"It was ghastly!"

I read this earlier. IMO it perfectly sums up the Tea Party:

While there is plenty of selfishness in the Tea Party movement (though theirs generally and equal and opposite selfishness in most political movements including Progressives) I think the fundmantal point of disagreement would be expressed in one of thos clauses:

It isn't that they necessarily think of it as a punishment but rather that "social responsibility" is a phrase without inherent meaning. That it can't be anything more than a club defined by those either in power or seeking power and that the potential for misuse is great and therefore as a tool it is to be avoided because no matter how much one may approve of its current definition the pendulum will eventually swing in ways unacceptable to the individual.

That once upon a time "social responsibility" meant keeping races socially separate to minimize conflict, that it meant ratting out radicals to the government, that it meant providing dehumanizing group housing to the poor, that it meant the creation of social programs that ended up continuing rather than alleviating social ills. That it once meant subsidizing cheap calories and then eventually (per the track we're on) criminalizing the consumption of those calories.

Essentially it is a view that one can't give away personal power simply on the good word of the recipient that of course it will never be used incorrectly in the future.

And, in this regard, they have a point. A point that I think is undercut by too much crazy in the movement and inconsistent application. But then communists tend to become libertarians when the government starts telling them they have to do something they didn't want to do anyway.

For once, Tea Partiers are right about one of the founding fathers agreeing with their "revolution"...but not quite the way they think.

This is a good study in why context matters.

I am personally glad that he resigned and that it was accepted.

There is no place in a chain of command structure like the military to do such a thing. It completely undermines the authority structure and cannot be tolerated. This goes for McChrystal and any current member of the military regardless of who the superior is.

This being said, I do wonder if now that he has resigned if he will be vocal, and if he is vocal with criticisms, how those criticisms will be treated in the media.

Conversely, now that he's out if the gloves will come of about Pat Tillman (not saying they should, but I suspect that political realpolitik kept the gloves on for many people).

The problem with him being vocal is that McChrystal, at least in what was published, does not appear to actually have policy disagreements with Obama. Just personal issues. There's a big difference in how it should be handled between him saying "I think Obama's a dildo" vs. "I think Obama is pursuing the wrong strategy."

And this is not remotely analogous to Truman/McArthur (or even Bush/Fallon) so I wish people'd stop mentioning it.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

My god, tone-deaf doesn't even begin to describe the colossal failure of BP's continued blithering stupidity. There was the internal newsletter talking about how great it is that the cleanup effort is helping the hotel industry! Now this (warning, video has some graphic-ish images of animals + oil, but the link itself is safe)

Just read this online in response to Senator Inouye becoming President Pro-Tempore of the Senate: