 |
|
|
|
Visit our sponsorsFill up our coffee fundBlogAdsMost EmailedVisit our sponsorsUpcoming events
 Who's newWho's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 1300 guests online.
Online users |
Get our Digestifs du jourNibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
culturekitchensThe Publisher Daily servings of political dissent Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers A new kind of vouyerism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. Hot Topics
Member's articles and stories
Recent reviews
|
Words to live by
Front-runners are usually focused on racing each other. They often do not realize that when people cannot decide between two leading candidates -- and it doesn't matter whether we are talking about politicians or consumer appliances -- our decision can be subtly swayed by whoever is in third place. Psychologists call this the decoy effect: In a perfectly rational world, third candidates should only siphon votes away from one or both of the leading contenders. Under no circumstances should they cause the vote share of either front-runner to increase. In the actual world, however, third candidates regularly have the unintended effect of making one of the front-runners look better than before in the minds of undecided voters. Subscribe Buttons                    | |
And what do you suggest?
Look. Foreign policy under either Carter or Clinton was far more humane and intelligent than under Reagan, the elected Bush or the unelected Bush. That is fact. Doesn't mean I agreed with all Carter or Clinton did, or that it all worked, but the difference is night and day. There were no illegal invasions during the Carter or Clinton administrations. Things were done as part of either a UN coalition or through NATO when military action was needed. Clinton targeted al-Qaeda BEFORE 9/11. The ONLY progress in the Arab/Israeli peace process occurred under Carter and Clinton, with little but stagnation or violence during Republican administrations. Jimmy Carter won a friggin Nobel Peace Prize because of his efforts. The last President to get a Nobel Peace Prize is way back with TR.
So, YEAH THERE IS A FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. Get a clue, dude. Yes Dems screw up too. But the difference between the parties is huge.
Then, turn to domestic policy, the economy is almost always better under a Dem, and under Dems the middle and working class does better. Clinton even started paying of the friggen deficit, for god's sake. Meanwhile under Reagan, Bush and Little Bush it was bigger and bigger deficits and the poor getting poorer.
As to corruption, I have diaried many times the clear difference here. Republican corruption is like ten times greater than Dem corruption. There is far, far more corruption among Repubs and it is far worse than among Dems.
Let's look at environmental policy. Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental efforts. Carter initiated a large scale alternative energy policy which would have made a HUGE difference...if REAGAN hadn't reversed it. So Carter pushed us away from oil, Reagan pushed us right back. Clinton set aside more land for protection in the US than any other President, though much of that was reversed by Bush.
So before you mouth off, learn some actual facts. SERIOUSLY. I am more than open to criticizing Dems when they deserve it. Google mole333 and "Vito Lopez" and you will see me attack a corrupt Democrat. But do not give me this Naderesque crap that the parties are the same. They are not and never have been.