IMHO, he trolls more often than not, though he seems to have responded to criticism of that (and at this point I cannot claim to be entirely without sin there either, though I do contend it is still more the exception than the rule in my case.) The poll really was apples and oranges though, because even now OWS lacks the Tea Partys prominence and influence. If they cost Dems the Senate by nominating someone like Cynthia McKinney for a seat where Dems had previously been narrowly favored, that would obviously change, but so would poll numbers on OWS' popularity.


No, I find Perrys remarks dangerous because he was condoning violent action, just as I found it dangerous when Jimmy Hoffa Jr. did the same thing. That I despise one as the Republican governor of my state and sympathize with the other on many labor issues (though not, as it happens, public unions) is wholly separate from my feelings about their respective statements. I made very clear at the time that Hoffa did not and does not speak for me, and that I want nothing to do with him. I only wish that the left as a whole would do the same, as I wish the right as a whole would disavow Perry the way Ron Paul did (though Paul could hardly be called unbiased about his fellow Texan and competitor for the GOP presidential nomination.)



I have a simpler and more cynical take (those are all the rage now: ) A serious and undeniable problem is manifest in the system. People with a strong preference for one make of car despite no knowledge of mechanics are more inclined to blame the atrociously poor quality of Fords/Chevies/Yugos than to educate themselves about mechanics and diagnose the real problem(s.) The former is easier and more satisfying; unfortunately, it is also incredibly unproductive and, perhaps worse, displays a bias undermining any valid criticisms they might make through little more than pure luck. I have yet to hear the Tea Party argue for any kind of car, new, simple or otherwise; it is more like the Tea Party arguing against making cars while OWS argues against fueling them. Neither of those "solutions" qualifies as such, and that failure in neither validates it in the other.



If you have an example of the Tea Party saying something--anything--positive about federal goverment feel free to share it, but until then my statement remains valid. However, my biggest problem with the Tea Party is the tendency among both its chosen leaders and rank and file membership to indulge violent and therefore dangerous rhetoric. I would not condone in OWS either any more than I did when public union supporters sent death threats to the WI capital. Frankly, that I half expect to see it is part of why I am leery of lending OWS even verbal support; they remind me a lot more of the London rioters than of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

If you want to address issues of personal bias though, it is a bit surreal to see Palin take Obama to task for associating with Ayers, then tell supporters "don't retreat, reload," or Perry accuse Bernanke of treason, then support violence against a government official simply for BEING a government official. When it comes to stone throwing, let he who has never thrown one at the government make the first accusation of treason. I think Bush 43 and Reagan guilty of treason, but never advocated anything more than impeachment for either (in the interest of full disclosure, I did once allude to the possibility of more (without advocating it) when speaking of Reagan, but since he was already dead at the time I think I am off the hook. ) What can I tell you; a liberal can only see so many other liberals gunned down for their politics without getting a touch nervous about violent right wing rhetoric, and dismissing such concerns as irrelevant overreaction only deepens them. It's bad enough when national leaders encourage people to gun you down in the street, but that much worse when other people dismiss it as no big deal, get OFFENDED when you object. Excuse me for living--literally.

That is the main difference I see (at least so far) between OWS and the Tea Party, who both display a lot of ignorant alienation without any constructive suggestions for reform. The one thing the both have in common is mistaking abolition for reform. While I am sure plenty of those sympathetic to OWS would point out they do not call for an outright BAN on corporations any more than the Tea Party explicitly calls for the dissolving the federal government, I am objective enough to realize each of them has those goals in practice if not in name. I think our corporations need reform far more desperately than our federal government, but do not seek the destruction of either, which makes the Tea Party and OWS alike an annoyance, at best (when members of either start stroking guns or clutching Molotov cocktails they become something else entirely.)



It has been known to happen; occasionally I even find myself defending conservatives from leftist attacks (though less often since wads stopped posting regularly. ) I endorsed Olympia Snowes proposal during the healthcare debates to (basically) let the states handle healthcare until/unless they were found to have <95% enrollment after a few years, at which point a federal public option would kick on for those states. Maybe that does not count since she is a "RINO," and IIRC Obama took her up on that offer only to see her withdraw it, but it was a fair proposal in itself, and a lot better than the bill we eventually got, not least because it would not have coerced anyone into anything and would have provided near universal coverage. I even endorsed the proposal from Lamar Alexander (definitely not a RINO) that all the federally purchased GM stock be distributed to individual tax payers. I confess to feeling it was a publicity stunt rather than a serious proposal, and a fair amount of amusement over the far right Republican who made the flat tax a national issue introducing a bill far more socialist than the silent partnership the government had instead, but the fact remains that a conservative took a policy position I endorsed in opposition to the Democratic president.

My consistent position has been that I strongly prefer a socialist model to either a communist or laissez-faire one, because it is the only one in which Big Government and Big Business must compete with each other for taxpayer/consumer support, thereby preventing either from exploiting the public. Communism lets bureaucrats play the public off against private industry while laissez-faire lets industrialists play the public off against government, but a nation that guarantees minimal essential needs via government while meeting non-essential ones through private industry, as well as maintaining the private availability of superior essential needs, allows the public to play government and industry off against each other. I believe that is not only in the nations best interest, but that it would vastly reduce the need for government to aggressively enforce product quality and safety standards, since consumers would simply vote with their wallets for government options if those options also became superior to private ones. Essentially, public options prevent collusion, which is a far more damaging aspect of laissez-faire economies because, in practice, collusion is far easier than achieving monopolies. Modern America has no true monopolies (though AT&T is working over time to reconstruct theirs, even if they had to take the long route of selling themselves to a Baby Bell who bought them and most of the other Baby Bells,) but many collusive oligopolies who regard both the public and government as simply another resource to exploit for profit. Thus, when corporations do things that are risky, unethical or otherwise unprofitable, the taxpayers they defrauded and fired to cut costs step in to ensure profits with a bailout. To say that process is not working is something of an understatement; it works fine for Goldman Sachs and GM, but not so well for anyone else.


People keep saying that so often I am starting to think "AI" is used for a far more things than I previously suspected, but in this case it means "artificial intelligence." During TMJs impromptu "chat reunion" I mentioned I am attempting an SF novel revolving around AI and having some concerns about embarrassing myself with too much lay ignorance, which prompted someones mention of an online "Intro to AI" class Stanford was about to launch. Enrollment was as simple as going to the helpfully provided link and awaiting the confirmation email, and now I spend several hours a week watching video lectures and doing homework in addition to 5 hours/week in Norwegian class. Essentially, I am a part time student again, so I do not have quite as much free time as previously. It has been interesting thus far, though I have occasionally felt my lack of higher math knowledge.