To be fair, I've conducted many an interview on the move like that. Sometimes, the interview subject *has* to keep moving and is on a tight schedule and only has a few minutes. The way he just slinked into the SUV and offered the condescending thumbs-up to end the interview bugged me a lot more.

That was an interesting moment. I kept looking at her face to see if she could keep from cracking up at his comment. I thought she did a very good job and looking professional and serious. And I agree, he was extremely rude to make her follow him around.

So long as they don't win.

So like, a voluntary ethnic cleansing? Neat. Since you asked so nicely, I'll just go back to where my ancestors came from--Acadia. Oh darn, that's where Maine is now. If you could just move Maine...

Beverly,

Shill(y) Girl! So, the answer for America is more God in our Government? Take all of us Progressives and exile us to Denmark? So you can set up a right wing white Protestant religious Taliban to run the country? One viewpoint under God. Get out of town.

Beverly: If you've really got 70% of the population on your side, then what's the problem?

The more important issue comment is an odd one. I don't doubt that you could make a case about our military in combat, but the war isn't going to fall apart if we consider domestic issues for a while. There's a section of our nation that are denied basic civil liberties. So what all would fit in the "more important" category that would also be ignored by coverage of this important issue?

Progressive values are not socialism. Socialism, like many other combinations of letters, is a word with its own definition. Just to be clear, socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources. There's a deliberate push by conservatives redefining the word socialism as pretty much anything that a democrat likes, but this redefinition is absurd.

I get it. You don't like democrats. The fact that you seem to think that progressive social ideals have something to do with the means of production makes me wonder if you know why you don't like democrats.

I reposted some of this on my Facebook page. I love a lot of people who do not understand this distinction. Thanks for working it out so concisely.

Bevadams, YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND! Get real. 70 % or whatever fictitious % you would like to use, Majority of the folks in the USA want us to all get along, be tolerant and that includes gay folks, black, white, Aisan, Middle Eastern etc etc. Be careful, while you are still fighting for a pure white and off the Mayflower population, the country and the world is changing! Learn some tolerance, bekind and compassionate or you will be out in the cold.

For Matt the Southern Liberal:

Your earlier post today that I borrowed sparked my uncle's interest on Facebook. I thought I'd share the interchange so far, since you inspired it.

ME:

Boo.

‎"Progressive values are not socialism. Socialism, like many other combinations of letters, is a word with its own definition. Just to be clear, socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources. There's a deliberate push by conservatives redefining the word socialism as pretty much anything that a democrat likes, but this redefinition is absurd.

I get it. You don't like democrats. The fact that you seem to think that progressive social ideals have something to do with the means of production makes me wonder if you know why you don't like democrats." - Matt the Southern Liberal

Uncle Chuck:

By your definition the ownership of GM, Chrysler, AIG and several others fits right in. As far as allocation of resources is concerned, its happening now with the horrible debt that has exploded over the past two years and it will get worse. BTW progressive is just another catch phrase for socialism.

ME:

I'm glad you have reasons for your beliefs, Uncle Chuck. I do not agree with your conclusions or interpretation of facts, but we've had this conversation before, haven't we?

By definition, your use of the word "ownership" in reference to TARP is not correct. Why aren't all of the companies who lined up for funds being called socialist? Because they are capitalist, going concerns, with stock holders, quarterly reports, and in some cases even profits, that’s why. Also remember, TARP was signed into law by George W. Bush. Does that by extension mean to you that Bush became a socialist once the economy he presided over tanked? Or is the word progressive? And by socialist (or progressive) exactly what definition are you using?

Facts work alone; they don't require embellishment. But that's really the problem, isn't it? Everyone wants their own definition for everything. We are speaking a thousand different languages, all using the same words. My words are defined in dictionaries. Where do your definitions come from? "Progressive" and "socialism" are not the same word. That was exactly my point, and you missed it entirely.

The horrible debt you mentioned it just that, horrible debt. But it's not socialism, either. It will continue to grow, too, because our President is implementing a widely accepted *capitalistic* economic model that shows government spending is necessary to stimulate growth in light of our overall macroeconomic condition. There are other popular models that disagree with this model's conclusion vehemently. Each model however is based upon theory, not fact. Neither is proven, and many smart, well respected economists honorably debate this topic.

This is my opinion, but I believe no single economic theory will ever succeed if the leadership factions in our government continue to cut one another off at the knees and disallow absolute commitment to some, any, specific effort. At some point they all must stop prosthelytizing and start working together. Forgive the overused metaphor, but it's like bailing half of the water out of a damaged boat and then wondering why it still sank after all that expended energy.

I live in a city filled with old bridges, and I would like to see much more public money spent on infrastructure than Obama has finally proposed. I would like to see this not just for transportation, but for extensive energy and communications overhauls as well, because I believe such improvements are not only functionally imperative for our future, but are also capable of reviving our economy by increasing necessary tax revenue through job creation, not tax increases. Then again, I support the Keynesian model. This view is textbook progressive, not socialist, just to be clear.

Okay, I'm very hungry for dinner so I'm going to pass the floor on. Please call my mother more often. She enjoys you so. I hope you come up for a visit soon. I'd enjoy debating progressive politics with you in person.

All my love to you and to Aunt Margie,

-Your staunchly, proudly liberal niece Michele

I do love the tarp reference. Many on the right have purposefully obfuscated the specifics behind tarp to make it look more socialistic than it is. There's actually a provision in tarp that restricts the government from having any voting rights within a company specifically to avoid any government decision in the means of production. Now tarp does include specific restrictions and regulations, most notably the restrictions against "golden parachutes". So tarp gave money to bail out these companies and then put in place the highest incentive to pay back the money on the management itself to avoid placing the pressure on employees and investors.

More importantly though, I love healthy political discourse and your post is an excellent example of the redefinition of words to further a political agenda.

I try not to blame people for buying into the rhetoric. We're only a generation or two away from the times when print and tv reporting held truth and clarity as paramount to...well paramount to everything. Somehow we went from Walter Cronkite telling people about the state of our country to Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. It's hard to blame people for trusting their news media when they were raised believing in their news media.

I appreciate you posting this! Keep the discourse going.

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the response. The topic of word redefinition resonates with me. One branch of my twisty education tree was spent on literary and cultural theory, where we analyzed texts word by word in order to gain insight into the life and times of the writer and of their intended audience. Fascinating stuff. That's why I liked your first post.

You are right about people buying into the rhetoric. I really try to listen and to be extra patient with those holding other views (although I'm not always successful with the patience thing), and I will often say "blood is thicker than politics", usually to remind myself not to be frustrated with the people I love who have flawed logic supporting their views.

My uncle is a good man, and he's seen a lot of this world and it's woes. He's a senior, a retired vet, and his life experiences couldn't be more different than mine, so he interests me deeply. He will look you in the eye while telling you your're a damned commie socialist, and I respect him for that. But he can drive me nuts, too. Following is the next chapter of our interchange, for your amusement.

-shel

UC:

Your long winded diatribe is normal for a socialist and an extreme 

narcissist president but it surprises me that a person with all your 

education could not do better. 

I will try and answer in a short version. 

It makes no difference to me who signed the so called TARP, it is 

wrong to bail out companies with peoples money. 

Definitions in a dictionary does not in any way equate to the real 

life meaning but only what one would like it to say. 

I don't suppose you would want to look at Russia as government 

spending that really worked. Government spending is our money, not 

the government, and should be used only for constitutional purposes. 

If your city needs its bridges repaired then the city should repair 

them with the highway money it collects. The US government has no 

right to take that money and divide it as it sees fit.

ME:

A diatribe is a “sharply abusive denunciation”. I was just annoying 

you by having different views. I am certainly long winded though. 

I exhaust everyone. I’ll try using shorter sentences. That might help.

Is Obama the narcissist? Or am I? Or does narcissist just mean the 

same thing to you as socialist and progressive do? Social progressives 

are kind of the opposite of narcissists; they consider others, not 

just themselves. But there I go getting into those pesky word-specific 

definitions again.

Large scale infrastructure investment promotes general welfare and is 

therefore arguably constitutional.  I was referring to major civil 

engineering projects in my state’s bridge example, not to pothole 

filling.  Roads are specifically listed in the Constitution as falling 

under federal jurisdiction if the postal service needs them, by the 

way.  Plus, the work needs doing and people need the jobs, so win-win.

Wasn’t Russia communist?  Or is communist also the same as 

narcissist/socialist/progressive in your “real life meaning” word 

definition system?

I know I am being snarky, but you were dismissive and rude, and that 

irritates me.

We do agree on one thing. I don't care who passed TARP either. I'm 

just grateful, because without it our economy would have completely 

collapsed.

Don’t forget to call Mom.  Love.

As a lower 48er, interesting note.

Exactly right. He seemed completely unprepared and all he had to go on was his political history and affiliations. She outsmarted him. She took off her glasses and he thought he was talking to Supermaddow. He never realized for a moment that she was actually the hard hitting gay rights supporter, Rachel Kent.

Matt the Southern Liberal you are my new favorite poster.

Matt you are a darn good poster!! I was trying to explain the Socialism distinction today , and felt that no body could understand.. beyond the mind!

Obviously there are those that will not learn anything new.. They are stuck with the old terms and same old arguments that in today's multicultural and diverse world just won't fly!~actually , The morally correct approach has always been valid.. The bigotted responses are learned!

Bravo!! Perfect!!

Agreed. But when people are on the ropes, and Rachel had him on the ropes, they generally do not think clearly. This was just one of the missed opportunities Miller had in his walk from the roof to the automobile.

Could he have jumped?