• Looking backward
• Fear
• Ignorance

The last core value is to try to remain ignorant.  For example, Santorum has been repurposed. And, for some reason, it seems that Republicans and those covering him simply use terminology that makes those aware of this practically vomit.

Having sex for [the purpose of creating] the mixture of fecal matter and ejaculation

Root (verb and noun) : synonym for f*ck in nearly all its senses: "I feel rooted"; "this washing machine is rooted"; "(s)he's a good root". A very useful word in fairly polite company.-Source

OK, all that said, the article analysis probably needs to be done, instead of all this personal whining about word choice and obscure Australian terminology.

So, in this article, Nocera is hoping that Santorum Rick wins the contest (I guess you just can win when Santorum has been repurposed, can you?  Let's just hope that Rick won't be repurposed!  It's up to Rick.).  He's under the false belief that because the extreme wing of the Republican party has wrested it away from the moderate angle, having Santorum as their leader will snap them out of it!  Will make them wake up and see that this position is untenable [huh huh], and that the loon-jobs running the show make it so that they cannot win.

...the Republican Party has largely been captured by its most extreme flank. Santorum is their standard-bearer.

But that is also where I see a glimmer of hope. During the McGovern-Mondale era, the Democrats were exactly where the Republicans are now: the party had been taken over by its most extreme liberal faction, and it had lost touch with the core concerns of the middle class, just as the Republicans have now. When I spoke to Whitman this week about what the Republican Party needed to do to become a more inclusive, less rigidly dogmatic party, she said, “It’s going to take some kind of shock therapy.” Those terrible losses in 1972 and, especially, in 1984 were the Democrats’ shock therapy. Just eight years after Mondale’s loss, Bill Clinton was elected president. -Nocera

For any moderate Republicans reading this, I must apologise to you.  But the likes of you and I and most reasonable people generally know when to give up when something has gone awry.  The problem with our political system, as we're seeing, is that only the extremists stay in the game.  The rest of us bow out.  I don't have any issues with Roosevelt/Eisenhower-style conservatism.  I will respectfully disagree in a lot of ways about the tenets of governance, but generally you and I can have that dispassionate debate.

On the other hand, the extreme wings of the two dominant parties (I am registered Green for the record, so am technically an independent) will continue to do battle, and with every loss in the Republican sphere, they will double down, rally more troops, have more children, train and brainwash more people, and relentlessly bash, scream, and claw their way back into power until we have a theocracy whereby women are relegated to only spend time in kitchens and bedrooms, men will reestablish dominance and power in society, the rich will prosper on the backs of the poor, the middle class will disappear, public services will be cut entirely (including public transportation), and it will be practically impossible to earn a living in this country.  Immigrants will be systematically demonised, deported, or killed, and race wars will likely flare up again.  It will be like the good old days of the 1920s in New York, where people had 15 children in a 300 square foot apartment, women couldn't vote, and the man worked 15 hours a day, 6 days a week for the wage that could buy you no more than a couple of loaves of bread.  And if you don't like it, there is a long line of other desperate people who will happily take your job.  That is the dystopian vision of extreme Republican/Santorum politics in my view.  Is it inaccurate?  I certainly hope so.

If Mitt Romney takes the nomination and then loses to Obama, the extremists who’ve taken over the party will surely say the problem was Romney’s lack of ideological purity. If, however, Santorum is the nominee — and then loses in a landslide — the party will no longer be able to delude itself about where its ideological rigidity has taken it.

An alcoholic doesn’t stop drinking until he hits bottom. The Republican Party won’t change until it hits bottom. Only Santorum offers that possibility.

I hope that you don't have to have children to have a dream for a sustainable future, where people aren't at odds with one another over resources, where the best technologies and collaborative techniques win, and where justice is prevalent throughout the globe.  I hope that all of us can attain awareness, forgiveness, and self realisation.

I haven't directly participated.  While I support the cause, I find that protest has become a thing that I don't feel authentic taking part in.  Whenever I look at other places in the world, I see everyone, unified, protesting against a cause.  Here in America, I find that there is a certain subsect of people who protest; it is practically an identity.  I also feel that, since it is a certain group of people, the protests aren't taken seriously by anyone outside of that sect.
This is deeply troubling on so many accounts.  America was practically founded upon the ability to protest.  The rights of free speech and, importantly, press made America great.  But America has lost much of this.  Protesters are routinely tortured by police and the majority press sweeps it under the rug; there is no outrage for pepper spraying people anymore.  And the Tea Party people are upset by the OWS movement, although they practically espouse the same values.  I'm perplexed, I'm troubled.

And the bottom line is: I am working.  Much of OWS has happened, rightfully, during work hours.  To me, the whole point of the movement is that there are thousands of idle hands and if they had jobs, they wouldn't have time to protest.

That's where I sit with it.  Go (as in, your turn, comment away!).

As some who read this blog may or may not know, I have a conservative Christian step-father.  This always makes for interesting and candid conversations when either of us visit one another.  And the bonus about all of this is that we trust one another immensely, so we both know that we're just arguing about details.

Many times when we have these discussions, I note a real flailing about and I almost always find a heavy dose of hypocrisy involved.  It seems to be undirected anger, which is almost teen-like in its form.  The reason he considers himself conservative is because he dislikes government waste and was fired from a government job in the past (I think)... As if I love government waste. But he's well-meaning, good-hearted, and a very honest person.  In fact, when he says he's a conservative, I don't believe him, because we agree on so much, such as taxation for the rich, more money for education, welfare and social supports for the poor, regulations on banks, etc.  Yet he's angry with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

This weekend, he actually got sauced on gin and tonic.  This makes for some interesting observations as well.  In our talk, his rage at the OWS movement was due to them "leaving messes in parks for the rest of us to clean up" and "costing him money", such as (theoretically, here) if he needed to pay his bills at the bank (which I have never heard of) and they, again theoretically, shut down that bank branch.  I told him he was missing the point and that his rage was misdirected.  He also mentioned that every Tea Party protest has always left no trace of even garbage.  That is Fox News-level lying right there, but whatever.  

So the Tea Party is perfect in every way, and the dirty hippy OWS people are a failure and deserve spite.

What I found most interesting, though, was the difference between our perspectives.  I kept arguing that the OWS and Tea Party are both standing up for our rights as citizens and that the rage should be directed at the banks.  It is the banks that are costing you money with fees and bullshit timing charges, not the OWS protesters.  But he couldn't get past the way it (again, theoretically) affected him directly.  There was a real self-centredness there that I just couldn't get him out of.  It was really an all-about-me thing.

To me, that is mental simplicity.  And I'm not saying he's a moron in the slightest.  I'm just saying that he can't seem to walk a mile in someone else's shoes or see a longer term picture.  What I mentioned was that both the Tea Party and OWS are showing a crack in the façade: this system isn't working for anyone, Right or Left.  There is so much we agree on: shouldn't we focus on that?