Sisyphus

Yes, it's most definitely American soldiers! I suppose Rush was vague about that part. ;-) Anyway, the "mess" I was referring to is not measured in deaths of American soldiers. For one thing, it's not even the violence against U.S. troops which is the main problem, it's inter-ethnic violence between militias of Shiite and Sunni thugs which are most destabilizing, and that's actually increasing. Also, American troops are in very little danger compared with, say, those who cooperate with them. The only places actually safe from insurgents or ethnic mobs are American military bases. The Iraqi forces are largely incompetent and have frightening levels of corruption. But how is that anyone's fault, you ask? Isn't this just being an armchair general to point out flaws? Well, yes, except the real generals were pointing out flaws from the beginning, and they weren't listened to, because it conflicted with the philosophy (faith?) of the neocons, who marginalized anyone who disagreed with their prior assumptions, which were, frankly, stupid.

Just never sleep ever. Not only will you get more hours in the day, but pretty soon you will start hallucinating, and so those hours will be more interesting.

Yes, of course it is. The bottom line is you can't have a swing without swing voters. And this was one hell of a swing. If everyone were permanently and completely polarized, neither party could ever gain or lose any seats, because the same percentages in each district would vote Democratic and Republican each time, and the winner would always be the same. If the Democrats had won every single election, that would be the biggest "moderate mandate" of all time, because it would mean a huge block of people all over the country were willing to change their minds.

Were there electronic machines used in the closest elections? Were there significant discrepencies between exit polls and official results? Were there any suspicious results at all surrounding potential conflicts of interests of officials? If the answers are "no," then that probably answers your questions. Anyway, the "electronics are evil" crowd, as you call it, was worried about potential tampering. There is still potential for tampering, but there isn't any evidence that there WAS any, as far as I know. So why would anyone be crying foul? I think you may be too quick to call hypocrite.

Those were all pretty clearly written by the same person, IMO. Additionally, that person thinks women are one-dimensional robots in an after school special.

I don't see how you can watch a commercial for restless leg syndrome meds and NOT think the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt.

Gerrymandering is a powerful tool. Luckily, it's apparently not powerful enough to get Cruella de Ville elected.

Yeah, I suspect we'll hear some more, interesting details later on. Anyway, I, for one, am relieved. The whole mess in Iraq isn't just Rummy's fault, but he is as much to blame as anyone else. Maybe it's a symbolic gesture, but a meaningful one. Maybe the administration is finally willing to, you know, actually listen to people who don't already agree with them. (As opposed to, "if they disagree, they clearly just aren't smart enough to understand our grand neoconservative new world order") Have some humility, maybe. Maybe even, that horror of horrors, actually admit making mistakes. Maybe actually listen to the generals who actually have to deal with this stuff. Robert Gates seems like a good choice, too. ...or maybe it's all just hot air. But a Democratic congress seems like it would necessitate that kind of reform. Brushing off and antagonizing Democrats isn't going to get Bush anywhere, anymore. A new direction, bi-partisan direction seems inevitable. Things are looking up.

True. Lieberman, running as independent, won re-election in Connecticut. I sincerely hope the Democrats learn from it.

How exactly does "rich" fit in with that sentence?

Also, there will now be 6 more Democratic governors, in New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Ohio, Colorado, and Arkansas, for a new total of 28 vs. 22 Republican. Also interesting (if not unexpected): For the first time in New York history, the governor, comptroller, attorney general, and both senators will all be Democrats.

I just want to never have to see a newspaper graphic on "hanging chads" again.

Yes, let us converse on the subject.

I'm not worried as long as they don't get thumbs.

You know, it's not that I don't agree. I just cringe when I think about how some people take those sentiments to heart. Like, some think it means "real men" need to strut around like jackasses with their chests puffed out. That they have something to prove. It does not. It also does not mean you have to be hawkish in your politics. Or that you have to have to think women are inferior in order to think they are different. Those are all aspects not of a "real man" but of a "real boy." The difference is between having testosterone and controlling it and using it, and having testosterone and being weak-willed enough to let it control you.

You guys have a problem with the little plastic red and blue glasses?

Because the rest of the world will be moving into your back yard.

Nothing, inherently. There shouldn't be quotas or "token Republicans" or anything. But here they've made individual candidates a secondary priority to just voting out the entire party, when surely there are at least some Democrats who are worse than their Republican opponents.

You say that as if it (bias) is additive. It isn't. One of the primary functions of the editorials is to LESSEN the impact of bias in the news stories. The news stories aim for objectivity (or, at least they do in reputable papers, such as the Times), but some bias is inevitable. The editorial pages, by letting us now upfront and unambiguously what their opinions are, allows us to see what that unquenchable bias is. Getting the news is like seeing events through a glass window. If the journalist/windowmaker has a secret agenda, he will intentionally try to tint the window to make the events appear a certain way. That can't really be dealt with, and it's not what we're talking about. The other option is that the journalist is ethical, and therefore tries to make the window as clear and free from imperfections as possible. Doing a perfect job of this is impossible, since he must necessarily impart some of himself into the making of that window, which will impart to it some particular properties, like constant of refraction. Only by giving us a clear picture of the journalist himself (through editorials) can we compensate for what he adds of himself to the story. [/convoluted analogy]

Hehe. Can you imagine? "Hussein Verdict: 'Not Guilty' on all Charges - Is Free to Go" And yet the whole idea of the trial is to maintain that possibility, otherwise it's just a kangaroo court.

I can't imagine how. That is, excluding mass hallucination, where everyone thinks they have much more stuff than they actually do...

Nope, just an independent with an intense dislike for Karl Rove. I'm basically, to use bascule's phrase, a "liberaltarian."

I don't think so. If you're endorsing mostly Democrats because you agree with their positions, that's not partisan. When you endorse them because they're Democrats, it is. Further, if you didn't see the excesses of the Democrat-controlled Congress as a problem (or you see the problem but consider the liberal legislation to be worth it), but you do for the Republican-controlled Congress, that's not necessarily partisan either, as long as you're focusing on results. If you're claiming it's the power itself which is the problem, then that makes you a partisan hypocrite. Obviously the Times holds liberal opinions. But I'm not sure they're necessarily partisan. (I'm not sure they aren't, either. Hence the question.) ecoli, I think people know the difference between a news article and an editorial. The tradition is hundreds of years old, and serves the useful function of being upfront about potential bias in the news sections, which (supposedly) try to be as objective as possible. I would much rather have editorials than editorialized "news" that pretends to objectivity.

Maybe instead of needing to have one every week, and limiting it to one a week, we can just reserve a special award for comedic value (intentional or not) or well-phrased insight that can be nominated by anyone, whenever, and then discussed in general for a consensus. I offer this as an alternative just because I think people will get tired of voting regularly, and there might not be anything worthwhile on a given week, and lots of good stuff another.

CPL.Luke: I think you're right about that, but not completely. Smaller American cities all do tend to become homogeneous, but I would strongly disagree that the same holds true for the larger cities. New York most definitely does NOT feel like LA, and I shudder at the thought that one day it could. There are probably a dozen U.S. cities that have been able to maintain a very distinct identity, to greater or lesser degrees. You're not going to tell me that New Orleans is like Boston is like Washington. That said, the effect you describe is certainly present. Just not complete. And, to a certain extent, it's already present in Europe, as well, based on my very limited experience. Rome will never be Berlin, but they're both definitely European, and they're much more similar today than they were a hundred years ago.