Interesting question re: Bergdahl exchange...

So, I was listening to Stephaine Miller this morning and a RWer got through on the phone. This guy insisted that the 5 Taliban folks who were traded in the exchange should not have been, and his logic seemed to be that since this wasn't a "war" because Congress didn't declare war, that they were not "prisoners of war" and weren't eligible for exchange because of that.

So, my question is: If those guys weren't POWs because we 'weren't at war,' doesn't that mean that Bergdahl also wasn't a POW?

I know they're trying to paint him as a traitor and/or deserter now, but hey, they seem to try to bend the argument in any way they want, to justify their hypocrisy.

Interesting thought experiment...

I think, though, that if this kind of separatism was allowed, the country would have splintered long ago. There is something to be said about forcing people to live with others that differ from them in social and political ways.

Here in the real state of Washington, we have our own "separatist" movement that isn't very strong, TBH. Western Washington is where the bulk of the population is concentrated, aligning with three of the largest cities, Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett, along with the capitol, Olympia. Eastern Washington, and large parts of South West Washington are largely "red" areas that vote Republican and follow the 'conservative values' crowd. There are always murmurs about the balance of power and partition, but nothing really meaningful has come of it. The same could be said of the California situation, I think, though the fact that they actually got a motion on the ballot in a few counties says that it could be bubbling into something.

The fact remains that forming a new state is almost impossible per the US Constitution, as it requires the agreement of the State and the Congress. The one time a state was partitioned, the state government at the time was a bit 'indisposed' as it were, being in active secessionist rebellion. IIRC there was a lawsuit after the fact, but it failed.

On burning fossil fuels...

If you really think about it, 'modern' use of fossil fuels is really just the same old thing people have been doing for thousands of years, burning something to release the chemical energy it contains, while releasing all manner of toxic fumes and pollutants. From that perspective, we haven't improved much from when the first cave men ran over and grabbed the burning shards of a tree struck by lightning.

The technology of how we do the burning has changed, and the choice of fuels has changed, but really it's the same old shit. Most of the 'improvements' have been more for economic reasons, and thus have usually been the simplest and least expensive of changes, not the most efficient and certainly not the most creative.

We need to get on renewables, and quickly. Frankly, there is technology out there that would do most of that, but we don't for 'economic' reasons, which is to say, that the large powerful interests in fossil fuels won't let us do anything on a meaningful basis.

http://sutz12.blogspot.com/

I sometimes wonder if some of these initiatives are false flag efforts...

Proposing a min-wage that is too high will not pass muster any more than too low. People are not that stupid, and most recognize that there are limits to what can be done in a practical sense. This was one of those IMHO.

It's why I don't necessarily support the national movement to $15 dollars that has been in the news lately. I do support the $10 movement in Congress, and would like to see it as high as $12 within 5 years, but $15 is a bit much. Local efforts based on local conditions, I can see higher numbers being reasonable, but not nationally.

Initiatives like this can have a chilling effect when they fail. It's hard to get another more reasonable suggestion on the ballot once that occurs. It's like health care, where it seems we couldn't get anything even proposed more than once in a generation.

A simplified, but accurate description IMHO...

A corollary I've played with is the human body.

If you think of a society or a nation as a human body, then the economy, being the circulation and distribution of goods and services, is the circulatory system and money is the blood.

In times of stress, the body naturally directs and re-directs blood flow to compensate. Generally that means that vital organs are supplied at the expense of the extremities. Our current economic system is like having a one-way tourniquet on one area of the body, which gets bloated and oversupplied with blood and nutrients, while the rest of the organism slowly deteriorates and rots away.

It boils down to the basic idea of what an economy is and what it is supposed to "do." To the wealthy, the economy is their source of wealth and power. To the poor, it is a matter of survival.

The support of the Founding Fathers for true democracy...

is largely overstated in most history books. The American Revolution, like most revolutions, was initiated and operated by what we would consider to be the middle class these days. That's one reason the Constitution is set up like it is, to suppress the power of the democratic masses and prevent them, in their eyes, from voting themselves "rich."

I'm sure many of the FF would be appalled at the looming corporate power extant today. After all, they were quite cognizant that what they were really fighting, beyond the British Crown, was the East India Company, a model for the modern multi-national corporation subverting national government for their own profits. For many, it was a selfish decision. After all, the laws that triggered the Revolution were largely of the economic sanction types that boosted EIC profits and made life much harder for the local merchants, in effect stifling their avenues to more profits.

With the possible exception of Jefferson and Madison-who certainly had their differences-the idea of increasing or widening democracy was anathema to most of the FF. If you look at it closely, the Constitution is really just a stronger version of the Articles of Confederation, and was opposed by many of the same folks that would oppose it today. For all its beauty of composition, it is incredibly weak in many areas.

The use of racism and divide and conquer are SOP for governments, religious orders, hell for your Homeowners Association. Any entity interested in wresting and maintaining control over others' actions will be at least tempted to go there. Humans are naturally tribal in nature. We cooperate with our tribe and resist the other. The first order of business is to define what separates "us" from "them." Skin color is easy. Religious differences can be more difficult to point out, but it's still effective. The best defense, and their worst nightmare, is getting people to realize that "they" are more or less just like "us."

OK, MIPS and vibes request...

I didn't share at the time, but I was laid off and have been back looking for work the few weeks (since end of Feb to be exact).

I've been back with the agency doing a day or so a week, sometimes less, since then. I'm about to go homeless, but I got a call from the agency today with a possibility of something that would last 3 months. Fired off an updated resume and starting hoping again. It's been a bit of a depressing period. Hopefully, I can get this going fast enough and my landlady will be patient enough for things to come together.

C'mon economy.

Just a thought about the minimum wage discussion...

So, it comes to mind that the RWers like to attack the poor and unemployed and blame them for their own fate, so to speak, because they're not ambitious enough or unwilling to work.

Wouldn't raising the minimum wage be an incentive for all those "lazy bums" to get out there and find a job?

I'm waiting for the "but still...." argument...

Forgive me, but I may have made a couple of RWNJs think tonight. The worst one was ranting on about "Obama this,that and the other" and not making any sense and threw in the obligatory "BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!," so I made a suggestion. Then I walked away, because I refuse to sit there and be yelled at by a drunk RWNJ. No point in that.

My suggestion? Simply Google "Embassy Attacks" over the last 20 years. He tried to yell some more, and even offered to make a bet that nobody had been killed in embassy attacks pre-Benghazi or some such. I declined to bet.

So, a little later, the 'reasonable' one asked me for some help with search parameters and I was happy to oblige. I even printed out one of the graphics posted here about Emabassy and Consulate attacks under Bush and gave it to her. I emphasized she should fact check it, because, yes, it is from a LW site and all.

Loudmouth had some printout, too, but I didn't look at it. He claimed something about it being from an "official" source. Hopefully, I coerced him into looking at a source other than FAUX. They like to sit around listening to that drivel all day. I do my best to keep that on ignore, but it's kind of hard. We're all kind of old and I think they may have hearing problems, because they play it kind of loud.

Any way, maybe I struck a blow for some real info getting across to them. IDK, though. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Your Super Bowl XLVIII Champions!