Search Episodes (Opening sessions day 2)

Mirel Wagner - "No Death": SXSW 2012 Showcasing Artist

Added 01/25/12
2 Views

Mirel Wagner - "No Death": SXSW 2012 Showcasing Artist

Added 01/25/12
0 Views

Next Stop: Occupy Congress #J17

Added 01/11/12
0 Views

Next Stop: Occupy Congress #J17

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:29 01/11/12
Occupation of the United States Capitol on January 17, 2012 will Highlight Corruption in America’s Political System Harnessing the considerable power of the Occupy Wall Street movement, protestors from all over the country are being called to participate in "Occupy Congress" next week. It is the next stage in the widespread public protest that began last September in New York. On January 17th, an Occupy "Call to Action" urges protestors to convene beginning at 9 a.m. EST on the West Front Lawn at Capitol Hill in an effort to bring the movement's message to the doorstep of Congressional lawmakers. Rallying against corporate greed and corruption, the "99 percent" will arrive on Martin Luther King's birthday weekend to participate in a day of organized protests. According to the Occupy Congress website , the day's activities will include Teach-ins, an Open Mic, a Multi-Occupation General Assembly, Idea Sharing Sessions, and a DC Voting Rights Vigil. The day will end with an "OCCUParty." "Come to the U.S. Capitol on January 17th to protest the greatest calling of our time: A democracy in crisis," states the message in the video above. The video opens with the words, "You Can't Evict an Idea," referring to the eviction of Occupy Wall Street protestors from encampments in many U.S. cities in recent weeks. "When members of Congress return from their recess, they will be taught a lesson in what democracy looks like." The Occupy Wall Street website describes its mission as "a leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%." > Occupy Congress Event Schedule 9am – Converge at West Front Lawn at Capitol Hill (Meetings with Representatives concurrent) 10 am – Training for volunteers on De-escalation, Legal Observing, Medical, Direct Action 11 am – Teach-ins and Open Mic start and go all day 12 noon – Multi-Occupation General Assembly 2 pm – Open Activities and Idea Sharing Sessions *6pm* – Occupy Congress Rally and Protest and DC Voting Rights Vigil 8pm – 11pm - OCCUParty More scheduling information as well as sign in information if you wish to teach, share an idea, give a speech or a musical performace at Occupy Congress .

US Morning Call: Futures mixed on final 2011 trading day

Added 12/30/11
0 Views

US Morning Call: Futures mixed on final 2011 trading day

Added 12/30/11
0 Views

U.S. Morning Call: Futures mixed on final 2011 trading day

Added 12/30/11
2 Views

U.S. Morning Call: Futures mixed on final 2011 trading day

Added 12/30/11
2 Views

Kevin Pearce Gets Back on his Snowboard Again

Added 12/14/11
0 Views

Kevin Pearce Gets Back on his Snowboard Again

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 17:34:29 12/14/11
Burton Snowboards is proud to congratulate Burton team rider Kevin Pearce on his first day back on a snowboard since he suffered a traumatic brain injury while training for the Olympics in 2009. Kevin has been a part of the Burton family for years, receiving his first snowboard from Jake Burton himself back when he was just five years old. In 2004, Kevin earned his first official sponsorship with Burton Snowboards after a Burton team manager was impressed with his riding during summer camp at Mt. Hood. From that point on, Kevin started showing up on podiums everywhere, with career highlights like consecutive Arctic Challenge victories, a pair of Air %Style wins, multiple X Games medals and back-to-back European Open wins. Everything changed in an instant when Kevin suffered a traumatic brain injury while attempting a Cab double cork during a halfpipe training session on December 31, 2009. Since then, Kevin has spent nearly two years putting all his energy into rehab, re-learning things we all take for granted like eating, walking, talking, balancing and seeing. Until recently, Kevin didn't know if he would ever be able to snowboard again. So when he got the green light from his doctors it was a dream come true, and everything came together yesterday as he strapped on his board for the first time since the accident. Jake Burton was honored to join Kevin for his inaugural runs at Vail yesterday, before Kevin headed to Breckenridge to ride with friends and fans. "To get to this point in his recovery, Kevin has worked harder and has had more determination than anyone I know," said Jake Burton, Founder and CEO of Burton Snowboards. "His positive attitude and sense of humor through it all has inspired millions of people, including me personally in a big way. I couldn't be happier to be here with Kevin to get back on snow with him. It was a day I'll never forget." In a pretty historic moment yesterday, Jake switched out his 'I Ride for Kevin' snowboard sticker (the grassroots campaign Burton created back in 2009 to show support for Kevin) with a new Burton sticker that says 'Ride with Kevin'. The new message pretty much says it all. In honor of Kevin's amazing milestone, today on Wednesday, December 14th Burton will donate 10% of all proceeds from its sales on http://burton.com to traumatic brain injury research.

Will Forte - Another Day at the Forte House | THE MORTIFIED SE...

Added 12/13/11
0 Views

Today in History for November 17th

Added 11/17/11
0 Views

Today in History for November 17th

Added 11/17/11
1 Views

Today in History for November 17th

Added 11/17/11
0 Views

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

Added 11/08/11
6 Views

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 03:00:00 11/08/11
During Tuesday's Occupy Oakland General Strike, the so-called "Black Block" vandalized stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them. [Caution: Strong Language-- NSFW] Guest Editorial by Sara Robinson , Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain. As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the a**hole problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud. 1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms. Occupy may be a DIY movement — but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we’re obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they’re able to meet that standard. 2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not. Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: You’re either on the bus, or off the bus. Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty personal freedom to do that? Great. You’re with us, and you’re welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space. Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an a**hole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept — we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual’s divine right to be an a**hole, or the a**holes will take over. Which brings me to…. 3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums. When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new a**hole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible. 4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes? This is the problem Occupy’s leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I’ve been a part of a**hole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that’s been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave. This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual we statements that reflect the observations of the group. We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave. When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic a**holes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with I messages. I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave. Every statement needs to end with that demand — We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back. No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line. These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a restroom break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed a**holes will get the message that they’ve crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they’re faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once. Given the time this takes, it’s tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don’t do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well). This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not okay, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences (if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order. Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings. And finally: 5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way. You will get sh-t for this. But…but…it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit! No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association — which includes the right to exclude people who aren’t on the bus, and who are wasting the group’s limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you’re not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You’re just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You’re eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you’re also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people’s behavior without sanctioning their being — while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

Added 11/08/11
2 Views

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 03:00:00 11/08/11
During Tuesday's Occupy Oakland General Strike, the so-called "Black Block" vandalized stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them. [Caution: Strong Language-- NSFW] Guest Editorial by Sara Robinson , Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain. As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the a**hole problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud. 1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms. Occupy may be a DIY movement — but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we’re obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they’re able to meet that standard. 2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not. Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: You’re either on the bus, or off the bus. Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty personal freedom to do that? Great. You’re with us, and you’re welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space. Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an a**hole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept — we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual’s divine right to be an a**hole, or the a**holes will take over. Which brings me to…. 3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums. When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new a**hole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible. 4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes? This is the problem Occupy’s leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I’ve been a part of a**hole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that’s been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave. This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual we statements that reflect the observations of the group. We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave. When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic a**holes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with I messages. I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave. Every statement needs to end with that demand — We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back. No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line. These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a restroom break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed a**holes will get the message that they’ve crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they’re faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once. Given the time this takes, it’s tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don’t do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well). This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not okay, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences (if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order. Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings. And finally: 5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way. You will get sh-t for this. But…but…it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit! No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association — which includes the right to exclude people who aren’t on the bus, and who are wasting the group’s limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you’re not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You’re just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You’re eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you’re also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people’s behavior without sanctioning their being — while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.

Volcom Europe 2011 Wild in the Parks Switzerland

Added 08/26/11
28 Views

Former Governor Arne Carlson On The Budget Impasse And The Pr...

Added 06/08/11
5 Views

Former Governor Arne Carlson On The Budget Impasse And The Problems Inside The Republican Party

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 16:21:53 06/08/11
Former Governor Arne Carlson on the Budget Impasse, and the problems inside the Republican Party. "If you look today at the Minnesota stalemate that has occurred--the two most important people in that contest are the governor of the state of Minnesota Mark Dayton and Tony Sutton. And the big difference is, we the people elected one of those."--Arne Carlson. On May 27th in Minneapolis City Hall, hundreds met to celebrate the birthday centennial of Hubert Humphrey. Arguably one of the most effective legislators of our time. Authoring countless iconic bills, and producing them with the help Senators on the other side of the isle. Famous relationships developed between Humphrey and Republicans Everett Dirksen, Barry Goldwater and others. Humphrey, is also credited with breaking the longest running filibuster in Senate history. How did he do this? How did he perfect the "art of the compromise?" Minnesota, can look to Humphrey for solutions to today's problems, and that includes the current budget impasse. Former Governor Arne Carlson spoke strongly against the "no-compromise" strategy of the current Republican Party and its Chairman Tony Sutton here at the Humphrey Centennial, here are 3 clips assembled from an afternoon panel on "Civility in 21st Century Politics" that he sat on along with Hubert (Skip) Humphrey III, former Vice President Walter Mondale, and moderated by Federal Judge John R. Tunheim. Clip 1 : "Nowadays it's sit down, be quiet pass the bill, the flow of moneyed interests etcetera... Now we have in the state legislature is something that bothers me enormously, and that is the brazen attitude of the chairman of the Republican Party bringing legislators in and if you will "persuading them" of the virtues of no compromise. What bothers me about that kind of position is you can not govern in a democratic society if you're not willing to give and take--there is no governance. Now I realize I've got a bit of a partisan audience here, but my point is simply this : All these jobs, be it the governor, be it a member of the legislature, all of these people get tugged in different directions by different interests for different purposes. Their job is to broker the concerns, but much more importantly it's to broker the concerns within the confines of what you and I understand the role of government to do. Government in this particular instance brokers between the concerns of those who have power and those who do not. That requires a sense of judiciousness, a sense of fairness, a sense of decency. The good senator usually came down on the side of those who lacked power. But the system as a whole be it democrat, republican, liberal, conservative by in large has been protective of things like growing the middle class, making sure that there's opportunities for those who lack opportunity. Those are the normal struggles that will take place in a democratic society. And what we see here is increasingly the influence of money coming into politics to buy more power for those who have power at the expense of those who do not have power and do not have access to power. And nothing symbolizes that battle more, than what's happening in Minnesota and nationally on the issue of health care. Over 80 some odd thousand people, will be off of Minnesota Care, which is a modest health program, a kind of program we should be expanding year after year, that should be our discussion point, not how you whittle it back. But here they want to voucher-ize the system, but at the same time when I ask that they place themselves in that same system, and they become the experimentees of that system, and then report back to us in two years about how well the system worked, and how they enjoyed the high deductibles that they're willing to impose on poor people, then if it works for them, it stands to reason it's probably a pretty good program. But instead we have "Oh no"; let me promulgate a goody for you, but it's not sufficiently good for me. And that to me violates all concepts and all parameters of decency in public service. The only way we're going to change the lack of civility in our political discourse, is frankly by wining elections. It's not going to happen by having forums like this. As much as this is an enjoyable experience, we are not going to change the world because we agree that lack of civility has no place in American politics. But the moment the lack of civility becomes a political detriment, that element in the Republican party that has adopted as its mantra will immediately drop it. And so it compels in this case the Democratic party to realize that its best will not come out until such time as the Republican can match them in talent. When the two political parties compete for ideas, as they did in the Humphrey days, as they did in the Mondale days, as they did in the days of Skip Humphrey, if they can compete and have a collision of ideas, we the public win. But when one party questions the truthfulness, the patriotism and the person carrying the message and demonizes the person over the message, and that works and becomes part of the stream of media, we the public lose. We lose big. And so if we want decency, we the broad we, and I would ask you as Democrats to reach out to moderate Republicans, to all those of us who have been excommunicated if you will, and to independents, and build a positive agenda that actually wins elections, and allow this minority to assume a smaller minority status in our society. And with that I think we can bring back civility, during the process of this discussion I'll be happy to put more meat on that proposal. But I do want us to start to think about : Can we build a broad coalition as Humphrey did with the farmer labor group and the democratic group, can we build an informal kind of a coalition that focuses on the Constitutional Amendments that are coming before the people, and build the bridges necessary to coalesce support from all disaffected wings, and make sure the majority of Minnesotans and that their voices are truly felt?" 6:30 Clip 2 : "But I'll end if I may on this political note, and it's critical of the Democratic Party : I would argue that when one party significantly over-reaches, it can only over-reach with the permission of the other party. The other party has an obligation to fully participate to the fullest extent of it's capacity. If there's anything that we can remember of Senator Hubert Humphrey it's not one single human being on this planet ever accused him of not participating in debate. Even when it was on a topic when he was not sufficiently expert. And I won't digress, but there was delightful debate over botany and particularly as it effected the capitol grounds, and little did the good senator know that Everett Dirksen was an expert botantist. It was a long tough debate for the good senator. But suffice it to say, he taught us to participate. When a political party sits back, protects its own individual self-interests, the other party will over-reach as the Republican Party has. And it's up to the moderates, those of us who are moderate in the Republican Party to fight back, and to fight back publicly. It's up to Independents to fight, because if we're going to have a two party system, we're want to make sure that both political parties are producing the best and the brightest. And it's up to the Democratic Party to fight, and I think in the last several weeks we finally have seen some life on that side. That's good--and I hope it continues--but the way it can continue is coalescing this kind of a group, bring together these kinds of leaders, and say : "O.K.; we will go out and campaign throughout all of Minnesota; we will define what is in the best long term interests of the people of this state, and at the same time, defines our quality of life." And I think when we coalesce behind these kinds of issues, I think we the public win. And then both political parties are invigorated. If you go back to the hallmark years of Minnesota, it was the years when the Republican party woke up and started to compete finally in the 60's and the 70's. And you look at those days, those were hallmark days. They truly were. It was a competition of ideas. I remember when we came in the legislature together, all four caucuses worked day and night to be the first to complete their policy initiatives and then rushed to the cameras to announce what they were for, and then beat the other team. Now there's no rush. No, I want to see every single 201 members of the legislature remember that they represent the well being and the long term good of their constituents. And the idea that a political party can pull them in for an internal threatening session, I find offensive. And it's not something that any of us, in any way shape or form, allow to occur. Let me close on this final note : If you look today at the Minnesota stalemate that has occurred--the two most important people in that contest are the governor of the state of Minnesota Mark Dayton and Tony Sutton. And the big difference is, we the people elected one of those. And I would strongly urge Republican legislators to remember who it is that they represent. And once that recognition occurs then they begin to realize that any proposition involving the governor, also involves compromise, and compromise contrary to the Chair of the Republican Party is not an evil, it's an essential positive ingredient of a democratic society. Thank you." 11:00 Clip 3 : And we've always joked about never watch the legislature in process because it's sort of like watching sausage being made, and there's truth to that. It never was a smooth process. But the sad part is, it has gotten increasingly worse, and a large part of the reason is the nominating process. The traditional politeness says well the left is skewed to the left, the right is skewed to the right, it's kind of like two bad boys got together and had a fight, you know that's kind of American. But the reality is--that it's not. When you look at the Republican side, and you wonder why so many capable candidates have dropped out? And I thought today's cartoon in the Star Tribune depicted it very well, and that is there is no-way a moderate or a traditionally conservative Republican make it through the nominating process. Look back and ask yourself the question : Could Robert Taft who was the conscience of the conservative movement for decades in the United States Senate, and for the United States, could he be a Republican today and the answer is "no". Could Barry Goldwater? Clearly Mr. Republican, could he, no and as a matter of fact in his declining days it was known, he was not and could not be. Could Dwight Eisenhower, the last Republican to balance the federal budget, could he succeed in today's environment? Probably not. The last piece of irony is Ronald Reagan. Who on one hand is the god, or held up as the god of the movement but his record would make certain that he could not get through the process. Let's suppose his name were John Johnson, and he instituted eleven tax increases. Appointed a pro-choice female to the Supreme Court of the United States, strongly opposed proposition 6 in California, which was an anti-gay proposition sponsored by the Republican Party. Could he be nominated today--or would he be demonized? I would argue he would be open to a lot of demonetization. And so what has happened is that not just the moderate wing of the Republican Party, but anybody who disagrees with the agenda that's set forth by people who have never run for dog-catcher, will be rigidly applied. And so competence is one of the first things to go along with truthfulness. Now forget about our individual biases, but when you look at the array of candidates that are now before us, can you honestly truly as an American say that they represent our best and our brightest? When you look at the survey by a national legislative groups, on finances two of the worst financial records go to the states of Alaska and Minnesota, both of whom may have horses in the race. I'm not going to pick up on that one. Now the question that you may raise is--well why should we Democrats care? The answer is, why you should care, is because you are first Americans. Secondly, none of us today can predict what will transpire a year and a half from now. Thirdly, any person who is on the ballot could be elected. And we in Minnesota have some history on that. (Why are they looking at me!) But suffice it to say, as Skip [Humphrey] has pointed out, we continue to take our best and our brightest and our most competent and put political theater ahead of political substance... One, we as a nation will not continue to be a first rate international power; two, we will not grow those kinds of quality employment opportunities that we like to think are part of our heritage; and thirdly we will find ourselves being dictated to rather than as Walter Mondale has said being a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We have a splinter wing in the Republican Part, that I believe comes across as wanting to create a theocracy. That is frightening. As a person who minored in religion, I never realized that Jesus was for greed, that Jesus was for the well-to-do and the powerful and had disdain for those who were sick or impoverished. But what's sad about that is we the people have allowed others to define religion, to define their mission in the context of a higher power, blessing that mission and we do it without proper fight back. We have to learn as the good senator taught us, we have an obligation to participate, to speak out, to be truthful, and when need be, to throw the rascals out, and frankly I think the time has come for that."--Arne Carlson.

Sign in to Channels.com!

Search Results

Mirel Wagner - "No Death": SXSW 2012 Showcasing Artist

Mirel Wagner - "No Death": SXSW 2012 Showcasing Artist

Next Stop: Occupy Congress #J17

US Morning Call: Futures mixed on final 2011 trading day

US Morning Call: Futures mixed on final 2011 trading day

U.S. Morning Call: Futures mixed on final 2011 trading day

U.S. Morning Call: Futures mixed on final 2011 trading day

Kevin Pearce Gets Back on his Snowboard Again

Will Forte - Another Day at the Forte House | THE MORTIFIED SESSIONS | Sundance Channel

Today in History for November 17th

Today in History for November 17th

Today in History for November 17th

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

Volcom Europe 2011 Wild in the Parks Switzerland

Former Governor Arne Carlson On The Budget Impasse And The Problems Inside The Republican Party