<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Political Context</title>
	<atom:link href="http://politicalcontext.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://politicalcontext.org</link>
	<description>The Progressive Mosaic</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:03:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ﻿﻿Dialogue for Democracy: Virginia Needs to Stay Blue by Elaine Marie</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfdialogue-for-democrats-virginia-needs-to-stay-blue/#comment-51032</link>
		<dc:creator>Elaine Marie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3901#comment-51032</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think a big issue here is that you&#039;re asking someone else - someone&#039;s whose position you may not know clearly (e.g., previously uninsured and chronically ill) - to become that martyr for the ultimate good as well. Because as I point out initially - with respect to health insurance, my position won&#039;t change at all, regardless of whether or not we have Obamacare. But my vote could well change someone else&#039;s position (make them worse off by taking away Obamacare). And I&#039;m not comfortable with that.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think a big issue here is that you&#8217;re asking someone else &#8211; someone&#8217;s whose position you may not know clearly (e.g., previously uninsured and chronically ill) &#8211; to become that martyr for the ultimate good as well. Because as I point out initially &#8211; with respect to health insurance, my position won&#8217;t change at all, regardless of whether or not we have Obamacare. But my vote could well change someone else&#8217;s position (make them worse off by taking away Obamacare). And I&#8217;m not comfortable with that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ﻿﻿Dialogue for Democracy: Virginia Needs to Stay Blue by Elaine Marie</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfdialogue-for-democrats-virginia-needs-to-stay-blue/#comment-51030</link>
		<dc:creator>Elaine Marie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:59:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3901#comment-51030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is an interesting point, Matt, and one that many liberal scholars make - that the people in power give crumbs away and ultimately, it does more harm than good because the movement dissipates (yay! we got something! let&#039;s be excited about it instead of fight for more!). And, if the less powered people dare to not say &quot;thank you, you&#039;re awesome&quot;, then the powerful say &quot;why did I even stick my neck out in this small way for you people?&quot;. That is something I think about a lot. I really do not have a coherent answer (yet), but I do think about it a lot. At times, it causes me to get into a &quot;do not settle!&quot; mindset, but the problem is, then my side gets nothing, and I feel even worse. As an example, I was mortified by all the give-aways in the latest tax extenders. In order to keep policies important to me intact (expansion of the EITC for families with 3+ children, expansion of the Child Tax Credit - making it refundable starting at a lower threshold and doubling its size from $500 per child to $1000), dems gave away most of the estate tax and kept the tax breaks for higher-income people intact. Dollar for dollar, the wealthy benefited a lot more than the poor, but if the dems hadn&#039;t made the deal, low-income families would&#039;ve seen their tax bill increase by a few thousand dollars last year, and given the economic climate, I just couldn&#039;t stomach it. So, after the deal was made, I said &quot;well, at least low-income families didn&#039;t see their tax bills rise a bunch this year&quot; and I was left hoping that when tax reform finally happens, we&#039;ll get better legislation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an interesting point, Matt, and one that many liberal scholars make &#8211; that the people in power give crumbs away and ultimately, it does more harm than good because the movement dissipates (yay! we got something! let&#8217;s be excited about it instead of fight for more!). And, if the less powered people dare to not say &#8220;thank you, you&#8217;re awesome&#8221;, then the powerful say &#8220;why did I even stick my neck out in this small way for you people?&#8221;. That is something I think about a lot. I really do not have a coherent answer (yet), but I do think about it a lot. At times, it causes me to get into a &#8220;do not settle!&#8221; mindset, but the problem is, then my side gets nothing, and I feel even worse. As an example, I was mortified by all the give-aways in the latest tax extenders. In order to keep policies important to me intact (expansion of the EITC for families with 3+ children, expansion of the Child Tax Credit &#8211; making it refundable starting at a lower threshold and doubling its size from $500 per child to $1000), dems gave away most of the estate tax and kept the tax breaks for higher-income people intact. Dollar for dollar, the wealthy benefited a lot more than the poor, but if the dems hadn&#8217;t made the deal, low-income families would&#8217;ve seen their tax bill increase by a few thousand dollars last year, and given the economic climate, I just couldn&#8217;t stomach it. So, after the deal was made, I said &#8220;well, at least low-income families didn&#8217;t see their tax bills rise a bunch this year&#8221; and I was left hoping that when tax reform finally happens, we&#8217;ll get better legislation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ﻿﻿Dialogue for Democracy: Virginia Needs to Stay Blue by Matt J. Stannard</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfdialogue-for-democrats-virginia-needs-to-stay-blue/#comment-50808</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt J. Stannard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:43:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3901#comment-50808</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I certainly understand your anger and hurt, and I don&#039;t think what Mr. Barrow said was appropriate. But why you&#039;d want to punish the site, and its editors, for it is beyond me. I believe your response was disproportionate and resulted in innocent casualties. Sorry you feel like you had to make that choice.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I certainly understand your anger and hurt, and I don&#8217;t think what Mr. Barrow said was appropriate. But why you&#8217;d want to punish the site, and its editors, for it is beyond me. I believe your response was disproportionate and resulted in innocent casualties. Sorry you feel like you had to make that choice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Fifty Shades of Bourgeois by kosmosben</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/fifty-shades-of-bourgeois/#comment-50800</link>
		<dc:creator>kosmosben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3928#comment-50800</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Love the review.

It seems to me that the book would have far less of an element of escapism if Grey weren&#039;t rich. The book&#039;s cynical play for success is all about the vicarious need to be wealthy and sexually liberated and titillated.

It sounds like Horatio Alger&#039;s Ragged Dick, but considerably less ragged and considerably more raunch.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love the review.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the book would have far less of an element of escapism if Grey weren&#8217;t rich. The book&#8217;s cynical play for success is all about the vicarious need to be wealthy and sexually liberated and titillated.</p>
<p>It sounds like Horatio Alger&#8217;s Ragged Dick, but considerably less ragged and considerably more raunch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ﻿﻿Dialogue for Democracy: Virginia Needs to Stay Blue by Quaker Dave</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfdialogue-for-democrats-virginia-needs-to-stay-blue/#comment-50796</link>
		<dc:creator>Quaker Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:51:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3901#comment-50796</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Matt, I hope your following this thread.  I&#039;ve deleted everything I&#039;ve ever written for Political Context, and if it was possible for me to delete my account, I would.

When a &quot;dialogue&quot; results not only in someone&#039;s religious faith be questioned, but in that perosn being called a rapist for failure to fall into ideological lockstep, something is seriously wrong.  This site isn&#039;t a &quot;mosaic,&quot; but rather a idologically echo chamber.  

I&#039;ve never been as offended as I am now.  I cannot believe that my political moderation has resulted in the vile and hateful insults posted here.  I am done participating in this site.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, I hope your following this thread.  I&#8217;ve deleted everything I&#8217;ve ever written for Political Context, and if it was possible for me to delete my account, I would.</p>
<p>When a &#8220;dialogue&#8221; results not only in someone&#8217;s religious faith be questioned, but in that perosn being called a rapist for failure to fall into ideological lockstep, something is seriously wrong.  This site isn&#8217;t a &#8220;mosaic,&#8221; but rather a idologically echo chamber.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never been as offended as I am now.  I cannot believe that my political moderation has resulted in the vile and hateful insults posted here.  I am done participating in this site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ﻿﻿Dialogue for Democracy: Virginia Needs to Stay Blue by Quaker Dave</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfdialogue-for-democrats-virginia-needs-to-stay-blue/#comment-50778</link>
		<dc:creator>Quaker Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:43:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3901#comment-50778</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I stopped reading at the point where you accused me of not being a Quaker.  I was invited to come here for a constructive discussion.  if you&#039;re going to open with ad hominem attacks because you don&#039;t like who I vote for, there&#039;s really no possibility of any conversation being constructive.

You may want to take a long hard look in the mirror, because trying to open a dialogue with that kind of rhetoric won&#039;t get you very far.  if your ultimate goal is to convince people to support your values, it&#039;s a bad idea to start off by insulting them.  At this point, all you&#039;ve accomplished is driving me out of the conversation, which means you&#039;ve lost any and all opportunity to convince me your position is correct.  

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about preaching to the choir.  You had an opportunity to reach out to a democratic voter and try to convince me to do otherwise.  But instead, by using vicious and totally uncalled for personal attacks you&#039;ve simply reinforced my perspective.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I stopped reading at the point where you accused me of not being a Quaker.  I was invited to come here for a constructive discussion.  if you&#8217;re going to open with ad hominem attacks because you don&#8217;t like who I vote for, there&#8217;s really no possibility of any conversation being constructive.</p>
<p>You may want to take a long hard look in the mirror, because trying to open a dialogue with that kind of rhetoric won&#8217;t get you very far.  if your ultimate goal is to convince people to support your values, it&#8217;s a bad idea to start off by insulting them.  At this point, all you&#8217;ve accomplished is driving me out of the conversation, which means you&#8217;ve lost any and all opportunity to convince me your position is correct.  </p>
<p>This is exactly what I mean when I talk about preaching to the choir.  You had an opportunity to reach out to a democratic voter and try to convince me to do otherwise.  But instead, by using vicious and totally uncalled for personal attacks you&#8217;ve simply reinforced my perspective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ﻿﻿Dialogue for Democracy: Virginia Needs to Stay Blue by Matt J. Stannard</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfdialogue-for-democrats-virginia-needs-to-stay-blue/#comment-50712</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt J. Stannard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3901#comment-50712</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dave, I&#039;m not sure empirics and history validate your concerns about the Court. First, the party of the president appointing the justice appears to bear little consistent relationship to the eventual ideological direction of that justice. Second, rights are not ultimately won or lost at the Court, but in the streets.

But the deeper problem I have with your reasoning is that the system _always_ picks one or two issues to hold us hostage to its agenda. So Obama gets to spend four more years pushing a corporate, capitalist agenda that is literally destroying the planet, because we don&#039;t want to lose his anemic health care reform or risk losing our reproductive rights in those states that might respond to a reversal of Roe by outlawing them... There seems, then, no end to the amount of systemic evils which can be perpetrated in exchange for a few centrist/moderate crumbs of policy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, I&#8217;m not sure empirics and history validate your concerns about the Court. First, the party of the president appointing the justice appears to bear little consistent relationship to the eventual ideological direction of that justice. Second, rights are not ultimately won or lost at the Court, but in the streets.</p>
<p>But the deeper problem I have with your reasoning is that the system _always_ picks one or two issues to hold us hostage to its agenda. So Obama gets to spend four more years pushing a corporate, capitalist agenda that is literally destroying the planet, because we don&#8217;t want to lose his anemic health care reform or risk losing our reproductive rights in those states that might respond to a reversal of Roe by outlawing them&#8230; There seems, then, no end to the amount of systemic evils which can be perpetrated in exchange for a few centrist/moderate crumbs of policy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ﻿﻿Dialogue for Democracy: Virginia Needs to Stay Blue by Paul Barrow</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfdialogue-for-democrats-virginia-needs-to-stay-blue/#comment-50671</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Barrow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3901#comment-50671</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re completely wrong, Quaker Dave. The reason Democrats have moved to the right is because they have people like you guaranteed to vote for them while they lay at the trough of the monied crowd and look for fat packages that seal their place among that very same crowd, the elite, the well-heeled, and the second house on Montauk. I support a group called United Progressives that has a platform just like a political party, but our purpose is not to run in elections or endorse people who do, but to hold our values high and never let them down. There must be a space for values as well as for compromise, or else you haven&#039;t a clue as to what you are compromising but the compromise itself. We believe in fundamental principles about life, Quaker Dave, about respect for life, about human rights, and the right of everyone to basic rights, basic services, an education, a roof over his head, a sense of security, as long as these things are available to anyone. Why aren&#039;t you championing them? Why do you call yourself a Quaker if you&#039;re not? It is a community responsibility to provide for those within it. It is not a community responsibility to encourage rape and pillage and take advantage of ignorance and poverty as the Chamber of Commerce is prone to do. We live together, dependent upon each others skills and resources, and we are responsible for the quality of life all of us can produce for ourselves and for each other at the same time. When you think about these kinds of things, you think beyond elections: you think beyond power. You think rather of the moral and ethical foundation you are willing to stand on and call yourself a man and hold your head up as someone worthy of being called a progressive. If these are things that you believe in, then it is imperative that you champion them at all times. You must be willing to be a martyr for this ultimate good. You must give everything you have to support it. That&#039;s your obligation. That&#039;s the foundation of your own integrity.

So don&#039;t talk to me about where the Democratic Party is going. I know where it&#039;s going. It&#039;s going to hell. It is unwilling to stand for anything but power. It&#039;s all about winning. What&#039;s worse is that the Republicans take the moral high ground consistently because they do champion their values, which are based upon independence and freedom. People can get ahold of that. They understand values very clearly. The Democrats don&#039;t, because they are always willing to sacrifice principle for power. What does the Democratic Party stand for? Nothing. What does Obama do? His entire agenda is one of war, of assassinations, of depriving us of our civil rights, of failing to follow through on promises. He&#039;s a man no Democrat or liberal believes in except as the man to beat Romney. That&#039;s your kind of politics. It&#039;s empty of value, empty of humanity, empty of anything that promises the soul a vestige of dignity. What are you willing to stand for except sticking with a winner?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re completely wrong, Quaker Dave. The reason Democrats have moved to the right is because they have people like you guaranteed to vote for them while they lay at the trough of the monied crowd and look for fat packages that seal their place among that very same crowd, the elite, the well-heeled, and the second house on Montauk. I support a group called United Progressives that has a platform just like a political party, but our purpose is not to run in elections or endorse people who do, but to hold our values high and never let them down. There must be a space for values as well as for compromise, or else you haven&#8217;t a clue as to what you are compromising but the compromise itself. We believe in fundamental principles about life, Quaker Dave, about respect for life, about human rights, and the right of everyone to basic rights, basic services, an education, a roof over his head, a sense of security, as long as these things are available to anyone. Why aren&#8217;t you championing them? Why do you call yourself a Quaker if you&#8217;re not? It is a community responsibility to provide for those within it. It is not a community responsibility to encourage rape and pillage and take advantage of ignorance and poverty as the Chamber of Commerce is prone to do. We live together, dependent upon each others skills and resources, and we are responsible for the quality of life all of us can produce for ourselves and for each other at the same time. When you think about these kinds of things, you think beyond elections: you think beyond power. You think rather of the moral and ethical foundation you are willing to stand on and call yourself a man and hold your head up as someone worthy of being called a progressive. If these are things that you believe in, then it is imperative that you champion them at all times. You must be willing to be a martyr for this ultimate good. You must give everything you have to support it. That&#8217;s your obligation. That&#8217;s the foundation of your own integrity.</p>
<p>So don&#8217;t talk to me about where the Democratic Party is going. I know where it&#8217;s going. It&#8217;s going to hell. It is unwilling to stand for anything but power. It&#8217;s all about winning. What&#8217;s worse is that the Republicans take the moral high ground consistently because they do champion their values, which are based upon independence and freedom. People can get ahold of that. They understand values very clearly. The Democrats don&#8217;t, because they are always willing to sacrifice principle for power. What does the Democratic Party stand for? Nothing. What does Obama do? His entire agenda is one of war, of assassinations, of depriving us of our civil rights, of failing to follow through on promises. He&#8217;s a man no Democrat or liberal believes in except as the man to beat Romney. That&#8217;s your kind of politics. It&#8217;s empty of value, empty of humanity, empty of anything that promises the soul a vestige of dignity. What are you willing to stand for except sticking with a winner?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ﻿﻿Dialogue for Democracy: Virginia Needs to Stay Blue by Elaine Marie</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfdialogue-for-democrats-virginia-needs-to-stay-blue/#comment-50570</link>
		<dc:creator>Elaine Marie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3901#comment-50570</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Romney and Obama are similar, then why would a Romney victory have any better role in galvanizing the left to get off its ass and fight? And you&#039;re right - I am afraid to lose. Because I see crippling cuts to essential programs in the future, and that scares me. 

Thank you for your comments - and thank you to the editors of political context for organizing this discussion. You have given me more things to think about.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Romney and Obama are similar, then why would a Romney victory have any better role in galvanizing the left to get off its ass and fight? And you&#8217;re right &#8211; I am afraid to lose. Because I see crippling cuts to essential programs in the future, and that scares me. </p>
<p>Thank you for your comments &#8211; and thank you to the editors of political context for organizing this discussion. You have given me more things to think about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ﻿﻿Dialogue for Democracy: Virginia Needs to Stay Blue by Elaine Marie</title>
		<link>http://politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfdialogue-for-democrats-virginia-needs-to-stay-blue/#comment-50568</link>
		<dc:creator>Elaine Marie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalcontext.org/?p=3901#comment-50568</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would never argue that anyone should not have access to the ballot, and I have a policy to sign every form given to me with a candidate seeking to be on the ballot. I agree with you that restricting access to the ballot is deplorable.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would never argue that anyone should not have access to the ballot, and I have a policy to sign every form given to me with a candidate seeking to be on the ballot. I agree with you that restricting access to the ballot is deplorable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
