The Oregon Peace Party becomes the Oregon Progressive Party
A little more than a year ago, the Oregon Peace Party was created - for the sole purpose of qualifying Ralph Nader for the presidential ballot. (The proof? The first post on their website had nine paragraphs - whose initial letters spelled out V-O-T-E N-A-D-E-R.)
A week ago, they changed their name to the Oregon Progressive Party:
On September 18, 2009, the Peace Party changed its name to the Progressive Party. The paperwork was filed with the Oregon Secretary of State (SoS), who will very soon be ordering new voter registration cards that will reflect the name change."Progressive" more accurately reflects the party's positions on social justice, consumer advocacy, environmental protection, and worker's rights, in addition to its dedication to peace.
I heard from the Secretary of State's office yesterday that the paperwork is all good, and so it's official. Under Oregon law, a party can change its name anytime it wants. When that happens, they keep their minor-party status, but they lose their entire membership of registered voters. (That's a good thing; it prevents the possibility of a bait-and-switch scenario.) In order to keep their status, they'll have to register 6897 voters (that's 0.5% of the last gubernatorial total vote.)
While the OPP's positions certainly fit within the broadly-defined idea of "progressive", and while they're within their rights to name themselves whatever they want, I'll admit to a little irritation at the appropriation of the term "progressive". Like "independent", it's an adjective that a lot of candidates, organizations, voters - and yes, blogs - use to describe themselves.
Oh well. Nothing really to be done about it. Those of us who consider ourselves progressives will just have to get used to explaining that we're "little p" progressives, not members of the OPP.
|
September 26, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (78 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Sep 26, 2009 3:15:27 PM
This is probably a good move for them, their old name made them sound like a single issue political party.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Sep 26, 2009 3:32:59 PM
i'm not up on my history. will they be advocating for a return to the gold standard?
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Sep 26, 2009 3:36:24 PM
I've always liked how Vermont has the Vermont Progressive Party that successfully competes with the Democrats and Republicans. I've thought it would be good to have an Oregon version of that. The more parties the merrier in my opinion. It's unfortunate that the Peace Party decided to ruin the Progressive Party name in this state.
To be fair, however, the candidates, organizations, voters, and blogs who describe themselves as "progressive" today themselves re-appropriated the word from the original progressive movement which operated around the turn of the 20th century. These days, "progressive" has become the pc alternative to "liberal" (Republicans made liberal a dirty word and we were apparently too lazy to reclaim it). But the term has existed long before its current use.
Posted by: Naderphobe | Sep 26, 2009 3:38:25 PM
Lame. Why don't they just admit that they're the Green Party?
The Greens pulled this in Missouri already, but I don't know how it's worked there. Meanwhile, The only viable Progressive Party currently is the Vermont Progressive Party, and although there are platform similarities, I don't think it's a very honest match.
Their membership is going to be 90% confused new registrants: which I think speaks volumes about the hubris of the party leadership willing to lead that.
If your political party has to resort to nomenclature shenanigans... it's time to shut down and go home.
Posted by: EastBankThom | Sep 26, 2009 3:53:34 PM
It's amazing how little the BO "progressives" can stomach of the sight of a real progressive. You were kinder this time, but one senses more than a bit of "them". So, closer to home, do you bother to try to tell people how you're not "Blue Dog" Dems? How they are? Best ignored. They are the missing link that shows the majority belong to a two-faced, one party system. Nader- yuck- makes your skin crawl. But the following from HP is just "politics"?
Besides leading anti-abortion Democrats in the House, Stupak, D-MI, is a longtime member of the mainly-Republican radical free-market, union-busting theocratic Washington fundamentalist group known as "The Family," which runs the "C Street House" registered as a church where Bart Stupak has enjoyed Christian fellowship and cheap rent for years. Stupak's former "C Street" housemate Senator James DeMint (R-S. Carolina) has vowed to make the fight against health care reform President Barack Obama's "Waterloo".
When I hear real debate about ending the religious exemption, from pretty much anything we identify with civility to taxes, I'll take your little "p" seriously.
Posted by: George Anonymuncule Seldes | Sep 26, 2009 3:57:20 PM
I wouldn't worry that anyone would confuse BlueOregon with anything progressive or Progressive -- the party that promised great things if given the White House and both houses of Congress has spent nearly every minute since becoming worthless Sons of Bush, ramping up the war in Afghaninam, keeping on in Iraq, kissing Big Pharma's ass, conjuring up reasons that universal health care is a nonstarter and just generally doing everything they can to show that, no matter how many Democrats you elect, they cede control to Republicans every time.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Sep 26, 2009 4:02:36 PM
Nick Wirth:
(Republicans made liberal a dirty word and we were apparently too lazy to reclaim it).
Bob T:
It was already claimed when the New Dealers stole it. I won't diss it because I use it for its pre-New Deal, 18th and 19th Century meaning (still understood in other parts of the world). There's a reason why Labor Party people don't call themselves "liberals" -- because they're not liberals. The Left is not the same thing as Liberal.
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: rw | Sep 26, 2009 4:12:32 PM
Now, Bob - that was a teasing tasty post worth reading. Semantics! Langwiches!
Seriously, please explain a little bit, for non-pols like me, the context understood by everyone else in the world but stupid Murricans. Sometimes I am stupified by the need to know every danged thing! Suspect what you are about to explain is as tasty as the hx of philosophy-cum-psychology.
Posted by: Greg D. | Sep 26, 2009 4:25:25 PM
Current Dems and Repigs are alike in their common core belief which appears to be "I will kiss the ass of anyone who hires me as a consultant or who gives me a large donation or gives me a job.". This is not necessarily bad, just reality. And since we all have mortgages to pay and children (and grandchildren) to get through college, I guess reality is, well, reality.
I do have a special place in my heart for Greens or Naderites or whoever that can forget the reality of commercial life and focus on pure ethical truth. I have no doubt that they are right in their beliefs and that they will all go to heaven, but as my bosses told me when I began my professional career those many years ago, "ethics don't feed the bulldog".
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Sep 26, 2009 4:30:56 PM
Kari - The Peace Progressive Party satisfied its maintenance requirement for minor political parties is contained in ORS248.008(1)(a) -- Nader got 1% of the vote in the 2008 election. Now they will need to obtain a number of voters equal to that described in ORS 284.008(1)(b), which is 1/10th of 1 percent of eligible voters who voted in the last Presidential race, which is 1380 voters.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 26, 2009 4:41:53 PM
"While the OPP's positions certainly fit within the broadly-defined idea of "progressive", and while they're within their rights to name themselves whatever they want, I'll admit to a little irritation at the appropriation of the term "progressive". Like "independent", it's an adjective that a lot of candidates, organizations, voters - and yes, blogs - use to describe themselves."
The same can be said for Democrats and Republicans who aren't all that democratic or republican slopping at the troughs of Wall Street and the insurance-medical-pharmaceutical (IMP) and military-industrial (MI) complexes.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Sep 26, 2009 5:06:17 PM
Kari - Why not re-appropriate the word "liberal"? It strikes me as a more accurate description for any Democrat who isn't part of the Dennis Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party. As some folks have pointed out, Democrats didn't really start using the term until they let liberal became a dirty word after 9/11.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Sep 26, 2009 5:13:04 PM
Kari,
I was equally annoyed when I found out you could no longer register as an independent in Oregon because the Republicans and Democrats thought the word sounded too good and they were protecting their 2-party club.
So they outlawed the word independent in voter registration, and forced citizens to call themselves non-affiliated. To call yourself an independent now you have to join the Oregon Independent Party.
But that's okay. I'm still an independent no matter what the 2-party system does to protect itself. And I'm sure you feel the same way about not being in Oregon's Progressive Party.
Besides for music fans, OPP will always belong to Naughty By Nature.
Posted by: the plasticgraduate | Sep 26, 2009 5:15:55 PM
6897 registrants? Maybe they should call themselves the Oregon, Infinitesimal Piece Party.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Sep 26, 2009 5:29:17 PM
RW - Bob is referring to classical liberalism, the philosophy stemming from Locke that advocates for greater individual freedoms and less government intervention.
Bob - That's true but I'm not really sure how it's relevant to the point I was making. Also, it's the Labour Party, not the "Labor Party" (another thing they do differently over there) and they don't call themselves Liberals because there was already a Liberal Party when Labour was founded.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Sep 26, 2009 5:32:01 PM
Regarding the naming...
One need not be a Democrat to support democracy. One need not be a Republican to believe in a republican form of government. One need not be a member of the Progressive Party to be a progressive, and one need not be a member of the Independent Party in order to be independent.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is.
Posted by: Calling BS on Kari | Sep 26, 2009 5:52:15 PM
While the OPP's positions certainly fit within the broadly-defined idea of "progressive", and while they're within their rights to name themselves whatever they want, I'll admit to a little irritation at the appropriation of the term "progressive". Like "independent", it's an adjective that a lot of candidates, organizations, voters - and yes, blogs - use to describe themselves.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Sep 26, 2009 5:55:02 PM
I'm not sure why people are tagging Kari on this. Issues with naming aside, he's always struck me as supportive of minor party rights, particularly considering the partisan nature of his professional work.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Sep 26, 2009 6:12:54 PM
It's amazing how little the BO "progressives" can stomach of the sight of a real progressive.
Gawd--really?
Spare me.
Posted by: aaron | Sep 26, 2009 6:21:57 PM
Sal,
I think the post is not "attacking" the minor party renaming. But he is making it known that he is not a Nader supporter.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 26, 2009 6:26:21 PM
Just for the hell of it, why don't we use this opportunity to explain what we mean by "progressive"?
I see a "progressive" as someone who believes in and works for life, the pursuit of happiness with liberty and justice (including economic justice) for all. We might add to that support for the U.N. charter and the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by: rw | Sep 26, 2009 7:01:28 PM
Dunno, I think there's an issue with folks who profess to be those on the Further Left who ostensibly care so much, and I find little caring, tenderness or compassion much less camraderie in their demeanour as presented here.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Sep 26, 2009 7:09:22 PM
Bill - This isn't a definition, but these are the reasons given by the Peace Progressive Party for the name change:
"Progressive" more accurately reflects the party's positions on social justice, consumer advocacy, environmental protection, and worker's rights, in addition to its dedication to peace.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 26, 2009 8:01:44 PM
"This isn't a definition, but these are the reasons given by the Peace Progressive Party for the name change:
"Progressive" more accurately reflects the party's positions on social justice, consumer advocacy, environmental protection, and worker's rights, in addition to its dedication to peace."
I can live with that.
Posted by: rw | Sep 26, 2009 9:16:09 PM
Twitterfeed above appears to be fueled by bots or professional traffic-generators. Substanceless iterations of @s and names. The same comments rolling over repeatedly. I think I am an overstimulated curmudgeon - I do not find blaring TVs in the supermarket line and blasting away above the fruit displays to be a value-add. It actually creates a stressful, jarring experience.
The feed here is actually distracting, and when it's apparent it is empty of substance, it's annoying. Kari, are you fixed on having it, or against moving it around in placement? Perhaps you can put it below that purple banner with the warnings about the quirky functions of the posting? Place it someplace where a person who wants it can view it?
I think I'm a cranky old grandma.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 26, 2009 11:18:45 PM
Some responses to folks:
Sal, thanks for that clarification on the rules. I stared at ORS 248.008 for a half-hour trying to understand it - and not helped by the fact that I forgot that the OPP got 1% with Ralph Nader in 2008.
However, the word "liberal" didn't become a bad word starting after 9/11/2001. I'd go back to 1984 and 1988. In any case, I do think that "liberal" and "progressive" mean something different - notwithstanding Nick's argument that progressive is merely a PC synonym.
That said, despite Bill's request for a discussion about the definitions, that's a conversation that is both heated and boring. Everyone has their own definitions - and will never convince anyone that their definition is wrong. As for me, I think "progressive" is a broad term that includes liberals, moderates, enviros, unionists, feminists, the Old Left, the New Left, the New New Left, whatever - let's call it anti-conservative. I know others prefer a narrow definition that means something much more specific. Fine by me.
(And RW, it's been less than 48 hours for the Twitter box. Let's see how it feels after a week.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 26, 2009 11:20:16 PM
Oh, and Sal -- thanks for the note there on minor parties. Your recollection is correct; I'm very supportive of minor parties - and anything that opens up the democratic process and allows the voters to express their will in richer ways.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Sep 26, 2009 11:39:56 PM
In any case, I do think that "liberal" and "progressive" mean something different - notwithstanding Nick's argument that progressive is merely a PC synonym.
Oh I do too, or at least I think that they should mean something different. I just think that most people use them interchangeably these days regardless of whether or not they technically are. I remember in one of the primary debates last year Clinton was asked if she would consider herself to be liberal, and she said she preferred the term progressive because the GOP had given liberal a negative connotation. That's the sort of thing I was referring to.
Posted by: Garage Wine | Sep 27, 2009 6:49:56 AM
Only in the U.S. can "liberal" mean the exact opposite of what it means every else in the world. (And only in the U.K. can a "public" school be a private school. Oh well.)
Posted by: Bill R. | Sep 27, 2009 8:36:53 AM
Hopefully this time out they will not accept money and support from the GOP to split the Dem. vote as they did in 2004.
Posted by: rw | Sep 27, 2009 8:56:54 AM
Ok, Kari - I can give it a week, hoep you will NOT regard any updated comment as anything but feedback from your users.
It's vastly unentertaining and uninformative to see "4 days ago" after a set of "feeds" that are nothing but a string of none-words - clearly the work of a bot that seeks to maintain BO [assuming] profile active in some logarithm.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 27, 2009 10:19:22 AM
"That said, despite Bill's request for a discussion about the definitions, that's a conversation that is both heated and boring. Everyone has their own definitions - and will never convince anyone that their definition is wrong. As for me, I think "progressive" is a broad term that includes liberals, moderates, enviros, unionists, feminists, the Old Left, the New Left, the New New Left, whatever - let's call it anti-conservative. I know others prefer a narrow definition that means something much more specific. Fine by me."
Kari: Thank you for coming up with your interpretation of "progressive." I neither agree nor disagree with it, but we now know what you mean when you use the word. As for others who declined to follow suit I suppose we can assume they are in the bullpen with you.
In the 18th Century Voltaire admonished people to define their terms if others were to understand what they were talking about. The same applies to the 21st Century. Unfortunately, in the United States words tend to mean whatever a commentator attaches to them with the frequent consequence that they often mean anything and nothing.
Take my pet peeve "incredible." X came from an incredible family, became an incredible president and made incredible decisions. Now who would fit that description? Lincoln, Clinton, Dubya? Given the fact the word now means anything and nothing it could apply to and include any president from Washington to Obama.
Posted by: rw | Sep 27, 2009 10:42:07 AM
Likewise the word "Awesome".
That is a wonderful, powerful word and should be reserved for the generations. It means "awe and dread".
Believe me, we mortals have FEW situations wherein we are so privileged as to feel that sense.
Certain deep ceremonial situations. Realizing you are love, together, in real time. The breathless moment, holding, when you catch sight of a deep intelligence beyond emotion and masks, in a two month old infant - gazing levelly at you.
Awesome.
Kanye's last hit? Not awesome. A good thought well stated? Not awesome. A good meeting with lots done and feelings of bonhomie all around. Please: not awesome. Not even that diamond ring you just bought.
:)... it would be great if we would allow progressive to go back to doing its job for the greater good as well! In fact, I suspect that little old small "p" progressive has been pining in the corner since BO's inception, as it wanted to help us all see each other in its... erm... awesome little light.
Posted by: Perpugilliam Brown | Sep 27, 2009 11:01:08 AM
What a surprisingly, pleasant discussion of the terms. Obviously Kari understands the concept. "Anti-conservative" is literally correct, as it's saying "things need to change", against "I've got mine, don't change anything". Just thought I'd mention that in case anyone heard it as anti-conservatives.
I suspect where the venom comes from, Sal, is that we usually differ hugely on practical implementation, usually hoisted on the petard of expediency. Put simply, we understand "feeding the bulldog". We'd like to change the system first, though, and not be dealing with a bulldog, and if we must, not on the level of our being his meal ticket. All the Republican policies that we continue to suffer from today (well put Mr. Seldes) started during impractical candidacies, like George Wallace's and Barry Goldwater's. No one has ever advanced the politics of a nation by internally deciding not to try before ever being challenged.
On the other hand, I think another point of contention, particularly with those in power of either ilk, is that they want to be seen as cutting edge. When liberal did become a bad word, the most oft used phrase to deride it was "unable to break out of a 60s mentality". I think most real progressives say, "Yeah, so what?" To the posh politicos in power, that simply ain't an option. So our ideas get dismissed out of hand, and we get pissed. IMHO, that's where the attitude comes from.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 27, 2009 11:19:36 AM
Another problem with language in the United States is the tradition of so many people talking out of both sides of their mouths. A primary example in time and degree includes slave owners who affixed their names to the Declaration of Independence that included words about all men being created equal with a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
More recently, Eric Cantor (R-VA) talked, like many of his "Christian"/"conservative" supporters, about the sanctity of life oblivious to the fact that he and they apparently have no regard for the sanctity of lives other than their own when they promote wars.
But to get back on subject, thank you for this information about the Oregon Progressive Party. I'll change my status from NAV to help the party get its quota. Whether I stick around or not will depend on how "progressive" it is.
Posted by: rw | Sep 27, 2009 11:31:16 AM
I am sure the Party is holding their collective breath awaiting your membership, Bob. Am certain they will jubilate their first good report card from you!
You surely do always stick to your topix: good show!
Posted by: Lord Beaverbrook | Sep 27, 2009 11:59:21 AM
:)... it would be great if we would allow progressive to go back to doing its job for the greater good as well! In fact, I suspect that little old small "p" progressive has been pining in the corner since BO's inception, as it wanted to help us all see each other in its... erm... awesome little light.
Pretty awesome imagery. Pining and wasting away, and on ocasion plays the obnoxious Frenchman in Monty Python's "Search for the Holy Grail". When the establishment say "Hello", they yell back a name you've never heard, says, that they've already got the great benefit the Party is trying to interest us in, get to bickering about labels, are told to play ball or else, then end up getting quoted as saying "I fart in your general direction!"
Indeed, Bill, indeed.
Posted by: rw | Sep 27, 2009 12:26:23 PM
Oh yah, and yer father smells of elderberries and such. :)... I think we have a dreadful connection to feudalism here, as, infallably, when we reference the Python, we are ALL quoting the castle scene! Branch out kids! How about the scene where the serfs are transferring mud to planks and are "OPPRESSED! HE OPPRESSED ME!"... hahaha... or the line of monks intoning and whacking themselves on the forheads in perfect rhythm. OR: the Knights of Nee! "Get. Me. A SHRUBBERY! [but not too expensive]"
Heh.
Posted by: Peri | Sep 27, 2009 12:35:19 PM
I'm tripping on how many levels that scene is a perfect metaphor for the Obama administration's dialog with progressives. From the overtones of hostile European influence, to the being in an ivory castle, to the feeling that they just want to mess up the works and snicker, to the retort, "what do you mean we're not as idealistic, we're searching for the Holy Grail!" You could even say that King Arthur echos the sentiment behind the original post. "Is there somebody else we could talk to"?
The "mother smelt of elderberries" could even be likened to the way that progressives usually start by revisiting a lengthy not-your-father's history, seen by the knights as irrelevant insults. Knights. What surreal temporal nexus must connect Obama, Camelot, and the Knights of the KKK? I could go on forever...
Posted by: John Silvertooth | Sep 27, 2009 12:40:06 PM
Say a little bird told me that in 2008 the Oregon Peace Party petition was carried by the Mannix et al petition machine and financed with Republican oriented funds- if anyone wants to follow up on the potential of this be accurate leave and email address and I will see if my source will spill the beans.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Sep 27, 2009 12:41:24 PM
It would seem that the narcissism of small differences cuts in two directions.
Posted by: rw | Sep 27, 2009 12:47:36 PM
Sal: good one. Right on target. That makes me postively SHUDDER.
Posted by: notnietsche | Sep 27, 2009 2:58:20 PM
More DP progressivism?
Pittsburgh now belongs again to the people of Pittsburgh. The cement barricades were removed, the fences were taken down, the bridges and roads were opened. The gunboats packed up and left. The police packed away their ninja turtle outfits and tear gas and rubber bullets. They don't look like military commandos anymore. No more gunboats on the river. No more sirens all the time. No more armored vehicles and ear splitting machines used in Iraq. On Monday the businesses will open and kids will have to go back to school. Civil society has returned.
It is now probably even safe to exercise constitutional rights in Pittsburgh once again.
The USA really showed those terrorists didn't we?
(http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3995)
Posted by: KC Hanson | Sep 27, 2009 3:34:50 PM
...just a quick note on the Independent Party in Oregon. the confusion of the name wasn't created by Dems or Rs - It's integral in the name itself and baffled more than a few folks as they registered: "I'm independent" does not necessarily mean "I'm an Independent"
(from KC, a progressive Dem, believing that the in all debate, what is best for the commons, i.e. the people, is best for the state)
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Sep 27, 2009 3:53:41 PM
Nick Worth:
Bob - That's true but I'm not really sure how it's relevant to the point I was making. Also, it's the Labour Party, not the "Labor Party" (another thing they do differently over there)
Bob T:
Yes, thanks -- reminds me of when I needed a tire repaired in Dublin and it took me 15 minutes before I realized that their Yellow Pages listed it under "Tyre".
Nick Wirth:
and they don't call themselves Liberals because there was already a Liberal Party when Labour was founded.
Bob T:
Maybe - but that would be inconsistent with the term, because Labour is hardly liberal. If "liberals" in America were truly liberals, they would support liberal gun laws. But they don't. See what I mean? They (and Labour) support too many government controls over people to be liberal. Period.
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Sep 27, 2009 4:11:47 PM
Nick Wirth:
Bob is referring to classical liberalism, the philosophy stemming from Locke that advocates for greater individual freedoms and less government intervention.
Bob T:
Correct, but I don't even like the modifier of "classical" becasue it implies that the word has in fact been redefined when in fact it was merely usurped. It's still plain old liberalism to me, and should remain so because the word speaks for itself.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not engaging in name-calling here as in "You're really a socialist!" and so on. I'm merely pointing out my respect for the word "liberal", (and. I should add, that neither of our major parties has any liberalism left in them when they once had quite a bit).
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Sep 27, 2009 5:16:40 PM
With all due respect, KC, you are mistaken.
A bi-partisan majority in the legislature overwhelmingly supported legislation in 2005 to remove the word "independent" from the Oregon ballot, and passed legislation to make it more difficult to run for public office as a non-affiliated candidate. According to legislators I've spoken with, the DPO's chair and executive director lobbied in favor of both pieces of legislation.
Regarding name confusion...
The Independent Party of Oregon had to threaten to take the previous Secretary of State to court for refusing to print new voter registration cards that more accurately reflect the fact that people are registering for a political party when they sign the card. You can download a copy of the current voter registration card that was created as a result of that threatened legal action. I see no way that this can be described as "confusing to voters".
It's worth mentioning that 85% of Independent Party members voted in the 2008 general election -- the highest percentage of any minor party, and 10 percent higher than the turnout for NAV's.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Sep 27, 2009 5:42:37 PM
KC,
I tried registering as "independent" and learned that the Republicans and Democrats in Oregon had outlawed registering by that word because they objected to the positive sound of it.
How very "Big Brother" of you. This is how those awful rumors get started that the 2 parties work together when it comes to maintaining their grip on power.
Maybe the Democrats and Republicans should begin work on a new name for a certain document:
"The Declaration of Non-Affiliation."
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: mp97303 | Sep 26, 2009 2:59:45 PM
Isn't this a big part of the problem now in American politics....everyone concerned with labels and how they are defined.
I think we would be a lot better off if we focused on letting peoples/groups actions speak for themselves.