Rowhouse Logic - Breathtaking Inanity

For reasons yet to be determined, 50 Senate Republicans, including everybody’s favorite dog lover Rick Santorum, voted against this Sense of the Senate Amendment:

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.

I wonder if anybody is thinking about gearing up a few campaign commercials about how Senator X voted for deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt? I wonder if they were nice enough to giftwrap their votes?

Via Kos

I just recently found out that I can probably get away with putting up a few MP3 files for download without getting sued, just so long as I urge readers to buy the albums from which the tracks are taken. Consider yourself urged. I’ve probably mentioned that my educational background is in music, though I’ve long since given up any serious interest so I won’t embarrass myself with much in the way of theoretical discussion. I’ll just try to point you towards music that is worth listening to and buying. Don’t forget the buying part.

Anyway, I’ve often described listening to Chris Potter live as something akin to a very pleasant form of brain surgery. The depth and complexity of his lines is very nearly without parallel amongst saxophonists of his generation. The first time saw him play was at Ortlieb’s in Northern Liberties sometime in the late nineties and my jaw is still on the floor. Each one of his performances that I’ve witnessed, regardless of whether it is with a pick up band at a bar or with Dave Holland at the Painted Bride, has been absolutely stunning in it’s own right.

Unfortunately, due to my own distaste for the compressed sound of modern saxophone recordings, I haven’t enjoyed Potter’s albums nearly as much as I’ve enjoyed him live. Fortunately for me, and for all of us, Potter recently released a live album entitled Lift: Live at the Village Vanguard. The sound still comes through a speaker, and it has been mixed some, but it comes closer to anything I’ve heard before in capturing Chris Potter as he really sounds.

The track is 7.5 and features Chris Potter on Tenor Saxophone, Kevin Hays on Piano and Fender Rhodes, Scott Colley on Bass and Bill Stewart on Drums. The sound of the Rhodes at the begining of this track is a bit unsettling, but don’t worry it all works out in the end. Enjoy.

Click here to download.

I’m pleased to note that the Webster’s New World College Dictionary is finally giving the infamous wedgie it’s long overdue recognition.

Who knew that until now the word “Wedgie” was not officially recognized as such.

The other words being bestowed a place in our collective reference are Al Qaeda, blog, cargo pants, irritable bowel syndrome, and the ever popular partial-birth abortion.

A good rant is like oxygen…a many splendid thing…

Steve Gilliard:

We use our tools against the GOP and will split them and win. The Bible Thumpers will always be with us, and after a while, people get sick of them. They did in the 20’s and they will now. The GOP has one fucking thing holding them together, power. In 2007, a lot of fiscal conserrvatives are going to find their nominess for president are a high grade of wacko, like Rick Santorum. People who are too crazy to win, but because the Jesus freaks control the GOP street game, they will have to decide what to do. Just like we listened to Jim Carville four years too long, the GOP will curse the name of Karl Rove for letting the Jesus freaks think the GOP is God’s Own Party. Personally, I plan on handing them anvils and watching the fucking bubbles hit the surface.

Via Mithras

John Bolton

This Krugman piece is everywhere this morning:

The push to privatize Social Security will probably fail all the same - but such attempts at accommodation may limit the Democrats’ political gain.

Meanwhile, the party missed a big opportunity to make its case against increasing families’ risk by acquiescing to the credit card industry’s demand for harsher bankruptcy laws.

As it happens, Mr. Lieberman stated clearly what was wrong with the bankruptcy bill: “It failed to close troubling loopholes that protect wealthy debtors, and yet it deals harshly with average Americans facing unforeseen medical expenses or a sudden military deployment,” making it unfair to “working Americans who find themselves in dire financial straits through no fault of their own.” A stand against the bill would have merged populism with patriotism, highlighting Democrats’ differences with Republicans’ vision of America.

But many Democrats chose not to take that stand. And Mr. Lieberman was among them: his vote against the bill was an empty gesture. On the only vote that opponents of the bill had a chance of winning - a motion to cut off further discussion - he sided with the credit card companies. To be fair, so did 13 other Democrats. But none of the others tried to have it both ways.

It isn’t always bad politics to say things that aren’t true and claim to support things you actually oppose: just look at who’s running the country. But Democrats who engage in these tactics right now create big problems for a party that has been given a special chance - maybe its last chance - to remind the country of what Democrats stand for, and why.

Since I’ve been blowing off politics for the last month or three, why not have a stupid contest? Ready? Name the television show that uses these words in its theme song:

My name is Shake-zula, the mic-rula, the old school-a.
You wanna trip I’ll bring it to ya.

Frylock and I’m on top rock you like a cop.
Meatwad you up next with your knock-knock.

Meatwad make the money see.
Meatwad get the honeys she.
Drivin’ in my car.
Livin’ like a star.
Ice on my fingers and my toes and I’m a taurus.

The first person to correctly identify the show gets their choice of one of those snotty beers I sometimes blather about, or a six pack of something less snotty (I’m no beer snob). Exciting right? If you can also Identify who wrote the song, I’ll throw in a second beer (of my choice) or take you to the dive bar (of my choice) for a beer or two (I might let you bum a smoke as well). Email the answer or leave it in comments.*

*Offer only valid if you can make it to me in person to pick up your prize, as I suck at mailing things and mailing beer probably violates some law or another.

I’d be interested to see if the results of a scientific poll would bear out this assessment:

What I’m talking about is my sense that there are large numbers of people who would consider someone who chose to raise their kids in an urban environment to be, well, out of their minds.

My own feeling is that this is probably just about right, and that the sentiment really goes well beyond just child rearing. When my wife and I got married she moved from Wynnewood (a nearby Philadelphia suburb) to join me in Washington Square West (or whatever the hell they’re calling it this week). Needless to say, most of her friends, coworkers, and family acted as though she had just announced her intention to stock up on firearms, and canned goods, and join a space alien obsessed doomsday cult. The idea that she would leave safe, quiet suburbia for what, in reality, is a safe, quiet (except for the medevac helicopters) street in the city stuck them as utterly insane. Could a tree lined street with red brick gutters really be all that bad? Taxes and Traffic and Crime — oh, my! Those are, in my experience, the three big reasons that people use when they argue that you ought to move to Collingswood or Valley Forge or Landsdale or wherever. I assume that this phenomenon is more acute in Philadelphia than it is in most other large metropolitan areas, if only because Philadelphia’s image and sense of self worth (can a city have that?) is not really altogether good. In the long run, the endless blank stares and mildly hostile questions wound up being a god-sent in that she was so pissed at having her judgement questioned repeatedly, that she overcame her own misgivings about the move faster than she otherwise would have.

Now, if I was to have a kid, schools would…On Second thought - bad Idea.. Sometimes my Mom reads this blog and I really don’t want to encourage any undue encouragement. Backing away slowly. Very slowly. Shhh.

Will Bunch has some words for Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Page Editor, Chris Satullo:

…The real trouble with modern newspaper journalism, which gets nary a mention from Satullo, is the intellectual laziness that’s been promoted by the on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand approach that’s known by the loftier — albeit phony — name of “objectivity.”

The most glaring failure of “objectivity,” or course, was the run-up to the war in Iraq. Lazy journalists went to a handful of the usual sources for their “on-the-other-hand” for the Bush build-up to war, only to find that congressional Democrats and most liberal pundits had been cowed into an intellectual stupor by 9/11.

The voices against the war, including those who questioned whether Iraq posed any type of imminent threat to the United States, somehow lacked the gravitas — in the minds of most mainstream journalists — to give them equal weight or to, heaven forbid, investigate their point of view. The shoddy journalism that emerged during this period not only lacked the actual facts but it also lacked a soul — and yet today’s befuddled journalists wonder why they have no emotional connection with their readers, or former readers.

That, Chris Satullo, is what readers really care about, and the reason why 45 percent of people no longer will believe what they read. It’s not because you picked up the check when some “senior administration official” lied to you over a New York strip steak at the Palm.

Lately I’ve been somewhat pre-occupied by the subject of love relationships, what makes them work, why they fail, or when I’m feeling particularly pessimistic, are they even possible? Having just extricated myself from a long and not entirely happy relationship and then falling quickly into a wonderfully exhilarating, very intense, yet short-lived affair, I’m convinced that I may be clueless on the whole topic.

Yesterday, I had lunch with my ex-boyfriend. He loves my dog; in fact, I’ve become more and more certain over the years that he loves my dog more than he ever loved me. So, I took doggie over to see him. I knew talking about our breakup was inevitable, but that was fine with me. My thoughts are very clear where this former relationship is concerned. We were a bad match and always will be. If I’m looking at our history honestly, when I first looked at his website, he really appealed to me. Our musical tastes were similar, we both had an abiding love of Rocky Horror (not everyone can say that), we’re both animal lovers, and we had a little village called Pulaski NY in common. On that fateful day at the end of February 2000, I signed his guestbook and the rest is history.

The reality of this guy turned out to be somewhat less appealing. He was 36 years old, living with his parents, and had a very spotty work history. When we met, he was receiving disability payments from a work loss provision of a car insurance policy. Strangely enough, at the time, I worked for a company that tried to manage disability expenses for insurance companies. He enjoyed filing the not so occasional lawsuit for not such quick money. He also used a handicapped placard and had any number of people, not including me, convinced that he needed it. I bitched at him constantly about his lack of ethics, but for motives defying an explanation, we both stuck around.

Call me crazy, but I do believe that we sometimes meet people for a reason. Maybe we were fulfilling some needs within each other that needed to be met. Looking back, I’d been in a lonely, depressed space for a while. He’d been on a path of less and less positive behavior. His companionship, at least for a while, pulled me out of my funk and my influence probably gave him a few kicks in the ass that were desperately needed to get his life back on track. Yes, I confess, I persisted with the relationship long after I knew it should be over. I’d been laid off from my job; I was going to school to embark on a new career path and dealing with a stagnant relationship was the last thing I wanted to do. Once I was settled into my new job and felt comfortable with my life, I knew that relationship needed to end.

At least the next relationship was completely different than its predecessor. Compatibility, at least in my opinion, was never a problem. I think the problems resulted from speed and intensity more than any other factors. I’d been in a very familiar space with my ex and I easily fell quickly and comfortably into the same patterns with the new relationship. In my head, I knew I was dealing with a completely different man, but somehow that didn’t translate into the formality that maybe should have accompanied such a fledgling interaction.

I just don’t think I can handle making the same mistakes again. Often I look at married friends and wonder if I can ever have that love and companionship. Relationships aren’t easy; they take constant work and evaluation to keep them alive and growing. Finding a great connection (sexual and emotional) is difficult enough, then you need to find out if you have anything else in common, and then to further complicate matters, you need to know that you’re willing to stick with each other for the long haul.

How many times in one person’s lifetime can all of those conditions bet met? I think it’s quite possible that finding an honest general contractor, which in my opinion is no easy task, may be easier than finding and sustaining a love relationship. That, my friends, is sad.

I’ve been anxiously awaiting the opening of the long “in construction” restaurant, “Porky and Porkie” at 11th and Washington in Bella Vista. (OK, so it’s really a couple of doors below the southern border of Bella Vista, but you’re not going to argue that point, are you?)

While walking my dog this evening, I noticed a string of those colorful, little plastic flags, that usually signify grand opening, outside the restaurant. Being quite the investigative girl, I directed Zack across Washington Avenue and to the front of the restaurant, which turned out to be cheerily lit and full of diners. Woo Hoo - Score! I chatted briefly with someone coming out for fresh air and found that today is the first day of the grand opening.

Anyone familiar with this neighborhood knows that this space was being developed around the same time as Cafe de Laos, which has been open for almost a year. The bright pink Porky and Porkie sign has been up, making my mouth water for Korean barbecue for over a year. I don’t mean to disparage the current barbeque choice, the delightful “International Smokeless Barbeque Restaurant” over at the strip mall at 6th and Washington, but it doesn’t really seem to be authentic Korean barbeque. I’ll report back after I’ve had a chance to eat at Porky and Porkie, but up to this point, I’ve found the most authentic Korean barbeque experience at Kim’s aka BBQ House on N. 5th Street in Olney.

I’ll let you know once I’ve had a chance to check out the food!

Grr, I’m really beginning to hate this crap. Let me ask you, when are we going to stop hiring those people who’ve been poisoning their livers and the ones eating the high fat foods? Look, I’m not saying we should, in fact, I think we’re going down a tremendously scary path. OK, so who’s it going to be next? I don’t live a high stress lifestyle and I don’t have any problems with high blood pressure. So, I don’t want my company hiring people who live high stress lifestyles because they might affect the medical premiums I pay. When I heard about the company in Michigan that was firing smokers, I was similarly irritated. This shit just should not be happening in a country that prides itself on freedom.

If you are interested, the Raw Story has a fairly extensive story on Chuck Pennacchio’s Senate candidacy, as well as the recent snubs by The Pennsylvania State Democratic Party, and the AP. It’s still way too early in the game for me to decide on one candidate or the other. I can only hope that there are still at least two candidates on Election Day.

I’m not entirely certain what inspired the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to conduct an ESPN.com Page 2 style poll to choose the “Sexiest Vegetarian Alive”. I’m not entirely sure what to make of it but, really, who am I to complain? I should note that sometimes I feel as though the world and I are separated by a thick layer of Elmer’s Glue, aquarium glass, moderate personality disorders, and strong drink. That, however, is a story for another day.

All that said, I’m pleased to announce that Philadelphia resident Marni Sclaroff has been chosen as one of 20 finalists to be PETA’s next “Sexiest Vegetarian Alive”. Be sure to show some local pride, assuming you’re local, and give her a vote or, in true Philadelphia fashion, two. If you would like more information before casting your crucial vote, the Daily News has a nice write up and photo essay on the - uh - “veggie vixen”, as well as some of her favorite recipes.

Did I mention that bit about the glue and the strong drink?

I don’t usually put up random links to random sites I think are cool, but 10×10 is worth an exception. The site provides a graphic portrait of the 100 most used words appearing on the RSS feeds of Reuters World News, BBC World Edition, and the New York Times. Each word is represented by a small picture and the overall picture generated is updated hourly, without human intervention.

How many things have we been told are really good for us and turned out to be not so good (milk, I’m talking about you) or things that are supposed to be really bad, but turned out to be pretty good for you (bacon & eggs, Hello Atkins Diet people!!). Personally, I’m just waiting for the day we get warned of the dangers of soy protein. That should be fun and trust me, I’ll laugh my ass off. As far as second hand smoke goes, yes, I believe it is somewhat of a public health hazard, but probably no more than the chemicals, additives, and hormones that are put in our food and I bet will someday be linked to the incredible incidence of all kinds of cancer in our society. Cigarettes and big tobacco turned out to be a really easy target. I’ve always thought it interesting that our society is so enthusiastic to crack down on one vice, but not really deal with, in a meaningful way, the even more devastating ones like alcohol. (True, if I’m sitting next to someone who is having a beer, that doesn’t affect me, but if they get into a car, or if they get into a drunken brawl, or if they’re my parent and they beat the crap out of me, those circumstances may well affect me in significant ways). And of course, I’m waiting for the day that the government goes after the fat people. They already talk about taxing high fat foods, they call obesity a major public health issue. Hey, fat people already get abused by others, the last thing we need is for the assholes in the government to sanction the abuse.

Chris, I guess my point is that you shouldn’t feel bad about your opinion on the smoking ban. I don’t think considering yourself a liberal precludes independent thought, which you seem to be having. The anti-smoking crusade has been and in my opinion, still is, a massive witchhunt. And particulary to the liberal politicians, it’s a no-brainer. What person in their right mind is going to have a problem saving the children from the body-abusing adults in their society? Well, I think it’s a bunch of bullshit and I’m not really afraid to say so.

It’s difficult to think rationally about an addiction you’ve had since you were twelve years old, so I’m not altogether surprised that my reaction to the news that Philadelphia City Council’s Committee on Public Health and Human Services passed a smoking ban for restaurants and bars is a mixture of fear and horror. What the hell am I supposed to do if this thing passes the whole Council? What then? Lots of takeout six packs, and long nights on my roof I fear. What, after all, is a drink without a smoke?

I know that in light of the potential public health benefits that I, as a good liberal, should be all for this thing, but I can’t help but to be selfish and hope for another few years in which to do further damage to my body with both drink and smoke. Not that I want to ruin anybody else’s health, which is of course the point. Really I don’t. It’s just hard to think rationally is all.

Democratic candidate for the United States Senate from Pennsylvania, Chuck Pennacchio, wrote some interesting comments about the 2006 race in a diary on MyDD. While I have to admit that I’m not so certain about the pro-choice Republcian ticket jumpers Pennacchio describes, I think many of his points are on target. Here’s a little, but it’s well worth reading the whole thing.

In 2000, the Democrats settled on moderate, anti-choice Ron Klink as their candidate to take on Santorum. This aligned very well with the (still-prevailing) conventional wisdom that the Democrats had to move to the center to win a statewide race in Pennsylvania. Ron Klink had slight success at gaining moderate voters in Central PA; however, this was more than offset by the large number of pro-choice voters who did not cast a vote (over half a million more votes were cast in the presidential election than in the Senatorial election), and just as importantly, did not involve themselves in the Klink campaign. Pro-choice women, a major organizational and financial cog of the Democratic party, sat out the race, and the Democrats allowed a radical right-winger to represent them in Washington.

In 2000, a progressive, populist, pro-choice campaign would likely have defeated Rick Santorum. In 2006, it is the only option to defeat Rick Santorum. Unlike 2000, when the presidential election brought voters to the polls (and some pro-choice Democratic voters “held their noses” and voted for Klink), the 2006 Senate race will be the center of attention. Governor Rendell appears ready to coast to victory, and a sizable bloc of Rendell’s support comes from pro-choice Republicans. These are voters who, if given a pro-choice option, would vote against Rick Santorum. They will not jump party lines to support an anti-choice Democrat.

The thing that strikes me most Pennacchio’s post, is his observation that the conventional wisdom within Pennsylvania’s Democratic establishment, is that it needs to run a moderate or conservative Democrat (I’d probably add non-Philadelphian as well), in order pick up Rick Santorum’s seat. What many liberal voters are left with, under those circumstances, is the old, unfortunate choice between the lesser of two evils. I think that, unfortunately, Pennacchio is correct in his supposition that a healthy number of liberal Democrats, particularly from the Philadelphia area, will turn out to pull the lever for Rendell, and then not bother with the rest of the ballot, if a social conservative is the Democratic nominee for Senate. If Rendell is far enough ahead in the polls come election day, they probably won’t turn out at all.

I’m not, however, ready to say that I’m unwilling to support or vote for Casey, as he isn’t the nominee and, to my knowledge, hasn’t produced a single policy paper or stated a single position with regards to the upcoming race. I’ll wait until he has, and then make my judgments based those positions. I’m not altogether hopeful.

To his credit, Casey was remarkably successful in his run for the office of Pennsylvania Auditor General, collecting more votes than any other Democratic, statewide candidate in the history of the Commonwealth. No wonder the Pennsylvania Democratic leadership is salivating over the guy. Combine that with the Casey family name, which still resonates with many Pennsylvania voters, particularly in the Scranton area, and he looks like a shoe in.

Unfortunately for Casey, voters do tend to evaluate candidates and issues differently in local and state elections than they do in federal elections. A candidate’s stance on abortion rights, for instance, has very little bearing on the way a person chooses their commonwealth’s Auditor General. That very same issue often does have a great deal of influence on the way that very same person chooses the candidate they want as their U.S. Senator.

Klink’s run against Santorum in 2000 really ought to have been a lesson to Pennsylvania Democrats. A Democratic candidate for Senate is not going to win anything without enthusiastic turnout in Philadelphia and it’s Pennsylvania suburbs. The numbers simply don’t add up otherwise. Needless to say, Klink’s peculiar choice not to run any sort of campaign in Philadelphia probably wasn’t the best choice he ever made. Live and learn. If I recall correctly, I believe I actually did see him once, at a rally for Al Gore at Memorial Hall in Fairmount Park, standing somewhere behind John Street and any number of other local politicians, on the Sunday before the election. Gore was even nice enough to introduce him, and some people may have even applauded, as it probably seemed like the polite thing to do.

What a disaster. Really, what an awful disaster. Santorum is so far outside of even the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s mainstream, that he should have been toast five years ago. He should be working for some right-wing think tank in his native Virginia, spouting off his special brand of insanity on cable chat shows, and scaring the general public, but as a private citizen right now. The Democratic party, and it’s nominee, had to do everything wrong, and then some, in order to lose that race, and somehow they managed to do it. They did it and they did it with gusto. He should be toast next year as well, but judging from the Democratic Party’s enthusiasm for an uncontested primary, I’m afraid the die has been cast.

Since he’s only been dead for a litte while, I’ll end this mess with a Hunter S. Thompson quote that seems quite appropriate to me right now.

How many more of these goddam elections are we going to have to write off as lame but ‘regrettably necessary’ holding actions? And how many more of these stinking double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils? I understand, along with a lot of other people, that the big thing, this year, is Beating Nixon. But that was also the big thing, as I recall, twelve years ago in 1960 - and as far as I can tell, we’ve gone from bad to worse to rotten since then, and the outlook is for more of the same.

Yes indeed, I am! Not that I like the idea, but I posted “Bob Casey for U.S. Senator in PA?” on a Yahoo group to which I belong (see previous post on this blog) and boy, howdy, you would have thought I was committing treason.

Maybe I was.

One of the first comments out of the box was “Most. Moronic. Statement. Ever.”

Goodness, gracious.

This person also went on to talk about how bob Casey was a friend of labor — which may be true. And hey, that’s cool.

For real, for real, people, what other folks do in the voting booth is their business. What I do in the voting booth is my business. I never said “Don’t vote Casey.” I simply said “I won’t vote Casey.” Huge difference.

It appears, however, that saying this is just unacceptable. I suppose that if I said “I disagree with the President’s Social Security plan” that would have been okay, or “I refuse to vote for a Republican” that would have been fine, but “I will not vote Casey” will get you tarred and feathered.

The person who called me a moron was not the only one to express extreme displeasure in what I would characterize to be highly personal terms.

So — I posted again, and pointed out their lack of tolerance (not that I expected to change any minds.) I also let them know that additional personal remarks directed my way would result in $1.00 donations to Rick Santorum’s re-election campaign.

I got this back from the person who called me a moron:

“Get ready to donate big bucks to Santorum, A**H*LE! You have the fucking unmitigated gall to talk about “tolerance” after you send an e-mail stating that you don’t care if Santorum wins by one vote? And that one vote was yours? Moron, idiot, naive and stupid are, quite frankly, adjectives that only the “tolerant” would apply. Call me intolerant, I don’t give a sh*t.”

$1.00 for Rick Santorum.

John Emerson:

I really dread the next four years. I expect the worst from Bush — specifically, war fever plus McCarthyism. There have been a number of positive changes in the Democratic party, but Democrats as a group still don’t seem prepared for what’s going to happen, and it may be too little, too late.

…

The whole “reality-based” slogan is utter crap. Democrats deal with the world as it is, and Republicans deal with the world as it can be made to be. That’s why the Democrats are always blindsided, and why the Republicans always win. The Democrats are yesterday, and the Republicans are tomorrow. “The point is not to understand the world, but to change it”.

And for those who don’t understand it yet, “character” means, among other things, macho. The can-do hands-on do-what-you-gotta-do thing. The academic habit of discussing everything to death is not what you’re looking for in the man in charge. (Macho — Margaret Thatcher had it, Indira Gandhi had it, Golda Meir had it. It’s not just a guy thing.)

The United States has been taken over by a cult — the hardcore 30% who think that nuclear war is a fun idea, that France is an enemy nation, that the Confederacy was perfectly wonderful, that Armageddon is coming soon and is something to pray for, and that the federal government should be starved to death. They’re the bad guys, but the ones who you really have to blame are the ones who don’t bother and don’t care: the cynics, the apathetic, the non-voters, the game-players, the media careerists, and the self-described “moderates”. By the time those guys get the idea, it will probably be too late.

The American people have spoken, and sometimes you end up feeling that the problem is really them.

I already made something of a fool of myself with a sad, drunken ramble about John Emerson’s farewell (maybe) post from Seeing The Forest over in the Liberal Avenger’s comments, so I’ll limit my remarks.

John really strikes a chord for me with much of what he says. I’ve had the sinking feeling, for some time, that liberals, in all too many ways, are the New Conservatives. We spend nearly all of our time playing defense, and not nearly enough time pushing the bar higher. We watch, like helpless infants, as the initiative to create change, in all the very worst ways, is taken by Movement Conservatives while we, and our leaders, propose little and expect even less. Too many of us seem content to simply try to preserve, in some small measure, the progress made by our forebears. For the sake of our nation, this must change.

I won’t go on, as John really nails that feeling in a way I could only hope to. Go read the whole thing.

[Ed Note: I know I really shouldn’t use ‘we’. Sorry.]