Osler's Razor

No, but remember when a non-party-affiliated group took to the streets to ask for meaningful change, everyone demagogued them as useless hippies that needed to get a job?

That's why we can't have nice things. Populism is sacrificed on the altar of tribalism.
 

So much truth in that tirade. Napolitano can be a nut, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have this right. As I have said many times concerning the Tea Party, even a broken clock is right twice a day. It may be, in fact, straight-up-midnight for the USA.
 

I don't think he's wrong on almost any point he touched. What felt wrong was that oddly enough his points brought to mind a quote I thought forgotten, for it came from none other than Vladimir I. Lenin which says “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience.”
 

Quote of the day, Marta!
 

OK, he's right... But then what?
 

Maybe we view slogans like "Change" and "Taking Back Washington" with the proper level of skepticism!
 

For Mark:

I do not consider myself super cynical--but I am thirty years past believing that political slogans are conversant with reality.

In re IPLG and what next? That is a good question.

I don't think anything changes until we get to the place where we cannot go on anymore. At that point we change direction and start the new era. Until then, the impetus / impulse to change is not broad-based enough to translate into an actionable majority.

In truth, things have been pretty good over a long period of time. You can even make an argument that the most prudent course is to wait until we are absolutely sure of death before we bury the corpse.
 

The economics of rewarding ourselves with our children's earnings don't work for much longer.
 

I think everything "The Judge" had to say was spot-on...I'm just not sure that I can follow his argument to the same conclusion (i.e. vote Ron Paul).

But hey, maybe some radical new thinking is what we need--that way when we elect another moderate we can tell the difference.
 

In their present forms there are huge differences between the two parties. Historically not so much.
Napolitano's equivalences are silly but he is right on most points when he looks back.He errs looking forward.We are in a period of necessary correction.Trying to correct past errors sometimes takes time, always much longer than promised.
His point was that nothing is improving and errors are being repeated so we should scrap the good with the bad as Ron Paul believes. Today there are good people with ideas and solutions. Let's not quit on them too soon.
Dad
Dad
 

Funny how I keep agreeing with Mr. Osler.
 

It's surprising how often that guy has been right.
 

It looks like we are facing some serious linear momentum and I cannot help the science slice of my brain but momentum is a conserved quantity, which in turn means that unless affected by external forces its linear trajectory will not change. The problem is the nature of the “external forces” needed to break it and since I think we’re nowhere near a new era like Waco Farmer mentions, a revolution of sorts, I agree with Mr. Osler in that we should give time to the people within that come up with good ideas to perhaps build that force needed to break the status quo momentum. But can someone tell me who they are?
 

funny, when i sent that to you, mark, it was simply because i thought you might have an interesting reaction or insight. little did i know i'd get several from the razorites, particularly your dad's insight.
unfortunately, my entire life of political awareness has been defined by, or at least fraught with, all of the problems napolitano points to.
thus, a large segment of folks in my generation and those after are very much of the mind that we should blow the whole thing up and start over, because what we have is a dog that doesn't hunt.
it's very, very difficult for us to see the "good people with ideas and solutions." at least, it's difficult for us to believe that their ideas and solutions are any less self-serving than the ideas and solutions of recent politicians.
maybe that's a bit pessimistic, and it is true that correcting past errors takes time, but it's hard to see how any of it will change in the foreseeable future.
in the meantime, i'll sit back and enjoy the opinions of the razorites, most of whom are far smarter people than myself.
 

Prof - we stopped rewarding ourselves with our children's earnings when we halted the payroll taxes! Seriously - we are stealing directly from Social Security and that thought is not comforting.
 

By referring to is as payroll tax - people have lost sight of the fact that the payroll tax funds social security. This among other things is currently sending me off the deep end!
 

I'm very sympathetic to libertarian viewpoints (especially re: economics), but if Ron Paul actually wanted to become president and accomplish what he advocates, why did he sit as a congressman casting no-votes for 30 years? I suspect it's because his presidential campaigns are cash cows. Napolitano's lack of awareness (or transparency) diminishes his credibility.

Also, our government was designed to delay political changes without overwhelming popular support in order to limit the effects of factions. I'm sticking with Madison on this one.
 

I'm with Woody: I love reading the Razorites, who are all smarter (and funnier and more insightful and better writers) than me. But wisest of all: Dad.
 

"In their present forms there are huge differences between the two parties. Historically not so much."

Not to be mean, but have you actually ever read a history book? The parties have always drifted to the extremes.
The republican party is only around because it was the only one advocating for an end to slavery (a "huge difference" if there ever was one).

Eventually, a 3rd party comes along that takes over one of the spots when enough people get tired of the status quo or represent a radical position that's not being addressed.
 

i'll be the first razorite to say that i will never visit the voting for tomb website.
disrespect and ignorance won't get you far.
that is all.
 

Tom; It is hard to find your point other than that you have read some books that describe the two parties having constant extreme positions, and when this happens a third party emerges. This is interesting but is not what has not been true in my considerable lifetime.
The two parties have kept an equilibrium until today. Each party have had equal time in the presidency. The Democrats sometimes erred by showing compassion but not seeking self reliance and the republicans went for self reliance to replace compassion. They got booted when they overacted. We got slow but responsible government.

Today, we should be talking about how we can get the republican party to become a responsible and constructive party again. We need two healthy parties who believe in good government as they both will probably get their turn. Dad
 

I have to say, that actually came across as pretty fair and balanced.