I know there are big and important (and not so important) topics that have jumped up on this board in the past couple of days.  Hopefully, I can cut through some of that for some attention.  There are tons of great candidates out there in races across the country, and I am here to continually pass the hat for my little corner and its Senate race.  Namely, GA-Sen.  Let me be somewhat honest - I speak somewhat as an opportunist, as I believe there is a national dislike for Saxby Chambliss among Democrats.  That dislike has yet to convert into the funds we need to strike him with the hammer of karma.

So, I'll start with my fundraising link and repeat it once you've finished reading.

Perhaps I should try to come up with a clever title for the coming series of diaries I will be working on.  I am not a member of the Jim Martin campaign, but I have done some volunteer work with him both in the 2006 Lt. Gov race and the current election.  My original motivation is to push for Democrats (most of the Dixiecrats in Georgia have switched parties by now) within Georgia.  However, with Jim Martin, I think there is a person I can support both as a party member and as a person.

UPDATE: A better ActBlue page here.

So sayeth his campaign to RedState's Erick Ericson, who is a big part of the Peach Pundit in Georgia.

Jim Martin needs a lot of help, and I think he is worthy of some netroots love.

We don't have the benefit of a complacent opponent here in Georgia.  Chambliss, cur that he is, has read the writing on the wall and sees that Georgia is in Democratic crosshairs.  Presidentially speaking, anyhow.  The guy has a war chest that most candidates can only dream of, somewhere around $5.5 million.  He knows the Republican calvary is not going to appear, other than to allow McCain to raise some cash with big donors in the state of Georgia.

The thing is, we can cause the Republicans some headaches with a strong Presidential-Senate showing this year.

Folks,

It appears that Jim Martin will be the Democratic candidate for this season as the Georgia candidate.  Jim is going to need a lot of help on this time around to deal with Saxby Chambliss.  I know this race hasn't been on a lot of people's radar, but we could use a lot of help, and I'll tell you why it's important after the fold:

Well, it looks like the battle Reid has decided to choose is over stripping amnesty out of the main PAA bill or leaving it in.  So be it.

Now, how should the Senate Democrats (led by Reid, Obama, and Clinton perhaps?) avoid getting Rick-rolled by their GOP comrades on this particular one?

A simple tit-for-tat game ...

Like many a Kossack, I have become perplexed by the voting records of members of the Blue Dog caucus.  No need to remind this group yet again about the Torture Bill, the recent FISA fiasco or more run of the mill problems such as aiming to continue endless war.

Every time we hear that we are wild-eyed extremists, and that good will needs to be shown to Republicans so that common sense and compromise can win the day.  Well, below the fold is a challenge to these (I'm sure) well meaning folks.

I'm currently posting this from Germany, so I thought I'd save the NSA and CIA the trouble of wiretapping my rants as they come to friends and relatives over the phone, and just post them on the Internet.  Like many of you, I am horrendously frustrated by the lack of willingness of the caucus to openly challenge the memes that imply the need for a national security state.  I am perplexed as to how after getting suckered on the Patriot Act, a Blue Dog (and as I think of it, especially a Blue Dog!) would ever go for expanding executive power again.

As much as I want to get into rantiness, though, I would like to try and propose a solution to finally break GOP ranks and Bush's back in the process.  Follow me across the fold.

The article is just a snippet from NYT's Dealbook, but it is worth reminding ourselves what we are dealing with.  For some reason, employees that fiddle with other people's money are somehow much more valuable than those of us that either build things or figure out how to build things.

The year is 2016.  Vice President Barack Obama is burning up the talk show circuit, delivering his message of how he plans to expand upon the huge success of the two-term Gore presidency.  The Democrats look to expand their Senate holdings to an amazing 61 seats, which would thwart what spasming remains of resistance Republicans have in the government.  The gasping New Democratic Caucus is begging for a truce after the "primary hunting season" of 2014 brought to office a group of freshman lawmakers that hang William Jennings Bryan posters in their offices.  One out of three Congressional staffers is an avid blogger, as is every other Presidential aide, and few secrets are kept if you know where to post.

The money question is - what does this world look like for the average American?

Do you all remember those speeches by GW about how horrible it would be if terrorists were given access to nuclear weapons by Saddam Hussein?  How we didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?  Well, thanks to the failure of imagination and ideological blinders (again), GW has put the country in a far worse position that it was when he came to power.

The Republican theory on cutting and running coincides very nicely with some college students' strategy when it comes to drinking games.  No matter how dangerous your level of intoxication or how quickly you are going under, be a man and stand tall until your legs give out.  For most of us, it doesn't take many of those episodes for the novelty to wear off and to find the proper place between having a care-free night and promising your friends not to ruin the upholstery on their couch or back seat.  Okay, a metaphor that resonates for the kids, what does this have to do with Iraq?

Well, first of all, the adage in the title - it is not the opposite of strength to stop when your actions are proving counterproductive.  Rather, the definition of madness is to continue the same actions while expecting different results.

So, I was chewing on my native resistance to single-payer (actually, I philosophically oppose single anything because that means only one place to get things right) systems and how the current system is set up.  I've also been thinking about fundamental rules of markets and what they are inherently good at (to better prune away the cases where they are abused), and the following is what I came up with.

For some reason, the intelligence world is (yet again) not giving the Bush admin the answers that they want to hear.

A choice quote is:

"We're not in a court of law," he said. "When they say there is `no evidence,' you have to ask them what they mean, what is the meaning of the term `evidence'?"

Take a look at the article below, and afterwards, because I'm such a petty cuss, let's do some score-keeping, shall we?

http://www.nytimes.com/...

This is perhaps a little on the late side, but it is definitely worth posting up.

I hope that it is true that Georgia's economic outlook truly is the best in the United States.  After all, Georgia has a proud history in the South as being an industrial center, and has several first-rate institutions on its side.  We have excellent schools (I myself migrated more than 3000 miles to enroll in Georgia Tech) and some big players coming into the state fairly shortly.

I've been thinking about the problems with fighting terrorists as if they were standing armies of nation-states.  So far, we haven't been doing to well at that.  Sure, there are a lot of kills (civilian, true military and terrorist) - but the supply seems to be regenerating itself more than fast enough to thwart our efforts.

In addition, all of this fighting is highly visible, and serves to rally the public to the support of those who would use violence as a first resort, and marginalizes the moderate voices we need so badly as allies.  All this together may be the failure of the 'war' model, a practical problem on top of all the moral failings that have gone along with the campaign so far - civilian deaths, torture and a general willingness to throw away the principles that make America the "shining city on the hill."  Follow below for a reasoned solution.

I write this in response to the `Space Shuttle is America' diary that I caught on the rescue.  Maybe this one will have to be rescued as well.  The first part is just some general ideology, the second will focus more on the Shuttle itself.

I write mainly because I have always been a believer in space exploration, even as I have had to slowly but surely reconcile this belief with others I have come to hold that make me slightly liberal - although recent history and living in the South reclassify me as fully liberal.

It took some reflection, and I don't believe my answer is entirely original, but it is heartfelt.  And if you follow me below the fold, I would like to try and relate it to you.

Modern rhetoric makes 'lazy union worker' the new 'welfare queen.'  It seems that being in a union saps your work ethic, makes you impossible to fire no matter how much you mouth off and making even causes rapid tooth decay.  And after all, since you are the big superstar, you don't have to worry about bargaining with all those other slobs - you are the superman of the company.  They have to pay you what you demand, right?

Yet, there is a new union in town...

Hey folks -

I tend to be an armchair economist from time to time nowadays.  My classwork (engineering, oddly enough) seems to take me further and further in that direction every day.  That economic viewpoint had left me rather ambivalent in the immigration problem.  From a human standpoint, I respect the hustle (after all, it is the same for all of us that come from 'nowhere').  On the other hand, I also know that there is a deflating effect on domestic wages, and the native growth rate in the US is such that we would not require job growth if not for immigration.  (This may not be strictly true, but memory serves the US birth rate is at around 2.1, which is near replacement)  And yes, that means I am making a completely arbitrary decision to choose my fellow countrypeople over those from outside.

I had thought that these were simply natural dynamics, but read below for the kicker:

Soon to be cross-posted at Yellow Jacket Democrat

The ideal of democracy is that decisions, especially the big ones, are parceled out among the people, who would both be greatly affected by any changes, and also had a vision of "facts on the ground" that professional policy crafters could never have.  Of course, it is necessary for this people to be well-appraised of matters in order for this to be possible.

There are a lot of pessimists that claim this is no longer possible.  The "great unwashed," as that formless plebian crowd is so lovingly called, is too stupid, too materialistic, too morally inferior, too cowed into stupor by their grinding work to raise their heads and look around them.  On top of that, even if they did care, this world is a bewilderingly complex place, I mean just take a look beyond the fold: