Justin, I've been thinking that if so few people contribute, then perhaps this country or world is unworthy of being saved. Aren't we a nation of 300 million+ ?

Justin, you make a lot of good points, as usual. I too am appalled at the indifference of the so-called left to war and civil rights. And from you I have learned to be distrustful of any government or politicians. However, I still think that one could, say, support some kind of universal health care without 'growing' the power of politicians. It would take intelligent checks and balances, and independent regulation to prevent favoritism, but it could be done. Or at least, we could have single-payer without favoritism or abuse of power. It is conceivable, not mathematically impossible. The real problem is that too many people are selfish, uninformed and lacking in curiosity and skepticism. It is tragic and shocking that only a few hundred out of millions support this site!

Here's a great anti-Obama article by a bonafide lefty:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/04

Well, since we've got another Libertarian vs. Left spat here, I might as well mention what really divides true (i.e. antiwar) leftists from the kind of libertarians found here: economics. I don't want to rehash that, but I do want to mention a new line of thought (to me) that we might possibly agree on. A lawyer named Ellen Brown has a book called Web of Debt on how money is created out of thin air by the Fed and the bankers, who then charge compound interest and impoverish everybody. The colonialists, Jackson and Lincoln simply issued money directly according to the Contitution, and the economy thrived. (Gold will never provide enough credit.) The sounds highly inflationary, but if done responsibly, according to the needs of a growing economy, then it's no worse than banks creating money, which is largely a fictious entity anyway (and the middleman is eliminated). The argument is involved and merits debate, but it makes some sense to me. With banks and the military-industrial complex eliminated, there would be enough left over for public healthcare and other services, without really going to socialism, much as we have public highways. Remember that technology has produced great wealth, but the elites largely suck it off (e.g. 1 percent own 40% of the assets). Another voice for credit as a 'public utility' is Richard C. Cook. It sounds to me like we could enjoy a little 'socialism' without losing our freedom. Or maybe that's too good to be true...

Justin, I think you underestimate how many on the 'left' are disgusted with Obama, if only because they visit this website and/or Counterpunch. We must distinguish between those who are at least somewhat informed and those who are clueless. The latter category is quite huge, as you know if you have ever watched Jay Leno asking people in the street basic questions about politics. That's life!

I was wondering why the hell 'radical' San Francisco kept sending Pelosi back. The word 'machine' seems plausible enough. Now isn't SF supposed to have the highest concentration of PhD's? For shame! (But I do like to visit the place)

Thanks Grady. However, the libertarians are right that big government tends to be abused, because politicians tend to be corrupt (and stupid). It's a real conundrum. As a 'liberal' here, are you aware that Obama is helping Wall Street fleece us, our children, and our children's children, to the tune of trillions. Welcome to 'liberal' in practice, as opposed to theory.

Justin, I agree with most of this, but is it really fair to pit American workers against dollar-a-day (or dollar-an-hour) third-world workers? How would you feel? I think I may be with our friend Pat Buchanan on this. Also, it does seem true that protectionism was behind the rise of many great powers (England, the US, and Asia in modern times, and more). I am in favor of 'free trade' between players who are more or less equal, not between lions and lambs.