originally shared here on
↩
replying to a post on
nytimes.com
Colbert’s super PAC is in a way an extended improvisation with no end in sight. It just keeps adding new layers. Why does he have a super PAC? Because he can and because it’s funny.
The entire article is a great biography of Stephen Colbert, but the part I loved the most was this bit about his super PAC. I'm glad somebody is doing something like that, both because it's good to have the inner workings of the political system exposed, and also because it's funny.
originally shared here on
↩
replying to a post on
nymag.com
We can debate when the slide began. But what seems beyond argument is that the U.S. political system becomes more polarized and more dysfunctional every cycle, at greater and greater human cost. The next Republican president will surely find himself or herself at least as stymied by this dysfunction as President Obama, as will the people the political system supposedly serves, who must feel they have been subjected to a psychological experiment gone horribly wrong, pressing the red button in 2004 and getting a zap, pressing blue in 2008 for another zap, and now agonizing whether there is any choice that won’t zap them again in 2012.
The whole article resonates with me, as someone who grew up leaning more right, but this last paragraph is exactly how I feel about this election season.
originally shared here on
↩
replying to
Walt Harrington· theamericanscholar.org
Journalist Walt Herrington shares his experiences that come along with 26 years of knowing George W. Bush. A very long article, but very informative.
“Some people walk up and say, ‘Oh, man, history is going to judge you well.’ And my quip is, ‘I’m not going to be around to see it.’ And to me, that’s one of the most important lessons you learn through history—you’re just not gonna be around to see it. … I’m confident of this: that those conclusions will be more objective with time than they could conceivably be now.”