Wedge is still the baddest motherfucker in the Star Wars series. Sure he had the power of the Script on his side, but talk about cool under fire... =)

Part one, I think that might be a little bit harsh. Even though you (and I) believe civil liberties are important, there's no denying that they -have- been used as a distraction and a wedge issue. Albeit primarily by the conservatives. And no, both parties are -not- "exactly the same" on the "important" issues. I dunno, PHJF, maybe you weren't too harsh.

But on part two, did anyone really think we'd "conquered" prejudice and bigotry? I know I sure as hell didn't... You've never had to look far to see that it's still well accounted for, if not quite as in-your-face as Archie Bunker used to be. The human race is full of those that just love being assholes, especially when they can do so towards a relatively powerless minority, with plenty of other assholes keeping them company.

>> ^PHJF:

Uhhh I think civil liberties are sort of important, you douchebag. It's a shame MLK didn't include "... and gay people, too," in his I Have a Dream. We're today trudging through the same filth and muck of intolerance we supposedly conquered decades ago.

>> ^blankfist:
I'll tell you about full of shit. Full of shit is a party that claims to be the party of peace, yet increases US hegemony and military spending. The Democrats should call themselves the party of wars and lies, but then they'd have to fight the Republicans for that title.
People like me, the Libertarians, are sick of paying for your two parties' wars.


Why do you think the Libertarian party is more likely to end the war than the Democratic party?

Do they have some sort of track record of honesty and commitment to principle that supersedes all other politicians?

Do they have a track record of being able to effectively enact policy at the national level?

Have they been tireless advocates against the war, and putting together PACs that spend money on anti-war ads throughout the years we've been at war?

Have their high-profile, influential voices in the media been using their megaphone to try to build a popular consensus for ending the war?

Or has everything they've ever said about the war been couched as an attack on the Democratic party, equating them to Republicans?

Just curious, because my two most frequent contacts have been you and Ron Paul, and it's all been some formation like "you Democrats would vote Libertarian if you really cared about the war, you warmongering hypocrites."

That's not commitment to ending the war, it's a commitment to use the topic of war as a wedge issue, Karl Rove style.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's a little bit disingenuous. Sounds like he lost his son in a custody battle and the birth father is using his pot smoking as a wedge.

*brief

Have always loved his insane ramblings and comedy, my parents wedged it into my brain from an early age how cool and different he was

@marinara, watched it again, and again, the conclusion of the video is "the only people who are concerned about race are racists (over picture of KKK with hoods), and liberals (over picture of Frank Rich)".

He also makes the argument that it's impossible to talk to liberals because they keep making imaginary or irrelevant arguments -- like accusing people who made this picture of being racists, and asking Tea Party organizers and Republicans to condemn it, I guess.

My own counterargument is to say that the right's confusion a) is disingenuous since there are tons of clear examples of racist imagery and commentary from the right, b) conservatives don't ever quite summon up the courage to actually discourage other conservatives for using racist imagery or comments, and c) they hardly ever apologize for offending anyone, and in fact usually demagogue about runaway liberal political correctness if anyone suggests they do so.

I also think he fundamentally misses the point of liberal accusations of racism. We are not trying to shut down rational debate (as you say), nor are we trying to fan the flames of racial sentiment (as Southern Avenger says), instead we are saying that the right's insensitivity to these issues are a problem, and we want to have a rational debate about it, but they refuse to ever admit anything anyone on the right does might be racist.

Even Southern Avenger can't quite bring himself to just say "Yes, some of the people at tea parties have said racist things", and instead goes into this thing where he ponders whether any tea partier has ever said anything racist, and says "perhaps, but for the sake of argument, let's say some have", and then launches into why this is understandable because protesters by their very nature are going to be emotional, as if using racial epithets is something we all do when we're mad about government policy.

I was trying to be too meta when I talked about political strategy. I'm mad and offended (still) about that witch doctor Obama picture. The guy who sent it out apologized, but denied it was racist, and blamed Democrats for drawing attention to it by complaining about it (seriously). Republicans never really said much about it, and the guy didn't lose his job or anything.

Shit like that works as a wedge issue, it helps sort out the racists and racist apologists on one side, and the people offended by racism on the other side. It wouldn't work as a wedge issue if there wasn't a political party that took up the racist apologist half of the divide. If it didn't work as a wedge issue, liberals probably wouldn't make such a big deal about it since both sides would quickly condemn it, and there wouldn't be any big fuss. We don't like racism in any case, but we start seeing red when we see it being defended. That's my point.

governments have alway used cultural constructs like race, gender, religion and class as wedge buffers to keeps its citizens from unifying

this generation they're simplying using "liberal" vs. "conservative".

tools.

Oh Winstonfield. Since when has "I read somewhere" or "Heard he" been enough for you to believe someone else? That's some pretty vague, unconvincing dreck, even for you.

Also, your claim that people shouldn't comment on Limbaugh's statement is wholly unsubstantiated by your rhetoric. His statement that people shouldn't donate to Haiti aid because it plays into the administration's 'humanitarian' appearance is (though related) a separate statement from discussing the comparison between Bush and Obama with respect to responding to human crises. It is certainly reprehensible for Limbaugh to tell people not to donate no matter the 'full context' of his quote. His statement about income tax being your donation is clearly not intended to be funny, or him 'making fun of' the AP (in your words.) It's intended to drive a political wedge in the minds of those ignorant, poor, and sad people foolish enough to trust Limbaugh. And it's clear Limbaugh doesn't care about the direct consequences of his political action (in this case, that Haiti gets less aid.)

Besides, your and Limbaugh's claim that Obama is doing it just so that news outlets _say_ he's better than Bush is specious at best. It's clear that among the reasons Obama and his administration would choose to help a poor nation ravaged by one of the worst natural disasters in recent history, aside from those purely humanitarian, is that doing so actually _makes_ them better than the Bush administration.

I was also going to say that I didn't really think Katrina and Haiti were a good comparison because one is a domestic failure and one is a foreign aid venture but really they do strike a similar chord so I think the comparison is at least somewhat valid.

So Winstonfield, have you donated to the Haiti cause?

The first amendment certainly doesn't include the right to not be criticized or heckled in response to a speech.

I think every neo-nazi would back the minutemen, but not every minuteman would back the neo-nazis. Every American redneck anti-abortion young-earth-creationist is a republican, but not every republican is one. Same thing.

The Lou Dobbs type of immigration-haters are mainly motivated by the idea that it is hurting their employment prospects, more than anything else.

Immigration is one of the "wedge issues" that republicans use to deceive poor people into voting against their own interests. Another is Reagan's fictional racist stereotype of the ghetto "welfare queen" who is better off than working class white people. Another is pandering to fundamentalist Christians with big talk about anti-homosexuality aka "family values" (While secretly getting handjobs in the men's bathroom of an airport).

Bird Aerodynamics
or why Herons, Cranes and Egrets don't extend their necks when flying.


There is a point where the length of the neck is no longer aerodynamic and the sharply pointed beak is better kept right in front of the body. They would not get any "lift" from their narrow, pointed beaks but, that shape does pierce the air quite nicely. Just like the nose of a jet aircraft.

Ducks and geese fly with their necks outstretched.
The flat bills of ducks and geese aid in acquiring "lift". I'm willing to bet that they can actually rest their "chins" on the wind as they fly. They now design highly efficient aircraft that utilize the canard (fr. duck) profile that features a small wing way out in front.

All flying birds also get lift from the way air flows easily over their straight backs but, pushes their rounder undersides upward as they propel themselves through the air with their wings.

Want more? lol
The pointed, elongated cone shape of the Heron's beak pierces the air and makes a cone shaped vacuum that is widened even further by the shape of the front of the bird. As the air is forced around the bird, frontal drag is reduced. If the neck was extended, this effect would be lost and the vacuum would collapse right behind it's head, in front of the bird's body, and the air would rush back in, the bird's body would fly into turbulence.

The wide, flat bills of ducks and geese create a wedge shaped vacuum as the birds propel themselves through the air. If you have ever noticed, their wings beats have a very short up and down travel distance, staying just on the edge of the vacuum wedge that their bills have created. Even the geese flock formations are based on creating an even larger wedge shaped vacuum for all of them to travel within.

The vacuums that birds create not only reduce drag, they create thrust. That is how the shape of a Peregrine Falcon enables it to exceed the pull of gravity ("freefall or "terminal velocity") without flapping it's wings. In a dive, the Peregrine's form, past it's head, becomes a very long cone shape. The vacuum that it's head creates while moving through the air, collapses behind it's head and the air starts rushing back in around the contoured shape of the bird, from front to back, propelling the bird forward. Same design as fish. If you've ever tried to tighten your grip on the tapered back end of a fish, you know that it shoots forward out of your grasp. And, the tighter you try to squeeze, the faster it goes. Lost a couple of good ones that way.

Democracy is power to those who are motivated enough to get off the couch and seize it. It's great so long as the motivated people have good intentions (and even then, sometimes things go awry).

Government, regardless of size, is nearly powerless to stop abusive corporations. You need only look around to see the evidence. Only consumers can control corporations. "Vote with your wallet", as they say. That's a form of democracy, sure, but it's not democratic government.

I'm not at all educated in economics so I can't make much of an argument. What I do know is that bigger, more complex systems (economic or otherwise) have more and more overhead. We've got a huge, complex system that costs us a fortune to maintain and the country is still being slapped around by megacorps. I'd rather have a simple, efficient system with minor overhead and get slapped around by megacorps.

How is giving the government more power not giving our power away? Whose power are we giving them exactly?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Democratic (not the party) government is people power. Without a strong government, there is nothing to stop corporations from taking over, which is why they are leading the charge to make government small.

Without democracy, individual consumers would powerless to make any kind of significant political changes, hence the push for 'individual liberty' at the expense of social liberty; and all that stuff about "markets self-regulating" is little more than a religious mantra, because there is no real world evidence that suggests such a thing is even remotely true.

The corporations have been very effective at drawing a wedge between the people and their government. They have actually fooled some of us into thinking things would get better if we were to give our power away. That's a mistake we only have to make once.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday

Democratic (not the party) government is people power. Without a strong government, there is nothing to stop corporations from taking over, which is why they are leading the charge to make government small.

Without democracy, individual consumers would powerless to make any kind of significant political changes, hence the push for 'individual liberty' at the expense of social liberty; and all that stuff about "markets self-regulating" is little more than a religious mantra, because there is no real world evidence that suggests such a thing is even remotely true.

The corporations have been very effective at drawing a wedge between the people and their government. They have actually fooled some of us into thinking things would get better if we were to give our power away. That's a mistake we only have to make once.



In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I wonder what would happen if the government had less power? Seems to me that corporations get all their power by buying it from the government. If the government had no power to buy, would the corporations be effectively neutered?

I suppose the obvious counter-argument is that there would be nothing to keep them in check, but that's not true. The consumer would be (and always has been) the control. The problem, as always, is that the average Joe doesn't care. Very few people are willing to boycott an abusive company.

Whatever political ideology you subscribe to, I feel they will all be undone by apathetic citizens. Nothing will change unless the people change it.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Have you ever honestly questioned your belief in capitalism?
[...snip...]

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Fake! Because that would mean a pin prick to the vagina could also be fatal. And that's never happened to any girlfriend of mine my friend.


It's okay, we all know you're still bigger then blankfist Your friend.


Also, if it's a cut to her vaginal walls, wouldn't someone walk in to see her laying there..dead..carrot still somehwhat....wedged?

^ TerryF, I can see your head is wedged deep in the sand there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#The_melting_ice_sheet

*brief *wtf *eco

god that pie cut is way to small, to fell that tree properly you would need a bigger pie cut with a line cut on the back and throw a couple of wedges in it and you are good to go.