Some issues are big and scary and complicated (like war and our financial system), and I can understand how I'm not really in a position to specify expectations for how the government will address them.

However, some other issues are so straightforward (even if they aren't 'big') that I can confidently say that if the new Democratic government does not address these issues, then they will be guilty of negligent government.

I'm sure that many issues fall into this category, but here's are two issues that I expect the new government to take care of in fairly short order:

It is becoming more apparent with each passing day that the American lifestyle as it currently exist is unsustainable. For more than three decades we have accepted the false narrative that we can live beyond our means and there will be no cost for the extravagance. Not only has our government accepted and promoted this falsehood, but we as a nation have accepted it as well. It has become so ingrained into our national psyche that anyone who dares to point out its inherent flaws is immediately ridiculed by politicians, the media, and their fellow citizens. You see rather than looking at the real culprits of our failed domestic and foreign policies we want to create these “bogeymen” who want to destroy our sacred way of life. The truth is that it is always easier to blame others for our shortsightedness and faults.

Over the course of the next months, I'm going to pose a high-level political process question to the SC faithful. These questions will be mostly about how the government is fundamentally structured rather than on some sort of issue. My hope is that we can all debate from first principles on an issue that isn't readily discussed in normal political discourse.

Because we generally use single-member districts in the US, I will focus on alternative voting systems that are used in single-member districts.

Over the course of the next few weeks or possibly months, I'm going to pose a high-level political process question to the SC faithful. These questions will be mostly about how the government is fundamentally structured rather than on some sort of issue. My hope is that we can all debate from first principles on an issue that isn't readily discussed in normal political discourse.

Today, I'll ask questions about ballot access laws.

Congresswoman "Mean" Jean Schmidt (R-OH), perhaps aware of a strong correlation between the vibration of her vocal cords and the likelihood of personal humiliation , has yet to ask one single question in hearings as a member of the Agriculture Committee in the 110th Congress, according to committe transcripts.

Hat tip to The Liberty Papers for calling attention to the annual Pig Book by Citizen's Against Government Waste .

Notable rankings by posted by Stephen at Liberty Papers:

The top 5 porkers in the Senate were:

#1 Cochran (R): 241 projects costing $892.2 million.
#2 Stevens (R): 150 projects costing $469.4 million
#3 Shelby (R): 206 projects costing $464.5 million

promoted by John

A bunch of political bigwigs are making noises about the need for "bipartisanship" in the next President's administration . These bigwigs include Mike Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel, and several former Senators. While these politicians seem to be as respectable as any politician, their call for "unity" and "bipartisanship" creeps me out. They probably view their project as the embodiment of George Washington's warnings against factionalism , but I have a feeling that the reality would be more akin to fascism.

The last month has not been a good one for the loose confederacy of interests usually filed under progressive causes. First, LGBT activists nearly devoured themselves over the proposed changes to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), in a struggle that challenged the commitment of ostensibly queer activists to the T part of the acronym and eventually resulted in public resignations from the nation's most powerful LGBT lobby. Second, the Obama campaign's ill-advised decision to launch a gospel tour with publicly outspoken anti-gay singers led to a series of campaign flubs, bitter exchanges, and an epic flameout on Daily Kos that really has to be read to be believed.

Though I don't doubt the general commitment of everyone involved to the same umbrella set of goals, the fissures and lack of well-articulated overlap between interest groups has the potential - especially when lacking a strong central figure to act as leader - to turn nasty. That's exactly what happened this past month, and I want to perform a brief autopsy to show where things went wrong, and whether it's possible to avoid these kinds of explosions in the future. Spoiler alert: I really don't think so.

This Video would be a great way to spend about 45 minutes this weekend. Great stuff. It's an Interview with Thomas Woods about his new book, 33 Questions about American History .

The video is embedded below the fold.

Once through discussing the book, the later parts of the interview go through recent American History and weave together an fascinating take on our current climate.

It's a not libertarian rant but rather a look at history through an un-typical lens of analysis that looks many captivating topics that Dems, Repubs and Independents alike will enjoy (I think).

A bit of debate is being stirred up regarding Congressional resolution H.Res 106 , which recognizes the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks back during WWI. This is particularly relevant to the Jewish community, due to their own experience with genocide and the suggestion that silence regarding the Armenian genocide reassured the Germans that they would not face any repurcussions for their own Genocide.

Why Has Congress Failed Americans?

Joel S. Hirschhorn

The Founders of our nation and the Framers of our Constitution surely did not foresee the day when, of the federal government’s three branches, the public would have the least confidence in Congress. In fact, the public has a little less confidence in Congress than it has in HMOs. At 14 percent, the fraction of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure -- and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. The Supreme Court received 34 percent confidence and the awful presidency of George W. Bush received 25 percent – nothing to be proud of.

The hype is on to counteract Michael Moore's devastating new movie. But the reality is hard to argue when you can graph the real data.

Ugh.

In a conversation with my (conservative but Bush hating) dad today, I got this line thrown at me:

”Well, this Democratic Congress is responsible for the single biggest tax increase in history”

Of course, this relates to the spin put forth by republicans who are counting the lack of renewal of the obscene Bush tax cuts from 2001 AND 2003 which were purposely made to sunset in 2010 so that rosy “balanced” budget estimates could have been made by the administration and the republican controlled Congress during 2001 and 2003.

I am going to pretend that there are no sniping Democrats who are only interested in scoring political points in the best possible light in order to get elected, with no interest whatsoever in what actually happens in Iraq. I am going to pretend that Democrats are not a corrupt party themselves and their attempts to subpoena and investigate are an honest desire to see the truth behind the Bush administration's actions. I am going to pretend that our country is not in danger, if the Democrats are elected, of censoring the media of the conservative point of view, of attacking the wealthy and the productive and the other movers and shakers who truly make this country run. I am also going to pretend to be an independent objective observer, albeit a right wing one, with only agenda being the presentation of the true state of our Country's affairs, the War in Iraq, and President Bush Administration's actions.

I just noticed a new dkos diary Help me set the Senate's agenda by Dick "Our troops are like nazis" Durbin. There he lists 10 Senate bills that will be introduced when the new congress convenes. He also asks for community's priorities.

* S.1 -- Ethics & lobbying reform
* S.2 -- Increasing the minimum wage
* S.3 -- Lowering prescription drug prices for seniors
* S.4 -- Fully implementing all 9/11 Commission recommendations
* S.5 -- Expanding stem cell research
* S.6 -- Developing new technology to promote energy independence
* S.7 -- Making college more affordable
* S.8 -- Rebuilding America's military
* S.9 -- Immigration reform
* S.10 -- Reinstating "Pay As You Go" rules for the federal budget

So I had some thoughts on those, and what is ommitted. Some predictions as well.

With a new Congress entering from stage left, the subject of bipartisanship came up today both on redstate and dailykos: I thought this would be a great place to talk not only about the nature of partisan politics, but also about our expectations when we cross the party lines on this website.

First, the headline from redstate reads, "Bipartisanship is Dead". In the conclusion to his diary, streiff threw out this observation:

Second, I'm pretty much a "no quarter asked, no quarter given" type of guy... This mewling over bipartisanship has always struck me as distinctly un-American, not to mention unmanly, and is really nothing more than an excuse for failed leadership and an insurance policy against being held accountable for your actions.

Whatever genius strategy Bush and company cobble together for Iraq, we can be sure that a key piece of Bush mis/disinformation will be a claim that more American forces, specifically, more American trainers, will focus on getting Iraqi troops up-to-speed over the course of the next 12-18 months.

As we know, this is a charade. It is a stall tactic designed to help Bush "run out the clock" on Iraq during his presidency, leaving this epic disaster for the next president.

So presented here (for the benefit of our lazy media who likely won't question Bush's bogus assertions of past and potential successes in training Iraqi troops) are the cold, hard facts on past claims, and on the very dubious possibilities of future success.

The diary below was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal .

Typically, I believe in setting ambitious progressive goals and pursuing them with patient deliberation. There is an ebb and flow to public perception, debate and popular will. The ideal approach is to build coalitions and let policy ideas percolate through the prism of debate. We don't have that luxury now.

Iraq continues to burn, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan and America is perceived as a rudderless giant. Under the Bush regime America is weak and immoral. That is a recipe for calamity. Triangulation and splitting hairs is not an option. Our national security is under the command and control of a sixty-year old adolescent (Bush), a feculent viceroy (Dick Cheney), an inept bureaucrat (Condi Rice) and a scandalous Washington retread (Robert Gates on December 18th).