Assume we have a can-opener...

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:30


When I was an undergrad math TA, most of the students I dealt with were economics majors, so naturally I was at this node where a lot of economist jokes flowed through.  (The mathematician jokes were better, but I digress.)  There was only one that really stuck with me, though:
    A Physicist, a Chemist and an Economist were shipwrecked on an island together. They were delighted to find that crate of canned goods had washed ashore not far from where they dragged themselves out of the water, but as luck would have it, none of them had a Swiss Army knife, or any other implement to open the cans with. And so they set out to explore the island, to see what other provisions they might find, or what they might use to open the cans with, agreeing to return after four hours.

    Upon their return, the Physicist spoke first. "I found a very fortuitous rock formation, and I've made extensive calculations. We can easily construct a catapult and smash the cans against these particular rocks at just the right angle to split them open with a 50% success rate."

    The Chemist snorted, "A typical brute force physicist's solution!"

    "Well, what did you find?" The Physicist shot back.

    "I found some rocks as well," the Chemist said. "But mine had lichen on them, and I can extract an acid from them that will eat through the cans quite nicely, with a 75% success rate."

    "Oh my God!" exclaimed the Economist. "I can't believe how crude you two are. You don't just have rocks on your mind, you're got rocks in your brains. My solution is far more elegant, and civilized. What's more, it has a 100% success rate."

    "Well, then," said the Physicist, barely containing his anger, "What's your solution?"

    "Yes, spill the beans," the Chemist cracked.

    "Well," said the Economist, drawing himself up as if he were about to launch into a lecture, "First, let's assume we have a can-opener..."

I've been thinking about that joke more and more of late, particularly when I hear a certain criticisms, the spirit of which I completely agree with, and yet...

Well, let me give you an example:

Paul Rosenberg :: Assume we have a can-opener...
There is a lot that liberals generally don't understand about negotiation

But, in brief, the biggest mistakes made during the process:

1.  Not starting negotiations aggressively.  Indeed, starting negotiations where you expect to end up (i.e. a robust public option), rather than where you want to be or where the other side is afraid you might go (i.e. single-payer).

2.  Negotiating against themselves.  If you make a concession, get one in return.  Do not follow a concession with a concession.

3. Making concessions early.  I'm not going to kill the progressive caucus for crossing their line in the sand.  I kill them because they did it literally months too early.  Now is the time to say: "Okay, okay, to reconcile with the Senate we will agree that the public option will not immediately be available to
100% of Americans."

4. Being unwilling to walk away from the table.

5. Focusing exclusively on what liberals risked by failing to negotiate an agreement and failing to understand what the other side risked.  Liberals focused almost exclusively on all the bad things that would happen to them if a deal fell through.  They failed to appreciate the bad things that would happen to the GOP (if they were forced to filibuster a bad bill), to Blue Dogs (the same), Obama (after promising to pass HCR and failing) and the insurance companies (who risked single-payer in the not-too-distant future if this much more favorable legislation did not pass)

6. Taking the other side's threats and statements at face value.

That comment by space in Chris's Thursday diary, "On the Progressive Cave", is true in all its particulars.  There's only one problem: It assumes we have a can-opener.  It assumes the existence of a unified group (call them "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever) that has a more or less common set of goals all worked out beforehand, and the capacity to function as an organized group, more or less independent of outside influences.

But nothing could be further from the truth.  Liberals/progressives have been fighting a ferocious oppositional battle in several stages ever since 1994, but in particular since 9/11.  As if (a) the various different strains of conservatives weren't enough, (b) the media has largely functioned as a conservative echo chamber through most of this period, (c) conservadems have made the attacks consistently bipartisan,  (d) New Democrats have sung the praises of bipartisanship to the skies, and (e) Obama campaigned with more money and hype than God, selling himself as a magical "progressive" who actually is willing to work in a bipartisan fashion, while (f) cutting off virtually all independent progressive messaging, (g) leaving virtually all progressives with no place to stand, but cheering Obama from the sidelines, with fingers crossed.

So, where exactly are we supposed to get that can-opener from?

Don't get me wrong.  I agree in principle with everything that space said.

I just think it's putting the cart before the horse.

Or the can of worms before the imaginary can-opener.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Assume we have a can-opener... | 73 comments
I made assumptions (4.00 / 4)
1. That Obama was not a neoliberal
2. That regardless of his conservative political record, he meant exactly what he said during the campaign about ending the war, closing Gitmo, fixing healthcare, helping the middle class, etc.
3. That Rahm Emmanuel, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner (for starters) were not representative of Obama's plans for K Street and Wall Street

In other words, I too was assuming a can opener.

I Assumed He Had Neoliberal Tendencies (4.00 / 4)
but he talked about pragmatism so damned much, that I thought reality its own damned self would keep pushing him to the left--even before the greatest financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

I can only console myself by reflecting that others weren't just assuming a can opener.  They were assuming a whole damn Swiss Army Knife.

With a built-in smartphone, too.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Excellent point (4.00 / 4)
We have been having discussions about how we use policy to achieve our goals, and we need to start talking about how we can use policy (and other means) to create a "we" and an "our."

I have been terribly concerned that comprehensive immigration reform will go down like health care reform - but given the  more aggressive, confrontation approach, the grassroots means, and the connections that they are making to core progressive values, I have some hope that this process will help us become what we need to be.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

I Hope You're Right (4.00 / 1)
though we've paid far too little attention to it here at Open Left, and throughout the blogosphere more generally, I'm afraid.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
What is that idea (4.00 / 5)
about everything containing the seeds of its own destruction?

I can't see the HCR bill as anything other than a victory for our corporate masters, and a defeat for us. But it's possible even this defeat contains the seed of the next thing, that this is the place where we start learning to build a can opener.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
An Indication (4.00 / 3)
of what's good about the bill (note: "about", as opposed to "in") is Obama's return to campaign-style rhetoric and his abandonment of wonkery and bipartisan pablum.

Of course it's hypocritical and insincere.  But good causes almost never succeed without first gaining support that's hypocritical and insincere.

This is where the fact that Rahm's minimalist retreat was not taken becomes crucial.  Obama's been left with no option but to press ahead in ways that he'd really rather not.  And having done it once, he can never go all the way back, however much he deeply wants to.

The dynamics are changing, however much too slowly, too shallowly.  And that means there is something new to work with.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I like to think so, too. (4.00 / 9)
The way I look at it is, the Democrats need to give up trying to compete with the Republicans as the party that serves the oligarchy.

They just aren't as good at it, for one thing, because the Republicans can do it with zero cognitive dissonance -- it's who they are. The Democrats can do it, but only in very messy, awkward ways (witness the HCR effort) that end up just embarrassing everyone involved. They will deliver the payday in the end but my god, the drama they had to go through to get it done!

Therefore the more we can do to alienate the Democrats from the oligarchy (by not shutting our pieholes about the public option, for instance), the better. The more we embarrass them, don't go away, keep making demands, the easier it becomes for the oligarchy to just say, "You know what? We're just going to stick with our old Party, thank you very much."

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
And, we're still at "g" without a visible means of moving off the sidelines (4.00 / 6)
At least, presumably, for the next ~3 years, we are right where Obama wants us.  Never having engaged in wrestling tournaments, I'm unfamiliar with the maneuvers, holds and pins, or the strategies for eluding them - so, as much as I sense a good metaphor could be had from that sport, I can't reach for, or articulate one.  The metaphors I could reach for from those games that cover more ground, like basketball, don't seem to fit as well.  I think there's a message in that if I want to mull on it.

We have to make some assumptions to function in the world.  And, we can test those assumptions, revising as we go.  When the floor seems to drop out because an assumption of its strength was wrong we organize around a new assumption.  But, for the life of me, I never would have imagined that Democrats - conservadems, or not - would bargain away  women's reproductive rights, as it appears they are going to.

It's not just that we fail to have the existence of a unified group, we don't have bedrock anywhere in our principles.  And, without principles around which to organize, where would the unification come from?

additional thoughts (4.00 / 3)
It's hard not to lay this at Obama's feet.  
for the next ~3 years, we are right where Obama wants us

This post really is about who we aren't as opposed to what Obama is, but that's where I keep gravitating.  As Chris in DC summarizes,

In the end, it's striking just how faithfully the final proposals have adhered to the overall priorities and core philosophy of President Obama's starting points of reference.

To try and move off Obama's mark, the question, I guess, is to what extent Obama sought, and got, the support of the Democratic leadership for the deals that got cut before the Town Brawls of last summer even began?  And, why he got it?
[ Parent ]
At the risk of arguing past you (4.00 / 8)
(or agreeing while I pretend to disagree), I think what Space and many of us are responding to is precisely that, our lack of even a weak can opener, a lack that's become painfully apparent these past few months. 30-40 Dems? Hell, Stupak is dominating the debate with a handful. Was it too much to expect-hope that 7 or 8 self-professed single payer advocates might play hardball (even if they lost in the end?) Where's the fight, the principle?

To return to something we discussed earlier this week, what demoralizes me isn't that Congress is poised to pass a crappy health care bill -- neoliberalism happens -- but how it's gone down. Dozens of Congresspeople blithely break the PO pledge that earned many of them money from progressives. Kucinich, the great lefty hope, folds after a plane ride with Pres. Bernie Sanders, Our Man in the Senate, agrees not to introduce a PO in exchange for an empty promise. The Working Parties Families, an ostensible Third Party (that I've supported) is threatening Congresspeople who vote against what is essentially Bob Dole's health care plan. Obama might be soft on the GOP but he's gobbling up the left.

All this against a backdrop of progressive docility-deference in the face of truly dangerous acts -- the war in Afghanistan (complete with an expansion of drone attacks and secret prisons), the Patriot Act, indefinite detention - you know the litany.

This is what Obama has wrought. Here at Openleft we used to discuss whether his rise would help or hurt progressives. I think we have an answer, and it ain't pretty.


Two thoughts I hold lightly. (4.00 / 2)
I loathe conspiracy theories, and would prefer to reject any and all out of hand.  But two, otherwise well grounded people, have suggested things I can't just dismiss out of hand.

One is the notion that the capital markets really need this boost of mandated insurance.  And, the other is Kucinich became convinced that the legitimacy of Obama's presidency was actually on the line.

That's pretty far out there... but, as much as I'd like to toss them over my shoulder and not look back to see where they land, I feel compelled to hold them lightly instead.  I continue to worry that we really don't yet know where "bottom" is.

[ Parent ]
I Think The Second Is A Strong Possibility (4.00 / 2)
The mandates don't kick in soon enough for the first to make sense to me.

BTW, I wouldn't classify these as "conspiracy theories".  They might qualify generically in a broad sense, I suppose, but that broad sense becomes almost meaningless, precisely because it is so broad.  The classic meaning of the term, and the phenomena it refers to are all about grand conspiracies involving a mere handful of all-powerful actors pulling strings in the shadows. The reality of life is always much, much messier than that.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Good point about the mandates. (4.00 / 1)
I wonder, however, given current accounting methods, the evidence of fraud, and the "look forward" mentality in the absence of any real oversight/enforcement mechanisms, whether the "animal spirits" of the casino might not be appeased by the future promise.  As I said, I hold it lightly.
[ Parent ]
Well, I'm Sure They're Eager For Them (4.00 / 1)
But we already knew that, right?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
People conspire (4.00 / 1)
to work together.  like all human endeavors government is conspired into existence.  History is a conspiracy theory,made most obvious here in my home state of Texas.  Political affiliation is a conspiracy. The problem isn't conspiracy theories, it is bad conspiracy theories.
[ Parent ]
Oh, I Agree (4.00 / 5)
That's what space & others are responding to.  But I think this analysis has it backwards.  The reason that progressives haven't united to block the bill isn't as simple as a "lack of principles" explanation.  Progressives actually want to help people.  Stupak couldn't give a shit.  Which gives him an enormous tactical and strategic advantage, just like sociopaths always have.

In short, cohesion can't come from principles alone, because the most fundamental principle that binds the left together is harm reduction.  That's why folks will support a deeply flawed bill--because it will help people, no matter how far short it may fall.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I think that's the crux of why I keep reaching for a wrestling metaphor. (4.00 / 4)
The maneuvering room is so much smaller, and the contact is so much more personal.  Harm reduction in the near term won't admit to more.  We'd have to be willing to inflict harm in the near term to achieve a greater goal in the longer term.  We'd have to be willing to agree that the collateral damage would be worth it.  That's really hard to do.
[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 5)
Principles are vitally important. But they alone aren't enough.  We need a unifying vision that's at least in part a strategic vision that leads to a strategy that can unite us.  It doesn't have to be a simple strategy, it doesn't have to demand conformity, but it does have to enable folks to work together using different approaches toward a relatively unified end.

In short, it all goes back to the notion of hegemony, an over-arching struggle over the meaning of things that's reflected in all the disparate parts, each in their own way.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
There aren't enough of us yet (4.00 / 10)
Enough to call ourselves dissenters, maybe, but not a movement. We're by no means as confused as libertarians about who we are and what we want, but sometimes it seems almost as though we were trying to convince ourselves that we are. We haven't yet closed ranks in anything like a universally visible and coherent way, but we're closer to doing so now than we have been for many years.

Even so, we should remember that there aren't any magic bullets. The labor movement had an awful time, as did the civil rIghts movement, even though both actually were movements. Both had large, engaged memberships which knew the truth of what was being said because they literally had that truth inscribed in their flesh every day of their lives. No matter how afraid as individuals a working person in the North, or a disenfranchised person in the South might have been of the immediate consequences of their activism, they had no choice but to support a movement which offered them any hope at all.

We just aren't there yet. If conditions in the country continue as they are, or as is more likely, get even worse, I've no doubt our ideas and our analysis will gain more traction. Still, it isn't either our ideas, or our actions, nor is it our articulation of them, for that matter, which is lacking. What's lacking is time and numbers. If we're right, those will arrive in due course. In the meantime, the main thing is to avoid both distractions and despair. Eyes on the prize is as good advice today as it ever was.

Thanks William (4.00 / 6)
I waded through my own distractions & despair and it was very hard for me to keep fighting and keep my "eyes on the prize".  I found my cure to be investing in local/community issues that I was able to see a (slightly) more immediate end result.  To my surprise, putting my effort into something more tangible and local put into perspective the bigger fight.  Now I am in a much better place to contribute towards the bigger picture (movement? dissension?).  

For me, focusing a lot of time/energy on a specific issue in my community has given me a motivation and clarity towards fighting for the day when "our ideas and our analysis will gain more traction".  Thank Gaia, because I was getting really cynical and depressed.

[ Parent ]
The hands can often heal (4.00 / 3)
what the mind can't manage alone. It's amazing how often this truth appears in our wisdom literature, from Buddhism to Catholicism to psychoanalysis.

Even so, we only seem to learn such things as individuals, one at a time. Then we read the text, and are amazed to find that we're part of the human community. It's a very deep moment, and I'm always grateful when people share it, as you have here.

[ Parent ]
I've been thinking much the same for some time now. (4.00 / 3)
I wish I had more time to expand on this, but I think you're right on the money and this discussion is much needed within the community right about now, after all the internal damage that's been done in arguments about HCR, etc. This would be a good time to retrench a bit.

Wading through comment threads at places like dKos, it's clear to me the actual number of progressives is much smaller than I had thought a year ago. So Paul's comments vis a vis the Cart and The Horse ring very true for me. We still have a lot of work to do in terms of building constituencies. I'm also increasingly inclined to think a lot more localized work--networked, of course!-- should be done in furtherance of that.

Perhaps the understandable obsession with DC and trying to make change there is misplaced.

Lastly, after several weeks of rather stressful debate over HCR, etc., it was a real pleasure to get up and read such a thoughtful comment thread. We may not be a movement yet, but I do think the word "community" fits well.

Cheers to all.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
Populist left to right (0.00 / 0)
The problem is that the can opener is company owned and progressives are reaching for a can opener to build a house.  There may be trace amounts of health care reform or immigration reform in those cans but both the can opener and the cans are owned by the company.  That is the issue.  We seem to be assuming that the can opener is the only tool and the cans are the best means of sustenance.  

While this may sound like revolution, let me assure you, that word is way too tired to have meaning.  American revolution, French Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Conservative Revolution of 1994.  See, no real meaning.  What is it that we want to accomplish?  Can that change be accomplished through policy alone? Is there a realistic path to the sort of policy change we want to see?

Another tired term, but one I am stuck to use, is paradigm shift.  Such shifts do not come about by changes in policy though they tend to result in significant changes in policy.  I believe that we have the possibility of creating such a paradigm shift but that it will require going against human nature, or at least the nature of Americans in the existing political climate.  

Progressives need to join forces with Tea Baggers.  Populism, a word on the verge of losing meaning, has become the domain of the right.  Despite the amazing amount of money that has been thrown at the far right to brand the tea bag movement in corporate light, there remains a fundamental blue collar, populist distaste for corporate power contained in that movement.  

At the core of the far right movement is a desire to wrest power from both government and corporations.  While progressives continue to hold to the theory of government by the people, we have long since known the fallacies of that theory in America.  Starting with Eisenhower's warnings of the military industrial complex and John Kenneth Galbraith's bureaucratic symbiosis, we have known that as crucial as a separation of church and state is a separation of corporation and state.  

Given our current imperialistic wars and the recent elevation of corporations to the state of personhood, it is difficult not to use the word fascism to describe our country.  I believe that progressives are called to the highest level of cynicism in our government.  How many millions of people around the world are we willing to let die in unjustified invasions of sovereign nations before we commit to real change?  How much corporate controlled reform are we going to let pass before we recognize that they own the halls of congress and therefore policy change can be nothing more than veneer.

The only way that real change is going to come about is through massive popular uprising, which is being held down by corporations intensifying divisions among the populace.  The left could show leadership by welcoming the right to join in on common causes such as tearing down the two party political monopoly to create a breadth of political expression and innovation that would be inclusive of both.  

The left does not have to concede the idea of government to acknowledge that this government is outdated and broken. In that acknowledgment we can gain allies and acquire the necessary tools to build a new house.  

I think you are missing the metaphor. (4.00 / 5)
The "can opener" is a tool, a means to power. Paul is pointing out that the Progressive movement does not have that tool yet.

Joining with the teabaggers is not a solution because the teabaggers do not share our principles. They are anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minorities of all kinds.

If the teabaggers are willing to adopt our principles, they are welcome with open arms, of course. But we can't sacrifice ours and still be who we are.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Aside From That (4.00 / 3)
how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
News Flash! (4.00 / 3)
The populist right Tea Party movement mustered less than a thousand people on their last outing in DC.

The anti-war left is going to massively out-perform that today.

You'd never know that from the M$M, of course.

But it's true.

I suggest you need to cogitate on that, and consider revising accordingly.

It's only by means of the corporate media that the "populist right" appears like the "potential ally" you see.

I see no point in buying into their self-delusion, rather than critiquing it.  Particularly as it already seems to have peaked... at least for now.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Divisions are easy to find (0.00 / 0)
They exist everywhere. For example, I believe that disregarding the whole person because you do not agree with all, or even key components, of their values, is not progressive.  For me progressive is less about being strategic and more about being cooperative.  Fell free to cogitate on that if you like.
[ Parent ]
I'll Cooperate With Racists (4.00 / 2)
when they show interest in repentance.

Cogitate away.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Insteresting that you should say that (0.00 / 0)
It seems that it is this very we/they tendency that leads to racism in the first place.  

You said, "I see no point in buying into their self-delusion, rather than critiquing it."

You have not so much critiqued "them" as you have painted them with a big brush of intolerance.  When it comes to trying to recognize common ground you seem to have them drinking from a different fountain, lest they contaminate your purity.  Though you and I would, no doubt, agree on much of a left critique of the "tea bag" mentality, where we disagree is in that it is acceptable to paint people with such a big brush.  This is Glenn Beck calling Obama a communist.  Point by point I am prepared to argue on side with you about most policy issues likely to out of tea baggers.  I am not, however, willing to write them off as incapable of doing anything worthwhile.  The people of this country must demand checks and balances in the accumulation of power.  There can be common ground on ways to do that.  If we wait for people to become pure, we will never get there and I'm not sure your there is the same as my there.  While you wait for those of us who are cognitively challenged to catch up to you the large corporations will continue to exploit your intolerance to keep populist power from being a check on them.

[ Parent ]
Like I said earlier, (4.00 / 4)
the teabaggers are more than welcome to adopt our principles, and it's not that hard. To wit: women are people, gays are people, religious and ethnic minorities are people.

What's wrong with that position? Why don't the teabaggers join us, if they want to fight the corporations so badly?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I'll go further (4.00 / 4)
if there are times when our interests align, like on auditing the Fed, I'm 100% be behind a coalition on those specific issues (the Grayson-Paul axis.) And there may be a number of important areas where that is true. But that doesn't mean there will be a longer term alliance because as you say our principles are not reconcilable.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Right, (0.00 / 0)
progressive leadership comes in reaching out to them, rather than saying they can join us. We take responsibility rather than demanding it of them. This is the hope of a progressive view of tolerance.  We do not have to say that we accept their old testament view of a punitive society.  We simply have to say, "we have common ground in tearing down the barriers to broad political expression and innovation." This could create substantive political change.  I am also naive enough to at least hope that such and act of maturity could have broader social impact.  
[ Parent ]
Ahh, (4.00 / 4)
"reaching out," yes.

So what exactly is that supposed to look like? How do you "reach out" to teabaggers without betraying, or lying about, core principles?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Letter to Libertarians (4.00 / 3)
As Sadie Baker suggested, to the extent that any libertarian wants to join in common cause with me, I'll not bar anyone at the door.  To the extent a libertarian's preferences are co-incident with my own, I'm happy to join forces.  And, I suspect that's possible with some libertarians, on some issues.  But, it's far from universal, and insufficiently universal to argue that we, and they, just throw in together.

I'm also aware that "teabaggers" is an umbrella term for a whole lot of people, some of whom don't claim the others.  It shouldn't be assumed that all Ron Paul's supporters are in alignment with the Bachmann-Beck supporters.  There might be overlap between the two groups, but they aren't identical groups.

I'm more in your fellow Texan, Glenn Smith's category.  I'm willing to issue an invitation conditional on those principles we share.  There are many that we don't.

[ Parent ]
You've Got It Backwards (4.00 / 2)
It seems that it is this very we/they tendency that leads to racism in the first place.  

It's racism that leads to the "we/they tendency."

Jews who were anti-Nazi weren't racists.  They were just somewhat more likely to be alive.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Are you sure that the chicken came before the egg n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Absolutely! (4.00 / 2)
It was precisely the fact that Jews were so well integrated into German society, so much not a we/they kind of thing, that drove the Nazis and their fore-runners so crazy.

History is your friend.  You should check it out sometime.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
What a ridiculous question! (4.00 / 4)
Which came first, racists, or people who made racists feel bad about being racists? There is only one direction the causality can go!

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
There's a difference between us/them (4.00 / 3)
And knowing who your enemies are.

I accept Tea Partiers (and racists, for that matter) as humans, and thus deserving of human rights.  I recognize them as having more similarities than differences with myself.  I am willing to interact with them in a social context, and even cooperate when our goals converge (either politically or, say, in work or something).

But they remain my political enemy, and while I may occasionally ally with them in an "enemy of my enemy" situation, ultimately, at least one of us has to lose.

It's like a game--you may be friends outside of it, but while playing the game, it's your duty to do whatever you can to wipe the other person out.

The game of politics determines peoples' lives.  That doesn't make it any less of a game, it just makes it a particularly important one to win.

[ Parent ]
More than that, (4.00 / 4)
only one of us can prevail, right, and if it's not us we're all dead.

The Liberal Promised Land has a place for Conservatives in it. They are not in charge, but they are not exiled either. Pop culture communicates this very well, think of Grandpa Simpson. He's completely reactionary, an anti-union thug, but he's still family. Think of Cotton Hill in "King of the Hill."

In the Conservative Promised Land ... well, Limbaugh and Beck have told us exactly what that looks like, and we are not family. They fantasize about putting us in camps, even killing us.


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Ah, a man after my own heart (0.00 / 0)
I have been told for years that I need to get better at compromise, at being more tolerant.  Indeed those are liberal values I take pride in, but only in certain arenas.

I have tried to hang out and be nice when being around a good, long term friend.  I don't want to lose her but her husband is basically a gun toting, somewhat racist, Rush loving cowboy who takes joy in insulting me.  I cannot insult back because a) I then become him b) it makes things worse for my friend.  
When I do join them in an occasional outing with his friends, I must and do tolerate their intolerance.  We pray their prayers before dinner; we listen to their whines about the commies and they make jokes about others based on race, religion, sexual preference.

For years, I thought tolerance by example was the best thing.  They make fun of who and what I support. I try to listen to them with an open mind.  Nothing has changed.  So for the last few years, I make myself unavailable for those gatherings.  And then I feel guilty.  

They don't want to change.  I don't want to tolerate their ignorance any longer.  But the conundrum of being an open minded liberal is that my gut instinct is to try to understand; try to be tolerant; try to change by example.  
If I become like them and demand they think like I do, if I demand they open their minds, am I any better than them?

This is why I think I was so discouraged by Obama and other neo liberals.  I think I saw myself.  Always trying to change others without being obnoxiously like them.  
I think when I was young, during the sixties, we tried to force change.  And it worked better.  But there was a back lash.   I believe I am stuck and not sure any more how to work it.

[ Parent ]
I Always Was A Smart Aleck (4.00 / 2)
My grandparents & great aunts & uncles were all working-class immigrant Jews, mostly socialists or anarchists, with a Commie and a Republican thrown in just to keep things diverse.

They were all people who spoke their minds, had quick wits, and didn't take anything without dishing out twice as much in return.

So, somehow mainline Protestant niceness never held much allure for me.

And then there was Malvina Reynolds:

It Isn't Nice

It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it,
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.

It isn't nice to carry banners
Or to sit in on the floor,
Or to shout our cry of Freedom
At the hotel and the store.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.

We have tried negotiations
And the three-man picket line,1
Mr. Charlie2 didn't see us
And he might as well be blind.
Now our new ways aren't nice
When we deal with men of ice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.

How about those years of lynchings
And the shot in Evers' back?
Did you say it wasn't proper,
Did you stand upon the track?
You were quiet just like mice,
Now you say we aren't nice,
And if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.

It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
But thanks for your advice,
Cause if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.

If all else fails, think of it this way: conservatives always complain that liberals lack a sense of humor, because we don't laugh at their racist/sexist/homophobic jokes.  So you have a duty to show them the error of their ways by sharing jokes about conservatives with them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Our families are very similar (4.00 / 1)
My grandparents were all immigrants from the poorest parts of Italy,(Calabria..the toe) and Sicily. In fact my mother was born in Sicily.

We were working class and had a mixture of democrats, republicans, and a few who were adamantly apolitical and used "omerta" (mostly the Sicilian side who feared government and the church and the mafia).  

However my cousins and I came of age in the sixties.  Some of us went far left, a few went far right and became "Jesus freaks"......most remained centrist.  The few centrist republicans became so because they so hated the Irish catholics who dominated the democtatic party in our area.  

We lived in the only democratic stronghold town (a steel mill town) in a rich, largely republican county.  My aunt worked for the county and thus was republican.  She believed unless one registered republican, one could not stay employed.  She become politically involved in campaigning for Arlen Spector get elected.....when he ran as a republican. She called him "the Jew".   I never quite got if she was being insulting or not as she liked him a lot.  Growing up in an area where your ethnicity was always acknowledged it seemed normal.  Early on I had heard things like "whop, dago" from friends.  They were micks and other such nick names.   But we all were part of ethnic groups so the names never seemed so mean.

Then I went to college in central PA.  For the first time in my life I was surrounded by white anglo saxon protestants.  They viewed me as unique.   Most knew few "Eye-talians".  I heard every Italian joke imaginable. I hated them. I never knew quite how to handle it.
I had no "wasp" jokes as I never known any protestants.  Everyone I knew as in close friends were either Irish catholic, Polish catholic, Italian catholic, Jewish, African American.  

My family was loud, argumentative, publicly passionate about many things.  My best friend was Jewish (she is deceased now).  We both recognized immediately we had more in common with each other than with our protestant friends.  We all get along but Randi and I got each other. And being around these conservatives threw us off.  The women were quiet and the men were obnoxiously in charge of everything.  Randi and I could joke about to each other, and could give each other a look, without rolling our eyes.  With her gone, I often feel isolated (because I am 1600 miles from family).  

Anyway, I think we have a lot in common. Perhaps that is why I always look forward to reading what you have to say.  You reflect much of what I feel.  

Love the poem.

[ Parent ]
Yup! (0.00 / 0)
All of the sudden, one day, my sister looked around and said to me, "Do you realize that all our friends in school are Catholics?"

Well, it wasn't strictly true, of course.  We had a very witty violinist friend who Eastern Orthodox.  But WASPS just didn't gravitate towards us, and it was totally un-premeditated on our part, since my first reaction to my sister was, "Huh?"

But she was right.  

She did make some WASP friends when she transferred to a hippy high school, where she cut classes all the time, going to Black Panther support rallies & the like.

Ah, high school memories!  Noting like 'em!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Wow, my experience in Cascadia was so different in High School (0.00 / 0)
where my friends and I didn't really know what ethnicity or religion our peers were.  It never even occurred to me until I became a Jesus Freak in my junior year and even then it didn't matter to us Jesus Freaks whether we were protestant or catholic. What a different time and place that was.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
Well, Like I Said (0.00 / 0)
I didn't realize it until my sister pointed it out one day.  So it wasn't like we obsessed over it, much less planned it that way.

In fact, we next tried to figure out why it was true.  Our best explanation: Catholic upbringing was more strict, and our friends were the ones who reacted most critically and independently--and hence, rebelliously.

Of course, it went without saying they were smart, too.  But somehow smart Protestants didn't gravitate toward us.  Or we towards them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
You want a WASP joke? (4.00 / 2)
I've got one. What do WASPs say after sex? So sorry, it will never happen again.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Sorry, I Was Expecting A Different Punchline (4.00 / 1)
"We're still waiting to find out."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
That works, too. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
How Many WASPS Does It Take To Screw In A Lightbulb? (4.00 / 2)
WASPS don't screw, even if they could fit in a lightbulb.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
One caveat to your friends and "Jesus Freaks" (0.00 / 0)
is that "Jesus Freaks" started off as somewhat on the Left (anti war, anti capitalism, anti establishment.)  Then they got absorbed by conservative churches and the whole movement began moving to the right.

A lot of Jesus Freaks turned into the Religious Right.   But a lot of Jesus Freaks were appalled by that and turned either into the Religious Left or moved into a more secular mindset or a more deep ecumenical one....  like me.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

[ Parent ]
Ennobled in theory, debased in practice (4.00 / 3)
Why do I get the impression that you've never personally talked to a teabagger? As Sadie Baker more or less says, the correct strategy is to talk past them, not at them, and certainly not with them. When they get tired of standing on streetcorners with their Obama=Hitler signs, they'll come along. Or they won't. In any event, you're looking for love in all the wrong places.
[ Parent ]
Really? (4.00 / 1)
Why project so many assumption, on all tea baggers and now on me.  This is pre-judging.  I happen to be a business owner and sit on a city commission in a VERY conservative southern community.  I speak to tea baggers all the time. I'm sorry but this level of prejudice and intolerance is not progressive.
[ Parent ]
slightly off topic (0.00 / 1)
but isn't it hard for you?  or do the teabaggers/conservatives/whathaveyou not make racist, homophobic, sexist, or straight-up wrong assertions where you are at?  

My husband owned a hardware store in a small, rural town and I found it extremely hard to not engage customers when I heard really offensive remarks.  My husband was better at it, but it was very hard on him.  These were people who we knew well, no pre-judging or assumptions on our part necessarily.  

How do you deal with it and keep your sanity?  

[ Parent ]
I engage. (4.00 / 2)
Peoples' reactions can be surprising. Most times they get embarrassed, and reverse course. Sometimes they don't. Either way they learn not to say stupid stuff in public, not to automatically assume their prejudices are universal. This can be a big step!

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Yes, really (4.00 / 1)
I grew up in the South. There's a reason why it remains pretty much what it was in the moment just before Appomattox in the minds of so many white folks. Once you control the universe of discourse in your own neighborhood, you give it up only when forced to. Reason is a poor tool, in fact, it's no tool at all in that environment. If I sat on your city commission, I'd find myself at something of a disadvantage. Since you don't seem to feel as though you are, I have to wonder just how progressive you think progressive is.

Context is all, Hugh. Tell me how often you've said what you really think to these folks, and I'll tell you how effective your tenure has been, or in fact can be as long as you sit where you sit.

[ Parent ]
You're Confusing Individuals And Groups (4.00 / 3)
When you write about "teabaggers" you are by definition referring to a group of people with group characteristics.  Politically, that is what they are.

But now you're writing about them as individuals you interact with every day.

Well, fine, you can do anything you want with them individually.  But that's not going to alter what the group is.  At best it may help woo some individuals away a bit.

As others have noted, it's politically much more effective to focus on building our own political group identity, and making it more attractive (even to teabaggers) on an individual level.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I believe in regarding the whole person of everyone (4.00 / 4)
and I agree that this is a core progressive principle. But that general claim cannot support the additional claim that we must ally with this particular group of people. We don't disagree on the fundamental principle. We disagree because your logic is flawed.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
We should appeal to the individuals in that group to act in a way that is not inconsistent with either that group or the progressive left.
[ Parent ]
That's A Logical Impossibility (4.00 / 2)
The group is inherently racist, xenophobic, and reactionary.  We should appeal to people to leave all that behind and join us in being effectively populist for all the people, not just a special subset of folks just like them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Aesop said it better than any of us (4.00 / 1)
Wikipedia

LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. "You will all agree," said he, "that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood." This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: "That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?" The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke. Then the old mouse said: "IT IS EASY TO PROPOSE IMPOSSIBLE REMEDIES."

All it takes is being ready to walk away from the table.  So hard to do, but so easy to say.  

Pretend you have nothing to lose, then act.  

Ready, fire, aim!

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

So... (4.00 / 1)
Do you have any ideas on how to make this particular can-opener, Paul?

No sarcasm--seriously.  It's just, every other week or so you seem to make one of these diaries that argues (implicitly or explicitly) that the left needs to engage in hegemonic warfare, but not nearly as much time giving ideas on how to engage in hegemonic warfare, or at least start discussions about it.

I think you (using the general "you" here, incidentally; not you in particular) don't need to convince people of the existence and need to defeat right-wing hegemony, necessarily.  I guarantee the vast majority of conservatives don't realize they're doing hegemony when they're doing it.  If you package the suggestions correctly, you should get a fair amount of people to join in just because they make sense.  Then once they start working, most everyone else will start using them too.

If conservatives achieved hegemony 30 years ago (give or take), we can do it now.  But we need to do it, and soon, because the realignment's already upon us and it won't last forever.  It would be nice if every liberal learned all about hegemony and related issues before having to fight it...but I just don't think we have the time.

[disclaimer: I am still woefully ignorant about all this and everything I just said could very well be wrong]

Thanks For Asking (4.00 / 1)
I should probably try to answer this by writing a diary about it.  But for now, I'll just say that it's a process that has many aspects, and I'll touch on just a few of them.  

While I share your frustration at the primative state of struggle we're in, and your sense of alarm at how far behind we are, I don't have any magic bullet to make it all better.  I have some rather obvious suggestions, such as stop giving money to the Democratic Party, and start devoting it to building progressive infrastructure. Also, pay attention to emerging decisive struggles, such as the battle over public education, in which neoliberalism can and must be confronted much more directly.  And--as Sisterfish suggests by recounting her own experience--get involved with hands-on local struggles, where you can build foundations.  Finally, I think that raising awareness is a very necessary part of the process that not only gets things started, but that never goes away, either.

This is woefully short of what I wish I could say and do.  But it's at least an indication of ways we can proceed.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I don't expect a magic bullet, of course (0.00 / 0)
But what I think is needed more than anything else, right now, is a plan.  Not a detailed one, or even a widely-agreed upon one, but some sort of framework for describing how to get from Point A to Point C.

Specifically: everything you just said is well taken.  But I think it's still unclear how we can go from those to hegemony.

IMHO, the big missing ingredient currently is coordination.  There are already a fair number of progressive institutions that function well enough in their sphere.  They just seem to fight with each other rather than cooperate.

I mean, look at the teabaggers: they exist because conservative media, conservative activists, conservative politicians, and conservative big-money institutions all basically aimed toward the same goal with the same means simultaneously.  I doubt there was even some mastermind behind it all who assigned orders--much of it was likely subconscious.

What I'd like to figure out is: how, precisely (or as close to precise as is reasonable possible), can we get to the point where we can do the same thing?  Because right now, if you even had the power to try something similar with the somewhat analogous progressive institutions, it'd fall apart almost immediately.

Anyway, it's late where I am, so I'm heading off to bed and won't be able to comment for a while.  I do hope you write that diary sometime.

[ Parent ]
There's one thing that bugs me (0.00 / 0)
There's only one problem: It assumes we have a can-opener.  It assumes the existence of a unified group (call them "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever) that has a more or less common set of goals all worked out beforehand, and the capacity to function as an organized group, more or less independent of outside influences.

In all the posts on the failure to negotiate on HCR I've been reading (today's is mostly from MaryB, an attorney who does negotiation for a living) it has been very clear what unified group that has a more or less common set of goals that failed in their efforts: the Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Representatives Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

This is the group that was supposed to pack up their marbles and go home if they didn't get what they wanted. They didn't get what they wanted, because the counterparties all knew they could be rolled. And so they were.

The Progressive Caucus (4.00 / 2)
Is NOT the can opener.

They are much more of a group of individual lawmakers than anything else.  They are not the legislative extension of an organized, unified progressive movement--which would be the can opener of which I speak.

It's disappointing that the Progressive Caucus could be rolled, but it's not really that surprising.  We need much stronger movement cohesion and ties between congress and the rest of the movement before we can reasonably expect things to hold together as they should.  Otherwise, the asymmetrical factors Mark refers to below are bound to reassert themselves.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That's fine (0.00 / 0)
But it really has nothing to do with the congressional negotiation failures, which ostensibly inspired this post.
[ Parent ]
Ah, But It Does (4.00 / 1)
Just because the significant factors may be largely external to Congress doesn't mean they have nothing to do with what happens there.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Excellent post (4.00 / 1)
It allowed the freewheeling indulgence that liberals and progressives enjoy.  But in some ways, I think that Paul's original post was suggestive that the progressive mind was too like the economist.  Perhaps lacking in the finiteness of the chemist and  physicist.  Coming with the background of therapeutic chemistry I probably read his words differently than many of you.  In fact, I see it more as a call against purification more than a call for principlocracy. Yes, I know that isn't a word!

If we become purists, we have no chance.  I would be a hypocrite if I tell you I do not stand for some cleansing of the Democratic Party.  I would favor a vehicle that could carry us to certain mutual goals that doesn't share leadership with those who would compromise or thwart long held common principles.

However, when Paul discusses the lack of a can-opener I don't think he is supporting the purification of can-opener development and design to the point that only those who fully support the final design may participate.  The inclusion of unsuccessful theory and design accomplishes, if nothing else, confidence that the final design is the best.  

Unfortunately, the "big tent" philosophy is self limiting, as we have just witnessed.  We must purify the cause from those who don't want a can-opener.  And in that vain, those who say, "never negotiate with a teabagger," miss a very important fact in development and design.  Many teabaggers may want a can-opener.  And with reasonable discussion, some of them may come to believe our can-opener design is actually the one they'd like too.  

A scorched earth policy of purification will be self limiting.  And eventually may lead to outcomes not so unlike that of Hitler and Stalin.  I fear that if we adopt the advocacy and closed-mindedness of our adversaries, that we can never be more than a minority group.  Until he says specifically otherwise, I don't believe Paul is suggesting that we refuse to look at all can-openers before we buy or build.


"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

Very Good Points (0.00 / 0)
Plus, extra credit for inventing words.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Mostly agree, but there is also Asymmetry (4.00 / 1)
The other point that I think takes a way a bit from space's original comment, is the realization that the left and right are not symmetrical mirror images.  Space's list partially assumes that what works on the right will also work for us, but that may not necessarily be the case.

As Digby pointed out the other day:

whoever can walk away always has more power. It's just the way things work. That doesn't mean that you can't win if you want something more than the person with whom you're negotiating. There are lots of strategies. You can ask for far more than you're willing to settle for, you can play others against each other, you can try for a "win-win." But in the final analysis, it's always going to be much tougher to walk away from something everyone knows you really want and much easier if it doesn't matter much to you. That's life.

In the case of health care, as I wrote way back when, the congressional liberals were always going to be jammed at the end because the Medicaid expansion alone is something they desperately wanted for decades and couldn't ever get (which doesn't excuse why they negotiated with themselves the whole way along.) There was just no way that a progressive bloc strategy was ever going to hang tough with health care reform, although it was useful for them to work together to improve the bill and shape the negotiations with various threats and admonitions. (After all, there was no guarantee that it would end up with even the subsidies or Medicaid expansion at all.) Still, everyone knew from the beginning that as long as this bill covers many millions of the working poor they were not likely to vote against it in the end. Lifting up the poor is the holy grail for liberals.

That said, I think the Progressive Block against Obama works very well, as he has an agenda and is trying to get things done.  Obama is also unwilling to walk away from the table, in other words.  But that just doesn't hold for the "centrists" in congress.

However, the centrists are just trying to find a middle point in conventional wisdom.  Change perception and you'll change their vote.  This is where starting with single payer might have helped.  If a large block of progressives demanded Medicare for all, held on for a month or two, and then switched to Medicare buy-in, as a very visible, public compromise, perhaps CW would have changed.  Or not, though.  These things take time.

I'm Keenly Aware of the Asymmetry Involved (4.00 / 1)
In fact, I originally planned a diary about the asymmetry of left and right for this weekend.  But things are in such a state of flux, it might not see the light of day till next weekend.

I will share one point from it though:  It's worth noting that all process talk, by its very nature, tends to stress a viewpoint that inherently tends to see things symmetrically.  OTOH, all substance talk tends to stress a viewpoint that inherently tends to see things asymmetrically.

This is one reason that Versailles/Neoliberal obsession with process works to favor the right: it systematically diminishes the left's greatest strength: our ideas actually connect with reality, so our solutions generally tend to make things better, even if they aren't perfect--which no political solutions ever are, btw.



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
I DID publish a diary on left/right asymmetry--that between predators and producers, which is up top just now.

But I was going to do another one that was more general in scope.

That will have to wait till next weekend, given what tomorrow's probably going to look like.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Assume we have a can-opener... | 73 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox