"Breaking Blue is a place for breaking news and polls, as well as rumors, chitchat, and general dishing on Democratic politics and DC. Say, you're on the Hill or inside some Democratic institution and want to snark, BB is here."

Or, say you're a front-page blogger, and you just want to post every single dumb conversation that you have with other bloggers... apparently BB is also here.

"Breaking Blue is a place for breaking news and polls, as well as rumors, chitchat, and general dishing on Democratic politics and DC."
Should there be an addendum, "and links to blogger pissing-matches wherever they might occur in the blogosphere..."?

Read the extended entry for the always-entertaining hubris-filled Metonym musings... which I perennially post when Metonym reappears... Anybody want to do some research into whether "Michael in Chicago" is really Metonym?  

So far, I've pieced the Metonym highly-inbred (it's a self-spawning organism) family tree together as follows.

A young puffed-out-chest art-history grad student whose name I've never revealed (others have... he has, actually)... morphed into Metonym (who promptly inflated his ego when Bowers made mistake of complimenting on his "name") who morphed into "ilyayavitz" who morphed into "formalist" at dailykos and again morphed into "illinois062006" for certain, at which point I believe he split his personality between both "illinois062006" and "Michael in Chicago"... but I can't be certain about the latter.  But they sure do rate each other up quite a bit, and have a bit of the same writing style.  I congratulate them both on single-handedly giving themselves the ability to zero-out comments.

For the amusing metonym-ilyayavitz-formalist-illinois062 006-(Michael in Chicago?) Ph.D.-to-be montage... click below the fold... may it live on in perpetuity...

I've read the 1st half of "crashing the gate", and I think Jerome's and Markos's treatment of the "issue groups" is, in some places, spot-on.  However, their pro-labor bias is apparent.  I don't have the book in front of me, but they point to several "failures" of the environmental community and the pro-choice community... and conclude after both subsections that (something like) "until the pro-choice/environmental communities embrace a larger progressive agenda,[they're fucked]".

In contrast, after talking about labor's failures, they soft-footed the issue, and didn't have the same conclusion... Rather, they concluded, somewhat lamely, that labor has some communication problems, and if they could just get the word out, they can be an important voice in the progressive movement.

The implication there was... pro-choicers and environmentalists... shut the fuck up, hold your nose, and vote for Democrats no matter what... That's what is best for you... Labor, improve your communication skills and lead the way.

-----------------------------------
They have completely ignored the main problem that labor has with environmentalism... and vice versa... the mistaken notion that "The Environment Costs Jobs".

In the Pacific Northwest, this is perhaps THE biggest political issue... "the environment"... and in most instances, environmentalists and labor are on completely opposite sides of the issue... with good reason... Labor supports opening up large tracts of land for logging to "provide jobs"... and lobbys intensively for this... while "environmentalists" are, obviously, opposed to this... As an "environmentalist", living in the Pac-Northwest, I was also a member of the AFL-CIO, and it was a really tough issue... some of my union dues were spent on lobbying for opening tracts of land, and I was really upset about it.

I resent the implication that labor needs to lead the way, while environmentalists need to back off and hold their nose...

If Jerome and Markos really want to start a "new" progressive movement, and they think that labor is an obvious group that should take the lead... then they need to realize that "labor" is not infallible... that on a TEENY TINY number of labor issues... they are in direct conflict with their potential progressive allies.  

Thus, it is completely unfair to say that environmentalists should embrace a "broader" progressive agenda... if that "broader" agenda is dictated by labor, who start with an assumption of "The Environment Costs Jobs"...
If labor would back off on this stance, and would't actively fund anti-environmentalist candidates, specifically BECAUSE they're anti-environmentalists... then the two groups could agree on a hell of a lot more and work together on a lot of issues... For instance workplace safety is sort of "environmentalish"...

Zogby Abortion Survey
by NCDem,

So... it looks like Zogby is going to have a poll out on abortion, 'cause I just got the questionnaire... I'm having trouble with the following 2 questions

---------------------------------------- -----------------------

Do you agree or disagree that abortion ends a human life?

Agree  
 Disagree  
 Not sure  
---------------------------------------- -

Which of the following best describes when you think life begins?

At conception  
 At 3 months  
 At 6 months  
 At birth  
 Not sure  
---------------------------------------- -
I ended up answering "Disagree" and "birth"... but only because it's the "correct" (politically correct, that is) answer, whereas if I was being honest, I would say, "yes", "at conception"...

But in reality... "sperm" are "alive" and "eggs" are "alive"... and so I don't think the question really gets at the heart of the matter... I think abortion ends a human life, but I give no value to human gametes "as evidenced by my protected sex with my wife"... little value to a human zygote, and give progressively more "value" as the thing gets older... to eventually become a "human human".  

This is not a black and white issue, and this questionairre is HARD.

NCDem

Republicans are very good at rallying their base. If you're like me (you're not) you watch Fox news and listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, read the Drudge report... and you'll find that this is the current Republican talking point.  EVERYWHERE they're attacking "Happy holidays"... I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's clearly a coordinated distraction, because it's on Rush, Hannity, Fox, and every local and national MSM outlet...  diverting attention from real issues... scaring people into thinking that liberals are gonna take Christ out of the "commercial-holiday-that-has-become" Christmas... and yet that's the wonderful irony that I haven't really heard discussed... Remember last year's talking point, "Keep the Christ in Christmas"?  What better way to do that than to keep Christmas out of the fucking shopping malls?

Morons

This should be in the form of a letter to the editor.  It's ripe for it... but I'm too lazy.

Update...

"the Republicans biggest corporate givers are the biggest secular forces trivializing the meaning of Christmas." Curt Matlock

exactly

for getting pregnant and proving faith-based sexlessness doesn't work.

Parker needs to apologize to everybody, for all the usual reasons.

Jeff needs to apologize for posting a diary with a decent point but a bad delivery of said-point.

Gary needs to "take his meds" and then apologize to me.

Jerome needs to apologize for letting Tim Fucking Russo post.

Tim Fucking Russo needs to apologize for being Tim Fucking Russo.

Chris needs to apologize for posting Feingold propaganda.

Stevo needs to apologize for being a Feingold mole.

And I apologize for being paranoid, and somehow teaming up with Parker, of all people... exposing the Feingold-mole-that-probably-isn't-(but-still-may-be).

Deep Thoughts, By NCDem: (In the prosaic haiku-style of Turnerbroadcasting)

Beautiful mojo.
Elusive beast though you are
How do I get thee?