Come on, that’s how we got Obama in 2008.

We don’t need another Democrat for us to rally around in hope only to find out later that he or she is, well, a Democrat.

Does this version of ENDA include us Transgender people?

There are two issues here.

The first is how wealthy a society is. The simple fact is that our society has been getting wealthier and wealthier. Each advance in technology has resulted in more wealth.

The second issue is how that wealth is distributed. We have two ways primary ways in Capitalism: ownership of the means of production and wages for workers doing the production. As technology increase the total wealth of a society it also reduces the amount of workers needed for production, thus decreasing the workers share of the total wealthy.

If this can continue, that is if the side effects of advanced technology don’t cause an ecological breakdown, the result will eventually be that workers are no longer needed. This causes not only a problem for the 99% who used to be workers and used to get their share of the society’s wealth through wages, but also for the 1% who grow their wealth via charging the 99% for consumption.

The simple reality is that when we reach this ‘singularity’ our system of owners making profits off consumption and workers earning the right to consume by trading their labor for wages will have to change. We will need to develop a different way to share the wealth. We will have to reject our current idea of the vast majority of people needing to earn their share of the wealth through work and the Protestant Work Ethic that is the scaffolding for the mindset.

I imagine a world where people ‘work’ not to earn wages to have the ability to access the wealth of society but ‘work’ because it is their passion and there is no direct link between the work they do and the wealthy they share.

The wealth that society has is shared freely. The current mindset that some will take advantage and either not be responsible in production of society wealth or take more than their share will be obsolete.

I think this change is very likely. The real problem is the negative side effects of advancing technology, which is so severe the whole system might collapse before we reach that ‘singularity.’

Yes, I see that is what is now being said. However, the first article I read this morning on Huffington Post, when I replied to Marion, was that he had chosen the name in honor of Xavier. I went back and checked that article just now and now it had been edited to say it’s unclear.

Nope, no mind reading, just general reading in an article that explained that he’d said that.

He isn’t naming himself after Francis of Assisi, but after Francis Xavier, the cofounder of the Jesuits.

It’s also important to now this man was very involved in opposing gay marriage in Argentina, saying it was an “anthropological throwback.”

He’s like JPII, a charming conservative, not like Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, a man trying to straddle reform and tradition.

I want to say that I find your post quite powerful and insightful. I agree with most of your analysis of Erin Burnett

However, I must also say that it felt very demeaning to me for you to use two terms for her which are derogatory terms for women. I probably wouldn’t have comment about this if you’d limited yourself to calling her a ‘whore.’

But your use of the c word to many of us feels like a put down of all women.

I wish you hadn’t used it and had expressed your otherwise powerful insights with other language. Thanks.

So over at HuffPo the discussion about these emails is dominated by the drama of Woodward claims he was “threatened.”

In one article I commented and said this, “As usual the media misses the main point. The main point isn’t how Woodward responded or if Sperling was nice or mean. The main point is that an Obama aid admitted that Obama has played us all and is using all this to try to cut Social Security benefits.”

I got the following responses:

“WHAT??”

“I dont think thats the case because social security is exempt from the sequester.”

“rotflmao, that was quite the bagger spin there, did you get whiplash?”

I responded to the last with:

“No, but you might when you realize what was left out of the quote. Here’s some of the email that this article signified with ‘…’ :

“I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of ENTITLEMENTS and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by ENTITLEMENTS and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)” (emphasis added)

When Sperling referred to ‘entitlements’ he means cutting Social Security benefits. The specific cuts are most likely cutting the COLA and increasing the qualifying age. But the point that Sperling was making to Woodward was that the Obama plan from the start was to get these benefit cuts to Social Security.”

The commenter responded to that with, ““rotflmao.”

That commenter has 4609 fans and has the tag line, “the President is black, deal with it.”

People, we’re facing such major misdirection here that the response of the Obamabots is laughter when we tell them the truth.

I have to disagree that Senate rules are entirely up to the Senate and not under review of the courts.

What if the Senate set up a rule that the richest Senator’s vote was the only vote needed to pass a bill and if she or he didn’t vote for it a bill couldn’t pass? Is there any sense that the Constitution requires that the Senate be a democratic body? What if the Senate passed a rule that only Republicans could be seated as Senators?

Is there any line that Senate rules might cross over and it would be appropriate for the court system to say it’s unconstitutional?

I believe the filibuster is unconstitutional, it violates the clear expectation of the Constitution that it would be a democratic body.

Although I agree with the letter, I think it is important for us to note something here.

Warren has changed his view. Before he was personally against us, preached against us in his church and pursued activism against us in the political sphere- specifically campaigning for Prop 8. In these interviews he said he now would not pursue activism against us in the political sphere, just continue to personally be against us and preach against us in his church.

I’m not happy that he’s homophobic (despite his protests he isn’t) and that he preaches against us. But this is a significant change. If all the homophobic reverends who preach against us would not pursue activism against us politically that would help us a lot achieve our equal rights.

I was excited when I heard your name mentioned on The Young Turks. Unfortunately I was in the kitchen in the middle of cooking and couldn’t get away to watch your report. You are one of the few consistent voices of sanity and truth telling, Kevin. I am hoping you’ll get more opportunity to be on Cenk’s show.

There was a man with two sons. He said to them, “Go work in my fields.”

The older son said, “Of course, Father. That is my duty. I will do so immediately.”

The younger son said, “Father, I don’t want to work in your fields, I want my own life and I have other things to do. I will not work for you today.”

However, the older son, despite his statement to his father, did not go work in the fields but went to visit his friends. The younger son, even though he refused to obey his father, changed his mind and went and worked in the fields all day.

Which son obeyed their father?

It’s not what we say; it’s what we do that counts. Israel may talk and talk about not wanting to hurt civilians. The facts are that Israel kills and wounds far more civilians than any Palestinian fighters. In this latest round of fighting the facts are:

Israel has killed: 91 civilians
Palestinians have killed: 3 civilians

In Operation Cast Lead 4 years ago:

Israel killed: 926 civilians
Palestinians killed: 3 civilians

I’m not saying Palestinians are the younger son, but I am saying that Israel here is like the older son. I don’t care what they say about not targeting civilians or that they don’t want to hurt civilians. I care that they do kill civilians. They killed an American civilian by bulldozing over her when she was peacefully protesting Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes.

We have a number of things to still do, even in WA and CO.

1) We need to legalize recreational use in other states. I suggest California is the next step as well as some red state with lots of libertarian attitude, like Montana or Alaska.

2) We need to lower the age from 21 to a more reasonable age, 19 or 18. I’d prefer a younger age so high schoolers aren’t doing something illegal when they use, which would be safer for them, but the first step is to extend this new legality to young adults in college or starting their full time working career.

3) We need to extend legalization to the individual who grows his or her own supply. The individual possession limit of an ounce makes that illegal.

4) We need to change the intoxication definition for driving. Since blood tests can show high levels for someone who uses regularly but isn’t high at all, the usage of blood tests needs to be jettisons. We need instead to have other evidence of impairment while driving be the standard.

5) Eventually we need to protect individuals from employer tests as reason to not hire or to fire when their is no evidence of impairment at work from abuse. It may make sense for employers to use drug tests to screen employees from using illegal drugs even if they never are impaired on the job; but it makes no sense to do that with a legal substance. Imagine the uproar if there was a test to show if you’d had a beer or a glass of wine on a Friday night weeks later after no drinking and you lost your job for it.

Majority rules, no filibustering at all. A call for the question should always be in order and a simple majority ends debate.

We passed it in Washington State too!

Now on to the fight for my denomination, Presbyterian Church USA, to allow pastors to celebrate legal marriages for same sex couples. It already allows them to celebrate holy unions when marriage is illegal. We almost made the change last summer. I think we’ll do it at the next General Assembly in 2014, then my own congregation can host and celebrate legal marriages in our sanctuary!

We legalized marijuana and we approved marriage rights for everyone! I’m still waiting to see if we did the right thing on Charter Schools (no) and taxes (not making it require super majorities for the legislature to raise them.)

Washington has legalized Marijuana!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I already voted for R-74 and I’m very hopeful it will pass.

Again, let me connect the dots.

Dot 1: the kind of election fraud discussed in this article through which the Republicans intend to steal Ohio for Romney.

Dot 2: the Republicans’ insistence that the pollers who predict an Obama win are skewing the polls.

When you connect them you can see the outline of how Republicans will steal this election, if they can, and the cover narrative they will use afterwards to explain it away even if the exit polls say otherwise.