"I often wonder, are liberals born stupid or is it a lifestyle choice?"

I'm so glad all the venomous idiots of the state now have a place they can call home. Danielle's latest entry is a letter to Tom Delay letting him know what a great American he is. Mmmmmm...painful party loyalty.

I'll have to bookmark these places and make sure I drop in on a daily basis just to make them feel welcome. Unlike the conservatives that frequent my favorite websites, I'll try to have intellegent arguments and keep the insults to a minimum.

Hey Jon,

You seem to have a problem with the religious right, but do you have the same feelings when Robert Byrd was reading from the book of Esther on the Senate floor on Thursday. He also talked a long time about being a born again Christian. Did you condemn people like Al Gore jr. when he ran in 2000 making his stump speeches in churches? Hillary Clinton has taken to describing herself as an evangelical Christian. James Carville said the Democratic Party must be "born again" if it is to reclaim hegemony in the 21st century. I'm sure if the right starts to bring religion too far into politics, Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, will be there to stop it. But who is watching the left to see that they don't bring forth a neo-Taliban agenda?

[G]o talk elsewhere, and feel free to criticize what happens here over there.

Hmmm... what an unfortunate attitude.

Ah well, it's your site... if you want it to be reserved as an echo chamber insulated from those who disagree with you, I'll just wish y'all the best of luck with that...

It's not born-again Christians that are the problem. It's the born-again Pharisees that follow the banner of the neo-cons and the GOP instead of Christ that are the problem. The neo-con Pharisees don't know a single thing about the ministry of Jesus Christ. They stop paying attention to Jesus after "Merry Christmas" and don't start paying attention to the life of Jesus again until Mel Gibson's Jesus Chainsaw Massacre.

David Wright: "Hmmm... what an unfortunate attitude.

Ah well, it's your site... if you want it to be reserved as an echo chamber insulated from those who disagree with you, I'll just wish y'all the best of luck with that..."

Well... you know what they say about not letting the door hit you in the rear as you leave. If the neo-cons were spending their time here discussing points of disagreement on issues, they wouldn't be getting asked to leave. They're being asked to leave because the majority of the posts from neo-cons here consists of piles of personal insults with little actual factual content.

Andy from Beaverton,

Fair points all.

In a nutshell, I believe that America and Americans need to respect citizens of all faiths, as well as those of no faith. When politicians use the cloak of faith to advance partisan political ends or curry favor in public opinion, I become very concerned. Worst, when public officials advocate for programs or positions that by design or through collateral damage are exclusionary or discriminatory, then I have very serious concerns. And when proselytization becomes public and perverts science and public policy (Evolution in Kansas, Global Warming, RU-486, Plan B, etc.), we've entered a dark time indeed.

Those concerns do extend to the left and the right. So I oppose Joe Lieberman on his support for faith-based initiatives. who Jesse Jackson's role in the Schiavo affair put him beyond the pale. I don't oppose politicians of any stripe speaking to churches, but do oppose them converting them to a tax-free arm of their political campaigns.

If Robert Byrd or Hillary Clinton want to publicly profess their faith, fine. If John Kerry wants to quote Lincoln about being on God's side or Bill Clinton cites moral lessons from scripture, OK. But when faith is substituted for fact or becomes the sole basis for public policy, then we have a problem.

People have the right to their own religious beliefs, and if public figures actually quote from Scripture (such as from Micah "What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with thy God?" ) that is fine. But in all my reading of the Bible, I see humility presented as a virtue, and arrogance as a vice.

I do have a problem with interpretations like "Blessed are the merciful means abortion is murder but capital punishment is justified" as if the debate has ended and no one is supposed to disagree.

Theological debates have been going on for at least 2000 years. But Perkins of "Justice Sunday" fame has an opinion piece currently on the Washington Post website.

In it he says Judge Charles Pickering was questioned about a statement he made as the head of the Mississippi Southern Baptist Convention, in which he said that the Bible is an "absolute authority" for human conduct -- a standard that just about any religious person would hold.

Oh really. Muslims and Hindus want the Christian Bible settling everything? Jews want to be ruled by the New Testament? Or does "religious" = Evangelical Protestant?

In what way is the Bible an absolute authority outside the church? On stoning people? On the role of women? What does the Commandment against bearing false witness say about attack ads? Are humans the final judge or is God? The Old Testament talks about burnt offerings but also about settling disputes and judging neighbors fairly. Does Matthew 6 (the chapter with the Lord's Prayer) advocate public prayer or private prayer? What about the beginning of Matthew 7 "Judge not, that ye be not judged"?

It is said that when Thomas Jefferson was ambassador to France he saw what was wrong with having a "state church" and was therefore a supporter of the separation of church and state.

I was in high school when JFK ran against Nixon and there were those who voted for Nixon because Kennedy was Catholic. What might come next--don't pay attention to party but vote for the Baptist over the Congregationalist?

Places like N. Ireland and the Middle East have shown that there can be religious warfare.

Often the folks talking most about religion are not the folks trying to live by the injunction "as ye do to the least of them, ye do unto me".

I don't demand candidates hold my religious views, but I will not support any candidate demanding that I share their view of religion and Scripture.

And finally, there's the closest thing to a right-leaning BlueOregon, a blog called <font color="red">Red</font> Northwest a.k.a. Head West, Turn Right...

Anyone else remember when "Better Dead Than Red" was a popular conservative mantra?

it's not that Kari doesn't want people to disagree. it's just disheartening to put so much work into a blog/website and then have everyone tear it down... i understand... that being said, when people rip on your views take it as a compliment, it means you're saying something important....

So, in terms of "Pew's Political Typolgies", just which type is allowed to comment? (See Jeff Alworth's previous discussion post). Or are you just asking that the discussion be conducted in a civil manner?

So much for the big tent.

I was a yellow dog Democrat when I left California for Tualatin 15 years ago, having just graduated from college.

18 years ago, I even had an anti-George Bush t-shirt with the "Can't happen here" red-circle logo on it (he was the Veep, running for the Presidency).

After living in the People's Republic of Portland for the past 8 years, I changed my party affiliation to Republican, and even made some phone calls for Dubya during the last two weeks of October 2004. Why? Mostly because I got older and wiser. Too many "government knows best" solutions from the D's, too many tax increases, not enough honesty about what actually needs fixing (PERS, foster care, access to drug treatment, longer sentences for repeat offenders, more mandatory mental health treatment for the homeless) and (more recently partisianship before patriotism. I don't belong to a union, and it seems like that was the primary constituency of the Oregon Democrats (that's why PERS is in the shape its in).

If Portland continues on its current trajectory, I'll be a Vancouver resident before the year is out.

Good luck to you all in 2008. Your going to need it.

W. Bruce Anderholt II is making Kari's point.

He said After living in the People's Republic of Portland for the past 8 years,......Too many "government knows best" solutions from the D's, too many tax increases, not enough honesty about what actually needs fixing (PERS, foster care, access to drug treatment, longer sentences for repeat offenders, more mandatory mental health treatment for the homeless) and (more recently partisianship before patriotism. I don't belong to a union, and it seems like that was the primary constituency of the Oregon Democrats (that's why PERS is in the shape its in).

All this shows is that he is good at stereotyping. I am a Democrat who leans independent. I am not a member of union. I would like to know what proposal for PERS would have been better. If the Richardson defined benefit plan of 2003 had gotten 31 votes in the Republican House and bipartisan support in the split Senate it would have passed. But is it the fault of all Democrats in the state of Oregon that it didn't pass? Or could it be that the mixed plan which passed just had more votes, which is the way the system is supposed to work?

Anyone who doesn't like Portland is free to move to Vancouver or Lake Oswego, or wherever. Canby must be an interesting place to elect both Wayne Scott and Kurt Schrader.

Washington Post has a very interesting guest opinion about how people tend to live near others who agree with them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400072.html

That is what I define as intelligent debate.

"Good luck in 2008 you will need it" is just a snide remark. I certainly would like to read more intelligent debate and fewer snide remarks. And if that makes me one of them liberals who causes all problems in Oregon, it doesn't make me someone who will vote for the party of snide remarks.

Why is it that anybody who disagrees with the the most izquierdista solution to every problem is a "neo-con"? Is there no such thing as a progressive Republican anymore?

I've voted for 5 times as many Democrats as I ever voted for Republicans (Gordon Smith was the first Republican I voted for), and I dare say that my postings are more respectful and topical than Gregor's. But Kari wants all the self-identified Republicans to pound sand?

I've got an even better idea: how about you have a 10 question survey of Politically Correct themes. If you don't answer 8 out of 10 questions correctly, you can't get a logon I.D. and password. Then you just operate BlueOregon as the closed intranet site you wish it were, and those of us that find humor in your pollyanna musings won't be tempted to read it.

Enjoy preaching to the chorus!

b!X:

Every wonder why Beaverton and Vancouver have rising school enrollments, while Portland's is declining?

Unlike all the "I'm moving to France if Bush wins Democrats" (who didn't really mean it) the affluent/politically moderate/overtaxed are actually leaving Portland and Multnomah County in droves!

The "don't let the door hit you on the way out" response is unlikely to stem the losses at Portland Public Schools, or help the downtown retailers, or improve the tax base. But they must be narrow minded and insensitive if they don't agree with b!X, so to hell with them. Right?

Also: big difference between abandoning your citizenship/country of origin and simply moving 10 miles away to increase your net income by 10%.

Hey LT,

I go nuts when people pull bits and pieces and misapply them. You said, What about the beginning of Matthew 7 "Judge not, that ye be not judged"? This is one of the best known and most misunderstood and misapplied scriptures in the bible. If you read 1-5, you will see that it is addressed to a hypocrite. It's not a prohibition against honest judgment, it is a solemn warning against hypocritical judgment. There are dozens of examples in the bible that direct people to make proper judgements of others. If you really believed the bible instructed us not to judge, then why does the church believe in courts and applying punishments for sins?

Jeff Allworth: I hate to say that you've taken a quote from this very thread out of context, but you forgot to include the portion of Kari's request which he took the time to type in BOLD

OK, so, now that we've pointed the way, would all the right-wing folks hanging out here please go over there?

I guess you would call this blog burning? This was my last posting: look forward to meeting you on your site, Col. Kremer!

I may be in the wrong room. I'll have to ask the principal, but what is a "progressive"? I have generally considered myself to the left of the ACLU on civil liberties and to the right of Ayn Rand on free market. I have yet to see how turning to the institutions that gave us the war in Vietnam, or Iraq for that matter, in order to solve our social problems is a positive solution. How is it that a military draft is wrong, but compulsory school attendance is okay? How is it that occupational licensing is acceptable for midwives, but wrong for newspapers? When did it come down from on high that coercion was the way to build a peaceful society? So what is a "progressive"? And I do not ask this to be funny. M.W.

So much for tolerance and accepting diversity. I much enjoy reading BlueOregon, The Nation, The Progressive, Mother Jones, etc.

But you liberals (or progressives or whatever marketing driven name you are using now) feel most comfortable when no one disagrees with you.

I know that you enjoyed this with the mainstream media for many many years, "news" was reported from one side with absolutely no counterpoint, but with the emerging media (talk radio, blogs) you are going to have to step out of your insulated world and realized that gasp people DO shop at Wal-Mart! Not everyone thinks homosexuality is trendy! Not everyone thinks that raising property taxes to make housing more affordable makes sense!

Rest assured that liberals are always welcome to come and read my flawless logic at: Daniel's Political Musings

Portland is a desirable place to live and BlueOregon is a desirable place to converse. Come on in, nobody's being filtered out or tested for correctness.

What the annoying rightists don't hear, or they hear it but they don't internalize it -- they don't get it, or they get it but they don't put it in their comments is (try one more time) this: You'all don't have facts.

Listen: You are speaking falsely. (That's probably in the bible somewhere, too; such human characteristic has been around a long time. My own favorite, for now, and I can't cite chapter and verse, goes something like: They became what they beheld. Physical 'experience' reaches the brain by nerve pulses and those pulses build, physically, anatomically build brain tissue pathology.) Righties avoid to 'behold' anything new beyond what they have, that got them where they are, and where they deny change -- Scientific Progress! -- can come to them. You'all don't learn.

The first example that you don't have facts (there is nothing to debate or dispute in this): The earth is 4 or 5 billion years old, life came up out of the primordial soup, cell by cell, until now we obtain a perceptive apparatus, having invented language and all, which is able to partially express and impress to other humans of what we are thinking and how our mind works, inside out. Contrast with communication imposing how to work our minds, outside in. Which is the tone and substance of the annoying rightist intrusions. Converse together: Fine, whaddya thinking. Convert everyone else to yours: Annoying, go away. This post was long called for, Kari, and I for one am glad you said it and in the way you said it.

I just had an aside about science. The definition of science: Reproducible results. Meaning everyone who does it gets the same answer. The speed of light is the speed of light NOT because some wise person came long ago and told us it was the speed of light, but because everytime anyone checks it light is still going that same speed. Reproducible results.
Compare and contrast religious faith. The definition: Feelings I have faith in. Whatever's good enough for you to feel you're saved in your mortal soul, that which is your credo. Fine, whatever, have a good one. Everyone's different. You can't reproduce the 'saved feeling' result in another, when they check it for themselves they get different results. There is no one religious factual answer. (Well, there is, but it's not in what's known as organized religion.)

Hmmmmm.....it's a bit alarming that people posting here feel the need to put others in either a "red" or "blue" category....and then ask those perceived to be "too red" to go elsewhere. Isn't it in your best interest to expose yourselves to a variety of opinions? How else can you expect to grow as a person? AND YES! James Carville is right....we Democrats are in SERIOUS trouble if we don't open our eyes, join the conversation instead of yelling from the curbside, and get in tune with mainstream American thought. There's not much of that in evidence here. It's troubling....my party has been Hijacked by ill informed, under employed, closed minded, wackos!

Progressive: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.(Princeton Online Dictionary)

According to the defination, I am progressive. Thus, according to your charter, I'm in. But I will probably have to stop debating, as that isn't in the charter. I guess, I will have to surf over at the state universities to see if there isn't a critical thinking weblog coming out of those establishments.

b!X: so things are finally looking up in Portland. What happened to the George Bush Recession that seemed to peak in late October 2004 (all economic indicators notwithstanding)? Mmmmm, if we're firing on all 8 cylinders, how come we need a new tax on cellphones? With all the new homes being built here, and sale of existing homes going through the roof (doesn't the resale permit a jump in the property taxes?).

Now that Lake Oswego has a new mall, it will be interesting to see how downtown competes with free parking and panhandling free retail alternatives.

My view: the George Bush Recovery is lifting even the leakiest ships with a rising tide of economic growth stimulated by lower taxes and increased investment. Portland may not like it, but it is benefitting from George Bush's "rich-folks" tax cuts.

My view: the George Bush Recovery is lifting even the leakiest ships with a rising tide of economic growth stimulated by lower taxes and increased investment. Portland may not like it, but it is benefitting from George Bush's "rich-folks" tax cuts.

Corporate profits have been up throughout the Bush recession. What has not improved significantly are employment and worker compensation. What has gotten worse, much worse, are gas prices; federal defecits; and personal debt.

The "George Bush recovery" involves, essentially, charging up the nation's credit cards in the hopes that our kids will pay them off while simultaneously decreasing our commitment to their education and retirement.

But you liberals (or progressives or whatever marketing driven name you are using now) feel most comfortable when no one disagrees with you.

This, from a guy whose party is led by the most sequestered President in the history of this nation? Bush has given us free speech ghettoes; no unscripted Q&A sessions with the press; fewer press conferences than any modern President; requires a loyalty oath to get in to see him; has granted access to fake partisan reporters from fake partisan news services; and is bolstered by for whom dissent is treasonous, but somehow in your wormy little zombie brain you've managed to convince yourself that Democrats are the ones who aren't interested in engaging in open dialogue?

Take the blue pill, Neo.

FEELING BLUE:

The government doesn't set gas prices! They don't set wages! They (hopefully) don't create the largest numbers of jobs.

The PRIVATE SECTOR, in reaction to fiscal/monetary policy and the laws of supply and demand influences gas prices, wages, and the conditions necessary for job creation.

When the Government does all the things you think they do, it called a controlled economy, or even socialism or communism. It's been tried. It decreased the standard of living in most of those countries (and if you want to talk about Cuba, please include the relevant statistics on North Korea and Vietnam).

Hey Gone bye bye Gonzo,

The government doesn't set gas prices! They set a minimum price by not allowing sellers to sell fuel for less than the price they purchased it for. The government also influences the price by the taxes that are required to be paid.

They don't set wages! They do set minimum wages which influences all the other wages. When working on government contracts, the government does set the wages.

They (hopefully) don't create the largest numbers of jobs. The government is the largest employer in the state and the country.

The PRIVATE SECTOR, in reaction to fiscal/monetary policy and the laws of supply and demand influences gas prices, wages, and the conditions necessary for job creation. I think you should have written this: The GOVERNMENT SECTOR SETS fiscal/monetary policy and the laws of supply and demand THAT influences gas prices, wages, and the conditions necessary for job creation.

Gonzo... you are going to attempt to tell me that the President we just saw walking hand-in-hand with Saudi royalty (looking like a Maccauley Calkin young love scene in "My Girl") and has more oil company executives working in his administration than any other in the history of America has no effect on oil prices? Horsefeathers. This is one of the very reasons why right wing extremnists like Gonzo are being banned. They are so mesmerized by the neo-cons that they are incapable of seeing facts. The oil companies raised prices through the roof because they wanted to make a tanker-load of money and they could get away with it with Bush as President. Big Oil knew the neo-cons would do absolutely nothing to them in response to the current gas price piracy. The last time we were all in this situation, the oil companies found themselves hit with a windfall profits tax on the record levels of profit they were experiencing.

The reason why the neo-cons have been banned from progressive discussion boards all over the net is they are incable of playing well with others. They accept any GOP press release as gospel on par with (or more important than) anything Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount.

"there are now several other options available to our friends in Red Oregon.

What if one isn't red, green or blue?

" Remember, if you look in the Upper Left corner of this page, you'll find this:

BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip."</i>

Kari's direction of ditto-heads to friendlier blogs is understandable; the moderator's job is made more difficult by having to deal with trolls who offer no constructive input to the debate, and divert discussion off-topic. We commentators must be responsible for keeping our discussion on topic and not degenerating into useless (if personally gratifying) sparring with posters who are writing dishonest or specious arguments. We need to call them on it and move on with the discussion.

My understanding of why people are coming together as Progressives is the connection we feel with the historical Progessive Movement. They arose a century ago to oppose the robber barons who were busily turning America into a nightmare of Dickensian proportions for the working class. The captains of industry arrogated the power of democratic government to themselves, in part by getting the courts to misinterpret an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court ruling as granting corporations the status of "artificial persons" deserving the protections of the Constitution. That made "real persons" into second class citizens who can't compete for real power with artificial persons who, as corporations have no need for human comforts nor worry about their mortality nor love for their fellows. Thom Hartmann has written eloquently about this.

It is the duty of the Democratic Party to stand up for the rights of the working class, and I stand ready to join them in that fight, which looms large in Bush's America. I share the feeling with other Progressives that the party must be pulled back from the centrist position it has been taking, and get back to core values that advocate for working people without pandering to corporate interests in hope of getting some of their money.

Sally: "It's your site, and you have a perfect right to censor. Personally, I think it would be a bit more straight-up to hang a Democratic sign on the door. Someone may "reframe" (to use the favorite buzzword) the term "progressive" one of these days."

Sally, what part of "BLUE Oregon" did you not understand? If you don't know the corporate media has proclaimed Blue = Democrats and Red = Republicans, you are almost the only one left that has avoided having that knowledge beaten into you skull by "the media."

The opinion of afs that "BlueOregon" can only encompass Democratic Party loyalists is WAY too confining to represent the spectrum of Progressive opinion. IMHO the Party has to be the standard-bearer in the fight to champion the working class, but adherents of smaller parties must also be brought into the "big tent". Our political system of "winner take all" elections to office enables the party with a plurality of votes to take all power in government. It cannot fairly represent small parties, unlike true parliamemtary governments that force plurality parties to form coalition governments. Like it or not, the Democrats need to maintain working relationships with smaller parties to assure that the Republicans can't just "divide and conquer." True Progressives transcend party lines in service to the working class.

Ed... If people haven't learned that the hopes of the progressive movement are in the Democratic Party after the last two Nader campaigns, then they never will and are only acting out intentionally contrary behaviors. Most of the progressives that claim to want to move the party to the left from outside the Party have never once shown up to their local Democratic Party organization. They haven't seen how few people it actually takes to show up regularly to business meetings to alter the direction of a local party organization. We're not talking thousands of people. We're not talking hundreds of people. Frankly, there are very few people in America that could not take control of their local party organization if they were determined to do so, recruited their friends, and made some phone calls consistantly for a few months time.

I simply have no sympathy for progressives that claim they have no voice in the Democratic Party. The number of people that show enough interest in local Party organizations is too small. Basically almost anyone can put together enough people to show up to business meetings to alter the direction of a local Party committee.

Not to hijack the thread for my own agenda, but I do have sympathy for Progressives disaffected with the Democrats. I was an outsider that got involved with the local Democratice Central Committee, though in another state, hoping to influence the race for the Presidency. GWB is a disaster of still-unfathomed proportion. I was welcomed and enjoyed working with them, but I also saw them fail to address the disaffected. The Party is a large bureaucracy, and your flippant description of the effort required to bring in a constituancy and press for an agenda hardly does justice to the task. I do urge all politically aware citizens to make the effort, but be prepared! It is a large investment in time, money, and patience to pursue coherent political action.

To condemn people who are "acting out intentionally contrary behaviors" as simply being unable to learn where their best interests lie is simple cynicism. They are making protest, as is their right in a free society. To shut them out of even a spirited discussion of shared political concerns is censorship.

AFS:

I thought progressives enjoyed watching men hold hands. Why shouldn't Bush offer a little loving to the Handsome Prince if that will bring oil prices down?

Andy: just because the government is the largest employer in the State of Oregon should not lead you to believe it is the largest (or most desirable) employer in every state. Oregon is a very small state. The wages of government workers are paid via the entire body of tax revenue paid into government (much of which is derived from the income taxes paid by those in the private sector).

Also: you ought to measure the "size" of any enterprise not simply by the number of people they employ, but by the goods and services they produce. On this basis, Federal and State government becomes a much smaller piece of GDP than their raw numbers would suggest.

More to the point: just because the government sets minimum wages or impacts the price of gasoline with taxes DOES NOT IMPLY they control or set prices (a legal framework is not a price matrix). We live in a market economy: the market determines the price of oil (and therefore, gasoline), the market determines what a "fair" wage is (even fast food workers with any experience can earn more than minimum wage in a tight labor market), and the market determines how many people (minus productivity) are necessary to produce the goods necessary to meet demand. George Bush provides the framework necessary to allow private enterprise to succeed or fail. That said, if your business fails, don't blame George Bush. If you want to attribute your success/failure to a politician, you ought to look closer to home (city/county/state government): they have much more impact on small business than the Feds.

Also: I was joking when I said "Bush Recovery"...The economic cycle has more to do with Greenspan than the changing of the Presidential Guard. If you want to blame Bush for the recession that started before Clinton left office, you ought to give Bush credit for the recovery too. Fair is fair.

Gonzo: We don't have problems with the holding hands part. You guys do. Just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of a President who claims he hates the sin of homosexual behavior so much, yet finds himself surrounded by so many who partake in it so regularly. Between the various GOP members and their participation in group sex, fake military call-boys, forced sex, serial marriage, and well... mule play... it's beginning to look like the GOP is the party of closeted sexual deviants.

It's also Bush doing everything in his power to avoid action that would bring oil prices down that Democrats have a problems with.

Ed: A question...How many people regularly showed up to the monthly local Democratic committee business meetings that you yourself attended?

Andy from Beaverton writes:

The GOVERNMENT SECTOR SETS fiscal/monetary policy and the laws of supply and demand THAT influences gas prices, wages, and the conditions necessary for job creation.

Cool, now the government is writing supply and demand legislation. Where can I look that up, Andy? Would you like some fries to go with that dumbass sentence?

I always thought the "laws" of supply and demand means that more demand inevitably leads to more supply; while more supply leads to lower prices. It's not a "law" passed by the government.

If you're going to kick out all the voices that disagree with you, would you consider hiring an economist to keep the wheels on your idealogical bus? Last post from Gonzo,

WAAYY off topic, but would you children quit it about GWB and the Crown Prince holding hands, already?

The Prez was showing cultural sensitivity to his guest. This is a Good Thing (TM) and we want to encourage it, possibly even expand it to his dealings with other people. Or maybe to the dealings of his subordinates with Arabs. In any case, get off his back when he does something right.

If you really want to go all junior high about something, let's see how many more "last posts" we can get out of Gonzo.

Suzii:

Aren't you going to deride AFS for his "group sex, fake military call boys, forced sex" comments? I feel like there's a whole side of Republicanism that I've been missing out on. I wanna party with you guys: would they send us someplace special?

So AFS is a progressive proudly displaying his intellectual wares, but I'm a neo-con hot head that can't be trusted to debate fairly. Uh-huh.

Have you tried the punch? I made it myself.

As politics tends largely to have to do with large sums of money, it's interesting to see that angle largely un-addressed, the 'elephant in the room' type of issue that is long overdue to be brought to the forefront of how Oregon, and indeed the Nation is run.

Over the past decade, our state of some 3.5 million people has realized a budget increase measured in Billions, that's X,000,000,000.00(plus interest). Indeed, that interest is an 'interesting' subject, in and of itself, as the sale of bonds to pay for this or that public project inevitably result in long-term tax increases, and the incessant and recurrent threat of a state sales tax, already spearheaded in certain areas such as Ashland by a 'meals tax' or a 'lodging tax'. Tax, tax, tax, with spending to match, which typically exceeds by a certain small percentage due to statewide susceptibility to political ambitions.

In some areas of life, less is truly more. While for some, there is never such a thing as 'enough', for others such as seniors who watch their property taxes creep up, up, and up inexorably, the point of 'enough' was reached quite a while ago, with their voices and votes seemingly falling on deaf ears. Can the Oregon Legislature afford the luxury of a tin ear to subjects like budgetary responsibility, can the state afford to emulate California, and other states in the nation for whom 'budget cuts' are a taboo topic? It bears keeping in mind that on subjects like pensions, there is a balance to be struck, and allowing people's avarice to drive such costs even higher than they already are amounts to a welfare program of sorts with no end in sight. Luckily, there are still provisions within the Oregon Constitution that apply checks and balances to the whole process with some degree of success, but as political ambitions recognize no physical or ethical boundaries, there is constant pressure to increase and expand...changing sides of the political fence in order to leverage still more monies out of the citizens of Oregon, who may or may not have anything resembling a margin to spare, is not good business. Our state should be united in its' stance to oppose pressures that would adversely affect livability for all oregonians, red and blue alike.

A Sunday vowel movement. U: Go. U no who U aren't: Us.

Another half-Trillion dollars shot for bullets and bombs with our tax money, and we get back a few thousand dead young Americans and now our communities must shoulder the pain and suffering of their destroyed surviving families, and we get a crushing credit debt for succeeding generations, (there goes 'secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity'), and we DO NOT GET schools nor continuing education life skills nor investment in life's purposeful qualities (healthy, wealthy, and wise) -- because The Government appropriated our taxes (from the poor, not from the rich) to bullets and bombs, there goes 'the blessings of liberty for ourselves' -- and we DO NOT GET provided a common defense.

Voting taxes for bullets and invader's blood for oil is EXACTLY how this administration sets wages and commerce and the work people put their lives into.

The defense of this country is in its people standing together with the strength that our shared organization (government) endows in us. The defense of this country is not AGAINST external invasion. There is. no. threat. of. invasion. Period. Even in fifty years of cold war militaristic mania there was no threat that bigger bullets beat back. How can communism quote take over unquote? Answer: By changing people's minds. And the defense against mind-bending propaganda is educated people.

The defense of this country is in keeping our own powermad psychological basket cases in check, in the open, responsible to us, just like the Constitution says. Separate our collective power into three pieces. That's what the Constitution says. People come and people go and there always is a percent of them born or raised pathologically mad for power, same as can be observed in animal groups (if you ever tended a flock or a herd), because power always exists and in the group more power than in any individual member -- we the people can not STOP that, the formula for democracy says DIVIDE it.

This administration and this Congress, including Democrats, lied to the media and the media lied those lies to us, for war, for their individual advantages in government -- Bush said: 'He tried to kill my daddy, that's why America's armies must remove Saddam.' -- and this disrespects the left's principle of the most good for all people, humankind.

This website is open for all comers and all ideas in decency and progress for all -- the standard of the left -- and when ego-constipated rightists plugged up in learning themselves, come pissing in the water cooler 'Me!, What about me?, What's in it for me?, Look only at MY pain, You are taxing ME and I don't ride mass transit, etc., etc., I am MOVING TO VANCOUVER!' Well, you know, don't talk: Walk. Wherever you go, there YOU are and I pretty much expect that same ME inside you goes along, too, and is going to bring along the painful suffering in the self-defeat of isolation, there, too.

Nothing is barring rightists from this blog. Everybody -- the interest of the group -- is barring self-centered privilege takers and if that shoe fits, no doubt with a pinching, then wear it and Walk. Away. Maybe go visit a soldier's widow and survivors, take over a casserole or something, you don't KNOW how much it would mean to them because, by your standard, you Rightists, you AVOID knowing others' ways of contributing and viewing things, (like the countries and people of the world outside your narrow nationalism, where respect and diplomacy helps all and bullets and belligerence help none), you should know, and go talk with the broken families you must help support in the community now, (for Bush's lies to get the guy who insulted his daddy), or come here and talk with the blog community and I just would not be surprised that we could come up with better uses than bullets and bristle and rude rage to tax ourselves for. Such as forming together in union, establishing justice, promoting the general welfare, insuring domestic tranquility -- it has all been written down, giving us a way to learn from others when we read.

This thread started with a suggested reading list and some additions came to mind along the way.

A comment about the Progressives of the 1880's led to thinking of what stopped their progress in 1907-1910, and has kept it stopped a century now, told in this book on instituting privatized money.

Comments on self-righteous indignation that leads people wayward reminds one of the effects in the Religio-Obsessive powermad group, (with local Northwest and Oregon references), detailed across its eighty years comprehensively in this book.

And the ruinous militarism perverting every American's life, that Eisenhower warned us about, that no one can see all around us, exactly enough to point to, and especially not seeing its harvest of flag-draped coffins during the Cheney - Rumsfeld administration of death, is presented in its development totally to read and learn to recognize, in this book.

The ability to read them and the access to these books of understanding, are examples of the treasures in the kingdom of the Constitution, linked from this blog for rightists' partaking, too.

afs: The North Pole and the South Pole are really cold places; the Equator has all the rain and all the biodiversity that one can marvel at.

Ed Bickford: Good to see your post (and Sally's too).

Kari might just want to engage in pre-framing, and thus wants a back room and a front room. He can follow the example of the OEA and limit access to posting to the insiders and thus control the public framing. http://www.oregoned.org/

Otherwise Kari actually prefers the tenor and tone of a classic newsgroup.

Gonzo: from an economists point of view the governmental interference in capitalism is more haphazard even than that of the Soviets, at least they were honest when trying to pretend to mimic a properly functioning capitalist system. They looked at incentives as goal rather than as a rouse.

Personally, I think Kari is just watching the hit counter otherwise he would have instead announced a required registration process and the parameters of obtaining an authorized username and password.

Please stop your racist site once and for all, NATIVE AMERICANS CAN POST WHERE WE WANT- STEAL OUR LAND CALL US "RED MAN" NOW TRY TO SILENCE US???

Why do you feel the need to seperate people by color?

Gonzo Never leaving: "Suzii:

Aren't you going to deride AFS for his "group sex, fake military call boys, forced sex" comments? I feel like there's a whole side of Republicanism that I've been missing out on. I wanna party with you guys: would they send us someplace special?"

Can't 'deride' me for what is true... Jeff Gannon's everyone favorite "never been in the military but plays one on gay web sites" call-boy.

Anti-abortion crusader Neal Horsely said on Alan Combes radio show that he had a mule for a girlfrield when he was growing up, and thinks every other guy in the US did, too. Link...

http://www.foxnews.com/alancolmesradio/vidPlayer/player.html?colmes/051305/colmes_horsley_2_051305&Alan_Colmes_Audio&Neal%20Horsley&acc&Radio&-1&wvx-300

John Bolton forced his ex-wife to have group sex at Plato's Retreat in the 70's and 80's. Link...

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/larry_flynt_bolton_511

Jim West, Spokane mayor, is another GOP closeted freak who is being busted for trying to pick up underage males on gay web sites, and was caught in lewd chat rooms with them. Link...

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/larry_flynt_bolton_511

And David Hager, another anti-abortion crusader is now being accused of frequent forced anal sex by his ex-wife. Link...

http://www.alternet.org/rights/21990/

Yes, there is a side of Republicanism that you miss out on. The filthy-rich refuse to advertise their decadence to you poor lower and middle class schmucks who keep voting against your interest to make filthy rich Republicans richer. It's the decadent side of wealth. These Republicans are not very different than the decadent Romans of the days of Caesar Caligula. Obscene personal wealth and decadence go hand in hand. This is what reducing/removing capital gains taxes supports. Obscene morals by the obscenely wealthy, closeted away from the peasants.

Hey Gonzo,

I doubt that was your last post.

Cool, now the government is writing supply and demand legislation. Where can I look that up, Andy? Would you like some fries to go with that dumbass sentence? You lose an argument and you start name calling. Mature! When is the last time you opened up the Federal Register or paid attention to the tax code. Government controls supply and demand everyday. You need to read the most brilliant economist ever, Frederick Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom' to understand how a real free market should operate. I would like some fries without price controls.

I always thought the "laws" of supply and demand means that more demand inevitably leads to more supply; while more supply leads to lower prices. It's not a "law" passed by the government. Well at least you got that part right. It works well in a free market. But when government enters the picture and starts to regulate or tax, it can change both the supply and demand.

If you're going to kick out all the voices that disagree with you, would you consider hiring an economist to keep the wheels on your idealogical bus? I'm not part of the thought police on this forum who want to kick off all dissenting opinion. I'm a classical liberal which puts me at odds with almost everyone here at this forum. I love debate, but I hate whinners and name callers.

Torrid Joe:

Bush took the oath of office on January 20, 2001 and the Bush Recession started 40 days later (on March 1, 2001)? Wow. It only took the Republicans 40 days to undo 8 years of economic miracles. Does that bother any of the other learned economists on this blog? That level of causality should offend those of you that can spell it.

"Bush Recession" was a campaign slogan. Business Cycle Recession, or Y2K Bubble Recession would be more accurate. At any rate, my original intent remains unchallenged: if you're going to blame Bush for the recession, at least give him some of the credit for the recovery.

But heh, I'm a Republican on a "progressive" website, and I've been asked to leave. No reason to expect any intellectual honesty from the left: bunch of crybabies. You are all blinded by politics, and that is the main reason that vast American middle finds you so irrelevant.

afs: I'm intrigued by your rapid response on the vice and ignominy trail. We should drink margaritas sometime and I'll tell you all about my freshman year with the polo team, and you can show me all the JPEG's that you've collected. Do you hot tub?

Greetings, Gonzit the Blue Marlin here

And today I'd like to tell you a little bit about the color blue

Do you know what's blue Well I am for one thing You see marlins are blue, and I'm a Blue Oregon Marlin And that means that I'm blue, you see

When blue is all there is to be It could make you wonder why But why wonder why wonder I am blue, and it'll do fine It's beautiful, and I think it's what I want to be

Gonzo in denial: I have no doubt you are dirt-poor and pretty much free of the type of obscene behaviors I provided links to above that the GOP is becoming known for. Why? Because living obscene livestyles is damn expensive. You can't live like the obscenely rich. You might want to, but it isn't happening, and never will for you, Gonzo in denial. You are one of the fools who the filthy rich has deluded into cult-like worship of leadership of the far right. The filthy rich right are too busy being filthy and rich to bother with the peasants on blogs. They let poor deluded serfs do that for them. They know they only have to cut talking points a couple of times a day, and their deluded serfs will repeat them over and over with the fervor that cult members are most known for.

As for the "sins" of liberals, I know the main one... living boring lives. We're happy with the type of life portrayed amazingly well by Francis McDormand as the police officer in Fargo. Give us a vocation where we feel we might be making a little bit of a difference, a few bark beetle documentaries on PBS, a few animals to paint, and a buffet full of food, and we go about our lives quite happily. We don't need much to be content, and our lives are so damn boring that it can be quite humorous. Not as humorous as ridiculous cartoon the GOP attempts to create of the lives of "lib-ruls." Nope. That cartoon of "evil lib-ruls" is a projection of what the obscenely rich are actually doing in all those closets they hide in, and what goes on in the closets of neo-cons and theo-cons couldn't be nastier or more obscene.

David Wright-

I'd find it unfortunate if you truly decided not to comment here any longer. I don't find that your moderate to conservative views completely represent the wingnut philosophy that tends to be dominating the GOP right now.

You and I had a productive discussion on here a few weeks ago about healthcare, and despite our different political leanings, we agreed on a few important points, right?

I can't speak for Kari, but I'll assume he was directing his comments to the conservative wingers who like to post comments filled with name calling and holier than thou-ness, comments that don't contribute to advancing the discussion.

Hope to see you around here.

Is something wrong with the comments section here? My ID didn't post under my last comment to David W. rather it ended up on a comment the comment preceding it, which I didn't write.

Wow... quite a lot of buzz on this topic since last I checked in... so much for the idea of simply asking the "red righties" to leave, eh?   ;-)

I just wanted to post a quick "thank you" to those who have written personal e-mails to me in general support of my past participation on this site. I really do appreciate that people have taken the time to thank someone (with whom they mostly disagree) just for being part of the conversation.

A common theme of those messages has been "but YOU weren't the one Kari was talking about..."

That may or may not have been true. I certainly didn't think the admonishment about "left/right fist-fighting and dittohead-ing" was directed at me in particular. And I know exactly the kind of thing Kari meant by that. I don't care for the simple (and simple-minded) partisan bickering either, it doesn't contribute one whit to anybody's understanding of the issues.

But other elements of Kari's post indicated to me the general frustration over having to read anything that doesn't generally conform to the "progressive" agenda:

OK, so, now that we've pointed the way, would all the right-wing folks hanging out here please go over there? . . . Start your own blog, go talk elsewhere, and feel free to criticize what happens here over there.

Notice that wasn't a request for just the obnoxious right-wing folks to leave, but for all right-wing folks to leave. And while I've only been paying attention to Blue Oregon for a couple of months now, I don't recall seeing many criticisms of the web site itself, only criticisms of the opinions/positions expressed on the web site, which Kari would now like banished from his site.

Taken together, I get the clear impression that Kari is tired of hearing disagreements on the issues which are based on a point of view that differs substantially from that of the core contributors.

Which is why I think it's a bit odd for Jeff to claim that "diverse views and honest disagreement are totally encouraged" here when in fact Kari has just requested that the "diversity" be limited to the (apparently self-classified?) "progressive" audience and that therefore the only "honest disagreement" would be among those who fundamentally agree in the first place. In other words, some diversity is OK, but you can't disagree too much or in the wrong way.

Yes, there has been a detectable increase in the number of "garbage posts" coming from the right in recent weeks. They've just about achieved parity with the garbage posts from the left which have been here all along, unfortunately. I find it laughable when folks claim that somehow the liberal/progressive posters are more adept at using facts to support their opinions while those "evil conservatives" use nothing but personal attacks. Frankly, there's a whole lot of "missing facts" and personal vitriol in posts from both sides of the spectrum. Or, perhaps worse yet, misinterpretation/misapplication of facts resulting in unsupportable conclusions. So this really isn't about the quality of the comments here, is it? Otherwise we'd just hear a request for civility and an end to the posting of scurrilous or spurious comments from all quarters. Instead, we get an invitation for "all the right-wing folks" to take a hike.

But as I said originally -- it's Kari's site, he can lay down whatever rules he wants. Freedom of association and all that, you know. Obviously if Kari wants to really filter out the noise, there's going to need to be some kind of registration system -- as one of the "Gonzo" posts said, make it a private "intranet" rather than a public forum. After all, as Kari has discovered, the trouble with a public forum is... well... the PUBLIC.

Here's the thing, though, for those who had encouraged me to continue participating despite the Pythonesque edict of "Righties Eunt Domus". Even if I was fortunate enough to be "on the list" for approved posters here -- an environment where one must watch what they say, and where only a select group of "good" posters are allowed, is not someplace I'm particularly interested in hanging out. It is too bad, because I think you learn a lot more by talking with those who disagree with you than with those who agree. And learning about those who are different from you is generally a good thing. I've been wading through the crap posts (right and left) to get to the genuinely good stuff all along. I've learned an awful lot by reading this site. Hopefully I've contributed in a meaningful way as well. Much of what I've learned has come from the exchange of views both left and right. Somehow, the exchange of views both left and left doesn't seem that interesting.

Anyhow, as I said before, good luck -- with the site, and with keeping out the loonies.   ;-)

Hi Sid -- I didn't see your comments until after I posted my own, and didn't want to go without acknowledging what you wrote and thanking you directly. Yes, we did have a good discussion.   ;-)

I expect you've figured out by now that Kari changed the layout to display the author at the top rather than the bottom of each comment, though when previewing your comments before posting the name is still at the bottom as before.

Kari, I agree that the new placement is an improvement. Might I suggest however that the dividing line also be moved above the name, as it does appear a bit confusing to have the poster's name separated from the comment itself?

Gonz-Eco alludes to "afs: I'm intrigued by your rapid response on the vice and ignominy trail." It is not like it is an all day research project to compile these debaucheries of satyriasis and then keep them shelved at the ready. Just step off this blog anywhere into cyberspace and your foot is in it. Viz: Today's NY Times star Frank Rich, Just How Gay Is the Right?, writing:

...surely the most arresting recent case is James E. West, the powerful Republican mayor of Spokane, Wash., whose double life has just been exposed by the local paper, The Spokesman-Review. ... Not unlike the Roy Cohn of "Angels in America" - who describes himself as "a heterosexual man" who has sex "with guys" - Mr. West has said he had "relations with adult men" but doesn't "characterize" himself as gay. This is more than hypocrisy - it's pathology. [Emphasis added]

Bent-brained souls might be okay to let walk around in public, and there is no suggestion there should be brain tests to vote, but we should do a lot more thorough public exam of the few applicants who would command our almost incomprehensibly lethal military forces. Or who would pass a death sentence in a court of law. Or who would write a death sentence into law. For examples.

Maybe what should be looked into, afs, and each in ourselves, and composed at-the-ready, is a prepared decision should one be required to choose between believing the so-smooth media reassurances of the next obsessive leader on the verge of losing it, or believing our own lying eyes.

would all the right-wing folks hanging out here please go over there?

Please identify the "right wing" folks. Is that anyone registered Republican or do you have a better litmus test on values.

I'm pro-choice and opposed to the drug war. I've never self-identified as "right-wing" but, I happen to think that the state government takes in enough money to serve its functions and that the local progressive agenda is really little more than the labor unions' bi-atch.

Given this, let me know if I'm not welcome here anymore.

Great "not easy being blue" poem, Kari.

2 things: First, I think the suggestion to put the dividing line above the name of the person posting to make it more apparent who is writing which comment is a good idea.

2nd, about who is a "righty". It seems to me that responsible Republicans (Ben Westlund and Frank Morse come to mind) who are candid, explain their words and actions, and don't insult others are perfectly welcome in any serious discussion.

On the other hand, the vituperation of "you pro-abortion taxers who want men to hold hands" sort of thing doesn't contribute to an intelligent discussion.

I would like to just chime in quickly.

In defense of Mr. Wright, I will say that he makes very good points and that if he left it would be a shame. He gently corrected something I had said. As most of us would agree he is not the one Kari is asking to leave.

As to the topic on hand, I too feel that a person made snide, name calling comments. I realize that I also made a mistake getting sucked into a fight with the person. The result is that I have not wanted to post as much anymore on BlueOregon.

That's not to say that I don't read occasionally, but I am not as involved as I wanted to be.

This is think is the point that Kari is making (from my perspective at least). Is there are a few people (no names mentioned) that are negative and it is possibly perceived that they come here just to ruffle feathers.

Again, I'm not making an direct accusations, but I want to agree in a way with what Kari is saying.

K, I have to go teach a class...

Unbelievably, I just want to chime in to second Rob Kremer's point: keep the forum open. If "honest disagreement" comes only with the shades of opinion contained in the progressive's tent, you're missing a big chunk of the spectrum of thought and opinion. Worse, the more time we spend "talking amongst ourselves," the less competent we are at actually speaking to and addressing all that ails Kansas - or Red Oregon.

The thing is, even my tiny site has a conservative gadfly; the "reds" have an incredible knack for finding progressive/centrist/what the hell ever sites and (loudly) pissing and moaning about the errors. But, by reading his comments over the past few months, I've basically figured out that he's a decent guy who views the world differently. What's more, I'm starting to see real, live openings - things that we both agree should happen: going that far has moved the debate to a question of "how to get there from here" as opposed to "you stupid pinko" from him and "you frightening redneck" from me.

It's great that they have their own sites, but I'm happy that Blue Oregon can't limit who visits the site; dialogue beats monologue anyday. If the goal is to build a better progressive movement, one of the best ways to do that is to make sure that those outside the tent can either speak the same language or pick it up quickly enough.

All that said, yes, it does suck when the best a "red Oregonian" can do is hop on the site and spill wing-nut vitriol...they should at least send their "A squad" to the debate...

Geez, if David left it would be a shame.

Frankly, I think there is a lot of passion about these topics and we should be able to express it here. If we are avoiding being emotional, we may be avoiding the contact we need. The number one issue I see in the division of this country is the lack of contact Blue and Red have with each other.

But I did pick up a book in the library the other day, no really! It was Hannity's and I don't recall the name. But he made a point in his first chapter about wanting to destroy liberalism. He flat out declared he wanted to eliminate it.

The #1 sign of the times was illuminated during the debate when Kerry reported the phone that goes between the aisles hasn't rung in years. We have a Congress not talking to each other. Now the line works both ways, but apparently, it isn't working at all. Why would we cut the line here too?

That being said, we could be more civil and I know I've ruffled a few feathers, but I really am upset that the Reich goes unchallenged, but I suspect there are a lot of unreported challenges because the media is NOT liberal. And that's another example of something that I believe really needs to be screamed in square so the lemmings can understand how FOX is not a news organizaiton but a pandering propaganda machine of the Reich, and their quest for a one party system.

David Wright names himself a martyr for his own cause again, and some of you fall for the act. Too Funny. David Wright is big on playing "Pity Me" tunes.

If you look back at what David Wright has actually said here, he is one of the most inflexibly anti-worker posters here. He will not read or consider evidence presented to him on the subject. He is 100% anti-union and refuses to discuss or acknowledge any other point of view.

Union hating is David Wright's cause. He'll present flexibility on some other issues in order to continue to get his pound of union flesh regularly. This website will be far better off without his fake pseudo-reasonability on a few issues while continuing to try to force his extreme anti-union/ anti-worker message into this community.

Well, I'm kind of wondering where I fit in with this. I see I've made an impression with some people. I also see that I'm being misinterpreted by others. I also see that some people can trudge through my stuff and find something worthwhile. If I'm a left-wing idiot, I would be okay with that. At least they know which side I'm on.

Someone reported we have four parts to our brain, taking us past left side/right side theories. So, maybe we don't have a bi-polar world anyway.

[Warning: I'm gonna rant here.] This is the place where we should have a Conservative professor step in to argue that it's all black and white. And if that remark makes the Conservative feel foolish, maybe they should consider that a warning that the Black/White theory is not the truth, or more concisely, WRONG.

There are many sites where one can engage in political discussion with folks of many persuasions. That can be fun and worthwhile. There is a need, however, to discuss issues from a progressive or leftwing viewpoint, as there can be much variation in knowledge and viewpoint among us. Frankly, there are times when I don't want argue about socialism vs.capitalism, environmental protection vs. the evil of regulation, active government vs. one drowned in a bathtub, or freedom of personal behavior vs. fundamentalist Christian compulsion. When rightwingers are involved, the discussion almost always ends up in one of those places.

The government doesn't set gas prices! They don't set wages! They (hopefully) don't create the largest numbers of jobs.

Strike 1.

Excluding the $300 billion per annum and 200,000 American soldiers that our military has currently committed to occupying the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Near East, our government subsidizes oil companies to the tune of $11.3 billion per annum so this notion that government is not a player in setting gas prices, or that there is such a thing as a purely capitalist free market for oil is fantasy.

Strike 2.

Government does, in fact, set a minimum wage, as well as minimum standards of living through social security insurance, etc.

Strike 3.

Government is, in fact, the largest employer in the United States (see the U.S. military; federal and state governments for details).

When the Government does all the things you think they do, it called a controlled economy, or even socialism or communism.

Actually, we call it a mixed economy. It grew as a reaction to the failure of 19th century laissez faire economies to adequately address the inherent inequalities and social disruptions that are part-and-parcel with the capitalist system. Many of the rules that are part of our mixed economies: minimum wage laws; child labor laws; the 40-hour work week; social security insurance; progressive taxation; national education; government funding for research and development; government as a major employer, etc. gave rise to the middle class in this country which in turn has contributed to the social stability that is necessary to the long-term growth of markets.

That every core economy on the planet is a mixed economy, and that the United States enjoys its current standard of living largely due to government interventions such as tarriffs that protected fledgeling industries and subsidies that helped protect unprofitable industries with growth potential is illustrative of the fact that most libertarians are living in fantasy land and have no real grasp of how "the real world" operates.

Heh... Kari's post from 10:18 this morning, and what followed immediately thereafter, gave me one of the best laughs I've had in a really long time. As they say, in comedy timing is everything...   :-D

Anyhow, Kari, now I'm confused. You seem to be sending mixed messages.

As of 1:10 this morning:

[W]hile I'd love to someday run a site that has meaningful debate betweeen thoughtful people on the left and right, this site isn't that site.

As of 10:14 this morning:

For those of you who consider yourselves conservatives or aren't sure what to call your personal ideology.... If you're interested in engaging in honest debate and discussion, you're welcome here.

Yet you cite the thread regarding the parental notification bill as having degenerated into a right-wing tirade against abortion (never mind that prior to any right-wing posts in that thread we had the left-wing equivalent about how any restriction on abortion whatsoever is simply unconscionable).

Soooo... a controversial subject is raised, and you get polar opposite opinions expressed in among the more moderate comments. More or less a reflection of society as a whole. If that's not what you want, then it seems your original idea of reserving the site as a "Progressive Clubhouse" is more appropriate (I completely understand what Tom Civiletti was saying in this regard -- sometimes you just don't feel like having to defend your own assumptions about right and wrong).

In any event, if you're going to try to "push aside" the folks who aren't interested in open debate on the right, while letting those on the left slide by, then you still don't really have an environment that encourages truly open dialogue among reasonable people.

And there's really nothing wrong with that. Those who are interested in truly open dialogue will just need to find someplace else to get it is all.

Oh, and thanks once more to those who have written kind things about me. Nice to know that there are still some people who will "fall for the act" of "fake pseudo-reasonability" (which, I guess, would be actual reasonability?)   ;-)

They're being asked to leave because the majority of the posts from neo-cons here consists of piles of personal insults with little actual factual content.

Hmm...seems thats all I ever see on BlueOregon. Its all the "progressives" ever have. No real answers, just Bush hatred and political whining.

pot/kettle?

when people rip on your views take it as a compliment, it means you're saying something important....

Thats only valid when you are being ripped on by both sides. Otherwise, you are just along for the ride.

Hmmm... what's missing from David Wright's post? Well, David Wright had plenty of opportunity to answer my charge that he is an anti-union extremist. Well... is David Wright 100% anti-union or not?

David Wright: "gave me one of the best laughs I've had in a really long time"

Hmmm... that is not an answer to the question of whether David is an anti-union extremist, is it? David Wright plays lots of word games like this. Kinda like trying to find out from Scotty McClellan exactly how close that silly Cessna got to the White House.

"Q: I have one more question. When we walked out of this door yesterday, when those of us who heard that there was a situation, when we walked out of the door, we heard aircraft, jets overhead. There is a concern that that plane came closer to the White House than the White House said, more -- it came within the three-mile radius, it was closer than you --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I said that it came within three miles.

Q: OK, but you said three miles. How close --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, it came within three miles.

Q: How close was it? Because someone has taken a picture of a plane being escorted on K street. How close was the plane?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I mean, if the Department of Homeland Security or FAA has any additional information, I'm sure --

Q: Scott, how close was it?

McCLELLAN: April, it was within --

Q: You know how close it was. Please tell us.

McCLELLAN: Yes, within three miles...."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050511-1.html

Ahh... you recognize that GOP rubbish, too. David Wright plays it a whole lot. I get enough of it from the Rush, Hannity, the White House, etc. We don't need more of it on our supposedly progressive websites, too.

I am just completely blown away by the amount of discussion this post has generated. Naively, I thought Kari's comments were very straightforward and his intentions were clear.

Yet, there have been a lot of questions regarding WHAT is progressive, HOW progressive might be defined and WHO might be progressive.

For me, I think all anyone needs is to take a brief little self-test. To wit:

If saying, thinking or writing the terms progressive or liberal causes you to furrow your brow, wriggle up your nose, gnash your teeth, curse underneath your breath and/or makes you feel uncomfortable, then you [most likely] aren't a progressive or a liberal.

If you aren't a progressive or liberal, you are free to visit and read the many posts on BlueOregon. You are free to think about and consider the various perspectives. But, since the purpose of BlueOregon is for self-defined progressives (or liberals) to kick around ideas and comments amonst themselves, you should not enter the fray.

In the end, each of us must decide on our own if we are comfortable identifying ourselves as a progressive or progressive-leaning (i.e., maybe one might not consider themselves SOLELY a progressive, but the word doesn't cause them to react aversely) individual.

Posted by: Jon | May 16, 2005 12:17 PM

Hmm...seems thats all I ever see on BlueOregon. Its all the "progressives" ever have. No real answers, just Bush hatred and political whining.

pot/kettle?

...and Jon conveniently steps in a proves he's such a devout member of the neo-con personality cult that his right index finger has psychosomatically frozen in a position on his mouse above the left mouse button unable to click the links we provide to authenticate all the evidence that us progressives provide here to prove our statements as fact and also prove so many neo-con statements as lies.

I find it interesting how Jon thinks of our posts as merely Bush bashing. Probably because he can't support the crap coming out of the Adminstration he has to create this simplistic, demeaning label of it. Having lived in Alaska for awhile, I prefer Bush Whacking myself.

The rest of the posts he refers to as whining, which is what we should be able to do on "our own" website. This is our house and you enter and critic the stuff inside. You were invited to leave. How strange?!? Can you understand I think you're posts are pure whining, and I don't understand you're need to enter a Progressive site and whine about all the Progressives here.

That's simply stupid, stupid, stupid!

But, since the purpose of BlueOregon is for self-defined progressives (or liberals) to kick around ideas and comments amonst themselves, you should not enter the fray.

Well, if you only want your buddies to know, how will you change anything? This is the problem on both sides of the two popular ideologies.

And FYI, Im not a "neocon" (whatever that means), or a republican.

I see myself more of a traditionalist. A realist.

Well, if you only want your buddies to know, how will you change anything? This is the problem on both sides of the two popular ideologies.

Before taking an idea to the masses and trying to affect change, there's nothing at all wrong with hashing out the differences amongst those in one's own camp. (People on the same side of the aisle can easily agree on ends and yet vehemently disagree on means.)

It's just nice to be able to work out our differences and strike our own compromises BEFORE trotting out the idea, strategy or proposal to others.

Jon "I see myself more of a traditionalist."

"Traditionalists" is what people opposed to civil right legislation in the Deep South in the 60's called themselves. "Traditionalists" are what the people who beat the snot out of black guys dating white women called themselves.

You borrowing the term appears at least on the surface to be reasonable, Jon

Jon, remember you are the one who had all the political terminology in the dictionary to pick from and decided to pick that particular term, not me.

Progressives are the ones who look at traditions and ask, "Can we do it another way, would it be better if?..." rather then simply worshipping the sacred cows because "we've always done it like that." There was a time when everyone walked, then we developed a carriage with a horse, then horseless carriages, then trains and now we fly. That progress and it is what we are all about, provided it doesn't leave anyone destitute.

Good points, Kari. And I like the gray boxes with the author's name at the top. That makes it more clear who wrote what.

[off-topic comment deleted. -Editor.]

Do you think progressives are more likely to have an "innie" or an "outie"? Just wondering.

Kari: was that "Kermit the Frog's Song" (aka "It's not easy being green) that you paraphrased. Cool. I like all amphibians, but I like felt amphibians the best: they feel fuzzier.

Torrid Joe:

Bush took the oath of office on January 20, 2001 and the Bush Recession started 40 days later (on March 1, 2001)? Wow.

It only took the Republicans 40 days to undo 8 years of economic miracles. Does that bother any of the other learned economists on this blog?

This is a good example why you might care to retain a few righties, if only to serve as unpaid fact checkers. Otherwise, you run the risk of navel gazing or worse (learning something new).

Igor... Bush made it clear to the finance community he really intended on going forward with his disasterous tax cut package within the first 40 days he was in office. The finance community reacted to that bad news with measures to insulate itself as best as it could from the damage the Bush tax cuts package would cause to the economy, and the Bush recession ensued. It's very reasonable to those who understand how finance works.

Maybe it's "The Blogosphere Doesn't Take to Flaming Red Oregonians." Or Red flame jobs in any state.

"Traditionalists" is what people opposed to civil right legislation in the Deep South in the 60's called themselves. "Traditionalists" are what the people who beat the snot out of black guys dating white women called themselves.

Jon, remember you are the one who had all the political terminology in the dictionary to pick from and decided to pick that particular term, not me.

Ah, now Im a racist. Wow. Fine, call me whatever you want. Im just trying to find a place to discuss issues that are not the typical talking points of the two major parties. This obviously isnt the place to look.

Jon: No... You called yourself a racist. You are the one who decided to call yourself a "traditionalist." I just pointed out the history behind those who choose to use that term in the past, and pointed out that, on the surface, your use of the now term seemed reasonable.

typo - swapped words; should read: "use of the term now seemed reasonable."

Only three posts left to triple digits.

Anybody want to go trolling for former City of Spokane interns tonight?

How many neo-cons does it take to change a light bulb? None: they just put on their night vision goggles and wait for the approaching liberal hordes.

Why do you people think I moved to Washington, because everyone in Oregon is so tolerant? Get a clue and escape while you can

I also can't believe all of you who continue to live in Oregon when you can move across the river and enjoy the commute into Portland each day

C Burr I totally agree with you that he has the right to express is feeling, that is what our country built on and it should not change. The issue I had w/lars through the campaign was that lars gave in the impression that he had a dog in the fight with all of the issues (If I may steal on of his phrases). Lars went on and on about what we need to vote on and why us Oregonian have to vote a certain way. I emailed him a question about one of the ballot measures; at the end of my email I asked him how he was going to vote. He had the audacity to tell me on how he planned on voting. There is not a day that goes by he doesn’t lie or snuggle right up to the line where the truth blurs. He does this to give the impression that he still lives here but more than that it is to gain sponsorship to pad is pocketbook. Wait until next midterm elections; you’ll need a bigger pair of waders than what’s needed. Those evil “phone” threats, while he was living in a gated community.