... for Progressive Populism ... for the Arc of the Sun ... for the Next American Revolution ... for Living Energy Independence ... for a Brawny Recovery ... When one first thinks about it, one would think the politics of not destroying civilization should be simple. It seems that "Not destroy civilization, Yes/No" would get a very high "Yes" vote.
In the immediate future in US political, however, its far more complicated than that, given that one party's position is "No", and the other party's position is "Maybe, a little bit of not destroying civilization, if its not too inconvenient". So, how would we go about not destroying civilization, why is the politics of not destroying civilization so messy, and what in the hell can we do about it? _____________ Posted at: Voices on the Square Crossposted at: The Stars Hollow Gazette Crossposted at: HillbillyReport.org Crossposted at: Agent Orange
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Although it is in the death and destruction business, the military can be regarded as a civilization-protecting agency (specifically, its nationality's civilization); and it is interesting to note that the American military is interested in oil dependency as well:
http://theburdenfilm.com/
Post a Comment