• The thing is, I don't think we (and by that I mean liberals) are outraged by Hamas.  I think many (most?) of us see the I-P problem as pretty close to 50/50 in terms of blame.  And while I don't think most of us like Hamas or their rhetoric (or their rockets), we don't challenge their right to be the ruling political party.  They were fairly elected.  Now, the Taliban was not fairly elected in Pakistan.  But what if they were?  I hate sharia law with every fiber of my being.  But I find it hard to craft a reasonable world-view in which we should intervene in the Sudan and Pakistan to get rid of horrible regimes, but not Pakistan or Zimbabwe.  At the same time, should we be trying to stop Arab women from wearing burkhas?  I'm not sure.  

  • comment on a post [UPDATED] Sharia law comes to Pakistan Swat Valley over 5 years ago

    The problem is, this is what a majority of those people (or a majority of the men at least) want.  That being said, I think it's horrible.  But I'm not sure where our responsibility to human rights (especially the women who will now be utterly oppressed) begins and where our need to let other countries determine their own culture ends.  I think this general question of what we should do in terms of mandating cultural questions is probably one of the biggest we (America generally, but liberals/progressives more specifically) need to address.  I don't see any really good arguments that explain why we should step in and stop genocide but not this.  But I also don't see why we should allow Palestine to elect Hamas but we should kick out the Taliban from Pakistan.  Any good diaries on this?

  • comment on a post George W. Bush's first ranking: 36th of 42 over 5 years ago

    I hope that Bush sees these lists as he lives out his post-presidency life.  And while I know it will never happen, I like to dream that he will somehow, privately, at some point before he dies, realize how much damage he did.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=740d8sTpM 7U

    Sarah could be a backup singer, though only because she doesn't understand what the song means.

  • on a comment on Faith Based Idiocy over 5 years ago

    Then what is your point?  That pro-life fundies are crazy?  Check.  I think we all agree now

  • on a comment on Faith Based Idiocy over 5 years ago

    Really?  You're shocked that pro-lifers latch onto whatever they can to try to make their argument?  Really?  As if Obama never mentioning God in his life would somehow make them all give up and realize they should be pro-choice?

  • Wait, is Palin VP yet?

  • Serious question.

    :-)

  • on a comment on Mittens? over 5 years ago

    Fair enough.  I am not saying it will work for everyone or for the state as a whole, but it made my life a million times easier and it covered a lot more of lab costs than COBRA did.  This may just be an indictment of COBRA, which is really really crappy.  

  • Hmm...I wish that had actually worked.  :-/

  • URL=[IMG]http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/8736/tr iumphtheinsultcomicdobz0.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

  • comment on a post I Hope Hillary Is Laughing Inside [UPDATED] over 5 years ago

    The primary wars are back!  I was thinking this place was getting boring, you know, with all the actual policy diaries and such.  I was so hoping we'd get more "Judas" references.

  • comment on a post Mittens? over 5 years ago

    I'm not sure Romney would be the right choice either, but Commonwealth Care worked, at least while I lived in MA.  I went from paying $311 per month on COBRA to $113 per month on Commonwealth Care.  Granted, I qualified for a lower premium because I made less than $30,000, but COBRA sure didn't give me any breaks.  And because of our screwed up insurance system, I couldn't (and can't) ever lose coverage or I can forever be turned away for a preexisting condition.  So it wasn't as if I had a choice.  I think that system could work as a step on the way to single-payer universal health care, but I don't know that it would work on a national level.  And I don't know that I want a Republican out in front on this issue.  But it did work in Massachusetts.

  • It's all we've got.  Lowering taxes, despite the right's continued screeching that it does, does not help an economy out of a crisis like this.  Neither does raising taxes.  And in all reality, neither does stimulus and increased spending.  But what increased spending and stimulus does do is that it a) helps people feel as though the government is working to fix things and b) it keeps people from starving and being thrown out on the street.  Those things, in turn, increase consumer confidence (eventually) and people who have money to spend eventually will.  We also have the added problem of banks being incredibly stingy with loaning money, which they aren't going to do until they see that people are no longer terrible credit risks.  I have a feeling everything will start to lurch forward at once as people spend and banks lend again all at the same time, but I don't think it will happen this year.

  • The Southern Republican Party is almost solidified.  New England (and most of the Northeast in general, from NJ on up, with PA on the way) is lost to them for decades.  The west coast is the same way.  The only real (important) battleground for them is the upper midwest (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri if we want to count it).  With their obstruction of the stimulus bill, even if it doesn't work, I can't see how that helps the Republicans with those states.  If the Dems somehow solidify the mid-Atlantic states, the Repubs can have all the south and all the mountain states and get blown out in election after election for years.  

Diaries

Advertise Blogads