From the Rally to Restore Sanity

by on October 30, 2010 at 8:44 pm in Current Affairs, Television, Travel | Permalink

Rally1

A few more in the extension.

Rally2

Rally3

Rally4

 

1 Mathew Toll October 30, 2010 at 7:57 pm

Very nice.

2 Russell Nelson October 30, 2010 at 10:01 pm

Idiot. Only 93.7% of all statistics are made up. The other 6.5% are real.

3 Andrew October 31, 2010 at 1:00 am

This is the rally that's supposed to restore sanity?

Looks like a bad trip to me.

4 Skydawg October 31, 2010 at 2:37 am

If you think the liberal platform is fun now, you're gonna love Communism! Its a hoot.

5 Nattering Nabob October 31, 2010 at 3:53 am

If you think the liberal platform is fun now, you're gonna love Communism!

'Cause, you know, Obama is totally a closet Communist. If only I had a whiteboard I could prove it…

6 Roger Sweeny October 31, 2010 at 5:49 am

The rally reminded me why I consider myself a liberal. I identified with the spirit of it, to the same extent I hated Glenn Beck. Nevermind that I agree with libertarians on most issues. This rally reminded me that I'd rather be a liberal disagreeing with other liberals than considering becoming a conservative.

That's perhaps the saddest thing I've read today: the idea that you have to be on a team, that you pretty much have to confine pleasant interactions to your teammates, and that there are only two teams.

7 Indy October 31, 2010 at 5:52 am

Let's go a few competitive game-theory steps down the rabbit-hole in the escalation phase of the mutually-assured-destruction scenario that is our politics.

Won't it be wonderful when, eventually, maybe soon, every celebrity figure holds competitive "non-partisan" rallies on the National Mall every single weekend? Maybe even two or three in some nice-weather weeks?

You can't *really* be on the A-list unless you've got your own mall rally, don't you know?! It's like getting arrested. Of course, the "celebrity athletes raising money for kids with cancer" rally will put them all to shame, surpassing even our coronation-inaugurations.

So, by 2030, there will have been so many 100K+ rallies, and a few 1M+ mega-rallies, that no school child will be able to learn about the ones of the distant, ancient past of the 1960's and think they were anything special at all.

8 Salem October 31, 2010 at 7:07 am

I agree with Roger Sweeny.

American politics is in the mess it is because of people identifying with the spirit" of politicians, as opposed to holding them to account. And I don't mean this in a partisan way, both sides are guilty. If like dirk you agree with one group on most issues, but ignore those issues and vote on grounds of political theatre, don't you dare complain about anything the government actually does.

9 J Thomas October 31, 2010 at 8:32 am

"American politics is in the mess it is because of people identifying with the spirit" of politicians, as opposed to holding them to account. And I don't mean this in a partisan way, both sides are guilty."

It's a duopoly. If you agree with one side on a bunch of issues but they don't live up to them, what will you do? Vote for the guys you disagree with instead?

Perhaps get deeply involved in the primary process? Some states have it set up so you can vote in the other party's primary, if you think it's more important to get a bad opponent than a good guy on your side. You'll be competing with them….

We desperately need a political system where third parties can be viable. Reform the voting system, get Immediate Runoff Voting or something like that.

10 Jim October 31, 2010 at 9:26 am

Stewart desperately wants to be taken seriously, but he's also terrified, and has the self-esteem of a Bill Clinton receptionist. Whenever he's challenged, he reverts to "Lay off me, I'm just a comedian" and thus, he never gets anywhere.

Also, he's just a boilerplate liberal. As such, he thinks he's a revolutionary, but he has nothing new to offer.

He's finally starting to mock Obama — it only took him two years, and he had to wait til Barry's approval rating sank into the 30s. But once the GOP takes the House in 2 days, he'll come back to the reservation. He'll save most of his rage for the 2012 GOP nominee.

As an aside, I believe I first heard that statistics joke in 1988.

11 Roping Down October 31, 2010 at 10:19 am

"Then, if the following is true, we've been screwed almost from the beginning. Damn!"

It has been true since about two days after de Toqueville left North America. He noted democracy would work "until the politicians learned they could bribe the voters with their own money." Now it is vastly with other people's money, which indeed is much worse. But the sheer scale of the thing, of the personal cash or profits currently written directly and indirectly into federal law, and the special favors charged against taxes and loans non-beneficiaries must pay, bear no relationship in relative size or scope to those of the 1800's.

The point wasn't that the situation is new. It was that it has grown staggeringly without any successful attempt to alter the mechanics of our system.

12 songar October 31, 2010 at 10:48 am

". . .bear no relationship in relative size or scope to those of the 1800's."

The key word is "relative". Is that verifiable? In the earliest days of this country under its present constitution, the population was approx. 3-4 million and the area covered by the thirteen colonies was probably less than a third what it is now. I don't know what the cost of a loaf of bread in Philadelphia or a dozen eggs in in Massachusetts might have been.

One thing is reasonably certain, though. The Constitution has been remarkably resilient over the last 220 years to encompass the 100-fold growth of the population and the tripling/quadrupling of the US land mass. Reducing the size of a government that has expanded to encompass that growth had better be done very judiciously.

13 dirk October 31, 2010 at 1:23 pm

"American politics is in the mess it is because of people identifying with the spirit" of politicians, as opposed to holding them to account. And I don't mean this in a partisan way, both sides are guilty. If like dirk you agree with one group on most issues, but ignore those issues and vote on grounds of political theatre, don't you dare complain about anything the government actually does."

Like it or not, it's a winner take all system, which is why the contest always comes down to two major parties. You can be someone who toes the line of the party platform or you can be someone who tries to change that platform. I disagree with the Dems on many issues and I don't hold back in expressing my disagreement with other Dems. If I identified with the GOP I would need to express my disagreements within that party as well, but I'm much more likely to be listened to by other Dems because they are more likely to respect my values and the spirit of my arguments.

It doesn't mean I vote with the Dems, only that to the extent I have a political voice it seems to be listened to more readily by other Dems. So why not call myself one?

14 beezer November 1, 2010 at 1:35 am

If only we could get a labor union rally this large. It would be nice if we started recycling profits down to the base again.

15 Nyongesa November 1, 2010 at 3:03 am

How meta is premier jerseys' commentary

16 josh November 1, 2010 at 7:08 am

By God, how I detest irony.

17 IVV November 1, 2010 at 7:49 am

Please tell me that the thing in the second picture is the Mutant 20-Tentacled Octopus of Fail. Because it's one thing in economics in the past month that absolutely needs to be popularized.

18 Gene Callahan November 1, 2010 at 9:02 am

"Hey careless, we had slaves in 1820. Women weren't allowed to vote. Go get in your hot tub time machine and stop bothering us."

Mike, this comment only makes sense if you think every single feature of an era is inextricably tied to every other one. If we cut spending to the relative level of 1820, do you think we'd also have to start shooting Indians again? Traveling by horse and wagon? Drinking cider instead of beer? If not, presumably someone could think the spending level was great while the slavery bit was bad.

19 josh November 2, 2010 at 5:37 am

What is so great about women voting? Did it lead to better government?

20 J Thomas November 6, 2010 at 7:14 am

Dan, did you miss that Josh hates irony?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: