sustainable politics," they probably think of a certain form of environmentalism.  

But in a broader sense, sustainable actions are those actions that we can foresee continuing to work in the future.  They certainly include using resources in a sustainable way.  But I want to turn this concept on it's side to some extent.

I see a beautiful two-pronged notion of what "sustainable politics" should be.  For example, it's becoming increasingly clear that invading Iraq based on cherry-picked intelligence is not sustainable politics.  For two reasons.

There's a lot of real news coming out today.  Amazing scandals that knock me off my chair.  So if you're looking for something substantial, I guess go to the next diary. This is kind-of just a side thought I had (and it may have been diaried before, though I couldn't find it).

The idea is that if pharmacists can refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions on moral grounds, couldn't gas station workers refuse to allow Hummers to fill up their 32 gallon tanks on the same grounds?  

What if all the young progressives out in there who work in gas stations just turned off the pump every time an SUV that gets under 20mpg pulled up?  All they have to do is say that they oppose it on religious grounds.  And since the bible says no more about abortion and contraceptives than it says about destroying the earth using a symbol of extreme wealth, I don't think it's any more outrageous a claim than the pharmacists made.

I think that would be very interesting.  

No text below, but a poll.

Yesterday I went to a presentation at Harvard Law school called "The Bush administration torture policy: Come hear the evidence."  Amongst others, British ambassador Craig Murray and Retired General Karpinski spoke.

They painted a vivid picture not of corruption, but of plain evil in the Bush administration: torture of the worst kind in exchange not for information but for disinformation.

And torture for money.

What follows is taken from the (sometimes sparse) notes I took at the presentation, but it is supplemented with links when they are easy to find.

Someone writes a diary proposing something that is not popular here, or repeats right wing talking points, or some other thing, and everyone goes nuts and wants to troll rate it.

I don't like it.  Punishing people for dissenting views is for the republicans.  

So let me suggest: if someone repeats right wing talking points, use the comments to dissect the claims, one by one.  Not to talk about how boring it is, etc.  That way, when someone in our lives confronts us with those same comments, we'll be prepared.  

(Just a little more, plus poll)

Since the feminist movement began, women have become more empowered, which threatens male dominance. This has of course caused a backlash, as almost no one in power gives it up willingly. But I claim that there is a different reason, more important than the loss of power, that has led to the "war on women", as Chincoteague calls it.

Women and girls are dressing sexier than ever, and are more openly promiscuous than ever. This is a huge problem for the Christian man. He is tempted to "evil" more than he can stand, and instead of blaming his biology or God's laws, he blames the temptress.

What I see as Chincoteague's overarching claim, that this war on abortion is not about "promoting the culture of life", but instead about attacking women, is fairly accurate. However, I don't believe that it is waged just because they "hate" women as people, but because of a pattern of ideas, taken from the church's presentation of Christianity, which leads to the result we see.

Please jump with me...

It is becoming increasingly clear that civil war is breaking out in Iraq.  IEDs burst every few minutes somewhere in the country. It is the most violent it has been since June '03, and more Iraqis are dying on a daily basis than since the war began.  By my calculation (from http://icasualties.org/...) 158 Iraqis died today (2006/03/27) alone.

And yet, in the midst of so much death and destruction, the coalition has suffered fewer deaths this month than it has in over two years.  Why?   Make the jump..

I have canvassed for three elections now (CA 2002, NA 2004, CA 2005), and each time I spend 8 hours a day for several days going door to door, I feel like I changed few minds and made little difference.  The houses where I tend feel the best are those in which the resident is very pro-democrat already -- it's just a relief to talk to someone who understands the issues after a day of otherwise.  The worst is when the resident remains unconvinced that politics affects anything in their life.

And I always leave the day thinking, did I find 4 new votes today, or maybe I found 5.