Best news I've had in a while

By Michael J. Smith on Friday June 1, 2012 12:46 AM

Apparently MoveOn is going into triage mode, according to a characteristically hysterical email which just came panting into my inbox, like an asthmatic pigeon closely pursued by a rabid wolverine:

Dear MoveOn member,

With November fast approaching, we need to make some hard decisions about which campaigns we can afford to take on, and which ones we'll have to sit out.

There are so many important races this year. Of course there's the presidential election. But the U.S. Senate is up for grabs, too. There's the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin. If we can elect Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, that will be huge.

It's like picking which of your kids you love the most. I just can't do it.

But I'll be honest—if we can't increase our budget, we're going to have to pull the plug now on some absolutely crucial campaigns.

"Like picking which of your kids you love the most"? Wow. These people are deeply sick. Or perhaps they just don't have any kids, and don't know what they're talking about.

Comments (15)

Al Schumann:

My vote is for deeply sick. Liberals spend their lives on a permanent cusp of Sophie's Choice. It's all Hitler all the time for them, they're always just about to get on the train for the concentration camp and the Nazis (Republicans) are always just about to force an evil choice on them. The indulgence in a grotesque fantasy victimhood makes them indistinguishable from conservatives.

The fantasy victimhood gives them something to do when they're not worrying about the niceties of death squad proceduralism.


It's all Hitler all the time for them, they're always just about to get on the train for the concentration camp and the Nazis (Republicans) are always just about to force an evil choice on them.

Funny thing is for the Nazis too, 'it is always September 1938 and we are always in Munich'. "There is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out."

Al Schumann:

I think it's bugfuck envy, sk. Liberals are always plagiarizing the conservatives. They were very proud of themselves when they appropriated the wingnuts' perennial Dolchstoss freakout and turned it into Nader-baiting. At long last, they had their own stab in the back fantasy.


went thru ECLECTIC AL'S link
to the blog of many techni-colors
and found this
about laying out or obscuring
one or another
ways to the kill for sovereigns

killing let it be know is
"... one of the things the state does"

it always brings me to my soapy's choice

pick the state you'd kill for

("none " as an answer
is de facto ruled out
in this game of course )

note the question
can not be
pick a killer state
you'd vote for

because that is like asking
some one to
pick a gay homo
they'd vote for

it contains a tautology
you aren't the one doing
the butt fucking


lipless norton:

neo cons => fascism

a finding based on
this one page
fatal-vital center
knife's edge
poitical guide book

all left turns lead to Stalin

all right turns lead to Hitler



what happens if you just keep turning ?

if left :you end up behind hitler

if right : you end up behind stalin

liberal centers love circular motions

Al Schumann:


After reading many anarchist ruminations over the years, and attempting to make a go of anarchic experiments, I'm in one of those "guns don't kill people; people kill people" moods. We can hang all the ills of humankind around the neck of the State, like so many stuffed albatrosses on a statue, but those ills—including organized mass murder—preceded the State, however that albatross rack is defined. What it does do, in all the definitions supplied, is make every organized activity highly scalable and much more efficient.


Would the Indus Valley Civilization count as a state?

Although some houses were larger than others, Indus civilization cities were remarkable for their apparent egalitarianism. For example, all houses had access to water and drainage facilities. One gets the impression of a vast middle-class society.

Surprisingly, the archaeological record of the Indus civilization provides practically no evidence of armies, kings, slaves, social conflict, prisons, and other oft-negative traits that we traditionally associate with early civilization, although this could simply be due to the sheer completeness of its collapse and subsequent disappearance. If, however, there were neither slaves nor kings, a more egalitarian system of governance may have been practiced.

They seem to have had a pretty good run, as human endeavors go.

Elizabeth Warren is like a daughter to me!


What the hell is a 'state' anyway? Sure, modern governments are more complex and have a farther reach than say the head dude in some caveman collective, but it's still just the same principle writ larger. I mean at what point does a collection of people belong to a group called a 'state' anyway? Is there a clear line? No, it's just some label and whatever makes up the principles of a so-called state are going to exist in pretty much any grouping just more or lesser degrees.

I loved that little blurb about the Indus Valley Civilization.

They're sick.

And if they have kids I feel sorry for them.

Obama is looking more and more like a failed president. The man with pure ambition but no plan for what to do with power when he got it is now suffering the fate of circumstances as the economy plummets towards an abyss just in time for the fall elections. It's been headed downward for a time and it will be impossible for him to not get the credit (blame) for it come November.

Yeah yeah, I know we'll just get more of a shit sandwich when the brain eating Romnster gets elected, but he won't be able to fix the economy either. There ain't no way but down for the rest of us. Might as well get there quickly.


Perhaps it's time for Move On to, well....


of course the state's limits in time can be changed by redefinition

but at some point you reach a past point
where all viable self sustaining social units
are stateless

and it is often suggested
that in these "pre state worlds"
inter social unit activity is "always " bordering on genecidal intents
if not actually killing adult males
stealing wives and children etc

kill or adopt are the options
when not raiding for livestock
and other stuff
but hunting down humans

until slaves emerge
out of the rigors of adoption

with time and variation
the adoption system
may meld with a policy option
of non slaughter of the males

the real state
"innovation" i'd contend as a marxist
is moving from more or less ad hoc
rankings and non self perpetuating hierarchies
to ascripted classes within
"the people" themselves
a cloven commity even when the social unit
is unadulterated by absorbed alien elements

putiing aside the constant
retardent and anomalizer chance
its all a battle of the fit-est
between societial forms in the long run

Al's scale efficiencies
are particularly potent once classes emerge

after all once you learn
most souls can live on just a share
of their self produced fodder

one can build a mighty organization

yes state systems always have the drak zones where pre state formations survive or even prosper
in fact maybe enough to threaten
some state
even destroy it
---indus peaceful people state---

its not clear
how you get helot set ups
or castes or much else out of this process of differentiation interaction
and add in episodes of "state failure"

likely the variations mount rapidly here

but then anarchists prefer the static universality of the higher soiciety
imagined in their head

more power to em i say

but watch out for that tree

as the george of the jungle theme song suggests

Al Schumann:


That's a good line of inquiry to pursue. I agree with Owen on differentiating it from those "viable self-sustaining social units" mentioned, but all I can see is exactly what you wrote. I would venture this much: you have a state when you have enough of a market economy to need records and arbiters.

There's supposed to be some special distinction, or distinctions, supplied by the Treaty of Walpurgisnacht (humor me here), but they always looked fussy to me.

"I would venture this much: you have a state when you have enough of a market economy to need records and arbiters."

No disagreement but it's simpler for me, it's like that old definition of porn, I know it when I see it.

Can't stand the liberals, hate and all similar groups. When I worked teaching, the liberals always talked a good game but never, ever came through when it mattered. Absolutely no principles. My best friend from those days is a conservative, and the college liberals hated him. But he voted for a union, put I don't know how many kids through college. Not his own, by the way. When we hired a man from Calcutta, who came to school with no money, my friend paid his rent and gave him cash to last until his first payday. None of my liberal friends keep in touch with me, but he does. Liberals always have their asses on two seats, as my mother says (in Italian). One part of them fulminates against injustice, while the other kisses the feet of authority. They always know they are on a leash, and they never try to break it. One guy I knew said that he loved Bill Clinton because Clinton would make any compromise to do a little good.

Some on the left think the liberals aren't a problem. Foolish thinking for certain.

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Friday June 1, 2012 12:46 AM.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31